B.Nirmala

CC 458/2016 1 III ACMMC/GWK

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Nirmala

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

C.C.No.458/2016

This case was coming on 06.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Smt. L.Sita Mahalaxmi and Sri A.Murali Mohana Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.458/2016 b.The date of offence :07.05.2016 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by Sub Inspector of Police,GajuwakaPoliceStation Visakhapatnam city. d.The name of the accused:A-1: Koruprolu Chinna Rao, S/o Appalanaidu, 37 years, Koppela Velama by caste, R/o H.No.1-26, Dopperla village,AtchutapuramMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A-2: Koruprolu Saroja Rao, S/o Appalanaidu, 30 yrs, Koppela Velama by caste, R/o H.No.1-26, Dopperla Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e.The offence complained of:Under Sections 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. f.The plea of the accused &:When examined Under Section 239 of their examination, if anyCr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty. When examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating material. g.Final order:

1.The Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.177/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

CC 458/2016 2 III ACMMC/GWK

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

While L.W.1 P.Appala Raju, Sub Inspector of Police and staff L.W.2

K.Prasad, PC 2899, L.W.3 Ch.Venkateswara, HC, L.W.4 P.Eswarao, PC 1274 and

L.W.5 Ch.Madhu, PC were present on duty at Gajuwaka L&O police station about to placing the arrested accused A.1 and A.2 vide Crime No.342/2015 under section 143,147,387,342 ,120(B)r/w 149 of IPC of Gajuwaka PS, in police lock up, both the accused A.1 and A.2 all of a sudden blown up, assaulted L.W.1 P.Appala

Raju, Sub Inspector of police and other on duty police personnel L.W.1 P.Appala

Raju, Sub Inspector of Police, L.W.2 K.Prasad, PC 2899, L.W.3 Ch.Venkateswara,

HC, L.W.4 P.Eswarao, PC 1274 and L.W.5 Ch.Madhu, PC.5 and there by caused obstruction to their legitimate duties. Both the accused A.1 and A.2 also pushed the duty L.W.1 to 5 aside, bet them with hands and threatened them with dire consequences, abused them in foul language and created fearful situation in the police station. Both the accused A.1 and A.2 also kicked the above police personnel and due to their activity, the police personnel could not attend to their legitimate duties for one more hour. Thus, L.W.1 P.Appalaraju, Sub Inspector of

Police and staff L.W.2 K.Prasad, PC 2899, L.W.3 Ch.Venkateswara, HC, L.W.4

P.Eswarao, PC 1274 and L.W.5 Ch.Madhu, PC requested L.W.6 M.Appa Rao,

Inspector of Police to take necessary action against the accused A.1 and A.2 and presented a report. Basing on the report given by L.W.1 P.Appalaraju, Sub

Inspector of Police, L.W6 M.Apparao, Inspector of police Gajuwaka L&O PS has registered a case in crime No.177/2016 under section 353,506 and investigated in to it. During the course of investigation, L.W6 the inspector of police inspected the scene of offence in this case and prepared a rough sketch of the crime scene.

During the course of investigation, L.W.6 inspector of police examined the witness and served 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused but, they denied to comply the terms of notice. During the course of investigation, L.W.6 arrested 17.30 hours on the same date at Gajuwaka PS and send them for judicial remand, pending investigation. After completion of investigation,L.W.6 filed charge against

CC 458/2016 3 III ACMMC/GWK

the accused under section 353,506 of IPC.

3. This case was taken on file against accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under sections 353,506 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code and charge was framed for the same against the accused, read over and explained to the accused A.1 and A.2 in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 are examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked .

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating material deposed against them for which, the accused A.1 and A.2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, matter posted for argument .

7.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination in the present case is

1) Whether the accused A.1 and A.2 used criminal force to prevent P.W.1 to PW.5 from discharging his official duty and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code.?

2) Whether the accused A.1 and A.2 committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 506 of IPC?

3) Whether prosecution established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:

The case of the prosecution is such that accused A.1 and A.2 suddenly assaulted P.W.1 and there by caused obstructed their legitimate duties and threatened PW.1 to 5 with dire consequence and abused them in foul language .

10. Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor submitted his arguments stating that that the prosecution case has been fully supported by the complainant, the complainant and the four constables, P.Ws. 2 to 4 who were present at the time of occurrence and were also the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He submitted that the constables, who were examined as eye-witnesses, cannot be said to be

CC 458/2016 4 III ACMMC/GWK

interested witnesses as the complainant is of the police department. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the basic ingredients of the offences under Section 353 ,506 of the Indian Penal Code are duly satisfied in the present case .

11.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant is from police department and in fact, when accused A.1 and A.2 arrested in a case where P.W.1 have no jurisdiction an when police intend to shift them to another place for that accused questioned them and there was no intention on the part of the accused to assault the defacto complainant. He further submitted that there was no occasion to interfere with the discharge of the official duty of the complainant and therefore, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied against the accused in the present case. The offence under section 506 of Indian Penal Code is alleged against accused A.1 and A.2. As per the evidence of P.W.1 accused A.1 and A.2 threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences that they will kill them by spent an amount of Rs.10 lakhs, but there is no evidence to prove that accused A.1 and

A.2 threatened the P.W.1. Therefore, A.1 and A.2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

12.In order to establish the case of prosecution, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6.

13.P.W.1 deposed that on 07-05-2016 from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm accused

A.1 and A.2 brought to police station while P.W.1 was preparing arrest particulars

A.1 and A.2 all of a sudden started disputing with him and pushed him with their hands. Meanwhile, P.W.2 to P.W.5 interfered and rescued him. A.1 and A.2 threatened P.W.1 to P.W.6 with dire consequences that they will kill them by engaging and spending an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. P.W.1 further deposed that both the accused obstructed while they were discharging their official duty and hence he lodged complaint against accused .

14.P.W.2 deposed that when P.W.1 tried to enquire their identity particulars, they pushed him and started kicking P.W.1 and they scolded P.W.1 in filthy language. When all other interfered accused grew wild and pushed them with hands and kicked with legs and they created panic situation in police

CC 458/2016 5 III ACMMC/GWK

station .

15.P.W.3 deposed that accused grew wild and started scolding P.W.1 and threatened him and they will see his end and fist ed on the cement pole. When they tried to interfered they pushed them with hand and beat all of them with hand and legs and threatened that they are rowdies and they will see their end by engaging and spending an amount of Rs 10 lakhs.

16.P.W.4 deposed that he heard voice and went there and found accused pushing P.W.1 with hands and abused him in filthy language .Accused threatened them that they will see their end.

17.P.W.5 deposed that he heard loud sound from lock up room went there and found accused scolding P.W.1 and they pushed P.W.1 with their hands ,they interfered and separated them at that time accused kicked them with their legs and they threatened all of them that they will see their end . P.W.5 further deposed that accused created terror at police station .

18.P.W.6 investigating officer registered the crime, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and arrested the accused and send them to judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused A.1 and A.2.

19.The offence under sections 353 of Indian Penal Code charged against the accused. In order to establish the offence under section 353 of Indian

Penal Code, prosecution must prove that the person assaulted was a public servant and he was acting in exercise of his duties as a public servant and the assault or criminal force used against such public servant with an intent to deter him from discharging his duty of public servant.

20.The accused assaulted or used criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his official duty and committed offence under Section 353 IPC.

The evidence of P.W.1 shows that accused A.1 and A.2 disputed with P.W.1 pushed

P.W.1 with hands and threatened with dire consequences. Using assault or criminal force against a police servant is defined under Section 353 IPC.

CC 458/2016 6 III ACMMC/GWK

The ingredients of the offence are (i) the victim must be a public servant

(ii) when assaulted or used criminal force he must have been acting (a) in execution of his official duty (b) the assault was intended to deter him from discharging his duty or it was in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of his duty.

21.Criminal force is defined under Section 350 IPC as follows:

"Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other".

The essential ingredients of the section are (i) there must be use of force as defined by Section 349; (ii) such force should be used intentionally; (iii) the force must be used against a person, and (iv) it should have been used without the consent of the person against whom it is used.

22.Assault is defined under Section 351 IPC as follows:- " Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation - Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault".

23.In the cross examination of P.W.1, he arrested A.1 and A.2 in

Dopperla Village, Atchuthapuram Police station limits. P.W.1 though it was mentioned in Ex.P.1 report that accused beat him with hands the same was not deposed by P.W.1 in his evidence. P.W.1 only deposed that both the accused pushed him and assaulted him. P.W.1 further deposed that he did not file any document to show that he was on duty as on the date of the incident. No where in the charge sheet P.W.6 mentioned the date and time of offence. As per Ex.P.2 offence took place on 07-05-2016.

24.P.W.2 deposed that accused also beat P.W.1 with hands and kicked

CC 458/2016 7 III ACMMC/GWK

with legs. The same was not deposed by P.W.1 in his evidence. P.W.3 to 5 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

25.To establish the case of prosecution, prosecution examined only official witness, but there is no other independent witnesses was examined by the prosecution.

26.Learned counsel for the accused cross examined P.W.3. In his cross examination, he stated that he do not know when P.W.1 tried to shift A.1 and A.2 to some other place all of them attacked on them and in turn filed false complaint against them, he do not know why P.W.1 arrested A.1 and A.2.

27.In the cross examination of P.W.4 deposed he heard the loud voice while he was present in the sentry room which was very adjacent to lock up room, he do not know the cases pending against the accused pertaining to 2015, as on the date of incident there is no CC TV facility in their police station.

28.In the cross examination of P.W.5 deposed he do not know anything about the Cr.No.342/2015, only 10 persons present on duty as on the date of alleged offence, no police officials sustained injuries and no damages was caused to their uniforms,.

29.Learned counsel for the accused filed petitions under section 311

Cr.P.C for the purpose of cross examination of P.W.1/defacto complainant and

P.W.6/investigating officer in Crl.M.P.No.4/2022 and Crl.MP 96/2022 and the same was allowed .

30.P.W.1 admitted that there are independent witnesses are available at the time of incident. But none of them were examined by police. P.W.6 also admitted that number of persons used to visit police complex, but no one are available at the time of incident. P.W.1 clearly admitted the presence of persons other than police official at the time of incident .

31.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 does not become tainted by virtue of their official designation. What must be given consideration is that whether their

CC 458/2016 8 III ACMMC/GWK

evidence inspires confidence and evidence is supported and corroborated by each other. All P.W.1 to 5 are police officials.

32.In view of decision Karamjit singh V State reported in AIR 2003

SC 1311 where in the Honourable court held that “The testimony of police

personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds”.

33.In view of decision inBhaskarrao and others V State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(2) ALD (Crl.)988 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 31 that” From the study of the aforesaid precedents of this court, we may note that whoever has been a witness before the court of law, having a strong interest in result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remain the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth,. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never to be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case.”

34.In the present case on hand, the prosecution evidence P.W.2 to

P.W.5 witness who are the subordinates of P.W.1 were present at the time of alleged incident. The evidence of P.W.1 totally can not be discarded, but his evidence must be corroborated with any other independent witness. Though there was availability of independent persons they were not examined by investigating officer .

35.Further in view of decision Hardhanchar Vs. State of WB 1981 Crl.L.J N.O.C. 158 (Crl.) DB the Hon’ble court held that “independent eye witness of occurrence, though available, not produced by the prosecution. In such a case, it is unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of relation witness”

36.As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the incident occurred at about 2:00 pm in the after noon and several persons were present at the time of

CC 458/2016 9 III ACMMC/GWK

incident. But none of them were examined in this case though there is availability of independent witness in and around in that police station/locality and they were not examined in this case.

37.In view of decisionManik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2015 7 SCC 423 Honourable Supreme Court held that: "A reading of the above provision shows that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. By perusing the materials available on record, it appears that no force was used by the appellants to commit such an offence. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the appellants either assaulted the respondents or used criminal force to prevent the second respondent from discharging his official duty. Taking the uncontroverted allegations, in our view, the ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are not made out."

38.Prosecution must establish that force was used intentionally to P.W.1 without his consent in order to commit an offence. There is no intention on part of accused to commit an offence was established in this case. P.W.1 failed to produce any independent evidence though they are available to corroborate his evidence except police officials.

39.Further the evidence placed by the prosecution, there is no intention on part of accused to commit an offence was established in this case. P.W.3 to

P.W.5 deposed in their evidence that they heard loud voice and then they went there. To believe the case of prosecution, no independent witnesses were examined in this case. Therefore, in view of above discussion in the absence of any specific evidence to show that accused A.1 and A.2 were obstructed their legitimate duties. The essential ingredients to attract Section 353 of IPC not proved in this case. Accordingly, this point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2:

40.The offence under section 506 of IPC charged against the accused .

What is relevant is the intention of accused to cause alarm by making a statement with injury to the person, reputation or property of the victim. But, there is no evidence in this case to establish such intention. Hence, on the facts of this case, accused cannot be said to have committed offence of criminal

CC 458/2016 10 III ACMMC/GWK

intimidation as alleged by the prosecution.

41.P.W.1 only testified as if he was threatened by the accused. When both the accused A.1 and A.2 threatened him that they are rowdies and rowdy sheet pending against them and they would kill him by engaging and spending an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. Mere fact that, the prosecution did not file any docu- ment to show that rowdy sheet is pending against all the accused. Hence, attribu- tion of 'Criminal intimidation' is improper and unjust. Except Police officials i.e.

P.W.1 to P.W.6, there is no direct witness to the incident. P.W.2 to P.W.5 their offi- cials clearly deposed in their cross examination that they do not know why P.W.1 arrested accused A.1 and A.2. Except stating that accused threatened and abused P.W.1 and they interfered and separated them. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.6 are not sufficient to establish the offence alleged against the ac- cused A.1 and A.2.

42. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to sections 503 and 506 of IPC which read as follows:

503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.

Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

Section 506 of IPC which reads as under: 506. Whoever commits, the of- fence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.,:- And if the threat be to cause death, or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death, or (imprisonment for life) or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute un- chastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

43. When none of the prosecution witnesses have definite knowledge about the alleged “criminal intimidation”, as discussed above, the accused entitles for the benefit of doubt.

CC 458/2016 11 III ACMMC/GWK

44. As this court observed above, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 to P.W.5 stated specifically where accused criminally intimidated P.W.1 and on whose presence such intimidation was occurred. P.W.2 to P.W.5 narrate as if P.W.1 was beaten by accused with hands and legs. Even for the argument sake, if accused beat P.W.1, it becomes an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. However, it is not the case of prosecution. P.W. 2 to P.W.5 did not give any police report alleging that they were beaten by accused to prosecute him for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Admittedly, the prosecution was not examined at least one in- dependent person to infer as if accused threatened and abused P.W.1. All these facts go to show that there are serious disputes between P.W.1 and accused. In such a case, evidence of prosecution witnesses is to be carefully scrutinized to give correct finding. P.W.5 clearly deposed that no police officials sustained injuries and no damages was caused to their uniforms. When P.Ws 1 to 5 did not speak anything about the alleged criminal intimidation, it further creates a dubiety to trust the theory of the case of prosecution. As this court discussed supra, neither of the prosecution witnesses specifically stated where the accused criminally intimidated nor stated when such intimidation was done by accused.

45.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution totally fails to prove the essential ingredients of section 506 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable and therefore, this is a case in which the benefit of doubt must be extended in favour of accused. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.3:.

46.From the above foregoing discussion, the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections353 and 506 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and the offence under section 353 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, which are the summons procedure code, therefore the accused are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Hence, point is answered

CC 458/2016 12 III ACMMC/GWK

accordingly.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A.1 and A.2 shall stands cancelled after lapse of Six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence: None.

P.W.1 … P.Appala Raju P.W.2 … Ch.Venkateswarao P.W.3 … P.Eswarao P.W.4 … Ch.Madhu P.W.5 … K.Prasad P.W.6 … M.Appa Rao,

No. of Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated 07.05.2016 of P.W.1. Ex.P2 : First Information report in Cr.No.177/2016 Ex.P3 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Defence:- Nil

No. of material objects marked

-Nil-

III ACMM/GWK

CC 458/2016 13 III ACMMC/GWK

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA

C.C.NO.458/2016

Date of offence: 07.05.2016

Date of report/complaint: 07.05.2016

Release on bail: On bail

Commencement of trial: 22.01.2020

Close of trial: 07.04.2022

Date of Sentence or judgment: 08.04.2022

Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

C.C.No.458/2016 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka against accused in Cr.No.177/2016 under Sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code

The name of the complainant : State represented by Sub Inspector of Police,GajuwakaPoliceStation Visakhapatnam city. The Name of the accused : A-1: Koruprolu Chinna Rao, S/o Parentage & ResidenceAppalanaidu, 37 years, Koppela Velama by caste, R/o H.No.1-26, Dopperla village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A-2: Koruprolu Saroja Rao, S/o Appalanaidu, 30 yrs, Koppela Velama by caste, R/o H.No.1-26, Dopperla Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

Offence: Under Sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code Finding: A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are foundnot guiltyfor the offence punishable under sections 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

1

P.R.C. 02/2022 III ACMM, GWK

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPANTAM AT GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: Smt. B.Nirmala

III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022 P.R.C .02/2022 Between: State represented by its Assistant Commissioner of Police, Harbour Sub-division. Visakhapatnam city. ….Complainant And: A1. Pappala Vasanthkumar S/o (late) Rama Das, 32 yrs, SC Mala by caste, Pawanaputra Nagar, Malkapuram. A2. Pappala Ananda Karuna Kumari W/o late Rama Rao, 50yrs Caste by SC Mala, Pawanaputranagar, Sriharipuram, Malkapuram. ….Accused This case is coming on 07.04.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri R.Viswanath, Advocate for the accused A.1 and A.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration and this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.The Assistant Commssioner of Police, Harbour Sub-division, Visakhapatnam city filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.198/2018 of Malkapuram Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is as follows: On 09.05.2018 as per the customs of Christian Tradition. The parents of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari gave Rs. 3,00,000/- as Adapaduchu lanchanalu to the accused persons apart from that, other ‘sari samanulu’. Later, the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari came to her in laws house to lead her conjugal life. As soon as she started her conjugal life in her in-laws house, the accused A1 and A2 being the husband and mother in law of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari started harassing the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari both physically and mentally with a demand to bring more dowry from her parents. The deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari used to inform her parents time to time about the harassment meted out by A1 and A2. In the meantime the deceased got pregnancy. On coming to know about the same, parents of the deceased came to the house of the accused and requested them to send the deceased to their home. On that, both A1, A2 refused to send the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari along with them by stating that it is not advisable to travel in bus from Visakhapatnam to Kakinada. Matter stood thus, the accused A1 and A2 took the deceased to Hyderabad and surrounding areas, travelled by bus and in return journey, they dropped her at her parent’s house. Due to long journey, the pregnancy was aborted, and the deceased stayed at her parents for two months. On 04.01.2018, her parents send her to the house of the accused duly informing L.W4 who is maternal uncle to the accused A1 to look after her well being. But the accused again started harassing. A1 and A2 didn’t allow the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari to use cell phone or to contact with her parents. A1 and A2 confined the deceased in a situation that she could not communicate her circumstance to her parents and any well wishers. When the parents tried to contact the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari, they used to call to the cell numbers of accused persons. Then they pressurized her to speak over loud speaker and did not allow the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari to talk with her parents freely. On 22.11.18, at about 22.00 hrs, due to the unbearable cruelty and harassment, the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari requested A1 and A2 to send to her parents. On that, she went to bath room, wrote a suicide note and consumed bathroom cleaning acid. When the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari stayed for long time in the bathroom, the A1 suspected her, broke open the doors, shifted her to KIMS ICON hospital, Sheelanagar. The parents were informed about the incident by the maternal uncle of the accused A1. While undergoing the treatment, the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari succumbed to injuries on 22.11.18 at 14.06 hrs. In this connection, basing on the report of L.W.1 Kunche Chinna Subba Rao a case vide CR.No. 198/2018 U/s 304-B IPC of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam City was registered by L.W.27 E.Kesava Rao on 21.11.2018. As it is a case of Dowry Death,

2

P.R.C. 02/2022 III ACMM, GWK

LW.28 Ranga Raju took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, L.W.28 Ranga Raju secured the clues team (L.W’s 23 Khader Shaaik and L.W.24 T. Rama Chandra Rao), mediators (L.W’s14 Abdul Gaffar and L.W.15 Geddam Mahesh) and visited the scene of offence along with L.W.1Kunche Chinna Subba Rao, L.W.28 Ranga Raju examined the crime scene and collected material objects i.e. acid bottle, samples, death note, pen and a note book from the scene of offence. L.W.28 Ranga Raju drafted the crime scene observation report under the cover of observation report in the presence of L.W’s 14 Abdul Gaffar and L.W.15 Geddam Mahesh. L.W 28 Ranga Raju prepared rough sketch of the crime scene, further examined L.W’s 1Kunche Chinna Subba Rao, L.W.2 Kunche Nani Babu, L.W.3 Kunche Lova Seshagiri, L.W.4 Kandimalla Ravi, L.W.5 Kandilli Deva Babu, L.W.6 Dhanala Bala Raju, L.W.7 Samodula Ganesh, L.W.8 Vusa Apparao, L.W.9 Kunchi Baby, L.W.10 Pusala Bujjamma, L.W.11. Nunna Revathi Kumari, L.W.12 Chintala Latha, L.W.13 Chintala Krishna and recorded their statements U/s 161(3) Cr.P.C. Since the death of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari occurred within 7 years of her marriage LW.28 Ranga Raju sent a requisition to LW.26 with a request to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari. Accordingly L.W26 N. Raja Rao conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari in the presence of L.W’s 16 Vusa Subba Rao and L.W.17 Siddantapu Ganeswara Rao and sent the dead body of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari through L.W.25 J. Tejaswini to the team of doctors, i.e. L.W’s 18 Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar and L.W’s 19 Dr. Devehand for conducting autospy over the dead body of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari. L.W.28 Ranga Raju forwarded the material objects to L.W.21Dr.V.Naga raju for chemical analysis. L.W.20 G.Srilatha analyzed material objects and prepared report vide VSP/TOX/1207/2018 dt. 25.04.2019. Basing on the report L.W’s 18 Dr.V.Chandra Sekhar and L.W.19 Dr.devchand issued their final opinion and opined that the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari would appear to have died of “ CHEMICAL PERIPTIONIPIS DUE TO PRFORATION OF STOMACH A CORROSIVE POISON”.L.W.28 Ranga Raju forwarded the seized suicide note along with the secimen hand writing of the deceased to L.W.22 K.Vaniprasad Rao for comparision. Accordingly he compard the documents and issued his opinion vide FSL file No. DOC/7/2019 dt. 09/05/2019.On 24-11-2018 at 10.00hrs L.W.28 Ranga Raju arrested the accused at their house and produced them before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand.Thus the accused being the husband and mother in law of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari committed the offence of dowry death which is a punishable offence U/s 304-B IPC.L.W’s 28 Ranga Raju, L.W.29T.Mohan Rao were transferred, and being his successor took up further investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2.

3.On 09.02.2022 cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were served to the accused as contemplated under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.On perusal of the record, it is disclosed that the offence punishable under sections 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C.

6. Accused A1 and A2 are enlarged on bail. Hence, the accused was allowed to be on bail on the same terms as before as provided as under section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C. and directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions on receipt of summons.

7. The office is directed to submit the case record and sent the property if any, forthwith to the the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, u/sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C. and further directed to notify the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions u/s 209 (d) Cr.P.C.

8. When this court questioned the accused in respect of their means to engage their counsel to defend them in the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, for which they answered affirmative. Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of March, 2022.

Sd/-B.Nirmala

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

//True copy//

IIIACMM/GWK

3

P.R.C. 02/2022 III ACMM, GWK

REGISTER EXTRACT IN P.R.C.02/2022 (In Cr.No.198/2018) OF MALKAPURAM POLICE STATION) ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GAJUWAKA AT

VISAKHAPATNAM.

1.No. of the case: P.R.C.02/2022

2.Name of the accused: A1. Pappala Vasanthkumar S/o (late) Rama Das, 32 yrs, SC Mala by caste, Pawanaputra Nagar, Malkapuram. A2. Pappala Ananda Karuna Kumari W/o late Rama Rao, 50yrs Caste by SC Mala, Pawanaputranagar, Sriharipuram, Malkapuram.

3.Substance of the complaint:

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Harbour Sub-division, Visakhapatnam city filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Codealleging that on 09.05.2018 as per the customs of Christian Tradition. The parents of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari w/o of accused gave Rs. 3,00,000/- as Adapaduchu lanchanalu to the accused persons apart from that, other ‘sari samanulu’. Later the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari came to her in laws house to lead her conjugal life. As soon as she started her conjugal life in her in-laws house, the accused A1 and A2 being the husband and mother in law of the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari started harassing the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari both physically and mentally with a demand to bring more dowry from her parents. The deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari used to inform her parents time to time about the harassment meted out by A1 and A2. In the meantime the deceased got pregnancy. On coming to know about the same, parents of the deceased came to the house of the accused and requested them to send the deceased to their home. On that, both A1, A2 refused to send the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari along with them by stating that it is not advisable to travel in bus from Visakhapatnam to Kakinada. Matter stood thus, the accused A1 and A2 took the deceased to Hyderabad and surrounding areas, travelled by bus and in return journey, they dropped her at her parent’s house. Due to long journey, the pregnancy was abnorted, and the deceased stayed at ther parents for two months. On 04.01.18, her parents send her to the house of the accused duly informing L.W4 who is maternal uncle to the accused A1 to look after her well being. But the accused again started harassing. A1 and A2 didn’t allow the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari to use cell phone or to contact with her parents. A1 and A2 confined the deceased in a situation that she could not communicate her circumstance to her parents and any well wishers. When the parents tried to contact the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari , they used to call to the cell numbers of accused persons. Then they pressurized her to speak over loud speaker and did not allow the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari to talk with her parents freely. On 22.11.18, at about 22.00 hrs, due to the unbearable cruelty and harassment, the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari requested A1 and A2 to send to her parents. On that, she went to bath room, wrote a suicide note and consumed bathroom cleaning acid. When the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari stayed for long time in the bathroom, the A1 suspected her, broke open the doors, shifted her to KIMS ICON hospital, sheelanagar. The parents were informed about the incident by the maternal uncle of the accused A1. While undergoing the treatment, the deceased Pappala Shantha Kumari succumbed to injuries on 22.11.18 at 14.06hrs.

4. Name of the Complainant:

State represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Harbour Sub-division, Visakhapatnam city

5. Names of the witnesses for Prosecution:

L.W’s 1 Kunche Chinna Subba Rao, L.W.2 Kunche Nani Babu, L.W.3 Kunche Lova Seshagiri, L.W.4 Kandimalla Ravi, L.W.5 Kandilli Deva Babu, L.W.6 Dhanala Bala Raju, L.W.7 Samodula Ganesh, L.W.8 Vusa Apparao, L.W.9 Kunchi Baby, L.W.10 Pusala Bujjamma, L.W.11. Nunna Revathi Kumari, L.W.12 Chintala Latha, L.W.13 Chintala Krishna L.W’s 14 Abdul Gaffar and L.W.15 Geddam Mahesh L.W’s 16 Vusa Subba Rao and L.W.17 Siddantapu Ganeswara Rao L.W’s 18 Dr.V. Chandra Sekhar and L.W.19 Dr. Devehand L.W.20 G.Srilatha L.W.21 Dr.V.Naga raju L.W.22 K.Vaniprasad Rao L.W’s 23.Khader Shaaik, L.W.’s 24. T. Rama Chandra Rao, L.W.25 J.Tejaswini, L.W.26. N. Raja Rao, L.W.27. E.Kesavara Rao, L.W’s 28 Ranga Raju, L.W.29 T.Mohan Rao

4

P.R.C. 02/2022 III ACMM, GWK

6. Name of the witnesses for defence: NIL

7. Whether the facts proved or confessed: Vide separate order.

8. Result of the enquiry:

Case is committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

9. Date of offence: 09.05.2018

10. Date of complaint : 21.11.2018

11. Date of apprehension of accused : 24.11.2018

12. Date of closing of enquiry : 07.04.2022

13. Explanation for delay: There is no such delay

Sd/-B.Nirmala

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

//True copy//

III ACMM/GWK

5

P.R.C. 02/2022 III ACMM, GWK

Extract in P.R.C.02/2022 in Cr.No.198/2022 of Malkapuram Police Station, on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

09.02.2022 Perused the record. Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under sections 304- B u/s 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused. Call on 21.02.2022. 21.02.2022: A.1 and A.2 called present. Case copies furnished under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Sri R. Viswanath, Advocate filed Memo of appearance on behalf of A.1 and A.2. For producing sureties and for committal, call on 24.03.2022.

24.03.2022: A.1 and A.2 called present. For producing sureties and for committal, call on 07.04.2022.

07.04.2022:

Accused called present. Sureties produced. Orders pronounced (Vide Separate Order). In the result, the offence punishable under sections 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, hence, the case is committed to the Court of

Sessions under section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. Accused is enlarged on bail. Hence, the accused was

allowed to be on bail on the same terms as before as provided as under section 209 (b) of Cr.P.C. and directed to appear before the Honorable Court of Sessions on receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the case record and sent the property if any, forthwith to the the Honorable Court of Sessions, u/sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C. and further directed to notify the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the Honorable Court of Sessions u/s 209 d Cr.P.C. When this court questioned the accused in respect of their means to engage their counsel to defend them in the Honorable Court of Sessions, for which they answered affirmative.

Sd/-B.Nirmala

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

//True copy//

III ACMM/GWK

1

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Nirmala

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022

C.C.No.301/2019

This case was coming on 07.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for Accused A.1 and A.2 and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.301/2019 b.The date of offence :07.06.2019 c.The name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of police,GajuwakaPoliceStation Visakhapatnam city. d.The name of the accused:1. Karimjji Tirupathi Rao, S/o late Seetharamaswamy, 53 years, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.8-8-35/3, Opp. Sudha Hotel, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. M.S. Mohiddin, S/o late Dawood, 48 years, caste by Muslim, R/o D.No.11-26- 24, Navab Nagar, Near Madina Masid, Gajuwaka junction.

e.The offence complained of:Under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code & Section 63 of Copy Right Act. f.The plea of the accused &:When examined Under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty. When their examination, if any examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating material. g.Final order:

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.314/2019 for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code and 63 Copy Right Act.

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

On 07.06.2019 at 15.00 hours L.W.1 Komarasetti Murali Krishna 2

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK authorised on behalf of M/s Protect I.P. Solutions LLP, Titan Company Ltd conducted raid at Sri Laxmi Sai Optical, A.1 and Universal Optical and Service

Centre of A.2 are deliberating indulging themselves in the manufacture sale and distribution of counterfeit Titan eye plus frames of the above said company.

Basing on the report, L.W.6 G.Ramesh, Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.314/2019, u/s 420 IPC and 63 of Copy Right Act, during the course of investigation conducted raid and on confession of A.1 and A.2, seized 13 Titan

Eye Plus duplicate optical from A.1 and 25 Titan Eye Plus duplicate optical frames from A.2 and L.W.1 Komarasetty Murali Krishna identified the seized property is infringed and accused have no license to posses, sale of their products and served 41 A Cr.P.C. notice to A.1 and A.2, after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC and 63 of Copy Right Act.

3. This case was taken on file against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and 63 Copy Right

Act.

4. On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian

Penal Code and 63 Copy Right Act against all the accused. Charges was framed for the same, read over and explained to them in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.5 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked .

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating material deposed against them, for which all the accused denied the same and on behalf of the defence,.

3

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the points for determination in the present case are:

1] Whether the A.1 and A.2 cheated the P.W.1 by deliberating indulging themselves in the manufacture sale and distribution of counterfeit-Titan eye plus frames of the company of Sri Laxmi Sai Optical and Universal Optical and service center and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code? 2] Whether the accused Nos.1 and 2 infringement of copyright and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 63 of Indian Penal Code?

3) Whether prosecution established the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT NO.1:

9.The case of the prosecution is such that the accused Nos.1 and 2 was said to have cheated P.W.1 by indulging themselves in the manufacture sale and distribution of counter feit-Titan eye plus frames of the company of Sri

Laxmi Sai Optical and Universal Optical and Service Center and targets are dealing in counterfeit of Titan company and cheating the common public and violated the Copy Right and trademarks of the above said company. In support of its case, prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. Prosecution examined five witnesses.

10. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he do not know the accused. On 07.06.2019 he received information that there are two opticals shop was present on the main road of Gajuwaka and they are selling duplicate Optical

Glasses, immediately he lodged a complaint, police verified the same and registered a case and he identified his signature on the report dated 07.06.2019 under Ex.P.1.

11. In the cross examination of P.W.1, he admitted that he lodged a complaint against number of sellers.

12. P.W.2 mediator deposed that he went to police station on his personal work there he was asked to sign on a report, without knowing contents he signed on the report, he identified his signature on the mediators report and 4

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK his signature was marked as Ex.P.2, he do not know the facts of this case.

13.P.W.3 is another mediator deposed as stated by P.W.2. His signature on the mediators report was marked as Ex.P.3.

14.P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the investigating officers, done investigation in this case.

15. The offence under section 420 of IPC charged against the accused.

As per section 420 of Indian Penal Code:

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

16.To punish the accused for the offence under section 420 of Indian

Penal Code, prosecution must show that accused have dishonest intention. Only

P.W.1 to P.W.5 are examined in this case. No other witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mediators and P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the police officials. P.W.1 deposed he came to know the selling fake opticals, immediately, he lodged a report against the accused A.1 and A.2.

17.To make an offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code there are two aspects the person deceived may be induced to do. Firstly he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person.

Secondly he may do or omit to do anything which he would not have otherwise done for the deception alleged against him.

18. In the present case, the absence of producing sufficient evidence and as there was no material to show that accused A.1 and A.2 cheated P.W.1 the offence of cheating was not made out against them. Point No.1 answered accordingly.

19.Further, the offfence under Section 63 of Copy Right Act charged against the accused.

5

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK

The offfence under Section 63 in Ch. XIII provides for penalty thus:

"63.Offence of infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act.-Any person who knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of- (A) the copyright in a work, or (B) any other right conferred by this Act except the right conferred by Section 53-A, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that where the infringement has not been made for gain in the course of trade or business the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.

Explanation.-construction of a building or other structure which infringes or which, if completed, would infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be an offence under this section. "

20.A reading of these provisions does indicate that infringement of a copyright or deemed infringement of a copyright or publication of a work without the permission of the owner are offences under the Act. The question is whether identification of the owner of the copyright is a precondition for violation of the provisions of Section 63 copy right act.

21.Unless the owner is identified and he comes and gives evidence that he had a copyright of the optical glasses which was sought to be in violation there is no offence made out by the prosecution .

22.The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he do not know the accused, he received information about the selling duplicate Optical glasses, immediately he lodged a complaint. In his cross examination he admitted that he lodged complaint against number of sellers.

23.P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are the mediators have not supported the case of prosecution.

24.P.W.4 deposed that they caught hold of the accused in the presence 6

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK of mediators and on verification they found fake optical from their possession.

25.P.W.5 deposed he went to scene of offence along with P.W.1,

Lakshmi Naidu, Ansarvalli, he went to Lakshmi Sai Opticals, verified the material and found 13 Titan Eye Plus duplicate Opticals, he seized those duplicate opticals, from there he went to Universal Opticals along with P.W.1 and mediators, there he found 25 duplicate Titan Eye Plus Opticals, there he seized 25 opticals, both the mediators present by that time and he prepared the mediators report, seized the material and arrested A.1 and A.2, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against them.

26.The identification of the owner being an essential element to prove the offence of infringement of copyright, the prosecution has failed to establish the same. It is important to note that the seized properties have not been produced before the court for the reasons best known to the investigating agency and prosecuting agency.

27. Except the evidence of the investigating officer, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. P.W.5 has not produced the seized properties before the court with a view to believe his contention that he seized the said properties under the cover of mediators reports. It would, therefore, be unnecessary for the prosecution to track on and trace out the owner of the copyright to come and adduce evidence of infringement of copyright. The absence thereof does not constitute lack of essential element of infringement of copyright.The evidence of investigating officer is not inspiring the confidence of the court and his evidence alone cannot taken into consideration to come to a conclusion that the accused have committed cheating and also have committed infringement of Copy Right Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them and the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this points are answered against the prosecution.

7

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK

28.In the result, accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and section 63 of

Copy Right Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this, the 7th day of April, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Gajuwaka.

Appendix of Evidence:

No.of Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence:

PW 1: K.Murali Krishna PW 2: D.Lakshmi Naidu PW.3: Sk.Ansar Valli PW.4: T.Shyam Prasad PW.5: G.Ramesh

No. of Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 ... Report dated 07.06.2019 Ex.P.2 ... Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.3 ... Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.4 ... Mediators report dated 07.06.2019 Ex.P.5 … First Information Report in Cr.No.314/2019 Ex.P.6… Letter of Authorization and other relevant documents

F or defence: Nil

M.O:Nil

IIIACMM/GWK 8

CC 301/2019

III ACMM/GWK

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA

C.C.NO.301/2019

Date of offence:07.06.2019

Date of Report/Complaint: 07.06.2019

Release on bail: On bail

Date of commencement of trial: 14.03.2022

Date of Close of trial: 06.04.2022

Date of Sentence or judgment: 07.04.2022

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. : C.C.No.301/2019 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka against accused in Cr.No.314/2019 under Sections 420 and 63 of Copy Right Act.

The name of the complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of police,GajuwakaPoliceStation Visakhapatnam city. The Name of the accused :1. Karimjji Tirupathi Rao, S/o late Parentage & ResidenceSeetharamaswamy, 53 years, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.8-8-35/3, Opp. Sudha Hotel, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2. M.S. Mohiddin, S/o late Dawood, 48 years, caste by Muslim, R/o D.No.11-26- 24, Navab Nagar, Near Madina Masid, Gajuwaka junction.

Offence: Under Sections 420 of Indian Penal Code & Section 63 of Copy Right Act. Finding: Accused are found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, accused A.1 and A.2 are foundnot guiltyfor the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and section 63 of Copy Right Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months period. .

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Nirmala

III Addl . Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka Thursday, this the 31st day of March, 2022

C.C.No.33/2020

This case was coming on 30.03.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri. Nagesh, Advocate for A.1 and A.2 and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case: C.C.No.33/2020 b.The date of offence : 04.04.2018 c.The name of the complainant: The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station Visakhapatnam city. d.The name of the accused: A-1:Ganapathiraju Venkata Rama Varma, S/o.Krishnam Raju, age 57 years, R/o.D.No.11-1-2/1, Kailashnagar, Opposite to Sivalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. A-2:Ganapatiaju Krishna Varma, S/o Venkata Rama Varma, age 23 years, R/o.D.No.11-1-2/1,Kailashnagar, Opposite to Sivalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City.

e.The offence complained of: Under Sections 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, f.The plea of the accused &: When examined Under Section 239 of their examination, if anyCr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty. When examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating material. g.Final order:

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Gajuwaka Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.195/2018 under Sections 448, 384, 323, 506 (i) r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused A.1 and A.2.

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

2

02. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 04.04.2018 between 09.30 p.m to 11.30 p.m L.W.1 Ganapatiraju

Subhadra second son Ganapathiraju Venkata Rama Varma and his son Krishna

Varma together came to her house, beat her and her husband G.Krishnam Raju severely kicked boot leg and extracted the wile shop agreement executed by

Smt. Lakshmi W/o. Ramana forcibly and went away. She and her husband are over aged individuals and her son Venkata Rama Varama and his son Krishna

Varma are no way concerned to the above property and forcibly took away the photo copies of rental agreement containing her and her husband’s signature, went to the tenants, raised a dispute with them and further threatened her husband. They proclaimed that they wound kill them without appearing the bruises. There is no protection to them. Their abusing, beating and threatening are witnessed by the neighbours. The accused planned to kill both of them to grab their property. Hence, L.W.1 Ganapati Raju Subhadra requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the report given by L.W.1

Ganapati Raju Subhadra the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S. Visakhapatnam city registered the above report as a case in Cr.No 195/2018 u/s 448,384, 323,506 r/w 34 IPC at Gajuwaka P.S. On 05.04.2018 at 10.30 hours and endorsed the same to L.W.10 A.Manmadha Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S,

Visakhapatnam city for investigation. L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S, Visakhapatnam City, took up investigation into this case.

During the course of investigation, L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka PS, Visakhapatnam city visited the SOC and inspected the same on 05.04.2018 in the presence of L.W.6 Buddha Ravi Kumar and L.W.7 Sheik

Hussain(mediators) prepared scene observation report and its rough sketch.

During the course of investigation L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao , the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S, Visakhapatnam city examined as many as 05 witnesses, recorded their detailed statements in Part II case diary U/s 161 (3) Cr.P.C and sent

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

3 L.W.1 Ganapatiraju Subhadra and L.W.2 Ganapatiraju Krishnam Raju, L.W.3

Matcha Venkatarao, L.W.4 Aguru Lakshmi, L.W.5 Bhavaraju Venkata Lakshmi,

L.W.6 Buddha Ravi Kumar, L.W.7 Sheik Hussain, L.W 8 Dr.V.Krishna Murthy,

Medical officer at R.K Hospital, Gajuwaka for treatment. During the course of investigation L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S.

Visakhapatnam city arrested the accused A-1 on 23.04.2018 at 10.00 hours and sent him for judicial remand while A-2 was absconding since the date of report of the case. During the course of investigation L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka P.S, Visakhapatnam city received the wound certificates in respect of L.W.1 Ganapatiraju Subhadra and L.W.2 Ganapatiraju

Krishnam Raju from L.W.8 Dr.V.Krishna Murthy the Medical Officer, RK Hospital,

Gajuwaka on 19-05-2018 and L.W.8 Dr.V.Krishna Murthy the Medical Officer, RK

Hospital, Gajuwaka opined that the wounds sustained by L.W 1 Ganapatiraju

Subhadra and L.W.2 Ganapatiraju Krishnam raju are simple in nature. During the course of investigation L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Gajuwaka PS, Visakhapatnam city arrested the accused A-2 on 04-8-2018 and enlarged him on bail as he was granted anticipatory bail by the Honourable Court of High Court of Judicature for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide

Crl.M.P.No.6894/2018 when he produced proper sureties besides issuing self bond

from RS.50,000/- in the form of affidavit Dt. 3-8-2018 as directed by the

Honourable Court. When asked, A-2 produced the wine shop rental agreement

executed by Smt. Lakshmi W/o Ramana, which he and A-1 his father forcibly took away on the date of offence and L.W10 A. Manmadha Rao the S.I identified the same as that of the same agreement and that he (A-2) and A-1 extorted from

L.W.1 Ganapatiraju Subhadra and L.W.2 Ganapatiraju Krishnam raju and L.W.10 A.

Manmadha Rao seized the same. As per the evidences adduced from direct and independent witnesses L.W.3 Matcha Venkatarao, L.W.4 Aguru Lakshmi, L.W.5

Bhavaraju Venkata Lakshmi and as per the injuries mentioned in their wound certificates that the accused committed the offence of extortion by A-1 and A-2 basing on the Xerox copy of wine shop rental agreement executed by Smt.

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

4 Lakshmi W/o. Ramana. The prima-facie case is established against A-1 and A-2.

Prima-facie case is proved against the accused A-1 and A-2. After completion of investigation L.W.10 A. Manmadha Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Gajuwaka P.S, Visakhapatnam city filed charge sheet in this case against the accused A-1 and ,A-2.

03. This case was taken on file against accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under section 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

04. On appearance of Accused A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under sections 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Charge was framed u/s 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of IPC was framed against A.1 and A.2, the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. During the course of prosecution evidence, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked.

06.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating material deposed against them, for which, the accused A.1 and A.2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

07.Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused.

08. Now the points for determination in the present case are:

1. Whether accused criminally trespassed in to the House of P.W.1 and thereby committed an offence under section 448 of Indian Penal Code?

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the accused Nos.1 and 2 with dishonestly intention put to P.W.1 in fear of injury for extortion of signature from P.W.1 and thereby committed an offence under section 384 of Indian Penal Code.?

3. Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code?.

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

5

4. Whether accused 1 and 2 committed criminal intimidation and there by committed an offence under section 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?

5. Whether prosecution established the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the same beyond all reasonable doubt?

09. POINT NO.1 :

The case of the prosecution is such that accused A.1 and A.2 beat

L.W.1 Ganapatiraju Subhadra and P.W.1 and extracted the wine shop agreement executed by Lakshmi forcibly and went away, A.1 and A.2 forcibly took away the photocopies of rental agreement containing L.W.1 Subhadra and P.W.1 and threatened them with dire consequences.

10.The prosecution examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3. As per the evidence of P.W.1 shows that A.1 is his son and A.2 is his grandson, he do not know the facts of this case and he was not examined by police and he signed on the report. His signature on the report was marked as Ex.P.1.

11.In the cross examination of P.W.1, he denied the suggestion put to him that there are disputes regarding house property in between him and accused A.1 and A.2, after expiry of L.W.1 G.Subhadra all of them residing together and now there is no disputes in between them. His 161 Cr.P.C.

statement was marked as Ex.P.2.

12.P.W.2 is the employee and working under L.W.1 G.Subhadra and

P.W.1, he testified that he do not know the facts of this case andk his 161 Cr.P.C.

statement was marked as Ex.P.3.

13.P.W.3 is the investigating officer, done investigation in this case, arrested accused A.1 on his surrender. A.2 obtained bail from the Honourable

High court as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.6894/2018 and after getting wound certificate of L.W.1 and P.W.1, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P.4 to

P.9 were marked through him.

14.L.W.1 G.Subhadra mother of the Accused A.1. The Station House

Officer filed a memo stating that L.W.1 G.Subhadra was died on 08.01.2022 and filed death certificate of L.W.1 G.Subhadra on 16.03.2022.

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

6

15.As the material witness P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution. Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.W.4

Aguru Lakshmi, L.W.5 Bhavaraju Venkata Lakshmi, L.W.6 Buddha Ravi Kumar,

L.W.7 Shiek Hussain, L.W.8 Dr.V.Krishna Murthy and L.W.9 K.Rama Rao, Inspector of Police as there is no purpose will be served even though they were examined.

Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 offence committed by the accused cannot be presumed. None of the witness examined by the prosecution disclosed the involvement of accused in commission of offence. The official witness P.W.4 is alone not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. At this stage, the accused

Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.Where the ingredients of offence punishable under section 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code are not made out as there is no allegations of trespass in to the house of P.W.1, causing hurt and commit criminal intimidation and extortion on the part of accused. Prosecution also failed to prove that accused beat the P.W.1 and threatened them with dire consequences.

17. In view of all these facts and circumstances over, this Court has no doubt to conclude that the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused A.1 and

A.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka.

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

7

Appendix of Evidence

No. of Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:- Defence: None.

P.W.1 … Ganapathiraju Krishnamraju P.W.2 … Matcha Venkata Rao P.W.3 … A.Manmadharao

No. of Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature on the report of P.W.1. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: Report dated 05.04.2018 Ex.P5: First Information report in Cr.No.195/2018 Ex.P6: Scene Observation Report Ex.P7: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P8: Wound certificates of L.W.1 Subadra Ex.P9: Wound certificates of P.W.1

Defence:- Nil

No. of material objects marked

-Nil-

III ACMM/GWK

CC 33/2020 III ACMM/GWK

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA

C.C.NO.33/2020

Date of offence: 04.04.2018

Date of report/complaint: 05.04.2018

Release on bail: On bail

Commencement of trial: 14.03.2022

Close of trial: 30.03.2022

Date of Sentence or judgment: 31.03.2022

Explanation for delay: The delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution.

C.C.No.33/2020 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka against accused in Cr.No.195/2018 under Sections 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

The name of the complainant : The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police,GajuwakaPoliceStation Visakhapatnam city. The Name of the accused : A-1:Ganapathiraju Venkata Rama Parentage & ResidenceVarma, S/o.Krishnam Raju, age 57 years, R/o.D.No.11-1-2/1,Kailashnagar, Opposite to Sivalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. A-2:Ganapatiaju Krishna Varma, S/o Venkata Rama Varma, age 23 years, R/o.D.No.11-1-2/1, Kailashnagar, Opposite to Sivalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City. Offence: Under Sections 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code Finding: A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are foundnot guiltyfor the offence punishable under section 448, 384, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE::

VISAKHAPANTAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Present:-Smt B.Nirmala, III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka

Thursday, the 31st day of March, 2022

C.C.No.712/2017

This case is coming on this day i.e. 30.03.2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri G.T.Murthy, advocate for accused A.2 and A.3 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

a.The Serial No. of the case: C.C.No.712/2017 b.The date of offence : 26.09.2017 c.The name of the complainant: State represented by the Inspector of PoliceGajuwakapolicestation, Visakhapatnam city.

d.The name of the accused: A-1: Pilla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkata Rao, 54 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.27- 4-71/5, Sri Ramya Sai Apartment, Karnavanipalem,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city. (A.1 was abated

dated 30.11.2018)

A-2: Savu Srinivasa Rao @ Vungarala Srinu, S/o Apparao, 44 yrs, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.14-40-59, Suryachandra enclave, Dayalnagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam.

A-3: Nakka Harish, S/o Venkata Ramana, 22 yrs, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.11-26- 12,Azeemabad,NewGajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

e.The offence complained of: Under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code f.The plea of the accused &: When examined Under Section 239 of their examination, if anyCr.P.C. accused pleaded not guilty. When examined Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused denied the incriminating material. g.Final order:

2

1.The Inspector of police, Gajuwaka Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.606/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram is a Labour contractor and he previously worked under A.1 at Gangavaram Port and he supplied labour to A.1 who is contractor in Gangavaram Port from 2011 to 2015 December. L.W.2 Dokala

Sattibabu worked as Gang Mastry under A.1, since, A.1 did not pay PF and ESI to other labour Khalasis, L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram, L.W.2 Dokala Sattibabu and 28

Khalasis complained to Labour Commissioner, for which they staged Dharna in front of Gangavaram Port, due to their dharna, A.1 stopped the services his labour and also the services of L.W.2 Dokala Sattibabu and allowed 28 Khalasis for work.

Further, A.1 had to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to him and Rs.10,00,000/- to L.W.2 Dokala

Sattibabu for which L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram was roaming around A.1, but he did not consider and postponing the said payments from time to time. On 25.09.2017

A.1 asked L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram and L.W.2 Dokala Sattibabu to come to his house at 8:00 pm. Accordingly, they went to the house of A.1 by sharp 8:00 pm on 26.09.2017 and waited for the arrival of A.1, A.1 came to his house at 10:00 pm and when L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram and L.W.2 Dokala Sattibabu asked about money,

A.1 told them to come to his Apartment near Karnavanipalem, both of them went to

Ramya Sai Apartment at Karnavanipalem, where A.1 shouted at them as to why they came there after filing cases against him, L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram and L.W.2

Dokala Sattibabu demanded to pay the dues and so saying driver of A.1 and A.2 pushed them aside, resulting L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram inflicted with injury on his head due to hit to wall, when forcibly pushed him by A.1 and injured him on his head, A.1 asked L.W.2 Dokala Sattibabu to leave the place and proclaimed that he would kill L.W.1 Kaduluri Avataram at anytime, on the same day L.W.1 Kaduluri

Avataram shifted to K.G. Hospital for treatment. Basing on the report of L.W.1

Kaduluri Avataram, L.W.7 T.Emmanual Raju, Inspector of police registered a case in

Cr.No.606/2017 under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and endorsed 3 the same to L.W.8 P.Appala Raju, Sub Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 P.Appala Raju, Sub Inspector of Police visited the crime scene, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 P.Appala Raju, Sub Inspector of Police issued notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. On 27.11.2017 enlarged them on bail and obtained wound certificate from L.W.6 Dr.B.D.Naidu, Civil Surgeon, KGH and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under secs. 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code.

3. This case was taken on file against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On 16.02.2018 accused A.1 to A.3 appeared before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 12.09.2018 counsel for the accused filed a memo stating that A.1 died on 23.06.2018 and also filed attested copy of death certificate of A.1.

6.A.2 and A.3 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code for the offence under Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. Charges were framed for the same, read over and explained to accused in

Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the trial afforded to both parties, on behalf of the prosecution side,

P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.7 were marked.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C explained the incriminating material deposed against them, for which A.2 and A.3 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the learned A.P.P.and counsel for the accused

10. Now the point for determination:

1. Whether A.2 and A.3 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 by hit to wall and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?

4

2. Whether prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the same beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.Point:

The case of prosecution is such that accused A.1 to A.3 pushed P.W.1 aside, for which P.W.1 inflicted with injury on his head due to hit to wall and he received injury on his head.

12.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he know A.2 and A.3, he do not know anything about this case, police did not examine him and he identified his signature on the report, he do not know the contents of report under Ex.P.1 and his 161

Cr.P.C. statement was marked as Ex.P.2.

13.P.W.2 and P.W.3 also stated in their chief examination that they do not know the facts of the case and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Ex.P.3.

and P.4. The evidence of P.W.4 Inspector of police shows that basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.606/2017 under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC, later the same was endorsed to him, he examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and served 41 A

Cr.P.C. notice to A.1 to A.3 and he received wound certificate of the injured, after completion of investigation P.W.4 filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3.

14. In the present case on hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are not corroborative to that of the statements of L.W.1 to L.W.3. The only official witness

P.W.4 is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. No witness stated that accused A.2 and A.3 caused hurt to P.W.1.

15. For the above reasons, this Court holds that evidence of P.W.1 is contra to the theory of the prosecution. As this Court discussed above, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is worthless in as much as their evidence does not inspire confidence and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4.

16.As the material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 failed to support the case prosecution and turned hostile, Learned APP given up the evidence of remaining 5 witnesses L.W.4 N.Laxminarayana, L.W.5 Althi Simhachalam, L.W.6 Dr.B.D.Naidu,

Civil Surgeon, KGH and L.W.7 T.Emmanuel Raju, Inspector of police as no purpose will be served even though they are examined. Basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, offence committed by the accused cannot be presumed. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution disclosed the involvement of accused in commission of offence. At this stage, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

17. In view of all these facts and circumstances over, this Court is in no doubt to conclude that the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

18.. In the result, A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of period of Six months.

. Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 31st day of March, 2022.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Appendix of Evidence

No. of witnesses examined For prosecution:- For defence: P.W.1/-- Kaduluri Avataram-None- P.W.2/-- Dokala Sattibabu P.W.3/-- Kaduluri Subbalaxmi P.W.4/--P.Appala Raju, SI

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Signature on the report dated 26.09.2017 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 : Report of P.W.1, dated 26.09.2017 Ex.P6 : First Information report in Cr.No.606/2017 Ex.P7 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P8 : Wound certificate of P.W.1. No. of exhibits marked for defence:- Nil No. of material objects marked:-Nil.

III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA

C.C.NO.712/2017

Date of offence: 26.09.2017 Date of report/complaint: 26.09.2017

Release on bail: On bail Commencement of trial: 06.10.2021 Close of trial: 30.03.2022 Date of Sentence or judgment: 31.03.2022

Explanation for delayThe delay is due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. : C.C.No.712/2017 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka against accused in Cr.No.606/2017 under Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

The name of the complainant : State represented by the Inspector of PoliceGajuwakapolicestation, Visakhapatnam city.

The Name of the accused : A-1: Pilla Venkateswara Rao, S/o Venkata Parentage & ResidenceRao, 54 yrs, Kapu by caste, R/o D.No.27-4- 71/5, Sri Ramya Sai Apartment, Karnavanipalem,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city. (A.1 was abated

dated 30.11.2018)

A-2: Savu Srinivasa Rao @ Vungarala Srinu, S/o Apparao, 44 yrs, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.14-40-59, Suryachandra enclave, Dayalnagar,Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam. A-3: Nakka Harish, S/o Venkata Ramana, 22 yrs, Caste by Kapu, R/o D.No.11-26-12, Azeemabad,NewGajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

Offence: Under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code Finding: Accused are found not guilty.

Sentence In the result, A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of period of Six months.

III Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka 7