Ms.A.Manjulatha, JCJ, Gooty

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: - Ms. Araveti Manjulatha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 2020.

CALENDER CASE No. 482 of 2015

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pamidi Police Station. .. Complainant

Vs.

Badabandla Hanumanthu @ Hanumanthappa, S/o Late Sanjappa, Aged 50 years, R/o Palyam village, Pamidi Mandal.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-03-2020, for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

T.Dhanunjaya, Advocate for accused and after hearing on both the sides, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.186/2015 for the offence punishable under sections 324 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that:-

LW.1 P.Sreeramulu who is the defacto complainant into this case raised paddy crop in his field and he harvested the said crop and kept the same in his field. While so on 08-12-2015 at 8-30 AM the accused who is having land adjacent to the land of LW.1 he stored water in his land with an intention to raise paddy crop, on such a reason he flow away the storage water from his field and the said water flowed into the land of LW.1 in which the harvested paddycrop was placed, on that LW.1 asked the accused do not flow the storage water as the water is flowing into his field resulting the harvested crop may damage, on that the accused grown angry and attacked against

LW.1 with spade on his head and caused bleeding injury on his head and

LW.2 P.Kanthamma, LW.3 V.Thimmappa, LW.4 K.Chandrasekhar, LW.5 2

K.Thimma Reddy intervened and rescued LW.1, on that LW.1 along with LW.2 approached the police and lodged a complaint. Hence the case. .

3. Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant i.e. LW.1

P.Sreeramulu a case in Cr.No.160/2014 under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code was registered by LW.7 I. Ravisankar Reddy, Sub Inspector of police. During the course of investigation, LW.7 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and on 11.12.2015 at 11-45 AM he arrested the accused and released on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. After completion of legal formalities and receipt of necessary certificates, charge sheet was laid under the above section of law against the accused.

4. This court has taken the cognizance of the offence under sections 324 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and issued summons.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6.Accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, a charge under section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C is framed against accused No.1 and 2, and the substance of charge sheet is read over and explained to them in Vernacular, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

7. During the course of trial, to support the prosecution case PW.1 to

PW.7 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 got marked. On behalf of defense no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

8. After closure of the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

10.Now the Point for determination is :- 3 “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.PW.1, who is the defacto complainant herein deposed his evidence in chief in corroboration with the prosecution case and further deposed the beat him with spade on his left side of head. During the course of cross examination he deposed that there were no previous disputes as to flowing of water between him and the accused and admitted there is no possibility to flow of water in its own and further deposed at the time of incident he was present in the adjacent land belongs to one Adhi situated on the western side of his land and the land of accused is situated on the eastern side of his own land and he reached his land on the date of offence at 8-00 AM and incident took place at 8-30 AM. PW.1 further deposed at the time of incident LW.2 to

LW.5 and some others intervened in the galata and further admitted he does not mentioned the specific part where he received injury in his complaint,

Ex.P.1 was scribed by one constable on his dictation and he do not know whether the weapons were seized by the police and further stated the police visited the scene of offence on the same day of evening hours and denied the suggestion that he is having previous disputes with the accused on such a reason he foisted a false case against the accused and the accused never caused injury to him.

12.PW.2 who is the independent witness deposed his evidence in chief that he heard the cries of galata between PW.1 and the accused and also he saw that PW.1 received bleeding head injury but he do not know who caused such injury to PW.1. During the course of cross examination he admitted the place of incident is not visible from his land.

13.PW.3 and PW.4 who are other independent witnesses deposed their evidence in chief that on the day of incident some heated conversation held between PW.1 and accused, on that he and LW.5 intervened and pacified the 4 matter, at that time PW.1 received some injuries on his shoulder but they do not know how PW.1 received injury and during the course of cross examination PW.3 stated by admitting the scene of offence is not visible form his land but he went to the scene of offence after 15 minutes from starting the galata but he did not witnessed the galata. Whereas coming to the cross examination of PW.4 the learned APP cross examined him by posing suggestion he stated before the police as under Ex.P.3.

14.PW.5 who is the husband of PW.1 she deposed her evidence in chief that on the date of incident while she was present in the house at 9-00 AM she received information that the accused beat her husband PW.1 with gaddapara, on that her husband received bleeding injuries on her head, subsequently her husband along with PW.2 to PW.4 came to her house and immediately approached the police and reported the incident, thereafter they went to the Government hospital Pamidi as referred by the police and also stated the reason for galata is the accused flowed his storage water into their own land in which the ripped paddy crop, on that her husband questioned the accused as to flowing of water into their land. During the course of cross examination she deposed that she came to know the incident through her husband and denied the all the suggestions that the accused does not beat PW.1.

15.PW.6 who is the medical officer deposed his evidence in chief as to giving treatment to PW.1 and accordingly issued wound certificate by stating the opinion that the injury is in simple in nature and as per the statement of

PW.1, PW.1 received injury due to assault by known person and denied the suggestions in the cross examination.

16.PW.7 who is the investigating officer into this case deposed his evidence in chief into the procedural aspect. During the course of cross examination he deposed that there is no averment in Ex.P.1 and also PW.1 does not stated before him that at the time of incident PW.1 was doing work 5 in the land of one Adhi, and further admitted PW.2 to PW.4 also does not stated before him that at the time of incident they were attending for work in the land of Adhi. And further deposed he dont know the scribe of Ex.P.1 and he does not seized the spade and further admitted he does not shown in

Ex.P6 that the land of the accused filled with water and further admitted he does not shown the adjacent lands of the scene of offence and the names of owners thereof in Ex.P.6 and further admitted he did not mentioned the date of his visit at the scene of offence in Ex.P.6 and denied the formal suggestion that he does not proceeded to the scene of offence and Ex.P.6 was prepared in the police station and he did not examined PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5 and denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned to this case and he registered this case without primafacie evidence and deposing false.

17.As seen from the record PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and injured persons deposed his evidence which is fully corroborating with the prosecution case, PW.5 who is the wife of PW.1 though she does not witnessed the incident but her evidence is corroborating with the subsequent actions from the time of offence whereas coming to the other independent witnesses PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 though they did not corroborated as to receiving of injury by PW.1 but PW.2 admitted that he heard the cries of galata between PW.1 and accused, the other witnesses PW.3 and PW.4 deposed they directly witnessed the galata between PW.1 and the accused.

So the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 clearly showing as to occurrence of incident as on the date and the time. Though the independent witnesses PW.2 to

PW.4 does not stated by whom PW.1 received injury and they silent about the alleged action of the accused against PW.1, so the only person i.e. PW.1 made statement that the accused beat him with spade on his head and the evidence of PW.5 she also deposed that she accompanied with her husband and she saw her husband immediate after the incident with bleeding injury on his head but she is not the direct witness at the time of beating of 6 accused against PW.1. So the prosecution witnesses corroborating with each other upto the galaata between PW.1 and the accused as well as PW.1 also sustained bleeding injury on his head but no witness stated that the accused himself beat PW.1, in such a situation the court has to depend the evidence of medical officer as to giving his treatment to PW.1 and the time of treatment is a crucial fact, in this regard PW.6 issued wound certificate in which he mentioned he examined PW.1 at 10-30 AM on the date of incident and also mentioned the only injury on the head of PW.1. as per the prosecution case the incident was occurred at about 8-30 AM, PW.1 also stated the incident was occurred at 8-30 AM and PW.5 stated she received information at 9-00 AM and taking of treatment at 10-30 AM is showing reliable to believe the version of prosecution witnesses as the chain of evidence is established.

18.Whereas coming to other independent witnesses i.e. PW.2 to PW.4 though they admitted on the date of incident a galata was raised between

PW.1 and the accused but these witnesses silent about the specific overtacts of accused against PW.1, so mere non mentioning the overtacts of the accused against PW.1 by PW.2 to PW.4 on such a reason the other evidence of the same witnesses should not be discorded only on the ground that they did not stated about the accused. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence because the rule “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing false in every thing) is not applicable in India when major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case of residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused. In the present case though PW.2 to

PW.4 does not stated specifically as to beating of accused against PW.1 but their evidence showing that a galata took place in between PW.1 and accused and also PW.1 received bleeding injury in the said galata and the evidence of PW.5 shows the subsequent things in connection with the 7 incident and going to the police station, thereafter going to the Government

Hospital Pamidi for taking medical treatment for the injury received by PW.1 to that effect PW.6 issued wound certificate, so these are all the things formed in part of the same transaction of the main incident. By applying the doctrine of resjestae i.e. “whatever is said or done by the accused or the victim or the bystanders immediately before the commission of the offence or at the time of commission of offence or immediately after the commission of the offence, if capable of explaining the offence or the transaction, those sayings or doings are considered to be relevant.

