Smt.B.Padma

1

C.C.No.1284/2015

Dated: 22-01-2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,NUZVID.

Present: Smt.B.Padma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC:II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Monday, this the 22nd day of January, 2018

C.C.No.1284/2015

BETWEEN:

The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station.

...Complainant.

AND 1.Varre Ravikumar, S/o.Veeradasu, 33 Years, Mala, Lorry Cleaner, N/o.Appanaveedu Village of Pedapadu Mandal, W.Godavari District, Now at Seetharampuram, H/o.Kanumolu village of Bapulapadu Mandal. (Abated on 31.07.2017) 2.Maddala Ramesh, S/o.Late Devamani, 22 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Appanaveedu Village of Pedapadu mandal, W.G. District. 3.Varre Maniraju, S/o.Anjibabu, 26 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Indira Nagara H-Junction Village of Bapulapadu mandal. 4.Kothuri Ajai Kumar, S/o.Bhaksara Rao, 23 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Appanaveedu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, W.Godavari District.

...Accused Nos.1 to 4.

This case coming on 18-01-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri D.Babu Rao, Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and

Sri G.V.N.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station, registered a case against A-1 to A-4 in crime No.140/2015 for the offence under section 392 r/w 34 IPC.

2)The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet are as follows:

The defacto-complainant/P.W.1-Kandula Ekambareswara Rao, S/o.China

Venkateswara Rao, is the resident of Kanumolu village of Bapulapadu Mandal and doing business by selling of I.T.C products and collects the money from buyers everyday in nights. While so on 22.6.15 after completion of his collections an amount of Rs.50,000/- proceeding back to home on his Discover motor cycle bearing No.AP-16-CY-2528 and at about 11.15 p.m., when reached the scene of offence vicinity in Perikedu Village after 2 crossing electrical substation near the house of L.W.5-Putti Damodara Rao, three unknown offenders came on Black colour Pulsar Motor bike bearing No.AP-16-CY-2012, wrongfully restrained him, two of the offenders putting the P.W.1 in fear of death by holding his two hands backside, used criminal force by slapping, scratching him robbed away Rs.50,000/- from the cash bag of P.W.1 and with the help of A-3 who already laid in the motor cycle fled away from the scene.

On the strength of the report of P.W.1, L.W.13-I.V.Nagendra Kumar, Sub

Inspector of police, registered the F.I.R as a case in Crime No.140/2015 u/section 392 IPC and handed over the same to P.W.2-K.N.V.Jaya Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police for investigation. During the course of investigation P.W.2 examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, got drafted the scene observation report by mediators I.e, L.W.10 and L.W.11 viz., Kona Nancharayya and Tadepi Nagamani and got photographed the scene through one Private photographer L.W.8-L.Amrutha Raju, and also prepared rough sketch. Later P.W.2 sent P.W.1 to Area Hospital, Nuzvid for treatment. On 23-06-2015 P.W.2 arrested the accused in the presence of above mediators and basing on the confessional statements of the accused he seized the entire stolen property of

Rs.50,000/- I.e, Rs.12,500/- from each accused and also seized motor cycle and belongings to the complainant/P.W.1 under the cover of a mediators report and sent the accused for remand. L.W.9-R.Nagendar Singh, Medical officer who treated P.W.1 issued wound certificate. Subsequently P.W.2 sent a requisition to L.W.12-Pattan Shiyaz Khan, the then Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tiruvuru, for conducting Test Identification parade of the

Accused by P.W.1 on 27-06-2015 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3)On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against A-1 to A-4 for the offences under Section 392 r/w 34 IPC.

4)Upon appearance of A-1 to A-4 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A-1 to A-4 were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge wase framed against them, read over and explained to them in 3

Telugu. The charge U/section 392 r/w 34 IPC was denied by the accused and they preferred to be tried for the charge against them.

5)During the pendency of case, the S.H.O, Hanuman Junction Police Station filed Death Certificate of A-1 through the learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Hence, the case against A-1 is abated.

6) To prove the guilt of A-2 to A-4, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11 besides M.O.1 and M.O.16.

7)After closing of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard arguments on both sides.

9)Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the Accused

Nos.2 to 4 for offence punishable under section 392 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10)In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-11 besides M.Os.1 to 16.

P.W.1-K.Ekabareswara Rao, is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2-

K.N.V.Jayakumar, is the Investigating Officer but his evidence is eschewed since he

failed to appear before this Court despite repeated adjournments for cross-

examination. P.W.3-T.Nagamani, is the Village Revenue Assistant.

Ex.P-1 is the Report of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 is the Original First Information Report.

Ex.P-3 is the Rough sketch. Ex.P-4 is the Observation report. Ex.P-5 is the mediators report. Ex.P-6 is the another Mediator report dt.23.6.15 at 18.30 hrs. Ex.P-7 is the wound certificate. Ex.P-8 is the Test identification proceedings. Ex.P-9 is the Call details for the cell bearing No.9493670440. Ex.P-10 is Signature of P.W.3 on mediators report. Ex.P-11 is the signature of P.W.3 on another mediators report.

4

11)The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he is resident of Kanumoolu Village and doing business and about one and half year back on one day he closed his shop at 10.45 p.m., and started to go to his native place Kanumolu village on his bike after collection of amount of Rs.50,000/- in a bag and proceeded towards Kanumolu village and at about 11.00 pm., when he reached his native place three persons came on a bike and overtake him and placed the bike across his vehicle and then he stopped his vehicle and among three persons one of the persons caught hold him then the other two persons taken away his cash bag from his possession and those persons taken away his motor cycle keys and placed his motor cycle to road side and the three persons moved on their motor cycle towards junction. He further deposed that immediately he contacted 100 number and informed the same and after sometime Police personnel came to the scene and he went to

Police station and he prepared a report given to Police under Ex.P-1. He further deposed that within one week after lodging Ex.P-1 police called him to Sub Jail, Nuzvid to identify the culprits and accordingly he went to Sub Jail and identified the culprits as per the directions of the Police and photographs shown by them and he identified the three persons. Later he received the stolen amount from this Hon’ble Court for interim custody.

12)It is the evidence of P.W.3 that she has been working as Village Revenue

Assistant Kanumolu village and that in the year 2015 on one day, their Village Revenue

Officer viz., K.Nancharaya (L.W.1) called her and she went to Hanuman Junction Police station along with L.W.10 and proceeded to Perikedu bridge and where they observed one

Motor cycle, single chappal, one Towel and the same were seized by L.W.10 after he prepared a report and she signed on it and Ex.P-4 is the said report.

13)On perusal of the entire evidence on record the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that he did to remember whether he got mentioned the vehicle number on which the persons came across to him and also their physical features on Ex.P-1 report. He further admitted that as per the directions of the police and photographs shown to him he identified the three persons only and that he never seen the accused persons earlier. The 5 evidence of P.W.3 who is the Village Revenue Assistant did not support the case of the prosecution by deposing that she has not seen the thieves at Police station and her V.R.O prepared mediators report and she signed on it.

14)Since P.Ws.1 and 3 were resiled from their earlier statements, the learned

Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State with the permission of this Court cross- examined them by declaring them as hostile. But he could not elicit anything in support of the prosecution’s case from P.Ws.1 and 3.

15) Though the investigating officer deposed about his investigation i.e., examined the witnesses, preparing observation report, drafting rough sketch of the scene and also photographed the scene through private photographer, apprehension of A-1 to

A-4 and seizing of material objects etc. But he failed to appear before this Court for cross- examination hence his evidence is eschewed. Hence, his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case. Though the evidence of P.W.1 discloses that somebody stolen his property on the date of incident, but his evidence is silent about the threat made by the persons and injuries caused to him. He further failed to identify the persons before this

Court.

16) In view of my forgoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitled for acquittal for the charge offence.

17)In the result, A-2 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 392 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 392 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 shall be continued for a period of Six Months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against A-1 is abated.

The unmarked property i.e., cash of Rs.50,000/- which was already given to the P.W.1 vide Crl.M.P.No.955/2015 dt.09.07.2015 shall be hold good till disposal of the appeal and thereafter it made absolute.

6

The unmarked properties i.e., 1) TVS Apache Motor cycle bearing

No.AP-16-CQ-5911 which was already given to the Petitioner (third party) viz.,

Kotturi Vijay Kumar for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.742/2015 dt.09.7.2015;

2) Bajaj Pulsar Motor cycle bearing No.AP-16-CY-2012 which was already given to the Petitioner (third party) viz., Varre Sukanya, vide Crl.M.P.No.741/2015 dt.09.07.2015, shall be hold good till disposal of the appeal and thereafter it made absolute.

M.O.4-Pan Card, M.O.5-Small Note book, M.O.11-Lunch Box, M.O.12-

Polythene bag, shall be returned to the P.W.1 after expiry of the appeal time.

M.O.6-Samsung Cell phone belongs to A-3, M.O.7-Micromax Cell

Phone belongs to A-4 shall be confiscate to State after expiry of the appeal time.

M.O.1-Naviblue colour Monkey cap, M.O.2-Red colour Towel, M.O.3-

Chappal, M.O.8 Ligh green colour neck banina, M.O.9-Meroon colour shot,

M.O.10-Green colour bag, M.O.11-Lunch box, M.O.12-Polythene bag, M.O.13-

Cream colour shirt, M.O.14-Pant, M.O.15-One red colour T-shirt, M.O.16-grey colour pant, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, II A.J.F.C.M Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of January, 2018.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE; P.W.1-K.Ekabareswara Rao. Complainant. -NONE- P.W.2-K.N.V.Jaya Kumar. I.O. (Eschewed) P.W.3-T.Nagamani. (V.R.A)

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1 Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P-2 Original First Information Report.

Ex.P-3 Rough sketch 7

Ex.P-4 Observation report.

Ex.P-5 Mediators report.

Ex.P-6 Another Mediator report dt.23.6.15 at 18.30 hrs. Ex.P-7 Wound certificate.

Ex.P-8 Test identification proceedings.

Ex.P-9 Call details for the cell bearing No.9493670440.

Ex.P-10 Signature of P.W.3 on mediators report.

Ex.P-11 Signature of P.W.3 on another mediators report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1-Naviblue colour Monkey cap.

M.O.2-Red colour Towel, M.O.3-Chappal.

M.O.4-Pan Card of P.W.1.

M.O.5-Small Note book.

M.O.6-Samsung Cell phone belongs to A-3.

M.O.7-Micromax Cell Phone belongs to A-4.

M.O.8 Ligh green colour neck banina.

M.O.9-Meroon colour shot.

M.O.10-Green colour bag.

M.O.11-Lunch box.

M.O.12-Polythene bag.

M.O.13-Cream colour shirt.

M.O.14-Pant.

M.O.15-One red colour T-shirt.

M.O.16-grey colour pant.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

8

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF UDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.1284/2015

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 22-06-2015.

2. Date of Taken on file : 22-08-2015.

3. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 23-06-2015.

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 22-02-2017.

5. Date of Close of Trial : 29-12-2017.

6. Date of Judgment : 22-01-2018.

7. Name of the Complainant :The Sub Inspector of Police, Hanuman Junction Police Station.

8. Name of the Accused : 1.Varre Ravikumar, S/o.Veeradasu, 33 Years,Mala,LorryCleaner, N/o.Appanaveedu Village of Pedapadu Mandal, W.Godavari District, Now at Seetharampuram, H/o.Kanumolu village of Bapulapadu Mandal.(Abated on 31.07.2017) 2.Maddala Ramesh, S/o.Late Devamani, 22 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Appanaveedu Village of Pedapadu mandal, W.G. District. 3.Varre Maniraju, S/o.Anjibabu, 26 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Indira Nagara H-Junction Village of Bapulapadu mandal. 4.Kothuri Ajai Kumar, S/o.Bhaksara Rao, 23 Years, SC-Mala, R/o.Appanaveedu Village, Pedapadu Mandal, W.Godavari District.

09. Offence : Under Sec.392 r/w 34 IPC.

10. Plea of Accused. : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : Acquited u/section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

12. Result : In the result, A-2 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 392 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence under section 392 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of A-2 to A-4 shall be continued for a period of Six Months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against A-1 is abated.

13. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 22-08-2015 under section 392 r/w 34 IPC. On 24-02-2016 Accused 1 to 4 were present and they were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. On 27-09-2016 A-1 to A-4 were present and they were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the acquisition in Telugu for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution side evidence is commenced on 22-02-2017 and closed on 29-12-2017. As there is no incriminating material appearing agaisnt A­1 to A­4, section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. Heard arguments on both sides. For Judgment call on 22­01­ 2018. On 22­01­2018 A­2 to A­4 were present. Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

1 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

IN THE COURT I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NUZVID

PRESENT: SMT. B.PADMA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Monday, this the 4th day of December, 2017

C.C.No.166/2015

Between :

The State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1.Madireddy Ankireddy, S/o.Nagireddy, 28 Years, Reddy, ANU Mobiles, Bus Stand Road, Nuzvid, H.No.4-217, Dum Dum Garden, Kothapeta, Nuzvid.

2.Damodara Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Kishore, 23 Years, Yadava, Raj Mobiles, Bus Stand Road, Nuzvid.

3.Chittimuru Anand, S/o.Venu, 21 Years, Jangam, Narsi Mobiles, Bus stand Centre, Nuzvid, H.No.7-187, Kothapeta, Nuzvid.

4.Ganta Raja Sekhar, S/o.Koteswara Rao, 20 Years, Kapu, Sri Raghava Mobiles, Mylavaram Road, Nuzvid, R/o.Edara Village, Agiripalli mandal. ...A-1 to A-4. This Case is coming on 27.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri V.Raja Kumar, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Townl Police Station registered a case against A-1 to A-4 in Crime No.11/2015 under sections 51, 52 (A), 63, 65 and 68 (A) of

Copy Right Act with the following allegations:-

All the accused are running Mobile shops in Nuzvid Town and they used to record Telugu songs into Memory Cards without any permission or licence from the concerned Audio Companies. On 12-01-2015 at 4.00 hrs., P.W.1 present a report to the

P.W.4-B.Adi Prasad and he registered the above said case and visited the Mobile shops of the Accused along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and the mediators, L.W.4-C.Rama Rao and seized 4

G.B Memory Cards, Central Processing Unit, Monitor, Hard Disc, Key Board, Mouse from 2 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

each shop under the cover of separate mediators report. Later, P.W.4 served the notices under section 41 of Cr.P.C and he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.

3)On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against the Accused for the offences under Sections 51, 52 (A), 63, 65 and 68 (A) of Copy Right Act

4) Upon appearance of A-1 to A-4 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A-1 to A-4 were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed against them, read over and explained to them in

Telugu. The charges were denied by A-1 to A-4 and they preferred to be tried for the charge against them.

5) To prove the guilt of A-1 to A-4, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13 besides M.Os.1 to 24.

6)After closing of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7)Heard arguments on both sides.

8)Now the point for determination is:

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

Accused for the offences under sections 51, 52 (A), 63, 65, 68 (A) of

Copy Right Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

9)It is the case of prosecution that the accused have copied the audio songs from the movies Endukanta Premanta, Deruvu, Naik, Gabbar Singh, Camerman Gangatho

Rambabu, from the computer into the Memory card for sale and sell them to P.W.2 for consideration without having any licence thereby the copy right of Aditya Music Company which is the member of Indian Musical Industry is infringed.

10)In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 besides M.Os.1 to 24.

3 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

P.W.1-Siliveru Naga Malleswara Rao is the Junior Investigator, Indian Music

Industry. P.W.2-Puppala Malleswara Rao, is the informer. P.W.3-Chitikala Rama Rao, is the one of the mediators and P.W.4-B.Adi Prasad, is the Investigating Officer.

Ex.P-1 is the Report. Ex.P-2 is the Mediators Report. Ex.P-3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Exs.P-4 to P-7 are the signatures of P.W.3 on the mediators report.

Ex.P-8 is the Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P-9 is the Original First Information Report. Ex.P-10 is the Mediators report dated; 12.01.2015 at 14.30 hrs., Ex.P-11 is the mediators report dated; 12.01.2015 at 16.00 hrs. Ex.P-12 is the mediators dated: 12.01.2015 at 17.30 hrs.

Ex.P-13 is the mediator report dated: 12.01.2015 at 19.00 hrs.

M.O.1 is the 4 G.B Memory Card. M.O.2 is the Card Reader. M.O.3 is the

Monitor. M.O.4 is the Central Processing Unit with disc. M.O.5 is the Keyboard. M.O.6 is the Mouse. M.O.7 is the Memory Card. M.O.8 is the Card reader. M.O.9 is the Monitor.

M.O.10 is the Central Processing Unit with disc. M.O.11 is the Key board. M.O.12 is the

Mouse. M.O.13 is the 4 G.B Memory Card. M.O.14 is the Card reader. M.O.15 is the

Monitor. M.O.16 is the Central processing unit. M.O.17 is the Key board. M.O.18 is the

Mouse. M.O.19 is the 4 G.B Memory Card. M.O.20 is the Card reader. M.O.21 is the

Monitor. M.O.22 is the C.P.U with disc. M.O.23 Key Board. M.O.24 Mouse.

11)The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 goes to show that the Accused 1 to 4 are running Mobile shops at different places in Nuzvid Town with name and style of Anu

Mobiles, Raj Mobiles, Narsi Mobiles and Sri Raghava Mobile respectively and used to record Telugu songs into the Memory Cards without Copy Right for doing the same from the concerned Auto Companies. The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that he being the

Junior Investigator in Indian Music Industries and authorized to detect the offences such as pirated Compatible Discs, Songs etc., has information about the Piracy of songs and he informed the same to the Nuzvid Town Police Station. Later he secured another person,

Police and mediators and went to the shops of the Accused and found that the Accused are copying the movie songs i.e., Daruvu, Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu etc., into 4 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

memory cards and Police seized the Computers, Monitors, Mouse, Memory Cards under the cover of mediator report.

12)Section 14 of the Copy Right Act defines the meaning of copy right which means the exclusive right to do or authorize the doing of any of the Acts provided under section 14 of the Act and when copy right infringed is prescribed under section 51 of Copy

Right Act and Musical work infringement of copy right occurs in two ways 1) by printing and selling copies of music written down or scripted by the author; 2) by performing the musical work in public for profit.

13)There is no dispute that the Aditya Music Company has copy right over the audio songs in the movies Endukanta Premanta, Deruvu, Naik, Gabbar Singh, Camerman

Gangatho Rambabu. Further the Accused also did not produce any licence or permission to copy the above said audio songs. Now the point for determination is whether the accused have downloaded the audio songs and copied them into the memory cards under

M.Os.1, 7, 13 and 19.

14)On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it is found that they are not interested to support the case of prosecution for the reasons best known to them. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State treated P.Ws.1 and 2 as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them with the permission of this Court, but nothing positive is elicited. After excluding the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who turned hostile, the available evidence on record is that P.W.3 and P.W.4 investigating officer.

15)P.W.3 also turned hostile stating that he put his signature on the mediators report as Ex.P-4 to P-7 at Police Station and the Police informed him that they conducted raid on the shops of the Accused and detained the Accused. Though this witness is cross- examined nothing positive is elicited. There is no documentary proof to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 are working as junior investigators in Indian Musical Institution. There is no evidence to show that who is the real authorized owner and having Copy Right to copy the said 5 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

songs and the Accused infringed the said Copy Right without displaying the real owners or company of the said Telugu movie songs. Further more the prosecution or investigating officer failed to send the memory cards to the expert to know whether the said songs are having Copy Right or not. Further the prosecution failed to play the songs which were copied into the Memory cards by the Accused.

16) It is the evidence of P.W.4 that they sent P.W.2 as decoy in order to kept the songs copied into the Memory cards, but there is no evidence that P.W.2 purchased the said songs into the memory cards. P.W.4 admitted that during his cross-examination that no receipts were issued by the Accused and they have not field any such receipts before this Court. More over, the evidence of P.W.4 goes to shows that they depute P.W.2 as decoy to get copy the Telugu songs. Whereas P.W.2 says that himself along with P.W.1 and one another person and Police along with mediators went to the shops of the Accused.

There is no whisper either in the evidence of P.W.2 or in the evidence of P.W.4 who is other person. Though P.W.4 denied the suggestion that this case was registered for statistical purpose but there is no evidence to show that M.Os.1, 7, 13, 19 are purchased from the

Accused and they sell the same without any Copy Right. Further the prosecution failed to prove the contents of alleged mediators report as one of the mediators to the report turned hostile and another mediator was not examined before this Court and the evidence of P.W.4 is not sufficient to believe the confessional statement said to be made by the

Accused before him as the same was hit by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence act.

Therefore, nothing can be benefited by the prosecution through the inadmissible document under Ex.P-10 to P-13 mediators report. As such this Court has no hesitation to record the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt consequently the Accused are entitled for acquittal.

17)In view of my forgoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-1 to A-4 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the Accused.

6 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

18) In the result, A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 51, 52 (A), 63, 65, 68 (A) of Copy Right Act and they are acquitted under section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 51, 52 (A), 63, 65, 68 (A) of Copy Right Act. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-4 and of their sureties shall be continued for a period of Six

Months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1, M.O.2, M.Os.7 and 8, M.Os.13 and 14 and M.Os.19 and 20 shall be destroyed after expiry of the Appeal.

M.O.3, M.O.4, M.O.5, M.O.6, M.O.9, M.O.10, M.O.11, M.O.12, M.O.15,

M.O.16, M.O.17, M.O.18, M.O.21, M.O.22, M.O.23 and M.O.24 which were already given to A-1 to A-4 respectively for interim custody vide Crl.M.P.Nos.525, 526, 527 and 528 of 2015 shall hold good till lapse of the Appeal time and thereafter it made absolute.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­III, II A.J.F.C.M Court, Nuzvid,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 4th December, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC:I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Accused :

PW1:S.Naga Malleswara Rao. ­NONE­

PW2:Puppala Malleswara Rao. PW3:Chitikala Rama Rao. PW4:Adi Prasad.

Documents marked for Complainant :

Ex.P1Ex.P-1 is the Report. Ex.P2Mediators Report. Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4Signature of P.W.3 on the mediators report.

Ex.P5Signature of P.W.3 on the mediators report. Ex.P6Signature of P.W.3 on the mediators report.

7 C.C.No.166/2015

Dated: 04-12-17

Ex.P7Signature of P.W.3 on the mediators report. Ex.P8Report given by P.W.1.

Ex.P9Original First Information Report.

Ex.P10Mediators report dt.12.01.2015 at 14.30 hrs., Ex.P11Mediators report dated: 12.01.2015 at 16.00 hrs.,

Ex.P12Mediators report dated: 12.01.2015 at 17.30 hrs., Ex.P13Mediators report dated: ;12.01.2015 at 19.00 hrs.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.14 G.B Memory Card. M.O.2Card Reader. M.O.3Monitor. M.O.4Central Processing Unit with disc. M.O.5Keyboard. M.O.6Mouse. M.O.7Memory Card. M.O.8Card reader. M.O.9Monitor. M.O.10Central Processing Unit with disc. M.O.11Key board. M.O.12Mouse. M.O.134 G.B Memory Card. M.O.14Card reader. M.O.15Monitor. M.O.16Central processing unit. M.O.17Key board. M.O.18Mouse. M.O.194 G.B Memory Card. M.O.20Card reader. M.O.21Monitor. M.O.22C.P.U with disc. M.O.23Key Board. M.O.24Mouse.

Sd/­ B. Padma

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC:I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

//True Copy//

JFCM, NUZVID.

FAC I AJFCM, NUZVID. 

1 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

IN THE COURT I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NUZVID

PRESENT: SMT. B.PADMA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

FAC:I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Tuesday, this the 5th day of December, 2017

C.C.No.1155 of 2011

Between :

The State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1.Mullapatgi Kruparao, S/o.Samiyelu, 35 Years, SC, Gollapalli.

2.Gavirineni Venkateswara rao, S/o.Ramakrishna, 33 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-5-6, Brindavan Colony, Labbipet,…Accused Nos.1 and Vijayawada.2.

