Budy Jyotsna

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) : RAJAM

Present: Smt. B.Jyotsna, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponduru

FAC: Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajam

Monday this the 30 th day of March' 2026

O.S.No. 104 of 2021

Between:

Dakara Suresh, S/o Sanyasinaidu, aged 30 years, Hindu, Business, residing at Door No.3-125, Mettavalasa village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Plaintiff

And:

Duppalapudi Nageswararao, S/o late Venkataramana, aged 50 years, Hindu, Contractor and Business, residing at Door No.2-123, Gayatri colony, Saradhi, Rajam town and Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Defendant

This suit came up on 25.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for the defendant. The matter having stood over for consideration till today and this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

01. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery a sum of Rs.3,07,400/- (Rupees

Three Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred only) from the defendant basing on the promissory note of principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

2

02. The averments in the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only) from the plaintiff on 29.09.2018 for the purpose of business development and that the defendant agreed to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum payable either to the plaintiff or to his order or bearer of the promissory note, as and when the plaintiff demands. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant executed promissory note on the same day i.e. on 29.09.2018 in his favour at Rajam in Rajam Mandal. He submitted that the defendant received cash consideration from him at the time of execution of the promissory note and that the defendant signed on the promissory note in presence of attestor and scribe at Rajam.

03. The plaintiff submits that subsequently to the execution of the promissory note, the defendant did not pay even a single pie inspite of several demands made by him personally and through elders. He further submitted that the defendant promised to repay the amount due under the promissory note but he failed to pay the amount and postponing the same on some pretext or other. Hence the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note with interest and costs from the defendant. Hence the suit.

04. On the other side the defendant filed his written statement, he submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that he never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff is stranger to him and that he never knew the plaintiff. He submit that due to political rivalry and some of his enemies colluded with the plaintiff and created and fabricated and forged with the help of henchmen and scribe, the plaintiff filed this

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

3 suit with an intention to harass him and to gain wrongfully. The defendant denied about the suit liability and that he averred that the promissory note dated 29.09.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- is not binding on him as it is a forged and concocted document filed by the plaintiff for wrongful gain from him. The defendant further submitted that the suit is not maintainable according to law and that the suit is not bonafide one. The defendant further submitted that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and thus it is not binding on him. The defendant submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit against him and thus the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit against him with costs in the interest of justice.

05. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 20.09.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount under the suit promissory note?

3. To what relief?

06. To prove the case, the plaintiff himself/Dakara Suresh examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1. The chief examination of P.W.1 that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupee Two Lakh only) from P.W.1 on 29.09.2018 and executed promissory note on the same day in presence of attestors P.W.2 and P.W.3 and scribe. P.W.1 deposed that the defendant later failed to pay the amount and postponed. Thus the suit. The promissory note marked as Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by defendant for

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

4 consideration Rs.2,00,000/- dated 29.09.2018. In P.W.1 cross examination, the witness deposed that he had acquaintance with the defendant since the year 2014 as the defendant used to do real estate business at Rajam. He admitted that the defendant is well settled financially. He deposed that on 29.09.2018 the defendant executed promissory note in his favour at Sub

Registrar Office Rajam and that it was scribed by one person. P.W.1 deposed that the suit promissory note is a printed paper which is in yellow in colour. He deposed that the attestors are Sree Rammoorthy and Labana Ramu. For plaintiff, two attestors of the suit promissory note, Yernena Sriramamurthy and

Labhana Ramu examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. They deposed about their presence at the time of execution of promissory note in favour of P.W.1 by the defendant and drafting of Ex.A1 by scribe. They deposed that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from P.W.1 on 29.09.2018 and executed promissory note in their presence. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A1 and his oral evidence along with other witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 in support of their case.

In both P.W.2 and P.W.3 cross examination it revealed that in P.W.2 cross examination, the witness deposed that he is acquainted with the plaintiff since 7 to 8 years as he is residing in his neighboring village. He deposed that he put his signature as Sub Registrar Office on 29.09.2018 at about 10.00 a.m.

when both the parties are present. He deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for his business purpose and no other conditions were imposed in the promissory note. In P.W.3 deposition, the witness deposed that the plaintiff is not his relative. He deposed that in the year 2018 on 29th date he stood as attestor but he do not remember the month. He deposed that the defendant borrowed amount for his business purpose and

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

5 that in the said transaction he stood as attestor for both the parties at their request. He deposed that he has acquaintance with the defendant for past 6 to 7 years. He deposed that in the promissory note, he put his signature on it.

07. On the other side, the defendant himself/Duppalapudi Nageswararao examined as D.W.1 and no documents marked. The chief examination of

D.W.1 are replica of his written statement contents. D.W.1 deposed that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that he never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff. He deposed that the plaintiff is stranger to him and that he never knew the plaintiff. He deposed that due to political rivalry and some of his enemies colluded with the plaintiff and created and fabricated and forged with the help of henchmen and scribe, the plaintiff filed this suit with an intention to harass him and to gain wrongfully. D.W.1 further deposed that the promissory note dated 29.09.2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- is not binding on him as it is a forged and concocted document filed by the plaintiff for wrongful gain from him. He further deposed that the suit is not maintainable according to law and that the suit is not bonafide one and that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and thus it is not binding on him. D.W.1 further deposed that there is no cause of action for the suit against him and thus he prayed to dismiss the suit against him with costs in the interest of justice. In D.W.1 cross examination, the witness deposed that the signature on the promissory note does not belong to him and that the signature on the written statement and chief affidavit belong to him. He deposed that he knows the contents of his chief affidavit but to which place the plaintiff belongs he do not know. He deposed that he do not know that the suit was filed and the written statement and counter. He deposed that there are many

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

6 enemies to him and that he do not know the names but he deposed that the plaintiff or himself did not contest for any post in any political group. D.W.1 deposed that he did not give any report or file any complaint against the plaintiff as when some unknown person filed this false case against him.

08. After full trial, both learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant submitted oral arguments. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant did not prove his averments. He submitted that as per the evidence of plaintiff by

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and along with Ex.A1, the plaintiff sufficiently proved the Ex.A1 and their evidence is credible and trustworthy. Hence he prayed to decree the suit with interest and costs in favour of plaintiff. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant argued that the transaction took place under Ex.A1 between plaintiff and defendant was not proved with cogent evidence. He argued that Ex.A1 was not proved and there is no establishment of the case.

He argued that the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount and thus prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

Issue nos.1 to 3:

09. Considering the evidence on record and arguments of both the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant, in view of material placed by both parties the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case. The defence raised by the defendant that no consideration was passed and that the Ex.A1 was fabricated and forged with the help of henchmen and scribe, the plaintiff filed this suit with an intention to harass him and to gain wrongfully and that the plaintiff is stranger to him. It is the burden on defendant to prove these pleadings. From the

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

7 evidence of defendant there is no proof that Ex.A1 was fabricated or forged as alleged by him, except only oral evidence there is no proof. Except D.W.1 there is no other evidence, adduced to support his pleadings. Further D.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he do not know that the suit was filed and the written statement and counter and also he do not know the names of enemies. He deposed that he did not give any report or file any complaint against the plaintiff when some unknown person filed this false case against him.

10. Further the defendant stated in his written statement that the plaintiff due to political rivalry and some of his enemies colluded with the plaintiff and created and fabricated and forged with the help of henchmen and scribe, the plaintiff filed this suit with an intention to harass him and to gain wrongfully. For the fabrication or forgery, the burden is on the defendant. As per record there are no steps taken by the defendant to prove fabrication/forgery. No piece of paper filed. To the facts and circumstances there is no reason to believe the defense raised by the defendant in his written statement. Further the evidence brought on record in cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, there is no proof to his pleadings. Only suggestions without any evidence would not entitle the defendant to prove his case. The defendant pleadings are not proved.

11. Now to see whether the plaintiff proved his pleadings, as seen from the entire record, discloses that P.W.1 relied on Ex.A1 in support of his suit claim along with attestor oral evidence P.W.2 and P.W.3. By scrutinizing the evidence, it is observed that the plaintiff had putforth his case by orally evidence from P.W.1 to P.W.3 attestors along with suit promissory note marked as Ex.A1 against

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

8 the defendant. The burden that whether the suit promissory note dated 29.09.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant, the plaintiff had produced the promissory note/Ex.A1. To the pleadings of defendant, there is no proof as observed supra therefore, when plaintiff evidence is seen, the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 deposed about the execution of Ex.A1, there is consistent evidence by the plaintiff. The initial burden on the plaintiff that whether the defendant is bound on Ex.A1 or not?, this court hold that the plaintiff with cogent evidence had sufficiently proved his case. The other aspect that consideration is passed or not? the plaintiff-P.W.1 with his witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed about the consideration of an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- was passed and it was given to defendant in their presence.

Therefore, when the evidence of plaintiff is found believed, the presumption under section 118 of NI Act would be available to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit promissory note is said to be true, valid and binding on the defendant as it was supported by consideration as per evidence placed by the plaintiff. Thus, the issue no.1 is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

12. From the above findings, when the plaintiff proves the execution of the document under section 118 (a) and (g) there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that the consideration passed and as a holder in due course the initial burden is discharged by the plaintiff. Accordingly it is clear that the defendant failed to discharge his burden. Hence, this court holds that issue no.1 in favour of plaintiff that the suit promissory note dated29.09.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Further the plea of no cosideration passed is not proved by the defendant in his evidence. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

9 recovery of suit amount along with costs and interest from the defendant subject to section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Accordingly the issue nos.1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

13. In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly the defendant is directed to pay Rs.3,07,400/- (Rupees Three Lakh Seven

Thousand Four Hundred only) to plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Partly typed on my dictation by typist and partly typed by me on my

laptop, prints taken by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 30 th day of March’ 2026.

Sd/-B.Jyotsna

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ponduru, FAC:Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

P.W.1: Dakara Suresh D.W.1: Duppalapudi Ngeswararao

P.W.2: Yernena Sriramamurthy

P.W.3: Labhana Ramu

APSR070006582021

FAIR COPY

O.S.NO.104 of 2021

10

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A129.09.2018 Original promissory note executed by defendant for consideration Rs.2,00,000/- dated 29.09.2018.

For Defendant : Nil

Sd/- B.Jyotsna

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ponduru, FAC:Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajam.

//True copy//

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Ponduru, FAC:Civil Judge(Junior Division), Rajam.

1

(D RAFT J UDGMENT )

I N THE C OURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF F IRST C LASS ::

K OTHURU

S RIKAKULAM D ISTRICT

Present : S MT . B. J YOTSNA

J UDICIAL

M AGISTRATE OF 1 ST C LASS

A MADALAVALASA

(FAC) K OTHURU

F RIDAY THE 13 DAY OF M ARCH ’ 2020 TH

C.C. N O . 132 OF 2016

Between :

State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station.

.… Complainant. And : A1Nimmaka Thavitinaidu @ Tavitayya, S/o :Yenkulu @ Venkati, Aged 34 years, SC- Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. A2Nimmaka Yenkulu @ Venkati, S/o Late :Dusadu, Aged 62 years, SC-Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. A3Nimmaka Varalaxmi, W/o Yenkulu @ :Venkati, Aged 50 years, SC-Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. …. Accused.

This case came up on 03-01-2020 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and of Sri. M. Appa Rao, Advocate for the accused. After hearing both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day and this court deliver the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 03/2013 against the sole accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A,

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

2 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that LW1-

Vankadari Jayalaxmi is a resident of Gunabadra Village of

Kothuru Mandal. She is legally wedded wife of the accused.

About four years ago LW1 worked in Airtel Office,

Hyderabad and resided in Suraram Colony. LW1 fell in love with the accused and they marriage took place on 30.05.2010 in a Siva Temple which is located in Suraram

Colony. Immediately after marriage LW1 joined with accused and led conjugal life and they lived together for about six months. Later accused was addicted to liquor, harassed LW1 physically and mentally by suspecting LW1 fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities and forced her to get dowry from her parents. During their conjugal life, LW1 gave birth to a female child by name Saroni. As there was no change in the attitude of accused, LW1 left her husband and went back to her parents. On 15.01.2013 at about 06.00 pm., the accused visited the house of LW1, beat LW1 with hands, threatened LW1 at the point of knife and took away their child.

