Sri G. Gnana Suverna Raju, B.a., B.l.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

AVANIGADDA

PRESENT : Sri G.GNANA SUVERNA RAJU. Assistant Sessions Judge

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.97/2014

(P.R.C.No.60/2013 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cr.No.70/2013 of Avanigadda P.S.)

Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda P.S.

Accused:: Pamarthi Murali, S/o. Durga Rao @ Durga Prasad, 22 years, Gouda, Kokkiligadda village, Mopidevi Mandal.

Charges::U/s.306 IPC

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

Result:: In the result, the accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.306 IPC and accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G. Srinivasa Rao Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: : J U D G M E N T:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Avanigadda P.S., filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence U/s.306 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that the P.W.1 Kesani Ramu and accused are residents of Kokkiligadda village of Mopidevi Mandal. The deceased

Lavanya is his daughter. The accused Pamarthi Murali is no other than the uncle’s son of the deceased developed love and affection towards her and decided to marry her, but the deceased and her parents did not accept the same, since then the accused bore grudge against her and decided to make any harm to her. On 2.5.2013 morning his wife Parasa Veni went to coolie works to Guntur District, P.W.1 went to coolie work and the deceased Lavanya is alone in the house. At 12.00 noon P.W.1 returned back to take lunch and again went away to taddy taping at 15.00 hours, and when he was at fields, his younger brother’s son went to him and said that the accused Pamarthi

Murali is seen in his house with the deceased and his mother Karuna Kumari informed the same to him. Then he kept Venkata Ramana there and went to his house and 2 noticed the accused at his house in hurry burry condition, P.W.1 raised cries and the accused went away from that place, then P.W.1 left the house and went out on his works and returned to his house at 19.00 hours noticed the accused is at his house in perturbed mood. P.W.1 asked him why he is there and the accused informed him that his auto was met with an accident and went way from that place. P.W.1 called the deceased and there is no response from her. On that he went into his house and found the deceased is hanging to the ceiling fan of the bed room with the help of a chunny, her torn top is seen in the room and two pillows are seen on the cot and a urine mark is also seen in the room. He raised cries and on hearing his cries, his sister-in-law Karuna Kumari rushed to him, they laid her down in the verandah, called local R.M.P. doctor examined her and declared her dead. P.W.1 suspected that the accused might have done something to the deceased and due to the said reason the deceased might have died by hanging or other reasons and the accused is responsible for her death.

On 3.5.2013 P.W.9 G. Srinivasu, S.I of police received the report of P.W.1 and registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.70/2013 U/s.174 Cr.P.C of Avanigadda P.S and investigated into. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, got drafted the observation report and photographed the scene and dead body and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the statements of witnesses during inquest. Basing on the statements of witnesses he altered Sec. of law to 306 IPC from 174 Cr.P.C and submitted the altered memo to the Court of

A.J.F.C.M, Avanigada and all concerned.

P.W.9 sent the material objects to the R.F.S.L, Vijayawada after receipt of the

P.M. Report and L.W.12/Dr. G. Jhansi Lakshmi analyzed the M.Os and opined that the

Hyoid bone is no ante mortem fracture. On 13.9.2013 he arrested the accused and sent him for remand. L.Ws.13/Dr.K.Swarupa and 14/Dr. V.D.R. Kumar conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued final opinion basing on the contents of RFSL report and opined that the deceased would have died due to

Asphyxia due to hanging and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda, the learned Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused has taken on file U/s.306 IPC and numbered the same as PRC.60/2013.

3

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished U/s.207

Cr.P.C by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Upon hearing the arguments on Prosecution and Defence, as the offence U/s.306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda committed this case to the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. Wherein the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam after verifying the records and satisfied, the PRC No.60/2013 was numbered as Sessions Case

No.97/2014 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Avanigadda on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, when the accused was examined u/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/s.306 IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.The prosecution examined as many as Nine (9) witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.16 and M.Os.1 to 3 got marked on its behalf. Ex.P.1 is the signature on the report of

P.W.1. Ex.P.2 to P.6 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. 1 to 5 respectively. Ex.P.7 is six positive photographs along with C.D. Ex.P.8 is Observation report by P.W.8.

Ex.P.9 is inquest report by P.W.8. Ex.P.10 is RFSL report. Ex.P.11 is P.M. Report.

Ex.P.12 is F.I.R in Cr.No. 70/2013. Ex.P.13 is rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.14 is altered F.I.R. Ex.P.15 is alteration memo. Ex.P.16 is letter of advice.

7.After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and reported no defence.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/s.306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10)POINT : -

P.W.1 Kesani Ramu deposed that the accused is his nephew and the deceased

Lavanya is his eldest daughter and his daughter Lavanya died about two years back by hanging herself due to her stomach pain and he shifted the dead body of Lavanya to the Government Hospital, Avanigadda and the doctor declared that Lavanya died and sometime. Thereafter, Avanigadda police came there and he signed on a white 4 paper. He does not know the contents of the report, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 did not support the prosecution by turning hostile in toto.

11)P.W.2 K. Parasaveni deposed that about two years back said Lavanya died due to hanging herself in their house due to stomach pain, and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

12)P.W.3 K. Nageswara Rao deposed that the deceased Lavanya was the daughter of P.W.1 and 2 and she died about two years back by hanging herself due to stomach pain, and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

13)P.W.4 K. Karuna Kumari deposed that the deceased Lavanya was the daughter of P.W.1 and 2 and she died about two years back by hanging herself due to stomach pain and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

14)P.W.5 V. Ammaji deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

15)P.W.6 A. Ravindra Babu R.M.P. Doctor, deposed that about two years back somebody informed him that said Lavanya committed suicide and P.W.1 and 2 called him to see her and he went there and found said Lavanya died. He does not know how she died and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

16)Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to 6 by Additional Public

Prosecutor to connect the accused with the commission of the accused. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.

In “MARINALDAS AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TRIPURA” reported in 2012(1) ALD (Criminal) 117 (S.C) at para No.42 it was observed by their Lordships Hon’ble Sri

Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Sri Justice H.L.Gokhale as follows:- “It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting enbloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima-facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a hole with a view to find out whether any weight should be 5 attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least upto the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case P.W.1 to 6 turned hostile in toto and they did not support the prosecution case on any aspect and hence no weight should be attached to their evidence.

17)The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.7 to 9 in support of its case that the accused committed the said offence.

18)P.W.7 G. Ravindra Babu is photographer running a photo studio in the name and style of Spandana Photo Studio for the last 10 to 12 years deposed that about 2 years back Avanigadda police asked him to photograph the dead body of the deceased Lavanya who was the daughter of P.W.1 and 2 and the scene of offence and handed over 6 positive photos along with CD to the Avanigadda police, which is marked as Ex.P.7. P.W.7 is only photographer he went to the scene of offence with the instructions of the Avanigadda P.S and his evidence is no helpful to support the prosecution case.

19)P.W.8 K. Nagamalleswari is working as V.R.O of Kokkiligadda and at relevant time she worked as V.R.O Kosuruvaripalem deposed that she accompanied along with

Avanigadda police, L.W.10 V. Nancharamma, VRA of Kokkiligadda to the scene of offence and prepared observation report, L.W.15 seized 1. Dark cement colour Punjabi top, 2. Snuf colour lower of Punjabi dress, 3. Dark cement colour chunni under cover of observation and she signed in it along with L.W.10 and the observation report is marked as Ex.P.8 and seized material objects were marked as M.O.1 to 3 respectively; that on the same day at 12.00 noon she acted as mediator at the inquest over the dead body of Kesani Lavanya and it reveals that the said Lavanya committed suicide by hanging herself as the accused abused her by developing grudge against her and no incriminating material was seized at the inquest and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P.9. The evidence of P.W.8 is no way helpful to connect the accused to the 6 offence as she mediator only to the time of observation report and seizure of material objects by the Investigation officer.

20)P.W.9 is working as C.I of police, Eluru Intelligence and at relevant time he worked as S.I of police Avanigadda P.S deposed that on 3.5.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was present in the police station P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report, basing on which he registered the F.I.R in Cr.No.70/13

U/s.174 Cr.P.C and sent the F.I.R to the Executive Magistrate, Mopidevi and copies to all concerned and the F.I.R U/s.174 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P.12, thereafter he visited the scene of offence along with mediators where he prepared observation and he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.13 and seized M.Os.1 to 3 at the scene of offence, thereafter he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Kesani Lavanya in the presence of mediators. The inquest reveals that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself due to indecent behavior of accused towards her and after postmortem examination he recorded the statements of witnesses and got photographed the dead body of the deceased through P.W.7 and basing on the inquest report he altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C to 306 IPC and sent the

F.I.R to the court of A.J.F.C.M, Avanigadda, and sent all the concerned and altered F.I.R is marked as Ex.P.14 and the alteration memo is marked as Ex.p.15 and he sent the samples preserved by doctor to the RFSL, Vijayawada through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P.16 and after receiving the RFSL report and P.M. report and he arrested the accused on 13.9.2013 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

The evidence of P.1 to 6, 8, 9 couples with inquest report Ex.P.9, postmortem report Ex.P.11 shows that the death of said Lavanya is suicidal death.

21)The evidence of P.W.9 is in routine and no way helpful to support the prosecution case. Since, P.W.1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased Lavanya did not support the prosecution turned hostile and P.W.3 to 6 who are independent witnesses also turned hostile, their evidence is totally eschewed from consideration.

The evidence of P.W.7 to 9 is held no use to connect the accused with the commission of offence. As such, there remains no evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused that he abetted the deceased to commit suicide, beyond all reasonable doubt.

22)In the result, the accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

U/s.306 IPC and accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands 7 cancelled after the appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Directly typed by the P.A., to my dictation before computers, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-.G.Gnana Suverna Raju.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence.

P.W.1: Kesani Ramu. -None- P.W.2: Kesani Parasaveni. P.W.3: Kesani Nageswara Rao. P.W.4: Kesani Karuna Kumari. P.W.5: V. Ammaji. P.W.6: A. Ravindra Babu. P.W.7: Gurram Ravindra Babu. P.W.8: K. Naga Malleswarai. P.W.9: G. Srinivasu, S.I of police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature on the report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 to P.6 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. 1 to 5 respectively. Ex.P.7: Six photographs. Ex.P.8: Observation report by P.W.8. (marked by consent) Ex.P.9: Inquest report by P.W.8. (marked by consent) Ex.P.10: RFSL report. Ex.P.11: P.M. Report. Ex.P.12: F.I.R in Cr.No. 70/2013. Ex.P.13: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.14: Altered F.I.R. Ex.P.15: Alteration memo. Ex.P.16: Letter of advice.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Dark cement colour Panjabi Dress top. M.O.2: Snuff colour bottom of Punjabi dress. M.O.3: Dark Cement Colour Chunni.

Sd/-.G.G.S.R

A.S.J, AVG.

-// True Copy//

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Avanigadda.

8 Tabular form to be appended for the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Criminal Rules of Practice in

Sessions Case No.97/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Avanigadda.

1) Serial No.

2) Sessions Case No. 97/2014

3) P.R.C. No. 60/2013

4) Name of the Police Station Avanigadda Police Station

5) Crime No. 70/2013

6) Name of the accused Pamarthi Murali, S/o. Durga Rao @ Durga Prasad, 22 years, Gouda, Kokkiligadda village, Mopidevi Mandal.

7) Offences with which chargedU/s.323 and 354 IPC

8) Date of:i) Offence : 02.05.2013 ii) Complaint : 03.05.2013 iii) Apprehension: 13.09.2013 iv) In this court: --

9) Released on Baili) in committal court : 14.02.2014 ii) in this court: -- iii) commitment: iv) Commencement of trial : 05.05.2015

v) Closure of trial: 12.05.2015

10) Result:The accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/s.306 IPC and accordingly acquitted. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over. M.Os.1 to 3 shall be destroyed appeal time is over

11) Explanation for delay:In committal court: The case was taken on file on 28.12.2013. The accused was present on 14.02.2014 copies were furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 14.02.2014 the case is committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Hence, the delay. In this court: This case was made over from

Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Krishna,

Machilipatnam and received by this court on 17.05.2014. On 16.06.2014 accused is present and examined u/s. 228(2) Cr.P.C and charges were framed. On 05.05.2015 trial was commenced and closed on 12.05.2015; on 13.05.2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and arguments were heard and Judgment was pronounced on 14.05.2015. Hence, the delay.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Through: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to the:

1. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

2. The Director of Prosecution, D.G & I.G.P., Old building complex, Hyderabad.

3. The Addl., Public Prosecutor, Avanigadda.

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri G.GNANA SUVERNA RAJU. Assistant Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.105/2014

(P.R.C.No.57/2013 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cr.No.158/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S.)

Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.

Accused::1. Katuri Somayya, S/o. Sanjeev, 45 years, SC-Madiga, Kosuru village Movva Mandal.

2. Katuri Raveendra, S/o. Somayya, 19 years, SC-Madiga, Kosuru village Movva Mandal.

3. Chavali Prasanna, S/o. Babu, 23 years, SC- Madiga, Srikakulam village, Ghantasala Mandal.

4. Devarapalli Babu Rao, S/o. Venkayya, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Kosuru village, Movva Mandal.

Charges::U/s.354, 323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC.

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

Result:: A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/ss.354, 323 and 324 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C and acquitted accordingly. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.4 shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri. V. Rama Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: : J U D G M E N T :

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S., filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence U/s.354, 323, 324 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that the defacto-complainant

P.W.1/Katuri Venkateswaramma is resident of Kosuru village of Movva Mandal. A.1,

A.2 and A.4 are residents of Kosuru Harijanawada of Movva Mandal. A.3 is resident of

Srikakulam village of Ghantasala Mandal and now residing at Kosuru village of Movva

Mandal.

P.W.1 and her husband P.W.8 are living by doing agricultural coolie works and they have got three sons namely P.W.6/Katuri Pitcheswara Rao, P.W.7/Katuri Naga

Srinu and P.W.2 Katuri Veeranjaneyulu. On 25.11.2013 in the village there is

Ganganamma Jathara festival in that connection P.W.2 went near Ganganamma temple to attend to beat ‘Dappulu Vayidyam’ at about 7.00 p.m., A.1 went near P.W.2 2 abusing him and questioning him who will beat the ‘Pappu’ of your share. P.W.2 went to his house and informed the same to his mother P.W.1 and went into the house to change his clothes on the same day at about 00.30 hours on 25/26-11-2013, A.1 to

A.4 came near the house of P.W.1 and A.1 abused P.W.1 by asking her to come out and questioning where is her son P.W.2 and quarrel with him at center. When P.W.1 came out from the house, A.1 pushed her placing his hand on her chest and outraged her modesty and on that she fell down. A.2 kicking P.W.1 with his right leg on her stomach. A.3 caught hold of the tuft of hair of P.W.1 and moved her head and then

A.4 beat P.W.1 with stick on her head. In the meanwhile P.W.2 came out from his house questioning why they are beating his mother. A.1 and A.2 also beat mother of

P.W.2 with hands on his chest and back and caused nail injuries. P.Ws.3 to 5/Pinamaka Kameswara Rao, Katuri Ramadasu, Katuri Ravi witnessed the occurrence and they went near and separated the accused and chastised them. Thereafter P.W.6 to 8/ Katuri Pitcheswara Rao, Katuri Naga Srinu and Katuri Babu Rao shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Challapalli in 108 Ambulance and on receipt of hospital intimation P.W.10/M. Rambabu, who is head constable, visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured P.W.1 and the same was forwarded to

S.H.O, Kuchipudi P.S. on point of jurisdiction. P.W.11/N.Chanti Babu, who is P.S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S. received the same and registered as F.I.R in Cr.No.158/13

U/s.323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC and investigated into.

P.W.11 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined witnesses and recorded the statements of P.W.1, 3 to 5 and section 354 IPC is added to Sec.323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC and issued altered memo to all concerned. P.W.9/Dr. M.Ratna Kumari who examined the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 opined that they sustained simple injuries. On 2.12.2013 P.W.11 arrested all the accused and sent them for judicial custody and after completion of investigation

P.W.11 filed charge sheet.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda, the learned Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused has taken on file U/s.354, 323 and 324 r/w.sec.34 of IPC and numbered the same as

PRC.57/2013.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished U/s.207

Cr.P.C by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Upon hearing the 3 arguments on Prosecution and Defence, as the offence U/s.354 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda committed this case to the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. Wherein the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam after verifying the records and satisfied, the PRC No.57/2013 was numbered as Sessions Case

No.105/2014 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Avanigadda on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, when the accused was examined u/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/s.354, 323 and 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.The prosecution examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses and Exs.P.1 to

P.15 got marked on its behalf. Ex.P.1 is the signature portion of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 to P.9 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 8. Ex.P.10 is wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.11 is wound certificate of P.W.2. Ex.P.12 is Hospital intimation recorded by

P.W.10 Ex.P.13 is Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.14 is the F.I.R in Cr.No.158/2013 of

Kuchipudi P.S. Ex.P.15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

7.After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and reported no defence.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/ss.354, 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10) POINT : -

P.W.1 Katuri Venkateswaramma deposed that about two years back at about 7.00 p.m., herself and P.W.2 were observing Ganganamma Jathara in their village center, a galata took place and she sustained injury on her head and P.W.2 sustained injury by the side of chest, but she not observed who caused the said injuries to her and P.W.2, they themselves shifted to the Govt. Hospital, Challapalli for treatment and police obtained her signature on white paper. She identified her signature in Ex.P.1.

She does not know the contents of report. P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto.

4

11)P.W.2 Katuri Veeranjaneyulu deposed that about two years back himself and

P.W.1 were observing Jathara in their village a galata took place and P.W.1 sustained injury on her head and he sustained injury below his left chest. He did not observe tho bet him and P.W.1. P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

12)P.W.3 Pinamaka Kameswara Rao deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

13)P.W.4 Katuri Rama Dasu deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

14)P.W.5 Katuri Ravi deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

15)P.W.6 Katuri Pitcheswara Rao deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

16)P.W.7 Katuri Naga Srinu deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

17)P.W.8 Katuri Babu Rao deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

18)Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to 8 by Additional Public

Prosecutor to connect the accused with the commission of the accused. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.

In “MARINALDAS AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TRIPURA” reported in 2012(1) ALD (Criminal) 117 (S.C) at para No.42 it was observed by their Lordships Hon’ble Sri

Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Sri Justice H.L.Gokhale as follows:- “It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting enbloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima-facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a hole with a view to find out whether any weight should be 5 attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least upto the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case P.W.1 to 8 turned hostile in toto and they did not support the prosecution case on any aspect and hence no weight should be attached to their evidence.

19)The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.9 to 11 in support of its case that the accused committed the said offence.

20)P.W.9 Dr. M. Ratna Kumari is working as C.A.S, Challapalli from 20.6.2011 till date deposed that she examined P.W.1 on 26.11.2013 at 4.00 a.m., and found the following injury on P.W.1.

Blunt injury with swelling on scalp.

She opined that the said injury is simple in nature and aged 24 hours prior to my examination and she issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P.10.

21)P.W.10 M. Rambabu is working as A.S.I of police Koduru P.S and at relevant time he worked as Head Constable, Challapalli and deposed that on 26.11.2013 at about 2.30 a.m., he received hospital intimation from CHC, Challapalli about the admission of P.W.1 and P.W.2, then he immediately proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1, he registered the F.I.R in Cr.No.153/13 U/ss.323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC and sent the F.I.R to the A.J.F.C.M, Avanigadda and copies to the all concerned, the hospital intimation is marked as Ex.p.12 and F.I.R is marked as Ex.P.13 and he forwarded the F.I.R along with hospital intimation to the Kuchipudi P.S on the point of jurisdiction.

22)P.W.11 N. Chanti Babu is working as S.I of police, Chatrai P.S and at relevant time he worked as Probationary S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S deposed that on 26.11.2013 he received hospital intimation and statement of P.W.1 recorded by

P.W.10/M.Rambabu, H.C of Challapalli P.S and basing on which he registered the F.I.R 6 in Cr.No.158/2013 U/s.323, 324 IPC and F.I.R is marked as Ex.P.14 and sent the same to the court of AJFCM, Avanigadda. He went to Govt. Hospital, Challapalli and he recorded the statements of injured and witnesses and he visited the scene of offence he prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence and on 2.12.2013 he arrested accused and produced them for remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet..

23)The evidence of P.W.9 couples with Ex.P.10, P.11 wound certificates goes to show that P.W.1, 2 sustained injuries only. The evidence of investigating Officers in this case is in routine manner and no way helpful to support the prosecution case.

24) Since P.Ws.1 to 8 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto, their evidence is eschewed from consideration and the evidence of P.W.9 to 11 is held no use to support the prosecution case there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the connection of the said offence. Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25)In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

U/s.354, 323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC and acquitted accordingly. The bail bonds of A.1 to

A.4 shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the P.A directly and typed by him corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence.

P.W.1: Katuri Venkateswaramma. -None- P.W.2: Katuri Veeranjaneyulu. P.W.3: Pinamaka Kameswara Rao. P.W.4: Katuri Ramadasu. P.W.5: Katuri Ravi. P.W.6: Katuri Pitcheswara Rao. P.W.7: Katuri Naga Srinu. P.W.8: Katuri Babu Rao. P.W.9: Dr. M. Ratna Kumari, C.A.S. P.W.10: M. Ram Babu. P.W.11: N. Chanti Babu, P.S.I of police, Kuchipudi. P.S.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature portion of P.W.1. -None- Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

7 Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.9: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.10: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.11: Wound certificate of P.W.2. Ex.P.12: Hospital intimation recorded by P.W.10. Ex.P.13: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.14: F.I.R in Cr.No.158/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S. Ex.P.15: the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

A.S.J, AVG.

-// True Copy //-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Avanigadda.

8

Tabular form to be appended for the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Criminal Rules of Practice in Sessions Case No.105/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Avanigadda.

1) Serial No.

2) Sessions Case No. 105/2014

3) P.R.C. No. 57/2013

4) Name of the Police Station Kuchipudi P.S.

5) Crime No. 158/2013

6) Name of the accused1. Katuri Somayya, S/o. Sanjeev, 45 years, SC- Madiga, Kosuru village Movva Mandal.

2. Katuri Raveendra, S/o. Somayya, 19 years, SC- Madiga, Kosuru village Movva Mandal.

3. Chavali Prasanna, S/o. Babu, 23 years, SC- Madiga, Srikakulam village, Ghantasala Mandal.

4. Devarapalli Babu Rao, S/o. Venkayya, 25 years, SC-Madiga, Kosuru village, Movva Mandal

7) Offences with which chargedU/ss.354,323, 324 r/w.sec.34 IPC

8) Date of:i) Offence : 26.11.2013 ii) Complaint : 26.11.2013 iii) Apprehension: 02.12.2013 iv) In this court: --

9) Released on Baili) in committal court : 20.02.2014 ii) in this court: -- iii) commitment: iv) Commencement of trial : 07.05.2015

v) Closure of trial : 14.05.2015

10) Result: In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/ss.354, 323, 324 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

11) Explanation for delay:In committal court: The case was taken on file on 28.12.2013. The accused was present on 20.02.2014 and copies were furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 20.02.2014 the case is committed to the Hon'ble

Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Hence, the

delay. In this court: This case was made over from

Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Krishna,

Machilipatnam and received by this court on 31.05.2014. On 22.07.2014 accused is present and examined u/s. 228 (2) Cr.P.C and charges were framed. On 07.05.2015 trial was commenced and closed on 14.05.2015; on 15.15.2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and on the same day arguments were heard and Judgment was pronounced 15.05.2015. Hence, the delay.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Copies submitted to:- 9

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Through: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to the:

1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

2. The Director of Prosecution, D.G & I.G.P., Old building complex, Hyderabad.

3. The Addl., Public Prosecutor, Avanigadda.

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri G.GNANA SUVERNA RAJU. Assistant Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.271/2014

(P.R.C.No.14/2014 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cr.No.162/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S.)

Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.

Accused::1. Dirisem Bala Kotaiah, S/o. Chinakota- iah, 42 years, SC-Madiga, Pedagudem, Ghantasala village and Mandal.

2. Katuri Babu Rao, S/o. Pitcheswara Rao, 42 years, SC-Madiga, Pedahari- janawada, Kosuru village, Movva Man- dal.

3. Katuri Naga Sreenu, S/o. Babu Rao, 19 years, Pedaharijanawada, Kosuru vil- lage, Movva Mandal.

Charges::U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC.

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

Result:: A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/ss.447, 323 and 354 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C and acquitted accordingly. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri. E. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S., filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that the defacto-complainant

P.W.1/Katuri Lalitha @ Bujji and A.2 and A.3 are residents of Pedaharijanawada of

Kosuru village of Movva Mandal. A.1 is resident of Pedagudem of Ghantasala Manda.

There are previous differences in between the family members of PW.1 and A.2 and

A.3 since the time of Ganganamma Festival Jathara in the month of November, 2013 which is subject matter in Cr.NO.158/13 U/s.324, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC of Kuchipudi

Police Station.

2 As matter stood thus, on 3.12.2013 at about 18.30 hours, A.1, A.2 and A.3 (A.4 as per F.I.R) trespassed into the front yard of the house of P.W.1, picked up quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language, A.1 caught hold of her hand, dragged her and torn her saree, and blouse and committed assault on her. A.2 and A.3 also attacked

P.W.2/Katuri Vani, P.W.3/Katuri Chinnari when they intervened. A.2 caught hold of the hands of P.W.2 and 3, dragged them and torn the saree and blouse of P.W.2 and also torn the blouse of P.W.3 and committed assault on them with an intention to outraged their modesty. A.3 bet P.Ws.1 to 3. P.Ws.4 to 12 who are in the vicinity of the scene of offence witnessed the occurrence, came to the scene of offence and chastised the accused and they left the scene of offence. On 3.12.2013 P.Ws.1 to 3 came to the

Kuchipudi police station and P.W.13/B.V.Santosha Rao who is A.S.I of police recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the same as case F.I.R in Cr.No.162/2013

U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC and investigated into.

P.W.13 visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and he examined and recorded their statements. On the strength of the statements the name of A.3 Katuri Veeranjaneyulu of Kosuru village is eliminated from the list of the accused as per the proceedings of S.D.P.O, Avanigadda on 31.1.2014.

On 20.12.2013, P.W.14 N. Chanti Babu, P.S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S arrested

A.1 to A.3 when they surrendered before him as per the conditions of anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.NO.1115/2013 dated 16.12.13 of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam and released them on bail. After completion of investigation

P.W.15/P.V.S.S.N. Suresh, S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S filed charge sheet.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda, the learned Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused has taken on file U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 of IPC and numbered the same as

PRC.14/2014.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished U/s.207

Cr.P.C by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Upon hearing the arguments on Prosecution and Defence, as the offence U/s.354 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda committed this case to the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. Wherein the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam after verifying the records and satisfied, the PRC No.14/2014 was numbered as Sessions Case 3 No.271/2014 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Avanigadda on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, when the accused was examined u/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.The prosecution examined as many as fifteen (15) witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 to 5 got marked on its behalf. Ex.P.1 is the signature portion of P.W.1 given to police. Ex.P.2 to P.13 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 12. Ex.P.14 is the F.I.R in Cr.No.162/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S. Ex.P.15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

7.After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and reported no defence.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/ss.447, 323, 354 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10) POINT : -

P.W.1 Katuri Lalitha deposed that about one and half years back at about 9.00 p.m., she heard noise from the outside of her house when she came out of the house the persons were proceeding there from. P.Ws.2 to 4 came to her, when she told them that he did not identify the persons who caused noise at her house. On the same night she went to Kuchipudi P.S and reported the same and the police obtained her signature on white paper. She identified her signature in Ex.P.1. She does not know the contents of report. P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto.

11)P.W.2 Katuri Vani deposed that about one and half years back she heard noise from the house of P.W.1 when she came there nobody were present. She does not know anything about this case. P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

4

12)P.W.3 Katuri Chinnari deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

13)P.W.4 Katuri Maheswari deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

14)P.W.5 Penumaka Padma deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

15)P.W.6 Katuri China Jyothi deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

16)P.W.7 Penumudi Jayamma deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

17)P.W.8 Peda Krupavaram deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

18)P.W.9 Penumudi China Krupavaram deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

19)P.W.10 Katuri Peda Jyothi deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

20)P.W.11 Katuri Sanjeeva Rao deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

21)P.W.12 Dagani Nani deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

22)Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to 12 by Additional

Public Prosecutor to connect the accused with the commission of the accused. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.

In “MARINALDAS AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TRIPURA” reported in 2012(1) ALD (Criminal) 117 (S.C) at para No.42 it was observed by their Lordships Hon’ble Sri

Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Sri Justice H.L.Gokhale as follows:- 5 “It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting enbloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima-facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a hole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least upto the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case P.W.1 to 12 turned hostile in toto and they did not support the prosecution case on any aspect and hence no weight should be attached to their evidence.

23)The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.13 to 15 in support of its case that the accused committed the said offence.

24)P.W.13 B.V. Santhosha Rao is working as A.S.I of police Kuchipudi deposed that on 3.12.2013 P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a oral report, basing on which he registered F.I.R in Cr.No.162/13 U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC and sent the original F.I.F to the Court of A.J.F.C.M, Avanigadda and to all concerned which is marked as Ex.P.14. On the next day he visited the scene of offence and he seized

M.Os.1 to 5 and recorded the statements of P.Ws.4 to 12 at their house and he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence which is marked as Ex.P.15 and further investigation is done by P.W.14/N. Chanti Babu.

25)P.W.14 N. Chanti Babu is working as S.I of police, Chatrai P.S and at relevant time he worked as Probationary S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S deposed that on 20.12.2013 accused 1 to 3 came to the police station and surrendered before him as per the orders of the anticipatory bail and released them on bail thereafter.

6

26)P.W.15 P.V.S.S.N. Suresh is working as S.I of police, Tiruvuru, and at relevant time he worked as S.I of police Kuchipudi P.S deposed that he verified the investigation of P.W.13 and 14 and filed charge sheet in this case.

27)The evidence of P.Ws.13 to 15 who are the investigating Officers in this case is in routine manner and no way helpful to support the prosecution case.

28) Since P.Ws.1 to 12 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto, their evidence is eschewed from consideration and the evidence of P.W.13 to 15 is held no use to support the prosecution case there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the connection of the said offence. Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

29)In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

U/s.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC and acquitted accordingly. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the P.A directly and typed by him corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence.

P.W.1: Katuri Lalitha @ Bujji. -None- P.W.2: Katuri Vani. P.W.3: Katuri Chinnari. P.W.4: Katuri Katuri Maheswari. P.W.5: Penumaka Padma. P.W.6: Katuri China Jyothi. P.W.7: Penumudi Jayamma. P.W.8: Penumudi Peda Krupavaram. P.W.9: Penumudi China Krupavaram. P.W.10: Katuri Peda Jyothi. P.W.11: Katuri Sanjeeva Rao. P.W.12: Dagani Nani. P.W.13: B.V. Santosha Rao, A.S.I of police, P.W.14: N. Chanti Babu, P.S.I of police, Kuchipudi. P.S. P.W.15: P.V.S.S.N. Suresh, S.I of police, Kuchipudi. P.S.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature portion of P.W.1. -None- Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

7 Ex.P.6: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.9: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.10: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9. Ex.P.11: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10. Ex.P.12: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11. Ex.P.13: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.12. Ex.P.14: F.I.R in Cr.No.162/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S. Ex.P.15: the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Red Colour torn silk saree of P.W.1. M.O.2: Tobaco Colour cotton torn jacket of P.W.1. M.O.3: Sky blue colour torn silk saree having black & blue colour flowers P.W.2. M.O.4: Black colour torn cotton jacket of P.W.2. M.O.5: Red colour torn jacket of P.W.3.

A.S.J, AVG.

-// True Copy //-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Avanigadda.

8

Tabular form to be appended for the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Criminal Rules of Practice in

Sessions Case No.271/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Avanigadda.

1) Serial No.

2) Sessions Case No. 271/2014

3) P.R.C. No. 14/2014

4) Name of the Police Station Kuchipudi P.S.

5) Crime No. 162/2013

6) Name of the accused1.Dirisem Bala Kotaiah, S/o. Chinakotaiah, 42 years, SC-Madiga, Pedagudem, Ghantasala vil- lage and Mandal.

2.Katuri Babu Rao, S/o. Pitcheswara Rao, 42 years, SC-Madiga, Pedaharijanawada, Kosuru village, Movva Mandal.

3. Katuri Naga Sreenu, S/o. Babu Rao, 19 years, Pedaharijanawada, Kosuru village, Movva Man- dal.

7) Offences with which chargedU/ss.447, 323, 354 r/w.sec.34 IPC

8) Date of:i) Offence : 03.12.2013 ii) Complaint : 03.12.2013 iii) Apprehension: 12.09.2014 iv) In this court: --

9) Released on Baili) in committal court : 17.10.2014 ii) in this court: -- iii) commitment: iv) Commencement of trial : 07.05.2015

v) Closure of trial: 14.05.2015

10) Result: A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/ss.447, 323 and 354 r/w.sec.34 I.P.C and acquitted accordingly. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

11) Explanation for delay:In committal court: The case was taken on file on 29.04.2014. The accused was present on 29.09.2014 and copies were furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 17.10.2014 the case is committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Hence, the delay. In this court: This case was made over from Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and received by this court on 04.02.2015. On 04.03.2015 accused is present and examined u/s. 228 (2) Cr.P.C and charges were framed. On 07.05.2015 trial was commenced and closed on 14.05.2015; on 15.05.2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and on the same day arguments were heard and Judgment was pronounced 15.05.2015. Hence, the delay.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Through: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to the:

9

1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

2. The Director of Prosecution, D.G & I.G.P., Old building complex, Hyderabad.

3. The Addl., Public Prosecutor, Avanigadda.

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

AVANIGADDA

PRESENT : Sri G.GNANA SUVERNA RAJU. Assistant Sessions Judge

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.98/2014

(P.R.C.No.3/2014 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cr.No.84/2013 of Koduru P.S.)

Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru P.S.

Accused:: 1. Muppirisetty Nageswara Rao, S/o. Ar- juna Rao, Kapu, 46 years, Viswanadha- palli village, Koduru Mandal.

2. Kondaveeti Sambasiva Rao @ Sivaiah, S/o. Nancharaiah, 42 years, Kapu, Viswanadhapalli village, Koduru Man- dal.

Charges::U/ss.306 and 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

Result:: In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence U/ss.306, 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC and accordingly acquitted. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri Potharaju Venkateswara Rao Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Koduru P.S., filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence U/ss.306 and 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that the defacto-complainant

P.W.1/Thota Suneetha and accused are residents of Viswanadhapalli village of Koduru

Mandal. The deceased Thota Yedukondalu @ Kondalu is husband of P.W.1. The deceased Thota Yedukondalu is eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural coolie work. Prior to the date of incident A.1 borrowed Rs.1,000/- from the deceased and did not pay the same instead of repeated demands and the deceased attended the coolie work of A.2 for five days @ Rs.300/- per day and he only paid RS.1,000/- to him and delaying to pay the remaining balance. On 30.9.2012 the deceased has returned from his fields in the evening after spraying the pesticide poison in the fields and informed 2 his wife that he is going to the accused for getting money due to him. The deceased questioned the accused at Grama Panchayat Office and requested them to return his money, for which they both grew wild abused the deceased in filthy language as “Neevu Chachina Sare Neeku Dabbulu Ivvamu, Nee Dikkuvunna Chota Cheppuko” and also beat him with hands and insulted him in the presence of L.W.5/Kamatham Veera

Babu, P.W.3/Thota Gopi, P.W.4/Simhadri Ranga Rao. The deceased felt ashamed the behavior of the accused, returned to his house and informed the same to P.W.1, consumed pesticide poison with an intention to commit suicide and he was immediately shifted to the Area Hospital, Avanigadda in 108 Ambulance for treatment where he succumbed to the poison at 2.00 a.m. on the night of 30.9.2013. On 1.10.2013 at 8.00 hours, P.W.1 presented a report and the same was registered in

Cr.No.84/2013 U/s.306 r/w.sec.34 IPC and investigated into.

P.W.6/B. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of police visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of mediators P.W.5/Peetha Siva Ramprasad and L.W.9

Battula Venkateswara Rao and seized the poisonous tin classic super, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased on 1.10.2013 in the presence of panchayatdars P.W.5/Peetha Siva

Ramprasad and L.W.10/Thota Venkata Rambabu. L.W.11 Dr. Shaik Haseena Parvin, medical officer conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M.

Certificate. L.W.12/Dr.V.D.R Kumar sent the viscera to the RFSL, Vijayawada for analysis and obtained report. The medical officer finally opined that the deceased would appear to have been died of organ phosphorous poisoning. On 2.10.2013 P.W.6 arrested the accused and sent them for judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda, the learned Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused has taken on file U/ss.306 and 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC and numbered the same as PRC.3/2014.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished U/s.207

Cr.P.C by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Upon hearing the arguments on Prosecution and Defence, as the offence U/s.306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda committed this case to the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. Wherein the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam after verifying the 3 records and satisfied, the PRC No.3/2014 was numbered as Sessions Case No.98/2014 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Avanigadda on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, when the accused were examined u/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/ss.306 and 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.The prosecution examined as many as Six (6) witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.12 and

M.O.1 got marked on its behalf. Ex.P.1 is the signature on the report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 to P.5 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 respectively. Ex.P.6 is observation report. Ex.P.7 is inquest report. Ex.P.8 is RFSL report. Ex.P.9 is P.M. report. Ex.P.10 is

F.I.R in Cr.No.84/2013. Ex.P.11 is rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.12 is letter of advice.

7.After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and reported no defence.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/ss.306, 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10)POINT : -

P.W.1 Thota Suneetha deposed that the deceased Yedukondalu is her husband and he died about 2 years back by consuming poison due to stomach pain and the deceased was shifted to the Area Hospital, Avanigadda in 108 Ambulance for treatment as he consumed poison, but he died while undergoing treatment in the said hospital and her deceased husband has not informed her about the reason as to why he consumed poison. No one is responsible for the suicidal death of her husband.

Police came to the hospital and obtained her signature on a white paper, which is marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.1 did not support the prosecution by turning hostile in toto.

11)P.W.2 Thota Veera Kumari deposed that the deceased Yedukondalu married

P.W.1 about 6 years back and they are residing separately adjoining to her house and he used to attend agricultural work and also run a tractor. The deceased Yedukondalu 4 died of consuming pesticide and she does not know the reason for his suicidal death and she did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

12)P.W.3 Thota Gopi deposed that about one and half years back Thota

Yedukondalu died by consuming pesticide. He does not know the reason for his suicidal death and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

13)P.W.4 Simhadri Ranga Rao deposed that he came to know the deceased

Yedukondalu who died about one and half years back through P.W.1, 2 and L.W.3 and

L.W.4 and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

14)Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to 4 by Additional Public

Prosecutor to connect the accused with the commission of the accused. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.

In “MARINALDAS AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TRIPURA” reported in 2012(1) ALD (Criminal) 117 (S.C) at para No.42 it was observed by their Lordships Hon’ble Sri

Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Sri Justice H.L.Gokhale as follows:- “It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting enbloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima-facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a hole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least upto the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case P.W.1 to 4 turned hostile in toto and they did not support the prosecution case on any aspect and hence no weight should be attached to their 5 evidence. P.W.1 to 4 did not speak that A.1, A.2 caused hurt to the deceased no case is made out against the accused U/s.323 IPC.

15)The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.5 and 6 in support of its case that the accused committed the said offence.

16)P.W.5 Peetha Siva Ram Prasad is working as V.R.O of Machavaram and at relevant time in-charge V.R.O of Viswanadhapalli deposed that as per the oral instructions of R.D.O, Bandar he acted as incharge of Viswanadhapalli during

Samykyandra strike period and on 1.10.2013 the S.I of police, Koduru asked him and

L.W.9 B. Venkateswara RAo, VRA to act as mediator and accompanied with S.I at the time of observation of scene of offence which is the house of the deceased Thota

Yedukondalu and observed the scene of offence and seized one empty insecticide in the Brand of Classic Super 250 Ml tin in blue colour and he identified the said object which is marked as M.O.1 and the observation report is marked as Ex.P.6. On 1.10.2013 he acted as mediator of inquest over the dead body of deceased Thota

Yedukondalu conducted at mortuary of Govt. Hospital, Avanigadda and inquest reveals that the deceased consumed poison due to the dispute with A.1 regarding money. He signed as mediator in the inquest, which is marked as Ex.P.7. P.W.5 is only mediator to observe the scene of offence and seizure of M.O.1 and his evidence is not helpful to support the prosecution case, to point out guilt of the accused.

17)P.W.6 is working as S.I of police, Ghantasala P.S and at relevant time he worked as S.I of police Koduru P.S deposed that on 1.10.2013 at about 8.10 a.m., he received written report of P.W.1 and basing on which he registered the F.I.R in Cr.No.84/13

U/s.306 IPC and original F.I.R to the A.J.F.C.M, Avanigadda and sent all concerned, which is marked as Ex.P.10, thereafter he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence which is marked as Ex.P.11 and he seized one

Empty Plastic tin Classic Super insecticide 250 Ml capacity under cover of observation and thereafter he visited the area hospital, Avanigadda and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and the inquest reveals that the deceased committed suicide by consuming pesticide as both accused bet him and refused to repay the amount due by them to the deceased and after

P.M.Examination he sent the material preserved by the doctor for RFSL report through letter of advice which is marked as Ex.P.12 and on 2.10.2013 he arrested accused and after completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet.

6 The evidence of P.W.1 to 6 couples with Ex.P.7, inquest report, Ex.P.9 postmortem report reveals that the death of said Yedukondalu is suicidal death

18)The evidence of P.W.6 is in routine and no way helpful to support the prosecution case. Since, P.W.1 who is the husband of deceased did not support the prosecution and turned hostile and P.W.2 to 4 who are independent witnesses also turned hostile, their evidence is totally eschewed from consideration. The evidence of

P.W.5 and 6 is held no use to connect the accused with the commission of offence. As such, there remains no evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused that he abetted the deceased to commit suicide, beyond all reasonable doubt.

19)In the result, the accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

U/s.306, 323 r/w.sec.34 IPC and accordingly acquitted. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Directly typed by the P.A., to my dictation before computers, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-.G.Gnana Suverna Raju.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence.

P.W.1: Thota Suneetha. -None- P.W.2: Thota Veera Kumari. P.W.3: Thota Gopi. P.W.4: Simhadri Ranga Rao. P.W.5: P. Siva Ram Prasad. P.W.6: B. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature on the report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 To : 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws. 1 to 4 respectively. Ex.P.5 Ex.P.6: Observation report. Ex.P.7: Inquest report. Ex.P.8: RFSL report. Ex.P.9: Postmortem Report. Ex.P.10: F.I.R in Cr.No.84/2013. Ex.P.11: rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.12: Letter of advice.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: Blue Colour Empty Plastic Tin.

Sd/-.G.G.S.R.

A.S.J, AVG.

7

-// True Copy //-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Avanigadda.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: AT

AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri G.GNANA SUVERNA RAJU. Assistant Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.204/2014

(P.R.C.No.59/2013 on the file of Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda in Cr.No.174/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S.)

Complainant::The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.

Accused::Yarlagadda Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao @ Moddu Srinu, S/o. late Suryanarayana, 43 years, Gowda, Kaza village, Movva Mandal.

Charges::U/s.354, 448, 323 IPC.

Plea of the accused::Not guilty.

Finding of the court::Found not guilty.

Result:: The accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/ss.354, 448, 323 I.P.C and acquitted accordingly. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

This Sessions Case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Prasad, Addl. Public Prosecutor for State and Sri P. Rama Chandra Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S., filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence U/s.354, 448, 323 I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that P.W.1/Rayana Lakshmi Lavanya is resident of Kaza village and the accused is also resident of the same village and he is rowdy sheeter maintained by Kuchipudi Police Station Vide H.S.No.115/2010. P.W.4

R. Veera Babu is father of P.W.1. He is in ‘Bhavni Deeksha and put Maala and hence

P.W.1 could not go inside the house and on that on 16.12.2013 night, P.W.1 was taken by her mother to the house of P.W.2 D. Nageswara Rao and L.W.3/D. Jaji and left her there and P.W.1 staying at their house. On 17.12.2013 morning P.W.2 went to catch fish and L.W.3 went for coolie work. At about 1.00 p.m., P.W.1 get stomach pain and she slept on the cot in the house along with L.W.4/D. Durgamma and L.W.5/D.Lakshmi

Kondalamma at that time the accused trespassed into the house of P.W.2, removed the bed sheet from the fact of P.W.1, gave signs to her by “Kannu-Kotti”, caught hold of her right hand, pulled her hand, but he did not leave it and asked to put on T.V,

L.W.4 and 5 asked the accused to leave the hand of P.W.1, he beat them with hands, 2 then the accused went away on his cycle leaving the hand of P.W.1. P.W.1 informed the same to P.W.2. Later P.W.1, 2 and L.W.3 informed to P.W.4 about the occurrence.

Afterwards P.W.4 took the witnesses to Kuchipudi P.S and P.W.1 presented a report

before P.W.6, S.I of police, Kuchipudi, basing on it P.W.6 registered the same as F.I.R

in Cr.No.174/2013 U/s.354, 448, 323 IPC and investigated into. P.W.6 visited the scene of offence and examined and prepared rough sketch the scene of offence and recorded the statements of Witnesses and on 18.12.2013 he arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda, the learned Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused has taken on file U/s.354, 448 and 323 of IPC and numbered the same as PRC.59/2013.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished U/s.207

Cr.P.C by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Upon hearing the arguments on Prosecution and Defence, as the offence U/s.354 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda committed this case to the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. Wherein the Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam after verifying the records and satisfied, the PRC No.59/2013 was numbered as Sessions Case

No.204/2014 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Avanigadda on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, when the accused was examined u/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C, charge U/s.354, 448 and 323 IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.The prosecution examined as many as Six (6) witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.8 got marked on its behalf. Ex.P.1 is the signature portion of P.W.1. Ex.P.2 to P.6 are 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 5. Ex.P.7 is the F.I.R in Cr.No.174/2013 of Kuchipudi

P.S. Ex.P.8 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

7.After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C and reported no defence.

3

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence U/ss.354, 448, 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10) POINT : -

P.W.1 Rayana Lakshmi Lavanya deposed that about one year back she went to the house of P.W.2 and L.W.3 and L.W.4 and 5 also present in the house. While sleeping somebody knocked the door and hurled abuses, then they opened the door somebody is found running and she did not identify the said person and the same was informed to P.W.2 and L.W.3 and they took her to Kuchipudi P.S and the police obtained her signature on a white paper. She identified her signature Ex.P.1. She does not know the contents of report. P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto.

11)P.W.2 D. Nageswara Rao deposed that about one year back while P.W.1 along with them sleeping in their house in the noon hours somebody knocked the door and run away. L.W.3 took P.W.1 to give report to the police. P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

12)P.W.3 Kumba Venkateswara Rao deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

13)P.W.4 Royana Veera Babu deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile

14)P.W.5 Uppalapu Krishna deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile.

15)Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to 5 by Additional Public

Prosecutor to connect the accused with the commission of the accused. The evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.

In “MARINALDAS AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TRIPURA” reported in 2012(1) ALD (Criminal) 117 (S.C) at para No.42 it was observed by their Lordships Hon’ble Sri

Justice P.Sathasivam and Hon’ble Sri Justice H.L.Gokhale as follows:- 4 “It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting enbloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima-facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a hole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least upto the extent, he supported the case of prosecution. The evidence of a person does not effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution.”

In the instant case P.W.1 to 5 turned hostile in toto and they did not support the prosecution case on any aspect and hence no weight should be attached to their evidence.

16)The prosecution relied on the sole testimony of P.W.6 G. Srinivasu who is the investigating Officer in this case in support of prosecution case that the accused committed the said offence. P.W.6 N. Chanti Babu is working as S.I of police, Chatrai

P.S and at relevant time he worked as Probationary S.I of police, Kuchipudi P.S deposed that on 17.12.2013 P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report, basing on which he registered the F.I.R in Cr.No.174/2013 U/s.354, 448, 323

IPC and sent the F.I.R to court of AJFCM, Avanigadda and copies to all concerned which is marked as Ex.P.7 and on the next day he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence which is marked as Ex.P.8 and recorded the statements of witnesses and on the same day he arrested the accused and produced him for remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17)The evidence of P.W.6 who is the investigating Officer in this case is in routine manner and no way helpful to support the prosecution case.

18) Since P.Ws.1 to 5 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile in toto, their evidence is eschewed from consideration and the evidence of P.W.6 is held 5 no use to support the prosecution case there remains no evidence on record to connect the accused with the connection of the said offence. Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19)In the result, the accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence

U/s.354, 448, 323 IPC and acquitted accordingly. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the P.A directly and typed by him corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-.G.Gnana Suverna Raju.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence.

P.W.1: Rayana Lakshmi Lavanya. -None- P.W.2: D. Nageswara Rao. P.W.3: K. Venkateswara Rao. P.W.4: R. Veera Babu. P.W.5: U. Krishna. P.W.6: N. Chanti Babu, S.I of police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature portion of P.W.1. -None- Ex.P.2: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6: 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7: F.I.R in Cr.No.174/2013 of Kuchipudi P.S. Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence.

Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

Sd/-.G.G.S.R.

A.S.J, AVG.

-// True Copy //-

Asst. Sessions Judge,

Avanigadda.

6

Tabular form to be appended for the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Criminal Rules of Practice in

Sessions Case No.204/2014 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Avanigadda.

1) Serial No.

2) Sessions Case No. 204/2014

3) P.R.C. No. 59/2013

4) Name of the Police Station Kuchipudi P.S.

5) Crime No. 174/2013

6) Name of the accused Yarlagadda Srinu @ Srinivasa Rao @ Moddu Srinu, S/o. late Suryanarayana, 43 years, Gowda, Kaza village, Movva Mandal.

7) Offences with which chargedU/ss.448, 354, 323 IPC

8) Date of:i) Offence : 17.12.2013 ii) Complaint : 17.12.2013 iii) Apprehension: 18.12.2013 iv) In this court: --

9) Released on Baili) in committal court : 06.01.2014 ii) in this court: -- iii) commitment: iv) Commencement of trial : 22.04.2015

v) Closure of trial : 14.05.2015

10) Result: The accused is found not guilty U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offences U/ss.354, 448, 323 I.P.C and acquitted accordingly. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after the appeal time is over

11) Explanation for delay:In committal court: The case was taken on file on 28.12.2013. The accused was present on 6.01.2014 and copies were furnished u/s.207 Cr.P.C. On 6.01.2014 the case is committed to the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Hence, the delay. In this court: This case was made over from Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge’s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and received by this court on 3.11.2014. On 5.01.2015 accused is present and examined u/s. 228 (2) Cr.P.C and charges were framed. On 22.04.2015 trial was commenced and closed on 14.05.2015; on 15.05.2015 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and on the same day arguments were heard and Judgment was pronounced 15.05.2015. Hence, the delay.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

AVANIGADDA.

Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad Through: The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copy to the:

1. The Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Avanigadda.

2. The Director of Prosecution, D.G & I.G.P., Old building complex, Hyderabad.

3. The Addl., Public Prosecutor, Avanigadda.

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

5. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kuchipudi P.S.