D. Sree Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, PONNUR

PRESENT :: SMT. D. SREEDEVI,

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, PONNUR

st day of April, 2023 Friday, this the 21

M.C.No.27/2019

Between:-

1. Ravuri Kameswari, W/o. Sivalinga Prasad @ Prasad D/o. Kondapaturi Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 30 yrs, Housewife, presently residing at Kondabalavaripalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Ravuri Rajya Lakshmi, D/o. Sivalinga Prasad @ Prasad Hindu, 10 yrs,

3. Ravuri Pavitra, D/o. Sivalinga Prasad @ Prasad Hindu, 5 yrs,

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being minors represented by her natural guardian, mother i.e., 1st petitioner.

... Petitioners

AND

Ravuri Sivalinga Prasad @ Prasad, S/o. Late Sambaiah, Hindu, 37yrs, Private Electrician, R/o. Door No.25-3-14, 1st lane, Near Rama Mandiram, Telagapalem, Ponnur Town, Gutnur District.

... Respondent

This case is coming on 20.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and of Sri T. Andrews, learned counsel for the respondent and having stood over for consideration to this day and on hearing, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by wife against her husband seeking for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the petition in brief is that

a) The 1st petitioner married the respondent as per the Hindu Rites and Customs on 13.03.2009 at Sri Lakshmi Thirupathamma Temple, 2

Penuganchiprolu, Krishna District. At the time of marriage, on demand of the respondent and his family members, the 1st petitioner’s parents presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 sovereigns of gold chains, 3/4th sovereign of gold Ring and presented domestic articles worth of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and at the time of marriage proposal, the parents of the respondent told that the respondent will get a job in

Electricity Department and the mother of the respondent’s mother will take family pension and after the marriage was consummated and the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent at Telagapalem, Ponnur Town and they lead marital life for 7 years and they lived happily and they were blessed with two female children i.e., 2nd and 3rd petitioners and after birth of 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the respondent ill treated the 1st petitioner for begotting two female children and abused the 1st petitioner that he is not able to provide food and clothes and unable to perform the marriage of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners marriages.

Subsequently, the respondent is moving in bad company and was addicted to taking alcohol and having got illegal intimacy with an another lady.

(b) The 1st petitioner further submits that the respondent and his family members i.e., mother by name Ravuri Parvathamma, sister and brother-in-law by name Devarapalli Padmavathi and Devarapalli

Govardhana Rao are also insisting the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry from the parents of the 1st petitioner and the said Devarapalli

Padmavathi is living near the house of the respondent and frequently visiting the respondent’s house and used to harass the 1st petitioner 3 without any fault of the 1st petitioner and they supported the respondent in harassment of the 1st petitioner by their words and acts.

(c) The 1st petitioner requested the respondent on a number of occasions to change his behaviour but in vain and the respondent used to come to the house late in the night in a drunken state and used to beat the 1st petitioner indiscriminately. Once the 2nd petitioner was fell ill, but the respondent did not take her to hospital and necked out the petitioners and advised the 1st petitioner to take the 2nd and 3rd petitioners to her parents house and then the parents of the 1st petitioner took the 2nd petitioner to hospital and get treatment and thereupon the parents of the 1st petitioner accompanying with petitioners went to the respondent and requested the respondent to receive the petitioners. But, the respondent demanded Rs.1,00,000/-

additional dowry to receive the petitioners then the 1st petitioner’s

parents gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

(d) The 1st petitioner submits that after some time, the respondent, the respondent’s mother, the respondent’s sister and her husband beat the 1st petitioner and necked out the petitioner from his house for bringing dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from the parents of the 1st petitioner two years back and as there is no other go, the 1st petitioner went to her parents house and narrated the same to her parents and the parents of the 1st petitioner accompanying with elders by name (1)

Bondalapati Subbaiah, (2) Makineni Bapuji went to the respondent’s house and requested the respondent to take back the petitioners to his house but the respondent and his family members refused to receive 4 the petitioners and told that without additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, they will not allow the petitioners to lead marital life with respondent and as there is no other go, the parents of the 1st petitioner and elders returned back.

(e) The 1st petitioner further submits that on 14.07.2019 at evening time, the respondent, respondent’s mother, respondent’s sister and respondent’s brother-in-law came to Kondabalavaripalem Village and trespassed into the house of the 1st petitioner’s parents house and threatened the 1st petitioner to give divorce to the respondent otherwise, they will pour acid against the 1st petitioner and kill her and they abused the 1st petitioner in filthy language, then the neighbours like Angalakuduru Venkata Ratnam, Angalakuduru Koteswaramma and Timmarajupalem Venkatayamma came there then the respondent and his family members went away from the house of the 1st petitioner’s parents. The petitioner further submits that the 1st petitioner gave a report to the S.H.O, Kakumanu P.S., and the said police filed the same as crime No.94/2019, U/Secs.498-A, 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D. P. Act and the same was pending and the petitioners are living on mercy of the 1st petitioner’s parents at their house situated at

Kondabalavariplaem Village, Kakumanu Mandal and because of the cruel behaviour of the respondent, the 1st petitioner concludes that it is no more safe for them to live and to continue marital life with the respondent and there is no connection between the 1st petitioner and the respondent for the last two years.

5

(f) The 1st petitioner further submits that the respondent deserted the petitioners, but the respondent is living with all sorts of enjoyment and he is trying to marry another lady illegally and the 1st petitioner is unable to do any work due to her mental agony and she has no means to maintain herself and her daughters i.e., 2nd and 3rd petitioners whereas the respondent is having a residential RCC building at Guntur worth about Rs..40,00,000/- and he is getting an amount of

Rs.24,000/- per month towards rents and as a private electrician, he is earning Rs.20,000/- per month and he is getting Rs.40,000/- on finance business and the respondent is a hale and healthy persons and the respondent did not sent any single pie to the petitioner since the desertion and so there is legal obligation on his part, hence, 1st petitioner filed this petition praying the Hon’ble court maybe pleased to direct the respondent, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- each per month to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the date of this petition towards her food, clothes, shelter and medicine, educational and marriage expenses to 2nd and 3rd petitioners

Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent filed his counter denying all the allegations in the petition.

a) The respondent submits that all the allegations mentioned in the petition that the 1st petitioner’s parents presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 sovereigns of gold chains, 3/4th sovereign of gold Ring and presented domestic articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and further denied that after the birth of his children, he did not 6 provide food and clothes as the 1st petitioner gave birth to two female children and the respondent was addicted to taking alcohol and having got illegal intimacy with an another lady. The respondent further submits that the respondent and his family members insisting the 1st petitioner to bring additional dowry from the parents of the 1st petitioner and they supported the respondent in harassment of the 1st petitioner by their words and acts are all false. The respondent further submits that when the 2nd petitioner was fell ill, the respondent did not take her to hospital and necked out the petitioners and advised the 1st petitioner to take the 2nd and 3rd petitioners went to her parents house and the parents of the 1st petitioner take the 2nd petitioner to hospital and get treatment are all false. The respondent further denied that he demanded Rs.1,00,000/- additional dowry to receive the petitioners then the 1st petitioner’s parents gave Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

The respondent further denies that he and his family members refused to receive the petitioners without additional dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/-, they will not allow the petitioners to lead marital life with him. The respondent further denied that on 14.07.2019 at evening time, the respondent, respondent’s mother, respondent’s sister and respondent’s brother-in-law came to Kondabalavaripalem Village and trespassed into the house of the 1st petitioner’s parents and threatened the 1st petitioner to give divorce to the respondent otherwise, they will pour acid against the 1st petitioner and kill her are all false.

