Kum. D Sri Bharani

1

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: D. Sri Bharani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, dated this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C. No. 457 of 2018

Between:

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. …Complainant

And

1. Tadapaneni Narasimha Rao S/o Sangameswara Rao, 40 years, Kamma, Kotha-Kanchela village, Nandigama mandal.

2. Gaddam Kishore S/o Venkateswara Rao, 23 years SC/Madiga, Keesara village, Kanchikacherla mandal.

..... Accused

This case came before me on 25.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and Sri A.Mani Babu, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station, filed

Charge Sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 381, 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short I.P.C.] in Cr. No.

143/2018.

2.The conspectus of case of prosecution is that on 22.05.2018 at about 7.00 a.m. When LW.1/K.Sandeep along with LW.2/ Madhava Rao who are working as store keepers in Inwanta Chemical factory at Keesara village, were checking he store room, they noticed that 6 diesel tins each contain- ing 30 liters of diesel was misplaced and suspected that some unknown per- sons committed theft of the said diesel worth of Rs.13,000/- Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.8/D.Sandeep/ S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No.

143/2018 and issued F.I.R. LW.8 visited the scene of offence, drafted rough 2 sketch, examined LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their detailed statements. On 25.05.2018 at 6.00 a.m. Near Inwanta chemical factory at Keesara village, both accused were arrested and their confession was recorded and in pur- suance of the same, seized some part of stolen property from A1 and

Rs.7,500/- from A2, belonging to the said firm. LW.8 issued notice to Ac- cused u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation LW.8 filed charge sheet.

3. On perusal of the record, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 411 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of document furnished to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation leveled against them and charges u/s. 381, 411 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. After having understood the same, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and also M.O.1 and M.O.2 on their behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied. Accused did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

3

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution established guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offences punishable u/s. 381, 411 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. Point:-

In order to establish guilt of accused prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.5. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant. Pw.2 and PW.3 are circumstantial witnesses. PW.4 is mediator for mediator report. PW.5 is Investigating officer.

11. PW.1 deposed that he is working as Store keeper in Inwanta Chemical

Factory, Keesara since three years. he knows LW.2 to LW.4 who are also co­ workers and also A1 who is working as Electrician in their factory. They used to kept each and every item using in their factory kept in their store room. They also kept six diesel cans containing each can 30 liters of diesel. On 22.5.2018 himself and LW.2 K.Madhava Rao verified the stock item and they found missing 6 diesel cans. They immediately informed the same to their management and they came to know that some unknown offenders have stolen away the six diesel cans. He lodged a report to the police on the same day.

Ex.P1 is the report. Police examined him. Later he came to know that A1 has stolen away the six diesel cans which were kept in their store room.

During cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that at the entrance of chemical factory there will be security guard and it is a habit of signing in the

Register for outside persons to enter and exit into the chemical factory and factory was surrounded for about 15 feet of compound wall and there will be

C.C. footage camera at the entrance of the factory and there will be two persons as security guards and they are available for 24 hours and he informed about 4 the missing of diesel cans to his M.D. by name Cherukuri Satyanarayana,

General Manager by name Sitaramaiah and Production Manager by name

Srinivasa Rao and it is a habit of mentioning to maintain stock register about the entries, but he has not mentioned about the entry in stock register in

Ex.p1 report and A1 was working in their factory for about three years. 

12. PW.2 and PW.3 who are co­employees and working as store keepers in

Inwanta chemical factory also deposed in the same lines as stated by PW.1 and further PW.3 stated in his chief examination that out of 6 diesel cans, one can was missing which is also admitted in his cross examination. PW.2 also admitted in his cross examination that at the entrance of chemical factory there will be security guard and it is a habit of signing in the Register for outside persons to enter and exit into the chemical factory.

13. PW.4 who is mediator deposed that on 25.5.2018 at about 6.00 a.m.

S.I. of Police, Kanchikacherla summoned him and VRA /LW.7. Accordingly they joined with police and all went to Inventa Chemical company at Keesara village and they noticed two persons carrying one blue plastic can, on seeing the police, the said two persons tried to skulk away. Police caught hold them and on questioning them, they disclosed their names and identity particulars and A1 confessed that previously he worked as Electrician in Inventa company and due to his insufficient income, he decided to sell diesel for wrongful gain. He also confessed that he got kept 5 cans of diesel from the store room of the said company. He also confessed that the stolen property kept behind the wall of Inventa company under the tree and he met with A2 and he was agreed to purchase the stolen diesel Rs.50/- per liter. He also confessed that he along with the help of A2 already took away four cans and now they are ready to take away one can, police came and caught hold them. S.I. of Police seized blue can contains 30 liters. M.O.1 is blue can. He 5 also confessed that he sold away 150 liters of diesel @ Rs.50/- per liter total

Rs.7,500/- On examination by the S.I. of Police, second person also confessed the same, On counting they noticed Rs.100/- notes - 75 in number. M.O.2 is 75- Rs.100/- notes. Police prepared mediator report and seized M.O.1 and

M.O.2 and arrested both accused. Himself and VRA /LW.7 subscribed their signatures. Accused also subscribed their signatures on mediator report/

Ex.P2.

During cross examination, PW.4 admitted that at the time of preparation of Ex.P2, he was present at his residence at Kanchikacherla. On the requisition of S.I. of Police, Kanchikacherla over phone, he prepared Ex.P2 and there is no written requisition from the S.I. of police, Kanchikacherla and he has not obtained any prior permission from the MRO regarding preparation of Ex.P2 and S.I. of Police did not informed him about the details of scene of offence in phone and he cannot say the names of S.I. of Police and other staff. He further admitted that he noticed A1 and A2 at the main gate of chemical factory and the said Ex.P2/report was typed at the scene of offence and the said fact was not mentioned in it and S.I. of Police informed him that the weight of the diesel cans approximately weighed 30 liters each and they did not weighed the diesel cans with any weighing machine and he did not mentioned the description of diesel cans in Ex.P2 and the diesel cans were not sent to RFSL for chemical analysis and the scene of offence is situated back side of security room and at the time of Ex.P2, security people were present but he do not know the names of them and in general, for ingress and outgoing of the people, the details will be entered in the register by the security people and he did not enquire about the particulars mentioned in the register which was maintained by security guard and the 6 serial numbers of the seized M.O.2 was not mentioned and the particulars of himself and LW.7 were not mentioned in Ex.P2.

14. PW.5 is Investigating officer. He deposed that On 22.5.2018 he received a written report from PW.1 came along with PW.3, Basing on which he registered a case in Crime No. 143/2018 U/s. 380 IPC, Ex.P3 is FIR. he took up investigation and examined PW.1 and PW.3 and recorded their detailed statements and on 23.5.2018, visited the scene of offence situated at storeroom at Inventa Chemicals factory, Keesara village and drafted rough sketch/Ex.P4. he has secured PW.2, LW.4 and LW.5 and recorded their detailed statements. On 25.5.2018 on receiving reliable information, he secured mediators PW.4 and Lw.7 and along with my staff, proceeded to

Inventa Chemical factory, Keesara village and they noticed two persons carrying one blue plastic can, on seeing them, the said two persons tried to skulk away. He caught hold them and on questioning them, they disclosed their names and identity particulars and A1 confessed that previously he worked as Electrician in Inventa company and due to his insufficient income, he decided to sell diesel for wrongful gain. He also confessed that he got kept 5 cans of diesel from the store room of the said company. He also confessed that the stolen property kept behind the wall of Inventa company under the tree and he met with A2 and he was agreed to purchase the stolen diesel Rs.50/- per liter. He also confessed that he along with the help of A2 already took away four cans and now they are ready to take away one can, police came and caught hold them. He seized blue can contains 30 liters.

M.O.1 is blue can. He also confessed that he sold away 150 liters of diesel @

Rs.50/- per liter total Rs.7,500/- On examination by the S.I. of Police, second person also confessed the same, On counting they noticed Rs.100/- notes - 75 in number. M.O.2 is 75- Rs.100/- notes. He prepared mediator report and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 and arrested both accused. Pw.4 and VRA /LW.7 7 subscribed their signatures. Accused also subscribed their signatures on mediator report/ Ex.P2. He brought the accused persons and seized M.O.1 and M.O.2 to police station. Basing on mediator report and confession statements of accused, He served a notice u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. to accused and sent a requisition to management of Inventa factory about the working details of A1, they sent him a letter to show that A1 was worked in their factory as hire contract and he was worked for the period from 1.1.2017 to 20.7.2018. Ex.P5 is the letter issued from factor to show that A1 worked from 1.1.2017 to 20.7.2018 (marked subject to proof and relevance). After completion of investigating filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 under relevant provisions of law.

During cross examination PW.5 admitted that Investigation will be conducted after sending FIR to the court. On 24.5.2018 at 4.00 p.m. FIR was sent to court and PW.1 did not stated that the alleged offence has taken place at 7'0 clock and there is no signature in column No.14 in FIR/Ex.P3 and

PW.2, PW.3 , LW.4 and LW.5 are colleagues of him and at what time they observed the missing of oil cans i.e. theft property and specifically the colours of cans and he informed about the theft to company officials before lodging the report and PW.1 did not stated in Ex.P1/report that he along with

PW.2 has observed identification of missing cans. He further admitted that there are security guards at the entrance of company and he did not showed the security guards as witnesses in this case and he did not add the MD or chairman of the company as witnesses in this case and he has not submitted the stock register of diesel into this court and A1 and A2 were present near factory at the time when he visited factory after receiving reliable information and the Inventa chemical factory is beside cold storage and he has written mediator report outside the Inventa chemical factory and the particulars of VRO and VRA are not mentioned in mediator report and he he 8 has not sent the diesel can to FSL and he did not issued any requisition to mediators to act as mediators.

16. The learned counsel for accused argued that PW.1 did not stated anywhere in Ex.P1/ report that PW.1 along with PW.2 and PW.3 and LW.4 were working in one office, there are many contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4. The learned counsel for accused further argued that no independent witnesses were examined for seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. Hence prayed this court to acquit the accused.

17. The gist of the evidence of prosecution witnesses is that PW.1 to

PW.3 are working in Inventa chemical factory. On 22.5.2018 PW.1 and PW.3 verified the stock item and found six diesel cans were missing. They immediately informed the same to their management. They came to know that some unknown offenders has stolen 6 diesel cans. PW.1 lodged a report.

Later PW.1 came to know that A1 has stolen away 6 diesel cans. During course of investigation, police caught hold A1 on 25.5.2018 near Inventa chemical factory in the presence of PW.4 and Lw.7 and recovered cash of

Rs.7,500/- from him under the cover of Ex.P2/mediator report wherein A1 confessed that he committed theft of 5 diesel cans and sold it to A2. A1 also confessed that A1 with the help of A2 already took away and that one can is ready to take away and stolen the diesel cans and A2 agreed to purchase for

Rs.50/- per liter. Police arrested A1 and A2 on 25.5.2018. Police recorded confessional statement of A1 and A2 under Ex.P2 in the presence of mediators and also seized M.O.1 diesel can and M.O.2 currency notes.

18. From the above evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 prosecution tried to establish that A1 being Electrician of Inventa chemical factory committed theft of 5 diesel cans for wrongful gain. It is the allegation of the prosecution that A1 sold the stolen property i.e. 6 diesel cans to A2 for Rs.7,500/- and 9 prosecution tried to establish the same through confession of A1 under

Ex.P2/ mediator report.

19. On perusal of entire evidence on record, it is clear that except the hearsay evidence and the alleged extra judicial confession of accused, there is no direct evidence to connect A1 with the offence. It is not in dispute that

A1 is the Electrician in Inventa chemical factory. A1 is not store keeper for

Inventa chemical factory where the alleged theft was taken place. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that he came to know about the missing of 6 diesel cans and he along with Pw.2 verified the stock item. PW.3 also verified the missing of 6 diesel cans. It is surprise to note that who informed the PW.1 that the offence was committed by A1. Admittedly there is no direct evidence for the offence. None of the prosecution witnesses has seen the A1 while committing the offence of theft. Though PW.1 deposed in his evidence he came to know that A1 has taken said 6 diesel cans from store room, Pw.1 came to know about the said theft only after lodging FIR. The person who saw accused No.1 while committing theft is not examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, there are security guards at the entrance of chemical factory and they will maintain a register for ingress and egress of outside persons. The said fact was admitted by prosecution witnesses including PW.5/ Investigating officer.

Also PW.1 admitted that there is a CC footage camera at the entrance of factory. But for the reasons best known to prosecution, Pw.1 did not choose to hand over CC TV footage, showing the offence stated to be committed by

A1 to the police. Similarly, PW.5 also did not choose to seize CC TV footage from the factory to verify whether A1 committed theft of 6 diesel cans.

20. Admittedly none of the witnesses or eye witnesses are present to prove the commission of offence by A1 and they were not examined. The case of the prosecution mainly relied on Ex.P2/ mediator report.

10

21. From the evidence of Pw.1 to PW.3 and Pw.5 it is revealed that from outside there has been security guard for ingress and egress and there is security checking and security registers at the entrance of the gates. Hence it is clear that if A1 committed any theft, security guards has to verify them. Because diesel cans are not small items, so they can be visible. To the surprise 6 diesel cans which will be huge quantity was found missing from the security eye.

The evidence of PW.1 to 3 clearly shows that there will be security guards at the entrance gates. It is highly diffi cult to believe that how the diesel cans were taken out from the store room as there will be security guards at the entrance of the gates. This is one of the strong and doubtful circumstance of the prosecution case.

22. As seen from the evidence on record, there is no independent evidence to support the case of prosecution. From the beginning PW.1 to PW.3 has stated that soon after the incident they informed the same to their management. Investigating offi cer/ Pw.5 also admitted in his cross examination that PW.5 did not added either Managing Director/ Chairman as witness in this case. It is clear that the Inventa chemical factory offi cials are crucial witnesses, but they were not cited as witnesses. Pw.1 to

PW.3 categorically deposed that 6 diesel cans were seized. But from the evidence of PW.4 and as per Ex.P2/report, A1 and A2 confessed that 5 diesel cans were taken away. So it is doubtful on the part of prosecution case.

23. Now, the only evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.5. PW.5 is Investigating offi cer. PW.5 did not spoke anything about securing the presence of local mediators at the scene of 11 off ence and to secure local mediators at Inventa chemical factory.

From the above evidence of PW.5, it is evident that PW.5 failed to secure the local inhabitants to act as mediators for search and seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. It is settled law that in the absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. I feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard.

24. The Hon’ble High court of A.P in the case of ‘S.Babu saheb @babu

Vs The State of A.P’ reported in ‘2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P’ wherein it is held that:

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C As referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section (4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted”

25. Though it is a judgment which is applicable to the Excise cases, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be also to be applied to every case where the search and seizure was undertaken by the Investigating offi cer u/s. 100(4) Cr.P.C.

Similarly, it is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. Here in the present case also, PW.5 has not made any serious eff orts to secure mediators at the scene. As held in the above authority, non securing of independent mediators at the scene of off ence by PW.5, is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case.

12

26. For all these reasons as discussed above, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of PW.5. His version is very doubtful.

Hence benefi t of doubt shall be given in favour of A1 and A2. The evidence produced by the prosecution is not suffi cient to prove the guilt of A1 and A2.

27. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt that A1, being an Electrician of Inventa Chemical factory, has committed theft of 6 diesel cans and sold the same to A2 who received the same from A1 knowing the same to be stolen property. There is no suff icient material against A1 and A2 for the off ence punishable u/s. 381 IPC and 411 IPC.

28. It is a case of prosecution that A1 confessed that he committed theft of 5 diesel cans and sold the same to A2 for

Rs.7,500/- and similarly A2 purchased 5 diesel cans from A1 knowing the same to be stolen property. But prosecution failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove the said confession of A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no suff icient evidence for seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. Except the evidence of Pw.5, there is no other independent evidence to connect the A2 with this off ence. When the prosecution failed to produce any positive and convincing evidence in order to prove the confession of A1 and

A2 under Ex.P2 and receiving the stolen property from A1.

Knowing the same to be stolen property, A1 and A2 cannot be held liable even for the off ence u/s. 411 IPC.

29. All these circumstances as discussed above are creating strong doubt on the prosecution case. There are so many clouds in the prosecution case and evidence produced by the prosecution 13 is not suff icient to connect A1 and A2 for the reasons stated supra. Hence it is a fi t case to exercise benefi t of doubt in favour of A1 and A2. Hence prosecution failed to prove its case against

A1 and A2 for the off ences punishable u/s. 381 and 411 r/w 34

IPC.

30. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 381 and 411 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of

Judgment. M.O.1/ diesel can and M.O.2/ Rs.7,500/- which are given to PW.1 as interim custody, is made absolute after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, Transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence

PW.1 - K. Sandeep…None…

PW.2 - S. Venkata Rao

PW.3 - K. Madhava Rao

PW.4 - J. Satish Kumar

PW.5 - D. Sandeep

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Report of PW.1 - NIL-

Ex.P2Mediator report

Ex.P3F.I.R.

Ex.P4Rough sketch

Ex.P5Employee duty certificate 14

MOs marked

M.O.1Diesel can (30 liters)NIL

M.O.2Rs.7,500/- cash (75 notes of Rs.100)

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama 15

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 457 of 2018 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA

DATE OF

Offence Report orApprehensioReleaseCommenceClosure ofSentence or complaint n of accusedon bail ment of trialtrial order 22.5.201822.5.2018Issued 41 Cr.P.C. 07.02.201917.06.201928.06.2019 Notice to accused

Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 31.08.2018. After receipt of summons accused appeared, on 23.01.2019 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 24.01.2019 Accused were examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. On 12.03.2019 PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 20.03.2019 PW.3 is examined. On 23.04.2019 Pw.4 was examined and Ex.P2, M.O.1 and M.O.2 are marked. On 17.6.2019 PW.5 was examined and Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 are marked. On 18.06.2019 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 25.2019 heard final arguments. Judgment

pronounced on 28.06.2019. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No: 457/2018 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Tadapaneni Narasimha Rao S/o Sangameswara Rao, 40 years, Kamma, Kotha-Kanchela village, Nandigama mandal.

2. Gaddam Kishore S/o Venkateswara Rao, 23 years

SC/Madiga, Keesara village, Kanchikacherla mandal. ..... Accused

Offence: U/s. 381, 411 r/w 34 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 381 and 411 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of Judgment. M.O.1/ diesel can and M.O.2/ Rs.7,500/- which are given to PW.1 as interim custody, is made absolute after expiry of appeal period.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna,Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Nandigama.

16

1

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: D. Sri Bharani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, dated this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C. No. 197 of 2018

Between:

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. …Complainant

And

1. Kukkala Srinivasa Rao S/o Narayana, 50 years,

2. Kukkala Sambasiva Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao, 28 years Both are C/Gowda, Keesara village, Kanchikacherla mandal.

..... Accused

This case came before me on 20.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station, filed Charge

Sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short I.P.C.] in Cr. No. 95/2018.

2.The conspectus of case of prosecution is that on 16.03.2018 at about 4.30 p.m. When LW.1/K.Srinivasa Rao went to Keesara temple, A2 caught him and beat him and then threw him against the ground. A1 picked up a stone and hit on his back side of head, resulting bleeding injury to LW.1. Basing on the hospital intimation and statement of LW.1, LW.11/K.Sandeep/ S.I. of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 95/2018 and issued F.I.R. LW.11 visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch, examined LW.1 to LW.6 and recorded their detailed statements. On 02.04.2018 LW.11 issued notice to Accused u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. After receiving 2 wound certificate and after completion of investigation LW.11 filed charge sheet.

3. On perusal of the record, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of document furnished to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation leveled against them and charges u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 and a charge u/s. 324 IPC against A2, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. After having understood the same, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.7 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1 on behalf of accused.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied. Accused did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution established guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offence punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC and established guilt of A1

for the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. Point:- 3

In order to establish guilt of accused prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.7. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant and injured. Pw.2 to PW.4 are eye witnesses. PW.5 is mediator for scene observation report. PW.6 is doctor.

PW.7 is Investigating officer.

11. PW.1 deposed that Previously he was running Kirana shop. A1 was the chairman of Prasannanjaneya swamy temple, Keesara village. There is a complex in the name of temple and there are so many shops in that complex. Prior to six months back of the incident, he approached A1 and asked him to give one shop on rent basis to run his kirana shop. A1 assured him that he will provide one shop if there is any vacancy. He came to know that one shop is vacated, he again approached A1 and asked him to give that shop for rent. He agreed to give shop to him if he pay Rs.50,000/- as advance. he asked A1 to give receipt for advance amount. On that A1 replied that he will not give any receipt or also shop to him. After some days, He came to know that A1 was going to allot that shop to some body. He again approached A1, six months prior to this incident, again he refused to give me shop on rent. The accused picked up quarrel with him and he approached police station, Kanchikacherla and gave a report, but no FIR was registered.

He endorsed a letter to Endowment department through RTI to know about the details of shop and also about rent. He also gave a complaint to 1100 number. On 16.3.2018 while he was going to purchase provisions at about 4.30 p.m. when he reached in front of Prasannanjaneya swamy temple, A1 bet him with a stone on his back side of head and he fell unconscious. Later he was shifted to Nandigama Government hospital where police came and recorded his statement/Ex.P1.

In the cross examination, Pw.1 admitted that A1 and A2 are relatives.

Temple was under the control of endowment department. One Vasireddy 4

Gopal was Executive officer of Prasannanjaneya swamy temple, Keesara. The transactions of the temple will be looked over by the Executive officer including auction and A1 is no way concerned with the auction proceedings of the temple and for taking shop in the temple, an advance of Rs.50,000/- to be given and the receipt will be issued by the Executive officer of the temple and at present the Executive officer is issuing receipts for payment of monthly rents and prior to filing of this case, the temple was handed over to

Endowment department and he has not not paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards advance to the Executive officer at the time of auction proceedings and he was not a tenant to the temple complex and the houses of Lw.3, LW.5 to LW.8 are far away from the temple.

12. Pw.2 deposed that he is running a hotel in Prasannanjaneya temple complex. On 16.3.2018 at 4.00 p.m. while he was in his hotel, he heard cries and noticed PW.1 was fell down on the ground and blood was oozing from the head of PW.1 and neighbours called ambulance and shifted PW.1 to

Government hospital, Nandigama. LW.4 to LW.6 were also present there.

In the cross examination PW.2 admitted that himself and PW.1 belong to YSRCP. he again says that he belong to TDP and A1 and A2 are belong to

TDP and the distance between my house and the scene of offence is half kilometer.

13. PW.3 deposed that he is running water plant in a complex belonging to Anjaneyaswamy temple situated in Keesara village. On 16.3.18 at about 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. PW.4 came to my shop for taking water and while he was filling water, He heard cries, and noticed A1 and A2 were beating PW.1 with hands and legs. A1 beat PW.1 with a stone on his back side for which he sustained bleeding injury. Meanwhile LW.6 called ambulance, PW.1 was shifted to hospital in that ambulance. He came to know that A1 asked 5

Rs.50,000/- for advance amount for shop, on that PW.1 asked A1 for receipt, by keeping in mind, A1 and A2 bet PW.1.

In the cross examination, PW.3 admitted that he has no water plant and he is working as a clerk in water plant and his house is situated far away from the village and himself and accused are belong to different political groups and the incident took place on the way to reach the temple which leads to Gandepalli road and Immediately after hearing the cries, he rushed to the scene of offence along with Pw.2 and PW.4, PW.2 rushed to the scene of offence firstly and after that they went to the scene of offence within two minutes.

14. PW.4 deposed that he is running a hotel, he knows PW.1 and PW.2 as their shops are situated near by his hotel and he knows Pw.3 as he is running water plant. On 16.3.2018 at 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. he went to water plant of

PW.3 for getting water. While they were filling water they heard cries. Himself

Pw.2 and Pw.3 went outside and noticed that A1 and A2 were beating PW.1 with hands and legs. A1 picked up a stone and beat PW.1 on his head, due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. LW.6 called an ambulance and PW.1 was shifted in that ambulance to hospital. He came to know that A1 asked

Rs.50,000/- for advance amount for shop, on that PW.1 asked A1 for receipt, by keeping in mind, A1 and A2 bet PW.1.

PW.4 admitted in his cross examination that his house is situated at

Keesara toll gate and he is running hotel there and it is not visible to see from my house to Prasannanjaneya swamy temple and there is no bore at his house and they used mineral water for drinking and the incident took place in the premises of Prasannanjaneya swamy temple and at the time of incident he was present at water plant. Soon after the incident within five minutes on hearing cries, he went to the scene of offence along with PW.2 and PW.3, immediately after the incident, Pw.2 went to scene of offence 6 firstly, later after two minutes he went to the scene of offence, later after two minutes PW.3 went to the scene of offence and he cannot say exactly where

PW.1 and accused were standing.

15. PW.5 deposed that On 17.3.2018 near Prasannanjaneya swamy devastanam, Keesara, police summoned him, himself and LW.8 also accompanied S.I. of Police. In their presence police, Kanchikacherla seized one stone from there and they subscribed their signatures on scene observation report and the signature shown to him in scene observation report is that of him. M.O.1 is stone. Ex.P2 is scene observation report.

In the cross examination PW.5 admitted that PW.1 is his nephew and they went to the scene of offence at 9.00 a.m. S.I. of Police came to his house and LW.8 house to secure their presence to the scene of offence. S.I. of

Police went to the scene in his jeep and he along with LW.8 went to the scene of offence on a motor cycle and M.O.1 is found at the back side of the steps of shopping complex i.e. near western side of shopping complex and at the time of incident the kalyana mandapam was partly constructed and it consists of stones and bricks near the construction of kalyana mandapam and Ex.P2 was prepared at the vacant site opposite to the prasannanjaneya swamy temple and at the time of preparation of Ex.P2, he along with LW.8, two constables and S.I. of Police were present and S.I. of police seized the stone and affixed a slip by sealing and took their signatures on it.

16. PW.6 is doctor and deposed that on 16.3.2018 at about 5.05 p.m.

He has examined PW.1 and found the following injuries. (1) A laceration about 5x1x1/2 cm on occipital region. (2) A laceration of left side of fore head about 2x1x1 cm. He is of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in injuries caused by blunt object or sharp object. He issued Ex.P3/ wound certificate. During cross examination Pw.6 admitted that there are chances of getting the said injuries by falling down.

7

17. Pw.7 is Investigating officer. He deposed that on 16.3.2018 he received hospital intimation/Ex.P4 along with statement of PW.1 recorded by

LW.10/ M.Nageswara Rao, Basing on the which he registered a case in Crime

No. 95/2018 U/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC, Ex.P5 is FIR. He took up investigation and left P.s. and visited Govt. hospital, Nandigama and recorded secured

PW.1 and recorded his statement. On 17.3.2018 he visited the scene of offence situated Vinayaka temple at Keesara in front of vacant shop along with mediators PW.5 and LW.8 and drafted scene observation report under the cover of mediators and he has seized a stone/M.O.1 under the cover of mediators, he also drafted rough sketch/Ex.P6. He has secured PW.2 to PW.4 and LW.5 and LW.6 and recorded their detailed statements. On 2.4.2018 accused No1 and 2 surrendered before him, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to them. he secured wound certificate of PW.1 issued by PW.6 and after completion of investigating filed charge sheet against Accused under relevant provisions of law.

During cross examination, Pw.7 admitted that the house of PW.3,

PW.5, LW.5, Lw.6 and Lw.8 were not shown in Ex.P6/ rough sketch and PW.1 did not mentioned specifically the word 'the buying of household provisions' in Ex.P1 and 161 statement and also in front of the Prasannanjaneya swamy temple and the signature of PW.1 does not contain the column No.14 of FIR and he cannot say whether there is any compound wall for Anjaneya swamy temple and he seized M.O.1 at north east corner of Prasannanjeneya swamy temple and he cannot say the structure and size of M.O.1 and the scene of offence is situated on the eastern side of shop i.e. beside the Anjaneya swami temple and he cannot say how many persons were present at the scene of offence and at the time of preparation of Ex.P6/ rough sketch and seizure of M.O.1 except himself and mediators no other were present and 8 there is Vinayaka swami temple situated in front of prasannanjaneya swami temple and the the alleged incident took place beside Vinayaka swami temple.

18. The charge leveled against A1 is u/s. 324 IPC and the charge leveled against A1 and A2 is u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC.

Sec. 323 IPC :- voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fi ne which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

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 a weapon of offence, is likely 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.

If the above ingredients of sections are proved, accused is liable for the off ence u/s. 323, 324 IPC.

19. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.1 did not dep0se anything about A2 and the evidence of PW.2 who is eye witness, is not corroborating and there is no corroboration between the evidences of prosecution and prosecution miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of Sec. 323, 324 IPC and hence prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9

20. The gist of the prosecution witness PW.1 is that prior to 6 months of the alleged incident, PW.1 approached A1 and asked him to give one shop on rent basis to run a kirana shop, A1 agreed to give to Pw.1 if he pay Rs.50,000 as advance. PW.1 asked him to issue receipt, for which A1 said that he will not issue any receipt nor shop. After some days PW.1 came to know that A1 was going to give shop for another person, thereafter he endorsed a letter to

Endowment department through RTI to know about the details of shop. On 16.3.2018 while PW.1 was going to purchase provisions at about 4.30 p.m.

When PW.1 reached in front of said temple, A1 bet PW.1 with a stone on back side of head and PW.1 fell unconscious. Later he was shifted to Nandigama

Government hospital. Whereas PW.2 did not witnessed the incident but immediately after hearing cries of PW.1, he noticed PW.1 was fell down on the ground and blood was oozing from the head of PW.1. PW.3 and PW.4 who are direct eye witnesses stated that after hearing cries they noticed A1 and

A2 were beating PW.1 with hands and legs and A1 bet PW.1 with a stone on his back side, for which PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. During the course of investigation PW.7/ Investigating officer received Ex.P4/ hospital intimation on 16.3.2018. On 17.3.2018 PW.7 secured PW.5 and Lw.8 and prepared

Ex.P2/ scene observation report and seized stone i.e. M.O.1 Later police arrested A1 and A2 on 2.4.2018.

21. From the above evidence, the evidences of PW.1 to Pw.4 stated that

A1 bet PW.1 with a stone on his back side of the head. Even though PW.2 who is not direct eye witness to the alleged offence, but immediately after hearing cries of PW.1, PW.2 noticed that blood was oozing from the head of

Pw.1. So it can be said that PW.2 saw PW.1 with blood injuries and in the presence of PW.2, Pw.1 was shifted to hospital. Whereas PW.3 and PW.4 who are direct eye witnesses narrated that A1 bet PW.1 with a stone. So the 10 evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 is cogent, trustworthy and convincing.

22. It is pertinent to say that PW.1 who is injured and his evidence corroborated with the evidence of PW.6 and Ex.p3 wound certificate. PW.6 who is doctor examined PW.1 and found following injuries. (1) A laceration about 5x1x1/2 cm on occipital region. (2) A laceration of left side of fore head about 2x1x1 cm. PW.6 clearly stated that injuries can be caused by blunt object or sharp object whereas in the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, he stated that there are chances to of getting the said injuries by falling down. But I see no force in the above statement.

23. It is evident that material object marked under the cover of Ex.P2/ scene observation report in the presence of PW.5 and LW.8 who acted as mediators. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.4, PW.6 i.e. doctor evidence and PW.5 mediator is corroborating with regard to the alleged offence.

24. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 did not stated anywhere about the presence of A2. PW.3 and PW.4 categorically deposed that A1 and A2 bet

PW.1 with hands and legs but whereas Investigating officer/ Pw.7 admitted in his cross examination that PW.3 and PW.4 omitted to state the above statement before him. So, it is doubtful on the part of prosecution case that whether A1 and A2 bet Pw.1 with hands and legs. There is no ample evidence on record to show that A2 was present at the time of alleged incident and his presence is doubtful whether A2 has caused simple hurt to PW.1.

25. In the light of above said circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 duly establishes that A1 without any justifiable cause voluntarily caused hurt to

Pw.1 by using a deadly weapon and it is also substantiated by medical evidence of doctor/PW.6 and supported by Ex.P3/ wound certificate of PW.1.

Absolutely no reasons to doubt the evidence spoken by PW.1 to Pw.4 which is cogent and convincing. The evidence of PW.1 to Pw.4 coupled with evidence 11 of Pw.5/ mediator and PW.6/doctor and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4, Ex.P6 clearly established the case of prosecution in all material aspects.

26. Prosecution to whom the burden lies to prove the guilt of accused is able to bring home the guilt of A1 for the offence u/s. 324 IPC and the guilt of

A2 was not established beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of A2 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

27.In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC and accordingly he is convicted u/s. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. But

A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.c. Bail bonds of the A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of Judgment. M.O.1/Stone is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, Transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

28. A.1 is questioned on quantum of sentence.

On appearance of accused, Judgment is pronounced. As A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC and he is convicted u/s. 248(2)

Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal. An opportunity is given to the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Accused pleaded mercy to this court.

A.1 submitted that he is having old aged parents and also two female children and he is the sole bread earner of the family and he is suffering from

Spinal cord problem and prayed the court to take lenient view.

Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case and manner in committing the offence and mercy pleaded by A1, this court feels that imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice.

12

A.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 324 IPC.

In Default of payment of fine amount, A.1 shall undergo S.I for 15 days. Out of the total fine amount Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the injured witness i.e. PW.1 towards compensation as per Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence

PW.1 - K.Srinivasa Rao…None… PW.2 - R. Balaramaiah PW.3 - Ch. Narasimha Rao PW.4 - P. Murali PW.5 - B. Satyanrayana PW.6 - Dr.E.V.S.Chance PW.7 - D. Sandeep

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Statement of PW.1 - NIL- Ex.P2Scene observation report Ex.P3Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P4Hospital intimation Ex.P5F.I.R. Ex.P6Rough sketch MOs marked

M.O.1Stone NIL

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama 13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 197 of 2018 on the file of

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA

DATE OF

Offence Report orApprehensioReleaseCommenceClosure ofSentence or complaint n of accusedon bail ment of trialtrial order 16.3.201816.3.2018Issued 41 Cr.P.C. 21.8.201818.06.201928.06.2019 Notice to accused

Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 24.04.2018. After receipt of summons accused appeared, on 21.08.2018 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 13.12.2018 Accused was examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. On 3.4.2019 PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 16.4.2019 PW.3 and PW.4 are examined. On 23.4.2019 Pw.5 was examined and Ex.P2 and M.O.1 are marked. On 24.4.2019 PW.6 was examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 17.06.2019 Pw.7 was examined and Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are marked. On 19.06.2019 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 20.6.2019 heard final arguments. Judgment pronounced on 28.06.2019. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No: 197/2018 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Kukkala Srinivasa Rao S/o Narayana, 50 years,

2. Kukkala Sambasiva Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao, 28 years

Both are C/Gowda, Keesara village, Kanchikacherla mandal. ..... Accused

Offence: U/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC

Finding : A1 is found guilty for the offence u/s. 324 IPC A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC

In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s.

324 IPC and accordingly he is convicted u/s. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. But A1 and

A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.c. Bail bonds of the A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the 14 date of Judgment. M.O.1/Stone is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

On hearing of quantum of sentence, A.1 is sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s. 324 IPC. In Default of payment of fine amount,

A.1 shall undergo S.I for 15 days. Out of the total fine amount Rs.5,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be paid to the injured witness i.e. PW.1 towards compensation as per Sec.357 Cr.P.C.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

Copy submitted to:

The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to: The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Nandigama.

1

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: D. Sri Bharani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, dated this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C. No. 285 of 2017

Between:

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. …Complainant

And

1. Thatukuru Dhanesh Babu @ Dhanesh S/o Venkateswara Rao, 24 years,

2. Tatukuru Venkateswara Rao S/o Rama Koteswara Rao, 48 years Both are Kamma, Kanchikacherla village and mandal.

..... Accused

This case came before me on 21.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and Sri D.Arjun, Advocate

for accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this

day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station, filed Charge

Sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short I.P.C.] in Cr. No. 94/2017.

2.The conspectus of case of prosecution is that on 08.06.2017 at about 10.00 p.m. Near Keesara Toll plaza LW.1/K. Durga Prasada Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Chandarlapadu who is performing his duties and was checking the vehicles which were coming from Kanchikacherla towards Nandigama as a part of road safety measures and that A2 at that time came with a bike and he asked him to show the vehicle records for which A2 offered bribe of

Rs.150/- to him on which he admonished A2 and seized their bikes, after some time both the accused went to LW.1, A1 questioned him why he has not released the vehicle by taking money, A1 has taken the key from him un- 2 lawfully by manhandling LW.1 and thereby inflicted injuries to him. Basing on report of LW.1, LW.7/K.Eswar Rao/S.I.of Police, Kanchikacherla P.S. registered a case in Cr.No. 94/2017 and issued F.I.R. LW.7 visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch, examined LW.1 to LW.5 and recorded their detailed statements. On 8.6.2017 at 3.00 p.m. LW.7 issued notice to Accused u/s. 41-

A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation LW.7 filed charge sheet.

3. On perusal of the record, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused No.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of document furnished to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation leveled against them and charges u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu. After having understood the same, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW.1 to

PW.7 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 on their behalf.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied. Accused did not choose to adduce any evidence in their defence.

8.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

3

Whether the prosecution established guilt of A1 and A2 for the

offences punishable u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10. Point:-

PW.1 deposed that On 8.6.2017 on the instructions of his superior officer, himself and LW.4 to Lw.5 were starting their duties from morning 10.00 hours as a part of road safety special drive at Keesara toll plaza,

Kanchikacherla and checking the vehicles which are proceeding from

Kanchikacherla towards Nandigama. At about 11.00 a.m. one person came on a splendor plus bike, they stopped the said bike and asked the vehicle record from that person. He failed to produce vehicle record and he offered an amount of Rs.150/- towards bribe to him. He admonished the said person and informed him that giving of bribe is an offence. The said person name is

T.Venkateswara rao who drove the vehicle. A discussion was going on for five minutes between said T.Venkateswara Rao and himself. Meanwhile the son of the said T.Venkateswara Rao by name Dhanesh came there and the keys of said vehicle was with him, the said Dhanesh tried to take over the keys of bike, in that juncture, he received nail mark injury to his right hand. The said

Dhanesh tried to bet him with hands, he stopped his hands. The neighbours came there and separated them. On enquiry at the place, he came to know that the said persons are T.Venkateswara Rao and T.Dhanesh. He went to

Kanchikacherla police station and lodged a report. Ex.P1 is his report. S.I. of

Police, Kanchikacherla examined me and he cannot identify both persons who picked up quarrel with him on the date of incident. Police,

Kanchikacherla referred him to Government hospital, Nandigama. In the cross examination PW.1 admitted that the scene of offence is situated in

Kanchikacherla police station limits and he did not submitted any copy of order regarding the special duty entrusted to him at Toll-plaza, Keesara and 4 the motor bike belongs to the persons who raid thereon at the time when they stopped them and there are shops consisting at either side of the roads at the time of alleged incident, there were about 50 persons who are present and he cannot say from whom he came to know the names of the accused.

11. PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 are became hostile and did not supported the case of prosecution.

12. PW.5 is doctor who examined PW.1 on 8.6.2017 at 10.30 p.m. And found following injuries i.e. (1) An abrasion over left wrist near thumb measuring 1x1 cm. (2) nail marks over left fore arm and he issued wound certifi cate i.e. Ex.P5. During cross examination he admitted that there is possibility of nail marks which can be caused in general by scratching nails.

13. PW.7 is Investigating offi cer. He deposed that on 08.06.2017 at 11.45 hours he received report from PW.1, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No.94/2017 u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P7 is F.I.R. He took up investigation in this case and examined PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.6 and recorded their detailed statements, sent PW.1 to the Govt. hospital, Nandigama vide memo, on the same day he has visited scene of off ence situated at toll plaza, Keesara, prepared rough sketch/Ex.P8. While PW.1 came to police station he also handed over the bike Hero company

Splender plus Chasis No. MBLHAR 083HHC54960 seized from A2.

On the same day he visited house of accused, Kanchikacherla. He tried to serve 41-A Notice, but he refused, then he arrested A1 and A2 at their house and sent them for judicial remand. On 13.6.2017 he received wound certifi cate of PW.1 issued by PW.5.

PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to P4 and 5

Ex.P6. Ex.P9 are photographs along with CD showing Splender plus bike (4 in number).

In his cross examination, PW.7 admitted that no document was fi led before this court to show that PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.6 entrusted to perform their duty at toll-plaza and he has not examined neighbours present near toll plaza at the time of alleged incident and he has has not seized the vehicle involved in this case and he did not made any enquiry regarding seized vehicle to whom it belong and he has not conducted any identifi cation for identifying the accused and PW.1 to Pw.4, Pw.6 did not stated

before me about the descriptive particulars of A1 and A2 and their

residence.

14. The learned counsel for accused argued that there is no formal proof to establish that PW.1 was on offi cial duty in discharging his duties on the date of alleged off ence and no independent witnesses are there to corroborate the version of prosecution. The learned counsel further argued that

Investigating offi cer also admitted in his cross-examination that

PW.1 to Pw.5 did not say anything about descriptive particulars of the accused. Investigating offi cer has arrested without identifi cation parade made to accused and moreover they are not the owners of alleged vehicles and hence prayed this court to acquit the accused.

15. The charged leveled against accused A1 to A3 are for the off ences u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC. To prove the charges, the prosecution is required to prove that:

6 (1)Accused used force and assaulted PW.1 and obstructed him from discharging from their offi cial duty.

(2) Accused has caused any voluntarily hurt to deter public servant i.e. PW.1's duty.

(2)Accused has resisted to taking of property by lawful authority of PW.1.

If all the above ingredients are proved, accused will be liable for the charges u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC.

16. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined PW.1 to Pw.4 and PW.6. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant and he stated that on 8.6.2017 on the instructions of his superior offi cer PW.1 along with PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 were started their duties from morning 10.00 a.m. As a part of road safety special drive at

Keesara toll plaza, Kanchikacherla and checking the vehicles which are proceeding from Kanchikacherla towards Nandigama at about 11.00 a.m. One person came on splender plus bike, they stopped the said bike and asked vehicle record from that person, he failed to produce vehicle record and off ered an amount of

Rs.150 towards bribe to PW.1. PW.1 admonished the said person and informed him that giving of bribe is an off ence, said person name is T.Venkateswara Rao who drove the vehicle. The discussion was going on for 5 minutes between said Venkateswara Rao and

PW.1, meanwhile son of T.Venkateswara Rao i.e. Dhanesh kumar came and tried to take over the keys of bike in that juncture PW.1 received nail mark injury to PW.1's right hand and he tried to beat with hands for which PW.1 stopped his hands, neighbours came there and separated them. On enquiry PW.1 came to know that 7 said persons are T.Venkateswara Rao and Dhanesh Kumar, later he lodged Ex.P1/ report at Kanchikacherla police station and PW.1 stated that he cannot identify both persons who picked up quarrel with Pw.1 on the date of incident.

17. According to prosecution case, Pw.2 to Pw.4, Pw.6 are performing duties at the scene of off ence. Surprisingly Pw.2 to

PW.4 and PW.6 did not support the prosecution case and denied their presence during the incident. They became hostile.

18. From the above evidence it is clear that except Pw.1's evidence, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case.

Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of PW.1 is reliable and trustworthy.

19. The learned counsel for accused draw the attention of the accused with regard to various discrepancies and inconsistencies, exaggerations and omissions in the evidence of Pw.1.

20. I have carefully examined the evidence of PW.1 . In the evidence of PW.1, admittedly, no proceedings are fi led by the prosecution to show that special duty was entrusted to PW.1 at toll plaza, Keesara. Except oral testimony of PW.1, there is no ample evidence to show that PW.1 was working at toll plaza,

Keesara.

21. PW.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not stated either in Ex.P1/ report or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement that there was discussion between PW.1 and A2 regarding alleged off ence at toll-plaza, Keesara and A1 tried to take over the keys of the bike, in that juncture PW.1 received nail mark injuries to his 8 right hand. On observing Ex.P1/ report PW.1 did not stated about the above said facts. So there are many omissions from his earlier version which was stated by PW.1. Pw.1 came to know the names of A1 and A2 but unfortunately PW.1 stated he cannot identify two persons, from this it can be assumed that alleged incident which was occurred on the date of incident is doubtful.

22. Pw.1 is the defacto-complainant and allegedly stated the names of A1 and A2 as particularly in the commission of off ence, but he did not identify the accused in the open court. With this bald statement this court can draw the presumption against PW.1 that whether there is an occurrence of crime which was allegedly taken place on the date of off ence or not. Moreover PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 has became hostile and none of them identify the accused who are involved in the commission of off ence.

23. Though it is convincing from the record that PW.1 was performed his duty at toll-plaza, Keesara but there is no formal proof that whether he was entrusted to work on the date of alleged off ence because the same is not suffi cient to prove that the accused assaulted or used force on PW.1 and obstructed them from discharging their duties. Prosecution is required to prove other necessary ingredients for the off ence u/s. 353 IPC beyond reasonable doubt by adducing reliable evidence.

24. On careful examination of the evidence of PW.1, there are several discrepancies, omissions in the evidence of PW.1. The incident was occurred near toll-plaza, Keesara. PW.7/ Investigating offi cer admitted in his cross-examination that he has not fi led any document to show that PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.6 are entrusted to 9 perform their duties at toll-plaza. The learned counsel argued that no independent witnesses were shown as witnesses in this case.

PW.1 stated in his cross examination that nearly 50 persons were present at the time of alleged incident and PW.7/ Investigating offi cer has admitted in his cross examination that he did not examined neighbours who were present at the time of alleged incident. As PW.2 to Pw.4 and PW.6 did not support the version of prosecution case and also failed to examine independent witnesses and cited them as witnesses in this case. Because PW.1 itself did not identifi ed the accused, hence the off ence which was alleged to be committed by A1 and A2 was doubtful.

25. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 and PW.7 has stated that the vehicle which was allegedly used in the commission of crime but no such vehicle was seized except to prove Ex.P9/ photographs to show that said Splender plus bike was involved in the commission of crime. Crl.M.P. No. 1748/2017 was fi led by one

Gadde Ravi Teja for interim custody of above said splender plus motor bike who is noway relevant to this case and has taken interim custody. But contrary to that PW.1 admitted in his cross- examination that motor bike belong to the persons who raid thereon at the time when PW.1 stopped them. But from

Cr.M.P.1748/ 2017, it can be clearly shown that the said vehicle was not in the name of either A1 or A2. Except Ex.P9/ photographs, there is no ample evidence to prove the confession of prosecution that the alleged vehicle was involved in the crime and moreover no such vehicle was also seized. PW.7 who is

Investigating offi cer himself admitted in his cross examination 10 that he did not seized the alleged vehicle. From all these above, it can be stated that the crime vehicle which was alleged to be used in the off ence was not involved in the crime.

26. It is pertinent to note that according to PW.1 he stated that

A1 tried to take over the keys of bike, in that juncture PW.1 received nail mark injury to his right hand but whereas he omitted to state the above fact in Ex.P1/ report and in his 161 statement.

PW.5 who is medical offi cer has treated PW.1 and found following injuries. 1) An abrasion over left wrist near thumb measuring 1x1 cm. (2) nail marks over left fore arm. So even if he assume for a while that Ex.P5 wound certifi cate is issued in favour of PW.1, he himself admitted that in Ex.P1 he omitted to mention above fact that A1 caused nail mark injuries on his right hand. He simply stated that in Ex.P1/ report A1 tried to beat PW.1. If, really any such incident might have occurred, PW.1 must have identify A1 and A2 in the open court but he stated that he cannot identify the persons who were present on the date of alleged incident.

Moreover from the evidence of PW.5, the doctor has stated in his cross-examination that there is possibility of causing above injury when by scratching nails. Hence there is doubtful to assume whether the nail marks were caused by A2 or not. So there are many discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 and from Ex.P1/ report and moreover none of the prosecution witnesses were supported the version of PW.1 as PW.2 to PW.4 and Pw.6 became hostile. So in the light of above circumstances, there is doubtful to say that A1 and A2 are involved in the commission of above crime.

11

27. There are so many clouds in the prosecution case. The evidence of PW.1 not inspire the confi dence of this court. For all the above reasons this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the off ence u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. It is a fi t case to give benefi t of doubt. Hence the point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

28. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 353, 183 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of

Judgment. As there is no property in this case, no order was passed towards property.

Dictated to Stenographer-Gr.III, Transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence

PW.1 - K.Durga Prasada Rao…None…

PW.2 - A. Venkata Rao

PW.3 - B. Sudheer

PW.4 - K. China Venkataiah

PW.5 - Dr.M.Suresh Babu

Pw.6 - Ch.Naga Venkata Narasaiah

PW.7 - K. Eswara Rao 12

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Report of PW.1 - NIL-

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C. statement of of PW.2

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C. statement of of PW.3

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C. statement of of PW.4

Ex.P5Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C. statement of of PW.6

Ex.P7F.I.R.

Ex.P8Rough sketch

Ex.P94 photos with CD

MOs marked

NIL

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama 13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 285 of 2017 on the file of

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA

DATE OF

Offence Report orApprehensioReleaseCommenceClosure ofSentence or complaint n of accusedon bail ment of trialtrial order 8.6.20178.6.20178.6.2017 12.6.201716.08.201719.06.201928.06.2019

Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 23.06.2017. After receipt of summons accused appeared, on 14.07.2017 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 27.7.2017 Accused were examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. On 6.5.2019 PW.1 was examined and Ex.P1 is marked. On 08.05.2019 PW.2 was examined and Ex.P2 is marked. On 10.06.2019 Pw.3 was examined and Ex.P3 is marked. On 12.06.2019 PW.4 and PW.5 were examined and Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are marked. On 17.06.2019 Pw.6 was examined. On 19.06.2019 PW.7 was examined and Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 are marked. On 20.06.2019 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 21.6.2019 heard final arguments. Judgment pronounced on 28.06.2019. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No: 285/2017 on the file of I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS -CUM-XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Thatukuru Dhanesh Babu @ Dhanesh S/o Venkateswara Rao, 24 years,

2. Tatukuru Venkateswara Rao S/o Rama Koteswara Rao, 48 years

Both are Kamma, Kanchikacherla village and mandal. ..... Accused

Offence: U/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC

Finding : Found not guilty for the offence u/s. 353, 332, 183 r/w 34 IPC Result: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 332, 353, 183 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of Judgment. As there is no property in this case, no order was passed towards property.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -CUM- I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class -CUM- XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to: The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Nandigama.

14

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ­CUM­XIV

ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

Present: D. Sri Bharani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

Friday, dated this the 28th day of June, 2019.

C.C. No. 600 of 2018

Between:

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Sukumanchi Rojarao S/o Rosaiah, 42 years, 2.Sukumanchi Saritha W/o Rojarao, 32 years, Both are C/Thogati, R/o Takkellapadu village, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur district. Now residing at Jujjuru road, Anitha Nurse home 

building, Kanchikacherla. ..... Accused

This case came before me on 26.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and Sri Sk.Karimullah, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station, filed Charge

Sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 324, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short I.P.C.] in Cr.No. 152 of 2017. 

2. The conspectus of case of prosecution is that on 23.09.2017 at 10.00 p.m. Near Area hospital a meeting was going for settlement of disputes between accused in the presence of elders in which both the accused quarreled with

LW.1/ Pandu Santha Kumari while A2 caught hold the tuft, A1 beat her with chappal indiscriminately, fisted on her face and chest and also kicked her over her stomach and on her private parts, when LW.2/T.Chandramma intervened, 2

A1 picked up a chair and beat her. On 26.9.2017 at 11.00 a.m. basing on the report of LW.1, LW.7/K.Eswar Rao/S.I.of police registered a case in Cr.No.

152/2017 and issued F.I.R. LW.7 took up investigation and recorded the de­ tailed statements of LW.1 to LW.5, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 9.10.2017 LW.7 issued notices to accused u/s.

41­A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation LW.8/D.Sandeep/ S.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

3. On perusal of the record, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of document furnished to them in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. explaining the accusation leveled against them. Basing on the material available on record, this court framed charges for the offences under sections 354 of IPC against A1 and 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. After having understood the same, the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. 

7.The Learned A.P.P. has given up the remaining witnesses (Lw.2,

LW.4 to LW.8/ T.Chandramma, S.Prem Kumar, M.Rajini, Dr.M.Suresh Babu,

K.Eswar Rao and D.Sandeep). Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

The examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, since there is no incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

3

8.Heard learned A.P.P. for the state and the learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused No.1 for the

offence punishable u/s. 354 IPC and guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence

punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Point:­

In order to establish guilt of accused prosecution examined PW.1 and

PW.2. PW.1 is the defacto­complainant and injured person. She deposed that she has worked as Head nurse at Kanchikacherla under the management of A1 and A2 and they never insulted and harassed her and they never beat her and also never eve­teased her and also never said obscene words to her at any point of time, due to hospital employees, she put her signature on the report, but she do not know the contents of it. Ex.P1 is her signature on the report. PW.2 is one of the eye witness. He also not supported the version of PW.1. Declaring them as hostile, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined them but nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version except marking their 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. The

Learned A.P.P. has given up the other witnesses as no purpose would served in examining them.

11. There is no material on record which is directly incriminating against the accused. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s.

323 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 and Sec. 354 IPC against A1 and the accused are entitled for clean acquittal. Accordingly point is answered.

4

12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 354 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437­A Cr.P.C. from the date of Judgment. 

Dictated to Stenographer­Gr.III, directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 28 th day of June, 2019

Sd I Additional Junior Civil Judge ­CUM­ I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class ­CUM­ XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence

PW.1 ­ P. Santha Kumari…None… PW.2 ­ P. Nageswara Rao

Exhibits marked for Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Signature of PW.1­ NIL­ Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.1 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW.2

MOs marked

NIL

I Additional Junior Civil Judge ­CUM­ I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class ­CUM­ XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama 5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No. 600 of 2018 on the file of 

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS ­CUM­XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

NANDIGAMA

DATE OF 

Offence Report orApprehensionReleaseCommencemClosure ofSentence or complaint of accused on bail ent of trial trial order 23.9.201726.9.2017Issued 41 Cr.P.C. 25.7.201826.6.201928.06.2019 Notice to accused

Explanation for delay and remark (8):

This case was taken on file on 14.11.2017. After receipt of summons accused appeared, on 22.1.2018 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 6.7.2018 Accused were examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. On 26.06.2019 PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. The examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with and heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 28.06.2019. Hence, the delay is explained accordingly.

Judgment in C.C.No: 600/2018 on the file of 

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS ­CUM­XIV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NANDIGAMA

The state represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikacherla Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Sukumanchi Rojarao S/o Rosaiah, 42 years, 2.Sukumanchi Saritha W/o Rojarao, 32 years, Both are C/Thogati, R/o Takkellapadu village, Pedakakani mandal, Guntur district. Now residing at Jujjuru road, Anitha Nurse home building, Kanchikacherla. 

..... Accused

Offence:  U/s. 354 of I.P.C.against A1 U/s. 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 Finding : Not guilty 

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 323 r/w 34 of IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 354 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s.437­A Cr.P.C. from the date of Judgment. As there is no property in this case, no order was passed towards property.

 I Additional Junior Civil Judge ­CUM­ I Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class ­CUM­ XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nandigama Copy submitted to: The Honourable I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

6

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NANDIGAMA

C.C.No. 611 / 2020

Between :

The State SHO, Chandarlapadu P.S...... Complainant

Vs

Velpula Jagapathibabu ..... Accused

ORDER

Accused is examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. through video mode by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him under Section 269 IPC in

Telugu, for which, He pleaded guilty and admitted that He committed offence. On further questioning, He informed that their plea of guilty is voluntarily and free of coercion. Thus, the court is satisfied that the accused admitted the guilt voluntarily and free of coercion. I take his admission as voluntary, and in view of his voluntary admission, it is deemed just and proper to award fine only, accordingly he is convicted under section.252 Cr.P.C. In the result, Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300 IDSI for one week for the offence Under section.269 IPC. As there is no property in this case no property order was passed to that effect.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the 4th day of January, 2021.

Sd/-

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Nandigama