Kum. D.Srivani, JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : Srivani Damodaram ,

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, The 31st Day of July, 2014.

CC. 453/2007

Between :- State Reptd By the Sub-Inspector Of Police, Ananthapur II Town P.S.

...Complainant.

AND A. Janardhan, Age: 34 Yrs, S/o A. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate, D.No.6-2-451-1, Kovurnagar, Anantapuramu town.

...Accused.

This case coming on this the 30th day of July '2014' for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor Sri.Rama Naik on behalf of the state and of Sri A.Janardhan, the accused in person and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following

JUDGMENT

1. The state represented by sub inspector of police, Anantapuramu

II town P.S laid a charge sheet in Cr. no: 201 /2005 for the offence u/s 506,509 I.P.C, against the accused A. Janardhan (here in after called accused in this case)

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the accused has been teasing Lw1 by name Padmavathi for the last five months making obsence gestures i.e. winkling and uttering'ILove You' by following her in the court premises and outside the court premises. on 14-09-2005 at about 10.00 a.m. While she was coming to court in her moped the accused stopped her at Sai Nagar, 4th cross and threatened her that he would he would see her end if she failed to love him. Again on 21-09-2005 while she was going home, at about 6.00.p.m. from the court the accused stopped 2 her at G.G.H. Anantapuramu and threatened her that she should love him otherwise she face dire consequences. Unable to bear, the teasing of accused,LW1 brought the matter before LW3. So Lws 1 to 9 called the accused and chastised him despite of which, the accused did not listen their words and threatened her. On the complaint of LW1, LW10 by name

G.Prasada reddy registered a case in Cr.No : 201/2005 u/s 506,509 I.P.C.

And investigated into the case. On 29-9-2005 the accused surrendered

before the Hon'ble JFCM, Anantapuramu and was released on bail on the

same day. Hence the charge.

3. After filling the charge sheet this case is taken cognizance by the Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offence u/s 506,509 I.P.C. against the accused and numbered as calendar case

CC.228/06. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session Judge in

order dis No : 5710 dt 12-09-07 this case is transferred to this Court and after the receipt of case record this Court renumbered the same as CC 453/07.

4. On appearance of the accused all the relevant case records, were furnished to him as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. a charge U/s 506,509

IPC is framed against him, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution, examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked the exhibit P1and P2. PW1 is the Complainant,

Exhibit P1 is the complaint,PW2 ,PW3 are the witness whose evidence is hear say evidence, and PW4 is the I.O.

7. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. By calling him to give explanation for the incriminating material available against him from the prosecution evidence, 3 the same is read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he denied the same , filed 313(5) statements and reported that no defence evidence.

8. No witnesses examined on behalf of defence.

9. The accused filed written arguments stating the contradictions, omissins and improvements made by the witnesses. Heard the Arguments on both sides:

10. Now the point for the determination is “Whether the case

against the accused U/s 506,509 IPC is proved by the prosecution

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11. In this case the prosecution in total cited ten witnesses out of them PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 were examined and exhibit P1 and P2 got marked. The evidence of LWs 4to 9 , i.e. shafi, B.Malla Reddy, B.Prakash reddy, I.Ravindranath, P.Guruprasad, and P.Bhasker reddy, were closed as the prosecution failed to produce them even after giving ample of time.

12. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who is the Complainant deposed that she is a law graduate and was practicing as advocate at Ananthapur

Bar association in the office of Advocate AdhiseshaReddy from august'2004 to January '2006'. LW2 is her colleague, and LW 3 is her senior advocate.

LWs 4 to 9 are the advocates at Anantapuramu bar association. She knows the accused who is also an advocate practicing at Anantapuramu Bar. she deposed that the accused caused inconvenience to her by following her where ever she go with in the court complex and outside the court complex. when ever she passed on the way he used to see and laugh at her. The accused used to go nearer to her , stand beside her ,follow her and stand in front of her to see her. Further she deposed that,in the month of September,2005 in the evening hours, the accused went near to her and asked her “what she is thinking of him?”and on her reply stating that it is not good on part of him, he threatened her that he would do, what 'Manohar has done to Srilaxmi.' even after warning, the accused did not 4 change his attitude. Hence she lodged complaint against the accused by drafting the complaint. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1.Police examined her. In her cross examination by the accused in person, she deposed that

LW2 is her classmate and her close friend.LW3 is her senior advocate and

Lw6 is the relative of LW3. She has been allotted ASJ court work by her senior. she deposed that it is true as a profession the accused used to roam

in the court complex from one court to another and while attending works

one will see the other advocates. Further she deposed that, except observing the accused by her it is not possible to say whether the accused was noticing her or not. she cannot say how many times the accused observed her, from what distance he was looking at her. further she deposed that, during professional work advocates used to touch other advocates either by side or coming in opposite direction while attending work accidentally. she further deposed that, she have not stated the time, place, and date when the accused caused inconvenience to her and laughed at her again she stated that she deposed the time,date and place where such acts took place. she further deposed that she did not mentioned in complaint and in the statement given to police that accused had proposed his love by stating “what she is thinking of him”and it is in correct to say that she did not mentioned in the complaint and statement to police that she given reply to accused that she is not thinking anything about accused and it is not good on his part and warned the accused.

13. PW2 is the classmate and close friend of PW1. she deposed that she knows the accused as he was also practicing as an advocate at

Anantapuramu. PW1 used to say her that the accused harassed PW1 by following her, teasing her and my making proposal of love and threatening her to accept his love with dire consequences. She deposed in the cross 5 examination that she do not remember whether she stated before police that PW1 informed her about the misbehavior of accused towards PW1.

14. PW3 is the senior Advocate. PW1 and PW2 were working under him. he deposed that PW1 joined as a junior in his office and he allotted the matters in Addl. Senior Civil judge And Labour Court matters to her. In

August 2005 he came to know from his colleagues the misbehavior of accused towards PW1. In the second week of September,2005 during morning hours, PW1 and PW2 came to office and immediately after entering into office,they informed him that the accused followed her on bike and went beyond the office premises while she was married in the incident, he saw accused going on bike. Further he deposed that,3 or 4 days after the above said incident, when he and PW1 are in Addl. Senior

civil Judge court the accused sat opposite to them and were looking

towards the eyes of PW1 then he he along with juniors and some senior advocates went to the chambers of the Hon'ble District judge and informed the same then the Dist judge stated that as a judge he cannot do anything and advised to lodge a complainant and I too instructed PW1 to lodge a complainant then PW1 drafted and lodged a complainant against accused.

In his cross examination he deposed that he is unable to tell the date, month and year on which accused teased PW1.HE did not admonished the accused on this issue. He deposed that he do not know once several advocates went to police station, the police will not disobey to record all the facts. further he deposed that it is incorrect to say that he had not stated

before police what he adduced as evidence , and he adds that he do not

know whether police recorded all the facts or not.

15. PW4 is the I.O. His deposition in chief is the replica of charge sheet.

16. In his cross-examination, he deposed that, he do not know 6 whether any private complainant is pending against PW1. He examined

PW1 at police station on 28-09-2005 at 7.00p.m and he deposed that PW1 alone went to police station to present complaint. he deposed that, PW1 not stated specifically before him that accused talked with PW1 in the month of September in evening hours ,and accused went near her and proposed her and stated to her that if she refuses he will do the act what

Manohar has done to Srilakshmi. Further he stated that PW1 did not stated

before him that, she warned the accused to not to follow him and speak to

him. Further PW4 admitted in cross that PW2 did not state before him that she came to know from PW1 that, the accused following her, proposed her , harassed her and threatened her to accept his love. PW4 admitted in his cross-examination that PW3 did not stated before him about the enrollment of PW1 as an advocate, her practicing as his junior, the period of her working as his junior in his office, the allotment of ASJ court work to

PW1, he deposed that PW3 did not stated before him that, PW1 &PW2 used to attended office work at evening hours in first week of September '2005'. further he stated that PW3 did not stated before him that at the time of teasing Pw1 she was married. and he noticed accused when he was passing his house. Further he deposed that PW3 did not stated before him that he noticed accused watching into the house of PW1, further he deposed that PW3 not stated before him that PW1 consulted him before filing complaint.

17. After going through the entire evidence of PW1 who is the

Complainant she stated in her chief that accused followed her, teased her, proposed her and threatened her of dire consequences if she rejects his proposal but the same was not mentioned in her complaint and in her 161Cr.p.c. Statements hence these are the omissions which are significant in nature .as per the Indian Evidence Act, when the omissions are 7 significant in nature they treated as contradictions when there are contradictions in the statement given by the witness no credibility lies in the evidence given by such witness and court cannot rely on such evidene.

In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be provided to the accused.

18. Coming to the evidence of PW2, she is friend of PW1 and her evidence is hear say evidence, As per section 60 of Indian Evidence Act,

Hear say evidence is no evidence, Further more, she deposed in cross that she do not remember whether she stated before police about the same as stated in her chief examination and the I.O. Categorically stated that PW2 did not stated before him that Pw1 told her, stating that the accused harassed PW1 to accept his love.. Hence there lies no credibility in the evidence of Pw2 further these are the contradictions in the evidence of

PW2.According to the Indian evidence Act, hear say evidence is no evidence and it can be admissible in exception, if there are any corroborations but in the present case there are contradictions hence court cannot rely on the evidence of PW2. In these circumstances the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

19. Coming to the evidence of PW3, his evidence is also the hear say evidence and there are much omissions seen in the evidence of PW3 which are significant in nature. . . He deposed that he admonished the accused of his behavior towards PW1 and in his cross-examination he deposed that he did not admonished the accused on this issue and again he adds that, as accused equals to witness he did not admonish the accused .all these are the statements made by him first time in his chief which are omissions and improvements made by him. Relying on the citation made by the Hon'ble court, in “2003(2)ALT (crl)555 A.P. Attribution of specific acts unless indicated in the statements- cannot be permitted to introduced for 8 the first time during the course of trial “ Hence there are the omissions in the evidence of PW3 which are significant hence treated as contradictions.

When there are contradictions in the evidence , no credibility lies in the evidence of such witness hence court cannot rely on such evidence. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is an I.O. Though he got marked exhibit P2 which is an F.I.R. No eye witness is examined and no independent corroboration and no evidence of the witness corroborate each other. The Material witnesses were not examined. No rough sketch was drawn at the scene. No material witnesses were examined. From the available evidence and considering the evidence of I.O as technical in nature the benefit of doubt should be provided to the accused.

20. Therefore from the above facts and discussion of the case, there lies no sanctity in the evidence of PW1,PW2 and PW3 and the ingredients of section 509 I.P.C. Which speaks as “ who ever intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utter any words, makes any sounds or gesture, exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, ”never shows the act of accused committing the acts attracting section 509 I.P.C. Relying on the citation 2005 (3) ALT Crl 28 A.P. exact words or the gestures of the accused not specifically deposed by Pws- Absence of mediators, ingredients of offence not made out- acquittal confirmed. When the accused never made any intrudes upon the privacy of PW1, section 509 I.P.C. does not attracts, further according to section 506 I.P.C., who ever commits criminal intimidation, shall be punished but in this present case there is no criminal intimidation against PW1 is proved against the accused. when section 509 9 I.P.C. Hence there lies no question of attracting section 506 I.P.C.

21. There are material defects on the part of prosecution and discrepancies in the evidences of prosecution witnesses . Hence this Court opined that the prosecution failed to proved the guilt of accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

22. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s 509,506 IPC., and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after Six months. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after the appeal time. The accused was surrendered on 29-09-2005 and released on the same day.

Typed to my dictation directly to the P.A. corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this 31st day of July '2014'.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1 R.Padmavathi, PW2 G.Lakshjmi -Nil- PW3 C.AdiSesha Reddy PW.4 G.Prasad Reddy.

10

Exhibits Marked

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P.1- Complainant -Nil- Ex.P2- F.I.R

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence

-Nil-

Mos. Marked for Both sides

-Nil-

JFCM.

CC 172/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PROH. & EXCISE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present:- Smt.A.Geetha Vani,

Spl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

FAC. Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu

Tuesday 23rd day of June, 2015

C.C.172/2013

BETWEEN.

state Rep.by Sub.Inspector of Police B.K.Samudram Police Station.

........... COMPLAINANT.

AND

Y.Yerri swami, aged 23 years, S/o.Mallarayudu, Mudigubba Village, Atmakur Mandal, Driver of TATA Ace bearing No.AP-21-TS-TR-7590

......... ACCUSED.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri.M.Kullayappa, Sri.M.Sree Harsha

Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGEMENT ::

Case is U/Sec. 338 IPC u/s.134 (a) and (b) of M.V.Act.

1]The Sub Inspector of B.K.Samudram Police Station has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.176/12 for the offence punishable Under section 338 Indian Penal Code and u/s.134 (a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act.

2]The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows :

On 24-09-2012 morning the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti

Ramudu and his son Sreenivasulu went to Peddireddy's Timber depot situated at Gooty road, Anantapuramu. Sreenivasulu stayed at Timber depot and the

CC 172/2013 2

defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu proceeded towards Anantapuramu

Twon on foot at left side of the road for having lunch. After passing a little distance from Timber depot, the accused Y.Yerri Swamy being the driver of one repaired TATA Ace bearing No.AP-21-TS/TR-7590 toeing it with a tractor by tying with a rope. Suddenly tractor driver applied breaks, on that the rope which was tied to the TATA ace was cut off and the accused Yeri Swamy suddenly turned the auto towards left side and dashed the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu on that the defacto complainant

M.Yegaminti Ramudu fell down and sustained bleeding injuries on his nose, on upper lip, abrasions on forehead, to both knees and right elbow and dumb injury to back bone.

On knowing the incident Sreenivasulu rushed to the scene along with P.Narayana Swamy and M.C.Suresh and shifted the defacto complainant

M.Yegaminti Ramudu in 108 Ambulance to Sreenivasa Multi Speciality Hospital, situated at Iron bridge Anantapuramu for treatment. The incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of TATA ACE No.AP-21-TS/TR-7590 being driven by its driver.

On 26-09-2012 at 5:00 pm on receipt of medical admit intimation and statement of injured the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu,

Sri.D.V.Narayana Reddy Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.176/2012 under section 337 Indian Penal Code and examined the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu, Y.Sreenivasulu, P.Narayana Swamy,

M.C.Suresh and recorded their respective statements and inspected the scene of offence and drawn a rough sketch.

On 12-10-2012 Sri.D.V.Narayana Reddy Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After the accident the accused neither provided medical aid to the injured nor informed about the accident to the nearest police station. Dr.Sreenivasulu Medical Officer issued wound certificate of the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu and opined that the injuries are grievous in nature.

CC 172/2013 3

Basing on the wound certificates of injured the section is altered to 338 Indian Penal Code. Thus the accused is liable for the offence and punishment under section 338 Indian Penal Code, section 134 (a) and (b) of

Motor Vehicle Act. Hence the Charge.

3]The cognizance was taken by the Hon'ble Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Anantapuramu against the accused for the offense under section

338 Indian Penal Code, section 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicle Act and numbered as 1057/2012 and issued summons to the accused .

