Smt.G.Deena

C.C.389 of 2017 1 Dt.20.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

TANUKU.

Present: Smt. G.Deena, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

Monday, the 20th day of August, 2018

C. C. No.389 of 2017

Between

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Rural Police Station Crime No.78 of 2017 … Complainant

and

Neelam Ravi Kumar, s/o.Sriramulu, 27 years, Kapu, Masonry Mastery, r/o.Gollala Street, Kunchanapalli village, Tadepalligudem. … Accused

This case is coming on 17.08.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri R.Janardhana Rao, advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Rural Police Station, filed this case in Crime

No.78 of 2017 of his station alleging that accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (For short, 'IPC’) and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘D.P. Act’).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of N.Divya Teja (LW.1) was performed with accused on 17.04.2010 as per Christian rites and caste customs at Bethelu church, Tadepalligudem. At the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- towards dowry and one sovereign of gold ring. After the marriage she led conjugal life with accused at Kunchenapalli village and lived happily for some time. During wedlock with accused, she was blessed with two children. Subsequently, accused started harassing her both physically and mentally by demanding to get additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. On 04.04.2017 at about 9.00 p.m, accused harassed her for

additional dowry and necked out from his house along with two children. On that LW.1 filed a

report. Basing on the said report, V.Jagadeswara Rao-SI of Police (LW.8) registered the same as case in Cr.No.78/2017 and investigated into. During the course of further investigation, SI

C.C.389 of 2017 2 Dt.20.08.2018 of Police visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough and he also examined all the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. On 15.05.2017 LW.8 issued notice to the accused u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.

4. Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offences. Charges under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act were framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3.

6. Since there is no incriminating evidence against accused, examination of accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. dispensed with.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Now the point that arises for determination is___

Whether prosecution has brought home guilt of the accused of the

offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point: According to prosecution, the law was set into motion against the accused based on the report of PW.1 to the police. In order to establish its case, as already noted, prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1 who is defacto complainant did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In her evidence, PW.1 deposed that at present, there are no disputes in between her and her husband and she did not give any report against her husband. She further deposed that she does not know the contents of the document and Ex.P1 is her signature and she was not examined by police.

C.C.389 of 2017 3 Dt.20.08.2018

PW.2 who is mother of PW.1 deposed that at present there are no disputes in between PW.1 and accused, they are residing together and PW.1 did not give any report against her husband and she was not examined by police.

10. Since PWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine them and during cross examination PWs.1 and 2 having stated before police denied the contents of their statements as required under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same were marked as Exs.P2 and P3. As PWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses. The fact remains, the only evidence available on record is that of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3. A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3, as noted above, this Court is of view that absolutely no incriminating evidence is placed on record by prosecution to connect the accused of the offence with which he is charged. In the absence of any incriminating evidence to the effect that PW.1 was subjected to harassment both physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents in the hands of accused, it cannot be said that accused is guilty of the offences with which he is charged. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of the accused of the offences with which he is charged and he is accordingly entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III on my computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 20th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- G.Deena

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, TANUKU.

C.C.389 of 2017 4 Dt.20.08.2018

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: N.Divya Teja None. PW.2: K.Subbalakshmi

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil. Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Id/- G.D.

II AJFCM

Tanuku.

C.C.389 of 2017 5 Dt.20.08.2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. No.389/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TANUKU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Complaint Apprehension Release Taken Commence Close Order Offence or report of accused on bail on file -ment of trial of trial of sentence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to 13.05.17 18.07.17 -- 25.05.17 16.08.18 16.08.18 20.08.2018 04.04.17 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Tanuku Rural Police Station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Neelam Ravi Kumar, s/o.Sriramulu, 27 years, Kapu, Male, Masonry Mastery, r/o.Gollala Street, Kunchanapalli village, Tadepalligudem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: Under Section 498-A of I.P.C. & Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against accused.

Cr. No.78/2017

Finding : Not Guilty.

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty of the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- G.Deena

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, TANUKU.

Seal Copy submitted to

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

PRC No.30 of 2017 1 Dated 23.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

TANUKU.

Present: Smt. G. Deena II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

Thursday, the 23rd day of August, 2018.

P. R. C. No.30 of 2017

Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Palakole Circle, Crime No.46 of 2017 of Iragavaram Police Station. …Complainant

And

Undurthi Rafayelu @ Abdulla, s/o.Kankayya, Aged about 43 years, SC Madiga, r/o.Anumojupalem, h/o.Iragavaram village and Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri G.V.V.Appaji, advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court made the following__

COMMITTAL ORDER

The Inspector of Police, Palakole Circle, filed this case in Crime No.46 of 2017 of

Iragavaram Police Station alleging that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (n) and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that U.Amaravani (LW.1) victim woman is the own daughter of the accused. Her parents were separated at her childhood and living separately and married separately. Due to which, from her childhood she was living at the house of her grandmother in Tanuku and studied upto 10th class. Thereafter, in the year 2012 her father/accused came to the house of her grandmother and made believed them that he would look after her and he would perform her marriage and took her to the house of accused and later the accused looked after her well. Later in the year 2013 the accused went to Saudi country for his livelihood. On 30.08.2015 the accused returned to India and on 31.8.2015 at about 4.00 p.m when her stepmother

Sujatha was not present in their house, then accused forcibly committed rape on her by

PRC No.30 of 2017 2 Dated 23.08.2018 threatening her to kill her and he would not perform her marriage. On that she feared and did not disclose to anybody and from that time, acused continuously committing rape on her forcibly against her will by threatening her. She unable to bear such harassment and tried to escape from there, but accused threatened her that he would torn her 10th class marks memo and other her study certificates, if she escape from his house or disclose this matter to anybody. Finally, in the month of December, 2016 she escaped from the house of accused and went to the house of her younger mother and grandmother in Tanuku and then accused came to her and asked her to come to his house, but she refused the same. On that her younger mother and grandparents questioned her thoroughly about this and then she revealed the occurrences to them.

On that they put this matter before elders and questioned the accused, then he admitted his guilt and he would do justice to her, but accused was postponing the same without giving any proper replies. Hence, she filed a report in the police station. Basing on the report of LW.1, K.V.V.Srinivas-SI of Police (LW.21) registered as case in Cr.No.46/2017 and investigated into. As per the instructions of Ch.Rama Rao-CI of Police (LW.22),

Kum.V.Navatha-WPC (LW.20) examined LW.1 and recorded her statement and handed over same to LW.22. LW.22 visited the scene of offence, observed the same, got photographed the same and prepared rough sketch and examined all the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. On 18.05.2017 at 10.15 a.m, LW.22 arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. Dr.S.Indira Devi (LW.18) examined LW.1 and opined that the victim is habituated to sexual intercourse. Dr.U.Raghavendra Rao (LW.19) examined the accused and opining that he is capable to perform sexual intercourse and he is potent. K.Rajani Kumar-CI of Police (LW.23) received final opinions from medical officers, examined them and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, LW.23 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506(2) of IPC against the accused.

PRC No.30 of 2017 3 Dated 23.08.2018

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished to him. When examined, the accused stated that he has got means to engage a counsel to defend him before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel on either side and upon perusing the material on record and keeping in view the fact that as the offences under Sections 376(2) (n) and 506(2) of IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to commit the case to the Hon'ble Court of Session, West Godavari Division,

Eluru.

6. In the result, the case against accused is committed to the Hon'ble Court of

Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru, under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. Accused, who are on bail, is ordered to be appeared before the Hon'ble Court of Session as and when summons are received as provided under Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C. The Office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property to the Court of Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Eluru under Section 209(c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the committal of the case

to the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.

Typed directly on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this, the 23rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- G.Deena

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

TANUKU

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Id/- G.D.

II AJFCM, Tanuku.

PRC No.24 of 2017 1 Dated 21.08.2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

TANUKU.

Present: Smt. G. Deena II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

Tuesday, the 21st day of August, 2018.

P. R. C. No.24 of 2017

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Crime No.53 of 2017 of Attili P.S. …Complainant

And

1) Nakka Srinu, s/o.Satyanarayana, 21 years, Uppara, r/o.Manchili village, Attili Mandal.

2) Mindala Anthervedhi Narasanna @ Anthervedhi, s/o.late Subbarao 20 years, Uppara, r/o.Rajeev colony, Penumantra village and Mandal.

3) Nangalam Srinu @ Swamy, s/o.Late Satyanarayana, 36 years, Uppara, r/o.Polamurru village, Penumantra Mandal.

4) Nangalam Venkateswarlu, s/o.Rama Lingam, 25 years, Uppara, r/o.Manchili village, Attili Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Y.Satyanarayana Murthy, advocate for A1 to A4; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court made the following__

COMMITTAL ORDER

The Sub Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station, filed this case in Crime No.53 of 2017 alleging that A1 to A4 have committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that there are outstanding disputes existed in between M.Kondamma (LW.1) and all accused. LW.1 living by doing spinning bamboo baskets and grazing goats, on 16.05.2017 her daughter Nakka Annavaram (LW.2) and daughter-in-law Mindala Lakshmi (LW.3) disputed with her villagers A1

Nakka Srinu and Juvenile Nakka Ramu, as they got consume liquor to her son-in law

Nakka Nagaraju (LW.4) and both A1 and juvenile behaved highhandedly with them. On

PRC No.24 of 2017 2 Dated 21.08.2018 that they put the matter before V.Satyanarayana Reddy (LW.8), then LW.8 admonished them and advised both parties to live with cooperative, as they are all belongs to same community, but A1 and juvenile felt shame and developed grudge against LW.1 and decided to kill her. With that intention on 18.5.2017 at about 7.00 p.m, while LW.1 was present on the road infront of the house of Anjamma (LW.5), A1 to A4 along with juveniles came there with deadly weapons i.e. knife and crowbar tried to kill her, when she tried to rescue herself, Nakka Ramu hacked her both hands and A1 stabbed on back side of head, when she raised shouts on arrival of her relatives and neighbors all accused escaped from there. Later she was shifted to hospital for treatment. Basing on the hospital intimation and statement of LW.1, V.S.V.Bhadra Rao-SI of Police (LW.12) registered as case in Cr.No.53/2017 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, SI of Police visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch and also examined all the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. On 06.06.2017 at about 8.00 a.m, SI of Police arrested all accused and juveniles and produced them before concerned courts. Dr.K.Vijaya Kumar Raju (LW.9) treated LW.1 and issued wound certificate, opining that the injuries are simple and grievous in nature. After completion of investigation, Sub Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against A1 to A4.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC against A1 to A4.

4. On appearance of A1 to A4, copies of case papers as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were furnished to them. When examined, A1 to

A4 stated that they have got means to engage a counsel to defend them before the

Hon’ble Sessions Court.

5. Having heard learned counsel on either side and upon perusing the material on record and keeping in view the fact that as the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to commit the case to the Hon'ble Court of Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru.

PRC No.24 of 2017 3 Dated 21.08.2018

6. In the result, the case against A1 to A4 is committed to the Hon'ble Court of

Session, West Godavari Division, Eluru, under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. A1 to A4, who are on bail, is ordered to be appeared before the Hon'ble Court of Session as and when summons are received as provided under Section 209(b) of Cr.P.C. The Office is directed to submit the entire case record along with the property to the Court of Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Eluru under Section 209(c) of Cr.P.C. Notify the committal of the case

to the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 209(d) of Cr.P.C.

Typed directly on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court this, the 21st day of August, 2018.

Sd/- G.Deena

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

TANUKU

Appendix of Evidence

Nil

Id/- G.D.

II AJFCM, Tanuku.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, TANUKU

Present: Smt G.Deena., II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, TANUKU

Monday, this the 20th day of August, 2018

CALENDAR CASE No. 320/2013

Between: Vanga Nagesh, S/o Rama Rao, 30 years, Taxi Driver, Nallamilli vari street, Tanuku.

… Complainant

And

1.Adapa lakshmi Narayana, S/o Satyanarayanamurthy, 45 years, Appannapalem, Visakhapatnam. 2.vanga Chiranjeevi Parvathi, W/o Nagesh, Employe, 28 years, Appannapalem,Visakhapatnam. 3.Adapa Sujatha, D/o Satyanarayanamurthy, 35 years, Appannapalem,Visakhapatnam. 4.Adapa Anuradha, D/o Satyanarayanamurthy, 25 years, Appannapalem,Visakhapatnam 5.Adapa lakshmi, W/o Srinivasu, 45 years, Kommaralavari street, Tanuku 6.Ganta Tulasi Rao, S/o not known, 55 years, Penumantra. 7.Ganta Sita, W/o Tulasi Rao, 50 years, Penumantra. 8.Karri Nageswara Rao, S/o Ramanna, 50 years, Kakaraparru. 9.Karri Someswara Rao, S/o Ramanna, 45 years, Kakaraparru. … Accused

Complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under Section 190 (A) of

Cr.P.C. against the accused A1 to A9 for the offence punishable under Sec.

323,447,506(2) IPC.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri V.Sudhakara Rao, counsel for the Complainant and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T :

Complainant and accused called present. A1to A9 NBW pending.

Continuation batta due. He filed petition U/Sec.257 Cr.P.C. to withdraw the complaint and the same is allowed. Hence, this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn U/Sec. 257 Cr.P.C. as not pressed and accused A1 to A9 are acquitted for the offence under Sec. 323,447,506(2) IPC.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of August, 2018.

II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Tanuku

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TANUKU

Present: Smt.G.Deena, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

This the 21st day of August, 2018

D.V.C. No.39/2017

Between:

G Anusha …Petitioner

And

G Ananada Kumar .… Aggrieved person

This case is coming on this day before me, in the presence of Sri V Sai Krishna, counsel

for the complainant and upon considering the memo filed by the prosecution and having stood

over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 12 of Cr.P.C. against the Respondent.

Petitioner called absent. no representation. batta due, this court is of the conclusion that petitioner is not evincing any interest in this case. Hence, this petition is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of August, 2018.

SD/- G.DEENA

II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Tanuku

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

ID/- G.D.

IIAJFCM