Smt. A.Sunitha

sUDGE

AS

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

EEOURT OF JUNIOR CVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

P+DUGU

FIRST CLASS:: AT PIDUGURALLA.

C.C.No.

323 of 2018 Date of: Complaint Apph. of Result Offence on Closure of Released on Commenceme or before accused Trial nt of Trial 10-12-2017 10-12-2017 10-12-2017 Bail 23-09-2019 27-09-2019 09-05-2019 11/12/17 Between: State: Inspector of Police. Piduguralla P.S. Complainant.

Vs

A-1. Rapolu Venu, S/o Saidulu, Age: 29 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o Konanki Village, Piduguralla Mandal.

A-2. Rapolu Satyavathi, W/o Saidulu, Age : 45 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o Konanki Village, Piduguralla Mandal. Accused.

Offence: U/Sec: 34(a) of A.P Excise Act.

Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding_: Not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 34(a) of Act, and accordingly they is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail A.P Excise bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months, The unmarked case property .e, Sample shal be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Explanation for the delay: No delay.

22loql1q

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Piduguralla.

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal. Copy Submitted to:

Copy to Guntur. The Superintendent of Police,

Pags:l

CCNo.323 2018

AE COURT OF

3UNIOR

cTVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGIISERATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: AT PIDUGURALLA. Present: Smt, A.Sunitha Rani, B.A.,B.L.. A.J.M.F.C, Narasaraoprt. FAC: JCJ-cum--JMFC, Piduguralla.

Friday the 27th day of September, 2019

C.C323/2018

[Cr. No.129 of 2017 of P.S Piduguralla Excise P.S.]

Between : State: Proh. & ExCise, Inspector Piduguralla. Complainant.

Vs.

A-1. Rapolu Venu, S/o Saidulu, Age: 29 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o Konanki Village, Piduguralla Mandal.

A-2. Rapolu Satyavathi, W/o Saidulu, Age: 45 years, Caste : Madiga, R/o Konanki Village, Piduguralla Mandal. Accused. *** This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri B.Dasu, Learned counsel for the accused and after perusing the case records, hearing upon the arguments on both sides and having sto0d over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

: JUD GMENT:

[1.) The P & E SI of Police of Piduquralla Excise P.S filed charge Sheet against acCused in Cr.No.l29/17 with a prayer to punish the accused by alleging that he committed an offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Page:2 C.CNo.323/2018 [2.1 Briefly stated, uie of prOsecution is like this: On 10.12.2017 on credible information P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are excise

officials conducting Vehicle cnetkng after securing the mediators PW.1

and P.W.4 reached Pathaganesiunipadu Village outskirt's, Piduguralla

Mandal at about 10.30 anm, nouced one twO wheeler, accused persons having one white plastic bag ln suspicious state and P.W.3 questioned them in the presence of mediators about the contents of the white

plastic bag and on enguiry the accused persons confessed their guilt.

Secured the presence of mediators and in their presence i.e., P.VW.l and P.W.4 verified the plastic bag and found 22 bottles of Any Time Fine Whisky each about 180 ml, with company seals and labels. On enquiry the accused persons failed to produce any valid license or permit. Later collected samples from each bottle for analysis and kept the remaining bottles for safe custody, took the custody of accUsed and returned to the police station.

|3.] Basing on the mediatornama, P.W.3 registered F.I.R in Cr. No. 129 of 2017 for the offence U/sec.34 (a) of A.P Excise Act. During the course of investigation I.0 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1, PW.2, and the arrest of Accused were affected and produced

before the court for judicial remand and later enlarged on bail. P.W.3,

sent samples to Government chemical Analysis and they issued report stating that the sample are Indian made Liquor (IML). The remaining property deposited before the Deputy Commissioner for confiscation. Basing on the investigation, I.0 came to the conclusion that accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act,, and filed charge sheet to that effect. Hence, the charge.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took the case on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of A,P Excise Act against accused and issued process. In response to the

process accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the

97loqlg

Page:3 C.C.No.323/2018

Copies of documents upon which the prosecution relied to prove the

proposed guilt

[5.] During the examination U/se 239 of Cr. P.C, a charge U/sec. 34(a) of A.P Excise Act against accused was framed, and the same was read over and explained to the accused, and having understood the Ubon same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. eYamined FoUR Witnesses as P,W.1

invitation for trail the prosecution

to 4 and exhibited as many as FIVE documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5.

|b.J Atter completion of neoeation side evidence, accused were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C where-under the available incriminating material against them was explained, for which accused denied the same. The derence not chosen to 2dduce any evidence on its behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[8.] Now, the point that arises for consideration is that:

"Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act against accused ?" [9.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF: In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because and punished merely on the ground of no one can be convicted suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this Standard is a higher standard, tnere s, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to proof" is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution IS required to prove offence beyond

Page:4 C.CNo.323/2018

reasonable doubt. Here in this case, the claim of defence of accused is

that one of total denial. In the rirst examination conducted U/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C and even in the secona examination which was conducted

after completion of evidence of prosecution U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C by

explaining the available inriminating material against them, the

accused stood strongly on the claim that they are innocent of the

alleged accusation.

|9-A.] As already stated the defence adduced no evidence on its behalf. Before proceeding with the point that whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of accused beyond doubt, it is appropriate to see the

nature of evidence produced and the gist of testimonies of witnesses of

prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to 4 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to P.5 documents. P.W.1, Pw.4 are mediators, Pws.2 & 3 are ExCise

Officials, who detected the offence and filed charge sheet. With regard

to exhibits, Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW.1 on mediatornama, Ex.P.2 is mediatornama, Ex.P3 is F.I.R., Ex.P.4 is Analysis report, Ex.P.5 is

Confiscation Proceedings.

EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD:

[9-B.] P.W.1 and P.W.4, who are acted as mediators not supported the prosecution case with regard to aspects and also not identified the accused as offenders. Leaned APP declared the witness as hostile and cross examination the witness, but nothing was elicited.

[9-C.] P.W.s.2 & 3, who are excise officials clearly deposed about the occurrence of incident, detection of offence, apprehension of accused, seizure of liquor bottles and filing of charge sheet. In their cross-examination P.Ws.2 &3 denied the Suggestion that the accused never confessed any guilt and also that nothing was seized from their possession.

Page:5 C.C.No,323/2018 [9-D.] Now it has to be Seen whether the evidence produced by sufficient to hold that the aCCused is guilty, Evidence

the prosecution is

of investigating officer assumes importance only when the evidence of

crucial witness is Cogent and reliable. P.W.1 and 2, who acted as

mediator not supported the

prosecution case and turned hostile and also not identified the acCUsed persons in the court hall as offenders.

Therefore, the contents of Ex.P.2

mediatornama are not proved,

[9-E.] Ine evidence of pW 8 3 (excise officials) loses its

significance as there is no cost avidence from the independent

witnesses. Thus, there 0s no evidence whatsoever to conclude that

accused committed the alleged offence.

[9-F.J Therefore, there js no cogent and reliable evidence to

implicate the complicity of the accuIsed in commission of the offence. It

is well nown that penal statutes should be construed strictly and the

prosecution needs to prove the quilt beyond doubt, which is lacking in

the present case. The material produced by the prosecution is hardly

sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.

Thereby, the point is decided in negative.

[10.1 IN THE RESULT, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.34(a) of A.P Excise Act, and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and thier

Sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked case property involved in this case i.e. sample shall be

destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenograpner, corrected by me. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 27 day of September. 2019, under the nand and seal of this court.

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Piduguralla.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

RT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF LCIASs AT

PIDUGURALLA

C.C.No,251 of 2019 pate ofiA) Complaint Apph. of Released on Commenceme Closure of Offence on Bail nt of Trial Trial Result accused or before 23-08-2019 27-08-2019 In jail 14-10-2019 21-10-2019 31-08-2019 23-10-2019

Between: The State, Represented by S.l of Police.

Complainant.

P.S. Piduguralla.

And

Gera Pavan Sundar, S/o Gnanesh, age 29 yrs, Caste: Mala, N/o Mannesulthanpalem Village, Bellamkonda Mandal, Now R/o Cement Nagar, Bethamcharla Mandal, Kurnool District. Accused.

Offence: U/SeC: 379 or 411 |PC

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence of Order:

In the Result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties if any shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months. The unmarked case property involved in this case ie., motor cycle bearing No. AP 27 AL 6960, shall be return to the owner after expiry of appeal time.

As accused is in Judicial Custody, Jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

23kdis

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum ludl. Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla.

Copy Submitted to: Guntur for kind perusal. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural

IN THE ÇOURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE O OF I CLASS :: PIDUGURALLA.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha Rani, B.A.B.L., AJCJ-cum-11 A.J.M.F.C, Narasaraopet. II FAC: JCI-cum-JMMFC, Piduguralla.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of October, 2019.

C.C.No.251/2019

[Cr.No.383 of 2019 of P.S Piduguralla.] Between: The State, Represented by S.I of PolicCe P.S. Piduguralla. Complainant. .....

And

Gera Pavan Sundar, S/o Gnanesh, age 29 yrs, Caste: Mala, N/o Mannesulthanpalem Village. Bellamkonda Mandal, Now R/o Cement Nagar, Bethamcharla Mandal, Kurnool District. Accused.

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned APP for the prosecution and Sri. D.Chennaiah, Learned Counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arquments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

[1.] The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Piduguralla has filed charge sheet against the above accused in Cr.No.383 of 2019 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.379 of I.P.C. [2.] The brief averments in the charge sheet are that P.W.1 is Complainant and resident of Markapuram of Prakasam District, On 23-08-2019 he came to piduguralla and parked his bike bearing No. AP 27 AL 6960 in front of Sai Baba tempie near railway gate and went inside and after completion of darshan he came out and noticed that his bike was found missing. He searchedfor his bike in the nearby places but

23el9

could not be traced. hence he lodged police report requestin9 to take necessary action.

[3.] On receipt of above report, P.W.4, s.l of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.383/2019 and issued FIR, recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. On 31-08-2019

recovered several vehicles pertaining to

effected the arrest of accused and different crimes including the stolen property in the present crime under of panchanama and prOduced before the cOurt for judicial the cover remand. During the course or investigation, I.0 came to the conclusion that the acCused has committed an offence punishable u/seC. 379 of I..C and filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

|4.] This case was taken on file for the offence under section 379 of

I.P.C against the Accused.

[5.] On production of accused from Jail, he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge under section 379 of I.P.C and alternatively A11 0f JPC has been fraeddu over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

[6.1 To prove the case, tie prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

7.1 After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence against the accused in the prosecution evidence, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

[8.] Heard the arguments of both sides.

23lioli9

9.] Now, the point for

determination 15*

"Whether the Prosecution has established the guilt of Accused

for the offence under sections 379 or 411_of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?"

[10.] In order to bring home the guilt of the accused as stated supra,

the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P.6.

P.W.1 is complainant, P.Ws.2 &3 are Mediators for confession and recovery,

and P.WN.4 is Investigating

With regard to documents, Ex.P.1 is Officer.

Report of P.W.1, Exs.P.2 and P.3 are Signatures of PWs.2 & 3 on

mediatornama and Seizure report, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P.5 is Rough Sketch

and Ex.P.6 is Attested copy of Mediatornama.

[11.] Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved uie g

Or the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above oftence Dy examining P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and by marbing Eys P1.to P.6, and therefore prayed to convict the accused for the above section of law.

[12.] The stand of the accused is that he is innocent, unjustIy implicated in this case and that no way connected with the aliegeu commission of offence. The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that

the prosecution has failed to prove the quilt against the accused and stated

that the present case was falsely foisted against the accused and prayed to acquit the accused.

Evidence available on record:

[13.] As stated supra, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 £nd got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The testimony of P.W.1 is that about two months ago, his motor cycle was found missing and that he lodged Ex.P.1 police report.

[14.1 P.Ws.2 & 3, who are medlators ror Confession and seizure did not support the prosecution case ano turmed hostile. P.W.,4. who is

23]| olig

Investigating officer clearly deposed about the registration of case,

apprehension of accused, preparation

of rough sketch, recording the

recovery

confessional statement of acCUsed, of stolen property and after completion of investigation, filing of charge sheet.

whether the evidence available on reCord

[15.) Now it has to be seen is sufficient to prove the commisSion of

offence by the accUsed as alleged.

On perusal of the material available on record, P.W.1,

Complainant corroborated the contents in his report and deposed about

who is the defacto- missing of his bike, To prove the case, the

prosecution mainly relied upon

confession and seizure. P.Ws.2& 3 did

P.Ws.2 & 3, who are mediators for

not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, basing on

& 4, coupled with Ex.P.1 to P.6 proving the the evidence of P.W.1 commission of offence at relevant point of time, but there is no iota of evidence on record to implicate the acCUsed in

commission of alleged

co offence. This court feels that the evidence of P.W.4, who is police official, is not sufficient to decide the guilt of the accused in the absence

corroboration from independent testimony. Therefore, there is no cogent

of and reliable evidence to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of the offence. It is well known that penal statutes should be strictly construed and benefit of any lacuna in the case of prosecution is to be given to the accused.

[16.] In view of the above infirmities, this court finds that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of prosecution when it is not complete to prove the guilt of the acCUsed. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the quilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby, the point is decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution.

[17.] IN THE RESULT,

Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 379 or 411 of Tpc md acCordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The hail bondc of accused and his sureties if any

23lolg

cancelled after the expiry of six months. The unmarked case shall stand property involved in this case i.e.. motor cvcle bearing No. AP 27 AL 6960.

shall be return to the owner after expiry of appeal time.

As accUsed is in Judicial Custody, Jail authorities are hereby

directed to release the accused forthwith,

if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of October, 2019.

23l|ol19

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Piduguralla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: T.Venkata Ramana -None P.W.2: Shaik Mabhu Shareef PW.3: Shaik Ramjan Vali PW.4: L.Sudheer (I.0)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Exs.P.2 and P.3: Signatures of PWs.2 & 3 on mediatornama Ex.P.4: FIR

Ex.P.5: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.6 : Attested copy of Mediatornama.

Defence:

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil -Nil on either side

23l

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Piduguralla.

GALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS AT PIDUGURALLA

C.C.NO.266 of 2019 Result Closure of Date of Releascd on Commenceme Trial Complaint Apph. of nt of Trial 14-10-2019 21-10-2019 Offence on accused Bail or before 04-10-2019 25-05-2019 26-05-20 19 30-05-2019 30-05-2019

Between:

The State, Complainant. Through S.I of Police, Machavaram P.S.

And

A.1 Jakki Ramanjayeyulu, S/o Hanumaiah, Age: 35 years, A.2 Kongarekka Ramaiah, S/o China Kotaiah, Age :49 years, A.3 Melam Venkateswarlu, S/o Chna Kotaiah, Age : 39 years, A.4 Darls Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o Ramaiah, Age :32 years,

A.5 Kunkakarla Kanthaiah, S/o Devadanam, Age : 37 years, A.6 Chappidi Koti @ Koteswara Rao, S/o Krishna, Age :26 years, A.7 Jupalli Anji @ Anjaneyulu, s/o Seshaiah, Age :33 years, A.8 Marri Daya Ratnam, S/o Devasahayam, Age: 42 years, A.9 Darla Sekhar, S/o Pitchaiah, Age : 46 years, All are residents of S.C. Colony, Machavaram Village and Mandal. Accused 1 to 9 ...., P.T.0

Offence: U/Sec: 324. 323 r/w 34 PC

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding : Not guilty.

Sentence of Order :

IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A9 are tound not guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of aceused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. No property is produced before this court, hence no order as to

property.

Explanation for the delay: No delay.

lolig

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Piduguralla.

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

Page:i C.C.No.266/2019

- THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT PIDUGURALLA,

Present: Smt. A Sunitha Rani, B.A.,B.L., II A.J.M,F.C, Narasaraoprt. FAC:: JC]-cum-JMFC, Piduguralla.

Monday, this the 21st day of October, 2019

C.C No.266/2019

[Cr. No.71 of 2019 of P.S Machavaram.]

Between:

The State, Through S.I of Police. Machavaram P.S.

Complainant.

And

A.1 Jakki Ramanjayeyulu, S/o Hanumaiah, Age: 35 years,

A.2 Kongarekka Ramaiah, S/o China Kotaiah, Age :49 years,

A.3 Melam Venkateswarlu, S/o China Kotaiah, Age : 39 years,

A.4 Darla Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao, S/o Ramaiah, Age :32 years,

A.5 Kunchakarla Kanthaiah, S/o Devadanam, Age : 37 years,

A.6 Chappidi Koti @ Koteswara Rao, S/o Krishna, Age :26 years,

A.7 Jupalli Anji @ Anjaneyulu,

S/o Seshaiah, Age :33 years,

Page:2 C.C.No.266/2019

A.8 Marri Daya Ratnam, S/o Devasahayam, Age: 42 years,

A.9 Darla Sekhar, S/o Pitchaiah, Age: 46 yearsS,

All are residents of S.C. Colony, Machavaram Village and Mandal. ... A.1 to A.9 -o00

This calendar case came before me ror final hearing and disposal in

the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and of accused, upon perusing

the material papers on record and upon nearing the arquments of both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the

following:

JUDG MENT

[1.] The Sub-Inspector of Police, Machavaram, P.S, filed charge sheet

in Cr.No.71 of 2019 with a prayer to punish the above accused by alleging

that they committed an offence punishable U/sec. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

[2.] Brief Facts:- P.W.1/K.Showry Babu is complainant/Injured. PWs.2

to 6 are also injured and they are residents of S.C colony of Machavaram

Village. All the accused persons are also residents of same locality. There is

a political rivalry between injured and accused. On 25.05.2019 at about

04.30 pm., the accused quarreled with PWs.1 to 6 and attacked them with

sticks and Iron rods and caused bleeding injuries to them. Later, P.W.1 to

PW.6 were shifted to H0spital for treatment. LW.11/ASI of Police, visited

the hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and transmitted the same

to Machavaram P.S on the point of jurisdiction. On 26.05.2019 at 07.00 am

on receiving the statement, LW.12/A.S.I., 1289 registered FIR in

Cr.No.71/19 U/sec.324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation, recorded

the statements of witnesses. drawn scene observation report and rough

sketch. Secured the wound certificates of P.W.1 to P.W.6.

P'age:3

CCNO00 2019

[3.] On 30.05.2019 LW.12 issued notice to acCused U/s,41-A of

Cr.P.C and released on bail, Subsequently, LW. 12 handed over the C.D file

to LW. 13/S.I., of Police.

LW.13 verified the investigation done by LW,12 and found it on correct lines. During the course of investigatlon as n0 case was made out against A.l, A.2, A.6, A.8, A.10, A 15 to A. 19 (who are shown in

F.I.R.,) the investigating officer deleted their names and filed charge sheet

against the remaining accused for the offence puunishable U/sec.324, 323

r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

[4.] On perusal of charge sheet as Some of the acCCUsed were deleted, this court issued notice to Complainant/K.Showry Babu and he

appeared before the court and submitted that be has no objection to delete

the names of A.1, A.2, A.6, A.8, A.10, A.15 to A,19 from the charge sheet.

Upon considering the charge sheet and material on record, the court toOk

the case on file for the offence punishable wsec.324, 323 r/w 34 1PC and assigned the serial number of the accused as A.1 to A.9 and issued process. In reply to the process accused entered their appearance and they were provided With the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination únder section 239 of Cr.P.C, a charge

U/Sec. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, was framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused pleaded not guilty and clainmed to be tried.

Upon invitation for trial, the prosecution examined SEVEN witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited as many as EIGHT documents as Exs.P.1 to

P.8.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed Witn, as there is no incriminating material against the accused. The derence not chosen to adduce anv evidence on their behalf.

C.C.No.266/2019 Page:4 |/.] Heard arguments of both sides.

(8.] Now, the points that arise for determination are: -

"Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a

conviction against the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC?

[9.] Evidence on record: As stated above, the prosecution

examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to Ex.P8 documents. P.W.1 IS the de-facto complainant/injured. P.W.2 to Pw.7 are injured. With regard to exhibits, Ex.P.1 is Signature of pw.1 on complaint statement, Exs.P2 to P8 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.1 to PW.7.

[9.1.] P.W. 1, who is injured, deposed that he does not know the facts

of the case and he did not lodge any police report and not supported the prosecution case. P.W.2 to PW./, who are also injured not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile, Learned APP cross examined the witnesses with the permission of the court, but nothing was elicited, to Suggest that they are speaking falsehood. P.W.1 to Pw.7 denied the contents of their statements recorded by the police. The statements of PW.1 to Pw.7 exhibited as Ex.P.2 to P8. However, P.W.1 to P.W.7 made an admission in their cross examination that they compromised with the accused.

[9.2.] As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he pleaded ignorance of the contents of the complaint statement which is basis for registration of

F.I.R. Though the prosecution exhibited the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.7 recorded by the police, it has its own limitation as the said statements were recorded U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled law that the contents of statements U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C can be used for contradicting a witness by the defence but the contents of statement cannot be relied upon by the

2ltolig

CC 98/2018

Date: 30.09.2019:

present.

A.l to A.5 are Received order copy in Cri

Petition No. 3787 of 2019

dated 02-07-2019 of Hon'ble

High court of A.P., where in the Hon'ble High court of A.P

pleased to quash the entire

proceedings in the present

case against the accused 1 to

5. Same is recorded. Bail bonds of accused 1 to 5 shall

stands cancelled.

F.A.C:J.M.F.C,

Piduguralla.

Dt.23-10-2019

Accused produced from

Sub-Jail. pronounced in the open court. (VSJ) Judgment Narasaraopet.

In the result, accused is found not quilty for the offence U/s.379 or 411 IPC and accordingly acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.

Jail authorities are hereby directed

to release the accused forthwith, if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

23

FAC.JMFC,PDRL