3. Basing on the report of LW1, LW6-S.Satyannarayana,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S registered a case in

Cr.No. 03/2013 under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal

Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of

Kothuru P.S conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. After completion of investigation, LW7/N. Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kothuru Police Station filed charge sheet. Hence the case.

4. This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the sole accused.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

3

After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as per section 207

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The contents of charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs. P1 to P3. The evidence of

LW6/S.Satyannarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S now working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili P.S was given up by Learned APP as same evidence.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal

Procedure Code. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not choose to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

8.Now the points for determination are :

(I) Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused both physically and mentally harassed LW1 demand of dowry which is punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(II)Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused committed criminal intimidation towards LW1 which is punishable under sections 506 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(III)Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused harassed LW1 both physically and mentally for demand of

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

4 dowry which is punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. In order to establish the case of prosecution,

LW1 to LW5 and LW7/Vankadari Jayalaxmi, Gunapu Dalayya,

Gunapu Akkamma, Bantu Ramarao, Savadana Dalaiah and

N.Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S as

PW1 to PW6. Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. Ex.P1 is Report,

dated 17.01.2013. Ex.P2 is First Information Report, dated

17.01.2013. Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence,

dated 17.01.2013.

10. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that accused and LW1 marriage was love marriage taken place on 30.05.2010 in Siva Temple of Suraram Colony. They were blessed with a baby girl. Thereafter, the accused used to harassed LW1 both mentally and physically by demanding dowry. The accused was addicted to liquor and harassed LW1 physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities and forced her to get dowry from her parents. As there was no change in the attitude of accused, LW1 left accused and went back to her parents. Thereafter, on 15.01.2013 at about 06.00 pm., the accused visited the house of LW1 beat her with hands and threatened her at the point of knife. The accused took away their baby. On that LW1 gave report to police.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW6/S. Satyannarayana, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S registered a case in Cr.No.

03/2013 under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Kothuru P.S conducted investigation. After completion of investigation,

LW7/N. Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru

Police Station filed charge sheet. Hence the charges.

11. The prosecution led evidence from LW1 to LW3 as

PW1 to PW3. All the three witnesses deposed about the marriage between PW1 with accused and birth of child.

They deposed that after marriage the accused used to beat

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

5

PW1. They deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor and harassed PW1 physically and mentally. The accused had suspected PW1 fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities. PW1 deposed that as there was no change in the attitude of accused, she went back to her parents. PW1 further deposed that in the month of January, 2014 the accused came to her parents house and took away her child. Thereafter, PW1 gave report to police.

12. The other witnesses PW4 and PW5 have resiled from their earlier statements deposed before police at the earliest point of time. They did not support the case of prosecution.

13. The remaining witness PW6 is investigation officer.

He deposed about his investigation from registration of FIR to filing of charge sheet. He deposed that LW6 registered the case basing on the report of PW1 in Cr.No. 3/2013

U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. On 18.06.2013 he verified the investigation of LW6 and found that LW6 examined the witnesses and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. As the investigation is in correct lines he filed the charge sheet.

14. From the above evidences, this court observed that the charges against the accused are for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal

Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and argument of both sides, in this case, though PW2 and PW3 lead evidence with PW1.

The alleged offences against the accused was that accused mentally and physically harassed PW1 for demand of

additional dowry. The over view of the total evidence, the

evidence of PW1 to PW3 could not specifically state the over acts of accused to termed it as cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A Indian Penal Code.

15. The independent witness PW4 to PW5 did not support the case of prosecution. They resiled from their earlier

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

6 section 161 Criminal procedure code statements at the earliest point of time. The remaining last witness is evidence PW6 who is the investigatingofficer deposed about his investigation from registration of FIR till filing of charge sheet.

16. From the discussion supra, for the alleged offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code against the accused, this court holds that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 there is no ingredient of the said section that the accused used to harass PW1 for demand of dowry. To attract the provisions of section 498-A Indian Penal Code, the witnesses must establish that the accused harassed PW1 with a view to force the wife/PW1 to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands of husband/accused. It is necessary on the part of the prosecution that to establish the cruelty as contemplated in section, that there must be a likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or such conduct is likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or to her mental and physical health. But both from oral and documentary evidence, there is no physical health lost by

PW1. Moreover, from the evidence there is no specific or continuous harassment by the accused.

17. Further the admission of investigation officer that the section 161 Criminal procedure code there is no ingredient of section 498A Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the independent witnesses PW4 to PW5 did not deposed about the part of harassment by the accused. Evidence of PW4 to

PW5 is not in support of prosecution. The evidence of PW6 disclose only his investigation, it is not safe to rely on the investigation of PW6, where there are some inherent lapses in the case of prosecution from his evidence.

18. The another alleged offences i.e. section 506 of

Indian Penal Code was not let out in evidence. There is no statement as to section 506 of Indian Penal Code by prosecution witnesses. The section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act is not established by the prosecution witnesses. Only a

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

7 mere allegation, but there is no corroborative evidence in prosecution witnesses. The demand made was not let out in evidence.

19. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A and 506 Indian Penal Code and section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this court exercise benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly the points are answered.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal

Procedure code for the above said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 10 th day of

January’ 2020.

S d/- B. Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of 1 st Class

Amadalavalas a, (FAC) Kothuru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Vankadari Jayalaxmi.

PW2 : Gunapu Dalayya.

PW3 : Gunapu Akkamma.

PW4 : Bantu Ramarao.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

8

PW5 : Savadana Dalaiah.

PW6 : N. Kameswararao, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru

Police Station.

For Defence : - None -

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated 17.01.2013.

Ex.P2 : First Information Report, dated 17.01.2013.

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence, dated 17.01.2013.

For Defence : - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/- B. Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of First Class

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru // True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr.

Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

9

INTHE COURTOFTHE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS ::

KOTHURU,

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT .

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 18 OF 2015

Date of Offence :15.01.2013 Date of Complaint or Report:17.01.2013 Date of Apprehension of :04.06.2016 (NBW against Accusedaccused pending from 31.01.2013 to 04.06.2013) Date of Release on Bail:15.06.2016 Date of Commencement of :12.04.2017 Trial Date of Close of Trial:20.09.2019 Date of Sentence or Order:10.01.2020 Explanation for Delay:Non appearance of the accused and due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station in Cr.No. 03 of 2013. Name of the Accused:Vankadari Rajasekhar, S/o Yesanna, Aged 28 years, SC-Mala by Caste, Coolie, R/o Kalavatala Village, KolimigundlaMandal, Kurnool District.

Offence : Punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act, 1961 against accused. [Sec. 498-A : Punishment for Subjecting a married woman to cruelty; Sec. 506 : Punishment for Criminal Intimidation. Sec. 4 : Penalty for Demanding Dowry].

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act, 1961.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure code for the above said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- B.

Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

10

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

// True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr. Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

1

(D RAFT J UDGMENT )

I N THE C OURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF F IRST C LASS ::

K OTHURU

S RIKAKULAM D ISTRICT

Present : S MT . B. J YOTSNA

J UDICIAL

M AGISTRATE OF 1 ST C LASS

A MADALAVALASA

(FAC) K OTHURU

F RIDAY THE 13 DAY OF M ARCH ’ 2020 TH

C.C. N O . 132 OF 2016

Between :

State Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station.

.… Complainant. And : A1Nimmaka Thavitinaidu @ Tavitayya, S/o :Yenkulu @ Venkati, Aged 34 years, SC- Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. A2Nimmaka Yenkulu @ Venkati, S/o Late :Dusadu, Aged 62 years, SC-Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. A3Nimmaka Varalaxmi, W/o Yenkulu @ :Venkati, Aged 50 years, SC-Paidi by Caste, R/o Madhanapuram Village of Kothuru Mandal. …. Accused.

This case came up on 03-01-2020 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and of Sri. M. Appa Rao, Advocate for the accused. After hearing both sides, this case having stood over for consideration till this day and this court deliver the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 03/2013 against the sole accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A,

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

2 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that LW1-

Vankadari Jayalaxmi is a resident of Gunabadra Village of

Kothuru Mandal. She is legally wedded wife of the accused.

About four years ago LW1 worked in Airtel Office,

Hyderabad and resided in Suraram Colony. LW1 fell in love with the accused and they marriage took place on 30.05.2010 in a Siva Temple which is located in Suraram

Colony. Immediately after marriage LW1 joined with accused and led conjugal life and they lived together for about six months. Later accused was addicted to liquor, harassed LW1 physically and mentally by suspecting LW1 fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities and forced her to get dowry from her parents. During their conjugal life, LW1 gave birth to a female child by name Saroni. As there was no change in the attitude of accused, LW1 left her husband and went back to her parents. On 15.01.2013 at about 06.00 pm., the accused visited the house of LW1, beat LW1 with hands, threatened LW1 at the point of knife and took away their child.

3. Basing on the report of LW1, LW6-S.Satyannarayana,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S registered a case in

Cr.No. 03/2013 under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal

Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of

Kothuru P.S conducted investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. After completion of investigation, LW7/N. Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Kothuru Police Station filed charge sheet. Hence the case.

4. This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the sole accused.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

3

After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as per section 207

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The contents of charges are read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 6 and marked Exs. P1 to P3. The evidence of

LW6/S.Satyannarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S now working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarubujjili P.S was given up by Learned APP as same evidence.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Criminal

Procedure Code. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu. After understood the same, he denied and did not choose to let either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

8.Now the points for determination are :

(I) Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused both physically and mentally harassed LW1 demand of dowry which is punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(II)Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused committed criminal intimidation towards LW1 which is punishable under sections 506 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(III)Whether the prosecution able to prove that the accused harassed LW1 both physically and mentally for demand of

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

4 dowry which is punishable under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. In order to establish the case of prosecution,

LW1 to LW5 and LW7/Vankadari Jayalaxmi, Gunapu Dalayya,

Gunapu Akkamma, Bantu Ramarao, Savadana Dalaiah and

N.Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S as

PW1 to PW6. Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. Ex.P1 is Report,

dated 17.01.2013. Ex.P2 is First Information Report, dated

17.01.2013. Ex.P3 is Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence,

dated 17.01.2013.

10. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that accused and LW1 marriage was love marriage taken place on 30.05.2010 in Siva Temple of Suraram Colony. They were blessed with a baby girl. Thereafter, the accused used to harassed LW1 both mentally and physically by demanding dowry. The accused was addicted to liquor and harassed LW1 physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities and forced her to get dowry from her parents. As there was no change in the attitude of accused, LW1 left accused and went back to her parents. Thereafter, on 15.01.2013 at about 06.00 pm., the accused visited the house of LW1 beat her with hands and threatened her at the point of knife. The accused took away their baby. On that LW1 gave report to police.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW6/S. Satyannarayana, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S registered a case in Cr.No.

03/2013 under section 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 of Kothuru P.S conducted investigation. After completion of investigation,

LW7/N. Kameswararao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru

Police Station filed charge sheet. Hence the charges.

11. The prosecution led evidence from LW1 to LW3 as

PW1 to PW3. All the three witnesses deposed about the marriage between PW1 with accused and birth of child.

They deposed that after marriage the accused used to beat

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

5

PW1. They deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor and harassed PW1 physically and mentally. The accused had suspected PW1 fidelity and did not provide minimum necessities. PW1 deposed that as there was no change in the attitude of accused, she went back to her parents. PW1 further deposed that in the month of January, 2014 the accused came to her parents house and took away her child. Thereafter, PW1 gave report to police.

12. The other witnesses PW4 and PW5 have resiled from their earlier statements deposed before police at the earliest point of time. They did not support the case of prosecution.

13. The remaining witness PW6 is investigation officer.

He deposed about his investigation from registration of FIR to filing of charge sheet. He deposed that LW6 registered the case basing on the report of PW1 in Cr.No. 3/2013

U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. On 18.06.2013 he verified the investigation of LW6 and found that LW6 examined the witnesses and inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. As the investigation is in correct lines he filed the charge sheet.

14. From the above evidences, this court observed that the charges against the accused are for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal

Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and argument of both sides, in this case, though PW2 and PW3 lead evidence with PW1.

The alleged offences against the accused was that accused mentally and physically harassed PW1 for demand of

additional dowry. The over view of the total evidence, the

evidence of PW1 to PW3 could not specifically state the over acts of accused to termed it as cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A Indian Penal Code.

15. The independent witness PW4 to PW5 did not support the case of prosecution. They resiled from their earlier

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

6 section 161 Criminal procedure code statements at the earliest point of time. The remaining last witness is evidence PW6 who is the investigatingofficer deposed about his investigation from registration of FIR till filing of charge sheet.

16. From the discussion supra, for the alleged offence under section 498A Indian Penal Code against the accused, this court holds that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 there is no ingredient of the said section that the accused used to harass PW1 for demand of dowry. To attract the provisions of section 498-A Indian Penal Code, the witnesses must establish that the accused harassed PW1 with a view to force the wife/PW1 to commit suicide or to fulfill illegal demands of husband/accused. It is necessary on the part of the prosecution that to establish the cruelty as contemplated in section, that there must be a likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or such conduct is likely to cause grave injury or danger to her life or limb or to her mental and physical health. But both from oral and documentary evidence, there is no physical health lost by

PW1. Moreover, from the evidence there is no specific or continuous harassment by the accused.

17. Further the admission of investigation officer that the section 161 Criminal procedure code there is no ingredient of section 498A Indian Penal Code. Moreover, the independent witnesses PW4 to PW5 did not deposed about the part of harassment by the accused. Evidence of PW4 to

PW5 is not in support of prosecution. The evidence of PW6 disclose only his investigation, it is not safe to rely on the investigation of PW6, where there are some inherent lapses in the case of prosecution from his evidence.

18. The another alleged offences i.e. section 506 of

Indian Penal Code was not let out in evidence. There is no statement as to section 506 of Indian Penal Code by prosecution witnesses. The section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act is not established by the prosecution witnesses. Only a

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

7 mere allegation, but there is no corroborative evidence in prosecution witnesses. The demand made was not let out in evidence.

19. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A and 506 Indian Penal Code and section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, this court exercise benefit of doubt to the accused.

Accordingly the points are answered.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal

Procedure code for the above said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 10 th day of

January’ 2020.

S d/- B. Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of 1 st Class

Amadalavalas a, (FAC) Kothuru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Vankadari Jayalaxmi.

PW2 : Gunapu Dalayya.

PW3 : Gunapu Akkamma.

PW4 : Bantu Ramarao.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

8

PW5 : Savadana Dalaiah.

PW6 : N. Kameswararao, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru

Police Station.

For Defence : - None -

Documents marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated 17.01.2013.

Ex.P2 : First Information Report, dated 17.01.2013.

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence, dated 17.01.2013.

For Defence : - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/- B. Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of First Class

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru // True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr.

Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

9

INTHE COURTOFTHE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS ::

KOTHURU,

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT .

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 18 OF 2015

Date of Offence :15.01.2013 Date of Complaint or Report:17.01.2013 Date of Apprehension of :04.06.2016 (NBW against Accusedaccused pending from 31.01.2013 to 04.06.2013) Date of Release on Bail:15.06.2016 Date of Commencement of :12.04.2017 Trial Date of Close of Trial:20.09.2019 Date of Sentence or Order:10.01.2020 Explanation for Delay:Non appearance of the accused and due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station in Cr.No. 03 of 2013. Name of the Accused:Vankadari Rajasekhar, S/o Yesanna, Aged 28 years, SC-Mala by Caste, Coolie, R/o Kalavatala Village, KolimigundlaMandal, Kurnool District.

Offence : Punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act, 1961 against accused. [Sec. 498-A : Punishment for Subjecting a married woman to cruelty; Sec. 506 : Punishment for Criminal Intimidation. Sec. 4 : Penalty for Demanding Dowry].

Finding : Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act, 1961.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure code for the above said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- B.

Jyotsna,

Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

10

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

// True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr. Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 18 of 2015 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

1

(D RAFT J UDGMENT )

I N THE C OURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF F IRST

C LASS :: K OTHURU

S RIKAKULAM D ISTRICT

Present : SMT. B. JYOTSNA JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF 1ST

CLASS

AMADALAVALASA (FAC)

KOTHURU

F RIDAY THE 20 TH OF DAY OF M ARCH ’ 2020

C.C. N O . 116 OF 2016

Between :

State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Bathili Police Station.

.… Complainant. And :

Patita Pavan Patra, S/o Ramachandra Patra, Odiya Brahmin by Caste, R/o Chinnaveedhi, Bathili Village of Bhamini Mandal.

…. Accused.

This case came up on 13.03.2020 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and of Sri. V. Pahalgnuna Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration today, this court deliver the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 21/2015 against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 177 Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that

LW1/Manabala Seshagiri Rao and his family having land in

Vanna Village which having sand deposits. On that the accused who is a sand business man approached LW1 and

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

2 his family members for mining of sand from their lands.

After due discussion and deliberations they entered into agreement to that extent on 24.02.2014. Accordingly, the accused was mining the sand from the lands of LW1 by obtaining all Government permissions in the name of LW1 and doing business. The accused further mining sand from the lands of LW1 other than those mentioned in agreement and exploiting the minor mineral wealth of LW1 and his family, and the accused also not paying the amount of properly as per conditions the agreement dated 24.02.2014.

On that LW1 sought the help of LW3/P. Gangadhar Tilak and questioned the accused about his misuse of his position under the guise of agreement and exploiting the leased lands and non leased lands. On that the accused threatened LWs 1 to 3/ Manabala Seshagiri Rao, Manabala

Venugopala Rao and Gangadhar Tilak by booking false cases against them if questions him.

3.Accordingly the accused booked case against LWs 1 to 3 vide Cr.No. 43/2014 U/Sec. 406 & 506 of IPC of Bathili P.S by knowing furnishing false information to LW5 who is a public servant. LW5 after through investigation apprised the facts of the case to LW4 and as per the orders of

LW4/Ch. Santho, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda,

Srikakulam District, LW5/Ch. Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bathili P.S referred the case as false on 06.10.2014 vide C.No. 282/Ref/SDPO-p/2014, Dated 04.10.2014. LW5 served notice to the accused with the result of investigation, and the accused acknowledged the same, but he protest the matter. LW5 filed final report before the Hon’ble court treating the case as False.

4.During Annual Inspection on Bathili P.S the

Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District in his

Inspection notes dated 26.11.2014 instructed to LW5 to file a case against the accused U/Sec. 177 IPC for his furnish false information to public servant. Accordingly, LW5 filed a memo U/Sec. 155(1) Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble court of

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

3

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class at Kothuru with a request to

pass orders for registration of FIR and investigation against the accused (the then complainant in Cr.No. 43/2014) for knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant since the office is a non-cognizable and permission from the court is mandatory.

the deceased by name Gedela Ramu is 2nd son of

L.W.1/Gedela Srinu. L.W.s 1 & 2/Gedela Srinu and Gedela

Ramulamma are parents of deceased. The accused No.1 is

Assistant Engineer and Accused No.2 are Electrical

Department, Sub-Station, Kothuru. On 25.08.2018 around 01.00 pm., after having lunch, the deceased went to

Vamsadhara river bund for answering natural calls where his head contacted with live electrical line. Said wire were not maintained at minimum height from the bund which showed the negligence on the part of accused No. 1 & 2 so that the deceased electrocuted while climbing up the bund and collapsed. As a result, the deceased sustained burn injuries from chest to bottom. Immediately L.W.s 6 & 7/Durgasi Minnarao and Nelirouthu Jagadeeswara Rao and some others who were present there rushed and contacted sub-station, Kothuru and ensured to stop the current forthwith besides informed the same to L.W.1. Immediately the deceased was shifted to PHC, Kothuru for treatment again from there the deceased was referred to RIMS,

Srikakulam and thereafter he was referred to KGH,

Visakhapatnam for better treatment. While undergoing treatment on 26.10.2018 around 12.40 pm. deceased died.

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

4

3. L.W.1 report the incident to Kothuru P.S. Basing on the L.W.1’s report, L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Police,

Kothuru P.S registered as a case in crime number 115/2018 under section 304-A Indian Penal Code of Kothuru P.S on 27.10.2018 at 7.15 am., and he conducted investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, L.W.14 examined L.W.s 1 to 7 and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators viz., L.W.s 8 & 9/Lothugedda Bhagavandas, MPTC, Karlemma

Panchayat, took photographs of scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and also drafted the scene observation report.

He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives of deceased.

After inquest, L.W.14 forwarded the dead body of the deceased for autopsy.

5. During the course of investigation, L.W.15/Y.

Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S verified the investigation of L.W.14 and he took up further investigation in this case. L.W.15 issued notice under section 41-A

Criminal Procedure Code to accused No. 1 on 01.11.2018 and A2 on 02.12.2018.

6. L.W.13/Dr. N. Devchand, Assistant Professor, K.G.H,

Visakhapatnam conducted autopsy over the dad body of deceased and issued postmortem certificate with opinion that the cause of death is “septicemia as a complication of electrical burns”. After receipt of relevant documents and on completion of investigation, L.W.15 filed charge sheet.

Hence the case.

7.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code against the accused

No. 1 & 2. On their appearance before this court, the case copies as per under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code are furnished to them.

8.The accused No. 1 & 2 were examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

5 under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.To bring home the guilt of the accused No. 1 & 2, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Ex. P1. The evidence of L.W.1/Gedela Srinu was closed by this court as he died. L.W.3/Gedela Prasad, L.W.4/Gedela Appanna,

L.W.5/Gedela Simhachalam, L.W.6/Durgasi Minnarao,

L.W.7/NelirouthuJagadeeswararao,L.W.8/Lothugedda

Bhagavandas Naidu, L.W.9/ Eddu Krishnaprasad,

L.W.10/Munakala Santhoshkumar, L.W.11/Papusureddy

Venkatarao, L.W.12/Gedela Durgarao, L.W.13/Dr. N.

Devchand, Assistant Professor, KGH, Visakhapatnam,

L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Kothuru P.S and L.W.15/Y.

Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S were given up by learned A.P.P with an endorsement that parties compromise out of court.

10. During the course of trial, P.W.1 resiled from her own statement. She did not support the case of prosecution. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 the learned APP given up remaining witnesses. Therefore, there is no incriminating material against the accused. Hence there is no necessity to examine the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure

Code.

11. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

12. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13. In order to establish the case of prosecution, L.W.2 is examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 is marked. Ex.P1 is Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statement of L.W.2, dated 27.10.2018. Other

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

6 witnesses L.Ws. 3 to 15 were given up by learned A.P.P with an endorsement that parties compromise out of court.

14. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that on 25.08.2018 around 01.00 pm., after having lunch, the deceased went to Vamsadhara river bund for answering natural calls where his head contact with live electrical line.

The said wires are not maintained at minimum height from the bund which showed the negligence on the part of the accused No. 1 & 2 so that the deceased electrocuted while climbing up the bund and collapsed. As a result, the deceased sustained burn injuries from chest to bottom, while undergoing treatment on 26.10.2018 around 12.40 pm the deceased died. Basing on the report of L.W.1,

L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Police, Kothuru P.S registered as a case in crime number 115/2018 under section 304-A

Indian Penal Code of Kothuru P.S and conducted investigation. L.W.15 verified the investigation of L.W.14 and he filed charge sheet. Hence the accusation.

15. Material on record show that P.W.1 resiled from her own statement made before the police at the earliest point of time. The evidence of remaining witnesses was given up by learned A.P.P. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish its case at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the report of P.W.1 itself established the case of the prosecution. When the contents of the report and other documents are not supported by the maker of the statement, the said report cannot be taken as piece of evidence to the alleged offence set against the accused No.

1 & 2. Here in this case the P.W.1 deposed that she do not know the facts of the case. P.W.1 admitted that she was not present at the time of incident and she do not know the incident occurred and she did not gave any report to the police. Therefore there is no proof of commission of alleged offences by the accused No. 1 & 2.

16. Upon reading the material on record this court holds that P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

7 no other witnesses were examined as such there is nothing on the record to show that accused No. 1 & 2 committed the alleged offence.

