Smt.B.Sridevi

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Smt.B.Sridevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 587 court orders on record since 2015. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, OP cases.

587

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/101408/2015 Acquitted

PS MEERPET vs Yechala Bhaskar Reddy

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: Smt. B. Sridevi, II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2017.

CC. No. 1408 of 2015

Between : The State through PS Meerpet …Complaint

And

A1Yelchala Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 10-128, Vijayalakshmi Nagar, Nadergul village Saroornagar Mandal, RR District.

A2Nemali Lingam Yadav, S/o. Mallaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Nadergul village, Sarornagar Mandal, RR District.

A3Uppu Ramesh, S/o. Valsaiah Aged about 30 years, Occ: Stone Cutter R/o. H.No. 8-65, Leninnagar, Meerpet village, Saroornagar Mandal, RR District.

…. Accused 1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Rama Swamy Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Meerpet laid charge sheet in Cr. No. 79/2015 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 9 B (1) (b) of Explosive

Act, 1884.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 01-02-2015 at 1750 hours G.Biksham Reddy, Inspector of police received a complaint from the complainant Bhavanasi Radha Krishna Rao (Lw1) by stating that the land in Sy.No. 210 is in dispute in between the pattadars of Y.Yella Reddy, Y.Shyam Reddy and Nirmala.

While it is so , on 31-01-2015 in the afternoon hours , some unknown offenders have came in a tractor and blasted the stones with explosives Hence, the complainant re- quested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3. Basing on the above said complaint, G.Biksham Reddy, Sub-Inspector of police (Lw11) registered a case in Cr.No. 79/2015 the offence Under Section 9 B (1) (b) of

Explosive Act, 1884 and the file entrusted to E.Election Reddy, Sub-Inspector of police (Lw12) for further investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Bhavanasi Radha Krishna (Lw1). He visited the scene of offene and caused enquries and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough in the presence of two mediators i.e. S.Venkat Reddy (Lw6) and

S.Sudharshan Reddy (Lw7) and also photographed the scene and seized four pieces of breaking rocks, white colour plastic coated aluminum wire pieces and same was sent for FSL report. On 02-02-2015 he also examined and recorded the statement of

K.Jangaiah (Lw2) and K.Srikanth (Lw3) . On 03-02-2015 he examined and recorded the statements of Y.Veer Mahender Reddy (Lw4) and Y.Shyam Reddy (Lw5) . Smt.

K.Ramadevi, Assistant Director , APFSL (LW10) 3examined the item Nos. 1 and 2 and issued report. On 26-08-2015 at about 1230 hours A1 to A3 were arrested and on interrogation the A3 confessed that A1 and A2 are the land owners in survey No. 210 of

Nadergul village, and engaged the A3 for level of land for plots, in which the A3 used explosive for blasting of stones. The detailed confessional statement of A3 was recorded in the presence of mediators i.e. K.Linga Reddy (Lw8) and K.Sriram Reddy (Lw9) and remanded them to judicial custody.

04. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 9 B (1) (b) 9 B (1) (b) of Explosive Act.

15.On appearance of accused he is examined Under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C.

On consideration, the substance of charges Under Section 324 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws1 sairama

06. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5 an got marked Exs. P1 to P7.

07. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C by placing the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence, for which the accused denied the incriminating ev- idence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no de- fence evidence on his behalf .

08. Hence heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

09.. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Juvenile in conflict with

law for the offence Under Section 9 B (1) (b) of Explosive Act, 1884 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11. In order to support its case prosecution has examined the witnesses as Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Exs P1 to P7. The defence of the accused is one of the total denial.

Hence the evidence of Pws 1 to 5 and Exs. P1 to P7 stands for scrutiny.

12. PW1 (B. Radha krishna) he deposed that on 01/02/2015 he received in- formation from Sham reddy stating that boulders were blasted in his land with tractor on 31/01/2015 and thereafter he inspected the land of Sham reddy and found that boulders were broken and police examined and recorded his statement.

However as seen from the evidence of Pw1 he is none other than Defacto com- plainant in this case. Therefore his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence.

13.PW-2 (Venkat Reddy who is the alleged panch witness for scene of panchanama is not supporting the case of the prosecution and as such he is turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

14.PW-3 (Sudharshan Reddy ) who is the alleged panch witness for scene of panchanama is not supporting the case of the prosecution and as such he is turned hostile Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

15.PW-4 (K.Sriram Reddy) who is the panch witness for confession panchanama is not supporting the case of the prosecution and as such he is turned hostile. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

16. PW5 (N. Election Reddy) he deposed that on 1/2/2015 at 17.50 hrs.

LW11 received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the strength of the same he regis- tered a case in Cr.No. 79 /2015 u/s. 3 of Explosives Act and issued FIR. Ex.P5 is the

FIR. Thereafter investigation is entrusted by him and during the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW5. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and he conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW2 and PW3. While investigation was under progress that on 26/8/2015 A1 to A3 were arrested by him and on interrogation they confessed their guilt in the presence of

PW4 and LW8 hence he recorded confession panchanama of A3. Thereafter the ac- 5 cused were produced before the court for judicial custody. Ex.P6 is the confession pan- chanama and after completion of entire investigation he filed chargesheet against ac- cused U/s. 9B (1)(b) Explosives Act basing on the FSL report under Ex.P7

However as seen from the evidence of Pw5, he is none other than the investigat- ing officer in this case and his evidence is formal in nature and his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness which cannot be solely relied upon in the ab- sence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence. Further more he cate- gorically denied the suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.

16.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is the considered view of this court, that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the ac- cused for the offence punishable Under Section 9 B (1) (b) of Explosive Act, 188Therefore the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt in their his favour . Thus this point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable

Under Section 9 B (1) (b) of Explosive Act, 1884 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence . . The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me, in the open court on this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 B.Radha Krishna-Nil- PW2 Venkat Reddy Pw3 Sudharshan Reddy, Pw4 – K.Sriram Reddy PW5 – N.Election Reddy

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 – Compliant Ex.P2 - Signature portion on scene of offence Ex.P3 - Signature portion on scene of offence Ex.P4 - Signature portion on scene of offence Ex.P5 First information report Ex.P6 – Confession panchanama Ex.P7 FSL report

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil

Material Objects Marked

Nil

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

7 8

F O R M No: 71

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: Ranga Reddy : II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. Calendar of case tried by : Sri. B.Sridevi Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

Date of Offence : 01-02-2015

Date of report or complaint : 01-02-2015

Date of apprehension of accused : 26-08-2015

Date of commencement of trial : 14-03-2017

Date of Closure of trial : 24-04-2017

Date of sentence of order : 26-04-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks: Due to non-production of

Witnesses by the prosecution side

Judgment in calendar case No. : 1408/2015

Complainant : P.S.L.B.Nagar

Name of the Accused :A1 – Yelchala Bhasker A2- Nemali Lingam Yadav A3 - Uppu Ramesh

Offence : U/s. 9 B(1) (b) of Explosive Act.

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence : Acquitted U/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: SMT B.SRIDEVI II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar.

Dated on this the 6th day of January, 2017

C.C. No.434/2015

Between:-

The State of AP through PS Meerpet. …Complainant

And

1.Cheguri Srihari, S/o.Yadaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Driver at Slate School, H.No.17-1-391/76, New Subramanyam Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

2.Masna Sandeep, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Driver at Slate School, H.No.3-1-668, Maithripuram, LB Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. N/o.Kistarampally Village, Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3.Rodda Yadagiri, S/o.Late Rama Swamy, Age: 43 years, Occ: Driver at Slate School, H.No.2-9-37/A, Bharath Nagar, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

… Accused No.1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. B.Shyam, Counsel for the Accused and 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, Meerpet Police Station laid charge sheet in

Cr.No.106/2015 against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that : on 13.02.2015 at 1100 hours received a complaint from complainant stating that on 12.02.2015 at 10 about 1000 hours when he along with his wife Saraswathi both sat in Slate school bus near slate school, mean time one Sri Hari and Sandeep and Yadagiri came to them and abused in most vulgar language and beat them both with hands and sticks and caused injuries. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, Abdul Hameed, Sub-Inspector of police (LW.8), Sub-

Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.106/2015 u/s.324 r/w.34 of IPC and took up the investigation. During investigation, Abdul Hameed, Sub-Inspector of police collected the evidence of Aithapaga Venkataiah (LW.1) and inspected the scene of offence, secured the presence of M.Venkat Reddy (LW.5) and Ch.Yadaiah (LW.6) and conducted scene of offence panchanamma and observations were brought on record and thorough enquiries were also caused at the place of occurrence to get complete facts and circumstances related to this case and in due course of investigation examined and recorded statements of A.Saraswathi, N.Venkatesh Chary and P.Ravi

Kumar (LW.2 to LW.4) and incorporated in Part-II CDs. The Dr.R.P.Vijaya Shekar (LW.7) treated Aithapaga Venkataiah (LW.1) and A.Saraswathi (LW.2) opined that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature.

4. Cognizance was taken against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused, they were examined Under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C

Accused denied the charge sheet allegations. On consideration, charge under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P7 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him in the 11 prosecution evidence, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence

punishable U/s Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. In order to support its case prosecution has examined the witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defence of the accused is one of the total denial.

Hence the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and Ex.P1 to P7 stands for scrutiny.

11.PW1 (A. Venkataiah) deposed that on 12/2/2015 at 10.00 am he completed his duty of dropping the school children in the school and he was waiting along with wife in the bus for picking up the school children after completion of school on that day and himself and A.Saraswathi (LW2) are working at Slate the school at RN Reddy Nagar as bus driver and Van mother respectively. When himself and A.Saraswathi (LW2) were sit- ting in the bus then A1 to A3 came to the bus with sticks in their hands and bet him and his wife and that he sustained injury on his head and his wife sustained injury on her lips. The accused threatened us to kill and hence he took the bus and went to hospital for treatment. The accused wantedly bet us without any reason and the accused 1 to 3 who are standing in the court hall today are the said persons who bet us and that he lodged the report under Ex.P1.

12.Whereas in the cross examination PW.1 categorically denied the suggestions put forth to him by the learned counsel for the accused and stood consistent with his evidence stated in his chief examination. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of

PW.1, nothing worthwhile was elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in order to discredit the evidence of PW.1. Thus the evidence of PW.1 is trust worthy.

