Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B.

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: CHINTHALAPUDI

Present: Sri Ch.Pavan Kumar, LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of I Class. Eluru. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi

Friday, this the 2nd day of August, 2013

CALANDAR CASE No.184/2011

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadikalapudi police station…Complainant.

and

1. Veeranki Rambabu

2. Meka Sivaiah…Accused.

This case coming on 26.07.2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Counsel for the accused and on hearing both sides and after 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, Tadikalapudi police station has laid charge sheet against the accused alleging that of the offence U/s.353 and 323 of I.P.C. in

Cr.No.64/2011 of Tadikalapudi police station.

2.The brief facts of the case mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

The complainant Kommavarapu Jashuva has been working as a constable in

Prohibition and Excise station, Chintalapudi. While so, on 11.06.2011 as per the instructions of his Superior officers, he along with his informer i.e, L.W.2 K.Anji Babu went to Yanadulapeta of Kamavarapukota and there he found three arrack packets in front of the house of A.1, when he questioned A.1, A.1 denied of his possessing the arrack packets and that the complainant warned A.1 by stating that they are receiving complaints against him. Later, the complainant and L.W.2 (K.Anji Babu) proceeded to Gowda Bazaar, Kamavarapukota and when reached near the house of A.2, both A.1 and A.2 way laid the complainant who is in discharge of his duties, abused him in filthy language and caught hold of his shirt collar and fisted him on his face, neck and stomach. Basing on the report given by complainant, a case in

Cr.NO.64/2011 U/s.353, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. is registered at Tadikalapudi on 11.06.2011 at 9.15 p.m by P.W.5 S.I. of Police, Tadikalapudi police. During the course of investigation, visited the scene and observed the same. He also recorded the statements of witnesses in that process. He further investigation on 20.06.2011,

A.1 and A.2 were arrested at the house of A.2 and forwarded to court for remand.

Subsequently, after completing investigation, charge sheet was laid.

3.The case is taken on file for the offences U/s.353 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

against accused and summons were issued to the accused.

4. Upon appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to A.1 and A.2 in due compliance of the provisions U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On 19.01.2013 A.1 and A.2 are examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. and substance of accusation leveled against them are explained to them in Telugu. A charge

U/s.353 and 323 r/w 34 I.P.C. are framed against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.5 are marked.

7.Upon closure of the prosecution side evidence, the A.1 and A.2 are examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incriminating material that appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. On enquiry, she reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard Learned A.P.P. and Learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence charged against them U/s.353 and 323 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The brief facts of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 have obstructed the

P.W.1 who is an Excise Constable during discharge of his official duties by way laying him and beating him with hands. Thus, A.1 and A.2 are liable for punishment

U/s.323 and 353 of I.P.C.

11.To prove the offence U/s.353 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that

A.1 and a.2 have assaulted or used criminal force against PW.1 who being a public servant in the execution of his official duty with an intent to prevent or deter him or discharging his duties.

12.The prosecution in order to establish its case has examined P.W.1 to 5 on his behalf. P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant and injured in this case deposed his evidence stating that he has been working as excise constable in Prohibition and

Excise, Chintalapudi police station since 05.11.2009. That on 11.06.2009 as per the instructions of their Inspector over phone, he along with P.W.2 went to

Kamavarapukota village to enquire about the information that the people there are indulged in Excise offences. That there in front of the house of A.1 who is a previous offender concerning Excise station crimes, he found three arrack packets. On suspicion, he questioned A.1 about the packets for which A.1 stated to him in serious manner that those packets does not belong to him. On that he warned a.1 not to involve in any arrack offences and that the Inspector is having information about him that he is unauthorisedly selling arrack in the village. That later he along with P.W.2 proceeded to Gowda Bazaar to pursue the information by them. That when he reached there, A.2 who is the maternal uncle of a.1 and who is also a previous offender in Excise cases way laid them and stopped the bike near the house of A.2. Then both A.1 and A.2 high handedly dragged him as to why he suspected them and beat him and P.W.2 that the accused also torned his shirt and abused him in filthy language. That both the accused obstructed him in discharging his official duties. Then he went to Tadikalapudi police station upon the advice of

Excise Inspector and lodged report against A.1 and A.2. P.W.4 who is the Excise

Inspector, Chintalapudi from December, 2009, July, 2012 deposed his evidence stating that on 11.06.2011 he deputed P.W.1 for securing information of I.D. liquor.

That on his instructions P.W.1 went to Gowda Bazaar, Kamavarapukota at 2 p.m.

That on the same day, P.W.1 contacted him over phone at 4.30 p.m, and informed him that A.1 and A.2 obstructed him and beat him while performing his duties. As

A.1 and A.2 are previous offenders in Excise cases, he instructed P.W.1 to lodge report before the concern police. The above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 makes it clear that P.W.1 is an Excise Constable and he has entrusted with the work of securing information of I.D. liquor. P.W.1 being public servant in the capacity of

Excise constable is not disputed by the defence. But it is contended that PW.1 is not in discharging of his official duties at the time of alleged incident. It is also contended that no incident as alleged by the prosecution has taken place and that

A.1 and A.2 are falsely implicated in this case when they refused to give bribe to

P.W.1. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is on duty at the time of alleged incident. PW.1 during his cross-examination admitted that he relieved from duty at 8 a.m, on the alleged day of incident and it is further considered generally after attending night shifts he will be on off duty on the next day. P.W.4 during his cross- examination considered that all their official duties are to be entered in the General

Diary and he conceded he did not submit the General Diary relating to deputing of

P.W.1 on the alleged date of offence for detection of excise offences. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no piece of document is filed before this court to show that PW.1 is on duty on the alleged date of incident. In view of the admissions made by P.W.1 that he relieved at duty at 8 a.m, on the date of incident and further that he will get off from the duty for the rest of the day, the burden is cast upon the prosecution to prove that how P.W.1 is said to be on official duty at the time of incident which took place on the same day on which P.W.1 was relieved from night duty at 8-00 a.m. According to the prosecution A.1 and A.2 have way laid the P.W.1 and beat him with hands. P.W.1 in this regard deposed that A.1 and A.2 stopped his bike and high handedly questioned him as to why he suspected him them and beat him and PW.2 and abused him in filthy language that they even torned his shirt. It is not the case of the prosecution that a.1 and A.2 have also beat P.W.2 at the time when they beat the P.W.1. P.W.2 who is said to have been accompanied P.W.1 at the time of alleged incident did not support the case of prosecution case by stating that he do not know P.W.1 and accused and that he do not know anything about this case. P.W.3 who is let in as eye witness to the occurrence of incident also did not support the prosecution case by stating that he do not know anything about the case. Though the Learned A.P.P cross-examined P.Ws.2 and 3 by treating them as hostile witnesses, nothing material to the prosecution case was elicited from P.Ws.2 and 3 except for marking their statements before the police as Ex.P.2 and P.3.

P.W.4 in this regard deposed that he was informed by P.W.1 that he was beaten by

A.1 and a.2 at the time of discharging his duties. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 is hearsay evidence and his depending on the evidence of P.W.1. Thus, except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence incriminating against A.1 and a.2 with regard to assault. Though P.W.1 deposed that A.1 and A.2 have beat him and torned his short, he was not medically examined by any Doctor or he has not handed over the torned shirt to the police. According to the version of P.W.1, A.1 and a.2 are previous offenders in Excise cases. In such circumstances, the sole testimony of P.W.1without their being any supporting evidence does not inspite the confidence of this court. The prosecution on the first hand failed to prove that P.W.1 is on duty at the time of alleged incident and on the second hand failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that P.W.1 is beaten by A.1 and a.2.

13.In view of my discussion in the fore-going paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has absolutely failed to bring home the guilt of A.1 and

A.2 for the offence charged U/s.323 and 353 of I.P.C. Therefore, A.1 and A.2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

14.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence, punishable

U/s.353 and 323 of I.P.C. Accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 2nd day of August, 2013.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

FAC.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHINTALAPUDI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 – K.Jashuva-None- P.W.2 – K.Anji Babu P.W.3 – J.Anand Kumar P.W.4 – M.Jaya Raju P.W.5 – M.Krupanandam

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:-Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2:-Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.3:-Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.4:-F.I.R. Ex.P.5:-Rough sketch

For Defence: NIL.

M.Os. marked: Nil

J.M.F.C.,

CTP.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF WEST GODAVARI

Calendar case No.C.C.No.184/2011 tried by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chintalapudi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Date of Date of Date ofDate of commencement Offence report apprehension releasedof trial On file of accused on bail --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11.06.2011 11.06.2011 21.06.2011 06.02.2013

Date ofDate of Judgment Explanation for delay Close of trialcaused 26.7.20133.82013 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tadikalapudi Police Station in crime No.64/2011.

Name of the accused Fathers name age religion, calling address

1. Veerani Rambabu, S/o.Peda Lakshmaiah, 30 years, Gowda, Yanadula colony, Kamavarapukota village.

2. Meka Sivaiah, S/o.Gangaiah, Age 50 years, Gowda, Gowda Bazar, Kamavarapukota village. Offence : Secs.353 and 323 of I.P.C

Finding : In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence, punishable U/s.353 and 323 of I.P.C. Accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU

FAC.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

CHINTALAPUDI.

In the Court of :II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Eluru Case No. :PRC/0200011/2014 THE STATE REP. BY THE S.I OF POLICE, ELURU II TOWN P.S. Vs GOUTHU VARADA RAJU

Date : 28-02-2014

Business: Accused is produced from District Jail, Eluru. Orders

pronounced VSO In the result, this case is committed to the

court of sessions, WG, Eluru under Sec. 209(a) of CrPC since the offence under Sec. 304, 201 IPC are exclusively triable by Hon&amp#039ble Sessions Court, W.G., Eluru. The jail authorities are directed to produce the accused before the Honble Sessions Court, WG, Eluru soon after receipt of summons. Accused is in jail and he shall remain in jail under Sec. 209 b CrPC. The entire case record and the property if anyu shall be submitted to the Honble Court of Sessions, WG, Eluru under Sec. 209 c of CRPC. The commitment of this case shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor, WG, Eluru under Sec. 209 d CrPC. Nature of Disposal : COMMITTED TO SESSIONS Disposal Date: 28-02-2014 II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0100179/2011

Sub -Inspector of Police, Tadikalapudi Vs Sattumala Daveedu Raju Alias

Daveedu Alias Raju

Date : 01-07-2013

Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 01-07-2013

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Sub -Inspector of Police, Tadikalapudi Address - Tadikalapudi Police Station

Advocate- Asst.Public Prosecutor

Respondent and Advocate

1) Sattumala Daveedu Raju Alias Daveedu Alias Raju Address - Simhadripuram, H.o. Appalarajugidem, Lingapalem Mandal. Advocate - Sri U.S.R.

ORDER:

Accused is caled absent. Judgment pronounced In the result, I find accused not guilty for the offence U/s.379 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 motor cycle which was given in interim custody to P.W.1 shall be retained by him till the appeal time is over and thereafter he is at liberty to use the ame as he like.

Sd/ Junior Civil Judge,Chintalpudi.

In the Court of :II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Eluru

Case No. :CC/0200516/2009 THE STATE REP.BY THE S.I. OF POLICE BHIMADOLE P.S. Vs KONAPALA ANIL KUMAR

Date : 14-03-2014

Business: A1 to A.4 are present. Judgment pronounced VSJ. In the result, I find A.1 to A.4 not guilty for the offence under Sec. 393 IPC, and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec. 248 1 CrPC. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall be in force for a period of six months from today. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Nature of Disposal : ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 14-03-2014 II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru

In the Court of:Junior Civil Judge

Case No.CC/0100313/2012

Konakalla Venkata kesava Rao VsBollu Nagendra Prasad

Date : 26-07-2013

Nature of Disposal: COMPROMISED Disposal Date: 26-07-2013

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Konakalla Venkata kesava Rao Address - Ghantavari Street, Chintalapudi Village and Mandal. Advocate- Sri Srinivasu Patnala

Respondent and Advocate

1) Bollu Nagendra Prasad Address - Besides Central Bank, Jangareddigudem Village and Mandal. Advocate - Sri B. Nageswara Rao

ORDER

complainant is present. Petition filed U/s.257 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Hence, complaint is dismissed. Accused is acquitted. Accordingly case is closed.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge,Chintlapudi