Ch.Yugundhar

1 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018

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

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate ( FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.41/2015

Between:

The Sub- Inspector of Police,

Peddapuram police station...... Complainant

Vs.

Palaparthi Janardhan, S/o Anjiyya, Age: 40 years, Caste: Viswabrahmin, Rajiv colony, Near Pandavulametta,

Peddapuram. ….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me on 21-12-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Sk.Vallibabu, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of

IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that about seventeen years back Palaparthi Sarojini was solemnized by her mother Aripaka Manikyamba (L.W.2) with the accused. On demand of the accused, the parents of Palaparthi

Sarojini gave Rs.30,000/- toward dowry and Gold ring wg.1/2 sovereign to the accused as per the demand of the accused. After marriage, Palaparthi Sarojini joined the accused at his house to lead marital life. During their wedlock,

Palaparthi Sarojini blessed with two female child. After the accused is having illicit intimacy with another lady and started harassment towards Palaparthi

Sarojini physically and mentally by since one year and also demanding additional dowry and beating regularly and not looking after Palaparthi Sarojini and her children. When Palaparthi Sarojini her inability to bring additional dowry, the accused necked out from the house. Since then, Palaparthi Sarojini along with her children are residing at her parents’ house at Peddapuram and Palaparthi

Sarojini presented a report to Additional Sub-inspector of police, Peddapuram police station by name V.S.V.Ramana who registered the same as F.I.R in

Cr.No.326/2014 for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 2 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 of D.P.Act. After completion of entire investigation, the Assistant Sub Inspector of police, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

3. After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the

D.P.Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Subsequently, the accused is examined explaining the charges framed under section 240 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the

I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to

P5 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Point for determination: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is legally wedded wife of accused as their marriage taken place at about seventeen yeas ago. Durign their marriage the parents of P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the accsued as dowry and also provided gold ring wg. ½ sovn on his demand. Soon after the 3 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 marriage, P.W.1 joined with the accused and their marriage was consumated.

Out of their wedlock , they are blessed with one male and two female child.

Subsequently, the accused started harassment towards P.W.1 physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry. Further, it is alleged that the accused is having illicit intimacy another woman and keeping in view of such illicit intimacy he used to harass P.W.1. When, P.W.1 expressed her inability to bring

additional dowry, the accused necked out from the house. As such, there is no

other go, she came to her parents place. Then, she gave report to S.H.O,

Peddapuram under Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex. P1 P.W.5 registered a case in

Cr.No.326/2014 for the offence Under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP act and took up the investigation, he completed the investigation after examining the witnesses and the scene of offence,etc., he proceeded to file the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

11.During trial the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5.

12.P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is mother of victim. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the independent witnesses who are said to have knowledge with regard to the affairs of P.W.1 and accused. P.W.5 is the investigating officer.

13.It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution did not choose to examine another witnesses namely Palaparthi Durgabhavani(L.W.3) Thammanna

Balaji( L.W.4) and Yella Satyavathi(L.W.7) as such this court has closed their evidence . Here it is relevant to note that among P.Ws.1 to 5, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are alleged to be the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution are the claim of P.W.1 and turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone available on the record to implicate the accused for the said offence.

14.Now the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be scrutinized with careful circumspect, otherwise it will cause much prejudice. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1, deposed that about nineteen years back her marriage with accused was taken place as per their caste and customs at Annavaram Devestanam and during their marriage her parents presented dowry of Rs.30,000/- besides ½ tula 4 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 gold to the accused. For about 2-3 years she was looked after by the accused and she got three children though this accused out of their wedlock. Three years thereafter, the accused developed extra marital relationship with several female persons out of such habit, the accused started harassing her in the manner of beating her and abusing her, whenever she asked about his behaviour and he started neglected her and her children by not providing any minimum needs or food to them. Whenever she questioned, the accused used to demand the amounts from her parents and also asked her to left the house. She further deposed that her father is no more and her mother is working as servant made, as such she unable to bring any amount. One month prior to presentation of the report, the accused finally necked out her and her children from his house, stating that she has to bring amounts from her parents house, otherwise, she has to put an end to his life. She waited for the accused that on one day or other there may be some change in accused, but it went in vain. Finally, she gave report to the police under Ex.P.1.

15.Curiously, she stated in cross examination by admitting that she lived with accused and lead marital life till filing of this case. Similarly she admitted that the house in which they resided was constructed by accused from his own income.

16.The defence can be culled out from the suggestion put to P.W.1 during cross examination by learned defence counsel that the accused belongs to lower caste than that of her caste and they both loved together and their marriage is love marriage but not arranged by one their elders and in view of his caste the disputes were erupted, consequently the marital relation was strained between them and that no harassment was made by accused against her as she alleged and that she filed false case.

17.P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1 she has also deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1.

18.The above all the allegations leveled against the accused is that he is having extra marital relationship with several woman. In that regard, there is no specific evidence the independent witnesses also did not support her and they 5 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 turned hostile. Except this allegations the other allegations are very routine and casual. Moreover, in view of the information elicited from P.W.1 that she lived with her husband/accused till filing of Ex.P1 report would suggest the infurence that this report was made by her with oblique motive and that there is no truth in it. Moreover, the circumstances of construction of house by the accused himself can also be infured that he is very much care in his developments and if he is having such kind of behaviour like womanizing he would have not develop his family life by constructing a house etc., on the other hand in the light of these circumstances it would suggest that the defence plea that due to caste disparities, the disputes arose between them is seems to be probable and fit into circumstances.

19.As regards to the receiving and demanding of dowry as contemplated under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition act except the self serving and bald assertion of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no any cogent and convincing evidence, hence the charges for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act are not proved by the prosecution.

20.In the light of such circumstances it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In view of the above circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under

Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

SpecialMobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada.

6 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : 03-05-2016 : Palaparthi Sarojini P.W.2 : 24-10-2016 : Aripaka Manikyamba P.W.3 : 21-03-2017 : Kakara Simhachalam P.W.4 : 21-03-2017 : M.Venkanna P.W.5 : 11-12-2018 : V.S.V.Ramana, Retired Sub-Inspector of police. For defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex:P1 : 22-10-2014 : Report given to police by P.W.1 Ex.P2 : 22-10-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3 : 22-10-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4 : 22-10-2014 : F.I.R in Cr.No.326/2014 of Peddapuram P.S Ex.P5 : 22-10-2014 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence : Nil.

SpecialMobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

7 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kakinada. (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.41/2015

Date of Offence:Prior to 22-10-2014 Complaint:22-10-2014 Appearance of accused:20-08-2015 Arrest of the accused : 22-10-2014 Released on bail: 30-10-2014 Commencement of trial:03-05-2016 Closure of trial:11-12-2018 Sentence/Order:28-12-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The Sub- Inspector of Police, Peddapuram police station.

Name of the accused:Palaparthi Janardhan, S/o Anjiyya, Age: 40 years, Caste: Viswabrahmin, Rajiv colony, Near Pandavulametta, Peddapuram.

Offence:under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of theDowryProhibitionAct. Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada (FAC) Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018

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

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate ( FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.41/2015

Between:

The Sub- Inspector of Police,

Peddapuram police station...... Complainant

Vs.

Palaparthi Janardhan, S/o Anjiyya, Age: 40 years, Caste: Viswabrahmin, Rajiv colony, Near Pandavulametta,

Peddapuram. ….. Accused

This case having come up for hearing before me on 21-12-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri Sk.Vallibabu, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of

IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that about seventeen years back Palaparthi Sarojini was solemnized by her mother Aripaka Manikyamba (L.W.2) with the accused. On demand of the accused, the parents of Palaparthi

Sarojini gave Rs.30,000/- toward dowry and Gold ring wg.1/2 sovereign to the accused as per the demand of the accused. After marriage, Palaparthi Sarojini joined the accused at his house to lead marital life. During their wedlock,

Palaparthi Sarojini blessed with two female child. After the accused is having illicit intimacy with another lady and started harassment towards Palaparthi

Sarojini physically and mentally by since one year and also demanding additional dowry and beating regularly and not looking after Palaparthi Sarojini and her children. When Palaparthi Sarojini her inability to bring additional dowry, the accused necked out from the house. Since then, Palaparthi Sarojini along with her children are residing at her parents’ house at Peddapuram and Palaparthi

Sarojini presented a report to Additional Sub-inspector of police, Peddapuram police station by name V.S.V.Ramana who registered the same as F.I.R in

Cr.No.326/2014 for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and Section 3 and 4 2 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 of D.P.Act. After completion of entire investigation, the Assistant Sub Inspector of police, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 498-A of the I.P.C and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

3. After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offence punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the

D.P.Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Subsequently, the accused is examined explaining the charges framed under section 240 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under section 498-A of the

I.P.C. and sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, in Telugu, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to

P5 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him that has come on record through prosecution witnesses, which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Point for determination: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is legally wedded wife of accused as their marriage taken place at about seventeen yeas ago. Durign their marriage the parents of P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the accsued as dowry and also provided gold ring wg. ½ sovn on his demand. Soon after the 3 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 marriage, P.W.1 joined with the accused and their marriage was consumated.

Out of their wedlock , they are blessed with one male and two female child.

Subsequently, the accused started harassment towards P.W.1 physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry. Further, it is alleged that the accused is having illicit intimacy another woman and keeping in view of such illicit intimacy he used to harass P.W.1. When, P.W.1 expressed her inability to bring

additional dowry, the accused necked out from the house. As such, there is no

other go, she came to her parents place. Then, she gave report to S.H.O,

Peddapuram under Ex.P.1. On receipt of Ex. P1 P.W.5 registered a case in

Cr.No.326/2014 for the offence Under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP act and took up the investigation, he completed the investigation after examining the witnesses and the scene of offence,etc., he proceeded to file the charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

11.During trial the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5.

12.P.W.1 is the victim, P.W.2 is mother of victim. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the independent witnesses who are said to have knowledge with regard to the affairs of P.W.1 and accused. P.W.5 is the investigating officer.

13.It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution did not choose to examine another witnesses namely Palaparthi Durgabhavani(L.W.3) Thammanna

Balaji( L.W.4) and Yella Satyavathi(L.W.7) as such this court has closed their evidence . Here it is relevant to note that among P.Ws.1 to 5, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are alleged to be the independent witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution are the claim of P.W.1 and turned hostile. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone available on the record to implicate the accused for the said offence.

14.Now the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be scrutinized with careful circumspect, otherwise it will cause much prejudice. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1, deposed that about nineteen years back her marriage with accused was taken place as per their caste and customs at Annavaram Devestanam and during their marriage her parents presented dowry of Rs.30,000/- besides ½ tula 4 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 gold to the accused. For about 2-3 years she was looked after by the accused and she got three children though this accused out of their wedlock. Three years thereafter, the accused developed extra marital relationship with several female persons out of such habit, the accused started harassing her in the manner of beating her and abusing her, whenever she asked about his behaviour and he started neglected her and her children by not providing any minimum needs or food to them. Whenever she questioned, the accused used to demand the amounts from her parents and also asked her to left the house. She further deposed that her father is no more and her mother is working as servant made, as such she unable to bring any amount. One month prior to presentation of the report, the accused finally necked out her and her children from his house, stating that she has to bring amounts from her parents house, otherwise, she has to put an end to his life. She waited for the accused that on one day or other there may be some change in accused, but it went in vain. Finally, she gave report to the police under Ex.P.1.

15.Curiously, she stated in cross examination by admitting that she lived with accused and lead marital life till filing of this case. Similarly she admitted that the house in which they resided was constructed by accused from his own income.

16.The defence can be culled out from the suggestion put to P.W.1 during cross examination by learned defence counsel that the accused belongs to lower caste than that of her caste and they both loved together and their marriage is love marriage but not arranged by one their elders and in view of his caste the disputes were erupted, consequently the marital relation was strained between them and that no harassment was made by accused against her as she alleged and that she filed false case.

17.P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1 she has also deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1.

18.The above all the allegations leveled against the accused is that he is having extra marital relationship with several woman. In that regard, there is no specific evidence the independent witnesses also did not support her and they 5 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 turned hostile. Except this allegations the other allegations are very routine and casual. Moreover, in view of the information elicited from P.W.1 that she lived with her husband/accused till filing of Ex.P1 report would suggest the infurence that this report was made by her with oblique motive and that there is no truth in it. Moreover, the circumstances of construction of house by the accused himself can also be infured that he is very much care in his developments and if he is having such kind of behaviour like womanizing he would have not develop his family life by constructing a house etc., on the other hand in the light of these circumstances it would suggest that the defence plea that due to caste disparities, the disputes arose between them is seems to be probable and fit into circumstances.

19.As regards to the receiving and demanding of dowry as contemplated under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition act except the self serving and bald assertion of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no any cogent and convincing evidence, hence the charges for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act are not proved by the prosecution.

20.In the light of such circumstances it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

21.In view of the above circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under

Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

SpecialMobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada.

6 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018 (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : 03-05-2016 : Palaparthi Sarojini P.W.2 : 24-10-2016 : Aripaka Manikyamba P.W.3 : 21-03-2017 : Kakara Simhachalam P.W.4 : 21-03-2017 : M.Venkanna P.W.5 : 11-12-2018 : V.S.V.Ramana, Retired Sub-Inspector of police. For defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex:P1 : 22-10-2014 : Report given to police by P.W.1 Ex.P2 : 22-10-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P3 : 22-10-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4 : 22-10-2014 : F.I.R in Cr.No.326/2014 of Peddapuram P.S Ex.P5 : 22-10-2014 : Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence : Nil.

SpecialMobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

7 CC No.41/2015, Dated:28-12-2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: PEDDAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kakinada. (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.41/2015

Date of Offence:Prior to 22-10-2014 Complaint:22-10-2014 Appearance of accused:20-08-2015 Arrest of the accused : 22-10-2014 Released on bail: 30-10-2014 Commencement of trial:03-05-2016 Closure of trial:11-12-2018 Sentence/Order:28-12-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The Sub- Inspector of Police, Peddapuram police station.

Name of the accused:Palaparthi Janardhan, S/o Anjiyya, Age: 40 years, Caste: Viswabrahmin, Rajiv colony, Near Pandavulametta, Peddapuram.

Offence:under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of theDowryProhibitionAct. Consequently, the accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada (FAC) Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

1 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

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

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

CALENDER CASE NO.54/2015

Between

The Sub-Inspector of police,

Gandepalli police station, ….. Complainant

And

1. Kanavareddy Ramesh @ Tanvireddy Ramesh, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 24 years, Caste: Turpu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

2. Kanavareddy Veerabhadram @ Tanivireddy Veerabhadram, S/o Nookayya, Age: 55 years, Caste: Turupu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

….. Accused 1 and 2

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

D.V.N.S.Surya Prakashrao, Advocate for the accused 1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused 1 and 2 are tried for the offence punishable under

Sections 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that Jabez Paul has been working as Assistant Sub Inspector of police, Gandepalli police station since 25-06-2014 and on 11-11-2014 at 10:00 a.m, he was deputed for Bandobust duty at Ramayyapalem village in Janmabhoomi -Mavuru programme along with PC 3056 by name B.Koteswararao (L.W.2). Some Mandal Revenue officials and political leaders have attended the meeting. While the meeting is going on, at about 12:30 p.m, A1 questioning the officers in harsh words and he is trying to proceed forcibly towards the programme stage. On that the Bandobust police officer stopped A1 and questioned his high handed behaviour. On that, A1 pushed the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police aside, then the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of police caught his hand not to proceed further.

2 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

On that A2 interfered and questioned the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police. In the meant time A2 who is father of A1 came there and challenged the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police stating that “Neevu

Yevadavirra Maa Abbayini Pattukovadaniki” and pushed the Assistant

Sub-Inspector of police aside and brought his son towards his house in high handed behaviour and assaulted the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police while discharging his legitimate duty. In this connection, the

Assistant Sub-inspector of police presented a written report to the Sub- inspector of police, Gandepalli police station by name V.Suresh, who registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.121/2014 for the offence under

Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After completion of entire investigation the

Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused 1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused 1 and 2 under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Subsequently, the accused 1 and 2 are examined explaining the charge framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C, for which the accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Exs.P1 to P5 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through prosecution witnesses, which the accused 1 and 2 denied and reported no defence evidence.

3 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2, perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Point for determination: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were deployed for Bandobust duty at Ramayyapalem village, on 11-11-2014 in connection with Janmabhoomi-Mavuri programme and at the time some of Mandal revenue officals and political leaders have attended the said meeting. While the meeting was going on at about 12:30 p.m, the accused 1 and 2 questioning the officers in harsh manner by trying to proceed forcibly towards the programme stage, on that P.Ws.1 and 2 being police officials tried to prevent the act of the accused, they both behaved highhandedly against them by asking their right to prevent them that “Nuvvu Yevadiviraa Maa Abbayini Pattukovataniki” by saying so he pushed P.W.1 aside. Upon that, P.W.1 lodge report against the accused. For which a crime was registered against the accused and took up the investigation by S.I of police, Gandepalli P.S.

11.During the trial, prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6.

It is pertinent to mention that the investigating officer i.e., S.I of police

Gandepalli P.S by name V.Suresh(L.W.7) has not been examined by the prosecution and his evidence was closed as there is no other go. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 are sufficient to implicate the accused for the said offence. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police officials who are said to have deputed for bandobust duty to the alleged spot in connection with Janmabhoomi programme held by the

Government officials. P.Ws.1 and 2 narrated about the acts of the 4 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018 accused during the said programme and how they behaved with them by obstructing them to discharge their legitimate duties. Here it is to be noted that there are no material placed before this court to show that they were deputed for bandobust duty. The eye witnesses P.Ws.3 to 6 did not support the case of the prosecution or the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2.

In the absence of evidence of investigating officer it is highly difficult to infer that P.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed to the alleged spot for bandobust duty. As there is no sufficient material except that bald assumptions of

P.Ws.1 and 2, it cannot be said that at the relevant time P.Ws.1 and 2 were discharging their official duties. Further, the eye witnesses who are not supported their case. Therefore, in these circumstances it is highly difficult to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution when A1 questioning the political leaders and other government officials on some aspects in forceable manner and when

P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to prevent him, then A1 and A2 behaved with them highhandedly by pushing P.W.1 aside. In order to attracted the offence under Section 353 of I.P.c there must be assault or criminal force on the part of accused. Here there are no such instances and mere pushing

P.W.1 aside cannot be constitute as criminal force. Anyhow the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborated with any independent witnesses and the eye witnesses P.Ws.3 to 6 did not choose to give their evidence in support of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, in the given circumstances it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to connect the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C to the accused 1 and 2.

12.In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 , it is not safe to rely on their evidence to act upon. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

5 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

15.In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : 17-10-2017 : R.J.Paul, A.S.I of Gandepalli police station

P.W.2 : 21-03-2018 : B.Koteswararao, PC 3056

P.W.3 : 04-07-2018 : Singaluri Rambabu

P.W.4 : 04-07-2018 : Ganireddy China Kanakaraju

P.W.5 : 23-10-2018 : Singaluri Arun Kumar

P.W.6 : 23-10-2018 : Mylavarapu Srinivas

For Accused :-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : 11-11-2014 : Report

Ex:P2 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex:P3 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex:P4 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

Ex:P5 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6

For Accused :- Nil.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

//TRUE COPY//

(FAC) A.J.F.C.M, PEDDAPURAM.

6 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kakinada. (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28 th day of December , 2018 CALENDER CASE NO.54/2015 Date of Offence:11-11-2014 Complaint:11-11-2014 Appearance of accused:09-04-2015 Arrest of the accused : 18-12-2014 Released on bail: 18-12-2014 Commencement of trial:17-10-2017 Closure of trial:23-10-2018 Sentence/Order:28-12-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The Sub-inspector of police, Gandepalli police station.

Name of the accused:1. Kanavareddy Ramesh @ Tanvireddy Ramesh, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 24 years, Caste: Turpu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

2. Kanavareddy Veerabhadram @ Tanivireddy Veerabhadram, S/o Nookayya, Age: 55 years, Caste: Turupu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

Offence: under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Sentence :In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada (FAC) Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //True copy//

1 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

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

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

CALENDER CASE NO.54/2015

Between

The Sub-Inspector of police,

Gandepalli police station, ….. Complainant

And

1. Kanavareddy Ramesh @ Tanvireddy Ramesh, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 24 years, Caste: Turpu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

2. Kanavareddy Veerabhadram @ Tanivireddy Veerabhadram, S/o Nookayya, Age: 55 years, Caste: Turupu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

….. Accused 1 and 2

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

D.V.N.S.Surya Prakashrao, Advocate for the accused 1 and 2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused 1 and 2 are tried for the offence punishable under

Sections 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that Jabez Paul has been working as Assistant Sub Inspector of police, Gandepalli police station since 25-06-2014 and on 11-11-2014 at 10:00 a.m, he was deputed for Bandobust duty at Ramayyapalem village in Janmabhoomi -Mavuru programme along with PC 3056 by name B.Koteswararao (L.W.2). Some Mandal Revenue officials and political leaders have attended the meeting. While the meeting is going on, at about 12:30 p.m, A1 questioning the officers in harsh words and he is trying to proceed forcibly towards the programme stage. On that the Bandobust police officer stopped A1 and questioned his high handed behaviour. On that, A1 pushed the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police aside, then the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of police caught his hand not to proceed further.

2 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

On that A2 interfered and questioned the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police. In the meant time A2 who is father of A1 came there and challenged the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police stating that “Neevu

Yevadavirra Maa Abbayini Pattukovadaniki” and pushed the Assistant

Sub-Inspector of police aside and brought his son towards his house in high handed behaviour and assaulted the Assistant Sub-Inspector of police while discharging his legitimate duty. In this connection, the

Assistant Sub-inspector of police presented a written report to the Sub- inspector of police, Gandepalli police station by name V.Suresh, who registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.121/2014 for the offence under

Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. After completion of entire investigation the

Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

3. The case is taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused 1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused 1 and 2 under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Subsequently, the accused 1 and 2 are examined explaining the charge framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C, for which the accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Exs.P1 to P5 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through prosecution witnesses, which the accused 1 and 2 denied and reported no defence evidence.

3 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2, perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

9.Point for determination: “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point

The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were deployed for Bandobust duty at Ramayyapalem village, on 11-11-2014 in connection with Janmabhoomi-Mavuri programme and at the time some of Mandal revenue officals and political leaders have attended the said meeting. While the meeting was going on at about 12:30 p.m, the accused 1 and 2 questioning the officers in harsh manner by trying to proceed forcibly towards the programme stage, on that P.Ws.1 and 2 being police officials tried to prevent the act of the accused, they both behaved highhandedly against them by asking their right to prevent them that “Nuvvu Yevadiviraa Maa Abbayini Pattukovataniki” by saying so he pushed P.W.1 aside. Upon that, P.W.1 lodge report against the accused. For which a crime was registered against the accused and took up the investigation by S.I of police, Gandepalli P.S.

11.During the trial, prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6.

It is pertinent to mention that the investigating officer i.e., S.I of police

Gandepalli P.S by name V.Suresh(L.W.7) has not been examined by the prosecution and his evidence was closed as there is no other go. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 are sufficient to implicate the accused for the said offence. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the police officials who are said to have deputed for bandobust duty to the alleged spot in connection with Janmabhoomi programme held by the

Government officials. P.Ws.1 and 2 narrated about the acts of the 4 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018 accused during the said programme and how they behaved with them by obstructing them to discharge their legitimate duties. Here it is to be noted that there are no material placed before this court to show that they were deputed for bandobust duty. The eye witnesses P.Ws.3 to 6 did not support the case of the prosecution or the claim of P.Ws.1 and 2.

In the absence of evidence of investigating officer it is highly difficult to infer that P.Ws.1 and 2 were deputed to the alleged spot for bandobust duty. As there is no sufficient material except that bald assumptions of

P.Ws.1 and 2, it cannot be said that at the relevant time P.Ws.1 and 2 were discharging their official duties. Further, the eye witnesses who are not supported their case. Therefore, in these circumstances it is highly difficult to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution when A1 questioning the political leaders and other government officials on some aspects in forceable manner and when

P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to prevent him, then A1 and A2 behaved with them highhandedly by pushing P.W.1 aside. In order to attracted the offence under Section 353 of I.P.c there must be assault or criminal force on the part of accused. Here there are no such instances and mere pushing

P.W.1 aside cannot be constitute as criminal force. Anyhow the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborated with any independent witnesses and the eye witnesses P.Ws.3 to 6 did not choose to give their evidence in support of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, in the given circumstances it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to connect the offence under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C to the accused 1 and 2.

12.In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 , it is not safe to rely on their evidence to act upon. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

5 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

15.In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : 17-10-2017 : R.J.Paul, A.S.I of Gandepalli police station

P.W.2 : 21-03-2018 : B.Koteswararao, PC 3056

P.W.3 : 04-07-2018 : Singaluri Rambabu

P.W.4 : 04-07-2018 : Ganireddy China Kanakaraju

P.W.5 : 23-10-2018 : Singaluri Arun Kumar

P.W.6 : 23-10-2018 : Mylavarapu Srinivas

For Accused :-None.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : 11-11-2014 : Report

Ex:P2 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex:P3 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex:P4 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

Ex:P5 : 11-11-2014 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6

For Accused :- Nil.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

//TRUE COPY//

(FAC) A.J.F.C.M, PEDDAPURAM.

6 CC 54/2015, dated 28-12-2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

PEDDAPURAM.

PRESENT: Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kakinada. (FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28 th day of December , 2018 CALENDER CASE NO.54/2015 Date of Offence:11-11-2014 Complaint:11-11-2014 Appearance of accused:09-04-2015 Arrest of the accused : 18-12-2014 Released on bail: 18-12-2014 Commencement of trial:17-10-2017 Closure of trial:23-10-2018 Sentence/Order:28-12-2018 Reasons for delay: No delay. Name of the complainant:The Sub-inspector of police, Gandepalli police station.

Name of the accused:1. Kanavareddy Ramesh @ Tanvireddy Ramesh, S/o Veerabhadram, Age: 24 years, Caste: Turpu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

2. Kanavareddy Veerabhadram @ Tanivireddy Veerabhadram, S/o Nookayya, Age: 55 years, Caste: Turupu Kapu, Ramayyapalem village, Gandepalli Mandal.

Offence: under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty.

Finding: The Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Sentence :In the result, Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Consequently the accused 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused 1 and 2 shall in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada (FAC) Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. //True copy//

1

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

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

PEDDAPURAM::

Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate ( FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.72/2015

Between: The Sub-Inspector of Police

Peddapuram Police Station. ..... Complainant

And

1. Nela Durga Prasad, S/o Prabhakararao, Age: 27 years, Caste: SC Mala, D.No.7-7-23/A, Kothapeta, Shree Raghava cell plaza, Darga Centre, Peddapuram.

2. Palika Srinivasarao, S/o Ramu, Age: 32 years, Caste: Settibalija, Soorampalem village, Gandepalli Mandal. I Con Electronics, Darge Centre, Peddapuram.

3. Mungi Suryanarayuana, S/o Ayodhya, Age: 26 years, Caste: Kapu, Mounica Cell Gallery, Sara vari veedhi, Peddapuram. ….Accused 1 to 3.

This case having come up for hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P.Sugunarao, advocate for the accused 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is tried for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act.

2. The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 25-07- 2014 on receipt of credible information received through Investigator of

Indian Music Industry, Visakhapatnam conducted raid and arrested the accused 1 to 3 at their cell shops situated at Darge Centre,

Peddapuram while they were loading the songs into memory cards through computer by charging Rs.100/- each for loading from the customers without having any valid license or authority and seized the incriminating material i.e. computer systems from their possession 2

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

under the cover of separate mediators report. Basing on the strength of the report of Investigator of Indian Music Industry, Visakhapatnam and mediators report, Additional Sub-inspector of police, Peddapuram police station by name V.S.V.Ramana registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.

242/2014 for the offence under Section under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of

Copy Right Act and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. After perusing the material on record, the case is taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 to 3, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused 1 to 3 under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Subsequently, the accused is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under

Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act, in Telugu, to which the accused 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In the course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and the

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked besides M.Os.1 to 3 are marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against them that has come on record through prosecution witnesses, to which, the accused 1 to 3 denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused 1 to 3 and perused the evidence, oral and documentary, on record.

3

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

9. Now the point for determination : “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act, beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. Point:

The case of the prosecution is that the investigator of Indian

Music Industry got information about these accuysed that they are downloading songs of new released movies unauthorizedly and selling to general public on price. Upon that, the investigator P.W.1 came down from Visakhapatnam to Kakinada and made a report to that affect to

S.H.O, Peddapuram P.S. On that, S.I of police Peddapuram P.S, P.W.3 took the assistance of mediator P.W.2 and one Devalanka

Satyanarayana were proceeded to the shops of A1 to A3 and caught hold them and seized C.P.Us, three memory cars, three card readers (M.Os.1 to 3) from the possession of A1 to A3 on different mediator reports Exs.P2 to P4. Then, the accused were arrested and remaned to judicial custody.

11. During trial the prosecution examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3.

12. P.W.1 is the investigator of Indian Muscial industry,

Visakhapatnam zone. P.W.2 is the mediator at the time of seizure of

M.Os.1 to 3 under the cover of mediator reports Exs.p2 to P4. P.W.3 is the investigating officer.

13. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed in similar lines with one voice stating that having known the accused encashing through pirated songs by downloading from various websites and providing to the general public on price. As such, they raided over the shops of A1 to A3. Where, A1 to

A3 said to have confessed about doing their unauthorized business by violating the Copy rights Act. Then, the police taken them into custody 4

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

and seized the computer gadgets through which the accused downloading the songs of new released movies and selling to the public.

14. Here, it is to be seen whether the said computer gadgets M.Os.1 to 3 containing any material to show that the accused downloaded newly released movie’s songs. Absolutely the C.P.U or card readers and memory cards i.e., M.Os.1 to 3 does not display before this court and there is no material to show that those were displayed even before mediator P.W.2 what actually contained therein. As such, it cannot be said that M.Os.1 to 3 nothing to do with this case to establish that the accused download the songs and stored in C.P.U or in any other gadget.

Further, the investigating officer P.W.3 did not enquired with any one of the customers whether the accused were selling the said songs on price. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3,there is no other evidence to implicate the accused for the said offence.

15. P.Ws.1 to 3 are seems to be interested persons and there are no independent person to show that the accused doing such activity contravened the copy rights. As such, in absence of cogent and convincing evidence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 alone to implicate the accused for the said offence. Having regard of these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

16. In view of the above observations it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act.

Consequently they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Criminal

Procedure Code. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of 5

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

appeal time.Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant on computer in the chamber of Presiding Officer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: 11-12-2018 : U.V.Suryanarayana, Retired Inspector of police

P.W.2: 11-12-2018 : Sangani Yedukondalu

P.W.3: 11-12-2018 : V.S.V.Ramana, Retired Sub-inspector of police.

For defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : 25-07-2014 : Report

Ex.P2 : 25-07-2014 : Mediators report at the shop of A1

Ex.P3 : 25-07-2014 : Mediators report at the shop of A2

Ex.P4 : 25-07-2014 : Mediators report at the shop of A3.

Ex.P5 : 22-02-2014 : Assignment agreement(Notary copy)

Ex.P6 : 25-07-2014 : F.I.R in Cr.No.242/2014 of Peddapuram P.S.

For Defence : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Three C.P.Us.

M.O.2 : Three Memory cards

M.O.3 : Three card readers

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram. //TRUE COPY//

(FAC) A.J.F.C.M, PEDDAPURAM.

6

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

:: PEDDAPURAM:: Present : Sri Ch.Yugandhar, Special Mobile Judicial First Class Magistrate ( FAC) Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram. Friday, the 28th day of December, 2018

C.C.No.72/2015

Date of Offence:25-07-2014 Complaint:25-07-2014 Appearance of accused:07-04-2015 Arrest of the accused 25-07-2014

Released on bail:25-07-2014

Commencement of trial:11-12-2018

Closure of trial:11-12-2018

Sentence/Order:28-12-2018

Reasons for delay:Due to non production witnesses by prosecution.

Name of the complainant:The Sub-Inspector of Police Peddapuram police station. Name of the accused:1. Nela Durga Prasad, S/o Prabhakararao, Age: 27 years, Caste: SC Mala, D.No.7-7-23/A, Kothapeta, Shree Raghava cell plaza, Darga Centre, Peddapuram.

2. Palika Srinivasarao, S/o Ramu, Age: 32 years, Caste: Settibalija, Soorampalem village, Gandepalli Mandal. I Con Electronics, Darge Centre, Peddapuram.

3. Mungi Suryanarayuana, S/o Ayodhya, Age: 26 years, Caste: Kapu, Mounica Cell Gallery, Sara vari veedhi, Peddapuram.

Offence:under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act. Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act. Result:In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 63, 65 r/w 51 of Copy Right Act. Consequently they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal time.Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Ch.Yugandhar,

Special Mobile.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. (FAC) Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Peddapuram. Copy submitted to the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, East Godavari, 7

CC 72/2015, dated 28-12-2018

Rajamahendravaram. //TRUE COPY//