Smt. Asifa Sulthana G.C.

1

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

I N THE COURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS :: N ANDIKOTKUR .

C ALENDAR C ASE N O .181/2014

DATEOFOFFENCE.: 18-05-2014

DATEOFCOMPLAINT.: 18-05-2014

DATEOFAPPREHENSIONOFACCUSED.: 28-05-2014

DATEOFRELEASEONBAIL.: 28-05-2014

DATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL.: 07.12.2015

DATEOFCLOSEOFTRIAL.: 24.11.2016

DATEOFSENTENCEORORDER.: 30.11.2016

EXPLANATIONFORDELAY: NIL

COMPLAINANT: STATE: REPRESENTEDBYTHE SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, MIDTHUR P.S.IN CR.NO. 60/2014

S.NONAMEFATHER’SNAMERELIGIOOCCUPA-RESIDENCEAGE

NTION

HINDUMidthur

1.BoyaMadhu MadduletiCOOLIE20 yrs, (V&M) Naidu

O FFENCE.: voluntarily causing hurt, Uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman etc.,

S ECTION OF L AW: 323 & 509 OF IPC

F INDING. : FOUNDNOTGUILTY.

S ENTENCE OR ORDER : INTHERESULT, THEACCUSEDISFOUNDNOTGUILTYFORTHE OFFENCEPUNISHABLEU/SEC 323 AND 509 OF IPC ANDTHEREBYHEISACQUITTED U/SEC 255 (1) OF CR.P.C. THEBAILBONDSOFTHEACCUSEDIFANY, SHALLBE TREATEDASBAILBONDSU/SEC 437 (A) OF CR.P.C. TOAPPEARBEFORETHEHIGHER COURTASANDWHENSUCHCOURTREQUIRESINRESPECTOFANYAPPEALORPETITION AGAINSTTHE JUDGMENTOFTHISCOURTANDTHESAMESHALLBEINFORCEFORA PERIODOF 6 MONTHSFROMTHEDATEOFTHISORDERDT.30-11-2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandikotkur.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum - Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:NANDIKOTKUR.

Present: Ms.Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur.

Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016.

Calendar Case No.181/2014

Between:

State: Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Midthur Police Station.

...Complainant.

Vs.

Boya Madhu Naidu, S/o.Madduleti, aged 20 yrs., Midthur (V&M).

….Accused

This case is coming on 24-11-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

M.B. Balanagaiah Guptha, Advocate for accused, after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Midthur Police Station has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.60/2014 for the offence under Section 323 & 509 of IPC against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is as follows:

On dt 18-05-2014 at about 12.00 hours the complainant (LW.1) was present at her house wherein the accused went to her house, abused the complainant in filthy language and complainant (LW.1) informed the accused that she is going to the police station and while she was proceeding to the police station, the accused came behind the complainant by calling as “Lanja” and pushed the complainant (LW.1) on to the road side water tap pit due to which the complainant (LW.1) sustained contusion injuries on her left elbow and left ribs. On seeing the 3 incident, the daughter of the complainant (LW.3) came to her rescue and by the time the accused caught hold of tuft of LW.3, dragged her and pushed her aside. Meanwhile, both Lws.1 and 3 were rescued by remaining witnesses and therefore, they were separated from the clutches of the accused. Later, the complainant gave report basing on which a case was registered by LW.7 as in Cr.No.60/2014 for the offences under

Section 323 and 509 of IPC of Midthur P.S. and thereby he took up the investigation. After due process of completion of investigation, the S.I. of

Police (LW.8) has registered the case after affecting the arrest of accused for the offences under Section 323 and 509 of IPC.

3.On perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the police, this case is taken cognizance on file for the offences under Sections 323 and 509 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of this case were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.The accused was examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C and the contents of the examination for the offence U/s 323 and 509 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 on its behalf.

7. The accused was examined U/s 313 of Cr.PC after closure of prosecution side evidence by putting forth incriminating material against the accused read over and explained to him in Vernacular language for which he denied for the same. On questioning of defence side evidence he reported nil. Hence defence side evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record both in oral documentary.

4

9. The point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Boya Madhu Naidu that he voluntarily caused hurt and outraged the modesty of the complainant and thereby committed the offence under Section 323 and 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ? POINT :

10. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.1 and she reported that about one year five months back at about 12.00 noon she along with her daughter were watching T.V. in their house, the accused came into her house in drunken condition and abused her in filthy language. The parents of the accused came there and took away the accused from them. Later, the accused came again into her house and abused her and further the parents of the accused also took him away for the second time. Immediately, the complainant (PW.1) proceeded to the police station in order to give report against the accused wherein the accused followed her and pushed her from her back side due to which, she fell down in pit and sustained dumb injuries over her left elbow and left side of the ribs. Immediately, she was rescued by her daughter but the accused caught hold of hair of her daughter and beat both Pw.1 and her daughter (LW.3). Subsequently, she gave report against the accused which got marked as Ex.P1.

During the cross examination, she stated that there are no talking terms between herself and the accused prior to the incident. She further reported that neither her husband nor the accused have any talking terms between them. She denied for the suggestion that the accused is innocent and he never beat PW.1 and abused her and the injuries sustained by Pw.1 are during her coolie work and therefore, a false case is foisted against the accused.

11.Subsequently, the husband of the PW.1 was examined as PW2 and he reported that while he came back to the house at 12.00 noon he came to know from PW.1 that the accused abused his wife PW.1 as well as beat his daughter (LW.3) stating that “police complaint ivvadaniki velthava” 5 and therefore the accused pushed his wife in the water tap pit due to which, she sustained injuries.

During the cross examination, it is elicited that there are ill-feeligns between PW.2 and the accused with respect to a wall present in between their houses. He admitted the fact that he is the eye witness to the incident and he is the hearsay witness and came to know about the incident from his wife. However, he deined for the suggestion that accused is innocent and no such galata took place and they are deposing a false case agaisnt the accused.

12.Subsequently, the other eye witnesses to the scene who rescued

PW.1 was examined as PW.3 and she did not support the case of prosecution and except to the marking of Ex.P2 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of PW.3.

13.The doctor who has treated the injured (PW.1) was examined as

PW.4 and found the following injuries.

1. A 5 x 5 cm grazed abrasion over left side of lower back

2. A ½ cm ½ cm abrasion behind right ear as per x-ray reports from the GGH, Kurnool Br.OP.No.207880 dt.19-5-2014 by Dr. M. Padmalatha stating 1. Chest AP – NBI 2. Left thigh – NBI 3. Left elbor – NBI 4. Pelvis –

NBI.

He is of the opinion that the said injuries are simple in nature and the age of the wound is 0-6 hours prior to his examination. Ex.P3 was got marked which is the wound certificate issued by him.

During the cross examination, he admitted that the said injuries can also be occurred if the injured victim falls on the road from the vehicle.

14.However, the Head constable who registered the case was examined as PW.5 and he reported that on 18-05-2014 at 15.00 hours while he was present in the police station the complainant Boya Hussainamma (PW.1) came to the police station and lodged a written report which is nothing but 6

Ex.P1. Basing on which he registered a case as in Cr.No.60/2014 for the offences under Section 323 and 509 of IPC and issued FIR which got marked as Ex.P4 and visited the scene and drawn the rough sketch which is Ex.P5. Subsequently, for further investigation he handed over the CD file to the SI of Police who examined as PW.6.

During the cross examination, he stated that he is not aware who is the scribe of the Ex.P1 which is the report given by PW.1. He admitted the fact that in the rough sketch drawn by him he failed to mention the water tap pit in Ex.P5. He further admitted that as per the report it is brought to the light of the court that the PW.1 herself stated that there are previous ill-feelings between PW.1 and the accused. Further, he denied for the suggestion that accused is innocent and no way connected with the facts of the case.

15.The Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet was examined as PW.6 and he affected the arrest of accused on dt 28-05-2014. He denied for the suggestions that his investigation is table made and the accused is innocent and no way connected with the facts of the case.

16.In the back drop of the evidence which is let in and the arguments advanced by the prosecution wherein the learned counsel for the defence failed to submit his arguments in spite of giving sufficient opportunities.

Furthermore, on perusal of the evidence the complainant PW.1 has corroborated her version to the extetn that on the said date of incident, the accused came from her backside while she was proceeding to police station and thereby pushed her into the water tap pit due to which she sustained injuries. The core evidence to the case of prosecution is the daughter of P.W.1 who was present along with PW.1 and she rescued her mother from the clutches of the accused and furthermore, the accused also beat the daughter of PW.1 who was cited as LW.3. However, in view of the report filed by the prosecution that the whereabouts of the daughter of PW.1 are not known and in view of the same the said evidence was 7 closed. Therefore, the non-examination of daughter of Pw.1 i.e., LW.3 is fatal to the case of prosecution. Even on perusal of the evidence given by

PW.1 she reported that the accused came into her house on two occasions and abused her and also beat her. But the same is not mentioned as per the report given by her to the police i.e. Ex.P1 basing on which, the FIR was registered. On perusal of Ex.P1 she has reproted that at about 12.00 hours on dt 18-5-2014 while she was present in her house the accused came in drunken condition and started abusing PW.1 due to which, she was proceeding to the police station and thereby the accused came and beat PW.1 and threatened her into the water tap pit which was present on the road. However, she has made a mentioning in her report that there are disputes between her and also the accused with respect to the wall located in between their houses. In contradiction to the said statement

PW.1 reported during her cross examination that there are no disputes between PW.1 and the accused. In addition to that, the other witness is the husband of PW.1 who has corroborated the version of prosecution.

However, another independent witness and the eye witness who was present at the scene is PW.3 who rescued PW.1 from the clutches of accused but she did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile to the case. No incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of PW.3. However, the doctor who has issued the wound certificate was examined as PW.4 and he reported that PW.1 was examined by him and thereby he issued Ex.P3 i.e. the wound certificate sustaining the injuries. The suggestion put forth by the counsel that those injuries can be caused even if the victim falls on the ground was admitted by PW.4.

Subsequently, the Head constable who has registered the case was examined as PW.5 and in the evidence of PW.5 he admitted the fact that the rough sketch which is drawn by him as Ex.P5 do not contain the water tap pit in the said rough sketch which is nothing but the scene of offence wherein as per the version of Ex.P1 the accused has pushed PW.1 and 8 thrown her into the water tap pit. On perusal of Ex.P5 there is a mentioning of water tap pit as scene of offence but the Head constable

PW.5 made a contrary admission that he has not mentioned the water tap pit in the rough sketch. However, the investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet reported that the accused is the one who caused the injuries to Pw.1.

On perusal as discussed earlier PW.1 made the averments during her evidence that the accused came to her house and abused her as well as beat her on two occasions and thereby the parents of the accused took him away. This is a development which has been brought on record by the prosecution at the time of evidence. In addition to that, the core evidence who is the daughter of PW.1 was not brought before the Court and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW.2 is the another supporting witness but he is the husband of PW.1 and therefore, he is the hearsay evidence.

Henceforth, the prosecution failed to bring any other independent eye witness or other independent evidence apart from being relation to PW.1 so as to elicit the incriminating material against the accused herein.

Furthermore, the suggestion admitted by the doctor PW.4 that the said injury could be caused if the injured falls on the ground also raises a doubt that whether the accused herein has committed the said act as under

Section 323 and 509 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring enough evidence and enough of material on record so as to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby he is acquitted.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 323 and 509 of IPC and thereby he is acquitted u/sec 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the 9

Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.30-11-2016.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 30th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Boya Hussainamma - None – P.w.2: C. Ramakrishna Pw.3: B. Sunkamma Pw.4: Dr. G. Hussain Pw.5: N. Lingamaiah Pw.6: P.T.N. Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 : Report of PW.1 - Nil – Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw.3 Ex.P.3 : Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.4 : FIR Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBECTS

NIL Id/- A.S.

JFCM., NDK.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS NANDIKOTKUR.

Present:- Ms. Asifa Sulthana

Judl.Magistrate of I Class ,Nandikotkur. Monday, 13th day of April, 2015

CALENDAR CASE NO 260/2012

State Rep., by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station. Complainant

1. Swamulu, age 35 years, S/o M. Savari,

ABM. Palem, Nandikotkur town, 2 Lakshmidevi Age 28 years, W/o Swamulu,

3. Venkata Lakshmamma, age 38 years,

W/o Veeraswamy

All are R/o ABM Palem, Nandikotkur town Accused 1 to 3

This case coming up for hearing before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri. K. Swamy Reddy and K. Bhaskar counsels for accused No.1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC of IPC in Cr.No 160/2012.

The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows

2 On 26-8-2012 at 11.00 hrs whilk Lw3 sat upon the dam, the accused

A2 abused Lw3 in filthy language. By that time, the mother in law of the complainant intervened and send Lw3 to the house. After lapse of few minutes, the accused A2 and A3 picked up quarrel with her mother in law and while beating her by holding hairs, by that time, the complainant intervened to rescue her mother in law, the accused A1 came there and abused the complainant and her mother in law as their wish. Mean while 2

Lws4 and 5 intervened and rescued the complainant and her mother in law. Later the injured complainant took treatment at Government Hospita,

Nandikotkur on 26-8-2012. Basing on the report of Lw1, the Sub Inspector of police (Lw7) registered a case in Cr.No. 160/2012 U/s 323, 509 r/w 34

IPC of Nandikotkur Police station and investigated in to the case and filed charge sheet.

3 On perusal of the record the case was taken on file U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A3. On appearance of accused A1 to A3 before the court copies of case documents was furnished and as U/s 207 of Cr.PC and examined U/s 239 of Cr.PC, a charge was framed U/s 447, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A3 is read over and explained to them in Telugu he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 To prove the case, the prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw6 and

Ex.’s P1 to P6 are marked. No material objects are marked.

5. In view of the report of police the evidence of Lw6 was closed.

6 Prosecution side evidence was closed 7 In the examination of accused U/s 313 of Cr.PC by putting forth the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and submitted that he is innocent for the said offence and stated no defence on their behalf. Hence the defence side evidence was closed.

8 Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9 Now the point for consideration is whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT 3

In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution examined

Pw1 to Pw6 and Ex.s P1 to P6 were marked. Pw1 is the defacto complainant and deposed in her chief evidence that Lw3 is brother in law of Pw1 and he has established a small bunk near the house of accused for which they opposed keeping of the bunk they approached the village elders and got it removed. She further deposed that about one year back at 11.00 Am while Lw3 was sitting near the bunk placing near the house of accused and then the accused A2 abused him while Lw2 questioned the accused A2 why is she abusing where in the accused A1 and A3 came there and beat Pw1 with hands. Accused A1 caught hold of neck of Pw1 and also beat her. Mean while Lw4 and 5 intervened and rescued Pw1 from the clutches of the accused. Later she went to the police station and lodged a report against the accused marked as Ex.P1. In the cross examination of Pw1 she lodged a report against the accused marked as

Ex.P1. In the cross examination of Pw1 she admits that Lw2 previously used to sell I.D Arrack in the bunk and further submits that at present Lw2 is not selling any I.D Arrack. She denies that she has not mentioned in

Ex.P1 about her injuries sustained by her during the galata. She accepts that the house of the accused and house of the defacto complainant are on either side of the road. Pw1 stated that she went to the private hospital at 12.00 noon and around 2.00 pm she went to Government General

Hospital, Kurnool. She further submits that she do not know who has drafted Ex.P1. In the cross examination of Pw1 she accepts that the accused are doing coolie work and they go for the coolie work at 9.00 Am in the morning and return back at 5.00 pm in the evening. She further denies that the accused are innocent and false case is foisted against them by Pw1 to 3 due to the previous disputes.

4 11 Pw2 corroborated the version of Pw1 in her chief evidence. In the cross examination of Pw2 she denied that his son Lw2 used to sell I.D

Liquor in the said bunk. She further submits that Pw2 shifted Pw1 to the hospital in an auto in the evening. Pw2 stated that her grant son by name

Rama Krishna has lodged the complaint on their behalf and denied that the accused are innocent and they did not beat Pw1.

12 Pw3 corroborated the version of Pw1 and 2 in his chief evidence and supported the version of prosecution. He further submits that Pw1 sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital by one Rama Krishna and submits that Pw1 lodged the complaint. In the cross examination of Pw3 he denied for the suggestion putforth by the counsel for the defendant that he used to sell I.D Liquor in the bunk and there are excise offence registered against Pw3. He deposed that he has witnessed the incident and beating of the accused to Pw1. He also submits that he did not go to rescue Pw1 and Pw2 from clutches of the accused. He further stated that the accused beat Pw1 on her head and chest and the galata took place about 11.00 Am. He further submits that on the date of incident Pw1 and

Pw2 went in to the hospital but Pw3 did not accompany them. He further denies that the accused are innocent and they never beat Pw1.

13 Pw4 and Pw5 are the eye witnesses to the incident as per the prosecutions case and in their examination they did not supported the prosecution version and no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of Pw4 to Pw5 against the accused A1 and A2.

Except marking of Ex.s P2 and P3 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of Pw4 and Pw5.

14 Pw6 is the investigating officer after receiving of complaint from Pw1 basing on it registered a case in Crime No. 160/2012 for the offences U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR marked as Ex.P4. Later he went to 5 the scene of offence and prepared the Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P5 examined the other witnesses and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the defence he accepts that there is a delay of 3 days in filing of the report to the police by Pw1. He further accepts that for the reasons of delay in the column No.8 of Ex.P4 Pw1 has mentioned the reason for the delay due to the fear of the accused she did not approach the police station immediately. He accepts that he has not examined the village elders who has conducted the panchayat in order to remove the bunk by Pw3 near the house of the accused. He further submits that he do not know whether any exercise case which registered against Pw3 for selling of arrack near his house. Pw6 further submits that Pw1 approached Pw6 on 29-8-2012 at 13.20 hours later collected the wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P6 and has filed charge sheet. He also submits that Pw1 has approached Pw6 after taking due treatment at Government General

Hospital, Kurnool and the same is mentioned in Ex.P1. He further denies that the accused are innocent and his investigation is table made.

15 Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case the prosecution relies on the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 and submits that Pw4 and 5 are the eye witnesses and they did not support the version of prosecution. In the evidence of Pw1 to Pw3 all the prosecution witness Pw1 to Pw3 has corroborated the version in the chief examination. In the cross examination of Pw1 she accepts that Lw3 who is examined as Pw3 used to sell arrack near his house but the same is contradicted in the cross examination of Pw2 and 3. Further Pw1 and 2 deposed in their evidence that Pw3 also accompanied them to the hospital on the date of incident but the same is contradicted in the evidence of Pw3 where he stated that he did not accompany Pw1 and Pw2 to the hospital. Further the motive for 6 the galata is the bunk which was established by Pw3 prior to the galata and the same was removed by the accused after holding a panchayat by the village elders. It is accepted by the investigating officer that he failed to examine any of the village elders in order to bring fact to the light of this court where there was a bunk established by Pw3 near the house of accused and the same was removed. Further more there is a delay of 3 days in lodging of the complaint where Pw6 deposed in his evidence that

Pw1 stated due to fear of the accused they did not approach the police and the same is contradicted in the cross examination of Pw1 where she submitted that she was to the hospital for taking treatment and after getting discharged from the hospital after 2 days she approached the police station.

On perusal of Ex.P6 I,.e the Wound Certificate it can be derived that when Pw1 was examined by the duty doctor at 7.40 pm which is contradicted from the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 where they mentioned that they went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool at about 2.00 pm.

Even on perusal of Ex.P6 the injuries which are mentioned as blunt injury over head and neck. Ex.P6 clearly draws light that Pw1 was accompanied by One Rama Krishna who is son in law in relation to Pw1. Pw1 also deposed in her cross examination that Ex.P1 was drafted by Rama Krishna who is her son in law. On the other hand the prosecution failed to examine witnesses the said Rama Krishna to bring the true facts to the light of this court. The independent eye witnesses Pw4 and Pw5 did not support the prosecution version. Further more the contradictions in the evidence of

Pw3 raises an apprehension about the genuity of the evidence of Pw3.

Relying on the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 they have submitted that the accused has beat Pw1 but on the other hand no independent witness supported the version of prosecution. Pw3 who is the eye witness also 7 could not supported his version and stated that he did not accompany Pw1 and 2 and also stated that police did not examine him specifically about the incident.

14 Henceforth, under the light of the above discussion the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the offences U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and there by the accused

A1 to A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt and hereby acquitted.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. And for the same they are acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall be treated as bail bonds as U/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC to appear before the Higher Court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the judgement of this court and shall be in force for a period of six months from 13-4-2015. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2015.

Sd/- M.S Asifa Sulthana

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Nandikotkur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR PROSECUTION : For Defence : Nil

Pw1: Lw1 Ashviradhamma is examined as Pw1 Pw2: Lw2 Sunkamma is examined as Pw2 Pw3: Lw3 Mallella Sriram is examined as Pw3 Pw4: Lw4 Bhagyamma is examined as Pw4 Pw5: Lw5 Katepogu Laxmidevi is examined as Pw5 Pw6: Lw6 B. Krishnaiah is examined as Pw6

Exhibits Marked 8

Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : 161 Crpc Statement of Pw4 Ex.P3: 161 Crpc Statement of Pw5 Ex.P4: Original FIR Ex.P5: Rough Sketch Ex.P6: Wound Certificate

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/- MS. A.S

JMFC,NDK

9

CALENDAR & JUDGEMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

::NANDIKOTKUR::

CALENDAR CASE NO. 260/2012

1. Date of Offence: 26-08-2012

2. Date of Complaint or report: 29-08-2012

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 08-10-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 08-10-2012

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07-03-2014

6. Date of close of trial: 27-01-2015

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 13-04-2015

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

COMPLAINANT:The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur police station. In Crime No. 160/2012.

Name of the Father’s VillageMandalCallingReligionAge accusedName Swamulu M. Savari ABM Coolie Hindu 35 Palem, Nandikotkuyears Nandikotr kur Lakshmidevi W/o ABM Coolie Hindu 28 SwamuluPalemNandikotukyears r Venkata W/o ABM Coolie Hindu 38 lakshmammaVeerswamyPalem Nandikotkuyears r

Offence : Voluntarily causing hurt, Uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman etc. Section of Law: Section 323, 509 of IPC

Finding of Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence/Order

In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 323, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. And for the same they are acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall be treated as bail bonds as U/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC to appear

before the Higher Court as and when such court requires in respect of any

appeal or petition against the judgement of this court and shall be in force for a period of six months from 13-4-2015. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- M.S Asifa Sulthana

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NANDIKOTKUR.

Copy submitted to The Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum -

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

I N THE COURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS ::N ANDIKOTKUR .

C ALENDAR C ASE N O .262/2015

DATEOFOFFENCE.: 05-06-2015

DATEOFCOMPLAINT.: 17.06.2015 DATEOFAPPREHENSIONOFACCUSED.: 10.08.2015 DATEOFRELEASEONBAIL.: 10.08.2015 DATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL.: 30.11.2016 DATEOFCLOSUREOFTRIAL.: 01.12.2016 DATEOFSENTENCEORORDER.: 02.12.2016 EXPLANATION.: ---- COMPLAINANT: STATE: REPRESENTEDBYTHE SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, MIDTHURP.S. as in Cr.No.74/2015 .

S.NAMEFATHER’SNAMERELIGI-OCCU-RESIDENCEAGE NO ONPATIONyrs. Bethamcherla Late P. BalannaSCCOOLIE24 Polakanti Rajesh

1.Bogolu village SCCOOLIE34 W/o.D. Veera Sekhar

2.P. Lakshmi Devi @ Debbe Lakshmidevi, Bethamcherla W/o.Late P. BalannaSCCOOLIE50

3.P.Ramulamma

O FFENCE.: Subjecting a married woman to cruelty, criminal intimidation

S ECTION OF L AW: Sec. 498-A, 506 R/W.34 of IPC F INDING: Found not guilty.

S ENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.02-12-2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS ,

N ANDIKOTKUR .

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum - Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:NANDIKOTKUR.

Present: Ms.Asifa Sulthana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur.

Friday, the 2nd day of December, 2016.

Calendar Case No.262/2015

Between:

State: Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Midthur Police Station. ...Complainant

and

1. Polakanti Rajesh, SC-Mala, s/o.Late P. Balanna, age 24 yrs., Bethamcherla (V&M).

2. Polakanti Lakshmi Devi @ Debbe Lakshmidevi, W/o.D. Veera Sekhar, age 34 yrs., SC-Mala, Kotapeta Street, Bethamcherla (V&M) now At Bogolu village, Veldurthi (M), Kurnool district.

3. Polakanti Ramulamma, W/o. Late P. Balanna, age 50 yrs., SC-Mala, Kotapeta street, Bethamcherla (V&M). ….Accused No.1 to 3

This case came on 01-12-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri C.

Venkateswarlu, Counsel for accused A1 to A3, and having perused the material available on the record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Midthur Police Station has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.74/2015 for the offence under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of

IPC against the accused A1 to A3.

2.As per the brief averments of the prosecution case, the defacto complainant Polakanti Someswari @ Santhosamma is native of Nagalooti village and her marriage was solemnized with M. Polakanti Madhava

Krishna who is the elder son of the accused A3 and resident of Kotapeta of

Bethamcherla about three years back. They were blessed with daughter who is aged of one year. While her husband was alive the accused A1 to 3

A3 were harassing the complainant both physically and mentally. As her husband was a good person the complainant tolerated all their torture and in the month of December, 2014 her husband and the accused A1 shared their property in presence of elders. Her husband also owns a motor cycle bearing No.AP.21.AZ.5514. Due to the heart attack, her husband died suddenly on dated 06-05-2015. Soon after the funeral rites, the accused

A1 to A3 did not allow the complainant to stay in their house and they started harassing the complainant as well as her child both physically and mentally. On dated 05-06-2015 at about 21.00 hours the accused A1 to

A3 snatched away the keys of the almirah forcibly from complainant, dragged her out and locked the house and went away. The same was witnessed by others and subsequently she gave a report to the S.I. of

Police of Midthur and after due process of completion of investigation, the

S.I. of Police has filed the charge sheet. As per the charge sheet the accused A1 to A3 harassed the complainant physically and mentally in order to evade her from enjoying her share in the property and also the ownership on the motor cycle of her late husband, threatened her if she asks about the motor cycle and also the property of her husband stating that they would kill her and thereby necked her away along with her daughter from their house.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file and cognizance was taken for the offence u/sec 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused A1 to A3.

4. On appearance of the accused A1 to A3, copies of this case were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5. The accused A1 to A3 were examined u/sec 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure by putting forth the charge framed against them, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses as

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7. The accused A1 to A3 were examined U/s 313 of Cr.PC after closure of prosecution side evidence by putting forth incriminating material against the accused, read over and explained to them in Vernacular language for which they denied for the same.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record both in oral documentary.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 that they have subjected the complainant to cruelty and threatened her and that they have committed the offences as under Section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as PW.1 and she reported that after her marriage was performed where her husband died in the year 2015 and on the 11th day ceremony of her husband, a galata took between herself and the accused over property disputes. She went to the police station where the police has obtained her signature on a blank paper and other than that, she do not know any other contents of the report. The signature of the witness got marked as Ex.P1.

However during the cross examination, no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution except to the marking of Ex.P2. But, the said witness stated that she has voluntarily compromised with accused family and thereby she was deposing false against them. Further, she was cross examined by the counsel for the defence wherein she admitted that the accused has made registration of the share in the house-hold in favour of the daughter of the complainant PW.1. She also admitted that the accused has returned back the motor bike bearing No.AP 21 AZ 5514 5 which was owned by her husband. She further admitted that the accused family has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in their account which is for the welfare of her daughter. She also admits that the accused A1 to A3 has given the share in the properties accordingly as she was entitled during the survival of her husband. She further reported that there stands no relationship between her and the accused hereafter.

11.Subsequently, the prosecution also examined the father and mother of the complainant as PWs.2 and 3 wherein both the parents of the complainant stated that there were property disputes between PW.1 and the husband’s family due to which PW.1 gave report.

During the cross examination, in the same manner as stated by

PW.1 both PWs.2 and 3 who are the parents of the complainant also admitted that voluntarily they have got compromised with the family of accused and therefore, they are intentionally deposing false and therefore, except to the marking of Exs.P3 and P4 no incriminating material could be elicited by the prosecution in their evidence. In the same manner, both the parents also admitted that a share in the house along with the motor bike and also cash of Rs.50,000/- has been deposited by the family of accused

A1 to A3 in the daughter’s name of PW.1.

12.In addition to that, one of the neighbours who was cited as eye witness as per the case of prosecution was also examined as PW.4 and nothing much could be elicited incriminating in her evidence. Except to the marking of Ex.P5 the prosecution failed to elicit any incriminating material against the accused.

13.However, the other remaining witnesses were given up as the core material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and further it is brought to the light of the court that the matter has been compromised being a matrimonial offence. Furthermore the husband of the complainant has died and thereby as per the averments of the charge sheet she gave a 6 report basing on a property dispute and accordingly, the family of the accused had given share in the house-hold as well as deposited

Rs.50,000/- of cash in the account of the complainant towards welfare of the child. Further as stated by the complainant (PW.1) the motor bike bearing No.AP 21 AZ 5514 is also given to the custody of the complainant.

Henceforth, there is no incriminating material elicited by the prosecution in their evidence in order to attract the ingredients for offence under

Section 498-A & 506 of IPC and thereby the accused A1 to A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted.

14. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.02-12-2016.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 2nd day of December, 2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: P. Someswari @ Santhosamma

P.W.2: Velpula Naga Raju - None –

P.W.3: Velpula Jayamma

P.W.4: R. Chittemma

P.W.5: Velpula Laxmi Devi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on complaint - Nil –

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 7

Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil- Id/- A.S.

JFCM., NDK

1

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

I N THE COURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS :: N ANDIKOTKUR .

C ALENDAR C ASE N O .152/2016

DATEOFOFFENCE.: DURING FEBRUARY, 2016

DATEOFCOMPLAINT.: 10.05.2016 DATEOFAPPREHENSIONOFACCUSED.: 01.06.2016 DATEOFRELEASEONBAIL.: 01.06.2016 DATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL.: 25.11.2016 DATEOFCLOSUREOFTRIAL.: 28.11.2016 DATEOFSENTENCEORORDER.: 30.11.2016 EXPLANATION.: ---- COMPLAINANT: STATE: REPRESENTEDBYTHE SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, NANDIKOTKURP.S. as in Cr.No.51/2016.

S.NONAMEFATHER’SNAMERELIGIONOCCU-RESIDENCEAGE PATION

1.Kapula Palli Mohan K. Krishna Nandikotkur town 19

HINDUSTUDENT

ReddyReddyyrs.,

Offence.: House trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment; Voyeurism; voluntarily causing hurt; Criminal intimidation;

S ECTION OF L AW: Sec. 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC F INDING: Found not guilty.

S ENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.30-11-2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS ,

N ANDIKOTKUR .

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum - Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:NANDIKOTKUR.

Present: Ms.Asifa Sulthana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur

Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016.

Calendar Case No.152/2016

Between:

State: Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nandikotkur Police Station. ...Complainant

and

Kapula Palli Mohan Reddy, S/o.K. Krishna Reddy, aged 19 yrs., H.No.16-51-B, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur town. …. Accused

This case came on 28-11-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.V. Balanagaiah Guptha, Counsel for accused and having perused the material available on the record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.51/2016for the offence under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC against the accused.

2.As per the brief averments of the prosecution case, the complainant is resident of H.No.13/55A, Police Line, Nandikotkur town and she is the only daughter to her parents who is studying intermediate in Nandikotkur college. The complainant is having a friendship with the accused but the accused for the last three months has been following the complainant with demand to love her. Wherein the complainant has stated ‘NO’ to the accused and it was informed to her uncle (LW.3) wherein the uncle of the complainant warned the accused but the accused did not change his attitude and thereby continued his harassment against the complainant and threatened her saying that he will morph the images of the complainant PW.1 and he will spread the same through cell phone and thereby shown the photographs of the complainant in his mobile to the complainant when the family members of the complainant were away.

Basing on the strength of the report given by complainant (LW.1) the S.i.of 3 police (LW.5) has registered a case as in Cr.No.51/2016 for the offences under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC of Nandikotkur Police Station and after due process of completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file and cognizance was taken for the offence u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of this case were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused was examined u/sec 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure by putting forth the charge framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses as

PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7. The examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material against the accused.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record both in oral documentary.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused that he has committed the offences as under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:

10. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant who gave report and she is a student and reported that while she was studying 10th class some students were teasing her and thereby in order to give report against them she along with her mother and uncle went to the Police Station in the month of May, 2016 wherein the police has obtained her signature on blank paper which got marked as Ex.P1. However, the witness was not able to identify the 4 contents of the report shown to her. She did not support the case of prosecution and except to the marking of Ex.P2 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution against the accused.

11.In addition to that, the prosecution examined the mother of the complainant and she also stated that in the month of May, 2016 she went to the Police Station in order to give report against some persons who were teasing her daughter. She further stated that she do not know the accused and also any other facts in the present case on hand. Except to the marking of Ex.P3 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of PW.2.

12.However, the prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses as there was no incriminating material from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the core witnesses to the case of prosecution. However, the Court has called for the Probation Officer’s report and thereby the Probation Officer has filed the report of the accused after making preliminary enquiry as under the Probation of Offenders Act. After going through the said report given by the Probation Officer, the personal history of the accused shows that the parents are very much concerned of his behavior and they are ready to take care of him and furthermore he have no bad habits as reported by his parents or by the neighbours of his house. In addition to that, it is also elicited in the said Probation Officer’s report that the accused with influence of his Peer group got involved in the said crime and further this is a fit case which is suitable for his reformation. The remarks of the District Probation Officer includes that the said accused may be released on probation of good conduct as under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and may be placed under the supervision for a period of two years for the offence under Section 4(3) of P.O. Act, 1958. However, the said report also gives remarks that he is a student and doing his

B.Tech., and furthermore his parents are there in order to support and he have sufficient reformative good atmosphere which is suitable for his 5 reformation and moreover, the complainant along with her mother did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile to the said case of prosecution. Therefore, the accused herein is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.30-11-2016.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: G. Keerthi P.W.2: Golla Chandra Kala - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on complaint - Nil – Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil- Id/- A.S.

JFCM., NDK

6

1

C ALENDAR AND J UDGMENT

I N THE COURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS :: N ANDIKOTKUR .

C ALENDAR C ASE N O .152/2016

DATEOFOFFENCE.: DURING FEBRUARY, 2016

DATEOFCOMPLAINT.: 10.05.2016 DATEOFAPPREHENSIONOFACCUSED.: 01.06.2016 DATEOFRELEASEONBAIL.: 01.06.2016 DATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL.: 25.11.2016 DATEOFCLOSUREOFTRIAL.: 28.11.2016 DATEOFSENTENCEORORDER.: 30.11.2016 EXPLANATION.: ---- COMPLAINANT: STATE: REPRESENTEDBYTHE SUB INSPECTOROF POLICE, NANDIKOTKURP.S. as in Cr.No.51/2016.

S.NONAMEFATHER’SNAMERELIGIONOCCU-RESIDENCEAGE PATION

1.Kapula Palli Mohan K. Krishna Nandikotkur town 19

HINDUSTUDENT

ReddyReddyyrs.,

Offence.: House trespass in order to the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment; Voyeurism; voluntarily causing hurt; Criminal intimidation;

S ECTION OF L AW: Sec. 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC F INDING: Found not guilty.

S ENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.30-11-2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS ,

N ANDIKOTKUR .

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate - Cum - Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:NANDIKOTKUR.

Present: Ms.Asifa Sulthana,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandikotkur

Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2016.

Calendar Case No.152/2016

Between:

State: Rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nandikotkur Police Station. ...Complainant

and

Kapula Palli Mohan Reddy, S/o.K. Krishna Reddy, aged 19 yrs., H.No.16-51-B, Subbarao Peta, Nandikotkur town. …. Accused

This case came on 28-11-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri M.V. Balanagaiah Guptha, Counsel for accused and having perused the material available on the record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur Police Station has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.51/2016for the offence under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC against the accused.

2.As per the brief averments of the prosecution case, the complainant is resident of H.No.13/55A, Police Line, Nandikotkur town and she is the only daughter to her parents who is studying intermediate in Nandikotkur college. The complainant is having a friendship with the accused but the accused for the last three months has been following the complainant with demand to love her. Wherein the complainant has stated ‘NO’ to the accused and it was informed to her uncle (LW.3) wherein the uncle of the complainant warned the accused but the accused did not change his attitude and thereby continued his harassment against the complainant and threatened her saying that he will morph the images of the complainant PW.1 and he will spread the same through cell phone and thereby shown the photographs of the complainant in his mobile to the complainant when the family members of the complainant were away.

Basing on the strength of the report given by complainant (LW.1) the S.i.of 3 police (LW.5) has registered a case as in Cr.No.51/2016 for the offences under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC of Nandikotkur Police Station and after due process of completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet.

3. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file and cognizance was taken for the offence u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of this case were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The accused was examined u/sec 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure by putting forth the charge framed against him, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined two witnesses as

PWs.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7. The examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material against the accused.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record both in oral documentary.

9. The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused that he has committed the offences as under Section 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:

10. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant who gave report and she is a student and reported that while she was studying 10th class some students were teasing her and thereby in order to give report against them she along with her mother and uncle went to the Police Station in the month of May, 2016 wherein the police has obtained her signature on blank paper which got marked as Ex.P1. However, the witness was not able to identify the 4 contents of the report shown to her. She did not support the case of prosecution and except to the marking of Ex.P2 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution against the accused.

11.In addition to that, the prosecution examined the mother of the complainant and she also stated that in the month of May, 2016 she went to the Police Station in order to give report against some persons who were teasing her daughter. She further stated that she do not know the accused and also any other facts in the present case on hand. Except to the marking of Ex.P3 no incriminating material was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of PW.2.

12.However, the prosecution has given up the remaining witnesses as there was no incriminating material from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the core witnesses to the case of prosecution. However, the Court has called for the Probation Officer’s report and thereby the Probation Officer has filed the report of the accused after making preliminary enquiry as under the Probation of Offenders Act. After going through the said report given by the Probation Officer, the personal history of the accused shows that the parents are very much concerned of his behavior and they are ready to take care of him and furthermore he have no bad habits as reported by his parents or by the neighbours of his house. In addition to that, it is also elicited in the said Probation Officer’s report that the accused with influence of his Peer group got involved in the said crime and further this is a fit case which is suitable for his reformation. The remarks of the District Probation Officer includes that the said accused may be released on probation of good conduct as under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and may be placed under the supervision for a period of two years for the offence under Section 4(3) of P.O. Act, 1958. However, the said report also gives remarks that he is a student and doing his

B.Tech., and furthermore his parents are there in order to support and he have sufficient reformative good atmosphere which is suitable for his 5 reformation and moreover, the complainant along with her mother did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile to the said case of prosecution. Therefore, the accused herein is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 451, 354-C, 323, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted u/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any shall be treated as bail bonds u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. to appear before the higher court as and when such court requires in respect of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this order dt.30-11-2016.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Asifa Sulthana

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandikotkur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: G. Keerthi P.W.2: Golla Chandra Kala - None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on complaint - Nil – Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil- Id/- A.S.

JFCM., NDK

6