A. Srinivasa Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

GADWAL

Friday, the 30th day of November, 2018.

PRESENT: Sri A.Srinivasa Kumar, IX-Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC III Addl District and Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 2018

1. Criminal Appeal No.: Crl.A.No.109 of 2018

2. From which court appeal is :: Addl.J.F.C.M. Gadwal Preferred

3. Number of case in that court : CC.No.30 of 2011

4. Number of the appeal : Crl.A.No.109 of 2018

5. Name and description of the Appellant/complainant The State through Police Station, Gadwal Rural.

Name and Description of the respondent/accused:

1. Venkateshwarlu S/o Laxmanna, age 28 yrs, R/o Yerravally village, Itikyal Mandal.

2. Dhoddenna S/o Laxmanna, age 30 yrs, Yerravally village

3. Pedda Laxmaiah S/o Sheshanna, age 40 yrs, Yerravally village

4. Sathyanna S/o Sheshagiri, age 38 yrs, Yerravally village

5. Mechanic Bechupally S/o Beechupally, age 35 yrs, Yerravally village (Died case abated against A5)

6. U.Bala Chander S/o Venkatanna, age 45 yrs, Yerravally village (Died case abated against A6)

7. P.Thimmappa S/o P.Narsappa, Yerravally village ( Not charge sheeted as he died)

8. Rangamuni S/o Naganna, age 21 yrs, Yerravally village

9. Muneppa @ Munigadu S/o Narayana, age 35 yrs, R/o Vavilala village, Itikyal Mandal.

10. Modula Ramulu S/o Narayana, age 35 yrs, Yerravally village

11. Uppari Rama Krishna @ Chinna Kittu S/o Ramadasu, age 37 yrs, Yerravally village

12. Chinna Narsimulu S/o Jammanna, age 48 years, Yerravally village, Itikyal Mandal.

6. The sentence and law under which it was imposed in the lower court The learned Magistrate found A1 to A4 and A8 to A12 not guilty for the offence under section 147, 152, 332 r/w 149 IPC

7. (Whether confirmed, modified or reversed): Confirmed

Bail bond Date ofNoticeifAppellant PresentationFilingissue byappellantorderedHearingOrder court tohas beento appearlet outappear on bail 24.1.188.8.18--7.9.1830.11.1830.11.1 8 2

This Criminal Appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 30.11.2018 in the presence of Addl.Public Prosecutor for the

Appellant/Complainant and of Sri P.Sridhar, Advocate for the

Respondents/accused, and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor,

District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar is the appellant herein challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal dated 13th September, 2017 in

C.C.No.30/2011 on the grounds that the Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the oral evidence and also documentary evidence adduced in this case and eroniously acquitted the respondents from the charges. To understand the grievance expressed by the State, it is necessary to hava a glance at the facts and circumstances under which the respondents are acquitted from the charges. To avoid confusion in the matter the respondents are mentioned as A1 to A4, A7, A8, A9, A11 and A12.

2.The case of the prosecution as one could peruse from the charge sheet filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rural Police Station, Gadwal is that on 2nd March, 2010 at about 7.00 P.M., one Khaja Moinuddin, who was working as Head constable in Rural Police Station, Gadwal, preferred a complaint before the Station House Officer interalia alleging that on that day at about 8 a.m., he went along with the constables bearing numbers 1264, 1627, 2260, 2301, 2305 and 1214 to Jammulamma Jatara (a festivity) on bandobasth duty and at about 5.30 P.M., when they were controlling traffic came to know that some villagers belonging to Bunyadipuram are altercating by using sticks and in a drunken state, and therefore, they went to the spot to control the mob. But, the said mob turned violent by assaulting the said police men and according to the complainant, the accused persons were the persons who assaulted. The complainant specifically stated that the police men, including himself sustained some minor injuries.

3

3.The Station House Officer registered the said complaint as crime

No.25/2010 against the accused persons for the offences u/ss 152, 147, 149 and 332 IPC. The investigating officer after due investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the above said offences. The learned

Magistrate also took cognizance of the said offences against the accused

persons as they pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried. The prosecution in the lower court examined as many as nine witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to

P7. After consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused of the said charges and hence, this appeal.

4.Heard, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and also the learned

Advocate for the accused persons.

5.The Addl.Public Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this court to the entire case record has contended that there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused persons for the charged offences, but, the

Magistrate failed to consider the same and acquitted the accused eroniously.

On the otherhand, the learned advocate for the accused persons as one could expect naturally supported the findings of the Magistrate in his judgment and finally requested this court to dismiss the appeal.

6.This court has perused the entire case record meticulously and also taken into consideration of the rival contentions of the Addl.Public

Prosecutor and also the advocate for the accused persons and formulated the following points for determination.

1. Whether such judgment dated 13 th September 2017 in

C.C.30/2011 passed by the Magistrate is within the law and facts ?

2. If so, to what relief.

7. Point No.1 : Whether such judgment dated 13 th September 2017

in C.C.30/2011 passed by the Magistrate is within the law and

facts ?

As already stated by this court, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons assaulted the police men in the said festivity in a drunken state. PW.1 namely Sande Kondaiah gave his evidence that he was 4 working as watchman in Road Transport Office, Gadwal and he does not know anything about the case. PW.2 to PW.4, who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and even the prosecutor in the lower court failed to elicit any valid information from their cross examinations.

8.The complainant i.e. Khaja Moinuddin has stated in his evidence as PW.5 that on 2nd March, 2010 at about 8 a.m., he went to the said festivity on bandobasth duty along with the other constables and at about 5.30 P.M., they received an information about a quarrel taking place nearby a cycle stand and they immediately went there to control the mob. He further stated that 12 persons among the said mob attacked them and according to him the accused persons were the said 12 persons who attacked them. But, in the cross examination he has frankly admitted that he does not know the names of the accused persons and some persons informed him their names.

He also admitted that so many persons will visit the said festivity. When those are his admissions, it is highly improbable on his part to identify the accused persons as the persons, who attacked them.

9.PW.6 namely Palem Vema Reddy, who was also an alleged eye witness to the incident turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.7 namely Ramesh, who allegedly accompanied PW.5 to the said festivity has stated that at about 5.30 p.m., they saw some villagers quarelling and PW.1 went there and seperated them. He further stated that all the accused persons attacked PW.5. But, his evidence cannot be believe as the same is very vague without any particulars as to who amongst the accused attacked PW.5. PW.8 namely Venkateshwarlu gave the same evidence as stated by PW.7, finally accusing the accused persons as aggressors to assault PW.5. But, in the cross examination he too has admitted that so many persons attended the said festivity and also he does not know the names of the accused persons. He further admitted that he cannot identify the person who assaulted PW.5.

5

10.Finally, PW.9 namely Dr.T.Ramalinga Reddy, who physically examined PW.7 and PW.8 gave his evidence that he could notice some abrasions and contusions on their bodies and they are simple in nature. But, it is the case of the prosecution that PW.5 was also attacked by the accused persons and caused injuries. But, PW.5 was not examined by the doctor, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

11.Therefore, for the reasons stated above this court also found no credible evidence to attract the charged offences against the accused and the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused persons.

12. Point No.2 :If so, to what relief ?

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Appendix of Evidence

- Nil -

III Addl.District & Sessions

Judge,

Gadwal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE GADWAL

Friday the 21st day of December, 2018

PRESENT : Sri A.SRINIVASA KUMAR, IX Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC III Addl.District.Judge, Gadwal.

Sessions Case No. 148 of 2018

(Preliminary Registered Case No.33 of 2015 committed by Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Atamkur)

(Crime No.140 of 2014 of Police Station, Devarkadra)

Name of the Accused :

1.Dobbali Krishnaiah son of Balaiah, age 58 years, caste SC occupation Coolie resident of Devarkadra village and mandal.

2.Gopi Chakka Gurudas son of Kondaiah, age 38 years, caste

SC occupation Coolie resident of Devarkadra village and mandal.

Nature of offence : Under Sections 302, 201 IPC.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found

The accused A-1 and A-2 are SENTENCE OR ORDER :

found not guilty.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 21.12.2018 in the presence of Sri Pujari Sridhar,

Advocate for the accused and learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :- 2

J U D G M E N T

On 15th December, 2014 one Markula Devanna made a written complaint to the Station House Officer, Devarkadra

Police Station interalia alleging that they are three brothers and two sisters and his elder sister Devamma was given in marriage to Krishnaiah about 20 years prior to the said complaint and the said Devamma also gave birth to two children. He further alleged in the said complaint that the husband of Devamma had died due to illness about ten years prior to the said complaint and therefore the said Devamma used to live alone in the village and thereafter she went to her in-laws house situated at Devarkadra.

While so on 15th December, 2014 at about 10-00 AM, the Defacto complainant received a call from some person from Devarkadra informing him that the said Devamma had died. So, the Defacto complainant and the family members immediately rushed to

Devarkadra and found the dead body of Devamma in the outskirts of the village with injuries on her head. On their enquiry, they came to know that the said Devamma might have died on 14th or 15th of December, 2014. Finally, the Defacto complainant expressed his suspicion of some un-known persons.

2) The Investigating Officer after due investigation fixed liability on A-1 and A-2 for the death of A-1 and his investigation revealed that on 26th March, 2015 at about 10 AM, A-1 was 3 apprehended and on interrogation A-1 has said to have confessed his guilt stating that on 14th December, 2014, the said Devamma went to toddy shop to consume toddy, where A-1 and A-2 proposed her for sexual intercourse for a consideration of

Rs.300/- but, they did not pay the said money to her and in that regard some altercation took place between them, wherein A-1 and A-2 hit Devamma on her head with a boulder, thereby causing her death.

3) Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Atmakur got this case committed to this Court vide his

order dated 12th April, 2018 in PRC No.33 of 2015. The A-1 made his appearance on 27th July, 2018 and whereas A-2 was produced from the Jail and this Court as per the procedure contemplated under section 228 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure framed a single charge against A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC as they pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried. The prosecution in its efforts to establish the charged offence examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked exhibits P1 to P9 and Material Object 1. After conclusion of trial and as per procedure contemplated under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure examined A-1 and A-2 while explaining the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by the 4 witnesses and as a reply A-1 and A-2 have stated that they never committed any offence, much less killing of Devamma.

4) Heard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned Advocate for the A-1 and A-2.

5) This Court has perused the entire case record and formulated the following points for consideration.

POINT NO.1:- Whether the prosecution could establish the offence under Section 302 IPC

against A-1 and A-2 in this case?

POINT NO.2:- If so, to what relief ?

6) POINT NO.1:- Whether the prosecution could

establish the offence under Section 302 IPC against A-1

and A-2 in this case?

The case of the prosecution, as already stated by this

Court, A-1 and A-2 killed Devamma with the help of M.O.1 as she questioned their attitude for not giving money to her after having sexual intercourse with her. P.W.1 namely M.Devanna at whose instance the law was set into motion gave his evidence stating that he gave Ex.P1 complaint to the Police after seeing the dead body of Devamma on that day. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also have stated the same facts regarding their lodging Ex.P1 complaint in the Police Station. Except, the said facts, P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not 5 raise their fingers at A-1 and A-2 in this case. P.W.4 namely

B.Madhavi stated in her evidence that she only came to know about the death of Death of Devamma. P.W.5 to P.W.7 did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile.

7) P.W.8 namely Gandla Sathyanarayana, who worked as

Village Revenue Officer for Devarkadra village gave his evidence that in the year 2014 and on one day at about 10-30 AM he went to the Devarkadra Police Station alongwith L.W.12 namely Ram

Reddy and found A-1 and A-2 in the custody of Police and according to them A-1 and A-2 confessed their guilt. As admittedly P.W.8 found A-1 and A-2 in Police custody, this Court refused to mark the entire confessional statement as it was hit by

Sections 24 and 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, this Court permitted the prosecution to mark the admissible portion of statement of A-1 as Ex.P5 as it related to the discovery of M.O.1 at the instance of A-1. According to P.W.8, A-1 and A-2 led them to Bondalagadda and produced a boulder i.e., M.O.1 which was seized by the Police.. P.W.9 i.e., said Ram Reddy gave his evidence that A-1 and A-2 led them to Bondalagadda and produced the said boulder. P.W.10 namely R.Prabhakar Reddy who worked as Inspector of Police for Atmakur circle at the relevant point of time gave his evidence that he immediately went to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of the 6 witnesses and conducted the other formalities like panchanama, inquest, seizure of controlled earth and blood stained earth at the scene of offence and also sending the same to the Forensic

Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. When there is no evidence to establish A-1 and A-2 as responsible for the death of Devamma, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charged offence against A-1 and

A-2 in this case.

In the result the A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, hence the A-1 and A-2 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. of the above said offence.

The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist, after transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 21st day of December, 2018.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal. FAC IX-Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:

P.W.1 M.Devanna P.W.2. M.Shekar P.W.3. M.Krishnaiah 7

P.W.4. B.Madhavi P.W.5. K.Maheshwari @ Uma Devi P.W.6. B.Ramaswamy P.W.7. M.Laxminarayana Goud P.W.8. Gandla Satayanarayana P.W.9. A.Ram Reddy P.W.10. R.Prabhakar Reddy NIL

PROSECUTION:

Ex,P1. Compaliant Ex.P2. 161 Cr,P.C.statement of P.W.5 Ex.P3. 161 Cr,P.C.statement of P.W.6 Ex.P4. 161 Cr,P.C.statement of P.W.7 Ex.P5. Admissible portion of confession statement of A-1 Ex.P6. Panchanama and recovery by P.W.8 Ex.P7. Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8. Inquest panchanama Ex.P9. Forensic Science Laboratory report NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 Stone

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal. FAC IX-Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADWAL.

Friday the 30th day of November, 2018

Present: Sri A.SRINIVASA KUMAR, IX Addl.Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Criminal Revision Petition No.51 of 2018

Between :

Gundepogu Peddaiah S/o Chinna Laxmanna, age 33 years, Owner of Net (Nanju Vala), R/o H.No.3-4, Gundimalla village, Alampur Mandal. …Revision Petitioner

And

S.H.O. P.S. Alampur … Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 30.11.2018 in the presence of Sri D.Laxman Prasad, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1.This revision has been directed against an order dated 10th

October, 2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur in

Crl.M.P.249/2018 in Crime No.27/2018, thereby declining the revision

petitioner to get his fisher net seized by the concerned police as interim custody.

2.The learned Magistrate observed in her order that Rule 4 of

G.O.Ms.No.186, dated 25.11.1995 issued in favour of Animal Husbandary and

Fisheries Department restricts a person from fishing in the waters and also prescribed the specifications regarding the nature of the net and such G.O.

further restricts a person from fishing without a valid license. Hence, this revision.

3.Heard, the learned advocate for the petitioner and also the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

4.The only question involved in this revision is as to “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the fishery net as interim custody”?

5.As one could peruse from the First Information Report, one Raghu

Laxmi Madhusudan gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Alampur police station interalia alleging that on 2nd March, 2018 at about 1.00 P.M., when he visited Tungabhadra river on information that some persons are fishing without any license found the petitioner herein fishing with the said net without any valid license. He also seized the said net and produce the same before the police. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Magistrate, who bluntly refused to give the said net to the petitioner as interim custody.

6.The revisional powers are restricted under section 397 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to such an extent that a revisional court normally should not interfere with the descretion exercised by the inferior criminal courts, unless such orders are perverse, illegal, arbitrary etc., But, in this case the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised her descretion. When it is the rule under the said G.O. that no person shall fish without valid license from the Government, the petitioner having done so without license is not entitled to the said net as interim custody.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, after transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADWAL.

Friday the 30th day of November, 2018

Present: Sri A.SRINIVASA KUMAR, IX Addl.Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy FAC III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Criminal Revision Petition No.52 of 2018

Between :

Telugu Hussainaiah S/o Telugu Naganna, age 50 years, Owner of Net (Pattu vala), R/o H.No.25-54/1, Alampur village and Mandal. …Revision Petitioner

And

S.H.O. P.S. AlampurRespondent/Complainant

This Criminal Revision Petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 30.11.2018 in the presence of Sri D.Laxman Prasad, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1.This revision has been directed against an order dated 10th

October, 2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alampur in

Crl.M.P.247/2018 in Crime No.27/2018, thereby declining the revision

petitioner to get his fisher net seized by the concerned police as interim custody.

2.The learned Magistrate observed in her order that Rule 4 of

G.O.Ms.No.186, dated 25.11.1995 issued in favour of Animal Husbandary and

Fisheries Department restricts a person from fishing in the waters and also prescribed the specifications regarding the nature of the net and such G.O.

further restricts a person from fishing without a valid license. Hence, this revision.

3.Heard, the learned advocate for the petitioner and also the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

4.The only question involved in this revision is as to “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the fishery net as interim custody”?

5.As one could peruse from the First Information Report, one Raghu

Laxmi Madhusudan gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Alampur police station interalia alleging that on 2nd March, 2018 at about 1.00 P.M., when he visited Tungabhadra river on information that some persons are fishing without any license found the petitioner herein fishing with the said net without any valid license. He also seized the said net and produce the same before the police. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Magistrate, who bluntly refused to give the said net to the petitioner as interim custody.

6.The revisional powers are restricted under section 397 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to such an extent that a revisional court normally should not interfere with the descretion exercised by the inferior criminal courts, unless such orders are perverse, illegal, arbitrary etc., But, in this case the learned Magistrate has rightly exercised her descretion. When it is the rule under the said G.O. that no person shall fish without valid license from the Government, the petitioner having done so without license is not entitled to the said net as interim custody.

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, after transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

TSJG000001412018 Presented on : 25-07-2018 Registered on : 10-08-2018 Decided on : 28-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 3 days

IN THE COURT OF

III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Gadwal AT

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri. A. Srinivas Kumar

EP/74/2018

Exhibit No.: Y.Sujatha Age: 45 Occupation : Address: Kukatpally

VERSUS : Bitta Maheshwara Age: 50 Occupation : Address: Konidela vg.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B.Timmaiah Advocate for : appearing for Bitta Maheshwara: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 28-12-2018 )

ORDER

D.Hr and JDR present and the matter is settled between

them, wherein the DHR reported that she received

Rs.16,00,000/- sixteen lakhs only by full satisfaction.

Hence EP terminated.

Date : 28-12-2018 (Sri. A. Srinivas Kumar)

I/C. III-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Gadwal

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri. A. Srinivas Kumar) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS