Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav, B.A., L.L.B.,

1 C.C.No.385 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

KAMALAPURAM.

Present: G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Tuesday, the 24th day of April, 2018

Calendar Case No.385 of 2017

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R.Palli P.S.

… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Ankireddy Konda Reddy S/o Chinna Krishna Reddy, age 45 years, Nallingayapalli (V), Kamalapuram (M), Owner of tractor bearing Reg.No.A.P.04 TX 4877/4880. 2Alidena Rajedhwar Reddy S/o Tirupal Reddy, age 38 years, D.No.3/51, P. Kothapalli (V) Kamalapuram (M), Owner of bearing No.A.P.04 TU 6724/6715. 3Moilla Venkata Subba Reddy S/o Subba Reddy, age 29 years, Kothapalli (V) Kamalapuram (M), Owner of bearing No.A.P.04 BE 8398/ A.P.04 B E 8935. 4Kullu EswaraiahS/o PeddaObulesu, age 38 years, Nasanthapuram (V) Kamalapuram (M), Owner of tractor bearing A.P.02 AU 2452/A.P.04 AJ 4026. 5Mula Gopal Reddy S/o Chinna Veera Reddy, age 38 years, Yeturu, Khajipet (M), Kadapa Dist, owner of tractor of bearing No.A.P.04 TT 5748/5749. 6Chapati Venkata subba Reddy S/o Venkata Subba Reddy, are 39 years Pachikalapadu (V), Kamalapuram (M), Kadapa Dist. Owenr of tractor bearing No.A.P.04 AW 9896/A.P.04 A@ 7853. 7Guggulla Chalama Reddy S/o Venkateswara Reddy, age 48 years, P. Kothapall (V), Kamalapuram (M) Kadapa District, owner of tractor bearing No.A.P.04 AJ 6903/6904. 8Paleti Ganga Kumar S/o Gangaraju, age 21 years, Thummalapalli (V) Yerraguntla (M), Driver of tractor bearing No.A.P.04 AQ 3076/3077. 9Narapu Reddy Obula Reddy S/o Sesha Reddy, age 55 years Pachikalapadu (V), Kamalapuram (M), Kadapa Dist, Owner of tractor No.A.P.04 BK 0798/0797.

10.Busipata Kesava S/o Chendrayudu, age 40 years, Yella Reddy Palli (V), Kamalapuram (M) Kadapa Dist. Owner of tractor bearing No.A.P.04 TU 4120/4119.

… Accused.

2 C.C.No.385 of 2017

This case is coming before me on 23.04.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the learned counsel for A.P.P for state and of

Sri B. Srinivasulu, Advocate for accused No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10.,

Sri B. Pushparaj, Advocate for accused No.5 and 8 and Sri B. Narayana

Reddy, Advocate for accused No.6 upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R. Palli police station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.237/2017 of his P.S., for the offence punishable U/sec.379 of IPC, Sec.3 of P.D.P.P Act.

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

2. On 16.10.2017 at about 11.30 A.M., P.W.3, along with his staff and mediators on information about the sand theft, proceeded to bank of Papagni River near Sangameswaraswamy Temple on

Kamalapuram to Animela Road, where they found accused loading sand in to 10 tractors and its trailers, all the accused started on seeing police, but P.W.3 with the assistance of his staff caught hold accused, enquired about their act at scene of offence for which accused confessed having coming to scene of offence to commit theft of sand, then they were arrested, seized entire property under the cover of panchanama, brought to Police Station, issued F.I.R in Cr.No.237/2017 U/sec.379 of

I.P.C and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P Act, completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence U/sec.379 of IPC and Sec.3 of

P.D.P.P. Act was taken against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.When examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., accused denied the substance of accusation. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of

3 C.C.No.385 of 2017

relevant records on file, charges U/s.379 of IPC, and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P Act., were framed, explained and read over its contents to accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case, the prosecution listed eight witnesses, among them, examined three witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. The remaining witnesses were given by learned A.P.P.

7.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against them, for which they reported everything as false, and stated no evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

8.Heard arguments.

9.Now the point for determination is that: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s.379 of IPC, and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P., Act., beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. During hearing, the learned A.P.P argued that, the prosecution proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused. On the other hand the counsel for accused argued that, P.Ws.1 and 2 both turned hostile to the prosecution and except evidence of P.W.3 there is no other evidence and prayed to acquit the accused.

11. The alleged charges leveled against accused is U/sec 379

I.P.C Section 3 of P.D.P.P Act. In order to prove the case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3, among them P.Ws.1 and 2 are mediators to the panchanama marked under Ex.P.2. But they deposed that, they do not know accused and not known anything about the case facts. The learned A.P.P treated them as hostile, cross examined but nothing could

4 C.C.No.385 of 2017

be elicited to disprove their versions. Now the evidence is left only

P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed about proceeded to scene of offence on 16.10.2017 along his staff and P.W.1 and 2 where they arrested accused while committing theft of sand. Further P.W.3 has categorically stated about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with them. But P.Ws 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution did not examine the other witnesses who accompanied with P.W.3 to the scene of offence to corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.3 is interested witness to the prosecution and it is unsafe to go against the accused only on the evidence of PW3. Hence, in view of the above reasons the prosecution failed to prove the alleged charges against the accused and accused are entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.379 of IPC and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P Act, and thereby accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be canceled after six months.

The unmarked property i.e. sand which is in the custody of police and the S.H.O is directed to hand over the seized sand to the

Tahsildar of G.R. Palli and file acknowledgement. The Tahsildar is hereby directed to utilize the seized sand in a public work.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2018.

Sd/-G. Shiva Prasad Yadav.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

KAMALAPURAM.

5 C.C.No.385 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for ProsecutionDefence PW. 1. : T. Harinath. - None - P.W 2. : N.P. Sivanjaneya Reddy. P.W 3.N. Vara Prasad., S.I of Police. Exhibits marked for

ProsecutionDefence Ex.P 1. : Signature of P.W.1 on panchanama Dt.16.10.17. - NIL - Ex.P 2. : Panchanama Dt.16.10.2017. Ex.P 3.F.I.R in Cr.No.237/2017.

Sd/-G.S.P. Yadav.

J.F.C.M/Kmp.

1 C.C.No.476 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

KAMALAPURAM.

Present: Sri G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Wednesday, the 25 th day of April, 2018

Calendar Case No. 476 of 2017

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R. Palli P.S.

… Complainant.

Vs.

Nagasani Prasad S/o Subba Rayudu, age 40 years, Chirrajupalli (V), of Yerraguntla (M), Driver of Auto bearing A.P.04/Y/3099.

… Accused

This case is coming on 24.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri B. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, G.R. Palli police station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.15/2017 of his P.S., for the offence punishable U/secs.304-A of I.P.C.

The prosecutions case in brief is as follows:

2. Accused is husband of deceased Nagasani Devi, the accused has auto bearing Reg.No.A.P.04/Y/3099 living by running the same. On 19.02.2017 at morning hours, the accused and deceased person both together went to their relatives house at Pulivendula in Auto and after completion of their work, they returned back and accused being the driver of the auto drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner for which he lost control and auto was turned turtle, due to that the said Nagasani Devi who is inmate of auto fell down and auto fell on her, resulting she sustained bleeding injuries on her head and died at the 2 C.C.No.476 of 2017 spot itself. P.Ws.3 and 4 reached to the scene of offence and lifted auto and shifted the injured accused to the hospital and on the complaint of

P.W.1 this present F.I.R in Cr.No.15/2017 U/sec.304-A of I.P.C was registered by police, L.W.14/K.P.B. Venkata Reddy., A.S.I made investigation and examined witnesses and held inquest over the dead body, P.W.6 took up investigation and arrested accused and completed investigation and filed charge sheet U/sec.304-A of I.P.C.

3.Cognizance of the offence U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C., was taken against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C, explained the substance of accusation and read over its contents in Telugu language to accused for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against him, for which he reported everything as false, and stated no evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point for determination is that: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of

I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.Point : In order to prove the case, the prosecution listed fifteen witnesses, among them examined six witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10. The remaining witnesses were given up by the learned A.P.P.

10. The alleged charges leveled against accused U/Sec.304-A of

I.P.C., In order to prove the ingredients of the offence the prosecution has 3 C.C.No.476 of 2017 to prove the identity of the accused as well as his rash and negligent driving at the time of alleged incident.

11.In the evidence, P.W.1 has deposed that, at the time of accident he was in his house and somebody informed him about the incident, he rushed to the scene of offence and found dead body and he does not know who caused accident to the deceased Nagasana Devi and he identified his signature on report. P.W.2 deposed, at the time of accident he was in his house and he also came to know about the accident to Nagasani Devi through somebody and he rushed to the scene of offence and found accused at scene of offence and he does not know who caused accident to the deceased women. P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed at one voice that they do not know anything about the case facts. The learned A.P.P cross examined P.Ws.1 to 4 treated them as hostile, but nothing could be elicited to disprove their versions.

12. P.W.5 deposed he was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector and on the requisition of S.H.O he inspected the crime vehicle and found damages and gave his opinion that, the alleged incident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect, his report was marked under Ex.P.6.

P.W.6 deposed that L.W.14/ K.P.B. Venkata Reddy., A.S.I received complaint from P.W.1 on 19.02.2017 and issued F.I.R under Ex.P.7, made investigation and he took up investigation, examined all the witnesses once again, visited scene of offence and observed it, obtained reports from M.V.I and Postmortem report and he arrested accused, completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

13. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it appears P.Ws.1 and 2 are relatives of deceased Nagasani Devi and their evidence appears they are hearsay witnesses as they stated, at the time of alleged incident they were in house and came to know about the alleged incident through somebody. P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed that they do not know anything about 4 C.C.No.476 of 2017 the case facts. P.W.5 is Motor Vehicle Inspector and his evidence confines only giving report with regard to crime vehicle. P.W.6 deposed that his

A.S.I (.L.W.14) made investigation and he obtained case file from him, once again verified his predecessor’s investigation and arrested accused, filed charge sheet. So the evidence P.W.6 does not appear the rash and negligent driving of accused at the time of alleged incident and the remaining all witnesses were given up by learned A.P.P. In view of the said discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged charges against the accused. Hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of I.P.C and accordingly, he is acquitted for the above offences U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th of April, 2018.

Sd/-G. Shiva Prasad Yadav.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

KAMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence P.W. 1. : S. Nagendra. P.W. 2. : N. Gopal. - NIL- P.W. 3. : N. Prabhakar Reddy. P.W. 4. : K. Narayana. P.W. 5.Y. Prasad. P.W. 6.N. Vara Prasad/S.I. Exhibits marked for

ProsecutionDefence Ex.P.1. : Signature of P.W.1 on complaint. Ex.P. 2. : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1- NIL - Ex.P. 3. : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P. 4. : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P. 5.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P. 6.M.V.I report Dt.03.03.2017.

5 C.C.No.476 of 2017

Ex.P 7.F.I.R in Cr.No.15/2017. Ex.P. 8.Rough sketch. Ex.P 9.Inquest report. Ex.P 10. Post-mortem report.

Sd/-G.S.P Yadav.

J.F.C.M., Kmp.

1 C.C No.410 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

KAMALAPURAM.

Present: Sri G. Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Judicial First Class Magistrate.

Wednesday, the 25th day of April, 2018

Calendar Case No.410 of 2017

State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamalapuram P.S. …Complainant.

Vs.

1.Bodagatyla Narasimhulu S/o Chinna Narasimhulu, Age 25 years, D.No.5/11., Bismillabad (V) of Yerraguntla Mandal. 2. Bodagatla Chinna Narasimhulu S/o, Chinna Obulapathi, age 55 years, Bismillabad (V) of Yerraguntla Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 24.04.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of

Sri Maheswara Reddy, advocate for the accused, and having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerraguntla police station, filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 & 2 in Cr.No.266/2017 of his P.S., for the offence punishable U/sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry prohibition Act.

The prosecutions case in brief is as follows:

2. P.W.1 is wife of accused A.1, accused A.2 is her father-in-law, at the time of their marriage, P.W.1 gave 16 tulas of gold ornaments to the accused as dowry and they lived happily for few years, later the accused A.1 used to harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally comparing with others stating she brought only less dowry, the same was informed by her to L.W.2/M. Venkata Subbaiah and accused mortgaged all the gold ornaments of P.W1 in the bank and took money by promising

P.W.1 that they would restore the same and did not do it and harassed

P.W.1 both physically and mentally demanding to bring money from her parents, towards additional dowry, on 03.09.2017 at about 6.30 A.M., the accused A.1 abused her and Accused A.2 instigated accused A.1 to beat 2 her in which accused A.1 slapped her, L.W.3 to 6/G. Pedda Veeramma, B.

Kanthamma, G. Ayyavaru Reddy and G. Muni Reddy intervened, P.W.1 was shifted to Government Hospital and on the complaint of P.W.1, this present F.I.R in Cr.No.266/2017 U/sec.498-A, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act was registered by police and L.W.9/C.V. Brahmam., Sub-

Inspector of Police., Yerraguntla examined witnesses, visited scene of offence and accused were arrested, he filed charge sheet for the offence

U/s 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by deleting

Section.307 of I.P.C.

Notice ordered to defacto complaint on deletion of Sec.307 of I.P.C who filed requisition reporting no objections for filing report by the police on deleting on 307 on I.P.C.

3.Cognizance of the offence U/sec.498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.When examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., accused denied the substance of accusation. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of relevant records on file, a charge U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act were framed, explained and read over its contents to the accused in

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

6.In order to prove the case, the prosecution listed nine witnesses, among them one witness was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1. The remaining witnesses were given up by learned A.P.P.

7.As there are no incriminating circumstances in the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused U/sec.313 was dispensed with.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

3 C.C No.410 of 2017

9.Now the point for determination is that:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.498-A of

I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10.Point : In the evidence P.W.1 has deposed that she does not know anything about the case facts and accused never harassed her and not demanded any amount and she never given complaint to the police against accused. The learned A.P.P treated her as hostile witness, cross examined, but nothing could be elicited to disprove her version.

11.The alleged charges leveled against accused is U/sec.498-A r/w 34 of I.P.C., Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act. In order to establish the crime the prosecution chose to examine P.W.1. According to records P.W.1 is wife of accused A.1, Accused A.2 is father of accused A.1. According to complaint of P.W.1 before police the accused harassed her, demanding additional dowry. But in the evidence P.W.1 stated the accused never harassed her.

Further she denied giving report to police. The remaining all witnesses were given up by learned A.P.P. So the prosecution did not bring any evidence to prove the alleged charges framed against the accused.

Hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act 1961 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the above offences U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25th of April, 2018.

Sd/-G. Shiva Prasad Yadav.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

KAMALAPURAM.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

ProsecutionDefence P.W. 1. : B. Venkata Subbamma.None

Exhibits marked for

ProsecutionDefence Ex.P.1. : 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. None

Sd/G.S.P. Yadav. J.F.C.M., Kmp.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.69.135/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram

Case No. :CC/0000410/2017 The S.I of yerraguntla P.S. Vs B.Naraismhulu

Date : 25-04-2018

Business: Accused A.1 and A.2 called present, perused evidence of P.W.1 which does not disclose any incriminating material found against accused, Hence examination of 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Heard arguments

Judgement pronounced V.S.J. in the result A.1 and A.2 are found not

guilty for the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, and hereby accused A.1 and A.2 are acquitted for the offence U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C the bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after six months. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 25-04-2018 Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram 1 of 107/11/25, 12:18 PM

Case Historyhttp://172.17.69.135/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram

Case No. :OS/0000049/2017 Obulareddy Nageswara reddy Vs Kanchamreddy Raghurami Reddy

Date : 22-04-2018

Business: Both plaintiff and defendant present before Lok Adalath. They reported compromise in the following terms. The plaintiff and defendant compromised for the suit amount of Rs.2,57,600/-. The defendant paid settled amount to the plaintiff.The terms of compromise between the parties is recorded. Accordingly award is passed. Nature of Disposal: COMPROMISED Disposal Date: 22-04-2018 Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram 1 of 104/11/25, 10:20 AM