Smt.c.r.sumalatha, B.sc., L.l.b.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. C.R. Sumalatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Thursday, this the 27th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 240 of 2012.

Between: STATE: Sub – Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Ramkuri Raja s/o Bhikshalu, 50 years, SC Madiga, Cooly, S.N.Padu village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Vankayalapati Mark s/o Ramaiah, 51 years, SC Madiga, Cooly, S.N.Padu village & Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming up on 24.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri G.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub – Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of IPC in Cr.No.105/2012 of S.N.Padu Police Station.

2. The brief accusation against the accused is that; The Hon'ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued orders to remove the unauthorized huts raised in the land covered under S.No.306/2 of

S.N.Padu village vide Writ petition No.35044/2012. Accordingly on 08.12.2012 the revenue authorities i.e., L.w.1-Kakarla Kasaiah, Revenue

Inspector, S.N.Padu village i.e., P.w.1, L.w.2-Kaku Ravi Kumar, Village

Revenue Officer, Pernamitta-II, L.w.3-Annavarapu Koteswara Rao,

Village Revenue Assistant, B.Machavaram village I.e., P.w.2 and L.w.4-

Banka Brahmaiah, Talari of Mangamur village and some others along with police force L.w.5-D.Narasaiah, P.C.343 i.e., P.w.3, L.w.6- 2 N.Chenchu Ramaiah, P.C.1530, and L.w.7-R.Sri Hari, A.S.I.369 i.e.,

P.w.5 and some other police officials, while removing the huts belonging to SC Madiga community people, A1 poured kerosene over his body and threatened that he will commit suicide if the huts are removed, A2 abated A1 to lit the fire, while A1 is trying to lit fire, the police people

P.w.3, P.w.5 and L.w.6 entered the scene and arrested A1 and A2 at 10- 30 A.M. in the presence of P.w.1, P.w.2, L.w.2 and L.w.4 and seized one liter kerosene bottle containing small quantity of kerosene under the cover of mediatornama. L.w.8-K.Arogya Raju, S.I. of Police, S.N.Padu

P.S. i.e., P.w.4 sent the mediatornama along with A1 and A2 to S.N.Padu police station instructing P.w.5 to register a case. On the instructions of

P.w.4, P.w.5 registered the mediatornama as a case in Cr.No.105/2012 u/s.309, 506 r/w 109 IPC on the same day at 11-00 A.M., submitted original FIR to the Court and copies to all concerned and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, P.w.4 examined P.w.1 to P.w.3,

L.w.2, L.w.4 and L.w.6, and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He forwarded the accused to the Court for remand.

After completion of investigation, P.w.4 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

2.Cognizance was taken for the offences U/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of

IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3.When accused are examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/s.309, 506 r/w 109 they pleaded not guilty for the said 3 offence and claimed to be tried and read over the substance of accusation and explained to them in Telugu.

4.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined P.w.1 to

P.w.5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3.

5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, and stated that they did not commit any offence and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

7.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused for the offences U/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point :

8.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution got examined

P.w.1 to P.w.5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. Among them, P.w.1 and

P.w.2 are mediators for the arrest of accused, P.w.3 is the P.C.343 who assisted P.w.4-S.I. of Police, S.N.Padu P.S. who is defacto complainant- cum-investigating officer, P.w.5 is the A.S.I. of Police, S.N.Padu P.S. who registered the case basing on the mediators report.

9.Perused the evidence of P.ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P.1 to P.3, there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4 with regard to

A1 threatening revenue officials by pouring kerosene on himself with an intent to commit suicide and A2 instigated A1 to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on himself.

4

10.P.w.1 who is Revenue Inspector, who is cited as one of the mediators for the arrest of accused stated that on 08.12.2012 at 09-00

A.M. while they were removing unauthorized huts in the land covered under S.No.306/2 of S.N.Padu village and when they went near the hut of A1 to remove the same, A1 picked up keresene bottle and poured kerosene on himself threatening them that if they remove his hut he will set fire to himself and he will commit suicide and A2 instigated A1 to pour kerosene on himself.

11.Whereas P.w.2 who is Village Assistant who said to have been present along with P.w.1 at the scene of offence at the time of alleged removal of unauthorized huts and arrest of accused stated that when they went near the hut of A1 to remove the same, A1 picked up a kerosene bottle and threatened them that he will pour kerosene on himself and he will set fire if they remove his hut, then they pushed A1 aside and they removed A1's hut and police who were present there came and stopped A1 from pouring kerosene on himself and setting fire.

12.It is therefore, from the evidence of P.w.2, it is very clear that A1 never poured kerosene on himself and he only threatened them that he will pour kerosene on himself and he will set fire if they remove his hut and in spit of that they pushed A1 aside and they removed A1's hut.

Further P.w.2 in his evidence never stated that A2 instigated A1 to pour kerosene on himself. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.w.1 and P.w.2 creates doubt whether A1 poured kerosene on himself or not and whether A2 instigated A1 to pour kerosene on himself or not.

13.Further prosecution also examined P.w.4 who is Sub-Inspector of

Police, S.N.Padu P.S. stated that on 08.12.2012 at 08-30 A.M. he received requisition from Mandal Revenue Officer of S.N.Padu village to 5 provide protection at the time of evicting unauthorized occupiers by removing unauthorized huts in the land covered under S.No.306/2 of

S.N.Padu village, he intimated the same to his the then Inspector of

Police V.Bhushanam and proceeded to the land covered under

S.No.306/2 and at about 10-00 A.M. while revenue employees wen near the hut of A1 to remove the same, A1 holding a kerosene bottle warned them that he will commit suicide by setting fire, A2 instigated A1 to commit suicide by setting fire otherwise they will not stop removal of his hut, on that A1 poured kerosene on himself and when A1 is about to lit fire he stopped him and he seized kerosene bottle from the accused under the cover of mediators report in the presence of P.w.1, P.w.2,

L.w.2 and L.w.4.

14.Prosecution also examined P.w.3 who said to have present at the scene of offence along with P.w.4 to provide police protection at the time of removal of unauthorized huts by revenue officials, P.w.3 stated that on 08-12-2012 at about 10-00 A.M., when the revenue employees went near the hut belonging the hut of A1 to remove the same, A1 holding a kerosene bottle warned the revenue employees that if they tried to remove his hut he will commit suicide by pouring kerosene on himself and on the instigation of A2, A1 poured kerosene on himself and when he is about to lit the matchstick, P.w.4 went near A1 and stopped him from litting fire.

