Sri C Venkatesh

1

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri C.Venkatesh, B.Sc., LL.M., Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 5th day of November,2012

Sessions Case No. 274 of 2011

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Navipet

Name of AccusedNeeradi Allamaiah s/o Lachaiah aged 49 years, caste: SC, Mala, occ: Agriculture r/o Jalalpur village of Nizamabad Mandal ChargeUnder Sections 354 IPC

Plea of AccusedAccused pleaded not guilty

FindingAccused is found not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused is acquitted

Prosecution conducted bySri Shashikaran Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad

Accused defended bySri B.Ashok and Sri D.Sayanna, Advocates, Nizamabad

This case was committed by II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in PRC No.58 of 2011 (Crime No.99 of 2011 of PS Navipet )

This case coming before me for final hearing on 31.10.2012 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri Sri B.Ashok and Sri D.Sayanna, Advocates, Nizamabad for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T :::

1.The Sub Inspector of police, PS Navipet filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 354 IPC

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows:

On 29.4.2011 at 1930 hours, the complainant Miryala Sayamma lodged complaint stating that her husband Neeradi Allamaiah is neglecting her and not looking afer her and on 22.4.2011 at 0800 she saw her husband (accused) and asked as to why he is not coming to her and not looking after her, upon which the accused 2

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

picked up quarrel with her and torn her jacket and insulted her and outraged her modesty. The incident was witnessed by Guthpa Laxman, Miriyala Laxman,

Ganishetti Laxman. The village Sarpanch Neeradi Laxman has called her husband and asked to settle the matter by discussing but the accused has not listened to the

Sarpanch.

3.That as per the contents of statement, the HC 1077 has registered case in Cr No. 98/2011 for the offence U/s 354 IPC and examined the complainant.

Thereafter visited the scene of offence and examined Guthpa Nadipi Laxman,

Ganishetty Laxman and Miryala Laxman. On 1.4.2011 notice U/s 41(A) Cr P C was issued and served on accused on 3.5.2011 but he failed to produce surety. Hence on 4.7.2011 the accused was apprehended and he voluntarily confessed commission of offence. The accused was sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the SI laid charge sheet.

4This case was taken on file by taking cognizance by the II Addl JFCM,

Nizamabad in PRC No. 58 of 2011 against the accused for the offence U/s 354 IPC .

On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s 208 Cr P C. After complying provisions U/s 209 Cr P C, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Nizamabad where it was registered as

SC No. 274 of 2011 and made over to this court for disposal.

5.On production of accused the Addl.PP reopened the case under section 226 Cr.P.C .

FRAMING OF CHARGES:-

6.Heard both sides on framing of charge. A charge U/s 354 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7The prosecution cited (07) witnesses and got examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Ex P1 to P5.

3

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT:-

8.Pw-1 M.Sayamma deposed that about (20) years back, she married to accused at Pedda Gutta (Bada Pahad). About one and half year back, at

Kishtagoud Hotel at 8.30 a.m at Jalalpur village, the accused came to the hotel and when she asked as to why he is not coming to her and not maintaining her, accused torn her jacket. Immediately to save her dignity, she covered her body with her saree (Kongu) and that accused beat her. At that time, Gutpa Laxma, Neeradi Laxman and

Miryala Laxman came and rescued her and she informed the Sarpanch of the village who advised the accused to look cordially. The accused stated before the Sarpanch that he will look her cordially but never looked her. She waited for one week and then lodged complaint under Ex P1 and Ex P2 is her photo with the accused.

9.PW2 G.Laxman turned hostile and his 161 Cr P C statement is marked as Ex P3.

10.PW3 M.Laxman deposed that the accused is the second husband of

PW1 and about one year back, at 8 a.m at Kishtagoud hotel, there was a galata between the accused and PW1 and the accused torn the jacket of PW1 and she covered the same with her saree (Kongu) and along with her, one Laxman was also present.

11.PW4 Neradi Laxman deposed that the accused and PW1 used to live separately in the village and previously galata took place at bus stand between the accused and PW1 and PW1 came to him with a torn jacket and saree and on enquiry he came to know that maintenance of Rs 1500/- was granted by the Court and when the accused did not pay the maintenance, the galata took place and accused asked to grant some time for payment of maintenance and he advised PW1 and accused to live cordially and after that PW1 stated to him that she is having threat to her life from accused and asked to give undertaking by accused and when accused refused, she approached the Court.

4

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

12.PW5 Guthpa Laxman turned hostile and his 161 Cr P C statement is marked as Ex P4.

13.PW6 Mogulaiah, Head Constable deposed that on 29.4.2011 at 1930 hours, he received complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr No. 98/2011 for the offence U/s 354 IPC and issued FIR in Ex P5 and on the same day he examined

PW1 and on the next day visited Jalalpur and examined Pws 2 to 5.

14.PW7 P.Sateesh, Inspector of police deposed that previously he worked as SI of police, and on 1.5.2011 he took up investigation and found it on correct lines and on 4.7.2011 he apprehended the accused at Jalalpur village and sent him for judicial remand along with charge sheet.

313 Cr.P.C. Examination:- 15That on closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s 313 Cr P C to explain the incriminating evidence. Accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence.

16.Heard both sides.

17.The learned Addl Public Prosecutor submitted that normally a wife will not file case against her husband but this incident took place at open place and the offence of outraging modesty is corroborated with the evidence of brother of victim,

Sarpanch of the village. He further argued that the delay may be condoned since the incident was narrated to the Sarpanch wherein the accused never agree and hence delay can be condoned in filing the case. Hence he prayed to convict the accused.

18.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution cannot be considered when PW1 clearly admitted that there was dispute regarding maintenance amount between PW1 and the accused and there is no corroboration to the case of prosecution and the prosecution failed to examine the owner of the hotel where the incident took place. He submitted that the other witnesses are not eyewitnesses and the complaint is not lodged immediately but 5

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

lodged after (7) days and there are several contradictions and omissions which cannot be considered. The complainant is in nature of filing several false cases and there are disputes between the accused and PW1 and hence he submitted that PW1 filed false complaint and hence prayed to acquit the accused.

19.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/s 354 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

20.Coming to the case of prosecution, the evidence of PW1 is the victim and complainant. She admitted that she is illiterate and she worked as Upa sarpanch of Jalalpur village. And about (20) years back she married the accused at Peddagutta.

She admitted that after 10 or 15 days of the incident, she lodged complaint. She admitted that she filed maintenance case against the accused and she also filed criminal case against the accused in Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad and this is the third case filed against the accused. She cannot say what is the stage of the maintenance case. She further stated that she filed maintenance case as the accused is not maintaining her. She clearly clarified in the cross examination that she questioned the accused at the hotel for paying maintenance amount on which the accused beat her. This admission goes to show that there is dispute between PW1 and accused regarding maintenance and the accused beat her when she demanded the amount. It further goes to show that there was no intention of accused to outrage modesty of victim. She admitted that PW3 is her own brother. She further stated that she did not witness Laxman and another Laxman at the hotel. This clearly goes to show though she mentioned the names of said persons, they were not actually present there. She denied the suggestion that she is filing cases after every six months.

21.It is worthwhile to mentioned that since PW1 admitted during cross examination the dispute with regard to maintenance and she cannot say the stage of the case. Hence,the evidence of other witnesses has to be considered.

6

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

22.PW2 turned hostile and his 161 Cr P C statement is marked as Ex P3.

Similarly, PW5 also turned hostile and his 161 Cr P C statement is marked as Ex P4.

Hence, the evidence of Pws 2 and 5 are not corroborated. There remains evidence of

PW3 who is brother of PW1. He supported the case of the PW1 and clearly stated that the incident took place near Kishtagoud hotel and it occurred on the other side of the hotel. He further deposed that he came to the scene (15) minutes after and he does not know the earlier case between PW1 and accused. Thus evidence of PW1 does not inspire confidence when he came to the place of incident after 15 minutes of accused beating PW1. Hence, his evidence cannot be considered to attract the offence U/s 354

IPC. The evidence of PW1 can be considered to the extent that when he demanded maintenance, the accused quarreled with her. Hence, evidence of PW1 is not corroborated by any other witness. There are three eyewitnesses out of them two did not support the case and the brother of PW3 came after the incident.

23.Admittedly, there is delay in lodging complaint. Since PW4 clearly admitted that PW1 approached her when he was at Gram Panchayat. It is worthwhile to mentioned that he stated to police that people were present and rescued PW1 and he cannot say the exact date of incident. He clearly admitted that galata took place between PW1 and accused due to non payment of maintenance amount of Rs.1500/-.

PW4 is Sarpanch of village and PW1 was Upa Sarpanch of the same village. Hence, evidence of PW4 cannot be trustworthy and reliable.

24.PW6 clearly admitted during cross examination that the incident took place 22.4.2011 and there is delay of 7 days and as per the complaint, the accused is husband of complainant. He denied the suggestion that the complaint does not disclose the ingredients of Section 354 IPC. He also admitted that Pw1 lodged two or three cases against the accused. The character of PW1 can be considered when the

Investigating Officer clearly admitted that PW1 and 4 placed chappal garland on the

Ambedkar statue. This allegation can be considered since maintenance amount is not 7

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

paid by the accused. Hence, evidence of Investigating Officer also clearly disclosed the character of PW1 for filing false case against the accused.

25.On thorough and careful consideration of entire evidence on record, this court is of view that the evidence of Pw1 is not reliable and trustworthy since there is dispute for payment of maintenance from the accused and the court granted maintenance which is not paid by the accused. The eyewitnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence the accused is entitled for acquital.

26.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 354 IPC and he is acquitted U/s 235(1) Cr P C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of Six Months.

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

me in open Court on this the 5th day of November, 2012.

Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 LW1Smt Miryala Complainant -Nil- Sayamma

PW2 LW3Ganishetty LaxmanWitness

PW3 LW4Miryala LaxmanWitness

PW4 LW5Neeradi LaxmanWitness

PW5 LW2Guthpa Nadipi Witness Laxman

PW6 LW6S.Mogulaiah, HCInvestigating Officer

PW7 LW8P.Satish, SIPInvestigating Officer

EXHIBITS MAKED

Ex P1Complaint -Nil-

Ex P2Photo of accused with PW1

Ex P3161 Cr P C statement of PW2 8

SC.NO. 274 of 2011

Ex P4161 Cr P C statement of PW5

Ex P5F.I.R MOs MARKED M.O.1: (8) pieces of bangles-Nil-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

9 :: C A L E N D E R :::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 274 of 2011

Police Station : The state through PS Navipet1.