19.By applying this doctrine to the present case though there is no evidence as to before commission of offence but the prosecution evidence clearly shows the things which are done at the time of commission of offence as direct witnesses PW.2 to PW.4 they themselves perceived by their ears by hearing the cries of galata, so their evidence is considered as direct evidence and it has very proximate relation with the incident. Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.5 shows the things done immediate after the commission of offence as to approaching the police reporting the incident and thereafter going to the hospital for taking treatment also having nexus from the time of offence and taking of treatment, hence the evidence of Pw.5 is relevant under section 6 of Indian Evidence Act under the doctrine of resjestae. As per section 6 of Indian Evidence Act which says the doctrine of resjestae which means the circumstances which are automatic incidents of a particular litigated act and which are admissible when illustration of such acts. Facts which constitute the resjestae must be closely connected with the main transaction under investigation to constitute a part of it but the court must test the admissibility of the statement of the witness should be whether the things said or done can be regarded as forming of part of same transaction or not, so as per the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 are the spontaneous statements and the witnesses are also rustic witnesses and the witnesses 8

PW.2 to PW.4 are the bystanders at the scene of offence, so their evidence is considered as credible and trustworthy.

20.The learned counsel for defence argued PW.2 to PW.4 does not corroborated with the prosecution case and the investigation made by PW.7 does not made proper in proper lines and also argued that PW.1 is having previous disputes with the accused and the accused person is innocent, though the learned counsel concentrated on the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 as they did not stated the specific overtacts of the accused but he failed to disprove that no galata was occurred at the scene of offence and failed to prove the previous grudges between PW.1 and the accused by eliciting the evidence from the prosecution witnesses and also the learned counsel pointed out the prosecution failed to examine one of the farmer in whose land PW.1 to PW.4 are attending agricultural work at the time of incident and also there is no date in Ex.P.6 as to visiting of the investigating officer at the scene of offence and no weapon i.e. spade used by the accused to beat

PW.1 was not seized by the prosecution, these are all the lacunas on the part of the investigation but those lacunas does not change the root of the case.

A lacuna in the prosecution is not to be equated with the fallout of an oversight committed by investigation agency either in producing the relevant materials or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses. The adage “to err is human” is the recognition of the possibility of making mistakes to which humans are prone. A corollary of any such latches or mistakes during the investigation can not be understood as a lacuna which a court cannot fill up and lacuna in the prosecution must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution case. After all function of criminal court is administration of justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better and it is the duty of the court “A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that no innocent man is punish. A judge 9 also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape both are public duties”.

21.Basing on forgoing discussion the evidence of prosecution witnesses and basing on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.4 clearly shows as to occurrence of incident and receiving of injury and the sequence of time as to the things done at the time of commission of offence and immediate after the commission of offence shows that the accused committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. So the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence under section 324 IPC.

22.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Gooty

18. When this Court questioned accused with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, the accused is pleaded that he is having two daughters and he and his wife are suffering with ill-health and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and also pleaded to take lenient view while imposing the sentence for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 of Indian Penal

Code.

19. On considering the plea of accused and also litigating circumstances in the commission of offence this court taking lenient view by imposing to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian

Penal Code.

20. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code and thereby he is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, out of it

Rs.1000/- will be paid to the defacto complainant/injured person after expiry of appeal time. In case of default to pay the fine amount the accused shall 10 suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The bail bonds of accused shall be in forced for a period of six months as required under section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The prosecution did not file any property in this case, hence there is no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: P. Sreeramulu None PW.2: V.Thimmappa PW.3: K.Chandrasekhar PW.4: K.Thimma Reddy PW.5: P.Kanthamma PW.6: Dr. G.Rajesh PW.7: I. Ravi Sankar Reddy Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: complaint of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Some portion of section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.5: F.I.R Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch

Exhibits Marked for Defence:

-NIL- Material Objects for Prosecution: Defence:

-NIL- -NIL

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

JMFC

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: - Ms. Araveti Manjulatha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 2020.

CALENDER CASE No. 88 of 2015

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pamidi Police Station. . .. Complainant

Vs.

Malapati Raghuveera Chowdary @ Raghu, S/o Late M.Subbanna, Aged 34 years, Sajjalakaluva village, Anantapuramu Rural Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-03-2020, for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

K.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for accused and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.07/2015 for the offence punishable under sections 427, 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:-

Prior to 18-12-2014 some unknown offenders damaged the outdoor cabinet, switch off mode power supply in Reliance cell towers at

Ramarajupalli village of Pamidi Mandal and committed theft of two soft batteries, two earth bus bars, power cable and the worth of stolen property and damaged items of Rs.95,000/- and fled away with booty, on that LW.1

M.Pushpanatha Reddy reported the incident.

3. Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant i.e. LW.1

M.Pushpanatha Reddy a case in Cr.No.07/2015 under section 427, 379 of

Indian Penal Code was registered by LW.7 M.Javeed Basha, Asst. Inspector of police and took up investigation into the case. During the course of 2 investigation, LW.7 examined LW.1 M.Pushpanatha Reddy, LW.2 V.Peddi

Reddy, LW.3 M.Bhaskar, LW.4 P.Kullayappa and recorded their statements and prepared the scene observation mahazarnama and also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 09-04-2015 at 6-15 AM LW.7 arrested the accused at near old chowltry, near Ramarajupalli village bus stop, Pamidi

Mandal and on enquiry the accused confessed about the commission of offence and seized cable wire and bus bars i.e. stolen property and after obtaining sufficient sureties he released the accused on bail. After completion of legal formalities the charge sheet was laid under the above section of law against the accused.

4. This court has taken the cognizance of the offences under sections 427, 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and issued summons.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6.Accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, a charge under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code are framed against accused, and the substance of charge sheet is read over and explained to him in Vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

7. During the course of trial, to support the prosecution case PW.1 to

PW.5 are examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 besides MO.1 to MO.3 got marked.

On behalf of defense no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

8. After closure of the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

10.Now the Point for determination is :- 3 “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec 427, 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.PW.1, who is the defacto complainant herein deposed his evidence in chief as to submitting the report to the police. During the course of cross examination he admitted that he lodged the complaint on 21-01-2015 and further admitted that the properties which were damaged as well as stolen properties got having insurance and denied the suggestion that no offence was occurred and no properties were caused to theft and he foisted this false case only to get insurance claim.

12.PW.2 who is working under PW.1 he also deposed his evidence in chief he along with LW.2 V.Peddi Reddy and LW.3 M.Bhaskar Reddy and the accused were went to work location i.e. scene of offence, at that time they noticed that some unknown persons caused theft of charge batteries and some of the electrical equipments which were placed by them on the previous day, on that they searched the surrounding areas but in vain and he informed the same to PW.1 about the incident, on that PW.1 visited the scene of offence and lodged the complaint. During the course of cross examination he admitted that he is working under PW.1 to do electrical work for four locations for installation of Reliance towers and further deposed at the time of incident he was working at Kothapalli village tower but on the instructions of PW.1 he went to Ramarajupalli tower to do some work and the distance between Ramarajupalli and Kothapalli may be of 10 K.Ms and he also accompanied PW.1 at the time of reporting incident to the police and denied the formal suggestions that being the man of PW.1 he is supporting the version of PW.1.

13.PW.3 who is the Village Revenue Officer in whose presence the police prepared Ex.P.2 and deposed that on 09-4-2015 at 6-15 AM he along with police of Pamidi police station and LW.6 reached the scene of offence i.e.