4] On appearance of the accused all relevant case records were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

5]During the stage of examination as per orders of Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu the case was transfered to Spl. Mobile Court and re-numbered as C.C.172/2013.

6]The accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

By explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him as per the charge sheet contents and a charge framed under section 338 Indian Penal

Code, Section 134 (a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7]During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

8]After closure of Prosecution evidence, examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material brought on record to prove the alleged charges against accused.

CC 172/2013 4

9]No evidence adduced and no documents are marked on behalf of defence side.

10] Heard arguments.

11]Now the point for determination is :

1. Whether the accused being driver of one repaired TATA Ace bearing No. AP-21-TS/TR-7590 negligently dashed the defacto complainant Yegaminti Ramudu and caused bleeding injuries or not ?

2. Whether the Prosecution proved the guilty of the accused under section 338 Indian Penal Code, Section 134

(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT : 1 & 2 :

12] The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor argued that basing on the evidence available on record the accused is liable for the offences and prayed to convict the accused as per the charges leveled against accused. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that no Prosecution Witness supported the case and both the witnesses turned hostile, hence the accused is not liable for conviction.

13] The Prosecution to establish the case adduced the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 out of six listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

Y.Sreenivasulu is examined as PW1, PW1 in his chief examination deposed that he does not know the accused who was present in the court hall and the defacto complainant Yegaminti Ramudu is his father who expired at about six months prior to adducing evidence and he knows P.Narayana Swamy and

M.C.Suresh and he does not know anything about the case particulars and he never witnessed the occurrence of accident and he never shifted the injured to any hospital and he was not examined by Police.

14] PW2 Narayana Swamy deposed before the court that he does not

CC 172/2013 5

know the accused who was present in the court hall and he does not know PW1 and the defacto complainant Yegaminti Ramudu and he does not no anything about the case particulars and he never witnessed the occurrence of accident and he was not examined by Police.

As per section 338 of Indian Penal Code :

Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others :- “Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees, or with both”.

15]As per the above definition, to prove the offence under section 338 Indian Penal Code the Prosecution must establish either the rashness or negligent act or driving of the accused at the time of alleged incident, but in the present case though the Prosecution examined PW1 and PW2, both the witnesses neither deposed rashness nor negligent act or driving of the accused and even the Prosecution witnesses did not identify the driver who drove the crime vehicle at the time of incident, As PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution cross examined PW1 and PW2 with the permission of the Court but in the cross examination nothing was elicited in favour of the Prosecution to prove the alleged charges against accused, when

PW1 and PW2 did not support the case of the Prosecution, the Prosecution given up the evidence of remaining witnesses viz..M.C.Suresh, Dr.Sreeramulu

Medical Officer, Sri.D.V.Narayana Reddy Sub Inspector of Police. Therefore the

Prosecution failed to prove either rashness or negligent act or driving of the accused at the time of alleged incident. Thereby the offences under section 338 Indian Penal Code are not proved. When the identity of the driver itself is doubtful, the offences under section 134 (a) and (b) Motor Vehicle Act are also

CC 172/2013 6

not proved against the accused.

18]As the defacto complainant cum injured M.Yegaminti Ramudu expired and Death Certificate filed on 21-04-2015 and his evidence is closed.

PW1 who is the son of the defacto complainant M.Yegaminti Ramudu being hearsay witness and PW2 who is eye-witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the Prosecution. Hence Prosecution failed to prove the alleged charges against accused.

19]In view of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly points for determination are answered.

20] In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 Indian Penal Code, section 134 (a) and (b) of

Motor Vehicle Act and the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

[Typed by Personal Assistant on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of June, 2015].

Spl.Judl.Magistrate Ist Class, Proh & Excise Cases, FAC/Spl.Mobile Court. Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence PW1: Y.Sreenivasulu.Nil PW2: P.Narayana Swamy.

CC 172/2013 7

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution. Defence Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Nil Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution Defence Nill Nill

SPl.JFCM FAC/Spl. Mobile Court.

CC 172/2013 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.NO.172/2013

Dates of

Offence Report of Apprehension Released on Commen Close of Sentence Complaint of accused bail cement of trial or trial Order 24/09/1226/09/1212/10/1212/10/1221/04/1522/06/1523/06/15

Calander and Judgment in C.C.172/13 on the file of Spl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu.

FAC/Spl. Mobile Court.

Complainant : Sub - Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Police Station, Anantapuramu.

Cr.No.: 176/12

S.No. Name of the Father’s Age Calling Religion Residence accused Name

Y.Yerri swami, aged 23 years, S/o.Mallarayudu, Mudigubba Village, Atmakur Mandal, Driver of TATA Ace bearing No.AP-21-TS-TR-7590.

Offence : under section 338 Indian Penal Code , section 134 (a) and (b)of Motor Vehicle Act.

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence : Judgment pronounced (VSJ). In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 338 Indian Penal Code, section 134 (a) and (b) of Motor Vehicle Act and the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Spl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, FAC/Spl. Mobile Court Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu.

To

The Ist Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : Srivani.Damodaram,B.Sc.,M.B.A.,L.L.M.,

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Wednesday , The 30th Day of July, 2014.

CC.58/2013

Between :- State Reptd By the Sub-Inspector Of Police, Mahila P.S., Anantapuramu.

....Complainant.

AND Shaik.Ahmed Basha, Age 27 Yrs, S/o Saleem basha, - A1 Shaik.sahina, Age 40 yrs W/O R.Saleem basha, -A2 R.Saleem Basha, Age 44 yrs, S/o Rahmathulla

AllareresidentsofD.No.O.2-1-101.Kollastreet,Tirupathi. ....Accused.

This case coming on this the 30 th day of July '2014' for final hearing

before me in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor Sri.Rama Naik on behalf of

the state and of Sri S.shamshed Begum Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

Case is U/sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

1. The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S

Anantapuramu laid a charge sheet in Cr. No.45/2012 for the offence U/s 498-A

IPC and Sec, 3 and 4 of D.P Act, against the accused Shaik Ahamed Basha Age 27 Yrs S/o Saleem Basha, Anantapuramu (here in after called accused in this case)

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that LW1 Shaik Banu and accused got married in the month of July 2012 .Dowry of Rs.1,50,000, 200gms of

Gold, 1Kg of Silver, were given by Lws2 and 3 Shaik Sazida and Shaik Abdul

Ajeez to A1 at the time of marriage, as part of heir acceptance during their engagement. After marriage they stayed in the house of Lw2 Shaik Sazida for a week on 16-6-2012 they went to Hyderabad, lived happily for 10 days in 2

Banjarahills subsequently A1took Lw1 to Tirupathi to the house of A2 and

A3.Their A1 to A3 together abused Lw1 in filth language , beat her, torture her ,physically and mentally saying that if Lw1 want to accompany A1 to Kuwait, she has to get rupees of two lakhs and gold from Lws2 and 3 as additional dowry.

They humiliated her saying that she is black and not beautiful and stated that they would have got more dowry if they married another woman. On 2-8-12 accused came to Lw1 and asked for his passport ,when she replied that she is not having his passport, he beat her and want her to bring additional dowry before completion of Ramzan month, other wise he would go for second marriage A2and

A3 were also threatening her on phone for additional dowry failing which that they perform second marriage to A1. Basing on the report of Lw1, Lw7 registered as case in Cr.No. 45/12 u/s 498A r/w 34 I.P.C and sec 3 and 4 of D.P.Act . And investigated and deputed Lw6 for investigation at Thirupathi. During the course of investigation LW6 arrested A1 to A3 on 6-8-12 brought before Lw7 with special report .Their after Lw7 produced A1 to A3 for remand.

Hence the charge

3. After filling the charge sheet this case is taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl.Magiatrate of I class, Anantapuramu for the offence U/s 498-A I.P.C,

Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act against the accused and numbered as calendar case

CC.875/12. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session judge in order

disc no : 6789 dt 30-09-13 this case is transferred to this court and after the receipt of case record this court renumbered the same as CC 58/2013.

4. On appearance of the accused all the relevant case records, were furnished to him as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. a charge U/s 498-A IPC,

Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act is framed against them. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW4 and got marked, the exhibits P1 to P6. PW1 is the Complainant Exhibit P1 is the signature of PW1 on complaint. Exhibit P2 is, 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1,

Exhibits P3 is, 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Exhibit P4 is, 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Exhibit P5 is FIR and Exhibit P6 is rough sketch marked by PW4.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused is examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C by calling them to the explanation for the incriminating material available against them from the prosecution evidence for which they dined the same and reported that no defence evidence.

No witnesses examined and no documents marked on behalf of defence.

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for the determination is “whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of accused U/s 498-A IPC Sec 3 and 4

of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. In this case the prosecution in total cited seven witnesses out of them

PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW4, were examined and exhibit P1 to P6 got marked. The evidence of LWs 4, LW5 and LW7 by name Patan Noorjahan, Patan.rasool khan and B. Chalapathi Rao, Inspector of Police were given up by the learned APP as

PWs1 to PW3 not supported the case of prosecution.

10. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who is Victim/Complainant deposed that accused present in the court hall is her husband. The marriage of

PW1 with accused was performed in the presence of elders of both parties on 6/7

June '2012'. At the time of marriage, dowry, gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and 20 tulas of gold were given to accused by her parents. After marriage she joined her matrimonial home at Tirupathi. After marriage accused and his relative looked after her very well for few days.. Thereafter they arise small disputes due to such disputes, LW.1 went to police station except that the accused never harrased her . Due to some petty quarrels she went to police 4 station for counseling at that time the police took her signature and she put the signature without knowing the contents. She deposed she did not lodge any complaint against accused stating that they harassed her for want of additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. Police never examined her, signature in complaint confronted to her and she admit the same to be of her signature but she claims that the police took her signature when she went for counseling purpose to police station.

Police never examined her.

11. PW2 is the mother of PW1 she deposed that in the month of June 2012, the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1. At the time of marriage neither the cash nor gold were presented to the accused as dowry. After marriage the accused never harassed PW1. Her daughter PW1 did not lodge any complaint against the accused. Police never examined her.

12. PW3 is the father of PW1 he deposed in the same voice of PW2.

13. PW4 is the S.I of police and he deposed that on instructions of C.I of

Police he went to Thirupathi and arrested all the accused and filed a special report to that effect. Then his authorities, produced the accused before Hon'ble court and after investigation filed a charge sheet . He got the Exhibit P5and P6 marked. Which is the FIR, and rough sketch, except that no witness were examined to corroborate his evidence.

14. As seen from the evidence of PW1 she stated that at the time of marriage dowry and 20 tulas of gold worth Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by her parents to the accused. But PW2 and PW3 who are the parents of PW1 deposed that at the time of marriage neither the cash nor gold were given to accused.

Hence the version of PW1 is not corroborated with any evidence and the evidence of PW1, to this extent is not reliable ,further she stated that she never lodged a complaint against the accused when the complaint is denied by the complainant, the contents of complaint are proved to be false. Hence this cannot bring the accused under the guilt.

5

15. After going through the entire evidence, the witnesses PW1 to PW3 not supported the prosecution case in toto and they turned hostile. Hence the learned APP cross examined them by treating them as hostile and marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exhibit P2, P3 and P4 except that no material is elicited in favour of prosecution. In view of hostility evidence of all prosecution witnesses it can not be said that the accused harassed PW1 for want of additional dowry.

Though the prosecution examined PW4 and marked Exhibits P5 and P6 no witnesses were examined to corroborate his evidence. This can not bring the accused under the guilt. Further the evidence of Investigation officer will come after the occurrence of offence. In this case except the Investigating Officer, all other witnesses turned hostile including the Victim/complainant. Considering the evidence of Investigation Officer as technically in nature, in the absence of main ingredients of Section 498-A IPC, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act with out any specific material elicited from the prosecution witness against the accused this Court is not inclined to bring the accused under the guilt and the Court has to acquit the accused.

Therefore from the above discussion and facts of the case this Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s 498-A IPC, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after Six months. The accused was arrested on 06-08-2012 and released on 08-08-2012.

Dictated to the P.A, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court, on this the 30th day of July '2014'.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Prosecution:- Defence PW1 Shaik. Bhanu, PW2 Shaik.Sajeedha -Nil- PW3 Shaik.Abdul Aziz, PW4 V.Sree ramulu.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution Defence

Ex. P.1 Signature of PW1 in complaint, Ex. P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1, Ex. P3 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2, -Nil- Ex. P4 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3, Ex. P5 FIR, Ex. P6 Rough sketch.

Mos. Marked for Both sides-

Nil-

JFCM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : Srivani.Damodaram,Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Friday, the 30th Day of January, 2015

CC.221/2013

Between :- State Represented By the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town P.S..

....Complainant.

AND 1.Kammari Veerabraiah,27 years, S/o Bramhaiah, N/o Avulanna (v) Beluguppa amdnal and at present residing in Rahamath nagar, Yusuf guda, Hyderabad. 2.Harijana Sudhakar, 23 years, S/o H.Jayaraju, Ramapuram village Vadde palli mandal, Mahaboob nagar Dist.

3. Telugu Bala Krishna @ Balu, 22 years, S/o Late T.Krista[[a, Goppala Dinne village, Itikyala mandal, Mahaboob nagar Dist.

....Accused.

This case has come on this the 29th day of January 2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior Asst. Public Prosecutor Sri. Rama

Naik on behalf of the state and of Sri B.Anil kumar Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1. The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II

Town P.S laid a charge sheet in Cr. No.1148/2012 for the offence U/s 454,380, 411 IPC against the accused 1.Kammari Veerabraiah,2. Harijana Sudhakar,

3. Telugu Bala Krishna @ Balu (here in after called accused in this case).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 01-10-2012 at 9.00 A.M when LW.1, LW.2 and LW.3 by names V.Anasuyamma, S.Ravindra

Kumar and Sraveni went for their work, on the same day at about 1-30 P.M LW.3 arrived from Bank coaching class and open the lock of their house and entered, he found the almaraiah is kept open and all the articles are in pell-mell condition, on that she made a call to Lws.1 and 2 and informed about the 2 same. On that LW.1 came home and verified the properties and noted that some gold Jewellary were committed theft by some unknown offenders. On 4-10- 2012 at 1-00 P.M she preferred complaint with LW.7. Basing on such complaint

LW.7 by name Abdul Gaffoor registered the case in cr.No.250/12 U/s.454,380,411

IPC. And investigated. During the court of investigation he examined Lws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. In those statements LW.1 stated the actual weights of her gold ornaments which are committed theft by deviating the weights that are mentioned in her complaint. He visited scene of offence and concluded that the offenders have committed theft by using false keys. On 8-10- 2012 basing on credible information at 1-00P.M he arrested the accused seized the property under cover of mahazar duly attested by LW.4 and 5 A.Nandiswar and A. Ranga Reddy. LW.6 Shyam sunder held T.I parade of property and attested the mahazar. Hence the charge.

3. After filling the charge sheet Cognizance of the offence against the accused u/s 454,380,411 I.P.C. Is taken by the Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class ,

Anantapur and numbered as calender case CC. No : 1148/12. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session judge in order disc no : 6789 dt 30- 09-13 this case is transferred to this court and after the receipt of case record this court renumbered the same as CC 221/13.

4. On appearance of the accused all the relevant case records, were furnished to them as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. a charge U/s.454, 380,411

IPC is framed against them read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to PW4 and got marked the exhibits P1 to P7 and MO.1. (16 items of gold and silver ornaments) PW1 is the Complainant Exhibit P1 is the signature of PW1 on complaint. Exhibit P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Exhibits P3 is the signature of PW2 on mahazar, Exhibit P4 is the signature of PW3 on mahazar, Exhibit P5 is 3

FIR, EX.P6 is Rough sketch,Ex.P7 is the mahazar of property identification proceedings.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused are examined U/s.

313 Cr.P.C by calling them to the explanation for the incriminating material available against them from the prosecution evidence for which they denied the same and reported that no defence evidence.

No witnesses examined and no documents marked on behalf of defence.

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the point for the determination is “whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of accused U/s.454,380,411IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. In this case the prosecution in total cited seven witnesses out of them

PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 were examined and exhibit P1 to P7, MO. 1 got marked. The evidence of LW2,3 and 6 by name S.Ravindra Kumar, S.Sravani,

M.Shyam sunder is given up by the learned APP as PWs1 to PW4 not supported the case of prosecution.

10. Coming to the evidence of PW1 V.Anasuyamma who is the Complainant deposed that she does not know all the accused present in the court hall she does not know anything about the case particulars she never preferred any complaint against the accused, the signature on complaint is confronted to her admitted by her but she claims that she put the same at the instance of police without knowing the contents. She was not examined by police.

11. PW2 A.nandieswar deposed that he does not know the accused present in the court hall. He does not know anything about the case particulars.

The police did not seized any property from the possession of accused in his presence and never drafted any seizure panchanama. He identified his signature on mahazar.

12. PW3 A.Ranga Reddy deposed in the same voice of PW2.

13. PW5 is an investigating officer. His deposition is the replica of charge sheet. He deposed that he did not seized any duplicate keys from accused and he 4 did not specifically mentioned as to the property seized from each accused specifically. He did not examined and recorded their statements of neighbors as per the rough sketch drawn.

14. Coming to the evidence of PW1 she denied the lodging of compliant against the accused when the complainant herself denied the complaint the contents of complaint are proved to be false. Hence, this cannot bring the accused under the guilt.

15. After going through the entire evidence, the witness PW1 to PW3 not supported the prosecution case in toto and they turned hostile. Hence the learned APP cross examined them by treating them as hostile and marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exhibit P2. except that no material is elicited in favour of prosecution and against the accused. In view of hostility evidence of all prosecution witnesses it cannot be said that the accused committed the theft of above said gold and silver ornaments and was in possession of those ornaments.

Though the prosecution examined PW5 and marked Exhibits F.I.R, Rough sketch, mahazar as to the seizure of property and property identification proceedings no evidence of any witness is corroborated. Hence this cannot bring the accused under the guilt.

16. There fore from the evidence of prosecution, it clearly reveal that the accused cannot be brought under the guilt. Further the evidence of I.O will come after the occurrence of offence. In this case except the I.O who is concerned with investigating agency all other witnesses turned hostile including the complainant. Considering the evidence of I.O as technical in nature, in the absence of main ingredients of section. 454,380,411 I.P.C. with out specific material elicited from the prosecution witness against accused this court is not inclined to bring the accused under the guilt and court has to acquit the accused.

Therefore from the above facts and discussions of the case this

Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

17. In the result the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.454, 380,411 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after Six months.

The case property marked i.e. MO1 which is under the interim custody of PW1 holds good after appeal time. The accused were arrested on 08-10-2012 and released on 12-10-2012.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

Prosecution:- Defence:- PW1 V.Anasuyamma PW2 A.Nandieswar -Nil- PW3 A.Ranga Reddy PW4 S.Abdul Gaffoor

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution Defence:- Ex. P.1 Signature of PW1 on complaint, Ex. P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1, Ex. P3 signature of PW2 in mahazar, -Nil- Ex. P4 signature of PW3 in mahazar, Ex. P5 FIR EX P6 Rough sketch Ex. P7 Mahazar of property identification.

Mos Marked for

Prosecution Defence

MO1 : 16 items of gold and silver ornaments. -Nil-

JFCM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : Srivani.Damodaram, Judl. First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Ananthapuramu.

Friday , The 30th Day of January, 2015.

CC.290/2013

Between :- State Reptd by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S. Anantapuramu.

....Complainant.

AND Mala.Umesh, Age 32 Yrs, S/o Narayanappa

D.No: 11-516, jesus nagar, Anantapuramu. ....Accused.

This case coming on this the 29thday of January'2015' for final hearing before me in the presence of Sr.Asst.Public Prosecutor sri.Rama Naik on behalf of the state and of Sri B.Narasimha reddy Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1. The state represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S

Anantapuramu laid a charge sheet in Cr. No.53/2012 for the offence U/s 498-A, 324 IPC and Sec, 3 and 4 of D.P Act, against the accused M.Umesh (here in after called accused in this case)

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that LW1 M.Shobha and accused got married about eleven years back at the time of marriage LW.2 M.Ruthamma gave Rs.15,000/- as dowry and a gold ring, gold chain and two tulas of gold to the accused. After marriage they lived happily for few months and they blessed with female child subsequently the accused addicted to liquor and used torture

Lws.1 and 2 for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and quarreled with LW.1 every day by threatened her if she won’t get money he will kill her and marry again.

