CH. Sravana Swathi

1/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 19th day of November,2021

Present: Smt Ch.Sravana Swathi Addl.Junior Civil Judge ­cum­ Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sathupally

C.C.No.229/2015

(Cr.No:82/2015 of PS VM Banjar)

Between: The state through Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.V.M.Banjar ……Complainant

And

Kola Sivaji S/O: Laxman Rao Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculturist R/o: Yerugalat village, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District …….Accused

This case is coming before me on 16­11­2021 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M.V.Rajendra Prasad and Sri K.Venkateswarlu, Counsels for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The sole accused/Kola Shivaji is charged by the police, V.M.Banjar in Cr.No.82/2015 for committing the offence punishable U/Sec 354(D) IPC.

2. In nutshell the prosecution version is that, LW1 is the complainant/Kola

Rajeswari, LW2 is the husband and LW3 and 4 are in­laws of LW1 and are residing under one roof at Yerugatla village, Penuballi mandal. The accused is also resident of same village and relation to LW1 as brother­in­law. The LW1 marriage was performed with LW2 about 4years ago and out of their wedlock they blessed with a male child and aged about 3years and LW1 was carrying again. The accused since 6 months followed LW1 and misbehaved with signs 2/10 C.C.No; 229/2015 whenever she use to go outside. LW1 narrated the same to LW2 and inturn

LW2 approached LW5 and narrated the facts and on his request LW5 summoned the accused and admonished on his mis­behaviour against LW1.

After that the accused stopped his attitude for few months. After two months accused again started mis­behaving with LW1 and came to her in the absence of LW2 to 4 and stated that “NEEVU NAATHO VASTHAVA RAVA, NEEVU

NATHO UNDU NEEMOGUDU KANTE BAGA CHUSUKUNTANU”. Further on 16­05­2015 at about 10:00hrs in the absence of LWs 2 to 4, the accused came to LW1 and caught hold her hand by using criminal force, due to that she got feared and came out from the house, then accused also left from the scene.

After arrival of LW’s 2 to 4, the LW1 narrated the same to them and upon which the LW’s 3 and 4 stated the attitude of accused to LW6 and due to health problem of LW1, after getting treatment, LW1 came to police station and filed a report for taking necessary action. Hence the charge.

3.On perusal of record filed by the police, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec 354(D) IPC against the sole accused and issued summons to accused. On service of summons, the accused appeared

before the court and he was furnished with the copies of documents as

required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, by examining the accused under Sec 239 Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence under Sec 354(D) IPC was framed against the accused. The contents of charge were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence trial proceeded.

3/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

4.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and Ex P1 to P7 are exhibited.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case were brought to the notice of accused U/Sec 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard bothsides and perused the record.

7. After hearing both counsels and Learned cousel for accused submitted memorandum of arguments and after perusal of the material on record, the following points are arised for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec 354(D) IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

 2. As to what result?

8. POINT NO.1:

In order to prove the offence under Section 354(D) IPC, the prosecution got examined PW1 is the complainant/victim, PW2 to PW5 are circumstantial witnesses and PW6 and PW7 are panch for CDF, PW8 is an investigating officer who issued FIR and examined the witnesses and PW9 is second investigating officer who arrested the accused and PW10 is the third investigating officer who filed chargesheet. Ex P1 is the report, Ex P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, Ex P4 is the signature of

PW6 on CDF, Ex P5 is the signature of PW7 on CDF, Ex P6 is the FIR and Ex

P7 is the attested copy of CDF.

4/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

9. PW1 in her evidence deposed that accused is her brother­in­law and about two months prior to the alleged incident the accused used to come to her house in the absence of her in­laws and in the year 2015, on one day when she was proceeding infront of the house of accused, the accused followed her and caught hold her hand and asked to come with him. She informed the same to her husband and her husband admonished the accused and after two months of the above incident again accused came to her house and caught hold her hand and pulled her and out of fear she made hues and cries and at the time of alleged incident she was 3months pregnant and immeditaely she came out of the house and informed the said incident to her in­laws.

10. PW2 in his evidence deposed that in the year 2015, when he went out for coolie work, his wife PW1 was alone present in the house and she use to come outside and proceed in front of the house of accused, then accused used to misbehave with his wife by asking her to come with him. PW1 informed him about the said incident but he kept quite as accused was their relative and again after two months of the alleged incident the accused came to his house in his absence and caught hold her hand and PW1 informed the same to him.

11. PW3 in her evidence deposed that their family and accused family are residing in the same colony and when she and her husband and PW2 are absent at the house, accused came to their house in the year 2015 and caught hold the hand of PW1 and asked to come with him. The said incident was informed by PW1 after they returned home and prior to the said incident also the accused mis­behaved with PW1 and we admonished him not to repeat the same.

5/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

12. PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 truned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

13. PW9 in his evidence deposed that on 18.05.2015 at 1:30PM the

PW1 came to police station and lodged a report and basing on that report he registered this case under Section 354(D) IPC and issued FIR i.e., Ex P6 and took up for investigation and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3 and LW4 and further visited the scene of offence situated at Yerugatla village and secured the presence of PW6 and PW7 and conducted panchanama and also drafted rough sketch of the scene.

14.PW10 in his evidence deposed that he received the CD file from PW8 and verified the investigation done by PW8 and found it on correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

PW10 in his cross examination stated that Ex P1 was lodged after two days from the date of alleged incident and also admitted that neighbours to the scene of offence were not examined by PW8 but in Ex P7 the house of the neighbours of scene of offence were drafted.

15. The prosecution is required to prove under Sec 354(D) IPC on record that:

i) any man who follows a woman; ii) contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interation repeatedly; iii) despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman;

16. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and on careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record the PW1 has clearly deposed that in the year 2015 in the absence of her husband and in­laws, 6/10 C.C.No; 229/2015 accused namely Kola Sivaji came to her house and caught hold her hand and pulled her and prior to the said incident also accused one day while she was proceeding outside the house of accused, he followed and caught hold her hand and asked her to come with him and mis­behaved with her and on that her family members admonished him. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 also stated that in the year 2015, while PW1 was alone in the house the accused came to their house in their absence and caught hold her hand and prior to the alleged incident also when PW1 while she was proceeding from the house of accused, he caught hold the hand of PW1 and mis­behaved asking her to come with him and hence the evidence of PW1 to PW3 are corroborating with eachother.

17. The learned defence counsel argued that the PW’s 1 to 3 are family members and interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution and as such the evidence of PW1 to PW3 cannot be believable and further contended that there is a 2 days delay in lodging Ex P1 and that delay was not properly explained by the prosecution. The another contention of the defence counsel is that there are land disputes between

PW1’s family and accused family and as a counter blast to the civil dispute this case was falsely implicated against the accused and accused is deserved to be acquitted. The defense counsel relied upon the citation 2005 (1) ALD (Crl) 379 (SC), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble SC that “the theory that a lady would not put her character at stake, here universal application and each case has to be judged on its own factual matrix, strained relations between parties.” 7/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

18. The PW1 to PW3 further denied the suggestion made by the defence counsel at the time of their cross examination that their family and accused family are having land disputes and moreover learned defence counsel did not file any proof to establish such fact. PW1 in Ex P1 stated that as her health condition was not good she lodged the report after two days of the incident. Hence the argument of the learned defence counsel cannot be considered with regard to the delay of two days was not explained by the prosecution, however there is no inordinate delay. The another argument of the learned defence counsel is that the neighbours of scene of offence were not examined. The offene took place in the house of PW­1 and one cannot expect an eye witness to such incident and if, neighbours are examined also no purpose would serve. 

19. The ingredient of the offence under Sec 354(D) IPC is that “any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interation repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman” in the case at hand, the PW1 clearly deposed that accused prior to the said incident also mis­behaved with her and her family members admonished him on that and two months later again accused in the absence of husband of PW1 and her in­laws, accused came to the house of PW1 while she was alone and caught hold her hand and asked her to come with him, which can be said that the accused tried to foster personal interation with the PW1 repeatedly and the conduct of the victim shows her disinterest by complaining to her husband and in­laws in the earlier occasion and now by registering this case against the accused. Moreover the defence failed to elicit any 8/10 C.C.No; 229/2015 contradictions or discrepancies in her testimony and her version remained unimpeachable.

In the present case, the evidence of the victim/PW1 is a direct evidence and in the offences against the woman, normally evidence of relatives would be available and normally strangers would neither be aware or willing to come forward to depose infavour of prosecution. The testimony of relatives therefore cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they are relatives and on that ground she or he had come forward to depose for the prosecution. Therefore the testemonies of PW2 and PW3 cannot be rejected and termed as interested witnesses. Further Sec 134 of the Evidence Act states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case and conviction can be based on the testimony of single witness, if she is wholly reliable. Hence the statement of the victim inspires confidence of this court and the evidence of

PWs 1 to 3 is cogent, consistent and corroborated with each other so also the evidence of PW1 with that of Ex P1 report. 

