Sri D. Srinivasulu

1

 IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: : SRI D. SRINIVASULU, B.L., VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge. FAC IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 

WEDNESDAY, the 9th day of MAY, 2012 

C.C.NO. 476/2010

Between:

State : Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., …… Complainant

And

Velamala Narayana Rao, S/o.Sriramulu, 35 years, R/o.Aundevarapu Suryanarayana Colony, Gheparam village Panchayat, Srikakulam Mandal and Srikakulam District. …… Accused.

This case is coming on 04­05­12 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri S.R.Anand, Advocate for accused, and and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : 

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Lalapet police station, Guntur, representing the State, filed this charge sheet against the above named accused in Cr.No.140/2010 of the said police station for the offence punishable u/s.420 IPC. 

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

The accused is resident of Andevarapu Suryanarayana Colony,Chaparam village panchayat of Srikakulam Mandal and District. He is known as Registered Medical Practitioner in that area. The accused developed the habit of ascertaining the list of hospitals which are blocked by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of Aarogya Sri scheme of the 

Government of Andhra Pradesh, used to contact the persons concerned of such hospitals over phone and used to induce them to make payment to him so that he can see the said hospital be removed from the black list of the hospitals for Aarogya Sri scheme by using his influence and thereby used to cheat the doctor or the management people of such hospitals. That on 16­08­ 2010 at about 11­30 a.m., the accused made phone call to P.W.1 Mukku Nageswara Reddy, 

Manager of Sri Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital situated at Old Club road, 2

Kothapet, Guntur, which was under suspension in respect of the said Aarogya Sri scheme, and asked P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy to pay an amount of Rs.6000/­ for each bed of the hospital by remitting that amount in the State Bank of India Account No.1115248678 belonging to P.W.5 

Kondra Tirumala Rao and after depositing the said amount in the said account he would see the said hospital be removed from the black list of hospitals for applicability of Aarogya Sri scheme being maintained by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. That suspecting the bonafides of accused, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy gave report to the police P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then 

Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., Guntur. 

3.That the said Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., registered the said report of P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy as a case in Cr.No.140/2010 under Section 420 IPC, issued F.I.R., and took up investigation. That during investigation, the said Y.Sridhar 

Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., examined four witnesses viz., 

P.W.1 Mukku Nageswara Reddy, P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer Ahmed, P.W.5 Konda Tirumala Rao and 

P.W.2 Gogisetty Narendra Kumar and recorded their statements.

4.That on 19­08­2010 at the instructions of accused, P.W.1 Mukku Nageswara Reddy remitted an amount of Rs.5000/­ in the above said bank account, contacted the accused over phone and asked him to come to the said hospital to bargain the actual amount by sitting in the hospital. That accordingly, on 26­08­2010 the accused came to the said Amaravathi Institute of 

Medical Sciences Hospital and met P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy, Manager of the said hospital, and was talking to him. At that time, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy sent information to P.W.7 Y.Sridhar 

Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., about the availability of accused in this case in his chamber in the said hospital. That on such information, P.W.7 Y.Sridhar 

Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., rushed to the said hospital, found the accused, arrested him in the presence of mediators P.W.4 Chadalavada Srinivasa Prabhu and P.W.6 Siddabathuni Narendra Kumar, interrogated the accused and recorded his confessional statement. During interrogation of accused by P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then 

Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., Investigation Officer, the accused made a clear statement confessing the commission of offence in respect of this case and offences in Srikakula and Vizianagaram districts. After arresting the accused and interrogating him, P.W.7 Y.Sridhar 

Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., seized cell phone of accused (M.O.1) and cash of Rs.5000/­ (M.O.2) from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of arrest confessional and seizure mahazar (Ex.P­6). That during the course of investigation, it came to light that accused committed similar offences against P.W.2 3

Gogisetty Narendra Kumar, Manager of Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, Old club road, Kothapet, 

Guntur. That the said P.W.2 Narendra Kumar remitted Rs.1,50,000/­ in the said account number furnished by accused i.e., in the account of P.W.5 Tirumala Rao. That the accused got the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and Rs.5000/­ withdrawn through P.W.5 Tirumala Rao

5.Thus, the investigation revealed that the accused cheated P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy and 

P.W.2 Gogisetty Narendra Kumar as stated above and knocked away Rs.5000/­ and 

Rs.1,50,000/­ from them respectively and thereby rendered himself for punishment for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

6.This case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC against accused and proceeded with as per law.

7.On appearance of the accused before this court, the accused was furnished with copies of necessary documents complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. 

8.Charge for the offence punishable u/s. 420 IPC against accused framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 

9. During the trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P­6 and M.Os.1 and 2 on its behalf.

10. On closure of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/s 313 

Cr.P.C. putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and accused denied truth of such incriminating material put to him and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

11. Heard arguments on both sides. 

12. The point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

13.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted the case of the prosecution in brief as per the contents of the charge sheet and further submitted that through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7, the Investigation Officer, coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.P­1 to P­6, 

M.Os.1 and 2, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused and hence, accused is liable for punishment according to law.

4

14.The learned defence counsel submitted that accused is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. He further submitted that the case of prosecution is that accused herein induced P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy to pay him 

Rs.6000/­ for one bed in the said Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital wherein 

P.W.1 works as Manager, in order to see the suspension of the said hospital removed from the list of hospital applicable for Aarogya Sri scheme of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, and by inducing so, the accused made P.W.1 to deposit Rs.5000/­ in the account No.1115248678 said to be belonging to P.W.5 Tirumala Rao and thereby cheated P.W.1, but prosecution has not placed any documentary proof to prove that P.W.1 deposited the said amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said bank account on the alleged inducment or misrepresentation made by accused and that this is a false foisted against accused by police P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of 

Police , Kothapet L & O P.S., at the instance of P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer Ahmed. 

15.Having heard the above said arguments, I perused the evidence on record. I perused the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer 

Ahammad is not a material witness as his evidence is of hear say in nature. For the reason that he is not the witness for the alleged arrest of accused on 26­8­10 by P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., and he is not the witness for the alleged deposit of Rs.5000/­ by P.W.1 in the said bank account No.1115248678 alleged furnished by accused person. P.W.2 Goginesetty Narendra Kumar , Manager of Sri Srinivasa Nursing Home, 

Old club road, Kothapet, Guntur is not at all a witness for this Cr.No.140/2010 and his evidence is no where related to this case. Hence, in order to prove the guilt or otherwise of accused, the evidence of P.W.1, 4 to 7 is crucial.

16.In the charge sheet it is alleged by P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of 

Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., that on the instructions of accused, P.W.1 M. Nageswara Reddy deposited an amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said bank account furnished by accused, but in the evidence, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy deposed that on the instructions of P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer 

Ahmed (L.W.2) he deposited an amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said account number furnished by the said unknown person to capture him. P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy did not categorically depose the date on which he deposited the said amount of Rs.5000/­ in the bank account number allegedly furnished by accused to P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy on 16­8­2010 over telephone and on suspicion he went to police station and lodged report furnishing the account number furnished by the said 5 unknown person and cell phone furnished by the said unknown person.

17. As seen from Ex.P­1, the report of P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy to the police, he has not mentioned the fact that he made such payment of Rs.5000/­ by depositing the same in the said account number furnished by the unknown person. As seen from Ex.P­1, the report of P.W.1 to police, and Ex.P­5 the original F.I.R., issued by P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., , the said case in Cr.No.140/2010 was registered on 18­8­2010. 

As seen from the charge sheet, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy deposited the said amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said SBI Account No.1115248678 on 19­08­2010. Hence, it appears that the said deposit of Rs.5000/­ in that account by P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy was subsequent to his report to police. 

But in his evidence, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy deposed that at the instructions of P.W.3 Shaik 

Nazeer Ahmed, he deposited the amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said account to capture the said unknown person and after that on suspicion he went to police station and lodged his report. In view of the said evidence of P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy, he gave his report Ex.P­1 to police subsequent to the deposit of said amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said bank account. Hence, there is any amount of doubt in respect of the date of alleged deposit of Rs.5000/­ by P.W.1 in the said account number. 

18.As per the evidence of P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet 

L & O P.S., Investigation Officer, on 18­08­2010 P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy visited the police station and presented his report Ex.P­1 to him and the same was registered as a case in 

Cr.No.140/2010 under Section 420 IPC, he issued F.I.R., and took up investigation. That during investigation, he examined P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy and P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer Ahmed and recorded their statements. In the cross­examination, P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy deposed that P.W.1 came to the police station on 18­08­2010 along with P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer Ahmad , who is a retired Dy.Superintendent of Police. As seen from the record, P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy examined 

P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy on 18­8­2010 i.e., on the date of F.I.R., and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

19.Further as per the charge sheet, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy deposited the amount of 

Rs.5000/­ in the said bank account on 19­08­2010, contacted the accused over the said cell phone number and asked him to come to his hospital i.e., Amaravathi Institute of Medical 

Sciences Hospital for bargaining the actual amount and accordingly, on 26­8­2010 the accused came to P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy at the said hospital and on information by P.W.1 Nageswara 

Reddy, P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., accompanied by his staff and mediators went to the said Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences 6

Hospital, met P.W.1 and P.W.1 has shown the accused to him that the accused was the said person required in this case, and then P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy arrested the accused, interrogated him and recovered Rs.5000/­ (M.O.2) and cell phone (M.O.1) from his possession under Ex.P­6 mahazar. P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy did not depose as if he made phone call to the accused asking him to come to the said hospital i.e., Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital for negotiation in respect of the amount to be paid and on 26­08­2010 when the accused came to the hospital met him, introduced himself as the person who contacted him over the telephone for the purpose of revocation of suspension of the said hospital from the blacklist of Aarogya Sri scheme and thereafter he (P.W.1) passed on information to P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy and on such information P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy came there and arrested the accused and recovered M.Os.1 and 2. The alleged panch witnesses i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.6 viz., Chadalavada Srinivasa Prabhu and Siddabathuni Narendra Kumar did not support the case of prosecution and they were declared as hostile. In view of P.W.4 Srinivasa Prabhu and P.W.6 Narendra Kumar not supporting the case of prosecution and P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy not deposing the fact that on his information P.W.7 came to his hospital and arrested the accused, who came to Amaravathi 

Hospital on request made by P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy over telephone for the purpose of negotiation, the evidence of P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy that he arrested the accused at the said 

Amaravathi Hospital on 26­8­2010 and recovered M.Os.1 and 2 from the possession of accused, remained uncorroborated.

20. Admittedly, as seen from the record, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy did not mention in his report Ex.P­1 that he deposited the amount of Rs.5000/­ in the said account and so also he did not state before P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, Investigation Officer, during recording of his statement about said payment of Rs.5000/­ by depositing the said amount. P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy did not mention in his report Ex.P­1 about the alleged deposit of Rs.5000/­ by him in the said bank account and he did not state the said fact before police i.e., P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy during recording of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., But for the first time, he deposed the said fact before this Court. Moreover, if at all P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy made such payment of 

Rs.5000/­ by depositing the said amount in the said account allegedly furnished by accused, he should have handed over the counterfoil of the deposit form to P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy and in turn 

P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy should have collected the same from P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy and filed 

before this Court to prove the alleged payment. But no such counterfoil of the deposit form for the 

alleged deposit made by P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy in the said S.B.I. Account No.1115248678 is filed in this Court. As P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy did not mention the said fact of deposit of 

Rs.5000/­ in the said account No.1115248678 in his report Ex.P­1 and he did not state the said 7 fact before P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, but deposed the said fact before this Court, clearly amounts to an improvement in respect of material fact. For that reason, the said fact is liable to be disbelieved.

21.Moreover, as seen from Ex.P­1 report no deposit was made by P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy in the said bank account and hence, this case should have been registered by P.W.7 Y.Sridhar 

Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., for the offence under Section 420 r/w 511 IPC but not for the offence under Section 420 IPC as it was only an alleged attempt by accused to cheat P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy, but the said crime was registered by P.W.7 

Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., for the offence under 

Section 420 IPC. 

22. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, the victim should have delivered the property by believing the misrepresentation or inducement made by the accused. 

But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy, on the instructions of P.W.3 Shaik 

Nazeer Ahamad to capture the unknown person, who made the said phone call and tried to induce P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy, P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy deposited the said amount of 

Rs.5000/­, but not believing the alleged inducement or misrepresentation said to have been made by accused. Hence, the material ingredient of Section 419 IPC is not made out.

23.Further as seen from Ex.P­6 i.e., alleged confession statement made by accused on 26­08­2010 before PW.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the accused did not state the name of the said account holder i.e., S.B.I., Account No.1115248678. Hence, it is doubtful as to how P.W.7 

Y.Sridhar Reddy came to know that P.W.5 Kondra Tirumala Rao is the holder of the said account. The evidence of P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy is that after arrest of accused, recording confession of accused and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 on 26­8­2010 he visited Bondilipuram town of Srikakulam district on 03­09­2010, secured the presence of P.W.5 Kondra Tirumala Rao, alleged holder of the said account, examined him and recorded his statement under Section 161 

Cr.P.C., P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy did not depose that accused furnished the name of the holder of the said account and he did not depose that he contacted the State Bank of India Officials and through the State Bank of India officials he came to know that P.W.5 Tirumala Rao is the holder of the said account and he is resident of Bondilipuram town of Srikakulam district. It is surprising that in such circumstances how P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy came to know that P.W.5 Tirumala Rao is the holder of the said account, went to him at Bondilipuram town and examined him. Moreover, the said PW.5 Tirumala Rao has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared as hostile by the prosecution. Moreover, no documentary evidence was placed before this Court by 8 prosecution to prove that P.W.5 Tirumala Rao is the holder of the said account No.1115248678. 

So also no documentary evidence is placed before this Court that accused is the registered customer for his cell phone No.991280038.

24.In view of the above said discussion and reasons stated above, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused, and hence, I found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and hereby acquit him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. As the accused has not claimed the said amount of Rs.5000/­ and the said cell phone i.e., M.Os.2 and 1 respectively, by suggesting to 

P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy that the said cell phone and cash of Rs.5000/­ was not recovered from his possession. As there is no counterfoil of the deposit form through which the said deposit of 

Rs.5000/­ by P.W.1 Nageswara Reddy in the said account number is not placed before the Court, and no bank statement pertaining to the said account number 1115248678 is placed before the 

Court to prove the said payment by depositing in the said account by P.W.1, the cash of 

Rs.5000/­ under M.O.2 is liable to be confiscated to the State along with M.O.1 Nokia cell phone. 

25. In view of the above said reasons, I find the accused as not guilty of the offence u/s 420 

IPC and I hereby acquit him u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 and 2 covered under C.P.R.No.5/2012 shall be confiscated to 

State after appeal time is over. 

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in 

open court this the 9th day of MAY , 2012.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution :­For Defence :­ P.W.1 Mukku Nageswara Reddy ­­ None ­­

P.W.2 Gogisetty Narendra Kumar

P.W.3 Shaik Nazeer Ahmed

P.W.4 Chadalavada Srinivasa Prabhu

P.W.5 Kondra Tirumala Rao

P.W.6 Siddabathuni Narendra Kumar

P.W.7 Y.Sridhar Reddy, the then SI 9

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution :­

Ex.P­1 Report given by P.W.1 to the police.

Ex.P­2 Signature of P.W.4 on mediators report dt.26­08­10.

Ex.P­3 Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P­4 Signature of P.W.6 on mediators report dt.26­8­2010.

Ex.P­5 Registered F.I.R., in Cr.No.140/2010.

Ex.P­6 Mediators report dt.26­8­2010.

For Defence :­ Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1 Nokia cell phone seized from accused.

M.O.2 Cash of Rs.5000/­ seized from accused.

VI AJCJ

FAC IV A.J.C.J.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR.C.C.NO.476/2010 DATE OF ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial 16­08­10 27­09­10 22­12­10 18­09­10 12­05­2011 04­01­2012 09­05­2012 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for the delay :­ This case was taken on file on 27­9­10. On 22­12­10 copies furnished to the accused. On 23­3­11 accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. On 12­5­2011 P.W.1 examined in chief and Ex.P­1 marked. On 16­8­11 P.W.1 was cross­examined. On 29­8­11 P.W.2 examined. On 28­9­11 P.W.3 examined. On 29­11­11 P.W.4 examined and Ex.P­2 marked. On 13­12­11 P.Ws.5, 6 examined , Exs.P­3 and P­4 marked. On 4­1­12 P.W.7 examined, Exs.P­5, P­6, M.Os.1 and 2 marked. Prosecution evidence closed. On 5­1­12 accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 4­5­12 Heard arguments. On 09­05­2012 judgment pronounced. Hence, delay. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the Complainant :­ Sub­Inspector of Police, Kothapet L & O P.S., Guntur.

Crime No.140/2010. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Velamala Narayana Rao, S/o.Sriramulu, 35 years, R/o.Aundevarapu Suryanarayana Colony, Gheparam village Panchayat, Srikakulam Mandal and Srikakulam District. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Nature of Offence :­U/Sec.420 IPC (Cheating ). Plea of accused :­ Not guilty.

Finding :­ Found not guilty. 

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 

I.P.C., and he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. 

M.Os.1 and 2 covered under C.P.R.No.5/2012 shall be confiscated to State after appeal time is over.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban. 

1

 IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GUNTUR

PRESENT: : SRI D. SRINIVASULU, B.L., VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge. FAC IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 

TUESDAY, the 8th day of MAY, 2012 

C.C.NO. 115/2011

Between: State:­ Sub­ Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S., Guntur. (Cr.No.73/2011)…Complainant

And

1. Thammisetty Venkateswarlu, S/o.Venkaiah, 27 years, Opp. Gandhi Nagar, 3rd lane, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

2. Thammisetty Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, 24 years, IPD Colony, 2nd line, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

3. Thammisetty Gowri Sankar, S/o.Venkaiah, 21 years, 7th line, Gandhi Nagar, L.R.Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

4. Velivala Mahamkalamma @ Manga @ Bujji, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 30 yrs, 7th line, Gandhi nagar, L.R.Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur. …… Accused. 

This case came on 03­05­12 before me for final hearing in the presence of APP Grade­ II­ for State and of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for the accused, perusing the evidence and documents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Lalapet police station, Guntur filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Cr.No. 73/2011 of the said police station for the offences punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC. 

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

The defacto­complainant Shaik Afroz (P.W.3) and the accused No.1 are neighbours, residing at 3rd lane, Sangadigunta, Guntur. That accused No.1 has the habit of retuning to his house in drunken state in the night times, and that he used to beat his wife. On 20­02­2011 at about 8 p.m., when the accused No.1 was beating his wife, after returning to his house in drunken state, P.W.4 Shaik Baji interfered to rescue accused No.1's wife and admonished A­1 as he was beating his wife unnecessarily. P.W.4 Shaik Baji interfered and admonished him. A­1 2 grew wild, abused P.W.4 Shaik Baji in filthy language. Then P.W.3 Shaik Afroz, the defacto­ complainant herein, who is the husband of Shaik Baji P.W.3, advised his wife to come inside the house without interference between A­1 and his wife. At that time, the accused No.1 caught hold the neck of P.W.3 Afroz and in view of the same, there arose an exchange of words in between 

A­1 and P.W.3 Shaik Afroz. That thereafter P.W.3 Shaik Afroz and his wife P.W.4 Shaik Baji left their house and went to the house of P.W.1 Shaik Hameed @ Chinni and P.W.2 Shaik Syda, who are the in­laws of P.W.3 Shaik Afroz. Within few minutes i.e., at about 8­30 p.m., on that night, 

Accused 1 to 4, having armed with sticks, went to the said house of P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda and 

P.W.2 Shaik Syda and attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3 with sticks and caused injuries. During the said attack, A­1 beat P.W.3 Afroz with stick on left side of his head and thereby caused a bleeding injury. A­2 beat P.W.3 Shaik Afroz with stick on his left shoulder. On seeing the same, P.W.4 

Shaik Baji, P.W.2 Shaik Syda, P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda and L.W.3 Shaik Basha interfered to rescue P.W.3 Afroz from the hands of accused persons and when the said P.Ws.4, 2, 1 and 

L.W.3 Shaik Basha intervened to rescue P.W.3 Afroz, all the accused beat them and caused injuries. That P.W.5 Shaik Khasim Bee is the eye­witness to this incident. 

3.That while undergoing treatment at Government General Hospital, Guntur, P.W.3 Shaik 

Afroz made oral complaint to L.W.8 R.Victor John, Sub­Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S., who in turn reduced the same into writing, registered it as a case in Cr.No.73/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, issued F.I.R., and took up investigation. That during investigation, the said R.Victor John, Sub­Inspector of Police examined P.W.1 to 5 and L.W.3 

Shaik Basha, recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence and prepared its rough sketch. That P.W.6 Dr.Shaik Mastan Vali, the Medical Officer, who gave treatment to P.W.1 to 4 and L.W.3 Shaik Basha issued wound certificates expressing his opinion that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature. That during investigation, on 10­03­2011 the said R.Victor John, Sub­Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S., arrested all the accused and forwarded to this Court for remand. That thus the investigation made by R.Victor John, Sub­

Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S., revealed that all accused A­1 to A­4 voluntarily caused simple hurt to P.W.1 to P.W.4 and L.W.3 Shaik Basha by beating them with sticks, and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC Hence, the charge. 

4.This case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC against 

A­1 to A­4 and proceeded with as per law.

3

5.On appearance of all the accused before this court, the accused were furnished with copies of necessary documents complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

6.Charge for the offences punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC against A­1 to A­4 framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 

7. During the trial, prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Ex. P.1 to P­6. 

8. On closure of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. putting incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and all the accused denied truth of such incriminating material put to them and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9. Heard arguments on both sides. 

10. The point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of all the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted the case of the prosecution in brief as per the contents of the charge sheet and further submitted that during the examination in chief, all 

P.Ws.1 to 5 supported the prosecution's case, but at a later stage, during cross on subsequent dates, P.Ws.1 to 5 did not stick on to their evidence in chief­examination and thereby favoured the accused persons. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor further submitted that though P.Ws.1 to 5 supported A­1 to A­4 during cross­examination, by taking into consideration of their evidence in chief­examination corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Shaik Mastan Vali, all the accused are liable for punishment according to law.

12.The learned defence counsel contended that the accused are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of any of the accused and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. He further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is inconsistent with each other and not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Shaik Matan Vali, Medical officer, and for the said reasons, this Court may be pleased to acquit all the accused. 

13.Having heard the above said arguments, I perused the evidence on record. The case of prosecution in brief is that at about 8 p.m., on 20­02­2011 while the accused No.1 was beating his wife, P.W.4 Shaik Baji interfered to rescue A­1's wife and questioned A­1 as to why he was 4 beating his wife unnecessarily. Then A­1 grew wild, abused P.W.4 Shaik Baji in filthy language. 

On seeing the same, P.W.3 Shaik Afroz , who is the husband of P.W.4 Shaik Baji, admonished 

A­1 for abusing his wife Shaik Baji. Then A­1 caught P.W.3 Shaik Afroz's neck and there took place verbal fight between A­1 and P.W.3 Afroz. Threreafter P.W.3 Afroz and P.W.4 Baji went to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are their relatives residing in 7th lane, Gandhi nagar. Within half an hour i.e., at about 8­30 p.m., on the same night, all the accused A­1 to A­4 herein having armed with stick sin their hands went to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and assaulted P.Ws.1 to 3 with sticks in their hands and thereby caused injuries. Hence, at the outset, I would like to consider the evidence of P.W.3 Shaik Afroz and P.W.4 Shaik Baji at the first instance 

14. The evidence of P.W.4 Shaik Baji is that four days after herself and her husband Afroz 

P.W.3 put up their family in the house beside the house of Accused No.1, she noticed A­1 beating his wife, then she interfered to rescue A­1's wife from the hands of A­1. For that A­1 abused her in filthy language and pushed her aside. Then her husband P.W.3 Afroz came out of the house and questioned A­1 as to why he was abusing his wife Baji. Then A­1 grew wild, caught neck of her husband Afroz and then a verbal fight took place in between her husband 

Afroz and A­1. Thereafter herself and her husband went to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., her parental house situated in 6th lane, Gandhi Nagar. On the same night at about 8­30 p.m., all the accused 1 to 4 having armed with sticks came there, beat herself, her husband Afroz, L.W.3 

Shaik Basha, P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda and P.W.2 Shaik Syda and caused injuries. Further P.W.4 

Shaik Baji deposed that all the accused A­1 to A­4 beat her with sticks from her back and in the said assault, she received injuries on her legs and shoulders. Apart from her, her husband Afroz and others i.e., P.Ws.1, 2 and L.W.3 Shaik Basha, who is no more, also received injuries. While all the accused were assaulting as such, some people gathered there and after the people gathered there, all the accused left that place. After this incident, herself and other injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur in ambulance. Police came to the hospital, examined her and recorded her statement.

15.On the date of examination of P.W.4 Shaik Baji in chief, her cross­examination by the defence counsel was deferred at the request of the defence. On 13­02­2 during cross­ examination of P.W.3 by the defence counsel, she deposed that at the time of galata there was no electricity and as this incident happened at night time, she cannot say who attacked her and other injured herein. Further she admitted that there are no disputes in between her family and accused family. Further she admitted that herself and other witnesses, who are related to her, entered into compromise with accused on the intervention of elders. This witness was declared 5 as hostile by the prosecution and was cross­examined. 

16. P.W.3 Shaik Afroz deposed that on the date of incident, he noticed A­3 was beating his wife; and on seeing the same, his wife Shaik Baji P.W.4 interfered by trying to stop A­3 from further assaulting his wife. Then A­3 pushed his wife Baji (P.W.4). On seeing A­3 pushing his wife Shaik Baji, he i.e., P.W.3 Afroz interfered and admonished A­3.

17.As seen from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is found that P.W.4 Baji deposed that when she saw A­1 Venkateswarlu beating his wife, she interfered. Whereas P.W.3 Afroz deposed that when his wife Shaik Baji saw A­3 beating his wife, his wife Baji (P.W.4) interfered and on such intervention by Shaik Baji (P.W.4) A­3 pushed her aside. As such, there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 in view of the alleged motive for the incident. 

Further the evidence of P.W.3 Afroz and P.W.4 Shaik Baji is that after the incident at 8 p.m., they left to the house of P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda and P.W.2 Shaik Syda, which is parental house of 

P.W.4 Shaik Baji and house of parents­in­law of P.W.3 Afroz and at about 8­30 p.m., all the accused, armed with sticks, came there and assaulted them including P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda, 

P.W.2 Shaik Syda and L.W.3 Shaik Basha and caused injuries. 

18. The evidence of P.W.3 Shaik Afroz is that at 8­30 p.m., while he was in his parents­in­ law's house i.e., P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda and P.W.2 Shaik Syda, all accused came there, beat him and his in­laws i.e., P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda, P.W.2 Shaik Syda and L.W.3 Shaik Basha and they all including himself received injuries in the hands of accused. Further P.W.3 deposed that he received injuries on his head, shoulder and back, but as per the evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Sk.Mastan 

Vali, Medical Officer, who treated him and Ex.P­2 wound certificate issued by the said Dr.Mastan 

Vali for the injury sustained by P.W.3 Afroz, P.W.3 Afroz sustained injury only one injury i.e., lacerated wound of 6 cm x 2 cm., over the left hand. In view of the evidence of Dr.Sk.Matan Vali 

P.W.6, P.W.6 did not find any injury on head and back of P.W.3 Afroz.

19.The evidence of P.W.4 Shaik Baji is that at 8­30 p.m., while she was at her parental house, all accused 1 to 4 armed with sticks came there, beat herself, her husband P.W.3 Shaik 

Afroz, P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda, P.W.2 Shaik Syda and L.W.3 Shaik Basha, who are her relatives. 

In the said assault by A­1 to A­4, she received injuries to her legs and shoulder. As per the evidence of Dr.Sk.Mastan Vali P.W.6, he found only one injury i.e., swelling over the left side of the fore head over the person of P.W.4 Shaik Baji. In view of the evidence of P.W.6 

Dr.Sk.Mastan Vali, there is material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.3 in respect of the said injuries.

6

20.P.W.1 Shaik Hameed deposed that A­1 and A­2 came to her house and beat herself, 

P.W.3 Afroz, P.W.4 Baji and L.W.3 Basha. P.W.1 Hameed further deposed that P.W.3 Afroz sustained injury on his head and on left shoulder. But in view of the evidence of P.W.6 

Dr.Sk.Mastan Vali, Medical Officer, there was no injury on the head of P.W.3 Afroz. Further 

P.W.1 Hameeda deposed that she received injuries on her head and left shoulder. As per the evidence of P.W.6 Dr.Sk.Mastan Vali, who examined P.W.1 on 22­02­2011, P.W.1 Hameeda sustained a lacerated wound over the left fore arm and an abrasion over her left parietal region, which are simple in nature. 

21.The evidence of P.W.2 Shaik Syda, who is brother of P.W.1 Hameeda and P.W.4 Shaik 

Baji deposed that his sister Baji and A­1 are neighbours and on one day, his sister Baji saw A­1 beating his wife and hence, she interfered to pacify the issue, for that A­1 grew wild and abused his sister P.W.3 Baji, and after verbal exchange among A­1, P.Ws.3 and 4, he heard the cries of 

A­1 and P.W.s3 and 4 viz., Afroz and Baji. Then he rushed to the house of his sister Baji P.W.3 and pacified the issue. At that time power cut took place and some body attacked him with sticks. 

Except A­1, he could not identify who attacked him and P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda, P.W.3 Afroz and 

P.W.4 Baji and L.W.3 Shaik Basha. P.W.2 Syda did not depose about the involvement of A­2 to 

A­4 in the said assault.

22. P.W.1 Shaik Hameeda, P.W.2 Shaik Syda, P.W.4 Shaik Baji and P.W.5 Shaik Khasim Bee were not cross­examined by the defence counsel for all accused on the dates of their examination in chief, and hence, on subsequent dates P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 were cross­examined by the defence counsel. During said cross­examination of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5, they deposed as if they cannot identify the persons, who attacked them on that night as there was power cut. All the said witnesses were declared hostile by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and were cross­ examined. P.W.3 Shaik Afroz was examined in chief on 22­11­11, but his cross­examination was treated as Nil by the Court on that day due to the absence of learned counsel for accused. 

Though the cross­examination of P.W.3 Afroz was treated as Nil by this Court for the said reason, the learned defence counsel had not chosen to recall the witness P.W.3 Afroz for the purpose of cross­examination. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 Afroz remained undisputed and hence, it shall be deemed to be admitted by all accused. However, in view of the contradictions discussed by me in the above paragraphs and in view of the admissions of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 that they compromised with all the accused at the instance of elders, I am of the considered view that basing on the sole undisputed evidence of P.W.3 Shaik Afroz, A­1 to A­4 cannot be convicted and that they are entitled for acquittal. 

7

23. In view of the above said reasons, I find the accused A­1 to A­4 as not guilty of the offence u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC and I hereby acquit them u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. 

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. 

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in 

the open court on this the 8th day of MAY, 2012 

VI ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

FAC IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE 

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution :­For Defence :­

P.W.1 Shaik Hameed @ Chinni ­­ None ­­

P.W.2 Shaik Syda

P.W.3 Shaik Afroz

P.W.4 Shaik Baji

P.W.5 Shaik Khasimbee

P.W.6 Dr.Shaik Mastanvali

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P­1 Complaint given by P.W.1 to the police.

Ex.P­2 Wound certificate of P.W.3.

Ex.P­3 Wound certificate of P.W.4.

Ex.P­4 Wound certificate of L.W.3 Shaik Basha

Ex.P­5 Wound certificate of P.W.2.

Ex.P­6 Wound certificate of P.W.1.

For Defence :­ Nil.

