G. Uday Kumar

1

CC 163/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

Present: Sri G.Uday Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018

CC. NO. 163 OF 2018

Between :

The State of T.S., through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Armoor. …Complainant //AND//

A1:Madige @ Pandigoti Ramu, S/o Pochaiah, age: 26 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Labour, R/o Masaipet village of Veldurthi mandal. A2: Mamidi Durgaiah @ Durgesh, S/o Mallaiah, age: 25 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: stone cutter, R/o Kyasamapally village of Kamareddy mandal and District. …Accused

This case came on 23-04-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of APP for the State and Sri J.Muralidhar, Advocate for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a case of lurking trespass into the houses of PW1 at

Vidyanagar, Venkateshwara colony, Mamidipally during night time with an intention to commit theft and committed punishable U/sec.457, 380 IPC, for which police, Armoor registered a case in Cr. No.363/2017 against the accused No.1 and 2.

2.The brief facts of the case are that in the intervening night in between 12-11-2017 to 14-11-2017 the accused No.1 and 2 went to

Vidyanagar, Venkateshwara colony, Mamidipally, gained entry into the house of PW1 by broke opening the locks of the house doors, broke opened the cup boards and committed theft of gold necklace, three gold chains, gold bracelet, kammalu, buttalu, some small gold ornaments total weighing about 5 tulas and some net cash from the cup boards and fled away. Police recovered only two gold chains weighing about one tula out of the stolen property from the possession of accused. After completion of

JMFC 2

CC 163/2018

entire investigation, Police Armoor filed charge sheet against the accused

No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/sec.457, 380 IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 IPC alternatively under Section 411 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2.

4.On production of accused No.1 and 2, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to them as contemplated under

Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. As the accused denied the allegations, a charge for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380

IPC alternatively U/sec.411 IPC is framed, read over and explained. The accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked. PW1 is Defacto complainant. PW2 is witness and elder sister of the complainant. PW3 is panch for scene of offence.

PW4 is investigating officer and laid charge sheet. PW5 is another investigating officer who arrested the accused. PW6 is panch witness for confession and recovery of accused. In view of the evidence of PW5, the evidence of LW10/K.Seetharam is closed. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW2/Gadila Gangareddy, LW4/Gajam

Srinivas, LW6/Voterkar Ramu and LW8/Kakarla Ashaiah.

6.After closure of prosecution's side evidence, accused No.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence against the accused. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public prosecutor for the State and counsel for A2 and legal aid counsel for A1. They submitted their arguments in support of their respective rival contentions. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution could prove the offences punishable U/sec. 457, 380 IPC alternatively U/sec. 411 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

JMFC 3

CC 163/2018

POINT:

9.The prosecution is required to establish that the accused No.1 and 2 gained entry into the house of PW1 during night hours, by broke opening the locks of the house doors and committed theft of gold ornaments and some net cash from the cup board and that police recovered two gold chains weighing about one tula out of the stolen property from the possession of the accused.

10.PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged Ex.P1 report. PW2 is the sister of PW1. PW3 is one of the panch witnesses to the scene observation panchanama. PW4 is the investigating officer who registered case and filed charge sheet. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW4 coupled with Ex.P1,P3/crime detail form and Ex.P4/First Information Report would reveal that PW1 is resident of Vidyanagar, Armoor. On 12-11-2017 she with her mother left to Hospital at Nizamabad by locking her house. But on 14-11-2017 at about 6 hours LW4/Srinivas who is her neighbour made a phone call to her and informed that the house door lock of PW1 was found broken and the main doors of the house remained in open condition. As per the version of PW2 resident of Mamidipaly cross road, the PW1 informed the same to her and requested her to go her/PW1 house. PW2 rushed to the house of PW1 and found the door lock in broken condition, however according to her she/PW2 has not gone inside the house. Later the PW1 came to the house and found the doors were in opened condition.

She went inside the house and found the cup boards in the bed room and almarah in broken condition and articles in the house in pell-mell condition.

On her verification she found missing of gold necklace, three gold chains, three pairs of ear studs, one bracelet and small gold ornaments of children weighing more than five tulas, silver weighing about 40 to 50 tulas,make up kit worth of Rs.40,000/- and cash of Rs.80,000/- from her house. She came to conclusion that some unknown offenders committed theft of the above ornaments from her house in her absence. She gave report to police

Armoor under Ex.P1. According to her, after three months of her report, police informed her that two gold chains weighing of one tula in total were recovered. She identified her gold chains shown in Ex.P2 photograph and claimed the same to be of her.

JMFC 4

CC 163/2018

11.The factum of lodging of Ex.P1 report by PW1 is confirmed by PW4.

According to him, LW10/K.Seetharam inspector of police, PS Armoor registered a case against the unknown offender for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380 IPC and issued Ex.P4. The evidence of PW4 further discloses that he investigated the matter. He visited the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama under Ex.P3 in presence of PW3 and LW6/Ramu. He examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses. PW3 also corroborated the PW4 regarding the visiting of the scene and conducting of the scene observation panchanama under Ex.P3. However admittedly PW1 neither mentioned in Ex.P1/report nor she stated before the police about the missing of cash of Rs.80,000/-, silver weighing 40 tulas and a make up kit worth of Rs.40,000/- for the reasons best known to her. Therefore it is difficult to believe that the cash of Rs.80,000/-, silver weighing 40 tulas and a make up kit worth of rs.40,000/- were also stolen from her house. So far as the two gold chains are concerned she identified the same and claimed to be her property.

Hence this court believes that the above gold ornaments were stolen by unknown offenders from her house in her absence.

12.As per the evidence of PW4, it were the accused No.1 and 2 who committed theft of the above gold ornaments from the house of PW1. The evidence of PW4 discloses that LW9/PW5 SI of police, PS Kamareddy informed him that the above accused confessed to have committed theft of gold ornaments of the present case and that he(PW5) recovered two gold chains pertaining to the present case from the accused. PW4 states to have collected gold chains shown in Ex.P2 photograph from the police,

Kamareddy. That apart, he secured the presence of accused No.1 and A2

before this court in the present case by executing P.T warrants. Finally he

filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable

U/sec.457, 380 IPC.

13.The plea of the accused is that they have no connection with the alleged recovered two gold chains shown in Ex.P2/photograph and that they have no connection with the present case and that they were falsely implicated in the present case by police Kamareddy at the instance of police, Armoor.

JMFC 5

CC 163/2018

14.Coming to the evidence of PW5, a reading of his evidence would reveal that he has been working as SI of police at P.S Kamareddy from 5.10.2017. On 15.12.2017 at 0700 hours, he with his staff was performing patrolling duty in front of JPN statue Kamareddy. At that time he found accused No.1 and 2 proceeding by walk in suspicious circumstances on seeing the police. Hence he apprehended them. On his interrogation, the accused revealed their names and confessed in presence of

LW6/B.Naveen/PW6 and LW7/K.Ashaiah that they committed theft of gold ornaments pertaining to the present case and also pertaining to other cases. His evidence further discloses that he recovered two gold chains each one from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama. According to him, the accused No.1 and 2 confessed to have sold away the remaining stolen property of the present case to some unknown persons and expended the amount. He exhibited the certified copies of admissible portion of confession cum recovery panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 pertaining to the present case under Ex.P5 and P6 respectively. He corroborated the PW4 regarding the fact that he has informed about the confession of the accused and recovery of case property of the present case to PW4.

15.The plea of the accused in this regard is that PW5 never apprehended them and that they never confessed before him. They further pleaded that no stolen property was recovered from them and that they have no connection with two gold chains shown in Ex.P2 and they were falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel for the accused submitted that the evidence of PW6 can not be relied upon since he is stock witnesses of police. He further argued that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and

A2 in the present case.

16.In the light of the above defence taken by the accused it would be necessary to examine the evidence on record so as to decide whether the guilt of the accused could be proved by the prosecution. One of the mediators in presence of whom the accused said to have confessed and two gold chains said to have been recovered from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 are examined as PW6. A reading of the evidence of

JMFC 6

CC 163/2018

PW6 would reveal he is resident of Kamareddy. He has identified both the accused since according to him, he observed both the accused in the custody of police at JPN chowrasta about 3 to 4 months ago prior to his evidence. His evidence further discloses that on their enquiry, both the accused confessed to have committed theft at Kamareddy, at Hyderabad and Armoor. Police recovered gold necklace, one Nallapusala danda and one pair of silver anklets from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 under cover of panchanama in their presence. He exhibited the certified copies of the disclosure statements of accused No.1 and 2 pertaining to the commission of theft of the present under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. He spoke about the preparation of confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused by the police and to have obtained their signatures thereon. He identified his signatures and admitted the Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. However, what is to be observed here is PW6 categorically stated that except gold necklace, one nallapusala danda and one pair of silver anklets no other gold ornaments were recovered from the possession of the accused in their presence. PW6 by observing Ex.P2/photograph clearly stated that the gold chains appearing in Ex.P2 were not present among the recovered properties from the accused.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW5, he made it clear that he has not examined any independent witnesses who witnessed the confession and recovery and that he has not obtained the signatures of the accused on confession cum recovery panchanama. His evidence further discloses that he has not conducted property identification parade.

18.After going through the evidence of PW5 and PW6 it becomes clear that PW6 categorically denied the recovery of two gold chains of the present case by PW5 from the possession of accused No.1 and 2. He categorically stated that the gold chains shown in Ex.P2/photograph were not present among the recovered gold ornaments. According to him, except gold necklace, one Nallapusala dhanda and one pair of silver anklets, no other property was recovered from the accused in their presence. Thus, PW6 failed to support the recovery of gold chains of the present case from the possession of accused No.1 by PW5 in their presence. PW6 thus is not supporting the case of prosecution. It is not that

JMFC 7

CC 163/2018

PW6 totally turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He is supporting the

PW5 regarding the recovery of gold ornaments pertaining to cases of P.S

Kamareddy from the possession of the accused. Whereas the prosecution did not choose adduce the evidence of LW6 another mediator. In these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is not safe to act upon the sole testimony of PW5/investigating officer to prove the recovery of two gold chains pertaining to the present case from the possession of accused

No.1 and 2.

19.So far as the evidence of PW4 is concerned, admittedly he has not obtained the photographs of the broken almarah, the articles which were in pelmel condition in the house of PW1 and the broken lock at scene of offence. Admittedly he has not seized the broken lock from the scene for the reasons best known to him. His evidence further discloses that he has not sought the help of clues team to trace out the finger prints of the culprits. According to him, he has not enquired as to who purchased the stolen property from the accused. Thus the evidence of PW4 is not helpful to prove the ingredients of sec.457 IPC.

20.From the foregoing discussion this court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the culpability of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/sec.

457, 380 IPC. Even the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the culpability of accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/sec.411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused No.1 and 2 therefore are entitled to benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 or 411 IPC. Accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The unmarked case property(Two gold chains) shown in

Ex.P2/photograph deposited vide CPR No.13/2018 shall be returned to its owner i.e., PW1/Gadila Amrutha after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment. The accused No.1 is lodged in Jail, hence the jail authorities

JMFC 8

CC 163/2018

concerned are directed to release him forthwith if he are not required in any other cases.

Typed by me in para no.11 to 13 and rest of the portion typed to my dictation by P.A., and after its correction, pronounced by me in open court on this 23rd day of April, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence :-

PW1/LW1: Gadila Amrutha – None – PW2/LW3: Gurram Laxmi PW3/LW5: Basara Ganga Mohan PW4/LW11: K.Gopi/IO PW5/LW9: M.Ravi Kumar PW6/LW7: Bodasu Naveen/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1: Report given by PW1 Ex.P2: Photograph pertaining to the recovered gold chains. Ex.P3: Crime Details Form Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Certified copy of the admissible portion of confession of A1 and recovery of gold chain pertaining to the present case from the possession of A1. Ex.P5: Certified copy of the admissible portion of confession of A2 and recovery of gold chain pertaining to the present case from the possession of A2 Ex.P6: Certified copy of admissible portion of confession-cum recovery panchanama of silver anklets and one Nallapusala Danda from the possession of A1 Ex.P7: Certified copy of disclosure statement of A1 pertaining to the commission of theft in the present case Ex.P8: Certified copy of disclosure statement of A2 pertaining to the commission of theft in the present case

For Defence :- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Armoor.

JMFC

1

CC 303/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

Present: Sri G.Uday Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 25th day of April, 2018

CC. NO. 303 OF 2014

Between :

The State of T.S. through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Armoor. …Complainant //AND//

A1:Ganavibuhti Srinivas, S/o Sailoor, age: 31 years, Caste: SC (Budige Jangam), Occ: HDFC Bank loan verification officer, R/o H.No. 10-14- 1880 Seetharam nagar colony, Nizamabad. A2:Smt. G.Krupa Jyothi, W/o Srinivas, age: 27 years, Caste: Devanga, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No.10-14-1880 Seetaram nagar colony, Nizamabad. A3: Prudviraj S/o Mallesham, age: 20 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: B.Tech student, R/o Chandra nagar, Nizamabad. A4: Rodea Manish, S/o Tanagi, age:21 yrs, Caste: Are patkari, Occ:Sales men in Idea office, R/o H.No.MIG-126, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad A5: Kahiraj Saiteja, S/o K.Bhojanna, age: 18 years, Occ: B.com 1st year, Caste: Wadla, R/o H.No.20 plot No.4, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. A6: Marineni Nikhil, S/o Manohar, age: 20 years, Caste: Velma, Occ: Bsc (MPCS) II yr, R/o H.No.10-14-1878, Seetaramnagar, Nizamabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 24-04-2018 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri Bethu Jagadeesh, Advocate for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a case of criminal trespass into the house of PW1, causing of hurt to PW1 and creating public nuisance, committed by accused No.1 to 6, punishable U/sec.448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC, for which police, Armoor registered a case in Crime No.240/2014 against the accused No.1 to 6.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, in the year 2007, LW1/Rasa

Sravan Kumar married accused No.2. During their wedlock, they were blessed with one son by name Siddartha. Later some disputes arose

JMFC 2

CC 303/2014

between him/LW1 and accused No.2, hence they took divorce in the presence of caste elders and their son/Sidhartha was in the custody of

LW1. Later on 27.05.2014 at about 3.30 pm, the accused No.1 to 6 criminally trespassed into his house, abused him/LW1, his present wife/LW2 and his younger brother/LW3 and beat them with hands and took away his son/Sidhartha. As a result, LW1 received severe injuries on the back of his neck. Thereby, the accused No.1 to 6 committed offence. After completion of the entire investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the

A1 to A6 for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC.

3. This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC against the accused No.1 to 6.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 6, copies of documents are furnished to them U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offences punishable U/sec.448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC against the accused is read over and explained to them in their language for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 marked on its behalf. PW1 is defacto complainant and victim. PW2 is investigating officer and laid charge sheet. Prosecution filed report stating that LW2/Lavanya is pregnant and unable to move. Whereas,

LW3/Srikanth is staying at Gulf and it is not known when he returns to

India. On such report, their evidence is closed by this Court.

6.After completion of prosecution's side evidence, accused No.1 to 6 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available on record and they denied the same. Accused No.1 to 6 reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused. They submitted their arguments in support of their respective rival contentions. Perused the record.

JMFC 3

CC 303/2014

8. Now the point for determination are :

Whether the prosecution could prove the offences punishable under sections 448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC against

the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution is required to prove that accused No.1 to 6 criminally trespassed into the house of PW1, beat the PW1, LW2 and LW3 with hands, caused hurt and made public nuisance regarding the dispute of custody of the son of LW1 and accused No.2.

10. A reading of the evidence of PW1 would reveal that he is doing electrical business. Accused No.2 is his former wife. A1 is the present husband of accused No.2. In the year 2013 the divorce took place between him and accused No.2 before the caste elders. After the divorce, the custody of her son who was aged about 5 years old was given to him. On 27th of either April or May month of 2014 at about 3.30 pm, accused No.1 to 6 came to his house at housing board colony, Armoor, assaulted on him, on LW2 and LW3. He received severe injuries on the back of his neck. It is his further evidence that the accused took away his son. Hence he gave report to police under Ex.P1.

11.The factum of lodging of Ex.P1 report by PW1 finds support from the evidence of Pw2/investigating officer. The evidence of PW2 goes to show that on receiving of Ex.P1/report, he registered a case against accused

No.1 & 2 and others for the offence punishable U/sec.448, 323, 290 IPC and issued Ex.P2/First information report. He spoke about the investigation done by him. According to him, on 06.06.2014 he issued notices under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C to accused No.1 to 6 instructing them to attend before this court.

12.The plea of the accused is that the custody of the son of A2 was not given to PW1 and that he/PW1 kept the son of A2 forcibly in his custody without the consent of the mother/A2 and that PW1 is not competent to take the custody of 5 years old son. It is further pleaded that accused never trespassed into the house of PW1 and that they never assaulted on

PW1 or any others and that PW1 never received any injuries and that no

JMFC 4

CC 303/2014

incident took place. It is further pleaded that PW1 gave false report to harass the accused No.1 and 2. The counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the PW1 was residing in a particular house. He further argued that Pw1 has not stated before the police to the effect that he received injuries on the back of his neck. The learned counsel further argued that no injury certificate of PW1 is produced before this court. The accused finally prayed to acquit the accused.

13.In the light of the above defence taken by the accused it would be necessary to analysis the evidence on record to see whether the prosecution could prove the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.So far as the relationship between the PW1 and accused No.2 is concerned, it is not in dispute. From the evidence of PW1 and on examination of the suggestions given to pW1 it becomes clear that accused

No.2 is the former wife of PW1 and that they were blessed with a son who was aged 5 years old at the time of alleged incident. It further comes to know that a customary divorce took place between PW1 and accused No.2 and that accused no.2 married the accused No.1 and PW1 also married

LW2/Lavanya after the divorce between PW1 and accused No.2. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that the custody of their son who was aged 5 years old was given to him. As rightly argued by the counsel for accused, no document is produced before this court to show who gave the custody of the child to PW1. Accused No.2 is mother of the child aged 5 years old.

She is alleging that PW1 forcibly took the custody of her child and she being the mother of the child is claiming as competent person to look after the child and also as custodian of her child. In absence of any material to show that pW1 was given custody of his son aged 5 years old it is difficult to hold that the accused No.2 took away her child forcibly.

15.PW1 stated that accused trespassed into his house. But the accused are denying the very allegation of trespass into the house of PW1 and the factum of his having owned or resided in a particular house. Though PW2 claimed to have investigated the matter, evidently he has not conducted scene observation panchanama. Admittedly PW2 has not recorded the door

JMFC 5

CC 303/2014

number of the house in which the trespass took place nor he examined the owner of the said house. This is a serious lacuna in the case of prosecution.

In absence of evidence to prove the scene of offence and the fact that PW1 resided in a particular house at the time of alleged incident, it is difficult to come to conclusion that the accused committed house trespass of the PW1.

The prosecution thus could not prove this allegation and ingredients to make out of the offence punishable U/sec. 448 IPC against the accused.

16.So far as the allegation of the assault on PW1, LW2 and LW3 and sustaining of injuries to PW1 is concerned, prosecution could not adduce the evidence of LW2 and LW3. As per the own evidence of PW1, LW2 is pregnant and that she is taking bed rest at her parents house at Velpoor since the doctors advised her to take rent. The evidence of PW1 further discloses that his mother LW3/Srikanth is now staying at Dubai. Thus the evidence of LW2 and LW3 is not available to the prosecution to prove the alleged assault of the accused on LW2 and LW3 and their injuries. With regard to the assault on PW1 and his injuries is concerned, evidently PW1 omitted to states specifically in his report to the effect that he received injuries on the back of his neck. PW2 admitted that he has not referred the

PW1 to any hospital. PW1 failed to explain why he could not mention specifically in Ex.P1 report as to the specific area i.e., on the gap of his neck allegedly received injuries. In view of his failure to mention the above material fact in Ex.P1/report and in absence of medical evidence it is difficult to hold that PW1 received severe injuries on the back of his neck on account of the assault by the accused.

17.The accused are denying the very allegation of the assault on PW1 and taking place of the incident. The other eye witnesses i.e., LW2 and

LW3 could not be produced before this court by the prosecution. Though

PW1 referred to the presence of his mother, admittedly and evidently for the first time PW1 referred to the presence of his mother at the time of incident at scene of offence. PW2 admittedly failed to examine independent witnesses to the incident. Now the only sole testimony of PW1 remained on record against the accused. As can be seen from Ex.P1, specific reference was given in Ex.P1/report against A2, her present husband and so far as other accused are concerned it was mentioned in Ex.P1 as “other persons”.

JMFC 6

CC 303/2014

This goes to show that PW1 does not know the name of accused No.1 and the names of other accused. The evidence of PW1 is silent regarding his having prior acquaintance with other accused i.e., accused No.3 to A6.

Though he stated in his evidence that A1 to A6 assaulted on him, he failed to explain how he could identify A3 to A6. As seen he gave evidence after about 4 years of the alleged incident. In absence of any specific evidence of

PW1 how he identify accused No.3 to 6, it is difficult to take his evidence into consideration, so far as the identity of A3 to A6 are concerned in the present case. Admittedly accused No.2 is the former wife of PW1 and that

A1 is the present husband of A2. It comes to know from the evidence that accused No.2 is claiming the custody of her 5 years old child against PW1.

From the foregoing discussion and in view of the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it is not safe to act upon the sole testimony of

PW1 against the accused. So far as the allegation punishable U/sec.290

IPC is concerned, there is no evidence of independent witnesses to prove that the accused committed public nuisance.

18.From the foregoing discussion coupled with the reasons, this court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the ingredients so as to make out the offence punishable

U/sec.448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC against accused No.1 to 6. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 for the above offences beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused No.1 to 6 therefore are entitled for benefit of doubt.

In the result: the accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.448, 323, 290 R/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 to 6 are acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the of accused No.1 to 6 shall stand cancelled after six months of this judgment date. There is no case property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., and after its correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of April, 2018.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

JMFC 7

CC 303/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:-

PW1/LW1:Rasa Sravan Kumar - Nil - PW2/LW4: N.Bose Kiran/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1 Ex.P2: First information report.

For Defence:- - Nil -

MOs MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

JMFC

1

CC 166/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

Present: Sri G.Uday Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2018

CC. NO. 166 OF 2017

Between :

The State of T.S., through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Armoor.

...Complainant

//AND//

A1. Gaddam @ Ayodhya Bhuma Reddy, S/o Linganna, age: 58 years, Caste: Guradi kapu, Occ: Agril., R/o Ankapoor (V) of Armoor mandal. A2:Gaddam Padma, W/o Bhuma Reddy, age: 55 years, Caste: Guradi kapu, Occ: House wife, R/o Ankapoor village of Armoor mandal A3:Gaddam Radhika D/o Bhuma Reddy, age: 22 years, Caste: Guradi kapu, Occ: student, R/o Ankapoor village of Armoor mandal

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20-04-2018 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri T.Pochanna, Advocate for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a case of wrongful restraint on the way of Railway track, obstructing the PW1 and PW2 while discharging of their legitimate duties and criminal intimidation, committed by the accused punishable U/sec.341, 353, 506 R/w 34 IPC, for which police, Armoor registered a case in Cr.

No.41/2016 against the accused No.1 to 3.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.05.2016 in the early hours,

Railway lines works were being taken up in the land in Sy. No.130 with bulldozer so as to farm Railway track as part and parcel of Railway track from Peddapally to Nizamabad. In the mean time, the accused No.1 to A3 along another accused(A4) came there, obstructed the works and threatened the LW4/Rajesh kumar with dire consequences. On knowing the same, LW1 and LW2 visited the site and tried to convince the accused. But the accused No.1 to 3 obstructed them from performing the Railway track

JMFC 2

CC 166/2017

line works and wrongfully restrained and threatened them with dire consequences and warned that they(accused) would commit suicide by consuming insecticide poison, if they start Railway line works from their(accused) land in Sy. No.130. Thereby, the accused committed the offence. After completion of the entire investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/sec.341, 353, 506 R/w 34 IPC.

3.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 R/w 34 Indian Penal Code, against the accused No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207

Cr.P.C. They are examined under section 239 Criminal Procedure Code, a charge for the offence punishable U/sec.353, 506 R/w 34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them in their language, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 marked on its behalf. PW1 is defacto complainant and victim. PW2 and PW3 are eye witnesses. PW4 and PW5 are panch for scene of offence. PW6 is investigating officer and filed charge sheet. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e.,

LW4/Rajesh kumar and LW5/Bairy Gangadhar.

6.After closure of prosecution's side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available on record and they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for accused. They submitted their arguments in support of their respective rival contentions. Perused the record.

JMFC 3

CC 166/2017

8.Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/sec.353, 506 R/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution is required to establish that the accused obstructed the legitimate duties of Railway employees i.e., PW1 and PW2 while constructing railway track at Munipally and that the accused also threatened them with dire consequences.

10.A reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW3 would reveal that PW1 worked as Railway executive Engineer at Armoor at the relevant time of the present case. PW2 worked as Railway section Engineer at Nizamabad whereas PW3 worked as supervisor in RNR private company, Nizamabad during the year 2016. It is the evidence of PW1 that on 23.05.2016, he heard that some persons who were the land owners near Munipally village have obstructed the Railway works done in pursuance of Peddapally to

Nizamabad south central railway works for laying railway track in their lands. In this regard, he gave report to police under Ex.P1. PW6 investigating officer supported the PW1 regarding the factum of lodging of

Ex.P1 report with police. A reading of the evidence of PW6 would reveal that, he registered a case, issued FIR under Ex.P5, visited the scene of offence, prepared crime details form under Ex.P6 in presence of PW4 and

Pw5 and finally he issued notices to accused No.1 to 3 on 24.05.2016 directing them to appear before this court on receiving summons. He filed charge against accused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/sec.341, 353, 506 R/w 34 IPC. According to him, accused No.4 is still absconding.

11.As can be seen from the evidence, the plea of the accused is that

PW1 and PW2 were not on duty at scene of offence on 23.05.2016 and that no incident took place and that accused never obstructed the duties of Pw1 and PW2. It is further pleaded that Pw1 gave a false report at the instructions of police for the smooth construction of railway track without any disturbance. The counsel for the accused submitted that since railway track was already formed at scene of offence no bulldozer could be run and

JMFC 4

CC 166/2017

that no one obstructed it. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in the present case.

12.PW2 stated that he heard that some land owners obstructed the construction railway tract at Munipally. Whereas PW3 expressed his ignorance about the facts of the present case. PW4 and PW5 who are shown as panch witnesses to the scene observation panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and that they denied to have acted as panch witnesses to Ex.P6. Thus their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. Even PW1 and PW2 expressed their ignorance about the accused No.1 to 3. A reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would go to show that they are claiming to be as hearsay witnesses. Thus the evidence of PW3 is of no assistance to the prosecution to connect accused no.1 with the alleged incident. So far as the evidence of PW6 is concerned, admittedly he has not collected duty certificate to show that PW1 and PW2 were on duty at scene of offence at relevant time. He has not collected any document to show that PW3 worked as supervisor in RNR private company at relevant time. He admitted that as per Ex.P6/crime details form railway tract was already formed at scene of offence. PW6 did not examine the neighbours at scene of offence. As per the own admission of PW6, accused

No.1 to 3 are the owners of the land at scene of offence. PW6 stated that he has not collected any document to show that the land at scene of offence went under ceiling law.

13.After going through the evidence on record it becomes clear that

PW1 and PW2 failed to depose about the incident and that their evidence is not helpful to identify the accused No.1 to 3 and to connect them with the present case. Whereas PW3 to PW5 turned hostile to the prosecution.

There are several infirmities as observed supra in the investigation of PW6.

The very allegation is that PW1 and PW2 being railway employees were on duty at scene of offence at relevant time and that their legitimate duties were obstructed by the accused. But the prosecution failed to produce any material to prove that PW1 and PW2 were on duty at scene of offence at relevant time. PW1 and PW2 themselves never stated in their evidence to

JMFC 5

CC 166/2017

the effect that they were on duty at scene of offence and that their duties were obstructed by anyone much-less by the accused. As can be seen, there is no evidence on record to prove that accused No.1 to 3 threatened

PW1 to PW3 with dire consequences. Thus the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the ingredients so as to make out the offences punishable U/sec.353, 506 R/w 34 IPC. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

U/sec.353, 506 R/w 34 IPC. The accused No.1 to 3 therefore are entitled to benefit of doubt.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.353, 506 R/w 34 IPC. Accordingly the accused

No.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after Six months from the date of this Judgment. There is no case property in the present case.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., after its correction and pronounced by me in open court on this 24th day of April, 2018.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

JMFC 6

CC 166/2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Kommireddy Vijay Kumar- Nil - PW2/LW2: Bandi Venkata Janardhan Babu PW3/LW3: Puchala Vishnuvardhan Reddy PW4/LW6: Are Ramulu PW5/LW7: Thalari Chinna Pochanna PW6/LW8: P.Sridhar goud/IO.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1 Ex.P2: Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P5: First Information Report Ex.P6: Crime Details Form.

For Defence :- - Nil -

M.Os MARKED

- NIL -

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

JMFC

1

OS 30 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

ARMOOR

Present: Sri G.Uday Kumar, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Armoor.

Dated this the 20th day of April, 2018

O.S. No. 30 of 2014

Between:- Malavath Limbadri @ Lambadi Limbadri S/o. Late Peelu, age 34 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-46, Gongoppula Village of Bheemgal Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

...Plaintiff

//AND//

1.Kelavath Yengntiya S/o. Naanya, age 40 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agril., R/o Gongoppula (V) of Bheemgal (M), Dist. Nizamabad .

2.Malavath Mohan S/o. Kuniya, age 45 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gongoppula (V) of Bheemgal (M), Dist. Nizamabad

3.Kelavatj Mutthu S/o. Surya, age 45 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gongoppula (V) of Bheemgal (M), Dist. Nizamabad.

4.Malavath Kobaji S/o. Jemla, age 41 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gongoppula (V) of Bheemgal (M), Dist. Nizamabad

5.Malavath Dasru S/o. Jemla, age 35 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Gongoppula (V) of Bheemgal (M), Dist. Nizamabad.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this the 19th day of April, 2018 for hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of Sri L. Bhoopath Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Sri Md. Tajuddin, Advocate for the Defendants No.1 to 5 and having heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the following :- :: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land bearing Sy. No.507 to an extent of Ac.0-25 gts., situated at Gongoppula village of Bheemgal mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2.The brief avarements of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land measuring Ac.0-25 guntas in Sy.No.507, situated at

Gongoppula village of Bheemgal Mandal. The same is referred to suit

PJCJ 2

OS 30 of 2014

schedule property. The suit schedule property is ancestral property. The plaintiff is cultivating the suit land since the life time of his father. The defendants are trying to encroach into the suit land. The defendants are the adjacent land owners and they have inimical terms with the plaintiff and trying to occupy the suit land. On 18.10.2013 the defendants came to the suit land and tried to interfere with his possession. However, he could resist the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, he filed the present suit against the defendants.

3.Summons were served on the Defendants No.1 to 5. They got their written statement filed.

4.The brief avarements of the written statement are that they are denying the allegations of the plaintiff. The plaintiff suppressed the real facts. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendants never interfered with the suit land of the plaintiff. Finally, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Having heard both sides and perused the pleadings of plaint and written statement of defendant this court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property within the prescribed boundaries as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. If so to what relief ?

6.At the event of trial, the plaintiff as PW1 got his affidavit filed in lieu of evidence in chief. He got Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked. Since the defendants could not turn up to get the Pw-1 cross examined, the cross examination of

PW1 is recorded NIL. Whereas, the defendants failed to adduce defence evidence. No documents are marked for defence side.

7.After completion of recording of evidence, this Court heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff. No one could turn up for defendant’s

PJCJ 3

OS 30 of 2014

side. Hence, it is treated as heard for the defendants side. Having heard and perused the record, this court proceeded to decide the issues as under:

ISSUE NO.1 and 2 : Since both issues are interrelated, both are dealt together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

8.A reading of the chief affidavit of Pw-1 would reveal that he reiterated the contents of the plaint. It is his contention that he/plaintiff is the pattedar, owner and possessor of the suit schedule land i.e., Ac.0-25 guntas in Sy. No.507 (507/2), situated Gongoppula village of Bheemgal Mandal.

He has been cultivating the paddy in suit land ever since during the life time of his father. The defendant No.3 is having his land on the southern side of the suit land. The defendants No.1 and 2 are the relatives and supporters of defendant No.3. About four years ago the plaintiff along with his family members was in paddy crop. Meanwhile, the defendants came to the suit land and started interfering with their agriculture work. On protest, the defendants went away threatening to come again and to disposes the plaintiff from the suit land. The defendants have no rights or interest over the suit land and that they have nothing to do with the suit land.

9.The plaintiff as Pw-1 exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. Perusal of Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 would reveal that the name of the Lambadi Peelu i.e., father of the plaintiff is recorded as pattedar and possessor in pahanies for the year 1970-71, 1980-81, 1990-91, 2000-2001 and 2009-2010. Ex.A6 is the patta passbook wherein the suit schedule land is recorded in the name of plaintiff. Perusal of the Ex.A7 to Ex.A11 would show that the name of the plaintiff is recorded as pattedar and possessor in respect of suit land in pahanies for the Fasli year 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, and 1427. Ex.A12 is a certificate issued by Bank Manager, Indian Overseas Bank confirming that the plaintiff kept the original title deed with the Bank for obtaining crop loan. Ex.A13 is the panchanama issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Bheemgal,

dated 15.12.2012 along with the location map, which discloses that the suit

land of the plaintiff was measured and the boundaries were fixed in the presence of panch witnesses. As seen from the evidence of Pw-1, his version remained unchallenged. The defendants No.1 to 5 did not choose to test the testimony of Pw-1. The defendants even failed to put forth their

PJCJ 4

OS 30 of 2014

version by adducing their evidence. Absolutely, there is no material on record to discard the version of the plaintiff. The evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 goes to prove that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and that the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land as contended by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff could prove the interference of the defendants with his possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Thus, the issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 5.

Issue No.3:

10.As the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and in view of the findings of this Court on issue No.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled to seek perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule land. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.

Accordingly, the defendants No.1 to 5 are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of April, 2018.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

PJCJ 5

OS 30 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiffs : Defendants:

PW1: Malavath Limbadri- NIL -

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs:-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.A3: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.A4: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.A5: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010 Ex.A6: Original Pattedar passbook of Limbadri Ex.A7: Certified copy of Mee seva pahani for the Fasli year 1422 Ex.A8: Certified copy of Mee seva pahani for the Fasli year 1423 Ex.A9: Certified copy of Mee seva pahani for the Fasli year 1424 Ex.A10: Certified copy of Mee seva pahani for the Fasli year 1425 Ex.A11: Certified copy of Mee seva pahani for the Fasli year 1427 Ex.A12: Certificate issued by Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Dubbaka (V) of Dharpally Mandal Ex.A13: Original panchanama dated 15.12.2012 with location map issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Bheemgal.

For Defendants:- - NIL -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

PJCJ

1

CC 134/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

Present: Sri G.Uday Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2018

CC. NO. 134 OF 2018

Between :

The State of T.S. through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Armoor. …Complainant //AND//

1. Jindham Suman Raj @ Jindham Suman S/o Rajanna, age: 26 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Office Subordinate MPP Bheemgal, R/o Near Kasthuriba school Kotarmoor, Perkit village of Armoor mandal.

2.Jindham Anasuya, W/o Rajanna, age: 50 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: House wife, R/o Near Kasthuriba school, Anjaneya temple, Perkit.

3.Lavanya, W/o Kashiram, age: 30 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: House wife, R/o Rajaramnagar, Armoor.

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 23-04-2018 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri L.Bhoopath Reddy, Advocate for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a case of harassment by husband and family members of husband by demanding to bring additional dowry, causing of hurt and criminal intimidation by accused No.1 to 3 punishable U/sec.498-A, 323, 506 IPC, for which police, Armoor registered a case in Cr. No.323/2016 against accused No.1 to 3.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, the marriage of the defacto complainant/PW1 with accused No.1 took place on 20.04.2016. At the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 presented cash of Rs.2,50,000/-, three tulas of gold and house hold articles towards dowry worth of Rs.1 lakh. After their marriage they lead happily for a period of two months

JMFC 2

CC 134/2018

only. Since the accused No.1 was harassing her/PW1 physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parent's house. In the month of August, 2016 the accused No.1 beat her and necked out from the house. Thereafter on 20.10.2016 the accused

No.1 came to her parent's house and beat her with hands for additional dowry and also threatened her with dire consequences by saying if she fail to bring the additional dowry, he would kill her. Thereby, the accused

No.1 committed offences. After completion of the entire investigation,

Police filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 323, 506 IPC.

3. This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323 IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents are furnished to them U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. They are examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

A charge punishable under sections 498-A, 323 IPC against accused is framed, read over and explained. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked on its behalf. PW1 is the defacto complainant and victim. Whereas PW2 is shown as mother of PW1. The prosecution has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW3/Chinna

Divakar, LW4/Botla Raja Ganesh, LW5/Yelugeti Madhukar, LW6/Samburu

Lalitha, LW7/Aligati Sujatha, LW8/K.Seetharam and LW9/Sk.Yakub to save the time of the court, since the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

6.Examination of the accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, by this court since no incriminatory material is found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution’s witnesses.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

JMFC 3

CC 134/2018

8. Now the point for determination are :

Whether the prosecution could prove the offence punishable U/sec. 498-A, 323 IPC against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.PW1 is the defacto complainant. Her evidence discloses that she present is staying at her parents house at Perkit village. LW2/Vijaya Laxmi is her mother. LW3/Divakar is her younger brother. LW4/Raja Ganesh and

LW5/Madhukar are her caste elders. Accused No.2 is the mother of A1 and

A3 is the sister of A1. According to her, her marriage was performed with accused No.1 in the year 2016. They lived together for about three months. Later, disputes and indifference arose between her and accused

No.1. In this regard panchayath was held before the elders. According to her, in the panchayath, elders obtained her signatures on some typed papers and she expressed his ignorance about the contents of the typed papers. She identified her signature and the same is marked as Ex.P1.

When the learned APP cross examined her, she denied to have stated

before the police to the effect that accused No.1 to 3 harassed her

physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents, otherwise to kill her. As she resiled from her earlier statement, her statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C.

became Ex.P2.

10. PW2 is mother of PW1. Her evidence is that the marriage of PW1 with the accused No.1 took place in the year 2016. The couple lived together only for Three months. Thereafter disputes arose between the couple and panchayath were held in this regard. According to her, police never examined her. She turned hostile to the prosecution. As she resiled from her previous version, the learned APP cross-examined her with the permission of the court. During cross-examination by learned APP, she denied the suggestions which are incriminating against the accused No.1.

The contradictory statement of the witness/PW2 recorded by the police

U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C, is marked as ExP3.

JMFC 4

CC 134/2018

11.After going through the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, it can be seen that the material witnesses in this case have turned hostile and stated nothing against the accused No.1. PW1 who is the defacto complainant and victim, herself turned hostile to the prosecution and stated nothing against the accused

No.1. On a reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it becomes clear that PW1 and A1 have settled the matter out side of the court, hence they did not choose to put real facts before this court. PW1 and PW2 thus failed to support the prosecution’s case. In this case, the prosecution’s material witness i.e., PW1 who is none other than the wife of accused

No.1 has compromised the matter out of the court and deposed in the court, accordingly, to suit their compromise. In these circumstances, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they are charged. As a result, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323 IPC.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 323 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the of accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after six months of this judgment date. There is no case property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by P.A., and after its correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of April, 2018.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

JMFC 5

CC 134/2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:-

PW1/LW1: Jindham Navya Sree @ Preethi - Nil - PW2/LW2: Chenna Vijaya Laxmi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Complaint filed by PW1 Ex.P2: Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

For Defence:- - Nil -

MOs MARKED

-NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

JMFC