Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : GIDDALUR

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Monday, this the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of February, 2019

Calendar Case No. 55 of 2019

Between: The State represented through Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station.…Complainant

And

1. Damaluri Pavan Sarma, S/o. Prasad, 35 years, Brahmin, Panchayat Office Road, Ramavarappadu ring, Vijayawada.

2. Kaluva Sambaiah, S/o. Prasad, 26 years, Rajaka, Siluvuru Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Ippanagundla Ramana, S/o. Kasaiah, 38 years, Rajaka, Opposite to Govt. Hospital, Cumbum. Native of Maguturu Village of Ardhaveedu Mandal.

4. Bussa Venkateswarlu, S/o. Srinivasulu, 27 years, Caste by Balija, Sankarapuram Village of Ardhaveedu Mandal.

..Accused

This case has came before me on 21-02-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B. Issac,

Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum P.S. laid charge sheet in crime No.

192/2018 for the offences under section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 4.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that L.W.1/Kesamsetty

Srinivasulu and the family members were received bad dreams at the house at Ardhaveedu due to that he informed the same accused A4 who is no other than the relative of L.W.1. The A4 stated to L.W.1 that previously he fell in sick and went to sorrow and the accused A4 approached the A1 and done pooja and the accused A1 gave tayettu to him and his ill health was cured.

The accused A4 advised L.W.1/Kesamsetty Srinivasulu that if he will met the accused A1, he will be told all the things. Then, L.W.1 met A1 & A2 and 2 brought them to his house at Ardhaveedu and they observed the house of

L.W.1 and informed him to come Cumbum and they will be talked about the matter.

3.While so, on 03-12-2018 both the accused 1 & 2 telephoned to

L.W.1/Kesamsetty Srinivasulu and stated to come to the house of A3 which is situated opposite to Govt. Hospital, Cumbum. Accordingly, L.W.1 went there and there, the A1 & A2 were stated cheated words to L.W.1 that there is a thumbler with property at the house of L.W.1 and the soles were moved around he said thumbler and the accused 3 & 4 also supported the version of accused A1 and A2. L.W.1 trusted the words of the accused and asked the A1 & A2 how much will be paid to far away the soles. On that the A1 & A2 stated to him that at first to give Rs. 10,000/-. L.W.1/Kesamsetty Srinivasulu trusted the deceit words of the A1 to A4 and gave Rs. 10,000/- to the A1 & A2 in the presence of A3 & A4 at the house of A3. Then after the accused 1 & 2 came to the house of L.W.1 and done pooja, but there is no change of the bad dreams to L.W.1 and his family members. From that time L.W.1 caused enquiries about the A1 & A2 and he came to know that on 18-12-2018 night the both accused 1 & 2 came to Cumbum from Markapur in a car and when reached near milk dairy, the car wad dashed one electrical pole and both the

A1 & A2 were sustained injuries and also caused damaged to the car and they were taking treatment in a Hospital, Cumbum. On that on 19-12-2018

L.W.1 went to the Hospital and observed that the A1 & A2 were undergoing treatment. The accused 1 & 2 also cheated L.W.2/Meeniga Sekhar by stating cheated words that they will be far away the devils from the wife of L.W.2.

4.Basing on the written report of L.W.1/Kesamsetty Srinivasulu, L.W.7/Y.

Srihari, S.I. of Police registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 192/2018 u/sec.

420 of I.P.C. of Cumbum P.S. on 19-12-2018 and investigated the case.

During the course of investigation, L.W.7 examined Kesamsetty Srinivasulu,

Meeniga Sekhar, Konkala Rajasekhar and Kesamsetty Saritha (L.Ws. 1 to 4) 3 and recorded their statements. On 21-12-2018 he arrested the accused 1 to 4 and recorded their confession statements in the presence of Chintamreddy

Anoosha, Balathoti Devaraju (L.Ws. 5 & 6) and also seized the car and other articles and drafted seizure mahazar duly attested by L.Ws. 5 & 6 and sent the accused for remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.7/Y. Srihari,

S.I. of Police filed charge sheet.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C against the accused 1 to 4 on 06-02-2019 and issued summons to the accused 1 to 4.

6.After appearance of accused, on 06-02-2019 copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

7. On the same day, i.e. 06-02-2019 the accused 1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code and charge is framed for the offence under section 420 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 4. The prosecution case read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

8.In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Exs.P1 to P9 are got marked besides M.Os. 1 to 7. The evidence of Balathoti

Devaraju i.e. L.W.6 was given up by the learned A.P.P.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, on 19-02-2019 accused 1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which they reported as false and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused 1 to 4.

11.Now the point for consideration is; 4

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against the

accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C.

beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:-

12. In order to punish the accused 1 to 4 U/sec. 420 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that the accused 1 to 4 cheated and thereby dishonestly induces the P.W.1 deceived any property to P.W.1.

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

Exs.P.1 to P9 are got marked besides M.Os. 1 to 7. P.W.1/Kesamsetty

Srinivasulu who is the defacto-complainant and who set criminal law into motion by preferring complaint to the police has turned hostile to the case of prosecution and he deposed that at about 4 months ago as, he lost Rs.

10,000/- which was kept in his pocket and he went to the police station and he informed the same to the police Station of Cumbum. Where the police obtained his signature in a written paper covered under Ex. P1. Except that he do not know anything about the contents of the written paper and he was not examined by the police. During his cross examination by the learned

A.P.P. nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of Ex.

P2 is 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

14.P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 who are the circumstantial witnesses to corroborate the version of P.W.1. But they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. During their cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged offence except marking of Exs. P3, P4 & P5 which are their 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statements.

15.P.W.5 who is working as V.R.O. and who acted as mediator has deposed that on 21-12-2018 at about 10.00 am he was called by the S.I. of Cumbum

Police to come to the police station, himself and L.W.6/Balathoti Devaraju went to the police station Cumbum and they accepted to act as mediators and accompanied with S.I. i.e. P.W.6 in a police jeep. When they reached 5 near Government Hospital, Kandulapuram the accused tried to skulk away on seeing the police jeep. Then P.W.6 stopped the vehicle and caught hold the accused with the help of police constables. Later P.W.6 interrogated all the accused separately for which all the accused confessed about the commission of offence in their presence. Then, P.W.6 prepared Mediatornama in her presence and also in the presence of L.W.6 and they signed on it. Later they went to Milk Chilling Center situated in Kadapa to Vijayawada road on the confession of A1. Where P.W.6 seized car, bag consisting some sticks and some other properties total 7 items under the cover of Mediatornama in their presence and they signed on it. Later the police brought all the accused to the police station. During his evidence Ex. P6 is the Mediatornama Dt. 21-12- 2018 at about 10.00 am and Ex. P7 is the Mediatornama, Dt. 21-12-2018 at about 02.15 pm are marked.

16.Whereas during the cross examination, P.W.5 deposed that she can not say about the particulars of each item seized by P.W.7 and she can not say who scribed Ex.P.6&P.7 medeaternamas and she signed after preparing medaternamas. P.W.5 further deposed that P.W.6 did not issue summon to her and L.W.6 act as medeators and she did not put the seal under the signature in Ex.P.6 and P.7. Admittedly the prosecution did not examine L.W.6/ B.Deva

Rau who allegedly acted as mediator along with P.W.5 to corroborate the version of prosecution about the arrest of the accused and seizure of M.O.1 to

M.O.7.

17.P.W.6 who is the investigation officer of the case has deposed that on 11-12-2018 at 11.00 hours while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and gave written complaint under Ex. P1. Basing on it, he registered a case in Cr. No. 192/2018 u/sec. 420 of I.P.C. Then, he sent the original F.I.R. to this Court and it’s copies to all concerned officers.

On the same day, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement in the police station. Meantime, P.Ws. 2 & 3 came to the Police station, then 6 he examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Later he secured the presence of P.W.4 and examined her and recorded her 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. On 21-12-2018 he secured the presence of P.W.5 and

L.W.6/Balathoti Devaraju and went to Cumbum Government Hospital. When they reached Government Hospital, Cumbum the accused tried to skulk away.

Then, he caught hold of them with the help of his staff. Later, he interrogated all the accused separately and recorded their confession statements in the presence of P.W.5 and L.W.6 under Ex. P6. Later he went to

Milk Chilling Station along with mediators, where he seized car bearing No.

AP 27 BL 3434 and other material total 7 items in the presence of P.Ws. 5 and

L.W.6 under cover of Ex. P7. Later they brought the accused and seized property to the police station and sent them judicial remand. He produced seized property before the court and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. During his evidence Exs. P8 is the report given by the

P.W.1, Dt. 19-12-2018, P9 is the F.I.R., M.O.1 is the Car bearing No. AP 27 BL 3434, M.O.2 is the Sticks bag, M.O.3 is the Skull type doll which was prepared with white beeds, M.O.4 is the Black beeds Chains-3, M.O.5 is the Thanthrika

Panchangam book, M.O.6 is the Chopper Thumber and M.O.7 is the

Rudrakshalu which were in copper thumbler are got marked.

18.In view of the hostile nature and non-co-operation by P.Ws.1 to 4 and inconsistent evidence of P.W.5 and non examination of L.W.6 i.e. Balathoti

Devaraju who is the crucial witness, how this court could connected the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, I feel that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 420 of I.P.C. Hence, the accused 1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

19. In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the 7 accused 1 to 4 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code. The M.O. 1 i.e. White coloured Shift Desire Car bearing No.

AP 27 BL 3434 was already given to A3 by name Ippanagundla Ramana as interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. M.Os. 2 to 7 i.e.

Sticks bag, Skull type doll which was prepared with white beeds, Black beeds

Chains-3, Thanthrika Panchangam book, Chopper Thumber and Rudrakshalu which were in copper thumbler respectively shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my Dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2019.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence P.W.1: Kesamsetty Srinivasulu, -NIL- P.W.2: Meeniga Sekhar, P.W.3: Konkala Rajasekhar, P.W.4: KesamsettySaritha, P.W.5: Chintamreddy Anoosha, P.W.6: Y. Srihari, S.I. of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex. P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report Dt. 19-12-2018, -NIL- Ex. P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1, Ex. P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2, Ex. P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3, Ex. P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4, Ex. P.6: Mediatornama, Dt. 21-12-2018 at about 10.00 am, Ex. P.7: Mediatornama, Dt. 21-12-2018 at about 02.15 pm, Ex. P.8: Report given by the P.W.1, Dt. 19-12-2018, Ex. P.9: F.I.R..

Material objects marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

8

M.O.1: White Coloured Shift Desire Car bearing No. AP 27 BL 3434, NIL M.O.2: Sticks bag, M.O.3: Skull type doll which was prepared with white beeds, M.O.4: Black beeds Chains-3, M.O.5: Thanthrika Panchangam book, M.O.6: Chopper Thumber, M.O.7: Rudrakshalu which were in copper thumbler are got marked.

P.J.C.J., GDLR,

FAC: A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR.

Copy submitted to the Honourable 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

9

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 55 of 2019 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 03-12-2018

2. Date of Report: 19-12-2018

3. Date of arrest of accused: 21-12-2018

4. Date of release: 26-12-2018

5. Date of commencement of trial: 07-02-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 19-02-2019

7. Date of Judgment: 25-02-2019

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station.

9. Accused:

1. Damaluri Pavan Sarma, S/o. Prasad, 35 years, Brahmin, Panchayat Office Road, Ramavarappadu ring, Vijayawada.

2. Kaluva Sambaiah, S/o. Prasad, 26 years, Rajaka, Siluvuru Village, Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Ippanagundla Ramana, S/o. Kasaiah, 38 years, Rajaka, Opposite to Govt. Hospital, Cumbum. Native of Maguturu Village of Ardhaveedu Mandal.

4. Bussa Venkateswarlu, S/o. Srinivasulu, 27 years, Caste by Balija, Sankarapuram Village of Ardhaveedu Mandal.

10. Offence: 420 of I.P.C.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence

punishable Under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted

under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the

accused 1 to 4 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of

six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal

Procedure Code. The M.O. 1 i.e. White coloured Shift Desire Car bearing

No. AP 27 BL 3434 was already given to A3 by name Ippanagundla Ramana

as interim custody shall holds good after appeal time is over. M.Os. 2 to 7

i.e. Sticks bag, Skull type doll which was prepared with white beeds, Black

beeds Chains-3, Thanthrika Panchangam book, Chopper Thumber and

Rudrakshalu which were in copper thumbler respectively shall be

destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 06-02-2019 for the offence u/Sec. 420 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 4. After appearance of the accused, on the same day i.e. on 06-02-2019 copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On the same day i.e. on 06-02-2019 accused 1 to 4 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.6 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P9 besides M.Os. 1 to 7. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 19-02-2019, accused 1 to 4 were examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. Arguments heard on 21-02-2019. On 25-02-2019 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

10

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole 11

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : GIDDALUR

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Thursday, this the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of February, 2019

Calendar Case No. 446 of 2014

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station.…Complainant

And

1. Nandhi Samuel, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 45 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A1).

2. Nandhi Grace Mary, W/o. Samuel, aged 35 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A2).

3. Nandhi Yesaiah, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 60 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A3).

4. Nandhi Suresh, S/o. Yesaiah, aged 30 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A4).

5. Nandhi Ramesh, S/o. Yesaiah, aged 28 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A5).

6. Nandhi Israel, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 55 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A6).

7. Nandhi Estheri, W/o. Prasad, aged 27 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A7).

..Accused

This case has came before me on 25-02-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri V. V. Rami

Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station laid charge sheet in crime No. 123/2014 for the offence under section 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused 1 to 7.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that L.W.1/Nandhi

Estharamma @ Esteramma and the accused 1 to 7 are the residents of SC

Palem of Yerrabalem village of Cumbum mandal and they are close relatives each other. On 14-08-2014 evening at about 18.00 hours, the complainant/L.W.1, her husband Nandhi Yacobu and daughter Dasari Anitha @

Chinnakka (L.W.2) scolding their goat as the goat was entering the houses and 2 wandering in palem. At that time Nandhi Estheri (A7) who is the daughter in law of Nandhi Rajamma thought that they scolding her, stopped them at her house and asked them why they are scolding her, then they told A7 that they scolding their goat but not her. Immediately A1 to A3 at once went upon the complainant and her daughter and pushed them and beaten up with hands and legs, A1 took a stick and beat the complainant on her left hand and caused bleeding injury. A4 kicked L.W.1/Nandhi Estharamma @ Esteramma on her stomach. Moreover A5 & A6 pushed L.W.2/Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka on the ground and beat her with hands and legs as a result, she received swelling injury on her right hand. Immediately Mekala Prabhavathi, Gurram Ravi and other came there, rescued from the hands of A1 to A7 and admonished them.

Then, Yacobu husband of L.W.1 phoned to 108 ambulance, and shifted L.Ws. 1 & 2 to Cumbum Government Hospital and admitted them in the hospital.

3.On 14-08-2014 at about 23.40 hours, L.W.7/Ch. Hazarathaiah, S.I. of

Police received hospital intimation of L.W.1/Nandhi Estharamma @ Esteramma from L.W.5/Dr. B.V. Ranga Rao, immediately he sent L.W.6/K. Venkateswarlu,

HC-983 to record the statement of the L.W.1. L.W.6 rushed to C.H.C., Cumbum and got recorded the statement of L.W.1. Then, L.W.7 registered the statement of L.W.1 as a case in Cr. No. 123/2014 u/sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. of

Cumbum P.S. on 15-08-2014 submitted the Original F.I.R. along with statement of L.W.1 to the Court and remaining copies of F.I.R. to all concerned officers and investigated into.

4.During the course of investigation on 15-08-2014 L.W.7/Ch.

Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police examined L.W.1/Nandhi Estharamma @ Esteramma at C.H.C., Cumbum, recorded her statement, visited and observed the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined and recorded the statements of Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka, Mekala

Prabhavathi and Gurram Ravi (L.Ws. 2 to 4). On 23-08-2014 L.W.7 arrested the accused 1 to 7 and sent them for judicial remand. After receipt of wound 3 certificate of L.W.1 from L.W.5 and after completion of investigation, L.W.7/Ch.

Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 7.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 to 7 on 14-11-2014 and issued summons to the accused 1 to 7.

6.After appearance of accused, on 27-01-2016 copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

7.On 29-03-2016 the accused 1 to 7 were examined under section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code, charges under section 326, 323 r/w 149 of Indian

Penal Code are framed. The prosecution case read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

8.In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and

Exs.P1 to P9 are got marked.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, on 23-07-2018 accused 1 to 7 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which they reported as false and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused 1 to 7.

11.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

1 to 7 for the offences under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.POINT:In order to prove the offences under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 to 7, the prosecution has to prove that the accused 1 to 7 voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapons to P.W.1 and also voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1.

4

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. PW.1/Nandhi Estharamma @ Esteramma who is defacto complainant and who set criminal law in to motion by way of preferring report to the police, has deposed that about 3 years ago at about 6.00 pm their goat went infront of accused house and told to her husband

Yacob to get their goat brought the same. The accused thinking that they scolded them and accused A1 went upon them and beat PW.1 with stick on her left hand, A4 kicked on her abdomen and all the accused beat her and thrown her down. On seeing that PW.2 and PW.1's husband Yacob came to rescue of PW.1 then the accused also beat them. PW.3 and PW.4 and one

Lakshmi rescued them from the hands of accused and sent them to the hospital, Cumbum in an ambulance. Police went to CHC, Cumbum and recorded PW.1 statement under Ex. P1.

14.P.W.2/Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka who is the daughter of P.W.1 has deposed that about 3 years ago at about 6.00 pm their goat went in front of accused house and her mother P.W.1 went to get their goat and brought the same. Then, the accused thinking that they scolded them and accused A1 went upon them and beat P.W.1 with stick on her left hand, A4 kicked PW.1 on her abdomen and all the accused beat P.W.1 and thrown her down. On seeing that P.W.2 herself and her father Yacob went to rescue of P.W.1 then the accused also beat P.W.2 and Yacob and that P.W.2 received stone injury on her right palm. P.W.3 and P.W.4 and one Lakshmi rescued them from the hands of accused and sent them to the hospital, Cumbum in an ambulance. Police went to CHC, Cumbum and examined PW.2.

15.P.W.5 who is the Doctor has deposed that he examined P.W.1 and found three injuries that one abrasion on right hand, Swelling over left ring and little finger and Abrasion on right knee joint and later he referred P.W.1 to R.I.M.S.,

Ongole. Whereas P.W.7 who is the Asst. Professor who took the X-ray of P.W.1 and gave his opinion.

5

16. On perusal of entire evidence on record P.W.1 &2 gave inconsistent statement about the over tacts and also injuries sustained by P.W.1&2. P.W.1 deposed that A1 beat her with stick on her left hand, A4 kicked on her abdominal and remaining all accused thrown her down. Whereas P.W.2 deposed that A1 beat P.W.1 with stick on her left hand, A4 beat her on abdomen. Whereas during cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that he received four injuries. But P.W.5 has not deposed that P.W.1 sustained injuries on her abdomen. P.W.5 deposed that he found abrasion injury on right hand and swelling over left ring and little finger and abrasion on right knee joint. But

P.W.1 not stated the injuries as spoken by the Doctor. Whereas during cross examination of P.W.5, he deposed that there is a possibility of receiving the injuries when a person fallen by on rough surface or from height on hard surface and he further also deposed that there is a possibility of receiving injury No.1 by fallen from sufficient height on rough surface.

17.According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident was happened in the presence of P.Ws. 3 & 4. But P.Ws. 3 & 4 turned hostile, they did not state anything against the accused. During cross examination by learned A.P.P nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. Admittedly the accused and the defacto complainant are own relatives and both are residing in the same village. Further during cross examination P.W.1 admitted about the counter case preferred by the accused that admitted tatht there are disputes in between her and accused with regard to the hut (Kottam).

18.According to the prosecution, P.W.6 is Investigation Officer who registered the case and filed charge sheet. Though he denied that he did not visit the scene of offence and not drawn rough sketch. If really P.W.6 visited the scene of offence, what prevented him to secure the mediators at the time of his visit. In this regard there is no explanation from the I.O. Further admittedly, there is no incriminating material seized by the Investigation 6

Officer to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Further Ex. P7 F.I.R. not containing the names of A6 & A7 and the names were substantially added by the Investigation Officer. But there is no evidence placed by the prosecution about the involvement of A6 & A7 and reasons for adding them as accused.

19.Apart from the above, the accused and the Defacto Complainant preferred criminal cases against each other. The present case is a counter case which was preferred by the accused vide C.C. 398/2014. In such case, there may be a chance to prefer false cases against each other. The contention of the accused is that to counter blast the case preferred by them a false case has been initiated against them vide C.C. No. 398/2014. Further, there is no incriminating material seized by the Investigation Officer to connect the accused for the alleged offence. In such case how this court could connect the accused for the alleged offence under section 326& 323 4 r/ w 149 of Indian Penal Code. On perusal of entire evidence on record, P.Ws. 1 & 2 evidence not corroborated each other and also with. In such case how this court could connect the accused for the alleged offence under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.

20.In the light of the above facts and circumstances it goes to show that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the required ingredients for the offences under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C against the accused 1 to 7.

Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offences under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

21.In the result, the accused 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 7 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment 7 under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my Dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2019.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Nandi Estharamma @ Esteramma, -NIL- P.W.2: Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka, P.W.3: Mekala Prabhavathi, P.W.4: Gurram Ravi, P.W.5: Dr. B.V. Ranga Rao, P.W.6: Ch. Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police, P.W.7: N. Sai Prasad, Radiologist, P.W.8: K. Venkateswarlu, HC-983.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex. P.1: Statement of P.W.1, -NIL- Ex. P.2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex. P.3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex. P.4: Wound Certificate of P.W.1, Ex. P.5: Hospital Intimation, Ex. P.6: F.I.R., Ex. P.7: Rough sketch, Ex. P.8: X-ray Report (Marked Subject to objection as it is Xerox Copy), Ex. P.9: 5 X-ray Films i.e. No. 925/2014 of P.W.1.

Material objects marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

NIL NIL

P.J.C.J., GDLR,

FAC: A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR.

Copy submitted to the Honourable 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

8 9

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 446 of 2014 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 14-08-2014

2. Date of Report: 15-08-2014

3. Date of arrest of accused: 23-08-2014

4. Date of release: 23-08-2014

5. Date of commencement of trial : 06-02-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 23-07-2018

7. Date of Judgment: 28-02-2019

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station

9. Accused:

1. Nandhi Samuel, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 45 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A1).

2. Nandhi Grace Mary, W/o. Samuel, aged 35 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A2).

3. Nandhi Yesaiah, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 60 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A3).

4. Nandhi Suresh, S/o. Yesaiah, aged 30 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A4).

5. Nandhi Ramesh, S/o. Yesaiah, aged 28 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A5).

6. Nandhi Israel, S/o. Thirupathaiah, aged 55 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A6).

7. Nandhi Estheri, W/o. Prasad, aged 27 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Resident of Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A7).

10. Offences: 326 & 323 r/w 149 of I.P.C.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the

offences punishable under section 326 & 323 r/w 149 of Indian Penal

Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused 1

to 7 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six

months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 14-11-2014 for the offences u/Sec. 326 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 7. After appearance of the accused 1 to 7, on 27-01-2016, copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 29-03-2016, accused 1 to 7 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.8 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 23-07-2018, accused 1 to 7 were examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. From time to time this case is posted for arguments and arguments 10 heard on 25-02-2019. On 28-02-2019 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : GIDDALUR

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Thursday, this the Twenty Eighth (28th) day of February, 2019

Calendar Case No. 398 of 2014

Between:

The State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station.…Complainant

And

1. Nandhi Estheramma, W/o. Yacobu, age 40 years, Caste by Madiga, Anganwadi Aya, Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A1).

2. Nandhi Yacobu, S/o. Thirapaiah, age 45 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A2).

3. Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka, W/o. Prasad, age 22 years, Caste by Madiga, Ardhaveedu Village, Cumbum Mandal (A3).

..Accused

This case has came before me on 25-02-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri B.

Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station laid charge sheet in crime No. 122/2014 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused 1 to 3.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that L.W.1/Nandhi

Rajamma and the accused 1 to 3 are the residents of SC Palem of Yerrabalem village of Cumbum mandal and they are close relatives each other. On 14-08- 2014 evening at about 18.00 hours, the accused 1 to 3 went to the house of the complainant abused L.W.3/Nandi Estheri who is the daughter in law of

L.W.1 in filthy language on the pretext of their goat, then, L.W.3 asked the accused why they are abusing her on the name of the goat. Then the accused 1 to 3 scolded again saying as “Neevu Enduke Lanja Roshaniki Vatchi

Matladuthunnavu” and tried to beat L.W.3, then L.Ws. 1 & 2 i.e. Nandi 2

Rajamma and Duggepogu Mariyamma tried to rescue L.W.3/Nandi Estheri, meantime A1 beat L.W.1 with a blowpipe on her head and caused bleeding injury, then, A2 took a stick and beat L.W.2 on her left side eye as a result she received swelling injury, and the accused A3 scolded Nandi Rajamma,

Duggepogu Mariyamma, Nandi Estheri (L.Ws. 1 to 3) in filthy language. On hearing the shouts of L.Ws. 1 to 3, immediately Mekala Prabhavathi and

Gurram Ravi (L.Ws. 4 & 5) went there and rescued them from the hands of A1 to A3. Thereafter, Nandi Rani and Nandi Suresh shifted L.Ws. 1 & 2 to

Government Hospital, Cumbum and admitted in the hospital for treatment.

3.On 14-08-2014 at about 21.30 hours, L.W.8/Ch. Hazarathaiah, S.I. of

Police received hospital intimation of L.Ws.1 & 2 from L.W.6/Dr. B.V. Ranga

Rao, immediately he sent L.W.7/K. Venkateswarlu, HC-983 to record the statement of the L.W.1. L.W.7 rushed to C.H.C., Cumbum and got recorded the statement of L.W.1. Then, L.W.8 registered the statement of L.W.1/Nandi

Rajamma as a case in Cr. No. 122/2014 u/sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. of Cumbum

P.S. on 15-08-2014 submitted the Original F.I.R. along with statement of L.W.1 to the Court and remaining copies of F.I.R. to all concerned officers and investigated into.

4.During the course of investigation on 15-08-2014 L.W.8/Ch.

Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police examined Nandi Rajamma Y Duggepogu

Mariyamma (L.Ws.1 & 2) at C.H.C., Cumbum, recorded their statements, visited and observed the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also examined and recorded the statements of Nandi

Esteri, Mekala Prabhavathi and Gurram Ravi (L.Ws. 3 to 5). On 25-08-2014

L.W.8 arrested the accused 1 to 3 and sent them for judicial remand. After receipt of wound certificates of L.Ws.1 & 2 issued by L.W.6 and after completion of investigation, L.W.8/Ch. Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3.

3

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused 1 to 3 on 20-10-2014 and issued summons to the accused 1 to 3.

6.After appearance of accused, on 29-10-2014 copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

7.On 18-12-2014 the accused 1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code, charge under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code is framed. The prosecution case read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

8.In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and

Exs.P1 to P8 are got marked.

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, on 31-01-2019 accused 1 to 3 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against them, for which they reported as false and also reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused 1 to 3.

11.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

1 to 3 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.POINT:

In order to prove the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused 1 to 3, the prosecution has to prove that the accused 1 to 3 voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapons to P.Ws.1 & 2.

13. To prove its case, the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. PW.1/Nandhi Rajamma who is defacto complainant 4 and who set criminal law in to motion by way of preferring report to the police, has deposed that about four years ago at about 06.00 pm A1 to A3 abused

P.W.3 on the pretext that they are abusing their goat. Then, P.W.3 questioned them whey they are abused. A1 abused P.W.3 as “Lanja”. Accused beat P.W.1.

Then, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 intervened to rescue her. A1 beat her with blow pipe on her head and caused injury. A2 beat P.W.2 with stick on the left side of eye. P.W.4 & P.W.6 witnessed the incident. They intervened and rescued them from the hands of accused. P.W.1’s son, Mahesh shifted her and her daughter to Government Hospital, Cumbum where the doctor i.e. P.W.8 gave treatment to them. Police recorded P.W.1’s statement under Ex. P1.

14.P.W.2/Duggepogu Mariyamma who is the daughter of P.W.1 has deposed as that of P.W.1 and she further deposed that A3 abused P.W.3 that “Lanjadana Ninnu Yemanna Thinnama”. A1 to A3 came upon P.W.3 to beat her. A1 beat P.W.1 with blow pipe on head and caused injury. A2 beat her with the blow pipe on the left side of eye and caused injury. P.W.4 & P.W.6 witnessed the incident. They rescued them from the hands of accused.

15.P.W.3/Nandi Estheri who is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 has deposed that on 14-08-2014 in between 06.00 and 06.30 pm while she was present at her house, A1 abused her in filthy language in the pretext of abusing her goat on that, she questioned A1 why they are abusing her, then A1 to A3 came and beat her with hands, in the meanwhile P.Ws. 1 & 2 came and questioned them why they are beating P.W.1. Then A1 beat P.W.1 with blow pipe (Udurugottamu) on her head, due to which she sustained bleeding injury.

Later P.Ws. 1 & 2 shifted to Government Hospital, Cumbum for treatment by

Rani, Suresh and Mahesh and police examined her.

16.On perusal of entire evidence on record P.W.1 to 3 gave inconsistent statement about the over tacts and also abusing words by th accused. P.W.1 deposed that A1 beat her with blow pipe on her head and caused injury. A2 beat P.W.2 with stick on the left side of eye. Whereas P.W.2 deposed that A1 5 beat P.W.1 with blow pipe on head and caused injury and A2 beat her with the blow pipe on the left side of eye and caused injury and also deposed that A1 to A3 came upon P.W.3 to beat her. P.W.3 deposed that A1 to A3 beat her with hands and A1 beat P.W.1 with blow pipe (Udurugottamu) on her head, due to which she sustained bleeding injury.

17.P.W.8 who is the Doctor has deposed that he found small laceration injury on parietal reason of scalp of P.W.1 and he found contusion injury on left side ½ Cm X ½ Cm with reddish brown in colour of P.W.2 and those injuries are simple in nature. Further there is no medical evidence about the injuries sustained by P.W.3. So the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 not corroborated with the medical evidence. Further deposed that A1 abused P.W.3 as “Lanja”. P.W.2 deposed that A3 abused P.W.3 as “Lanjadana Ninnu Yemanna

Thinnama”.Whereas P.W.3 deposed that A1 abused her in filthy language and she has not stated the word “Lanja”. So, P.W.1 to 3 deposed deference version about abusing words towards them by the accused.

18. According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident was happened in the presence of P.Ws. 4 & 6. But P.Ws. 4 & 6 turned hostile, they did not state anything against the accused. During cross examination by learned A.P.P nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. Admittedly the accused and the defacto complainant are own relatives and both are residing in the same village. Further during cross examination P.W.1 deposed that there are disputes in between her and accused with regard to the hut (Kottam).

19.Apart from the above, the accused and the Defacto Complainant preferred criminal cases against each other. The present case is a counter case which was preferred by the accused vide C.C. 446/2014. In such case, there may be a chance to prefer false cases against each other. The contention of the accused is that to counter blast the case preferred by them a false case has been initiated against them vide C.C. No. 446/2014. Further, there is no incriminating material seized by the Investigation Officer to 6 connect the accused for the alleged offence. In such case how this court could connect the accused for the alleged offence under section 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

20.In the light of the above facts and circumstances it goes to show that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the required ingredients for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused 1 to 3. Thus, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are liable to be acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

21.In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my Dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2019.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1: Nandi Rajamma, -NIL- P.W.2: Duggepogu Mariyamma, P.W.3: Nandi Estheri, P.W.4: Mekala Prabhavathi, P.W.5: K. Venkateswarlu, HC-983, P.W.6: Gurram Ravi, P.W.7: Ch. Hazarathaiah, S.I. of Police, P.W.8: Dr. B.V. Ranga Rao.

7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex. P.1: Statement of P.W.1, -NIL- Ex. P.2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex. P.3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6, Ex. P.4: Hospital Intimation, Ex. P.5: F.I.R., Ex. P.6: Rough sketch, Ex. P.7: Wound Certificate of P.W.1, Ex. P.8: Wound Certificate of P.W.2.

Material objects marked for

Prosecution: Defence:

NIL NIL

P.J.C.J., GDLR,

FAC: A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR.

Copy submitted to the Honourable 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

8

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 398 of 2014 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 14-08-2014

2. Date of Report: 15-08-2014

3. Date of arrest of accused: 25-08-2014

4. Date of release: 25-08-2014

5. Date of commencement of trial : 26-07-2018

6. Date of close of trial: 31-01-2019

7. Date of Judgment: 28-02-2019

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police, Cumbum Police Station

9. Accused:

1. Nandhi Estheramma, W/o. Yacobu, age 40 years, Caste by Madiga, Anganwadi Aya, Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A1).

2. Nandhi Yacobu, S/o. Thirapaiah, age 45 years, Caste by Madiga, Coolie, Yerrabalem Village, Cumbum Mandal (A2).

3. Dasari Anitha @ Chinnakka, W/o. Prasad, age 22 years, Caste by Madiga, Ardhaveedu Village, Cumbum Mandal (A3).

10. Offences: 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the

offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code

for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 as well as

their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from

the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 20-10-2014 for the offence u/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused 1 to 3. After appearance of the accused 1 to 3, on 29-10-2014, copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 18-12-2014, accused 1 to 3 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.8 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P8. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 31-01-2019, accused 1 to 3 were examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. On 07-02-2019 heard arguments of prosecution. On 25-02-2019 heard the arguments of defence. On 28-02-2019 Judgment pronounced.

Hence the delay.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

9

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : GIDDALUR

Present: Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur,

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Monday, this the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of February, 2019

Calendar Case No. 33 of 2017

Between: The State represented through Proh. & Excise Inspector, Cumbum.…Complainant

And

Donth Chinna Anjaneyulu, S/o. Seshaiah, Aged 32 years, Caste by Gowda, R/o. Papinenipalli, Ardhaveeduf Mandal, Prakasam District. … Accused

This case has came before me on 21-02-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri P.J.V.

Prabhudas, Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Cumbum laid charge sheet in P.R.

No. 45/2015-16 against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 24-09- 2015 while L.W.3/M. Sri Nagesh, P & E Sub Inspector along with his staff K.V.

Rami Reddy and Shaik Shamsheer-P & E Constables (L.Ws. 1 & 2), conducting raids to detect the prohibition and excise offences and while reaching near the scene of offence place at the out skirts of Papinenipalli Village of

Ardhaveedu Mandal, at about 10.00 am, then L.W.3 found the accused having in possession one white plastic can on his right hand on seeing the excise officials, he tried to skulk away from the spot. Then, L.W.3/M. Sri Nagesh, P &

E Sub Inspector detained the said accused and on eqnuiry he stated that he is having I.D. arrack and also stated about his address and identity particulars and also he confessed the offence. Then, L.W.3 sent L.W.1/K.V.

Rami Reddy, P & E Constable to secure mediators and after some time he 2 returned to the spot and stated that nobody came forward to act as mediators, V.R.O. and Village President are not available in the village. Then,

L.W.3 verified the said can which contained 10 liters capacity with full of I.D.

arrack. Then L.W.3 took sample into 180 ml bottle for analysis purpose, affixed labels, sealed and seized the property under a cover of special report drafted by L.W.1 at the spot and it is completed by 11.00 am and arrested the accused and brought the accused and case property to the station and registered a case in P.R. No. 45/2015-16 u/sec. 7(A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. act of P & E Station, Cumbum on 24-09-2015 at 12.30 pm submitted the copies of

F.I.R. to all officers and concerned and took up investigation, forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. Later, L.W.4/C. Mallem Kondaiah, P & E Inspector sent sample to the analyst for examination and report and after receiving the report and after completion of investigation, L.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence was taken on 25-01-2017 for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act against accused and issued summons.

4. On appearance of accused, on 17-04-2017 copies of case documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. On appearance of the accused on 09-08-2017 he was examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code. Charge under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act is framed against accused. The prosecution case was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he reported that it is a false case and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in accordance with the law.

6.In order to prove its case the prosecution has been examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 besides M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.1/K.V.

Rami Reddy, P & E Constable and L.W.4/C. Mallem Kondaiah P & E, Inspector 3 was given by the Learned A.P.P. to avoid delay in disposal of case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code on 19-02-2019, and explaining the incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against him, for which he reported as false and also reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination before me is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable under section

7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:-

10. In order to establish the offence under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P.

Act against the accused the prosecution has to prove that possession and selling the I.D. Arrack to the public without having valid license from the concerned authorities.

11.P.W.1/ K.V. Rami Reddy P & E, Constable has deposed that on 24-09- 2015 at 10.00 am he along with L.W.2/Shaik Shamsheer, P.W.2 proceeded for conducting raids for detecting the Excise offences and reached outskirts of

Papinenipalli Village near a bridge of Ardhaveedu Mandal and they found one male person coming opposite direction to them in possession of white plastic can in his right hand and on seeing them, he tried to escape, then they detained him and on enquiry about his particulars, he revealed his name and on further enquiry about the contents of the can, he stated that the can contained I.D. liquor. Then, P.w.2 sent P.W.1 for securing the mediators to

Papinenipalli Village and after some time, he returned and informed to P.W.2 that none came forward to act as mediators and V.R.O. and Village President are not available in the village. Then, P.W.2 verified the can of 10 liters capacity with full of I.D. arrack and P.W.2 lifted 180 ml I.D. arrack as a sample 4 for analaysis purpose, affixed the labels, sealed and seized the sample and property under cover of special report drafted by P.W.1 under Ex. P1 on the dictation of P.W.2 and arrested the accused brought the accused along with case property to Excise station, Cumbum. M.O.1 is the Sample bottle of I.D.

arrack.

12.P.W.2/M. Sri Nagesh, P & E Sub Inspector has also reiterated the contents of P.W.1 and he further deposed that he arrested the accused along with case property and registered a case in P. R. 45/2015-16 u/sec. 7 (A) r/w 8

(e) of A.P.P. Act and submitted the F.I.R. to all concerned officers and sent the accused to Court for remand and he sent the sample to the analyst for analysis report and he received report and further investigation was taken over by L.W.4/C. Mallem Kondaiah P & E Inspector and after completion of investigation, L.W. 4 filed charge sheet in the case. During his evidence marked Exs. P2 is the F.I.R. and P3 is the Analysis report.

13.During cross examination of P.W.1, he deposed that in Papinenipalli

Village there are government schools but he had not went to Government

Schools in the said village for securing the mediators. If really, the

Government schools are available in the village, what prevented P.W.1 to secure mediators from Government School. In this regard there is no explanation.

14.Whereas During cross examination of P.W.2, he deposed that at the time of detection of offence, public were not available in and around the scene of offence which are agriculture fields. As per the case of prosecution, the scene of offence took place at about 10.00 am which not an odd time, further there are agricultural fields. So, there is chance of availability of public around the scene of offence. So, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be believable in this regard. Further he admitted that he did not issue any summons for securing mediators at Papinenipalli Village. Then, what 5 prevented P.W.2 to issue summons to secure mediators from the said Village.

In this regard there is no explanation.

15.On the other hand the accused contending that P.W.2 along with his staff never arrested him and seized the I.D. Arrack from his possession and the Special report under Ex. P1 was prepared in the police station and foisted false case against him for statistical purpose. In the present case P.Ws. 1 & 2 are the police officials and interested witnesses. Therefore without corroboration of independent witnesses, how this court could connect the accused for the offence under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act.

16. As discussed above, it can be concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence against the accused without placing the believable evidence. So, it clearly, shows that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act and he is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is liable to be acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal procedure

Code. M.O. 1 i.e. 180 ml sample bottle of I.D. Arrack shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, by the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2019.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence PW.1: K.V. Rami Reddy, P & E, Constable, - None -

PW.2: M. Sri Nagesh, P & E Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1: Special Report, -NIL-

Ex.P2: F.I.R,

Ex.P3: Analysis Report.

Material objects marked for

Prosecution Defence

M.O.1: 180 ml sample bottle of I.D. Arrack.- NIL-

P.J.C.J., GDLR,

FAC: A.J.F.C.M.:GDLR.

Copy submitted to the Honourable 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

7

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 33 of 2017 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1. Date of Offence: 24-09-2015

2. Date of Report: 24-09-2015

3. Date of arrest of accused: 24-09-2015

4. Date of release: 01-10-2015

5. Date of commencement of trial: 22-12-2017

6. Date of close of trial: 19-02-2019

7. Date of Judgment: 25-02-2019

8. Complainant: State: The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Cumbum.

9. Accused: Donth Chinna Anjaneyulu, S/o. Seshaiah, Aged 32 years, Caste by Gowda, R/o. Papinenipalli, Ardhaveeduf Mandal, Prakasam District.

10. Offence: u/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of Court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or Order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

under section 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act and he is acquitted under section

248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said charge. The bail bonds of

the accused as well as his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six

months from the date of this judgment under section 437-A of Criminal

procedure Code. M.O. 1 i.e. 180 ml sample bottle of I.D. Arrack shall be

destroyed after appeal time is over.

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 25-01-2017 for the offence u/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.P. Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, on 17-04-2017, copies of all the documents were furnished to the accused u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 09-08-2017, accused was examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 & 2 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P3 besides M.O.1. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 19-02-2019, accused was examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed. Arguments heard on 21-02-2019. On 25-02-2019 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GIDDALUR,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Wednesday, this the Twenty Fourth (24 th ) day of July, 2019

O.S.No. 151 of 2019

Between:

1. Kancherla Sankaraiah, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 63 years, Branch Post Master,

2. Kancherla Veera Narayana, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 49 years, Coolie, 

Plaintiffs 1 & 2 are Hindu, Ediga by caste, Residents of Gouthavaram Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFFS

AND

Kancherla Nandeeswarudu, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Ediga by caste, Private Teacher, Gouthavaram Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANT

This suit has came before me on 08­07­2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Venkateswara Rao and Smt. N. Ahalya, Advocates for the plaintiffs and the defendant is set exparte; and after perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T / /

1. This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant by restraining the defendant, his men, agents, nominees and his representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. 

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that originally the plaint schedule property i.e. vacant site in Sy. No. 289/1, an extent of Ac. 0.3 cents, out of Ac.

0.2 cents belongs to ancestral property of late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah i.e. father of plaintiffs and defendant. During the life time of their father, he had in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property without anybody interruption. After the death of their father the plaintiffs and defendant are partitioned orally the plaint schedule vacant site total extent in Sy. No. 289/1 2

Ac. 0.3 cents each have got Ac. 0.1 cents. After oral partition, the plaintiffs and defendant are using the vacant site as Vamidoddi. The plaintiffs and defendant are own brothers and recently some family disputes arose in between them.

Due to which the defendant approached the plaintiffs and offered to purchase the plaint schedule property with cheaper rate. For that the plaintiffs did not agree and they denied to sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant. On that the defendant bore grudge against the plaintiffs and he is busy to be created false and fabricated documents over the plaint schedule property and he will try to interfere into the plaint schedule vacant site of the plaintiffs and he will make some constructions in it. The plaintiffs requested the defendant not to interfere into the plaint schedule vacant site. But the defendant deaf ear the words of plaintiffs and recently he laid down the bricks and sand near the plaint schedule vacant site and he is trying to make some constructions in it. The plaintiffs approached the elders and held panchayat in the presence of defendant in the 1st week of this month, then the defendant deaf ear the words of elders. The mediation efforts did not yield any result. Further the defendant is proclaiming in the village that he is owner of the plaint schedule vacant site and he is trying to make constructions in it. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction. Hence this suit.

3.On the other hand the defendant was called absent and no representation.

Hence he was set exparte.

4.The 2nd plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he himself examined as P.W.1. In order to prove their case, they examined one

Marthoti Ramaiah as as P.W. 2 and got marked Ex. A1 on their behalf.

5. Heard. 

6.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought for? 

P O I N T:

3

7. The 2nd plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex. A1. Ex. A1 is the old

Rythuvari Pass book stands in the name of Kancherla Pedda Picchi Kasaiah.

8.P.W.1 deposed that originally the plaint schedule property i.e. vacant site in Sy. No. 289/1, an extent of Ac. 0.3 cents, out of Ac. 0.2 cents belongs to ancestral property of late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah i.e. father of himself, 1st plaintiff and defendant. During the life time of their father, he had in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property without anybody interruption. After the death of their father the 1st plaintiff, P.W.1 and defendant are partitioned orally the plaint schedule vacant site total extent in Sy. No.

289/1 Ac. 0.3 cents each have got Ac. 0.1 cents. After oral partition, the 1st plaintiff, P.W.1 and defendant are using the vacant site as Vamidoddi. The 1st plaintiff, P.W.1 and defendant are own brothers and recently some family disputes arose in between them. Due to which the defendant approached them and offered to purchase the plaint schedule property with cheaper rate. For that the 1st plaintiff and P.W.1 did not agree and they denied to sold the plaint schedule property to the defendant. On that the defendant bore grudge against them and he is busy to be created false and fabricated documents over the plaint schedule property and he will try to interfere into the plaint schedule vacant site of the 1st plaintiff and P.W.1 and he will make some constructions in it. The 1st plaintiff and P.W.1 requested the defendant not to interfere into the plaint schedule vacant site. But the defendant deaf ear the words of them and recently he laid down the bricks and sand near the plaint schedule vacant site and he is trying to make some constructions in it. The 1st plaintiff and P.W.1 approached the elders and held panchayat in the presence of defendant in the 1st week of this month, then the defendant deaf ear the words of elders. The mediation efforts did not yield any result. Further the defendant is proclaiming in the village that he is owner of the plaint schedule vacant site and he is trying 4 to make constructions in it. Hence, the 1st plaintiff and P.W.1 are constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction.

9.In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs examined P.W.2 on their behalf and he also reiterated the evidence of P.W.1.

10.On perusal of the averments of the plaint, the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 coupled with Ex. A1, which prima­facie clearly shows that the plaintiffs 1 & 2 have got possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and shows their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and the defendant is trying to occupy the plaint schedule property. On the other hand there is no material available to this court to disprove the case of the plaintiffs. In view of the above discussion, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs 1 & 2 and against the defendant. 

11.In the result, suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendant, his men, agents, nominees and his representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of July, 2019. 

Sd/­ D. Venkateswarlu Naik, Prl. Junior Civil Judge Giddalur

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT

P.W.1: Kancherla Veera Narayana, ­NONE­ P.W.2: Marthoti Ramaiah.

Exhibits marked for plaintiffs

Ex. A1:The old Rythuvari Pass book stands in the name of Kancherla Pedda Picchi Kasaiah.

Exhibits marked for defendant

NIL

Ild/­ D.V.N., P.J.C.J 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::: GIDDALUR

PRESENT: Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

Wednesday, this the Twenty Fourth (24 th ) day of July, 2019

O.S.No. 151 of 2019

Between:

1. Kancherla Sankaraiah, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 63 years, Branch Post Master,

2. Kancherla Veera Narayana, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 49 years, Coolie, 

Plaintiffs 1 & 2 are Hindu, Ediga by caste, Residents of Gouthavaram Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFFS

AND

Kancherla Nandeeswarudu, S/o. Late Pedda Picchi Kasaiah, aged about 37 years, Hindu, Ediga by caste, Private Teacher, Gouthavaram Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District. …DEFENDANT

This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant by restraining the defendant, his men, agents, nominees and his representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit. 

Plaint presented on : 13­03­2019 Plaint filed on : 13­03­2019

Cause of Action:­ The cause of action for the suit arose in the 1st week of March, 2019 when the defendant is proclaiming in the village that he will try to enter into the plaint schedule property and he will try to make construction in it at Gouthavaram

Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam District, which is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation:­ For the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, the value of the plaint schedule property for the relief of permanent injunction is Rs.10,000/­, on which a court fee of Rs.786/­ is paid U/s.26(c) of APCF and SV Act,1956.

This suit has came before me on 08­07­2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

B. Venkateswara Rao and Smt. N. Ahalya, Advocates for the plaintiffs and the defendant is set exparte; and after perusal of material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree; 6

1)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed, by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendant, his men, agents, nominees and his representatives from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over plaint schedule property; and

2)that the defendant do pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 2,453/­ towards costs of the suit and bearing his own costs. (Plaint schedule is herewith appended to decree)

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 24th day of July, 2019.

Sd/­ D. Venkateswarlu Naik, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Giddalur.

TABLE OF COSTS

For PlaintiffsFor defendant Stamp on Vakalat2­00 Stamp on Plaint786­00- Stamp on Process65­00Set Exparte Advocate fees1,500­00­ Type & writing Charges 100­00- Total2,453­0--

Ild/­ D.V.N., P.J.C.J.

Note: The exhibited documents and non­exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.