Unable to bare the torture of accused LW.1 went to her parents house at

Obuladeva nagar. On 4-10-2012 at 3-00 P.M the accused went to house of LW.2 in drunken condition and fought with LW.2 and demanded and LW.1 to bring money from LW.2 and if she fails to bring he will kill her and marry again. So saying he 2 collected a brick and beat her as a result he sustained bleeding injury on her head immediately she went to GGH, Anantapuramu and got admitted. On receipt of medical admit intimation LW.8 T.Subramanyam went to GGH and recorded the statement of the LW.1, registered a case in cr.No.53/12 U/s.498-A,324 IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation

LW.8 examined, Lws.1 to 6 and on 7-11-2012 he arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody. LW.7 Dr.Sydanna who treated LW.1 opined that the injury sustained by LW.1 is simple in nature. LW.9 verified the investigation of LW.8 and filed a charge sheet.Hence the charge

3. After filling the charge sheet this case is taken cognizance by the

Addl. Judl.Magiatrate of I class, Ananthapuramu of offence against the accused

U/s 498-A, 324 I.P.C, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act and numbered as calendar case

CC.1242/12. As per the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Session judge in order

disc no : 6789 dt 30-09-13 this case is transferred to this court and after the receipt of case record this court renumbered the same as CC 290/13.

4. On appearance of the accused all the relevant case records, were furnished to him as required U/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. a charge U/s 498-A,324

IPC, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act is framed against him,read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and

PW2 and got marked, the exhibits P1 to P3. PW1 is the Complainant Exhibit P1 is the signature of PW1 on complaint. Exhibit P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1,

Exhibits P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence as there is no incriminating material made available against the accused from the evidence of prosecution, the examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

No witnesses examined and no documents marked on behalf of defense. Heard the arguments on both sides 3

8. Now the point for the determination is “whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of accused U/s 498-A,324 IPC, Sec 3

and 4 of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. In this case the prosecution in total cited Nine witnesses out of them

PW1 and PW2, were examined and exhibit P1 to P3 got marked. The evidence of LWs 3 to 9 by name, M.Yesu, M.shanker, Bheema.Lingamma, Pathi.Raj,

Dr.Sydanna, T.Subramanyam and V.Sreeramulu S.I of Police, were given up by the learned APP as PW1 and 2 not supported the case of prosecution.

10. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who is the Complainant deposed that accused present in the court hall is her husband. The marriage of PW1 with accused was performed about 11 years back At the time of marriage, neither cash nor gold ornaments were given to accused. The accused does not harassed her. There are no disputes between them even till to day there are living together

The accused does not beat her she sustained injury on her head at home by falling down on that when she went to hospital there, the police took her signature .signature on complaint confronted to her and she admit the same to be of her signature but she claims that she did not lodge any complaint against the accused and she put the signature at the instance of police with out knowing the contents. She was not examined by police.

11. PW2 is the mother of PW1.She deposed that at about eleven years back, the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1. At the time of marriage neither the cash nor gold were presented to the accused as dowry. There are no disputes between Pw1 and accused even till today there are living together.PW1 sustained injury by falling down at home. She was not examined by police.

12. As seen from the evidence of PW1 she stated that at the time of marriage neither cash nor any gold ornaments were given to accused . The accused did not beat her and harassed her this version of PW1cannot bring the accused under the guilt. Further she denied lodging of complainant when the complainant herself denies the complaint, the contents of complaint are proved to 4 be false. It is even corroborated by the evidence of Pw2 .Hence, these aspects stated cannot hold that accused harassedPW.1 for want of additional dowry and beat PW1.

13. After going through the entire evidence, the witness PW1 and PW2 not supported the prosecution case in toto and they turned hostile. Hence the learned APP cross examined them by treating them as hostile and marked their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exhibit P2 and P3 except that no material is elicited in favour of prosecution. In view of hostility evidence of all prosecution witnesses it cannot he said that the accused harassed PW1 for want of additional dowry as well as the accused does not beat PW1. In the absence of main ingredients of

Section 498-A ,324 IPC, Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act with out any specific material elicited from the prosecution witness against the accused this Court is not inclined to bring the accused under the guilt and the Court has to acquit the accused.

Therefore from the above discussion and facts of the case this Court opined that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s 498-A 324 IPC. Sec 3 and 4 of D.P Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after Six months. The accused was arrested on 07-11-2012 and released on 15-11-2012.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30th day of January 2015 .

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu.

5

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for

Prosecution:- Defence:- PW1 M.Shobha, PW2 Ruthamma, -Nil-

Exhibits Marked for

Prosecution Defence:- Ex. P.1 Signature of PW1 on complaint Ex. P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex. P3 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 -Nil-

Mos. Marked for Both sides

Nil-

JFCM.