VI AJCJ

FAC IV A.J.C.J.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR.C.C.NO.115/2011 DATE OF ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial 20­02­11 11­04­11 17­05­11 10­03­11 19­09­2011 12­04­2012 08­05­2012 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for the delay :­ This case was taken on file on 11­04­11. On 17­05­11 copies furnished to the accused. On 13­07­11 accused were examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. On 19­09­11 P.Ws.1, 2 examined. On 22­11­11 P.Ws.3 to 5 examined and Ex.P­1 marked. On 13­02­12 P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 recalled and cross­examined. On 20­03­12 P.W.6 examined and Exs.P­2 to P­6 marked. On 10­04­12 P.W.5 was cross­examined. On 11­04­12 Prosecution evidence closed. On 13­04­12 accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 03­05­2012 Heard arguments. On 08­05­12 judgment pronounced. Hence, delay.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the Complainant :­ Sub­Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S., Guntur.

Crime No.73/2011. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1. Thammisetty Venkateswarlu, S/o.Venkaiah, 27 years, Opp. Gandhi Nagar, 3rd lane, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

2. Thammisetty Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, 24 years, IPD Colony, 2nd line, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

3. Thammisetty Gowri Sankar, S/o.Venkaiah, 21 years, 7th line, Gandhi Nagar, L.R.Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

4. Velivala Mahamkalamma @ Manga @ Bujji, W/o.Venkateswarlu, 30 yrs, 7th line, Gandhi nagar, L.R.Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Nature of Offence :­U/Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC (Voluntarily causing simple hurt with common intention).

Plea of accused :­ Not guilty.

Finding :­ Found not guilty. 

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ A­1 to A­4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled. 

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban. 

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT (POCSO ACT), TENALI.

Present :: Sri D. Srinivasulu

XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tenali

FAC Spl.Judge, POCSO Court, Tenali

Thursday, this the 17 th day of October, 2024.

SESSIONS CASE No. 193 of 2023

Between: The Dy. Supdt., of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Narasaraopet, Guntur Rural District (Cr.No.80/2020 Cherukupalli P.S.) …Complainant -And-

1.Dasari Satyanarayana, S/o Koteswara Rao @ Sivamani, 21 years, Kapu, Puligaddavaripalem village, Cherukupalli Mandal

2.Dasari Kotaiah @ Chinna, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 20 years, Kapu, Puligaddavaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal

3.Dasari China Kotaiah, S/o Sambasiva Rao, 35 years, Kapu, Puligaddavaripalem village, Cherukupalli Mandal. …Accused Nos.1 to 3

This Sessions case came before me on 7-10-2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Spl. Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/ State and Sri P. Vijay Reddy, advocate for the accused Nos.1 to 3 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Disha

Woman Police Station, Narasaraopet filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 506, 109

IPC and Section 5(1) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act alleging as follows:

2.The complainant Gade Venkata Rao and Gade Indira are husband and wife and they are residents of Podilivaripalem village of cherukupalli Mandal. The victim in this case is their daughter and was studied intermediate intermediate in Sivani College, Ponnapalli village.

One year prior to 6.5.2020, the victim girl went to fair at Gowada village, where she developed acquaintance with the accused No.1. As the material grandparents of the accused No.1 are also residents of

Podilivaripalem village, he used to come to the said village and developed acquaintance with the victim girl. Accused No.1 used to force the victim to marry him as he is in love with her and used to threaten her that if she refused for his proposal, he will die. So, on the pressure of the accused No.1, she fell in love with him. Accused No.1 2 used to contact the victim through her cell phone No.7893274694 from his cell Nos.9849198618 and 7893058618. On coming to know about the love between the victim and accused No.1, her parents decided to perform her marriage and settled alliance with one Bajireddy Saikumar

S/o Srinivasarao of Nandivelugu village. On coming to know about the same, on 6.5.2020 the accused No.1 forced her to elope with him. By believing his words, on 6/7.5.2020 the accused No.1 at about 12 mid night when the parents of the victim were sleeping in the house, the victim girl took cash of Rs.4,500/- and left the house and went to canal bund near her house, where accused No.1 was waiting. Then he took her on her motorcycle bearing No. AP 39BG6475 to the outskirts of

Puligaddavaripalem village and met accused No.2, who assured them that there is no need to worry and he will lookafter if anything happened. By saying so, he gave his ATM card to them to utilise it for their necessaries. From there, the accused No.1 took the victim to the house of accused No.3 at Gullapalli village, who promised them to extend his support for their marriage and she gave cloths of his wife to the victim girl without her knowledge. On 7.5.2020 at about 5.00 a.m., the accused No.1 along with the victim girl left the house of accused

No.3 and at that time accused No.3 provided a jio phone No.

6305363370 to them. Then accused No.1 took the victim girl on his motorcycle from Gullapalli, reached outskirts of Upparapalem village of

Ponnur Mandal and slept on the canal bund.

2(ii). On 8.5.2020 at about 7 a.m., accused No.1 and the victim girl left the said place and visited the house of his relative Venkamma

W/o Madhu at Chilakaluripet and he introduced the victim as his friend.

After taking bath there, the accused No.1 and the victim girl left that place at about 2.00 p.m. and reached Anjaneyaswamy temple,

Kakumanu village by 4 p.m., where the accused No.1 tied yellow thread and declared that he married her. Thereafter, the accused No.1 along with the victim left that place and reached canal bund of Upparapalem village and slept on the canal bund. During that night at about 10 p.m., the accused No.1 committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim without her consent. In such a manner, on 9.5.2020, 10.5.2020 also he committed rape on her repeatedly. On 11.5.2020 the victim got her menstrual period, so due to fear, on 12.5.2020 when she tried to contact some one through phone, the accused No.1 broke the said phone into pieces and also thrown away the SIM card. On 3 14.5.2020 as the victim forced the accused No.1 to go back to her house, he brought her to Podilivaripalem village, left near her house and threatened that if she reveals the said facts before anyway, he will kill her and went away on his motorcycle.

2(iii). On 7.5.2020 as the father of the complainant found missing of the victim in the house, when his searches for her in the surroundings proved futile, he gave report to SI of Police, Cherukupalli P.S., who registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 80/2020 under girl missing and submitted copies of FIR to all concerned and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14.5.2020 the complainant brought the victim girl to police station, the SI of Police, Cherukupalli P.S., got recorded the statement of the victim by Women H.C., of Chandolu P.S. Basing on her statement, the altered section of law under the head girl missing to

Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 109 IPC and Section (1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act on memo. Subsequently, The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bapatla took up further investigation. On 15.5.2020 he visited the house of the victim and seized the cloths of the victim girl. On 15.5.2020 he visited the scene of offence at drainage canal bund in the panchayat limits of

Podilivaripalem village with the assistance of the complainant in the presence of Chennupalli Pullaiah and Vemu Ratna Raju and prepared observation report duly attested by mediators and prepared rough sketch of the scene. He got photographed the scene of offence with the assistance of a private photographer Boina Swamy Reddy of Ponnapalli village. He sent the victim girl to community Health centre, Repalle for examination. He obtained study certificate of the victim from Head

Mistress of ZP high School, Cherukupalli. On 20.5.2020 he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 and recorded their confessional statements in the presence of mediators viz., Atluri Venkateswarlu and Musalamadugu

Bose and seized motorcycle bearing No. AP 39BG 6475 from the possession of accused No.1 which is used in the commission of offence,

SBI global VISA ATM card 4592 0001 6299 6710 from the possession of

Accused No.1 and sent them for remand. On 30.5.2020 at the request of the SDPO, Tenali, the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla recorded

Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim girl. After obtaining RFSL report and after obtaining potency report of the accused and after completion of charge sheet, he filed the charge sheet.

4

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 354D, 366 r/w 34, 376(2)(n), 493 r/w 34, 506 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, against the accused.

4. When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under

Section 209 Cr.P.C.,

5.Thereafter, charges under Sections 354D, 366 r/w 34, 376(2)

(n), 493 r/w 34, 506 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act were framed against the accused, and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to

PW3 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked.