17. In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence under section 304-A

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused No. 1 & 2 shall be remain in force for a term six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this the 10 th day

of January’ 2020.

Sd /- B. Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Gedela Ramulamma.

For Defence:- - None -

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, dated 27.10.2018.

For Defence: - Nil -

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

8

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/- B.

Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

// True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr.

Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

INTHE COURTOFTHE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS ::

KOTHURU,

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

9

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT .

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 81 OF 2019 Date of Offence :25.08.2018 Date of Complaint or :27.10.2018 Report Date of Apprehension of :Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to A1 on Accused 01.11.2018 and A2 on Date of Release on Bail:02.12.2018

Date of Commencement of:06.12.2019 Trail Date of Close of Trail:06.12.2019 Date of Sentence or Order:10.01.2020 Explanation for Delay:Non appearance of the accused No. 1 & 2 and non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station in Cr.No. 115 of 2018. Name of the Accused No.1:Betha Srinivasarao, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged 52 years, Padmasali by Caste, N/o Alla Bank Collony, Rajamundry Urban, East Godavari District. Assistant Engineer,APEPDCL, ElectricalSubstation, Kothuru. Name of the Accused No.2:Valurouthu Rajarao, S/o Late Krishnamurthy, Aged 55 years, Kapu by Caste, Parapuram Village, Kothuru Mandal. Line Man, APEPDCL,Electrical Substation, Kothuru.

Offence : Punishable U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C against accused No. 1 & 2. [Sec. 304-A : Causing death by negligence]

Finding : Accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused No. 1 & 2 shall be remain in force for a term six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ - B. Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

10

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru. // True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr. Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

1

(D RAFT J UDGMENT )

I N THE C OURT OF THE J UDICIAL M AGISTRATE OF F IRST

C LASS :: K OTHURU

S RIKAKULAM D ISTRICT

Present : SMT. B. JYOTSNA JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF 1ST

CLASS

AMADALAVALASA (FAC)

KOTHURU

F RIDAY THE 20 TH OF DAY OF M ARCH ’ 2020

C.C. N O . 116 OF 2016

Between :

State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Bathili Police Station.

.… Complainant. And :

Patita Pavan Patra, S/o Ramachandra Patra, Odiya Brahmin by Caste, R/o Chinnaveedhi, Bathili Village of Bhamini Mandal.

…. Accused.

This case came up on 13.03.2020 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and of Sri. V. Pahalgnuna Rao, Advocate for the accused and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this case having stood over for consideration today, this court deliver the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathili Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 21/2015 against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 177 Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that

LW1/Manabala Seshagiri Rao and his family having land in

Vanna Village which having sand deposits. On that the accused who is a sand business man approached LW1 and

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

2 his family members for mining of sand from their lands.

After due discussion and deliberations they entered into agreement to that extent on 24.02.2014. Accordingly, the accused was mining the sand from the lands of LW1 by obtaining all Government permissions in the name of LW1 and doing business. The accused further mining sand from the lands of LW1 other than those mentioned in agreement and exploiting the minor mineral wealth of LW1 and his family, and the accused also not paying the amount of properly as per conditions the agreement dated 24.02.2014.

On that LW1 sought the help of LW3/P. Gangadhar Tilak and questioned the accused about his misuse of his position under the guise of agreement and exploiting the leased lands and non leased lands. On that the accused threatened LWs 1 to 3/ Manabala Seshagiri Rao, Manabala

Venugopala Rao and Gangadhar Tilak by booking false cases against them if questions him.

3.Accordingly the accused booked case against LWs 1 to 3 vide Cr.No. 43/2014 U/Sec. 406 & 506 of IPC of Bathili P.S by knowing furnishing false information to LW5 who is a public servant. LW5 after through investigation apprised the facts of the case to LW4 and as per the orders of

LW4/Ch. Santho, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Palakonda,

Srikakulam District, LW5/Ch. Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bathili P.S referred the case as false on 06.10.2014 vide C.No. 282/Ref/SDPO-p/2014, Dated 04.10.2014. LW5 served notice to the accused with the result of investigation, and the accused acknowledged the same, but he protest the matter. LW5 filed final report before the Hon’ble court treating the case as False.

4.During Annual Inspection on Bathili P.S the

Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District in his

Inspection notes dated 26.11.2014 instructed to LW5 to file a case against the accused U/Sec. 177 IPC for his furnish false information to public servant. Accordingly, LW5 filed a memo U/Sec. 155(1) Cr.P.C before the Hon’ble court of

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

3

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class at Kothuru with a request to

pass orders for registration of FIR and investigation against the accused (the then complainant in Cr.No. 43/2014) for knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant since the office is a non-cognizable and permission from the court is mandatory.

the deceased by name Gedela Ramu is 2nd son of

L.W.1/Gedela Srinu. L.W.s 1 & 2/Gedela Srinu and Gedela

Ramulamma are parents of deceased. The accused No.1 is

Assistant Engineer and Accused No.2 are Electrical

Department, Sub-Station, Kothuru. On 25.08.2018 around 01.00 pm., after having lunch, the deceased went to

Vamsadhara river bund for answering natural calls where his head contacted with live electrical line. Said wire were not maintained at minimum height from the bund which showed the negligence on the part of accused No. 1 & 2 so that the deceased electrocuted while climbing up the bund and collapsed. As a result, the deceased sustained burn injuries from chest to bottom. Immediately L.W.s 6 & 7/Durgasi Minnarao and Nelirouthu Jagadeeswara Rao and some others who were present there rushed and contacted sub-station, Kothuru and ensured to stop the current forthwith besides informed the same to L.W.1. Immediately the deceased was shifted to PHC, Kothuru for treatment again from there the deceased was referred to RIMS,

Srikakulam and thereafter he was referred to KGH,

Visakhapatnam for better treatment. While undergoing treatment on 26.10.2018 around 12.40 pm. deceased died.

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

4

3. L.W.1 report the incident to Kothuru P.S. Basing on the L.W.1’s report, L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Police,

Kothuru P.S registered as a case in crime number 115/2018 under section 304-A Indian Penal Code of Kothuru P.S on 27.10.2018 at 7.15 am., and he conducted investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, L.W.14 examined L.W.s 1 to 7 and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators viz., L.W.s 8 & 9/Lothugedda Bhagavandas, MPTC, Karlemma

Panchayat, took photographs of scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and also drafted the scene observation report.

He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives of deceased.

After inquest, L.W.14 forwarded the dead body of the deceased for autopsy.

5. During the course of investigation, L.W.15/Y.

Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S verified the investigation of L.W.14 and he took up further investigation in this case. L.W.15 issued notice under section 41-A

Criminal Procedure Code to accused No. 1 on 01.11.2018 and A2 on 02.12.2018.

6. L.W.13/Dr. N. Devchand, Assistant Professor, K.G.H,

Visakhapatnam conducted autopsy over the dad body of deceased and issued postmortem certificate with opinion that the cause of death is “septicemia as a complication of electrical burns”. After receipt of relevant documents and on completion of investigation, L.W.15 filed charge sheet.

Hence the case.

7.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code against the accused

No. 1 & 2. On their appearance before this court, the case copies as per under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code are furnished to them.

8.The accused No. 1 & 2 were examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code for the offence punishable

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

5 under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.To bring home the guilt of the accused No. 1 & 2, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Ex. P1. The evidence of L.W.1/Gedela Srinu was closed by this court as he died. L.W.3/Gedela Prasad, L.W.4/Gedela Appanna,

L.W.5/Gedela Simhachalam, L.W.6/Durgasi Minnarao,

L.W.7/NelirouthuJagadeeswararao,L.W.8/Lothugedda

Bhagavandas Naidu, L.W.9/ Eddu Krishnaprasad,

L.W.10/Munakala Santhoshkumar, L.W.11/Papusureddy

Venkatarao, L.W.12/Gedela Durgarao, L.W.13/Dr. N.

Devchand, Assistant Professor, KGH, Visakhapatnam,

L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Kothuru P.S and L.W.15/Y.

Ravikumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S were given up by learned A.P.P with an endorsement that parties compromise out of court.

10. During the course of trial, P.W.1 resiled from her own statement. She did not support the case of prosecution. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 the learned APP given up remaining witnesses. Therefore, there is no incriminating material against the accused. Hence there is no necessity to examine the accused under section 313 Criminal Procedure

Code.

11. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

12. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

13. In order to establish the case of prosecution, L.W.2 is examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 is marked. Ex.P1 is Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statement of L.W.2, dated 27.10.2018. Other

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

6 witnesses L.Ws. 3 to 15 were given up by learned A.P.P with an endorsement that parties compromise out of court.

14. As seen from the record, the case of prosecution is that on 25.08.2018 around 01.00 pm., after having lunch, the deceased went to Vamsadhara river bund for answering natural calls where his head contact with live electrical line.

The said wires are not maintained at minimum height from the bund which showed the negligence on the part of the accused No. 1 & 2 so that the deceased electrocuted while climbing up the bund and collapsed. As a result, the deceased sustained burn injuries from chest to bottom, while undergoing treatment on 26.10.2018 around 12.40 pm the deceased died. Basing on the report of L.W.1,

L.W.14/M. Prasad, ASI-672 of Police, Kothuru P.S registered as a case in crime number 115/2018 under section 304-A

Indian Penal Code of Kothuru P.S and conducted investigation. L.W.15 verified the investigation of L.W.14 and he filed charge sheet. Hence the accusation.

15. Material on record show that P.W.1 resiled from her own statement made before the police at the earliest point of time. The evidence of remaining witnesses was given up by learned A.P.P. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish its case at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the report of P.W.1 itself established the case of the prosecution. When the contents of the report and other documents are not supported by the maker of the statement, the said report cannot be taken as piece of evidence to the alleged offence set against the accused No.

1 & 2. Here in this case the P.W.1 deposed that she do not know the facts of the case. P.W.1 admitted that she was not present at the time of incident and she do not know the incident occurred and she did not gave any report to the police. Therefore there is no proof of commission of alleged offences by the accused No. 1 & 2.

16. Upon reading the material on record this court holds that P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

7 no other witnesses were examined as such there is nothing on the record to show that accused No. 1 & 2 committed the alleged offence.

17. In the light of above discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence under section 304-A

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, the accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused No. 1 & 2 shall be remain in force for a term six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this the 10 th day

of January’ 2020.

Sd /- B. Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Gedela Ramulamma.

For Defence:- - None -

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, dated 27.10.2018.

For Defence: - Nil -

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

8

Material Objects Marked

- Nil -

Sd/- B.

Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru.

// True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr.

Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Srikakulam.

Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

INTHE COURTOFTHE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS ::

KOTHURU,

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

9

SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT .

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 81 OF 2019 Date of Offence :25.08.2018 Date of Complaint or :27.10.2018 Report Date of Apprehension of :Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to A1 on Accused 01.11.2018 and A2 on Date of Release on Bail:02.12.2018

Date of Commencement of:06.12.2019 Trail Date of Close of Trail:06.12.2019 Date of Sentence or Order:10.01.2020 Explanation for Delay:Non appearance of the accused No. 1 & 2 and non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the Complainant:State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station in Cr.No. 115 of 2018. Name of the Accused No.1:Betha Srinivasarao, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged 52 years, Padmasali by Caste, N/o Alla Bank Collony, Rajamundry Urban, East Godavari District. Assistant Engineer,APEPDCL, ElectricalSubstation, Kothuru. Name of the Accused No.2:Valurouthu Rajarao, S/o Late Krishnamurthy, Aged 55 years, Kapu by Caste, Parapuram Village, Kothuru Mandal. Line Man, APEPDCL,Electrical Substation, Kothuru.

Offence : Punishable U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C against accused No. 1 & 2. [Sec. 304-A : Causing death by negligence]

Finding : Accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code for the above said offence. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused No. 1 & 2 shall be remain in force for a term six months as per section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code and stand cancelled after the lapse of appeal time.

Sd/ - B. Jyotsna, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.

10

Amadalavalasa, (FAC) Kothuru. // True Copy //

JMFC/ADV (FAC) Ktr. Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

C.C. 116 of 2016 J.M.F.C Kothuru.