Smt. G.Deena

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa

District Court Complex Kadapa · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. G.Deena, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, is posted at District Court Complex Kadapa, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 930 court orders on record since 2013. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

930

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200228/2015 Acquitted

SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Thapti Veerasangamaiah,

06 Oct 2016

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Smt. G.Deena, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 6th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No. 228 of 2015

State: represented by Sub inspector of police,

Pendlimarry police station ….. Complainant

Versus

1.Thati Veerasangamaiah, 39 years, S/o. Chinna Eswaraiah, Thipparajupalli village of Pendlimarri mandal now at Neelkantaraopeta (V), Ramapuram (M) C/Yadav (BC). 2.Utti Gangaiah, 53 years, S/oNarayana, D.No.4-5-227, Vivekananda Street, Pulivendula town and Mandal, C/Devanga (BC) Conductor of Pulivendla-Thirumala service RTC bus bearing Bo.AP.04.Z.0031.

…….. Accused

This case coming on 3-10-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri Y.Rama Gangi Reddy,

Advocate for the accused, and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Traffic police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.78/2015 for the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as

follows;-

On 23-7-2015 while the deceased was present at his house, A-1 went to the house of deceased requested the deceased to come along with him to Kadapa to fetch plastic pipes.

After purchasing plastic pipes at Kadapa, with an intention to return to their village the deceased and A-1 went to old RTC bus stand, Kadapa to board a bus which proceeding to

Pulivendula. When a Thirumala-Pulivendula service RTC bus bearing No.AP.04.Z.0031 came to the bus stand Lws6 and 7 also boarded the said bus. A-1 asked the deceased to sit on the top of the bus along with the plastic pipes as protector. On the request of A-1 when the deceased was trying to go on the top of the bus, Lws6 and 7 warned the deceased not to sit on the top of the bus during night times as it is endanger to his life, nevertheless A-1 asked the deceased to sit on the top of the bus. When the deceased was trying to sit on the top of the bus Lws6, 7 and some others passengers brought the matter to the notice of A-2 being 2 the bus conductor of the said bus. Instead of prevent the acts of the deceased and A-1, A-2 allowed the deceased to sit on the top of the bus. When the bus reached near the

Thipparajupalli bus stop night at about 9-50 PM, on the request of A-1, A-2 stopped the bus.

A-1 got down the bus when A-1 requested the deceased to get down the pipes. On the request of A-1 when the deceased was trying to get down the pipes; accidentally the deceased fell down on the ground. Even though noticed the incident A-2 gave signals to the bus driver to move the bus. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries over his head and right leg knee. Lw-9 who is running petty shop near the scene of offence witnessed the occurrence and then left the place presuming that A-1 may provide treatment to the deceased. On the next day i.e., on 24-7-2015 in the early morning while Lws 2 and 3 were proceeding to garden, enroute when they reached near Kadapa-Pulivendula main road bus stop they heard groan, on suspicion when they rushed there, where they have found the deceased laying on the road side with injuries over his head and right leg knee.

Subsequently Lw-2 brought the matter to the notice of Lw-1 over phone. On coming to know the heart rending news Lws-1, 4 and 5 rushed to the spot noticed the deceased with bleeding injuries, they got shifted deceased to the Rims Hospital, kadapa for treatment in 108

Ambulance and then on the advice of doctor the deceased was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G hospital, Tirupathi for better treatment. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries on 4-8-2015 at 5-30 PM. Lws8 and 10 are relatives of deceased supported the version of Lws1 to 7 and 9 in all material aspects. Both the accused are responsible for this accident as A-1 pretty aware that traveling on the top of the bus is danger to the life nevertheless A-1 asked the deceased to sit on the top of the bus, whereas A-2 being the conductor of the said bus allowed the deceased to travel him to sit on the top of the bus without opposing the acts of deceased.

Lw1 has given written statement to Lw-15. lw-15 registered the same as Cr.No.78/14

U/S 337 IPC of pendlimarry PS., and investigated into on 30-7-2015 at 7-00 PM. Later on the death of deceased the section of law was altered to 304 (A) IPC on 5-8-2015 at 6-00 AM.after completion of entire investigation the present charge sheet was filed against the accused.

2. A perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. on the accused.

3. On appearance of accused , copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and the contents of accusations against the accused are read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried by the court.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

The points for determination is: 7.

1. Whether the incident of death of kanala Gangireddy was established by the prosecution?

2. Whether the prosecution placed its allegation that the death of the

Kanala Gangi Reddy was caused due to the rash or negligent acts of the accused

A1 and A2?

3. Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act. beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT -1 :-

1. Whether the incident of death of kanala Gangireddy was established by the prosecution?

The case of the prosecution is the deceased Kanala Gangi Redy died due to the injuries received by him when he fell down from the top of the Tirumala – Pulivendula.

Service RTC bus bearing NO. AjP 042 0031. And he died while undergoing the treatment on 4-8-2015.

9.To prove the said contention on behalf of the prosecution witnesses jpw1 to pw12 were examined, Exhibits Ex.p1, Ex.p5 Ex.p6, Ex.p8, Ex.p10 were marked.

10.All the witness in their evidence categorically deposed, the deceased Kanala

Gangi Reddy died due to the injuries received in an accident. There is no dispute regarding the death of the deceased. The pw8 one of the inquest panchayadar deposed, he along with lw12 Malleswar Reddy, resident of Thipparajupalli village, lw13 L. Lakshmi Reddy, resident

Thipparajupalli attended the Ex.p5 inquest proceedings conducted over the dead body of deceased Kanala Gangi Redy. And they are of the opinion that the deceased received the injuries in an accident and deposed three of them signed as witnesses in Ex.p5 inquest proceedings.

11.Pw9 the Doctor who conducted over the dead body of the deceased, deposed on 6-8-2015 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of th deceased by name kanala Gangi Reddy, aged about 60 years. And he found 5 external injuries, 9 internal injuries due to the which he died. And he died due to radio cerebral (head injury) in association with other injuries sustained. Ex.p6 postmortem certificate was issued by him.

12.A clear perusal of authenticated document Ex.p5 inquest report, Ex.p6 postmortem certificate and the evidence of said witness, it is clear that the incident of death of the Kanala Gangi Reddy was caused in an accident and due to the injuries receive in that accident. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

13. POINT NO. 2. Whether the prosecution placed its allegation that the

death of the Kanala Gangi Reddy was caused due to the rash or negligent acts of

the accused A1 and A2?

The accused A1 is the resident of Thipparajupalli village, he is conductor by by profession. And the accused A2 is the resident of pulivendula town and he is also a conductor by profession.

14.The allegation of the prosecution is, on 23-7-2015 on the request of the A1, the deceased kanala Gangi Reddy accompanied him to kadapa to fetch plastic pipes. After purchasing the pipes, the deceased and A1 boarded in Tirumala – Pulivendula service RTC bus bearing no. AP04 2 0031 to go to their village. Then the accused A1 asked the deceased to sit on the top of the bus to guard the pipes. Then A1 sat on the top of the bus, then the A2 who was the conductor of that bus, knowing fully about the danger, allowed the deceased to sit on the top of the bus. And while the deceased was getting down from the 5 bus with pipes, then he accidentally fell down on the ground and sustained the injuries mentioned in Ex.p5 and P6 reports.

15.As per the Ex.p1 report, on 23-7-2015 around 4.00 PM while the deceased was present at his house, the A1 taken the deceased to the kadapa to fetch the pipes. But the

A1 alone returned to the house. But the contention of the accused A1 is, he never took the deceased to kadapa on any work and denied th allegation of the prosecution.

16.Pw1 to pw3 who are none other than, the family members of the deceased categorically deposed, the accused A1 taken the deceased to the kadapa on 23-7-2015 to purchase plastic pipes, but in the evening the accused A1 alone returned to the village. Pw7 who is the relative of the deceased deposed, on 23-7-2015 around 4.00 PM he saw the deceased and A1 were sitting on the pial, later they went to kadapa to purchase the plastic pipes for A1. Through the accused A1 denied the contention that he only taken the A1 to the kadapa for purchase pipes, but the said witness categorically deposed the said contention.

17.Another contention of them is, in the night the A1 alone returned to the village, the deceased did not returned to their house. And on the next day morning i.e., 24-7-2015 they found the deceased Gangi Reddy with injuries laying on the road side near kadapa – pulivendula main road bus stop. First pw2 pw10 saw the deceased who was with injuries at the above said place. The pw2 deposed at about 4.00 PM first pw10 saw the deceased with injuries at the above said place, then he made phone call to him, he inturn informed the matter to pw1, pw3 and pw5. Pw10 is the first person who saw the deceased at their village bus stop, near cool drink shop. But pw10 did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects. But he deposed, on that day around 2.00 AM while he was going to market, when he reached to their village bus stop, he heard the groaning of the deceased kanala Gangireddy, then he found the deceased laying on the road side with injuries. Then he made phone call to pw2. Regarding said aspect the evidence of pw2, pw10 corroborating with the contention of the prosecution. Even the witness pw1, pw3 the wife of the deceased, pw7 deposed, on the intimation of pw2 and pw10, they went to their village bus stop and saw the deceased Gangireddy with injuries and later they shifted him to the

Rims Hospital, Kadapa.

18.There is no dispute, regarding the deceased receiving injuries mentioned in

Ex.p5 and p6 reports and the pw1 to pw3 pw10, pw7 noticing the deceased the with injuries at their village bus stop and later shifting him to the Rims hospital.

19.Regarding filing Ex.p1 report:-

As per the record the Gangireddy was shifted to the Rims hospital in an 108 ambulance on 24-7-2015. Pw11 the investigation officer admitted, after enquiring about the injuries received by the injured, the duty doctor would mention the details in the accident register. And later if the case is medico legal case the intimation would be given to the concerned police. Even there is a O.P. Police station in the Rims hospital, after receiving intimation the police would record the statement of the injured. And admitted that in the present case no such hospital intimation or the statement of the injured was received from the Rims hospital. He further admitted at least during his investigation also, he did not enquire the hospital authorities, as to how the Gangireddy sustained the injuries. And as per the record, no medical record of the Gangireddy was obtained from the Rims hospital and even the doctor who treated the Gangireddy was not examined by the police. But the contention of the accused is, as the information given by the Rims hospital authorities is adverse to the case of the prosecution, he initially suppressed the same.

20.As per the Ex.p1 report, it was given on 30-7-2015 alleging, that the accused

A1 might have caused the accident of the Gangireddy with any vehicle. Through the Ex.p1 was given after lapse of 7 days from the date of incident, the alleged falling down from the top of the bus was not mentioned. By the date of Ex.p1 and even when they noticed the

Gangireddy with inujries at their bus stop, they well aware that the accused A1 had taken

Gangireddy along with him. And as per his evidence the defacto complainant Pw1 was available in the village during the said period of 7 days. In Ex.p1 and in his Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement pw1 stated on suspicion only he gave Ex.p1 report against pw1, but said fact denied in his cross examination.

21.Pw2 the relating of the deceased Gangireddy has deposed, the accused A1 only informed him about the incident after three days of the bus incident, in fact he has no personal knowledge about the incident. And after that information only they gave report to the police. As per the evidence pw2 by the date 27-7-2015 and by the date of Ex.p1 report, 7 the pw2 and his other family members were having knowledge about the alleged bus incident in which the Gangireddy said to have been received injuries. Even then the present allegation and the incident as narrated in their evidence was not mentioned in Ex.p1 report.

Pw4 who is the resident of Thipparajupalli was recited as an eye witness to the alleged incident. But he in his evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and further denied the contention of the prosecution. As per the evidence of pw7 on 25-7-2015 itself he gave a complaint in Rims Police Station. But no such complaint was made as per the record.

22.As per the contention of the pw2, by the date of 26-7-2015 and by the date of the Ex.p1 report, they are having knowledge about the alleged bus incident. And their villager pw4 is an eye witness to the incident and there is every possibility of pw4 informing pw1 who was available in the village about the incident. Pw6 is also an eye witness, is the resident of Thipparajupalli. It is not believable that the persons who were cited as eye witness to the incident did not inform about the incident to any one in the village, and pw1 and his family did not enquire the A1 about the injuries of the Gangireddy.

23.Alleged rash and negligent act of the A1 and A2:-

As per the allegation of the prosecution, the accused A1 asked the deceased to sit on the top of the bus, when the deceased was trying to sit on the top of the bus, pw5 and pw6 and some other persons brought the matter to the notice of A2 who was conductor of that bus. But instead to prevent the acts of the deceased and A1, the A2 allowed the deceased to sit on the top of the bus. As per the Sec. 161 Cr.PC Statement of pw5 and pw6, they warned the Gangireddy not to sit on the top of the bus, as it was night and it is dangerous. But the A1 made him to sit on the top of the bus and A2 the conductor also allowed the Gangireddy to sit on the top of the bus.

24.But the crucial witness pw5 in his evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and further denied his Ex.p3 Sec. 161 Cr.Pc statement.

And it is the evidence of pw6 another eye witness, on that day the deceased Gangireddy boarded on the top of the bus and he had been guarding the pipes. No where in his evidence he stated, the accused A1 and A2 only made the Gangireddy to sit on the top of the bus and at that time he along with other warned the Gangireddy not to sit on the to of the 8 bus. A perusal of evidence of pw6 it clear that there is no incriminating statement against A1 and A2. In his evidence he stated, he do not know the accused A2. Even as per the contention of the prosecution, the deceased Gangireddy fell down from the bus, while he was getting down the pipes.

25.There is no positive evidence on record to state that A1 A2 only made the

Gangireddy to sit on the top of the bus to guard the pipes of A1. Further contention of the prosecution is, while the Gangireddy getting down the pipes on the request of A1, accidentally he fell down from the top of the bus and sustained injuries mentioned in Ex.p5 and pw6 reports.

26.As per the contention of the prosecution, pw4 pw5 and pw6 are the eye witness to the incident. But Pw4 and pw5 did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and stood hostile. They further denied the contention of the prosecution.

The evidence of pw6 does not reveals how the gangireddy fell down from the top of the bus and the A1, A2 only made him and allowed him to set on the top of the bus. He only stated the A1 and Pw5 were also present in the bus. The mere presence of A1 does not incriminate him and does not draw the conclusion infavour of the prosecution . Further he do not know

A2. And contradicting his own statement, he further deposed, he came to know about the incident in the next day morning. He did not state the incriminating statements against accuse which are mentioned in his Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement. And the presence of A2 was not stated by any witness.

27. The incredients of Sec. 304 (A) IPC are :-

1. that the accused caused the death of deceased.

2. That such death was caused by the accused doing any rash act or that such death was caused by the accused doing any negligent act and

3. such a death did not amount to culpable homicide.

To prove the offence undue Se. 304 (A) IPC, the prosecution has to prove,

1. it is the accused, who did some act which was rash or negligent.

2. It entailed death of any person.

3. This death is the direct result of the rashness or negligence. Connecting the accused to the crime is vital important.

There is no direct evidence on record that due to the rash and negligent act of the A1 and

A2 only the deceased Gangireddy fell down from the top of the bus. The said presence of A1 in the bus as stated in the evidence of pw6 does not connecting the accused to the crime.

As stated about, the sole eye witness pw6, in his same evidence stated he came to know about the said fact on the next day. He did not state the facts mentioned in his statement, that A1 and A2 noticed the deceased falling down from the top of the bus, he left A1 and

Gangireddy at that place. In his evidence he further deposed one day he came to the court, to give evidence but as he was in drunken state, he did not give his evidence. A perusal of evidence of pw6 it is clear, the said contradictions and material omissions discredit the evidence of pw6. Even his deposed evidence in toto does not incriminate the A1 and A2 and does not connect the accused to this crime. Ex.p11 statistical and ticket account record of the bus number AP04 2003 only establishes that on the date of alleged incident the said bus run through the tippareddipalli village. The investigation officer admitted that if any accident taken place due to the RTC, same would be mentioned in the said statistical and ticket account record. No such endorsement or information regarding the alleged accident in

Ex.p11 document.

28.Hence, it is clear that the prosecution failed to produce the position evidence to prove the alleged rash or negligent act of the A1 and A2 as narrated by it. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

3. Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of

M.V.Act. beyond all reasonable doubt?

29.In view of above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged incident and the involvement of A1 and A2 in the alleged crime. In view of above, this court is of the conclusion that, the prosecution with the aid of evidence of pws 1 to 12 and Exs.p1 to11, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that due to the rash or negligent act of the accused A1 and A2 the deceased Kanala Gangi Reddy received injuries the said accident and died. And that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In view of above this court is of the conclusion that the accused A1 and A2 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in 10 favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

30.In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

Directly typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 6th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri.K.Manohar Reddy PW-2:- Sri.K.Gangi Reddy PW-3: SriK.Parvathamma PW4: Sri. A.RAvi Chandra Reddy PW5: Sri. I.Malla Reddy PW6: Sri.N.Valli PW7: Sri.K.Janardhan Reddy PW8: Sri. B.Nagendra Reddy PW9: Sri.Dr.Babu PW10: Sri.K.Nagabhushanam Reddy PW11: Sri. G.Raghuramaiah PW12: Sri.K.Rama Chandra

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Lw9 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P4: summons Ex.P5: Inquest report Ex.P6: P.M.Certificate Ex.p7: Part of statement of Lw.2/Pw.10 Ex.p8:FIR Ex.p9:Rough Sketch EX.P10: Death Intimation Ex.p11: Statistical and ticket accountant record bus No.AP0420031

For Defence:- N I l -

Witness examined and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused --nil--

Material objects marked: - N i l -

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Kadapa

Date of offence: 24-7-2015 Date of report: 30-7-2015 Date of apprehension of accused:12-8-2015 Date of release of accused:12-8-2015 Date of commencement of trial: 7-1-2016 Date of close of trial:3-10-2016 Date of judgment: 6-10-2016

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 228 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, Pendlimarri police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name 1.Thati Veerasangamaiah, 39 years, S/o. Chinna Eswaraiah, Thipparajupalli village of Pendlimarri mandal now at Neelkantaraopeta (V), Ramapuram (M) C/Yadav (BC).

2. Utti Gangaiah, 53 years, S/oNarayana, D.No.4-5-227, Vivekananda Street, Pulivendula town and Mandal, C/Devanga (BC) Conductor of Pulivendla-Thirumala service RTC bus bearing Bo.AP.04.Z.0031.

Offence:- u/ss. 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

Finding:- A1 and A2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/ss 304 (A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. Accused shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. . Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

CC/200003/2016

SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Udayagiri Rafi,

03 Oct 2016

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Smt. G.Deena, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 3rd day of October, 2016.

C.C.No. 03 of 2016

State: represented by Sub inspector of police,

Chinnachowk Police station, Kadapa …..Complainant

Versus

1. Udayagiri Rafi, 35 yrs, s/o Khasim, Auto driver, D.no. 7/1115-1, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city, Caste by Muslim.

2. Kandumuru Shabbir, s/o Rajasaheb,30 yrs, Dudekula caste, D.no. 7/875, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city.

3. Vadapalli Chinna Jamal @ Jamal, s/o Chinna Jamal, 22 yrs, Dudekula caste, H.No. 7/961, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city.

…….. Accused

This case coming on 28-9-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V.Kalyana reddy, Advocate

for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court

delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.Nos. 229/2014 and 232/2014 for the offence punishable u/ss 457,380 of IPC .

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as

follows;-

That between 25-10-2014 to 27-10-2014 in D.no. 7/138-4 at Jayanagar colony,

Kadapa city where in some unknown offenders gained entrance into the house of Lw1 by break opened the lock of the main door and committed theft of gold jewels wg about 141- 130 gms worth Rs.2,80,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the complaint of Lw1, the present case was registered in Cr.no. 229/2014 u/ss 457,380 IPC.

Likewise in between 28-10-2014 to 31-10-2014 in D.no. 42/307-5-4 at Bhagyanagar colony, Kadapa city some unknown offenders gained enter into the house bearing Door.no.

42/307-5-4 belongs to Lw5 and committed theft of gold and silver articles wg about 13 tolas worth Rs.3,60,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the complaint of Lw5, the present case wa registered in Cr.no. 232/2014 u/ss 457,380 IPC.

During the course of further investigation on 6-11-2015 at 12 Noon near Old by pass circle situated on Kadapa - Rajampet main road, Kadapa city, during the period of vehicle checking Lw13 identified the suspicious movements of A1 to A3 who were proceeding on their motor cycle and in an auto and arrested the accused A1 to A3 interrogated them , recorded their confession where in the accused confessed about the involvement in this case and also about other offences and seized the stolen property concerned in this crime along with other crimes under a cover of panchayathnama. After the completion of entire investigation the present charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence u/ss 382 IPC.

2. A perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 457,380 of IPC on the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offence punishable u/ss. 457,380 of IPC against the accused are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried by the court.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and Mos1 and 2 On behalf of the defence, Dw1 was examined and no documents are marked.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

The point for determination is: 7.

Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable u/ss 457,380 of IPC against accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

8.POINT :-

The case of the prosecution is, between 25-10-2014 to 27-10-2014 in D.no.

7/138-4 at Jayanagar colony, Kadapa city where in some unknown offenders gained 3 entrance into the house of Pw1 by break opened the lock of the main door and committed theft of gold jewels wg about 141-130 gms worth Rs.2,80,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the complaint of Pw1, the present case was registered in Cr.no. 229/2014 u/ss 457,380 IPC.

Likewise in between 28-10-2014 to 31-10-2014 in D.no. 42/307-5-4 at Bhagyanagar colony, Kadapa city some unknown offenders gained enter into the house bearing Door.no.

42/307-5-4 belongs to Pw2 and committed theft of gold and silver articles wg about 13 tolas worth Rs.3,60,000/- and decamped with booty. Basing on the complaint of Pw2, the present case was registered in Cr.no. 232/2014 u/ss 457,380 IPC.

9. The case of the accused is they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution, no such confession was given by them and no recovery made by the police as alleged by them.

10. Pws 1 and 2 deposed about the theft of gold jewelery worth of Rs.2,00,000/- and theft of Mos1 and 2. there is no dispute regarding the owner ship of Pw2 over Mos 1 and 2.

11. The main allegation of the prosecution is the Mo1 and 2 of Pw2 was recovered from the possession of the accused on their confession. To prove the said contention of behalf of the prosecution witnesses Pws3 and 4 were examined, Ex.p1 to P6 and Mo1 and 2 are marked. Pw4 the inspector of police has deposed they caught hold accused A1 to A3, in the presence of Pw3 and Lw12 Sreenivasulu panchayatdars, they were interrogated, in which they voluntarily confessed regarding the commission of present offence, on that they recovered Mos 1 and 2 and other case properties from their possession.

12. As per the evidence of Pw4 the inspector of police, on 6-11-2015 he along with the staff for conducting vehicle checking at old by pass circle in kadapa, then they observed one auto and one person motorcycle coming towards them. on noticing the vehicle checking, the persons in that vehicles tried to turn their vehicles. Then their staff caught hold two persons in the auto and the rider of the motorcycle and produced before him. On verification of the auto they found one LED TV. When they were questioned about the TV, they gave suspicious answers. Then the Pw3 deputed PC.141 for securing mediators, then after some time the PC brought Pw2 and Lw12. As per the evidence of Pw3 and Pw2 one of the panchyatdar, after the accused A1 to A3 were caught hold by the police, initially they were 4 enquired by the police in the absence of independent mediators. After some time, i.e after 15 minutes the mediators were brought by the PC.

13. One of the contention is accused is though there was every possibility of securing mediators from the place of arrest area, the Pw4 did not follow the procedure envisaged U/S 100 Cr.P.C. Though there is a every possibility securing in habitants of that locality, without trying for the mediators from that place, in the record it was mentioned that they secured

Pw2 and Lw12 from the MRO office which is situated 2 ½ KM distance from the place of the arrest area. In the examination in chief it was mentioned that PC.141 brought the Pw2 and

Lw12, but in the cross examination the I.O deposed the police constable contacted the panchyatdars over telephone, on that Pw2 and Lw12 reached to that place. As per the evidence of Pw3, while they were present in there MRO office one chinna chowk PS constable came to them and asked him to act as mediators in the present case. As per the record the

Lw12 Sreenivasulu is a private person. Regarding the said contradiction of calling the Pw3 and Lw12 no explanation has been given by the prosecution. The said constable was not examined in the present case. Finally it was not explained by the prosecution how the said constable secured the presence of Pw3 and Lw12 either it was from the MRO office or by contacting them over telephone. And while they called the said witnesses alone from such distance was not stated by the investigation officer. Though it was stated by the investigation officer that he tried to secure the mediators from the place of arrest area, the said fact was not mentioned in the Ex.p4 and P3 panchanamas.

14. Another contention of the accused is as there was much time to induce or to threat the accused A1 to A3, the subsequent alleged confession which was said to have been given by the A1 to A3 are not a voluntarily and admissible confession. He further stated though on credible information they proceeded to the place of arrest area and had been conducting vehicle checking, they did not taken the mediators from the police station. The main contention of the accused is no such Ex.p4 and p3 panchanamas were held as deposed by the Pw4 and Pw3, the accused were detained in ill legal custody prior to the alleged proceeding, later Ex.p4 and p3 panchanamas were prepared in the PS and signatures of Pw3 and Lw12 were obtained in the PS without the said interrogation and the proceeding. As the

Pw3 and Lw12 are the police staff panchyatdars, with their help the said fake panchanamas 5 were prepared showing that the said property including the present case property were recovered from the possession of the accused.

15. Another contention of the accused is as there was sufficient time with the police to threat and to induce the accused prior to the said panchayatdars reached to that place, the said confession is not a voluntarily one and it could not be used against the accused.

16. Pw4 further deposed in the presence of Pw3 and Lw12 he interrogated the accused separately in which they confessed regarding the commission of offences in

Cr.No.229/2014, Cr.No.232/2014, Cr.No.23/2015, Cr.No.26/2015 on their confession the sony

LED T.V belongs to the Cr.No.232/2014, one gold chain belongs to the Cr.No.23/2015 one pulser motorcycle belongs to the Cr.No.26/2015 and the said auto was seized from the possession of the accused and arrested them under the cover of Ex.p3 panchanama. Though it was deposed by the investigation officer that so and so property is concerned to the particular time but he did not state how the identified the property as the property of that particular crime. How the property was identified them was not stated by the investigation officer. He further deposed about the seizure of two other motorcycles from the house of the

Rafi and the seizure of one iron rod and screw driver which were used for the commission of theft offences. But the said iron rod, screw driver were not marked through the investigation officer.

17. Regarding the arrest of accused seizure of property, the Pw3 deposed by the time they went to the place of arrest area the accused and the police were present at that place, the Pw4 interrogated the accused in their presence, in which they confessed regarding the commission of present offence, some other offences and produced one Sony color T.V, one

I.Phone, one gold chain, the auto and the pulsar bike on which they were proceeding. Both

Pw4 did not identify the Mos 1 and 2 are the property which was recovered from the possession of the accused on their confession. However they both deposed the above said property which was seized from the accused is a stolen property. Though they were deposed about the confession of accused and seizure of stolen property, in view of above said material points, it can not conclude that the evidence of Pw4 and Pw3 is trust worthy.

18. One of the contention of the accused is, the pw3 panchyatdar who is working as

VRO, is a stock panchyatdar to the police, without attending any proceedings he signs as 6 witness in the panchanamas. Even then he was collected as panchyatdars and shown the alleged arrest and seizure were held in his presence. Another lacuna in the prosecution version is, they failed to collect the local persons as panchyatdars to the said panchanma proceeding, which is a fatal to the prosecution case. In this aspects this court relied on a decision reported in 2010 1 ALT criminal 32 in between the parties S.Babu Saheb @

Babu Vs. State of A.P. In the said case it is the contention of the accused that pw1 who was working at Srikalahasti is a stock witness of the prosecution and that the Excise inspector did not follow the prescribed procedure U/S 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. His contention is by making such the local mediators ought to have been taken. In the 16 to 20th paragraphs their lordship held Admittedly Pw1 accompanied the excise officials from Srikalahasti. The excise officials were proceeding on information. When they were proceeding on information, they were right in taking mediators along with them. if in a given case the excise or police officials have to search a vehicle in a forest area or at a place where there is no possibility of securing any local mediators, then probably they will be justified in conducting seizure proceedings in the presence of mediators brought by them from a different place. But when they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the excise officials or prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local respectable mediators. That is the mandate of section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C. As referred to in the above provisions, the excise officials are also authorized to issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under subsection (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 Cr.P.C. Is to ensure confidence in the neighbors and in the public in general that a genuine search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and not planted. The presence of independent respectable mediators at a search is always desirable and the presence of mediators of any other locality would not only weaken, but sometimes destroy the prosecution case.

19. Of course it can not be said that the evidence of a witness, who accompanied the police, cannot be always believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he accompanied the excise or police officials. But where, in a case, the excise officials, having an opportunity to take respectable mediators, did not make any efforts to take such 7 mediators certainly it casts a doubt about the prosecution version. In this case, admittedly no efforts were made to secure the presence of ht local mediators.

JUSTICE not only to be done, but also appears to have been done. Investigation must be fair an in accordance with the prescribed procedure. If respectable local mediators are taken the same would inspire confidence.

IN STATE v. ARUN, AIR 2003 SC 801, the Supreme Court held that:

“ where there is no independent witness from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery, the selection of an outsider as a seizure witness necessarily castes doubts.

And in the 21st and 22nd paragraphs it was stated there are “thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Excise Officials picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence situated at a distance of three kilometers.

Neither the testimony of pw1 nor that of pw3 discloses that they tried to secure tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Ex.p1 panchanama, also does not disclose that any effort was made by excise Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality.

Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of section 100 (4) Cr.P.C are not followed by the Excise Officials while seizing the plastic can containing I.D. Liquor. Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.

20. Their are other reasons for disbelieving the testimony of Pws.1 and 2 Admittedly, there was another mediator by name B.Janakiramaiah and three other excise officials who accompanied pw2. Neither the other mediator nor the excise officials were examined in this case. The prosecution has not assigned specific reasons for not examining those witnesses.

For the reason of not making efforts to take independent respectable local mediator, the evidence of pw1 loses it's credibility. If we exclude the evidence of pw1, there remains the evidence of pw2 only.

21. And also relied on another judgment reported in 2006 (1) ALT criminal 54 A.P in between the parties Jarapala Deepala @ Babu Rao and others state of A.P. In in 8 36th paragraph Ex,p6 panchanama runs into six pages which was written by Pw15.

Admittedly, this witness is not a resident of Dubacherla junction where the accused were said to have been arrested and the properties seized. On the other hand, pw15 is resident of

Kurellagudem village and he is working as village Administrative Officer of Amberpeta. He further admitted that Dubacherla junction is located within the limits of Nallajerla village and there are village administrative officers and sarpanches in Dubachesla village and Nallagerla village.

22. He further stated that Dubaherla junction is on N.H.5 road and it is a busy locality and there are hotels on either side of the road and there are residential houses as well as shops on either side of the junction and Dubacherla junction extends to a distance of two furlongs to the residential houses, shops and hotels and that the traffic will be heavy round the clock and the hotels will be kept opened round the clock on account of heavy vehicular traffic on N.H.5. But, curiously enough pw20 the investigating officer stated that he could not secure any mediators of the locality to act as mediators.

23. As per Section 100 Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever a search is made, the persons of the locality have to be taken as mediators. It is not as if in the instant case the arrest and seizure took place outside of any residential locality. On the other hand, the accused were there is no material to show that pw20 served any summons on any of the witnesses of the locality to act as mediators and those persons refused to act as mediators.

In the absence of such evidence the explanation of pw20 for non-compliance of section 100 of Code of Criminal Procedure can not be given credence. Obviously, pw15 appears to be a stock witness for the police and therefore the police got the panchanama scribed by such a witness and also wanted him to act as mediator. According to the other mediator pw11 his signature was taken in Dubacherla police station. Therefore, the evidence of pw15 and pw20 that Ex.p6 was prepared at Bheemadole junction near the coffee hotel of pw15 in connection with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of properties M.Os.1 to 10 cannot be believed.

I am unable to believe the testimony of pw15 and pw20 in respect of the alleged recovery of

M.Os 1 to 10 from A1 to A6. In my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mos.1 to 10 were recovered from the possession of any of the accused.

24.In the present case also the prosecution failed to secure the mediators from the place of offence area though there was every possibility of securing the mediators and the prosecution failed to state the reason why the selected Pw3 who is a VRO from the far away place. Hence it can conclude that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure U/S 100 Cr.P.C. Further as the said panchyatdars were secured after lapse of more than 15 minutes after the police caught holding the accused, the said confession of the accused can not be taken as voluntary confession.

the main contentions of the accused are -

1. Having possibility to follow the procedure under 100 Cr.P.C, the investigation officer pw3 did not follow the same while conducting search of the culprits and seizure of alleged stolen property. Crucial witnesses admitted that the place of arrest and seizure areas surrounded by showrooms, auto stands.

2. Though the pw2 is a VRO after caught holding the culprits, the police collected pw2 and

Lw6 from such long distance, though number of persons and officials were available in the area of their PS and at the place of arrest area.

3. To constitute an offence U/S 411 or 382 IPC, it has to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the specific stolen property of the complainants were recovered from possession of the accused. The non conducting of test identification parade of property is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

4. The crucial aspects of identification of property proceedings were not conducted properly.

The Pw2 VRO and the Pw1 denied the Ex.p6 test identification proceedings said to have been conducted.

25. The investigation officer pw4 deposed about the registration of the cases and further investigation done in the cases

26. As stated above regarding the seizure pw3 and pw4 did not give positive evidence corroborating with the recitals of Ex.p4 and p3 panchanama.

27. The above discussion rises suspicion on the police showing the pw3 as the panchayatdars and also regarding the seizure of mos 1 and 2 from the possession of the accused. As stated above with the aid of evidence on record beyond all reasonable doubts it was not established by the prosecution that the alleged recovered property mos 1 and 2 were 10 recovered from the accused.

28. In view of above this court of conclusion that, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. With the aid of evidence of pws 1 to 4, Ex.p1 to p6 and mos 1 and 2 the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

29. In view of above, this court is of the conclusion that the prosecution with the aid of evidence of pws 1 to 4 and Exs.p1 to p6 and mos 1 and 2 failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged offences.

Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

30. In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.

457, 380 IPC. and accordingly, they are acquittal u/s 248 (1) Cr.pc. The bail bonds of the accused stands canceled after lapse of six months. Mos1 and 2 which were given to the pw1 and Pw2 for interim custody shall holds good the appeal time is over.The accused shall furnish a bond U/S 437 (a) Cr.P.C if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

Directly typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 3rd day of October, 2016.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri R.Radhakrishna PW-2:- Sri K.Bayapu reddy PW-3: Sri T.Bhavani sankar PW4: Sri B.Yugandhar babu

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Complaint Ex.p3: Panchanama Ex.P4: Panchanama Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Rough sketch Ex.P7: FIR Ex.P8: Rough sketch

For Defence:-

Dw1: Sri S.Durga rao

Witness examined and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused –nil--

Material objects marked: - n i l -

Mo1:- Sony company TV Mo2: Apple company mobile phone

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

class, Kadapa

Date of offence: 38-10-2014 Date of report: 31-10-2014 Date of apprehension of accused: 27-10-2014 Date of release of accused: 3-12-2015 Date of commencement of trial: 3-2-2016 Date of close of trial:28-9-2016 Date of judgment: 3-10-2016

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 03 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. By Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name

1. Udayagiri Rafi, 35 yrs, s/o Khasim, Auto driver, D.no. 7/1115-1, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city, Caste by Muslim.

2. Kandumuru Shabbir, s/o Rajasaheb,30 yrs, Dudekula caste, D.no. 7/875, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city.

3. Vadapalli Chinna Jamal @ Jamal, s/o Chinna Jamal, 22 yrs, Dudekula caste, H.No. 7/961, M.J.Kunta, Kadapa city.

Offence:- u/ss. 457,380 of IPC .

Finding:- A1 to A3 are foud not guilty.

Sentence:In the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC. and accordingly, they are acquittal u/s 248 (1) Cr.pc. The bail bonds of the accused stands canceled after lapse of six months. Mos1 and 2 which were given to the pw1 and Pw2 for interim custody shall holds good the appeal time is over.The accused shall furnish a bond U/S 437 (a) Cr.P.C if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. . .

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

CC/200280/2016 Acquitted

SHO RIMS PS vs Gorla Nagajuna Reddy,

06 Oct 2016

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Smt. G.Deena, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 6th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No. 280 of 2016

State: represented by Sub inspector of police,

Rims police station, Kadapa …..Complainant

Versus

1.Gorla Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Bala Subba Reddy, 454 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa city. (A1). 2.Gorla Sasi Kumar Reddy, S/o Nagarjuna Reddy, 22 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa City. (A2). 3.Sanapureddi Dasaradha Rami Reddy, S/O Rams Linga Reddy, 46 years, D.No.14/703-2, Nakash Street, Kadapa City.(A3). 4.Gorla Chandra Kala, W/o Nagarjuna Reddy 36 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa City. (A4). 5.Sanapureddy Siva Gowri, W/o Rama Linga Reddy, 24 years, D.No.14/703-2, Nakash Street, Kadapa city. (A5).

…….. Accused

This case coming on 3-10-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Ramalingeshwar Raju,

Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Rims police station, Kadapa filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 169/2015 for the offence punishable u/s 448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act of Rims PS.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as

follows;-

On 5-12-2015 as per the instructions of higher authorities, the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Kadapa, his staff, police staff were vacated the tenants of the shopping complex, Rims

Hospital premises and locked the shop with locks. While son on 7-12-2015 morning at about 8-25 AM, the Lws 3, 6 to 8 were cleaning the premises of shopping complex and Lws 9 to 11 were cleaning the conversing with each other, then the accused A1 to A5 came and broken the locked lock of the room, criminally trespassed into the room, on noticing the same Lw9 telephoned Lw1 and informed about the acts of the accused A1 to A5. After some time the

Lws1 and 2 rushed to the spot and when Lw1 questioned the accused A1 to A5 about their broking the locked lock and criminally trespassed into the room, then the accused A1 to A5 2 abused the Lws 1 and 2 in filthy language to whom Lws 1 and 2 are to question the accused

A1 to A5. When Lw2 asked the accused A1 to A5 about their unnecessarily abusing, then the accused A1 to A5 abused Lw2 in filthy language, then Lws 4 and 5 rushed to the spot, on seeing the arrival of Lws 4 and 5, then the accused A1 to A5 threatened Lws 3 to 8 with dire consequences, then A1 to A5 abused Lws 4 and 5 filthy language, dragged and thrown aside and obstructed their legitimate duties by their acts and also outrage the modesty of Lws 4 and 5 in public place. Later A1 to A5 threatened Lws 4 and 5 with dire consequences to foist private complainant against them, if Lws.4 and 5 lodge any complaint against the accused

A1 to A5. Later Lw1 came to PS and lodged a report before Lw12 against A1 to A5 about the occurrence.

On the report of Lw1, the Lw12 registered a case in Cr.No.169/2015 U/Sec.448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act of Rims u/g PS and investigated.

2. A perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act on the accused.

3. On appearance of accused , copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act .

The substance of accusation of accused for the charges leveled against accused are read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried by the court.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to pw10, got marked Exs.P1 to p9 and Mo1 marked. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

The point for determination is: 7.

Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of

PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT :-

The case of the prosecution is, On 5-12-2015 as per the instructions of higher authorities, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, his staff, police staff were vacated the tenants of the shopping complex, Rims Hospital premises and locked the shop with locks.

While son on 7-12-2015 morning at about 8-25 AM, the Lws 3, 6 to 8 were cleaning the premises of shopping complex and Lws 9 to 11 were cleaning the conversing with each other, then the accused A1 to A5 came and broken the locked lock of the room, criminally trespassed into the room, on noticing the same Lw9 telephoned Lw1 and informed about the acts of the accused A1 to A5. After some time the Lws1 and 2 rushed to the spot and when

Lw1 questioned the accused A1 to A5 about their broking the locked lock and criminally trespassed into the room, then the accused A1 to A5 abused the Lws 1 and 2 in filthy language to whom Lws 1 and 2 are to question the accused A1 to A5. When Lw2 asked the accused A1 to A5 about their unnecessarily abusing, then the accused A1 to A5 abused Lw2 in filthy language, then Lws 4 and 5 rushed to the spot, on seeing the arrival of Lws 4 and 5, then the accused A1 to A5 threatened Lws 3 to 8 with dire consequences, then A1 to A5 abused Lws 4 and 5 filthy language, dragged and thrown aside and obstructed their legitimate duties by their acts and also outrage the modesty of Lws 4 and 5 in public place.

Later A1 to A5 threatened Lws 4 and 5 with dire consequences to foist private complainant against them, if Lws.4 and 5 lodge any complaint against the accused A1 to A5.

9.The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to pw10, got marked Exs.P1 to p9 and Mo1 marked. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

10.Pw1 the defacto complainant in his evidence deposed on 15-12-2015 the revenue officials and police staff came to the rims hospital premises and got vacated the tenants of the shopping complex in the rims hospital premises and locked the shops with proper sealing of the locks.

11.As per the contention of the prosecution, the accused were the tenants of the shop number.7 in the shopping complex in the rims hospital premises. And the accused were also got vacated by the revenue officials and the police staff. The allegation of the 4 prosecution as they were got vacated from their shops, the accused grow wild, criminally trespassed in to the shopping complex premises, broke open the locks of shop No.7 in the shopping complex and criminally trespassed in to the room. Pw9 who was present at that place and witnessed the incident, made phone call to pw1 and informed about the acts of A1 to A5. The Pw9 who said to have witnessed the incident, in his evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and stood hostile. In the cross examination by the prosecution he deposed, prior to the present incident the revenue officials and police got vacated the shop owners from the shops and seized the shops. And further stated on 7- 12-2015 the said incident taken place. Subsequently he deposed Pws 1 and 2 and police came to that place, then an altercation taken place. But he denied that he along with the other witnesses Pw4 to Pw6, Pw3 and some other person witnessed the accused committing the alleged incident. As the crucial witness Pw9 did not support the version of the prosecution regarding material aspects, he was declared hostile by the prosecution.

12.As per the contention of the prosecution at the time of the said incident the Lw3

Mariyamma Pws 4 to 6 were present at that place and cleaning the premises of shopping complex, then Pw7, Pw8 and Pw9 were also present at that place and witnessed the incident.

The Pws 4 to 6 the sleepers in their evidence deposed on 7-12-2015 they have attended they were, during that time they heard some sounds of quarrel going on in between shop keeper and some other person. Though they have stated that some quarrel had been taken place, but they did not state any incriminating material against the accused and supporting said allegation made against the accused.

13.Even Pw7 and Pw8 in their evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects. Though they deposed about the some quarrel taken place, but they did not identified the accused as the culprits who quarrel and committed the said offence as the alleged by the prosecution. The said eye witnesses Pws4 to 9 did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects.

14.As per the contention of the prosecution, the Pw9 informed about the incident to the Pws 1 and 2. But Pw9 denied about the said fact. Pw1 in his evidence deposed, Pw9 made phone call to him and informed about the incident taken place at the shop No.7 in the shopping complex. Then he inturn informed same to the director, rims hospital, so also the 5 police. Then he along with, police and his other staff went to the place of offence area.

There he noticed the police were trying to bring out the accused. Then some altercation taken place in between the accused and the police. He brought another lock and locked the doors of room No.7. In his evidence he did not depose that the accused abused the police, the persons at that place and even outraged the modesty as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of Pw1 reveals that by the time he came to the place of offence, the police were bringing the accused to the out side of the shopping complex, then an altercation taken place in between the accused and police. It is not the evidence of Pw1 that the accused only altercated with the police and the accused were at the fault. Though he deposed that the accused and the police abused each other in filthy language, he did not specifically deposed about the abusal made by the accused against the police and did not the narrate the incident corroborating the version of the prosecution. The Pw9 denied that he gave only information that to the Pw1 regarding the incident, on that only Pw1 came to the place of offence.

Another witness Pw2 in his evidence deposed, by the time he went to the place of offence, the galata was going on at the canteen at the rims hospital. He came to know the lock of room No.7 was broke open by some persons. And he saw accused A4 at that place. He specifically deposed that he did not witness the actual incident and he do not know any thing about the alleged incident.

15.Pw3 the women PS in her evidence deposed she along with Lw5 Jyothi ASI went to the place of offence, by that time the accused A1 broke opening the lock of the shopping complex in the rims hospital. At that time A2 to A5 were also present at that place along with the accused A1. When Pws 1 and 2 questioned the accused about their acts, then the accused abused them in filthy language. But Pws 1 and 2 in their evidence did not depose about the said over tacts of the accused against them. the said evidence of Pw3 was not corroborated by the Pws 1 and 2. Pw3 further deposed the accused A4 caught hold her and the ASI and pushed them down. Even then they brought the accused from that place.

As per the evidence of Pw3 at that time when they were assaulted by the accused, Pws 1 and 2 and other witnesses were present at that place. But the non of the witness support the version of the prosecution in the said aspects.

16.Though the Pw1 and 2 gave some positive evidence, they did not deposed any incriminating evidence against the accused. They even did not deposed about the alleged offene made against Pw3 and other police officials. The Pw10 deposed about the registration of the present case and further investigation done in this case.

17.Though the prosecution has established that the shopping rooms in the shopping complex duly locked and sealed by the revenue officials, with their evidence it was failed to establish that the accused broke open the lock of room No.7 in the shopping complex, criminally trespassed into the said shop, they even abused Pws 1 and 2 and used criminal force against Pw3 and police officials. The prosecution failed to prove the said contention with their evidence. Hence this court is of the conclusion that the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

18. In view of above, this court is of the conclusion that with the aid of it of the evidence of pws 1 to pw10, Exs.p1 to p9, Mo1 marked the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19. In the result, accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stands canceled after lapse of six months. The mos 1 broken lock shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The accused shall furnish a bond U/S 437 (a) Cr.P.C if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

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

me in the open Court this, the 6th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- SriV.Subramanyam PW-2:- Sri D.Ramanaiah PW-3:-Sri.B.Krishnaveni PW-4:-Sri.T.Raja 7

PW-5:-Sri.M.Merry PW-6:-Sri.S.Marry PW-7:-Sri.B.Balanarayana Reddy PW-8:- SriG.Venkataiah PW-9:- Sri T.Ramesh OW-10:Sri.P.Hanumanthu

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: complaint Ex.P2: statement of Lw7 Ex.P3: statement of Lw8 Ex.p4:statement of Lw11 Ex.p5:-Statement of Lw9 Ex.p6:- Requisition Ex.p7:- FIR Ex.p8: Rough Sketch Ex.p9: Police proceeding

Mo1 For Defence:- N I l -

Witness examined and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused --nil--

Material objects marked: Nil.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

class, Kadapa

Date of offence:7-12-2015 Date of report: 7-12-2015 Date of apprehension of accused: 7-12-2015 Date of release of accused: 7-12-2015 Date of commencement of trial: 19-7-2016 Date of close of trial:3-10-2016 Date of judgment: 6-10-2016

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 280 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, Rims police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name 1.Gorla Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Bala Subba Reddy, 454 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa city. (A1). 2.Gorla Sasi Kumar Reddy, S/o Nagarjuna Reddy, 22 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa City. (A2). 3.Sanapureddi Dasaradha Rami Reddy, S/O Rams Linga Reddy, 46 years, D.No.14/703-2, Nakash Street, Kadapa City.(A3). 4.Gorla Chandra Kala, W/o Nagarjuna Reddy 36 years, D.No.3/68, Patha Kadapa, Kadapa City. (A4). 5.Sanapureddy Siva Gowri, W/o Rama Linga Reddy, 24 years, D.No.14/703-2, Nakash Street, Kadapa city. (A5).

Offence:- u/s. 448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act of Rims PS .

Finding:- A1 to A5 are found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 353, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stands canceled after lapse of six months. The mos 1 broken lock shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The accused shall furnish a bond U/S 437 (a) Cr.P.C if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. .

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

CC/200310/2016 Acquitted

SHO TALUK ps vs Konda Kondaiah,

07 Oct 2016

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Smt. G.Deena, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 7th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No. 310 of 2016

State: represented by Sub inspector of police,

Taluk police station …..Complainant

Versus

1. Konda Kondaiah, s/o Kondaiah, age 30 yrs, Caste Mala (SC) r/o Putlampalli village, Kadapa mandal.

2. Konda Rajasekhar, s/o Kondaiah, age 24 yrs, Caste Mala (SC) r/o Putlampalli village, Kadapa mandal.

3. Utukuru Nagaraju, s/o Subbarayudu, age 30 yrs, caste; Raaka, r/o Nagireddipalli, C.K.Dinne mandal.

…….. Accused

This case coming on 6-10-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri C.Sundar raju, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, Taluk police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 14/2016 for the offence punishable u/ss 379 or 411 IPC.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as

follows;-

That Lw1 is having 13 she buffaloes and he used to keep them in his catle shed situated near by his house in Akkayapalli, Kadapa. While so on 22-1-2016 in the evening

Lw1 drove back his 13 she buffaloes to his cattle shed and tied up them. Later on the next day i.e, on 23-1-2016 in the early morning at 5 am Lw1 went into his cattle shed and found missing of his 2 she buffaloes. Then he searched for the same but they were not traced. Basing on the report of pw1, the present case was registered in Cr.No. 14/2016 u/s. 379 IPC.

During the course of investigation on 26-1-2016 upon credible information Lw9 along with his staff and panchayathdars ( Lws 4 and 5) proceeded near to Ircon circle,

Kadapa situated on Kadapa to Mydukur NH road at 6-15 am and conducted vehice checking and there the police arrested the accused 1 to 3. During interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence and recorded confession 2 statement of accused and seized two she buffaloes along with goods garrier auto concerned in this case under a cover of panchanama. After the completion of entire investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the said offences.

2. A perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 379 or 411 IPC on the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offence punishable A1 to A3 u/ss 379 or 411 IPC. The contents of charges against accused are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried by the court.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

The point for determination is: 7.

Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable A1 to A3 u/ss. 379 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

8.POINT :-

The case of the prosecution is on 22-1-2016 in the night pw1 tied up his buffaloes in the cattle shed. On the next day in the early morning at about 5 am when he went to his cattle shed there he found missing of two she buffaloes among 13 buffaloes which were tied by him in the yesterday night. He searched for the missed she buffaloes in the surrounding areas but he did not trace out the same. Then he gave Ex.p1 report to the Taluk police. Basing on which the present case was registered in Cr.no. 14/ 2016

9.The contention of the prosecution is, the two shee buffaloes of pw1 which were found missing were recovered from th e possession of A1 to A3 and they only committed theft of the same.

10.To prove the said allegations on behalf of the prosecution witnesses pws 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.p1 to Ex.p10 are marked.

11.Pw1 the defacto complainant in his evidence deposed that on 22-1-2016 he tied his 13 she buffaloes in the cattle shed infront of his house, later he left to his house, on the next day morning around 5 am he came to the cattle shed and found missing of two she buffaloes. As he did not found his she buffaloes as such he filed Ex.p1 report to the police. He further deposed on 27-1-2016 the police taken him to the boys school in Chemmumiahpeta, there VRO showned him four buffaloes and asked him to identify his buffaloes, then he identified his two she buffaloes and taken the same for interim custody..

Pw4 the neighbour of pw1 has deposed in the month of January, 2016, two buffaloes of pw1 were committed theft by some unknown offendars, on that pw1 gave report to the police. Pw5 also deposed about the missing of two buffaloes of pw1 from his house and also about recovery of the buffaloes by the police. The evidence of pws 1, 3 and 4 has established that the pw1 was having 13 buffaloes on the date of incident he tied up 13 buffaloes in the cattle shed and on the next day morning he found missing of two she buffaloes. Later on recovery of the buffaloes the police handed over the two buffaloes to the pw1.

12.Pw6 the witness to whom the interim custody of buffaloes were handed over by the police has deposed on 26-1-2016 morning at about 10 am the police handed over two buffaloes to him for safe custody . After 3 to 4 days he returned back the buffaloes to the police. Pw7 the VRO who has conducted the test identification parade of two buffaloes has deposed on 27-1-2016 he had conducted test identification proceedings adjacent to the Bhasyam s chool situated in Balaji nagar, kadapa. In his presence the pw1 identified two buffaloes which were produced by the police as his buffaloes and he further deposed on that he prepared Ex.p7 test identification proceedings. The contention of the police is the buffaloes which were said to have been recovered from the accused were identified by the pw1 as his buffaloes. With the aid of evidence of pws1, 7 and Ex.p7 it was established by the proseution that the buffaloes which were said to have been recovered were identified by the pw1 as his buffaloes.

13.The main allegations of the prosecution is the said two buffaloes of pw1 which were committed theft by some unknown offenders were recovered from the possession of the accused and they only comitted the theft of same.

14.To prove the allegations on behalf of the prosecution pws 1 to 8 and Exs.p1 to p8 are marked. Pw8 is the police officer. Pws 2 and 3 are the panchayathdars. Pw8 in his evidence deposed on Ex.p1 report of pw1 the present case was registered in Cr.no.

14/2016. During the course of investigation he examined all the material witnesses and ecorded their statements. Pw8 further deposed during the ourse of investigation on 26-1- 2016 at about 6 am after receiving credible information he along with his staff and panchayathdars pws 2 and 3 proceeded to the Ircon circle, at that place they conducted vehicle checking, around 6-30 am they noticed one three wheeler goods auto was coming from Rajampeta side, on seing them the auto was stopped and persons in that auto were tried to escape from that place and they caught hold them. The accused 1 to 3 who are present in the court are the said persons who were caught hold by them. He deposed in the presence of panchayathdars pws 2 and 3 he interrogated the accused 1 to 3 seperately in which they confessed regarding the commission of present offence. Then they seized two she buffaloes which were kept in the said auto under a cover of Ex.p9 panchanama. The pw8 specifically deposed that the she buffaloes were recovered from the possession of the accused and that the buffaloes were seized and the accused were arrested under a cover of Ex.p9 panchanama proceedingd. Later the bufaloes were handed over to the pw1 after conducting test identification parade.

15.It is the evidence of pw8 that the missed two buffaloes of pw1 were found missing and the same were recovered from the possession of accused 1 to 3 and on their confession regarding the commission of present offence, the said buffaloes were recovered.

Pw8 specifically deposed in the presence of panchayathdars pws 2 and 3 he interrogated the accused 1 to 3 in which they voluntarily confessed regarding the commission of present offence and produced the buffaloes but pws 2 and 3 panchayathdars in their evidence did not support the case of the prosecution in all material aspects and stood hostile.

16.The case of the accused is, as the accused did not kept the autoi in the standing, on that the police grew wild and filed false case against the accused. Infact no such theft was committed by the accused. In the present case the crucial witness pws 2 and 3 who are the panchayathdars to the proceedings under Ex.p9 panchanama did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects. Hence, basing on the sole evidence of pw8 the investigation officer, it cannot be concude that the said two she buffaloes of pw1 which were said to have been committed theft were recovered from the possession of the accused. As the prosecution failed to produce the evidence of independent witnesses, basing on the sole evidence of pw8 it cannot be conclude that the acused has committed the said offence. Inview of above, this court is of the conclusion that the prosecution established that the recovered buffaloes are the buffaloes of pw1 but it was failed to establish that the two recovered she buffaloes of pw1 were recovered from the possession of the accused on their confession and they committed the said offence as alleged by them.

17. Inview of above, this court is of the conclusion that with the aid of evidence of pws 1 to 8 and Exs.p1 to p10 and Mo1, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused 1 to 3 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

18. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/ss 379 or 411 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

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

me in the open Court this, the 7th day of October, 2015.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri A.Kondaiah PW-2:- Sri B.Das PW-3: Sri K.Nagi reddy 6

Pw4: Sri A.Subbarayudu Pw5: Sri P.Subbarayudu Pw6: Sri S.V.Ramaraju Pw7: Sri P.Vinod babu Pw8: Sri Rajarajeswar reddy, S.I

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Signature in the panchanama Ex.P3: Signature in the panchanama Ex.P4: . Signature in the panchanama Ex.P5: . Signature in the panchanama Ex.P6: Receipt Ex.P7: Identification panchanama Ex.p8: FIR Ex.p9: Panchanama Ex.P10: Rough sketch

For Defence:- N I l -

Witness examined and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused --nil-- Material objects marked: - --nil--

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

class, Kadapa

Date of offence: 22/23-1-2016 Date of report: 23-1-2016 Date of apprehension of accused: 26-1-2016 Date of release of accused: 3-2-2016 Date of commencement of trial: 20-7-2016 Date of close of trial: 6-10-2016 Date of judgment: 7-10-2016

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 310 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, Taluk police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name

1. Konda Kondaiah, s/o Kondaiah, age 30 yrs, Caste Mala (SC) r/o Putlampalli village, Kadapa mandal.

2. Konda Rajasekhar, s/o Kondaiah, age 24 yrs, Caste Mala (SC) r/o Putlampalli village, Kadapa mandal.

3. Utukuru Nagaraju, s/o Subbarayudu, age 30 yrs, caste; Raaka, r/o Nagireddipalli, C.K.Dinne mandal.

Offence:- u/ss. 379 or 411 IPC.

Finding:- A1 to A3 are found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/ss 379 or 411 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. . .

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

CC/200012/2016 Acquitted

Kadapa I TOWN UG P.S. vs Gajjala Sreenivasulu Reddy and 2 others

07 Oct 2016

In the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa

Present:-Smt. G.Deena, B.A.B.L.,

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first class, Kadapa

Dated, the 7th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No. 12 of 2016

State: represented by Sub inspector of police,

I Town police station ….. Complainant

Versus

1. Gajjala Sreenivasulu reddy, s/o Venkata subba reddy, 24 yrs, D.no. 3/23, Dowlathapuram, C.K.Dinne mandal, Y.S.R. District.

2. Duvvuru Santhos kumar, s/o Ganesh, 26 yrs, D.no. 1/1921, Sreeram nagar, R.S. Road, Kadapa city.

3. Thanneer Harinath, s/o Parthasaradhi, 20 yrs, D.no. 45/447-3, Balaji nagar, near ITI circle, Kadapa city.

…….. Accused

This case coming on 6-10-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Chandraguptha, Advocate for the accused and after hearing on both sides and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of police, I Town police station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 91/2015 for the offence punishable u/ss 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC

The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are as

follows;-

That since 10 years Lw1 is maintaining a mobile shop in the name and style of Jameel mobile shop near 7 roads junction, Kadapa city. Every day Lw1 used to go to the shop at 10 am and used to go to the house at 2 pm for lunch. As usually on 29-3- 2015 at 10 am Lw1 went to shop and at 1-30 pm went to his house. At that time Lws 2 and 3 who are workers in the mobile shop of Lw1 was present in the shop. Later at about 1-20 pm the accused A1 made a phone call to the mobile belongs to Lw5 from his mobile by adding his name as Gajjala Sreenivasulu reddy and threatened Lw5 with dire consequences and also added he knows about his daily programmes and he will made attack on him at any time along with his hunch men since he is having good rapport with the district level politicians, later asked Lw5 to come over to the Jameel mobile shop since he is readily available near the mobile shop, thus Lw5 received continuous threatening calls 2 from A1 mobile. Again the A1 to A3 went to the Lw1 mobile shop and at that time A1 is in possession of petrol can, enquired about Lw1 with Lws 2 and 3, alter criminal trespassed into their shop asked them to close the doors of two shops belongs to Lw1.

Again beat Lw1 and Lw2 with hands and legs. Again the accused A1 made a phone call to the mobile belongs to Lw1 at 3-10 pm from his mobile, abused him in a filthy language and demanded to send one Jaheer near to him immediately other wise he will set fire to the mobile shop by pouring petrol. On that Lw1 replied that he has no knowledge about Jaheer, so saying, immediately rushed to his mobile shop, where Lw1 noticed the presence of A1 to A3 being in possession of petrol can and also noticed that two other rooms belongs to him were closed and Lws 2 and 3 are in a mood of fear. Later Lw1 enquired about the situation with Lws 2 and 3and came to know that due to fear of A1 only they closed down the shops. Later Lw1 questioned the accused A1 to A3 about their rudely behavior towards them, for which A1 to A3 pounced upon them and beat them indiscriminately with hands and legs and direly uttered if they will fail to produce Jaheer

before them, they will do away with their lives. Basing on the report of pw1, the present

case was registered in Cr.No. 91/2015 u/ss. 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC. After the completion of entire investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the said offences.

2. A perusal of material on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC on the accused.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

for the offence punishable A1 to A3 u/ss 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC. The contents of charges against accused are framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried by the court.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined Pws 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the defence, none were examined and no documents are marked.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against them. They denied the 3 same and reported no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

The point for determination is: 7.

Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused for

the offence punishable A1 to A3 u/ss. 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT :-

The case of the prosecution is since 10 years pw1 is maintaining a mobile shop in the name and style of Jameel mobile shop near 7 roads junction, Kadapa city.

As usually on 29-3-2015 at 10 am pw1 went to shop and at about 1-30 pm he went to his house and then pws 2 and 3 who are workers in the mobile shop of pw1 were present in the shop at that time. Later at about 1-20 pm the accused A1 made a phone call to the mobile phone of pw2 and threatened him with dire consequences regarding the alleged dispute. The pw2 had been receiving phones of threatening calls from the A1.

Again the A1 to A3 went to the shop of pw1, they criminally trespassed into the house of pw1, there they beat pw1 and Lw2 Jahangir. On the same day at about 3 pm again

A1 made phone call to the mobile of pw1 and abused him in a filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. After that in the shop of pw1 the accused 1 to 3 created fear in the minds of pws 2 and 3 by showing petrol can. When pw1 questioned the accused 1 to 3 about their behavior, then the accused beat pw1 indiscriminately with their hands and legs and asked him to produce Jaheer before them. Mentioning the above said incident the pw1 gave a report to the police. On the Ex.p5 report of pw1 the present case was registered in Cr.no. 91/2016.

9.To prove the said allegations against the accused no.1 to 3 on behalf of the prosecution witnesses pws1 to 4 and Exs.p1 to p7 are marked.

10.Pws 1 to 3 the victims in their evidence did not supported the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and stood hostile. The prosecution filed a report stating that Lw2 Sk.Jahangir and lw3 Sk.Chand basha went to Abroad and rdeported that they could not produce them and requested to close their evidence. Pw4 the investigation officer in his evidence deposed about the registration of the present case and further investigation done in this case. As the victims and material witness pws 1 to 3 did not support the 4 version of the prosecution in all material aspects, even basing on the positive evidence of

Lws 2 and 3, it cannot be conclude that the acused committed the present offence . In the present case pw1 is the main victim, pws 2 and 3 are the material witness so also the victim but pws 1 to 3 in their evidence did not support the version of the prosecution in all material aspects and stood hostile. Though the prosecution produced positive evidence of

Lws 2 and 3, in the absence of evidence of pws 1 to 3 it cannot be conclude that the accused has committed the above said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

11. Inview of above, this court is of the conclusion that with the aid of evidence of pws 1 to 4 and Exs.p1 to p7, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused 1 to 3 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

12. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/ss 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date.

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

me in the open Court this, the 7th day of October, 2015.

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW-1:- Sri Sk.Jameel PW-2:- Sri R.Subba reddy PW-3: Sri Syed Inayathullah Pw4: Sri P.Mynuddin

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution Ex.P1: Signature in the complaint Ex.P2: Statement of pw1 Ex.P3: Statement of pw2 Ex.P4: Statement of Lw4 Ex.P5: Statement of pw1 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.p7: Rough sketch

For Defence:- N I l - 5

Witness examined and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused --nil-- Material objects marked: - --nil--

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class,

Kadapa.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and judgment tried by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

class, Kadapa

Date of offence: 29-3-2015 Date of report: 29-3-2015 Date of apprehension of accused: 1-4-2015 Date of release of accused: 1-4-2015 Date of commencement of trial: 8-2-2016 Date of close of trial: 6-10-2016 Date of judgment: 7-10-2016

Calendar and judgment in C.C.No. 12 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I class, Kadapa.

Complainant:- State: Rep. by Sub inspector of Police, I Town police station.

Name of the accused with Age calling Religion Residence Father’s name

1. Gajjala Sreenivasulu reddy, s/o Venkata subba reddy, 24 yrs, D.no. 3/23, Dowlathapuram, C.K.Dinne mandal, Y.S.R. District.

2. Duvvuru Santhos kumar, s/o Ganesh, 26 yrs, D.no. 1/1921, Sreeram nagar, R.S. Road, Kadapa city.

3. Thanneer Harinath, s/o Parthasaradhi, 20 yrs, D.no. 45/447-3, Balaji nagar, near ITI circle, Kadapa city.

Offence:- u/ss. 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding:- A1 to A3 are found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/ss 448, 323, 506, 507 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after elapse of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. A1 to A3 shall furnish a bond u/sec. 437(a) of Cr.P.C. if they receives summons from the appellant court within six months from this date. . .

Sd/- G. Deena.,

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Kadapa. .

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa Dis.No……………………Dt. …………..

Order Record 914 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/772/2016	G. Rama Chandraiah vs M. Seethapathi	01 May 2017	JUDGEMENT	Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 01-05-2017
EP/27/2017	Kapil Chit Funds Hyd. Pvt limited,Kadapa branch-1 vs N. Siva Prasad and 4 others	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	Allowed Disposal Date: 28-04-2017
EP/81/2017	M/s. Kapil Chits Hyderabad P. Ltd, Proddatur branchII,Rep.Zonal legal Officer,Y.Lakshmi Narayana vs K. Shiva Kumari	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	Dismissed As Settled Out Of Court Disposal Date: 28-04-2017
OS/319/2014	Patan Gulzar Begum vs Rajesh and Anand	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	Dismissed For Default Disposal Date: 28-04-2017
OS/334/2013	Andhra Pragthi Grameena Bank,sankarapuram,Kadapa. vs Kuppuswamy Naikar Mohan	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 28-04-2017
OS/451/2016	S. Mahammed Rafi vs Patan Arifulla Khan	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/796/2016	G. Ravi Kumar Reddy vs O. Sudharshan Reddy	28 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/17/2017	Kapil Chit Funds Hyd. Pvt limited, Kadapa branch-1 vs D. Raja Reddy and 7 others	27 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/20/2017	Kapil Chits Hyderabad private limited Kadapa branc vs M. Vijaya Kumar and 3 others	27 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/21/2017	Kapil Chit Funds Hyd. Pvt limited,Proddutur branch vs G. Prathap Yadav	27 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/78/2017	Ongolu Rajesh Kumar vs V. Prasad	27 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/334/2016	Mj. Naga Subbaiaah vs K. Sandhya Rani	27 Apr 2017	JUDGEMENT	—
CC/200012/2016	Kadapa I TOWN UG P.S. vs Gajjala Sreenivasulu Reddy and 2 others	07 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/200310/2016	SHO TALUK ps vs Konda Kondaiah,	07 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/200228/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Thapti Veerasangamaiah,	06 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/200280/2016	SHO RIMS PS vs Gorla Nagajuna Reddy,	06 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/200003/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Udayagiri Rafi,	03 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200300/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Udayagiri Rafi,	03 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200306/2015	Smt. V. Madhavi vs P. Surendra	03 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200306/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Udayagiri Rafi,	03 Oct 2016	JUDGEMENT	—
CC/200390/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry P. s vs Komera Samuel	03 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200432/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry Ps vs Gundlakunta Venkata Krishnaiah	03 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200032/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Kotte Krishna Chaitanya	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200093/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Kommarthi Venkata Ramanaiah	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200133/2016	S.H.O. Vallur P.S. vs Syed Allah Bakash	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200192/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Basireddy Venkata Siva Reddy and one other	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200326/2016	S.H.O. Pendlimarry PS vs Thunga Ramudu	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200328/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry Ps vs Thunga Chendrayudu	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200283/2015	FRO Vempalli vs Masupalli Eswarayya	28 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200034/2014	Kadapa Municipal corporation rep. by P. Ajay Kumar vs P. Venkata Rami Reddy	21 Sep 2016	OTHER	—
CC/200109/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Chittiboina Vijaya Gopal	15 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200445/2016	S.H.O Chinna Chowk Ps vs Satteti Prajapathi	14 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200446/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Chimalapenta Obulesu,	14 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200316/2016	S H O Taluk ps vs N. Chakradher Yadav	12 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200216/2016	S.H.O. Women UG P.S. vs Achukatla Mabu Shareef	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200240/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Kanala Janardhan Reddy @ Gundugadu,	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200305/2016	SHO RIMS PS vs Obili Siva Sankar	02 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200398/2010	S.H.O.Kadapa Taluk P.S. vs Shaik Mahammed @ Mahammed Ali	01 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200095/2016	S.H.O C.K. Dinne P.S. vs Tappeta Raghavendra Reddy @ Ragava Reddy and 4 oth	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200126/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Neelam Raju	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200167/2016	S.H.O, Mahila P.S. vs Jaala Prathap	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200187/2015	K.C.Chowdappa vs P.Chinna Subbarayudu	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200259/2013	Rayachoti Lakshumma vs K. Chenna Reddy	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200266/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Vennapusa Malla Reddy	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200285/2014	M Rama penchalaiah vs K madu sundhan reddy	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
STC/200049/2013	Daggupati Venkata Ramana vs B.V.S. Rama Rao	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200232/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs T. Konda Reddy	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200456/2016	SHO TALUK ps vs Palagiri Ganga Routhu,	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200470/2016	S.H.O Chinna Chowk Ps vs Policherla Sreenivasulu	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/2000457/2016	SHO TALUK ps vs Yennam Bhagyamma	30 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200157/2016	Kadapa I TOWN UG P.S. vs Kadavakallu Raju	29 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200190/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Sirireddy Bali Reddy	29 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200233/2015	SHO Chinnachowk PS vs Billa Sreedhar	29 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200419/2016	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Patan Shoukath	29 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200170/2015	FRO Vempalli vs Katam Gangaiah	27 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200444/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Koneti Naresh,	27 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200327/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry Ps vs Yeduduru Govinda Reddy	23 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200117/2015	M. Sunil Kumar, vs Y. Sreenivasa Rao	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200031/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Shaik Kareem	10 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200017/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Yerrabothula Sathyamaiah	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200072/2015	SHO Taluka PS vs Memon Naseem Bhanu @ Shaheemsha	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200255/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry Ps vs Lingala Venkataramanuni Reddy	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200301/2016	SHO TALUK ps vs Cheppali Nagendra,	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200384/2016	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Pothula Masthan Reddy,	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200406/2016	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Chowduru Parameshwar Reddy,	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200433/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Arem Subba Reddy,	09 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200154/2016	S.H.O. Chennur P.S. vs Soorineni Siddi Ramaiah and 2 others	04 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
MC/200001/2016	Alamuri Sailaja, vs Alamuri Venkata Ramana,	04 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200027/2016	S.H.O C.K. Dinne P.S. vs Pothuluri Veera Reddy	03 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200385/2016	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Chelikepalli Narayana @ sirigapalli Nirayana,	02 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200176/2016	Kadapa I TOWN UG P.S. vs Sri Veriventi Sreenivasulu	29 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200279/2016	SHO RIMS PS vs Thirupavula Suresh Babu,	29 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200349/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Bokkasam Manoj Royal @ Manoj Kumar,	27 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200350/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Bokkasam Manoj Royal @ Manoj Kumar,	27 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200164/2014	SHO RIMs P.S. vs Maddela Subbanna	25 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200070/2016	S.H.O C.K. Dinne P.S. vs Maddela Jagan	23 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200074/2016	S.H.O C.K. Dinne P.S. vs Ganagalla Kondala Rao and 2 others	23 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200305/2015	SHO Taluka PS vs Bachala Pullaiah	21 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200049/2016	State-S.H.O.,Kadapa I Town P.S.Kadapa vs Bogala Pullareddy @ PUllaiah and 5 others	19 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200054/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Syed Gaibu	19 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200323/2016	S.H.O Pendlimarry Ps vs Mulla Mahammad Rafi or S. Rafi	19 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200377/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Pottapati Nitish,	19 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200302/2016	SHO RIMS PS vs Sirigireddy Narasimha Reddy,	18 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200421/2016	SHO Chinnachowk PS vs D. Bhulakshmi	18 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200056/2016	Kadapa I TOWN UG P.S. vs Douzi Mainuddin Khan @ Mansoor	15 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200071/2016	Kadapa II Town P.S. vs Petlu Ramana and 2 others	15 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200295/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Chilamkuru Baba Fakruddin Nadipi Fakruddin	15 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200342/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Konda Brahmaiah,	15 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200358/2016	SHO Chinna Chowk PS vs Konda Brahmaiah,	15 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200301/2015	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Molluru Naga Subba Reddy,	13 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200375/2016	SHO Pendlimarry PS vs Konduru Gangulaiah,	13 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200073/2016	S.H.O. Chennur P.S. vs Shaik Afzal	04 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200321/2015	SHO Taluk PS vs Talari Eswar,	04 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
STC/200022/2015	S.H.O.I Town Ps. vs Neeli Subbaramaiah	04 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200348/2014	S.H.O Chinna Chowk P.S. vs Mundla Srikanth Reddy	30 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200308/2016	S H O Taluk ps vs Budugu Ramana	22 Jun 2016	JUDGEMENT	—
CC/200094/2016	Kadapa Traffic UG P.S. vs Jayaprakash Reddy @ Chinna	03 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200312/2016	SHO TALUK ps vs Chimpiri Venkatesh	03 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200140/2015	SHO Chinna chowk Ps vs Shaik Sympathi Lal Basha @ Ringulu	02 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/200065/2014	FRO, Vempalli vs Vempalli Sreenuvasula Reddy	01 Jun 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 914 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		1
Apr 2017		11
Oct 2016		10
Sep 2016		16
Aug 2016		34
Jul 2016		25
Jun 2016		6
May 2016		3
Apr 2016		18
Mar 2016		3
Feb 2016		10
Jan 2016		24

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. G.Deena handled?

Smt. G.Deena has handled 930 court orders since 2013 at District Court Complex Kadapa. The average disposal rate is 19 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. G.Deena hear?

Based on available records, Smt. G.Deena primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at District Court Complex Kadapa.

Where is Smt. G.Deena currently posted?

Smt. G.Deena is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa at District Court Complex Kadapa, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. G.Deena available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Smt. G.Deena are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. G.Deena dispose cases?

Smt. G.Deena disposes approximately 19 cases per month, based on 930 orders handled over their tenure at District Court Complex Kadapa.

Since when is Smt. G.Deena serving?

Smt. G.Deena has been serving at District Court Complex Kadapa since 2013.

Case Types

CC 79%

OS 13%

EP 4%

STC 3%

PRC 1%

A 0%

MC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2017 — May 2017

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa · 12 orders
Apr 2014 — Oct 2016

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa · 772 orders
May 2013 — Apr 2014

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa · 146 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Dismissed Disposal Date: 28-03-2014 2

Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 27-03-2014 2

Closed Disposal Date: 28-03-2014 1

Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 01-05-2017 1

Allowed Disposal Date: 28-04-2017 1

Dismissed As Settled Out Of Court Disposal Date: 28-04-2017 1

Dismissed For Default Disposal Date: 28-04-2017 1

Decreed With Costs Disposal Date: 28-04-2017 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