Sessions Case No. : S.C 274 of 2011

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 99 of 2011 of PS Town Nizamabad

3. Full description of Accused : Neeradi Allamaiah s/o Lachaiah aged 49 years r/o Jalalpur village of Nizamabad Mandal

4. Date of offence: 22.04.2011

5. Date of complaint:29.04.2011

6. Date of apprehension:04.07.2011

7. Date of release: 16.07.2011

8. Date of commitment:23.08.2011

9. Date of commencement of trial :03.09.2012

10. Date of closure of trial:31.10.2012

11. Date of Judgment:05.11.2012

12. Explanation of delay: -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Note:- Calender submitted through CD as per orders in GORT.No.1928 Dated: 3.12.2011 through ROC.No.1520/SO-3/2011 dt: 13.12.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. communicated vide through Dis.no.7241 dt:21.12.2011 of Hon'ble Dist.&

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

10 :: C A L E N D E R :::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 126 of 2012

Police Station : The state through PS Makloor

1. Sessions Case No.: 126 of 2012

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 02 of 2012 of PS Makloor

3.Full description of Accused : Kota Shekar s/o Devaiah r/o Bonkanpalli

4. Date of offence: 05-01-2012

5. Date of complaint:05-01-2012

6. Date of apprehension:21-01-2012

7. Date of release: In jail

8. Date of commitment:29.02.2012

9. Date of commencement of trial :03-07-2012

10. Date of closure of trial:10.09.2012

11. Date of Judgment:13.09.2012.

12. Explanation of delay: -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Note:- Calender submitted through CD as per orders in GORT.No.1928 Dated: 3.12.2011 through ROC.No.1520/SO-3/2011 dt: 13.12.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. communicated vide through Dis.no.7241 dt:21.12.2011 of Hon'ble Dist.&

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

PRESENT: SRI.C.VENKATESH, B.Sc. LL.M.,

ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

(FAC.OF ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, BODHAN)

DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF March, 2012

S.C.NO.188 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1. Name of the accused Sanku Bovaiah S/o. Pochaiah, aged 42 years, Labour, Caste:Budgajangam R/o.Pitlam.

2. OffenceU/s.448 and 354 IPC.

3. Plea of the accusedNot guilty

4. Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

5. Sentence or Order of the CourtAcquitted

6. Prosecution conducted byAddl. P.P., Bodhan

7. Defence conducted bySri M.Ganga Reddy, Advocate.

This case is committed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Banswada, vide PRC.No.20/11.

This case coming before me on this the 16th day of February,2012 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the prosecution and Sri. M.Ganga Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Pitlam filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.448 and 354 of IPC.

2SC.188/11

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 2.5.2011 at 11.00 p.m. Kadamanchi Gangavva lodged the complaint stating that on 2.5.2011 at 1.00 p.m. when she slept in the house by latching doors from inside, at that time her locality person by name Sank Bovaiah removed the latch of the door entered into the house, caught hold her hands, pulled her asking her come to him, but she managed to escape from his clutches and she shouted loudly. On hearing the shouting of the complainant, her brother-in-law K.Sailu who was sleeping on the back side of her house rushed to the house of the complainant and he tried to catch hold the said Sanku Bovaiah i.e. accused, but he escaped from the house of complainant and ran away.

3.Basing on the complaint Lw9-SI of Police registered the case in

Cr.No.38/11 u/s.448 and 354 IPC. During course of investigation, he recorded the statement of complainant and Lws.2 to 6 namely

Kadamanchi Shankar, Kadamanchi Sailu, Gaddam Sailu, Veebudhi

Govindh and Smt.Gaddam Yadavva. He visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Kadamanchi Ramulu and Alam Ramulu and conducted observation panchanama of scene and drawn rough sketch.

On 7.5.2011 the accused was apprehended and on enquiry voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. Then he sent the accused to judicial remand.

4.The case was taken cognizance in PRC.20/11 by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Banswada herein. The copies of documents

furnished as contemplated u/s.208 Cr.P.C. By complying the provisions u/s.209 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. &

Sessions Court,Nizamabad,wherein it was registered as Sessions Case

No.188/11 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

3SC.188/11

5.On appearance of accused heard both the sides on framing of charges. Charge framed under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.448 & 354 of IPC and read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution got listed 10 witnesses and got examined PWs 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. The Addl.P.P. given up the evidence of Lw.8.

7. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Coming to the case of the prosecution. The complainant Pw1

Kadmanchi Gangavva deposed that K.Shankar is her husband. K.Sailoo is her brother in law. She knows the accused present in the Court. About six months back when she was sleeping, at about 1.00 a.m. the accused entered into the house, caught hold her hand and dragged her hand.

There was no electricity. The accused stated that he got interest on her and tried to fall on her. Then she pushed him and came outside the house. Her brother-in-law Sailu caught hold the accused,but the accused escaped. She lodged the complaint under Ex.P1. The contents were read over to her are correct.

9.Pw2 Kadamanchi Shankar deposed that accused is his caste man and Pw1 is his wife. When he went to Banswada to sell the mirror on cooli work and on the next day he returned, his wife pw1 informed that accused came at 1.00 a.m. and tried to outrage her modesty by caught holding her hand and on raising her voice, the caste people woke up and 4SC.188/11 accused ran away from the house. On the same day of his coming to home, the complaint was lodged by his wife.

10.Pw3-K.Sailu deposed that Pw1 is his sister-in-law. Pw2 is his brother and accused is his neighbor. About six months back his sister-in-law raised voice, he woke up from sleep and he tried to catch hold the accused, but the accused escaped. Pw1 informed him that accused came to rape her.

11.Pw4 G.Sailu deposed that about one year back summer season at 1.00 am. Pw1 raised voice and they wokeup and he enquired Pw1 and came to know that accused came and caught hold her and tried to commit rape.

12.Pw5 V.Govind deposed that he heard voice of Pw1 and they all gathered. He enquired with Pw1 about the galata.

13.Pw6 G.Yadavva deposed that during summer season they slept in their court-yard and about 1.00 a.m. Gangavva raised voice and then they woke up and went to the house of Pw1. The accused escaped. The accused caught hold Pw1.

14.Pw7K.Ramulu panch witness for crime detail form admitted his signature under Ex.P2.

15.Pw8 Kaloji deposed that after verification of investigation done by

S.I. of Police, he filed the charge sheet.

16.Pw9 P.Naresh Kumar S.I. of Police deposed that on 2-5-2011 on the complaint lodged by Pw1 he registered the case in Cr.No.38/11 u/s.448 and 354 of IPC. Ex.P3 is the F.I.R. sent to Court. The complainant stated that accused tried to drag her hand. He examined Pws.2 to 6. He secured the presence of Pw7 and A.Ramulu and conducted the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P4 crime detail form. He arrested the accused on 7.5.2011 and sent to judicial remand.

5SC.188/11

17.Heard both the sides.

18.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt?

19.The Addl.P.P. submitted that the evidence of Pws.1 to 9 supported the case of the prosecution regarding outraging the modesty of Pw1 and he prayed to convict the accused .

20.The defence counsel submitted written arguments.

21.Coming to the case of the prosecution. The law was set into motion on the complaint lodged by Pw1 victim herein. The complainant Pw1 though stated that the accused entered into her house, she never mentioned how the accused entered into her house as stated in the complaint that the accused got removed the latches as she slept in the house. She further stated that electricity was not there. She stated that the accused entered into the house and caught hold her hand and dragged her and stated the accused was having interest on her and tried to fallen on her, which is not in her chief evidence or in 161 Cr.P.C. The omission was elicited from the witness herein. Though she stated that she pushed the accused but she never stated that accused for outraging her modesty as submitted by defence counsel herein. She stated that to police that the accused came and fallen on her and she pushed him. She never stated the said allegation in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and improved her version. Hence, the same can not be considered herein.

Admittedly, there is enmity in between the complainant and accused family herein. As admitted, it is true there was dispute in between her husband and accused and there was panchayat in that regard and in the panchayat the accused got fined by elders and accused is not having any talking terms with their family. She denied the allegation that the accused never came to her house and dragged her hand. Hence, on 6SC.188/11 enmity, the case is filed can be considered. She admitted that when we sleep in side the hose, we lock the door and sleep. When she failed to mention that there was gap in the door to remove the latches, normally the door can not be open from outside when the latches are made inside the house and closed the door. Hence, removing the latches by the accused does not arise.

22.The hearsay evidence of her husband can not be considered when he improved the version alleging that the accused came and tried to outrage the modesty of Pw1, which is not the case of Pw1.

23.Pw3 admitted that they sleep outside in summer season. Though he woke up on hearing the voice of Pw1 but the same was not mentioned in complaint or 161 Cr.P.C. statement that on raising the voice of Pw1 he came there herein. He admitted that there were earlier disputes between the accused and their family and fine was imposed. Hence, the evidence of Pw3 can not be considered when he never stated on raising voice, he came to rescue Pw1.

24.Pw4 in cross-examination clearly admitted that on hearing the galata he woke up after ½ hour and accused is not found there. He an not say whether the statement recorded as belonging to him and can not say the contents of his statement as he is illiterate. Hence, the evidence of Pw4 can not be considered.

25.In the evidence of Pw5 there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

26.Pw6 clearly admitted she does not know anything . On hearing the voice, she woke up. She admitted the distance between her house and 7SC.188/11

Gangavva house is 100 yards . Hence, the evidence of Pw6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

27.Pw7 turned hostile. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

28.Pw8 evidence is to the effect that he filed charge sheet against the accused.

29.Pw9 Investigating Officer clearly admitted that in the investigation done by him, it was not revealed that there were earlier disputes between accused and complainant and he did not get notice of any panchayat and imposing fine to the accused. He denied the allegation that Ex.P4 is fabricated document. He admitted that he did not observe the condition of door and inside the latches, which is material part of investigation to be done by Investigating Officer when the allegation of complainant is that the latches were removed from outside herein. The prosecution miserably failed to say how the accused removed the latches of the door when the latches is inside the house is locked. Hence, the entering of the accused to the house of complainant cannot be considered. On thorough and careful scrutiny of the allegation of Pw1 can not be considered as she did not state about bolting in her previous 161 Cr.P.C. statement and entering of accused by removing the latches is not established by the investigation by the prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

30.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s.448 and 354 of IPC, and he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Steno,transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 1st day of March, 2012

Asst. Sessions Judge, 8SC.188/11

Nizamabad. (FAC: of Bodhan)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Pw1- Kadamanchi Gangavva - None - Pw2- Kadamanchi Shankar Pw3- Kadamanchi Sailu Pw4-Gaddam Sailu Pw5-Veebudhi Govindh Pw6-Smt.Gaddam Yadavva Pw7-K.Ramulu Pw8-V.Kaloji Pw9-P.Naresh Kumar

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Complaint dt.2-5-2011 Nil Ex.P2-Signature of Pw7 on Ex.P4 Ex.P3-Original FIR dt.2-5-2011 Ex.P4-Crime Detail Form

::MATERIAL OBJECTS::

Nil

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC. of Bodhan) 9SC.188/11

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

CALENDER

&

JUDGMENT

IN

SESSIONS CASE No. 188 of 2011

1.Complainant::State of A.P. represented by P.S.Pitlam Crime No.38/11

2.Offence::U/s .448 and 354 IPC.

3.Finding:Not guilty :

4. Sentence or order of :Acquitted court: Name and Description of the Accused : Sanku Bovaiah S/o. Pochaiah, aged 42 years, Labour, Caste:Budgajangam R/o.Pitlam.

Date of : Occurrence::2-5-2011 Report/Complaint::2-5-2011 Apprehension::7-5-2011 Release::28-5-2011

Commencement ::29-12-2011 of trial Close of trial::16-2-2012 Judgment.::1-3-2012 Explanation for delay::No delay

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.of Bodhan)

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

10SC.188/11

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No.188/2011,dt.1-3-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions

Case No. 188/2011,dt.1-3-2012.

Yours faithfully,

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan)

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No.188/2011,dt.1-3-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions

Case No. 188/2011,dt.1-3-2012.

Yours faithfully,

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan)

1

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri C.Venkatesh, B.Sc., LL.M., Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2012

Sessions Case No. 319 of 2011

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dichpally.

Name of Accused1) Jarupula Ramesh S/o. Ramsingh, Age: 20 years, Caste: Lambada (ST) Occ: Student, R/o. Bibipoor thanda, Dichpally mandal.

2) Jarupla Ravi S/o. Ramsingh, Age: 23 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bibipoor village, Dichpally mandal.

3) Jarupla Nari S/o Ramsingh, Age: 18 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Student, R/o. Bibipoor thanda, Dichpally mandal.

ChargeUnder Section 354 & 323 IPC against A1, Under Section 323 IPC against A2 and A3.

Plea of AccusedAccused pleaded not guilty

FindingAccused are found not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused are acquitted

Prosecution conducted bySri Shashikaran Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad

Accused defended bySri M. Saya Reddy, Advocate for accused

This case was committed by II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in PRC No.81 of 2011 (Crime No.238 of 2011 of PS Dichpally)

This case coming before me for final hearing on 27.11.2012 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri M. Saya Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following: :: J U D G M E N T :::

1.The Sub Inspector of police, PS Dichpally filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 354 & 323 IPC.

2

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows:

On 13-06-2011 at 3:30 hours the complainant Lavudya Reddya came to PS and lodged complaint by stating that, on 13-06-2011 his younger brother Lavudya

Shivaram went to agriculture fields along with his daughter Lavudiya Prema and his middle brother Govind's daughter namely, Bhulibai and attended agriculture work.

The complainant send two ladies to their house for bringing food. While they are proceeding to agriculture fields with food, at about 2 P.M. while Bhulibai went to water tank to prove water to bulls, and while Prema is alone at agriculture fields meanwhile, one Karupla Ramesh with bad intention came to Prema and caught hold her hand and puller her with bad intention, meanwhile, Bhulibai saw the incident made hues and cries. Upon which said Ramesh beat Bhulibai stating that as to why made hues and cries and escaped from the spot. The complainant and his younger brother were went to Ramesh and questioned stating that as to why done like that. ON that the Ramesh, Karupula Ravi and Karupula Naari were picked up quarrel with the complainant beat with hands to the complainant his younger brother Shivaram and

Bhulibai and caused injuries. Hence, he requested to take action.

3.Basing on the complaint, a case in Cr No. 238/2011 for the offence U/s 354 & 323 IPC was registered and took up investigation by G. Pentaiah, H.C., During the course of investigation, the H.C., recorded statement of complainant and Lw.s1 to

Lw.s4 Lavudya Reddya, Lavudya Laxmi, Lavudya Shivaram, Lavudya Bhulibai, he referred Lw.1, Lw.3 & Lw.4 to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. he visited the scene of offence at Bibipoor thanda and recorded the statement of victim Lavudya

Prema he secured the presence of mediators by namely Badavath Jagdish, Badavath

Mohan and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence. The S.I. arrested A1 on 25.07.2010 and sent to judicial custody him. A2 & A3 obtained Anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.NO. N617/2011 dated:

3

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

29.06.2011 on the file of Hon'ble Sessions Judge at Nizamabad and effected arrest of

A2 & A3 and released them on bail.

The Dr. Dhanraj who treated the injured Lw. 1, Lw. 3 & Lw. 4 and found simple injuries. On completion of investigation the S.I. filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

TAKEN COGNIZANCE:-

4.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance by the II Addl JFCM,

Nizamabad in PRC No. 81 of 2011 against the accused for the offence U/s 354 & 323

IPC for A1 and U/s 323 IPC against A2 & A3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s 208 Cr P C. After complying provisions U/s 209 Cr P C, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Nizamabad where it was registered as SC No. 319 of 2011 and made over to this court for disposal.

5.On appearance of accused the Addl.PP reopened the case under section 226 Cr.P.C

FRAMING OF CHARGES:-

6.Heard both sides on framing of charges. A charge U/s 354 & 323 IPC against accused No.1 and U/s 323 IPC against A2 & A3. was framed, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to Accused No. 3. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7The prosecution cited (10) witnesses and got examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Ex P1 to P6.

8.Since the material witnesses tuned hostile, the learned Addl Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.6 to 10 4

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

313 Cr.P.C. Examination:-

09.That on closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/s 313 Cr P C has been dispensed with since there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused.

10.Heard both sides arguments.

11.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.The Addl Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused argued to decide the case on merits.

13.Coming to the case of prosecution, PW1 Lavudya Reddy, the complainant deposed that he did not lodged the complaint against the accused.

14.He further deposed that police did not examine him and he did not know the facts and Police never referred to the hospital.

15.During cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he specifically denied that he lodged complaint under Ex P1 when A1 tried to outrage modesty of his daughter and denied his 161 statement under exhibit P2.

16.Pw.2 Lavudya Laxmi the wife of Pw.1 stated Police never examined her and she do not know any case facts and she never examined by police. Her 161 statement marked by Additional Public Prosecutor under Ex.P3.

17.Pw.3 Lavudya Shivaram deposed that Police never examined him and he do not know any case facts and he was never referred to the hospital by Police. He turned Hostile. His 161 statement marked by Additional Public Prosecutor under

Ex.P4.

18.Pw.4 cousin sister Lavudya Bhulibai turned hostile and deposed that

Police never examined her and she do not know any case facts and she was never referred to the hospital by Police. Her 161 statement marked by Additional Public

Prosecutor under Ex.P5.

