Sri. A.Nagaraju

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MIRYALAGUDA

PRESENT: Sri A. Nagaraj, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

Monday the 1st day of May, 2017

C.C.No. 661 OF 2013

Between The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalaguda I Town Police Station …. Complainant

AND Ramavath Vijaya Laxmi W/o Late Balaram, Age:35 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.LIG-II/121, Near Water Thank, Housing Board Colony, Miryalaguda Town.

…. Accused

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 29.04.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate

for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on

record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.34/2012 for the offences under secs.3, 4 & 5 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sec.309 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that accused is native of

Shunyapahad thanda of Nereducherla Mandal and as her husband was not taking care and as he subsequently died, she shifted to Miryalaguda and decided to earn easy money by doing prostitution with the help of other ladies. She used to let her house for prostitution for the persons who are in need, used to engage ladies and provide for the prostitution, she used to take amounts from the customers and share the amount with the victim ladies. On 07.03.2012 in the morning accused engaged Lws.4 & 5

Nagelli Shailaja and Davuri Geetha for prostitution. Meanwhile, two unknown male persons came there, from them, she collected Rs.3900/- and provided Lws.4 & 5 for sexual intercourse. She took Rs.1900/- and paid Rs.1000/- each to Lws.4 & 5.

Meanwhile, on noticing the police Pws. 1 to 3 & 5, two unknown male persons fled away and accused does not know the names of said persons, as such PW.5 recorded the confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators PW.4 and LW.6 and 2 seized cash of Rs.1900/- from accused and Rs.1000/- each from Lws.4 & 5. In the meantime accused went into bathroom on the pretext of attending calls of nature and tried to consume phenyl in order to threaten the police. Immediately, PW.2 who escorted the accused prevented the accused from consuming phenyl, but by that time accused consumed a little quantity, as such the accused was immediately shifted to area hospital, Miryalaguda for treatment. PW.5 has also seized the phenyl bottle under cover of panchanama. PW.5 returned to police station, registered a case in the above crime number based on the confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused. Later, he recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 3 and victims Lws.4 & 5. On 08.03.2012 after discharge of accused from the hospital, she was arrested and produced before the court for remand. After completion of investigation, PW.5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class Court, Miryalaguda, assigned case number and issued process.

Subsequently this case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to her as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and the accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charges Under

Secs.3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution could examine PWs.1 to 5 and exhibited

Exs. P-1 to P-4 and MO. 1.

PWs-1 to 3 are police personnel who accompanied PW.5, PW.4 is one of the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW.5 is investigating officer.

The prosecution has failed to produce LW.6, as he died. The prosecution has also failed to produce Lws.4 & 5 the victim ladies inspite of granting number of adjournments for about six months. Hence, their evidence was also closed.

5. Heard arguments of leaned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the Accused. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable Under Secs.3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sec.309 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?” 3

7. The learned A.P.P., has argued that in this case the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the version of prosecution, except the mediator for confession cum seizure. Though Pws. 1 to 3 are police officials their evidence is consistent and believable. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that except the police officials there are no other witnesses and the only mediator for confession has turned hostile. Unless the victim ladies are examined, the truth will not come to light. The police purposefully did not examine Lws.4 & 5. He further argued that the evidence of

PW.3 is totally contradicting with the version of prosecution and according to him, he alone conducted investigation and also drafted panchanama. He has not whispered anything about accompanying PW.5, but after declaring hostile by the APP, he admitted whatever the suggestions given by APP only to support the prosecution version. The chief examintion of a witness who is in the rank of SI of police cannot be overlooked just because he admitted the suggestions given by APP during cross- examination. The evidence of Pws.1 & 2 is also contradicting with each other on the material particulars. The prosecution has also not charged the alleged male persons who said to have visited the house of accused on the date of incident. It is highly improbable to believe that the said male persons ran away and there names could not be known to them. The above facts would clearly show that PW.5 has done investigation by sitting in the police station without making any alleged raid on the house of accused. He foisted a false case against the accused and victimized her for the alleged offences. Further the prosecution has failed to prove none of the offences leveled against the accused. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

9. POINT:

The offences leveled against the accused are under Secs.3, 4 & 5 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Sec.309 IPC. It is the evidence of PW.1 head constable that on 07.03.2012 he along with Pws.2, 3 and two other mediators accompanied PW.5 to the house of accused at Housing Board colony, Miryalaguda. On seeing them, accused tried to flee away from the house. Then PW.2 caught hold of her and brought to PW.5. On interrogation by PW.5 in the presence of mediators, accused confessed about the offence of conducting prostitution. He further deposed that while they were taking accused to her house two male persons ran away from the house and later they found two ladies Lws.4 & 5 in the house of accused. On further interrogation, accused confessed that two customers visited her house on that day.

She received cash of Rs.3900/- from them for supplying women and out of the said 4 amount, she paid Rs.1000/- each to Lws.4 & 5, retained Rs.1900/- with her. Then PW.5 seized the total amount of Rs.3900/- from the accused and Lws.4 & 5 under cover of panchanama. He further deposed that in the meantime accused asked permission to attend calls of nature and went inside of bathroom under escort of PW.2. As soon she entered bathroom, she consumed phenyl and attempted to commit suicide. Then the accused was shifted to Government area hospital, Miryalaguda.

10. PW.2 woman constable deposed that on 07.03.2012 she along with Pws.1 & 3 accompanied PW.5 on information that there is prostitution in Housing Board colony,

Miryalaguda. When they reached Housing Board Colony, they found accused outside the house and on seeing them, she tried to flee away, then on the instructions of PW.5, she caught hold of her. She also identified the accused present in the court hall as culprit. On enquiry by the mediators on being asked by PW.5, accused confessed that she is a widow and living on prostitution. On opening the doors of house, they found two ladies in the house by name Geetha and Shailaja. They also revealed that they were given Rs.1000/- each by the accused. Then PW.5 conducted panchanama and seized cash of Rs.1900/- from accused and Rs.1000/- from Lws.4 & 5. She further deposed that in the meantime accused took permission to attend calls of nature, as such she took her to bathroom and though 10 minutes elapsed, accused did not come out, as such she opened the door of bathroom and found accused was taking phenyl, then she hit the hand of accused, due to which phenyl bottle fell down. Immediately, the accused was shifted to government area hospital, Miryalaguda. She further deposed that accused took phenyl out of fear of police. PW.5 inspector of police deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW.2.

11. Coming to the evidence of PW.3 SI of Police, he gave a different version to that of

Pws.1, 2 & 5. According to him, on the instructions of PW.5 he along with Pws. 1 & 2 and mediators went to LIG 11/121 Housing Board colony, Miryalaguda and found the accused outside of the house. According to him, they found two ladies in the house and he caught hold of the accused with the help of PW.2 and he found no customers in the house. He further deposed that later CI of Police seized cash of Rs.1900/- from the accused and Rs.1000/- each from two ladies in the presence of mediators. He further deposed that accused consumed phenyl in the bathroom on the pretext of attending calls of nature. Then, he took the accused to government area hospital, Miryalaguda.

As PW.3 has not supported the version of prosecution, the learned APP has declared him hostile and cross examined.

5

12. During cross examination, PW.3 admitted that panchanama was conducted by CI of Police. He volunteered that first he entered the scene and later CI of Police came to the place of offence, but again he admitted the suggestion that he along with Pws.1, 2 & 5 went together to the scene of offence. He also admitted a suggestion that he stated before PW.5 in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that on seeing the police, the customers ran away. In the cross-examination by the accused, PW.3 stated that whatever the statement given during cross-examination by APP is correct. Though according to

PW.1 and PW.3 in the cross-examination done by APP, two customers ran away from the place of offence, Pws.2 & 5 did not state anything about the presence and fleeing away of customers from the place of offence. According to PW.3 in his cross examination by the APP, he volunteered that first he entered the place of offence and later CI of Police came there. When the evidence of PW.3 in his chief examination is read with the evidence in the cross-examination by APP, it creates a doubt as to the visit of place of offence by PW.5 and also conducting the panchanama and seizure of cash at the place of offence itself. Though PW.3 stated in the chief examination that later CI of Police seized cash from the accused and two ladies, he has not specifically stated that PW.5 conducted the said panchanama at the place of offence itself.

13. PW.4 mediator for alleged confession and seizure of cash and also MO.1 phenyl bottle has turned hostile and did not state anything about the confession of accused and seizure of cash and MO.1.

14. As seen from form No.60, one glass bottle having label as “rainbow phenyl” was deposited. During cross-examination PW.2 admitted that there is no label to the bottle to say that it is phenyl bottle and MO.1 is a glass bottle. According to PW.2, when accused went inside bathroom and did not return for 10 minutes, she opened the door and found the accused was consuming phenyl, as such she hit the hand of accused, due to which bottle fell down. When the evidence of PW.2 in her chief examination is read along with the admission made by her in cross-examination and on observation of MO.1 glass bottle without any label, the statement of PW.2 that accused was consuming phenyl appears to be false. If the bottle like MO.1 fell down, it would have broken as it is glass bottle, as such the seizure of MO.1 stating that it was phenyl bottle said to have used by the accused to commit suicide is false. As per Ex.P.3 panchanama the phenyl bottle was also seized along with the cash on the confession of accused and also from Lws.4 & 5. When according to Pws.1 to 3 the accused was shifted immediately to government area hospital, seizure of phenyl bottle under same confession panchanama of accused after shifting her to hospital is irregular and also 6 creates a doubt as to the very case of the prosecution and total Ex.P.3 panchanama.

15. In view of the contradictory evidence of Pws.1 & 3 on one hand with the evidence of Pws.2 & 5 on the other hand, with regard to the presence of two male persons and their fleeing away from the place of offence, further the evidence of PW.3 creating a doubt as to the visit by PW.5 to the place of offence and the alleged attempt of accused to consume phenyl in MO.1 bottle and also its seizure, I feel that the case of the prosecution creates a doubt as to the alleged offences against the accused.

Further, the prosecution has also failed to examine Lws.4 & 5 and any of the neighbourers of accused from the place of offence. Hence, I find the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, she is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges Under Secs. 3, 4 & 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Sec.309 IPC and she is acquitted Under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of (6) months as envisaged Under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. The cash of Rs.3900/- is ordered to be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno-typist, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this 1st day of May, 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

MIRYALAGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1T. Krishna … Eye witness PW-2K. Aruna Devi … Eye witness PW-3V. Bala Gopal … Eye witness PW-4P. Venkateshwarlu … Panch for confession & seizure PW-5K. Narsimha Reddy … I.O & filed charge sheet

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :

7

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROECUTION:

Ex.P-1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P-2: Signature of PW-4 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P-3: Confessional cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P-4: First information report

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCNE: :: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1: Phenyl bottle

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MIRYALAGUDA

Monday, the 01st day of May 2017.

PRESENT: Sri A. Nagaraju, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

C.C.No. 662 of 2013 Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalguda –I Town Police Station. …. Prosecution AND Gugulothu Yakander, S/o Tara Singh, Age: 30 years, Occ: Pepyanaik thanda, H/o Gattikal Village of Athmakur (s) mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 28.04.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri

M. Kameshwar Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda –I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused in Cr.No.8 of 2013 for the offence under

Sec. 380 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 11.01.2013 at 1.00 p.m., P.W-1 lodged a complaint stating that he was admitted in

Vasanthi hospital, doctor’s colony, Miryalguda for treatment of injuries sustained in an accident. On 10.01.2013 at 10.30 p.m. while he was sleeping, some unknown offenders committed of cash of Rs. 10,000/- from his bag. On receipt of said complaint, Lw-7 registered a case in the above crime number and investigated into. During investigation, Lw-7 recorded the statement of Pw-1. He visited the place of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Lw- 2 and Lw-3 and also drew rough sketch of scene of offence.

2

On 16.01.2013 at 5.00 p.m., Pw-3 arrested the accused in Cr. No.

139/12 of PS Nakrekal and recorded the confessional statement in the presence of Pw-2 and Lw-5, wherein he confessed to have committed property offences in various police stations including the crime No. 8 of 2013 and Cr. No. 9 of 2013 of Police Miryalaguda I Town. Accordingly, Pw-3 has recovered the cash of Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to this crime and Rs.

5,000/- and gold chain pertaining to Cr. No. 9 of 2013 of PS Miryalaguda I town and also recovered the properties in other crimes. Later, the accused was arrested and sent to court for remand. Lw-7 filed requisition for issue of PT warrant against the accused and on obtaining PT Warrant he produced the accused in this case for remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.7 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Miryalguda, against the Accused for the offence Under Sec. 380 IPC and issued summons against the accused. Later, after assigning case number, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., Charges under Sec.380 IPC and alternatively U/sec., 411 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited Ex. P1 to P-3. The learned APP has given up examination of Lw-2 and Lw-3 the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. The learned

APP has also given up examination of Lw-5 another mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama. The prosecution failed to produce

Lw-7 the investigation officer, as he died. Hence, the evidence of prosecution was closed.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material 3 available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied in toto and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence of defence was closed.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.P O I N T :-

Pw-1 deposed that in the year 2013, in an accident he sustained fracture to his leg, as such he joined Vasanthi Hospital, Miryalguda for treatment. He further deposed that for his treatment he kept Rs. 10,000/- in a bag and slept in the hospital. During mid night his bag was committed theft by unknown offenders. As such, he lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before police. He came to know about recovery of cash of Rs. 10,000/- two or three months thereafter. Accordingly, he took return of cash of Rs. 10,000/- through court. Pw-1 was not subjected to cross examination.

10.The defence is not disputing about the commission of theft of cash of

Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to Pw-1, while he was in the hospital. Hence, I find that the prosecution has proved that the cash bag of Pw-1 containing

Rs. 10,000/- was committed theft on 10.01.2013 during night while he was

Vasanthi hospital, Miryalguda. Now it is to be seen, whether the prosecution has connected the recovery of cash of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused for the offence U/sec. 411 IPC. In this regard, there is evidence of

Pw-2 and Pw-3.

11. The learned counsel for defence has argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case and so also in Cr. No. 9 of 2013, though no recovery of cash or other gold properties were seized from the possession of the accused. He further argued that though the accused was arrested on 16.01.2013 and sent court for remand in Cr. No. 139 of 2012 of PS 4

Nakerakal, the police again conducted another confession panchanama and seized of cash of Rs. 2,40,000/- from his possession in Cr. No. 139 of 2012 which was already referred in the confession panchanama dt.

16.01.2013. He further argued that in this regard the police also failed to examine the investigating officer/Lw-7. The accused is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the above case. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

12.The learned APP has argued that no doubt the accused was arrested on 16.01.2013 and confession with regard to Cr. No. 139 of 2012 was referred in the said confession, but the cash was recovered under separate panchanama on 26.01.2013 after taking the accused again into custody in

Cr. No. 139 of 2012 as the accused paid said amount for purchase of land in the name of his wife at her native, as such there are two confession of accused on two different occasions. However, the confession made on 16.01.2013 in respect of present case and property seized in pursuance of said confession by the accused; is proved by the prosecution with the evidence of Pw-2. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused.

13. In order to establish the confession of accused and recovery of stolen property, there is evidence of Pw-2 and Pw-3. Pw-2 deposed that on 16.01.2013 in the evening as per the instructions of Thasildar he along with Lw-5 proceed to Nakrekal PS, where Pw-3 along with his staff and accused were present. Pw-2 further deposed that the C.I. of police informed them that some gold items are with the accused and asked them to enquire about the details and other particulars. Accordingly, on his enquiry, the accused confessed about the commission of thefts in various places viz., Khammam, Kodad, Huzurnagar, Nakrekal and Miryalguda. He further confessed that he committed theft in two hospitals at Miryalguda.

In pursuance of said confession, the police recovered cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- two gold pusthelathadu, two nallapoosala golusulu, four chain, 6 gold bangles, one necklace, one bracelet, one pair gold mateelu, one pair gold junkalu. The police recovered cash of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and gold chain pertaining to the crimes committed in hospitals at Miryalaguda. He clearly deposed that after the contents of panchanama were read over, he 5 signed on panchanama. Ex. P.2 is the portion of recovery in pursuance of confession.

14.Pw-3 main investigating officer, who apprehended the accused clearly deposed about the apprehension of accused on 16.01.2013 at 5.30 p.m. at Nakrekal in Cr. No. 139 of 2012 and during confession, the accused confessed about the commission of thefts under various police stations, particularly in the hospitals. He further deposed that he recovered cash of

Rs. 10,000/- pertaining to this case in 500 denominations.

15. The learned counsel for defence, though subjected Pw-2 and Pw-3 to lengthy cross examination, nothing could to be elicited to disbelieve their evidence. During cross examination, he admitted that in the confession portion he has not particularly mentioned about time of offence, but he volunteered that he mentioned as early night. Though a suggestion was given to Pw-3 that he has not mentioned the denomination of cash, he denied the same and clarified that in the last paragraph of the confession cum seizure, he gave case wise particulars of denomination of total cash seized. In the cross examination, he admitted that he recorded confessional and recovery panchanamas of accused on 26.01.2013 in Cr.

No. 139 of 2012 of PS Nakrekal, but, volunteered that he recorded the said panchanamas after taking the accused again into police custody. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused in various property offences.

16. No doubt, in the list of witnesses in charge sheet, initially the names of mediators of panchanama conducted on 26.01.2013 pertaining to Cr.

No. 139 of 2012 of PS Nakrekal were mentioned, but in the operative portion of charge sheet, the names of mediators pertaining to the confession made on 16.1.2013 viz., Pw-2 and Lw-5 are mentioned. It is pertinent to note that even before filing of charge sheet, the names are corrected by applying white fluid. Hence, it does not affect the case of prosecution.

17. No doubt, in the confession dt: 16.1.2013, the Cr. No. 139 of 2012 is also referred, but no recovery is made with regard to said crime under the 6 said panchanama. According to P.W.3, he took the accused again into police custody on 26.1.2013 and recorded the confessional statement of accused and recovered cash of Rs. 2,40,000/- pertaining to Cr.No. 139/12, as such subsequent confession and recovery on 26.01.2013 is not relevant to this case. Hence the same need not be considered.

18.Though Pws-2 and 3 are subjected to cross examination by the defence at length, nothing is elicited in favour of defence. Hence, I find that the evidence of Pw-2 and Pw-3 inspire confidence with regard to the seizure of cash of Rs. 10,000/- from the possession of accused pertaining to this case. The accused has failed to offer any explanation for possession of said cash. Hence, I find that the prosecution could able to connect the confession leading to recovery of cash against the accused and thereby the accused is liable for the offence U/sec. 411 IPC.

19. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge under Sec.

411 IPC and he is convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of May 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

20.The accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence. He pleaded that he is having wife and small children, he secured 104 marks in

Teacher Eligibility Test and he is a graduate in B.Sc. and B.Ed and requested to take lenient view.

21.The accused belongs to down trodden tribal community. In this case the property is totally recovered. Considering the circumstances of the case, socio and economic conditions of the accused and in order to give an opportunity to the accused to reform, I feel that the benefit of Sec.4 of

Probation of Offenders Act can be extended to the accused. Accordingly, the accused is released under Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act under observation by the Probation Officer, Nalgonda for a period of one year.

7

22. The office is directed to send copy of judgment to the Probation Officer,

Nalgonda for observation of accused and report.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of May 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1 Gandamalla Shyam Sundar Complainant & victim PW-2 Chemakuri Raja Shekar Panch for confession and recovery PW-3 A. Vishwaprasad, C.I I.O and recovered property

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1complaint lodged by PW.1 Ex.P-2Portion of recovery in pursuance of confession. Ex.P-3Portion of confession of accused pertaining to this crime.

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MIRYALAGUDA

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May 2017

PRESENT: Sri A. Nagaraju, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

C.C.No. 900 of 2014

Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalaguda I Town Police Station. …. Prosecution AND

Chinthamalla Nagesh S/o Late Sriramulu, Age:31 years, Occ: Private Employee (courier deliver boy), R/o Rajivnagar, Suryapet Town. …. Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 28.04.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Srinivas, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda I Town filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.128/2014 for the offence Under Sec.497

IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that PW.6 is the wife of PW.1. On 04.07.2014 at 6.00 p.m., PW.1 lodged complaint stating that he contacted love marriage on 20.11.2013 with PW.6. On 13.06.2014 morning when he had been to bank to attend duties, PW.6 was alone in the house and in the night at 8.00 p.m., when he returned, he found her missing. He made enquires with his mother (PW.7), on that she informed that on the same day in the morning at 10.00 a.m., PW.6 went outside the house and did not return. He made search for his wife at his in-laws house and relatives etc., but she could not be traced, as such he filed complaint stating that her cell phone was also switched off. On receipt of above complaint, LW.8 registered a case under Woman missing and entrusted the investigation to PW.8. During the course of investigation,

PW.8 recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 3 & 7, made discrete enquiries.

He also deployed force to trace out PW.6. Meanwhile, PW.8 obtained call 2 data record to PW.6 with regard to mobile numbers 9441321077, 8125880551 and found that several incoming and outgoing calls are suspected to have made from the said numbers from cell phone

Nos.9030404936, 8184939299 to the cell numbers. On enquiry, he came to know that the said number belonging to the accused. On 11.07.2014 on tracing out the tower location at Suryapet, he deputed police personnel along with woman home guard. Accordingly, on the said date, the police party apprehended the accused along with PW.6 and they brought them to Miryalaguda I Town Police Station. On that he recorded the statement of PW.6, then he secured the presence of Pws.4 &5 and recorded the confessional statement of accused. Then he altered section of law from Woman missing to Sec.497 IPC. The accused was produced

before the court on 11.07.2014. After completion of investigation, PW.8

filed charge sheet against the accused under Sec.497 IPC.

3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Miryalguda, against the Accused for the offence Under Sec.497 IPC.

After assigning case number, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. and accused were examined U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., charge under Sec.497 IPC has been framed against, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7.

PW.1 is the complainant/victim, PW.2 is mother of PW.6, PW.7 is mother of PW.1, PW.3 is neighbourer, PW.6 is the wife of victim, Pws.4 & 5 are the mediators for confession of accused and PW.8 is the investigating officer. The APP has given up the examination of LW.8

Inspector of police who only issued FIR.

6. After completion of investigation, prosecution filed a petition to add the charge under Sec.498 IPC and the same is allowed and a charge under Sec. 498 IPC also framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. P O I N T : -

In this case, PW.3 independent witness, PW.7 mother of PW.1 turned hostile and they did not state anything about the incident against the accused.

11. Pws.4 & 5 mediators for confession of accused have also turned hostile and did not state anything about the alleged confession of accused. Now there remains the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 6 & 8.

12. According to PW.1 on 13.06.2014, he went on duty and returned home at 7.30 p.m., then he found missing of his wife. His mother informed him that she went outside one hour after he went on duty.

Though he searched and informed his relatives and in-laws, he could not find her, as such he filed complaint before the police. He further deposed that now his wife is residing with the accused and he is having suspicion over accused for missing of his wife. Accordingly he filed Ex.P.1 complaint before the police. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not mention about suspicion over the accused or any other person in Ex.P.1 complaint and even in the statement made before the police.

He denied the suggestion that as his wife has no interest over him, she left his company and the accused is no way concerned for her missing.

13. PW.2 mother of missing lady (PW.6) deposed that in the year 2014 one day while she was in her house, PW.1 came at about 7.30 p.m., and 4 asked whereabouts of her daughter, on that she informed that PW.6 did not visit her house. Later, PW.1 searched for her and filed complaint

before the police. She further deposed that they came to know through

friends of her daughter that she went along with the accused. During cross-examination, she stated that initially she performed the marriage of her daughter with her nephew Bhasker and she stayed with him only for 1 ½ year and thereafter she left him, but she did not take any divorce from him, as he is not available. She further stated in her cross- examination that she has not expressed any suspicion against the accused in her statement before the police, but volunteered that she does not know about the complicity of accused.

14. PW.8 investing officer deposed about registration of case by LW.8 and entrustment of investigation to him. He further deposed that after recording the statement of PW.1, he collected photo of PW.6 and gave look out notice of PW.6 to all police stations in the erstwhile State. He also called for the data of PW.6 from service providers and found two suspected numbers 9030404936, 8184939299 made frequent phone calls to the phone numbers of victim woman. Ex.P.7 is the call data. He further deposed that he could trace out the tower location of suspected phone numbers from Vidyanagar, Suryapet. On 11.07.2014 he deputed one Woman home guard and two constables. Accordingly, they caught hold the accused along with PW.6, brought them to police station, then he altered section of law from Woman missing to Sec.497 IPC.

15. PW.6 wife of PW.1 deposed that she picked up quarrel with her husband and now residing with her relatives at Dilshukar, Hyderabad.

She stated that she does not know PW.3 and accused. During cross- examination by APP, she stated that she is not residing with her mother as she performed her marriage with PW.1 against her wish and her first marriage was performed with the son of her paternal aunt. According to her, she stayed with PW.1 only for two months and thereafter as he used to comment that she does not know cooking and picked up quarreled with her, she left his company. She further stated that she has not informed any person while leaving the house of PW.1. According to her in her cross-examination, now she is residing with her aunt Shanthamma as PW.2 is also not taking care of her. Sher further stated that now she is 5 working in a biscuit factory at Dilsukhnagar. When a suggestion was given by APP that there is no biscuit factory at Dilshuknagar as it is residential locality, she admitted the same, but volunteered that she would be taken in a bus to the factory. Based on the above evidence, the

APP has argued that PW.6 purposefully deposing falsehood stating that she does not know the accused and she is residing with the accused only.

16. As seen from Ex.P.1 complaint, statement of PW.1 before the police nothing was attributed against the accused or he not even expressed any suspicion against the accused, but PW.8 could know about the acquaintance between accused and PW.6 only after recording the statement of PW.3 who stated in her statement before the police that accused and P.w.6 came to contact when accused used to bring her sister to their house and exchanged cell phone numbers, thereafter PW.6 left the house of PW.1 and went to the house of accused at Suryapet as he attempted to commit suicide by consuming sleeping pills, but coming to the evidence of PW.3, she turned hostile and did not state anything about the incident or against the accused. Though PW.8 said to have collected the call data vide Ex.P.7, he did not collect the material to show that the alleged phone numbers pertain to accused and PW.6.

17. PW.6 said to have left the house on 13.06.2014, but as seen from

Ex.P.7 no calls are received to the alleged cell phone numbers of PW.6 from the alleged cell phone numbers of accused. Though the calls from cell number 8184939299 said to have belonging to the accused were made, they only made to cell number 9160797524 on 17.06.2014 for three times, on 30.06.2014 for nine times, but the cell phone number 9160797524 does not belong to PW.6, even as per the case of the prosecution and PW.8. Hence based on the above Ex.P.7 call data statement without any proof that the cell phone numbers belong to the accused and PW.6; it cannot be believed that accused and PW.6 exchanged calls more particularly on the date of leaving house by PW.6.

PW.7 has also failed to connect the phone number 9160797524 to PW.3 through whom PW.6 and accused said to have got acquaintance. As seen from the evidence of Pws. 1 & 2 except expressing suspicion against the accused, after coming to court there is nothing on record against the accused to show that PW.6 left the company of PW.1 and now residing 6 with accused. Hence, I feel that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused either with the charge under Sec.497 IPC or with the charge under Sec.498 IPC. Accordingly, he is entitled for acquittal.

18. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Sec.497 and 498 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of (6) months in view of provisions of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 2nd day of May 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1K. Srinivas Complainant PW-2A. NagalaxmiMother of PW.6 PW-3B. Manasa @ MujjiNeighbouer & cir. Witness PW-4N. VenkannaPanch for confession PW-5 Syed Hussain Panch for confession PW-6K. Dhanalaxmi Missing woman Wife of PW.1 PW-7K. Kotamma Mother of PW.1 PW-8D. Venkateshwarlu I.O. & filed charge sheet ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P-1Complaint filed by PW.1 Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P-3Signature of PW.4 on confession panchanama Ex.P-4Signature of PW.5 on confession panchanama Ex.P-5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 Ex.P-6First information report Ex.P-7Call data Ex.P-8Section alteration memo. Ex.P-9Confessional statement of accused.

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

7 // TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MIRYALAGUDA

Monday, the 1st day of May 2017

PRESENT: Sri A. Nagaraju, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

C.C.No. 183 of 2015

Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalaguda Rural Police Station. …. Prosecution AND

A.1: Palla Nagamma W/o Srinu, Age:32 years, Occ: House wife, A.2: Guvvala Papamma W/o Laxmaiah, Age:52 years, Occ: House wife, A.3: Parsanaboina Laxmamma W/o Venkataiah, Age:48 years, Occ: Housewife, All are R/o Yadgaripally Village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. …. Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 29.04.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Sathyanarayana, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.311/2014 for the offence Under

Sec.326 R/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that A.2 and A.3 are the sisters of A.2. There are some misunderstandings between PW.1 and accused as the husband of PW.1 used to beat her, the accused made a false propaganda against PW.1 in the village. On 29.10.2014 at 5.00 p.m., while PW.1 was weeping in front of her house, meanwhile A.1 to A.3 came there and beat PW.1 with hands. A.1 beat her with a stick and caused fracture injury to her right middle finger alleging that she abused them. Pws.2 to 4 and LW.5 witnessed the incident and rescued PW.1 from the clutches of A.1. In this regard, on receipt of complaint from

PW.1, a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, SI of Police recorded the 2 statements of witnesses, visited the place of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.5 and LW.6 and drew rough sketch of place of offence. PW.1 proceeded to Sri Sai Nursing home for treatment on her own. On 31.10.2014 A.1 to A.3 voluntarily surrendered

before SI of Police, on that he affected their arrest and sent them to

court for remand. Later, after completion of investigation and on collection of wound certificate, police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Miryalguda, against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence Under

Sec.326 R/w 34 IPC. After assigning case number, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., charge under Sec. 326 R/w 34 IPC have been framed against, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

PW.1 is the complainant/injured, Pws.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses of the incident and PW.5 is one of the mediators for scene of offence panchanama.

5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under sec.313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was closed.

6. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3

8. P O I N T :

Pws.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. They stated in one voice that they did not witness any incident and do not know anything about the case.

9. PW.5 one the mediators for scene of offence panchanama has also turned hostile, except admitting his signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. In view of hostile testimony of Pws.2 to 5, there remains the only evidence of PW.1 complainant/injured.