13.PW2 (Saraswathi) She deposed that on 12/2/2015 at 10.00 am PW1 and herself completed our duty of dropping the school children in the school and she along with 12

PW1 were eating food in the bus and waiting for picking up the school children after completion of school on that day and herself and PW1 are working at Slate the school at RN Reddy Nagar as Van mother and bus driver respectively. When herself and PW1 were sitting in the bus then A1 to A3 came to the bus with sticks in their hands and bet her and her husband and that PW1 sustained injury on his head and that she sustained injury on her lips and right hand. PW.2 further stated that the accused threatened to kill them and hence they took the bus and went to hospital for treatment. The Accused

Nos.1 to 3 who are standing in the court hall today are the said persons who bet them.

14.In the cross examination PW.2 denied the suggestions put forth to her by the learned counsel for accused and she also stood consistent with the evidence stated in her chief examination. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 is corroborating to the evidence of

PW.1 and hence the evidence of PW.2 is believable.

15.PW.3 and PW.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Thus the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is of no use to the case of prosecution.

16.PW5 (Venkatachary) deposed that on 12/2/2015 at about 10.00AM while he was in front of his house at Hanuman Nagar, RN Nagar and he found that the accused was beating PW1 and 2 with sticks and hands and that he intervened and separated ac- cused and PW1 and PW2. PW1 and PW2 sustained injuries on head and cheecks.

17.Whereas in the cross examination PW.5 categorically denied the suggestion put forth to him. As seen from the evidence of PW.5 who is independent witness in this case he categorically stated that he found the accused beating PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.5, the occurrence of alleged offence is established and the evi- dence of PW.5 is corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.

18.PW6 (Venkat Reddy) deposed that on 13/2/2015 at about 12.00 PM the police conducted scene of offence panchanama at Slate School, RN Reddy Nagar and that he 13 came to know that one day prior to the panchanama some galata took place there and after completion of entire panchanama he signed on same. Ex.P4 is the scene of of- fence panchanama.

19.However, as seen from the evidence of PW.6, the conducting of scene of offence panchanamma is established by the prosecution. Therefore, Ex.P4 scene of offence is established.

20.PW7 (Dr. Venkat ramana) deposed that Dr. Vijay Shekar worked in their hospital in the year 2015 and their hospital received summons and he came on behalf of hospi- tal to depose the evidence. Basing on record he was deposing evidence and that on 12/2/2015 the patients by name A. Saraswathi and Venkatesh were examined by Dr. Vi- jay Shekar and accordingly medical certificates of them were issued and as per the same the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P5 is the medical certificate of A. Saraswathi,

Ex.P6 is medical certificate of A. Venkatesh.

21.However, in the cross examination PW.7 categorically stated that he does not have personal knowledge about the issuance of medical certificates and he did not ex- amine injured. Therefore, PW.7 evidence is not of much use to the case of prosecution.

But from the evidence of PW.7, it can be considered to the limited extent of sustaining of injuries by the injured.

22.PW8 (Abdul Hameed) deposed that on 13/2/2015 at 1100 hrs, and he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the strength of the same he registered a case in

Cr.No. 106/2015 u/s.324 r/w 34 of iPC and issued FIR. Ex.P7 is the FIR and thereafter he took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1,PW2, PW3 and PW5. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and he conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW4. While investigation was under progress he issued Sec. 41 Crpc notice to the 14 accused and they gave explanation and that he collected the medical certificates of the injured from Dr.R.P.Vijaya Shekar (LW.7) and after completion of entire investigation he filed chargesheet against accused.

23.Whereas in the cross examination even PW.8 denied the suggestions put forth to him by the learned counsel for the accused. Thus, PW.8 evidence categorically estab- lished the investigation process undertaken by the prosecution in this case. Further- more, as seen from the evidence of PW.8, it is corroborating to the case of prosecution since it categorically depicts about the investigation done by the prosecution. Thus, as seen from the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, that the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 are corroborated with the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6, thus the prosecution suc- cessfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the of- fence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 3. Thus this point is answered accordingly.

24.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC and hence they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of

Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 6th day of January, 2017.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

25.Heard the accused on quantum of Sentence.Accused Nos.1 to 3 stated that they are the sole bread winners of their families and their entire families are dependent on them and that if they are put behind the bars then their families will starve and re- quested to take lenient view. However on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of offence I am not inclined to extend the benefits of Pro- bation of Offenders Act. But in the circumstances it would be appropriate to impose fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence u/s. 324 r/w.34 of IPC.

26.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 324 r/w.34 of IPC and they are convicted for the said offence u/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., and they are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s.

324 r/w.34 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, each accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused are appraised of their right to appeal against this Judgment. The accused stated they have got means to engage counsel.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 6th day of January, 2017.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE

PW.1A.VenkataiahNIL PW.2Saraswathi PW.3R.Ravi Kumar PW.4Yadaiah PW.5Venkatachary PW.6Venkat Reddy PW.7Dr.Venkat Ramana PW.8Abdul Hameed

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE

Ex.P1Complaint NIL Ex.P2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P3Signature portion on scene of offence panchanamma Ex.P4Scene of offence panchanamma Ex.P5Medical certificate of A.Saraswathi Ex.P6Medical certificate of A.Venkataiah Ex.P7FIR

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil

Material Objects Marked 16

NIL

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT LB. NAGAR

Present: SMT B.SRIDEVI II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar.

Dated on this the 6th day of January, 2017

C.C. No.434/2015

Between:-

The State of AP through PS Meerpet. …Complainant

And

1.Cheguri Srihari, S/o.Yadaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Driver at Slate School, H.No.17-1-391/76, New Subramanyam Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

3.Rodda Yadagiri, S/o.Late Rama Swamy, Age: 43 years, Occ: Driver at Slate School, H.No.2-9-37/A, Bharath Nagar, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

… Accused No.1 to 3

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station laid charge sheet in

Cr.No.106/2015 against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that : on 13.02.2015 at 1100 hours received a complaint from complainant stating that on 12.02.2015 at 18 about 1000 hours when he along with his wife Saraswathi both sat in Slate school bus near slate school, mean time one Sri Hari and Sandeep and Yadagiri came to them and abused in most vulgar language and beat them both with hands and sticks and caused injuries. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, Abdul Hameed, Sub-Inspector of police (LW.8), Sub-

4. Cognizance was taken against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused, they were examined Under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P7 are marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him in the 19 prosecution evidence, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the Point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence

punishable U/s Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. In order to support its case prosecution has examined the witnesses as PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defence of the accused is one of the total denial.

Hence the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and Ex.P1 to P7 stands for scrutiny.

PW.1, nothing worthwhile was elicited by the learned counsel for the accused in order to discredit the evidence of PW.1. Thus the evidence of PW.1 is trust worthy.

13.PW2 (Saraswathi) She deposed that on 12/2/2015 at 10.00 am PW1 and herself completed our duty of dropping the school children in the school and she along with 20

Nos.1 to 3 who are standing in the court hall today are the said persons who bet them.

PW.1 and hence the evidence of PW.2 is believable.

15.PW.3 and PW.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Thus the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 is of no use to the case of prosecution.

18.PW6 (Venkat Reddy) deposed that on 13/2/2015 at about 12.00 PM the police conducted scene of offence panchanama at Slate School, RN Reddy Nagar and that he 21 came to know that one day prior to the panchanama some galata took place there and after completion of entire panchanama he signed on same. Ex.P4 is the scene of of- fence panchanama.

19.However, as seen from the evidence of PW.6, the conducting of scene of offence panchanamma is established by the prosecution. Therefore, Ex.P4 scene of offence is established.

Ex.P6 is medical certificate of A. Venkatesh.

But from the evidence of PW.7, it can be considered to the limited extent of sustaining of injuries by the injured.

22.PW8 (Abdul Hameed) deposed that on 13/2/2015 at 1100 hrs, and he received a complaint from PW1 and basing on the strength of the same he registered a case in

Cr.No. 106/2015 u/s.324 r/w 34 of iPC and issued FIR. Ex.P7 is the FIR and thereafter he took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1,PW2, PW3 and PW5. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and he conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW4. While investigation was under progress he issued Sec. 41 Crpc notice to the 22 accused and they gave explanation and that he collected the medical certificates of the injured from Dr.R.P.Vijaya Shekar (LW.7) and after completion of entire investigation he filed chargesheet against accused.

24.In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 of IPC and hence they are convicted under Section 248 (2) of

Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 6th day of January, 2017.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 6th day of January, 2017.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE

PW.1A.VenkataiahNIL PW.2Saraswathi PW.3R.Ravi Kumar PW.4Yadaiah PW.5Venkatachary PW.6Venkat Reddy PW.7Dr.Venkat Ramana PW.8Abdul Hameed

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil

Material Objects Marked 24

NIL

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

25 26

CC/500663/2013 Acquitted

P.S. Nacharam vs P.Satish Kumar

09 Oct 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R.DT.

PRESENT: Smt. B.SRIDEVI

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR,R.R DT.

Dated on this the 9h Day of October, 2015

CC. NO. 663 of 2013

BETWEEN:-

State through P.S Nacharam : Complainant

AND

1. P. Sathish Kumar.

2. Sanjay Samudrala.

3. N. Srinivas.: Accused.

a) Serial No. of the case: C.C.No. 663 of 2013

b) Date of the commission of offence : 20.07.2012

c) Name of the complainant: State through PS Nacharam.

d) Name of the accused person, his parentage and residence:

A1. Padam Sathish Kumar, S/o. P. Laxminarsaiah, age: 26 yrs, Occ: R/o. H.No. 2-7-57, Pochammawada, Bhongir (V) & (M) of Nalgonda District.

A2. Sanjay Samudrala, (Area Manager Future Capital).

A3. Nimmathi Srinivas, S/o. N. Adi Reddy, age: 27 yrs, Occ: Sales Manager of Future Capital Holding Ltd., R/o. H.No.5-38/8, St. No. 1, Budda Nagar, Boduppal, Uppal (M), R.R. District.

e) Offence complained of :U/s. 419, 420, 406 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused :Not Guilty.

g) Final Order :Accused is acquitted

h) Date of Order :09.10.2015

This case came before me for final hearing on 09.10.2015

in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the

State and Sri P. Bikshapathi, Counsel for A1, Sri Pravin Debey,

Counsel for A2, Sri J.Sudhakar Goud, Counsel for A3 and

having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court

delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nacharam laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable Under Section 419, 420, 406 of IPC.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 09-11-2012 at 18:30 hours the complainant Sri M. Prasanna Kumar, Area Manager of Fed. Bank Financial Services Limited lodged a complaint and stated that the complainant has 10 branches in Hyderabad, Sec'bad and

Cyberabad. The company has various financial products and services and among this lending against gold is one of the primary functions of the company. The company is having its head office at Bandra Kurla

Complex, Mumbai and is registered as a NBFC with the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions/terms of the Reserve Bank of India Act.

The company is legitimately doing business by obtaining licenses from the competent authorities in India. The company has an impecable track record of doing business ethically since its establishment in the year 1995. Further the complainant stated that during the usual course of business, accused herein has approached the Nacharam

Branch for loan against gold on 20-07-2012. He has made application

dated 20-07-2012 seeking a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and offered one gold

hip belt weighing 177.80 grams, one gold chain weighing about 32.30 gms, one chain with locket weighing 36.80 and one gold locket 3 weighing 15.60 grams. The accused had obtained the above loan by offering the above gold ornaments as security. That the accused thereafter again approached the complainant on 07-08-2012 for gold loan of Rs. 4,45,000/- and offered one gold necklace weighing 79.50 grams, three gold bracelets weighing about 71.90 grams and one gold ring weighing 68.30 grams. The branch, after satisfying with the testimonials and physically verification of address and other particulars has granted loans as indicated about to a tune of

Rs.9,45,000/-. The above referred gold ornaments were pledged with the branch and loan was obtained by the accused on his executing all the relevant loan documents on both the occasions. The complainant branch unsuspectingly granted the above loans to the accused and on the strength of his declaration paid the gold loan amounts to the accused on 20-07-2012 and on 7-08-2012. The accused has declared that he is the owner and possessor of the pledged gold ornaments and the complainant had disbursed the loan on such declaration without any suspicion as the complainant has exercised its due diligence and only after verifying the accused details. It is submitted that while things stood thus, the ACP, WCO, T.V, CCS, DD, Hyderabad has sought the custody of the above referred gold ornaments on the alleged ground that the same were stolen from M/s. Future Capital (P) Ltd.,

Malakpet Branch and addressed a letter in this regard dt. 17-08-2012 to the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see that they were cheated by the accused as the said accused with a dishonest intention of defrauding the complainant, approached and pledged the gold ornaments on 20-07-2012 and 07-08-2012 which does not belong 4 to him. Thereafter the company conducted an enquiry and it was revealed that the borrower/accused is working for M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd., at their Uppal Branch as Marketing Executive. The accused along with their employees of M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd., planned conspiracy for criminal misappropriation of the property and accordingly pledged the gold ornaments which were allegedly stolen or moved away from the custody of M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd., The accused entered into criminal conspiracy to defraud the complainant herein and as such with the help of the other the accused herein got into custody of the above referred gold ornaments and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, got the above gold ornaments as security to take loan or for release of the loan amount. The accused with a nefarious object to cause wrongful loss, deliberately declared that the above gold ornaments belong to him and the company branch has parted with huge amounts. Further stated the complainant that the modus operand adopted by the accused and others were that they being the employee of M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd., have committed large scale fraud and taken away the gold ornaments pledged with it by its customers and later part of the said property was offered as security for obtaining loan. It is submitted that the borrower accused along with the other employees of M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd.

Conspired with each other and resorted to commission of illegally taking away the property from the custody of M/s Future Capital (P)

Ltd. And to make unjust gain, the same were pledged with their branch and obtained loan of Rs.9,45,000/-. The complainant submits that the ACP CCS Hyderabad has taken away the pledged gold 5 ornaments alleging the same to be crime properties in Cr. No.

151/2012. Thereafter, the complainant's Manager had questioned the borrower/accused about the fraud played by him he claimed that he shall return the money to the complainant's branch once Mr. Sanjay

Samudrala, Area Manager of M/s Future Capital (P) Ltd. Who is A1 in

Cr. No. 151/2012 is enlarged on bail. The complainant approached the

ACP, WCO, T.V, CCS, DD, Hyderabad who is investigating Cr. No.

151/2012 and also submitted a complaint against accused herein who had pledged the gold ornaments, but the investigating officer refused to accept the complaint nor the accused herein has been arrested till date in the said crime for his active collusion and involvement in committing the said offence. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that surprisingly the police officials investigating the said case have also not seized cash from any of the accused, though they swindled amounts more than rupees four crores. The complainant submit that they have been cheated by the accused who conspired together with others to defraud it and as such approached their branch for financial assistance on pleading of stolen/unlawfully removed gold ornaments and after they were pledged. The company succumbing to the fraudulent representation, disbursed huge sums of money had the company known the ownership of the pledged gold they could not have sanctioned and disbursed any amounts. Thus, the accused constitute offences u/s 406, 419, 420 (B) IPC. The complainant has lodged a complaint dt. 29-08-2012 with Nacharam PS but they have declined to entertain the same or give acknowledgment saying that it is already getting investigated by ACP, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, as such 6 the complainant approached the ACP Malkajgiri vide their letter dt. 03- 09-2012 but he also declined to entertain the same and requested the complainant to approach the civil court. As the police refused to entertain the complaint, the complainant is therefore constrained to file the complaint before this Hon'ble court. Basing on receipt of the above complaint, LW 13 had registered a case in Cr. No. 313/2012 u/s 419, 420 & 406 of IPC and investigation entrusted to LW 14. During the course of investigation LW 14 examined the complainant LW 1, LW 2, and recorded their detailed statements and caused enquiries for the motive of offence and verified the gold loan documents of Fed

Bank Financial Services Ltd, Nacharam Branch. Subsequently, LW 14 examined Lws 3 to 8 and recorded their detailed statements and caused discrete enquiries for the motive of offence. On 20-12-2012

LW 14 arrested A1 and on 11-06-2013 A2 was surrendered himself

before the Hon'ble court of Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar and obtained bail vide Crl. MP No. 1315 of 2013. Later on 14-03-2013 A3 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody through this Hon'ble court and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

3) This court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable

Under Section and numbered as CC No.663 of 2013.

4) On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of the documents, as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, were furnished to them.

5) The accused are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., charges

Under Section 419, 420, 406 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6, and got marked

Exs.P1 to P12 in support of its case.

7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the A1 to A3 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence, but they denied the same and reported no evidence.

8) Heard both sides arguments and perused the record.

9) Now the point that arises for determination is whether

the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the

offences punishable Under Section 419, 420, 406 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6. PW 1 is the complainant, PW 2 to 5 are the witnesses, PW 6 is the S.I of Police, P.S Nacharam.

11) As seen from the evidence of PW1 he deposed that on 31-03- 2012 he came to know that Sathish Kumar A1 pledged the theft of gold 8 property in their branch. He was informed by LW 2 and LW 3 that A1 initially approached their branch on 20-07-2012 and pledged gold hip belt, gold chain, and another chain with dollar and locked total weight of 262.5 grams and obtained loan of Rs. 5 lakhs. A1 had submitted his pan card, ID proof and voter ID. The bank sanctioned the loan after verifying the above documents.

He also came to know that on 07-08-2012 A1 again approached their branch and pledged gold necklace and gold vanki of the weight of 219.5 grams and obtained a loan of Rs. 4,45,000/-. LW 2 verified the address of A1. Basing on his bank statement and confirmed it. A1 suppressed before LW 2 about their employment in future capital and represented himself as contractor and also represented that all the gold ornaments belongs to him. He also came to know that ACP of CCS came to their branch on 17-08-2012 and informed that the gold ornaments pledged by A1 belongs to future capital and accordingly all the above ornaments are seized by ACP police. Upon that he filed a private complaint in the court which was referred to the police. Ex. P1 is the complaint filed by him. He filed the attested copies of the documents pertaining to present transactions. Ex. P2 is the loan application dt. 20-07- 2012., Ex. P3 is the gold appraisal report, Ex. P4 is the credit appraisal memo,

Ex. P5 is the gold pledge card, Ex. P6 is the declaration of compliance, Ex. P7 is the loan application dt. 07-08-2012, Ex. P8 is the gold appraisal report, Ex.

P9 is the credit appraisal report, Ex. P10 is the declaration of the compliance,

Ex. P11 is the gold pledge card, Ex. P12 is the ID proof and pan card, Ex. P13 is the voter ID card. Whereas in the cross examination he categorically admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the apprehension in the present case and he came to know the same through Lws 2 & 3 and that he was not present at the time of recovery of gold ornaments by the CCS police and he also assumed that A3 is not accused in Cr. No. 151/2012 of CCS and he never mentioned the name of A3 or his involvement in this case and he 9 further admitted that he did not mention the name of A2 and A3 in the private complaint filed by him in this case. Still further PW 1 further admitted that he did not file any document with regard to employment of A1 to A3. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW 1 who is defacto complainant in this case he does not have knowledge of the facts of this case and as per the admissions made by PW 1 they contrary to the entire case of prosecution itself since he categorically stated that he did not name the accused and he did not file andy document with regard to the employment of the accused. Still further PW 1 is not through as stated in his evidence that where A1 is the Sales Manager or

Executive and he also admitted that he was not present at the time of sanction of loan. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of PW 1 it goes totally contrary to the case of prosecution and hence PW 1 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

12) As seen from the evidence of PW 2 he deposed that In the month of May or June, 2012 one customer by name Satish Kumar came to their bank and required to avail gold loan. Then he explained the scheme.

Upon that Satish Kumar A1 agreed for the terms and accordingly they sanctioned loan of Rs.5 lakhs by pledging the gold ornaments. The said amount was paid after collecting ID proof and address two or three days thereafter a1 of you again approached their branch with some more gold gold ornaments. The area manager LW 2 Sudhakar attended the transaction and verified the claim. Accordingly they sanctioned loan of Rs.4,50,000/-.

Subsequent A1 failed to pay the interest on principle amount. About six months thereafter the police came to their branch and informed that the gold ornaments pledged by A1 was the stolen property from a company. The police took away the gold ornaments from the bank. He can identify A1.

However, PW 2 is none other than the employee of their complainant bank.

Therefore, his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witnesses and hence the same cannot be solely relied upon in order to convict the accused with the present case.

13)As seen from the evidence of PW 3 he deposed that on 20-07-2012 A1 came to their branch with a gold hip belt, gold chain, gold chain with locket for obtaining gold loan. She entered the details of the ornaments and details of the loan in the computer and forwarded the same to the branch manager (PW 2). PW 2 sanctioned the loan of Rs. 5 lakhs to A1 by pledging the gold ornaments. She obtained the signatures of A1 on the pledge card. On 7-8-2012 A1 again came to their branch with gold necklace, braclets, vanki and requested for gold loan by pledging the said ornaments. She entered the details of the ornaments and forwarded the same to PW 2. PW 2 in turn sanctioned the loan of Rs. 4,45,000/- to A1. In the last week of August, 2012 the CCS police came to their branch along with A1. On enquiry she informed that A1 approached them and they sanctioned loan on two occasions by pledging the ornaments. The CCS police informed them A1 committed theft of the above ornaments for future capital limited and obtained loan from their bank. Upon that the police recovered the gold ornaments from the bank.

14) As seen from the evidence of PW 4 he deposed that on 21-07- 2012 A1 of you came to their branch with a gold hip belt, gold chain and other two items for obtaining gold loan. Upon that he tested the quality of the same and gave ab appraisal report and handed over to the manager (PW 2).

PW 2 sanctioned the loan of Rs. 5 lakhs. One week thereafter A1 again came to their branch along with gold chain, bracelets, vanki. He again tested the 11 quality and gave appraisal report to PW 2. PW 2 in turn sanctioned loan of Rs.

4,95,000/- to A1. Subsequently he came to know that A1 pledged the stolen gold ornaments and obtained loan from the bank. Whereas in the cross examination he stated that he is no way concerned with the details of the persons who brought the ornaments for getting the loan. Still further PW4 evidence is none other than the employee of complainant bank. Hence, even his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and hence the same cannot be solely relied upon in order to connect the accused with the present offence.

15) Now coming to the evidence of PW 5 he stated that on 20-07- 2012 P. Satish Kumar A1 came to their bank and brought gold with him and he valued the gold and gave the same to PW 3. Thereafter PW 3 entered the valuation in the system and gave pledge card to him and hence he gave customer slip to P. Satish Kumar A1. Thereafter he gave Rs. 5 lakhs to P.

Satish Kumar came with gold and he made valuation and gave the same to

PW 3 and again the same process followed and he gave Rs.4,45,000/-.

Thereafter on 27-07-2012 the police came to their bank and seized gold with their bank. However nothing worthwhile was elicited from the evidence of

PW 5 and even PW 5 is none other than one of the employee of complainant bank. Hence, his evidence cannot be solely relied upon in order to convict the accused with the present offence. Therefore, PW 5 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

16) The Investigation Officer in this case was examined as PW 6 he deposed that on 09-11-2012 at 18:30 hours LW 13 received a complaint from

PW 1 and basing on the strength of the same, he registered a case in Cr. No.

12 313/2012 under section 419, 420 and 406 of IPC and issued FIR. Ex. P14 is the FIR. Thereafter investigation was entrusted to him. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW 1 to PW 5 and

LW 2 & LW 7. Subsequently on 20-12-2012 he arrested the accused 1 to 3 and produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. A2 surrendered

before the court and was released on anticipatory bail. He recorded the

confession statements of A1 & A3 in the presence of LW 9 to LW 12 under Ex.

P15 & P16. LW 8 recovered the gold from the complainant bank in relation to

CC No. 151/2012 of CCS, D.D Hyderabad. Thereafter on completion of entire

investigation he filed charge sheet before the court. Whereas in the cross examination he admitted that he did not take any authorization letter from

PW 1 to lodge the complaint and he also admitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Still further, he admitted that he did not file any document to establish A1 to A3. Moreover, PW 6 admitted that he did nto record the statements of one Kiran who is said to be the owner of the pledged gold items. Therefore, from the evidence of PW 6 it categorically stated that the defective investigation conducted by the prosecution in the present case.

Hence, in view of the discussions above, the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of accused Under Sec. 419, 420 and 406 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

17) In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under section U/s. 419, 420, 406 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled and sureties shall be 13 discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 9th day of October, 2015.

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD,AT L.B.NAGAR,RR DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW 1 M. Prasanna Kumar Complainant. PW 2 G. Samatha.Witness. PW 3 P. Saritha.Witness. PW 4 D.S. Narendra.Witness. PW 5 K. Rajesh.Witness. PW 6 Saidulu.S.I of Police, P.S Nacharam.

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex. P1 is the report given by PW 1. Ex. P2 is the loan application dt. 20-07-2012. Ex. P3 is the gold appraisal report. Ex. P4 is the credit appraisal memo. Ex. P5 is the gold pledge card. Ex. P6 is the declaration of compliance. Ex. P7 is the loan application dt. 07-08-2012. Ex. P8 is the gold appraisal report. Ex. P9 is the credit appraisal report. Ex. P10 is the declaration of the compliance. Ex. P11 is the gold pledge card. Ex. P12 is the ID proof and pan card. Ex. P13 is the voter ID card. Ex. P14 & P15 are the confession statements of A1, A3 in the presence of LW 9 to LW 12.is FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -Nil-

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR,RR DIST.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABADAT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DSTRICT

C.C.NO. 663/2013

1Name of the ComplainantPS Nacharam. 2Name of the AccusedA1. Padam Sathish Kumar, S/o. P. Laxminarsaiah, age: 26 yrs, Occ: R/o. H.No. 2-7- 57, Pochammawada, Bhongir (V) & (M) of Nalgonda District. A2. Sanjay Samudrala, (Area Manager Future Capital). A3. Nimmathi Srinivas, S/o. N. Adi Reddy, age: 27 yrs, Occ: Sales Manager of Future Capital Holding Ltd., R/o. H.No.5- 38/8, St. No. 1, Budda Nagar, Boduppal,Uppal (M), R.R. Dist. 3Offence under section419, 420, 406 of IPC 4Date of offence 20/07/12 5Date of complaint 09/11/12 6Date of ApprehensionA1 on 20-12-2012 A2 on 11-06-2013 A3 on 14-03-2013 7Date of Commencement of trial 15/09/14 8Date of closure of trial 06/10/15 9Date of Judgment09/10/15 10Finding of the CourtA1 & A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under section U/s. 420, 419, 468 & 471 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. 11Reasons for delay in disposal of case

XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Copy To: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R.District.

SC/249/2017 Acquitted

The State through PS Chaitanyapuri vs Smt.Suryaneti Sandya Rani

16 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.B.SRIDEVI

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 16th Day of April, 2018

SC No. 249 /2017

Name of the complainant : The State through PS , Chaitanyapuri

Name of the accused :A1 – Smt. Suryaneti Sandya Rani W/o late Surya Raghavulu, Aged about: 55 years, Caste: Naidu Occ: House wife , R/oH.No.4-53/1,VikasNagar, Dilsukhnagar N/o Tadepallygudem, East Godavari District

A3 – Amuda Ramu S/o Pentaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Vanjara, Occ: Contract labour in TRANSCO, R/o 1-7-629/119/a, New Adaiah nagar, Ram Nagar.

Crime Number: 537 / 2016

Offence Under Section:U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act against A1 and U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act against A3.

PRC No. : 01 / 2017 on the file of XI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

Case committed by: Smt. D.Indira, XI MM Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri N.Hari Gopal, II Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri B.Ramesh Kumar, Advocates for Accused.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused/ A1 found not guilty for the charges punishable U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act and accused A3 found not guilty for the charge punishable U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act accordingly they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said 2 charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, Chaitanyapuri, Police Station, filed the charge sheet against accused no.1 and 3 for the offences punishable U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act against A1 and a charge punishable U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act against A3 in

Cr.No.537 /2016 of Chaitanyapuri police station.

2)The brief facts of the case are that the accused A1 is the native of

Tadepallygudem, East Godavari District and A2 is the brother of A1. A1 and and A2 were choose to organize the brothel house to get money easily for their financial necessities and livelihood. They have taken a house bearing No. 4-53/1, Vikas Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, R.R. District on rent from

LW6 about one month back and running prostitution. A1 and A2 procures the victims and customers through their source and used to collect an amount of Rs.500/- and 1,000/- from the each customer, of which 50% of amount of gives to the victim and remaining 50% of amount will be taken by the organizers. On 27-9-2016 at 20:30 hours on receipt of information about running of brothel house at the above said place LW1 to 4 raided the said premises. On seeing the police A2 fled away through rear door. On further searching they found A1 in the hall, customer A3 and the victim

LW5 are in compromise state in a room. LW1 (B.Kotaiah, S.I of police) 3 conducted panchanama before the mediators and seized net cash of

Rs.140/-, one celkon C327 black colour cell from A1, one Micro 3G black colour phone from A3, Nokia black and white cell phone with , A359 campus bluish colour phone from victim and Score Nirodh pocket under cover of panchanama. The seized property along with A1,A3 and victim lady brought to the police station and handed over to their Inspector of police (LW10).

3)Basing on the contents of panchanama, he (LW10) registered a case in Cr.No.537/2016 U/s.370 (A)IPC, Sec.4,5 & 6 of PIT Act against A1 and

U/s 370-A(2) of IPC and took up investigation. During course of investigation, he caused enquiries and collected evidence of the witnesses (LW1 to 7) and recorded their statements and arrested the accused A1 and

A3 and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A3 by showing the A2 as absconding.

4)The case against accused in PRC No. 1/2017 by the learned III

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar committed the case to the

Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the

learned Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 249 / 2017 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

6) This court having considered the record, framed charge punishable

U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act against A1 and a charge punishable U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act against A3, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied the said charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7) During the course of trial, to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P6.

8) After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with the incriminating evidence that is brought on record against them, for which they denied the said evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9) Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

10) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s 370(2) of IPC and

Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act against A1 and a charge punishable U/s 370-

A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act against A3 beyond all reasonable

doubts?

POINT:-

11) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act against A1 and a charge punishable U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 of PIT Act against A3 beyond all reasonable doubt. In discharge of the said burden, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6.

12) PW1 (B. Prasad, PC) deposed that on 27-09-2016 at about 20.30hrs while he was on patrolling duty at Vikasnagar, Dilsukhnagar. Then they received information from outsiders that something is going on illegally in

H.No.4-453/1, Vikasnagar. Then immediately himself and police constable

Pandu went to police station and informed the same to their SI Kotaiah.

Thereafter they all went to the said house at Vikasnagar. There, their SI of police knocked the door of the said house and one lady came and opened the door of the said house. On enquiry the lady did not reveal her identity.

Thereafter their SI of police checked the scene of offence and found 4 cell phones, Rs.140 cash and one Nirodh packet, at the scene of offence one lady by name Maheshwari, along with you. Thereafter the said persons along with seized property were brought to their police station. Everything was done by their SI of police and he was standing behind him.

13)Whereas in the cross examination he stated that the distance between the area which he was on patroling duty and the police station is 1Km and it took around 20 minutes time to start from PS to the scene of offence. They stayed at the scene of offence for half an hour to complete the proceedings. He admitted that nothing was seized in his presence at the scene of presence on that day and at the instance of his superior officers he is deposing that the alleged property was alleged to be seized at the scene of offence. Even as seen from the evidence of PW1 he is none other than the police constable and his evidence is contrary to his chief examination. Therefore, his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence.

14) PW2 (B.Lakshmi Deve,WHC) deposed that on 27-09-2016 at 7.45pm while she was in police station then their SI of police received credible information that brothel house is being run at Vikasnagar,

Dilsukhnagar at H.No.4-53/1. Then their SI of police obtained permission from higher authorities then their SI of police along with herself, two male constables, two panch witnesses proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Vikasnagar. They parked our vehicle at some distance to the scene of offence and then proceeded to the scene of offence at the first floor of the building at 8.30pm. Then their SI of police knocked the door of the said house and found one male person opening the door and on questioning the said person escaped from rear door. Then they went inside and found A1, and A1 revealed her name as Sandhya Rani. On questioning she did not give correct information. On knocking the door of the bedroom by their SI then one male person came out of the bedroom and one lady was inside the room. They revealed their names as Ramu and Maheshwari. Even they did not reveal correct information and hence they went inside and searched and found 1 condom packet then they confirmed that brothel house was being run. Then their SI of police seized

Rs.140/- cash, four cell phones and one condom packet and conducted panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Thereafter the seized property along with the said persons were brought to PS.

6)Whereas in the cross examination she stated that within half an hour the panch witnesses came to the polcie station. She admitted that PW1 and LW3 were on patrolling duty. Within 15 minutes PW1 and LW3 7 reached the police station. It took half an hour time for all of them to assemble at the police station. The distance between police station and scene of offence is about 2km and it takes 15 to 20 minutes to reach scene of offence from police station. It took one hour time for them to complete the proceedings at scene of offence. It took half an hour to complete the panchanama at the scene of offence. She admitted that at the instance of her superior officers she is deposing the name of Sandhya Rani and her statement was recorded at the scene of offence. By 9 to 9:15pm they returned to police station. She admitted that only unused condom packet was seized but not used. Even as seen from the evidence of PW2 she is none other than the police constable. Therefore, her evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence.

7)As seen from the evidence of PW3 (Maheshwari) who is the victim lady stated that she do not know the accused and she do not know the

Sandhya Rani (A1) and also do not know anything about this case. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As seen from her evidence the alleged running of brothel house with the said victim lady not proved.

8) PW4 (Lakshminarayana) who is the owner of the house deposed that he is a resident of Dilsuhnagar and he is private employee. He is having a house at Dilsukhnagar and it consists of two portions with H.No.4-53/1,

Vikasnagar, Dilsukhnagar. The upper floor was given on rent to A1 (Sandhya Rani) whereas he stay in the ground floor. The rent was 8

Rs.6000/- per month. A1 used to stay in that house and her men used to come and go. A1 stated to him that she are having sisters and that her relatives used to come and go to her house. That on 27.09.2016 police came and informed him that A1 was running brothel house. The police took away A1. He can identify A1 if shown to him and he can identify A1 in the photographs shown to him

9)Whereas in the cross examination he categorically stated that,he know Sandhya Rani from the day when she took his house on rent. Prior to 27-9-2016 no police came to his house in relation to any criminal case in respect of Sandhya Rani. He do not know when his statement was recorded by the police but police asked his name and identification details and went away. He admitted that since the police informed him the facts hence he is deposing the same. Through police only he came to know about the alleged prostitution and he admitted that since the police informed the facts of the case. Therefore, from the evidence of PW4 nothing worth while was elicited in order to support the case of prosecution and PW4 is nothing to do with present case and he is no way related to the present case. Therefore, evidence of PW4 is of no use to the prosecution case.

10) PW5 (Sai Kiran) deposed that he is resident of Vikasnagar,

Dilsukhnagar. He know Pw.4 and he stays in his opposite house and he is having G+1 floors house. Pw.4 is staying along with his family in his house. In the ground floor Pw.4 stays with his family whereas the first floor was given on rent to a lady. He can identify the said lady if shown to him.

The photograph shown to him depicts the said lady. Now and then some gents and ladies used to visit house of A1. On one day while he was passing by the road then the police informed him that brothel house is being run by you A1. The police have taken A1 into custody and other two to three persons.

11) Whereas in the cross examination he stated that after 20 minutes of taking into custody of A1 and others by the police then he reached the scene of offence. He admitted that in general if a house is there their relatives will come and go and through police only he came to know that brothel house is being run there at the scene of offence. He further admitted that the neighbours never informed him anything about the alleged brothel house and his statement was recorded by police on the next day morning . He did not witness the alleged offence. Even as seen the admissions of the PW5 in his cross examination he clearly stated that he is not witnessed the alleged offence and he is not present at the time of taken into custody of A1 and other persons. He only came to know the offence though police only. Hence his evidence with regard to identification of A1 cannot be believable and throws a cloud of suspicion. Therefore, evidence of PW5 is of no use to the prosecution case.

12)PW6 (Y.Kondaiah, Inspector of police) has categorically stated that on 27-9-2016 at 19:45 hours he along with PC 5118 and 5431 and WPC 7007 were on patrolling duty at Vikasnagar of Chaitanyapuri PS limits then he received credible information sitting that brothel house is being run at

H.No.4-53/1 at Vikasnagar and thereafter the same was informed to his 10 superior officers and obtained the permission from ACP LB Nagar. Then he secured the presence of two panch witnesses and thereafter they all proceeded to the scene of offence and he knocked the door of the said house and found A1 who opened the door of said house, he can identify

A1 (Sandhya Rani). The photograph shown to him depicts A1 (Sandhya

Rani). Thereafter he shown his identity cart to A1 and entered the house and searched the bedroom and found one male person and one female person were there and they were in nude position. At the same time another male person escaped from the back door. Then he conducted the panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and seized Rs.1000/- cash and one Nirodh packet of score company and five cell phones. Then he brought you along with seized property and victim to the PS and handed over to their SHO for taking action

13) Whereas in the cross examination he stated that he is the complainant and conducted the panchanama. He admitted that the complaint is a typed one. They all were together at the time of patrolling duty. Himself and his staff were in one vehicle for the purpose of patrolling duty. He filed permission proceedings obtained from their ACP in this case.

On the road he procured the presence of panch witnesses and took them along with him at the scene of offence. The panchanama was typed in the laptop but the print was taken at the police station. He admitted that the signatures of the panch witnesses were obtained when the printout were taken. He seized unused condom packet and he did not seize any used condom packet. It took half an hour to conduct panchamama at the scene of offence. It took five minutes to reach the scene of offence from their PS.

He denied the suggestions put forth to him with regard conducting of his investigation and that the accused not committed any offense and he did not conducted proper investigation. However PW6 is the investigation officer in this case, hence his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.

14)As seen from the evidence of PW7 (K.Narsimha) and PW8 (Venkatesh), who said to be the panch witnesses for scene cum seizure panchanama stated that they do not know anything about this case at the instance of police they signed on blank papers at police station. Ex.P5 and

Ex.P6 are their signatures portion on confession cum seizure panchanama.

They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As seen from their evidence mere conducting of confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused stands not proved.

15) PW9 (G.Gururaghavendra, Inspector of police) deposed that on 27-9- 2016 at 19:45 hours PW6 produced the accused A1 and A3 and on victime women by name Maheshwari and lodged a written complaint. Basing on the complaint he reigsered a case in Cr.No.537/2016 U/s 370A IPC and sec.4,5,6 of PIT Act and took up investigation and FI's are submitted to all concerned. He recorded the statements of PW1 to 6 and LW3 and on the same day visited the scene of offence situated at Vikasnagar, Dilsukhnagar and recorded the confesion statement of accused and produced the them

before the court for judicial custody and sent the victim women to Prajwala

homes and also collected the cell phones, CDRs from teh arrested 12 accused and the victim. Later he made requsisition to the MRO and seized the house which was used as brothel house U/s 133 Cr.P.C and he completed his investigatoni and filed charge sheet.

16)Whereas in cross examination he stated that the condoms seized are unused and he admitted that he did not specirfically mentioned in the charge sheet that the seized condoms were unused. The statements of witnesses recorded on the same day. He denied the suggestions put forth to him with regard conducting of his investigation. However PW9 is the investigation officer in this case, hence his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from independent witness evidence.

17)To prove the said charge the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are got marked. The charges leveled against the accused are prior to 27-9-2016 house bearing No. 4-53/1,

Vikas Nagar, Dilsukhnagar, R.R. District on rent from LW6 about one month back and running prostitution. A1 and A2 procures the victims and customers through their source and used to collect an amount of Rs.500/- and 1,000/- from the each customer, of which 50% of amount of gives to the victim and remaining 50% of amount will be taken by the organizers and the accused are punishable for the offences u/s. 370-A(2) of IPC and

Sections, 3,4,5,6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. Whereas from the evidence of PW1,2,6,9 they are police officials in this case and their evidences is nothing but the interested witnesses which cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness 13 evidence. The victim lady turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of owner of the house did not support to the version of prosecution. PW7 and PW8 are panch witnesses and they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and from their evidneces alleged confession cum seizure panchanama stands not proved. PW6 and 9 is investigating officerS and their evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witnesses and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences u/s. 370-A(2) of IPC and Sections, 3,4,5,6 of Prevention of

Immoral Traffic Act. Further more the prosecution failed to prove the alleged confession cum seizure panchanam of the accused since the panch witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted. On close perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges U/sec. 370-A(2) of IPC and sections 3,4,5,6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused are entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt and they are to be acquitted for the above said offence. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

18) In the result, the accused/ A1 found not guilty for the charges punishable U/s 370(2) of IPC and Sections 3,4,5 of PIT Act and accused

A3 found not guilty for the charge punishable U/s 370-A of IPC and Sec.6 14 of PIT Act, accordingly they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2018.

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : B.Prasad,P,C Nil PW2 : B.Lakshmi Devi,WHC PW3 : Maheshwari PW4 : Lakshminarayana PW5 : Saikiran PW6 : B.Kondaiah,Inspector of police. PW7: K.Narsimha PW8: Venkatesh PW9: G.Gururaghavendra, Inspector of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P2 - Complaint, Ex.P3 - Permission proceedings Ex.P4 - Signature portion of PW7 of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 - Signature portion of PW8 of confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6 – FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

CC/500598/2014 Acquitted

P.S. Nacharam vs Vettuvampalelaoam Ramesh

09 Oct 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR,R.R.DT.

PRESENT: Smt. B.SRIDEVI

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR,R.R DT.

Dated on this the 9th Day of October, 2015

CC. NO. 598 of 2014

BETWEEN:-

State through P.S Nacharam: Complainant

AND

V. Ramesh.: Accused

a) Serial No. of the case: C.C. No. 598 of 2014

b) Date of the commission of offence: 28.08.2014

c) Name of the complainant: State through PS Nacharam.

d) Name of the accused person, his parentage and residence:

Vettuvampalelaom Ramesh, S/o. Vpalaniappan, age: 28 yrs, Occ: Industrial Engineer in Shahi Export, R/o. Hema Nagar, Uppal, R.R. District.

e) Offence complained of : U/s. 509, 506 of IPC

f) Plea of the accused : Not guilty

g) Final Order : Accused is acquitted

h) Date of Order : 09.10.2015

This case came before me for final hearing on 09.10.2015 in the

presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

Vijaya Krishna Mohan, counsel for the accused and having stood over

for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nacharam laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 509, 506 of IPC.

2) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant

Kumari Banothu Anasuya lodged a complaint stated that she is working at

Shahi Exports, IDA Nacharam, Uppal Mandal since 4 years and her ID No.

2 101563 in the same company one Ramesh is working since 2 years as executive and since 1 year he is harassing the complainant, many time he called her to his cabin after duty hours and used to get pressure over her work. Due to his words she herself felt insult and could not disclose to anybody and she once also attempt to commit suicide. Recent time the complainant was transferred to stores on 28-08-2014 and called to the office by Ramesh at 11:00 hours and made her to wait for 3 hours, caught hold her hand into the cabin and used filthy language. When the complainant was weeping the said Ramesh went out and talked with HR Govind Rao. Later HR

Govind Rao came to the complainant and asked the reason, when the complainant explained about the matter he also suggested to work as per his direction of Ramesh, or else to resign the job. Mean time said Ramesh also threatened the complainant that she has to obey the orders in Vigilance cell or else to resign. As the complainant came for eking livelihood from her village. Basing on the complaint a case was registered in Cr. No. 313/2014 u/s 509, 506 of IPC of P.S Nacharam and entrusted to LW 8 for further investigation. During the course of investigation LW 8 examined the complainant and recorded her statement and visited the said Shahi Export

Company at IDA Nacharam and caused enquiries with the available witness and secured the presence of LW 5 & 6 conducted scene of offence panchanama and the observation was brought over to sketch. Examined LW 2 to 4 who are the employee in the same company. As per their statements, the cabins and the office premises are transparent and the accused caught hold the hand of LW 1 and dragged into his cabin has not established, as the

LW 2 & 3 cabins are side by side with transparent glasses. LW 2 to 4 further stated that Govinda Rao is HR their head directed as work with the remaining officers and staff also like that they all work with the officers including HR

Govinda Rao the Govinda Rao HR has also instructed the complainant to work 3 with accused Ramesh but taking this advantage of that the accused abused and insulted to complainant with evil intention. As per the statements of LW 2 to 4 the allegations not established against the HR Govinda Rao hence his name eliminated from investigation. On 02-09-2014 the accused

Vettuvampalelaoam Ramesh arrested and sent for judicial custody and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

3) This court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 509, 506 of IPC and numbered as CC No.598 of 2015.

4) On appearance of accused, copies of the documents, as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C, were furnished to him.

5) The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., charges under section 509, 506 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) The prosecution has examined PW 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P4 in support of its case.

7) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence, but he denied the same and reported no evidence.

8) Heard both sides arguments and perused the record.

9) Now the point that arises for determination is whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable under section 509, 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10) POINT: In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs 1 to 5. PW 1 is the

11) PW 1 Anasuya deposed that the accused to pressurize her in relation to work and used to mentally torture her. The accused used to call her to his cabin even after completion of work. That on 28-08-2014 i.e. on

Friday the accused called her to his cabin and told her to go to stores, which is not her work as Line Feeder. Hence she rushed to go the accused made her to stay in his chamber/cabin only. At 11:00 a.m she went to his cabin and the accused harassed her to stay for three hours. Thereafter the accused told her to go to the cabin of their H.R Manager, Govinda Rao. Then she refused but the accused caught hold her hand and pushed her to the cabin of Govinda

Rao and abused her. Then the said Govinda Rao told her that whatever the accused says she should do like that and must co-operate with him in any matter the accused ask for, otherwise she should resign from job. Thereafter the said Govinda Rao made her to stay in his cabin for 3 more hours and she stood crying in his cabin and nobody came for help. Therefore she lodged the report under Ex. P1 with the police. Whereas in the cross examination she categorically admitted that she does not know the Goverdhan and Krishna and that whether they were dismissed from employment in their company.

However, subsequently during the course of cross examination she admitted on conversion of copy of letters shown to her by the learned counsel for the accused that she is the working as Treasurer for their workers union and that

Goverdhan and Krishna are also office bearers of their union. The learned counsel for the accused got marked Ex. D1 which is covering letter along with 5 four copies of letter heads which are converted as above to PW 1. Therefore from the evidence of PW 1, it is established that she is giving one statement to at one statement and subsequently she is residing from her own statement and given different version. Still further she admitted that LW 3 & 4 have got homes in their company and the rest of the employees working in open house and she also admitted that the accused do not have any cabin in their company. Therefore from the admission made by PW 1 by calling to her parents stands nullified. Still further PW 1 Ex. D2 was marked when PW 1 admitted that there are separate committees for only sexual harassment in their organization. As seen from the evidence of prosecution, there is no proof that PW 1 alleged any representation before his committee. Therefore, admittedly when they are two committees in existence and in the absence of any proof of any representation of the said committees lodging of Ex. P1 by

PW 1. There is a cloud of association over the entire case of prosecution that it is after thought of PW 1. Moreover, PW 1 being the defacto complainant in this case. Hence, her evidence becomes interested witness and still further there is no consistency in the evidence of PW 1. Therefore, the same is not believable.

12) As seen from the evidence of PW 2 he deposed that on 28-08-2014 the G.M (Operations) of Shahi Exports i.e. LW 4 instructed her to transfer the line feeder Employee i.e. PW 1 to Store Assistant at their stores. Thereafter he called PW 1 and informed the same and she went away. Whereas in the cross examination he categorically admitted that PW 1 never gave any complaint to him with regard to the alleged harassment by the accused. As per the evidence of PW 2 he stated that he is Supervisor of the activities of works committee and anti sexual harassment committee in their version.

Therefore, from the evidence of PW 2, it is established that PW 1 never lodged 6 any complaint before the said committee with regard to alleged sexual harassment. Whereas the prosecution stated that the accused has been harassed PW 1 for the past 1 ½ year as deposed by PW 1 but as per the evidence of PW 2 it was contrary to the evidence of PW 1 through PW 2

Ex. D3 photograph was marked, wherein he was relying on the same. The learned counsel for the accused represented that the accused does not have separate chamber at his place of work and the same was also admitted by

PW1 during her cross examination. Thus, PW 2 evidence goes contrary to the case of prosecution. Hence PW 2 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

13) As seen from the evidence of PW 3 he deposed that on 31-08-2014 he came to know about the incident since he received information from police the police came down to their company and thereafter police took the accused and then he came to know of the incident. He came to know that

PW1 has lodged a complaint against the accused stating that the accused pulled her hand and dragged her into his cabin. Whereas in the cross examination, he admitted that on 26-07-2011 he lodged a complaint at P.S

Nacharam at the request of the accused who stated that he received threatening and abusive phone calls to his mobile number and through PW 3

Ex. D4 was marked. PW 3 further deposed that during the investigation by the police he was informed that the said threatening and abusive calls were made by Goverdhan to accused herein. Even PW 3 admitted that at any point of time their management did not receive any complaint from PW1 stating that accused is harassing her for the past one year. Thus, from the evidence of PW 3 it contrary to the evidence of PW 1 and to the case or prosecution. Hence, PW 3 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

14) Now coming to the evidence of PW 4 he turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore even PW 4 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

15) The Investigating Officer in this case was examined as PW 5 and he deposed that son 01-09-2014 at 20:00 hours LW 7 received a complaint from

PW 1 and basing on the strength of the same, he registered a case in Cr. No.

313 / 2014 under section 509, 506 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex. P2.

Thereafter investigation was entrusted to her. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW 1 to PW 3 & LW 2 and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex. P3 in the presence of PW 4 & LW 6 and also drawn rough sketch under ex. P4 in their presence. That on 02-09-2014 he arrested the accused and produced before the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet before this court.

However as stated from the evidence of PW 5 it is only formal in nature since he merely deposed about the investigation process under taken by him.

Therefore, from the evidence placed by the prosecution. The prosecution utterly failed to establish the essential ingredients as contemplated under section 506, 509 of IPC and hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged guilt of accused beyound all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

16) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 509, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of 8

Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 9th day of October, 2015.

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD,AT L.B.NAGAR,RR DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

PW 1 B. Anasuya. Complainant/Victim. PW 2 P. Raju. Eye witness. PW 3 T. Gangadharan.Circumstantial witness. PW 4 S. Reddy Ananth. Panch for scene of offence panchanama. PW 5 B. Srinivas.Investigation officer

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex. P1 is the report given by PW 1. Ex. P2 is the FIR. Ex. P3 is the scene of offence panchanama of PW 5. Ex. P4 is the drawn rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Ex. D1 is the Covering letter of PW1. Ex. D2 is the minutes of meeting of PW1. Ex. D3 is the photograph of PW2. Ex. D4 is the acknowledgment of receipt of PW 3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- -Nil-

XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR, RR DIST.

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABADAT L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DSTRICT

C.C. NO. 598 / 2014

1Name of the Complainant:Nacharam 2Name of the AccusedVettuvampalelaom Ramesh, S/o. Vpalaniappan, age: 28 yrs, Occ: Industrial Engineer in Shahi Export, R/o. Hema Nagar, Uppal, R.R. District.

3Offence under section :506, 509 of IPC 4Date of offence :28/08/14 5Date of complaint :01/09/14 6Date of Apprehension:02/09/14 7Date of Commencement of trial :12/08/15 8Date of closure of trial :07/10/15 9Date of Judgment :09/10/15 10Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec 506, 509 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

11Reasons for delay in disposal of : case

XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

Copy To: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R. District.