5

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

19.The victim Lavudya Prema stated that Police never examined her and she do not know any case facts. She turned Hostile. His 161 statement marked by

Additional Public Prosecutor under Ex.P6. Thus there is absolutely no incriminating

evidence against the accused and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.Coming to the case of prosecution Pw.s 1 to 5 turned hostile. Their 161 statement marked as Ex.P2 to P5. No incriminating evidence in the evidence of Pw.s 1 to 5 against accused. Hence i found the accused No.1 not guilty for the offence U/s 354 & 323 IPC and Accused No. 2 & 3 are not found guilty for the offence U/s 323

IPC.

21.In the result, accused No.1 found not guilty for the offence U/s 354 & 323 IPC and Accused No. 2 & 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s 323 IPC.

and they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr P C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to Typist typed on my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 29th day of November, 2012.

Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 LW1Lavudya ReddyaComplainant -Nil-

PW2 LW2Lavudya LaxmiWitness

PW3 LW3Lavudya ShivaramWitness

Pw4 Lw4Kumari Lavudya Witness Bhulibai

Pw5 Lw5Kumari Lavudya Victim Prema 6

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

EXHIBITS MAKED

For prosecution

Ex.P1: Thumb impression of Pw1 on complaint

Ex.P2: 161 cr.p.c. statement of Pw1

Ex.P3: 161 cr.p.c. statement of Pw2

Ex.P4: 161 cr.p.c. statement of Pw3

Ex.P5: 161 cr.p.c. statement of Pw4

Ex.P6: 161 cr.p.c. statement of Pw5

For Defence Nil

MOs marked

Nil.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

7

SC.NO. 319 of 2011

:: C A L E N D E R :::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 319 of 2011

Police Station : The state through PS Dichpally.

1. Sessions Case No.:319 of 2011

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: Cr.No. 238 of 2011 PS Dichpally,

3. Full description of A1 & A2 :1) Jarupula Ramesh S/o. Ramsingh, Age: 20 years, Caste: Lambada (ST) Occ: Student, R/o. Bibipoor thanda, Dichpally mandal.

2) Jarupla Ravi S/o. Ramsingh, Age: 23 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bibipoor village, Dichpally mandal.

3) Jarupla Nari S/o Ramsingh, Age: 18 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Student, R/o. Bibipoor thanda, Dichpally mandal.

4. Date of offence: 13.6.2011

5. Date of complaint:13.6.2011

6. Date of apprehension:25.7.2010

7. Date of release: 03.8.2011

8. Date of commitment:30.9.2011

9. Date of commencement of trial:26.11.2011

10. Date of closure of trial:27.11.2012

11. Date of Judgment:29.11.2012.

12. Explanation of delay: -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Note:- Calender submitted through CD as per orders in GORT.No.1928 Dated: 3.12.2011 through ROC.No.1520/SO-3/2011 dt: 13.12.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. communicated vide through Dis.no.7241 dt:21.12.2011 of Hon'ble Dist.& Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri C.Venkatesh, B.Sc., LL.M., Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2012

Sessions Case No. 244 of 2011

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally

Name of AccusedBoosa Parshuram @ Sreedhar s/o Mallaiah s/o Mallaiah aged 25 years, occ: Golla r/o Chinna Chikkodu village of Mustabad mandal

ChargeUnder Section 147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act Sec 5 of E.S Act

Plea of AccusedAccused pleaded not guilty

FindingAccused is found not guilty

Sentence or OrderAccused is acquitted

Prosecution conducted bySri Shashikaran Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad

Accused defended bySri T.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for accused

This case was committed by II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad in PRC No.64 of 2009 (Crime No.12 of 2000 of PS Dharpally)

This case coming before me for final hearing on 04.12.2012 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and that of Sri T.Vinod Kumar, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T :::

1.The Sub Inspector of police, PS Dharpally filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act,Sec 5 of E.S Act

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows:

2

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

On 17.4.2000 in the early hours at 5.00 a.m the accused and other PWG extremists stopped RTC Bus at Donkal thanda which was proceeding from Donkal village to Nizamabad with passengers. The accused and others threatened the bus driver, conductor and passengers and forcibly made them to get down from the bus ad took cash bag from the conductor and took three hundred rupees. At that time, about 10 to 12 persons were standing wearing olive green clothing armed with fire arms.

They stated that they want to burn the bus in protest of Markal encounter. Thereafter, they broke open the diesel tank with axes and set fire the bus. The complainant

Angoth Chander, Conductor of the bus lodged complaint for necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, a case in Cr No. 12/2000 for the offence U/s 147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act,Sec 5 of E.S

Act was registered and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the

SI recorded statement of complainant and visited the scene of offence and conducted panchnama before two mediators Pedala Balagoud and Vadiyala Damodhar Reddy.

On 30.03.2001 on reliable information, accused was apprehended and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed commission of offence in the presence of

Dayyala Gangaram and Gurrapu Gangaram and recovered two grenades and sent the accused for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the SI filed charge sheet against the accused stating that the full particulars of other accused are not known and a separate charge sheet will be filed against them. Hence the charge.

TAKEN COGNIZANCE:-

4.This case was initially taken on file by taking cognizance by the I Addl

JFCM, Nizamabad in PRC No. 62 of 2012 against accused for the offence

U/s147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act Sec 5 of E.S

Act. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s 208 Cr P C. Thereafter the case was transferred to II Addl JMFC 3

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

Court, Nizamabad where it was re-registered as PRC No. 64 of 2009. After complying provisions U/s 209 Cr P C, the case was committed to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Nizamabad where it was registered as SC No. 244 of 2011 and made

over to this court for disposal.