This Case is coming on 28.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of

Sri K.V.K.Vikram Kumar, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.173/2011 under sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC with the following allegations:

On 12-07-2011 at 9.00 a.m., the Accused along with other followers criminally trespassed into the lands of Sri Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Gollapalli, situated in R.S.No.35 of Nuzvid Mandal and assaulted P.W.1-Meka Rama Koteswara Rao, P.W.2-

Boddu Venkata Subbarao who are appointed to watch the land by the temple authorities and detained them from doing their legal duties and also cut and taken away the yield of coconut and mango worth of Rs.7,000/- and L.W.3-Boddu Narasimha Rao, P.W.3-Dasari

Srirama Vara Prasad, witnessed the occurrence.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.4-D.Koteswara Rao, H.C.312 registered the above said case and investigated into. During the course of investigation he examined

P.Ws.1 to 3, L.Ws.3 and 5 and recorded their statements and he visited the scene, 2 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

prepared rough sketch of the scene, as the Accused absconded from the village and after completion of investigation he filed charges sheet.

3)On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against the Accused for the offences under Sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC.

4) Upon appearance of A-1 and A-2 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A-1 and A-2 were examined

U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges U/s 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC were framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The charges were denied by A-1 and A-2 and they preferred to be tried for the charge against them.

5) To prove the guilt of A-1 and A-2, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

6)After closing of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence but got marked Ex.D-1 through P.W.3.

7)Heard arguments on both sides.

8)Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether A-1 and A-2 criminally trespassed into the lands of Sri

Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Gollapalli of Nuzvid Mandal situated in R.S.No.35?

2) Whether P.Ws.1 and 2 are public servants, if so, A-1 and A-2 assaulted and deter them from doing their legal duties?

3) Whether A-1 and A-2 taken away the yield of coconut and mango garden worth of Rs.7,000/- from the lands of Sri Rahunadha

Swamy Temple, Gollapalli of Nuzvid Mandal?

3 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

4) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A-1 and

A-2 for the offences under sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable?

9)In order to substantiate it’s case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 out of seven listed witnesses in the charge sheet and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-3.

P.W.1-Meka Rama Koteswara Rao is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2-Boddu

Venkata Subbarao and P.W.3-Dasari Srirama Vara Prasad are said to be the watchman/Victim/eye witnesses. P.W.4-D.Koteswara Rao, is the investigating officer.

Ex.P-1 is the report given by P.W.1. Ex.P-2 is the original First Information

Report. Ex.P-3 is the Rough sketch of the scene.

10)The stand taken by the Accused is of total denial.

11)The learned incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 establishes that the Accused trespassed into the lands of

Sri Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Gollapalli, and taken away the yield from the coconut trees and mango trees, through failed to establish that P.Ws.1 and 2 are being appointed as watchmen to watch the land as such the Accused are liable for conviction for the offence under sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC.

12)On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that no piece of document was filed by the temple authorities to show that the alleged land is in the possession of temple authorities and there is no document to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 are appointed as watchman to watch the said garden and the evidence of P.W.3 is hear say and no value. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not identify the accused and according to their evidence there were 15 to 20 coolies in the garden at the time of alleged incident and there is no iota of evidence to prove the offence even for section 447 or 379 of IPC. Hence, the

Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

4 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

13)In view of the rival contentions the entire evidence is perused.

14)POINT NO:1The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that they were appointed as watchmen to watch the fields of temple and on 12-07-2009 at 9.00 a.m., themselves along with L.W.3 proceeded to the mango and coconut garden of temple lands and by the time of their arrival they noticed coconuts were loaded in lorry and there were 15 to 20 coolies were present at the said garden.

15)In order to prove that the accused are criminally trespassed into the alleged lands which is in the possession of temple authorities with an intent to commit an offence, first of all the prosecution has to prove that the alleged lands are in the possession of temple. It is the defence of the Accused that the lands are not in the possession of temple and the same are in the possession of one Valluripalli Ashok Babu being a tenant.

16)In this regard the learned defence counsel elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 during his cross-examination that the disputed lands stands in the name of Valluripalli

Ashok Babu and the Accused No.2 is working as Manager to look after the lands of

Valluripalli Ashok Babu and the A-1 is watchman of the land of Valluripalli Ashok Babu and there is a Terraced building in the alleged land and the total extent of land belongs to

Valluripalli Ashok Babu is Ac.130 cents and prior to filing this case and his jointing into service, the alleged land is in possession and enjoyment of said Valluripalli Ashok Babu.

17)P.W.1 further admitted that the Endowment Department admitted in Writ

Petition No.20465/11 that the alleged land is in possession and enjoyment of Valluripalli

Ashok Babu and he has failed to pay the lease amount to the Endowment Department.

18)Further the evidence of P.W.4 goes to shows that he has no investigated and collected any record in whose possession the alleged scene of offence land was on the date of alleged offence. Though he denied the suggestion that the temple never in the possession of the alleged land but he did not secure any document to show that the land 5 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

is in the possession of temple on the date of alleged incident, when it is the contention of the Accused that the same is in the possession of one Valluripalli Ashok Babu under whom they are working. In the absence of any such evidence, when the possession of the property is in dispute it cannot be said that the Accused criminally trespassed into the lands of Sri Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Gollapalli.

19)Further P.W.3 who being the Executive Officer of Sri Raghunadha Swamy

Temple, Gollapalli, deposed that there is no document to show that the temple authorities take over the possession of the temple lands from the possession of tenants. He further admitted during his cross-examination that he has not got mentioned in his counter filed in the Writ Petition filed by eleven lease holders of temple lands that the temple was taken over the possession from the tenants.

20)Moreover P.W.3 during his cross-examination admitted the receipts shown to him that the same were issued by Sri Raghunadha Swamy Temple, authority and the same was marked as Ex.D-1. As could be seen from Ex.D-1 it appears that one Valluripalli Ashok

Babu paid Maktha to the temple for the year 2011. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients that the land is in the possession of temple. As such the question that the Accused criminally trespassed into the land of Sri Raghunadha Swamy

Temple, with an intent to commit an offence does not arise.

21)POINT NO:2Coming to the assault made by the Accused against

P.Ws.1 and 2 is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 and 2 were appointed by the temple to watch the garden. On the other hand, the Accused denied that they were appointed as watchmen to watch the alleged disputed land. Admittedly the temple authorities did not file any document to show that they were appointed as watchman. Even assuming a moment they were appointed as watchmen to watch the lands of temple but there is no evidence on record their duties are comes under the purview of public servant. Apart from that there is no evidence from the mouth of P.Ws.1 6 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

and 2 that the Accused are assaulted them and deter them from doing their watchmen works as P.W.1 and in their examination in chief itself stated that there are 15 to 20 persons present in the disputed land. P.W.1 further stated that he did not found the

Accused among the coolies later he stated that he can identify the Accused as he has facial acquaintance with them and identified the Accused about their presence at the time of alleged offence. But their evidence did not whisper anything that they made any assault and deter them from doing works, as such in this regard also the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused.

22)POINT No:3 It is another contention of the prosecution that the accused taken away the yield of coconuts and mangoes from the trees in lands of Temple. But

P.Ws.1 to 3 during their cross-examination categorically admitted that the temple authorities did not plant any plantation in the lands covered under the Endowment

Department and the tenants in the said land raised the Mango and Coconut plantation.

They further categorically admitted that one Valluripalli Ashok Babu was in the possession of the disputed land. The contention of the Accused is that they are working under the said Valluripalli Ashok Babu and the said Valluripalli Ashok Babu was the tenant of temple and the usufructs are belongs to the said Valluripalli Ashok Babu. As per this Court finding Point No.1 that the prosecution failed to prove that the temple is in the possession of the alleged land on the date of alleged incident, the dishonestly taken away property out of the possession of temple without their consent does not arise.

23) In view of my forgoing discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

Accused for the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.

19)POINT NO:4 In the result, A­1 and A­2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences under sections 447, 353, 379 r/w 34 IPC.

The bail bonds of A-1 and A-2 and of their sureties shall be continued for a period of Six Months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

7 C.C.No.1155/2011

Dated: 05-12-2017

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­III, II A.J.F.C.M Court, Nuzvid,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 5th December, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant : For Accused :

PW1:Meka Rama Koteswara Rao. ­NONE­ Complainant.

PW2:Boddu Venkata Subbarao. Eye­witness.

PW3:Dasari Srirama Vara Prasad. 

ExecutiveOfficer,ofSri Raghunadha Swamy Temple, Gollapalli.

PW4:D.Koteswara Rao. I.O

Documents marked for Complainant :

Ex.P1Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P2First Information Report. 

Ex.P3Rough sketch. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED

­NIL­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

1 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

IN THE COURT I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NUZVID

PRESENT: SMT. B.PADMA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of December, 2017

C.C.No.1092/2011

Between :

The State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

Chintala Venkata Rao, S/o.Late Seshadri, 33 Years, SC Madiga, R/.o.Azaraiahpet, Nuzvid.

...Accused.

This Case is coming on 27.11.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Complainant and of Sri K.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Accused has been arraigned before this Court for the offence under section 498-A IPC.

2)The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

About 15 years prior to Ex.P-1 report the marriage of P.W.1-Chintala

Suguna was performed with the Accused-Chintala Venakta Rao and they blessed with two male children. Since three years the accused addicted vices and harassing P.W.1 to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parents as she did not bring dowry at the time of her marriage as their marriage is love marriage and used to beat and abuse her. The Accused developed illegal intimacy with one Krupa and gave dowry and other utensils to her. The elders held panchayat and chastised the Accused not to repeat the such things in future and about 2 ½ years back the father of P.W.1 gave Rs.18,000/- to the Accused as

P.W.1 could not withstand the harassment meted out by the Accused. But the accused did not satisfy with the same and demanded Rs.50,000/- or for divorce.

The parents of the Accused as well as his relatives are also used to tease P.W.1 2 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

with Taunting words for not bringing the additional dowry and instigated her husband to beat her and P.W.1 informed the same to the elders, Nagaraju,

Pulapaka Bala Yesu and her parents but the Accused did not care for the words of the elders. On 18-07-2011 at about 7.00 p.m., the Accused attacked on P.W.1 along with mother-in-law, brother-in-laws.

Basing on the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.5-K.V.S.S.Kumar, (A.S.I) registered the First Information Report against the Accused as well as seven others and investigated the case by visiting the scene, examined the P.Ws.1 to 4,

L.W.2, 4 and 6. Basing on the statements of witnesses, except P.W.1 and her mother no other independent witness confirmed the participation of A-2 to A-8 in the offence, as such he deleted the names of A-2 to A-8 with the permission of

S.D.P.O, Nuzvid. Later on 29-12-2011 L.W.9-B.Tirupathi Rao, Sub Inspector of

Police arrested the Accused and sent him for remand and he verified the investigation and completed his part of investigation and filed charge sheet.

3)On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

4)On appearance of the sole accused, the copies of the case documents furnished on them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the acquisition in

Telugu, charge under Section 498-A IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

6)After closing of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material in the 3 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7)Heard arguments on both sides.

8)Now the point for determination is that:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9)The defence of Accused is one of denial and the counsel for the

Accused argued that the marriage of the Accused with P.W.1 is love marriage and he never harassed her to bring additional dowry and it is not believable that the

Accused made such harassment after 15 years of their happy marital life and

P.W.1 on suspicion that the Accused had an illegal intimacy with another woman filed this case. He further argued that there is no any such dowry harassment or illegal intimacy with said Krupa and the prosecution also failed to prove the same

before this Court as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

10)To prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution must establish the ingredients prescribed under Section 498-A IPC for which it is relevant to refer the said section:

Section 498(A) IPC Reads as follow

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Whoever, being the husband of a woman.

Explanation:

a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature

as it likely to drive the woman to commit

suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to

life, limb or health (whether mental or

physical) of the woman; or 4 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

b) harassment of the woman where such

harassment is with a view to coercing her or

any person related to her to meet any

unlawful demand for any property or

valuable security or is on account of failure

by her or any person related to her to meet

such demand.

11)Coming to the facts on hand, there is no dispute that P.W.1, Accused are wife and husband and they are blessed with two children and their marriage is love marriage. In so far as the cruelty of the Accused towards P.W.1 is concerned, as per the story of the prosecution, since three years the accused addicted to vices and also demanded her for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- as she could not meet out his demand, he developed illegal intimacy with one Krupa and gave the Jewels and other utensils and atlast on 18-07-2011 at 7.00 p.m., she was attacked by her husband and in-laws.