The respondent submits that the 1st petitioner is his wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are their children and the respondent never take 7 any dowry or presentations from the mother of the 1st petitioner and at the time of their marriage, the 1st petitioner always insisted the respondent for petty issues and the 1st petitioner always visited to his parents house and did not return for long time and the 1st petitioner did not mend his ways even though several elders advised her and there is an agreement dt.26.10.2010 between the 1st petitioner and respondent and according to that agreement, the respondent agreed to live with 1st petitioner separately in a rented house and Rs.30,000/- amount of fixed deposit in State Bank of India, Ponnur Branch bearing

F.D. Bond No.TDCS/30-0699131 and the amount will be taken from the bank after attaining major by the 2nd petitioner and the respondent agreed to stood as nominee to that amount and in that agreement, the respondent and 1st petitioner agreed to bind for the terms and conditions but the 1st petitioner disobeyed the terms and conditions away to her mother’s house without intimation to the respondent and the respondent is not having any movable or immovable properties and the respondent is aged about 50 years, and he is suffering with mental agony caused by the 1st petitioner and the respondent is suffering with

B.P., Sugar and Gastytis.

The respondent further submits that he is unable to do any works due to ill health and the respondent is depending upon his age old mother and the 1st petitioner is working as an Anganwadi teacher and getting Rs.12,000/- per month and the respondent is herewith filing a Xerox copy of the above “Agreement Deed” and a Xerox copy of fixed deposit bond of S.B.I., Ponnur Branch. The petitioner is a hale and healthy. Hence, he prays this court to dismiss the petition.

8

4.On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner herself examined as P.W.1.

On behalf of petitioner, P.Ws.2 to 4 are examined. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the father of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the neighbour of

P.W.1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

Ex.A1 is the wedding card of the petitioner and the respondent, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the registered Sale deed dt.20.04.2009 bearing document no. 2353/2009. The respondent himself got examined as

R.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Now the points that arise for determination are:-

Whether the respondent willfully neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners no.1 to 3 and if so, whether the

petitioners no.1 to 3 are entitled for grant of maintenance

as prayed for ?

7. POINT: Coming to the oral evidence adduced by the parties, the petitioner herself entered into the witness box and examined as P.W.1 and her chief-examination is nothing but the large replica of the contents of her Petition.

During the cross examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that there is no documentary proof to show that at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 sovereigns of gold chain, 3/4th sovereigns of gold ring and presented domestic articles worth of 9

Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent. P.W.1 further admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is working as private electrician and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is doing finance money and getting an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month.

P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she was working as Anganvadi

Teacher and as the salary of her husband is meager than her salary and so she used to look the respondent by degrading him and she denied the suggestion that she used to go to her parents house frequently without any reasonable cause. P.W.1 further stated that she is ready to go to matrimonial home and lead marital life with the respondent. P.W.1 further admitted that on 26.12.2010 an agreement was entered between her and the respondent in the presence of elders.

P.W.1 further admitted that by the way of the said agreement, they agreed that she and the respondent would live separately from her in- laws and put up a separate family. P.W.1 further admitted that through the said agreement an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit at SBI, Ponnur in the name of her elder daughter by name Rajya Lakshmi and they agreed that the said amount would be withdrawn after her daughter becomes major. P.W.1 further stated that the said FDR was not handed over to her. P.W.1 further admitted that at the time of the above said agreement, she and the respondent and her mother was also present. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that through the said agreement the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in the form of F.D. in the presence of elders towards the complete maintenance. P.W.1 further admitted she did not file the link document of Ex.A2. P.W.1 denied the 10 suggestion that though he received Rs.1,30,000/- towards the permanent maintenance of her and her children, and she filed this maintenance case by suppressing the said facts.

8. The mother of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 and she filed her chief affidavit which is nothing but the replica of the chief affidavit of P.W.1.

During the cross-examination of P.W.2, she admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that her husband gave a dowry of

Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 sovereigns of gold chain, 3/4 th sovereigns of gold ring and presented domestic articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the

Respondent. P.W.2 further admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Private Electrician and there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is doing finance business and earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. P.W.2 further admitted that 26.12.2010 an agreement (OPPUDALA PATRAM) was entered between first petitioner and the respondent and by the way of Oppudala

Patram, both first petitioner and the respondent agreed to put up a separate family from the parents of the respondent and further admitted that as per the said Oppudala Patram that the respondent agreed to make fixed deposit of Rs.30,000/- in the name of the child by name Rajya Laxmi.

9. The father of the P.W.1 is examined as P.W.3 and his chief affidavit is nothing but the replica of the chief affidavit of P.W.1.

During cross-examination of P.W.3 it was elicited that there is no 11 documentary proof to show that he gave a dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- cash, 2 sovereigns of gold chain, 3/4 th sovereigns of gold ring and presented domestic articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent and there is a documentary proof to show that the respondent is having an RCC building in Guntur worth of Rs.40,00,000/- and there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is getting a rent of Rs.24,000/- per month from the said RCC building and the respondent is earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as a Private

Electrician and there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is doing finance business and earning an amount of

Rs.40,000/- per month. P.W.3 further admitted that on 26.12.2010 an agreement (OPPUDALA PATRAM) was entered between first petitioner and the respondent and by the way of Oppudala Patram, both first petitioner and the respondent agreed to put up a separate family from the parents of the respondent and as per the said

Oppudala Patram that the respondent agreed to make fixed deposit of

Rs.30,000/- in the name of the child by name Rajya Laxmi.

10. The known personof P.W.1 to P.W.3 is examined as P.W.4 and he filed chief affidavit and his chief affidavit is also nothing but the replica of the chief affidavit of P.W.1.

During cross-examination of P.W.4 it was elicited that there are only two houses between his house and the house of the P.W.2 and he knows P.W.1 since her childhood as she is a Student to him in

Anganvadi School and there is no proof to show that he attended the marriage of P.W.1 and he was not present in the marriage photos of 12

P.W.1 and the Respondent. P.W.4 further stated that there is no documentary proof to show that the above said dowry was given to the

Respondent. P.W.4 further stated that there is no documentary proof to show that the Respondent is working as Private Electrician and there is no documentary proof to show that the Respondent is doing finance business and he is earning an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month on finance Business.

11. The respondent himself got examined as R.W.1 and he filed his chief affidavit and his chief affidavit is nothing but the large replica of his counter.

During cross-examination, R.W.1 stated that he studied upto 10th class and he did not pass the 10th class examination and he does not know about the educational qualification of P.W.1. R.W.1 further admitted that he is working as private electrician and he and

P.W.1 and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are residing separately since 2015 and from 2015 to till this date, he did not give any money to petitioners 1 to 3 and also did not provide any clothes to them in the eve of festivals and on birthdays of 2nd and 3rd petitioners and he did not file any petition before the court for the restitution of conjugal rites and he is not ready to take the petitioner No.1 and her children to the matrimonial home and he is not ready to lead marital life with petitioner No.1. R.W.1 further admitted that at present the P.W.1 and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are residing at the house of parents of the 1st petitioner at Kondabalavaripalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal and his mother-in-law I.e., the mother of 1st petitioner is working as an 13

Anganvadi Aaya(maid servant). R.W.1 further admitted that as his elder brother took the job of his father and so, his parents gave all the immovable properties to him. R.W.1 further admitted that on 26.12.2010 a compromise deed was executed between him and P.W.1 and by the way of the said compromise deed, he agreed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the 2nd petitioner and he agreed to deposit the same in the form of Fixed Deposit. R.W.1 further admitted that as per the said compromise deed he and P.W.1 agreed that the said amount of Rs.30,000/- which was deposited in the form of F.D. should be withdrawn after the 2nd petitioner became Major and he further admitted that at present the said Fixed Deposit bond is with him and he did not cancel the said fixed deposit to till today and there is no documentary proof to show that till today, the said fixed deposit is in existence. R.W.1 stated that the said fixed deposit is renewed from time to time by him to till today and he would file the xerox copy.

R.W.1 further admitted that he is having the house situated in 100 square yards at Guntur and the said house stands in his name.

12. The petitioner filed above petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is meant to achieve social purpose the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution it provides speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. This court is relying upon the decision reported in 2008

2 SCC 316 Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai wherein the Hon’ble supreme

court held that the object of the maintenance proceedings is not

to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy

by compelling those who can provide support to those who are

14

unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to

support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant

case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while

she was living with her husband and would not take within itself

the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is

specifically enacted to protect women and children.

13. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that the respondent and his mother had harassed her to bring additional amount of dowry and the respondent neglected her and her children and did not provide food to them and did not provide the medical treatment to the 2nd petitioner and necked her and her children out of the matrimonial house. On the other hand the respondent contended that the 1st petitioner used to go to her parents house and would not return back to the matrimonial house and she used to raise petty issues with him and the 1st petitioner did not mend her ways though the several elders advised her. This court is relying upon the decisions reported in

Rajathi Versus C. Ganeshan in AIR 1999 SC 2374 where in the

Hon’ble Supreme court observed that “trial Court is to take prima

facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to

go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail.

As such the standard of proof in such cases is not as high as in

other criminal cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time and

again observed that those legislations which are framed for the

benefit of a particular class of society should be interpreted in a

liberal sense so as to provide benefit to that particular class. The

15

Sec 125 CrPC is a beneficial legislation and on the face of

contrary versions of parties, the benefit of doubt should go in

favour of the petitioner. This court is also relying upon the decision reported in Sunita Kachwaha and others Vs Anil Kachwaha

reported in 2015 (1) A.L.D. (Crl).484 (SC) wherein it was held

that “Criminal Procedure code 1973-Section 125-Proceedings

under -Summary in nature-It is not necessary for court to

ascertain as to who was in wrong- And minute details of

matrimonial dispute of between the husband and wife need not

be gone into-High court, therefore, not right in going intricacies

of disputes between appellant-wife and respondent-husband-And

holding that appellant was not entitled to maintenance, as she

on her own left matrimonial house, over looking evidence of wife

and factual findings as recorded by family court.” It is the case of the respondent that he and first petitioner entered into a compromise deed(Oppudala Patram) on 26.12.2016 in the presence of caste elders and they decided to live together separately from their family members from that day and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited in the form of Fixed deposit in State Bank of India in the name of the 2nd petitioner and the same should be withdrawn after the 2nd petitioner became major. But the respondent did not file the said original

Oppudala patram before the court and the same was not marked.

However, P.W.1 to P.W.3 admitted about the execution of Oppudala patram between P.W.1 and R.W.1 and they also admitted that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was deposited in the form of fixed deposit in the name of the 2nd petitioner. But P.W.1 stated that the said Fixed deposit bond is with the respondent and the respondent also admitted 16 that the said fixed deposit bond is with him. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said fixed deposit bond is not handed over to her and the respondent had cancelled the said bond. During the cross- examination R.W.1 stated that he did not cancel the said fixed deposit and the same was renewed from time to time and he stated that he would file the copy of the same. But the respondent did not file the said fixed deposit bond before the court. It is the contention of the respondent that an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was given to the petitioners no.1 to 3 and so he is not liable to pay the maintenance.

On the other hand the petitioner denied that she did not agree the said amount towards the full and final settlement of the maintenance of the petitioners and the said amount was also not given to her to till this date. The respondent did not file the said original oppudala patram and did not mark the same and the respondent also did not file the said fixed deposit before the court to show that the said fixed deposit is still in existence. Admittedly a fixed deposit of Rs.30,000/- was taken in the name of the 2nd petitioner and the same lies with the respondent. When the said Oppudala patram is not filed, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the said amount was given to the petitioners towards the final and full settlement of the maintenance of the petitioners. So, the said Oppudala patram is not a bar to the petitioners to claim the maintenance from the respondent.

15. As stated in Rajathi Versus C. Ganeshan in AIR 1999 SC 2374 the Court has to take prima facie view of the matter and it is not necessary for the Court to go into the matrimonial disputes between the parties in detail and moreover the scope of this petition is very 17 limited. Therefore, whether there was really mental harassment meted out by the 1st petitioner in the respondent’s house or not is a question of fact, but at the same time the above scope of this petition is very limited. What is to be observed in this petition is whether the respondent willfully neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners no.1 to 3 or not, or whether the 1st petitioner herself deserted the respondent without any reasonable grounds. The respondent did not state any valid reason why the 1st petitioner left the matrimonial home and no wife without any reasonable cause would leave her matrimonial life and ruin her life and the life of her children and it is not the case of the respondent that the 1st petitioner dislikes him and so she left the matrimonial home. During the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that he did not file the petition for the restitution of the conjugal rites and he further stated that he is not ready to take the petitioners no.1 to 3 to the matrimonial house and he is also not ready to lead the conjugal life with the 1st petitioner. So the evidence led by the respondent that the 1st petitioner herself deserted without any reasonable cause is not primafacie acceptable. The fact that the first petitioner has been living separately from him is not specifically denied by the respondent and during the cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that P.W.1 and 2nd, 3rd petitioners are residing separately since 2015 and from 2015 to till this date, he did not give any money to petitioners no. 1 to 3 and also did not provide any clothes to them in the eve of festival and on birthdays of 2nd and 3rd petitioners Therefore, it can be safely held that the couple were living separately and the respondent had neglected the petitioners no.1 to 3 without any reasonable cause.

18

16. On perusal of entire evidence on record and material available on record there is no dispute between both the parties regarding their marriage, and there is also no dispute about the children. So, both petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the legitimate children of first petitioner and the respondent. This court is relying upon the decision reported in

Rajathi vs. C. Ganesan, reported in 1999 (6) S.C.C,326 wherein

held that U/S 125 Cr.P.C. Expression “ unable to maintain herself

”covers means available to the wife, while she was living with

her husband and not after her desertion, burden lies on the

husband to prove that he has no sufficient means to discharge

his obligation or he did not neglect or refuse to maintain her ,

statement by wife that she was unable to maintain herself, held,

would be enough –It would be for the husband to prove otherwise.

As per thecontents of the petition, the respondent is working as an electrician and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and the respondent is doing finance money and getting an amount of

Rs.40,000/- per month. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 to P.W.3 had categorically admitted that there is no documentary proof to show that the respondent is working as an electrician and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month and the respondent is doing finance money and getting an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is having an RCC building which stands in the name of the respondent. To prove the same the 1st petitioner filed Ex.A2. The document Ex.A2 shows that a vacant site stands in the name of the respondent. During the cross- examination, the respondent had categorically admitted that he is having the house situated in 100 square yards at Guntur and the said 19 house stands in his name. But it is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had given the said house to lease and he is getting the rents of Rs.24,000/- per month and the value of the said house is

Rs.40,00,000/- but the respondent denied the same. The petitioner did not file any documentary proof to show that the respondent is getting rents of Rs.24,000/- per month and the value of the said house is Rs.40,00,000/-. On the other hand the respondent contended that the 1st petitioner is working as anganwadi teacher and is earning but the respondent did not file any documentary proof to show that the 1st petitioner is working as a teacher. This court is relying upon the decision reported in RAJNESH Vs. NEHA and Another

dt.04.11.2020 SCC Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had

categorically held that the petitioner is entitled to claim

maintenance from the respondent even though petitioner is

earning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that merely, the wife

is capable of earning some income, it could not be a ground to

reject the claim of maintenance and earning of the wife cannot

operate as bar from being awarded maintenance by the

respondent. So, as per the above decision, even if we consider that

P.W.1 is working as a teacher, the first petitioner is entitled to claim the maintenance from the respondent. This court is relying upon the decision reported in Maneesh Jain VS. Aakansha Jain, 2017 SCC

where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while granting

the maintenance, financial capacity of the husband, his income

and reasonable expenses has to be taken into consideration and

the court take into the consideration the standard of living of

husband as well as sparingly inflation rates and their cost of

20

living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any

income source is not a ground to reject the maintenance to the

petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the

maintenance of minor children including food, clothing, medical

expenses and extra coaching classes or any vocational training

courses to complement the basic education must be factored in,

while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable

amount to be awarded for extra-curricular/coaching classes, and

not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.

Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by

the father. As per the decision reported in Maneesh Jain VS.

Aakansha Jain, 2017 SCC the plea of the husband that he does not possess any income source is not a ground to reject the maintenance to the petitioners no1 to 3. So, though the respondent contended that he is not doing any job and he has no income source, the respondent is liable to pay maintenance. In the light of the above discussion the above point is answered in favour of the petitioners no.1 to 3 and against the respondent.

17. In the result, the petition is partly allowed without costs and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand only) to the 1st petitioner towards the maintenance of the 1st petitioner i.e. for food, clothing and medical expenses and also

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners towards the maintenance of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners i.e.

for food, clothing, medical expenses and educational expenses from the date of the petition i.e. from 27-08-2019. The respondent is 21 further directed to pay the above said maintenance to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 on or before of 5th of every succeeding calender month. The respondent is also directed to pay the arrears of the maintenance amount to the petitioners no.1 to 3 within four months from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer, typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 21stday of April, 2023.

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I Addl.Judl Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1 : Raavuri Kameswari

P.W.2 : Kondapaturi Malleswari

P.W.3 : Kondapaturi Koteswara Rao

P.W.4 : Alapati Venkata Ramana

FOR RESPONDENTS:

R.W.1 : Ravuri Sivalingaprasad @ Prasad

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1 : Wedding card

Ex.P2 : The certified copy of the registered Sale deed dt.20.04.2009 bearing document no. 2353/2009.

FOR RESPONDENTS: - NIL -

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I Addl.Judl Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, PONNUR

PRESENT: Smt. D. Sreedevi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur

Wednesday, this the 19th day of April, 2023

C.C.No. 407/2021

Between: The State: Sub-Inspector of police, Ponnur Town P.S., (Cr.No.248/2021)… Complainant.

And

Nizampatnam Nagamalleswara Rao, S/o. Mohan Rao, 32 yrs, Kummari, R/o. Thotapali Village, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 17.04.2023 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri G. Gangadhar, advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S, has filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.248/2021 for the offence punishable U/s 304-A IPC.(Chunduri Siva RamaKrishna is hereinafter referred as “Deceased ")

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

L.W.1/Chunduri Hemalatha is resident of Arumbaka Village,

Cherukupalli Mandal and her deceased husband Chunduri Siva

Ramakrishna used to do real estate business and had no children.

On 06.08.2021 the deceased started on his bike bearing No. AP 07 2

BD 7969 (black colour) from his home and went to Ponnuru on his business on the same day and at about 11.30 p.m., her villager who is brother by courtesy called Thota Satyanarayana (L.W.4) gave a call to mobile phone of L.W.1/Chunduri Hemalatha through the deceased mobile and said that her deceased husband and himself are going to Cherukupalli through Intur Village road on separate bikes and the deceased is going ahead to him and passed 100 meters towards Inturu road and then the accused who is the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 39 TV 8329 came in Opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without sounding horn and hit the bike of the deceased and thereby the deceased fell on the road side garbage mounds and dead and on that L.W.1/Chunduri Hemalatha and Siddavarapu Anjaneyulu (L.Ws.2), friend of the deceased and sister-in-law of P.W.1, I.e.

Mangalapuram Sai Chandrakala (L.W.3) reached to the spot and found the deceased with injuries below the right shoulder and colour bone and chest and crush injury from right knee and ankle and oozing blood from the ears and dead and the bike of her deceased husband fully damaged and the said accident was happened due to high speed in rash and negligent manner without sounding horn and caused mortal injuries and thereby the deceased died and L.W.4/Thota Venkata Satyannarayana is the eye witnesses to the occurrence.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/Chunduri Hemalatha,

L.W.11/Sub Inspector of police Ponnur Town P.S registered the above statement as a case in Cr.No.248/2021, u/s 304-A IPC and 3 investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.11/ Sub

Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S. conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of mediators, and examined the witnesses L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements inspected the scene in the presence of L.Ws.7 and 8 and prepared scene observation report and also drew rough sketch of the scene of the offence. Later, L.W.11/S.I. of police conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, L.W.11/S.I. of police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice as the offence is below of seven years punishment and on 12.08.2021 L.W.10/B. Satyanarayana, Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect and after the completion of the investigation, L.W.11/Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused, this court furnished copies to him as per Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Accused was examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C the sum and substance of accusation made against him u/Sec.304-A of I.P.C is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 8 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to P9. P.W.1 is the Wife of the deceased.

P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3 is the eye witness to the accident. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the inquest panchayatdars. .

4

P.W.6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.7 is the Medical Officer,

P.W.8 is the investigating officer, Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is the

Signature portion of P.W.4 on the report. EX.P3 is the Inquest

Report. Ex.P4 is the Scene Observation Report. Ex.P5 is the MVI

Report. Ex.P6 is the Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased. Ex.P7 is the FIR. Ex.P8 is the Rough Sketch. Ex.P9 is the photos numbering in 4.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence made against him in Telugu, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence. .

7. Heard both sides arguments submitted by the Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused U/s 304-A of IPC beyond the reasonable

doubt?”

9.POINT : The learned APP argued that P.W.3 is the eye witness to the accident and the evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the accident and as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died. The learned APP further argued that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.3 5 clearly proves that the accused had caused accident due to the rash and negligent act and he is responsible for the death of the deceased and hence, prayed the court to convict the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC.

10. Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is hearsay evidence and they categorically admitted that they came to know about the accident and went to the scene of offence and so, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused. The counsel for the accused further argued that P.W.3 did not depose

before the court about the rash and negligent act of the accused

and the police did not conduct the test identification parade in this case, and so, the identification of the accused who is not known to

P.w.3 previously and identifying the accused for the first time before the court is not believable and conviction cannot be imposed to the accused basing on the sole testimony of P.W.3. The counsel for the accused further argued that P.w.3 had categorically admitted in his cross examination that he did not state to the police that he can identify the accused and so, identifying the accused before the court for the first time has no evidentiary value and hence, prayed the court to acquit the accused.

11. The wife of the deceased is examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that on 06.08.2021 at about 06:30 P.M., her husband went to Ponnur on his Pulsar Bike bearing number 7969 and at about 11:30 P.M., L.W.4-T.V.Satyannarayana made a phone call to her 6 and informed her that her husband was met with an accident while going to Cherukupalli from Ponnur and L.W.4-T.V.Satyannarayana stated to her that one TATA ACE Vehicle bearing number 8329 which was proceeding from Cherukupalli to Ponnur had hit her husband bike and the driver vehicle of the said TATA ACE vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit her husband. L.W.4-T.V.Satyannarayana informed her that her husband fell into bushes and died in the spot. Then she informed the same to her in-laws, then, she and L.W.2 and L.W.3 went to the scene of offence and by the time, they reached to the scene of offence, the deceased died and the right side of the entire body of her husband was smashed and the right side shoulder bone, right side chest and ankle of the right leg of her husband was smashed and the blood oozed out of the nose and ears of her husband and the person who hit the vehicle of her husband was present at the scene of offence and by the time they went to the scene of offence and when they reached to the scene of offence, Ten persons are present at the scene of offence. Then they gave Ex.P1/report to the Police and her husband was shifted to Ponnur Government Hospital for

Postmortem Examination. On the next day, the dead body of her husband was handed over to them.

During the cross-examination of P.W.1 it was elicited that

Ex.P1 is not drafted by her and she did not draft Ex.P1 at that time due to her situation. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P1/Report, that she can identify the accused. P.W.1 further admitted that she came to the scene of offence on the phone 7 call made by L.W.4/T.V. Satyanarayana and she further admitted that she did not witness the accident. P.W.1 also admitted that

L.W.2/S. Anjaneyulu and L.W.3/M. Sai Chandra Kala did not see the accident.

12. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that on 06.08.2021 at night time,

P.W.1 made a phone call to him and informed him that the deceased was met with an accident, P.W.1 stated to him that L.W.4-

T.V.Satyannarayana had informed her about the accident. Then he and P.W.1 and L.W.2-S.Anjaneyulu went to the scene of offence within ten minutes and by the time they reached there, the deceased was on the ground and was already died and his bike was met with an accident and the entire right side of the body of the deceased was smashed and there is a fracture in the entire right side of the body.

At the time of accident, the deceased is proceeding from Ponnur to

Cherukupalli on his bike and the accused is proceeding from

Cherukupalli village to Ponnur in the opposite direction on his TATA

ACE Badadost vehicle bearing number 8329 and he saw the vehicle of the accused at the scene of offence and the accused drove the vehicle with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the deceased and at the time of accident, the deceased is wearing helmet and the body of the deceased was shifted to

Ponnur Government Hospital.

During the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that she went to the scene of offence after happening of the accident and she did not observe whether there are any street lights or whether there is any light at the scene of offence.

8

13. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on 06.08.2021 he and the deceased met at Ponnur and the deceased after completion of his work, he started from Ponnur to Cherukupalli village via Inturu and he also started after ten minutes on his bike to Cherukupalli Village and by the time the deceased reached to Market Yard, one person came in TATA Ace vehicle in wrong direction i.e. the said person i.e.

the accused came on the right side instead of left side and caused accident to the Pulsar bike of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot and entire right side of the body of the deceased was smashed. Later they made a phone call to the wife of the deceased (P.W.1) and their relatives and he saw driver of the TATA ACE

Vehicle i.e., accused.

During the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that he did not state to the Police at what time the deceased and he started from Ponnur to Cherukupalli Village and he did not state to the

Police about the distance between him and the deceased at the time of accident. P.W.3 further admitted that at the scene of offence there is no supply of Electricity and he further admitted that he did not state to the Police within what time he reached to the scene of offence from Ponnur. P.W.3 further admitted that there is a T-Corner

Junction on the road proceeding from Ponnur to Inturu Village and every vehicle would be moved slowly at the said T-corner Junction.

and he cannot say whether the deceased gave signal and blowed horn when the vehicles came in the opposite direction. P.W.3 further admitted that he did not state to the Police about at what distance the deceased fell after the accident and he cannot say the speed of 9 crime vehicle. P.W.3 further admitted that he did not state to the

Police that he can identify the accused. P.W.3 further admitted that he did not state to the police at what distance, he was present from the scene of offence at the time of accident.

14. The inquest panchayatdar is examined as P.W.4 and he deposed that on 06.08.2021 he went to the Police Station by knowing that the deceased died and Police took him to the Police

Station at about 06:00 A.M., and along with him, L.W.8-

T.Venkateswara Rao also came to the scene of offence and he observed the TATA ACE vehicle at the scene of offence and the Sub-

Inspector of Police drafted one document and later Police took him to the Hospital and he put his Signature on the scene observation report at the scene of offence and he does not know the contents of scene observation Report and police conducted Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and there are injuries on the dead body of the deceased and they opened that the deceased died in an accident and he put his signature on Inquest Report and along with him, one T.Venkateswara Rao also put his signature on

Inquest Report and the Inquest was conducted at Government

Hospital, Ponnur at about 11:00 A.M.

During the cross-examination P.W.4 admitted that he did not see the accident and he does not know what happened at scene of offence and he does not know who scribed Inquest Report and he further admitted that he is an Illiterate and he does not know the contents of Inquest Report.

10

15. Another inquest panchayatdar is examined as P.W.5 and he deposed that on 07.08.2021 in the morning, he went to the road situated near Market Yard, Nidubrole and he noticed that accident was happened at that place and he noticed that Pulsar Bike and another Mahendra Vehicle at the scene of the offence and he knows the contents of Ex.P4/Scene Observation Report and from there, he went to Government Hospital, Ponnur within 30 minutes and police conducted Inquest on the dead body of the deceased in his presence and he did not observe the injuries on the dead body of the deceased and he came to know that the deceased died as the Pulsar Bike and

Mahendra Van hit the deceased and along with him, P.W.4 also put his signature on the Inquest Report and he knows the contents of

Inquest Report.

During the cross-examination P.W.5 admitted that he does not know about the manner of the accident and he further admitted that he does not know the contents of Inquest Report as the Police drafted the same.

16. The Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as P.W.6 and he deposed that on 10.08.2021 he received a requisition from S.I. of

Police, Ponnur Town Police Station to inspect the crime vehicle bearing number AP 39 TV 8329 Goods Carriage LMV and on the same day at about 05:00 PM, he went to Ponnur Town P.S. and inspected the Crime vehicle that is bearing number AP 39 TV 8329

Goods Carriage LMV and found the following damages to the crime vehicle due to the accident.

11 (1) Front Bumper Damaged on the right side. (2) Front Right Corner

Body dented below head light and (3) Front Right rear view mirror broken.

Then, he put the crime vehicle to the Road Test and found that the foot brakes are in good working conditions and even in action and he was of the opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and accordingly, he issued the Ex.P5/MVI Report.

During the cross-examination of P.W.6, it was elicited that he did not go to the place of the scene of offence.

17. The Medical Officer was examined as P.W.7 and he deposed that on 07.08.2021 at about 12:30 P.M. she conducted Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased by name Chunduri

Siva Ramakrishna, Age 47 Yrs and found the following external injuries:- (1)Fractured noted in Middle of Right Clavicle with undue mobility, (2) Fractured Noted in the third, fourth, fifth and left inter-coastals ribs on lateral side.

(3) Fracture of proximal of 1/3rd of right humerus.

(4) A comminuted fracture of right tibia which includes open fracture of lower 1/3rd of right tibia and fibula with split laceration of skin 1.5 cms x 0.5 cms (5) Fracture of right upper 1/3rd of tibia.

(6) Fracture of right middle 1/3rd tibia and fibula 12

And he found the following internal injuries:- (1) Hematoma of 2.5 cms x 2cms in middle cranial fossa.

(2) Hematoma of 0.8 cms x 0.5 cms in left pleural cavities and there is a congestion in left lung.

She was of the opinion that the deceased died due to multiple fractures and injuries leading to Hemorrhagic shock and approximate time of death is 12 to 24 hours before the Postmortem

Examination and accordingly, she issued Ex.P6/Postmortem

Examination Report of the deceased.

During the cross-examination, P.W.7 admitted that the kind of injuries sustained by the deceased might be also caused if one moves the vehicle with high speed and fell down.

18. The investigating officer in this case is examined as P.W.8 and he deposed that he registered the case, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketch and scene observation report and he sent requisitions to concerned authorities for conducting inquest and postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and also requisition to the MV Inspector and he served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

During the cross-examination of P.W.8, it was elicited that the name of the accused is not mentioned in FIR and he further admitted that P.W.1 also did not mention the name of the accused in 13 her Ex.P1/Report. P.W.8 further admitted that P.W.1 did not state to him in her 161 Cr.P.C. Examination regarding the name and the identity particulars of the accused and he further admitted that

P.W.1 came to know about the accident as P.W.3 made a phone call to P.W.1 and he further stated that P.W.1 did not see the accident.

P.W.8 further admitted that P.W.4 did not state to me about the name of the accused and also about the identity particulars of the accused. P.W.8 further stated that he did not conduct Test

Identification Parade and did not get identified the accused through

P.W.3. P.W.8 further admitted that the identity particulars of the accused were not mentioned in the charge sheet. and he did not collect any CC footage in this case and he did not seize the Trip

Sheet in this case and he did not identify any tyre marks at the scene of offence.

19. On perusal of entire evidence on the record, P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased deposed before the court that P.W.3 made a phone call to her and informed that her husband was met with an accident. P.W.2 deposed before the court that P.W.1 made a phone call and informed her that the deceased was met with an accident.

So admittedly P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not see the accident and hence their evidence is hearsay evidence and their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 is an eye witness to the accident.

P.W.3 deposed before the court that the deceased after completion of his work, started from Ponnur to Cherukupalli village via Inturu and he also started after ten minutes on his bike to Cherukupalli 14

Village and by the time the deceased reached to Market Yard, one person came in TATA Ace vehicle in wrong direction i.e. the accused came on the right side instead of left side and caused accident to the

Pulsar bike of the deceased and the deceased died on the spot and entire right side of the body of the deceased was smashed. The counsel for the accused argued that P.W.3 did not depose before the court about the rash and negligent act of the accused and hence the evidence of P.W.3 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle of the deceased and the deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the accused and the counsel for the accused further argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused and failed to prove that there is a direct nexus between the rash and negligent act of the accused and the death of the deceased. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the decision reported in (2009) 2

Andhra(criminal)116 G.Kumar Vs. State of Andhrapradesh

wherein the Hon’ble high court held that in order to prove the

guilt of the accused u/s 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to

show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent

manner and a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

shows that they did not allege that the accused was driving

the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The Hon’ble High

court further held that no conviction can be placed on the mere

assumptions and presumptions and there must be a legal

evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the

prosecution to prove the degree of the criminal negligence of

15

the accused to show that he had driven the vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner. Relying upon the above decision the counsel for the accused argued that P.W.3 did not depose about the rash and negligent act of the accused and hence prayed the court to give benefit of doubt to the accused. On perusal of the evidence of

P.W.3 on the record, P.W.3 did not depose before the court about the rash and negligent act of the accused and also about the reasonable care and caution which the accused might have to be taken in order to avoid the accident. There is no whisper in the entire evidence of

P.W.3 that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and P.W.3 simply deposed that the accused came on the right side instead of left side and caused accident to the Pulsar bike of the deceased. So the prosecution had failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused in causing the accident.

20. The counsel for the accused further argued that P.W.3 did not state to the police in his 161 Cr.P.C. examination that he can identify the accused and the police also did not conduct any test identification parade in this case but surprisingly P.W.3 identified the accused for the first time before the court. The counsel for the accused relied upon the decision reported in 2002 1

Andhra(criminal) 903 Andhra Pradesh High court in Syed

Zameer Vs State of A.P. Wherein the Hon’ble High court of A.P.

held that it is for the prosecution to show that the accused

was driving the vehicle at the time of incident and he was

responsible for causing the accident. The lorry and the trip

sheet were not seized. The non-conducting of the Identification

16

parade, is one of the important circumstances to doubt about

the identity of the person who drove the vehicle. The Hon’ble

high court further held that the identity of the person who

drove the vehicle is concerned, there is some suspicion and

therefore the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel for the accused further relied upon the decisions reported in 1979 AIR SC 1127 Kanan and others Vs State of

Kerala. Wherein the Hon’ble supreme court held that where no

test identification parade is held, it will be wholly unsafe to

rely on a bare testimony regarding the identification of an

accused for the first time in the court. Where a witness

identifies an accused who is not known to him in the court for

the first time, his evidence is absolutely value less, unless

there has been a previous Test identification parade to test his

powers of observations. The Idea of holding T. I. parade under

the section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the

witness on the question of his capability to identify an

unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If

no T. I. parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on

his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused

for the first time in Court. By relying on the above decisions, the counsel for the accused argued that P.W.3 identifying the accused for the first time in the court is not reliable and his evidence cannot be taken into the consideration and hence prayed the court to give benefit of doubt to the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 is the only eye witness to the accident. During the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that there is no supply of 17 electricity at the scene of the offence. So when there is no light at the scene offence, it is highly improbable for P.W.3 to identify the accused and it is also not possible for P.W.3 to see the accident.

During the cross-examination, P.W.3 categorically admitted that he did not state to the police that he can identify the accused but surprisingly P.W.3 identified the accused for the first time in the court. So the evidence of P.W.3 is doubtful. Moreover P.W.3 did not depose before the court that at what time the accident was happened and at what distance he was present from the scene of the offence at the time of the accident. So in the light of the above discussion, the evidence of P.W.3 is doubtful and identifying the accused for the first time before the court is suspicious and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.3 and it is unsafe to convict the accused on the sole testimony of P.W.3 for the offence u/s 304-A of IPC.

21. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the inquest panchayatdars, P.W.6 is the

MVI inspector, P.W.7 is the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, P.W.8 is the investigating officer and their evidence speaks about the investigation done by them and their evidence is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the rash and negligent of the accused.

Hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased and the deceased died due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. In the light of above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.

18

Hence, the above point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 304-A I.P.C and is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months. No property is produced in this case and hence no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Chunduri Hemalatha NONE

P.W.2 : M. Sai Chandra Kala

P.W.3 : Thota Venkata Satyanarayana

P.W.4 : Ravuri Venkateswara Rao

P.W.5 : Thota Venkateswara Rao

P.W.6 : B. Satyanarayana Prasad, the then MV Inspector, Bapatla.

P.W.7 : Sk. Reshma, CAS, CHC, Ponnur

P.W.6 : B. Prasad The then S.I of Police, Ponnur Town P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1 NIL

Ex.P2 : Signature portion of P.W.4 on the Scene Observation Report.

Ex.P3 : Inquest Report.

Ex.P4 : Scene Observation Report.

19

Ex.P5 : MVI Report

Ex.P6 : Postmortem Examination Report of the deceased.

Ex.P7 : FIR.

Ex.P8 : Rough Sketch.

Ex.P9 : Photos numbering in 4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I A.J.F.M.C., Ponnur.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, PONNUR

PRESENT : Smt. D. Sreedevi I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ponnur.

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023.

C.C.No.113/2021

Between: The State : Sub-Inspector of police, Kakumanu P.S. (Cr.No.66/2020) … Complainant.

And

1. Kagga Sivannarayana, S/o. Srinivas Rao, 23 yrs, Uppara, Chinalingayapalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal.

2. Gujjula Anil Kumar, S/o. Prakasa Rao, 25 yrs, Valmiki Boya, Chinalingayapalem Village, Kakumanu Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 17.04.2023 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State, and Sri Ch. Nagaraju, advocate for the accused A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kakumanu P.S, has filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Crime No.66/2020 for the offence punishable U/Secs.354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

The defacto complainant/L.W.1/Kagga Mounika and the accused are the residents of Chinalingayapalem Village. L.W.1/Kagga Mounika had studied upto Intermediate and at present, she has been attending 2 agricultural coolie works. Prior to 10 days, while L.W.1/Kagga Mounika was going to coolie works, the accused A1 and A2 came on a bike caught hold of her hand and chunny and pulled forcibly and behaved indecently with her then, she released her hand and escaped from them. Later, L.W.1/Kagga Mounika told the same to her family members, then L.W.4/Kagga Srikanth who is brother of L.W.1/Kagga

Mounika went to A1 and A2 and told them not to do such things and warned them, but without caring L.W.2’s warning on 27.08.2020 at 05.00 p.m., A1 and A2 stopped L.W.4/Kagga Srikanth and beat him and threatened that they would kill him and later, L.W.1/Kagga

Mounika turned to Kakumanu P.S. and presented a report to the police.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/Kagga Mounika, LW.6/Sub

Inspector of Police, Kakumanu P.S registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.66/2020, U/Secs.354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police, visited the scene of the offence, drew the rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and later, L.W.6/Sub Inspector of Police served notices on both the accused U/Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against both the accused.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused A1 and A2 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3

4. On appearance of the accused A1 and A2 before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207

Cr.P.C.

5. The accused A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and

Charges u/secs.354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against all the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. P.W.1 is the victim/defacto complainant, P.W.2 is father of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2 is the FIR. Ex.P3 is the

Rough Sketch.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence made against them from the prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both side arguments submitted by the Learned APP and counsel for the accused.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused A1 and A2 for the offence U /secs. 354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC ?” 4

10. POINT :- The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that

P.W.1 is the victim woman and her evidence coupled with P.W.2 clearly proves that the accused A1, A2 misbehaved with P.W.1 and beat

L.W.4/K.Srikanth and threatened them for dire consequences and hence prayed the court to convict the accused.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that P.W.1 did not mention in her Ex.P1 report and also did not state before the court on which date the accused A1 and A2 misbehaved with her and further argued that the injured person i.e. L.W.4/K.Srikanth did not enter into the witness box and did not give evidence and hence the non- examination of injured witness is a fatal to the case of the prosecution and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

12. The defacto complainant in this case was examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that she and the accused A1, A2 belongs to

Chinalingayapalem Village and she was going to Agricultural field in the month of August, 2020 and meanwhile, the accused A1 and A2 came to her and caught hold of her hand and also pulled her Chunni and behaved indecently with her. Then she went to her house and informed the same to her parents. On the next day, when she was going on the road, the accused A1 and A2 again came to her and threatened her by saying that she cannot do anything even though, she informed the same to her parents and the accused A1 and A2 also stated to her that they would rape her. Then she went to the house and informed to her brother L.W.4-Kagga Srikanth, then her brother L.W.4-Kagga Srikanth went to the accused A1 and A2 on 27.08.2020 and questioned them for 5 their behavior, then the accused A1 and A2 beat her brother L.W.4-

Kagga Srikanth and the accused further stated that they would kill her brother and her parents and threatened her brother L.W.4-Kagga

Srikanth. So, on the same day i.e. on 27.08.2020 they gave

Ex.P1/report to the Police against the accused A1 and A2.

During the cross examination P.W.1 admitted that in Ex.P1, she did not mention the date of the incident and she also did not mention about the exact scene of offence in her Ex.P1/Report. P.W.1 further admitted that she also did not mention about the date in Ex.P1 on which second incident had happened and she further admitted that she also did not mention in Ex.P1 about the date and time of happening of two incidents she did not give report to the Police regarding the two incidents and she further admitted that at the time of the above two said incidents, except she and the accused no one were present. P.W.1 further admitted that she was not present when the accused beat her elder brother. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P1 on which date and at what time and at what place, the accused A1 and

A2 beat her elder brother (L.W.4) and threatened him and she further admitted that her elder brother (L.W.4) did not give any report to the police against the accused and L.W.4 also did not go to the Hospital to take treatment.

13. The father of P.W.1 is examined as P.W.2 and he deposed that at about two years back, when P.W.1 is going to Agricultural Field, the accused A1 and A2 caught hold of hand of P.W.1 and pulled the Chunni of P.W.1, then P.W.1 came to her and informed same to her and he and 6

L.W.2-Kagga Tirumala went to the accused A1 and A2 and questioned the accused and firstly, the accused A1 and A2 stated that they did not commit any offence and later the accused A1 and A2 stated to them that they would Rape P.W.1 and threatened them, then they went to the

Police Station and gave report to the Police and the accused threatened them and on 27th of August, they gave report to the Police and the accused A1 and A2 also beat his Son (L.W.4) and after the incident, and they left the village and went away to Ongole.

During the cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he stated to the

Police that the incident was happened when he went to Agricultural

Field for work and he further admitted that at the time of incident, he and L.W.2 were not present. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that there are previous disputes between him and the accused A1 and A2, so they gave false report against the accused A1 and A2 through P.W.1.

14. The investigating officer was examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that he registered the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he served 41(A) CR.P.C notices to both accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

During the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that P.W.1 did not mention in Ex.P1/Report about the date on which the accused A1 and

A2 followed her and caught hold of her hand and misbehaved with her and P.W.1 did not mention in Ex.P1/Report and also did not state to him on which date, L.W.4-Kagga Srikanth had questioned the accused 7

A1 and A2 and P.W.1 did not mention in Ex.P1/Report at which place,

L.W.4-Kagga Srikanth was beaten and by whom L.W.4-Kagga Srikanth was beaten. P.W.3 further admitted that L.W.4-K.Srikanth did not give any report to the Police against the accused and he did not send L.W.4-

K.Srikanth to the Hospital for treatment and he did not enquire anyone near the Agricultural fields where the accused A1 and A2 are alleged to misbehave with P.W.1.

15. On perusal of entire evidence on the record it is the case of the prosecution that the accused A1 and A2 followed P.W.1 and had pulled the hand and chunny of P.W.1 and had behaved indecently with P.W.1.

and then she informed the same to her parents and on the next day the accused A1 and A2 again came to P.W.1 and threatened P.W.1 for dire consequences that they would rape P.W.1. During the cross- examination, P.W.1 admitted that she did not mention in her report on which date the above two incidents were happened. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 mentioned that at about 10 days back prior to giving of the report the above two incidents were happened. P.W.1 categorically admitted during the cross-examination that at the time of the above two incidents, she and the accused were only present and nobody were present. If really the accused A1 and A2 had threatened P.W.1 by saying that they would rape her then P.W.1 would have immediately given the report to the police but P.W.1 did not give report to the police for a period of 10 days.

So the evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring the confidence of this court. It is the case of the prosecution that later after some days

L.W.4/K.Srikanth who is the brother of P.W.1 went to the accused A1 and A2 and questioned them then the accused A1 and A2 beat 8

L.W.4/K.Srikanth. Then on the same day P.W.1 went to the police station and gave report to the police. But the prosecution did not examine the said injured person i.e. L.W.4/K.Srikanth to show that the accused A1, A2 had beat L.W.4/K.Srikanth. Moreover P.W.1 had categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she was not present when the accused A1, A2 beat L.W.4/K.Srikanth. So admittedly

P.W.1 did not see when the accused A1, A2 beating L.W.4/K.Srikanth and no one were present when the accused A1, A2 hold the hands of

P.W.1 and pulled the chunny of P.W.1. The non-examination of

L.W.4/K.Srikanth i.e. the injured witness is certainly a fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the offence u/s 323 of IPC. Admittedly P.W.1 did not depose before the court on which date the accused A1, A2 had hold her hands and pulled her chunny and P.W.1 did not depose before the court and also did not mention in Ex.P1 at what place the above said incident had taken place. P.W.2 who is the father of P.W.1 deposed

before the court that he and L.W.2/Kagga Tirumala went to the accused

A1 and A2 and questioned them but P.W.1 did not state before the court that P.W.1 and L.W.2/Kagga Tirumala went to the accused A1 and A2 and questioned them but infact P.W.1 deposed before the court that L.W.4/K.Srikanth went to the accused and questioned them. So the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is quite contradictory with each other and hence their evidence is not inspiring the confidence of this court and hence discarded. In the light of the above discussion, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1, A2 beyond the reasonable doubt and hence the above point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

9

16. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.354-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 and

A2 and their sureties shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months.

No property is produced in this case and hence no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PONNUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Kagga Mounika None

P.W.2 : Kagga Bullaiah

P.W.3 : S. Sounder Rajan, the then S.I of Police, Kakumanu P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1 NIL

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I A.J F.C.M., Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PONNUR.

PRESENT: Smt.D.Sreedevi,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ponnur.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of April, 2023.

PRC.No. 14/2022

Between: State : Inspector of Police,

Ponnur Rural Circle .... Complainant.

AND

Gollamudi Prudhvi Raj alias Prudhvi and four others

..... Accused.

This petition is coming on this day before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Advocate for the complainant and of , Advocate for accused, the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following::

Judgment

1.The Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Circle, Ponnur has filed Charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.39/2022 for the offence punishable u/secs.448, 417, 376 (2) (n), 506,509 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A5 of Ponnur Rural P.S.,

Ponnur.

2.The accused A1 to A5 present. On perusal of the record, the accused

A2 to A5 did not furnish sureties before the court as the Police gave Sec.41(A)

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused A2 to A5. As per Sec.441 of Cr.P.C., this Court can direct the accused to furnish Sureties to secure their appearance before the Court.

Hence, the accused A2 to A5 are directed to furnish sureties of Rs.10,000/- each for like sum. The accused A1 to A5 furnished sureties. Perused the record, this court has taken cognizance of the matter against the accused A1 for the offences punishable u/secs.448, 417, 376 (2) (n) and A1 to A5 for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 506,509 r/w 34 of IPC. Case copies were furnished to the accused A1 to

A5 as provided U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Perused the record. Prima facie, a case is made out against the accused A1 for the offences punishable u/secs.448, 417, 376 (2) (n) and A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 506,509 r/w 34 of IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence case is committed to the

Honourable Court of Sessions Division, Guntur as provided U/s 209 (a) Cr.P.C. The

accused A1 to A5 are on bail and it is directed that the accused A1 to A5 shall appear before the Court of Sessions after receipt of summons as contemplated

U/sec. 209(b) Cr.P.C., Submit all the material papers and material objects to the

Court of Sessions as provided U/s 209 (c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions as provided U/s 209 (d)

Cr.P.C. When questioned the accused A1 to A5 about their means, they stated that they got means to engage an Advocate to defend them during the trial at the Court of Sessions. The Office is directed to submit the entire case record to the

Honourable Sessions Court immediately without causing delay.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- D. Sreedevi

I Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Ponnur.

IN THE COURT OF

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), PONNUR

Presided Over by Smt. D. SREE DEVI

OS/197/2019

BORRA SATYAVATHI

Age: 84 Address: WEEVERS COLONY, NIDUBROLU TOWN, PONNUR MANDAL

VERSUS

KARRI DASU BABU ALIAS DASU

Age: 40 Address: 6TH WARD, CHINTALAPUDI VILLAGE, PONNUR MANDAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : M.ERESU Advocate for : appearing for KARRI DASU BABU ALIAS DASU: Advocate appearing for respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 15-10-2020 )

The counsel for plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is

settled at the instance of village elders. Hence, the suit is dismissed

without costs as not pressed.

Sd/-Smt. D. SREE DEVI

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR