Kum G.Vani, PJCJ

In the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ::

Kadiri

Present: Kumari G.Vani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Wednesday, the 6th day of December, 2017.

Calendar Case No.238 of 2013

Between

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station (Crime No.66/2013.… Complainant.

And.,

1. Cherukumudi Ramaswamy, aged 42 years s/o Late Obulesu,… Accused.

2. Cherukumudi Narasamma, aged 35 years, w/o C.Ramaswamy,

3. Malaka Sreeramulu, aged 50 years s/o

4. Malaka Bushana, aged 45 years s/o M.Venkata Ramaiah. All are residents of Koruguttapalli village, Talupula Mandal.

This case is presented before me on 01.12.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri K.Khadar Basha, for the prosecution and of Sri B.Surendra, Advocate for Accused and on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, 506 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No. 66/2013 of Talupula Police Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 1.8.2013 at about 8.30 AM all accused picked up quarrel with PW1 and abused her in filthy language and beat her and her daughter Renuka I.e PW4 with sticks and caused bleeding injury on their ears and also beat with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries.

Thereafter they approached to the police station on 3.8.2013 at about 7.00 AM and lodged the complaint. The reasons for the galata his only petty reasons then PW6 registered a case took up the investigation and same was handed over to PW8. Then PW8 filed charge sheet for the ofence under section 324,506 r/w 34 IPC.

3. The case was taken on file against accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 324, r/w 34 IPC . On appearance accused

A1 to A4 before this Court, copies of the case documents are furnished as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s 248(1)

Cr.P.C and charges for the offence U/Sec. 324 IPC against A1 and A2 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC under sec.323 IPC against A1 under sec.506 IPC were framed and contents of the charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8, Exs.P.1 to P.7 are marked.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C on the basis of the incriminating material available from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8. However they denied the incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce evidence from their side. Ex.D1 is marked through PW4 during the cross examination.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Secs.324,506 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?

8.In order to prove, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 and

Exs.P.1 to P.7 are marked. PW1 is defacto complainant and injured person. PW2 is eye witness PW3 to 5 are the independent witness and eye witness PW4 is also eye witness and daughter of PW1. PW6 is

Investigation Officer, PW7 is the Doctor.

9. On perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 7 the PW1 and 2 are the wife and husband. The motive of the present case that the hen of

PW1 went in front of the house of A1 and A2 asked with regarding to the entering of hen in to their house. On that the PW1 replied that she was looking hen is not coming in their house. In this regardA1 to

A4 picked up the galata with PW1. In this connection prosecution was examined the PW1 to 5. PW1, 2 and 4 were categorically stated that the motive of the present case. In this regard the defence counsel cross examined PW1, 2 and 4 clearly reveals that there are land disputes in between A1 family PW1 family since long time and moreover there are prior disputes with regarding to the said land between both family members and number of the petitions filed by the PW1 before the M.R.O or V.R.O. So the motive was stated by the

PW1, 2 is not established by the prosecution. At the same time defence counsel clearly established their land disputes in between PW1 family and A1 family and moreover the motive what was stated by

PW1,2 and 4 the same is planted motive because the prosecution has not established same fact through PW3 and 5 who are the independent witnesses in this present case. So that the prosecution filed the established the motive.

10.Overt acts:

In this regard the prosecution has examined the PW7 the PW7 gave the treatment to the PW1 and 2 and issue the wound certificates

I.e;Ex.P6 and P7. Upon the P6 there is no any external injuries found that only complaint complies on his back pain. At the same time Ex.P7 reveals only abrasion over left eye and left external ear tear present.

During the course of the evidence of the PW1, 2 and 4 clearly and categorically stated that A1 and A2 picked up stick and beat to the back side of the PW1 and also A1 pressed on her chest with his leg and

A2 pulled her right ear resulting which she received bleeding injury and again A2 and A3 beat to the PW2 and 4 there also receive the bleeding injuries. Coming to the evidence of the PW2 PW2 is also stated that

A1 beat to the PW1 with a stick on her ear resulting which she received bleeding injury. On A1 beat to the PW4 resulting which she received bleeding injury on the ear. Thereafter he intervened he also received the injuries. At the same time, the evidence of the PW4 is clearly reveals that A1 stabbed on left cheek and pulled left ear due to that the PW1 received injuries and she also received the bleeding injury but Ex.P6 and 7 are not reveals said type of injuries what was stated by the Pws.1, 2 and 4.

11. Upon the evidence of the Pws.1, 2 and 4 is clearly reveals that PW1 received bleeding injury on her left ear,on back side and also received press injury on the chest and moreover A1 pulled left ear of PW1. If really the PW1 pulled ear at the time injury reveals cut injury but the said type of injury was not shown Ex.P6 what injuries was stated by the PW1 are not reveals on Ex.P6. The only complaint complies as pain except that there is no any external and internal injuries either cut or dumb injuries on the body of the PW1.

12.Further significant PW2 was also received the bleeding injury, as per the evidence of the PW1, 2 and 4 but the said type of injuries are not reveals on Ex.P7. On perusal of the EX.P6 and 7 are not reveals said injuries. And moreover immediate after the alleged galata they went to the Government Hospital and taken treatment. If really the

Pws.1, 2 and 4 were received the bleeding injury on their left ear and body. The same was mentioned on Ex.P6 and 7 by the PW7, because they are join in the hospital Immediately and also not disappear. So the injuries are stated by the Pws.1, 2 and 4 are contra evidence of the

PW7. In this regard the prosecution also not established with regarding to the overt acts of PW1, and 2.

13.Presenting the FIR:

As per the evidence of the PW1, 2 and 4 the incident was occurred on 1.8.2013 but the PW6 was received information on 3.8.2013 from the hospital. So there is three days delay for presenting report. PW1, 2 were categorically stated that immediate after the accident they rushed to the police station and lodged the complaint.

But the evidence of the PW6 on 3.8.2013 he received the hospital intimation along with statement of the PW1. So there is contra to presenting of the report Ex.P1. The version of the PW1, and 2 immediate after the galata they rushed to the police station and lodged the complaint. Thereafter the police referred PW1 and 2 to the

Government Hospital. The said version was denied by the PW6 and prosecution also failed to examined who are recording EX.P1 in the hospital.

14. Coming to the evidence of the PW4 is no other than the daughter of the PW1 and 2 immediate after the galata they went to the

Government Hospital. So there is in-consisting statement of the PW1, 2 and 4 and comparing to the PW6. In this regard the prosecution not explained the said in-consisting statements of the PW1, 2 and 4 or

PW6 and prosecution were not explained reasons for presenting the report and moreover PW6 and 8 were not cited the persons who are recording Ex.P1 in the Government Hospital Kadiri. If really the prosecution has examined said person or PW6 and 8 are cited has witnesses the said person at the time same facts are come out from their mouth with regarding to the PW1 was presenting report before the police at Government Hospital or police station. So in this aspect also get salient by the prosecution.

15. Validity of PW1 to 5:

As the evidence of the PW1 or prosecution PW3 and 5 are the independent and eye witnesses but they are completely turn hostile not supported to the single word of the prosecution hence the prosecution declaring them as hostile except marking Ex.P2 and P3 nothing but elicited by the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of the

PW1 PW1 was categorically stated that A1 to A4 came their and A3 and A4 caught hold the PW1 remaining persons I.e, A1 and A2 beat to her.

16. But the evidence of the PW4 she has not stated anything about the PW1 and 2 version. The A1 and A2 abused her mother thereafter A1 beat PW1, and slapped to the PW4 and also PW2. So entire evidence of the PW4 is reveals against A1 but not A3 and A4 .

As per the evidence of the Pws.1 and 2, PW4 also present at the time of the galata. If really all accused came their beat to PW1 and 2 and 4, but not PW4 stated about A3 & A4 beat to them but PW1 stated that A3 and A4 and A3 also present at the time of galata same was supported by EX.D4. So PW4 has not stated that A3 and A4 caught hold PW1 hence PW1 and 2 evidence is not corroborated to the PW4.

So that PW4 evidence was discarded by the court.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW2, PW2 not corroborated to the PW6 so Pws 1 and 2 evidence are not corroborated the evidence of the PW6. So that PW2 evidence was also discarded by the court. The only evidence is PW1 upon the evidence of PW1 so many contradictions, omissions. So that her evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution. The only available evidence is PW6 and 8. PW8 is

Investigating Officer and Sub-Inspector of police. He only received CD file from PW6 verified and filed his charge sheet after receiving wound certificate. Except that his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.

Then available evidence is PW6. PW6 categorically stated that immediate after receiving the information from the Kadiri Government

Hospital, Kadiri, he registered the case thereafter he visited the scene of offence and secured Pws.1 to 5 at the scene of offence, but he has not visited the Government Hospital, Kadiri and not examined Pws.1 and 2 at Government Hospital. He has not examined who are the record the statement of PW.1 at Kadiri Government Hospital. So that

PW.6 has not properly investigated the case with regarding to A.1 to

A.4 beat Pws.1, 2 and 4 or not, and visited the scene of offence.

Except that he drawn the rough sketch, and he has not secured any useful material in favour of the prosecution. So on perusal of evidence of Pws.1 to 8, there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused, hence the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

18.Therefore, the above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of accused with regard to ingredients of Sections 323, 324 & 509 IPC. Hence, accused A.1 to

A.4 are entitled to the acquittal.

19.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 IPC, A.3 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, A.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 323 IPC and A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 506 IPC. Accordingly the accused A.1 to A.4 are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months as contemplated

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6th day of December, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: Ramadevi, None P.W.2: Narayana, P.W.3: Balappa, P.W.4: Renuka, P.W.5: Venkatamalla Reddy, P.W.6: Manohar Reddy,(Investigation Officer) P.W.7: Dr.Madhusudha Reddy, (Medical Officer), PW.8: Sagar, (Investigation Officer)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1Report of PW1.

Ex.P.2161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P.3161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

Ex.P.4First Information Report of 66/2013 in Talupula Police Station.

Ex.P.5Rough Sketch of the scene of the offence.

Ex.P.6Wound certificate of PW7.

Ex.P.7Wound certificate of PW7.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

EX.D1: 161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW4.

Material objects marked

Nil

AJMFC

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

C.C. No.238 of 2013

Date of offence01.08.2013

Date of complaint03.08.2013

Date of apprehension of accused: 05.08.2013(A1 & A2) 16.08.2013(A3 & A4)

Date of commencement of trial21.06.2017

Date of close of trial27.11.2017

Date of Judgment06.12.2017

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Talupula Police Station (Crime No.66/2013. Name and particulars of the 1. Cherukumudi Ramaswamy, aged 42 accused:years s/o Late Obulesu,

2. Cherukumudi Narasamma, aged 35 years, w/o C.Ramaswamy,

3. Malaka Sreeramulu, aged 50 years s/o

4. Malaka Bushana, aged 45 years s/o M.Venkata Ramaiah. All are residents of Koruguttapalli village, Talupula Mandal.

Offence U/Sec.324, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Finding of the accusedFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 IPC, A.3 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, A.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 323 IPC and A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 506 IPC. Accordingly the accused A.1 to A.4 are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months as contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. .

Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Supdt of Police, Anantapuramu

In the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ::

Kadiri

Present: Kumari G.Vani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Wednesday, the 6th day of December, 2017.

Calendar Case No.363 of 2011

Between

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station (Crime No.216/2010).… Complainant.

And.,

E.Srinivasulu, age 27 years, s/o Raju, Saidapuram, Indira colony, Kadiri Town.… Accused.

This case is presented before me on 04.12.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri K.Khadar Basha, for the prosecution and of Sri A.Gangi Reddy, Advocate for Accused and on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,Kadiri Town Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.326,342, 506 IPC in Cr.No. 216/2010 of Kadiri Town Police

Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 12.11.2010 PW1 came to Kadiri town to purchasing plastic cover. On seeing PW1 the accused phoned to PW1 and said that he will give the plastic cover to PW1 as it is kept in the house. PW1 went to the house of accused in an auto and entered into the house of the accused then accused locked in side the door and beat to PW1 with a crow bar and abusing in filthy language “Na baryanu pamputava ninnu champala” and caused to the injuries on the elbow and legs of the

PW1. Further the accused caused injuries on left cheek and left side of the chest with a sickle. Then the accused warned that “if you inform to anybody he will kill you”. PW1 could not receive phone call from his elder son son-in-law and his daughter PW3 came to the accused house.

2

After seeing them the accused ran away from the place. Thereafter their shifted PW1 to Government Hospital, Kadiri for treatment and lodged complaint.

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable U/Secs. 326,342, 506 IPC. On appearance accused before this Court, copies of the case documents are furnished as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C and charges for the offence U/Sec. 326,342, 506 IPC were framed and contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu for which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7, Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C on the basis of the incriminating material available from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. However, he denied the incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce evidence from his side.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.326,342, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?

8.In order to prove, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 7 and

Exs.P.1 to P.6 are marked. On perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 7

PW1 is defacto complainant PW2 and 4 are eye witnesses PW3 and 5 are the daughter and wife of the PW1 and also hearsay witnesses PW6 3 is doctor PW7 is Investigating Officer. On perusal of the evidence available in this bundle it is admitted fact that the PW3 is no other than daughter of PW1 and her marriage performed with A1 since long back.

Thereafter some misunderstandings arose between the PW1 and accused so that the PW1 residing along with her parents at parents village.

9. But now the point is whether the PW1 was received injuries from the accused or not? In this regard the prosecution has examined the Doctor as PW6. PW6 gave the treatment to the PW1 and issued the wound certificate i.e Ex.P4.

10.Upon the Ex.P4 is clearly reveals that there are the four injuries mentioned on the Ex.P4 but the evidence of the PW1, 3, and 5 the said injuries were not stated by their evidence. PW1 categorically stated that the accused picked up a crow bar and and beat him. What was stated injuries based on his evidence is not reveals on Ex.P4.

Upon the evidence of the PW1 the accused picked up knife and stabbed on the left side chin and chest. The said injury was not reveal on Ex.P4 and further stated that the accused picked up crow bar and beat him on left knee and right side chest and both knees. The said injuries were also different Ex.P4. PW3 and 5 are no other than the daughter and wife of PW1, they categorically stated another version of the PW1.

11. So on combined study of the PW1, 3 and 5 their evidence were not corroborated to the evidence of PW6 with regarding to the overt acts. So that there is a lot of difference in the evidence of the

PW6 compare to the PW1, 3 and 5 except on Ex.P4 so the prosecution 4 has filed to establish the overt acts of the PW1 through evidence of

PW1, 3, 5 and 6.

12.Another significance, is whether the PW1 was received injuries from the hands of the accused or not? In this regard the prosecution has examined the PW1 to 5 and PW7. PW1 is the defacto complainant

PW2 and 4 are the direct and eye witnesses. As per the case of the prosecution PW3 and 5 are the hearsay witnesses but the evidence of the Pws.3 and 5 are clearly reveals that they are eye witnesses they saw entire incident. But the case of the prosecution, after knowing the incident Pws.3 and 5 came to the Kadiri and shifted to the PW1. Upon the evidence of the PW1 he came to the Kadiri for purchasing plastic cover after seeing PW1 the accused went to the PW1 at Kadiri RTC bus stand, and brought to his house, thereafter he locked the door and beat PW1. So as per the version PW1 at the time beating accused (not admitted) nobody saw the beating of the accused PW1 . After the incident the PW2 and 4 came their and rescued the PW1 from the hands of the accused. But the case of the prosecution is, elder son-in- law the PW1 were knowing that he was not came to the PW1 so that he went to the accused house along with Pws.3and 5. Thereafter the

PW3 and 5 and son-in-law of the PW1 accused escaped from the said place.

13.But version of the PW1 is,Pws. 2 and 4 came their and rescue him. In the same manner the PW3 and 5 categorically admitted that he received the phone call FROM PW1. Immediately rushed to the accused house at the time of PW1 fallen on the ground thereafter they shifted PW1 to the hospital. So on combined study of the PW1, 3 and 5 there is inconsisting evidence with regarding to the manner of the galata and receiving of the injuries and moreover the incident was occured on 12.11.2010 but the report was presented on 15.12.2010 5

I.e three days delay. The same was admitted by PW7 is no other than

Investigating Officer. He categorically stated that he was not mentioned delay for presenting the report by PW1. PWS.1, 3 and 5were categorically stated that immediate after galata he rushed to the Kadiri Government Hospital. If really the PW1 was received injuries from the hands of the accused it is called as medico legal case.

The said type of cases doctor immediately send the requisition or the information to the outpost police or concerned S.H.O. But the PW7 did not received such type of intimation from the hospital and PW7 categorically stated that PW1 alone came to the police station and presented the report. If really PW1 was received such type of injuries from the hands of the accused, it is impossible come to the police station and lodge the report. So that there is lacunaes are existing in the evidence of the PW6,7 and PW1 the said lacunaes were not explained by the prosecution even though the burden lies on its shoulder. And moreover the PW6 were categorically stated that the

PW1 was stated in the hospital approximately three or four days .In said three or four days he never sent any information to the police even though the case treated as Medico Legal Case. So the version of

PW6 and 7 is not believable version. Hence this court discarded by their evidence. PW2 and 4 are turned hostile not supported to the prosecution. In this regard the prosecution has treated them as hostile and taken the permission to cross-examined of PW2, and 4. Except marking of the Ex.P2 and P3 nothing was elicited by the prosecution.

On perusal of the evidence of the PW1 to 7 there is no any incriminating evidence against accused. Hence accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

14.Therefore, the above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of accused with regard 6 to ingredients of Sections. 326, 342, 506 . IPC. Hence, accused is entitled to the acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs. 326, 342, 506 IPC. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 6th day of December, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: P.Narayana, None None P.W.2: K.Jayamma, P.W.3: L.Alivelamma, P.W.4: Kesava, P.W.5: Chowdamma, P.W.6: Dr.Sudha,(Medical Officer), P.W.7: P.Jakeer Hussain,(Investigation Officeer)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1Report of PW1.

Ex.P.2161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P.3161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P.Wound certificate of PW6.

Ex.P.5First Information Report of 216/2010 in Kadiri TownPolice Station.

Ex.P.6Rough Sketch of the scene of the offence.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Nil

Material objects marked

Nil

AJMFC 7

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

C.C. No.363 of 2011

Date of offence12.11.2010

Date of complaint15.11.2010

Date of apprehension of accused:22.11.2010

Date of commencement of trial23.10.2017

Date of close of trial29.11.2017

Date of Judgment06.12.2017

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadiri Town Police Station (Crime No.216/2010). Name and particulars of the E.Srinivasulu, age 27 years, s/o Raju, accused:Saidapuram, Indira colony, Kadiri Town. Offence U/Secs.326,342, 506 IPC

Finding of the accusedFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs. 326, 342, 506 IPC. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.

Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Supdt of Police, Anantapuramu

In the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ::

Kadiri

Present: Kumari G.Vani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Thursday, the 07th day of December, 2017.

Calendar Case No.250 of 2012

Between

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station (Crime No.107/2012).… Complainant. And.,

1)Kothapalli Janakipathi, aged 36 years, S/o Sanjappa.

2)Kothapalli Bhasker, aged 38 years, S/o Sanjappa, Both are residents of Jonnala Kothapalli vilage, Mudigubba Mandal. … Accused.

This case is presented before me on 04.12.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri K.Khadar Basha, for the prosecution and of Sri B.Rajendra Naidu Advocate for Accused and accused, and on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.353 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No. 107/2012 of Mudigubba Police

Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 08.8.2012 at about 12.30 PM PW1 conducting meeting with VROs of Mudigubba Mandal at around 1.00 PM. The A1 and his brother A2 were entered into the Tahasildar Chamber and disturbed the meeting of the village Revenue Officers demand for payment of input subsidy for Survey No.105-A3 Extent of 2-77 vide 1B No.757 pass book

No.606809 in which entered in to the pass book and not been attested by any one of the PW1 proper authority. Then PW1 tried to convince to the A1 and A2 as said pass book shall be attested by any of the competent authority and asked to produce documentary evidence for 2 rectification and taking action to do justification. But A1 and A2 were not heard the words of the PW1 and abused in filthy language by way of using in unparliamentary words. So that the PW1 approached to the police persons lodged the complaint before the PW21. Then PW21 took up registered a case and took up investigation and handed over to LW23 M.Krishna Reddy S.I. of Police, then LW23 Krishna Reddy verified and filed the charge sheet before this court.

3. The case was taken on file against accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 353 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance accused before this Court, copies of the case documents are furnished as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. accused are examined u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C and explained accusation to them in Telugu for which accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 21, Exs.P.1 to P.20 are marked. The evidence of LW.18 P. Ramakrsihna and LW.23 M.

Krishna Reddy are closed.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C on the basis of the incriminating material available from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 21 However, he denied the incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce evidence from his side.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable U/Secs.353 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?

8.In order to prove, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 21 and Exs.P.1 to P.20 are marked. PW.1 is defacto complainant and M.R.O.

3

Pws.2 to 20 are direct witnesses and some of the witnesses are VROs.

And some of the persons of the village. Upon the case of the prosecution that Pw.1 was conducting the meeting with V.R.Os., in his chamber i.e. Pws.2 to 13, 15 and 16. The remaining persons i.e.

Pws.14, 17 to 20 and LW.18 P. Ramakrishna are the villagers. By the time A.1 and A.2 entered into the PW.1’s chamber and demanded to the payment of input subsidy. Then PW.1 has verified the pass book and found that there is no any authenticated signature on the said pass book and same was informed to A.1 and A.2 but A.1 and A.2 abused him in filthy language and obstructed his legitimate duties. So that PW.1 approached Pw.21 and lodged the report.

9. In this regard the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 21.

Pw.1 what was stated in the chief examination is nothing but replica of the contents of the charge sheet. But during the course of cross- examination PW.1 categorically admitted that Pws.2 to 20 were present, they saw the entire galata with regarding to A.1 and A.2 obstructing PW.1 legitimate duties. So that upon the evidence of PW.1,

Pws.2 to 20 are the eye witnesses and main witnesses.

10. But on perusal of the evidence of Pws.2 to 20 clearly and categorically stated that the meeting was conducted by PW.1 is true but some mob was came and entered into the PW.1’s chamber and picked up galata with Pw.1 but nobody identified A.1 and A.2 that abused PW.1 with unparliamentary language and the V.R.Os. Pws.2 to 13, 15 and 16 who are present at the time of meeting categorically stated that they have not seen the galata directly but some mob came there and picked up galata with PW.1. So their evidence not supported to prosecution with regarding to A.1 and A.2 picked up galata with PW.1 and abused him in filthy language and obstructed the legitimate duties of Pw.1 and remaining witnesses who are Pws.14, LWs.17 to 20 4 and LW.18 P. Ramakrishna are completely turned hostile and not supported the prosecution.

11. On perusal of PWs.2 to 20, there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused. At that juncture the prosecution declared them as hostile, except marking of exhibits but nothing elicited by the prosecution.

12.The only available evidence is PW.21 he is no other than

Investigation Officer. PW.21 received the report from PW.1 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he seized pass book but said pass book is not placed before this Court and more over he has not secured any documents with regarding to A.1 and A.2 obstructed the legitimate duties of PW.1 and PW.21 has not seized any register from the PW.1 Office with regarding whether who are participated in the meeting and who entered into the PW.1 chamber and picked up galata with PW.1. So on combined study of Pws.1 and

PW.21, there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused.

Hence, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

13.Therefore, in view of the above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of accused with regard to ingredients of Sections 353 IPC. Hence, accused A.1 and A.2 are entitled to the acquittal.

14.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.353 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, the accused

A.1 and A.2 are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands cancelled after six months as contemplated

U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

5

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07th day of

December, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: G. Nagabhushanam (defacto complainant), None P.W.2: T. Sreeramulu, P.W.3: M. Sankar, P.W.4: S. Chandrasekhar Reddy, P.W.5: M. Neelakanta Reddy, P.W.6: M. Kullayappa, P.W.7: B. Kristappa, PW.8: D. Obulesu, PW.9: S. Peddanna, PW.10: S. Suresh, PW.11: P. Ramakrishna Reddy, PW.12: M. Narayana Reddy, PW.13: R. Sudheer Kumar, PW.14: P. Narayana, PW.15: B. Lakshmi Narayana, PW.16: M. Ravi Kumar, PW.17: N. Sankar Reddy, PW.18: D. Masthan, PW.19: T. Uthaiah, PW.20: S. Muralidhar, PW.21: B. Chand Basha (Investigating Officer).

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1Report of PW1. Ex.A.2161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.3161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P.4161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P.5161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P.6161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P.7161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. Ex.P.8161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. Ex.P.9161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11. Ex.P.10161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12. Ex.P.11161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.13. Ex.P.12161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.14. Ex.P.13161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.15. Ex.P.14161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.16. Ex.P.15161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.17. Ex.P.16161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.18. Ex.P.17161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.19. Ex.P.18161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.20. Ex.P.19First Information in Crime No.107/2012 of Mudigubba Police Station. Ex.P.20Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Nil

Material objects marked

Nil

AJMFC

6

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

C.C. No.250 of 2012

Date of offence08.08.2012

Date of complaint08.08.2012

Date of apprehension of accused: 09.08.2012 (A1 & A2)

Date of commencement of trial16.12.2016

Date of close of trial30.11.2017

Date of Judgment07.12.2017

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police Station (Crime No.107/2012). Name and particulars of the 1) Kothapalli Janakipathi, aged 36 accused: years, S/o Sanjappa.

2) Kothapalli Bhaskar,aged 38 years, s/oSanjappa.

Both are residents of Jonnala Kothapalli village, Mudigubba Mandal.

Offence U/Secs.353 r/w 34 IPC.

Finding of the accusedFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.353 r/w 34 IPC.

Therefore, the accused A.1 and A.2 are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelledaftersixmonthsas contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Supdt of Police, Anantapuramu

1

In the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate ::

Kadiri

Present: Kumari G.Vani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri.

Thursday, the 7th day of December, 2017.

Calendar Case No.274 of 2013

Between

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station (Crime No.52/2013).… Complainant.

And.,

Chadive Lakshmipathi, age 32 years, s/o C.Narayana,Bapanakunta village, Nallamada … Accused. Mandal.

This case is presented before me on 05.12.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri K.Khadar Basha, for the prosecution and of Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy, Advocate for Accused and accused, and on hearing and upon perusal of available material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallamada Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC in Cr.No. 52/2015 of Nallamada Police

Station.

2.The nutshell of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 13.07.2013 at about 7.00 AM PW1 and her husband

Rammohan was preparing to go to Basampalli village of C.K.Palli

Mandal to attend 3rd day funeral rituals of his own brother-in-law. The same was objected by PW1 for not to attend said function. In mean while the PW1 and LW2 Rammohan were verbal altercation each other thereafter the accused intervened and try to pacify said verbal altercation between the PW1 and LW2 Rammohan. But the PW1 abused the accused not to interfere in their family matters even the accused not interfere in the said matter and also asked to the PW1 about the altercation. In mean while PW1 was scolded the accused then accused thrown to the PW1 and beat with hands and legs sustained dumb injuries and also accused scolded to the PW1 in filthy language. In mean while LW2 Rammohan and PW2 to 4 came their and rescue the PW1. Then PW1 went to the police station and lodged report before the PW5. Then PW5 registered a case took up the investigation thereafter handed over to PW6. PW6 was arrested the accused and filed charge sheet.

3. The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC. On appearance accused before this Court, copies of the case documents are furnished as required u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. accused is examined u/sec. 251 Cr.P.C and explained accusation to him in Telugu for which accused denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6, Exs.P.1 to P.7 are marked.

5.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C on the basis of the incriminating material available from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. However, he denied the incriminating evidence and did not choose to adduce evidence from his side.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise?

8.In order to prove, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 6 and

Exs.P.1 to P.7 are marked. PW1 is defacto complaint PW2 to 4 are the eye witnesses PW5 and 6 are the Investigating Officers. On perusal of the evidence of the PW1 to 6, PW1 and LW2 Rammohan are wife and husband. The case of the prosecution that the LW2 Rammohan attended the 3rd day funeral rituals of his brother-in-law Sivaiah at

C.K.Palli Mandal. The same was beat to the PW1 so that there was verbal altercation in between PW1 and LW2 Rammohan. In mean while the accused intervened and asked said verbal altercation, by the time PW1 warned the accused not to interfere in their family matter. In this regard the accused beat to the PW1 with hands and legs and also abused in filthy language. Thereafter the LW2 Rammohan and PW2 to 4 came there rescued the PW1. So that in that connection, burden lies on the prosecution to prove that accused beat to the PW1 with hands and legs and also abused in filthy language to PW1. So that prosecution has examined PW1 to 6.

9. Upon the evidence of the PW1, PW2 to 4 are eye witnesses, they rescued the PW1 shifted to the Government Hospital. In this regard on perusal of the evidence of the PW2 to 4 they were not supported to the evidence of PW1 and they are completely turn hostile.

At that juncture, the prosecution has declared them as hostile and cross-examined the PW2 to 4. Except marking of Ex.P2 to 4 nothing elicited by the prosecution from the mouth of the PW2 to 4.

10. Now the only available evidence is PW1, 5 and 6. PW6 is the one of the Investigating Officer he only filed the charge sheet after arrest of the accused. So that his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. The available evidence is PW1 and 5. PW1 evidence not supported by the any witness of the prosecution and moreover the

PW1 was categorically stated that there was verbal altercation with

LW2 Rammohan i.e her husband with regarding to family matters by the time accused interfere. In this regard prosecution has not examined the husband of the PW1 in this present because LW2

Rammohan is main and important witness to establish the motive of the prosecution case. Further significance is defence counsel elicit that character of the PW1 in the cross-examination and moreover the court was mentioned demnor witness, the witness clearly seems adament nature even though she was in the present in the court hall and giving evidence. So that her evidence was not helpful to the prosecution hence discarded by the Court.

11.The only available evidence is PW5 PW5 is no other than

Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer is only recording the evidence of the PW1 to 4 and LW2 Rammohan and prepare rough sketch and handed over the CD file to PW6 after registering the case.

Except that he has not gathered any material in favour of the prosecution or against the accused. So entire evidence available in the hands of the court, there is no any incriminating evidence against accused hence accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

12.Therefore, in view of the above foregoing discussion made supra, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of accused.

Hence, accused is entitled to the acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months as contemplated U/Sec.304-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 07th day of December, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: Lalithamma, None P.W.2: Hanumantha Reddy, P.W.3: Chalapathi, P.W.4: Ramanappa, P.W.5: Narayana Reddy, (Investigating Officer) P.W.6: M.Hanumantha Reddy, (Investigating Officer)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P.1Complaint of PW1. Ex.P..2161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P.3161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P.4161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.5First Information Report of 52/2013 in Nallamada Police Station. Ex.P.6Rough Sketch of the scene of the offence. Ex.P.7Wound certificate of PW6.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Nil

Material objects marked

Nil

AJMFC

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

C.C. No.274 of 2013

Date of offence13.07.2013

Date of complaint13.07.2013

Date of apprehension of accused:15.07.2013

Date of commencement of trial16.11.2017

Date of close of trial05.12.2017

Date of Judgment07.12.2017

Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, NallamadaPoliceStation(Crime No.52/2013). Name and particulars of the Chadive Lakshmipathi, age 32 years, s/o accused:C.Narayana,Bapanakuntavillage, Nallamada Mandal.

Offence U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC.

Finding of the accusedFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs.341,323,290 IPC. Therefore, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands cancelled after six months as contemplated U/Sec.304-A Cr.P.C.

Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Copy to the Supdt of Police, Anantapuramu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADIRI

Present : Kum. G. Vani, Prl. Jr. Civil Judge.

Wednesday, the 3 rd day of May, 2017

O.S.No.13/2017

Between

N.Veera Reddy S/o N. Rami Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, permanent resident of A-Gunduvaripalli village, Amadaguru Mandalam, Anantapuramu District, and temporarily residing at Door No.14-3-12-4B1, YSR Nagar, Anantapuramu District.

…. Plaintiff

AND

A.Jyothi Prasad Reddy S/o Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Business, residing at Door No.2-11, Kotlapalli H/o Gandlapenta, Gandlapenta Mandalam, Anantapuramu District.

....Defendant

This suit coming on 21-4-2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant being called absent, set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1] This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,72,000/-by the plaintiff against the defendant that on 4-11-2013 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. But inspite of demands, defendant did not choose to discharge the debt. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained the suit.

2] Defendant remained exparte.

3] Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1, suit promissory note dated 4-11-2013.

4] Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

5] Now the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

6] POINT:-

To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, himself examined as PW.1, filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, reiterated the contents of the plaint, and got marked Ex.A.1, suit promissory note dated 4-11-2013, which shows that the defendant 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of several demands, defendant did not discharge the debt, which all prima-facie clearly establishes the plaintiff case. After receipt of summons, defendant not appeared before the court or engaged the counsel to defend the case on his behalf, hence he was set exparte. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. As such, plaintiff clearly established execution and consideration.

7] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,72,000/-with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: N.Veera Reddy NONE

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Ex.A.1, Suit promissory note dated 4-11-2013. NIL

Prl.J.C.J