12)To prove it’s case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

P.W.1-Chintala Suguna, is the victim of the alleged harassment meted out in the hands of Accused. P.W.2-Budde Mary is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.3-

Thommadnru Sampoorna and P.W.4-Pulapaka Bala Yesu who are neighbours and eye-witnesses to the incident.

Ex.P-1 is the Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P-2 is the Original First

Information. Ex.P-3 is the Rough sketch.

13) The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 goes to show that after the marriage both P.W.1 and Accused lead happy marital life for a period of 15 years and later the accused addicted to vices and harassed PW1 to bring additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/-. It is further allegations of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the Accused developed illegal intimacy with one Krupa and he used to give all his earnings to said Krupa 5 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

and he did not provide any maintenance to P.W.1 and her children though the elders chastised him, he did not mend his attitude. Since his husband is residing along with concubine, P.W.1 is staying with her parents along with her children.

14)So far as first limb of the allegation i.e., about the harassment to brought additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- is concerned, P.W.1 during his cross- examination denied the suggestion that the Accused never demanded her to bring Rs.50,000/- towards additional dowry from her parents and that her parents have no such capacity to meet the demand. But P.W.2 who is none other than the mother of P.W.1 during her cross-examination admitted that previously the accused never demanded additional dowry from them.

15)The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 who are said to be the neighbours and eye-witnesses to the incident deposed before this Court that on one occasion they witnessed that P.W.1 attempted to commit suicide by jumping into well and that the neighbours obstructed her from committing suicide and they are also used to quarrel with each other. But their evidence did not disclose any demand of additional dowry by the Accused. Though the demand of additional dowry is within the knowledge of family members, but the contention of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that they have placed the matter before the elders, i.e., PW3 and PW4, P.Ws.3 and 4 should have speak about the reason for dispute between the Accused and

P.W.1. In the absence of such evidence the only statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believable that too their cross-examination shows that the accused led happy marital life with P.W.1 for a long period of 15 years without demanding any

additional dowry from P.W.1. P.W.5 who is the investigating officer during his

cross-examination admitted either P.Ws.3 and 4 and L.Ws.4 to 6 did not state

before him that the Accused quarreled with P.W.1 by demanding additional dowry.

Therefore, this Court not finds any sufficient or corroborative evidence about the demand of additional dowry by the Accused from the parents of P.W.1.

6 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

16)So far as next limb, i.e., the accused developed illegal intimacy with one Krupa due to which he was not provided maintenance to P.W.1 and her children is concerned, except P.Ws.1 and 2 even there is no any whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in this regard also. Except one Krupa of

Goduguvarigudem Village, PW1 and PW2 did not state any other details. Even the investigating officer did not examine any of witnesses who has got knowledge about the relationship of the accused with the said Krupa. Except

P.Ws.1 and 2 no independent witness was stated before the Court about the relationship of the Accused with the said Krupa. P.Ws.3 and 4 categorically stated that they do not know about the disputes between P.W.1 and the Accused.

But they both on one count deposed that on one day P.W.1 tried to commit suicide by jumping into well bu this version is not found place either in the evidence of P.W.1 or P.W.2. According to P.Ws.1 and 2 the accused and his relatives attacked on her by demanding additional dowry. Even Ex.P-1 which is the earlier statement of P.W.1 also did not disclose about said development of illegal intimacy of the Accused with said Krupa.

17)Ex.P-1 shows that on 18-07-2011 at 7.00 p.m., her husband and relatives tried to kill her by threatening that they will kill her by pressing her neck due to fear of threat she ran out from the house, even then they have not leave

P.W.1 and chased her for some extent and P.Ws.3 and 4 witnessed the same and admonished them and sent them back. So there are different versions and lot of variations in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 between her evidence before this

Court and also averments under Ex.P-1. In the absence of said illegal intimacy in

Ex.P-1 is a material omission. Though Ex.P-1 is not a encyclopedia but the same should contain material allegations levelled against the Accused. In the absence of such allegations and the later version before this Court will amounts to exaggerations and developments as after thought. In such circumstances 7 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

without their being any corroborative evidence, it is not safe to rely on the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2.

18)In view of my foregoing reasons it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the offence leveled against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is extended to the Accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

19)In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 498-A IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused and of his sureties shall be continued for a period of Six Months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, II A.J.F.C.M Court, Nuzvid,

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of December, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE; P.W.1-Chintala Suguna. Complainant.-NONE- P.W.2-Budde Venkateswara Rao. Mother of P.W.1. P.W.3-Thommandru Sampoorna. Neighbour. P.W.4-Pulapaka Bala Yesu. Neighbour. P.W.5-K.V.S.S.Kumar. A.S.I.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1-Report of P.W.1. Ex.P-2-Original First Information Report. Ex.P-3-Rough sketch.

8 C.C.No.1092/2011

Dated: 06.12.2017

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

1 C.C.No.332/2017

Dated: 23.01.2018

IN THE COURT II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NUZVID

PRESENT: SMT.B.PADMA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC: II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2018

C.C.No.332/2017

(Old C.C.No.134/2012)

Between :

State, through Officer-in-charge, Nuzvid Rural Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1.Pillem Thambi, S/o.Philips, 25 Years, SC Mala. 2.Pillem Philips, S/o.Purushotham, 55 Years, SC Mala. 3.Pillem Kumari, W/o.Philip, 48 Years, Mala, R/o.Bathulavarigudem of Nuzvid Mandal....A1 to A3.

This Case is coming on 22.01.2018 day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Babu Rao, Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of

Sri M.Basava Rao, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police/L.W.10-B.Adi Prasad, filed a Charge Sheet against the accused in Cr.No.175/2011 of Nuzvid Rural Police Station for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the Charge sheet is that:

The defacto-complainant/P.W.1 is the resident of Patha Chinthalapudi Village and he is the fatehr of the victim/P.W.2. P.W.1 performed the marriage of P.W.2 with A-1 prior to one year four months from the date of report in this case and at the time of marriage he presented Rs.15,000/- towards dowry and a gold ring besides that he promised to give 1/2 acre land. On 18-06-2011 P.W.2 came to his house due to fever and after relief from fever she was dropped at the house of Accused on 07-07-2011 and left village on 08-07-2011 at 2.00 p.m. On 09-07-2011 at 9.00 p.m., A-1 informed him about missing of his daugther and inturn after due enquriy and on suspicion against the Accused he lodged a report in Nuzvid Rural Police Station.

2 C.C.No.332/2017

Dated: 23.01.2018

On the strength of the report of P.W.1, L.W.9-D.Koteswara Rao, Head

Constable, registered a case as F.I.R in Crime No.175/2011 under the head of Women

Missing against A-1 to A-3 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded thier statements. On 29-12-2011 he re-examined the P.W.1 and P.W.2/victim after P.W.2 return to her parents house and wherein P.W.2 revealed about the harassment of the accused by demanding her to bring more dowry by disposing the land. Based on statement of victim/P.W.2 he altered the section of law from

Women Missing to Section 498-A and 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. On 02-01-2011 he arrested the

Accused and sent them for remand. Subsequently L.W.10-B.Adi Prasad, Sub Inspector of

Police took up investigation from L.W.9 and verified it and found it on correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

4.On perusing the material on hand cognizance is taken against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 IPC.

5. On appearance of A-1 to A-3, the copies of the case documents furnished on accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., by explaining the acquisition in Telugu, for which they denied. Charge under Section 498(A) r/w of IPC was framed, read over and explained in Telugu, for which they denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 out of ten listed witnesses, and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2.

7.After closing of prosecution evidence, the examination under section 313

Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution against the accused.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC?

3 C.C.No.332/2017

Dated: 23.01.2018

10. POINT:In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant as P.W.1 and the victim as P.W.2. Apart from oral evidence got marked Ex.P-1 and P-2.

11. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that P.W.2 is his daugther and he performed the marriage of P.W.2 with A-1 at about 7 years back and that about five years back on one day A-1 came to his house and informed him that his daugther/P.W.2 was missing from the house and A-1 enquired him whether she came to his house or not. P.W.1 further deposed that after 5 or 6 days he came to know that P.W.2 went to her maternal gradmother’s house at Mulagampadu village and at that time he intimated to the Rural Police, Nuzvid that his daugther/P.W.2 was found missing and that Police obtained his thumb impression on a paper. P.W.1 further deposed that after lodging report to the Police, he came to know that P.W.2 was at the house of her grandmother and later he enquired with P.W.2 whether the Accused caused any harassment against her, for which P.W.2 informed that there is no any harassment by the Accused.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the Accused never caused any harassment against her and they never demanded her to bring money from her parents. She further deposed that after two years of her marriage some petty quarrels were took place between them and due to fear she went to the house of her maternal gradmother sitauted at Mulagalmpadu village without intimating the same to either the Accused or his parents and that after one week she went to her parents house and then she came to know that

P.W.1 informed to the Police about his missing and that she went to the Police station and informed them about her visiting to her grandmother’s house.

13.Though, the learned Incharge Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant treated PWs.1 and 2 as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them with the permission of the Court by putting suggestions that they stated before the Police as mentioned in

Exs.P-1 and P-2 which are statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., but nothing 4 C.C.No.332/2017

Dated: 23.01.2018

positive is elicited in favour of the prosecution. Thus, PWs.1 and 2 remained as hostile witnesses to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given-up the evidence of L.W.2-Nuvvula Kiran, L.W.3-Kolaventi Nagendra Rao, L.W.5-

Andugula Leela, L.W.6-Velagaleti Leela, L.W.7-boda Lakshmana Rao, L.W.8-Mullapudi

Alexandar, L.W.9-D.Koteswara Rao and L.W.10-B.Adi Prasad, as material witnesses turned hostile stating that even they examined no willful purpose would be served. Hence, there is no iota of evidence before the Court against A-1 to A-3 including the offence leveled against the accused. Though reveled that the P.W.2 found missing at relevant point of time and there was a petty quarrel between A-1 and P.W.2, as the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused for charged offence or any other offence. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall be continued for a period of six-months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Statenographer Grade-III II AJFCMC corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 23rd day of January, 2018.

Sd/-B.Padma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Complainant :For Defence :

PW1:V.Pullaiah.---None--- PW2:V.Sumalatha.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant

Ex.P1161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Documents marked on behalf of Defence

-Nil-

Material Objects

-Nil-

Sd/-.B.Padma,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid.

5 C.C.No.332/2017

Dated: 23.01.2018

CALENDAR CASE TRIABLE ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.332/2017

(Old C.C.No.134/2012)

DATES OF:

1. Date of Offence : 09-07-2011.

2. Date of Taken on file : 28-02-2012.

3. Date of Apprehension of Accused : 02-01-2011.

4. Date of Commencement of Trial : 22-01-2018.

5. Date of Close of Trial : 22-01-2018.

6. Date of Judgment : 23-01-2018.

7. Name of the Complainant :The Sub Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police Station.

8. Name of the Accused : 1.Pillem Thambi, S/o.Philips, 25 Years, SC Mala.

2.Pillem Philips, S/o.Purushotham, 55 Years, SC Mala.

3.Pillem Kumari, W/o.Philip, 48 Years, Mala, R/o.Bathulavarigudem of Nuzvid Mandal.

09. Offence : Under Sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC.

10. Plea of Accused. : NOT GUILTY.

11. Finding : Acquited u/section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

12. Result : A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offence under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall be continued for a period of six- months as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

13. Explanation for delay : This case was originally filed in the Court of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid on 13-02-2012 and numbered as

CC.No.134/2011 and cognizance of case was taken for the offence u/section 498­A

r/w 34 IPC against A­1 to A­3. On 11-04-2012 Accused 1 to 3 are present. Copies furnished to them as contemplated u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.On 06-09-2016 Accused 1 to 3 were present and they were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Later, the said case was transeferred to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.6775, dated: 04­08­2017 and the said case is received by this Court on 20­09­2017. The prosecution side evidence is commenced on 22-01-2018 and closed on the same day. As there is no incriminating material appearing agaisnt the Accused section 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. Heard arguments on both sides. For Judgment call on 23­01­2018. On 23­01­2018 A­1 to A­3 present Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-B.Padma.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.