7.In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW3, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of all the other listed

witnesses as no useful purpose will be served by examining them.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the accused has been dispensed with as there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of

PW1 to PW3.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he is charged?

P O I N T :

10.In this case, prior to 6/7.5.2020 the accused befriended with the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years, stalking with her and harassing her to marry him on the pretext of love and threatened to marry him, kidnapped her, took her to Puligaddavaripalem village outskirts on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 39 BG 6475 with the assistance of accused Nos.2 & 3 and from there to Gullapalli, 5

Upparapalem village, Cherukupalli, took her to Ajaneyawamy temple of

Kakumanu village, reached canal bund of Upparapalem village and on 9.5.2020 and 10.5.2020 also forcibly committed aggravated penetrated sexual assault repeatedly on the victim. The defence of the accused is one of denial.

11.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the complainant / father of the victim girl, PW2 is the victim girl and PW3 is the mother of the victim girl. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the alleged report given by him to police. Ex.P2 is Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P3 is signature portion of the victim on her alleged statement recorded by woman HC, Ex.P4 is Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim recorded by Magistrate, Ex.P5 is the admitted signature of the victim on her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ex.P6 is Section 161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

12.PW1, who is father of the victim, deposed that he kn ow the accused No.1, but he do not know the accused Nos.2 & 3 and he did not give any report to police against the accused. When the contents of the alleged report was confronted to him, he disowned the contents thereof stating that he never made those allegations against the accused. But, he admitted his signature Ex.P1 on the alleged report. As he did not support the prosecution case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has declared him hostile and got marked his statement under Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C as Ex.P2.

13.PW2 is the victim. She deposed that she know the accused

No.1, but she do not know the accused Nos.2 & 3, her father/ PW1 did not give any report against the accused and she did not give any statement to police and she did not give any statement to any Judge in the past voluntarily, but as she was tutored, she gave some statement

before a Judge at Bapatla and the police did not examine her. As she did

not support the prosecution case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has declared her hostile and got marked her signature on the alleged statement recorded by woman H.C., as Ex.P3, her statement recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C.,as Ex.P4 and her signature on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as Ex.P5.

6

14.PW3 is the mother of victim and wife of PW1. She deposed that she know the accused No.1, but she do not know the accused Nos.2 & 3 and PW1 did not give any report before police against the accused.

As she did not support the prosecution case, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor has declared her hostile and got marked her statement under

Sec.161 of Cr.P.C as Ex.P6.

15.As per the prosecution case, prior to 6/7.5.2020 the accused

No.1 befriended with the victim girl, who was aged about 17 years, stalking with her, harassing her to marry him on the pretext of love and used to threaten her that if she refused to marry him, he will die, kidnapped her, took her to Puligaddavaripalem on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 39 BG 6475 with the assistance of accused Nos.2 & 3 and from there to Gullapalli, Gupparapalem villages and from there to

Chilakaluripet and from there to Anjaneyaswamy temple in Kakumanu village, there he tied yellow thread to her, reached a canal bund of

Upparapalem village and forcibly committed aggravated penetrated assault on the victim forcibly and on 9.5.2020 and 10.5.2020 also he committed rape on the victim girl without her consent repeatedly and threatened her that if she reveals the said facts to anybody, he will kill her. However, the victim and her mother and father, did not support the prosecution case. Since the main witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the rest of the witnesses. Thus except Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded by police, there is no other legally acceptable evidence brought on record to connect the accused with the offence in question. The prosecution failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused. Hence the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. The point is accordingly answered in the negative.

P O I N T NO.2

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 354D, 366 r/w 34, 376(2)(n), 493 r/w 34, 506

IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and they are accordingly acquitted of the said charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months from today in view of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

7

The unmarked property i.e., motorbike bearing No. AP 39 BG 6475 shall be retained with Dasari Venkata Krishna Rao subject to the terms and conditions of the interim custody till the appeal time is over and thereafter absolutely subject to the result of the appeal, if appeal is filed

The non valubale unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

XI Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Tenali FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For defence : Nil PW1/Gade Venkatrao PW2/Gade Siva Naga Lakshmi PW3/Gade Indira

Documents marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1/Signature portion of PW1 on the report Ex.P2/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3/Signature portion of PW2 on the statement recorded by woman H.C Ex.P4/Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P5/Signature portion of PW2 on Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement Ex.P6/Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

XI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Tenali FAC Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act, (Child Friendly Court), Tenali.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present : Sri D.Srinivasulu, B.A., VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

FRIDAY, the 11th day of MAY, 2012.

C.C.NO.567 OF 2010.

Between :­

State : Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Ponnur. …… Complainant

And

1. M/s.Venkateswara Traders, Vadlamudi, Chebrolu (M), Guntur District. Represented by responsible person Tadeboeina Subhadra, W/o.Sivaiah, age 42 years, D.No.8­217, Vadlamudi Cross road, Vadlamudi (Post), Chebrolu (M), Guntur (Dist).

2. M/s.K.P.R.Fertilizers (P) Ltd., Administrative Officer, 8­256, Tata Nagar, Bala Bhadra Puram – 533343. Biccavolu (M), East Godavari (Dt). Represented by Responsible person A.Sai Babu, S/o.late Veeranna, age 53 years, D.No.5­44, Bhadra Puram, Biccavolu (M), East Godavari (Dt). 538343 …… Accused/A­1.

(Case against A­2 abated since died). 

This case is coming on 10­05­2012 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri R.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for A­1 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following : 

JUDGMENT

The Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Ponnur, representing the State, filed this complaint against the above named accused for the alleged offence under clause 19(a)(b) c(iii) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 r/w Section 7(1)a(ii) of Essential Commodities Act. 

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

A­1 is doing business of fertilizers at Vadlamudi village of Chebrolu Mandal as a retail seller. A­2 is the manufacturer of fertilizers and doing business of distribution to wholesale and retail dealers. On 07­03­2010 L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, 

Chebrolu inspected the shop of A­1 and its proprietor T.Subhadra was available in the shop of 

A­1 and selling fertilizers as per Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural 2

Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Chebrolu drawn the samples viz., 1. Agrovil­FNO­4 with batch 

No.002 manufactured by Raci Agro Chemicals, Maninamapadu, 2) MOP manufactured by Zuvari 

Industries Limited, 3) Ajay­20:20:0 manufactured by KPR fertilziers , Biccavolu and 4) Agro Food 

FNO­7 with batch No.004 manufactured by Raci Agro Chemicals, Maninampadu. Further, the above four varieties of samples were sealed in the presence of two mediators i.e.,L.W.2 

Palapathi Venkata Gopi (P.W.1) and L.W.3 Juluri Srinu under the cover of mediators. That four equal homogeneous sample of item No.1 i.e., Agro vet F.No.4 collected into polythene covers, tied and sealed the same and placed into cloth bag along with Form­P and tied with thread and sealed with lac. One sample was sent to Dy.Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer Coding Center) Lab for analysis. One sample collected by L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector as referee sample and one sample was sent to Asst. Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer Control 

Order) Laboratory, Rajendra Nagar and fourth portion sample was sent to the Commissioner and 

Director of Agriculture (AP), Hyderabad. That one sample was given to A­1 as guard sample. In the same manner four Homogeneous samples were drawn from each of the remaining three varieties of fertilizer samples, packed and sealed the same as per the procedure laid down under 

Fertilizer Control Order Act, 1985 Schedule­II of Part­A. The above said four samples were sent to the Dy.Director of Agriculture (Fertilizer Coding center), Hyderabad for analysis, who in turn, after analysis, communicated the analysis report i.e., non standard of sample of Ajay NPK Mixture 20:20:0 vide Roc.No.49/2009 dated 25­3­2003 and the same is not according to specifications and fails in to total Nitrogen and total phosphate content in sample brand name is Ajay NPK 

Mixture 20:20:0.

3.That L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Chebrolu inspected the shop of A­1 on 03­04­2009 and served copy of above analytical report under acknowledgment in the presence of two mediators under the cover of mediatornama. Further the Asst. Director of 

Agriculture (R), Ponnur issue show cause notice to A­1. A­1 got issued reply and requested to send the guard sample for reanalysis as per clause­32 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. 

Accordingly, the guard sample and referee sample were sent to the Commissioner and Director of 

Agriculture (AP), Hyderabad on 28­4­2009 for reanalysis. The Commissioner and Director of 

Agriculture (AP), Hyderabad analysed the above said samples and communicated report on 6­6­ 09 and declared the sample as non­standard. The Asst. Director of Agriculture (R), Ponnur issued show cause notice to A­1 and A­2 calling for their explanation. L.W.1 P.Raghu, 

Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector inspected the shop of A­1 on 24­6­2009 and served second analysis report to A­1 in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.4 and L.W.5 and seized 3 purchase invoice , fertilize stock register and fertilizer bill books under the cover of mediators report, and later obtained court custody orders for the seized records. Thus, it was confirmed that the A­1 and A­2 have been conducting business in violation of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 clause 19(a)(b)(c) and clause 28(1)(d) and thereby liable for punishment. After complete enquiry, complaint is filed. Hence, the complaint. 

4.This case has been taken on file for the offence under clause 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer 

Control Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act against accused and proceeded with as per law.

5. On 16­3­2011 case against A­2 was abated since died. On appearance of A­1 before this court, she was furnished with copies of necessary documents complying with Section 207 

Cr.P.C., and she was was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence under clause 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P­1 to P­5 were got marked. 

7. As there is no incriminating evidence, the examination of accused under section 313 

Cr.P.C., was dispensed with. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side.

8. Heard arguments on both sides. 

9. The point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted the case of the prosecution in brief as per the contents of the charge sheet and further submitted that the prosecution could not examine the Officer, who has drawn the samples, and the mediators for the drawal of samples from the shop of A­1 and serving of analysis report to A­1 and seizure of records from the shop of 

A­1, have not supported the case of prosecution, basing on the documentary evidence available on record, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused and hence, accused are liable for punishment according to law.

11.The learned defence counsel submitted that accused are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has miserably failed to 4 prove the guilt of accused and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. It is further argued by the defence counsel that the prosecution failed to examine the Agricultural Officer, who alleged to have drawn the samples from the shop of A­1 and sered copy of analysis report on A­1, and non­ examination of the said Agricultural Officer is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is further argued on behalf of defence that the alleged mediators, in whose presence L.W.1 Agricultural Officer, 

Chebrolu, alleged to have drawn the samples from the shop of A­1 and served copy of analysis report, turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, and absolutely thereby no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence, and as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 

12.Having heard the above said arguments, I perused the evidence on record. I perused the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. P.W.1 Palaparthi 

Venkata Gopi and P.W.2 Jajjuri Srinu were cited as mediators for the drawal of samples by L.W.1 

P.Raghu, Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Chebrolu from the shop of A­1 and also mediators at the time of serving of first analysis report on A­1. P.W.3 Pattan Basha is cited as a mediator for serving of second analysis report on A­1 and also seizure of records from the shop of A­1 by L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Chebrolu. P.Ws.1 to 3 turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Nothing significant was elicited during their cross­examination by the prosecution to prove their presence at the time of alleged drawal of samples from the shop of A­1 or at the time of serving of analysis reports on A­1 so also at the time of seizure of records from the shop of A­1. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is of no use to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. 

13. In spite of granting several adjournments from 10­10­2011 to 08­05­2012 the prosecution did not evince any interest to produce the material witnesses i.e., L.W.1 P.Raghu, Agricultural 

Officer and Fertilizer Inspector, Chebrolu, who has drawn the samples from the shop of A­1 and sent the same for analysis and received analysis report, served the same on A­1 and seized records from the shop of A­1, and also L.W.6 T.Mohan Rao, Asst. Director of Agriculture (R), 

Ponnur who filed the complaint. As the prosecution failed to produce the said witnesses, even on grant of sufficient time, this Court closed their evidence. The prosecution did not take any steps to get them examined. 

14.In view of the above said discussion and reasons stated above, I do not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused, and hence, I found A­1 not guilty for the offence under under clause 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer Control 5

Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act and hereby acquit her under 

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. 

15. In the result, A­1 is found not guilty for the offence under clause 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer 

Control Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act and she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A­1, if any, shall stands cancelled. Case against 

A­2 abated since died. 

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of MAY, 2012.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

GUNTUR. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined 

For prosecution :­For Defence :­

P.W.1 Palaparthi Venkata Gopi ­­ None ­­

P.W.2 Jajjuri Srinu

P.W.3 Pattan Bhasha

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :­

Ex.P­1 Signature of P.W.1 on mediators report dt.07­03­2009.

Ex.P­2 Signature of P.W.1 on mediators report dt.03­04­2009.

Ex.P­3 Signature of P.W.2 on mediators report dt.07­03­2009.

Ex.P­4 Signature of P.W.2 on mediators report dt.03­04­2009.

Ex.P­5 Signature of P.W.3 on mediators report dt.24­06­2009.

For Defence :­ Nil

VI AJCJ

FAC IV A.J.C.J.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR. C.C.NO.567/2010 DATE OF ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial 07­03­09 22­12­10 11­04­11 ­­­­­ 05­01­12 08­05­12 11­05­12 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Explanation for the delay :­ This case was taken on file on 22­12­10. On 16­3­11 case against A­2 was abated since died. On 11­4­11 copies furnished to A­1. On 28­9­11 A­1 was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. From 10­10­11 to 5­12­11 this case underwent several for non­production of witnesses. On 05­01­12 P.Ws.1, 2 examined and Exs.P­1 to P­4 marked. On 22­3­12 P.W.3 examined and Ex.P­5 marked. From 03­04­12 to 01­05­12 this case underwent several for non­ production of witnesses. On 08­05­12 prosecution evidence closed. The examination of A­1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was dispensed with. Heard arguments. On 11­05­12 judgment pronounced . Hence, delay. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the Complainant :­Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Ponnur.

Crime No.­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1. M/s.Venkateswara Traders, Vadlamudi, Chebrolu (M), Guntur District. Represented by responsible person Tadeboeina Subhadra, W/o.Sivaiah, age 42 years, D.No.8­217, Vadlamudi Cross road, Vadlamudi (Post), Chebrolu (M), Guntur (Dist).

2. M/s.K.P.R.Fertilizers (P) Ltd., Administrative Officer,8­256, Tata Nagar, Bala Bhadra Puram – 533343. Biccavolu (M), East Godavari (Dt). Represented by Responsible person A.Sai Babu, S/o.late Veeranna, age 53 years, D.No.5­44, Bhadra Puram, Biccavolu (M), East Godavari (Dt). 538343. (Case against A­2 abated since died. Hence, this case is against A­1 only). ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Nature of Offence :­ 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act (Selling of substandard fertilizer).

Plea of accused :­ Not guilty.

Finding :­ Found not guilty. 

SENTENCE OR ODER:­ A­1 is found not guilty for the offence under clause 19(a)(b)(c) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 and Section 7(1) a (ii) of Essential Commodities Act and she is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A­1, if any, shall stands cancelled. Case against A­2 abated since died. 

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS : GUNTUR.

Present: Sri. D.Srinivasulu, B.L.,

VI Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of April, 2014.

C.C. No.239/2010

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of police, Pedakakani P.S., (Cr.No.111/2010)

... Complainant.

And

1. Aravapalli Sudhakar, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 37 yrs, Vysya, Sivalayam Street, Pedakakani.

2. Aravapalli Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Sudarsanam, 63 yrs, Vysya, Sivalayam Street, Pedakakani.

3. Aravapalli Suchandra Gupta, S/o.Sambasiva Rao, 35 yrs, Vysya, Sivalayam Street, Pedakakani.

... Accused.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.K.Bharadwaja, Advocate for A1 to A3 and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following: -

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of police, Pedakakani Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence punishable u/Sec.353 r/w 34 IPC.

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

About 5.45 P.M, on 29.5.2010 at a place known as Sivalayam Centre, Pedakakani, P.W.1 Sk.Hassan, PC No.142, then working in Pedakakani police station, was discharging his duty i.e., regulating traffic at the said place on the directions of the SHO of the said police station. That at that time the accused No.1 herein drove his ambassador car bearing registration No.AP 20 G 3437 in a rash and 2 negligent manner and also in a wrong direction. That as a result of such driving, P.W.1 Sk.Hassan was afraid that the said car dashed him and the such apprehension, he moved away and escaped from the accident. Then the said Sk.Hassan, PC 1429 shouted loudly to stop the car. Then A1 stopped his car, abused the said Sk.Hassan in filthy language, caught hold his shirt collar and pushed him away. That the accused No.2 and 3 who are also there in the said car participated in the said assault on P.W1 Sk.Hassan along with accused No.1. That the said incident was witnessed by P.W.5 B.Govindu who was also a police constable working in the said police station.

That on 30.5.2010 at 10.00 AM on report of the said Sk.Hassan P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of police working in the said police station registered the case in Cr.No.111/2010 for the offence under sec.353 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined five witnesses namely P.W.1 Sk.Hassan, P.W.5 B.Govindu, B.Mohana Rao, T.Srinu, N.Seetharamaiah (L.Ws.3 to 5 respectively).

The next day i.e., 31.5.2010 at 8.00 AM P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar arrested all the accused and forwarded to this court for remand. Later he concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet and all the accused are liable for punishament under sec.353 r/w 34 IPC.

3.This case was taken on file under Section 352 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3.

4.When A1 to A3 appeared before the court, copies of case documents were furnished to them. A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C for the accusation levelled against them for the offence u/Sec.353 r/w 34 IPC, for which, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P4.

6.Ex.P1 is the Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P3 is the Original FIR. Ex.P4 is the Rough sketch.

3

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in oral and documentary evidence and the same was denied by them. A1 to A3 were called upon to enter defence, for which, they reported no defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The learned APP submitted the case of prosecution in brief and that the prosecution has proved the guilt of all the accused by the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and hence, all the accused are liable to be punished as per law.

11.The learned defence counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 submitted that all the accused are innocent, have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of any of the accused herein and prayed to acquit all the accused.

12.The learned defence counsel further submitted that there are several self contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and that even from the evidence of P.W.5 it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove to establish the scene of offence and thereby failed to prove the guilt of all the accused.

13.It is further submitted by the learned defence counsel that all the accused lived by running travels at Pedakakani and P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar got these accused No.1 to 3 were falsely implicated in this case with the help of his Sub-Inspector P.W.1 and P.W.5 namely Sk.Hassan and B.Govindu. As the accused No.1 to 3 refused to provide taxi to the Sub-Inspector to the D.Naresh Kumar without any fare.

14.The learned defence counsel contended that P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he shouted at the driver of the said car (A1) to stop the car. But he has not stated the said fact before the investigation officer P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar and also the fact of the accused NO.1 to 3 4 pushed away P.W.1 Sk.Hassan questioning him as to who placed him at that point to discharge their duties (evadura neeku duty vesindi). But the said fact was not stated by P.W.1 Sk.Hassan either in his report Ex.D1 or in his 161 Cr.P.C statement to P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar, the Investigation Officer. He further contended that P.W.1 stated in his evidence that when he fell down, P.W.5 Govindu and P.W.2 B.Mohana Rao assisted him to raise from the ground, but P.W.1 Sk.Hassan did not state the said fact either in his report Ex.P1 or in his statement to the investigation officer i.e., P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar and also the fact that he narrated the incident to P.W.5 B.Govindu who enquired him. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the said contradictions and omissions, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused NO.1 to 3 and all the accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.Having heard the above said arguments of both sides as well as documentary evidence on record. In his evidence P.W.1 stated that at 5.45 PM on 29.5.2010 while he was attending his duty i.e., regulating traffic at Sivalayam centre at Pedakakani, an ambassador car bearing registration No.AP 20 G 3437, white in colour, proceeding towards the said Sivalayam street was driven in a wrong route in a rash and negligent manner and it came upon him. That apprehending accident he moved aside and shouted loudly to stop the car. At that time accused No.1 was the driver of the said car and he stopped the car. Thereafter, he questioned the accused No.1 as to why he drove the car in a rash way and then wordy quarrel arose between him and accused No.1. Meanwhile P.W.5 B.Govindu came there and enquired him about the verbal fight with A1. That he was informing about the said incident to the said Govindu. Then accused No.1 to 3 pushed him aside, questioning him as to who ordered him to discharge duties at that point. That due to such pushing by A1 to A3, he fell down. That P.W.2 B.Mohana Rao and P.W.5 B.Govindu assisted him to raise from the ground. Meanwhile all the accused left the place in their car. Thereafter he lodged his report Ex.P1.

15.The evidence of P.W.5 is as follows: That at about 5.30 PM on 29.5.2010 he went to main road at Pedakakani i.e., known as Pedakakani centre where there is a traffic point and then he found an ambassador car in a wrong side and the verbal duel between P.W.1 Sk.Hasan and A1 to A3. That he seen the said incident, he parked his motor cycle in the road margin, enquired the said Sk.Hassan as to what happened and was told by P.W.1 Sk.Hassan 5 that the accused No.1 to 3 came in a wrong direction in the said car in high speed and has he questioned that there was quarrel with him. That while the said Sk.Hassan (PW1) was narrating the matter to him, accused No.1 to 3 got down from there, got pushed away the said Sk.Hassan. Hence, the said Sk.Hassan gave report to the SHO of their police station.

16.As seen from the evidence of P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar it is clear that P.W.1 did not state the fact that all the accused questioned him as to who posted him at that place to discharge the traffic duty either in his report or in his statement under sec.161 Cr.P.C to him. In the cross examination P.W.6 admitted that it is fact that either in Ex.P1 i.e., report of P.W.1 Sk.Hassan or in his statement under sec.161 Cr.P.C, P.W.1 did not state the fact that he narrated the matter to the said Govindu and that he was standing at the road margin when he was pushed by the accused No.1 to 3.

17.As seen from the record it is clear that the date of the alleged offence is 29.5.2010. P.W.1 Sk.Hassan was examined on 6.8.2012 i.e., after lapse of more than two years. Hence, in such a case it is naturally to take place some minor discrepancies in the evidence of truth speaking witnesses and the same has been revitiate time an again by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P and the said contentions of the learned defence counsel as to the omission or discrepancies pointed out by him are of very minor natured in my considered view. Though P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 were elaborately cross examined, nothing could be elicited by the learned defence counsel to disbelieve the evidence of the said witnesses. The other witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 namely B.Mohana Rao, T.Srinu and N.Seetharamaiah did not support the case of prosecution. However, the trustworthy evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 cannot be discarded for the reason it was not corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5. The evidence of P.W1 is corroborated by his report Ex.P1 as well as by the evidence of P.W5 B.Govindu.

18.Further submission of the learned defence counsel that these accused No.1 to 3 were falsely implicated in this case by P.W.6 D.Naresh Kumar with the help of P.W.1 by taking a report from him i.e., Ex.P1 in order to falsely implicate these accused No.1 to 3 in this case for the alleged reason as he was not provided taxi free of cost is not believable.

19.In view of the said discussion and for the reasons stated 6 above, I find the accused No.1 to 3 guilty of the offence punishable under sec.353 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 IPC and thereby, they are convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C for the said offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, I/D SI for one month each.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2014.

VI ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUNTUR. In regard to the quantum of sentence:

21.On questioning about the sentence of imprisonment, A1 to A3 pleaded mercy of the court stating that P.W.1 abused in a filthy language taking undue advantage of his possession being a constable, they got anger and for this moment pushed away P.W.1 and infact the said car was not driven either in wrong side or in a wrong and negligent manner. Having heard the accused No.1 to 3 and the APP, I am of the considered view imposing fine of Rs.500/- each to the accused and they are convicted would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I hereby sentenced the accused No.1 to 3 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2014.

VI ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1 : SK.Hassan. None. P.W.2 : B.Mohana Rao. P.W.3 : T.Srinu. P.W.4 : N.Seetharamaiah. P.W.5 : B.Govindu, PC P.W.6 : D.Naresh Kumar, SI of police.

7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P3 : Original FIR. Ex.P4 : Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

VI AJCJ, GUNTUR.