Smt. B.Gayathri

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 1 Dt 25-02-2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: GUDUR

PRESENT: Smt B. Gayathri,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gudur.

This Thursday, Twenty Fifth (25 th ) Day of February Two Thousand Twenty One

CALENDAR CASE No. 30/2018 Old C.C.No. 661/2017

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1. Ganganaboina Sankaraiah, S/o Ramanaiah,age 50 years, Yadava by caste, Surayapalem village, Podalakur Mandal (A1),

2. Ganganaboina Mahendra Babu @ Pandu S/o Sankaraiah, age 21 years, Yadava by caste, Surayapalem village, Podalakur Mandal (A2). … Accused.

This case coming on 24-02-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.Gopal Reddy, advocate for the accused, upon 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 State represented by the Sub Inspector of police,

Podalakur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No 94/2015 of Podalakur Police station for the offence under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code with the following allegations.

2.Both the accused are father and son. There is a cart track in between fields of LW1/D. Gopi and accused No 1. Prior to four days of the incident, LW1/D. Gopi gave the permission to lift the sand from his fields to LW7/C. Hazarathaiah and shifted the same through cart track. In consequence of the same, while so on 16.06.2015 at 11.00 am accused No 1 & 2 with their common intention went to the fields of

D.Gopi/LW1. Accused No 1 beat with stick on the head of LW1. When he

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 2 Dt 25-02-2021

tried to rescue himself, it hit on the above right wrist and left hand. Due to which he sustained swelling injuries. Accused No.1 questioned about the lifting of sand through cart track. When LW2/Malakondaiah who is the father of Gopi intervened the accused No 1 beat with stick on his right fore arm and caused swelling injuries and accused No 2 slapped on his cheek. LW4/Khadarbasha, LW5/M. Venkateswarlu witnessed the incident and rescued from the clutches of accused. LW1/Gopi lodged a report before LW9/M. Anji Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police. Basing on the report a case in Crime No 94/2015 under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code of Podalakur Police station was registered and investigated into. He examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He also visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch. As per the statements of Lws 4 & 5 there is no participation of Accused No 3 in this case. Hence her name was deleted by him. On 25.08.2015 at 10.00 am he arrested both the accused and released on bail after obtaining sureties. After obtaining the wound certificate of Lws 1 & 2 issued by LW8/Dr. K. Vinod Kumar, in which it was opined that the injuries are sustained by Lws 1 & 2 are simple in nature and after completion of investigation a charge sheet was laid.

3.This court took cognizance against accused No 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code. On 27.10.2017 subsequently it was transferred to this court vide

Dis No 134, dated 9.2.2018 and was renumbered as 30/2018 from

Calendar Case No 661/2017.

4.After appearance of both the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C on 8.6.2018.

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 3 Dt 25-02-2021

5.On 27.6.2018, the accused were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, for which they denied the same. After hearing of both sides and on perusal of record, a charge under section 324 of Indian Penal code was framed against accused No 1 and a charge under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian penal code was framed against accused No 2. The same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Thus the case was posted for trial.

6.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

Lws 1 to 9 as Pws 1 to 9 respectively and Exhibits P1 to P9 got marked.

This court after giving opportunity failed to bring the witness hence the evidence of LW10/K. Prasad Reddy was closed by this court.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 10.02.2021 the accused were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure

Code by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is :

1. Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

accused No 1 for the offence punishable under section 324

of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

2. Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the

guilt of accused No 2 for the offence punishable under

section 323 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubts?

10.The main allegation of prosecution against the accused is that on 16.06.2015 at about 11.00 am at Surayapalem village fields, both the accused voluntarily hurt to Pws 1 & 2. Accused No 1 bet with

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 4 Dt 25-02-2021

stick which is a dangerous weapon on his head and he sustained swelling injuries on right wrist and left hand. He also bet PW2 with a stick on right fore arm and caused swelling injury and there by committed an offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal

Code.

Accused No 2 slapped PW2 with hand on his cheek and there by committed an offfence punishable under section 323 of Indian

Penal Code.

11.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 9 and got exhibited Exs P1 to P9. PW1 & 2 who are the son and father are the injured. Basing on the report i.e., Ex.P1 the case was registered. PW3 is the wife of PW1. Pws 4 to 7 are the independent witnesses who are the eye witnesses. PW8 is the doctor who examined Pws 1 and 2 and issued wound certificates i.e., Exs P6 &

P7. PW9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Podalakur Police station, who registered the case and investigated into the matter. Ex. P8 is the first information report, Ex.P9 is the rough sketch.

12.The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

Accused No 1 is the son of Accused No 2. Accused No 1 & 2 and Pws 1 & 2 are the residents of same village. There exists a cart track dispute between accused No 1 and PW1 about shifting of sand from the land of PW1 by PW7/C. Hazarathaiah. While so on 16.06.2016 at 11.00 am PW1 and Pw2 attending agricultural work. At that time

Accused No 1 & 2 came to their agricultural land and picked up quarrel for allowing LW7/C. Hazarathaiah to lift the sand. When accused No 1 tried to beat PW1 he defended with his two hands in the result he sustained fracture injury to his right hand and injury to his left hand and

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 5 Dt 25-02-2021

again he bet on his left hip and he also bet his father PW2 on his left hand due to which he sustained swelling injury. Accused No 2 slapped

PW2 and abused Devasenamma in a filthy language. Then immediately he lodged report i.e., Ex.P1 before PW9. Later they went to Government hospital PW7 examined Pws 1 & 2 and issued Exs P6 & P7 wound certificates, opining that injuries are simple in nature. Meanwhile basing on Ex.P1 a case was registered as Crime No 94/2015 for the offences punishable under section 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC ( Ex.P8). Then he recorded the statement of witnesses i.e., Pws 1 & 2 in the police station.

Thereafter he visited the scene of offence at Surayapalem village and examined Pws 3 to 6. Later on 25.08.2015 accused No 1 & 2 are arrested and released them on bail and obtaining sureties. On receiving the wound certificates of Pws 1 & 2 from PW7 and after completion of investigation LW10/K. Prasad Reddy laid charge sheet.

13.The stand of accused are of total denial they contended that

Pws 1 to 3 foisted a case against them. No evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

14.Point No 1:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No 1 for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, it is the burden of prosecution to prove the following ingredients:

i) that the accused caused hurt; ii)that it was caused voluntarily; iii) that it had been caused by any instrument or weapon which is likely used to cause death;

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 6 Dt 25-02-2021

15.Point No 2:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 323 of Indian Penal Code, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the following ingredients.

I) that the accused did an act which caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to PW2; ii) that the accused No 2 did such act with the intention of there by causing hurt to PW2 or with the knowledge that he is likely there by to cause hurt.

To avoid repetition both points discussed together.

16.The learned Assistant public prosecutor submits that the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, 8 and 9 coupled with Exs P1, P6 to P9 clinchingly reveals that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 & 2 with dangerous weapon i.e., stick. He further submits that the evidence of

PW1 is corroborated with the evidence of Pws 2 & 3 coupled with medical evidence i.e., Exs P6 and P7 and thus the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.On the other hand the learned defence counsel contends that Pws 1 to 3 are related and interested witnesses and that the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is an exaggerated versions and inconsistent with regard to usage of weapon. He further contended that there is no support of independent evidence to the prosecution case and hence basing on the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 alone shall not be given much weight. He further submits that there is dispute with regard to cart track way. He further submits that no x-ray is filed along with Ex.P1 report and there is inconsistency with regard to injuries sustained by Pws 1 & 2 compared with Exs P6 and P7. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 are not corroborated with each other and their evidence is exagerrated. Thus

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 7 Dt 25-02-2021

the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

18.In the view of rival contentions, the entire evidence was perused. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that Pws 1 to 3 are related and interested witnesses and thus their evidence shall not be given much weight. But as rightly contended by the learned

Assistant public prosecutor, since Pws 1 to 3 are natural witnesses, their evidence can not be thrown aside merely on the ground that they are related witnesses. However it is the duty of the court to assess and scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses with much care and caution.

In other words the court has to address to itself whether there are any infirmities in the evidence of such witness, whether the evidence is reliable and trustworthy. Such evidence must appear to be natural convincing. Otherwise the evidence of such witness neats corroboration either with independent or medical evidence.

19. In the present case on hand it is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to Pws 1 & 2 with stick . According to PW1, accused No 1 tried to beat him, at that time in order to defend him he put his two hands due to which he sustained fracture to his right hand and injury to his left hand and also he beat on his left hip. He also bet his father with a stick on his left hand as a result he sustained swelling injury. But Ex.P1, which was his earlier version discloses that accused No1 beat him on his head also and on his right wrist and right hand and also sustained pain injury and he also beat

PW2 on right hand and due to which he sustained swelling injury. But as per the evidence of PW2 accused No 1 beat PW1 on his right hand and left hand due to which he sustained fracture injury and also to his right hand and he sustained injury to his right hand also. During the cross examination of PW2 he categorically stated that he sustained

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 8 Dt 25-02-2021

bleeding injury to his right hand. Where as , the evidence of PW3 during her cross examination categorically stated that PW1 sustained bleeding injury to right hand and swelling injury to left hand and sustained bleeding injury to his head also. If such is the case, they might have been referred by the police to the hospital if really Pws 1 and 2 sustained fracture or bleeding injuries. Evidently, no such step was taken by Pwes 1 to 3. Further during cross examination he stated that he was admitted in hospital for 2 ½ days and he was accompanied with police. Apart from this, the evidence of PW3 who is the wife of PW1 is not corroborative with that of Pws 1 & 2 in this aspect. As seen from the cross examination of Pws 1 & 2 there are inconsistencies with regard to nature of injuries sustained by them.

20.Now coming to the medical evidence, the evidence of Pws 1 & 2 are inconsistent with the evidence of PW8. As per Ex.P6 and P7 wound certificates P.W.1 sustained only one injury to his fore arm and

P.W.2 has sustained no injuries at all. It is noted that where the eye witness account is found to be credible and trust worthy, the medical opinion suggesting an alternative possibility is not accepted to be conclusive. But in this case there are inconsistencies in the evidence during cross examination about the place of injuries. As already noted above, the evidence of P.W.s1 and 2 is full of embellishment and moreover there are disputes between them prior to the incident about using of cart track by P.W.7. Hence there is possibility of false implication of the accused in this case.