15.It is therefore from the evidence of P.w.3 and P.w.4 it is very clear that when the revenue employees went near the hut of A1 to remove the same, A1 holding a kerosene bottle warned them that he will commit suicide by pouring kerosene on himself if they remove his hut and on the instigation of A2 that if he did not commit suicide by setting fire they will not stop removal of his huts, on that A1 poured kerosene on himself and 6 when he is about to lit fire P.w.4 stopped him. But P.w.1 and P.w.2 who said to have been present at the scene of offence along with P.w.3 and

P.w.4 in their evidence never stated that A1 litted match stick to set fire and at that time P.w.4 stopped A1 from setting fire. There are several contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.w.1 to

P.w.4 with regard to A1 pouring kerosene on himself when revenue officials went near the hut of A1 to remove the same and A2 instigated

A1 to set fire and A1 litted matchstick with an intent to commit suicide and it creates doubt whether A1 poured kerosene on himself and whether

A1 litted match stick to commit suicide or not and whether P.w.3 stopped

A1 from setting fire or not.

16.At this juncture it is pertinent to rely upon the decision reported in

1998(1) ALT (Crl.) 337 (A.P.) Between : Lalitha and others Vs

State of Andhra Pradesh. In para 3 it is held that

“Considering the facts and circumstances in this case, it

cannot be said that the petitioners had resorted to hunger

strike with a view to commit suicide. Even in the FIR

based on the complaint of the Women and Child Welfare

Officer, there is no mention that these petitioners went on

hunger strike till death. The peculiar difficulty of

committing suicide by starvation is that it is a long drawn

out process, which can be interrupted or given up at any

stage. Unless there is some overt declaration by the

accused of his intention of fast to death, it is difficult to be

shown that he really intended to persevere to the bitter

end. Even if there is such an intention at the beginning,

one has always to make allowance for the possibility of the

accused changing his mind and breaking his fast before it

becomes dangerous. If a person openly declares that he

will fast to death and then proceeds to refuse on

nourishment until the stage is reached when there is

imminent danger of death ensuing, it can be said that the

intention of the accused was to commit suicide by

7

starvation. But, where there is no open reached where it

has become dangerous, it cannot be inferred that the

intention of undertaking fast is commit suicide. It is

common knowledge that many a time the inmates of a

prison would resort to hunger strike only for a limited

period with a view to exert pressure on the authorities by

the public opinion to remedy their grievances and give up

that fasting before they are taking any real danger of

succumbing to starvation. Considering the circumstances

in this case, it is only when the minimum facilities were

not provided to the petitioners in the Welfare Home they

were detained, they resorted to hunger strike. Further, as

earlier stated, it is nowhere stated in the FIR that the

petitioners openly declared that they had decided to fast

until death. Further, by the time when the report was

given, they were on hunger strike for about only 48 hours

and it cannot be said that at that stage, the lives of these

petitioners were in danger. The evidence on record goes

to show that the petitioners abstained from taking food for

2 days or 3 days with an object of giving pressure to bear

on the authorities so as to force them to remedy their

grievances by providing adequate facilities. There is

nothing on record to show that the petitioners ever

intended to carry on the fast until death. Under these

circumstances, the ingredients of Section 309 IPC are not

made out and the proceedings initiated against these

petitioners in Crime No.250/97 of P.S.

Sanjeevareddynager, Hyderabad for the offence under

section 309 IPC are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the

proceedings in Crime No.250/97 P.S.

Sanjeevareddynager, Hyderabad Petition allowed.”

17.The above reported decision is aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence on record in the present case also goes to show that A1 warned the revenue officials that he will pour kerosene on himself and he will set fire if they remove his hut with an object of giving pressure to bare on the revenue officials so as to 8 force them to not to remove his hut and there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that with an intent to commit suicide poured kerosene on himself and threatened the revenue officials with dire consequences.

18.It is therefore, under these circumstances the ingredients of

Sec.309 is not attracted and there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that A2 instigated A1 to commit suicide by setting fire.

19.At this juncture it is pertinent to rely upon a decision reported in

2003(1) ALT (Crl.) 95 (A.P.), Between Gurajala Ramesh and

others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh. In para 17 of above reported decision it is held that

“In the circumstances, it is manifest, that, illegality was

committed by the same Police Officer, who detected, or,

found, the offence, or, crime, also giving the FIR,

recording the statements of the witnesses under section

161(3) Cr.P.C., 1973, and also otherwise investigating into

the crime, and finally, filing the charge-sheet, and giving

evidence as Pw.3.” and convictions and sentences are

illegal, incorrect and improper.

20.The above reported decision is aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case also P.w.4 is police officer who detected the offence and investigated into the case and examined the witnesses filed charge sheet, which is fatal to the case of prosecution and certainly there is possibility of causing prejudice to the accused. In the light of above discussion it could be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and they are acquitted 9 u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 27 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Kakarla Kasaiah, - NIL - P.W.2: Annavarapu Koteswara Rao, P.W.3: D.Narasaiah, P.C. P.W.4: K.Arogya Raju, S.I. P.W.5: R.Sri Hari, A.S.I.

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Mediatornama dt.08.12.2012 Ex.P2: Original FIR in Cr.No.105/2012 of S.N.Padu P.S. Ex.P3: Rough sketch in Cr.No.105/2012 of S.N.Padu P.S.

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- NIL -

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court,

Ongole.

10

CALENDAR in C.C. No.240 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF SPL., J.M.F.C., EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

01.Date of offence: 08.12.2012

02.Date of report/complaint: 08.12.2012

03.Date of appearance of accused: 27.02.2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 10.12.2012

05.Date of commencement of trial: 30.01.2014

06.Date of close of trial: 19.03.2014

07.Date of Judgment: 27-03-2014

08.Complainant:- State Sub Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. (Cr.No.105/2012)

09.Description of Accused:

1. Ramkuri Raja s/o Bhikshalu, 50 years, SC Madiga, Cooly, S.N.Padu village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Vankayalapati Mark s/o Ramaiah, 51 years, SC Madiga, Cooly, S.N.Padu village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: U/s 309, 506 r/w 109 IPC

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.309, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and they are acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount:-- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 13.12.2012. On 27.02.2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 19.03.2013 accused were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences u/s.309, 506 r/w 109 IPC, and case was posted for trial. On 30.01.2014 P.w.1 & P.w.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 marked; on 21.02.2014 P.w.3 & P.w.4 examined and Exs.P.2 & P.3 marked; on 18.03.2014 P.w.5 examined and prosecution side evidence was closed and posted the matter for examination of accused. On 19.03.2014 the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 24.03.2014 heard arguments. On 27.03.2013 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt C.R. Sumalatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 225 of 2012. Between:

STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. ….Complainant

And

1. Shaik Shukur s/o Pakeer Ahammed, 60 years, Dudekula by caste, Chirvanuppalapadu village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Shaik Arifulla s/o Shukur, 30 years, Dudekula by caste, Chirvanuppalapadu village, N.G.Padu

Mandal, Prakasam District. ... Accused.

This case is coming up on 24.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC in

Cr.No.101/2012 of N.G.Padu police station on the following allegations in brief:-

2.That L.w.2-Shaik Ismail i.e., P.w.2 and Accused No.1 are own brothers and there are some disputes pending between their families.

While A1 and A2 are constructing a tiled house beside the house of

P.w.2. On 20.09.2012 at 12-30 hours as per the directions of A1 and

A2, L.w.5-Thokala Premkumar @ Chinna and L.w.6-Sirimalla Yesubabu i.e., P.w.4 and P.w.5 who are mason workers while fixing the window frame to the southern side wall of said house, the wife of P.w.2 i.e.,

L.w.1-Shaik Hussain Bee (P.w.1) informed the accused that they have 2 no site on the southern side and advised them to fix the window frames inside their house, and A1 replied to her that he is having 4 inches of site on the southern side and started to fix the window frame. In this regard a verbal altercation took place between them, on that A1 and A2 pushed P.w.1. Then P.w.2, L.w.3-Shak Khadar Basha ie., P.w.3, L.w.4-

Shaik Mabu Subhani i.e., P.w.4 questioned the accused about their highhanded behaviour against P.w.1, on that A1 beat P.w.2 over his shoulder and also beat P.w.3 over left hand fingers when P.w.4 tried to rescue them, A2 beat P.w.4 with stick over his right hand wrist and caused injury, A1 also beat P.w.1 with a brick on the left side of her head and caused bleeding injury, and the accused fled away from the place. Later P.w.1 went to the police station and gave report about the occurrence. L.w.8-D.Ranganadh, S.I. of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. i.e.,

P.w.8 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.101/2012 u/s.324 r/w 34

IPC, submitted original FIR to the Court and copies to all concerned and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, P.w.8 visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined P.w.1 to P.w.6 and recorded their statements. On 24.09.2012 at 02-00 P.M. P.w.8 arrested A1 and A2 on their surrender before him and released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. L.w.7-Dr. G.V.Subba Rao, Medical Officer treated

P.w.1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries received by

P.w.1 are simple in nature. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, P.w.8 laid charge sheet in this case. Hence the accusation.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 324 r/w 34

IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

4.When accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sec.324 of IPC, they pleaded not guilty for the said offence and claimed to be tried and charge framed as contemplated u/s.240 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the above said offence and read over the substance of charges and explained to them in Telugu.

5.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined P.w.1 to

P.w.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, and stated that they did not commit any offence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is :- Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused for the offence u/s.324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point :

9.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined P.w.1 to P.w.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6. Among them, P.w.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-injured victim, P.w.2 to P.w.4 are also injured victims in this case, P.w.5 and P.w.6 are independent eye witnesses,

P.w.7 is the Medical Officer, P.w.8 is the Investigating officer.

10.Perused the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.8 and Exs.P.1 to P.6, P.w.1 who is the defacto complainant-cum-injured victim in this case in his evidence stated that on 20.09.2012 at 12-30 noon A1 and A2 tried to fix a window to his house facing towards the house of P.w.1, when she 4 objected for fixing window, A1 grew wild and abused P.w.1 in filthy language, when P.w.2 came there and questioned A1 for abusing her and for fixing window A1 beat P.w.2 with a stick on his both shoulders, when P.w.3 and P.w.4 came there and questioned A1 for beating P.w.2,

A1 also beat P.w.3 with a stick over his left hand, A2 beat P.w.4 with a stick on his right hand and when she interfered A1 throwed a brick on her and as a result she sustained injury on temporal region, thereafter she went to police station and gave report Ex.P.1 to the police.

11.A perusal of contents of Ex.P.1 goes to show that on 20.09.2012 at about 12-30 P.M. A1 who was constructing a house on the northern side of their house fixed window projecting window doors into their site, when she asked A1 to fix window doors projecting inside their house as he has no site on the southern side of his house, A1 grew wild and abused P.w.1 in filthy language, on hearing the same P.w.2 to P.w.4 came there, P.w.2 questioned A1 for abusing her, then A1 picked up a stick and beat P.w.2 on his both shoulders, when P.w.3 interfered A1 beat P.w.3 on his right hand fingers due to that P.w.3 sustained swelling injury, when P.w.4 interfered A2 beat P.w.4 on his right hand wrist and he sustained minor injuries, when she went to his rescue, A1 beat her with a brick over right side of her head and due to that she sustained bleeding injury.

12.The evidence of P.w.1 is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P.1 in all material aspects with regard the date of offence, time of offence and scene of offence and participation of A1 and A2 in commission of offence and A1 beating P.w.1 to P.w.3 and A2 beating P.w.4 and A1 causing bleeding injuries to P.w.1 over head.

5

13.Prosecution also examined P.w.2 to P.w.4 who are also cited as victims in this case, P.w.2, P.w.3 and P.w.4 in their evidence categorically stated that on 20.09.2012 at about 12-30 noon the offence took place when they objected A1 for fixing window, P.w.2 to P.w.4 stated that A1 beat P.w.2 with stick on his both shoulders and A2 beat

P.w.3 with stick on his right hand dorsum. P.w.2 and P.w.4 stated that

A2 beat P.w.3 with stick on his right hand but P.w.4 stated that A2 beat

P.w.3 on his left hand fingers. Further P.w.2 and P.w.4 stated that A2 beat P.w.4 with a stick on his right hand wrist, but P.w.3 stated that A2 beat P.w.4 on his both hands with stick. Further P.w.2 to P.w.4 in their evidence stated that when P.w.1 came to their rescue A1 beat P.w.1 with a brick over her head and caused injury, on that they went police station and gave report.

14.There are minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4 with regard to A2 beating P.w.3 over his left/right hand and A2 beating

P.w.4 on right hand or on both hands. Generally when there are several victims and accused and all the accused participated in the commission of offence, it is not possible for witnesses to state specifically the seat of injuries caused to P.w.1 to P.w.4 and which accused is responsible for causing specific injury and there is every possibility of above discrepancies.

15.Prosecution also examined P.w.5 and P.w.6 who are cited as independent eye witnesses, they deposed that on 20.09.2012 they attended mason work for the construction of house of accused, at about 12-00 noon while they were fixing window to the southern side wall of house of accused, at that time one lady who is residing adjacent to the house of accused came there and objected them from fixing the window as the accused has no site on the southern side, in the meanwhile the 6 accused came there and asked them to fix the window, but they did not fix the window and kept the same aside and informed the same to their

Mastry and went away. It is therefore, from the evidence of P.w.5 and

P.w.6 it is very clear that on 20.09.2012 at 12-00 noon while they were fixing window to the southern side wall of house of accused, the adjacent nighbourer objected for fixing window as accused has no site, in spite of that accused asked them to fix window stating that he has site on southern side of his house. It is therefore from the evidence of

P.w.1 to P.w.6, it is categorically established that A1 beat P.w.1 to P.w.3 and A2 beat P.w.4 and accused caused injuries to P.w.1 to P.w.4.

16.Prosecution also examined P.w.8 Investigation officer in this case, he deposed that on 20.09.2012 at 02-00 P.M. while he was present in the police station, P.w.1 came to the police station and gave report

Ex.P.1. A perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that on 20.09.2012 at 02-00 P.M.

P.w.8 registered the case and he examined her and he referred P.w.1 to the hospital. The evidence of P.w.7-Medical Officer is that he examined

P.w.1 on 20.09.2012 at 03-40 P.M. and found a lacerated injury of 1” x 1/4” x bone deep surrounded by 2” diameter contusion on left temporal region and complaining of pain on left shoulder and he opined that the age of injuries is 3 to 6 hours prior to the examination. It is therefore, according to P.w.1 to P.w.6 the alleged was happened at 12-30 P.M. and

P.w.1 gave report to P.w.8 on the same day at 02-00 P.M., and P.w.8 referred P.w.1 alone referred to hospital and at the hospital P.w.7 examined P.w.1 on the same day at 03-40 P.M. and the age of injuries found is also 3 to 6 hours prior to her examination. Therefore, there is no delay in giving report to the police and the time of injury is corroborated with the age of injuries sustained by P.w.1. Further there is no explanation from P.w.8 as to why he did not refer P.w.2 to P.w.4 7 to the Medical examination, though the contents of Ex.P.1 is very clear that A1 beat P.w.2 with stick on his both shoulder, A1 also beat P.w.3 on his right hand fingers and A2 beat P.w.4 on his right hand wrist, it is for the reasons best known to P.w.8 and due to the lapse on the part of

P.w.8 in referring P.w.2 to P.w.4 to the Medical Officer, the case of the victims should not be suffered.

17.It is therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it could be safely concluded that on 20.09.2012 at about 12-30 P.M. A1 and A2 beat P.w.1 to P.w.4 and A1 caused injury to P.w.1 over her head.

18.In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.324 of IPC; and they are convicted under Sec.248 (2)

Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Dictated to the Personal Asst., transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

When questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them, A1 stated that he is having two unmarried daughters and he has to perform their marriage, his old aged parents are bedridden, he is looking after their welfare by doing coolie works and he is the sole breadwinner of his family, if he went behind the bars his family will be on street; A2 stated that he is having one male and female child who are school going children and his wife is suffering from heart problem and underwent surgery, he is looking after their welfare by doing coolie works and he is the sole bread winner of his family, if he went behind the bars his family will be on street and pleaded mercy to take a lenient view from this Court. Taking into consideration the plea of 8 the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case and nature of injuries sustained by P.w.1, this Court took a lenient view in imposing sentence on him according to the nature of offence and case facts.

In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence u/s.324 of

IPC, in default, Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month each.

Total Fine amount is Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). As there is no property in this case, hence no specific property order is passed.

Accused is having right to file appeal before the appellant Court concerned.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Shaik Hussain Bee,- NIL - P.W.2: Shaik Ismail, P.W.3: Shaik Khadar Basha, P.W.4: Shaik Mabu Subhani, P.W.5: Thokala Premkumar, P.W.6: Sirimalla Yesubabu, P.W.7: Dr. G.V.Subba Rao, P.W.8: D.Ranganath, S.I.

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report given by P.w.1 to the Police. Ex.P2: Some relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.5. Ex.P3: Some relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.6. Ex.P4: Wound Certificate of P.w.1. Ex.P5: Original FIR in Cr.No.101/2012 of N.G.Padu P.S. Ex.P6: Rough sketch in Cr.No.101/2012 of N.G.Padu P.S.

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court,

Ongole.

9

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 225 of 2012.

IN THE COURT OF SPL., J.M.F.C., EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

01.Date of offence: 20.09.2012

02.Date of report/complaint: 20.09.2012

03.Date of appearance of accused: 26.02.2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: Station Bail.

05.Date of commencement of trial: 09.05.2013

06.Date of close of trial: 22.03.2014

07.Date of Judgment: 26-03-2014

08.Complainant:- State: Sub-Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. (Cr.No.101/2012)

09.Description of Accused:

1. Shaik Shukur s/o Pakeer Ahammed, 60 years, Dudekula by caste, Chirvanuppalapadu village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Shaik Arifulla s/o Shukur, 30 years, Dudekula by caste, Chirvanuppalapadu village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: U/s 324 IPC

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12. Finding of the Court: Found guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.324 of IPC; and they are convicted under Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Accused A1 and A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence u/s.324 of IPC, in default, Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month each. Total Fine amount is Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). As there is no property in this case, hence no specific property order is passed. Accused is having right to file appeal before the appellant Court concerned.

14.Fine amount:-- Fine amount of Rs.2,000/- paid on 26.03.2014.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 07.12.2012. On 26.02.2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 19.03.2013 accused were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences u/s.324 IPC, and case was posted for trial. On 09.05.2013 P.w.1 to P.w.3 examined in chief and Ex.P.1 marked; on 05.06.2013 P.w.4 to P.w.6 examined and Ex.P.2 and P.3 marked; on 02.07.2013 P.w.7 and P.w.8 examined in chief, Exs.P.4 to P.6 marked; on 26.02.2014 P.w.1 to P.w.3 are cross-examined; on 21.03.2014 P.w.8 was cross-examined and prosecution side evidence is closed; on 22.03.2014 the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 24.03.2014 heard arguments and posted the matter for Judgment. On 26.03.2014 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. C.R. Sumalatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 33 of 2013.

Between:

STATE: Sub – Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Pallepati Srinu s/o Seshaiah @ Adiseshu, 40 years, Madiga by caste, Lorry Driver, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Pallepati Adiseshu s/o Srinu, 22 years, Madiga by Caste, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal.

3. Pallepati Punna Rao s/o Subba Rao, 28 years, Madiga by caste, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming up on 21.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri A.Sudhakara Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub–Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC, in

Cr.No.07/2013 of S.N.Padu Police Station.

2. The brief accusation against the accused is that; L.w.1-Vankayalapati

Giri Babu i.e., P.w.1 and accused A1 are having house sites near the BT road of Yendlur village. P.w.1 sold away the Japan Babul bushes raised in his 10 cents of land to L.w.3-Kasukurthy Punnaiah i.e., P.w.4. While so, on 25.01.2013 at 09-00 A.M. P.w.1 along with P.w.4 went to the said land to show the said bushes, at that time A1 came there, picked 2 up quarrel with P.w.1 and abused him in filthy language and stated that the said land belongs to him and A1 went away. Again A1 along with A2 and A3 came there, picked up quarrel with P.w.1, A1 beat P.w.1 with an axe over his head, while A2 caught hold the hands of P.w.1, A3 beat him with stick over his head and caused bleeding injury on his head, later A1 to A3 beat P.w.1 with hands and legs indiscriminately. L.w.2-

Vankayalapati Thirupalu and L.w.4-Kaka Narasimha Rao i.e., P.w.2 and

P.w.3 witnessed the incident and rescued P.w.1 from the hands of accused and shifted him to the RIMS Hospital, Ongole for treatment. On receipt of hospital intimation, L.w.6-G.Muralidhara Rao, H.C.603 i.e.,

P.w.5 rushed to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, recorded the statement of P.w.1 and forwarded the same to the S.H.O., S.N.Padu P.S. on point of jurisdiction. L.w.7-Shaik Mastan, H.C.230 i.e., P.w.6 received the statement of P.w.1 along with hospital intimation and registered it as a case in Cr.No.07/2013 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC, submitted original FIR to the

Court and copies to all concerned and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, P.w.6 visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined P.w.1 to P.w.4 and recorded their statements. L.w.8-K.Arogya Raju, S.I. of Police, S.N.Padu P.S. i.e.,

P.w.7 verified the investigation done by P.w.7 and found it on correct lines and took up further investigation. On 06.01.2013 P.w.7 arrested the accused A1 to A3 in Yendlur village and produced them before the

Court for remand. L.w.5-Dr.M.Ramachandra Rao, Medical Officer i.e.,

P.w.8 examined P.w.1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries received by P.w.1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, P.w.7 laid charge sheet in this case for the offence punishable under Secs.324 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the accusation.

3

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.When accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sec.324 of IPC against A1 and A3 and u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC against A2, they pleaded not guilty for the said offence and claimed to be tried and charges framed as contemplated u/s.240 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the above said offence and read over the substance of charges and explained to them in Telugu.

5.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined P.w.1 to

P.w.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, and stated that they did not commit any offence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against A1 and A3 for the charge u/s.324 IPC against A2 for the charge u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point :

9.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution got examined

P.w.1 to P.w.8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Among them, P.w.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-injured victim, P.w.2 to P.w.4 eye 4 witnesses, P.w.5 is the H.C.603 who recorded the statement of P.w.1 at the hospital, P.w.6 and P.w.7 are investigating officers, P.w.8 is the

Medical Officer.

10.Perused the evidence of P.ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P.1 to P.5, P.w.1 who is the defacto complainant-cum-injured victim in this case in his evidence deposed that on 25.05.2013 at about 09-00 A.M. while he was removing bushes in his vacant site on the western side of his house and

P.w.4 is cutting waste plants and trees, A1 came there and threatened him saying “NAA KODAKA MAA STHALAMLO CHETLU KODATHAVU

YENDUKU” when he replied that the said site belongs to him, A1 went and brought A2 and A3 and they questioned him for cutting bushes and trees, A2 caught hold his hand and A1 picked up an axe and beat him with blunt edge over his head and due to that he sustained injury, when

A3 tried to beat him with a stick, he caught hold the stick and he escaped the blow, when he fell down on the ground, all the accused beat him with hands and legs, P.w.2 and P.w.3 who came there shifted him to RIMS Hospital, Ongole for treatment, there police examined him and recorded his statement Ex.P.1.

11.A perusal of contents of Ex.P.1 shows that on 25.01.2013 at about 09-00 A.M. while he was showing boundary of his property, while P.w.4 is cutting trees, A1 came there and abused him in filthy language and obstructed to cut the trees, when P.w.1 stated to A1 that he is cutting tress within his boundary, A1 left the scene abusing him and brought A2 and A3, A1 to A3 abused him, A2 bent his hands and caught hold from his back, A1 beat him with an axe over right of his head and caused bleeding injury, when A3 tried to beat him with stick, he placed his right hand to escape the blow and the stick hit to his right hand and he 5 sustained swelling injury to his middle finger, then all the accused beat

P.w.1 with hands and legs, P.w.2 and P.w.4 who came there shifted him to RIMS Hospital, Ongole for treatment.

12.There are discrepancies in the evidence of P.w.1 with the contents of Ex.P.1, P.w.1 in his evidence stated that when A3 tried to beat him with stick, he caught hold the stick and he escaped the blow, whereas the contents of Ex.P.1 is that when A3 tried to beat him with stick he placed his right hand to escape the blow and the stick hit to his right hand and he sustained swelling injury to his middle finger and A1 to A3 abused him in filthy language. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.w.1 and the contents of Ex.P.1 are not minor discrepancies and it creates doubt whether A1 to A3 abused P.w.1 and whether A3 escaped from the blow by caught holding the stick or P.w.1 placed his hand to escape the blow and sustained injury to middle finger. If really A1 to A3 abused P.w.1, certainly P.w.1 in his evidence could have stated that A1 to A3 abused him and P.w.1 could have also stated that he sustained swelling injury to his middle finger and it creates doubt about the veracity and creditworthiness of evidence of P.w.1.

