A. Solomon

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE::GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri. A.Solomon,B.Com, LL.M.,

V Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Guntur. Wednesday, the 23rd day of January, 2013

SESSIONS CASE NO.424/2012

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town Police Station . . . Complainant.

And

Shaik Meeravali , S/o. John Peera, Aged about 32 years, Caste: Muslim, Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli Town,

Guntur District. ...Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 18-01-2013 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of D.Mary Kumari, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli town Police Station filed Charge-sheet against Accused in Crime No.127/2012 for the offences punishable u/s.448 and 354 I.P.C of Sattenapalli Town Police Station.

2.The Prosecution story in brief is as follows:

The defacto-complainant Gade Anusha is resident of 20th ward, Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District. Her husband Gade Srinu is doing Buffaloes' business. The accused is residing opposite to the house of Gade Anusha. On 08.06.2012 at about 6.00 p.m, Gade Srinu who is the husband of the defacto complainant Gade Anusha, went to cattles' fair organized at Chilakaluripet. So, the defacto-complainant Gade Anusha was remaining alone in the house. At about 8.00 p.m, Gade Anusha placed a cot in the Varandha of her house and waiting for Gade Srinu thinking that he would come home in the late night and fell asleep. While so, at about 3.00 a.m on the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012, the accused trespassed into the varandha of Gade Anusha and woke her up and caught hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her and demanded her to share bed with him. When Gade Anusha, tried to raise cries, the accused admonished her saying that she would loose her reputation. In spite of that Gade Anusha raised cries and due to that the accused fled away from there. In the meanwhile, Bukya Satyanarayana, Bayyavarapu Malleswara Rao, Surisetty Venkateswarlu and Kunduri Koteswaramma gathered at the house of Gade Anusha and saw the accused fleeing away from the scene of offence. After arrival of Gade Srinu who is the husband of Gade Anusha, they went to the Police Station and gave report to the Police.

3.Basing on the report given by Gade Anusha, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli town P.S. registered a case in Crime No.127/2012 u/s.354 IPC of Sattenapalli town P.S on 09.06.2012 at 2.00 p.m and took up further investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of 2

Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S examined Gade Anusha, Gade Srinu, Bukya Satyanarayana, Bayyavarapu Malleswara Rao, Surisetty Venkateswarlu and Kunduri Koteswaramma and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. As the investigation reveals that the accused trespassed into the house of Gade Anusha, the Sub-Inspector of Poolice, Satenpallli Town P.S added section 448 IPC by filing a memo

before the Court of I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. He arrested

the accused on 02.07.2012 and sent him to the Court for remanding him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 448 and 354 IPC.

5.This case was taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/ss.448 and 354 IPC by the learned I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. On appearance of the accused before committal Court, all the copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Committal Court committed this case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/s. 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

6.This case was made over to this Court by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Guntur for disposal of the same according to law.

7.After the appearance of the accused before this Court charges were framed against the accused u/s.228(2) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/s.448 and 354 IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.Heard both sides. Schedule is fixed for trial for examination of witnesses from 17.12.2012 to 19.12.2012.

9.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and closed their evidence. L.W.6 was given by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of the accused.

10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were read-over and explained to the accused for which he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

11.Arguments of both parties were heard.

12. Now, the points for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused trespassed into the varandha of the house of Gade Anusha situated at 20th ward, Nagannkunta, Sattenalli town, Guntur District at about 3.00 a.m on the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012 when she was sleeping alone at her house and woke her up and caught-hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her asking her to share bed with him?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of Accused u/s448 and 354 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.Point No.1:-

According to prosecution case, the accused trespassed into the varandha of the house of Gade Anusha situated at 20th ward, Nagannkunta, Sattenalli town, Guntur District at about 3.00 a.m on 3 the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012 when she was sleeping alone at her house and woke her up and caught-hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her asking her to share bed with him. To prove this point, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 and closed their evidence.

14.P.W.1 Gade Anusha who is the defacto complainant herein stated that on 08.06.2012 at about 6.00 p.m, her husband went to Chilakaluripet for purchasing cattle and that she went to bed at 8.00 p.m in the varandha of her house and that at about 3.00 a.m, the accused came to her and woke her up and caught hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her and demanded her to come with him. (to share bed with him). She further stated that when she raised cries the accused told her that if she raise cries she will loose her reputation and even then she raised cries and on hearing her cries her neighbourers gathered at her house and on seeing them the accused ran away. She further stated that she narrated this incident to the neighbourers who gathered at her house. She further stated that she telephoned to her husband through the cell phone of B.Malleswara Rao. She further stated that her husband came to her house at about 8.00 a.m on 09.06.2012. She further stated that she and her husband went to the Police Station and gave report to the Police. Ex.P1 is the report dt.09.06.2012.

15.P.W.2 Gade Srinu, who is the husband of P.W.1 stated that on 08.06.2012 at about 6.00 p.m, he went to Chilkaluripet for purchasing cattle in the “ Sandy ” and that at about 2.00 or 3.00 a.m Bayyavarapu Malleswara Rao telephoned to him and told him that his wife will talk with him and then he talked with his wife and that his wife informed him about this incident and that he returned to his house at about 8.30 a.m on 09.06.2012 and that he and his wife went to the Police Station at about 11.30 a.m and that his wife gave report to the Police.

16.P.W.3 Bukya Satyanarayana, P.W.4 Bayyavarapu Venka- teswara Rao and P.W.5 Bayyavarapu Malleswara Rao stated that on 08.06.2012 at about mid-night they heard the cries and immediately came out of their houses and proceeded to the house of P.W.1 and saw the accused running away from the house of P.W.1. They further stated that P.W.1 informed them that the accused caught hold of P.W.1 in order to outrage her modesty.