The wound certificate of P.W.1 and 2 did not disclose the injuries stated by them. According to P.W.1 he sustained injury to his right hand and left hand and P.W.2 sustained injury to his right hand with stick. Where as no independent witness I.e P.W.7 who is the cause of quarrel not supported the case of the prosecution. On coming to the

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 9 Dt 25-02-2021

over act attributed towards P.W.s1 and 2, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.8 coupled with Exhibits P6 and P7 which goes to show that on 16-06-2015 at 3-30 P.M. he examined P.W.1 and found no injuries and mild swelling to right fore arm and Ex.P7 discloses no injuries are found to P.W.2. But, Ex.P1 report which was given at 3

PM I.e prior to the examination of P.W.s1 and 2, discloses that P.W.1 sustained injury to his head, injury to his right hand and wrist and P.W.2 sustained injury to left hand elbow. If really all the injuries are sustained by both of them. P.W.8 might have noted the same. Such inconsistencies casts a doubt in the mind of the court as to whether

Exhibits P6 and P7 are issued by examining P.W.s1 and 2 or not.

21.On summing up the entire evidence, the court is of the view that the evidence of P.W.s1 to 3 are in consistent with one another with regard to beating of the accused. Their evidence is also found inconsistency with their earlier version I.e Ex.P1. Moreover the evidence of P.W.s1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 was found to inconsistent with medical evidence. In such circumstances, the court doubts the very genesis fo the crime and thus the defence of false implication cannot be discarded.

22.For the foregoing reasons, in view of the admitted disputes between the prosecution witness and accused, when the evidence of

P.W.s1 to 3 are found to be inconsistent with their earlier version I.e

Ex.P1, this court is of the vew tha the evidence needs corroboration and support from the independent evidence. In this case P.W.s4 to 7 who are independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and during cross examination there is section 161 Cr.P.C statement are marked as Exhibits P3 to P5. Admittedly the police has no seized the incriminating material from the accused. In such facts and circumstances , in view of the latches and lapses of the investigating agency , the court is of considerable opinion that it is not safe to rely

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 10 Dt 25-02-2021

upon the evidence of P.W.s1 to 3 which is found inconsistent with that of medical evidence and that of P.W.7. as already stated, if really the incident was happened ,there might not be such inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which casts doubt in the version of the prosecution. It is well settled law that whenever a doubt creeps in the prosecution version, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

23. in view of the above discussion, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish that accused No.1 caused voluntarily hurt to P.W.1 and caused pain to P.W.2 as alleged with convincing and satisfactorily evidence. Therefore the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Sections 324, 323 r/w Section 34 of Indian penal code beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly both points No.1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

24. In the result Accused No 1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 324 IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 IPC for which they shall be acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stands cancelled as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property produced in this case. Hence no property order.

Typed to my dictation by me to Stenographer Grade III directly on system corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, 25 ththis the day of February, 2021.

Sd/-B. Gayathri

Prl. Junior Civil Judge Cum

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Gudur.

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 11 Dt 25-02-2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: :

PW1: Durgampati Gopi NIL

Pw2: D. Malakondaiah

PW3: D. Sujatha

PW4: SK. Khadar Basha

PW5: M. Venkateswarlu

PW6: Y. Subbarayudu

PW7: Ch. Hazarathaiah

PW8: Dr. K. Vinod Kumar

PW9: M. Anji Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Report/161 Statement given to policeNIL Ex.P2: 161 statement of PW4 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW6 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P6: wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P7: Wound certificate of PW2 Ex.P8: FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

NIL

Sd/-B. Gayathri

J.M.F.C., Gudur.

CC 30/18 in old CC 661 of 17 12 Dt 25-02-2021

1 1

CC.174/2019110.10.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SULLURUPET

Present:- Smt. B.Gayathri

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurupet

This the 10th Day of October, Two Thousand Nineteen

C.C.NO.174/2019

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tada PS …. Complainant

-Vs -

Vayaluru Satish, S/o Muthu, age 32 Years,

Caste by Vannekapu, R/o Tada

Kandriga Village, Tada Mandal. …. Accused

This case coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of A.P.P., for the state and Sri L.Ganapathi, Advocate for accused, and having heard arguments and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.81/2019 for the offences Under Sections 188, 286, 290 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.127 of RP Act, 1951.

2. It is essential to briefly outlay the facts which let to the filing of the charge sheet: On 08-04-2019 at about 7-15 PM L.W.3 D. Venkateswara Rao SI of police was present in Bodilingalapadu village, along with L.W.1 Sarath Kumar and L.W.2

Ramachandraiah who are constables to curb untoward incidents at the place of campaigning by MLA Sullurupet constituency. At that time accused who belongs to

YSR Congress party light fire crackers to promote the voters in favor of YSRCP party

MLA, while he arrived at Tada Kandriga village for campaigning . As he violated the

CC.174/2019210.10.2019

model code of conduct made nuisance in public place, arrested him and seized the crackers box “Red insina Fire crackers 5000 Wala in English letters and debris of crackers under the cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings as case in Crime NO.81/2019 Under Section 286, 290 and Under Section 188 of Indian

Penal Code and Under Section 127 of RP Act 1951. During the course of investigation he served the Notice Under Section 41 Cr.P.C and after termination of investigation it was culminated in to final report.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence U/sec.188, 286 IPC and Under

Section 127 of RP Act.

4. When Accused put in appearance before the Court and he was supplied with all copies of documents as contemplated u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. When Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. with regard to offence alleged against him by explaining the accusation leveled for which, he did not plead guilty of the offence U/sec.188 and Under Section 286 IPC, and claimed trial.

6. When Accused was examined U/sec.313(1)(a)Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of the investigating officer, for which, he denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused examined PW1 and P.W.2 and got Ex.P.1 and P2 and M.O.1 marked. The evidence of L.W.3 Sarath

Kumar is closed by this court.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record. The learned

A.P.P. Sri Kedharnath, took this Court through the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and inter alia maintains that both the witnesses clearly spoke in one accord about the retrieval of crackers from the possession of Accused, and the accused did not offer any spontaneous explanation with respect to the descriptive particulars of the crackers when he was confronted by the Investigating Officer during interrogation and crackers are planted one for the purpose of this case and undergoes a process of proof for gaining the deservedness in view of the mandate of u/sec.67 of Indian

CC.174/2019310.10.2019

Evidence Act 1872, and therefore, it cannot be said that the contents of the documents are proved and when the tainted amount is in possession of the accused that itself is a Resipsa Loquitor and thus, the burden shifts from prosecution to the accused and the accused has to offer ostensible explanation with respect to the tainted amount however, in the case on hand the accused failed to offer and the evidence of PW1 and PW2, are within the zone of credibility inspite of elaborate and incisive cross examination and the punch witnesses were won over by the accused due to the political influence and in view of their hostility the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and therefore, passing verdict of conviction is sustainable.

9. The learned counsel for Accused L. Ganapathi assailed the arguments canvassed by the learned A.P.P., and inter alia contends that there is no positive and dependable proof to show that the contestants are in campaigning and accused light the crackers which is meant to vote in favor of his party and the inhabitants of the both the villages for percolating the votes in their favour and imagination and conjectures cannot take the place of proof unless there is a clear and unequivocal proof and PW1 and PW2, and therefore, pronouncing the order of conviction is illegal and cannot be sustained.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss.286 and 188 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Point:- To prove its case the prosecution examined the the constable

M. Ramachandraiah as P.W.1 and Investigating officer D. Venkateswara Rao is examined as P.W.2. Both deposed akin to the similar lines. They deposed that on 08- 04-2019 at about 7-15 PM he along with P.W.1 and other were in duty at MLA campaigning at Bodilingalapadu, and accused violated the mode conduct and lighting the crackers of 5000 Wala and hence he was arrested the seized the contraband under the cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings

CC.174/2019410.10.2019

a case in Crime NO. 81/2019 Under Sections 188, 286, 290 IPC and Under Section 127 of RP Act and issued Section 41 Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after culmination of investigation he laid charge sheet. The same was deposed by P.W.1 in his evidence. During cross-examination both admitted that Police proceedings are drafted by one Girish Kumar but he was not citied as witnesses. Further they admitted that they are several persons who are present in campaigning.

12. In order to bring home an offence under Sec.188 of I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed In the present case on the hand, Now only the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 is available on record who are police personnel. Further both admitted that they are several persons who committed this act at the time of campaigning. There is no material on record to show what happened at the scene of offence on the date of alleged offence involved in this case. Admittedly There is no whisper in that notice that the accused made any appeal to the voters to caste vote in favour of any political party. Even in Ex.P1 complaint, PW.1 did not mention about this. As stated supra to attract an offence U/Sec.188 I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that the an order crackers and caused disobedience and caused obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed. If it is the case P.W.1 and 2 admitted that they are several persons at the scene of offence but, what prevented the police to cite them as witness to state that he caused nuisance and violated the model conduct during elections campaigning. Further to establish the offence Under Section 286 IPC, accused lighted the crackers which is an explosive substance, rashly or negligently as to endanger human life,and seized from his possession. As seen from the

CC.174/2019510.10.2019

evidence, P.W.2 deposed that he seized M.O.1 from his possession but he did not try to secure mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of M.O.1 which creates doubt as to seizure from the possession of accused basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone. In this case there are no such circumstances appearing. In such case, it gives rise to a doubt with regard to the version of prosecution case. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish an offence punishable

U/Sec.188, 286 I.P.C., against the accused and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. When procedural safeguards are provided in the statute its compliance in the letter and spirit should be ensured. In view of the mandate of 100(4)

Cr.P.C. it is prudent exercise to insist the presence of two reliable witnesses of the locality to vouchsafe the recovery. Now in the case on hand the investigating officer flouted the mandatory provisions.

14. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution failed to prove the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt succinctly to the hilt.

15. In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable u/sec.

188, 286 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences u/sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed by me on office computer, after correction and pronounced in open court on this the 10th Day of October, 2019

sd/- B. Gayathri

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurupet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: M.Ramachandraiah -NIL- PW2: D.Venkateswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

CC.174/2019610.10.2019

For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1: Police proceedings Nil Ex.P2: F.I.R.

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 is the crackers box

sd/- B. Gayathri

A. J.F.C.M. Sullurpet.

CC.174/2019710.10.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: SULLURUPET

C.C.No.174/2019

DATE OF

Offence Report Apph. of Released Commence Close of Result

accused On Bail ment of trial

trial 08.04.19 08.04.19 -- -- 25.09.19 04.10.19 10.10.19

Between:The state: Sub Inspector of Police Tada P.S (Cr.No.81/2019) . . . Complainant

And

Vayaluru Satish, S/o Muthu, age 32 Years,

Caste by Vannekapu, R/o Tada

Kandriga Village, Tada Mandal. .... Accused

Offence : Section 188, 286, 290 IPC and Sec.127 of RP Act, 1951

Finding : Found not guilty

S entence of Order:

In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable u/sec. 188, 286 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Explanation for the delay:

Due to non production of witnesses by the police.

sd/- B. Gayathri

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SULLURUPET

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, for favour of information.

CC.174/2019110.10.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

SULLURUPET

Present:- Smt. B.Gayathri

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurupet

This the 10th Day of October, Two Thousand Nineteen

C.C.NO.174/2019

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tada PS …. Complainant

-Vs -

Vayaluru Satish, S/o Muthu, age 32 Years,

Caste by Vannekapu, R/o Tada

Kandriga Village, Tada Mandal. …. Accused

This case coming on before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of A.P.P., for the state and Sri L.Ganapathi, Advocate for accused, and having heard arguments and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.81/2019 for the offences Under Sections 188, 286, 290 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.127 of RP Act, 1951.

2. It is essential to briefly outlay the facts which let to the filing of the charge sheet: On 08-04-2019 at about 7-15 PM L.W.3 D. Venkateswara Rao SI of police was present in Bodilingalapadu village, along with L.W.1 Sarath Kumar and L.W.2

Ramachandraiah who are constables to curb untoward incidents at the place of campaigning by MLA Sullurupet constituency. At that time accused who belongs to

YSR Congress party light fire crackers to promote the voters in favor of YSRCP party

MLA, while he arrived at Tada Kandriga village for campaigning . As he violated the

CC.174/2019210.10.2019

model code of conduct made nuisance in public place, arrested him and seized the crackers box “Red insina Fire crackers 5000 Wala in English letters and debris of crackers under the cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings as case in Crime NO.81/2019 Under Section 286, 290 and Under Section 188 of Indian

Penal Code and Under Section 127 of RP Act 1951. During the course of investigation he served the Notice Under Section 41 Cr.P.C and after termination of investigation it was culminated in to final report.

3. The Court took cognizance of the offence U/sec.188, 286 IPC and Under

Section 127 of RP Act.

4. When Accused put in appearance before the Court and he was supplied with all copies of documents as contemplated u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. When Accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. with regard to offence alleged against him by explaining the accusation leveled for which, he did not plead guilty of the offence U/sec.188 and Under Section 286 IPC, and claimed trial.

6. When Accused was examined U/sec.313(1)(a)Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of the investigating officer, for which, he denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

7. The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused examined PW1 and P.W.2 and got Ex.P.1 and P2 and M.O.1 marked. The evidence of L.W.3 Sarath

Kumar is closed by this court.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record. The learned

A.P.P. Sri Kedharnath, took this Court through the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and inter alia maintains that both the witnesses clearly spoke in one accord about the retrieval of crackers from the possession of Accused, and the accused did not offer any spontaneous explanation with respect to the descriptive particulars of the crackers when he was confronted by the Investigating Officer during interrogation and crackers are planted one for the purpose of this case and undergoes a process of proof for gaining the deservedness in view of the mandate of u/sec.67 of Indian

CC.174/2019310.10.2019

Evidence Act 1872, and therefore, it cannot be said that the contents of the documents are proved and when the tainted amount is in possession of the accused that itself is a Resipsa Loquitor and thus, the burden shifts from prosecution to the accused and the accused has to offer ostensible explanation with respect to the tainted amount however, in the case on hand the accused failed to offer and the evidence of PW1 and PW2, are within the zone of credibility inspite of elaborate and incisive cross examination and the punch witnesses were won over by the accused due to the political influence and in view of their hostility the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and therefore, passing verdict of conviction is sustainable.

9. The learned counsel for Accused L. Ganapathi assailed the arguments canvassed by the learned A.P.P., and inter alia contends that there is no positive and dependable proof to show that the contestants are in campaigning and accused light the crackers which is meant to vote in favor of his party and the inhabitants of the both the villages for percolating the votes in their favour and imagination and conjectures cannot take the place of proof unless there is a clear and unequivocal proof and PW1 and PW2, and therefore, pronouncing the order of conviction is illegal and cannot be sustained.

10. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss.286 and 188 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Point:- To prove its case the prosecution examined the the constable

M. Ramachandraiah as P.W.1 and Investigating officer D. Venkateswara Rao is examined as P.W.2. Both deposed akin to the similar lines. They deposed that on 08- 04-2019 at about 7-15 PM he along with P.W.1 and other were in duty at MLA campaigning at Bodilingalapadu, and accused violated the mode conduct and lighting the crackers of 5000 Wala and hence he was arrested the seized the contraband under the cover of police proceedings. Basing on the police proceedings

CC.174/2019410.10.2019

a case in Crime NO. 81/2019 Under Sections 188, 286, 290 IPC and Under Section 127 of RP Act and issued Section 41 Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after culmination of investigation he laid charge sheet. The same was deposed by P.W.1 in his evidence. During cross-examination both admitted that Police proceedings are drafted by one Girish Kumar but he was not citied as witnesses. Further they admitted that they are several persons who are present in campaigning.

12. In order to bring home an offence under Sec.188 of I.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove that Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed In the present case on the hand, Now only the evidence of PWs.1 and PW.2 is available on record who are police personnel. Further both admitted that they are several persons who committed this act at the time of campaigning. There is no material on record to show what happened at the scene of offence on the date of alleged offence involved in this case. Admittedly There is no whisper in that notice that the accused made any appeal to the voters to caste vote in favour of any political party. Even in Ex.P1 complaint, PW.1 did not mention about this. As stated supra to attract an offence U/Sec.188 I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that the an order crackers and caused disobedience and caused obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed. If it is the case P.W.1 and 2 admitted that they are several persons at the scene of offence but, what prevented the police to cite them as witness to state that he caused nuisance and violated the model conduct during elections campaigning. Further to establish the offence Under Section 286 IPC, accused lighted the crackers which is an explosive substance, rashly or negligently as to endanger human life,and seized from his possession. As seen from the

CC.174/2019510.10.2019

evidence, P.W.2 deposed that he seized M.O.1 from his possession but he did not try to secure mediators at the time of arrest and seizure of M.O.1 which creates doubt as to seizure from the possession of accused basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone. In this case there are no such circumstances appearing. In such case, it gives rise to a doubt with regard to the version of prosecution case. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish an offence punishable

U/Sec.188, 286 I.P.C., against the accused and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. When procedural safeguards are provided in the statute its compliance in the letter and spirit should be ensured. In view of the mandate of 100(4)

Cr.P.C. it is prudent exercise to insist the presence of two reliable witnesses of the locality to vouchsafe the recovery. Now in the case on hand the investigating officer flouted the mandatory provisions.

14. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution failed to prove the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt succinctly to the hilt.

15. In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable u/sec.

188, 286 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences u/sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed by me on office computer, after correction and pronounced in open court on this the 10th Day of October, 2019

sd/- B. Gayathri

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sullurupet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: M.Ramachandraiah -NIL- PW2: D.Venkateswara Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

CC.174/2019610.10.2019

For Prosecution:For Defence: Ex.P1: Police proceedings Nil Ex.P2: F.I.R.

Material Objects marked

M.O.1 is the crackers box

sd/- B. Gayathri

A. J.F.C.M. Sullurpet.

CC.174/2019710.10.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: SULLURUPET

C.C.No.174/2019

DATE OF

Offence Report Apph. of Released Commence Close of Result

accused On Bail ment of trial

trial 08.04.19 08.04.19 -- -- 25.09.19 04.10.19 10.10.19

Between:The state: Sub Inspector of Police Tada P.S (Cr.No.81/2019) . . . Complainant

And

Vayaluru Satish, S/o Muthu, age 32 Years,

Caste by Vannekapu, R/o Tada

Kandriga Village, Tada Mandal. .... Accused

Offence : Section 188, 286, 290 IPC and Sec.127 of RP Act, 1951

Finding : Found not guilty

S entence of Order:

In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable u/sec. 188, 286 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences u/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled. The M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Explanation for the delay:

Due to non production of witnesses by the police.

sd/- B. Gayathri

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SULLURUPET

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, for favour of information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

PRESENT : Smt . B.GAYATHRI.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur

This the Wednesday, Seventh (7 th ) Day of April, Two Thousand

Twenty One

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7 of 2020

Neelam Ramana Reddy S/o late Narapa Reddy, Hindu, aged 42 Years,Agriculturist, R/o Ramalingapuram Village of Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.… Plaintif

- Versus-

Neelam Venkateswarulu Reddy, S/o Chinna Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o Ramalingapuram Village Gudur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendant.

The suit is coming before me on 06-04-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Gangi Reddy , Advocate for the Plaintiff and of defendant having remained ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale and for other reliefs.

The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The suit schedule property is an agricultural land in an extent of

Ac.2.00 in S.No. 525 and Acs 1.00 in S.No 530 of Vinduru Village limits bounded by, East: Land of Pasupuleti Srinivasulu, South: Government land,

West: Land sold by the defendant to Neelam Rangareddy, North: Venkatagiri

Yeru.

The defendant represented to the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he acquired the same through his ancestors during partition under registered partition deed dated 22.07.2009 . Since the date of partition the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. He offered to sell the same to the plaintiff for discharge of his family debts. The plaintiff agreed to 2 purchase the same for Rs.2,50,000/- per Acre and for total consideration of

Rs 7,50,000/-. After bargaining the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs 7,00,000/-. On 22.11.2019 the plaintiff paid an advance amount of Rs.

7,00,000/- to the defendant and agreed to pay the remaining balance amount after measuring the plaint schedule property with assistance of surveyor.

2.The defendant received the same and executed the suit agreement of sale on 22.11.2019 in favour of the plaintiff inpect of the suit schedule property. The said agreement of sale was duly attested by the attestors.

As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale, the defendant has to take actual measurements of the suit schedule property with assistance of qualified Surveyor and ascertained the actual extent. and mutate his name in the revenue records and obtain pattadar passbook and title deed passbook. Then the plaintiff has to pay the balance sale consideration and then the defendant has to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff expenses on or before 22.12.2019.

Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded the defendant on several occasions personally and through the elders to take measurements of the suit schedule property, to mutate his name in the revenue records and to receive balance consideration and thereupon, to execute the regular registered sale deed in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale. But the defendant did not come forward. Then the plaintiff got issued legal notice

dated:25.11.2019 to the defendant demanding him to receive balance of

sale consideration and to take actual measurements of the suit schedule property and for compliance of other terms of the agreement of sale. The defendant received the said notice, but he kept quiet.

The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3

3.After receipt of summons, the defendant failed to appeared

before this court through his counsel and remained exparte to the suit

proceedings on 6.02.2020.

4.During the trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance

of agreement of sale dated 22.11.2019 as prayed for?

7. POINT: -

Since this is a suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale, the plaintiff has to establish that the defendant executed suit agreement of sale dated 22.11.2019 in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property and he has to aver and establish that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale.

8.To prove these aspects, the plaintiff got examined himself as

Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is unregistered agreement of sale

dated:22.11.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It

discloses that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property ie., an extent of Ac.2.00 in S.No. 525 and Acs 1.00 in S.No 530 of Vinduru Village limits with specific boundaries for Rs.7,50,000/-and received advance of

Rs7,00,000/- on the same day. As per the said agreement, the defendant agreed to get his name mutated in the revenue records and also to obtain pattadar passbook , 1B namoona and adangal in respect of the property covered under the said agreement. He also agreed to measure the extent and identify the same as there is no revenue records to get the land registered in favour of plaintiff then he will receive the balance 4 consideration of Rs.50,000/- and then he will execute registered sale deed either in favour of the plaintiff or at his option at his own expenses.

9.Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated:25.11.2019 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. It discloses that the plaintiff got issued the said notice calling upon the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale by 22.11.2019. Ex.A3 is postal receipt.

10.On coming to the oral evidence of Pw.1, it goes in accordance to the contents of the plaint. In brief, it goes to show that the defendant represented that the suit schedule property is his absolute property acquired through his ancestors and offered to sell the same to him and after bargaining, the sale price of suit schedule property was fixed at

Rs.7,50,000/- and then he paid Rs.7,00,000/- towards advance and on receiving the same, the defendant executed suit agreement of sale ie.,

Ex.A1 on 22.11.2019, agreeing to get measurements of the said extent of

Acs. 3.00 i.e., ACS 2.00 in S.No 525 and Acs 1.00 in S,No 530, identify and measured it, get mutation of his name in the revenue records, obtained 1B namoona and adangal in respect of the property covered under the suit agreement of sale ie., suit schedule property and after receiving the balance consideration, he will execute regular registered sale deed either in his favour (Pw.1) or at his favour at his expenses. The evidence of Pw.1 correlates with the recitals in Ex.A1/suit agreement of sale.

11.Herein the case, the defendant did not turn up before this court and hence he was set exparte. Since the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the documentary evidence remains unchallenged, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. As such, the unchallenged evidence of Pw1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1/suit agreement of sale clearly shows that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property and also received major part of sale consideration. As per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale referred above, it is clear that the defendant has to initially get measurements of the land and mutate his name in the revenue 5 records and also obtain the 1B namoona and adangals in his name in respect of the suit schedule property and then the plaintiff has to pay the balance consideration. Admittedly, no time is fixed for payment of balance consideration by the plaintiff. The initial obligation of getting measurements of land etc., was imposed on the defendant. So, the court is of the view that the time is not essence of the present agreement of sale.

12.Further, the evidence of Pw.1 clearly shows that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract ie., payment of balance consideration and he made several demands including issuance of notice. Furthermore, the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the contents of

Ex.A2/legal notice and Ex.A3/postal receipt also disclose that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed after compliance of conditions in the suit agreement of sale. But the defendant did not turn up. The court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Therefore, the court has no hesitation to hold that Pw.1 has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendant failed to comply the conditions and obligations as per the suit agreement of sale.

13.In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the plaintiff has averred and established that he has been always and ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale executed by the defendant. Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale by the defendant, as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, by directing

the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) in the court within 15 days from the

date of decree and judgment to enable the defendant to receive the

same and the defendant is directed to execute registered sale deed

in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in

pursuance of the suit agreement of sale within 2 months of this

6

decree and judgment at the expenses of the plaintiff, failing which

the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same under due process of law.

Dictated to Stenographer directly on office computer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07 th day of April, 2021.

Sd/-B. Gayathri

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendant :

PW.1 : Neelam Ramana ReddyNil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :

Ex.A1 : is the original agreement of sale dated 2.11.2019 executed by the defendant. Ex.A2: is the office copy of legal notice dated 25.11.2019. Ex.A3: is the postal receipt.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/- B. Gayathri

P.J.C.J., GUDUR.

CC.No.344/2018117.09.2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SULLURUPET

PRESENT: Smt B. Gayathri,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sullurupet

Tuesday, 17 th day of September, 2019

C.C.No.344/2018

Between:

The state: Sub Inspector of Police

Sullurupet P.S (Cr.No.75/2018 ) ... Complainant

And

A1 Perimbeti Devendra @ Deva S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 21 years, A2 Vayaluru Bala @ Vamsi, S/o mani, age 22 years, A3 Satyaveti Sai S/o Ravi, age 26 years, A4 Perimbeti Venkateswarlu, S/o Subrahmanyam, aged 45 years, (All are Pallikapu by caste and

residents of Kollamitta, Sullurpet town).... Accused

This case is coming on 16.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Kedarnath for the Complainant and Sri T. Tilak Kumar advocate for accused having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tada P.S has filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 in Cr.No.75/2018 for the offences Under Sections 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case leveled against Accused Nos.1 to 4 in brief are as follows:

On 12.03.2018 LW1/V. Prem went to Mannemutheri in a motor cycle to meet his friend LW3/E. Narasimha. Both of them after lunch went in their two motor cycles. When they reached near DOS colony, near Kollamitta center, A1 and A2 obstructed them and stopped their bikes and picked up quarrel with them and beat them by fisting his mouth. When LW8 interfered A3 beat him with stick over his head and caused injury. LW8 Narasimha escaped from his clutches and informed the incident to Lws.2 to 7. Thereafter, A1 to A4 attacked

CC.No.344/2018217.09.2019

Lws.1 to 8 with sticks, rods and stones. LW8 Narasimha sustained injuries over his head, LW7/D. Manikanta sustained injuries to his head and both of his shoulders. A1 to A4 also damaged the motor cycles bearing numbers AP 03 BR 9077 and AP 26 AV 5606. ON the same day, LW1/V. Prem lodged a report

before Sullurpet police station. Basing on the complaint LW11/K. Indrasena

Reddy registered a case in Cr.No,.75/2018 u/Sec.323 r./w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation he recoded the statements of Lws.1 to 8 and added the

Sections 324, 427 of IPC. ON 21.03.2018 A1 to A3 surrendered and on 18.06.2018 A4 surrendered before this court. After obtaining wound certificates he laid charge sheet U/Secs. 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. The charge sheet was taken on file for offences Under Section 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4

before this court, they were furnished with copies of the documents as required

under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 Criminal

Procedure Code, for which they denied the same. After hearing both the sides, a charge Under Sections 323, 324, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed and same is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which accused Nos.1 to 4 denied and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined LW1/V. Prem,

LW7/B. Manikanta and LW8/V. Narasimha as Pws.1 to 3. Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. As the material witness in this case is not supported the prosecution case the evidence of LW2/B.T. Bahadur, LW3/P. Jayakumar, LW4/T. Kiran, LW5/V.

Varaprasad, LW6/K. Chandti are given up by learned APP and the evidence of

LW9/Dr.Noorulla, LW10/B. Girija, LW11/K. Indrasena Reddy was closed by this court.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 to A4 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in

Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

CC.No.344/2018317.09.2019

7. Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.

8. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of

accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable Under Section

323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

respectively beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The main allegation of prosecution against accused No.1 to 4 on 12.03.2018 A1 to A4 beat P.W.1 V. Prem, PW2/B. Manikanta, PW3/V. Narasimha and damaged the motor cycles and thereby they committed an offence punishable U/Secs. 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

10. However the defence of the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC are of total denial.

11.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3.

Exs.P1 to P4 marked. PW1/V. Prem is the defacto complainant, Ex.P1 is report given by PW1. PW1 who set the criminal law in motion deposed that at about one year back at the request of village elders himself and LW8 affixed their signatures in a white paper. As he did not support the case of the prosecution.

Pws.2 and 3 are also injured deposed akin in the similar lines of PW1, they further deposed that some unknown persons injured them, but, they cannot identify them. 3 witnesses are cross-examined by learned APP. In the cross- examination they stated that 3 of them intended to with draw the case pending against the accused before Hon’ble Sessions Court, Gudur and they have given undertaking that they will not commit similar time of offence in future. Except, marking of Exs.P1 to P4 nothing was elicited against the accused. However these witness does not say anything against accused, the oral testimony of

P.Ws.1 to 3 are not corroborating the contents of his earlier statements, therefore, the evidence P.Ws.1 to 3 are not helpful to the prosecution version.

CC.No.344/2018417.09.2019

12.Thus, there is practically no evidence available on record to connect the complicity of the accused of the offence with which he was charged. It appears that some sort of compromise was reached between the parties.

That appears to be the reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 to resile from his complaint as well as statements made to the police. Whatever may be the reason, there is no legal evidence available on record establishing the complicity of the accused with the offences with which he charged. In the absence of legal evidence the accused become entitled for a benefit of doubt.

13.Absolutely, there is no convincing or cogent evidence on record to say that the accused No.1 to 3 accused No.1 to 4 on 12.03.2018 A1 to A4 beat

P.W.1 V. Prem, PW2/B. Manikanta, PW3/V. Narasimha and damaged the motor cycles as alleged by the prosecution version, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable Under Sections 323, 324, 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

14.For all the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt to the accused of the offences with which they were charged beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Ss.323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds to appear

before higher court as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any

shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prepared on office computer on direct dictation to the Stenographer, after correction and pronounced in open court on this the 17 th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- B. Gayathri

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

Sullurupet.

CC.No.344/2018517.09.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1 : V. Prem– NONE –

PW2 : B. manikanta

PW3 : V. Narasimha

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 in a report dated 12.03.2018 -- Nil –

Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P3 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P4 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/- B. Gayathri

ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SULLURUPET

CC.No.344/2018617.09.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: SULLURUPET

C.C.No.344/2018

DATE OF

Offence Report Apph. of Released Commence Close of Result

accused On Bail ment of trial

trial 12.03.18 12.03.18 A1 to A3 A1 to A3 16.09.18 16.09.19 17.09.19 on on 21.03.18, 21.03.18, A4 on A4 on 18.06.18 18.06.18

Between:The state: Sub Inspector of Police Sullurpet P.S (Cr.No.75/2018) . . . Complainant

And

A1 Perimbeti Devendra @ Deva S/o Venkateswarlu, aged 21 years, A2 Vayaluru Bala @ Vamsi, S/o mani, age 22 years, A3 Satyaveti Sai S/o Ravi, age 26 years, A4 Perimbeti Venkateswarlu, S/o Subrahmanyam, aged 45 years, (All are Pallikapu by caste and

residents of Kollamitta, Sullurpet town).... Accused

Offence : Section 323, 324 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

S entence of Order:

In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Ss.323, 324 and 427 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be treated as bail bonds to appear

before higher court as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any

shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay:

Due to non production of witnesses by the police.

Sd/- B. Gayathri

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SULLURUPET

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nellore, for favour of information.