13.Prosecution also examined P.w.2 to P.w.4 to prove that on 25.01.2013 at 09-00 A.M. A1 to A3 beat P.w.1 and A1 caused injury to

P.w.1 over his head by beating him with an axe, P.w.2 stated that nearly 5 months back at about 09-00 A.M. while P.w.1 was cutting trees in the old site of P.w.1 and he is attending work in his land adjacent to the land of P.w.1, at that time A1 came there and questioned P.w.1 as to why he is cutting the trees and abused P.w.1, he separated both P.w1 and A1, then A1 left the scene and again A1 came to the scene along with A2 and A3, A1 beat P.w.1 with blunt edge of an axe over his head and caused bleeding injury, A3 also beat P.w.1 with a stick when A2 6 caught hold P.w.1 at the time when A1 and A3 beat P.w.1, then he along with P.w.3 took P.w.1 to the hospital. P.w.3 stated that on 25.01.2013 at about 09-00 A.M. a galata took place between P.w.1 and accused at the house sites of accused and P.w.1 with regard to cutting of waste plants and trees, while P.w.4 is cutting bushes and trees, A1 to

A3 came there and questioned P.w.1 as to why he permitted P.w.4 to remove plants and trees in the land belongs to them, on that an altercation took place between P.w.1 and accused and they scuffled with each other and on seeing the same he along with P.w.2 and P.w.3 separated them and sent P.w.1 along with P.w.2 in an auto from the scene of offence, in the said altercation P.w.1 sustained bleeding injury over right side of his head when A3 beat him with a stick. P.w.4 stated that on 25.01.2013 at about 09-00 A.M. while he was cutting trees which he purchased from P.w.1, A1 came there and when A1 and P.w.1 are arguing with each other he left the scene. Therefore, P.w.4 in his evidence never stated that A1 beat P.w.1 with an axe over his head and causing injuries to P.w.1 and A2 and A3 were also present along with A1 and they also participated in the commission of offence.

14.There are several material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4 with regard to A1 beating P.w.1 with an axe over his head and A3 beating P.w.1 with a stick and all the accused beating P.w.1 with hands and legs. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4 are not minor discrepancies and it goes to the root of the case and discredits the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.4.

15.The contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that

P.w.1, P.w.2 and P.w.4 are related to each other and they are figured as accused in a criminal case lodged by A1 and taking advantage of injuries 7 sustained by P.w.1 when fallen on ground by slipping and a suggestion to that effect is also put to P.w.1 to P.w.3, P.w.1 to P.w.3 admitted their relationship with each other and filing of criminal case against them by

A1 and denied the foisting of this case against the accused taking advantage of injuries sustained by P.w.1 when fallen on ground by slipping. Further during cross-examination of P.w.8-Medical Officer a suggestion was also put to P.w.8 with regard to possibility of sustaining the injuries sustained by P.w.1 when fallen on ground due to skidding,

P.w.8 categorically stated that there is possibility of sustaining the above injuries when fallen on ground due to skidding.

16.It is therefore, at this stage it is pertinent to rely upon a decision reported in 2012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 88 (A.P.) in the above reported decision, it is held that “Sole testimony of injured witness in case of prior enmity between the accused and the injured cannot be relied upon when the independent eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution.” The above reported decision is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the present case also P.w.1 who is injured victim in this case has prior enmity with accused and P.w.2 and P.w.3 are also having prior enmity with the accused and except the uncorroborated testimony of P.w.1 to P.w.3 who are close relatives and who are interested in P.w.1, there is no evidence of independent witnesses supporting the evidence of P.w.1 to P.w.3. It is therefore, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to support the case of prosecution and it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.

17.In the result, accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC; and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC; and A1 to A3 are acquitted 8 under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this

Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Vankayalapati Giri Babu,-NIL- P.W.2: Vankayalapati Thirupalu,, P.W.3: Kaka Narasimha Rao, P.W.4: Kasukurthy Punnaiah, P.W.5: G.Muralidhara Rao, P.W.6: Sk.Mastan, H.C.230, P.W.7: K.Arogya Raju, S.I. P.W.8: Dr. M.Ramachandra Rao,

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Statement of P.w.1 recorded by police at the hospital. Ex.P2: Police Intimation. Ex.P3: Original FIR in Cr.No.7/2013 of S.N.Padu P.S. Ex.P4: Rough sketch in Cr.No.7/2013 of S.N.Padu P.S. Ex.P5: Wound Certificate of P.w.1.

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- NIL -

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court,

Ongole.

9

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 33 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF SPL., J.M.F.C., EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

01.Date of offence: 25.01.2013

02.Date of report/complaint: 25.01.2013

03.Date of appearance of accused: 12.03.2013

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 06.02.2013

05.Date of commencement of trial: 14.06.2013

06.Date of close of trial: 19.07.2014

07.Date of Judgment: 25-03-2014

08.Complainant:- State Sub Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. (Cr.No.07/2013)

09.Description of Accused:

1. Pallepati Srinu s/o Seshaiah @ Adiseshu, 40 years, Madiga by caste, Lorry Driver, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Pallepati Adiseshu s/o Srinu, 22 years, Madiga by Caste, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal.

3. Pallepati Punna Rao s/o Subba Rao, 28 years, Madiga by caste, R/o Yendlur village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: A1 & A3:u/s.324 IPC A2: u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused A1 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC; and A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC; and A1 to A3 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount:-- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 16.02.2013. On 12.03.2013 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 14.05.2013 accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charges have been framed, and case was posted for trial. On 14.06.2013 PW.1 & P.w.2 examined and Ex.P.1 marked; on 21.01.2014 P.w.3 examined; on 28.01.2014 P.w.5 to P.w.6 examined and Exs.P.2 to P.5 marked; on 03.02.2014 P.w.8 examined; on 03.03.2014 P.w.3 was cross- examined and prosecution side evidence was closed and on 19.03.2014 the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating evidence appearing against them and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 21.03.2014 heard arguments. On 25.03.2014 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt C.R. Sumalatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 173 of 2012. Between:

STATE: Sub – Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. … Complainant

And

Annam Nagaraju @ Subba Rao s/o Venkateswara Rao, 29 years, Balija by caste, Kothakota village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case is coming up on 26.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri T.Thimothy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub–Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, in Cr.No.36/2012 of N.G.Padu Police Station.

2. The brief accusation against the accused is that; L.w.2-Vissa

Raghupathi Rao and L.w.3-Vissa Koteswaramma, performed the marriage of their daughter L.w.1-Annam Kalyani (P.w.1) with the accused on 17.08.2006 at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,

Penchalakona, as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage,

L.w.2 and L.w.3 presented cash of Rs.80,000/- to the accused towards dowry and sent L.w.1 to Kothakota village to lead her marital life with the accused. Both of them lead happy marital life for some period and 2 later they shifted their family from Kothakota village to Mangalagiri.

Out of wedlock, P.w.1 blessed with one male child and after the birth of 21 days the child was died. Since then the accused was addicted to bad vices and used to harass P.w.1 both physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents' house. When

P.w.1 expressed her parents inability to give additional dowry amount, then the accused beat her with hands and legs. L.w.4-Battula

Nagarattamma, L.w.5-Annam Suresh, L.w.6-Nallamothu Haribabu,

L.w.7-MarlapatiUmamaheswaraRaoandL.w.8-Marlapati

Thirumalakumari, advised the accused not to harass P.w.1, but he did not change his attitude. On that P.w.1 went the police station and gave report to police about the occurrence. L.w.9-Ch.Prabhakara Rao, the then Head Constable, N.G.Padu P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.36/2012 u/s.498 (A) IPC, submitted original FIR to the Court, copies to all concerned and investigated into it.

During the course of investigation, L.w.9 visited the scene of offence situated at Kothakota village of N.G.Padu Mandal, examined the scene and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. While the investigation is in progress on 08.06.2012 at 15-00 hours, L.w.9 arrested the accused at Kothakota village and produced him before the

Court for remand. After completion of investigation, L.w.10-

D.Ranganath, the then S.I. of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.498-A IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences U/s.498-A of IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused. On 3 appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.When accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, he pleaded not guilty for the said offence and claimed to be tried and charges framed as contemplated u/s.240 Cr.P.C.

against the accused for the above said offences and read over the substance of charge and explained to him in Telugu language.

5.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined P.w.1 and got marked Ex.P.1. In spite of giving sufficient time and number of adjournment, P.w.2 failed to appear before the court for cross- examination, hence chief examination of P.w.2 is dispensed with. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.w.3 to L.w.10 as P.w.1 who is defacto complainant turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, and stated that he did not commit any offence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against

the accused for the charge u/s.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4 Point :

9.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution got examined

P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant-cum-victim and got marked

Ex.P.1. Perused the evidence of P.w.1 and Exs.P.1, P.w.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case, in her evidence deposed that her marriage with accused in the month of August, 2006, at the time of marriage her parents gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and also cash of

Rs.50,000/- to each of sisters of accused towards Adapaduchu

Lanchanam. Later both of them lived happily for one year, after that the accused demanded to get an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from my parents and she informed the same to her parents and they expressed their inability to give Rs.5,00,000/-, then she returned back to her matrimonial home, but the accused locked the house and went somewhere, on that day night she took shelter at the neighbours house. On the next day she returned back to her parents house, on that her parents deposited cash of Rs.30,000/- in the bank account, on that the accused did not raise any objection. Later as she did not conceive child, the accused took her to her senior paternal aunt's house and left her there and on the mediations made by L.w.5 and

L.w.6, the accused again took her back to the marital life. P.w.1 further deposed that in the year 2009 she gave birth to a male child, but the said baby died on the 21st day, then accused blamed her family members are responsible for the death of baby. 6 months after that again she joined her husband and later she again gave birth to a male child. 3 months after giving birth to 2nd child, P.w.1 went to her matrimonial home to join her husband, but accused refused to take her along with her child. On that she gave Ex.P.1 report to the police.

5

10.Whereas, during cross-examination she deposed that her parents never gave Rs.5,00,000/- cash to the accused at the time of marriage and also Rs.50,000/- to each of sisters of accused as

Adapaduchu Lanchanam. She further deposed that accused never harassed her by demanding for additional dowry and also never demanded her to bring cash of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents and her parents never deposited cash of Rs.30,000/- in the bank account of accused. P.w.1 further categorically deposed that as her father insisted her to subscribe signature on a white paper, she subscribed her signature and she do not know the contents therein. She never went to police station and never gave report to police. P.w.1 further deposed that she is staying along with her husband and they are living amicably with each other and at the instigation of my father she statd in her chief examination.

11.As seen from the above evidence of P.w.1, she deposed two versions in her evidence. It is well settled law that when there are two versions in the evidence of witnesses, the version which is favourable to the accused is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the evidence of P.w.1 which is in two different versions, is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12.Coming to the evidence of P.w.2, it is well settled law that the evidence of a witness is to be tested by way of cross-examination.

Here in this case, P.w.2 failed to appear before the court for cross- examination in spite of giving number of adjournments and sufficient time and hence this court eschewed the chief examination of P.w.2.

6

10.As P.w.1 who is defacto complainant-cum-victim in this case herself not supported her own case and did not state anything in support of case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P. has rightly given up

L.w.3 to L.w.10. P.w.1 who is material witness in this case turned hostile and did not support her own case and there is no substantial evidence on record to prove the case of prosecution, therefore it could be safely held that prosecution utterly failed to prove its case against of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of March, 2014.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Annam Kalyani- NIL - P.W.2: Vissa Raghupathi Rao (Eschewed)

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report given by P.w.1 to the police.

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- NIL -

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court, Ongole.

7

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 173 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF SPL., J.M.F.C., EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

01.Date of offence: Prior to 14.04.2012

02.Date of report/complaint: 14.04.2012

03.Date of appearance of accused: 09.10.2012

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 27.06.2012

05.Date of commencement of trial: 26.04.2013

06.Date of close of trial: 26.03.2014

07.Date of Judgment: 26-03-2014

08.Complainant:- State Sub Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. (Cr.No.36/2012)

09.Description of Accused: Annam Nagaraju @ Subba Rao s/o Venkateswara Rao, 29 years, Balija by caste, Kothakota village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: U/s.498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount:-- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 20.09.2012. On 09.10.2012 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 08.02.2013 accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charges have been framed, and case was posted for trial. On 26.04.2013 L.w.1 and L.w.2 are examined as P.w.1 and P.w.2 in chief and Ex.P.1 marked; on 14.06.2013 P.w.1 was cross-examined and as P.w.1 who is defact complainant turned hostile and did not support case of prosecution, the leanred A.P.P. given up the evidence of L.w.3 to L.w.10 and on 26.03.2014 as P.w.2 failed to appear before the Court in spite of giving number of adjournments and sufficient time, this court eschewed the chief examination of P.w.2 and prosecution side evidence was closed and on the same day accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and as accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and reported no defence evidence and arguments also heard on the same day and after lunch Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. C.R. Sumalatha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 25th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No. 18 of 2014 .

Between:

STATE: Sub – Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Paritala Rajesh s/o Nageswara Rao, 28 years,

2. Jagarlamudi Venkateswarlu s/o Bapanaiah, 30 years,

Both are Kamma by caste, R/o T.Agraharam village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Accused

This case is coming up on 21.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri C.Venkata Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub–Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Secs.324 r/w 34 of IPC, in Cr.No.172/2013 of N.G.Padu Police Station.

2. The brief accusation against the accused is that; There were disputes between L.w.1-Pinnaka Thirupathi Rayudu i.e., P.w.1 and accused and the elders pacified the said disputes, but the accused developed grudge against P.w.1. While so, on 19.11.2013 at about 06- 30 P.M. while L.w.1 was sitting on a cot in front of his newly constructed house, A1 and A2 came to the house of P.w.1, picked up quarrel with him and attacked P.w.1, A1 sitting on the chest of P.w.1 caught hold his neck with his hands and trampled by leaping, A2 sat on the thighs of

P.w.1 and trampled, when P.w.1 raised cries A2 picked up a stick and 2 beat P.w.1 on his both legs and caused bleeding injury under the right knee and swelling of both legs. On hearing the cries L.w.2 to L.w.4 viz.,

Vemula Anjamma, Bathula Atchaiah and Bathula Bodamma, rushed there and rescued P.w.1 from the hands of accused, later both the accused went away from the scene. Later P.w.1 informed about the incident to L.w.5-Jagarlamudi Veeraiah, then L.w.5 replied that he will pursue tomorrow, but in vain. On that P.w.1 went to RIMS Hospital,

Ongole and admitted there for treatment. On receipt of hospital intimation, L.w.8-Ch.Prabhakara Rao, ASI-363 OPPS RIMS Hospital, rushed to the hospital, recorded the statement of P.w.1 and forwarded the same to the S.H.O., N.G.Padu P.S. on point of jurisdiction. L.w.9-

J.Chandra Sekhar, A.S.I. of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. received the same and registered it as a case in Cr.No.172/2013 under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC, submitted original FIR to the Court and copies to all concerned and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, L.w.9 visited visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined P.w.1, L.w.2 to L.w.6 and recorded their statements. L.w.7-Dr.T.Sai Prasad, Medical Officer examined P.w.1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries received by P.w.1 are simple in nature. On 29.11.2013 at 11-00 hours, L.w.9 arrested the accused A1 and A2 and produced them before the Court for remand.

After verifying the investigation done by L.w.9 and after receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, L.w.10-

D.Ranganadh, the then S.I. of Police, N.G.Padu P.S. laid charge sheet in this case for the offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the accusation.

3

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to them as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

4.When accused are examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Secs.323 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and for the offences under Secs.,323, 324 IPC against A2, they pleaded not guilty for the said offences and claimed to be tried and charges framed as contemplated u/s.240 Cr.P.C. against the accused for the above said offences and read over the substance of charge and explained to them in

Telugu.

5.In support of prosecution case, prosecution examined P.w.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused, the examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and accused reported no defence evidence and accordingly defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against accused A1 for the charges under Secs.323 IPC, 324 r/w

34 of IPC and against A2 for the charges under Secs.323,

324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Point :

9.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution got examined

P.w.1 who is the defacto complainant-cum-injured victim and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. Perused the evidence of P.w.1 and Exs.P.1 and

P.2, P.w.1 in his evidence deposed that on 19.11.2013 at about 10-30

P.M. he went to RIMS Hospital, Ongole as he sustained injuries by falling 4 from a moving motor cycle while proceeding to Uppalapadu village, at the hospital police obtained his signature on a white paper and she never stated before police as in Ex.P.2. Except that P.w.1 did not state anything against the accused, that on 19.11.2013 at 06-30 P.M. accused picked up quarrel with him and A1 sitting on the chest of P.w.1 caught hold his neck with his hands and trampled by leaping, A2 sat on the thighs of P.w.1 and trampled and A2 beat him with stick on both legs and caused bleeding injuries and accused are responsible for causing injuries to him, the learned A.P.P. has rightly declared him as hostile and cross-examined him at length, but nothing is elicited from him to prove that on 19.11.2013 at 06-30 P.M. A2 beat him with stick on his both legs and caused bleeding injuries and A1 sat on his chest, caught hold his neck with two hands and trampled by leaping and accused are responsible for causing injuries to him.

10.As P.w.1 who is injured victim and material witness in this case turned hostile and did not support his own case and did not state anything against the accused in support of case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P. has rightly given up L.w.2 to L.w.10. Therefore, in the absence of positive evidence against the accused it is unsafe to believe the case of prosecution. It is therefore, it could be safely held that prosecution utterly failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.In the result, accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.323 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC and accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.323, 324 IPC and accused A1 and

A2 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the 5 date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// //

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Pinnaka Tirupathi RayuduNIL

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Statement of P.w.1 recorded by police at the hospital. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.1.

For Defence: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

- NIL -

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

Spl. JMFC, Excise Court,

Ongole.

6

CALENDAR in C.C. No. 18 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF SPL., J.M.F.C., EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

01.Date of offence: 19.11.2013

02.Date of report/complaint: 19.11.2013

03.Date of appearance of accused: 12.02.2014

04.Date of release of accused on bail: 29.03.2013

05.Date of commencement of trial: 21.03.2014

06.Date of close of trial: 21.03.2014

07.Date of Judgment: 25-03-2014

08.Complainant:- State Sub Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. (Cr.No.172/2013)

09.Description of Accused:

1. Paritala Rajesh s/o Nageswara Rao, 28 years,

2. Jagarlamudi Venkateswarlu s/o Bapanaiah, 30 years,

Both are Kamma by caste, R/o T.Agraharam village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

10.Offence: A1:u/s.323 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC A2: u/s.323, 324 IPC.

11.Plea of Accused: Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

13.Sentence or Order: In the result, accused A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.323 IPC, 324 r/w 34 IPC and accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.323, 324 IPC and accused A1 and A2 are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no specific property order is passed.

14.Fine amount:-- --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15.Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 28.01.2014. On 12.02.2014 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. On 18.03.2014 accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and charges have been framed, and case was posted for trial. On 21.03.2014 P.W.1 examined and Ex.P.1 & P.2 marked, and as P.w.1 turned hostile the learned A.P.P. Given up the evidence of L.w.2 to L.w.10 and as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, the examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with and on the same day arguments of both sides were heard and posted the matter for Judgment. On 25.03.2014 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- C.R.Sumalatha.

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

Copy submitted to The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.