17.P.W.6 Ch.V.Sivanjaneyulu, who is working as S.I of Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S stated that on 09.06.2012 at about 2.00 p.m when he was present in the Police Station, P.W.1 Gade Anusha came to the Police Station along with her husband and gave a written report to him and that basing on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.127/2012 u/s.354 IPC of Sattenapalli town P.S and issued FIR.Ex.P2 is the FIR. He further stated that he visited the scene of offence situated at Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District and prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He further stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused on 02.07.2012 at about 7.00 a.m at his house situated at Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli town and sent him to the Court for remanding him to judicial custody and that after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

4

18. The Counsel for the accused argued that P.W.1 does not know the surname and father's name of the accused and so she did not mention the same in Ex.P1 and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement and so, she argued that the accused is falsely implicated in this case. P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that she did not mention the surname and father's name of the accused in Ex.P1. P.W.6 Ch.V.Sivanjaneyulu, S.I of Police, Sattenapalli town P.S also admitted in the cross examination that P.W.1 has not given the surname, father's name and the address of the accused in her report and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. Hence, it is true that P.W.1 did not give the surname and father's name of the accused in her report and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. P.W.1 has no acquittance with the accused. Since, P.W.1 is a married woman, she has no necessity to know the surname and father's name of the accused and so she could not mention the surname and father's name of the accused in Ex.P1 and also in her 162 Cr.P.C statement. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that she could not mention the surname and father's name of the accused in Ex.P1 and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement.

19. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows that the accused is residing opposite to the house of P.W.1. Hence, P.W.1 can easily identify the accused. So, the non-mentioning of surname and father's name of the accused in Ex.P1 and also in her 161 Cr.P.C statement will not create any hurdle in identifying the accused by P.W.1 and by the Police.

20.The Counsel for the accused argued that even though the alleged offence was committed at 3.00 a.m on 09.06.2012, the defacto-complainant gave report to the Police at about 2.00 p.m by concocting false story against the accused. Hence, she prays this Court to acquit the accused. The evidence of P.W.6 Ch.V.Sivanjaneyulu, S.I of Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S shows that P.W.1 gave report to the Police on 09.06.2012 at about 2.00 p.m whereas the alleged offence took place at 3.00 a.m. Since, P.W.1 is residing lonely in her house while her husband went to Chilakaluripet, she cannot go to the Police Station during that night. So, she waited for the arrival of her husband (P.W.2) who returned to his house at about 8.30 a.m. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows that after taking bath and after taking care of their cattle, they went to the Police Station at about 11.30 a.m and got prepared Ex.P1 through the Police and ultimately the case was registered at 2.00 p.m by P.W.6. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in giving report to the Police. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the accused is not accepted.

21.The Counsel for the accused argued that P.W.1 mentioned in Ex.P1 as “ Nannu rammani balavantham chesinaaru “. Hence, she argued that there are no more than one accused and this accused is falsely implicated in this case. P.W.1 Gade Anusha stated in the cross-examination that even though she told the Police that “ Nannu rammani balavantham chesinaadu “ but the Police mentioned in Ex.P1 as “ Nannu rammani balavantham chesinaaru “. Since, P.W.1 studied upto 6th class only and who even is unable to read Telugu properly as stated by her in the cross-examination, she could not find out the defect crept in Ex.P1 for which she cannot be found fault with. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1 cannot be doubted on this ground. Hence, the argument of the Counsel for the accused is not accepted.

5

22.The Counsel for the accused further argued that there is no evidence to show that the accused entered into the house of the defacto-complainant at any point of time and so the ingredients of Sec.448 IPC are not attracted and hence the question of Sec.354 IPC does not arise. P.W.1 stated during the course of cross-examination that there is a compound wall around her house but there is no gate to it and that there is no gate to her varandha also. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the accused the accused trespassed into the varandha of the house of Gade Anusha situated at 20th ward, Nagannkunta, Sattenalli town, Guntur District at about 3.00 a.m on the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012 when she was sleeping alone at her house and woke her up and caught-hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her asking her to share bed with him. Entering into the varandha of the house of P.W.1 for the purpose of outraging the modesty of P.W.1 amounts to house-trespass as contemplated u/s.448 IPC. Hence, the ingredients of Sec.448 IPC are attracted. Hence, the argument of the Counsel for the accused is not accepted.

23.The Counsel for the accused further argued that the evidence of P.W.2 is only hear-say evidence and so, his evidence need not be taken into consideration. It is true that P.W.2 came to know about this incident through P.W.1. Even though his evidence is hear-say evidence, his evidence is relevant u/s.6 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the argument of the Counsel for accused is not accepted.

24.The Counsel for the accused further argued that P.Ws.3 to 5 are not eye-witnesses to this incident and so, the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws 3 to 5. The evidence of P.W.3 and 5 shows that on hearing the cries of P.W.1, they came out of their houses and proceeded to the house of P.W.1 and saw the accused running-away from the house of P.W.1. So, the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 4 is corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.5 shows that he is working as 'Lorry Driver' and at the time of this incident, he came to his house around 2.30 or 3.00 a.m and after taking bath he came out of his house and saw Gade Anusha coming along with her father-in-law to wake up her brother-in-law who is residing by the side of house of P.W.5. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she telephoned to her husband (P.W.2) through the cell-phone of P.W.5. Hence, the evidence of P.W.5 is also corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is found to be believable as there are no contradictions in her evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 needs no corroboration as her evidence is found to be trustworthy. Hence, the argument of the Counsel for accused is not accepted.

25.The Counsel for the accused further argued that the evidence of P.W.5 is frat with contradictions and so his evidence is unreliable. In support of her argument, she relied upon Ex.D1. Relevant Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. As per Ex.D1, P.W.5 is said to be working as “Auto driver” whereas P.W.5 stated in his evidence that he is working as “Lorry driver”. This contradiction is only with regard to the occupation of P.W.5. It is not a material contradiction, hence the evidence of P.W.5 cannot be rejected on the ground that there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.5.

26.The Counsel for the accused further argued that P.W.6 has not obtained the signature of P.W.1 at Column No.14 of the FIR and so, she argued that P.W.1 might have sent EX.P1 to the Police Station 6 through her husband. P.W.6 admitted in the cross examination that he has not obtained the signature of P.W.1 at Column No.14 of the FIR. Non-obtaining the signature of P.W.1 at Column No.14 is the mistake of P.W.6 for which P.W.1 cannot be found fault with. Hence, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out merely on the ground that P.W.6 has not obtained the signature of P.W.1 at Column No.14 of the FIR.

27.The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6 clearly establishes that the accused trespassed into the varandha of house of Gade Anusha situated at 20th ward, Nagannkunta, Sattenalli town, Guntur District at about 3.00 a.m on the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012 when she was alone at her house and woke her up and caught-hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her asking her to share bed with him. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment u/ss.448 and 354 IPC. Hence, the prosecution proved that the accused trespassed into the varandha of the house of Gade Anusha situated at 20th ward, Nagannkunta, Sattenalli town, Guntur District at about 3.00 p.m on the intervening night of 8/9-06-2012 when she was alone at her house and woke her up and caught-hold of her hand and behaved indecently with her asking her to share bed with him.

28.Point No.2:- For the reasons stated above, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/ss.448 and 354 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/ss.448 and 354 IPC.

29.The accused is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 354 IPC.

30.As the offences punishable u/ss.448 and 354 IPC are serious in nature, I do not want to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused.

31.I informed to the accused that the offence under section 448 IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto one year or with fine which extend to one thousand rupees and that the offence under section 354 IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years and fine.

32.Heard the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him. He stated that“maa intelu nene sampadanaparuni.

Naa pillalu mariyu musali tallithandrulu naapi

aadharapadiyunnaru. Kabatti naapai dayayunchi takkuva siksha

veyavalacindiga koruchunnanu.”

33. In view of the plea of the accused, I take lenient view. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable u/s.354 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable u/s.448 IPC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.The accused has been in judicial custody from 02.07.2012 to 25.07.2012 for twenty four days. The above said period of judicial Custody shall be set-off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23rd day of January, 2013.

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1: Gade Anusha None.

P.W.2: Gade Srinu

P.W.3: Bukya Satyanarayana

P.W.4: Surisetty Venkateswarlu

P.W.5: Bayyavarapu Malleswara Rao

P.W.6: Ch.V.Sivanjaneyulu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: Report dt.09.06.2012

Ex.P2: FIR

Ex.P3: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL - −

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V A.A.S.J., G.N.T.

8

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

1) Number of Sessions Case : S.C.No.424/2012

2) Name of the complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of and its Cr.No. Police, Sattenapalli P.S. Cr.No.127/12 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station Guntur District.

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC :Smt.M.Kumudini I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli. PRC.18/2012

4) Description of the accused :

Shaik Meeravali , S/o. John Peera, Aged about 32 years, Caste: Muslim, Nagannakunta, Sattenapalli Town,

Guntur District. ...Accused

5) Date of

a) Offence : 08-06-2012

b) Complaint: 09-06-2012

c) Apprehension of accused: 02-07-2012

d) Committal: 08-08-2012

c) Commencement of Trial: 18-12-2012

d) Close of Trial: 07-01-2013

e) Sentence or order: 23-01-2013

6) Charges : U/s.448 and 354 IPC

7) Plea of accused : Not guilty

8) Finding of Court : Guilty

9) Sentence or Order:

The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable u/ss.448 and 354 IPC.The accused is convicted u/s.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/s.448 and 354 IPC. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable u/s.354 IPC and fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable u/s.448 IPC. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal. The accused has been in judicial custody from 02.07.2012 to 25.07.2012 for twenty four days. The above said period of judicial Custody shall be set-off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.

10) Explanation for the delay: This case record was made over to this court for disposal on 08-10-2012 and soon after apprehension of accused,on 20-11-2012 the charges were framed. On 18.12.2012 P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and on 21.12.2012 P.Ws 5 and 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were 9 marked. Ex.D1 was also marked. L.W6 was given up by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

Accused is present and he was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C on 08.01.2013. On 16.01.2013 the learned counsel for accused filed Written Arguments and on 18.01.2013 the arguments of the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor were heard. On 23-01-2013 Judgment is

pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Sd/-A.Solomon

V ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy to:

1.The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

2. The District Judge, Guntur.

3. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Guntur.

5. The Superintendent of Police.

6. The Addl. P.P.

7. The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE::GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri. A.Solomon,B.Com, LL.M.,

V Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Guntur. Monday, the 21st day of January, 2013

SESSIONS CASE NO.393/2012

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station . . . Complainant

And

Lingala Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged about 22 years, Caste: Madiga, Bellamkonda Village and Mandal,

Guntur District. ...Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 18-01-2013 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Y.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem Police Station filed Charge-sheet against Accused in Crime No.60/2011 for the offence punishable u/s.306 I.P.C of Rajupalem Police Station.

2.The Prosecution story in brief is as follows:

Prior to 29-04-2011, the accused Lingala Koteswara Rao by saying deceitful words to the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini that he would marry her and participated in the sexual intercourse with her due to which she became pregnant and when she asked him to marry her, he refused to marry her. The elders conducted panchayat in the presence of the relatives of the accused and relatives of the deceased but in-vain. So, the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini being vexed with her life consumed poison and died while under-going treatment at Community Health Center, Sattenapalli on 29.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m. On 30.04.2011 at 1.30 p.m, the defacto-complainant Duggi Yerra Kotaiah, who is the father of the deceased Nagavardhini presented a report to the S.H.O., Rajupalem P.S.

3. Basing on the report given by the defacto-complainant Duggi Yerra Kotaiah, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S registered a case in Crime No.60/2011 u/s.306 IPC and issued FIR.

4.During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajupalem P.S visited the scene of offence and inspected the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also prepared the observation report of the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators. He secured the presence of Duggi Yerra Kotaiah, Duggi Nagendram, Duggi Samuel, Duggi Issac, Murikipudi Malleswari, Murikipudi Prasad,Kodamala Yedukondalu and Gadiparthi Babu and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 02.05.2011 at 7.00 a.m in his house situated at Bellamkonda village of Rajupalem Mandal, Guntur District. He conducted Postmortem examination over the dead-body of deceased Nagavardhini and preserved material and sent the same to the F.S.L.,Hyderabad for analysis and report. The report of the F.S.L., Hyderabad shows that the deceased died due to 2 'Acute Cardio-Respiratory failure' due to effect of Organophosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances. After completion of investigation, he filed Charge-sheet against the accused.

5.After appearance of the accused before this Court, a charge was framed against the accused u/s.228(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.306 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to Accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.306 I.P.C by the learned II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. On appearance of the accused before committal Court, all the copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Committal Court committed this case to the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/s. 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

7.This case is being made over to this Court by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Guntur for disposal of the same according to law.

8.Heard both sides. Schedule is fixed for trial for examination of witnesses from 03.12.2012 to 07.12.2012.

9.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and closed their evidence. L.Ws.3,5,7,10, 13 and 15 were given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were read-over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

11.Arguments of both parties were heard.

12. Now, the points for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution proved that the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organophosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances on 29.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m as the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and later refused to marry her?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of Accused u/s.306 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.Point No.1:-

According to prosecution case, the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organophosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances on 29.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m as the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and later refused to marry her. To prove this point, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and closed their evidence.

14.P.W.1 Duggi Yerra Kotaiah, who is the defacto-complainant herein stated that he does not know the accused and that his daughter Duggi Nagavardhini died due to ill-health at Community Health Center, Sattenapalli and that he did not give any report to the Police. He denied his thumb impression on the report dt.30.04.2011.

15.P.W.2 Duggi Nagendram, who is the mother of the deceased 3

Nagavardhini stated that she does not know the accused and that her daughter Duggi Nagavardhini died at Community Health Center, Sattenapalli due to unable to bear stomach-pain in the month of November, 2011.

16.P.W.3 Duggi Issaq who is the brother of deceased Duggi Nagavardhini stated that he does not know the accused and that his sister Duggi Nagavardhini died at Community Health Center, Sattenapalli due to ill-health in the month of November, 2011.

17.P.W.4 Murikipudi Prasad stated that Duggi Nagavardhini died at Community Health Center, Sattenapalli due to ill-health at about one year back.

18.P.W.5 Gadiparthi babu stated that he does not know the accused and that he does not know how the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died.

19.P.W.6 Kodamala Yedukondalu who is the inquestdar herein stated that he signed on white paper at the request of the Police. He identified his signature on the inquest report dt.30.04.2011. Ex.P6 is the signature of P.W.6 on the inquest report dt.30.04.2011.

20.P.W.7 P.S.K.Mastan Sharif stated that on the date of death of the daughter of P.W.1 he went to the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli and at that time the S.I of Police brought one written paper and requested him to sing in it and accordingly he singed in it. He identified his signature on the inquest report dt.30.04.2011. Ex.P7 is the signature of P.W.7 in the inquest report dt.30.04.2011.

21.P.W.8 Dr.A.Raja Kumar, Civil Asst.Surgeon, Area Hospital, Sattenapalli stated that on 30.04.2011 at about 5.10 p.m he conducted postmortem over the dead-body of deceased Duggi Nagavardhini and issued postmortem certificate. He further stated that he sent “Viscera “ to R.F.S.L., Guntur and Medical College, Guntur. Ex.P9 is the postmortem report. Ex.P10 is the R.F.S.L., Report. Ex.P11 is the final opinion given by P.W.8. P.W12 is the Expert Opinion certificate issued by Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur.

22.P.W.9 K.Venkata Reddy, S.I of Police, Rajupalem stated that on 30.04.2011 at about 1.30 p.m, he received a report from P.W.1. Ex.P13 is the report dt.30.04.2011. He further stated that basing on the said report, he registered a case in Crime No.60/2011 u/s.306 IPC and issued FIR. Ex.P14 is the FIR dt.30.04.2011. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He further stated that he also prepared observation report of the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators viz., P.S.K.Mastan and Mullapudi Prasada Rao. Ex.P16 is the Observation Report of the scene of offence. He further stated that he visited the Area Hospital, Sattenapalli and conducted inquest over the dead-body of the deceased “Durgi Nagavardhini”. He further stated that he recorded the statements of Duggi Yerra Kotaiah, Duggi Nagendram, Duggi Samuel, Duggi Issack, Murigipudi Malleswari, Murigipudi Prasad, Kodamala Yedukondalu and Gadiparthi Babu during the course of inquest. Ex.P17 is the Inquest Report dt.30.04.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. He further stated that he sent “Viscera” to the 4

R.F.S.L., Guntur and Medical College, Guntur through the Doctor. He further stated that he arrested the accused on 02.05.2011 at the house of the accused and sent him to the Court for remanding him to judicial custody. He further stated that after completion of investigation, his successor filed Charge Sheet against the accused.

23.The evidence of P.Ws1 to 5 and P.W.8 Dr.A. Raja Kumar and P.W.9 K.Venkata Reddy shows that the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organo-phosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances on 30.04.2011. But none of the witnesses stated in their evidence that the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organophosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances on 29.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m as the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and subsequently refused to marry her. Hence, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organophosphate as the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and later refused to marry her. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased Duggi Nagavardhini died by consuming Organophosphate an Insecticide Poisonous Substances on 29.04.2011 at 11.30 p.m as the accused promised to marry her and participated in sexual intercourse with her and made her pregnant and later refused to marry her. For the reasons stated above,

24.Point No.2:-the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused for the offence punishable u/s.306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.306 I.P.C.

25.In the result, the Accused is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.306 I.P.C and the bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 21st day of January, 2013.

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1: Duggi Yerra Kotaiah None

P.W.2: Duggi Nagendram

P.W.3: Duggi Issaq

P.W.4: Murikipudi Prasad

P.W.5: Gadiparthi Babu

P.W.6: Kodamala Yedukondalu

P.W.7: P.S.K.Mastan Sharif

P.W.8 : Dr.A.Raja Kumar

P.W.9: K.Venkata Reddy 5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

Ex.P6: Signature of P.W.6 on the inquest report dt.30.04.2011.

Ex.P7: Signature of P.W.7 in the inquest report dt.30.04.2011.

Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.7 on the observation report dt.30.04.2011.

Ex.P9: Postmortem report

Ex.P10: FSL Report

Ex.P11: Final Opinion given by P.W.8

Ex.P12: Expert Opinion certificate issued by Dr.V.Krisihna Murthy.

Asst.Prof., Department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical

College.

Ex.P13: Report dt.30.04.2011

Ex.P14: FIR Dt.30.04.2011.

Ex.P15: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P16: Observation Report of the scene of offence.

Ex.P17:Inquest report dt.30.04.2011

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL - −

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V A.A.S.J., G.N.T.

6

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

1) Number of Sessions Case : S.C.No.393/2012

2) Name of the complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of and its Cr.No. Police, Rajupalem P.S. Cr.No.60/11 of Rajupalem P.S., Guntur District.

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC :Sri V.Venkateswara Rao II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli. PRC.2/2012

4) Description of the accused :

Lingala Koteswara Rao, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged about 22 years, Caste: Madiga, Bellamkonda Village and Mandal,

Guntur District. ...Accused

5) Date of

a) Offence : 29-04-2011

b) Complaint: 30-04-2011

c) Apprehension of accused: 02-05-2011

d) Committal: 29-02-2012

c) Commencement of Trial: 03-12-2012

d) Close of Trial: 11-01-2013

e) Sentence or order: 21-01-2013

6) Charges : U/s.306 IPC

7) Plea of accused : Not guilty

8) Finding of Court : Not guilty

9) Sentence or Order:

In the result, the Accused is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.306 I.P.C and the bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

10) Explanation for the delay: This case record was made over to this court for disposal on 27-09-2012 and soon after apprehension of accused,on 26-10-2012 a charge was framed.On 03-12-2012,04.12.2012, 10.12.2012, 11.12.2012,12.12.2012, 20.12.2012, 11.01.2013 P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. L.Ws 3,5,7,10,13 and 15 were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C on 16.01.2013. On 18-01-2013 arguments of both parties were heard. On 21-01-2013 Judgment is pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

V ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

7

Copy to:

1.The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

2. The District Judge, Guntur.

3. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Guntur.

5. The Superintendent of Police.

6. The Addl. P.P.

7. The II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE::GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri. A.Solomon,B.Com, LL.M.,

V Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 7 th day of December, 2012

SESSIONS CASE NO.478/2012

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muppalla Police Station . . . Complainant.

And

1. Chinthapalli Chukkaiah, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 25 years,

2. Chinthapalli Ramanaiah S/o. Pedamastaniah, Aged about 28 years,

3. Chinthapalli Nageswara Rao, S/o. Pedakotaiah, Aged about 30 years,

4. Dondapati Yuva raju, S/o. Chenchurama Rao Aged about 25 years,

5. Dondapati Yelamanda, S/o. Paramaiah, Aged about 23 years,

6. Kodavati Subba Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 22 years,

7. Dondapati Yohan, S/o. Bullaiah, Aged about 35 years,

8. Bakka Prasad alias Nagaraju , s/o. Ramakoti Aged about 35 years,

9. Chinthapalli Mariyadas, S/o. Mahankalaiah, Aged about 25 years, 10.Patchala Nageswara rao, S/o. Paramaiah, Aged about 35 years, 11.Dondapati Bulllaiah, S/o. Abbiraju, Aged about 70 years, 12.Dondapati Venkata Rao, s/o. Katamraju Aged about 30 years, 13.Chinthapalli Yesaiah, S/o. Hussainiah, Aged about 28 years, 14.Chinthapalli Krupa Rao, s/o. Biksham Aged about 28 years, 15.Dondapati Yesubabu, S/o. Bullaiah, Aged about 35 years, All are Madigas by caste, R/o. S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla mandal,

Guntur District. ...Accused 1 to 15

This case came before me for final hearing on 06-12-2012 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Edara Rama Rao, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 15 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Muppalla Police Station filed Charge- sheet against A1 to A15 for the offence punishable u/s.326 r/w.34 I.P.C in Crime No.70/2011 of Muppalla Police Station.

2

2.The Prosecution story in brief is as follows:

The defacto-complainant Chinthapalli Jayamma is resident of S.C.Colony, Madala village and she is doing hotel business. She is blessed with two sons namely Chinthapalli venkateswara Rao, aged about 30 years and Chinthapalli Yelamandaiah, who is studying Degree. On 04.11.2011 at night A1 went to the hotel of Chinthapalli Prasada Rao and warned Chinthapalli Jayamma about the behaviour of their sons, on that Chinthapalli Jayamma and A1 argued with each other. Keeping in mind the above said dispute on 05.11.2011 at about 7.00a.m all the accused attached on them and felted stones on them. Due to which Chinthapalli Rosaiah sustained bleeding injury on his right leg and he was shifted to Area Hospital, Sattenpalli for treatment and later he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment. Makela Daniel, Chinthpalli Krupa and Danarajupalli Basavaiah also sustained simple injuries. On the same day, When Chinthapalli Jayamma was present in her hotel all the accused went to her and tore her blouse and insulted her modesty. Hence, Chinthapalli Jayamma came to Muppalla Police station and gave a written report to the Police.

3.Basing on the report given by Chinthapalli Jayamma, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muppala P.S registered a case in Crime No.70/2011 u/ss.354,324 r/w.34 IPC of Muppalla P.S on 05.11.2011 at about 10.00 a.m and issued FIR.

4.During the Course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Muppalla P.S visited the scene of offence and inspected the same and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also recorded the 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses. He arrested the accused on 25.11.2011 and sent them to the Court for judicial custody.

5.Dr.A.Rajanikanth, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Sattenapalli treated Chinthapalli Rosaiah and issued Wound certificate stating that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muppalla P.S filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/ss.326 and 354 r/w.34 IPC.

6. This case was taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/ss.326 and 354 r/w. 34 IPC by the learned I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. On appearance of the accused before committal Court, all the copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Committal Court committed this case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/s. 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

7.This case is being made over to this Court by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Guntur for disposal of the same according to law.

8.Charges were framed against A1 to A15 U/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.326 and 354 r/w.34 I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to A1 to A15 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.Heard both sides. Schedule is fixed for trial for examination of witnesses on 03.12.2012 to 06.12.2012.

10.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and closed their evidence. L.Ws 3,4, 6 to 9, 11 and 12 3 were given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. As there were no incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the A1 to A15 u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

11.Arguments of both parties were heard.

12. Now, the points for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution proved that A1 to A15 attacked on Chukkapalli Rosaiah and felted stones on him and caused grievous injury to him and they tore the blouse and saree of Chukkapalli Jayamma and outrage her modesty on 05.11.2011 in S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of A1 to A15 u/s.326 and 354 r/w.34 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proved that A1 to A15 attacked on Chukkapalli Rosaiah and felted stones on him and caused grievous injury to him and they tore the blouse and saree of Chukkapalli Jayamma and outrage her modesty on 05.11.2011 in S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District?

According to prosecution case, A1 to A15 attacked on Chukkapalli Rosaiah and felted stones on him and caused grievous injury to him and they tore the blouse and saree of Chukkapalli Jayamma and outrage her modesty on 05.11.2011 in S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District. To prove this point, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and closed their evidence.

14.P.W.1 Chukkapalli Jayamma, who is the defacto- complainant stated that nothing has happened in respect of this case and that she has not sustained any injuries. She did not identify her thumb impression on the report dt.05.11.2011. She further stated that she does not know the contents of report dt.05.11.2011.

15.P.W.2, Mekala Daniel, stated that nothing has happened in respect of this case.

16. P.W.3 Chinthapalli Rosaiah, who is the injured witness stated that one year back while he was crossing canal while he was going to the field he sustained injuries on his right leg below the knee.

17.P.W.4 Chinthapallil Prasada Rao stated that on 05.11.2011 at about 8.00 a.m while he was going tot he fields he fell down on the road due to the slip of feet and sustained injuries.

18.P.Ws. 1 to 4 turned hostile. Hence, their evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution case. Hence, it is doubtful whether A1 to A15 attacked on Chukkapalli Rosaiah and felted stones on him and caused grievous injury to him and they tore the blouse and saree of Chukkapalli Jayamma and outrage her modesty on 05.11.2011 in S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District. Hence, A1 to A15 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly the benefit of doubt is given to them. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that A1 to A15 attacked on Chukkapalli Rosaiah and felted stones on him and caused grievous injury to him and they tore the blouse and saree of Chukkapalli Jayamma and outrage her modesty on 05.11.2011 in S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla Mandal, Guntur District.

4

For the reasons stated above,

19.Point No.2:-the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of A1 to A15 for the offences punishable u/ss. 326 and 354 r/w IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A15 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/ss.326 and 354 r/w34 I.P.C.

20.In the result, the A1 to A15 are acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.326 and 354 r/w 34 I.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A15 shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 7th day of December, 2012.

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1: Chukkapalli Jayammma None.

P.W.2: Mekala Daniel

P.W.3: Chintapalli Rosaiah

P.W.4: Chintapalli Prasada Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V A.A.S.J., G.N.T.

5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

1) Number of Sessions Case : S.C.No.478/2012

2) Name of the complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of and its Cr.No. Police, Muppalla P.S. Cr.No.70/2011of Muppalla Police Station Guntur District.

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC :Smt.M.Kumudini I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli. PRC.19/2012

4) Description of the accused :

1. Chinthapalli Chukkaiah, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 25 years,

2. Chinthapalli Ramanaiah S/o. Pedamastaniah, Aged about 28 years,

3. Chinthapalli Nageswara Rao, S/o. Pedakotaiah, Aged about 30 years,

4. Dondapati Yuva raju, S/o. Chenchurama Rao Aged about 25 years,

5. Dondapati Yelamanda, S/o. Paramaiah, Aged about 23 years,

6. Kodavati Subba Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged about 22 years,

7. Dondapati Yohan, S/o. Bullaiah, Aged about 35 years,

8. Bakka Prasad alias Nagaraju , s/o. Ramakoti Aged about 35 years,

9. Chinthapalli Mariyadas, S/o. Mahankalaiah, Aged about 25 years, 10.Patchala Nageswara rao, S/o. Paramaiah, Aged about 35 years, 11.Dondapati Bulllaiah, S/o. Abbiraju, Aged about 70 years, 12.Dondapati Venkata Rao, s/o. Katamraju Aged about 30 years, 13.Chinthapalli Yesaiah, S/o. Hussainiah, Aged about 28 years, 14.Chinthapalli Krupa Rao, s/o. Biksham Aged about 28 years, 15.Dondapati Yesubabu, S/o. Bullaiah, Aged about 35 years, All are Madigas by caste, R/o. S.C.Colony, Madala village, Muppalla mandal, Guntur District.

...Accused 1 to 15

5) Date of

a) Offence : 05-11-2011

b) Complaint: 05-11-2011

c) Apprehension of accused: 25-11-2011 6

d) Committal: 30-08-2012

c) Commencement of Trial: 03-12-2012

d) Close of Trial: 04-12-2012

e) Sentence or order: 07-12-2012

6) Charges : U/s.326 and 354 r/w.34 IPC

7) Plea of accused : Not guilty

8) Finding of Court : Not guilty

9) Sentence or Order:

In the result, the A1 to A15 are acquitted U/s.232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.326 and 354 r/w 34 I.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A15 shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

10) Explanation for the delay: This case record was made over to this court for disposal on 18-10-2012 and soon after apprehension of accused,on 24-11-2012 the charges were framed. On 03-12-2012 and 04-12-2012 P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. L.Ws 3,4,6 to 9, 11 and 12 were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed. As there are no incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Arguments of both parties were heard. On 07-12-2012 Judgment is pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V ADDL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy to:

1.The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

2. The District Judge, Guntur.

3. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Guntur.

5. The Superintendent of Police.

6. The Addl. P.P.

7. The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE::GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri. A.Solomon,B.Com, LL.M.,

V Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Guntur. Thursday, the 10th day of January, 2013

SESSIONS CASE NO.410/2012

Between:

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town Police Station . . . Complainant

And

Nelapati Nagaraju, S/o. Nageswara Rao Aged about 22 years, Caste: Madiga, New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli Town,

Guntur District. ...Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 09-01-2013 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.Srinivasa Rao/ S.Punnam Raju, Advocates for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli town Police Station filed Charge-sheet against Accused in Crime No.135/2012 for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 I.P.C of Sattenapalli Town Police Station.

2.The Prosecution story in brief is as follows:

The accused is resident of New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli Town, Guntur District. The defacto-complainant Sapavath Durgabai is the neighbour of the accused. Earlier the accused used to see Sapavath Durgabai and Sapavath Harikabai while they were taking bath. So a quarrel took place between Sapavath Durgabi and the accused. While so, on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m, while Sapavath Durgabai and Sapavath Harikabai were sleeping in front of their rented house in open air on separate costs, the accused fell on Sapavath Harikabai and attempted to rape her by closing her mouth. Sapavath Harikabai forcibly released her mouth from the hands of the accused and raised alarm. On hearing the cries Sapavath Durgabai woke up and found the accused on the cot of Sapavath Harikabai and she caught hold of him by raising shoutings. On hearing the shoutings of Sapavath Durgabai and Sapavath Harikabai, Bukya Mangabai, Dharavath Rajammabai and Banvath Padmabai rushed to them. On seeing their arrival, the accused pushed Sapavath Durgabai and ran away. Sapavath Durgabai went to the Sattenapalli Town Police Station and gave report to the Police.

3. Basing on the report given by Sapavath Durgabai, the Sub- Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli town P.S registered a case in Crime No.135/2012 u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC of Sattenapalli town P.S on 02.07.2012 at 5.00 p.m.

4.During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence, examined the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He arrested the accused on 03.07.2012 2 at 10.00 a.m and sent him to judicial custody for remanding him to the judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed Charge- sheet against the accused.

5.This case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC by the learned I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli. On appearance of the accused before committal Court, all the copies of the case record were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The Committal Court committed this case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/s. 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

6.This case is being made over to this Court by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Guntur for disposal of the same according to law.

7.After the accused was produced before this court from District Jail, Guntur, a charge was framed against the accused u/s.228(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to Accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.Heard both sides. Schedule is fixed for trial for examination of witnesses on 17.12.2012 and 18.12.2012.

9.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and closed their evidence. L.Ws.2 and 6 were given by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. As there were no incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the Accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

10.Arguments of both parties were heard.

11. Now, the points for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the prosecution proved that Accused fell on Sapavath Harikabai and attempted to rape her while she and her mother were sleeping in the Open Air on separate cots at their rented house situated at New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m ?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of Accused u/s.376 r/w.511 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proved that Accused fell on Sapavath Harikabai and attempted to rape her while she and her mother were sleeping in the Open Air on separate cots at their rented house situated at New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m ?

According to prosecution case, Accused fell on Sapavath Harikabaiand attempted to rape her while she and her mother were sleeping in the Open Air on separate cots at their rented house situated at New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m. To prove this point, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and closed their evidence.

13.P.W.1 Sapavath Durgabhai, who is the defacto-Complainant herein stated that nothing has happened pertaining to this case and she did not give any report to the Sattenapalli town Police.

14.P.W.2 Dharavath Rajammabhai, P.W.3 Banavath Padmabai and P.W.4 Bhukya Mangabai stated that they do not know the accused 3 and they do not know anything about this case. Hence, it is evident that P.Ws 1 to 4 turned hostile. The learned A.P.P declared P.Ws 1 to 4 as hostile and cross examined them and got marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P1 to P4. As P.Ws 1 to 4 turned hostile, their evidence is not at all helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. Hence, it is doubtful whether Accused fell on Sapavath Harikabai and attempted to rape her while she and her mother were sleeping in the Open Air on separate cots at their rented house situated at New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m. Hence, accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly the benefit of doubt is given to him. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove that Accused fell on Sapavath Harikabai and attempted to rape her while she and her motherwere sleeping in the open air on separate cots at their rented house situated at New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District on 02.07.2012 at about 4.00 a.m . For the reasons stated above,

15.Point No.2:-the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w 511 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w 511 I.P.C.

16.In the result, the accused is acquitted u/s.232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC. The Superintendent of District Jail Guntur is directed to set-fee the accused forth if his presence is not required in any other case. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 10th day of January, 2013.

Sd/-A.Solomon

V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1: Sapavath Duirgabhai None.

P.W.2: Dharvath Rajammabhai

P.W.3: Banavath Durgabai

P.W.4: Bhukya Mangabai

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL - V A.A.S.J., G.N.T.

− 4

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

1) Number of Sessions Case : S.C.No.410/2012

2) Name of the complainant : State: Sub-Inspector of and its Cr.No. Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S. Cr.No.135/12 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station Guntur District.

3) Name of Committal Officer and PRC :Smt.M.Kumudini I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sattenpalli. PRC.17/2012

4) Description of the accused : Nelapati Nagaraju, s/o. Nageswara Rao Aged about 22 years, Caste: Madiga, New Sugali Colony, Sattenapalli town, Guntur District. ….Accused

5) Date of

a) Offence : 02-07-2012

b) Complaint: 02-07-2012

c) Apprehension of accused : 03-07-2012

d) Committal: 03-08-2012

c) Commencement of Trial: 18-12-2012

d) Close of Trial: 07-01-2013

e) Sentence or order: 10-01-2013

6) Charges : U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC

7) Plea of accused : Not guilty

8) Finding of Court : Not guilty

9) Sentence or Order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC. In the result, the accused is acquitted u/s.232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s.376 r/w.511 IPC. The superintendent of District Jail, Guntur is directed to set-free the accused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of period of appeal.

10) Explanation for the delay: This case record was made over to this court for disposal on 27- 09-2012 and soon after apprehension of accused,on 25-10-2012 a charge was framed. On 18-12-2012 and on 07-01-2013 P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. L.Ws 2 and 6 were given up by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed. As there

are no incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Arguments of both parties were heard. On 10-01-2013 Judgment is pronounced. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case. Sd/-A.Solomon

V ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy to:

1.The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad through The District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

2. The District Judge, Guntur.

3. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

4. The District Collector, Guntur.

5. The Superintendent of Police.

6. The Addl. P.P.7. The I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUNTUR

PRESENT: Sri. A.Solomon, B.Com, LL.M.,

V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Friday, the 14th day of December, 2012

E.P.No.314/2012 in O.S.No. 1325/10

Between:

Malapati Jangameswara Reddy ... D.Hr/Plaintiff AND 1.Thumati Emmanuel Paul Prem Kumar ...J.Dr/Defendant

2. The Correspondent, A.C.College, Guntur. ... Garnishee

Thispetition came before me for final hearing on 12-12-2012 in the presence of Sri C.Narendra Babu, Advocate for D.Hr/Plaintiff and the 2nd respondent/Garnishee appearing in person, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Petitioner/D.Hr filed this Execution Petition against the J.Dr praying this Court to direct the Garnishee to send for the amount i.e., the retirement benefits of the J.Dr which were already attached before judgment on 18.01.2011 in I.A.No.886/2010 for realization of the E.P.

2.The case of the Petitioner/D.Hr is that the Petitioner/D.Hr is filed

O.S.No.1325/10 against the J.Dr on the file of V Addl.Senior Civil Judge's

Court, Guntur for recovery of money and obtained a decree against the J.Dr on 18.11.2011. After passing of the Decree, the J.Dr did not prefer any appeal against the decree and judgment in the above said suit. After obtaining the Decree, the Petitioner/D.Hr demanded the J.Dr to pay the E.P amount but he neglected to pay the same even though the J.Dr has got sufficient means to pay the decretal amount. The Petitioner/D.Hr got attached the retirement benefits of J.Dr before Judgment on 18.01.2011 in I.A.No.886/2010. The garnishee paid the retirement benefits of the J.Dr on 14.7.2011 even though he received the attachment order from this Court on 18.01.2011 which amounts to contempt of Court. Hence, the petitioner/D.Hr filed this petition to direct the Garnishee to send for the amount i.e., the retirement benefits of the J.Dr which were already attached before judgment for realization of the E.P amount.

3.The 2nd respondent/Garnishee filed her Counter denying the averments mentioned in the Execution Petition.

4.The 2nd respondent/Garnishee contends that the J.Dr T.E.P. Prem Kumar retired as Lecturer in Physics, A.C.College, Guntur on 31.01.2011 and that his pension proposals were sent to Accountant General Office through the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad and that his pension was approved by the office of the Accountant-General, A.P., Hyderabad on 06.06.2011 and that his retirement benefits in the U.G.C scale of 1996 were paid to the J.Dr on 14.07.2011 as per token No.0605-1605 and credited to his bank account bearing No.20074051007 of State Bank of India, Kannavarithota Branch, Guntur.

5.The 2ndrespondent/Garnishee further contends that the retirement benefits i.e. gratuity and commutation of pension were paid to the J.Dr in the month of July, 2011 and that no other amounts were lying with her. Hence, she prays this court to pass necessary orders.

2

6.Arguments of both parties were heard.

7.Now, the points for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the petitioner/D.Hr is entitled to direct the 2nd respondent/Garnishee to send for the amount i.e., the retirement benefits of the J.Dr which were already attached before judgment on 18.01.2011 in I.A.No.886/2010 for realization of the E.P amount?

2. To what relief?

8.POINT NO.1: Whether the petitioner/D.Hr is entitled to direct the 2nd respondent/Garnishee to send for the amount i.e.the retirement benefits of the J.Dr which were already attached before judgment on 18.01.2011 in I.A.No.886/2010 for realization of the E.P amount?

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/D.Hr filed O.S.No.1325/2010 against the 1st respondent/J.Dr for recovery of money and obtained a decree against him on 18.11.2011. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner/D.Hr got attached the salary of the J.Dr before Judgment in I.A.No.886/2010 on 18.01.2011. It is also admitted that after passing the decree, the J.Dr did not prefer any appeal against the Decree and Judgment of the above said suit. It is admitted fact that after passing of the decree, the J.Dr neglected to pay the E.P amount. Hence, the petitioner/D.Hr filed this E.P against the J.Dr to direct the 2nd respondent/Garnishee to send for the amount i.e., the retirement benefits of the J.Dr which were already attached before judgment on 18.01.2011 in I.A.No.886/2010 for realization of the E.P amount.

9.The 1st respondent/J.Dr has not denied the above said fact by filing Counter. After receiving notice from the Court, the 2nd respondent/garnishee filed her Counter stating that the J.Dr T.E.P. Prem Kumar retired as Lecturer in Physics, A.C.College, Guntur on 31.01.2011 and that his pension proposals were sent to Accountant General Office, through the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad and that his pension was approved by the office of the Accountant-General, A.P., Hyderabad on 06.06.2011 and that his retirement benefits in the U.G.C scale of 1996 were paid to the J.Dr on 14.07.2011 as per token No.0605-1605 and credited to his bank account bearing No.20074051007 of State Bank of India, Kannavarithota Branch, Guntur and that no other amount were lying with her. Hence, it is evident that the garnishee paid the retirement benefits of the J.Dr on 14.7.2011 even though he received the attachment order on 18.01.2011 which amounts to contempt of Court.

10.The 2nd respondent/Garnishee contends that as per circular memo No.1469/62/A1/Pen.1/2010, dt.3.8.2010 the pension benefits like FBK, GIS and GPF are exempted from court attachments, sale and recoveries of non- government loans by the various statutory laws and court judgments. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss this E.P. It is true that as per the above said circular, the pension benefits FBK, GIS and GPF are exempted from court attachments under various laws. But, other amounts i.e.arrears of salary, encashment of leave salary are not exempted from Court attachment, but the Garnishee paid the entire amount to the 1st respondent/J.Dr even though she received the court attachment order from this Court on 18-01-2011. The 2nd respondent/Garnishee did not produce any record before this court to show that the 1st respondent/J.Dr had not received the retirement benefits such as encashment of leave salary and arrears of salary. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the attachment of the retirement benefits such as encashment of leave salary and arrears of salary for the realization of the E.P 3 amount. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the the petitioner/D.Hr.

11.POINT NO.2: To what relief?

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed with costs directing the Garnishee i.e. Correspondent, A.C.College, Guntur to recover the leave salary and arrears of salary of the J.Dr to the extent of warrant amount and to remit the same into this court's account to enable the D.Hr for the realization of the E.P. Amount.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription and correction

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 14th day of December, 2012.

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--Nil--

Sd/-A.Solomon,

V A.S.C.J ., G.N.T.