5.On appearance of accused the Addl.PP reopened the case under section 226 Cr.P.C

FRAMING OF CHARGES:-

6.Heard both sides on framing of charges. A charge U/s 147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act' Sec 5 of E.S Act against accused was framed, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7The prosecution cited (10) witnesses and got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex P1 and P2.

8.Since the material witnesses never identified the accused, the learned

Addl Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3 to 5 and 7 to 10 as now useful purpose would be served in examining the said witnesses.

313 Cr.P.C. Examination:-

09.That on closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/s 313 Cr P C has been dispensed with since there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused.

10.Heard both sides.

11.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.The Addl Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused argued to decide the case on merits.

13.PW1 Angoth Chander deposed that he is working as Conductor in RTC depot 1 of Nizamabad. On 17.4.2000 at about 5.00 a.m they started from Donkal 4

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

village and after passing one and half kilometer, 2 or 3 persons came opposite to the bus and one person put the gun to the driver head by coming from the door of the window of driver. On person entered in the bus and took cash bag containing Rs.

300/-. The said persons was wearing mask and they made them to get down the bus along with 3 to 4 passengers and took side of the road. They took the tray and returned back to him. In the S.R they written that in protest against the Markal encounter, they are setting fire the bus. He lodged the complaint in police station

Dharpally under Ex P1. He further stated that he cannot identify the persons as they were wearing mask.

14.PW2 G.Narsaiah deposed that he is working as Driver in RTC

Nizamabad and retired on 27.10.2007.On 16.4.2000 he was on duty on night shift staying at Donkal village. At 5.00 a.m they started the bus and after passing half kilometer, about 10 to 12 persons came and stopped the bus at the culvert and one person kept gun on his head. The person was covered with mask and only his eyes were seen. There were four passengers. They took the bus after alighting the passengers, himself and conductor. They took the bus to some distance to protest the

Markal encounter and broke the diesel tank and burnt the bus.

15.PW3 Dayya Gangaram deposed that the recovery panchnama contains his signature under Ex P2 and the police never shown him any person and the contents of panchnama are not read over and explained to him and he signed at the instance of police. The learned Addl P.P declared him hostile and during cross examination he denied that police conducted confession panchnama and seized two grenades from the accused.

16.Coming to the case of prosecution, PW1 though stated regarding lodging of complaint, he could not identify the accused as the person who committed the offence. PW2 the driver also stated about the burning of bus but failed to identify 5

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

the accused as a persons among the said culprits. PW3 is panch for confession and recovery and he turned hostile and therefore, his evidence is also not helpful to the case of prosecution. The learned Addl PP given up other witnesses since the material witnesses did not say any thing against accused and no useful purpose would be served in examining the other witnesses. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 147,148,436,379 r/w 149 IPC, Sec 25 IA Act, Sec 8(2) of APPS Act,Sec 5 of E.S

Act and he is acquitted U/s 232 Cr P C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. Since the other accused are at large, no order is passed regarding disposal of property.

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

me in open Court on this the 10th day of December, 2012.

Asst Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 LW1Angoth Chander Complainant -Nil-

PW2 LW2Gunda NarsaiahWitness

PW3 LW6Dayyala GangaramWitness

EXHIBITS MAKED

Ex P1Complaint -Nil-

Ex P2Signature of PW3 on confession panchnama : M.Os marked:

-Nil--Nil-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

6

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

: C A L E N D E R :::

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 244 of 2011

Police Station : The state through PS Dharpally

1. Sessions Case No.: S.C 244 of 2011

2. Name of the P.S. & Cr.No.: 12 of 2000 of PS. Dharpally

3. Full description of Accused : Boosa Parshuram @ Sreedhar s/o Mallaiah aged 25 years, occ;Golla r/o Chinna Chikkodu village of Mustabad Mandal

4. Date of offence: 17.04.2000

5. Date of complaint:17.04.2000

6. Date of apprehension:30.03.2001

7. Date of release: 17.05.2001

8. Date of commitment:04.08.2011

9. Date of commencement of trial :19.11.2012

10. Date of closure of trial:04.12.2012

11. Date of Judgment:10.12.2012

12. Explanation of delay: -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Note:- Calender submitted through CD as per orders in GORT.No.1928 Dated: 3.12.2011 through ROC.No.1520/SO-3/2011 dt: 13.12.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. communicated vide through Dis.no.7241 dt:21.12.2011 of Hon'ble Dist.&

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

7

SC.NO. 244 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE AT BODHAN

PRESENT: SRI.C.VENKATESH, B.Sc. LL.M.,

ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

(FAC.OF ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE’S COURT, BODHAN)

DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF March, 2012

S.C.NO.227 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

1. Name of the accusedBangla Rajeshwar Goud S/o. Naragoud, aged 22 years, Driver, Goud R/o. Waddepalli village of Nizamsagar Mandal.

2. OffenceU/s.354 IPC.

3. Plea of the accusedNot guilty

4. Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

5. Sentence or Order of the CourtAcquitted

6. Prosecution conducted byAddl. P.P., Bodhan

7. Defence conducted bySri G.Shyam Rao,Advocate.

This case is committed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Banswada, vide PRC.No.31/11.

This case coming before me on this the 16th day of February,2012 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the prosecution and Sri. G.Shyam Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Nizamsagar filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 354 of IPC.

2SC.227/11

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 22-6-2011 at 8.15 p.m. Kum.Odde Kavitha lodged the complaint stating that on 22.6.2011 at about 7.45 p.m.she went to attend nature call near the bus stand area. In the meantime, one person of Woddepalli village by name

Bangla Rajeshwar goud came and caught hold the hand of the complainant and dragged her into the nearby bubble bushes and where he forced her to fulfill his sexual desire but the complainant out of fear shouted loudly and in the meantime her mother Odde Kashavva rushed to the spot and then said Bangla Rajeshwar Goud left the hand of the complainant and ran away.

3.Basing on the complaint Lw7-SI of Police registered the case in

Cr.No.54/11 u/s.354 IPC. During course of investigation, he recorded the statement of Kum.Vodde Kavhitha and Smt.Vodde Kashavva and proceeded to the scene of offence and examined Smt.Vodde Ambavva and Syed Latheef. He secured the presence of mediators Md.Qurshid and

Manga Thomas and conducted scene of offence panchanama. On 23.6.2011 he arrested the accused and on enquiry the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken cognizance in PRC.31/11 by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Banswada herein. The copies of documents

furnished as contemplated u/s.208 Cr.P.C. By complying the provisions u/s.209 Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl.Dist. &

Sessions Court,Nizamabad,wherein it was registered as Sessions Case

No.227/11 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused heard both the sides on framing of charges. Charge framed under Sec.228 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.354 of 3SC.227/11

IPC and read over and explained to the accused and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution got listed 7 witnesses and got examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. The Addl.P.P. given up the evidence of Lws.4 & 5 since Pws.1 to 3 not supported the case of prosecution.

7. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt?

10.Coming to the case of the prosecution. The complainant and victim

Pw1 turned hostile and never corroborated to the case of the prosecution and she denied the allegations of complaint also herein. The Addl.P.P.

during cross-examination failed to elicit anything except marking Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

11.The mother of victim Pw2 though stated she knows the accused failed to state anything about the case of outraging the modesty of her daughter at7.45 p.m. on 22-6-2011.

12.Pw3 eye witness also turned hostile and denied her 161 Cr.P.C.

statement got marked under Ex.P3.

13.That Pws.1 to 3 turned hostile at one voice and never supported the case of the prosecution.

14.Pw4 D.Ashok deposed that on 22-6-2011 on receiving the complaint from Pw1 i.e. Ex.P4, he registered the case in Cr.No.54/11 u/s.354 IPC. And issued F.I.R.Ex.P5. He recorded the statements of Pw1 4SC.227/11 to Pw3 and proceeded to scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Manga Thamos and Md.Qurshid and he also examined Syed Latheef. On 23-6-2011 he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

15.The evidence of Pw4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in the absence of corroboration of evidence of Pws.1 to 3. Hence, I find the accused not guilty for the offence u/s.354 IPC.

16.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s.354 of IPC, and he is acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to Steno,transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 1st day of March, 2012

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC: of Bodhan)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Pw1- Kum.Vodde Kavitha - None - Pw2-Smt.Vodde Kashavva Pw3-Smt.Vodde Ambavva Pw4-D.Ashok

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw1 Nil Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C.statement of Pw3 Ex.P4-Complainant Ex.P5-Original F.I.R. Ex.P6-Crime Detail Form

::MATERIAL OBJECTS::

5SC.227/11

Nil

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC. of Bodhan)

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

CALENDER

&

JUDGMENT

IN

SESSIONS CASE No. 227 of 2011

1.Complainant::State of A.P. represented by P.S.Nizamsagar. Crime No.54/11

2.Offence::U/s . 354 IPC.

3.Finding:Not guilty :

4. Sentence or order of :Acquitted court: Name and Description of the Accused : Bangla Rajeshwar Goud S/o. Naragoud, aged 22 years, Driver, Goud R/o. Waddepalli village of Nizamsagar Mandal.

Date of : Occurrence::22-6-2011 Report/Complaint::22-6-2011 Apprehension::23-6-2011 Release::6-7-2011

Commencement ::16-2-2012 of trial Close of trial::16-2-2012 Judgment.::1-3-2012 Explanation for delay::No delay 6SC.227/11

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.of Bodhan)

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No.227/2011,dt.1-3-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions Case No. 227/2011,dt.1-3-2012. Yours faithfully,

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan)

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No. 227/2011,dt.1-3-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions

Case No. 227/2011,dt.1-3-2012.

Yours faithfully, 7SC.227/11

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan)

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

CALENDER

&

JUDGMENT

IN

SESSIONS CASE No. 316 of 2011

1.Complainant::State of A.P. represented by P.S.Varni Crime No.118/11

2.Offence::U/s . 354 IPC.

3.Finding:Not guilty :

4. Sentence or order of :Acquitted court: Name and Description of the Accused :

1.Vanjari Shanker S/o. Narayana, age:62 years, Vanjari by caste,

Occ:Coolie, R/o. Rudrur village of Varni Mandal.

2.Mudari Laxman S/o. Yellaiah, age:55 years, Goondla by Caste,

Occ:Business, R/o. Rudrur village of Varni Mandal.

Date of : Occurrence::5-6-2011 Report/Complaint::8-6-2011 Apprehension::8-6-2011 Release::2-8-2011

Commencement ::12-1-2012 of trial Close of trial::12-1-2012 Judgment.::12-1-2012 Explanation for delay::No delay

Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.of Bodhan) 8SC.227/11

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No.316/2011,dt.12-1-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions

Case No. 316/2011,dt.12-1-2012.

Yours faithfully,

Encl:Two Copies of Judgment in SC. .316/2011,dt.12-1-2012 Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan)

From: To C.Venkatesh,B.Sc.LL.M., The Hon’ble Prl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Nizamabad(FAC.Bodhan) Dis.No. Dt.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:-Submission of Calendar and two copies of Judgment in Sessions Case No.316/2011,dt.12-1-2012- Regarding. 0o0 With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to submit herewith the two copies of Calander and Judgment in Sessions Case No. 316/2011,dt.12-1-2012. Yours faithfully,

Encl:Two Copies of Judgment in SC. .316/2011,dt.12-1-2012 Asst.Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. (FAC.Bodhan) 9SC.227/11