Sri.G.Venkata Krishnam Raju

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkata Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 19 th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 310/2012

PRC.NO. 5/2012 (On the file of XVII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd)

Committed by : Sri. S.V.V.Natha Redy

XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad Crime No. & Police Station :139/2011 of P.S. Begum Bazar, Hyderabad Name of the Complainant :The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Begum Bazar, Hyderabad

Name and description of Accused :Mohd Rafeeq, S/o.Md.Shaifan, Age : 35 yrs, Occ : Centering Work, R/o.Kabir Nagar, Hashamabad, Hyderabad.

N/o.Shabad (V), Gulbarga, Karnataka State. Prosecution conductedby :Smt. T.Padmalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor Accused defended bySri.A.Ramesh Babu , Advocate for Accused Offences charged :U/Sec.376 of IPC Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the court :The accused is found guilty for the offence U/Ss 376 IPC and he is convicted U/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

2

Sentence/Order :In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 376 IPC. He is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Accused is questioned regarding quantum of sentence. Accused is present. He is questioned about the quantum of sentence and he submitted that he did not commit any offence and he got wife and children and lenient view may be taken against him. In the circumstances, the punishment for rape prior to amending Act 13 of 2013 provides punishment for 7 years but which may be extended to LIFE. In the circumstances, it is a fit case to sentence the accused with imprisonment for 7 years and accordingly, the accused is sentenced to suffer RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for SEVEN YEARS and also further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only) for the offence under Section 376 IPC in default to suffer SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for THREE MONTHS. The detention of accused during investigation, enquiry and trial of the case is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.PC. MOs. 1 to 5 ares ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This case coming on 19-02-2016 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri A.Ramesh Babu Advocate for Accusedand of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

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

1 The State represented by Inspector of Police, P.S., Begumbazar laid charge sheet before XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

Hyderabad in Cr.No. 139 of 2011 for the offence under Section 376 IPC and brief case of the prosecution, as seen from the charge sheet, is as follows:

On 14.9.2011 at 12.00 hours when the wife of accused Sajida Begum and her sister in law Razia Sultana went to Asra hospital at Charminar to see their another sister Fareeda Begum who was admitted in Asra hospital at about 13.00 hours accused came to house to take his wife and three children who are staying in her residence. When accused came to her house her mother and sister went to Asra hospital, brother Abdul Razak was in the other room and on observing loneliness of the victim / complainant the accused went entered into her room and misbehaved with her by asking about his wife Sajida Begum when complainant replied that Sajida Begum went to Asra hospital after few minutes the accused sent the three children out of the room to call their mother on phone and forcibly took complainant took into bath room, she tried to escape and shout, he closed her mouth with his hands and started beating with his hands and raped by committing sexual intercourse with the victim she was forcibly compelled to have sexual intercourse by accused due to loneliness of the 3 victim having taken advantage and committed rape on the victim (Zafreen

Begum) R/o Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad on 14.9.2011. At 23.30 hours complainant Kum. Zafreen Begum gave oral complaint recorded by Sub inspector of Police Mohd. Maqdoom Ali in writing and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No. 139 of 2011 under Sections 376 IPC and investigated into and, as such accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 376

IPC.

2The learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance for the offence under Section 376 IPC against accused. On securing the presence of accused and after furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of

Section 209 Cr.P.C. thereafter the case was assigned to this court.

3After hearing both sides, charge under Section 376 IPC is framed against accused, read over and explained to accused. Accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.

4To prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 5. D.W.s 1 to 3 are examined on behalf of accused and no documents are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

5Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned defence counsel.

6Points for consideration is:

1 Whether accused committed rape on Zafreen Begum on 14.9.2011 in her house at Old Feelkhana, Hyderabad?

2 Whether the prosecution proved its case for the offence under Section 376 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT S 1 AND 2 7 P.W.1 is the victim Zafeen Begum and she deposed that accused is her brother in law (sister's husband) and on the date of the incident about 5 years back her mother and her sister were in hospital due to illness of Fareeda

Begum. She further deposed that on the date of the incident her sister Sajida

Begum (wife of accused) came to their house with her children and left the children and her sister Sajida Begum went to hospital to see Fareeda Begum.

Then herself and two children of Sajida Begum were alone in the house. At that 4 time accused came to the house and took her into a room and closed her mouth with a cloth and tied her both hands and removed her clothes and committed rape on her. She further deposed again on the same day he took her to bath room and committed rape. She further deposed that again accused took her to bed room and threatened to kill her mother and sister. She further deposed that the children of her sister Sajida Begum i.e. Md. Shafi and Nayeem Fatima witnessed the incident from the hole. She further deposed that her sister i.e.

wife of accused came and took away the children and her children informed the same to her. Then she went to the hospital and got her mother to the house and on enquiry she informed what had happened and then they went to police station and police recorded her statement which is Ex.P.1 and police sent her to hospital.

8P.W.2 Mohd. Shafi who is son of accused deposed that on the date of the incident himself and her sister were in the house and her father came to the house and he did not commit anything and he was declared as hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.3.

9P.W.3 Sajida Begum wife of accused deposed that on 14.9.2011 at 5 p.m.

she went to the house of her mother and left children there with P.W.1 and went to Asra hospital to see the other sister Fareeda Begum. She further deposed that they returned from hospital at about 7.00 p.m. and herself, accused and her children left to their house and when she went to her house that both children informed her about the incident and then she went to hospital and informed the same to her mother and both of them returned home and enquired P.W.1 and

P.W.1 informed them that accused committed rape on her and she further deposed that accused committed rape on her twice in bed room as well as in bath room. At the time of incident P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.6 Nayeem Fatima were alone in the house. Therefore they went to police station and police recorded statement of P.W.1 and her children informed her that they saw the incident through the hole of the door.

10P.W.4 is the daughter of accused and P.W.3. She deposed that PW.1 is her maternal aunt and on 14.9.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. her mother brought her and

PW.2 to the house of her mother at Feelkhana, Hyderabad and left there and her mother went to hospital to see the other maternal aunt who was in hospital.

At that time herself, P.W.1 and PW.2 were at the house and her father came to the said house and gave them money to purchase chocolates but they did not go out. PW.4 further deposed that her father took P.W.1 into bed room and closed the door and committed rape on her and they saw the incident through the hole 5 of the door. P.W.4 further deposed that her mother came from the hospital and they left to their house at about 8.00 p.m. They informed P.W.3 what had happened and herself and her brother also witnessed the incident and police examined her.

11P.W.5 is panch witness and he deposed that on 15.9.2011 at 8 a.m. police

Begumbazar called her to Old Feelkhana to the house of one Mulsim woman and questioned her what had happened and seized the clothes of P.W.1 under cover of panchanama attested by him and M.O.1 is green colour kurtha, M.O.2 is green colour salwar, Ex.P.3 is panchanama and Ex.P.4 is seizure report.

12P.W.6 who is panch witness for confession and seizure of property from accused deposed that on 15.9.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. one Ibrahim L.W.1`0 also accompanied him to police station and they found accused in the custody of police and they enquired accused at the instance of police what had happened.

P.W.6 further deposed that accused confessed commission of rape on P.W.1 and accordingly police recorded confessional statement and seizure report for seizure of clothes of accused. M.O.3 is shirt, M.O.4 is pant, M.O.5 is under wear recovered from accused. Police drafted confessional cum seizure panchanama.

After reading over the contents to them he attested the same and Ex.P.5 is admissible portion of confession of accused and Ex.P.6 is seizure report. He further deposed that police explained him the contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 in

Hindi.

13P.W.7 is Dr. Sulochana, Assistant Professor of Government Maternity

Hospital, Nayapool deposed that on requisition from PS., Begum Bazar on 13.12.2011 she examined Zafreen Begum P.W.1 and there is evidence of external injuries 1) Contusion over left breast, 2) Discharge from vagina front 3)

The vagina admit one finger loosely 4) She collected two glass slides with dried smear from vaginal enroitors and posterior fornex from vagina. She also collected public hair reddish turbid liquid from vagina and sent them to FSL.

Basing on FSL report it shows that human spermatozoa are detected on items 1 and 7. Human blood is detected on item Nos. 3 and 4 but the blood group could not be determined. Therefore, it clear that there is evidence of recent intercourse and possibility of rape can not be ruled out. Ex.P.7 is medical certificate and Ex.P.8 is FSL report. Again on recall, she deposed that date of examination of victim is 15.9.2011 and on 10.12.2011 she received requisition for issue of certificate.

14P.W.8 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Kulsumpura deposed that on 14.9.2011 at about 10.30 P.M. PW.1 came to police station along with her 6 mother and orally complained about the incident and her recorded her statement which is Ex.P.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.no. 139 of 2010 under Section 376 IPC and issued Ex.P.9 FIR and handed over the same to

L.W.15 Shyam Sundar, Inspector.

15P.W.9 G.Shyam Sundar, the then Inspector of Police, P.S., Begum Bazar deposed that he took CD file from P.W.8 on the night of 14.9.2011 and sent the victim P.W.1 to hospital and after recording her 161 Cr.P.C. he visited the scene offence at Old Feelkhana and recovered clothes of victim. M.O.1 and 2 were seized in the presence of panchas L.W.7 T. Lalitha and P.W.5 under cover of

Ex.P.4 and he further deposed that he effected arrest of accused and secured the presence of Md. Saleem, PW.6 and Md. Ibrahim (L.?W.10) and interrogated accused who confessed the offence and that he seized clothes of accused which are Mos. 3 to 5 under cover of panchanama and admissible portion is Ex.P.5 and seizure report is Ex.P.6 and he sent Mos. 1 to 5 to FSL through Assistant

Commissioner of Police. He further deposed that he sent accused to Osmania

General Hospital for medical examination. L.W.12 Dr. V.Karunkar examined accused and issued Ex.P.10 medical certificate and he sent accused along with remand report. He further deposed that he examined L.W.2 Amida Begum,

P.W.3, L.W.4 Abdul Razak, P.W.2, P.W.4 and recorded their statements and laid charge sheet on completion of investigation.

16As against the same, the accused examined Dws. 1 to 3 to prove that he was not present in Hyderabad on 13th and 14th and went to Gulbarga. As seen from the evidence of Dws. 1 to 3 case is foisted against accused as he demanded share in the house of mother of P.W.1.

17Basing on the evidence adduced and documents marked the learned Addl.

P.P. contended that the victim who is not fully developed mentally clearly and categorically deposed about the incident of rape by accused against her and this evidence of P.W.1 is supported by PW.3 who is the wife of accused, P.W.4 who is the daughter of accused, P.W.5 who is panch witness, P.W.6 who is panch witness for confession of accused and seizure of Mos. 3 to 5, PW.7 the doctor and Pws. 8 and 9 who are the investigating officers and their evidence is reliable and trustworthy and prosecution proved its case against accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC against accused.

18On the other land, the learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that case is foisted against accused as he demanded share in the property which is entitled to his wife from the property of his mother in law and, as such, case is 7 foisted against accused. It is further contention of the defence that accused was not present in Hyderabad on 13th and 14th of that month and he went to

Gulbarga on centering work.

19In the present case, PW.1 the victim and she categorically supported the case of prosecution as to accused committing rape on her. P.W.1 deposed that accused is related to her as brother in law and on the date of incident her sister and mother went to Asra hospital due to illness of her another sister Fareeda

Begum and on the date of the incident her sister Sajida Begum came to the hosue and left children and she also went to the hospital to see Fareeda Begum and her mother was also in the hospital and herself and children of her sister were in the house and at that time accused came to the house and took her into bed room and closed her mouth with cloth and tied her hands and removed her clothes and committed rape on her. She further categorically deposed again on the same day he took her to bath room and committed rape. She further deposed that accused committed on assault on her stomach and back side and sat on her and assaulted her on her stomach. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that accused again took her to bed room and threatened her to kill her mother and sister and she further deposed that her sister's children Md. Shafi and

Nayeem Fatima witnessed the incident from the hole. This evidence of P.W.1 is supported by her sister who is none other than the wife of accused who categorically deposed that on 14.9.2011 at 5 p.m. she went to the house of hr mother and left the children there with PW.1 and went to Asra hospital to see her sister Fareeda Begum and returned from hospital at 7 p.m. and herself, accused and her children left the place and when she went to the house her both children informed her about the incident and then she went to the hospital and informed the same to her mother and both of them returned home and enquired

P.W.1 and P.W.1 informed that accused committed rape on her and P.W.1 informed that accused raped her twice in bed room and bath room.

20P.W.4 who is the daughter of P.W.3 and accused deposed that on 14.11.2011 her mother brought her and P.W.2 to the house of her grand mother at Feelkhana and left them there and her mother went to hospital to see their maternal aunt in the hospital and at that time herself, PW.1 and P,W.2 alone in the house and her father came to the house and gave them money to purchase chocolates but they did not go out. P.W.4 further deposed that her father took P.W.1 into bed room and closed the door and committed rape on her and they saw the incident from the holes of door and in her mother returned from hospital and left the house at about 8 p.m. and they informed P..3 what had happened and herself and her brother also witnessed incident.

8 21P.W.5 is witness for seizure of clothes of P.W.1 Mos. 1 and 2 under cover of Ex.P.3 panchanama and Ex.P.4 seizure report. P.W.6 is the witness for confession of accused and recovery of Mos. 3 to 5 under Ex.P.5 confessional panchanama and Ex.P.6 seizure report. P.W.7 is the Doctor and Pws. 8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers.

24In the present case the evidence of P.W.1 who is not mentally matured fully categorically deposed about the rape committed by accused. This evidence of P.W.1 is supported by PW.4 eye witness to the incident and PW.3 who are none other than wife of accused. Thus, there is ample evidence from PW.1, PW.3 and P.W.4 to prove that accused committed rape on P.W.1. The evidence of Pws.

1, 3 and 4 supported by PW.5 and P.W.6 panch witnesses for seizure of Mos. 1 t 5 and PW.7 the Doctor who also deposed that external injuries i.e. contusion of left breast and discharge from vagina front and finally opined that there is the evidence of recent sexual intercourse and possibility of rape can not be ruled out. The evidence of prosecution further corroborated by Pws. 8 and 9. In the present case FIR was immediately lodged on the same day and the victim was sent to hospital on the same night. If the defence of accused is taken he pleaded alibi that he was not present on the date of incident but it was not suggested to the victim P.W.1 and Pws. 3 and 4 also. Thus, the examination of DWs. 1 to 3 and taking plea of alibi seems to be an after thought. More over, the defence of accused that he demanded a share in the property of his mother in law and, as such, case is foisted. The very suggestion is remote and there is no evidence to show that her mother in law promised to give any share to accused at the time of marriage in her property. Thus, defence of accused seems to be false and the prosecution through the evidence of Pws. 1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P12 and Mos. 1 to 5 established its case for the offence under Section 376 IPC against accused.

Section 375 IPC : Rape:-

A man is said to commit “Rape” who except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:

First : Against her will.

Secondly : Without her consent.

Thirdly : With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly : With her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband,, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

9

Fifthly : With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly : With or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age.

The acts of accused fall within the definition of rape and constitute of offence of rape against P.W.1 on the evening of 14.9.2011 at Old Feelkhana,

Hyderabad and the prosecution proved its case for the offence under Section 376 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt against accused. Points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of prosecution and against accused.

21 In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 376

IPC. He is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Accused is questioned regarding quantum of sentence.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of February, 2016.

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

HYDERABAD.

Dt. 19.2.2016

Accused is present. He is questioned about the quantum of sentence and he submitted that he did not commit any offence and he got wife and children and lenient view may be taken against him. In the circumstances, the punishment for rape prior to amending Act 13 of 2013 provides punishment for 7 years but which may be extended to LIFE. In the circumstances, it is a fit case to sentence the accused with imprisonment for 7 years and accordingly, the accused is sentenced to suffer RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for SEVEN YEARS and also further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only) for the offence under Section 376 IPC in default to suffer SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for THREE

MONTHS. The detention of accused during investigation, enquiry and trial of the case is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.PC. MOs. 1 to 5 ares ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of February, 2016.

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) HYDERABAD

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1: Kum.Hameeda Begum

P.W.2 : Master Md.Shafi

P.W.3 :Smt. Sajida Begum

P.W.4 :Baby Nayeem Fathima

P.W.5 : Sri. Ashok

P.W.6 : Sri. Mohd Saleem

P.W.7 : Sri.Dr.M.Sulochana

P.W.8 : Sri.Md. Maqdoom Ali

P.W.9 :Sri.G.Shyam Sunder, Investigating Officer

Witnesses Examined For Defence:-

D.W.1 : Mohd Rafeeq

D.W.2 : Shaik Momammed Badruddin

D.W.3 : Mohd. Feroz

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Statement of PW.1

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P.3 : Observation cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.4 : Seizure report.

Ex.P.5 : Confessional cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P.6 : Seizure report.

Ex.P.7 : Medical Certificate

Ex.P.8 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report

Ex.P.9 : First Information Report.

Ex.P.10 : Potency Certificate

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : - NIL -

M.Os. MARKED:-

1. Green Color Kurtha

2. Green Color Salwar

3. Shirt

4. Pant

5. Underwear

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT ) HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkat Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 9 th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 562/2012

PRC.NO. 20/ 2012 ( On the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd )

Committed by : Sri K.Sanga Reddy, Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad

Crime No. & Police Station : 49/2010 of P.S. Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Inspector of Police, P.S.Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabd.

Name and description of Accused :1) Smt.Raheemunnisa Begum @ Ghousia @ Naheed, W/o.Md.Ghouse, Age:38 Yrs, Occ: Embroiedery Work, R/o.18-13-6/90/A/11/5, Hashamabad, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad

(A.1).

2) MD.Sayeed, S/o.Md.Akbar Hussain, Age: 28 Yrs, Occ:Real Estate Business, R/o.18-13- 6/72/A/11, Hashamabad, Chadrayanagutta,

(A.2).

3) Smt.Raziya Begum@ Bibi W/o.Md.Ghouse, Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: Embroiedery Work, R/o.H.No.19-2-182/20/B,Ramnaspura, Hyderabad (A.3).

4) Md.Mazhar,S/o.Md.Ghouse, Age: 27 Yrs, Occ:Pvt.Work,R/o.H.No.19-2-182/20/B, Ramnaspura, Hyderabad. (A.4)

Prosecution conducted by :Smt. T.Padmalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri Mohd.Rafathullah, Advocate for A.1 and A.3 Sri Muzafarullah Khan, Advocate for A.2 Sri Mohd.Rafathullah, Advocate for A.4

Offences charged :U/Ss. 364-A & 368 IPC Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty -2-

Finding of the court :Found not guilty

Sentence/Order : In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 364A and 368 IPC. They are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment. M.Os.1 to 4 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This case coming on for hearing before me, in the presence of

Sri Mohd.Rafathullah, Advocate for A.1 and A.3 and Sri Muzafarullah Khan,

Advocate for A.2 and Sri Mohd.Rafathullah, Advocate for A.4 for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

– : J U D G M E N T :-

1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, P.S.,Chandrayanagutta laid charge sheet before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Cr.No. 49 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 364A and also under Section 368 IPC and brief case of the complainant, as seen from the charge sheet, is as follows:

A1 is the relative of L.W.1 M.A.Aslam and is well acquainted with the family of L.W.1 M.A.Aslam. A1 was in some financial distress due to which she was in desperate need of money. For this A1 conceived a plan to kidnap 2 1/ 2 years son of her relative M.A.Aslam, who was working as a Cab Driver and she sought the help of the other Accused i.e. A2 to A4 to kidnap the boy and demand huge amounts from L.W.1 M.A.Aslam. Accordingly A1 kidnapped the son of L.W.1 M.A.Aslam on 18.3.2010 at about 13.00 hours while he was playing in front of his house and kept him at the house of A3 and A4. A2 made phone calls as per the instructions of A1 and demanded huge amounts from

L.W.1 M.A.Aslam to release his son. On 9.3.2010 A2 made a phone call to

L.W.1 M.A.Aslam and asked him to come near Aurora College running at

Bandlaguda with two lakhs. L.W.17 D.Venkateshwarulu, SI of Police, P.S.,

Chandrayangutta laid a trap and apprehended A1 and A2 at Aurora College -3- turning red handedly. The other accused were apprehended at their residence at Ramnaspura and the missing boy was traced at the house of A3. On the basis of complaint given by L.W.1 M.A.Aslam a case was registered in Cr.No.

49 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 364A and 368 IPC was registered and investigated into and A1 to A4 are liable to be punished for the said offences.

2 . The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance for the offences under Sections 364A and 368 against A1 to A4.

On securing the presence of A1 to A4 and after furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. thereafter the case was assigned to this court.

3. After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 364A and 368 IPC were framed against A1 to A4, read over and explained to A1 to A4. A1 to A4 denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.

4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P8 and Mos. 1 to 4. No witness is examined on behalf of accused and no documents are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

5. Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned defence counsel.

6. Points for consideration is:

1) Whether A1 to A4 on 18.2.2010 at 1 p.m. kidnapped M.A.Aman aged 2 1/2 years from Rahamath Nagar colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad and demanded ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- from M.A. Aslam, L.W.1 and whether A1 to A4 wrongfully confined M.A.Aman ?

2) Whether the prosecution proved its case for the charges leveled against against A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt?

-4-

POINT S 1 AND 2

7. P.W.1 M.A.Aslam deposed that he got two children by name M.A.Aman aged 2 ½ years and Sameena Begum and on 18.2.2010 at 1.30 p.m. He received phone call from L.W.2 Smt. Sara Begum about missing of Aman and he went to police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report and on 23.2.2010 he received phone call informing that his son with him demanding ransom of Rs.2 lakhs and four or five days thereafter he received similar demanded from another phone and the caller threatened to give Rs.2 lakhs otherwise his son would not return. Again two days thereafter he received another call and he asked the caller to proof of his son with them. The caller again called two days thereafter informing him that he kept the dress of his son under Indica car. On the same day he also received another letter was in Urdu with similar demand and he handed over letter to police who obtained the letters under cover of panchanama. He also informed police about receiving of phone calls. On the same day himself, his wife Sara Begum and five or six police people went to

Arora College in the afternoon. At that time they found A1 in the college.

Ex.P.1 is the complaint dt. 18.2.2010.

8. P.W.2 Sara Begum who is the wife of P.W.1 turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.

9. P.W.3 S.Srinivas the then SI of Police, Chandrayangutta P.S. Deposed that on 18.2.2010 at 8.45 p.m. P.W.1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report and he registered Ex.P.1 as a case in Cr.No. 49 of 2010 and issued

Ex.P. 3 FIR to court.

10. P.W.4 P.Venkatagiri, the then Inspector of Police, P.S.,

Chandrayangutta deposed that he examined Pws.1 and 2, L.W.3 Mohd.

Abdul Yousuf, L.W.4 Jarina Begum, L.W.5 Shahjana Begum and recorded -5- their statements and he secured the presence of Mohd. Rafi L.W.6, Habeeb

Taher L.W.7 and he seized one T shirt and two paper slips under the cover of seizure report and on the evening of 9.3.2010 P.W.1 received phone call from kidnappers demanding ransom of Rs.2 lakhs and they secretly followed P.W.1 and found A1 and A2 in suspicious circumstances near turning of Arora

College and he apprehended them and recorded confessional statement of A1 and A2 in the presence of L.W.8 Sajid and .W.9 and he seized cell phones and

A1 led them to the house of A3 and A4 where they recovered the boy from the custody of A3 and A4 and they brought A1 to A4 to police station and he effected the arrest of A1 to A4 and they handed over boy to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.6 is admissible portion of confession of A1 and M.O.1 is T. Shirt,

M.O.2 is Nokia cell and Ex.P.7 is admissible portion of confession of A2 and

M.O.3 is reliance LG cell phone recovered in pursuance of confession of A2 and A3 also confessed the offence and in pursuance of confession of A3 they recovered Motorola phone and Ex.P.8 is admissible portion of confession of A3 and recovered M.O.4 motorola phone and he obtained specimen handwriting of

A1 through Court and he produced A1 to A4 along with remand report and on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

9. Basing on the evidence adduced and documents marked the learned

Addl. P.P. submitted that there is evidence through P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 to prove guilt of accused.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused contended that though

P.W.1 deposed about the case facts but he did not speak anything against A1 to A4 and more over wife of P.W.1 turned hostile and except the evidence of

Pws.1 to 4 there is no other evidence to prove guilt of A1 to A4.

11. In the present case though PW.1 deposed certain facts before the court but he did not say anything against A1 to A4. Even he did not depose that -6- who made threatening calls to him demanding Rs.2 lakhs and also he did not depose the name of the person who kidnapped his son. P.W.2 turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. There remains the evidence of

Pws. 3 and 4 who are Investigating Officers. In the absence of corroboration from the material witnesses i.e. PWs. 1 and 2 the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 alone is not sufficient to fasten the guilt against A1 to A4 for the offences under

Sections 364A and 368 IPC. In view of hostile evidence of Pws. 1 and 2, learned Additional P.P. given up the evidence of L.W.3 Md. Abdul Yousuf,

L.W.4 Smt. Zareena Begum, L.W.5 Shahajahana Begum, L.W.6 Md. Rafi,

L.W.7 Habeeb Taher, L.W.8 M.A.Sajid, L.W.9 Shaik, L.W.10 FSL Director,

L.w.11 U.Raja Rao, L.W.12 Md. Ishaq Shareef, L.W.13 Smt. Hemalatha,

L.W.14 Smt. Farheen Sultana, L.W.16 Md. Jaffar, L.W.17 D.Venkatehswarulu.

Thus, there is no evidence to fasten the guilt against A1 to A4 for the charges leveled against them and A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. Points 1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

12. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 364-A and 368 IPC. They are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

for the said offences. Bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment. M.Os.1 to 4 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 9th day of February, 2016.

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD

Contd...7

-7-

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : M.A.Aslam

P.W.2 : Sara Begum

P.W.3 : S.Srinivas

P.W.4 : P.Venkatagiri

Witnesses Examined For Defence:- - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Complaint

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement

Ex.P.3 : First information Report

Ex.P.4 : Alteration Memo

Ex.P.5 : Seizure Report

Ex.P.6 : Confessional Panchanama of A.1

Ex.P.7 : Confessional Panchanama of A.2

Ex.P.8 : Confessional Panchanama of A.3

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : - NIL -

M.Os. MARKED:-

M.O.1 : T.Shirt

M.O.2 : Nokia Cell Phone

M.O.3 : Reliance Cell Phone

M.O.4 : Motorola Phone

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

( MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkat Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 10 th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 568/ 2012

P.R.C.NO. 17/2012

( On the file of VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd )

Committed by : Sri M.Krishna Murthy, VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad

Crime No. & Police Station : 350/2011 of P.S. Langerhouse, Hyderabad

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Langerhouse, Hyderabd

Name and description of Accused : 1) Ventala Khader Basha, S/o.Late.V.Kareem Saheb, Age:45 Yrs, Occ: relater, R/o.H.No.9-4-86/219, Salarjung Colony, Tolichowki, Langer House, Hyderabad. ( A.1 )

2) Nayakvari Pasha Miya @ Pashu Miya, S/o.Mahaboob Pasha @ Miba Sab, Age:76 Yrs, R/o.H.No.2-39, Kotmarpally Village, Marpally Mandal, R.R.District.( A.2 )

Prosecution conducted by :Smt. T.Padmalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor Accused defended bySri P.Venkata Raman , Advocate for Accused No.1 M/S.Hameed Pasha, Advocate for Accused No.2

Offences charged :U/Ss. 342, 376, 506 & 323 IPC and Sec.3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986)

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty Finding of the court :Found not guilty

Sentence/Order : In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 342, 376, 506, 323 IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. They are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment.

This case coming on for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri

P.Venkata Raman , Advocate for Accused No.1 and M/S.Hameed Pasha,

Advocate for Accused No.2 and of the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

-2-

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

1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, P.S., Langerhoue laid charge sheet before VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in

Cr.No. 350 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 376, 342, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation

Act, 1986 and brief case of the complainant, as seen from the charge sheet, is as follows:

A1 is ex-superintendent of Commercial Tax Department. In the year 2005 he resigned his job and doing real estate business, as well as doing social works . In this process two years back when he went to Marpally village and he brought L.W.2 Kum. Nazeema and her sisters Lws. 5 and 6 Kum.

Sameena and Kum. Saleema as maid servants through A2 Pasha Miya. In the same process he brought L.W.3 Kum. Salma and L.W.4 Kum. Shameem as maid servants and harassing them physically in sample things and used to beat them with sticks and causing burn injuries by heating the knife. He is behaving just like a sadist and in the absence of his wife he is misbehaving with

Lws.2 and 3 Kum. Nazeema and Kum.Salma and several times tried to intercourse with them. Prior to 3 months back when his wife went to her parents house, that time he decided to have sexual intercourse with L.w.2 Kum.

Nazeema gave sleeping tablets by mixing in pepsi cool drink, when she became unconscious he had sexual intercourse with her. On the next day morning when she woke up and created nuisance by weeping, he requested and promised that not to repeat the same. In the same manner he had sexual intercourse with L.W.3 Kum. Salma. Taking these advantage whenever his wife went to her parents house he had sexual intercourse with L.W.2 Nazeema and

L.W.3 Salma by threatening them. In the month of August, 2011 L.w.2

Nazeema escaped from A1's house with the assistance of L.W.7 Hassan

Pasha and informed the same to L.W.1 Gori Bee who is her grand mother. In this regard her grand mother and her relatives went to his house and picked up quarrel with A1 and asked to send L.W.5 and L.W.6 Kum. Sameena and -3-

Kum.Saleema he refused to send them. Then L.W.1 Gori Bee threatened A1 to lodge complaint at police station and went away. Due to fear he was disappeared along with L.W.5 Kum. Sameena and L.W.6 Kum. Saleema and take shelter at his cousin house situated at Nadeem Colony. On the basis of complaint given by L.W.1 Gori Bee a case was registered in Cr.No. 350 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 376, 342, 506, 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC and 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and investigated into and A1 and A2 are liable to be punished for the said offences.

2. The learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance for the offences under Sections 376, 342, 506, 323 read with

Sec. 34 IPC and 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 read with Section 14 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 against A1 and A2. On securing the presence of A1 and A2 and after furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. thereafter the

case was assigned to this court.

3. After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 342, 376, 506, 323 are framed against A1 and charge under Section 3 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 is framed against A2, read over and explained to A1 and A2. A1 and A2 denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.

4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 4 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.15. No witness is examined on behalf of accused and no documents are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

-4-

5. Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned defence counsel.

6. Points for consideration is:

1) Whether A1 in the month of July, 2011 wrongfully confined Nazeema in the house at Salarjung colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, committed rape on her, threatened her with dire consequences and voluntarily caused hurt and whether A2 engaged minor girls to work under A1?

2) Whether the prosecution proved its case for the charges leveled against against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS 1 AND 2

7. P.W.1 Gore Bee is defacto complainant. She turned hostile to the case of prosecution and has not supported the case of prosecution.

8. P.W.2 Nazeema who is the victim girl also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and has not supported the case of prosecution.

9. PW.3 the then Additional Inspector of Police, P.S., Humayunnagar deposed that on 21.11.2011 at 21.40 hours P.W.1 came to police station and lodged Ex.p.3 report and Sri K.Jaychand, Sub Inspector registered a case in

Cr.No. 350 of 2011 and issued Ex.P.4 FIR and handed over CD file to him. He took up investigation and he examined Pws. 1 and 2 and he secured two mediators and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and on 24.10.2011 he along with panchas went to the house of accused and he effected arrest of A1 and recorded confessional statement of A1 and he sent

A1 to L.W.6 Kum. Salima for medical examination and L.W.12 Dr. Meghana examined L.W.5 Kum.Samina and L.W.6 Kum. Salima and issued Exs.P11 and P12 medical certificates and thereafter he sent accused to court along with remand report. Thereafter he handed over CD file to L.W.18 Sridhar regular inspector. Pws.1 and 2 stated before him as in Ex.P1 and P2.

-5-

10. P.W.4 G.Sreedhar the then Inspector of Police, P.S., Langerhouse deposed that on 26.10.2011 he received CD file from P.W.3 and he sent the seized material to FSL and FSL issued the report and on his transfer L.W.19

N.V.Rathnam received the FSL report and filed charge sheet. Dr. M.Shailaja

Prasad on perusal of FSL report issued final opinion under Ex.P.14 and P.15 is

FSL report.

11. Basing on the evidence adduced and documents marked the learned

Addl. P.P. submitted that Pws. 1 and 2 turned hostile and there remains only the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 who are official witnesses.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused contended that in view of hostile evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 there is no evidence to prove the case against accused for the charges leveled against A1 and A2.

13. PWs.1 and 2 have given go bye to the prosecution version of A.1 wrongfully confining in a house at Salarjung colony, Tolichowki, committing rape on her and threatening her and voluntarily causing hurt to her and A2 engaged the minor girls to work under A1. Then there remains the evidence of

PWs.3 and 4 who are Investigating Officers. In the absence of corroboration from the material witnesses i.e. PWs. 1 and 2 the evidence of Pws. 3 and 4 alone is not sufficient to fasten the guilt against A1 for the offence under

Sections 342, 376, 506, 323 IPC against A1 and under Section 3 of Child

Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act, 1986 against A2. In view of hostile evidence of Pws.1 and 2 learned Additional P.P. given up the evidence of

L.W.3 Kum. Salma, L.W.4 Kum. Shameem, L.W.5 Kum. Sameena,L.w.6 Kum.

Saleema, L.W.7 Hassan Pasha, L.W.8 G.Ramchander, L.W.9 K.Vijay, L.W.10

Mohd. Hussain, L.W.11 Gulam Mohd. Qureshi, L.W.12 Dr. Meghana, L.W.13

Dr. M.Shailaja Prasad, L.W.14 Dr. K.Janardhan, L.W.15 Dr. K.Arunjyothi,

L.W/16 K.Jaya Chand and L.W.19 N.B.Ratnam. Thus, there is no evidence to -6- fasten the guilt against A1 and A2 for the charges leveled against them and A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. Points 1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

14. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 342, 376, 506, 323 IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. They are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of February, 2016.

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : Smt.Gori Bee

P.W.2 : Smt.Nazeema @ Nazia

P.W.3 : S.Laxmi Narayana

P.W.4 : Sri G.Sridhar ( I.O. )

Witnesses Examined For Defence:- - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement

Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement

Ex.P.3 : Complaint

Ex.P.4 : First Information Report

Ex.P.5 : Scene of Observation Panchanama -7-

Ex.P.6 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P.7 : Medical Certificate

Ex.P.8 : Medical Certificate

Ex.P.9 : Medical Certificate

Ex.P.10 : Confessional Panchanama of A.1

Ex.P.11 : Medical Certificate of L.W.5

Ex.P.12 : Medical Certificate of L.W.6

Ex.P.13 : Potency Certificate

Ex.P.14 : Opinion

Ex.P.15 : Forensic Science Laboratory Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : -- NIL --

M.Os. MARKED:- -- NIL --

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

( MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT) AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkata Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 11 th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

SESSIONS CASE NO. 614 / 2011

PRC.NO. 40/2011

( On the file of VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyd )

Committed by : Sri Md.Nizamuddin, VII Addl.Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad

Crime No. & Police Station : 87/2009 of P.S. MALAKPET, Hyderabad

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Malakpet, Hyderabd

Name and description of Accused :1) Syed Haji @ Mental Haji @ S.M.Kos Haji, S/o.Syed Shareef, Age: 29 Yrs, R/o.Wade-E-Musthfa, Shaheen Nagar, Pahadi Shareef, R.R.District. (A.1)

2) Mohd.Osman, S/o.Mohd.Shareef, Age: 24 Yrs, Occ: Electrician, R/o. Quba Colony, Shaheennagar, Pahadi Shareef, R.R.District. (A.2)

Prosecution conducted by :Smt. T.Padmalatha, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by :Sri A.Venkat Ramana Reddy, Advocate for Accused

Offences charged :U/Ss. 354 & 382 IPC

Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court : Found not guilty

Sentence/Order : In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 382 IPC. He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Bail bonds of A2 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 is ordered to be retained by P.W.1 subject to the result of appeal, if any.

-2-

This case coming on for hearing before me, in the presence of

Sri A.Venkat Ramana Reddy, Advocate for the accused and of the Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

– : J U D G M E N T :-

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Malakpet laid charge sheet before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,

Hyderabad in Cr.No. 87 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 382 and 354

IPC and brief case of the prosecution, as seen from the charge sheet, is as follows:

On 19.3.2009 at about 2.15 p.m. A1 snatched gold chain wg. about 4.5 tolas from the neck of L.W.1 K.Papamma near Ramalavari Temple,

Malakpet and further outraged her modesty by pushing the victim with his hand on her shoulder and ran towards a bike on which A2 was staying for him and both sped away with stolen property and L.W.5 B.Ashok Reddy, Sub Inspector,

LW.6 Bhasker, Head Constable 3756 and L.W.7 Abid Ali, H.C. 6368 and L.W.8

Prasad, P.C. 8070 apprehended A1 and A2 and their confessional statements were recorded and stolen property were recovered by L.W.9. N.

chandrasekhar, Inspector of Police, P.S., Chaderghat from the possession of

L.W.2 Hariramji with whom the same were pledged at the instance of A1 in the presence of mediators L.W.3 Indrajeet Singh and L.W.4 S.Prakash. On report of K.Papamma on 19.3.2009 at 15.30 hours a case in Cr.No. 81 of 2009 was registered and investigated and as such, the accused are liable for the punishment for the offences under Sections 382 and 354 IPC.

Case against A1 is abated since he died during the trial of the case.

Hence, this case is tried against A2 only.

-3-

2. The learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance for the offences under Sections 382 and 354 IPC against accused. On securing the presence of accused and after furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. thereafter the case was assigned to the court of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Court, Hyderabad and thereafter, as per the orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide proceedings No.800/MSJ/OP. Cell/Hyd/13 dt.15.2.2013 this case was transferred to this court from the court of III Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad.

3. After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 354 and 382 IPC were framed against A1 (case against A1 abated) and charge under Section 109 R/w Section 382 IPC is framed against A2, read over and explained to A2.

A2 denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.

4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1. No witness is examined on behalf of accused and no documents are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, A2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

5. Heard the learned Additional P.P. and learned defence counsel.

6. Points for consideration is:

1) Whether on 19.3.2009 at 2.15 p.m. A2 aided and abetted A1 in snatching gold chain from the neck of Smt. K.Papamma and in such process A1 outraged her modesty?

2) Whether the prosecution proved its case for the charge under Section 109 read with Section 382 IPC against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

-4-

POINTS 1 AND 2

7. P.W.1 is victim and she deposed that about 3 years back while she was returning from her relatives house near Ramulavari Temple unknown offender snatched gold chain wg. about 4.5 tolas from her neck and sped away on the motor bike and he was wearing T shirt and culprit was aged 23 years and she lodged Ex.P.1 report and M.O.1 is gold chain snatched from her neck (M.O.1 produced by P.W.1 from interim custody) and that she can not identify culprit now.

8. P.W.2 deposed in the year 2009 at about 10.45 a.m. three police persons and one accused person whose name he does not remember came to his pan shop and recovered gold pustelatradu of two rows wg. 4 tolas and

M.O.1 is pustelatradu and police recorded Ex.P.2 is seizure report.

9. P.W.3 the then Inspector of Police, P.S., Chaderghat deposed that on 24.6.2009 at 6 p.m. Sub Inspector, Ashok Reddy and his team produced accused before him and lodged complaint and he interrogated A1 in the presence of mediators Indrajeet Singh and Prakash and A1 confessed commission of offence and in pursuance of confession of A1 A2was also apprehended and he obtained accused for police custody and in pursuance of confession of A1 stolen properties were recovered along with other properties and he examined P.W.2 and he handed over property relating to this case to

Station House Officer, Malakpet P.S.,

10. P.W.4 the then Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Malakpet deposed that on 19.3.2009 at 15.30 hours P.W.1 lodged Ex.P.1 report and L.W.10

Krishnam Raju, Head Constable registered Ex.P.1 as a case in Cr.No. 87 of 2009 under Sections 382 and 354 IPC and issued Ex.P.3 FIR and he visited scene of offence and on his transfer he handed over CD file to L.W.10

Satyanarayana.

`-5-

11. P.W.5 N.Satyanarayana, the then Sub Inspector of Police, PS.,

Malakpet deposed that he took up investigation from P.W.4 and obtained the custody of accused from P.T. Warrant and produced them before the court and originally Chaderghat police arrested accused and recovered property relating to this case also.

12. Basing on above evidence and documents marked and material objects marked learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that prosecution proved its case under Section 354 IPC, 382 read with Section 109

IPC against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that there is no evidence identifying A2 as the culprit and in the absence of such evidence there is no evidence to fasten guilt against A2 and

A2 is entitled for benefit of doubt.

14. In the present case, P.W.1 is the victim and eye witness to the incident. She did not identify A2 as the culprit and P.W.2 also who is the receiver of the stolen property from A1 and A2 also failed to identify A2 as the person that pledged the stolen property with him. Pws. 3 to 5 the Investigating

Officers and there is no evidence as to A2 making confession and leading to recovery of M.O.1. In the absence of such evidence there is no iota of evidence to fasten guilt against A2 for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 382 IPC and A2 is entitled for benefit of doubt. Points 1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 109 read with Section 382 IPC. He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the -6- said offence. Bail bonds of A2 shall stand canceled after expiry of period of 6 months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 is ordered to be retained by

P.W.1 subject to the result of appeal, if any.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of February, 2016.

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT ), HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:-

P.W.1 : Smt.K.Papamma

P.W.2 : Kishanlal

P.W.3 : N.Chandra Sekhar

P.W.4 : T.Shivam Naidu

P.W.5 : N.Satyanarayana ( I.O. )

Witnesses Examined For Defence:- - NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P.1 : Complaint

Ex.P.2 : Seizure Report

Ex.P.3 : First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : -- NIL --

M.Os. MARKED:- - NIL -

V ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

(MAHILA COURT ) HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT) : AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkata Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 16th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

Crl.M.P.No.350/2016

in

Cr.No.211/2013 of WPS.Begumpet, N/Z, Hyderabad

in

CC.No.141/2015

BETWEEN:- Mohd. Abdul Najeed, S/o.Mohd Abdul Nayeem, Age : 30 yrs, Occ: Working as Engineer at Saudi Arabia, R/o.H.No.16-9-408/BK/11, Wahed Nagar, Shakkabhai ki Galli,

Race Course Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad ... Petitioners/Accused No.1

A N D The State of Telangana, Rep.by P.P. Through WPS.Begumpet, N/Z Hyderabad

Hyderabad ….. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 16-02-2016 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.D.Raji Reddy Advocate for Petitioner/Accused and of Smt T.Padmalatha, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration this court made the following: - : :- O R D E R : :-

1. The petitioner/A1 filed this application for granmt of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C for the offenses under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of DP Act.

2. It is alleged that petitioner along with others have subjected the defacto complainant to physical and mental cruelty demanding additional dowry.

3. Accused submits that he is innocent and did not commit any of fence and that he may be released on anticipatory bail and he further submitted that soon after marriage he left for Saudi.

4. Learned Addl. P.P opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. As seen from record, entire investigation is completed and police also filed charge sheet and the same is numbered and other accused already were enlarged on bail. In such circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

6. In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner/A1 is directed to surrender before the XV Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad within 30 days from the date of this order. On such surrender he is ordered to be released on bail on is executing bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of concerned same court. Petitioner/A1 is further directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the same court. If he has not passport he has to file an affidavit to that effect.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day

of FEBRUARY, 2016.

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

( MAHLA COURT) : HYDERABAD.

Copy to:- 1 The XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2 The SHO, WPS. Begumpet, N/Z, Hyderabad 3 Counsel for the Petitioner. 4 Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 5 The Addl. Public Prosecutor.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT) : AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri.G.Venkata Krishnam Raju, V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, (Mahila Court) Hyderabad.

Dated this the 16th day of FEBRUARY, 2016

Crl.M.P.No.397/2016

in

Cr.No.38/2016 of PS.Golconda, Hyderabad

BETWEEN:- Vishnu Vardhan Magapu, S/o.M.Satyanarayana Murthy, Age : 27 yrs, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.Flat No.2403,

Friends Colony, Manikonda, Hyderabad ... Petitioners/Accused

A N D The State of Telangana, Rep.by P.P. Through PS.Golconda, Hyderabad

Hyderabad ….. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming on 16-02-2016 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.Lasetty Ravinder Advocate for Petitioner/Accused and of Smt T.Padmalatha, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and the matter having stood over for consideration this court made the following: - : :- O R D E R : :- 1 The petitioner / accused filed this application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

2 It is alleged that on 2/3.2.2016 the accused called the victim over phone that he would give notes and explain how to get admission for U.S.A. and asked her to come to his house and accordingly took the defacto complainant to his residence and after drinking Coco Coco cola she felt dizzy and unconsciousness and accused removed her clothes and raped her and she was sent home on the next day morning by Ola CAB and on report of complainant a case in Cr.No. 38 of 2016 under

Section 376 IPC was registered.

3The petitioner submits that he was falsely implicated and entire story was concocted and accused submits that the defacto complainant with an intention to extract money illegally lodged false complaint and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner except making omnibus allegations and the petitioner submits that he is in jail from 6.2.2016 and the entire investigation is completed and he may be released on bail.

4The learned counsel for accused further submitted that the Upanayam and marriage of the accused is fixed for 27.2.2016 and the accused has no previous criminal history and the petitioner may be released on bail.

5Heard both sides.

6The learned Additional P.P. submitted that 14 witnesses are examined and investigation is almost completed.

7In the present case the documents filed by accused reveal that the brother of defacto complainant sent message as if he is going to press charges against accused and counsel for accused submitted it was a preplanned implication of accused for demanding the amount and the marriage of accused is fixed for 27.2.2016 and upnayanam is fixed for 25.2.2016. The learned Addl.P.P. also submitted that there is no injury on the private parts of defacto complainant. Considering the marriage of the accused is fixed on 27.2.2016 and his upanayanam is fixed for 25.2.2016 and as 14 witnesses were already examined and the investigation is almost completed, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to release accused on bail.

8. In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner / accused is further - 2 - directed shall stay at Visakhapatnam for 45 days so that the entire investigation is completed and there is no possibility of petitioner trying to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. During the period of 45 days the accused is directed to sign before SHO, Woman Police Station, Visakhapatnam on every Monday till charge sheet is filed. Accused is further directed to surrender his passport, if any,

before the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court, Hyderabad. If he has no passport

he has to file an affidavit to that effect.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day

of FEBRUARY, 2016.

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

( MAHLA COURT) : HYDERABAD.

Copy to:- 1 The XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2 The SHO, PS. Golconda Hyderabad 3 Counsel for the Petitioner. 4 Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 5 The Addl. Public Prosecutor.