Kum A.Salomi

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE

Prl District Court Ongole · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Kum A.Salomi, JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE, is posted at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 7,093 court orders on record since 2022. 35 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

7,093

Total Orders

Judgments

218

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/521/2020 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao

22 Apr 2025

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on 15-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P.Sujatha, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant, and of Sri. P.L.Govindaiah, learned counsel for A1 and A2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T \\

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.06/2020, for the offence U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC registered by Tangutur P.S., basing on the statement given by LW1/(R.Venkayamma) with the following allegations.

Page No .1

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

At about 30 years LW4/R.Venkata Rao purchased one vacant site which is adjacent to the southern side of their site from One Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao and others, since then the house site is on their possession.

But since 5 years A1 and A2 demand that, the said house site is belongs to the accused, due to disputes LW4 filed a civil suit in the Hon’ble suit and the same was pending. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30 hours A1 and A2 came to the house of LW1/R.Venkayamma and laid down on the ground and beat her with hands and legs indiscriminately, and A1 abused to LW1 in filthy language, and on seeing the same LW2 to LW5 came and rescued LW1 from the hands of accused, and joined LW1 in GGH Ongole with the help of treatment. On receipt of hospital intimation LW7/V.Sreenivasa Rao recorded the statement of LW1 and forwarded the same to on point of jurisdiction.

3.Basing on the statement given by LW1/R.Venkayamma,

LW8/P.Hari Babu, Head Constable, registered the crime U/sec.06/2020 for the offence U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited Government General Hospital, Ongole and examined LW1 and LW2 and recorded their U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements, visited the scene of offence, examined LW3 to LW5 and recorded their

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, he issued U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notice to A1 and A2. Thereafter,

LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done

Page No .2

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 by LW8, and LW9 obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from

LW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, and after completion of investigation, LW9 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to them.

6.On Appearance of A1 and A2, they were examined under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the charges for the offence punishable under section 509 of IPC., against A1 and charges for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC against A2 the same was read and explained to them in Vernacular language for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, no material objects

Page No .3

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

8.After the closure of prosecution side evidence A1 and A2, they were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence of prosecution against them was explained to them for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 on material aspects.

11.PW1/R.Venkayamma in her chief examination, she deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused, and the disputed property was purchased from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Hanumayamma and Varalakshmi in the year 1988, from that year to till date the land was registered in the name of her father-in-law , then A1 and A2 quarreled with them for said site, and also A1 and A2 demanded that the sight is belongs to them. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 arrived to her house and quarreled with them, and threatened her with axe,

A2 caught hold tuft her hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse, then she received injuries on her waist part and knees on her left

Page No .4

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 leg and it was fractured, PW2 and PW4 rescued her from the hands of A1 and A2. Later, PW2 taken her to the RIMS hospital, Ongole, and out post police i.e., PW7 recorded the statement of PW1 i.e., Ex.P1.

12.PW2/U.Chakraphani in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988 PW1 father-in-law purchased land from the

U.Varalakshmamma, U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma, since then the land was in the hands of PW3 and PW1 family. Prior to this incident at about 5 years back A1, A2 purchased the house from one Makkena Ramamma and now A1 and A2 are residing in that house. The above U.Varalakshmamma,

U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma selled the above disputed land again to A1 and A2. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 came to the house of

PW1 and quarreled with PW1, then A1 get axe with him at that time PW4 and PW3 were not present in the house and heard the loud voices of PW1 and accused, on hearing the noise he arrived outside of his house at the time of his arrival A1 and A2 had axe and stick. PW1 stand outside of the house door, at that time A2 caught hold the tuft of the PW1 hair and pushed her to the ground, and abused in filthy language. Later, villagers informed

PW4 about the incident and immediately PW4 arrived to the incident place and he rescued PW1 from the hands of A1 and A2, and then A1&A2 went away from that place. PW1 received injuries on waist part and left leg knees and PW4 taken PW1 to the RIMS hospital, Ongole through motor cycle.

Page No .5

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

13.PW3/R.Venkata Rao in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988, he purchased house from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamma, then A1 and A2 purchased 14 gadhies land adjacent to his house, then A1 and A2 purchased from

Makkena Ravamma. Again A1 and A2 purchased land from his vendors, 4 gadhies in their land, it is the double registration done by one Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamamma. Thereafter A1 and

A2 quarreled with him by saying the lands belongs to them, and the same was pending before civil court. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.00am in his house A2 arrived to his house and abused PW1 in filthy language, and A1 and A2 beat PW1 due to that, PW1 sustained injuries. In the meantime PW4 arrived to the house and shifted PW1 to hospital through bike, and he received information through PW3, villagers about the incident.

14.PW4/R.Narendra in his chief examination, he deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused family and his grand father purchased land from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and other. At about 10 years back accused purchased land from Uppuguduri

Venkata Rao. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.00am to 9.30am accused quarreled with his parents. In the meantime A2 caught hold the tuft of his mother hair and tried to beat her with stick in the meantime he went and rescued PW1 from A2, and he taken PW1 to Hospital through bike with the help of PW2.

Page No .6

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

15.PW5/M.Venkateswarlu in his chief examination, he deposed that, there is a civil disputes between accused family and PW1 family, at about 2 years back at 09.00am while he was washing his face at that time he heard the loud noises from PW1 house site. A2 caught hold the tuft of PW1 hair and pushed PW1 due to that PW1 fell down, A1 abused filthy language, in the meantime, PW4 and PW2 arrived to the alleged incident place and taken

PW1 to RIMS Hospital through bike.

16.PW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.20pm he have examined PW1 and found the following injuries;

1) alleged pain the low back and chest

In his opinion the above injury is simple in nature and he issued a wound certificate i.e., Ex.P2.

17.PW7/V.Sreenivasa Rao, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.55pm he was in-charge as outpost police, at that time he received Hospital intimation from PW6 i.e., Ex.P3, by the time of his arrival PW1 sustained swelling injuries in her waist part and left leg then he recorded the statement of PW1 and the same was forwarded along with Ex.P3 to concerned police station along with memo.

Page No .7

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

18.PW8/P.Hari Babu, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 13.01.2020 he was in-charge of Tangutur Police station by that time at about 04.00pm he received hospital intimation of PW1 along with Ex.P1.

Basing on that, he registered case in Cr.No.06/2020 i.e., Ex.P4, and he immediately rushed to the RIMS hospital, Ongole by the time of his arrival to Hospital, PW1 was admitted in hospital and examined her U/sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C statement and went to the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5 and examined PW2 to PW5 and recorded their U/sec.161(3)

Cr.P.C statements. On 17.01.2020 A1 and A2 appeared before him, after verifying their identity particulars he issued U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to them. On 12.02.2020 he received Ex.P2 from PW6 and handover the CD filed to LW9. After verifying his CD file, LW9 filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

19. Now the point for determination is :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 Under section 509 of IPC?” ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the A2 Under section 323 of IPC?”

iii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

Under Section 323, 509 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

20.To prove the allegation against A1 and A2 the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and

Page No .8

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW5 are the neighbours, PW3 is the husband of PW1, PW4 is the son of

PW1, PW6 is the doctor, who gave treatment of PW1, PW7 is the Head

Constable, who recorded the statement of PW1, and PW8 is the

Investigation officer who registered the case.

21.PW1 being the defacto complainant reiterated the contents of

Ex.P1 in her chief examination and deposed that, there is civil suit pending between PW1 family and accused family and further deposed that, A2 caught hold her tuft of hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse. Per contra PW8 admitted that, PW1 did not handover her blouse which was tared by A2. PW2 who is the neighbor of PW1 also supported the version of PW1. whereas in the cross examination of PW1 by the learned defence counsel, she deposed that, PW3 and PW4 arrived 10 minutes after the incident along with PW2, then how come PW2 witness the incident is not explained. PW3 and PW4 are not witnessed the alleged incident but they supported the version of PW1, whereas PW1 stated that, A2 pushed her on the ground. On careful scrutiny of Ex.P2/wound certificate of PW1 nowhere sustained contusion or any injury and there is no complaint in Ex.P2 with regard to headache or any injury on head by PW1. In such a case how can the court came to the conclusion that, A2 insult the modesty of PW1. PW2 supported the version of PW1 also nowhere whispered that A2 insulted the modesty of PW1 in his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. It shows to support

PW1 he improvised his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. PW2 support PW1

Page No .9

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 version as there is a civil suit pending between accused, PW2 and PW3. PW1 is one party in civil suit against accused. The learned defence counsel argued that, to compromise civil suit PW1 filed this case. Whereas PW1 also stated before police that, A2 tried to tear the blouse, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that, A2 nowhere tore the blouse, if A2 really tore the blouse, PW1 can handover her blouse to the Investigation officer.

Here, PW1 admitted that, that she did not handover the blouse to PW8. It is pertinent to mention that, non seizing of blouse is not fatal to the prosecution. If there is no such incident occur against PW1 which insult her modesty then there is no offence committed by A2. Moreover, PW1 nowhere stated any word or gesture which was used by A2 to insult her modesty.

22. Point No.1 :-

To attract the offence U/sec.509 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

i)That he accused uttered any word or made any sound or gesture or exhibited any object to woman intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that gesture or object shall be seen by such woman i.e., PW1.

ii)That the accused did such act with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon Privacy of such woman.

Page No .10

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

To prove the ingredients U/sec.509 of IPC, the learned defence counsel for the A1 contended that, no specific abusive words used by A1, for

PW1 constituting the offence U/sec.509 of IPC what would amount to “a word or gesture intimidation, insult the modesty of a woman” nowhere been defined in the code in the case of RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ VS. K.P.S

GILL. (1996) SC 301 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “if the word uttered or the gesture made could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of woman then it can be found that it is an act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.”

In the present case PW1 to PW5 deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft of

PW1 hair, PW1 to PW5 nowhere deposed A1 outrage her modesty with signs or gestures,when there is no incriminating evidence with regard to A1 committed the offence then how come sec.509 I.P.C ingredients apply to A1.

The important ingredients to prove the offence U/sec 509 I.P.C. is that, the accused must have uttered words, or made any sound or gesture with the intention to insult the modesty of a women. Therefore, it is imperative that, such words shall be exactly reproduced in the testimony of the witness.

However, in this case the said words or gestures are not reproduced by any of the prosecution witnesses before the court. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that, the essential ingredients U/sec.509 IPC was not fulfilled in this case, and prosecution failed to prove the offence U/sec.509 of IPC against

A1. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in favour of A1.

Page No .11

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

23. Point No.2:-

To attract the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

i) Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to the victim; ii) Accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that, he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.

To prove the ingredients U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused presence have voluntarily caused hurt, and that act must caused bodily pained disease or infirmity of the injured person the intention of accused to insult on place a key role. According to the prosecution A2 beat PW1. PW8 the Investigation Officer also admitted that, he did not seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence as referred by PW1.

24.The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW6 to prove the alleged hurt caused by A2 against PW1. PW1 stated that, on 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am when she was present in the house, A1 and

A2 arrived to her house and made galata with her.

25.Admittedly, in this case PW1, PW3 and PW4 are same family members, it is also settled legal position that simply for the reasons that the witnesses are interested witnesses though their testimonies cannot be

Page No .12

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 discarded in toto. But, it has to be scrutinized with regard to the other facts and circumstances available on record which are peculiar to each and every case. Therefore, in view of rival contention of both parties, the evidence of

PW1, PW3 and PW4 as to be scrutinized as follows.

26.It is elicited from the evidence of PW1 that there is civil suit pending between her family and accused family. PW1 categorically admitted that, PW3 and PW4 arrived 10 minutes after the incident along with PW2.

Per contra PW2 deposed that, after his arrival to the incident place PW4 arrived. PW1 deposed that, the incident was taken place at inside of the compound wall. Per contra PW2 deposed that, there is no compound wall as per Ex.P3, the alleged incident was occurred at outside of the house, and the same was admitted by PW8. There are inconsistent version between

PW1, PW2 and PW8 with regard to where the alleged incident was occurred.

27.PW1 further deposed that, the disputed site belongs to them, whereas no documentary evidence was produced before this court to show that the disputed site belongs to her family. Therefore, as seen from the above without furnishing any documents or details of the disputed site PW1,

PW3 and PW4 are claiming right over the said property.

28.PW1 deposed that, she received injuries on waist part, knees and also left leg was fractured. Whereas PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat

Page No .13

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 and PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Per contra

PW6 who treated PW1 issued Ex.P2 deposed that, no visible injuries in PW1 body except reporting pain. There is no injury sustained by PW1 and more over there is no corroboration with the version of PW1 to PW4 with regard to injuries.

29.Here, this court relied on the Ram sahal Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh in this case, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that, witness testimony based on what saw is given more weight than medical evidence, the medial evidence cannot be ignored if it makes the testimony seen improbable, if the medical evidence directly denies the occular evidence, then the ocular evidence can be totally dismissed. In the present case PW1 to PW4 nowhere deposed whether the injuries are sustained by

PW1 or not, there are inconsistent in their version with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1. In such a case this court cannot consider their ocular evidence.

30.PW1 nowhere mentioned how she sustained injuries. Per contra

PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. PW8 nowhere seized the stick which was used by A1 as referred by PW4. It is pertinent to mention that non seizure of material object is not fatal to the case of prosecution, when other prosecution evidence supported the version of

PW1. In the present case, PW1 had nowhere sustained any injuries as per

Page No .14

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Ex.P2. In such a case it proves that the ingredients U/sec.323 is not occurred against PW1.

31.Therefore, the discrepancies in the above evidence of PW1 to

PW4, particularly about the presence of PW2 to PW4 at the incident and received injuries or material to believe their version. Therefore, this court finds force in the contention of the learned defence counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 cannot be believed in view of their interestedness in the light of the civil disputes between their families, as there is every possibility for false implication of accused in this case by taking advantage of with injuries, if any injury received by PW1 in some other way as suggested to the medical officer.

32.It is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be given in a criminal trial.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered in favour of accused.

33. Point No.3:-

In view of the foregoing discussions it is clear that, there are lot of material discrepancies and latches in the evidence of material witnesses to render their testimony unworthy of prudence, where the prosecution

Page No .15

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 would not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is no cogent and convincing to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence U/sec.509, 323 of IPC.

34.A chain of event must be unbroken and unequivocally point force the guilt of the A1 and A2. However, the court find that, the prosecution failed to establish that, such a chain to leave significant gaps that raise reasonable doubt about the accused involvement.

35.In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A1 is not guilty for the offence u/sec.509 of IPC, and A2 is not guilty for the offence U/sec.323 of IPC. Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of u/sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.

In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .16

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

PW1 – R.Venkayamma(Complainant-cum-injured person) PW2 – U.Chakraphani(witness) PW3 – R.Venkata Rao(witness) PW4 – R.Narendra(witness) PW5 – M.Venkateswarlu(Independent witness) PW6 – D.Chaitanya Varma(Doctor) PW7 – V.Sreenivasa Rao(Investigation Officer) PW8 – P.Hari Babu(Investigation Officer)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:-

Ex.P1 – is Statement given by PW1/R.Venkayamma Ex.P2 – is Wound Certificate of PW1/R.Venkayamma Ex.P3 – is Hospital Intimation Ex.P4 – is First Information Report in Cr.No.06/2020 of Tangutur P.S. Ex.P5 – is Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– N I L –

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .17

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.323, 509 of IPC

Date of occurrence:11-01-2020 Date of report:13-01-2020 Date of appearance:10-11-2021 Date of commencement of trial:24-08-2023 Date of closure of trial :21-11-2024 Date of hearing :15-04-2025 Date of Judgment:22-04-2025

Page No .18

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Result of the Case : In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A1 is not guilty for the offence u/sec.509 of IPC, and A2 is not guilty for the offence U/sec.323 of IPC.

Accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted u/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of u/sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Explanation for the delay :The case was taken on file on 22.02.2020. On 10.11.2021 case copies are furnished to A1 and A2, and on 16.11.2021 A1 and A2 were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C, charges u/sec.509, of

IPC against A1 and charges U/sec.323 of IPC against A2, were framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the offences and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW1 to

PW8 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked, and no material objects are marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 28.11.2024, A1 and A2 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same, and reported no defence evidence, and on 03.04.2025 heard arguments on defence counsel side, and on 15.04.2025 heard arguments on APP side. On 22.04.2025 judgment pronounced in the open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

JMFC, SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

[ Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .19

CC/521/2020 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao

22 Apr 2025

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

// J U D G M E N T \\

Page No .1

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

At about 30 years LW4/R.Venkata Rao purchased one vacant site which is adjacent to the southern side of their site from One Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao and others, since then the house site is on their possession.

3.Basing on the statement given by LW1/R.Venkayamma,

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, he issued U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notice to A1 and A2. Thereafter,

LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done

Page No .2

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 by LW8, and LW9 obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from

LW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, and after completion of investigation, LW9 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to them.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, no material objects

Page No .3

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 on material aspects.

11.PW1/R.Venkayamma in her chief examination, she deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused, and the disputed property was purchased from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

A2 caught hold tuft her hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse, then she received injuries on her waist part and knees on her left

Page No .4

12.PW2/U.Chakraphani in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988 PW1 father-in-law purchased land from the

U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma selled the above disputed land again to A1 and A2. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 came to the house of

Page No .5

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

13.PW3/R.Venkata Rao in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988, he purchased house from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamma, then A1 and A2 purchased 14 gadhies land adjacent to his house, then A1 and A2 purchased from

Makkena Ravamma. Again A1 and A2 purchased land from his vendors, 4 gadhies in their land, it is the double registration done by one Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamamma. Thereafter A1 and

Page No .6

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 to RIMS Hospital through bike.

16.PW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.20pm he have examined PW1 and found the following injuries;

1) alleged pain the low back and chest

In his opinion the above injury is simple in nature and he issued a wound certificate i.e., Ex.P2.

Page No .7

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Cr.P.C statement and went to the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5 and examined PW2 to PW5 and recorded their U/sec.161(3)

19. Now the point for determination is :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 Under section 509 of IPC?” ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the A2 Under section 323 of IPC?”

iii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

Under Section 323, 509 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

20.To prove the allegation against A1 and A2 the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and

Page No .8

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW5 are the neighbours, PW3 is the husband of PW1, PW4 is the son of

PW1, PW6 is the doctor, who gave treatment of PW1, PW7 is the Head

Constable, who recorded the statement of PW1, and PW8 is the

Investigation officer who registered the case.

21.PW1 being the defacto complainant reiterated the contents of

PW1 he improvised his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. PW2 support PW1

Page No .9

22. Point No.1 :-

To attract the offence U/sec.509 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

ii)That the accused did such act with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon Privacy of such woman.

Page No .10

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

To prove the ingredients U/sec.509 of IPC, the learned defence counsel for the A1 contended that, no specific abusive words used by A1, for

In the present case PW1 to PW5 deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft of

A1. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in favour of A1.

Page No .11

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

23. Point No.2:-

To attract the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

A2 arrived to her house and made galata with her.

Page No .12

PW1, PW3 and PW4 as to be scrutinized as follows.

PW1, PW2 and PW8 with regard to where the alleged incident was occurred.

PW3 and PW4 are claiming right over the said property.

28.PW1 deposed that, she received injuries on waist part, knees and also left leg was fractured. Whereas PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat

Page No .13

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 and PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Per contra

29.Here, this court relied on the Ram sahal Vs. State of Uttar

PW1 or not, there are inconsistent in their version with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1. In such a case this court cannot consider their ocular evidence.

30.PW1 nowhere mentioned how she sustained injuries. Per contra

PW1. In the present case, PW1 had nowhere sustained any injuries as per

Page No .14

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Ex.P2. In such a case it proves that the ingredients U/sec.323 is not occurred against PW1.

31.Therefore, the discrepancies in the above evidence of PW1 to

32.It is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be given in a criminal trial.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered in favour of accused.

33. Point No.3:-

Page No .15

In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .16

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:-

For Defence:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– N I L –

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .17

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.323, 509 of IPC

Page No .18

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Sd/- A.Salomi,

JMFC, SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

[ Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .19

CC/521/2020 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao

22 Apr 2025

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

// J U D G M E N T \\

Page No .1

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

At about 30 years LW4/R.Venkata Rao purchased one vacant site which is adjacent to the southern side of their site from One Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao and others, since then the house site is on their possession.

3.Basing on the statement given by LW1/R.Venkayamma,

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, he issued U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notice to A1 and A2. Thereafter,

LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done

Page No .2

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 by LW8, and LW9 obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from

LW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, and after completion of investigation, LW9 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to them.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, no material objects

Page No .3

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 on material aspects.

11.PW1/R.Venkayamma in her chief examination, she deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused, and the disputed property was purchased from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

A2 caught hold tuft her hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse, then she received injuries on her waist part and knees on her left

Page No .4

12.PW2/U.Chakraphani in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988 PW1 father-in-law purchased land from the

U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma selled the above disputed land again to A1 and A2. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 came to the house of

Page No .5

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

13.PW3/R.Venkata Rao in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988, he purchased house from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamma, then A1 and A2 purchased 14 gadhies land adjacent to his house, then A1 and A2 purchased from

Makkena Ravamma. Again A1 and A2 purchased land from his vendors, 4 gadhies in their land, it is the double registration done by one Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamamma. Thereafter A1 and

Page No .6

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 to RIMS Hospital through bike.

16.PW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.20pm he have examined PW1 and found the following injuries;

1) alleged pain the low back and chest

In his opinion the above injury is simple in nature and he issued a wound certificate i.e., Ex.P2.

Page No .7

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Cr.P.C statement and went to the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5 and examined PW2 to PW5 and recorded their U/sec.161(3)

19. Now the point for determination is :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 Under section 509 of IPC?” ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the A2 Under section 323 of IPC?”

iii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

Under Section 323, 509 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

20.To prove the allegation against A1 and A2 the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and

Page No .8

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW5 are the neighbours, PW3 is the husband of PW1, PW4 is the son of

PW1, PW6 is the doctor, who gave treatment of PW1, PW7 is the Head

Constable, who recorded the statement of PW1, and PW8 is the

Investigation officer who registered the case.

21.PW1 being the defacto complainant reiterated the contents of

PW1 he improvised his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. PW2 support PW1

Page No .9

22. Point No.1 :-

To attract the offence U/sec.509 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

ii)That the accused did such act with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon Privacy of such woman.

Page No .10

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

To prove the ingredients U/sec.509 of IPC, the learned defence counsel for the A1 contended that, no specific abusive words used by A1, for

In the present case PW1 to PW5 deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft of

A1. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in favour of A1.

Page No .11

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

23. Point No.2:-

To attract the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

A2 arrived to her house and made galata with her.

Page No .12

PW1, PW3 and PW4 as to be scrutinized as follows.

PW1, PW2 and PW8 with regard to where the alleged incident was occurred.

PW3 and PW4 are claiming right over the said property.

28.PW1 deposed that, she received injuries on waist part, knees and also left leg was fractured. Whereas PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat

Page No .13

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 and PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Per contra

29.Here, this court relied on the Ram sahal Vs. State of Uttar

PW1 or not, there are inconsistent in their version with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1. In such a case this court cannot consider their ocular evidence.

30.PW1 nowhere mentioned how she sustained injuries. Per contra

PW1. In the present case, PW1 had nowhere sustained any injuries as per

Page No .14

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Ex.P2. In such a case it proves that the ingredients U/sec.323 is not occurred against PW1.

31.Therefore, the discrepancies in the above evidence of PW1 to

32.It is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be given in a criminal trial.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered in favour of accused.

33. Point No.3:-

Page No .15

In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .16

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:-

For Defence:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– N I L –

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .17

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.323, 509 of IPC

Page No .18

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Sd/- A.Salomi,

JMFC, SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

[ Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .19

CC/521/2020 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao

22 Apr 2025

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

// J U D G M E N T \\

Page No .1

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

At about 30 years LW4/R.Venkata Rao purchased one vacant site which is adjacent to the southern side of their site from One Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao and others, since then the house site is on their possession.

3.Basing on the statement given by LW1/R.Venkayamma,

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, he issued U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notice to A1 and A2. Thereafter,

LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done

Page No .2

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 by LW8, and LW9 obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from

LW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, and after completion of investigation, LW9 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to them.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, no material objects

Page No .3

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 on material aspects.

11.PW1/R.Venkayamma in her chief examination, she deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused, and the disputed property was purchased from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

A2 caught hold tuft her hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse, then she received injuries on her waist part and knees on her left

Page No .4

12.PW2/U.Chakraphani in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988 PW1 father-in-law purchased land from the

U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma selled the above disputed land again to A1 and A2. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 came to the house of

Page No .5

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

13.PW3/R.Venkata Rao in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988, he purchased house from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamma, then A1 and A2 purchased 14 gadhies land adjacent to his house, then A1 and A2 purchased from

Makkena Ravamma. Again A1 and A2 purchased land from his vendors, 4 gadhies in their land, it is the double registration done by one Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamamma. Thereafter A1 and

Page No .6

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 to RIMS Hospital through bike.

16.PW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.20pm he have examined PW1 and found the following injuries;

1) alleged pain the low back and chest

In his opinion the above injury is simple in nature and he issued a wound certificate i.e., Ex.P2.

Page No .7

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Cr.P.C statement and went to the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5 and examined PW2 to PW5 and recorded their U/sec.161(3)

19. Now the point for determination is :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 Under section 509 of IPC?” ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the A2 Under section 323 of IPC?”

iii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

Under Section 323, 509 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

20.To prove the allegation against A1 and A2 the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and

Page No .8

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW5 are the neighbours, PW3 is the husband of PW1, PW4 is the son of

PW1, PW6 is the doctor, who gave treatment of PW1, PW7 is the Head

Constable, who recorded the statement of PW1, and PW8 is the

Investigation officer who registered the case.

21.PW1 being the defacto complainant reiterated the contents of

PW1 he improvised his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. PW2 support PW1

Page No .9

22. Point No.1 :-

To attract the offence U/sec.509 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

ii)That the accused did such act with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon Privacy of such woman.

Page No .10

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

To prove the ingredients U/sec.509 of IPC, the learned defence counsel for the A1 contended that, no specific abusive words used by A1, for

In the present case PW1 to PW5 deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft of

A1. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in favour of A1.

Page No .11

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

23. Point No.2:-

To attract the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

A2 arrived to her house and made galata with her.

Page No .12

PW1, PW3 and PW4 as to be scrutinized as follows.

PW1, PW2 and PW8 with regard to where the alleged incident was occurred.

PW3 and PW4 are claiming right over the said property.

28.PW1 deposed that, she received injuries on waist part, knees and also left leg was fractured. Whereas PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat

Page No .13

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 and PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Per contra

29.Here, this court relied on the Ram sahal Vs. State of Uttar

PW1 or not, there are inconsistent in their version with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1. In such a case this court cannot consider their ocular evidence.

30.PW1 nowhere mentioned how she sustained injuries. Per contra

PW1. In the present case, PW1 had nowhere sustained any injuries as per

Page No .14

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Ex.P2. In such a case it proves that the ingredients U/sec.323 is not occurred against PW1.

31.Therefore, the discrepancies in the above evidence of PW1 to

32.It is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be given in a criminal trial.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered in favour of accused.

33. Point No.3:-

Page No .15

In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .16

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:-

For Defence:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– N I L –

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .17

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.323, 509 of IPC

Page No .18

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Sd/- A.Salomi,

JMFC, SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

[ Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .19

CC/521/2020 Acquitted

Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao

22 Apr 2025

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

// J U D G M E N T \\

Page No .1

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

2. A brief resume of the case of prosecution reads thus:-

At about 30 years LW4/R.Venkata Rao purchased one vacant site which is adjacent to the southern side of their site from One Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao and others, since then the house site is on their possession.

3.Basing on the statement given by LW1/R.Venkayamma,

U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, he issued U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., notice to A1 and A2. Thereafter,

LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, verified the investigation done

Page No .2

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 by LW8, and LW9 obtained the wound certificate of LW1 from

LW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, and after completion of investigation, LW9 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC., against A1 and A2.

5.After appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents as required U/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were furnished to them.

7.In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined as PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5, no material objects

Page No .3

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW9/Y.V.Ramanaiah. Accordingly, prosecution evidence is closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PWs 1 to 8 on material aspects.

11.PW1/R.Venkayamma in her chief examination, she deposed that, there is a property disputes between his family and accused, and the disputed property was purchased from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

A2 caught hold tuft her hair and pushed her to the ground while pulling her blouse, then she received injuries on her waist part and knees on her left

Page No .4

12.PW2/U.Chakraphani in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988 PW1 father-in-law purchased land from the

U.Venkata Rao, P.Hanumayamma selled the above disputed land again to A1 and A2. On 11.01.2020 at about 09.30am A1 and A2 came to the house of

Page No .5

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

13.PW3/R.Venkata Rao in his chief examination, he deposed that, in the year 1988, he purchased house from Uppugunduri Venkata Rao,

Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamma, then A1 and A2 purchased 14 gadhies land adjacent to his house, then A1 and A2 purchased from

Makkena Ravamma. Again A1 and A2 purchased land from his vendors, 4 gadhies in their land, it is the double registration done by one Uppugunduri

Venkata Rao, Varalakshmi and Padala Hanumayamamma. Thereafter A1 and

Page No .6

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 to RIMS Hospital through bike.

16.PW6/Dr.D.Chaitanya Varma, in his chief examination, he deposed that, on 11.01.2020 at about 01.20pm he have examined PW1 and found the following injuries;

1) alleged pain the low back and chest

In his opinion the above injury is simple in nature and he issued a wound certificate i.e., Ex.P2.

Page No .7

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Cr.P.C statement and went to the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch i.e., Ex.P5 and examined PW2 to PW5 and recorded their U/sec.161(3)

19. Now the point for determination is :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 Under section 509 of IPC?” ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the A2 Under section 323 of IPC?”

iii) “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable

Under Section 323, 509 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

20.To prove the allegation against A1 and A2 the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8, wherein PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 and

Page No .8

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW5 are the neighbours, PW3 is the husband of PW1, PW4 is the son of

PW1, PW6 is the doctor, who gave treatment of PW1, PW7 is the Head

Constable, who recorded the statement of PW1, and PW8 is the

Investigation officer who registered the case.

21.PW1 being the defacto complainant reiterated the contents of

PW1 he improvised his U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. PW2 support PW1

Page No .9

22. Point No.1 :-

To attract the offence U/sec.509 of IPC the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

ii)That the accused did such act with an intention to insult the modesty of any woman or to intrude upon Privacy of such woman.

Page No .10

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

To prove the ingredients U/sec.509 of IPC, the learned defence counsel for the A1 contended that, no specific abusive words used by A1, for

In the present case PW1 to PW5 deposed that A2 caught hold her tuft of

A1. Accordingly the Point No.1 is answered in favour of A1.

Page No .11

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

23. Point No.2:-

To attract the offence U/sec.323 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-

A2 arrived to her house and made galata with her.

Page No .12

PW1, PW3 and PW4 as to be scrutinized as follows.

PW1, PW2 and PW8 with regard to where the alleged incident was occurred.

PW3 and PW4 are claiming right over the said property.

28.PW1 deposed that, she received injuries on waist part, knees and also left leg was fractured. Whereas PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat

Page No .13

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

PW1 and PW4 deposed that, A1 and A2 beat PW1 with a stick. Per contra

29.Here, this court relied on the Ram sahal Vs. State of Uttar

PW1 or not, there are inconsistent in their version with regard to the injuries sustained by PW1. In such a case this court cannot consider their ocular evidence.

30.PW1 nowhere mentioned how she sustained injuries. Per contra

PW1. In the present case, PW1 had nowhere sustained any injuries as per

Page No .14

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Ex.P2. In such a case it proves that the ingredients U/sec.323 is not occurred against PW1.

31.Therefore, the discrepancies in the above evidence of PW1 to

32.It is settled legal position that when two views are possible, the view which is favorable to the accused shall be given in a criminal trial.

Hence, this court is coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point

No.2 is answered in favour of accused.

33. Point No.3:-

Page No .15

In this case, no property was produced. Hence, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .16

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:-

For Defence:- NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

– N I L –

Sd/- A.Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .17

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I st CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT – CUM – IV AJCJ(JUNIOR DIVISION),

ONGOLE.

PRESENT: Kum A. Salomi,

Judicial Magistrate of I-Class,

Spl. Mobile Court – cum – IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Tuesday, This Day of 22nd April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No.521 OF 2020

Between:

The state represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

... Complainant

VERSUS

1. Makkena Narasimha Rao S/o.Krishnaiah, aged about 54 years, caste by Kamma,

2. Makkena Anuradha W/o.Narasimha Rao, aged about 45 years, caste by Kamma, Both are R/o.Konijedu Village, Tangutur Mandal.

...Accused

Charges under section(s) : U/sec.323, 509 of IPC

Page No .18

Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole. APPR0A0007212020

Sd/- A.Salomi,

JMFC, SMC-Cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

[ Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True copy //

JMFC, SMC-cum-IV-AJCJ, Ongole.

Page No .19

Order Record 2,707 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/216/2025	Andhra Pradesh The SHO Chimakurthy Ps vs Devarakonda Gopi Krishna	25 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/778/2024	The SHO SEB Police station, Ongole vs Avula Krishna	25 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
DVC/15/2024	Koppolu Anitha @ Mettu Anitha vs Koppolu Narasimha Rao	25 Apr 2025	Order	—
MC/21/2024	Purimitla @ Rayapudi Sireesha vs Rayapudi Guru Brahmam	25 Apr 2025	Order	—
STC/350/2024	Devaki Bhanuchandar vs Devaki Venkata Ramana	25 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/509/2020	S.V.N.S Chits (India) Pvt Limted vs Tumma Lakshmi Reddy	24 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/2138/2023	Kandula (Nalamalapu) Saraswathi vs Madduluri Brahamaiah	24 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/415/2019	Subramani Srinivasan vs Muthamsetty Giridhar	24 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1183/2019	Chappidi Chenchu Seshaiah vs Pathan Modin	23 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/1384/2023	Mandava Surendranadh vs Kancharla Ramakrishna	23 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500243/2018	Bhuma Anjaneyulu vs Kandimalla yedukondalu	23 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500244/2018	Bhuma Anjaneyulu vs Kandimalla Yedukondalu	23 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1149/2022	Nalluri Chandra Sekhar vs Kancharla Ramakrishna	23 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/2310/2019	SHO CHIMAKURTHY PS vs Kapa Ashok Reddy	22 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/521/2020	Andhra Pradesh vs Vsmakkena narasimha Rao	22 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1486/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Pondugala Babu Rao	21 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2001/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS vs Chintha Rudra Prakash	21 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/572/2021	M/S Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) LTD., vs Kummita Srinivasa Reddy	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/634/2019	Kandukuri Subba Rao vs Vungarala Polaiah	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
MC/27/2024	Jada Mallika vs Bojja Bunny alias Patibandla Bunny	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
MC/38/2024	Koppolu Anitha @ Mettu Anitha vs Koppolu Narasimha Rao	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/1108/2023	Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole II Town PS vs Madala Sudhakar	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/600094/2017	Katragadda Sitharamanjaneyulu vs Alla Srikanth Reddy	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/600121/2017	Katragadda Seetha Ramanjaneyulu vs Alla Srikantha Reddy	16 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/600246/2017	Katragadda Seetharamanjaneyulu vs Alla Srikantha Reddy	16 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/600426/2017	M/s.S.R.Builders vs Alla Rajya Lakshmi	16 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/286/2019	P.Venkata Ramana vs K.Mahesh Babu	15 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/600119/2018	Share Micro Fin Limited vs Shaik Sheema	15 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/191/2021	Thotakura Venkata Rao vs Yellutla Udaya Kumar	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1966/2019	Bodduluri Sudhakara Rao vs Vungarala Kiran Kumar	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/2322/2019	Chereddy Venkateswarlu vs Motapothula Venkateswarlu @ China Venkateswarlu	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/423/2019	Pujala Sambasiva Rao vs Premula Ezra	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1989/2019	T. Jwala Srinivasa Rao vs Devarla Venkata Surendra Babu	09 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/813/2021	State Sub Inspector of police, Tangutur PS., vs Sirimalle Rangamma, W/o.Kotaiah, 42 yrs, Madiga, Konijedu, Tangutur	09 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/310/2023	Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS vs Mamidala Varun Babu	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/825/2019	State Sub Inspector of Police, Tangutur PS vs Mannam Anil Kumar	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1415/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanguturu PS vs Pandeti Mahesh	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1720/2019	State Sub Inspector of police, Maddipadu PS vs Repalle Giri Babu	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/726/2023	Thota Balaji vs Bonigala Prasanna Kumari	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1356/2019	Abburi Indira Devi vs Chebrolu Jyothirmayi	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/431/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Devarapalli Ramu	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1550/2021	SHO Maddipadu PS vs Ravinuthala Suri Babu, s/o Lazaru, 37, SC, Ammanabrolu village, NG Padu Mandal	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2607/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanguturu PS vs Jajula Malakondaiah	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2773/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS vs Kanneganti Manikhanta	07 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/653/2019	Kakumani Srinivasulu vs Nallabothula Phanindra Babu	04 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2769/2023	State Sub Inspector of Police, Tangutur Police Station vs Ponnarasu Ramaswami	04 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/100081/2017	Rampathoti Rambabu vs Special Deptuty Collector	04 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1444/2023	Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town PS vs Chevuri Hari Babu	04 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/600267/2018	State Sub Inspector of Police, Maddipadu vs Ravipati Seshamma	04 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1389/2019	S.H.O CHIMAKURTHY PS vs Rangawamy Muttupandi	03 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1463/2020	sudunagunta Ramu vs Vadapalli Ravi	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/2097/2019	Chirumamilla Srinivasa Rao vs Kandukuri Gopala Raja Sundarachari	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/2123/2019	M/S Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. vs Purini Srinivasulu	03 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2147/2023	Pathipati Bala Krishna vs Kode Ranga Rao	03 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/851/2021	State Sub Inspector of police, Tangutur PS., vs Medikonda Gopi, S/o.Venkata Ramulu, 21 yrs, SC Mala, Setharampuram village, Chilukuru mndl, Nalgond	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
STC/3201/2022	Sri Satya Cable , Ongole. vs Kocherla Maharshi	01 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/1127/2022	Kambhampati Anjaneyulu vs Aripiralla Sarojinidevi	01 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/837/2019	Pulagara Solman vs Perla Ganesh	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
MC/36/2022	Gundala @ Gidisa Pratibha vs Gundal Rajashekar	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/797/2021	Kondabathina Siddaiah vs Melam Venkata Rao	26 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/257/2025	Andhra Pradesh the SI of police II PS Ongole vs Immadisetty Ramarao	25 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/329/2024	State Sub Inspector of Police, Maddipadu PS vs Yanam Ramakoteswara Rao	25 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1589/2019	R.K. Communications vs V. Veeranjaneya Reddy	25 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/2018/2019	Suresh Books Links, Ongole vs SVS Gowry Book Depot, Ongole	25 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2076/2019	Gopi Aqua Enterprises, Kothapatnam vs Nara kavitha	25 Mar 2025	Order	—
MC/45/2022	Vemparala Seshamma @ Venkata Seshamma vs Vemparala Prasad	25 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/970/2019	Medha Marketing Agencies vs Zennatik India electronics PVt Ltd.	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/971/2019	Medha Marketing Agencies, Rep.by Velidi Vishnu Prakash vs Zennatik India Electronics Pvt Ltd. Rep.by Potharlanka Srinivas	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1929/2019	Velidi Vishnu Prakash vs Potharlanka Srinivas	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500589/2017	Vulchi Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, S/o Kotireddy,51 yrs, Third lane, 3rd Cross Bhagyanagar, Ongole vs SS Hussain Constructions rep by SS Hussain, corporation water tank, near Mellakal road, Kochadai, M	21 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/15/2023	Andhra Pradesh Seb Chimakurthy vs Chunduri venkata kishore babu	20 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2190/2021	Paleti Suvarna Babu vs Srirama Venkata lakshmi	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/281/2019	Kapil Chits Kosta (P) Ltd, Ongole vs Rajavarapu Venkata Rao	19 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/915/2024	The Inspector of Police SEB Ongole vs Gollapotu Srinu	19 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/500058/2018	Chidendle Kalyan kumar vs Parvathereddy VEnkata Satya Narayana	19 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/131/2019	M M A Raghunandan vs Arella Srinivasa Reddy	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/886/2019	M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Ongole. vs Kalavakuri Madhava	18 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/1649/2020	Katukuri Nagamani vs Rayapudi Manikyam	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/1949/2019	R.K. Communications vs RC Mobiles	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/167/2024	Enforcement Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Ongole vs Panamala Sreeramulu	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/786/2023	Andhra Pradesh, SEB, Chimakurthy vs Nakkala Koteswara Rao	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/851/2024	The inspector of police, SEB station, Ongole vs Madduluri Srinivasa Rao	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/905/2024	The inspector of Police SEB Ongole vs Shaik Khasim	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1307/2019	Yadala Srinivasa Rao vs Amulya Feeds Limited represented by Its MD Pallapothu Lakshminarayana	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1352/2020	Sudunagunta Ramu vs Chaluvadhi Hari Krishna	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/1761/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, NG padu PS vs Ekambaram Lakshmi	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/170/2024	Inspector of S.E.B., S.E.B. Station, Ongole. vs Balagani Srinivasa Rao	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/238/2025	Andhra Pradesh The SI of Police,. Chimakurthy vs Kunchala Rama Krishna	11 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/406/2021	THE State (Governmentof India)Represented by the Inspector of Mines (Also designated as Dy. Directo vs M. Girivardhan Reddy Agent M/s Pallava Granite Mine	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/959/2019	Choda Nagaraju Kumar vs Gundlapalli Hanumantha Rao	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1534/2021	SHO N.G. PADU P.s vs Dudla Muthyala Reddy	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1537/2021	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Komatla Srinivasareddy	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2067/2022	Andhra Pradesh Inspector of Mines, Director General of Mines safety, Nellore vs Yerrabathina Chandrasekhar	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/2743/2021	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Attanti Rajesh	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/902/2024	The inspector of police SEB Ongole vs Balagani Yuvakishore	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/1717/2020	Dedeepya Punugoti vs Gunji Yedukondalu	10 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/147/2025	Enforcement Inspector, S.E.B Station, Ongole vs Kola Thirupathaiah	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/149/2025	Enforcement Inspector, S.E.B Station, Ongole vs Barakam Vamsi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/150/2025	Enforcement Inspector, S.E.B Station, Ongole vs Vadlamudi Pandu Rangarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/152/2025	Enforcement Inspector, S.E.B Station, Ongole vs Gummalampati Yugesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,707 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		178
Mar 2025		370
Feb 2025		40
Jan 2025		237
Dec 2024		634
Nov 2024		135
Oct 2024		55
Sep 2024		222
Aug 2024		177
Jul 2024		405
Jun 2024		420
May 2024		236

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Kum A.Salomi handled?

Kum A.Salomi has handled 7093 court orders since 2022 at Prl District Court Ongole. The average disposal rate is 218 orders per month.

What types of cases does Kum A.Salomi hear?

Based on available records, Kum A.Salomi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Prl District Court Ongole.

Where is Kum A.Salomi currently posted?

Kum A.Salomi is posted as JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Kum A.Salomi available online?

Yes. 35 judgments by Kum A.Salomi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Kum A.Salomi dispose cases?

Kum A.Salomi disposes approximately 218 cases per month, based on 7093 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Court Ongole.

Since when is Kum A.Salomi serving?

Kum A.Salomi has been serving at Prl District Court Ongole since 2022.

Case Types

CC 86%

STC 6%

OS 4%

MC 2%

PRC 1%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Nov 2024 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 177 orders
May 2024 — Apr 2025

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE · 847 orders
Apr 2024 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 442 orders
Aug 2023 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 922 orders
May 2023 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 1,033 orders
Sep 2022 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 1,792 orders
Aug 2022 — Apr 2025

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 1,880 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 33

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE

10 orders

Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

4,159 orders

Smt. Pandiri Laltiha

II Additional District and Sessiosns Judge-cum-Spe...

474 orders

Smt. A.Purnima

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

409 orders

Sri K.Syam Babu

VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

12 orders

Smt G.Deena

JUDGE,FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,ONGOLE

0 orders

Smt V.Pallavi

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

0 orders

Sri Ch.V.Rama Krishna

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

710 orders

Smt S.Komalavalli

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

0 orders

Ms Y Shalini Reddy

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

505 orders

Ms. Shaik Roshan

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

325 orders

Ms. V.Navyashri

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

831 orders

Smt J.Krishna Priya

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

0 orders

Sri Vatram Venkateswara Rao

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE

983 orders

Miss K. Sailaja

Spl. Judge for speedy trial of offences under the...

293 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Court Ongole