Sri D. Nageswara Rao

1 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT MANTHANI

Present: Sri. D. NAGESWARA RAO

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Friday, the 30 th day of June, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.56/2017

(Old CC No.399/2007)

(Crime No.65/2007 of Mahadevpur Police Station)

Between:

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Mahadevpur. ...Complainant.

And

Bandam Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Sammireddy, Age: 33 years, R/o. Suraram Village of Mahadevpur Mandal.…Accused **** This case is coming before this court for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A. Krishnaveni, learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and of Sri S. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case emerges out of the police report filed by the complainant under Section 417, 420, 493, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) in crime No.65/2007 against

Accused.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, the accused had cheated the complainant stating that he will marry her and had raped her resulting she begot a child and thereafter, he escaped from his liability, as such, the complainant filed a case in

Cr.No.46/2005, U/s.376, 493 and 506 IPC which is now pending and again the accused on 01-07-2007 while the complainant was in her parents house, the accused came to her and that he intend to marry her and he will look after her and their son well hereafter and having stated the same fact before the elders, he took away her to her junior paternal uncle at Bellampalli and there they stayed for three days and thereafter they came to Mahadevpur, where he taken a rented house in Arella Narayana’s house and he kept under the guise of marriage and they lived together there and he told her the she has to depose in the Court on 02-08-2007 in the pending case that he had married her and after the acquittal of the case, he will marry her and from 30-07-2007 till the date of complaint, he threatened her with dire consequences and when she refused to depose as he like, he necked her out of the house and thus thereby the accused committed an offences punishable U/s.417, 420, 493 and 506 of IPC.

3.On the strength of compliant, a case registered by P.W.5 in Cr. No.65/2007,

U/sec.417,420,493, 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the PW-5-G. Sadan

Kumar-SI visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses, recorded their statements and conducted Panchanama and filed charge sheet.

2 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

4.This case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable under Section

U/sec.417,420,493, 506 of IPC against the Accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents, on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to accused, in terms of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/sec.417,420,493, 506 of IPC is read over and explained to them in Telugu language and having understood the same, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW-1 got examined and got marked Ex.P.1 (Complaint), PW-2 got examined, PW-3 got examined, PW-4 got examined, PW-5-IO got examined and Ex.P.2 is FIR. The Court treated the evidence of

L.W.2-Karunala Kistaiah, L.W.3-Karunala Pochakka, L.W.5-Karunala Shoba, L.W.6-

Arelli Laxmi, L.W.7Arelli Govardhan, L.W.10-Golakonda Sammaiah, L.W.11-Bandela

Kistamma, L.W.12-Lella Banakka, L.W.13-Golakonda Raju as Nil and closed.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same as false and accused is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.

9. Heard the oral arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the Offence

punishable U/sec.417, 420, 493, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

11. The case of prosecution is that the accused had cheated the complainant by stating that he will marry her and had raped her resulting she begot a child and thereafter, he escaped from his liability, as such, the complainant filed a case in

Cr.No.46/2005, U/s.376, 493 and 506 IPC which is now pending and again the accused on 01-07-2007 while the complainant was in her parent’s house, the accused came to her and that he intend to marry her and he will look after her and their son well hereafter and having stated the same fact before the elders, he took away her to her junior paternal uncle at Bellampalli and there they stayed for three days and thereafter they came to Mahadevpur, where he taken a rented house in Arella Narayana’s house and he kept under the guise of marriage and they lived together there and he told her the she has to depose in the Court on 02-08-2007 in the pending case that he had married her and after the acquittal of the case, he will marry her and from 30-07-2007 till the date of complaint, he threatened her with dire consequences and when she refused to depose as he like, he necked her out of the house and thus thereby the accused committed an offences punishable U/s.417, 420, 493 and 506 of IPC.

3 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani 12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the case is disposed on merits. On the other hand, Sri. S. Srinivas, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that, the accused was not promised her to marry and nothing was elicited against the accused and more over he was charged U/s.376, 493, 506 IPC and was acquitted the said Cr.No.46/2005 U/s.376, 417 and 506 of IPC by the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Karimnagar. Subsequently, she filed another case against the accused

on the same facts with other sections U/s.417,420,493, 506 of IPC which attracts double jeopardy. Moreover, the P.W.1 in her further cross-examination admitted that she did not know the contents of Ex.P.1 as the police are the scribed the Ex.P.1 and did not read over to her, she signed on the advice of the police. She admitted that accused never promised to marry her. Further she admitted that the accused never threatened her. So, there is no evidence to show the accused cheated the P.W.1 on the guise of marriage and never threatened her. The benefit of doubt necessarily goes to the accused and finally requested the court to acquit the accused.

13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties it will be appropriate at this stage to read sections 417, 420, 493, 506 of IPC :- Sec.417 IPC Punishment for cheating. — “Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both”. Sec.420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. — “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Sec.493 IPC deals with Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a

belief of lawful marriage — “Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe the she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Sec.506 IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation — “Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.”

14.Therefore, in this case, to prove the accusation against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.417,420,493,506 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following facts beyond all reasonable doubt that:

(1) the accused has married the P.W.1 but that marriage is not lawful; (2) the accused has cohabited the P.W.1 on the guise of such marriage; (3) the accused has cheated the P.W.1; (4) the accused has threatened the P.W.1;

15.P.W.1 is complainant and deposed that in the year 2005 she filed a criminal case against the accused for rape. In the year 2007 when the case come up the trial the accused came to her and promised to marry her and look after her daughter if she 4 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani deposed that she and accused lived together and going to marry with each other. But she did not agreed for that then he refused to marry and thrown her out.

. During Cross examination, she admitted during the trial of Sessions case, one

DNA Sample was sent to RFSL and report was received that the accused is not the father of the her daughter. She admitted that she was deposed before the Hon’ble

Sessions Court, Karimnagar against the accused completely. She admitted that the

Sessions case was ended in acquittal after full-fledged trial.

During further cross examination of P.W.1, she deposed that police scribed the

Ex.P.1 report. They did not read over to her. She did not know the contents of the

Ex.P.1 as suggested by the police she signed on it. She admitted that the accused never promised to marry her. She admitted that in RFSL Report the accused is not the biological father of her child. She admitted that accused never threatened her. She denied that only to implicate the accused in this case she foisted the false case against the accused even though her child was born to him and begotten her child to another and as she could not traced him but on the socio economic status of the accused she foisted the false case for the sake of illegal gains.

During the re-examination of learned APP, the P.W.1 reiterated the deposition made in further cross examination she denied the suggestion the she is deposing false now. Further she denied that the matter was settled out of the court with the accused at the intervention of the elders.

On perusing the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, it is clearly established that there was previous case was tried by the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Karimnagar in S.C. No.144 of 2007 in Cr.No.46/2005 of PS Mahadevpur U/s.376, 493, 506 of IPC and that case was acquitted after full-fledged trial.

It is proper to mention here that the Para 11 of the Judgment of Hon’ble Sessions

Court, Karimnagar in S.C. No.144/2007 that “As could be seen from the record there is a D.N.A. test, which was conducted against the victim women and her daughter and the accused. It is settled principle of law that the D.N.A. test is identified by the law that it is technically established fact. There are no presumptions and assumptions in the D.N.A.

test. The D.N.A. test clinchingly goes to show that the accused is not father of the baby, whom P.W.1 begot. Therefore the child which was born to the victim women was not born through the accused. Therefore, the victim is not speaking true and her evidence is not believable and trustworthy. She is keeping a material facts under a mat and she preferred a false complaint. On going through the entire record I strongly came to a conclusion that the victim women is interested party to had sexual intercourse with the accused. Another point is that the child born to P.W.1 was not born through the accused. All these two loop holes the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal”.

On perusal of the above para, it is established that the DNA test was conducted in which it is established that the accused is not the father of the child of the P.W.1., and finally he was acquitted in such case which was charged against him U/s.376, 493 and 506.

5 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

It is admitted by P.W.1 during her further cross-examination that she did not know the contents of Ex.P.1. Police scribed the Ex.P.1 and did not read over to her. The accused did not promise to marry her. The RFSL report stated that the accused is not the biological father of her child. She admitted that accused never threatened her.

So it is clear that P.W.1 made two inconsistent statements during her chief examination and cross examination.

So the P.W.1 deposed against the accused during her chief examination and also deposed favourable evidence during her cross examination saying that since the accused did not promise her for marriage as such there is no cheating as deposed by her and that the accused never cheated her and never married her. Two views are possible from the evidence of P.W.1. It is settled principle of law that when two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused shall be taken into consideration. As such the evidence of P.W.1 is appearing to be doubtful and her evidence cannot be used to convict the accused.

16.P.W.2 is the circumstantial evidence and deposed that P.W.1 is the daughter of his elder brother. P.W.1 and accused came to his house at Bellampalli. The accused told him that he will marry P.W.1. They stayed 3 days in his the house. Thereafter they went away.

During Cross examination, he admitted that one criminal case was pending

before the Hon’ble Sessions Court. He admitted that he did not know the result of the

criminal case.

On perusal of his evidence, his evidence does not corroborate the evidence of

P.W.1 in material particulars and does not establish the guilt of the accused.

17.P.W.3 is the circumstantial evidence and deposed that he knows the P.W.1. The father of P.W.1 was working as servant at the place of accused. The accused developed illicit relationship with daughter of Kistaiah. She also had begotten one baby.

A Panchayath was held.

During Cross examination, he admitted that he did not know the previous criminal case was pending before the Hon’ble Sessions Court. He admitted that the accused had acquitted in such case. No documents were scribed in the Panchayath.

On perusal of his evidence, his evidence does not corroborate the evidence of

P.W.1 in material particulars and does not establish the guilt of the accused. His evidence is doubtful in material particulars regarding the Panchayath was held.

18.P.W.4 is the circumstantial evidence and deposed that he knows the P.W.1. The father of P.W.1 was working as servant at the place of accused. The accused developed illicit relationship with daughter of Kistaiah. She also had begotten one baby.

He did not marry P.W.1.

During Cross examination, he admitted that his is 40 years but it is mentioned as 60 years in his statement. He knows the previous criminal case but he does not know the result of the case.

6 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

On perusal of his evidence, his evidence does not corroborate the evidence of

P.W.1 in material particulars and does not establish the guilt of the accused. His evidence is doubtful in material particulars.

19.P.W.5 is the investigation officer and deposed that on 09-08-2007 at about 17-40 hours he received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 basing on which he registered the a case in

Cr.No.65/2007 U/s.417,420,493, 506 of IPC and issued FIR Ex.P.2. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

During Cross examination, he admitted that there is delay of 8 days and no reasons was explained for such delay. He admitted that he did not know the previous case against the accused and the result of such case. He denied that he registered false case against the accused even though one case is pending on the same facts and under same sections.

On perusal of his evidence, there is inordinate delay of 8 days in lodging report and not mentioned the reasons for such delay. His evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars and does not establish the guilt of the accused.

His evidence is doubtful in material particulars as the previous criminal case also pending in his station.

20. Accused is examined as D.W.1 and got marked the Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 which shows that the exhibits are regarding the S.C. No.144 of 2007 in Cr.No.46/2005 of PS

Mahadevpur U/s.376, 493, 506 of IPC and that accused herein was acquitted after full- fledged trial.

21.When the victim herself deposed favourable evidence stating that the accused never cheated the P.W.1, convicting the accused basing on evidences of P.Ws 2 to 5 is not sustainable. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 is also showing that the accused never married P.W.1 never cheated particularly but they are the circumstantial evidence and investigation officer, their evidence has to be corroborated to P.W.1, but in this case, their evidence does not corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. But, P.W.1 herself deposed that the accused never promised her to marry her. As per the RFSL report the accused is not the father of her child and he never threatened her. In such a case when P.W.1 herself deposing that there is no cheating and threatened on the part of the accused, the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 cannot be used to convict the accused.

On perusing the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 all the interested witnesses to P.W.1 and their evidence did not corroborate by any other independent evidence and the

Investigation Officer is failed to procure the independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 does not corroborate with each other.

There is a delay of 8 days to lodge a report. Such delay is not explained in their evidence. So, the inordinate delay in lodging report would create suspicion to implicate the accusations against the accused. But the investigation officer did not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. When the victim (P.W.1) herself deposed favourable evidence in favour of accused by stating that the accused never cheated her and never promised to marry her and never threatened her. So there is a doubt 7 Judgment in CC No.56/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani regarding the guilt of the accused. There is a doubt arises to a prudent man that how the accused had committed such offences as alleged by the PW.1 to P.W.5 when the

P.W.1 and victim herself deposed a favourable evidence in favour of accused. The prosecution failed to examine the crucial witnesses to prove the material facts and nexus between the incidents and presence of the accused at the scene of offence at the time of offence.

22. So, there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused has committed the offence of cheating, mock marriage and threatened the P.W.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and not proved any of the essential elements of alleged offences. So, the benefit of doubt should always go to the Accused.

23. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/sec.417,420,493,506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable

U/s.417,420,493,506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C from the offence punishable U/s.417,420,493,506 of IPC and he is set at liberty and their bail bonds shall stand canceled after appeal time and under the provisions of

Section 437A of CrPC.

Typed by me on my personal Laptop and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2017.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 : Karunala Shashirekha.D.W.1: Bandam Srinivas Reddy. PW.2 : Karunala Chandramouli. PW.3 : Singaniveni Gattaiah. PW 4 : Kaluva Sammaiah. PW 5 : G. Sadan Kumar-SI-IO.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P.1 is the Complaint of P.W.1;Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of FIR; Ex.P.2 is the FIREx.D.2 is the certified copy of Charge sheet; Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of RFSL report; Ex.D.4 is the CC of deposition of P.W.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANTHANI

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MANTHANI

Present: Sri D. NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

FAC: Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

Wednesday, on the 6 th day of January, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.889/2017

(OLD CALENDAR CASE No.293/2013)

(Crime No.170/2012 of Kataram Police Station)

Between:

The State represented by its

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kataram P.S....Complainant

And

Cheerla Thirupathi Reddy, S/o. Shiva Ram Reddy, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Gangaram Village of Kataram Mandal.…Accused * * * This case is coming before this Court for final hearing in the presence of Sri

N. Ravinder, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution/Complainant and

Sri P. Vasunder, learned Counsel for Accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kataram filed charge sheet on the report given under Section 324 and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code (In short “IPC”) in crime

No.170/2012 of P.S., Kataram against the Accused.

2.The case of the Prosecution, in brief is that, PW1/Chinumala Srinivas is the resident of Adivarampet Village of Kataram Mandal. He was working as Mandal

Conveyor of YSR Congress Party. PW11/Putta Madhu was working as District

Conveyor in YSR Congress Party. On 17-10-2012 at about 2-00 PM, as per request of

PW1, PW11 came to Gangaram Village for joining of Gangaram Youth Members into

YSR Party and to provide street lights to Gangaram under Putta Lingamma Charitable

Trust. The Accused is having intention to insult and damage political career of PW11, attacked on PW11 with a stick when PW11 getting down from his car. Immediately,

PW1 and PW2/Cheepalli Pochaiah rescued PW11 from the hands of Accused. As a result, the PW11 received bleeding injuries to his left shoulder and PW2 received

Page 1 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021 bleeding injuries on his head while trying to rescue PW11. Then, PW11 and PW2 went to Mahadevpur Hospital for treatment.

Thus, the Accused is liable for the offences punishable under Section 324 and

Section 506 of IPC.

3.This case was taken on cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 324 and Section 506 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of documents, on which the

Prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to Accused, in terms of Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘Cr.P.C.’).

5.The Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. and the charges framed against him is read over and explained to him in Telugu language and having understood the same, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the Prosecution got examined PW1 (Chinumala

Srinivas/Complainant) and got marked Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on report given to

Police and Ex.P2 is the Statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW2 (Cheepalli Pochaiah @ Chinni/injured) got examined and got marked Ex.P3 is the

Statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW3 (Malka Ramarao/eye witness) got examined. PW4 (Bandi Shiva/eye witness) got examined. PW5 (Pagadala

Narayana) got examined. PW6 (Neelam Balaiah/CDF Panch Witness) got examined and got marked Ex.P4 is the Signature of PW6 on CDF Panchanama. PW7 (Manthina

Raju/CDF Panch Witness) got examined and got marked Ex.P5 is the Signature of PW7 on CDF Panchanama. PW8 (Neelala Sathaiah/Eye witness) got examined and got marked Ex.P6 is the Statement of PW8 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW9 (Marupaka Ravi/Eye witness) got examined and got marked Ex.P7 is the Statement of

PW9 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW10 (Dr. Chendra Shekar) got examined and got marked Ex.P8 is the Medical Certificate of PW2 and Ex.P9 is the Medical

Certificate of PW11. PW11 (Putta Madhu @ Madhukar/Injured) got examined. PW12 (B. Raju-SI/IO) got examined and got marked Ex.P10 is FIR, Ex.P11 is CDF

Panchanama.

Page 2 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

7.After closure of Prosecution side evidence, the Accused got examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the

Prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

Arguments

8.Heard the arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

During argument, Sri N. Ravinder, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the victim/PW11 of this case clearly deposed that the Accused attacked on him and threatened with dire consequences due to which he sustained simple injuries. Mere turned hostile of some of the eye witnesses, Complainant and CDF Panch Witnesses did not affect the entire case. The Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt with the help of evidences of victim/injured, other eye witnesses, doctor and investigating officer. As per Section 222 of Cr.P.C., the Accused can be convicted for any minor offence even though the charge was not framed against him and the evidence establishes against him for minor offence.

In contra, Sri P. Vasunder, learned Counsel for Accused filed written arguments and vehemently argued the Accused did not commit any of the offences as alleged by the Prosecution and the witnesses who deposed before the Court did not corroborate in their evidences. The evidences of PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW11 did not corroborate with each other and several contradictions were deposed in their evidences. It is a false case to counter blast on the guise of political grudges. The PW2 and PW11 went to the

Hospital after lapse of 48 days after the alleged injuries sustained by them. The PW1,

PW2, PW8, PW9 who were cited as Complainant, injured and eye witnesses and PW6 and PW7 who were the CDF Panch Witnesses turned hostile and did not support the

Prosecution case. Hence, the Accused is innocent and the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point for Consideration

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties, now the points for determination are:-

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the Offences

punishable under Section 324 and Section 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt or not ?

Page 3 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

10.Before going to appreciate the evidence available on record, in order to attract the ingredients of Section 324 of IPC (Punishment for voluntary causing hurt with dangerous weapon or means) and Section 506 of IPC (Punishment for Criminal

Intimidation), the Prosecution has to establish that the Accused beat the PW2, PW11 with deadly weapon (stick) or means and threatened them with dire consequences.

11. To prove the ingredients of alleged offences i.e., Section 324 and Section 506 of

IPC, the Prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW11 (Injured), PW3, PW4 and PW5 (who are cited eye witnesses), PW10 (Doctor who treated PW2 and PW11) and PW12 who is the investigating officer.

12. On perusal of evidence of PW11/Injured deposed in chief that on 17-10-2012 at about 2 PM, he along with PW1, PW3 to PW5 went to Gangaram Village on the request of his party workers to discuss village issues and they requested him to provide street bulbs through his trust namely Putta Lingamma Charitable Trust and some villagers interested to join into their party.

At that time, the Accused who belongs to Congress Party of that Village suddenly attacked on him by holding a stick when he got down from his car on his left shoulder and caused injuries. The Accused also threatened him with dire consequences as such he fled away from there. The Accused might be attacked on him as the Congress Party workers are willing to join in their YSRCP. They left the scene after some time and went to Police Station and lodged report against him and Police referred him to Government

Hospital, Mahadevpur.

During his cross-examination, he admitted now he is working as Zilla Parishad

Chairman, Peddapalli District in TRS Party and at the time of incident he was District

President in YSRCP. He admitted that PW3 to PW5 are his followers. He admitted the incident was occurred on 17-10-2012. He admitted PW10/Doctor got examined him on 04-12-2012 at 10-30 AM. He admitted he did not distribute any bulbs to the villagers.

He admitted he did not give any certificate regarding he is running Charitable Trust in the name and style of Putta Lingamma Charitable Trust. He admitted he did not state to the police regarding the length and width of stick used in his attack and he did not hand

Page 4 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021 over any weapon to Police. He admitted he was accompanied by Police at the time when he visited Hospital for treatment.

On perusal of his evidence, it shows that he went to the Hospital after 48 days of incident, he did not state any descriptive particular of weapon used by Accused. Hence, his evidence requires to be corroborated in material particulars by other evidence.

13. PW3/Malka Ramarao, PW4/Bandi Shiva and PW5/Pagadala Narayana who are cited eye witnesses to the incident deposed that on 17-10-2012, PW11 received a phone call from the villagers of Gangaram Village requesting him to provide some electric bulbs in their village and also some youth of that Village are intending to join into

YSR Congress party. Accordingly, they went along with PW11 to the Gangaram Village at about 2 PM. By that time, the Accused along with other 10 villagers who belongs to

Congress Party were gathered there and when PW11 got down from his car, the

Accused suddenly attacked on him and beat him with hands on his shoulders and neck and caused bleedings injuries. When PW2 tried to save him, he was also sustained injuries through Accused.

During their cross-examination, they admitted they do not know whether Police seized blood stained cloths. They admitted they did not mention specific location where the incident was happened in Gangaram Village. They admitted they did not know when PW2 and PW11 approached Police after the incident. They admitted immediately after the incident PW11 did not go to Hospital.

On perusal of their evidence, their evidence has not corroborated in some material particulars regarding on 17-10-2012 at about 2-00 PM, PW11 along with PW3 to PW5 went to Gangaram Village to conduct some meeting with Villagers. PW11 deposed the Accused attacked on him with a stick but PW3 to PW5 deposed the

Accused attacked on PW11 with hands and caused injuries on his shoulder and neck.

Hence, there is no corroboration regarding attacking of Accused on PW11.

14. PW10/Dr. Chandra Shekar deposed on 04-12-2012 at 10-30 AM, he received requisition from Police, Kataram along with PW2 and PW11 to examine and to provide treatment and issuance of Medical Certificates. Accordingly, he examined PW11 and found one contusion size in 9 X 2 cms over his left deltoid region and caused by a blunt object and simple in nature. He also examined PW2 and found Tenderness over his

Page 5 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021 right arm and caused with blunt object and simple in nature. Accordingly, he issued

Ex.P8 is Medical Certificate of PW2 and Ex.P9 is Medical Certificate of PW11.

During his cross-examination, he admitted he did not know when the incident was occurred but Police, Kataram filed requisition on 04-12-2012 and on the same day he examined patients and issued certificates. He admitted that Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 do not contain any Out Patient (OP) Number and signature of Patients. He admitted generally, contusion will be healed out after 15 days. He admitted he did not mention the age of injury in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.

On perusal of his evidence, it shows that he received a requisition on 04-12-2012 from the Police, Kataram to examine the patients. Accordingly, he examined them and gave Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. But, on perusal of Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, there is no signature of

PW2 and PW11 and do not contain any OP Number and nature of injuries sustained by them are simple in nature and non-mentioning of age of injuries sustained.

Generally, doctors do not depose false evidence before the Courts on the request of Police, Kataram. But, there is a procedure irregularity failure to obtain signatures of injured on MCs but that itself does not affect entirely on the prosecution case. But there is 48 days delay from the date of incident to examine the patients. He also failed to mention the age of injury in Ex.P8 and Ex.P9.

Generally, if any incident was occurred and in which any bleeding injuries were sustained, the injured immediately approached either to the Police or to the Hospital for immediate treatment.

In the instant case, the injured PW2 and PW11 are not the rustic witnesses and they are District leaders of some political party.

But in this case, PW2 and PW11 approached PW10 with a delay of 48 days.

PW2 is one of the cited injured did not depose anything against Accused. Hence, there is a doubt regarding to the injuries sustained by PW11.

15. PW12/B. Raju, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kataram deposed on 17-10-2012 at 10

PM, the PW1 came to Police Station and lodged Ex.P1. Basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.170/2012. He issued FIR and Ex.P10 is FIR. He recorded the statement of PW1. He referred PW2 and PW11 to Government Hospital, Mahadevpur for treatment.

Page 6 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

On the next day, he rushed to the scene of offence at Gangaram Village and conducted scene of offence and CDF Panchanama in presence of PW6 and PW7. He did not seize any stick (weapon) from scene of offence. Ex.P11 is CDF. He also examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to PW5, PW8, PW9 and PW11.

On 27-12-2012, the Accused voluntarily appeared before him, on his interrogation, he confessed his guilt as such he issued notice under Section 41A of

Cr.P.C and directed him to appear before Hon’ble Court. He collected Medical

Certificates from PW10. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet under

Section 324 and Section 506 of IPC against Accused. PW1, PW2 and PW8, PW9 has stated before him as in Ex.P2, Ex.P3, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.

During his cross-examination, he admitted after 8 hours of incident PW1 lodged

Ex.P1 and no explanation was given for causing such delay. He admitted the incident was occurred on 17-10-2012 at 2 PM and Ex.P8, Ex.P9 contains date on 04-12-2012 at 10-30 AM. He admitted he did not collect any list regarding who were willing to join into

YSRCP. He denied due to political rivalry a false case was lodged against Accused.

On perusal of his evidence, it shows that the incident was occurred on 17-10-2012 and the Medical Certificates of PW2 and PW11 on 04-12-2012 i.e., there is a delay of 48 days to obtain treatment by PW2 and PW11 from the time of incident.

16. On perusal of evidences of PW11, PW3 to PW5, PW10 and PW12 (IO), it shows the alleged incident was occurred on 17-10-2012 at about 2-00 PM but PW1 lodged report at 10-00 PM on 17-10-2012 with a delay of 8 hours. The PW12 deposed immediately after PW2 and PW11 came to Police Station, he sent them to the

Government Hospital, Mahadevpur. But on perusal of evidence of PW10/Doctor who treated PW2 and PW11, he received requisition on 04-12-2012 and treated PW2 and

PW11 on 04-12-2012. It shows PW10 treated the injured after 48 days of the incident.

PW2 who is one of the cited injured did not depose anything about the Accused. PW11 one of the injured deposed the Accused attacked on him with a stick but PW3 to PW5 deposed the Accused attacked on PW11 with hands. It shows there is no corroboration of attack on the PW11 by the Accused. Nobody deposed where the said incident was occurred. They did not depose a specific place where the incident was occurred to corroborate the CDF Panchanama. Hence, no corroboration of evidences between

Page 7 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

PW11 and PW3 to PW5 regarding place of incident, mode of attack by the Accused on

PW11 and PW2 and his overt acts.

PW1 who is complainant, PW2 is one of the injured in the incident, PW8 and

PW9 who are cited eye witnesses were turned hostile and did not depose anything against the Accused. PW6 and PW7 who CDF Panch Witnesses are turned hostile and did not support the Prosecution story.

Hence, there is no reliable evidence to prove the ingredients of Section 324 of

IPC against Accused.

The learned APP argued as per Section 222 of Cr.P.C., if major offence not established, the Accused can be punished for minor offence also even though he did not charge for it.

I fully agreed with him, but in the instant case, there is a doubt how the injuries sustained by PW11 either by hands of the Accused or with any stick used by him. PW1 deposed the Accused attacked on him with a stick and other witnesses i.e., PW3 to

PW5 deposed the Accused attacked on PW1 with his hands.

As such, the Prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 324 of IPC or its minor offence beyond reasonable doubt against Accused.

17. On perusal of evidences of PW11, PW3 to PW5, there is no evidence regarding threatening of Accused to PW11. Nobody deposed anything about the overt acts of the

Accused to attract the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC for criminal intimidation.

Hence, the Prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC.

18. Thus, it is evident that there is no corroboration of evidences in respect of alleged offences against Accused. The Investigating Officer failed to collect proper evidence to corroborate the material particulars to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offences.

Hence, the version of PW11, PW3 to PW5 are not corroborated with each other and not believable in nature and also not corroborated by any other independent and cogent evidence against Accused for the alleged offences punishable under Section 324 and Section 506 of IPC.

Page 8 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021 19.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 324 and Section 506 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Section 324 and Section 506 of

IPC and he is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall stand canceled after six Months under the provisions of Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me on my Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of January, 2021.

Sd/-(D.Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Prl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW1 is Chinumala Srinivas/Complainant.

PW2 is Cheepalli Pochaiah-Injured/Eye Witness.

PW3 is Malka Ramarao-Eye Witness.

PW4 is Bandi Shiva-Eye Witness.

PW5 is Pagadala Narayana-Eye Witness.

PW6 is Neelam Balaiah-CDF Panch Witness.

PW7 is Manthina Raju-CDF Panch Witness.

PW8 is Neelala Sathish-Eye Witness.

PW9 is Marupaka Ravi-Eye Witness.

PW10 is Dr. Chendra Shekar.

PW11 is Putta Madhu @ Madhukar.

PW12 is B. Raju/IO.

Page 9 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

Judgment in C.C.No.889/2017 (Old C.C.No.293/2013) Dated:06-01-2021

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on report.

Ex.P2 is Statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P3 is Statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4 is Signature of PW6 on CDF Panchanama.

Ex.P5 is Signature of PW7 on CDF Panchanama.

Ex.P6 is Statement of PW8 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P7 is Statement of PW9 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P8 is the Medical Certificate of PW2.

Ex.P9 is the Medical Certificate of PW11.

Ex.P10 is the FIR.

Ex.P11 is CDF Panchanama.

Sd/-(D.Nageswara Rao)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Prl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

Page 10 of 10 Prl. JCJ & Prl. JMFC, Manthani

FAC: Addl. JCJ & Addl. JMFC, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 1 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI D.NAGESWARA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Manthani.

Monday , the 24 th day of December, 2018

O.S No.107 of 2012

BETWEEN

Kum. Janga Manjula, D/o. Sammaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Student, R/o. Garepalli village of Kataram Mandal, Karimnagar District.…PLAINTIFF

AND (1) Sri Jadi Madunaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, (2) Sri Jadi Nagaiah, S/o. Rambaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, (3) Sri Jadi Muthaiah, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, (4) Sri Mekala Mallaiah, S/o. Sammaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, All are R/o. Sthambampalli village, Mahamutharam Mandal. …DEFENDANTS

Claim:- Suit forperpetual injunction. Date of Presentation:- 04.10.2012. Date of Filing:- 04.10.2012.

This suit is coming on 24.12.2018 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.A Baig, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the Defendants and upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed for granting of perpetual injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents and executors from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaintiff over the suit land in Sy.No.141 admeasuring an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas situated at Korlakunta Revenue Village of Mahamutharam Mandal, which is hereinafter to be referred as ‘suit schedule property’.

The factual background of the Plaintiff

2.The Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. She purchased the said property from Dulam Sammaiah through a Simple Sale Deed

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 2 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

by delivering of possession. The Simple Sale Deed was regularized by the

Tahsildar, Mahamutharam Mandal and issued Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed in her favour.

All the relevant records maintained by the Mandal Revenue Authorities, which reveals that the Plaintiff is an absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. The suit Sy.No.141 is incorporated as 141/1 in the Pahanies for the years i.e., 2011-2012 and 2009-2010, but the land is one and the same i.e., the suit land.

The Defendants without having any right what-so-ever in the suit land and they illegally interfere into the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over suit schedule property, while she was cultivating the suit land. The Plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the Defendants with the help of her labour.

Hence, the present suit.

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the Defendants. Having received summons, the Defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement by the Defendant No.1 to 4.

The factual background of the Defendants

4.The Defendants denied the contention of the Plaintiff as false and baseless.

The Plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the land neither bearing Sy.No.141 admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas nor Sy.No.141/1, admeasuring Ac.4-00 guntas and these two numbers are quite distinct and separate from each other.

The Plaintiff filed did not file any documents to show that these two numbers are one and the same. The Plaintiff never purchased the suit land from

Dulam Sammaiah, as the said Dulam Sammaiah himself has got no land in the suit Survey number. The Plaintiff created and fabricated all the documents i.e.,

Pass Book and Pahanies with the help of Revenue Authorities, hence she has got no legal sanctity. The possession of the Plaintiff is only paper possession and she never cultivated the suit land being in physical possession.

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 3 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

The Defendants are in actual physical possession of the suit land, hence their interference with the alleged possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land is false. The cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiff is false and created one. When the Defendants are in the possession of the suit land, the question of their interference and cause of action does not arise.

Further, the Defendants stated that they are owners and possessors of the suit land bearing Sy.No.141 apart from other lands bearing Sy.No.140, 147, admeasuring Acs.9-07 guntas, Acs.4-03 guntas, Acs.2-32 guntas respectively situated at Korlakunta village. These lands are originally belongs to their forefathers i.e., Jadi Veeraiah & Bhudem Nambaiah and from them, these suit lands distended on the defendants.

All the documents filed by the Defendants clearly show that the Defendants are the owners and possessors of the suit land. The alleged D. Sammaiah from whom the Plaintiff alleges to have purchased the suit land himself does not have ownership of suit land at any time.

Hence, the Plaintiff is not having any exclusive rights over the suit schedule land and does not come with clean hands. As such, the Defendants prayed to this

Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.During trial, the Plaintiff (Janga Manjula, D/o. Sammaiah) got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A8. Sri Janga Sammaiah, S/o.

Lachaiah got examined as PW2. Sri Bellamkonda Ramulu, S/o. Laxmaiah got examined as PW3 and Sri Medipalli Chandraiah, S/o. Sammaiah got examined as

PW4. Nothing is marked on behalf of the Defendants.

6.Heard the arguments of both parties elaborately. Perused the record.

7.Basing on the above factual matrix the following issues germane for my consideration:-

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit schedule property

as on the date of filing of suit as prayed for?

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

(3) To what relief ?

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 4 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

Evidence of the Plaintiff

8.The Plaintiff (Janga Manjula) herself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited

Exs.A-1 to A8 on her behalf. She reiterated the contents of Plaint in her chief affidavit.

During the cross-examination, she deposed that she has purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2000 from one Dulam Sammaiah, S/o. Pochaiah through Simple Sale Deed. She deposed that her age was 11 years at the time of transaction. She herself got scribed the said simple sale deed. The sale consideration belongs to her. She denied that the age of 11 years she cannot purchased the property and she cannot pay the said consideration. She admitted that she claimed land in Sy.No.141 in the Plaint and Pahanies filed by her disclose the Sy.No.141/1. She admitted that Sy.No.141 is different. She admitted that the land Sy.No.141/1 is Government land. She has filed the suit after 3 or 4 years of interfering by the Defendants. She denied that she has no cause of action to file the present suit. She denied that the documents filed by her are all false documents created for the purpose of suit. She denied that the Defendants inherited suit land through their forefathers and it is assigned land and hence she is no right over the suit schedule property and the Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She denied that she is deposing false.

Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff

EX-A1 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book No.S/307930 with Patta No.231, which shows that the Plaintiff is the Pattedar of the suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is the Original Title Deed No.S/307930 with Patta No.231, which shows which shows that the Plaintiff is the Title holder of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the Mee-Seva Pahani, dated:28.06.2012, which shows that the Plaintiff is having land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.141/1 with Khatha No.1100122, the nature of the land is as Lavuni Patta. Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011, which shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 5 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010, which shows that the Plaintiff is having land Ac.4-00 guntas in

Sy.No.141/1. Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2008-2009, which shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A7 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007, which shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A8 is the Attested Copy of 1-B Namoona/ROR, dated:21.08.2010 which shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property.

Corroborative Evidence of the Plaintiff

9. Sri Janga Sammaiah, S/o.Lachaiah has examined as PW2. He reiterated the contents of chief affidavit of PW1 in his deposition.

During the cross-examination, he admitted that he mentioned in his chief affidavit that he purchased the suit land in the name of PW1 (his daughter). He denied that he did not file the Simple Sale Deed to proof that he purchased the suit land in the name of his daughter i.e., PW1. He admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit as to from whom he purchased the suit land, sale consideration and date of purchase. When he purchased the suit land his daughter’s age was 11 years. He knew the contents of the Plaint of his daughter and the documents filed along with suit. He admitted that his daughter mentioned in her plaint in the 3rd para that she purchased the suit land from Tholam

Sammaiah, S/o. Pochaiah of Korlakunta village through Simple Sale Deed. He denied that he stated in his chief that he purchased the suit land in the name of his daughter whereas his daughter in her plaint stated that she herself purchased the suit land and both pleading or false. They filed the suit against the defendants after 20 days from their interference in the suit land. He denied that they do not have any land and the Defendants never interfere with their land and they filed false suit against the Defendants.

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 6 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

10. Sri Bellamkonda Ramulu, S/o. Laxmaiah has examined as PW3. He reiterated the contents of chief affidavit of PW1 in his deposition.

During the cross-examination, he did not file any document to show that he is the tenant of Singineni Sammakka, he did not file any document to show that

Singineni Sammakka is the adjacent land owner of the Plaintiff. He admitted that he did not mention the suit Survey Number and its abuttal’s in his chief affidavit.

He admitted that he mentioned in his chief affidavit that one Jangam Sammaiah is in possession and cultivation of the suit land. He admitted that the Plaintiff is not cultivating the suit land. The Plaintiff’s father purchased the suit land, but not the

Plaintiff about 15 years back. He denied that he is deposing false and he did not know anything about the case.

11. Sri M. Chandraiah, S/o. Sammaiah has examined as PW4. He reiterated the contents of chief affidavit of PW1 in his deposition.

During the cross-examination, he belongs to Korlakunta village and Plaintiff belongs to Khamampalli village which is at a distance of 7 kms from his village. He has not put his signature on registered sale deed executed in favour of father of

Plaintiff by his vendor. The suit Sy.No is 141 alone and not as 141/1. He admitted that Sy.No.141 is different from Sy.No.141/1. He admitted that he did not mention the boundaries of the suit schedule property in his affidavit in chief. He admitted that the Plaintiff has been studying in Hyderabad or somewhere. He admitted that the Plaintiff come to the village whenever she gets holidays. He admitted that who is cultivating the land his name find a place in possessory column in the revenue records. He did not mention the Survey Number of his land in his chief affidavit and also not document filed any document to show that he is also having land in suit Survey Number. He denied that he did not mention his Survey Number in his chief affidavit and also he did not file any document of his land because he hail from different place and he has no land in suit Survey number. He denied that the suit land belongs to the Defendant and he did not know anything about this case and he is deposing false.

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 7 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

Arguments

12.The Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the evidence of the Plaintiff coupled with Ex.A1 to A8 clearly establishes that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The same fact also corroborated by testimony of PW2 to PW4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Defendant argued that the documents filed by the Plaintiff are fabricated and false. They are inconsistent with each other and the Plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property.

Appreciation of evidence of the Plaintiff and Defendants

13. In order to appreciate the validity and sustainability of the rival stances, now at this juncture, I am obliged to advert to the material emanated from the testimony

PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 and Ex.A1 to A8.

For Issue No.1 and 2

On perusal of evidences of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 and Ex.A1 to A8, it is clearly established that, the Plaintiff is having land in Sy.No.141 admeasuring an extent of Acs.4-00 guntas situated at Korlakunta village of Mahamutharam

Mandal.

On perusal of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and recitals of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 regarding to the possession of the suit schedule property, it clearly establishes that the Plaintiff is the Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property.

On perusal of recitals of Ex.A4, Ex.A6 to Ex.A8, it is also clearly shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property.

But, recitals of Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 show different Survey Number i.e.,

Sy.No.141/1. During their evidence they admitted that the Sy.No.141/1 is different from Sy.No.141. On perusal of Ex.A3, the Mee-Seva Pahani shows that the

Sy.No.141/1 is a Government land and its Khatha No.1100122 is also different from the Khatha Number of the Plaintiff which is shown in Pattedar Pass Book and

Title Deed i.e., Khata No. 231.

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 8 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

On perusal of documentary evidence along with their oral evidence clearly shows that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Regarding to the question of purchase of the said land, the Plaintiff deposed that she purchased the said property at the age of 11 years and her father who is PW2 deposed that he purchased suit property on the name of his daughter i.e., Plaintiff. On perusal of evidences of PW3 and PW4 on this point, they also deposed that PW2 purchased the said property. The evidence regarding to prove the purchase of the said property is in clumsy and not clear.

On perusal of evidence of PW3 and PW4 regarding to the possession of the Plaintiff, their evidence is corroborated with the evidence of the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.

Whether Section 81 of Indian Evidence Act gets activated in favour of the Plaintiff ?

The key expression of Section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act is that, if the party to the lis produces a public document, it shall be presumed that it is unquestionable. In the case on hand, Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 are public documents within the meaning of Section 74 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, it is desirable to inspirit the statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 81 of Indian

Evidence Act in favour of the plaintiff.

The revenue officials prepare the Pattedar Pass Book and Title Deed by verifying the entries available in 1-B Register. The revenue records showed that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is settled law that the Revenue Records prima-facie proves the possession unless contrary is proved.

On the other hand, the Defendants failed to produce any evidence either oral or documentary to disprove the testimony of the Plaintiff. They simply cross- examine the Plaintiff and her witnesses, but nothing was elicited to doubt the version of the Plaintiff.

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 9 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

It is the cardinal principle of law of evidence that the burden of proof is always on the asserter of the issue and not on the person who denies it. However, the burden of proof shifts when the defendant takes any specific plea which is within his knowledge and it is known as onus prabandi.

It is well established proposition of law that mere pleading will not suffice, unless it is substantiated by some cogent and convincing proof. However, no persuasive proof is produced by the Defendants to disprove the version of the

Plaintiff.

The present suit is only for injunction simpliciter and requires possession of the property as on the date of filing of suit.

In case “Ramagoud Vs Varadappa Naidu AIR 2004 (SC) 4609 and Alla

Shesukumar and another Vs Alla Radha Krishna 2008 (1) ALT 430” , the

principal of law which could be culled out from the Judgments are that the court

has to exercise discretion of granting relief of permanent/perpetual injunction, if it is proved that the Plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit schedule property.

Therefore, the legal ratio laid down in the both the judgments squarely and wholly apply to the case of the Plaintiff with full force.

On perusal and discussion above, the Plaintiff proved her possession over the suit schedule property by cogent evidence, as such she is entitled to get perpetual injunction in her favour against the Defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Accordingly, the points are answered.

14. To what relief ?

The Plaintiff proved her possession over the suit schedule property by cogent evidence. Hence, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with Costs in favour of

Plaintiff by directing the Defendants, their men and servants not to interfere in any way with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Typed by me on my personal Laptop and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of December, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC: ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANTHANI

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

O.S No.107/2012 Page 10 of 10 Dated: 24.12.2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Janga Manjula- Nil - PW-2Janga Sammaiah PW-3Bellamkonda Ramulu PW-4M.Chandraiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. No. Description of Document EX-A1 is the Original Pattedar Pass Book No.S/307930 with Patta Ex.A-1No.231, which shows that the Plaintiff is the Pattedar of the suit schedule property. Ex.A2 is the Original Title Deed No.S/307930 with Patta No.231, which Ex.A-2shows which shows that the Plaintiff is the Title holder of the suit schedule property. Ex.A3 is the Mee-Seva Pahani, dated:28.06.2012, which shows that the Ex.A-3Plaintiff is having land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.141/1 with Khatha No.1100122, the nature of the land is as Lavuni Patta. Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-2011, which Ex.A-4shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010, which Ex.A-5shows that the Plaintiff is having land Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy.No.141/1. Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2008-2009, which Ex.A-6shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A7 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007, which Ex.A-7shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A8 is the Attested Copy of 1-B Namoona/ROR, dated:21.08.2010 Ex.A-8 which shows that the Plaintiff is shown as Pattedar and Possessor of the suit schedule property.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

Sl. No. Description of Document - Nil -

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC: ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANTHANI

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

The suit land in Sy.No.141 admeasuring an extent of Acs.4-00 guntas, situated at Korlakunta Revenue village of Mahamutharam Mandal and bounded by

North : Land of Muneer; South : Land of Boda Manthaiah; East : Land of Boledla

Madhunaiah; West : Land of Athkuri Lachimallu.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC: ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MANTHANI

Prl. JCJ, FAC: Addl. JCJ, Manthani

1 Judgment in CC No.102/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT MANTHANI

Present: Sri. D. NAGESWARA RAO

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Thursday, the 6 th day of July, 2017

CALENDAR CASE No.102/2017

(Old C.C.No.354/2010)

(Crime No.29/2010 of Adavimutharam Police Station)

Between:

The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S. Adavimutharam. ...Complainant.

And

A1-Bouthu Lachaiah, S/o. Bothaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o. Adavimutharam Village & Mandal.

A2-Thalari Prasad, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 25 years, R/o. Adavimutharam Village & Mandal.…Accused **** This case is coming before this court for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. A. Krishnaveni, learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and of Sri M.A. Baig,

Learned Counsel for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case emerges out of the police report filed by the complainant under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) in crime No.29/2010 against Accused

A1 and A2.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, the Complainant/P.W.1 and the accused persons had neighbors land holders. On 12-07-2010 at 13-00 hours, while he was cultivating in his agriculture land, at that time his villagers A1 and A2 were came to the complainant and asked him why he was cultivated in his land. On that A1 got angry and beat him with an axe stick on his left hand fingers, due to which he received bleeding injury on his left hand fingers. When A2 beat her with stick on his left side shoulder left hand wrist, due to which he sustained received injury on his left hand wrist and left shoulder.

3.On the strength of compliant, a case registered by L.W.7 in Cr. No.29/2010,

U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the LW-7-V. Anil Kumar-SI visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses, recorded their statements and conducted Panchanama and filed charge sheet.

4.This case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable under Section

U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused A1 and A2.

2 Judgment in CC No.102/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents, on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to accused, in terms of Sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/sec.448, 427, 324 r/w 34 of IPC is read over and explained to them in Telugu language and having understood the same, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case, the prosecution got examined PW-1 got examined and got marked Ex.P.1 (Complaint), MO1 (Axe stick), MO2 (stick), PW-2 got examined and got marked Ex.P2(161 statement), PW-3 got examined and got marked Ex.P3(161 statement), PW-4 got examined and got marked Ex.P.4 (161 statement), PW-5 got examined and got marked Ex.P.5 (Signature on CDF), PW-6 got examined and got marked Ex.P.6 (Medical Certificate), PW-7 got examined and got marked Ex.P.7 (FIR),

Ex.P.8 is CDF.

8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused A1 and A2 was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the oral arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the Offence

punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both parties it will be appropriate at this stage to read sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC :-

Sec.324 IPC Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. — “Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to commit to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both”.

12.Therefore, in this case, to prove the accusation against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following facts beyond all reasonable doubt that:

(1) accused has committed voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

13. The case of prosecution is that the Complainant/P.W.1 and the accused persons had neighbors land holders. On 12-07-2010 at 13-00 hours, while he was cultivating in his agriculture land, at that time his villagers A1 and A2 were came to the complainant 3 Judgment in CC No.102/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani and asked him why he was cultivated in his land. On that A1 got angry and beat him with an axe stick on his left hand fingers, due to which he received bleeding injury on his left hand fingers. When A2 beat her with stick on his left side shoulder left hand wrist, due to which he sustained received injury on his left hand wrist and left shoulder.

But, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are eye witnesses and Panch witness are turned hostile and P.W.6 is the Doctor who treated the P.W.1 and P.W.7 is the

Investigating officer.

14.P.W.1 is complainant and deposed in the year 2010, he is cultivating his lands and A1 and A2 are cultivating their lands themselves. The A1 and A2 trespassed into his land while he was cultivating his lands. A1 beat him with an axe stick (MO1) on his left hand fingers as such he sustained bleeding injury. Then, A2 beat him with a stick (MO2) on his backside left shoulder. A1 again came with axe stick and beat him on his head. Then he fell down on ground. Hence he lodged Ex.P.1 a report to police.

. During Cross examination, he admitted that A2 is his brother. A1 is his brother in law. He did not file document showing the disputed lands involved in the crime. The

MO1 and MO2 is available anywhere. He did not mention the length and width of MO1 and MO2. On his narration one Head Constable has written the Ex.P.1. He did not mention in Ex.P.1 regarding that he was brought by his brother. He admitted that P.W.2,

P.W.3 is his brother and sister.

On perusing the evidence, it is not clearly established that alleged offence is committed by accused A1 and A2.

15.P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the eye witnesses to the incident and deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police not examined them. The learned APP declared the P.W.2, P.W.3 as turned hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution. Ex.P.2 (161 statement of P.W.2), Ex.P.3 (161 statement of P.W.3), Ex.P.4 (Signature of P.W.4 on CDF), Ex.P.5 (Signature of P.W.5 on CDF) are marked and deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police obtained their signature on white paper. Police did not examine them. The learned APP declared the P.W.4 and P.W.5 as turned hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the court nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution except their signature.

16.P.W.6 is the doctor and deposed that previously he worked as a Civil Asst.

Surgeon, Mahadevpur from March 2008 to March 2011. On 12-07-2010 at 8-10 pm on requisition of the police. P.W.1 present and he examined the P.W.1 and found the following injuries. (1) Swelling and deformity of left forearm. Dimensions 6X6 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object.

(2) Swelling and dorsum of right hand. Dimensions 10X10 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (3) Lastuaration left ring finger Dimensions 3X1 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (4) Tenderness of left hipo chondrium. Dimensions 4X3 cms, age 4 Judgment in CC No.102/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (5)

Tenderness of skull, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (6) Contusion of right shoulder. Dimensions 10X6 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (7) Contusion enter scapular area. Dimensions 6X6 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object. (8) Contusion lower back. Dimensions 15X3 cms, age of wound is 6 hours simple in nature causative weapon is blunt/sharp object.

left elbow causative weapon stick, simple in nature. Accordingly he issued Ex.P.6 is the

Medical Certificate.

During Cross examination, he admitted he did not obtained the signature or thumb impression of injured. At the time of treat of P.W.1 his qualification is MBBS. He admitted that he did not mention any opinion in final opinion column of Ex.P6.

On perusing the evidence, it is clearly established nothing was elicited the guilt of the accused A1 and A2.

20.P.W.7 is the Investigation officer and deposed on 12-07-2010 at 7-20 pm, he received Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. On the strength of Ex.P1 he registered a case in

Cr.No.29/2010 U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P.7) accordingly. He also recorded the statement of P.W.1 on the same day itself and issued requisition for MC.

He sent the P.W.1for treatment on the next day on 13-07-2010. He visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence Panchanama in their presence Ex.P.8 is CDF.

He recovered the handle of the axe and stick. MO1 and MO2. He apprehended the accused and deposited MO1 and MO2. He also collected the MC from P.W.6 and after completion of investigation and filed charge sheet.

On perusing the evidence, he admitted that the dispute arose due to land dispute. He did not enquire about the documents pertaining disputed land. He did not record the statements of family member who are accompanied with him when he visited the scene of offence. He admitted that the signatures of the Panchas are not reflecting on page number 4/4 on the CDF form. On the court file only an attested copy of CDF is available.

On perusing the evidence of P.W.1 injured and his evidence did not corroborate by any other independent evidence and all the eye witnesses are turned hostile and does not support the prosecution evidence and the Investigation Officer failed to procure the independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.6 and P.W.7 does not corroborate with each other. But they do not prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt. The crucial evidence of the

Investigation Officer not corroborated the material particulars evidence of P.W.1. So there is doubt regarding the identity of the accused A1 and A2. There is a doubt arises to a prudent man that how the accused had committed such offences as alleged by the

PW.1. The prosecution failed to examine the crucial witnesses to prove the material facts and presence of the accused A1 and A2 at the scene of offence at the time of offence.

5 Judgment in CC No.102/2017 of Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

21. So, there is no evidence on the record to show that the accused A1 and A2 has committed the entered the lands of P.W.1 and voluntarily causing hurt to the P.W.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused

A1 and A2 and not proved any of the essential elements of such offences. So, the benefit of doubt should always go to the Accused A1 and A2.

22. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for the offence

U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should necessarily goes to accused. As such, the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C from the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are set at liberty and their bail bonds shall stand canceled after appeal time and under the provisions of

Section 437A of CrPC. The non-valuable property of MO1 and MO2 is to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by me on my personal Laptop and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of July, 2017.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OFFIRST CLASS

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL. PW.1 : Bouthu Bapu. PW.2 : Kondagorla Swamy. PW.3 : Kondagorla Padma. PW 4 : Burri Narsaiah. PW 5 : Lingamalla Durgaiah. PW 6 : Dr. Umakanth. PW 7 : V. Anil Kumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P.1 is the Complaint; Ex.P.2 is the 161 statement of P.W.2; Ex.P.3 is the 161 statement of P.W.3; Ex.P.4 is the signature of P.W.4 on CDF; Ex.P.5 is the signature of P.W.5 on CDF; Ex.P.6 is the Medical Certificate issued by P.W.6; Ex.P.7 is the FIR; Ex.P.8 is the CDF;

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1-Axe stick; MO2-stick.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OFFIRST CLASS

MANTHANI

1 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013

THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANTHANI

Present:Sri. Parvatapu Ravi, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Manthani. WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.809 of 2017 (New)

CALANDER CASE No.148 of 2013 (Old) 

Between: The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Koyyur (Cr.No.11 of 2012). …Complainant AND Kommera @ Kammari Thirupathi, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Coolie, Caste: Kammari, R/o.Rudraram village.

... Accused

This case is coming on 19.09.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri P.Vasunder, Advocate for sole accused having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Koyyur has filed a charge sheet against the sole accused for the offences punishable under Secs.457 and 380 of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 10­02­2012 at 16.00 hours the

Janagama Rajesh (Complainant/LW1) came to Police Station, Koyyur and lodged a written petition stating thatl on 07.02.2012 at 16.00 hours the complainant locked to his house and went to Medaram for attending Jathara along with his family members. On the same night the accused observed that the house of the complainant was locked and he forcibly lifted the door of the complainant’s house and entered into the house and opened the almirah with the help of screw driver and committed theft of two gold rings i.e., ¼ tula, its worth of Rs.2500/­, two silver waist thread i.e., 4 tulas, Silver Mettelu i.e., 1 tula, its worth of Rs.500/­ and net cash an amount of Rs.19,500/­, its total property worth of Rs.22,500/­ from the almirah and decamped with stolen booty. On the next day the LW3 observed the opening of the doors of the complainant he informed the same to complainant over phone on such information the complainant returned back to 2 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013 house on 09.02.2012 and observed the incident and later he reported the matter in the police station. On receipt of the above said petition the Station House

Officer registered a case in Cr.No.11 of 2012, U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC and issued F.I.R. After completion of investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offenses U/Secs.457 and 380 ofIPC.

3.This case was taken on file as C.C No.809 of 2017 (Old C.C No.148 of 2013) against the sole accused for an offence punishable under section U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC.

4.After appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.PC.

5.Thereafter the accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC, read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.To prove its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 and MO1 to MO6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is 

charged?

10.Point  :­ The accused stood charged for the offences punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 of IPC for entering into the house of Pw.1 through door and also opened the almriah with the help of screw driver and committed theft of ¼ tulas gold rings (2), silver waste threads (2), silver mettelu and net cash an amount of Rs.19,500/­.

11.As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited six documents and six material objects.

3 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013

12.PW1 who is the defacto complainant. PW2 and PW3 who are the Panch for

Crime Detail Form. PW4 who is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama. PW5 who is issued first information report. PW6 who is the

Investigating Officer. The evidence of remaining witnesses closed by the Learned

APP. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on white paper. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW3 on white paper. Ex.P4 is the Attested copy of confessional cum recovery panchanama of the accused. Ex.P5 is the First Information Report.

Ex.P6 is the Crime Detail Form. MO1 is the pair of the silver Mattelu. MO2 and

MO3 are the Gold Rings. MO4 and MO5 are the Silver Waist Chains (2). MO6 is the Screw Driver. 

13.Now, from the evidence available on record, it has to be seen as to whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused. Pw­1 is the defacto complainant and the victim whose property were allegedly stolen by the accused.

In his evidence, he deposed that about six years back he went to Medaram with his family and when they returned back their house doors were kept open, they went inside house and found that the almariah was opened with screw driver and two gold rings and two silver waist chains and one pair of silver mattelu were stolen by un­known thieves. Accordingly he lodged complaint/Ex.P1 before police.

PW2 and PW3 who are panch for crime detail form deposed that they do not know anything about this case, but the police called them to the house of PW1 and obtained their signatures on white papers i.e., Ex.P2 and P3, at that time the police no panchanama was conducted in their presence. They did not support the prosecution of the case and turned hostile. PW5 who is issued first information report deposed that on 10.02.2012 at about 04.00 p.m he received a complaint from PW1 on the strength of complaint he registered the case in Cr.No.11 of 2012 for the offence U/Secs.457 and 380 of IPC and issued First Information

Report/Ex.P5 and took up the investigation. During the course of examination he examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws.2 and 4 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013 3 and drawn rough sketch and also recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 5 in part­

II CD. Thereafter he handed over CD file to LW11/Saida Rao for further investigation. Ex.P6 is the Crime Detail Form.

14Thus, from the evidence of PW­1, it is clear that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offence. In the absence of any direct evidence, the prosecution must at least prove that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused. On this aspect, the evidence of

PW­6 the Sub­Inspector of police and the investigating officer and the evidence of

PW4, who is panch witnesses for the confession and recovery panchanama is very much relevant and crucial. PW­6, the Sub­Inspector of Police deposed that on 19.04.2012 at about 08.00 a.m on receipt of reliable information that three persons are moving in suspicious circumstances at Auto stand, Hanuman Temple

Rudraram, when he along with his staff rushed to the said place and apprehended them and on interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence. He secured two panchas Lws.8/PW4 and 9 and recorded their confessional statements individually and pursuant said confession he seized the stolen property i.e., 2 gold rings weight 2.5 grams, 2 silver waist 4 tulas and 1 pair of silver leg metalu 1 gram pertaining to this crime apart from other property pertaining to other crimes under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW4 herein and one Marupaka Vinay/LW9. However, the prosecution did not examine the other panch witness for recovery of panchanama i.e., Marupaka Vinay/LW9, and examined only PW4 herein. Therefore, from the point of proving the recovery, the evidence of Pw4 is very much relevant and crucial and if his evidence is convincing and satisfactory, conviction can be recorded against the accused without looking for any other corroborate evidence. Now it has to be seen as to whether the evidence of PW4, is convincing and satisfactory. 

15.PW4 who is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that on 19.04.2012 at about 1.30 p.m the police called him and LW9 near

Hanuman Temple. The accused present and on their enquiry the accused 5 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013 confessed to has committed theft at the house of PW1/G.Rajesh and pursuant the said confession the police recovered two gold rings and two silver waist chains and two silver Mattelu as shown in the photographs and the photographs confronted to him. The police drafted confessional cum recovery panchanama and after knowing the contents of the same himself and LW9 put their signature. The accused present in the Court is the present who confessed to has committed the offence and from whom the police seized the above articles. Ex.P4 is the attested copy of confessional cum recovery panchanama of the accused.

In his cross examination he denied that no confessional cum recovery panchanama was conducted in his presence and the accused never confessed anything before them and nothing was recovered from him in their presence. He denied that he is deposing false at the instance of police.

16.Admittedly, the place of alleged recovery is at Hanuman Temple, Rudraram.

Section 100 (4) Cr.PC mandates that whenever a police officer intends to conduct seizure panchanama, he has to call atleast two local inhabitants of that locality, where he intends to conduct seizure. However, in the instant case, PW­6 the Sub­

Inspector of police, Koyyur has not chosen any local inhabitant from Hanuman

Temple, locality to the recovery panchanama. No explanation is forthcoming by

PW­6 for violating the mandatory provision of section 100 (4) Cr.PC. PW­4 is the sole witness for confession and recovery panchanama. His evidence is also not trustworthy.

17.As seen from the own evidence of PW­4, he is not a truthful witness, and he is a stock witness of police and as such no reliance can be placed on his evidence. As stated above, the police did not examine the other panch witness i.e.,

Marukapaka Vinay/LW9, to prove the recovery. Thus, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, it has to be held that there is neither direct evidence to connect the accused to the alleged offence, nor there is any evidence to show that the stolen property was recovered from the possession of the accused under cover of a panchanama. In the circumstances, for want of evidence, it has to be held 6 New CC No.809 of 2017 Old CC No.148 of 2013 that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which they are charged and as such, they are entitled for acquittal of the said offence. 

18.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offences under section 248 (1) Cr.PC. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The case property i.e.,

MO1 to MO5 deposited vide Sl.No.98 of 2012 already given in interim custody property to PW1 vide order in Crl.M.P No.3748 of 2017, dt: 20.12.2017 shall be made absolute after appeal time is over. 

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of October 2018.

II Addl. J.M.F.C, Godavarikhani FAC: Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: PW1 – J.Rajesh (Complainant ) PW2 – A.Sammaiah ( Panch for Crime Detail Form ) PW3 – P.Devender ( Panch for Crime Detail Form ) PW4 – G.Sammaraj ( Panch for Confession and recovery Panchanama ) PW5 – Md.Moinuddin Pasha ( Issued First Information Report ) PW6 – I.Saida Rao ( Investigating Officer )

FOR THE DEFENCE

­ Nil ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – Complaint of PW1 Ex.P2 – Signature of PW2 on white paper Ex.P3 – Signature of PW3 on white paper Ex.P4 – Attested copy of confessional cum recovery panchanama of the accused Ex.P5 – First Information Report Ex.P6 – Crime Detail Form

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 ­ Pair of the Silver Mattelu MO2 and MO3 ­ Gold Rings (2) MO4 and MO5 ­ Silver Waist Chains (2) MO6 – Screw Driver 

II Addl. J.M.F.C, Godavarikhani FAC: Addl. J.M.F.C., Manthani