4 near Ramaraju Satram, there they noticed one person by seeing the police party tried to escape but the police caught hold him and the police enquired about his particulars, on that they revealed his particulars and also confessed that he committed the alleged offence, by that the police seized two earth bus bars and power cable of 10 meters from the possession of said person, thereafter the police prepared Ex.P.2 and he made signature on the same. The learned APP requested the witness to identify the accused who present in the court hall but the witness stated that he has no idea whether the accused person is the person on the date of Ex.P.2 was made arrest.

Whereas coming to the cross examination he admitted that the police does not affixed any slips on the seized material and also deposed he do not have idea whether the police made signature on Ex.P.2.

14.Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 who are the

Investigating Officers in to this case deposed their evidence into the procedural aspect. Whereas coming to the cross examination PW.4 stated that he himself alone went to the scene of offence by the time of his arrival

PW.1, PW.2, LW.2 and LW.3 were already present,no witness made signatures either in Ex.P.4 or Ex.P.5 and also he deposed he did not examined the adjacent farmers at the scene of offence and further admitted as per Ex.P.3 the date of incident was 18-12-2014 and the complaint date is 21.01.2015 and further admitted he shown the choultry in the rough sketch on the right side by mistakenly. Whereas coming to the cross examination of PW.5 he admitted that there is no his signatures in the copies of mahazarnama but he made signature only in the original document and denied the formal suggestion that he does not followed the procedure as to seizure of property and the accused is no way concerned to this case.

15. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record the alleged offence is Section 379 of 411 of IPC. Basing on Ex.P.1 the case was registered but Ex.P.1 did not disclosing the name of the accused and also 5 suspected persons who committed theft, so it is natural when the offence of theft committed by intervening night it is not possible to state the name of the accused persons but the date of incident is 18-12-2014 and as per

Ex.P.3 the case was registered on 21.01.2015 under section 427 and 379

IPC, So there is enormous delay in registering the case but as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution section 379 I.P.C was not proved by the prosecution and whereas coming to section 411 of IPC i.e. the language employed in the section is that who ever dishonestly receive or retained any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be the stolen property. In this aspect the prosecution seized the stolen property from the possession of the accused. As per Ex.P.1 the stolen property were descripted as two bus-bars i.e. MO.1 and MO.2 and 10 meters of power cable i.e.MO.3 and the seized property is also appeared to be the stolen property as per Ex.P.1 but in case of offence of theft probably the accused will not be found and found basing on the recovery from the possession a person. In this case the police shown as the property was recovered from the possession of the accused and this statement is supported only by PW.5, being the interested witnesses their evidence did not having much weight, on such a reason this court should not give much weight to the evidence of PW.5.

Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.3 who acted as mediator for Ex.P.2 though he deposed as to the seizure and arrest of accused but he failed to identify the accused who present in the court. So to give santity to Ex.P2 the panch witness who acted as a witness to the police proceedings should be corroborated with the content of Ex.P.2 then only the proceedings under

Ex.P.2 can get legal santity to consider the same to some extent as to seizure and arrest of the accused but in the case PW.3 does not identified the accused though he corroborated with the seizure of the property. So there is a doubt whether the police seized MO.1 to 3 from the possession of the accused as the accused was not identified by the crucial witness PW.3.

6

Moreover PW.3 himself admitted that the police did not affixed any slips over the seized property and obtained the signatures on the said slips from the accused. So the core evidence depends on the evidence of the mediators as to procedure complied by the police while recovery of stolen property. In this aspect the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused.

16.So according to section 411 of I.P.C the prosecution has to prove recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. In this aspect there is no any independent witness. Though the seizure of property by the prosecution was not completely washed out but there are major discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution. As per section 114(a) of illustration the court has to presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession. The stress should be given to the word soon after the theft is important, by applying such illustration to the present case the police does not seized the stolen goods from the possession of the accused immediate soon after the incident. As per the case of the prosecution the date of occurrence of incident is 18-12-2014 but recovery of the goods from the possession of the accused is 09.03.2015 as per Ex.P.2. So there is enormous gap between the theft of goods and recovery of the said stolen goods may be nearly 3 months, so by applying the above illustration the police does not seized the stolen property soon after the incident. Moreover the evidence of PW.1 disclosing that he also does not made report about the incident to the police even on reasonable delay and there is one month of gap but no reasons were mentioned of lodging of complaint by taking enormous time. Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.3 who is the panch witness also does not identified the accused, it gives a cloud whether the police recovered the stolen goods from the possession of the accused, further PW.5 himself 7 admitted that he did not made signature in the copies of Ex.P2 it shows whether Ex.P.2 was prepared at the place of arrest of accused or not.

Moreover PW.5 failed to follow the procedure under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C while seizing of stolen property from the possession of accused. So when the evidence on record shows two views, the court should opt the view which is favourable to the accused.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The property i.e.

MO.1 to MO.3 shall be given to PW.1/defacto complainant after completion of appeal time on submission of proof showing that the said MO.1 to MO.3 belongs to PW.1, otherwise this court will proceed according to law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: M.Pushpanatha Reddy None PW.2: P.Kullayappa PW.3: A. Anjaneyulu PW.4: M.Javeed Basha PW.5: I. Ravisankar Reddy

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Confession, seizure and arrest mahazarnama Ex.P.3: F.I.R Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch Ex.P.5: Scene observation report dated 22.01.2015

Exhibits Marked for Defence:

-NIL- 8

Material Objects marked for:

Prosecution: Defence:

MO.1 and MO.2: Two earth bus bars -NIL- MO.3: Power cable about 10 meters

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

JMFC

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: - Ms. Araveti Manjulatha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Wednesday, the 24th day of June, 2020.

CALENDER CASE No. 07 of 2016

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pamidi Police Station. . .. Complainant

Vs.

1. Dandugala Chandrasekhar, S/o Late Kullayappa, aged 40 years,

2. Dandugala Suryanarayana, S/o Late Kullayappa, aged 27 years,

3. Dandugala Vasu, S/o Late Kullayappa, aged 23 years, All are residents of Vadde Street, Pamidi town and mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 16-03-2020, for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

M.Sreenivasulu and Sri S.R.K. Dattu, Advocates for accused No.1 to 3 and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamidi Police Station has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.197/2015 for the offence punishable under sections 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that:-

On 25-12-2015 at about 3-00 PM LW.1 A.Lakshmidevi and LW.2

A.Sreenivasulu were planting slabs infront of their house and also plastering the slabs with cement, at that time the accused No.1 to 3 approached him and picked up a quarrel with LW.1 A.Lakshmidevi and LW.2 A.Sreenivasulu by arguing that how they are laying slabs in the said open site and beat

LW.1 with hands and legs, on that LW.1 A.Lakshmidevi sustained injuries on her chest and LW.2 A.Sreenivasulu, LW.3 B.Musthafa, LW.4 M.Lakshmidevi and LW.5 D.Lakshmi intervened in the galata and rescued LW.1 A.

2

Lakshmidevi from the hands of accused and pacified the matter. Hence the case.

3. Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant i.e. LW.1 a case in

Cr.No.197/2015 under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered. During the course of investigation, Lw.7 examined LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their statements and also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. LW.8 arrested the accused No.1 to 3 on 03.01.2016 at 11-45 AM at

Pamidi PS as they voluntarily surrendered before him, and later he released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties from A1 to A3. After completion of legal formalities and receipt of wound certificate, charge sheet was laid under the above section of law against A1 to A3.

4. This court has taken the cognizance of the offence under sections 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 3 and issued summons.

5. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

6.Accused is examined under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the substance of charge sheet is read over and explained to them in

Vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

7. During the course of trial, to support the prosecution case PW.1 to

PW.8 are examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 got marked. On behalf of defense no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

8. After closure of the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

3

10.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.PW.1, who is the defacto complainant herein deposed her evidence in chief in corroboration with the charge sheet averments and further stated that at the time of galata the accused No.1 beat her with his legs, on that she fell down and thereby accused No.2 and 3 were also beat her with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries. On the same day she along with her husband i.e. PW.2 went to the police station and reported the incident and police referred to go to the hospital for treatment. During the course of cross examination she stated that her house is having two doorways on north and western side and the rastha on the western side width of 4 feet and the house of PW.4 is situated on further north of her house and the accused are not her relatives and further deposed that accused No.2 is residing at Gummepalli village and A1 and A3 are residing in a house which is situated on the eastern side of her house and PW.1 admitted that she stated before the police that all the accused beat her at a time but not the subsequent acts of A2 and A3 and denied the suggestion that as PW.1 and

PW.2 were laying slabs on the road on such a reason all the locality people approached Village panchayath authorities, on such a reason she foisted the false case and no incident was occurred.

12.PW.2 who is the husband of PW.1 he also deposed his evidence in chief as well as in the cross examination in tune with the evidence of PW.1 both in chief as well in the cross examination.

13.PW.3, PW.4 and PW.8 who are the independent witnesses does not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.

14.PW.5 who is the medical officer he deposed his evidence in chief that on 25-12-2015 at about 3-40 PM PW.1 along with police constable 4 approached him and thereby he examined PW.1, accordingly he issued wound certificate with no opinion as to nature of injuries of PW.1. During the course of cross examination he denied the suggestion that he examined PW.1 on 28-12-2015.

15.PW.6 and PW.7 who are the investigating officer they deposed their evidence in chief into the procedural aspect. PW.6 deposed in the cross examination that he did not received any medical intimation from the hospital and admitted that as per Ex.P.5 he received medical intimation on 31-12-2015 at about 3-00 PM and also stated either PW.1 or PW.2 does not stated any reason for delay in reporting the incident. PW.7 in his cross examination admitted that as per charge sheet PW.1 submitted her report on 25-12-2015 at about 5-30 PM and denied the formal suggestions.

16.As seen from the record and the evidence of prosecution witnesses the contesting witnesses are PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 and PW.7, out of them PW.1 and PW.2, PW.6 and PW.7 are the interesting witnesses into this case.

Whereas coming to the evidence PW.1 she deposed that at first instance the accused No.1 beat her with legs, on that she fell down, subsequently A2 and A3 beat her with hands and legs. Whereas coming to content of Ex.P.1 she does not stated the specific overtacts of accused and mentioned all the accused beat her with hands and legs at a time. So there is no corroboration as to the specific overtacts of accused persons and PW.1 is deviating her case from Ex.P.1 to her evidence before the court. Whereas coming to procedural aspect as per the prosecution case the incident was occurred on 25-12-2015 at about 3-00 PM. Though PW.1 and PW.2 corroborated as to date and time of incident but the subsequent acts as to going to the hospital and police are not corroborating with the evidence of

PW.6 and PW.7 which are admitted by the investigating authority i.e. PW.6 and PW.7, in this aspect on keen observation of Ex.P5 i.e. FIR was issued on 31-12-2015 by mentioning the date as 25-12-2015 at about 3-00 PM and 5 he further admitted that he received the report on 31-12-2015 which was mentioned in Ex.P.1 and further admitted no reason was mentioned in the

FIR in the respective column for causing delay from 25-12-2015 to 31-12- 2015. So there is a cloud when PW.1 and PW.2 approached the police and submitting of report either on 25 or 31 of December 2015. Whereas coming to the wound certificate issued by the medical officer the time of examination is 3-40 PM on 25-12-2015 and time of receipt of Ex.P.1 by the police on 31-12-2015 at 6-30 PM. So as per these two documents PW.1 was already approached the hospital and subsequently went to the police station.

17.Whereas coming to the evidence of PW.1 she deposed at first instance she approached the police station and the police referred her to go to the hospital, so as per her case taking of treatment is the subsequent act and approaching the police is former act but she deposed contra to the dates of documents. Moreover PW.6 also admitted he received medical intimation, when the police themselves referred PW.1 to the hospital there is no necessity to received medical intimation as they already registered the crime when the PW.1 and PW.2 approached them. Basing on these series of transaction there is a doubt as to occurrence of incident as alleged by the prosecution. This court further observed that the wound certificate issued by PW.5 that no external injuries were found and thereby no opinion was formed by the PW.5. If really the incident was occurred as alleged by

PW.1 being a woman if she was beat by three male persons there is a every possibility to receive even simple injury but as per Ex.P4 no injuries were found, by that this court opined that PW.1 made exaggerated version with false allegation against A1 to A3. Hence the prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 to 3 committed the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

6

18. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2020.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gooty Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: PW.1: A. Lakshmidevi None PW.2: A.Sreenivasulu PW.3: B.Musthafa PW.4: D. Lakshmi PW.5: Dr. B. Chandrasekhar Reddy PW.6: S.Md. Salar PW.7: I. Ravi Sankar Reddy PW.8: M.Lakshmidevi Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.5: F.I.R Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch Ex.P.7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8

Exhibits Marked for Defence:

-NIL- Material Objects Marked for: Prosecution: Defence:

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/- A.Manjulatha

JMFC

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Ms. A. Manjulatha,

Junior Civil Judge

Monday the 23rd day of March, 2020

Original Suit No.319 of 2019

Between:

B.Guru Prasad, S/o B.Gopal, Hindu, Major, aged about 41 years, resident of Gooty, Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu District. …Plaintiff.

AND

K.Palaiah, S/o K.Palakondaiah, Hindu,Major, aged about 47 years, working in S.C.Railways, S/B of SSE/DSL/Mechanical/Gy P.F No.24505540501, Gooty R.S and Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu District. ….Defendant.

This suit came before me on this day i.e., 16.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Anjinappa, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, and defendant is remained set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,02,900/- being the

principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated 01.05.2018 executed

by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Hence the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

On 01-05.2018 the defendant borrowed sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakhs fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 1.5.2018 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% Per Annum. After that several demands have been made on the defendant by the plaintiff for repayment of the debt. But the defendant has not paid. Then the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recover of amount due under suit promissory note. That the defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence interest is claimed at contract rate. That the defendant is not entitled for the benefits of Farmer’s Relief Acts.

2

3. This court issued summons to the defendant and the same was served, but defendant called absent, no representation, serving of summons held sufficient.

Hence the defendant remained exparte.

4.Now the points for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for?”

5.In support of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and

Ex.A.1 is got marked. Ex.A.1 is the suit promissory note dated 01-05-2018 for Rs.1,50,000/-, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff to prove his case filed

Ex.A.1 that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and his claim was unchallenged by the defendant by approaching the court. Hence the plaintiff proved his case by supporting documents of Ex.A.1.

6.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.2,02,900/- (Rupees two lakhs two thousand and nine hundred only) with future interest at interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on suit promissory note from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 31.10.2019 till the date of the decree and further interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha

Junior Civil Judge Gooty. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1: B.Guru Prasad -NIL- Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: Defendant:

Ex.A.1: Suit Promissory note dt.01.05.2018 -NIL- of Rs.1,50,000/-.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha

Jr.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GOOTY

Present: Ms. Araveti Manjulatha, Junior Civil Judge, Gooty Monday the 24th day of March, 2020 Original Suit No.257 of 2019 Between: A.Hajee Vali, S/o A.Rasool Sab, Muslim, aged about 40 years, Business, residing at Gooty town and Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu district. …Plaintiff.

AND

P.Venkata Ramudu, S/o P.Govindu, aged about 45 years, Meson work, and Contractor, residing in D.No.10-0020, Cherlopalli, Gooty town

Gooty mandal, Anantapuramu District. ...Defendant

This suit has came on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Jakir Hussain, Advocate for the plaintiff and the plaintiff having been called absent, no representation and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Suit fr recovery of a sum of Rs.52,800/- being the principal and interest due on an pronote dated 8.3.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Rs.40,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% P.A. Inspite of repeated demands the defendant has not paid the suit debt. Hence the suit.

2. On perusal of the docket it shows that summons to the defendant not served the same was returned as not resident on that this court further ordered summons to defendant while the summons are pending. On 24-03-2020 council for the plaintiff filed memo request to dismiss the suit as not pressed. Hence the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Ms.A.Manjulatha,

Junior Civil Judge Gooty

Appendix of evidence Both oral and documentary evidence on both sides -NIL-

Sd/- Ms. A.Manjulatha,

Jr.C.J.

2