10. According to PW.1 about more than one year ago in the evening at 5.00 p.m., while she was at her house, her husband abused her as somebody informed him badly about her, as such she was abusing in general as to who made false propaganda against her, on that A.1 to A.3 came there, picked up quarrel with her stating that they are not responsible and beat her with stick. She further stated that A.1 beat her with stick on her right hand, due to which she sustained fracture injury to her right hand. She deposed that Lws.2 to 4 have witnessed the incident.

When the stick seized from the place of offence was shown to her, she denied that it was the stick used in the commission of offence. Though she supported her version in the chief examination, coming to her cross- examination she admitted whatever the suggestions given by the defence. She admitted that she does not know the contents of the complaint and it was drafted by the police and she signed on it. She also stated that at the time of incident there was mob and she does not know who beat her from the mob and she filed complaint against the accused, due to suspicion. From the cross examination of PW.1, it appears that she compromised with the accused, as such she turned hostile in her cross-examination. Further she failed to identify the stick with which accused said to have beat her.

11. In view of hostile testimony of Pws. 2 to 5 and also the hostile testimony of PW.1 in her cross-examination, I feel there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the guilt. Hence, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, they are entitled for acquittal.

4

12. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charge under Sec.326 R/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of (6) months in view of provisions of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 1st day of May 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1M. Pichamma Complainant/injured PW-2A. Mattamma Eye witness & co-daughter-in-law of PW.1 PW-3A. Laxmamma Eye witness PW-4A. Narsamma Eye witness PW-5G. Naga Raju Panch for scene of offence

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint filed by PW.1 Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P-3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P-4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P-5Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-6Signature of PW.5 on sketch

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

MIRYALAGUDA

Monday, the 1st day of May 2017

PRESENT: Sri A. Nagaraju, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda

C.C.No. 606 of 2013

Between: The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Miryalaguda Rural Police Station. …. Prosecution AND

A.1: Sampangi Kondalu S/o Shankaraiah, Age:32 years, Occ: Auto Driver, A.2: Komma Naga Raju S/o Somulu, Age:26 years,Occ: Welder, both are R/o Durganagar H/o Venkatadripalem Village, Miryalaugda Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

…. Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me on 29.04.2017 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Srinivas, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Cr.No.48/2013 for the offences Under

Secs.325, 341 R/w 34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 14.02.2013 at 11.30 p.m., while LW.1 was proceeding with his auto at

Venkadripalem, when he reached near the kirana shop of PW.1, A.1 and

A.2 went ahead of the auto of LW.1, stopped the auto, way lying with their motorcycle, picked up quarrel with LW.1 alleging that he did not give respect to them and gave fist blows on his nose, due to which he sustained fracture and bleeding injury on his nose. PW.1 intervened and rescued LW.1. LW.1 was taken to hospital for treatment. In this regard, on receipt of complaint from LW.1, a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the 2 statement of LW.1 was recorded and sent him to hospital for treatment.

Later, LW.7 visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws.3 & 4. On 01.03.2013 LW.7 arrested the accused and produced them before the court for remand. After collection of wound certificate and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Miryalguda, against the Accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offences Under

Secs.341, 325 R/w 34 IPC. After assigning case number, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to Law. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and accused were examined U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C., charges under Secs. 341, 325 R/w 34 IPC have been framed against, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

Pws.1 & 2 are eye witnesses and Pws.3 & 4 are mediators for scene of offence panchanama.

The prosecution failed to produce LW.1 as he died. Inspite of granting number of adjournments, the prosecution has also failed to produce other witnesses, as such their evidence was closed.

5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

3

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. P O I N T :

Both the eye witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Though PW.1 said to have intervened to rescue

LW.1 turned hostile and did not state anything about the incident.

9. Pws.3 & 4 mediators for scene of offence panchanama have also turned hostile, except admitting their signatures on the scene of offence panchanama.

10. In view of non examination of complainant/injured and other witnesses have turned hostile, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the guilt. Hence, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, they are entitled for acquittal.

11. In the result, accused Nos. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the charges under Secs.341, 325 R/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of (6) months in view of provisions of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 1st day of May 2017.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1Shaik Namaj Baba Eye witness PW-2V. Kondalu Eye witness PW-3B. Raju Panch for scene of offence PW-4P. Ramesh Panch for scene of offence 4

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: :: NONE : :

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P-3Signature of PW.3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-4Signature of PW.4 on scene of offence panchanama

FOR ACCUSED

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA

// TRUE COPY //

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MIRYALGUDA