SC/357/2017 Acquitted

The State through PS Adibatla vs K.Krishna

06 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR, HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SMT.B.SRIDEVI

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated on this the 6th Day of April, 2018

SC No. 357 / 2017

Name of the complainant : The State through PS Adibatla

Name of the accused :A1: Karudandu Krishna S/o Mallaiah, Age : 31 years, Occ: Agriculture, Caste:Yadav, R/o Ravirala village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2: Karudandu Raju S/o Mallaiah, aged: 32 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, Caste:Yadav, R/o Ravirala village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Crime Number: 25/ 2017

Offence Under Section:U/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC

PRC No. : 03 / 2017 on the file of IV MM Cyberabad, at Ibrahimpatan.

Case committed by:Smt. J.Kavitha, IV MM Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatan Prosecution conducted by:Sri N.Hari Gopal, II Addl. P.P.

Defence conducted by:Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for Accused.

Plea of the accused: Plead not guilty.

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable under section U/s. 307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, Advocates for Accused and having stood 2 over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Adibatla, filed the charge sheet against accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s 307 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.25 / 2017.

2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are that, on 3-2-2017 at 2100 hours complainant Sri Karudandu Ramesh came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that on 3-2-2017 at about 1200 hours he along with his wife Lalitha has went to their agriculture land at Ravirala village, at that time the accused A1 and A2 along with Karudandu Suresh who are the sons of complainant brother are attacked him and bet with an axe on his head and stones, due to old debts. Mean time complainant wife Lalitha tried to protect him but the accused persons also bet her. Resulting the complainant received bleeding injuries on his hand, head and other body parts. Immediately he was shifted to hospital, Thukkugda for treatment, thereafter on the same day he was shifted to Osmania Hospital for better treatment. Hence he requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3)Basing on the contents of the above complaint, V.Madanlal, S.I of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.25 / 2017 U/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During course of his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses (LW1 to LW5). As per the statements of witnesses the offence against Karudandu Suresh not made out. After that he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence cum 3 seizure panchanama in presence of two mediators and seized one black colour plastic pipe and also drafted rough sketch. On 7-2-2017 the accused

A1 and A2 apprehended and on interrogation they confessed their guilt as such their confessional statements were recorded in the presence of two mediators and retrieved one axe from nearby bushes which were used by the accused in the commission of offence and seized in the presence of the mediators. On 7-2-2017 A1 and A2 were produced before the court for judicial remand. After completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 307 r/w 34 of

IPC.

4)The case against accused in PRC No.03 /2017 by the learned IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, at Ibrahimpatan committed the case to the Hon'ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B. Nagar as the learned

Magistrate having perused the record found the case as exclusively triable

by the court of sessions after furnishing the case copies to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad took the case on file in SC No. 357/ 2017 and made over the case to this court for the purpose of disposal according to law.

6) This court having considered the record, framed charge U/s.307 r/w 34 of IPC against accused, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied the said charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7) During the course of trial, to prove its case the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex. P1 to P13.

9) Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the material placed on record.

10) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s.307 r/w 34 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

11) The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s.307 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. In discharge of the said burden, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to P13.

12)As seen from the evidence of PW1 (Ramesh) who is the complainant and victim deposed that, he do not know what happened but one cow pulled him and he sustained injuries, except this he do not know anything about this case. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied the suggestions put forth to him by learned APP.

As seen from his evidence the alleged complaint not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, PW1 evidence goes contrary to the case of prosecution.

13) PW2 (Lalitha) deposed that Pw.1 is her husband. She know Lw.3 to

5. She do not know anything about this case. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. She denied the suggestions put 5 forth to her by learned APP. Therefore, PW2 evidence goes contrary to the case of prosecution.

14)PW3 (Mallesh), PW4 (Agamaiah) and PW5 (Ramesh) who are the eye witnesses of the case deposed that they do not know anything about this case. They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. They denied the suggestions put forth to them by learned

APP. Therefore, PW3,4 and 5 evidence goes contrary to the case of prosecution.

15)PW6 (Bhaskar), PW7 (Srihari) panch witnesses for scene of offence cum cum seizure panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that one day police called them to police station and obtained their signature on the some papers. They do not know the contents of the same. They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

They denied the suggestions put forth to them by learned APP. Therefore, the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 not proved by them and their evidence goes contrary to the case of prosecution.

16)PW8 (Ramakrishna, Doctor) deposed that she is working as causality medical officer at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad from 2016 onwards. On 3-2-2017 she received a requisition from police Adibatla to examine the patient by name Ramesh who was brought to hospital along with relatives with alleged history of hit by stones and axes at Raimangala at 2pm on 3-2-2017. accordingly she examined the patient and Ex.P12 6 medical certificate by mentioning the nature of injuries, whereas opinion was given by Dr.Vijay Lakshi, and as per her opinion the above injuries are grevious in nature.

17)Whereas in the cross examination she stated that the patient came to him along with witness. He admitted that there is possibility of causing of above injuries if a person falls on hard surface or any sharp surface and there is no signature of the patient in EX.P12 medical certificate. The opinion was given by Dr. Vijay Lakshmi and Ex.P12 bears his signature and it does not bear the signature of Dr.Vijaylakshmi. However as seen from the record the evidence of PW6 is factum in injury and it doesn't establish the identity of accused with the alleged offence.

18) PW9 (V.Mallaiah),S.I of police, who is the investigating officer in this case and he categorically stated that, on 3-2-17 he received credible information that at Ravirala village a quarrel took place upon which he sent the patrol party to the said village and before that the victim went to the hospital on that day he received information from the Osmania General hospital upon which he deputed one head constable Srinivas and he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of injured Ramesh. Basing on the statement he registered a case in Cr.No.25/2017 U/s 324 r/w 34 of IPC. On 4-2-2017 he visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW6 and LW7 and drawn rough sketch. He also seized one black colour plastic pipe at the scene of offence and again visited OGH and recorded the statement of the PW1 and on the same day he examined PW3 to 5 at the police station. PW9 further deposed that on 7-2-2017 at 5 hours he apprehended the accused A1 and A2 and on interrogation they confessed their 7 guilt and seized one axe in presence of LW6 and LW7. Then he arrested the accused and produced before the concerned court. After collecting medical certificate from PW8 he altered the section of law from 324 r/w 34 IPC to 307 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

19)Whereas in the cross examination he admitted that PW1 did not lodged complaint before him but he recorded the statement of PW1. He denied the given suggestions posed by learned counsel for the accused.

However even PW9, who is the investigation officer in this case hence his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence.

20) To prove the said charge against the accused the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 are got marked.

The charge leveled against the accused are that on 3-2-2017 at about 1200 hours complainant along with his wife Lalitha has went to their agriculture land at Ravirala village, at that time the accused A1 and A2 along with Karudandu Suresh who are the sons of complainant brother are attacked him and bet him with an axe on his head and also with stones, due to old debts. Mean time complainant wife Lalitha tried to protect him but the accused persons also bet her. Resulting the complainant received bleeding injuries on his hand, head and other parts of the body. Whereas from the evidence of PW1 to PW5 who are defacto complainant,injured and eye witnesses of teh case did not withstand with their evidence and they turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.

Similarly PW6 and 7 panch witness for scene of offence cum siezure 8 panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW8 is the doctor who treated the complainant/injured issued medical certificate but he did not gave opinion and one Dr. Vijay Lakshmi gave opinion. But the said Dr.Vijay Lakshmi did not examined by the prosecution, even not cited as witness in this case. But as Ex.P12 medical certificate the injury is proved as griveious injury but the complainant/injured did not support case of the prosecution. PW9 is investigating officer and his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witnesses and the same cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of corroboration from the independent witness evidence.

21) Therefore from the evidence of PW1 to PW9, the identity of the accused with the present alleged offence stands not proved since the prosecution failed to examine the independent witnesses. Hence as per the material available on record, the prosecution utterly failed to establishe the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC to connect the accused with the present alleged offence. On close perusal of the entire evidence placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused are entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt and they are to be acquitted for the above said offence. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

22)In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge punishable under section U/s. 307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of 9 accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of April, 2018.

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : RameshNIL PW2 : Lalitha PW3 : Mallesh PW4 : Agamaiah PW5 :Ramesh PW6 : Bhaskar PW7 :Srihari PW8 : Ramakrishna, Doctor. PW9 : V.Mallaiah, S.I of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :FOR DEFENCE : NIL Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P6: Signature portion of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P7: Signature portion of PW6 on rough sketch. Ex.P8: Signature portion of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P9: Signature portion of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P10: Signature portion of PW7 on rough sketch. Ex.P11: Signature portion of PW11 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P12: Medical certificate. Ex.P13: FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

II ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Order Record 571 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/249/2017	The State through PS Chaitanyapuri vs Smt.Suryaneti Sandya Rani	16 Apr 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/2062/2017	P.Yashoda vs All Concerned	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2063/2017	Mauram Chandra Reddy vs The MRO	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	—
SC/357/2017	The State through PS Adibatla vs K.Krishna	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/300421/2015	P.S. K.P.H.B. vs Asanpally Kurva Sai Kumar @ Sailu	06 Apr 2018	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/1058/2017	Dayala Balraj vs Smt.Dayyala Venkatamma	04 Apr 2018	IA Order	—
OS/624/2007	Bandari Mallesh Yadav vs Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yanga Board	02 Apr 2018	IA Order	—
SC/300827/2015	P.S. Mailardevpally vs Mohd. Saddam Pasha @ Saddam Hussain	28 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/511/2017	B.Srinivas Rao vs The State of Telangana	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/606/2011	petnm vs Vsresnm	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/655/2011	R.Manohari and one another vs S.Kamalamma and 11 others	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1745/2017	R.Pushpalatha vs V.C.Veera Raghavan	27 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
SC/514/2017	State of Telagana SI of police PS Kushaiguda vs A3. Smt Baby Khan	23 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300751/2016	P.S. Neredmet vs Kukatla Hema Latha and another	23 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/134/2011	Margadarshi Chit Funds Ltd. rep.by its General Manager A.Suryanarayana Rao vs N.Susheel Kumar and 3 others	22 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/362/2012	Sri. Palle Kumar Goud vs Sri. K. Showry and others	20 Mar 2018	IA Order	—
OS/616/2012	Ms. Magradarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs D. Rajasheskar Reddy	20 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1965/2016	C.Srinivas Reddy vs G.Bhavani and Another	15 Mar 2018	IA Order	—
EP/17/2017	Smt. Ameerunnisa Begum vs P. Shravan Kumar	14 Mar 2018	OP Order	—
OS/126/2016	G. Mallesh vs Kesaboyana Sushila	14 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1640/2017	Smt.B.Uma vs The Depurty Commissioner	14 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1656/2017	Jambula Sai Eshwar Reddy vs The Tahasildhar	14 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2301/2008	Sri g. Siva Shankar Reddy, So.GSP Veea Reddy, vs Sri Yousuf Khan, So. Osman Khan,	14 Mar 2018	IA Order	—
OS/761/2012	M. Narsimha vs Bugga Krishna Murthy	12 Mar 2018	IA Order	—
OS/1942/2017	T.Rajya Lakshmi vs The Mandal Revenu Officer	09 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1398/2015	STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M. Srinivasa Kumar and another	08 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OP/27/2011	K. Chandrasekar Reddy vs Vsresnm	07 Mar 2018	IA Order	—
OS/828/2013	State Bank of India vs Kaluvala Surender Reddy and another	06 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1144/2013	Ms Ultratech Cement Ltd., vs Ms Vaayuja Projects Pvt Ltd	06 Mar 2018	Judgement	—
OS/772/2017	Sri.K.Balachandrudu Shetty vs All concerned	28 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1052/2016	Anantha Raju Goud vs Nakatekanti Lingaiah	28 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1357/2017	B.Vandana Kumari vs G.Venkateshwarlu	28 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1714/2017	A.Visalaxmi vs K.Ravinder Reddy	28 Feb 2018	IA Order	—
OS/1795/2013	Gaddam Ram Chander Yadhav vs Mudhagoni Maramma and 3 others	28 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
SC/613/2017	The State through Police PS Uppal vs Dhavalgari Rekha	28 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/277/2015	Shriram Chits P Ltd. vs Vemi Reddy Surender and 5 others	23 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/912/2012	G. Mallesh Yadav vs Salavera Kishan	23 Feb 2018	IA Order	—
OS/1606/2016	Mrs. P. Kamala and 4 others vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation	23 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/3000593/2017	Smt.G.Indira vs Mr.D.Krishna Prashanth	22 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300853/2016	P.S. Miyapur vs Kadigey Dilip	15 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OP/175/2007	A.Krishna Rao , vs LA Huda R R Dist Uppal Mandal- Nacharam Village	08 Feb 2018	OP Order	—
OS/395/2005	M. Balraj vs N. Jagamaiah	08 Feb 2018	IA Order	—
OS/1630/2014	B. Rama Koti vs Poloju Srinivasulu	08 Feb 2018	Judgement	—
OS/740/2011	Sama Ram Reddy vs The collector and one another	31 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1351/2009	Sai Krushi constructions rep. by its Managing Partner vs P. Sridhar So P. Laxminarayana	31 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2289/2008	Sri P. Sreedhar, So. Late P. Lakshmi Narayana, vs Smt P. Hymavathi, Wo. Late P. Lakshmi Narayana,	31 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2335/2006	P. Sredhar vs Smt. P. Hymavathi	31 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/295/2005	Smt. P.S.Haripriya vs Sri. Vajja Hanumantha Rao	30 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
OS/615/2017	C.Sadanand vs Smt.M.Lalitha Kumari	30 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1023/2011	M Ravindra kumari vs Vemuri Vijaya Durga Venkata Narsimha prasad	30 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1829/2015	Mr. Syed Shabber Hussain and another vs Jassem Abdul Hassan Jassem	30 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
EP/54/2016	Margadarsi chit fund Pvt Ltd vs T. Vijay Prasad	29 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
OS/2329/2011	Sri. J Narsimha Ramulu vs Sri. S. Rmadas	25 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
SC/240/2016	Uppal .P.S. vs Smt. Ramavath Manga	25 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1533/2008	petnm vs Vsresnm	24 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
OS/2068/2016	T.Chaya Padma vs All Concerned	23 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OP/58/2010	Sri Vankamamidi Prasanna vs Sri. D. Bhaskar	22 Jan 2018	OP Order	—
OP/133/2012	Mandanlal. Basti vs The land Acquisition officer	22 Jan 2018	OP Order	—
OP/293/2008	petnm vs Vsresnm	22 Jan 2018	OP Order	—
OP/684/2007	petnm vs Vsresnm	22 Jan 2018	OP Order	—
OS/448/2009	petnm vs Vsresnm	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/846/2010	petnm vs Vsresnm	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1044/2015	Sri K.Amarnath vs Sri Thummanapally Ram Mohan	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1143/2017	Mrs. Dipali Apekshit Gupte vs The Tahasildhar	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1203/2011	Mahaboob bee and others vs Mir Mohsin ali	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1466/2012	B. Krishna Reddy vs G. Srinivas	22 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
EP/300196/2015	Lomada Bhasker Reddy vs Jedson Raju	18 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
OS/56/2013	K. Agesh vs Shaik. Sajjad	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/337/2009	petnm vs Vsresnm	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/549/2014	N Anjaneyulu vs G. Viajaya Lakshmi	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/754/2003	K. Anjaiah alias G. Anjaiah vs Md. Yousuf	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1105/2008	Moses Vinod Kumar, So. Dr.M.S.Dayakar Rao, vs Sri K. Praveen Reddy, So. K.Ranga Reddy,	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1107/2001	Kesari Sathi Reddy vs Vsthe District Collector	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1349/2008	petnm vs Vsresnm	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1411/2016	A. Rama chandra Murthy vs A. Ganapathi and another	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1485/2016	K.S.S. Lalitha Jyothi vs O.N. Sadanand and another	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1948/2011	N.Gopala Krishna vs Y.Narsingh Rao	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1976/2011	CANARA BANKA, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Dilsukhnagar, vs V.Bhaskar Rao	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2092/2014	Smt. C. Uma N. Rao vs Chettypally Jayamma	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2153/2010	petnm vs Vsresnm	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/2570/2008	Smt Dokuri Satyamma, Wo. Late Narsimha Reddy, vs Smt Darga Andalu, Wo. Late D. Ram Reddy,	18 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/472/2017	State Bank of India vs Sri Bukka Mahesh	09 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/178/2017	The State through PS Chaitanyapuri vs Kasthapuram Ramu	09 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300056/2016	P.S. Narsingi vs Jankanpally Srinivas Reddy	09 Jan 2018	IA Order	—
SC/300252/2015	P.S. Kukatpally vs D. Durgaiah	08 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/288/2017	The State of Telangana Ps Raidurgam vs Ramavath Narasimha	05 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/323/2016	Rajendranagar P.S vs Fahmeeda Begum and another	05 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300067/2017	PS Raidurgam vs Mithu Mukhiya, Shekar	05 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300750/2016	P.S. Sanathnagar vs Esli Ravi	05 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/646/2017	Smt.Survi Anuradha vs Tahasildhar	04 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
OS/1057/2017	Bhachana Boina Shankar Yadav vs The Tahasildahar	02 Jan 2018	Judgement	—
SC/300287/2013	P.S. Kushaiguda vs Budige Srinivas alias Auto Srinu	22 Dec 2017	Judgement	—
OP/170/2007	Kummari Veeaiah vs LA Huda R R Dist Malkajgiri Village and Mandal	20 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OS/2209/2011	Ms. Vijay Bhargavi Chit Fund P Ltd., Rep.by vs R.Gopinath	20 Dec 2017	Judgement	—
OP/23/2008	N. Krishna vs The land Acquisition officer	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OP/39/2011	M. Sataiah vs Land Acquisition Officer and Special Grade Deputy Collector	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OP/50/2011	Yala Ramaiah vs Land Acquisition Officer and Special Grade Deputy Collector	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OP/178/2008	petnm vs Vsresnm	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OP/382/2007	Sri. C. Bikshapathi vs The Revenue Divisional officer Cum L.A. O	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—
OP/384/2007	Vrajenderakumar vs The Revenue Divisional officer Cum L.A. O	19 Dec 2017	OP Order	—

Showing 100 of 571 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2018		7
Mar 2018		24
Feb 2018		14
Jan 2018		48
Dec 2017		25
Nov 2017		90
Oct 2017		1
Apr 2017		12
Mar 2017		23
Feb 2017		52
Oct 2016		7
Sep 2016		25

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.B.Sridevi handled?

Smt.B.Sridevi has handled 587 court orders since 2015 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 17 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.B.Sridevi hear?

Based on available records, Smt.B.Sridevi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Sessions Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Original Petitions) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.B.Sridevi currently posted?

Smt.B.Sridevi is posted as II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.B.Sridevi available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Smt.B.Sridevi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.B.Sridevi dispose cases?

Smt.B.Sridevi disposes approximately 17 cases per month, based on 587 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.B.Sridevi serving?

Smt.B.Sridevi has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2015.

Case Types

CC 62%

OS 22%

OP 7%

SC 5%

STC 2%

L 1%

EP 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Apr 2018

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge · 209 orders
Nov 2015 — May 2017

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate(Juvenile Court), RangaReddy District at L.B .Nagar · 340 orders
Jun 2015 — Nov 2015

(OLD-Name)_IV MM/Vacant/Abolished · 38 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 13

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.karna Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge

264 orders

Sri. Vinod Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

1 orders

Smt. Ch.ashalatha

Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal for Rang...

143 orders

Sri.Y.Sathyendra

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

173 orders

Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

IV ADJ-IV Addl.MSJ-cum-I Addl.Family Court

3 orders

Smt.M.Bhavani

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

0 orders

Dundhigalla Sadhana

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga...

19 orders

Smt.T.JayaLakshmi

X Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

891 orders

Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

0 orders

Smt T Anitha

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

0 orders

Smt.M.Vani

Special Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the Cases...

1,621 orders

Ms. K. C. Reddy Devarapalli

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Judic...

0 orders

Smt.Shraddha Sehgal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Special(Mobile)...

87 orders

Ms.Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise...

69 orders

Ms. S.Swarna Mallika

III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl.Jud...

21 orders

Sri B.Kiran Teja

VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl.Judic...

45 orders

Ms. Shereena Mohd

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

0 orders

Mrs. Sravana Swathi Chintada

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magi...

2 orders

Sri J.Hanumantha Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Ma...

12 orders

Arpitha Maram Reddy

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Chief Judi...

24 orders

Sri. Gannarapu Sudarshan

Family Court Judge

0 orders

Smt. P. Srivani

Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar

0 orders

G. Srinivas

Special Sessions Judge for trial and Disposal of P...

55 orders

Sri G.Sampurna Anand

Commercial Disputes Courts RangaReddy

0 orders

← View all judges at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex