G.V.Mahesh Nath B.A. L.L.M

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT BODHAN

Present:- Sri G.V.Mahesh Nath, Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2015

M.C.No.10 of 2012

Between:

1) Smt.Akthari Begum W/o.Syed Khaja Pasha, aged 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Rachagally, Kotgir, at present residing at H.No.1-1-42, Near MRO Office, Bodhan, Dist.Nizamabad.

2) Hajra Begum D/o.Syed Khaja Pasha, aged 4 years, under the guardianship of petitioner No.1.

..Petitioners

AND

Syed Khaja Pasha S/o.Syed Shadullah, aged 42 years, Occ: Driver & Agriculture, R/o.Rachagally, Kotgir village and Mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

..Respondent

This case is coming before me on 6th day of May, 2015 for hearing and disposal in presence of Sri K.Dattatri Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri. Aizaz, Advocate for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

1.The present petition is filed by the Petitioners who are wife and daughter of respondent praying this Court to grant them separate monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each against the respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain the Petitioners, despite having sufficient source of income.

2. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner married respondent about thirteen years prior to filing of present petition. That at the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave net cash of Rs.70,000/-, one tula gold, ten tulas silver and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-, as dowry and also incurred marriage expenses. That after marriage, the petitioner joined the company of respondent and she blessed with eight children, out of whom four children were died and remaining four children are alive. The petitioner No.2 is only living with petitioner No.1 and the 2MC 10-12 other three children are living with respondent. It is submitted that respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry, as such police report was lodged against the respondent and his family members. Later, the respondent necked out the petitioner No.1 by snatching her gold and silver ornaments, as such, the petitioner No.1 residing with her parents. It is submitted that respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month on his agriculture and driving profession and also having three and half acres of land and his yearly income is Rs.4,00,000/-, as such despite having sufficient source of income, he failed to maintain the petitioners No.1 and 2, who did not have sufficient income for their maintenance. Submitting as above, the petitioners prayed this Court to grant maintenance.

3. On receipt of notice, Respondent entered his appearance and filed Counter. In the Counter, Respondent admitted the relationship with petitioners but denied to have harassed the petitioners for want of

additional dowry. Respondent denied that he neglected the petitioners.

The respondent denied all the material averments of the petition and state that the petitioner No.1 voluntarily left the respondent by taking away petitioner No.2 with her and that he is maintaining the other four children, who are with him. The respondent submits that petitioner No.1 compelled him to put to separate family by leaving his old aged father, which was refused by respondent, as such, petitioner No.1 herself voluntarily deserted the respondent and living with her parents on her own accord. The conciliation efforts of respondent were failed. The respondent denied his income, which is alleged in the petition and states that he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month which is not sufficient for him and his children for maintenance. Submitting thus, respondent sought for dismissal.

3MC 10-12

4.In order to prove respective contentions, on behalf of petitioners,

PWs.1 and 2 are examined. The record show that when matter was posted for orders, it was observed that chief examination of PW.2, who is elder brother of PW.1 could not be completed, as such, matter was re- opened, wherein counsel for petitioners reported that the evidence of

PW.2 may be eschewed from the record, since he is not available. On behalf of Respondent, RWs.1 and 2 are examined, but no documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the following points that arise for determination are:

i)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the Respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain them ?

ii)If yes, what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioners?

iii)To what relief?

7.Point No.1:- In the present case there is no dispute with regard to relationship of both parties, so also there is no dispute with regard to fact that Petitioner and respondent are living separately and no maintenance amount is paid to Petitioners from the date they got separated. With this understanding, the discussion proceeds further with the evidence that is adduced by both the sides. The petitioner herself got examined as PW.1 and she supported her pleadings in her chief examination. It is the case of petitioner that she was harassed for want of additional dowry and on this ground she was necked out by respondent along with petitioner No.2 by keeping three children with respondent. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent that the petitioner herself voluntarily deserted him on the ground that the respondent refused to put up separate family by leaving his old aged father.

4MC 10-12

8.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of petitioner, she herself examined as PW.1. The chief examination of PW.1 is reiteration of contents of her petition stating that the respondent demanded additional dowry and on this ground she was necked out by the respondent. In the cross examination PW.1 denied suggestion that panchayath was held, wherein petitioner No.1 left the respondent and in the said panchayath, petitioner No.1 took petitioner No.2 along with her by voluntarily deserting respondent. PW.1 admitted that she gave birth to eight children, out of which five children are surviving. PW.1 admitted that petitioner No.2 is residing with her at the time of filing the present case. PW.1 admitted that she has not filed any document to show that the respondent is driver and earning income as is deposed in chief examination. With the evidence of PW.1, it must be stated that the petitioner is able to prove that she is living separately along with petitioner No.2. The fact that the petitioners are residing separately is not denied by respondent, but respondent claim that the petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted him, it need to be seen as to how the respondent is able to prove that the petitioner voluntarily deserted him.

9.In order to prove his case, respondent himself examined as RW.1.

In his chief examination, RW.1 deposed that petitioner became leader in

Dwacra Group and insisted the respondent to put up family at Bodhan, which was refused by respondent, as such PW.1 along with children came to Bodhan and residing at Rakasipet. RW.1 went to PW.1 to bring her back, but she never turned up, as such RW.1 issued legal notice calling

PW.1 to join him and in this regard panchayath was held, wherein PW.1 refused to join the respondent. The respondent states that four children are living with him and even he sent divorce notice to PW.1 through

Khazi, Bodhan and respondent states that he is having three sons and one daughter depending upon him and he works as labour and earning 5MC 10-12

Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. In cross examination, RW.1 deposed that he has not paid any amount to PW.1 since 2009. RW.1 states that he has not filed divorce notice and other documents showing PW.1 as leader in Dwacra Group. RW.1 denied that he is holding three acres of land at

Kotagiri village and earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month. RW.1 denied that he harassed PW.1 for additional dowry and necked out her.

10.The acquaintance of petitioner No.1 and respondent is examined as

RW.2. He deposed that about four years ago marital disputes arose between them, wherein a panchayath was held and PW.1 asked RW.1 to reside at Bodhan and RW.1 refused to come to Bodhan on the ground of maintaining his old aged father. PW.1 refused to come to Kotagiri, even on the advice of elders. RW.2 further deposed that four children are residing with RW.1 and one daughter is residing with PW.1. Further, he deposed that RW.1 is a labourer and earn Rs.100/- per day. RW.2 deposed that RW.1 is taking care of four children and recently performed marriage of his elder daughter. In the cross examination RW.2 deposed that about four years ago panchayath was held, which was attended by brother of PW.1 and further stated that a daily wage labour will get

Rs.300/- per day, but denied suggestion that RW.1 does contract of fruits and he is a lorry driver.. RW.2 denied suggestion that after panchayath, all the five children came to PW.1 and residing with her. Further, it is denied that since PW.1 is his childhood friend, he is deposing false at his instance.

11.With the evidence on record, it need to be observed that petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing separately and respondent did not provide any maintenance to the petitioners, since the date they were separated. This fact admitted by respondent and it is also admitted that four children are residing with respondent as on the date of filing the 6MC 10-12 present petition. Therefore, respondent is maintaining his four children and petitioner No.1 is having petitioner No.2 with her. Considering the facts and evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to get maintenance U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent, who having means, failed to provide maintenance to petitioners No.1 and 2. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the respondent and in favour of petitioners.

12.POINT No.(2):- Having answered Point No.1 in favour of Petitioners, now the question need to be answered is what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to Petitioners. The petitioner failed to adduce any oral and documentary evidence showing the income proof of respondent. It is admitted fact that the respondent is having four children, who are depended upon him, apart from his old aged father.

The respondent in his chief examination admitted that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/-, out of which he has to maintain his four children and his old aged father. Considering the fact that the respondent is maintaining his four children and old aged father, this

Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to get Rs.500/- per month each against the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.Point No.3: To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- each to Petitioners 1 and 2. Since no interim maintenance is granted to Petitioners, the Respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount from the date of petition. The arrears of monthly maintenance shall be paid by respondent in equal installments. The Respondent is directed to pay the arrears monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every Calender Month. The Petitioner 7MC 10-12

No.1 is directed to open a Joint bank account in any Nationalized Bank and communicate the same to respondent for compliance of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.

::Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Petitioners: Respondent: Pw1: Smt.Akthari Begum RW1 : Syed Khaja Pasha Pw2: Mohd.Sadiq (eschewed) RW2 : Syed Ghouse

Exhibits Marked : NIL

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT BODHAN

Present:- Sri G.V.Mahesh Nath, Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2015

M.C.No.10 of 2012

Between:

1) Smt.Akthari Begum W/o.Syed Khaja Pasha, aged 36 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Rachagally, Kotgir, at present residing at H.No.1-1-42, Near MRO Office, Bodhan, Dist.Nizamabad.

2) Hajra Begum D/o.Syed Khaja Pasha, aged 4 years, under the guardianship of petitioner No.1.

..Petitioners

AND

Syed Khaja Pasha S/o.Syed Shadullah, aged 42 years, Occ: Driver & Agriculture, R/o.Rachagally, Kotgir village and Mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

..Respondent

This case is coming before me on 6th day of May, 2015 for hearing and disposal in presence of Sri K.Dattatri Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri. Aizaz, Advocate for the Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

1.The present petition is filed by the Petitioners who are wife and daughter of respondent praying this Court to grant them separate monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each against the respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain the Petitioners, despite having sufficient source of income.

2. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner married respondent about thirteen years prior to filing of present petition. That at the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave net cash of Rs.70,000/-, one tula gold, ten tulas silver and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-, as dowry and also incurred marriage expenses. That after marriage, the petitioner joined the company of respondent and she blessed with eight children, out of whom four children were died and remaining four children are alive. The petitioner No.2 is only living with petitioner No.1 and the 2MC 10-12 other three children are living with respondent. It is submitted that respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry, as such police report was lodged against the respondent and his family members. Later, the respondent necked out the petitioner No.1 by snatching her gold and silver ornaments, as such, the petitioner No.1 residing with her parents. It is submitted that respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month on his agriculture and driving profession and also having three and half acres of land and his yearly income is Rs.4,00,000/-, as such despite having sufficient source of income, he failed to maintain the petitioners No.1 and 2, who did not have sufficient income for their maintenance. Submitting as above, the petitioners prayed this Court to grant maintenance.

3. On receipt of notice, Respondent entered his appearance and filed Counter. In the Counter, Respondent admitted the relationship with petitioners but denied to have harassed the petitioners for want of

additional dowry. Respondent denied that he neglected the petitioners.

The respondent denied all the material averments of the petition and state that the petitioner No.1 voluntarily left the respondent by taking away petitioner No.2 with her and that he is maintaining the other four children, who are with him. The respondent submits that petitioner No.1 compelled him to put to separate family by leaving his old aged father, which was refused by respondent, as such, petitioner No.1 herself voluntarily deserted the respondent and living with her parents on her own accord. The conciliation efforts of respondent were failed. The respondent denied his income, which is alleged in the petition and states that he is earning Rs.5,000/- per month which is not sufficient for him and his children for maintenance. Submitting thus, respondent sought for dismissal.

3MC 10-12

4.In order to prove respective contentions, on behalf of petitioners,

PWs.1 and 2 are examined. The record show that when matter was posted for orders, it was observed that chief examination of PW.2, who is elder brother of PW.1 could not be completed, as such, matter was re- opened, wherein counsel for petitioners reported that the evidence of

PW.2 may be eschewed from the record, since he is not available. On behalf of Respondent, RWs.1 and 2 are examined, but no documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the following points that arise for determination are:

i)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the Respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain them ?

ii)If yes, what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioners?

iii)To what relief?

7.Point No.1:- In the present case there is no dispute with regard to relationship of both parties, so also there is no dispute with regard to fact that Petitioner and respondent are living separately and no maintenance amount is paid to Petitioners from the date they got separated. With this understanding, the discussion proceeds further with the evidence that is adduced by both the sides. The petitioner herself got examined as PW.1 and she supported her pleadings in her chief examination. It is the case of petitioner that she was harassed for want of additional dowry and on this ground she was necked out by respondent along with petitioner No.2 by keeping three children with respondent. On the other hand, it is the case of respondent that the petitioner herself voluntarily deserted him on the ground that the respondent refused to put up separate family by leaving his old aged father.

4MC 10-12

8.In order to prove the respective contentions, on behalf of petitioner, she herself examined as PW.1. The chief examination of PW.1 is reiteration of contents of her petition stating that the respondent demanded additional dowry and on this ground she was necked out by the respondent. In the cross examination PW.1 denied suggestion that panchayath was held, wherein petitioner No.1 left the respondent and in the said panchayath, petitioner No.1 took petitioner No.2 along with her by voluntarily deserting respondent. PW.1 admitted that she gave birth to eight children, out of which five children are surviving. PW.1 admitted that petitioner No.2 is residing with her at the time of filing the present case. PW.1 admitted that she has not filed any document to show that the respondent is driver and earning income as is deposed in chief examination. With the evidence of PW.1, it must be stated that the petitioner is able to prove that she is living separately along with petitioner No.2. The fact that the petitioners are residing separately is not denied by respondent, but respondent claim that the petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted him, it need to be seen as to how the respondent is able to prove that the petitioner voluntarily deserted him.

9.In order to prove his case, respondent himself examined as RW.1.

In his chief examination, RW.1 deposed that petitioner became leader in

Dwacra Group and insisted the respondent to put up family at Bodhan, which was refused by respondent, as such PW.1 along with children came to Bodhan and residing at Rakasipet. RW.1 went to PW.1 to bring her back, but she never turned up, as such RW.1 issued legal notice calling

PW.1 to join him and in this regard panchayath was held, wherein PW.1 refused to join the respondent. The respondent states that four children are living with him and even he sent divorce notice to PW.1 through

Khazi, Bodhan and respondent states that he is having three sons and one daughter depending upon him and he works as labour and earning 5MC 10-12

Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. In cross examination, RW.1 deposed that he has not paid any amount to PW.1 since 2009. RW.1 states that he has not filed divorce notice and other documents showing PW.1 as leader in Dwacra Group. RW.1 denied that he is holding three acres of land at

Kotagiri village and earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,000/- per month. RW.1 denied that he harassed PW.1 for additional dowry and necked out her.

10.The acquaintance of petitioner No.1 and respondent is examined as

RW.2. He deposed that about four years ago marital disputes arose between them, wherein a panchayath was held and PW.1 asked RW.1 to reside at Bodhan and RW.1 refused to come to Bodhan on the ground of maintaining his old aged father. PW.1 refused to come to Kotagiri, even on the advice of elders. RW.2 further deposed that four children are residing with RW.1 and one daughter is residing with PW.1. Further, he deposed that RW.1 is a labourer and earn Rs.100/- per day. RW.2 deposed that RW.1 is taking care of four children and recently performed marriage of his elder daughter. In the cross examination RW.2 deposed that about four years ago panchayath was held, which was attended by brother of PW.1 and further stated that a daily wage labour will get

Rs.300/- per day, but denied suggestion that RW.1 does contract of fruits and he is a lorry driver.. RW.2 denied suggestion that after panchayath, all the five children came to PW.1 and residing with her. Further, it is denied that since PW.1 is his childhood friend, he is deposing false at his instance.

11.With the evidence on record, it need to be observed that petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing separately and respondent did not provide any maintenance to the petitioners, since the date they were separated. This fact admitted by respondent and it is also admitted that four children are residing with respondent as on the date of filing the 6MC 10-12 present petition. Therefore, respondent is maintaining his four children and petitioner No.1 is having petitioner No.2 with her. Considering the facts and evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners are entitled to get maintenance U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent, who having means, failed to provide maintenance to petitioners No.1 and 2. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered against the respondent and in favour of petitioners.

12.POINT No.(2):- Having answered Point No.1 in favour of Petitioners, now the question need to be answered is what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to Petitioners. The petitioner failed to adduce any oral and documentary evidence showing the income proof of respondent. It is admitted fact that the respondent is having four children, who are depended upon him, apart from his old aged father.

The respondent in his chief examination admitted that his monthly income is Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/-, out of which he has to maintain his four children and his old aged father. Considering the fact that the respondent is maintaining his four children and old aged father, this

Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to get Rs.500/- per month each against the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.Point No.3: To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.500/- each to Petitioners 1 and 2. Since no interim maintenance is granted to Petitioners, the Respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount from the date of petition. The arrears of monthly maintenance shall be paid by respondent in equal installments. The Respondent is directed to pay the arrears monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every Calender Month. The Petitioner 7MC 10-12

No.1 is directed to open a Joint bank account in any Nationalized Bank and communicate the same to respondent for compliance of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.

::Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Petitioners: Respondent: Pw1: Smt.Akthari Begum RW1 : Syed Khaja Pasha Pw2: Mohd.Sadiq (eschewed) RW2 : Syed Ghouse

Exhibits Marked : NIL

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT BODHAN

Present:- Sri. G.V.Mahesh Nath, Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

Dated this the 14th day of May, 2015

C.C.No.180 of 2010 Between: The State through P.S.Yedpally.

..Complainant

AND

A1) D.Satish S/o.Yellaiah, aged 25 years, Occ: Coolie A2) P.Narsimlu S/o.Ramchander, aged 35 years, Occ: Coolie A3) Shaik Ahmed ( died – abated ) A4) P.Bheemaiah S/o.Nagaiah, aged 30 years, Occ: Agriculture A5) M.Ramuloo S/o.Babu, aged 28 years, Occ: Coolie A6) M.Shyam S/o.Babu, aged 28 years, Occ: Coolie A7) P.Sudhakar S/o.Narsaiah, aged 29 years, Occ: Coolie All are R/o.ARP Camp, Yedpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sr.APPO for the State and of Sri V.R.Desai, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: ::JUDGMENT::

1.This case arises out of Crime No.82/2010 for the offences

U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC registered against accused alleging that on 4.4.2010 they formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and beat LWs.1 to 5 namely D.Kishan, D.Gangadhar,

D.Sailoo, D.Gangaram and D.Savitha respectively inflicting them injuries.

2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that on the date of incident

LWs.1 to 5 went to Adelli Poshavva temple in DCM van and were returning to their village, wherein as they reached ARP Camp, accused

No.1 was standing in the middle of the road talking over cell phone, without giving side to van, as such LWs.1 to 5 got down from the van and requested accused No.1 to give side to their van. On asking by

LWs.1 to 5, the accused No.1 grew wild and with accused Nos.2 to 7, they beat LWs.1 to 5 with stick causing them injuries. On completion of 2CC 180-10 investigation, police filed a report U/s.173 Cr.P.C. for the offences

U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC.

3.Based on the police report, this Court took cognizance for the offences U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC against the accused and proceeded with the case. The record show that copies were furnished to the accused as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.3 is abated, as he was reported died. Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 to 7 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and hearing both sides, charges

U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw9 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them. Accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the points that arise for determination is whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences

U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

7.Point:- The defacto complainant in the present case is examined as PW.1. He deposed that he along with LWs.2 to 5 went to Adelli

Poshavva temple in van about four years ago and while returning, when they reached ARP camp, at about 9.00 P.M. one person by name

Laxman was standing in middle of road, talking over cell phone, as such requested the said person to give side to their vehicle and the said person along with seven other villagers came and beat him with cart pegs, including LWs.2 to 5. PW.1 identified the accused Nos.4, 1 and 7 by face, as persons, who beat him. Though PW.1, report / Ex.P1 3CC 180-10

dated 5.4.2010 is marked. The learned Sr.APPO cross examined PW.1

under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act and elicited that the name of person stated as Laxman is in fact by name Satish, who is accused

No.1. In cross examination conducted by counsel for accused, it is elicited that PW.1 can not say the individual names of accused and the incident occurred in night time and there were no lights when incident occurred. PW.1 deposed that he did not give the names of persons to the police, so also did not state to the police in his statement. PW.1 deposed that police obtained his thumb impression and that the contents of Ex.P1 were not read over to him. PW.1 admitted that he identified the accused at the instance of police and that he can not say who beat him, as it was dark when the incident occurred.

8.The evidence of PW.1 in the cross examination do not lend support to the case of prosecution. PW.1 in his chief examination identified the accused Nos.4, 1 and 7 by face, but in cross examination, he admitted that he can not say the individual names of accused and that the incident occurred in the night and it was dark and there was no light. Admittedly, PW.1 and accused belong to two different villages and there is no prior acquaintance between them, as such PW.1 identifying the accused, after a gap of nearly four years, can not be believed, as it is elicited in cross examination of PW.1 that accused were identified at the instance of police need to be believed.

9.The other injured is examined as PW.1. She went in line with evidence of PW.1 and she stated that on the date of incident, they were returning in van and when they reached ARP Camp, accused

Nos.1 to 7 slept on road by consuming alcohol and when PW.1 and others asked them to give side, they beat PWs.1, 2 and other persons with wooden portion of axe. PW.2 stated that she sustained injury to her right shoulder.

10.Before discussing on the cross examination of PW.2, it is relevant to note that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 4CC 180-10 and 2. As per the evidence of PW.1, accused were said to have beat with cart peg, whereas PW.2 stated that they were beaten with wooden portion of axe and as per the case of prosecution, the accused are alleged to have beat injured with sticks. Therefore, the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 are varied on material point with regard to weapon of offence with which accused beat PW.1 and others. Through cross examination of PW.2, it was elicited that PW.2 did not state to the police that one person was on road with cell phone and he beat PW.1.

PW.2 deposed that she had seen all the accused for the first time

before the Court. The cross examination of PW.2 add to the agony of

the prosecution, as PW.2 also stated that she can not identify the accused Nos.1 to 7 individually and she did not have prior acquaintance with accused Nos.1 to 7. Apart from the discrepancy, as noted above, the cross examination of PW.2 prove as fatal lapse for the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of accused.

11.The other two eye witnesses and injured in the present case are examined as PWs.3 and 4. They went in line with case of prosecution stating that accused beat them. PW.3 could not state about the weapon used by accused while beating them, whereas PW.4 stated that they were beaten with sticks. In the cross examination of both

PWs.3 and 4 they admitted that they identified the accused at the instance of police. As noted supra, PWs.1 to 4 did not have prior acquaintance with accused Nos.1 to 7 and after the incident that happened about four years ago, identifying some of the accused in

Court and such identification raises suspicion giving way for suggestion that PWs.1 to 4 identified the accused at the instance of police.

12.The two scene of offence panchas are examined as PWs.5 and 7 and both these witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, as such their signatures are marked as Exs.P2 and P3. One of the two panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama of accused

No.1 is examined as PW.6. He deposed that about four to five years 5CC 180-10 ago, police obtained his thumb impression on some papers and he does not know facts of the case. PWs.6 and 7 were cross examined by learned Sr.APPO under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, but nothing could not elicited from them supporting the case of prosecution.

13.The medical officer, who treated injured is examined as PW.8 and through him Exs.P4 to P6, which are medical certificates of the injured are marked. The investigating officer in the present case is examined as PW.9 and through him prosecution got marked Ex.P7/FIR and

Ex.P8/Crime detail form. The evidence of PW.9 is procedural in nature.

With discussion as made above, it must be stated that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused. It is observed that the material contradictions in the evidence of prime witnesses PWs.1 and 2 and eye witness examined as PWs.3 and 4, as one witness stated that the accused beat them with cart peg and other witness stated that they were beaten with wooden portion of axe, while the case of prosecution is that the accused are alleged to have beat injured with sticks. There is glaring discrepancy as to weapon of offence, with which the accused are alleged to have beaten the injured. Adding to it, only some witnesses identified some of the accused and all witnesses examined as PWs.1 to 4 in categorical terms deposed that they do not have prior acquaintance with accused before the incident, as such, identification of accused by PWs.1 to 4 go with the suggestion in their cross examination that such identification was made at the instance of police. Since there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, much credence can not be given to their evidence by relying on their evidence for coming to conclusion that the accused committed the offences with which they stand charged. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

14.In the result accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences U/ss.147, 148, 341 and 324 r/w 149 IPC and they are 6CC 180-10 acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The jail authorities are directed to release the accused No.5 forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. No order as to case property. The un- marked non valuable case property, if any, is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVDIENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION :DEFENCE : PW1 : D.Kishan-NONE- PW2 : D.Savitha PW3 : D.Sailoo PW4 : D.Gangaram PW5 : T.Jaipal PW6 : C.Beeshaiah PW7 : K.Sailoo PW8 : Dr.Raghavender Reddy PW9 : N.Vasu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION :DEFENCE : Ex.P1 : Report NIL Ex.P2 : Signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 : Signature of PW.7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 : Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P5 : Wound certificate of PW.3 Ex.P6 : Wound certificate of LW.2 Ex.P7 : First information report Ex.P8 : Crime detail form.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

BODHAN

Present:- Sri. G.V.Mahesh Nath, Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

Dated this the 19th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No. 3 of 2015

Between: The State through P.S.Bodhan.

..Complainant

And

Ajeeth Singh S/o Icha Singh, 20 years, Caste:Sikkalgari, Occ:Iron WorkR/o Mangal Bazar of Gurgovindh Nagar, Jalna Dist. Maharastra State.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on 18-5-2015 for hearing in the presence of learned Sr.A.P.P.O. for the State and accused appeared in person on production from Dist.Jail, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

::JUDGMENT::

1. The prosecution allege that Accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the offence u/s.384 of IPC on the allegation that on 22-8-2008 at 1.30 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 4 entered the house of Lw1/Kaldurki

Neelakantham and extracted gold, silver ornaments and cash of

Rs.5000/- from almirah by putting Lw1/Kaldurki Neelakantham and his family members under fear of death. After extracting the money,

Accused Nos.1 to 4 are said to have escaped from the scene. The police on completion of investigation filed their report u/s.173 Cr.P.C.

alleging that accused committed the offence u/s.384 of IPC.

2. Based on the police report, this court took cognizance for the offence under section 384 IPC against accused and proceeded with case. The record show that accused Nos.1 to 4 were called absent for the proceedings, as such, NBW was issued against them.

Subsequently, even 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against 2CC.3-2015 accused Nos.1 to 4, wherein, at the stage of filing compliance u/s.82

Cr.P.C. police executed NBW of accused No.3 on 9-1-2015, as such, case against accused No.3 was split up from main CC.No.490/2008 against accused No.3. Accused No.3 remained as under trial prisoner for the entire proceedings. While accused No.3 was being produced from District Jail, Nizamabad, he was furnished with copies of case documents as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. Later he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and on hearing both sides charge U/s.384 IPC was framed, read over and explained. He denied charge and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined

Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C.

explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied the prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard both sides and perused the record. Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused No.3 for the offence under section 384 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

5.Point: The investigating Officer in the present case is examined as

Pw5. He deposed that on 22-8-2008 Pw1 came to Police Station and lodged report/Ex.P1. Based on which he registered a case and issued

FIR as in Ex.P5 by recording the statements of Pws.1 & 2. He conducted Ex.P4 proceedings in presence of Lws.3 & 4/Md.Waheed &

Paavathi Poshetty. In the course of investigation on 26.8.2008 Pw5 apprehended three persons who revealed their details as that of

Accused Nos.1 to 3 and confessed to have committed the offence in the present case along with accused No.4. Pw5 recovered knife, iron 3CC.3-2015 rod and two cell-phones from the possession of accused No.1 and later effected the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 3. On completion of investigation, Pw5 filed report u/s.173 Cr.P.C alleging that accused

Nos.1 to 4 committed the offence u/s.384 of IPC showing accused

No.4 as absconding.

6. Corroborating the evidence of Investigating Officer, the defacto complainant in the present case is examined as Pw1. He deposed that on 21-8-2008 he along with his family members slept in his house wherein four persons entered his house from back door holding knives and rods. Pw1 stated that the said persons covered their face with black cloth and one of them put knife on Lw2/Smt.Kaldurki Rajitha and asked to give money and gold. Pw1 testified that the said persons took Rs.5000/- cash, two cellphones and threatened to kill Pw1 and his family members if the matter was informed to police. Late Pw1 lodged report/Ex.P1 with police. The wife of Pw1 is examined as Pw2 and she went in line with Pw1 stating that four persons entered her house and robbed gold ornaments, cash and two cell phones.

7.The two panch witnesses for confession and recovery panhanama alleged to have been made by Pw5 are examined as Pw3 and Pw4. Both Pws.3 & 4 deposed that police did not conduct any confession and recovery panhanama in their presence and no person has confessed and no seizure has been made in their presence. The signatures of Pws.3 & 4 on confession and recovery panhanama dtd. 26.8.2008 is marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

8.In the present case admittedly Pws.1 & 2 are examined as eye witness to the present case, but both Pws.1 & 2 failed to identify any of the culprits who have entered into their house. The evidence of

Pws.1 & 2 speak that the culprits entered their house by covering their face with black cloth, as such, there was no opportunity to Pws.1 & 2 to identify the faces of culprits. Therefore, the prosecution is left 4CC.3-2015 with no evidence but to rely on the recovery of part of stolen property and crime weapon alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 by Pw.5. The evidence of Pw5 support the case of prosecution stating that he recovered two cellphones and crime weapon from the possession of accused Nos.1 to 3 in presence of

Pws.3 & 4 under the cover of confession and recovery panchanama.

However, both panch witnesses examined as Pws.3 & 4 deposed that no confession and recovery panhanama was conducted in their presence and that their signatures were obtained on confession and recovery panhanama and same is marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. In the present case, prosecution failed to prove that Pw5 recovered two cellphones and crime weapon from the possession of accused Nos.1 to

3. It must be stated here that there is no incriminating evidence against Accused No.3 in the present case except the evidence of Pw5 who deposed that along with accused Nos.1 & 2, Accused No.3 also committed the present offence. With the discussion as made above, it must be concluded that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused with which he stood charged. Accordingly, the Point is answered against prosecution.

9.In the result, accused No.3 is found not guilty of the charged offence U/s.384 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C.

Accused No.3 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any case or crime. The property if any, shall be kept in tact till the disposal of main CC.No.490/2008.

Dictated to Steno, trans cribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19t h day of May, 2015.

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magis trate, Bodhan.

5CC.3-2015 ::Appendix of Evidence:: Witnesses Examined Prosecution : Defence: Pw1:Kaldurki Neelakantham None Pw2:Smt.Kaldurki Rajitha Pw3:Shanker Reddy Pw4:Syed Hussain Pw5:B.Shankaraiah, Investigating Officer ::Exhibits Marked :: Prosecution : Defence: Ex.P1:CC of report dt. 22.8.2008 Nil Ex.P2:CC of signature of Pw3 on confession and recovery panhanama Ex.P3:CC of signature of Pw4 on confession and recovery panhanama Ex.P4:CC of scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5:C.C. of FIR dt. 22.8.2008 ::M.Os.Marked:: NIL

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT BODHAN

Present:- Sri G.V.Mahesh Nath, Judl.F.C.Magistrate, Bodhan.

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2015

M.C.No.33 of 2014

Between:

1) Smt.Tharabee W/o.Nagoorvali D/o.Godugu Hassan, aged 22 years, Occ: Huosehold, R/o.Pasupugallu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasham District, at present R/o.H.No.1-1-15, Rakasipet, Bodhan, Dist.Nizamabad.

2) Fareed Pasha S/o.Nagoor Vali, aged 15 months, minor, under the guardianship of petitioner No.1.

..Petitioners

AND

Dokuparthy Nagoor Vali S/o.Chinna Peeru Sahib, aged 28 years, Occ: Printing press operation, R/o. Pasupugallu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasham District

..Respondent

This case is coming before me on 6th day of May, 2015 for hearing and disposal in presence of Sri V.Sangam, Advocate for the petitioners and the Respondent is set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

: O R D E R :

1.The present petition is filed by the Petitioners who are wife and son of respondent praying this Court to grant them separate monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each against the respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain the Petitioners, despite having sufficient source of income.

2. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner married respondent on 4.10.2012 at Pasupugallu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasham

District, as per Muslim personal law and during their wedlock, petitioner

No.1 blessed with petitioner No.2. At the time of marriage, respondent received dowry in cash and kind and lived at Vijayawada and thereafter shifted to Pasupugallu village, Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasham District, where petitioner No.1, respondent and his mother were living. It is 2MC 33-14 submitted that respondent harassed petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry, as such on this harassment, they necked out petitioner No.1 from their house. Since the point necking out petitioner No.1 from the house of respondent, she is residing with her parents at Bodhan without income source. It is submitted that the respondent is doing printing press business and getting Rs.20,000/- per month, apart from Rs.25,000/- per annum on agricultural lands. As such, despite having means, respondent failed to provide maintenance to petitioners No.1 and 2. Submitting as above, the petitioners prayed this Court to grant maintenance.

3. The record show that the notice of respondent was served through registered post and respondent called absent and proceedings against him went in exparte.

4.In order to prove contention, on behalf of petitioners, the petitioner

No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and no other evidence is adduced on behalf of petitioners.

5.Heard the petitioners and perused the record.

6.Now the following points that arise for determination are:

i)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim maintenance u/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the Respondent on ground of his refusal and neglect to maintain them. If yes, what is the quantum of maintenance that can be granted to petitioners?

ii)To what relief?

7.Point No.1:- The averments of the petition are reiterated in the chief examination of PW.1. It is the pleading and evidence of petitioner that she was married to respondent on 4.10.2012 at Pasupugallu village,

Mundlamur Mandal, Prakasham District as per Muslim personal law and at the time of marriage, the respondent received dowry in cash and kind.

During the wedlock, petitioner No.1 was blessed with petitioner No.2 and thereafter marital disputes arose in between petitioner No.1 and respondent over the issue of additional dowry demand and on this ground, petitioner No.1 was necked out from the house of respondent 3MC 33-14 when she was carrying her pregnancy, since such date, the petitioner

No.1 is residing at her parent’s house at Rakasipet and the respondent having means to provide maintenance, failed to pay any amount. Since the respondent remained as exparte, the evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, finding need to be arrived that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondents. As to the quantum of maintenance that need to be granted to the petitioners N.1 and 2, it need to be observed that petitioners failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence, except the evidence of PW.1. In this circumstances, this Court has left with no option, except to assume that the respondent is daily wage labour and would earn Rs.200/- per day, as the respondent failed to contest the case and hence it need to be taken that the respondent did not have any other responsibility, except maintaining petitioners No.1 and 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to get Rs.1500/- per month each against the respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.Point No.2: To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- each to Petitioners 1 and 2. Since no interim maintenance is granted to Petitioners, the Respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount from the date of petition. The arrears of monthly maintenance shall be paid by respondent in equal installments. The Respondent is directed to pay the arrears monthly maintenance on or before 10th of every Calender Month. The Petitioner

No.1 is directed to open a Joint bank account in any Nationalized Bank and communicate the same to respondent for compliance of this Order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2015.

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.

4MC 33-14 ::Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Petitioners: Respondent: Pw1: Smt.Tharabee-NONE-

Exhibits Marked : NIL

Sd/-

Judl.F.C.Magistrate,

Bodhan.