Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa

District Court Complex Kadapa · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa, is posted at District Court Complex Kadapa, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,203 court orders on record since 2010. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, MVOP, AS cases.

1,203

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC.SPL/100087/2012 Acquitted

S.H.O. Pendlimarri P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna

03 Apr 2013

In the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Present:- Sri D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy, B.Sc., M.L., First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 3rd day of April, 2013

Special Sessions Case No.87 of 2012.

1.Name of the accused.::1) Duggineni Rama Krishna @ Sanna, 30yearsS/oRamaiah, Ramachandrapuram Village, Kadapa Town.(A1)

2) Duggineni Rama Mohan @ Mohan, 20yearsS/oRaghuram, Ramachandrapuram village, Kadapa Town.(A.2)

3) Kudumula Venkata Reddy, 40 years S/o Konda Reddy, D.No.5/65, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa Town. (A3)

2. Charges framed::Under Sec.136 of Indian Electricity Act framed against the accused.

3. Finding of the Judge::Found not guilty

4. Sentence or order::A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 3 shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437(a) Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of appeal it shall be discharged. The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgement. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

5. Prosecution conducted by::Smt. T. Jayalakshmi Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Name of the Advocate for ::Sri G. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate. accused.

7. Crime No. and name of the police ::Cr.No.64/12 85/12 and 86/2012 of station.Pendlimarry P.S.,

8. Committed by::--

J u d g e m e n t 2Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012

The case against the accused is for the alleged offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.64, 85 and 86 of 2012 of

Pendlimarry Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on the intervening night of 17.5.2012 at Konduru village fields, on 19.6.2012 at Kondur and

Cheemalapenta village fields and on 20.6.2012 at Pathasangatipalli, Yenuguvaripalli,

Rampathadu and Moillakaluva villages, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and on information about such incidents, the Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., at Pendlimarry mandal visited the places of occurrence and confirmed about the theft and gave complaints at Pendlimarri police station, basing on such complaints the cases in Cr.Nos.64, 85 and 86 of 2012 under section 379 or 411 I.P.C., and under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act registered. During the course of investigation on 12.7.2012 at 11.30

A.M., A.1 to A.3 were arrested near Tadigotla cross road on Kadapa – Pulivendula main road by Madhumalleswara Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne Police

Station in the presence of Kogatam Venkata Subba Reddy and Eaga Yugandhar

Reddy and on interrogation, the accused confessed about the offences at the villages in the limits of Pendlimarri Mandal as stated above, besides at other villages of C.K.,

Dinne Mandal. Basing on such confession of the accused the stolen copper wire was seized from the possession of the accused and the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pendlimarry police station identified the recovered stolen copper wire in the above referred crimes. The accused were produced for judicial remand in the crimes registered at C.K. Dinne Police Station. On 18.7.2012 on the requisition of the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station, A.1 to A.3 secured on P.T., warrants and they were remanded to judicial custody in the above referred crimes also.

Ultimately the charge sheet is laid against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused and after securing the presence of all the accused before this court copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 3Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012 207 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing both sides a charge under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act, framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial in support of the case of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 marked.

5. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses and stated that they have no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is:- (1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

.8. Point:- Basing on the allegations in the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 17.5.2012 at the fields of Konduru, on 19.6.2012 at the fields of

Konduru and Cheemalapenta and on 20.6.2012 at the fields of Pathasangatipalli,

Yenguvaripalli, Rampathadu and Moillakaluva villages there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and that on 12.7.2012 near Tadigotla cross road, A.1 to A.3 confessed about the above offences and produced a portion of the stolen property from their possession, a charge under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act framed.

9. Therefore, the crucial points for determination are (1) Whether on 17.5.2012 and 19.6.2012 and 20.6.2012 at the fields of Kondur, Cheemalapenta,

Pathasangatipalli, Yenuguvaripalli, Rampathadu and Moillakaluva villages, there was theft of copper winding wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. (2) if so, whether on 12.7.2012 at Tadigotla cross, basing on the confession of A.1 to A.3 a portion of the stolen copper wire was seized to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act or not?

10. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1, P. Adi Narayana, the then Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Pendlimarri Mandal in his evidence stated 4Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012 that on 18.5.2012 on the informationby M. Subhadra and Ramakrishna Rddy about the theft of copper wire by breaking the transformer at Kondur village, he along with his staff visited the place of occurrence, confirmed about the theft and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint. Ex.P.2 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the complaints of the above said consumers and that on 20.6.2012 on the complaint of N. Sreeramulu of Kondur village and Gangireddy, Pullareddy of Cheemalapenta village about the theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers, he along with his staff visited the said villages and found two transformers broken and copper wire was taken away from them, he lodged Ex.P.5 complaint by enclosing Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.6 rough sketches of the scene of offence and Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 complaints of the consumers.

11. P.W.4, G. Subbarayudu, the then Assistant Engineer, Pendlimarry

Mandal, in his evidence stated that on 21.6.2012 on the complaints by K. Chandra

Obula Reddy, G. Sekhara Reddy, K. Ramu, B. Mallareddy, A. Rama Subbareddy,

K.C. Balireddy and G. Chenna Reddy regarding the theft of copper wire by breaking transformers at their respective village fields which are marked as Ex.P.11 to

Ex.P.17, he visited the scene of offences and at Mollikaluva, Pathasangatipalli village lodged Ex.P.18 complaint along with Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 rough sketches .

12. The evidence of P.W.5, D.K. Javeed, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Pendlimarry Police Station is disclosing that basing on Ex.P.1 complaint registered the case under Ex.P.21 F.I.R., and prepared Ex.P.22 rough sketch of the scene of offence. Basing on Ex.P.5 complaint of P.W.1, on 21.6.2012 he registered case under Ex.P.23 F.I.R., and prepared Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 rough sketches of the scene of offence. On 23.6.2012 basing on Ex.P.18 complaint of P.W.4, he registered the case in Cr.No.86 of 2012 and prepared rough sketches of the scene of offence under Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.32.

13. Thus basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.32, it is concluded that the prosecution proved that on 18.5.2012 at Kondur and on 5Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012 19.6.2012 at Kondur and Cheemalapenta and on 20.6.2012 at Pathasangatipalli,

Yenuguvaripalli, Rampathadu and Moillakaluva villages, there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the portion of the stolen copper wire bundles seized during the course of investigation of the cases.

14. Further the case of the prosecution against the accused is that because M.O.1 to M.O.3 are seized basing on the confession of the accused to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act, they are the thieves or receivers of the stolen property, therefore, the burden is heavily casts upon the prosecution to prove the alleged seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3 from the possession of the accused basing upon their confession.

15. But on the above aspect, P.W.2, K. Venkata Subba Reddy, no doubt stated that on 12.7.2012 at 11.00 A.M., three persons were apprehended at

Rampathadu, Sangatipalli, Kondur villages, under Ex.P.10 panchanama attested by him. But P.W.2 categorically stated that he cannot identify the above said culprits referred in Ex.P.10 among the accused standing before the court.

16. P.W.3, E. Yugandhara Reddy, the other panch witness in his evidence categorically stated that he do not know A.1 to A.3, but he signed on

Ex.P.10 at crime police station, Kadapa and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.10 and they do not occur in his presence.

17. The above referred hostile evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 the independent panch witnesses caused doubt in the credibility of the evidence of

P.W.6 Madhumalleswara Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne Police

Station, who said to have apprehended the accused and seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 under cover of Ex.P.10 panchanama and the relevant portion in Ex.P.10 is marked as Ex.P.33 to Ex.P.35. Further the cross examination of P.W.6, it is elicited that he 6Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012 has not seized the tools alleged to have been used for breaking the transformers. It is true that M.O.1 to M.O.3 were not verified with reference to the transformers where the copper wire was removed.

18. Thus the scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.6, in the light of the hostile evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is disclosing that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged fact of recovery of M.O.1 to M.O.3 basing upon the confession of the accused to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act beyond all reasonable doubt and thus by extending benefit of doubt it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 3 shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437(a) Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of appeal it shall be discharged. The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgement. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

(sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.w.1:P. Adinarayana

P.w.2:K. Venkata Reddy

P.w.3:E. Ugandar Reddy

P.w.4:G. Subbarayudu 7Spl.S.C.No.87 of 2012

P.w.5:D.K. Javeed

P.w.6:Madhu Malleswara Reddy

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION.

Ex.P.1:Complaint in Cr.No.64/12

Ex.P.2:Sketch

Ex.P.3:Complaint of M. Subhadra

Ex.P.4:Complaint of P. Ramakrishna Reddy

Ex.P.5:Complaint in Cr.no.85/12

Ex.P.6:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.7: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.8:Complaint of N. Sreeramulu

Ex.P.9:Complaint of S. Gangireddy

Ex.P.10:Panchanama dT. 12.7.2012 at 11.30 a.m.,

Ex.P.11 to 17: Statements of consumers

Ex.P.18:Complaint in Cr.NO.86/12

Ex.P.19&20: Rough Sketches

Ex.P.21FIR in Cr.No.64/12

Ex.P.22:Rough Sketch in Cr.No.64/12

Ex.P.23:FIR in Cr.No.85/12

Ex.P.24&25: Two Rough Sketches

Ex.P.26:FIR in Cr.No.86/12

Ex.P.27 to .32: Six Statements in cr.No.86/12

Ex.P.33 to P.35: Relevant portions in Ex.P.10.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: -- nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1:10 Kgs of Copper wire

MO.2:12 Kgs. of Copper wire.

MO.3:40 Kgs of copper wire. (sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

I ADDL. S.J.

SC.SPL/100001/2013 Acquitted

S.H.O. Mannur P.S. vs Settypalli Ramana

03 Apr 2013

In the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Present:- Sri D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy, B.Sc., M.L., First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

Special Sessions Case No.1 of 2013.

1. Name of the accused.::Settypalli Ramana S/o Subbaiah, aged 30 years, Caste by SC-Madiga, coolie, native of Kommanavaripalli A.Wada Village, Pullampet Mandal.

2. Charges framed::Under Sec.136 of Indian Electricity Act framed against the accused.

3. Finding of the Judge::Found not guilty

4. Sentence or order::The accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., The accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgment. M.O.1 to M.O.3shallbereturnedto A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

5. Prosecution conducted by::Smt. T. Jayalakshmi Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Name of the Advocate for ::Sri Y.V. Seshaiah, Advocate appointed accusedas State Brief counsel.

7. Crime No. and name of the police ::Cr.No.193/2011 of Mannur P.S., station.

8. Committed by::-- J u d g e m e n t

The case against the accused is for the alleged offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.193 of 2011 of Mannur Police

Station.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on the intervening night of 25/26.12.2011, the accused went to the fields of B. Pedda

Subbarayudu at Mannur village broke open the electrical transformer of 2Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2013

A.P.S.P.D.C.L., committed theft of 24 Kgs., of copper winding wire from the said transformer. On the information about such fact to P. Chandra Sekhar Raju, lineman and on his advice the said Subbarayudu submitted a report with the above facts to R.

Vijayakumar Reddy, Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Rajampet, in turn he inspected the scene of offence confirmed about the theft and presented a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mannur Police Station and basing on such report the case in Cr.No.193 of 2011 under section 379 I.P.C., and under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act registered. During the course of investigation on 26.3.2012 the Sub-

Inspector of Police, secured panch witnesses proceeded to K. Boyanapalli cross road on Tirupati – Kadapa by-pass road, found the accused standing there with a hand bag and tried to ran away on seeing the police, he apprehended him with the help of his staff and interrogated him and recorded his voluntary confession statement leading to the seizure of 3Kgs., stolen copper wire from the hand bag with the accused under panchanama attested by J. Nageswara Raju and S. Ramana. The accused was sent for judicial remand. Ultimately the charge sheet is laid against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused. Upon securing the presence of the accused before this court copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207

Cr.P.C., and upon hearing both sides, a charge under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act, framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial in support of the case of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.3 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 marked.

5. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses and stated that he has no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is:- 3Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2013 (1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

.8. Point:- Basing on the allegations in the case of the prosecution to the effect that on the intervening night of 25/26.12.2011 at the fields of Mannur village there was theft of 24 Kgs., of copper winding wire by breaking the transformer of

A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and that on 26.3.2012 near K. Boyanapalli cross road on Tirupati –

Kadapa by pass road basing on the confession of the accused a portion of the copper wire was seized leading to the presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence

Act, a charge under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act framed.

9. Therefore, the crucial points for determination are (1) whether on the intervening night of 25/26.12.2011 at Mannur village fields there was theft of 24 Kgs., copper winding wire by breaking the transformer of A.P.S.P.D.C.L.? (2) if so, whether on 26.3.2012 at K. Boyanapalli bypass road on Tirupati – Kadapa main road such stolen property was seized from the possession of the accused leading to the presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act or not?

10. As seen from the evidence on record P.W.1, R. Vijayakumar Reddy,

Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Rajampet in his evidence stated that on 27.12.2011 B. Pedda Subbarayudu presented Ex.P.1 complaint to him, then he visited the place of occurrence situated by the side of Mannur by-pass road and found 16 KVA transformer of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., broken and committed theft of copper wire from it, then he lodged Ex.P.2 complaint with the police.

11. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that he did not prepare any panchanama at the scene of offence, he did not find any tools used for breaking the transformer. He admitted the suggestion to the effect that for breaking the transformer more than one technically skilled persons are required. When specifically confronted whether the accused standing before the court could break the transformer as alleged in Ex.P.2, he stated that he cannot say. Further he stated that police did not show him the alleged recovery of the stolen copper wire. He did 4Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2013 not produce any record regarding the erection of the transformer at the alleged scene of offence place.

12. The above points elicited in the evidence of P.W.1 are disclosing that the prosecution could not prove the fact that M.O.1 which is 3Kgs., of copper wire is the stolen copper wire referred by P.W.1 in Ex.P.2 complaint with details of 24

Kgs., weight. In the absence of P.W.1 identifying M.O.1 as the stolen copper wire referred in Ex.P.2, the prosecution failed to prove the character of M.O.1 as the stolen property concerned with the theft on 26.12.2011 at Mannur village fields.

13. On the other point to be proved regarding the seizure of M.O.1, stolen copper wire from the possession of the accused basing upon his alleged confession, P.W.2, independent panch witness stated that he signed on Ex.P.3 panchanama for seizure of copper wire at Mannur police station and he do not know the contents there on, later he stated that on 26.3.2012 at 8.00 A.M., he along with another panch witness was waiting at Boyanapalli by the side of bus stop, then the

Sub-Inspector of Police and his staff came in a jeep and found the accused leaving a bag and tried to ran away, then the police apprehended the accused and interrogated him and recorded his confession about the theft of copper wire, then the Sub-

Inspector of Police, seized the copper wire and for the above proceedings Ex.P.3 is the panchanama, M.O.1 is the copper wire seized under Ex.P.3. In the different portions of the above statement of P.W.2 there are inconsistencies. Initially P.W.2 stated that he signed on Ex.P.3 panchanama at Mannur Police Station. In the later portion he stated that for the seizure of M.O.1 copper wire under Ex.P.3 at

K.Boyanapalli he signed on Ex.P.3.

14. In the cross examination of P.W.2 he stated that he did not see whether the accused was running away with the bag, the weight of the bag was not verified, and no panch slips was affixed to the said bag. Ultimately it is suggested to him that he obliged the police and he signed on Ex.P.3 and he is deposing falsely.

15. From the points elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 there is more probability in the suggestion made to him that P.W.3, the then Sub-Inspector of 5Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2013

Police, Mannur Police Station categorically stated that he received information about the movements of the culprits at K.Boyanapalli junction, then he secured P.W.2 and one Ramana and proceeded to K. Boyanapalli junction, there he found the accused having plastic bag with copper wire and then he interrogated and recorded the confession of the accused and on production of 3 Kgs., of copper wire he seized the same under cover of panchanama attested by P.W.2 and another which is Ex.P.3.

16. In the cross examination of P.W.3 on behalf of the accused, it is elicited that there are variations in the version regarding the weight of the stolen copper wire which was referred as 24 Kgs., in Ex.P.2, where as it is referred as 20

Kgs., in Ex.P.3. When specifically confronted about the less quantity of seized copper wire P.W.3 stated that he could not trace the remaining stolen property except M.O.1. He denied the suggestion that the single person like the accused cannot commit breaking of the transformer and taking away the copper wire.

However he admitted that in Ex.P.2 it is referred that several persons committed the offence. He admitted that he did not secure the pancha witnesses from the alleged place of seizure. As seen from Ex.P.3 panchanama the accused sold the part of the stolen copper wire for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, but in the cross examination of P.W.3, he stated that he has not seized the cash of Rs.2,000/- referred by the accused in

Ex.P.3 panchanama.

17. All the above referred inconsistent versions in the evidence of

P.W.2 independent panch witness, P.W.3 as investigation officer who effected the alleged seizure of the stolen M.O.1 are disclosing that the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt even regarding proof of the fact of the alleged seizure at the instance of the accused to draw a presumption.

18. In conclusion of the findings in the earlier paras ultimately it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly he is acquitted under 6Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2013 section 235(1) Cr.P.C., The accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgment. M.O.1 to M.O.3 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

(sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.w.1:R. Vijaya Kumar Reddy

P.w.2:S. Ramana

P.w.3:D. SReenivas.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION.

Ex.P.1:Complaint of A.E.

Ex.P.2:Complaint given to police

Ex.P.3:Panchanama Date 26.3.2012 at 8.00 a.m.,

Ex.P.4:FIR in Cr.No.193/2011

Ex.P.5:Rough Sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: -- nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1:3 Kgs of copper wire. (sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

I ADDL. S.J.

SC.SPL/100009/2013 Acquitted

S.H.O. Chennur P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna

03 Apr 2013

In the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Present:- Sri D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy, B.Sc., M.L., First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 3rd day of April, 2013

Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2013.

1.Name of the accused.::1) Duggineni Rama Krishna @ Sanna, 30yearsS/oRamaiah, Ramachandrapuram Village, Kadapa Town.(A1)

2) Duggineni Rama Mohan @ Mohan, 20yearsS/oRaghuram, Ramachandrapuram village, Kadapa Town.(A.2)

3) Kudumula Venkata Reddy, 40 years S/o Konda Reddy, D.No.5/65, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa Town. (A3)

2. Charges framed::Under Sec.136 of Indian Electricity Act framed against the accused.

3. Finding of the Judge::Found not guilty

4. Sentence or order::A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 3 shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437(a) Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of appeal it shall be discharged. The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

5. Prosecution conducted by::Smt. T. Jayalakshmi Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Name of the Advocate for ::Sri G. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate. accused.

7. Crime No. and name of the police ::Cr.No.53/2012 of Chennur P.S., station.

8. Committed by::-- J u d g e m e n t

The case against the accused is for the alleged offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.53 of 2012 of Chennur Police

Station.

2Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2013

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on the intervening night of 10.7.2012 at Obulampalli village fields, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and on information about such incidents, the Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., at

Chennur mandal visited the places of occurrence and confirmed about the theft and gave complaint at Chennur police station, basing on such complaints the cases in

Cr.Nos.53 of 2012 under section 379 or 411 I.P.C., and under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act registered. During the course of investigation on 12.7.2012 at 11.30

A.M., A.1 to A.3 were arrested near Tadigotla cross road on Kadapa – Pulivendula main road by Madhumalleswara Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne Police

Station in the presence of Kogatam Venkata Subba Reddy and Eaga Yugandhar

Reddy and on interrogation, the accused confessed about the offences at the villages in the limits of Pendlimarri Mandal as stated above, besides at other villages of C.K.,

Dinne Mandal. Basing on such confession of the accused the stolen copper wire was seized from the possession of the accused and the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station, A.1 to A.3 secured on P.T., warrants and they were remanded to judicial custody in the above referred crimes also.

Ultimately the charge sheet is laid against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused and after securing the presence of all the accused before this court copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing both sides a charge under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act, framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial in support of the case of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and M.O.1 marked.

3Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2013

5. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses and stated that they have no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

.8. Point:- Basing on the allegations in the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 10.7.2012 at the fields of Obulampalli village, there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and that on 12.7.2012 near

Tadigotla cross road, A.1 to A.3 confessed about the above offences and produced a portion of the stolen property from their possession, a charge under section 136 of

Indian Electricity Act framed.

9. Therefore, the crucial points for determination are (1) Whether on 10.7.2012 at the fields of Obulampalli village, there was theft of copper winding wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L. (2) if so, whether on 12.7.2012 at

Tadigotla cross, basing on the confession of A.1 to A.3 a portion of the stolen copper wire was seized to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act or not?

10. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1, S. Udaya Kumar, the then Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Chennur Mandal in his evidence stated that on 11.7.2012 on the information by C. Venkata Subbaiah, Lineman about the theft of copper wire by breaking the transformer at Obulamaplli village, he along with his staff visited the place of occurrence, confirmed about the theft and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint. Ex.P.2 is the gage certificate and M.O.1 is the 6Kgs., of copper wire.

11. The evidence of P.W.5, B.V. Sashirekha the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Chennur Police Station is disclosing that basing on Ex.P.1 complaint registered the case under Ex.P.5 F.I.R., and prepared Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 rough sketches of the scene of offence.

4Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2013

12. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 and the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7, it is concluded that the prosecution proved that on 10.7.2012 at the fields of Obulampalli village, there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and M.O.1 is the portion of the stolen copper wire bundles seized during the course of investigation of the cases.

13. Further the case of the prosecution against the accused is that because M.O.1 is seized basing on the confession of the accused to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act, they are the thieves or receivers of the stolen property, therefore, the burden is heavily casts upon the prosecution to prove the alleged seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused basing upon their confession.

14. But on the above aspect, P.W.3, K. Venkata Subba Reddy, no doubt stated that on 12.7.2012 at 11.00 A.M., three persons were apprehended at

15. P.W.2, E. Yugandhara Reddy, the other panch witness in his evidence categorically stated that he do not know A.1 to A.3, but he signed on

Ex.P.10 at crime police station, Kadapa and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.10 and they do not occur in his presence.

16. The above referred hostile evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 the independent panch witnesses caused doubt in the credibility of the evidence of

P.W.8 Madhumalleswara Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne Police

Station, who said to have apprehended the accused and seized M.O.1 under cover of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8 panchanama. Further in the cross examination of P.W.8, it is 5Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2013 elicited that he has not seized the tools alleged to have been used for breaking the transformers. It is true that M.O.1 was not verified with reference to the transformers where the copper wire was removed.

17. Thus from the scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.8, in the light of the hostile evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 it is disclosed that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged fact of recovery of M.O.1 basing upon the confession of the accused to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act, beyond all reasonable doubt and thus by extending benefit of doubt it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 3 shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437(a) Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of appeal it shall be discharged. The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgment. M.O.1 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

(sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.w.1:S. Uadaya Kumar

P.w.2:E. Ugandhar Reddy

P.w.3:K. Subbareddy

P.w.4:R. Venkata Subba Reddy

P.w.5:B.V. Sashurekha 6Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2013

P.w.6:R. Bhaskara Reddy

P.w.7:M. Rajagopal, S.I.

P.w.8:A. Madhu Malleswara Reddy

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION.

Ex.P.1:Complaint given to SHO

Ex.P.2:Gage Certificate

Ex.P.3:Panchanama dated 12.7.2012

Ex.P.4:Panchanama

Ex.P.5:FIR

Ex.P.6:Rough Sketch

Ex.P.7: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.8:Relevant portion in Ex.P.3.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: -- nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1:Copper wire (sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

I ADDL. S.J.

SC.SPL/100069/2012 Acquitted

S.H.O. C.K.Dinne P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna

03 Apr 2013

In the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Present:- Sri D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy, B.Sc., M.L., First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 3rd day of April, 2013

Special Sessions Case No.69 of 2012.

1.Name of the accused.::1) Duggineni Rama Krishna @ Sanna, 30yearsS/oRamaiah, Ramachandrapuram Village, Kadapa Town.(A1)

2) Duggineni Rama Mohan @ Mohan, 20yearsS/oRaghuram, Ramachandrapuram village, Kadapa Town.(A.2)

3) Kudumula Venkata Reddy, 40 years S/o Konda Reddy, D.No.5/65, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa Town. (A3)

2. Charges framed::Under Sec.136 of Indian Electricity Act framed against the accused.

3. Finding of the Judge::Found not guilty

4. Sentence or order::A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 and 3 shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437(a) Cr.P.C., and thereafter in the absence of appeal it shall be discharged. The accused No.2 shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case by obtaining a personal bond for Rs.5,000/- as contemplated under section 437 Cr.P.C., for his appearance in the proceedings of the appeal if any filed against this judgement. M.O.1 shall be returned to A.P.S.P.D.C.L., through the officer nominated by it after appeal time is over.

5. Prosecution conducted by::Smt. T. Jayalakshmi Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. Name of the Advocate for ::Sri G. Ramesh Reddy, Advocate. accused.

7. Crime No. and name of the police ::Cr.No.111/12 of C.K. Dinne P.S., station.

8. Committed by::-- J u d g e m e n t

The case against the accused is for the alleged offence punishable under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act in Cr.No.111 of 2012 of C.K., Dinne Police

Station.

2Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2012

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on the intervening night of 14/15.6.2012 at Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli village fields, some unknown offenders committed theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and on information about such incidents, the

Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., at C.K., Dinne mandal visited the places of occurrence and confirmed about the theft and gave complaint at C.K., Dinne police station, basing on such complaints the cases in Cr.Nos.111 of 2012 under section 379 or 411 I.P.C., and under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act registered. During the course of investigation on 12.7.2012 at 11.30 A.M., A.1 to A.3 were arrested near

Tadigotla cross road on Kadapa – Pulivendula main road by Madhumalleswara

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne Police Station in the presence of

Kogatam Venkata Subba Reddy and Eaga Yugandhar Reddy and on interrogation, the accused confessed about the offences at the villages in the limits of Pendlimarri

Mandal as stated above, besides at other villages of C.K., Dinne Mandal. Basing on such confession of the accused the stolen copper wire was seized from the possession of the accused and the Sub-Inspector of Police, C.K., Dinne police station identified the recovered stolen copper wire in the above referred crimes. The accused were produced for judicial remand in the crimes registered at C.K. Dinne

Police Station. Ultimately the charge sheet is laid against the accused.

3. The case is taken on file under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act against the accused and after securing the presence of all the accused before this court copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing both sides a charge under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act, framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial in support of the case of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and M.O.1 marked.

3Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2012

5. When examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution side witnesses and stated that they have no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

.8. Point:- Basing on the allegations in the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 14/15.6.2012 in the fields of Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli villages there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of

A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and that on 12.7.2012 near Tadigotla cross road, A.1 to A.3 confessed about the above offences and produced a portion of the stolen property from their possession, a charge under section 136 of Indian Electricity Act framed.

9. Therefore, the crucial points for determination are (1) Whether on 14/15.6.2012 in the fields of Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli villages, there was theft of copper winding wire by breaking the transformers of A.P.S.P.D.C.L.

(2) if so, whether on 12.7.2012 at Tadigotla cross, basing on the confession of A.1 to

A.3 a portion of the stolen copper wire was seized to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act or not?

10. As seen from the evidence on record, P.W.1, A. Ramabhadraiah, the then Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., C.K., Dinne Mandal in his evidence stated that on 14/15.6.2012 on the information by consumer of Balupalli,

Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli about the theft of copper wire by breaking the transformer at Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli villages, he along with his staff visited the place of occurrence, confirmed about the theft and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint. Ex.P.2 is the gage certificate and M.O.1 is the 15 Kgs., of copper wire in four bundles.

11. The evidence of P.W.2, M.P. Narasimhulu, Head Constable, C.K.,

Dnne, Police Station is disclosing that basing on Ex.P.1 complaint registered the 4Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2012 case under Ex.P.3 F.I.R., and prepared Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 rough sketches of the scene of offence.

12. Thus basing on the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 it is concluded that the prosecution proved that on 14/15.6.2012 at Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and

Buggaletipalli villages, there was theft of copper wire by breaking the transformers of

A.P.S.P.D.C.L., and M.O.1 is the portion of the stolen copper wire bundles seized during the course of investigation of the cases.

14. But on the above aspect, P.W.3, K. Venkata Subba Reddy, no doubt stated that on 12.7.2012 at 11.00 A.M., three persons were apprehended at

Tadigotla cross road and four bags were seized basing upon the confession of those apprehended culprits to the effect that they committed theft of the said copper wire by breaking the transformers at Balupalli, Boddedulapalli and Buggaletipalli villages, under Ex.P.7 panchanama attested by him. But P.W.2 categorically stated that he cannot identify the above said culprits referred in Ex.P.7 among the accused standing before the court.

15. P.W.5, E. Yugandhara Reddy, the other panch witness in his evidence categorically stated that he do not know A.1 to A.3, but he signed on Ex.P.7 at crime police station, Kadapa and he do not know the contents of Ex.P.7 and they do not occur in his presence.

16. The above referred hostile evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 the independent panch witnesses caused doubt in the credibility of the evidence of

P.W.4 D.K., Javeed and P.W.6 Madhumalleswara Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of 5Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2012

Police, C.K., Dinne Police Station, who said to have apprehended the accused and seized M.O.1 under cover of Ex.P.7 panchanama and the relevant portion in Ex.P.7 is marked as Ex.P.8. Further the cross examination of P.W.6, it is elicited that he has not seized the tools alleged to have been used for breaking the transformers. It is true that M.O.1 was not verified with reference to the transformers where the copper wire was removed.

17. Thus the scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.6, in the light of the hostile evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 is disclosing that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged fact of recovery of M.O.1 basing upon the confession of the accused to draw a presumption under section 114(a) of Evidence Act beyond all reasonable doubt and thus by extending benefit of doubt it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 136 of Indian

Electricity Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

(sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

First Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

6Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:-

P.w.1:A. Ramabhadraiah

P.w.2:M.P. Narasimhulu

P.w.3:K.V. Subba Reddy

P.w.4:D.K. Javeed

P.w.5:E. Yugandar Reddy

P.w.6:A. Madhu Malleswara Reddy

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE: - -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION.

Ex.P.1:Complaint

Ex.P.2:Gage Certificate

Ex.P.3:FIR

Ex.P.4 to 6:Three Rough Sketches

Ex.P.7:Panchanama DT12.7.2012

Ex.P.8:Relevant Portion in ExP.7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: -- nil --

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1:10 Kgs of Copper wire (sd/-) D. Vishnu Prasada Reddy,

I ADDL. S.J.

SC.SPL/400049/2011 Acquitted

Asst.,Superintendant of Police, J.Madugu vs Guda Sankar Reddy and 2 others

03 Jul 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs. AND S.Ts. (POA) ACT, KADAPA.

Present: Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy, B.Sc., M.L., First Additional District Judge, Kadapa. FAC of Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of July, 2012.

Spl. S.C.No. 49 / 2011.

1.Name of the ComplainantState: Represented by the Asst. Superintendent of Police, Jammalamadugu.

2.Name of the Accused.1.Guda Sankar Reddy, 22 years, S/o Subba Reddy, worker in Sairam Wine shop, Peddapasupula village, Peddamudiam Mandal, h/o Mudireddypali village, Mydukur (M). 2.Chittepu Madhava Siva Kumaar Reddy, 33 years, S/o Eswar Reddy, Peddamudiam village and Mandal. 3.Chavva Siva Krishna Reddy, S/o Pedda Siva Reddy, aged 40 years, Peddamudiam village and Mandal.

3.Offences charged withU/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC and U/sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act. against the accused.

4.Plea of the accused. A1 to A3 are found not guilty.

5.Finding of the JudgeA1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.324 IPC. and U/sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act.

6.Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences U/S.324 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/S.232 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over and they shall be set at liberty forthwith.

7.Accused defended bySri P. Raghunatha Reddy, and Sri P. Rama Prasad Reddy, Advocates for the Accused.

8.Prosecution conducted bySri B. Rajasekhara Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

9.Cr.No. & Name of the Police Cr.No.29/2011 of Peddamudiam P.S. Station.

10.Committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu in P.R.C. No.19/2011.

J U D G M E N T.

The case against the accused is for the alleged offences punishable

U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 in

Cr.No.29/2011 of Peddamudiam Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that A.1 is worker at

Sairam Wine Shop which belongs to A.2 and A.3 at Peddapasupula Village,

Peddamudiam Mandal. On 15.3.2011 night L.W.1 Y.Veeraiah purchased one quarter bottle liquor from the shop of A.2 and A.3, and insisted A.1 for free supply of water packet and picked up arguments. Because of such incident A.1 felt ashamed and bore grudge against the said Veeraiah. On the next day i.e., on 16.3.2011 at about 4.30 P.M. the said Veeraiah again visited the liquor shop and demanded A.1 to provide liquor bottle on credit basis for which A.1 refused.

During the the arguments A.1 suddenly became aggressive and abused Veeraiah in name of cast i.e., 'Madiga'. While the said Veeraiah was proceeding towards the bus stop A.1 went behind him armed with a stick and beat on his head and causing bleeding injury. Then A.2 and A.3 also came there and joined with A.1 and A.2 and slapped the said Veeraiah, A.3 abused the said Veeraiah by addressing him as “Chusukundamu pora Madiga Nakodukullara”. On the complaint preferred by Veeraiah with the above said fact, S.I. of police

Peddamudiam P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.29/2011 U/S.324 IPC and

Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and issued the F.I.R. The A.S.P.

Jammalamadugu investigated into the case and recorded the statement of witnesses. On 9.4.2011 at 4.00 P.M. the accused were arrested and sent for judicial custody. Tahsildar, Peddamudiam issued a certificate stating that L.W.1

Veeraiah belongs to Madiga community comes under the purview of S.Cs by caste, where as A.1 to A.3 belongs to Kapu by caste. The Medical Officer who treated the injured Veeraiah issued wound certificate with opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. Ultimately the charge sheet is laid against A.1 to A.3 for the offences U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(X) S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act.

3. The case is taken on file in P.R.C.19/2011 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu. After securing the presence, copies were furnished to them as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C. Upon considering by passing orders U/S.209

Cr.P.C. Committed the special court of Sessions to try the offence U/S.3(1)(X) SC & ST (POA) Act.

4. The case is taken on file as P.R.C.No.19/2011 on the file of the Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Jammalamadugu and committed to this court for trial. After

securing the presence of the accused, upon hearing both sides the charges

U/S.324 IPC against A.1 and Sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C. and S.T. (POA) Act against A.1 to A.3 were framed read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, having understood A.1 to A.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial in support of the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 8 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked. Because the material witnesses examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 turned hostile and failed to state the incriminating material against the accused, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor gave up the recording of evidence of other formal witnesses and official witnesses. In the absence of incriminating material in the evidence on record, the examination of accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. On behalf of the accused no defence evidence reported.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/S.324 IPC and Sec.3(1)(X) of S.C & S.T (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt or not?

8. Point: Basing on the allegations to the effect that on 16.3.2011 at

Peddapasupula Village in the heated arguments A.1 beat Veeraiah with stick on his head and A.2 and A.3 joined with A.1 and A.2 beat him and kicked him and A.3 abused him in the name of his caste in filthy language. The charges U/S.3(1)(x)

SC & ST Act and Sec.324 IPC framed.

9. Now the points for determination are

1. Whether P.W.1 sustained hurt on 16.3.2011 at 4.30 P.M. at Peddapasupula

Village?

2. Whether P.W.1 was insulted and abused in the name of caste?

3. If so whether the accused voluntarily and intentionally committed the hurt and insulted to P.W.1 or not?

10. Among the prosecution side witnesses P.W.1 Veeraiah is a sole injured and the defactocomplainant as per the version of the case of the prosecution, but in his evidence he has turned hostile to support the version of the prosecution and categorically stated that on the date of occurrence at about 4.30 P.M. while he was going to the busstand in the Village there was quarrel between two political groups the stone hurled by each group against the other hit him and he sustained injury on his head. He cannot identify the culprit who caused the injury to him. He was taken to the Government hospital, Jammalamadugu and the police obtained is signature on Ex.P.1. The contents of which are not known to him.

11. P.W.2 K.Damodara Reddy, P.W.3 T.Chinna Dasthagiri, P.W.4

P.Ramakrishna Reddy, P.W.5 I. Yerikala Reddy, P.W.6 Y.Rama Subbaiah, P.W.7

G.Sivaiah and P.W.8 Y.Pedda Yerikalaiah the father of P.W.1 who are all said to be the eye witnesses as per the version of the case of the prosecution and they all totally turned hostile to support such version and categorically stated that they does not know the allegations that the accused beat P.W.1. They denied their earlier statements said to have been recorded by the police which are marked

Exs.P.3 to P.9.

12. Because of the hostile evidence of the material witnesses as stated above, there is no other alternative except to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused as the persons who caused the injury on

P.W.1. Therefore there is no other alternative except to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/S.324 IPC and

Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act.

13. In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences U/S.324 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/S.232 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over and they shall be set at liberty forthwith.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of July, 2012.

Sd/D.V.P.R.

I Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC of Special Sessions Judge for the trial of offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence. Witnesses Examined for Prosecution

P.W.1: Y. Veeraiah. P.W.2: K. Damodara Reddy. P.W.3: T. Chinna Dasthagiri. P.W.4: P. Rama Krishna Reddy. P.W.5: I. Yerikala Reddy. P.W.6: Y. Rama Subbaiah. P.W.7: G. Sivaiah. P.W.8: Y. Pedda Yerikalaiah.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint given by P.W.1. Ex.P2: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 162 Cr. P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5. Ex.P6: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6. Ex.P7: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7. Ex.P8: 162 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8.

Witnesses Examined for Defense.

Nil.

Exhibits marked for Defense. NIL.

Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution.

NIL.

Sd/DVPR.

I ADJ.

FAC IV ADJ.

Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa.

Order Record 1,191 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/100061/2012	V.Srinivasula Reddy vs G.Vasudeva Reddy	03 Apr 2013	ORDER	Exparte Decree
SC.SPL/100001/2013	S.H.O. Mannur P.S. vs Settypalli Ramana	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.SPL/100009/2013	S.H.O. Chennur P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.SPL/100069/2012	S.H.O. C.K.Dinne P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.SPL/100087/2012	S.H.O. Pendlimarri P.S. vs Duggineni Rama Krishan @ Sanna	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
EP/100092/1999	Mahaboob Bi-Died vs Shaik Ahammed Ali	02 Apr 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100024/2013	S.H.O. Rayachoty Urban P.S. vs Tikkarapu Gangulaiah	01 Apr 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100029/2012	SHO.Tallaproddatur P.S vs Vs1.Mekala Raju	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100030/2012	SHO.Tallaproddatur P.S vs Vs1.Makala Raju and 2 others	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100031/2012	SHO.Kondapuram P.S vs Vs1.Mekala Raju and 2 others	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100069/2012	Kokatam UttamReddy vs S.Pakkeerappa	28 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100331/2009	D.Sarada vs D.Venkata Konda Reddy	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLRP/100053/2012	Dondapati Ramachandra Reddy vs V. Viswanatha Reddy	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100013/2013	S.H.O. Lingala P.S. vs Thikkarapu Gangulaiah	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100046/2011	SHO.Mannur P.s. vs Vs1.Ragala Sudarshan and 2 others	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100072/2012	S.H.O. Porumamilla P.S. vs Ragi Venkatesh @ Venkateshu	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100073/2012	S.H.O. Porumamilla P.S. vs Ragi Venkatesh @ Venkateshu	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100074/2012	S.H.O. B.Mattam P.S. vs Ragi Venkatesh @ Venkateshu	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100085/2012	S.H.O. Chitvel P.S. vs Thunga Narayan @ Laxmi Narayana @ Narayana Naidu	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100093/2012	S.H.O. Vempalli P.S. vs Tikkarapu Gangulaiah	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100107/2011	A.Varadamma and 2 others vs K.Mahaboob Basha and another	26 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100083/2012	S.H.O. Mydukur urban P.S. vs Padachuri Gurappa	26 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100013/2013	P.Mabu Basha vs Anke Chinna Yangappa	25 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100324/2012	Nimmakayala Chinna Reddy vs P.Soma Subba Reddy	25 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100088/2012	S.H.O. Chinna Chowk P.S. vs Yakasiri Ramana	25 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100020/2013	Devara Pulla Reddy vs D.MaruthiKumarReddy	22 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100455/2012	K.Kezaiah vs SH.Naru Mohammed Sheikh	20 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100290/2010	Y. Subbaiah vs Jogendersingh and another	19 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100029/2010	B.Mahammad vs P.Dhanunjaya and another	15 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100025/2012	Shaik Shabana vs S.Khasim@Yeda	14 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
CMA/100019/2012	T.Subbalakshumma vs T.RamachandraRao	14 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/100019/2012	T.Subbalakshumma vs T.RamachandraRao	13 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100169/2009	K.Chinna Subbaiah vs A.P.S.R.T.C Rep. by M.D	13 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100277/2010	M.Saraswathi and four others vs K.Rajeswara Reddy and another	13 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100012/2012	SHO.Vontimitta P.S vs Poola Srinivasulu and 2 others	13 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100056/2012	N.Naga Subbarayudu vs E.Koteswara Rao	12 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100074/2012	Kavadi Chowdaiah vs Chenuur P.S	12 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100016/2013	S.H.O. Kalamalla P.S. vs Ontirolla Nagaiah alias Sreenu	12 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100266/2008	K.Malleswari vs M.Kullayappa	11 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100760/2009	K.Subbarayudu vs C.Madhusudhan Reddy	11 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100002/2013	S.H.O. Ramapuram P.S. vs Mandla Gopala Krishna alias Chinna	11 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100007/2012	SHO.Chakrayapet P.S. vs Mallolla alias Poololla Adniarayana	11 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/100036/2012	K.Ramesh Babu vs Municipal Corpn., Kadapa rep by its Commissioner	08 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100070/2012	S.H.O. Gangireddy Palli P.S. vs Chinna Munigalla Bala Munaiah	08 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100008/2013	S.H.O. Chennur P.S. vs Ontirolla Nagaiah alias Sreenu	07 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100065/2012	S.H.O. Khajipet P.S. vs Ragi Venkatesh @ Venkateshu	07 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100092/2012	S.H.O. Khajipet P.S. vs Ontirollu Nagaiah @ Sreenu	04 Mar 2013	ORDER	—
SC.NDPS/100042/2012	S.H.O.B.Mattam P.S. vs Bhumireddy Narasamma and 3 others	01 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100024/2011	J.Mala Kondaiah@Markondrayudu and another vs J.Venkata Ramanaiah	28 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100077/2012	Shaik Ali Ahammed vs Shaik Jeelani rep by regd.GPAholderShaikFaridaBanu	28 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
EP/100063/2012	N.Bayamma vs K.Ganganna	28 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
OP/100169/2008	Special Deputy Collector-LA,SomasilaProjectUnit-IV,Rajampet vs V.Krishnaiah @Mathaiah	28 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
OP/100170/2008	Special Deputy Collector-LA,SomasilaProjectUnit-IV,Rajampet vs S.Rama Subbamma	28 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
OS/100043/2009	B.Chengalrayudu vs Vs1.Yerragundla Neelakantaiah and 3 others	28 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100007/2012	1.Vardireddy Nagendra Reddy and 6 others vs SHP.c.K.Dinne P.S	28 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100013/2012	1.N.Bhakar Reddy and 5 others vs SHO.C.K.Dinne P.S.	28 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100059/2011	T.Raghunatha vs Thummala Lakshmi Devi	27 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
SC/100019/2008	SHO.Ramapuram P.S. vs Pasala Ramanaiah and another	27 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100578/2009	1.B.Pedda Veeraiah and another vs Vs1.A.Sivaiah and another	25 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100586/2008	Shaik Mohammad Ghouse vs M.Sudhakar Reddy	25 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100591/2007	V.LakshmiDevi@P.Lakshmiminor11Yrs repbyV.Narasaiah vs M.Sreenivasa Reddy	25 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100623/2008	Jyothi Lakshumma vs K.Aswartha Narayana	25 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100730/2008	K. Lakshumma vs M. Sharfuddin	25 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100095/2012	C.HariMohanReddy vs Rathika Ramesh @Radika	23 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100096/2012	Bonala Dasaradha vs Rathika Ramesh @Radika	23 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100200/2011	M.SivaLakshumma and 3 others vs K.C.Imraz Khan and another	23 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100258/2011	B.PavanKumar Reddy vs M.GangaRaju and another	23 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100450/2009	R.Chandra Obulareddy vs P.Raghunatha Reddy	23 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
OS/100070/2009	P.Vidya Lakshmi vs P.Seshamamba	22 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100039/2009	Katikareddy sreenivasulu Reddy, vs Pandinti David	20 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100010/2011	The Mandal Revenue Officer and another vs K.Sivananda Reddyand Three others	19 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100011/2011	Mandal Revenue Officer vs K.Sivananda Reddy	19 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100012/2011	Mandal Revenue Officer vs K.Rajeswari	19 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100013/2011	The Mandal Revenue Officer vs S.Sankar Reddy	19 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100626/2008	B.Bala Sundaram vs S.Hussain Basha	19 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
AS/100082/2010	Gkurivireddygari Rama Subbareddy vs Adimulam Ganganna and four others	18 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100038/2009	M.Hazeera Khanam vs Sadhu Subbarayudu	12 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
CRLA/100185/2011	P.Lakshmidevi vs Vs1.Chatteti Tirupali and 3 others	12 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100175/2011	SHO Lingala P.S. vs Vennapusa Veera Reddy and 4 others	12 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100046/2012	S.H.O. Mydukur P.S. vs Pujari Sreenivasulu	12 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100084/2012	S.H.O. Pendlimarri P.S. vs Ontirollu Nagaiah @ Sreenu	12 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100132/2010	C.Venkata Subba Reddy C-1 and 24 others vs Special Deputy Collector-L.A.	08 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
EP/100133/2010	M.Venkata Subba Reddy C-6 and 34 others vs Special Deputy Collector-L.A.	08 Feb 2013	ORDER	—
MVOP/100278/2010	Syed Khaseem Sab and another vs K.Gangaiah and another	07 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100018/2012	SHO.J.Madugu P.S. vs Vs1.ShaikGudu Masthan valli and another	07 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100047/2011	SHO.Rayachoty -U-P.s. vs Mungala Damodara and another	06 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100010/2009	S. Gulzar Bee vs G.V.N. Prasad	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100097/2011	C.Mangamma and 3 others vs C.Janardhana Reddy and another	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
MVOP/100221/2011	C.Jayaramasubbareddy and another vs S.K.Narayanamma and another	05 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/100008/2010	Vennapusa Narayana Munireddy vs Dadireddy Ramireddy and another	31 Jan 2013	ORDER	—
OS/100014/2012	G.Chandra Sekhar Reddy vs D.Venkata Subbaiah	30 Jan 2013	ORDER	—
AS/100052/2011	Gadi Yellanna vs N.Venkata Subba Reddy	29 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100024/2012	T.Subbarayudu vs V.RamachandraReddy	28 Jan 2013	ORDER	—
AS/100051/2011	Mopuri Yella Reddy vs Mopuri Subbi Reddy	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/100029/2012	Syed arifulla Hussaini vs J.Mahaboob Khan	21 Jan 2013	ORDER	—
SC.SPL/100051/2012	S.H.O. Kondapuram P.S. vs Chithara Sreenivasulu @ Sreenu	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100058/2012	S.H.O. Simhadripuram P.S. vs Chitrala Sreenivasulu @ Sreenu	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.SPL/100061/2012	S.H.o. Talamanchipatnam P.S. vs Chitrala Sreenivasulu @ Sreenu	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/100098/2012	Chappidi Lakshumaiah vs S.H.O.Taluk p.s.Kadapa	17 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/100010/2011	SHO.Sidhout P.S. vs Boggadi Subba Reddy and 2 others	17 Jan 2013	ORDER	—

Showing 100 of 1,191 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2013		10
Mar 2013		38
Feb 2013		41
Jan 2013		14
Dec 2012		58
Nov 2012		49
Oct 2012		47
Sep 2012		49
Aug 2012		42
Jul 2012		38
Jun 2012		48
May 2012		18

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy handled?

Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy has handled 1203 court orders since 2010 at District Court Complex Kadapa. The average disposal rate is 54 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Original Suits) at District Court Complex Kadapa.

Where is Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy currently posted?

Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy is posted as I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa at District Court Complex Kadapa, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy dispose cases?

Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy disposes approximately 54 cases per month, based on 1203 orders handled over their tenure at District Court Complex Kadapa.

Since when is Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy serving?

Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy has been serving at District Court Complex Kadapa since 2010.

Case Types

SC 33%

MVOP 31%

AS 10%

CRLA 8%

OS 6%

EP 6%

OP 4%

CRLRP 2%

Posting History

Jun 2012 — Jul 2012

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa · 13 orders
Oct 2011 — Jul 2012

SC/ST Court -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa · 152 orders
Jul 2011 — Aug 2011

Judge, Family Court, Kadapa · 17 orders
Jul 2011 — Aug 2011

Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa · 4 orders
Sep 2010 — Apr 2013

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa · 1,017 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 6

Allowed 2

Exparte Decree 1

Allowed In Part Disposal Date: 02-07-2012 Sc/st Court -cum- 1

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 17-08-2011 1

Dismissed As Settled Out Of Court Disposal Date: 05-08-2011 1

Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 27-07-2011 1

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 12-07-2011 1

Other Judges at this Court

Dr.C.Yamini

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa

389 orders

Smt.N.Santhi

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa

2 orders

Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik

SC/ST Court -Cum- IV Additional District Judge, Ka...

4 orders

GS Ramesh Kumar

Spl Women Court-Cum-VII Addl District Judge Kadapa

705 orders

Smt K.Prathusha Kumari

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

491 orders

Smt G C Asifa Sulthana

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa

321 orders

Sri P.Koteswara Rao

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

0 orders

Smt.Mellam Reshma

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

14 orders

Sri Madhira Eswar Venkata Prasad

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

35 orders

Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

1,204 orders

M. Asha Priya

JFCM for Spl. Mobile Court, Kadapa

0 orders

Sri M.a.soma Sekhar

Spl Judge for POCSO Court Kadapa

1 orders

← View all judges at District Court Complex Kadapa