20. In view of the aforestated discussion. It is thus clear that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec 354(D) IPC.

21. In the result, this court find the accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Sec 354(D) IPC and accordingly accused is convicted under

Sec 248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Sathupally 9/10 C.C.No; 229/2015

22. Heard the accused regarding the quantum of sentence.

23. Accused represented that he has wife, two daughters and old aged parents, who are suffering with ill­health and he has to look after all the family members and he is the sole bread winner of the family. Accused further submitted that if he was put in jail, his family would become destitutes and vagrants in society. Thus prayed this court to take lenient view regard to the sentence. 

24. This court is of the view that the accused cannot be given benefit of either 360 Cr.P.C or the provisions of probation of offenders Act and this court intends to impose punishment on the accused. However under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the representation by the accused, this court considering the dependency of family members, further in view of gravity of offence, nature of offence, this court intends to impose rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/­ as the same would meet the ends of justice.

25. Hence accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/­(five hundred rupees only), in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

26. As per the office note put up, the convicted did not undergo any detention. Hence accused is not entitled to set off under Sec 428 Cr.P.C.

27. The covicted is informed about his right to prefer appeal against this judgment to Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Court, Khammam. He is also informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer appeal. He submitted 10/10 C.C.No; 229/2015 that he have means to engage an Advocate to prefer appeal. Office directed to supply the free copy to prefer appeal against the judgment, to the convicted forthwith.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Sathupally

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution For defence:

PW­1:Kola Rajeswari PW­2: Kola Narasimha Rao ­None­ PW­3: Kola Laxmi Kanthamma PW.3: Kola Subba Rao PW.5: T.Mohan Rao PW.6: Kola Rama Rao PW.7: Ch.Somaiah PW.8: Ch.Venkateswar rao PW.9: K.Srinivasa rao PW.10: P.Naveen 

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution For defence:

Ex.P1: is the Complaint marked through PW­1 Ex.P2: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW­4 ­Nil­ Ex.P3: is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C.Statement of PW­5 Ex.P4: is the Signature of PW­6 on the CDF Ex.P5: is the Signature of PW­7 on CDF Ex.P6: is the FIR marked through PW­9 Ex.P7: is the Attested copy of CDF 

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Sathupally

1/9 C.C.N: 200/2017

IN THE COURT OF ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 01st day of May, 2023

Present: Smt Shaik Ayesha Sareen Addl.Junior Civil Judge -cum- Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Sathupally.

C.C. No.200 of 2017 (Crime No.91/2017 of V.M.Banjar P.S.)

Between The State Police through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.V.M.Banjar .….Complainant AND

Kota Nagaraju @ Bodem, S/o. Elisha, aged. 26 years, Occu: coolie, R/o. Chinnakorukondi Village of Kallur Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 06.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Satish Kumar Babu, Advocate for accused, upon perusal of the entire material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. V.M Banjara filed charge sheet in Crime No.91/2017 for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused with following allegations.

2.That on 27-03-2017 at 1400 hours the complainant lodged a report stating that he is working as a head master at UPS school and in their school they provide mid day meal to the students. All the 2/9 C.C.N: 200/2017 provisions with regard to the mid day meal program were kept in the office room of the head master. Every day they used to open the office room at 07:30AM for taking the provisions for the purpose of preparing the meal and they used to lock the room after completion of meals in the afternoon at around 01:00PM. On 25-03- 2017 also as usually they have locked the office room and went to the house and later on the subsequent day they didnot open the office room as it was a sunday. On 27-03-2017 in the morning at 0730 hours when he went to his office room at the school, he noticed that the lock was broken and the doors were opened. On inspection he noticed that 6 rice bags each weighing 50kgs were missing and all other provisions were disordered in the room. Then the complainant lodged the report stating that some unknown persons have committed theft the rice bags worth Rs.4000/-.

Basing on the complaint, LW.9/N.Jaya Babu registered the case in

Crime No.91/2017 under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal

Code, investigated into and filed charge sheet.

3.On consideration of chargesheet and material on record, the court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the

Indian Penal Code against accused and issued summons to him under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying are furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3/9 C.C.N: 200/2017

4.The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.PC and the substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code are explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charges are framed for the said offences and the same are read over and explained to the accused in telugu which language is known to him.

5.During trial the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and when the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution is put to the accused, he denied the same and stated that he has got no defence evidence.

6.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination are (1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under section 457 and 380 of IPC?

(2) To what result?

POINT No.1:

8. In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, they got examined PW1 to 6. PW1 who is the defacto complainant has deposed that he worked as Head master at UPS 4/9 C.C.N: 200/2017

School,Bhavanapalem from 2011 to 2020. On 25-03-2017, it was a saturday, he locked the head master room and office room and he left to his house. He stored rice bags in that room. When he came back to school on 27-03-2017 i.e., on monday at 7:30AM, he found the lock of the door of the office room was broken and all the articles in the office room were dislocated. He found 6 rice bags were missing due to which he sustained loss of Rs.12,000/-. The rice was used for the purpose of providing mid day meals to the school children. He lodged a report with the police on the same day i.e., on 27-03-2017. In his cross examination, he stated that he is the first person to notice that the lock was broken and the rice bags were missing. He stated that there were only 6 rice bags in that room and all of them were missing. Each rice bag weighed 50Kgs. They used to cook 10 kgs of rice per day. There were 50 students in the school at that time . He maintained record of everyday usage of rice in a register but he didnot submit the same to the police at the time of lodging report.

9. PW2 who is the cook in that school deposed that about 5 years ago on one saturday she left the school after work and on the next working day i.e., monday, she came to know from PW1 that 6 rice bags each weighing 50 kgs were missing from the office room.

The said rice was used for the mid day meal program. She stated that she doesnot know who committed the theft of the said rice 5/9 C.C.N: 200/2017 bags. The learned counsel for the accused didnot choose to cross examine PW2.

10. PW3 who is cited as a panch witness deposed that on 27-03- 2017 police called him to Government school, bhavanapalem and police prepared scene of offence panchanama and drafted crime detail form in his presence and in the presence of LW5/Kunja Srinu.

In his cross examination, he stated that he doesnot know who committed the theft of rice bags from the school.

11. PW4 who is a panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that in the year 2017 while he was at his village centre, kallur police obtained his signatures on some written papers and he doesnot know the contents of those written papers. He identified his signature on the confession cum seizure panchanama. In his cross examination by the Learned APP, he denied that police have conducted seizure and prepared confession and seizure panchanama in his presence and in the presence of

PW5.

12. PW5 who is also a panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that about 5 years ago police called him to kallur Police station and obtained his signatures on some written papers and he doesnot know the contents of those written papers.

He identified his signature on the confession cum seizure panchanama. In his cross examination by the Learned APP, he 6/9 C.C.N: 200/2017 denied that police have conducted seizure and prepared confession and seizure panchanama in his presence and in the presence of

PW4.

13. PW6 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 27-03- 2017 at around 1400 hours LW9/N.Jaya Babu received a report from PW1 and basing on that report LW9/N.Jaya Babu has issued

FIR in Cr.No.91/2017 for the offences under sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code. Then PW6 conducted investigation and arrested the accused on 31-05-2017 at 10.00 hours and produced him before the court and the accused was remanded to judicial custody. Later after completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet. He has identified the signature of LW9/N.Jaya Babu on the FIR/Ex.P5. In his cross examination he denied the suggestions that the accused is no way concerned with the present case and that he is deposing false.

14. According to section 457 of IPC whoever commits lurking house trespass by night or house breaking by night in order to commit any offence is liable for punishment under section 457 of

IPC. According to section 380 of IPC whoever commits theft in any building,tent or vessel, used for human dwelling or used for custody of property is liable for punishment under section 380 of

IPC.

7/9 C.C.N: 200/2017

15. A careful scrutiny of entire evidence shows that the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW6 and none of the witnesses have identified the accused person. There is no eye witness in this case who has seen the incident and has witnessed that the accused has committed theft of rice bags from the school. The rice which is alleged to have been stolen was used for the purpose of supply to the students of the school with regard to mid day meal program and PW1 who is the defacto complainant has himself admitted that he has not filed any document or record to show that he has received the said rice for the purpose of mid day meal program.

The panch witnesses to confession and seizure panchnama have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The only evidence available on record is the confessional statement of accused, which was alleged to be made by him when he was arrested. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused confessed in presence of mediators about the commission of theft of rice bags. It is well settled law that the confession made by accused in the presence of police while in custody is hit by Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act and the same is inadmissible in evidence. Such confession cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover there is no recovery of the stolen property in this case by the investigating officer.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in the absence of cogent 8/9 C.C.N: 200/2017 evidence against the accused, he will be entitled for benefit of doubt.

POINT No.2:

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of CrPC for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under section 437-A

Cr.PC. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of May, 2023.

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1: Mylamala Abraham -Nil- PW2: Rachamalla Savithri PW3: Paddam Sjhivashankar PW4: Mekala Sathish PW5: G.Naresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

EX.P1: is the report Ex.P2: is the CDF Ex.P3: is the signature of Pw.4 on confession cum seizure panchanama 9/9 C.C.N: 200/2017

Ex.P.4: is the confession panchanama Ex.P.5: is the First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

AT SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Ms. Vaddi Lavanya)

CC/200010/2015 (PROSECUTION): The SHO, P.S.V.M.Banjara Through Police Station Officer , V.M.Banjara Police Station.

SATHUPALLY KHAMMAM

The SHO, P.S.V.M.Banjara VERSUS : Janni Pullarao Age: 30 Occupation : R/o Lankapally village, Penubally Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Raja Rao (APP), Advocate for N.Vijaykumar appearing for Janni Pullarao Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 325,294(b),506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 24-02-2023)

ORDER

Accused called present. Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate one. In the result, this court find that accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) and 325 of IPC, accordingly convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and he is found not guilt for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Upon hearing convict the accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he submitted that he is falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is poor man and having family and children and he is sole bread winner of his family and sentence of imprisonment would cause much hardship to his family members and pleaded mercy in quantum of sentence. The nature of offence and the mode in which it was committed do not warrants the application of beneficial provisions of P.O Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the convict and also taking into consideration of time taken for trial, this court is inclined to take a lenient view in sentencing him. Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 294(b) IPC and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months and accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of two months. This court explained the right of appeal to the convict. The total fine amount payable by convict is Rs.1000/- and te office is directed to remit the fine amount to state through challan. The period of remand if any shall be given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. Office is hereby directed to prepare conviction warrant and provide the copy of judgment to accused forthwith, at free of cost.

Date : 24-02-2023

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH0A0026152022

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally AT SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by Ms. Vaddi Lavanya

OS/86/2022

Exhibit No.:

: Kondapalli Prasad Age: 63 Occupation : Address: Agriculture and Postmaster, R/O H.No. 1-07, Ganugapadu Village, Chandrugonda Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

VERSUS : Linganaboina Rama Krishna Age: 37 Occupation : Address: Agriculture, R/O Chandrupatla Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

2:Linganaboina Ramaiah Age: 35 Occupation :

3:Linganaboina Venkateswara Rao Age: 32 Occupation :

4:Linganaboina Srinivasa rao Age: 40 Occupation :

5:Linganaboina Venkateswara rao Age: 37 Occupation :

6:Tippareddy Venkateswarlu Age: 38 Occupation :

7:Anumolu Ranga Rao Age: 35 Occupation :

8:Komati Venkateswarlu Age: 40 Occupation :

9:Vemu Sampath Age: 40 Occupation :

10:Tippareddy Tirupathi Rao Age: 44 Occupation :

11:Tippareddy Ramaiah Age: 38 Occupation :

12:Tippareddy Naresh Age: 37 Occupation :

13:Tippareddy Tirupathi Rao Age: 43 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : KONDAPALLY VIJAY KUMAR JR Advocate for : appearing for Linganaboina Rama Krishna: Advocate ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 28-02-2023 )

ORDER

Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate one. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and further directed to defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. There is no order as to costs.

Date : 28-02-2023 (Ms. Vaddi Lavanya)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Ms. Vaddi Lavanya) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

AT SATHUPALLY ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by Ms. Vaddi Lavanya)

STC/2356/2021 (PROSECUTION): The SHO, Aswaraopeta P.S Through Police Station Officer PS. Aswaeaopeta 346, Aswaraopeta police station, Khammam district.

SATHUPALLY KHAMMAM

The SHO, Aswaraopeta P.S VERSUS : Yandapally Yesu babu Age: 28 Occupation : Yerravaram village of Jeelugumilli mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Raja Rao (APP), Advocate for appearing for Yandapally Yesu babu Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 185(a) of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 19-11-2021)

ORDER

Accused called present. Case papers furnished. The accused is examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.185(a) of Mv Act. The accused pleaded guilty and this court came to conclusion that the admission of the guilty by accused person is voluntary and there is no inducement or threat from any person hence this court heard the accused on quantum of sentence then he reported that it is the first offence committed by him due to innocence considering the circumstances the imposing of fine will achieve the ends of justice so this court convicted the accused U/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C and the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) for the offence u/sec.185(a) of MV Act in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo simple mprisonment for a period of one week.

Date : 19-11-2021

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS