Sri J.Sujin Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Thursday, this the 27th of June, 2019.

Calender Case No.480/2013

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Mandalapu Gopi S/o Malakondaiah, 43 years,

2. Mandalapu Udayalakshmi W/o Gopi, 31 years, Both are R/o Mandalpuvarikostalu, Kandukur. … Accused.

* * *

This matter is coming on 25-06-2019 for final hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Rosaiah, Counsel on behalf of accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivers the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur Rural Police Station, filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Crime No.68 of 2013 of Kandukur Rural

Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 354-A, 324, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The factual matrix of the case as set out in the charge sheet is that:

PW1 and PW2 are the residents of Mandalapuvarikostalu, Kandukur, and they are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. A1 and A2 are husband and wife, they are also the residents of same area, and A1 is working as driver to a school bus. A1 and PW2 are the sons of own brothers and there are some disputes in between them with regard to the division of their ancestral properties. Owing to the same in the year 2008 A1 insulted the modesty of PW1, for which PW1 have lodged report before the police, in turn the same report was registered as case in Cr.No.50/2008 for the

CC 480-20132Dated 27.06.2019.

offence punishable under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code by

Kandukur Rural police, it was numbered as CC No.337/2008. On 15-07-2013 at 8-00AM, PW1 and PW2 went to the fileds situated near Sri

Ayyappaswamy temple, Kandukur, they got the land ploughed with the help of tractor and at about 10-00AM they came back to their house. While PW1 was standing on the front side of the house, A1 and A2 came there and found fault with PW1 for ploughing the land by stating that they have also got share in that land. Both A1 and A2 abused PW1 in filthy language and further A2 behaved indecently by beating PW1 on her chest with hands, tearing her blouse and by making scratches with nails over PW1’s chest.

When PW2 came there and questioned A1 and A2, A1 attempted to beat

PW2 with a stone and on seeing the same PW1 went to rescue PW2 and then the stone hit on the left side of the head of PW1, due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injury and also minor injury to the left ear. Further A1 and A2 fallen up on PW2 and beat him with their hands and legs. The entire incident was witnessed by PW3 to PW5. PW5 and PW3 have rescued PW1 and PW2 from the hands of the accused. PW1 was shifted to Area hospital,

Kandukur by PW2 for treatment. PW6 treated PW1 and sent intimation to the Kandukur Rural police station, thereupon PW7 visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1. Basing on that PW7 registered a case as in

Cr.No.68/2013 U/Sec. 354-A, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, against A1 and A2, and their son by name Mandalapu Phanidra, and issued First Information Report. During the course of investigation PW.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. As the involvement of A3 in First Information Report i.e., Mandalapu Phanidra was not proved, he had deleted the name of A3 from the array of accused, after obtaining permission from Sub-Divisonal Police Officer, Kandukur, under

Ex.P8, and filed a memo to that effect before this Court under Ex.P9. PW7 have arrested the accused on 30-08-2013 and send them for judicial remand. PW6, who treated PW1 gave wound certificate opining that the

CC 480-20133Dated 27.06.2019.

injuries found on PW1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, PW7 filed charge sheet in this case.

3. On 15-12-2013 this court took cognizance of case against the A1 and

A2 for the offences punishable under sections 354-A, 323, 324 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On 13-03-2014 copies of documents were furnished to A1 and A2 as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.On 17-11-2015 A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, for which, they denied the same. On considering the entire record and on hearing both sides, charges for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 324 of Indian Penal Code against A1, and charges for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code against A1 and A2 were framed. The said charges was read over and explained to A1 and A2 in Telugu language, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, matter was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined L.W1, LW2,

LW4, LW5, LW3, LW6 and LW7 as Pw.1 to PW7 respectively and got marked

Exs.P1 to P9. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 25-06-2019 A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the points that arise for determination are that:-

i) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 for the

CC 480-20134Dated 27.06.2019.

offences punishable under sections 354-A and 324 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 and

A2 for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W1 to P.W.7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P9. P.W.1 is the Defacto-Complainant cum injured. P.W. 2 is the husband of PW1. PW3 to PW5 are said to be the direct witnesses. PW6 is the doctor, who treated Pw1 and issued wound certificate. PW7 is the Investigation Officer in this case. Ex.P1 is the statement given by Pw.1. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the statements of PW3 and

PW4 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C respectively. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of Pw.1. Ex.P5 is the hospital intimation. Ex.P6 is the First

Information Report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8 is the proceedings of Sub-Divisional Officer. Ex.P9 is the deletion memo.

11.The stand of A1 and A2 is of total denial. They contended by way of suggestion that they did not commit the alleged offence and PW1 foisted this false case in view of existing property disputes. No oral evidence was adduced on their behalf.

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidences of

PW1 to PW3 coupled with medical evidence and the evidence of investigating officer clinchingly establishes that A1 had insulted the modesty of PW1 and caused grievous injury to her with a deadly weapon i.e.stone. It is also further the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that A1 and A2 have caused hurt to PW1 and PW2 with their hands and legs and also A1 and A2 have threatened PW1 and PW2 with dire consequences.

Therefore, A1 and A2 are liable for punishment for the charges levelled against them.

13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that there is no support of independent evidence to the version of PWs1 to3, and the

CC 480-20135Dated 27.06.2019.

evidence of PWs1 to 3 who are related and interested witnesses could not be relied upon. He further submitted that the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent to her earlier version as well as medical evidence in material aspects. He further argued that the investigating officer failed to seize incriminating material i.e., stones alleged to be used in commission of the offence and torn blouse of PW.1 and all these circumstances clearly show that PW1 foisted a false case against A1 and A2 in view of prior land disputes, by taking advantage of injuries which she got sustained injuries, as she fell down from PW2’s motor cycle. As such A1 and A2 are entitled benefit of doubt.

14.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

15.POINTS 1& 2:-

Points 1 and 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other

Out of these charges, in order to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence under section 324 of IPC the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

i) that the accused (A1) caused hurt with deadly weapon to PW1;

and

ii) that it was caused voluntarily i.e. with knowledge or intention to cause hurt.

For establishing the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section 323 of Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

I) that the A1 and A2 caused hurt to Pw.2 with hands and legs; and ii) that it was caused voluntarily i.e with knowledge or intention to cause hurt;

16.To prove that PW1 sustained injuries in the alleged incident and PW2 got sustained with hurt, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is the defacto-complainant. Her evidence goes to shows that on 15-07-2013 at about 8-00AM she went to her field for attending agricultural work, and after completion of her work, she returned

CC 480-20136Dated 27.06.2019.

back to her house at about 10-00 AM, then A1 and A2 came to her house and quarreled with her by stating that “why did you plough the land, which was belonging to us”. In turn PW1 stated that the said agricultural is their ancestral property, for which an altercation took place between PW1 and A1 and A2. Then A1 insulted PW1 , pulled her saree and fisted on her chest. A1 also made scratches on her left side of chest as a result of which PW1 sustained scratche injuries. Her evidence also goes to show that her husband came out of the house and tried to rescue her and questioned A1 and A2 as to why they beat PW.1, then all of a sudden A1 picked up a stone and tried to beat PW2, in the mean while she tried to recover the stone from

A1. In this process PW1 sustained injury on her left side head and upper ear. She further also testified that A1 beat her on her right side upper ear as a result her upper ear received bleeding injury, and at that time son of A1 dragged her husband and after receiving bleeding injuries one M.Vijaya

Lakshmi intervened and questioned A1 as to why did beat her and have witnessed the same, and thereafter PW5 shifted her to Area hospital,

Kandukur, and while undergoing treatment the police have recorded her statement under Ex.P1. So the evidence of PW1 shows she sustained scratch injuries on her left side of chest, bleeding injury over her left side of her head, right upper ear.

17.PW2, the husband of PW1, has deposed that on 15-07-2013 at about 10-00AM when he was present in his house and his wife PW1 was attending household works in front of their house, at that time A1 and A2 picked up a quarrel with Pw1 on the front side of their house, upon hearing the galata, he came out and found that A1 was pulling the saree of PW1 and torning the blouse of PW1, and he also made scratch injuries over the chest of PW1 with his nails. He further testified that A1 also beat PW1 with his hands and pushed her away, so he intervened and tried to pacify the same, during that time A1 came upon PW2 with stones, so PW1 came to rescue due to which she sustained injuries over her left side of forehead from hands of A1,

CC 480-20137Dated 27.06.2019.

thereafter he shifted PW1 to Area hospital, Kandukur for treatment.

18.The prosecution also examined PW3 and PW4, who are said to be the direct witnesses. But they categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, and police never examined them. As

PW3 and PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross-examined them with the permission of this court. But, PW3 and PW4 denied to have stated before the police as in Exs.P2 and PW3 ie., their respective statements recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. In spite of cross- examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited which helps to prove the material allegations levelled against A1 and A2.

19.The evidence of PW5 goes to shows that on 15-07-2013 at about 10- 30AM when she was present at her house, she heard a galata from the house of PW2, and immediately she rushed to his house, there she found that blood was oozing from the head of PW1, by seeing her A1 and A2 rushed away from the place. In her cross-examination she admitted that there are property disputes between the accused family and her family.

20Coming to the medical evidence i.e. evidence of PW6 coupled with

Ex.P4 wound certificate of PW1. It goes to shows that PW1 was found with scratch injury over left side breast, laceration of size 2 cm X 1 cm X ½ cm over left side head, injury over left ear, and contusion of size 2 cm X 2 cm over right side head. During her cross-examination, it was elicited that she did not mention the age of the above said injuries in Ex.P4, so also about the nature of weapon with which injuries were caused. She also stated that she has seen PW1 at their hospital at 11-00AM due to oversight the same is mentioned as 11-00PM in Ex.P4 wound certificate.

21.Lastly, the evidence of PW7 investigating officer shows about receiving of Ex.P5 hospital intimation then his recording the statement under Ex.P1 of PW1. It further goes to shows about registration of First

Information Report under Ex.P7, about investigation done by him i.e.

examination of PW1 to PW5 and recording of their statements, preparation

CC 480-20138Dated 27.06.2019.

of rough sketch of the scene of offence(Ex.P7), and also deletion of A3 from the crime after obtaining permission from Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kandukur, under Ex.P8, and also filing of memo under Ex.P9 before this

Court, and finally filing of charge sheet in this case.

22. At the very threshold, before proceeding further it is pertinent to note that, up on careful perusal of entire evidence, it is apparent that PW2 who is said to have beaten up by Pws1 and 2 with their hands and legs have deposed nothing by implicating both A1 and A2 under the levelled charge of section-323 read with 34 of IPC. He simply deposed about alleged acts of hurt committed by A1 against P.W.1. In addition to this no medical evidence was brought on record to show that PW2 received hurt from the hands of A1 and A2. When the evidence of PW2 itself is silent about the injuries said to be sustained by him, the prosecution has no legs to stand for the levelled charge under section 323 read with section-34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under section-323 read with section-34 of IPC.

23. On the other hand, the evidence of Pw.1 goes to show that she sustained scratch injuries on her left side of chest, bleeding injury over her left side of her head, right upper ear. Whereas the evidence of Pw.2 goes to show that Pw.1 sustained scratch injury over her chest and injury over her left side of forehead and the medical evidence ie.,oral evidence of Pw.6 coupled with Ex.P4/wound certificate goes to show that Pw.1 was found with scratch marks over left side breast, Laceration over left side head, injury over left ear and contusion over right side head.

24.It is one of the contentions of the learned defence counsel that the ocular evidence is inconsistent with that of medical evidence with regard to number of injuries and place of injuries on Pw.1 and thus, the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon. In the present case on hand, the

CC 480-20139Dated 27.06.2019.

evidence of Pws.1 and 2 , is corroborated with medical evidence in respect of injuries said to be found on head part. However, Ex.P4/wound certificate does not reflect that Pw.1 sustained any injury on the upper side of right ear, Nothing was elicited by the learned defence counsel that there is no possibility to sustain the injuries said to be found on Pw.1 with stones. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with medical evidence. It is not out of place to mention that the ocular evidence should not be discarded unless the medical evidence totally improbablises the ocular evidence regarding the possibility of injuries. Thus, the evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5 supported by Pw.6, the Doctor coupled with the contents of Ex.P4/wound certificate clinchingly establishes that Pw.1 sustained scratch injuries over her chest, injuries over head and ear.

25.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to establish that those injuries of Pw.1 were sustained by A1 with his nails and stone as alleged. To prove the same, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5. Though the prosecution examined Pws.3,4 who are said to be the direct witnesses, they did not support the prosecution version. So, there is no support of direct independent witnesses to the version of Pws.1,2 and 5 who are having property disputes with A1.

26.It is the core contention of the accused that in absence of support of independent witnesses, the evidence of Pws.1,2 (who are wife and husband) and PW5 cannot be relied upon. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that mere relationship of witnesses cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of such witnesses if it is found to be credible and trustworthy. There is no dispute with regard to the said principle of law.

Herein the case, indisputably, Pw.1 is wife of Pw.2. According to Pw.1, the said incident occurred in view ploughing of their agricultural land, which was questioned by A1 and A2 on the ground that it is their property. It is

CC 480-201310Dated 27.06.2019.

also admitted by PWs 1,2 and 5 that they have prior property disputes with

A1. Whereas, the accused contended by way of suggestion that such dispute is motive for false implication of the case. In such circumstances, when there are admitted prior disputes, it is the bounden duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5, who are related witnesses, with utmost care and caution and to ascertain whether their evidence is free of infirmities, exaggerations and inconsistencies and proves the very genesis of occurrence of incident.

27.So, in view of principle of law relied in the above cited decision, it has to be seen as to whether the evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5 is found to be credible and trustworthy. As pointed out by the learned defence counsel, there is discrepancy between Ex.P1 and evidence of PW1 on the aspect of visiting the Area Hospital, Kandukur after the alleged incident. In Ex.P1 ,

PW1 stated that after the occurrence of incident, she along with PW2 went to Area Hospital in an Auto for undergoing treatment. In her evidence PW1 has come out with improved version, she stated that after receiving bleeding injuries she fell in to unconscious state and then PW6 shifted her to hospital. Thus in her earlier version, PW1 has not claimed to have lost conscious due to sustaining of injuries. If really she had lost her conscious, there was absolutely no reason for her to omit to state the said material fact in Ex.P1. The improbability of PW1 could also be noticed from the fact that contrary to her claim that she and PW1 went to Area Hospital to undergo treatment in an Auto. Significantly PW1 stated that she lost her conscious and she was shifted to hospital by PW5.

28.In addition to this, Pw.1 deposed for the first time before this court that all of a sudden A1 picked up a stone and tried to beat her husband, in the meanwhile she tried to take stone from A1 and A1 beat her on her right side upper ear causing bleeding injury. During her cross examination PW.1 denied the suggestion posed by the defence counsel stating that she did not

CC 480-201311Dated 27.06.2019.

state about this aspect before the police. When the same suggestion is put to PW7 he admitted it. Thus the omission is proved. As it is pertaining to very genesis of the incident, it is a material one and it creates a doubt as to veracity of PW1.

29.Further, the learned defence counsel also elicited many omissions from the evidence of PWs1 and 2. Apart from this, Pw.1 attributed specific overt acts against the A1 and A2 stating that they beat her husband PW2 with their hands and legs but same is not reiterated even by Pw.2.

Moreover, PW6 who is cited as direct witness admitted that there are property disputes between her family and accused’s family. So, viewed from any angle, the evidence of Pws.1,2 and 5 is inconsistent in many aspects, so also in material aspects ie., attribution of overt acts such as scratching with nails, beating with stone on head. Their evidence is also not wholly corroborated with the medical evidence. If really such incident occurred, there might not be such inconsistencies and material omissions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As such, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and 5 is not inspiring the confidence of the court.

30.In addition to these inconsistencies, there is no support of independent witnesses to the version of Pws.1,2 and 5. The Investigation

Officer also did not seize any incriminating material such as stone in order to ascertain whether there is possibility to cause injuries said to be found on

Pw.1 with such stone. All these lacunae show the defective investigation.

31.In view of the above discussion, as the evidence of Pw.1,2 and 5 is inconsistent in material aspects and also contradictory to the earlier version ie., Ex.P1/statement, basing on which the entire prosecution case rests upon, the court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of

Pws.1,2 and 5 to bring home the guilt of A1 for the offence under section324 of IPC, without corroboration of independent evidence. In such facts and circumstances, the court finds no convincing and satisfactory

CC 480-201312Dated 27.06.2019.

evidence to hold that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to Pw.1 with stones as alleged. Hence A1 is entitled to benefit of doubt.

32.On coming to other charges under section-354 A against A1 and section 506 read with section 34 of IPC against A1 and A2 are concerned, this court holds that as the prosecution failed to establish the very genesis of occurrence itself, the point of answering about this aspects does not arise at all. Therefore, A1 cannot be held liable for section 354A and A1 and A2 cannot be held liable for section 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly Points 1 and 2 are answered against prosecution.

33.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 354-A and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Further A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2019.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :For Defence :

P.W.1 : M.Dhana Lakshmi-NONE – P.W.2: M.Tirumala Prasad P.W.3: Ch.Nirmala P.W.4: K.Madhu P.W.5: M.Vijaya Lakhmi P.W.6: N.Prathyusha P.W.7: M.V.Siva Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

CC 480-201313Dated 27.06.2019.

Ex.P1: Statement given by Pw.1 Ex.P2: Statement of Pw.3 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: Statement of P.W.4 recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P5: Hospital intimation. Ex.P6: Original First Information Report dated:15-07-2013 Ex.P7: Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P8: Proceeding of Sub-Divisional Police Office, Kandukur. Ex.P9: Deletion of A3 memo

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL –

A.J.F.C.M, KANDUKUR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.480 of 2013

1.Date of offence15-07-2013

2.Date of Report or complaint15-07-2013

3.Date of taken on file15-12-2013

Date of apprehension of

4.30-08-2013 accused

5.Date of release on bail30-08-2013

6.Date of commencement of trial 16-06-2016

7.Date of close of trial25-06-2019

8.Date of Sentence or Order27-06-2019

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Kandukur rural police station 1.MandalapuGopiS/o Malakondaiah, 43 years, 2.Mandalapu Udayalakshmi W/o

10. Description of accused Gopi, 31 years, Both are R/o Mandalpuvarikostalu, Kandukur. U/Sec. 354-A, 324, 323 and 506 r/w

11. Section of Law 34 of IPC

12. Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court Found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Further A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months asper section 437A of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on file on 15-12-2013. On 13-03-2014 copies furnished to the A1 and A2. On 17-11-2015 A1 and A2 were examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. and case posted for trial. On behalf of Prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined, Exs. P1 to P9 were marked. On closure of prosecution side evidence, on 25-06-2019, A1 and A2 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and denied the incriminating material appeared against them and reported no defence evidence, and arguments heard and posted for judgment. Judgment pronounced in open court on 27-06-2019. Hence, the delay.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to :The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole.

CC 480-201315Dated 27-06-2019.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, KANDUKUR.

THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Friday, this the 28th of June, 2019.

Calender Case No.316 of 2012

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur Police Station.… Complainant.

Vs.

1.Rajala Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o Malakondaiah, 21 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal, 2.Mule Subba Reddy S/o China Chenchi Reddy, 23 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

3. Mule Ramanamma W/o China Chenchi Reddy, 31 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

4. Bhumireddi Nagalath W/o Ramana Reddy, 21 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

5. Mula Nageswara Reddy @ Nagi Reddy, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal, S/o China Chenchi Reddy, 22 years,

6. Oruganti Lakshmamma W/o Narayana, 32 years, R/o Veligandla village, Now at Mulevaripalem village. … Accused.

* * *

This matter is coming on 26-06-2019 for final hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt. K.Phani Kumari,

Counsel on behalf of accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivers the following:

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

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur Police

Station, filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 in Crime No.24 of 2012 of

Ponnalur Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the case as culled out from the charge sheet are as follows:

On 09-04-2012 at about 10-00AM while PW1 was grazing his sheep near Gutlachenu in the fields of Mulevaripalem village, A3, A4 and A6 went to PW1 and questioned him as to why he made signs with eye to their girl Mule Anjali and called her, and they asked him to come to village, for which PW1 replied that he did not make any gesture with eye to anybody.

When PW1 was coming along with A3, A4 and A6 towards village, after reaching some distance A4 made a phone call to her brothers A2 and A5, upon which they came on one motorcycle and A1 came on another motorcycle near Malodimadugu. Among the accused, A1 and A2 were armed with axes and A5 was armed with knife, then the accused uttered that PW1 called their girl and further made gesture with eye, they grew wild against PW1. A1 beat PW1 with an axe on head causing bleeding injury.

A2 beat PW1 with a stick handle of the axe on the left wrist and shoulder causing suspected fracture of bones. When PW1 fell down A3 to A6 sat on

PW1 and beat him with their hands and legs. The entire incident was witnessed by PW2 to PW5 and LW6/N.Balaiah and they rushed to PW1, on seeing them the accused left the place. On receiving the information, PW1 was shifted to the Area hospital, Kandukur by 108 Ambulance for treatment.

PW8 treated PW1, sent intimation to PW9. PW9 went to Area hospital,

Kandukur, and recorded the statement of PW1 and forwarded the same to

Ponnaluru police station on the point of jurisdiction. Basing on that PW10 registered a case as in Cr.No.24/2012 under section 324 r/w 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, and issued First Information Report. PW8 referred PW1 to the RIMS hospital, Ongole, where PW6 further treated him and send him to the Radiology department. PW7 have x-rayed the parts required by PW6 and sent his opinion to PW6. Thereupon PW6 sent his opinion to PW8 stating that the injuries on the head and left wrist of PW1 are grievous in nature. Basing on the report given by PW7 and PW6, PW8 issued wound certificate by opining that the injury on the head is simple in nature, while the injuries on the left wrist and shoulder are grievous in nature. PW10 investigated the case, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and examined PW1 to pW5 and LW6/N.Balaiah and recorded their statements.

Basing on the investigation, as A1 to A6 are responsible for the offences, and arrested them on 16-04-2012 and also filed a memo before this Court for including the name of A6 in the case, and after completion of investigation, PW10 filed charge sheet in this case.

3. On 31-07-2012 this court took cognizance of case against the A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324 and 323 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code.

4. On 25-07-2013 copies of documents were furnished to A1 to A6 as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.On 10-08-2018 A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C in

Telugu language, for which, they denied the same. On considering the entire record and on hearing both sides, a charge for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code against A1, a charge for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code against A2, a charge under section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against A3 to A6, and a charge under section 326 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against A1 were framed. The said charges were read over and explained to A1 to A6 in

Telugu language, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, matter was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW1 to LW5,

LW8, LW7, LW9, LW10 and LW11 as Pw.1 to PW10 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The evidence of LW6/N.Balaiah was closed by this

Court as he was no more. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence is closed.

During the course of cross-examination of PW3 Ex.D1 has been exhibited on behalf of the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 25-06-2019 A1 to A6 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the points are determination are that:-

i) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A1 for the

offence punishable under section 324 and 326 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond reasonable doubt?

ii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A2 for the

offence punishable under section 326 of Indian Penal Code, beyond

reasonable doubt?

iii) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of A3 to A6

for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, beyond reasonable doubt?

10.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W1 to P.W.10 and got exhibited Exs. P1 to P7. Among them P.W.1 is the Defacto-

Complainant-cum-injured. P.W. 2 to PW5 are the direct witnesses to the alleged incident. PW6 is the Professor Department of Orthopedics, RIMS hospital, Ongole, , who treated PW1 and referred him for x-ray. PW7 is another Assistant Professor, Department of Radio Diagnosis, RIMS hospital,

Ongole, who took x-ray of the part which was required by PW8. PW8 is the

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital, Kandukur, who referred PW1 to the

RIMS hospital, Ongole, and issued wound certificate. PW9 is the Assistant

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandukur town police station, who recorded the statement of PW1 and forwarded the same to Ponnalur police station on the point of jurisdiction. PW10 is the investigating officer in this case. Ex.P1 is the statement of Pw.1. Ex.P2 X-ray report, Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of

PW1. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P6 is the memo issued by which A5 and A6 were added. Ex.P7 is the section addition memo.

11.The stand of A1 to A6 is of total denial.

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PW1 to PW5 coupled with the medical evidence and the evidence of investigation officer clinchingly establishes that the A1 to A6 have beat PW1 indiscriminately and they had voluntarily caused hurt and grevious hurt to

Pw.1 with deadly weapons axe and stick and therefore, all the accused are liable for conviction under levelled charges.

13.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of Pws.1 and 5 is inconsistent with each other's evidence and also with their own earlier versions in many aspects. He further argued that the evidence of Pws.1 is also inconsistent with medical evidence and thus, in absence of support of any independent witness, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 who are related and interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. He further pointed out that the investigation officer did not seize any incriminating material all these facts show the defective investigation and in view of these infirmities, all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

14.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

15.POINTS 1 TO 3:-

The points No.1 to 3 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other :

In order to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence punishable under section 326 and 324 of IPC, A2 for the offence under section 326 of IPC and

A3 to A6 for the offence under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC, the prosecution has to initially establish that PW1 sustained injuries in the alleged incident. To prove the same the prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW10.

16. Among them PW1 is the defacto complainant cum injured his evidence goes to show that about 6 years ago at about 10-00AM while he was grazing sheep buffaloes near the Gutlachenu of his village, A3, A4 and A6 came there and questioned him as to why he made signs by his eye to the wife of

A5 i.e., M.Anjali, and they have also questioned him to come to the village.

In turn he replied that he did not make any signs to the wife of A5, and started proceeding with A3, A4 and A5 to the village. In his evidence he further testified that on the way A1 and A2 along with some other persons came there, A1 beat him with an axe over his head and caused bleeding injuries, A2 beat him with a stick over his left hand, and all the accused have kicked him with their hands and legs; that on hearing his cries PW2 to

PW5 and LW6/N.Balaiah intervened and rescued him from the hands of A1 to A6, and shifted him to the Area hospital, Kandukur, for treatment.

Thereupon while undergoing treatment he gave Ex.P1 statement before the police.

17.In his cross-examination PW1 has stated that nearly 100 persons were gathered at the time of the alleged quarrel, his cloths were stained with blood, and his blood was also fell down on the earth. He denied suggestion that he did not state in Ex.P1 about the presence of A6 at the time of alleged incident, and A2 beat him with a stick over his left hand.

Further he denied suggestion that he did not state either in Ex.P1 or before the police that upon hearing his cries PW2 to PW5 and LW6/Balaiah have intervened and rescued him from the hands of A1 to A6. He did not state in

Ex.P1 that on 07-04-2012 A3, A4 and two unknown female persons came upon himself. He admitted that in Ex.P1 he stated that PW4, PW5 and

LW6/N.Balaiah came to know about the incident. He further admitted that in Ex.P1 he stated that two unknown female persons beat him with an iron rod on his left hand shoulder.

18.The evidence of PW2 goes to shows that about 6 years ago on one day at about 12-00noon when she was present in the chili fields she found quarrel took place in between the accused and PW1, and at that time all the accused beat PW1 with sticks due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injuries over his head and hands.

19.In her cross-examination she admitted that she did not state

before the police that she was present in the chili fields at the time of

alleged incidents; that all the accused beat PW1 with sticks, and she had relationship with PW1.

20.The evidence of PW3 goes to shows that at about 6 years ago on one day at about 11-00AM he was present in his chili garden at that time all the accused came to his fields and started galata with PW1, and he tried to pacify the quarrel, but in vain. He further testified that A1 and A2 beat PW1 with sticks and axe over his head and hands due to which PW1 sustained injuries over his head and fracture injuries over his both hands.

21.In his cross-examination he denied suggestion that he did not state before the police that all the accused came to his fields and started galata with PW1, and he tried to pacify the quarrel, but in vain, and also that A1 and A2 beat PW1 with sticks and axe over his head and hands.

Further he denied suggestion that he did not state as in Ex.D1.

22.The evidence of PW4 goes to shows that at about 6 or 7 years ago she went to the fields of Timmapalem village, at about about 10-00 or 11-00AM A1, A3 and A4 along with some other persons brought PW1 in to the chili garden and they picked up quarrel with him. She further testified that she stated that not to make galata to their fields and requested them to go away from the fields, but A1, A3 and A4 along with some other persons failed to leave the chili fields, then they have also made phone call to A2, so

A2 came to the field, then A1, A2 came upon PW1 and beat him on his head and wrist, due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injury over his head and fractured injury on his left wrist. She further testified that A1 and A2 also beat PW1 with sticks on his right hand fingers, and thereupon A1 to A4 along with some other persons beat PW1 indiscriminately.

23.In her cross-examination she denied suggestion that he did not state before the police that on one day she went to the fields of Timmapalem village for the purpose of collecting chilies, and at about 10-00 or 11-00AM

A1, A3 and A4 along with some other persons brought PW1 in to the chili fields and they have picked up quarrel with him. The defence counsel have put many suggestions to PW4 stating that the entire version which was stated before this Court is not state before the police. However, the said suggestions were denied by PW4.

24.The evidence of PW5 goes to shows that at about 6 years ago on one day during afternoon hours he was grazing cattle in his agricultural fields, upon hearing the galata himself went to the chili fields, then A1, A2 and A5 beat PW1 over his head with those weapons, due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injuries over his head, fractured injury over his hands and injuries over his fingers of hands.

25.The evidence of PW6 goes to shows that basing on Ex.P2 -X-ray he opined that PW1 sustained fracture shaft ulna lower third left side and fracture head of fifth meta carpal.

26.The evidence of PW7 goes to shows that on 20-06-2012 he received five X-rahys of PW1 vide MLC No.441, dt.09-04-2012 stating that chest X-ray PA view impression no bone injury, X-ray skull ap later view – impression no bone injury, X-ray left shoulder AP later view impression fracture spine of left seapule, X-ray right hand wrist joint AP later view impression fracture distal end of fith metacarpal, and X-ray left fore arm wrist joint AP later view impression fracture distal 1/3rd left ulna, accordingly he issued Ex.P2 x-ray report of PW1.

27.The evidence of PW8 goes to shows that on 09-04-2012 at about 3-20PM he examined PW1 and found the injuries of laceration of size 6 cm X 2 cm X 2cm over left parietal region, active bleeding, swelling and tenderness over left forearm above wrist, swelling and tenderness over back of left shoulder, and in his opinion injury No.1 is simple in nature, and injury

No.2 and 3 are grievous in nature, and accordingly he issued Ex.P3 wound certificate of PW1.

28.The evidence of PW9 goes to shows that on 09-04-2012 at about 4-00Pm he received hospital intimation from Area hospital, Kandukur, and he recorded the statement of PW1, and forwarded the same to Ponnalur police station on the point of jurisdiction.

29.He admitted in his cross-examination that PW1 did not state in

Ex.P1 about the presence of A6 at the time of alleged incident; that A2 beat him with a stick over his left hand, that all the accused kicked him with their hands and legs, and upon hearing his cries PW3 to PW6 and

LW6/N.Balaiah intervened and rescued him from the hands of A1 to A6.

30.Lastly the evidence of PW10 investigating officer about receiving of Ex.P1, registration of First Information Report under Ex.P4, visiting of scene of offence examination of PW2 to PW5 and LW6/N.Balaiah and recorded their statements. His evidence further goes to shows that preparation of rough sketch of the scene of offence(Ex.P5), addition of A5 and A6 to the present crime under Ex.P6 memo, and also adding of section 326 of the Indian Penal Code under Ex.P7, and filing of charge sheet in this case. In his cross-examination the learned defence counsel have put many suggestions and proved the omission which was elicited from the prosecution witnesses.

31.On summing upon the entire evidence of PW1 goes to shows that he sustained injury over his head, both hands and fingers, and the medical evidence and also the evidence of PW8 under Ex.P3 also goes to shows that PW1 sustained with the above said injuries, the same fact corroborates the evidence of PW6 to PW8 with regard to sustaining of injuries on 09-04-2012, soon after the alleged incident. The learned defence counsel do not dispute the injuries said to have been found on PW1.

However, she disputed the cause of injuries to PW1 in such circumstances, it cannot be safely concluded that PW1 got sustained above injuries on the date of the alleged incident. Needless to say that the evidence of PW1 supported with medical evidence clinchingly establishes that PW1 sustained injuries overs his head, hands and fingers soon after the alleged incident.

32.Now it has been seen the prosecution established that those injuries found on PW1 were sustained in the hands of A1 to A6 with axe and sicks, to prove the same the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of

PW1 to PW5. It is first and foremost contention of the learned defence counsel that the PW1 to PW5 are relatives and interested witnesses, as such their evidence cannot be relied upon. Per contra, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor mere on the basis of relationship between the parties their evidence cannot be discarded, when such evidence is credit worthy.

There is no dispute on the said principle of law herein the case indisputably

PW1 to PW5 are relatives. On the mere relationship the evidence of those witnesses cannot be rejected on the threshold. It is bounden duty of the

Court to scrutinize the evidence of PW1 to PW5 with care and caution.

33.As pointed out by the learned defence counsel the evidence of

PW1 is inconsistent with Ex.P1 which was given at an earlier point of time with regard to presence of A6 at the time of alleged beating of all the accused. As per the contents of Ex.P1/statement A6 is not present, at the time of alleged incident. However, Pw1 stated before the Court by improving his earlier version as A6 was also present at the time of the alleged incident. In addition to this, Ex.P1 statement does not contain about the presence of PW2 to PW5 and LW6/N.Balaiah at the time of alleged incident. But PW1 in his evidence as come out with improved version and deposed that those remaining witnesses have intervened and rescued him from the hands of A1 to A6. If really, the said incident had happened there is not necessity to PW1 to omit those facts in his earlier statement. Moreover, in this case, the learned defence counsel have elicited many omissions from the evidence of PW1 to PW5, and those omissions are material in nature, effecting the core of the prosecution case proving about the absence of PW2 to PW5 at the time of the alleged incident. Further the learned defence counsel also elicited contradiction of Ex.D1 from the evidence of PW3. So, the evidence of PW2 to PW5 also inconsistent about their earlier versions.

Apart from this, the prosecution witnesses did not testify about the overt acts against each and every accused. There is no corroboration in between the evidence of PW1 to PW5. If really the said incident occurred these inconsistencies and contradictions will not creep into the prosecution case.

34.In addition to these inconsistencies and contradictions, the

Investigation Officer also did not seize any incriminating material such as axe or sticks in order to ascertain whether there is possibility to cause injuries said to be found on PW1 with such axe and sticks. All these lacunae shown there is defective investigation.

35.In view of the above discussion, as the evidence of PW1 is inconsistent in material aspects and also contradictory to the earlier version ie., Ex.P1/statement, basing on which the entire prosecution case rests upon, the court feels that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of

PW1 to PW5 to bring home the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offences levelled against them. In such facts and circumstances, the court finds no satisfactory and convincing material to hold that A1 to A6 have committed offences as alleged. Hence A1 to A6 is entitled to benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, these points are answered.

36.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian

Penal Code. Further A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, A1 to A6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months asper section 437A of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced.

Dictated to the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :For Defence : P.W.1 : M.Malyadri-NONE – P.W.2: Y.Chowdamma P.W.3: N.Chinnabbai P.W.4: A.Atchamma P.W.5: N.Venkateswarlu P.W.6: K.Bhaskar P.W.7: N.Sai Prasad PW8 : N.Suresh Kumar PW9 : Ch.Srinivasulu PW10:Y.Sri Hari

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Statement given by Pw.1 Ex.P2: X-ray Ex.P3: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: Intimation memo with regard to addition of A5 and A6 to the crime Ex.P7: Addition memo

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

Ex.D1 : Contradictory portion in sec.161(3) of the Cr.P.C statement of PW3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL –

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

A.J.F.C.M, KANDUKUR.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, KANDUKUR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: KANDUKUR.

CALANDER IN C.C.No.316 of 2012

1.Date of offence09-04-2012

2.Date of Report or complaint09-04-2012

3.Date of taken on file31-07-2012

Date of apprehension of

4.16-04-2012 accused

5.Date of release on bail16-04-2012

6.Date of commencement of trial 17-09-2018

7.Date of close of trial25-06-2019

8.Date of Sentence or Order28-06-2019

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Ponnalur police station 1.Rajala Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o Malakondaiah, 21 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal, 2.Mule Subba Reddy S/o China Chenchi Reddy, 23 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

3. Mule Ramanamma W/o China Chenchi Reddy, 31 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

10. Description of accused

4. Bhumireddi Nagalath W/o Ramana Reddy, 21 years, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal,

5. Mula Nageswara Reddy @ Nagi Reddy, R/o Mulevaripalem village, Ponnaluru mandal, S/o China Chenchi Reddy, 22 years,

6. Oruganti Lakshmamma W/o Narayana, 32 years, R/o Veligandla village, Now at Mulevaripalem village. U/Sec. 326, 324, and 323 r/w 34 of

11. Section of Law IPC

12. Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty.

13. Finding of Court Found not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324 and 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Further A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of the Indian Penal

Code. Further A3 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, A1 to A6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused as well as their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months asper section 437A of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on file on 31-07-2012. On 25-07-2013 copies furnished to the A1 to A6. On 10-08-2018 A1 to A6 were examined u/s. 239

Cr.P.C. and case posted for trial. On behalf of Prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined, Exs. P1 to P7 were marked. During the course of cross- examination of PW3 Ex.D1 was exhibited on behalf of the accused. On closure of prosecution side evidence, on 25-06-2019 A1 to A6 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and denied the incriminating material appeared against them and reported no defence evidence, and posted for arguments.

On 26-06-2019 arguments heard on both sides, and posted for judgment.

Judgment pronounced in open court on 28-06-2019. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. Copy to :The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District , Ongole.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM, KANDUKUR.

In the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at

Kandukur

PRESENT : J.SUJIN KUMAR,

Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur

Tuesday, this the 25thday of June, 2019

C.C.NO.532 of 2015

BETWEEN:

Mekala Usha Rani, W/o Hari Babu, Age: 37 years, Agriculturist , R/o Gurramvaripalem of Kandukur Town, Prakasam District.

…..Complainant

AND

Vpputuri Madhava Rao S/o Nagaiah, 40 years, R/o Proprietor, Jana Priya Home Needs, D.No.22-1-46/8, Kovuru road, Kandukur town.

…...... Accused

This Case came before me for final hearing on 24-06-2019 in the presence of Sri T.Tirumala Rao, Counsel for the complainant and Sri Ch.Hari Krishna , Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for brevity).

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

a) On 05-09-2014, accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) from the complainant for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same date agreeing to repay the debt along with 24 % interest per annum.

b) The Complainant demanded the accused in the month of

January, 2015 for the repayment of debt amount. In turn accused has 2 C.C.532 of 2015 agreed to repay the principal amount and he issued a cheque bearing

No.057246 amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- dated 08.01.2015 drawn on

Andhra Bank, Kandukur Branch.

c) The complainant has presented the said cheque with his banker “ ICICI Bank, Kandukur Branch” on 09-01-2015 for collection and the same was returned on 10-01-2015 along with a cheque return memo with an endorsement as “ Insufficient Funds”. Immediately the complainant rushed to the advocate office and narrated about the entire incident to her counsel.

d)Thereupon the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 12-01-2015 through her counsel calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice.

The accused has received the same on 13-01-2015 and he did not give any reply. Therefore the accused is liable for conviction under section 138 read with 142 of the Act. As such, the complainant filed the present complaint .

3.On receipt of the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.After appearance of the accused copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Later he was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by the then officer, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the complainant herself got examined as PW1 and her husband M.Hari Babu as PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

6.After closure of the complainant's evidence, accused was 3 C.C.532 of 2015 examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material found against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. During 313 examination accused has stated that he did not borrow an amount of Rs.16,00,000 from the Complainant at any point of time. He further stated that complainant have foisted a criminal case(registered as case as in Cr.No.145/2013 of Kandukur town police station) against him by using political influence, complainant and her husband have forcibly obtained his signatures on blank promissory and blank Cheque belonging to his account. By filling up the columns of his empty signed cheque and promissory note, the complainant filed this case against him. The accused have also filed a xerox copy of FIR in

Crime No.145 of 2013, which was registered against him basing up on the report lodged by the Complainant.

7.Heard the arguments of both counsels.

a) The Learned Counsel for Complainant submitted as follows;

That the accused has borrowed Rs.16,00,000/- from the complainant on 05-09-2014 for his family and business purpose and in evidence thereof he executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the debt amount with an interest at the rate of 24% Per annum. Subsequently to discharge the said principal amount he has issued Ex.P1 cheque which is bounced. He has further submitted that the accused is not disputing his signatures found on

Ex.P1 cheque and promissory note (certified copy is marked as Ex.P7).

He has further submitted that since the accused has admitted the signatures on cheque and promissory note, the presumption U/s.139 of

Negotiable Institute Act is in favour of the complainant. He prays to convict the accused.

b) The Learned Counsel for Accused submitted as follows; 4 C.C.532 of 2015

The complainant has admitted in her cross-examination that she got acquaintance with the accused through her husband and there are no talking terms between her and accused from the last 5 years. So it is evident that there is no close relationship between them at the time of alleged cheque transaction. The complainant has not proved the alleged loan amount by producing documentary evidence. The complainant failed to prove as to why she sold her agricultural land and gave the obtained sale consideration to accused as loan even without knowing the purpose of borrowing by accused. The complainant has not proved her income source as she is a house wife.

The complainant failed to prove her financial capacity and failed to prove that she has obtained such a huge amount of Rs.16,00,000/- by selling her agricultural land and advanced the same to the accused as loan. He further submitted that complainant have foisted a criminal case against the accused (Registered as FIR in Crime No.145 of 2013 of

Kandukur Town Police Station), by using political influence, complainant and her husband have forcibly obtained the signatures of accused on blank promissory and blank Cheque belonging to his account. By filling up the columns of empty signed cheque and promissory note, the complainant filed this false case against him. The defence counsel prayed to acquit the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is that whether the complainant could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act?

9.POINT :-The facts of the case are stated supra. To prove the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the following aspects are to be established:-

1. That there is existing legally enforceable debt as on the date of issuance of the disputed cheque.

5 C.C.532 of 2015

2. That the cheque was presented in the bank within six months from the date of which it was drawn or within the period of its validity. As per Section 35(A) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 the validity of cheque is reduced to three months from six months w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

3. Cheque was returned unpaid and the complainant herein gave notice in writing regarding the dishonour of cheque within 30 days from the date of receipt of the information by him.

4. That the accused failed to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.

10.Before proceeding further it is beneficial to refer the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Chapter 17 of Negotiable

Instrument Act make a civil transaction to be an offence by fiction of law and that certain rebutable presumptions that shall be drawn. The object and intention of these penal provisions are to prevent issuance of cheques in a playful manner or with dishonest intention or that no mind to honour or without sufficient funds in the account maintained by the drawer. The initial presumption lays in favour of the complainant. The rebutable presumption U/s.139 is a devise to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation.

11. The version of the complainant is that, on 05-09-2014, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) from her for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note (Certified Copy of Promissory note is marked as Ex.P7) in favour of her on the same date agreeing to repay the debt along with 24 % interest per annum. That she demanded the accused in the month of January, 2015 for discharge of the debt amount. In turn accused has agreed to repay the principal amount and issued a cheque bearing No.057246 amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- dated 08.01.2015 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kandukur Branch ( Ex.P1). That she has presented the said cheque with his banker “ ICICI Bank, Kandukur 6 C.C.532 of 2015

Branch” on 09-01-2015 for collection ( Vide Ex.P2- Counter foil) and the same was returned on 10-01-2015 along with a cheque return memo (Ex.P4) with an endorsement as “ Insufficient Funds”. She further testified that immediately she rushed to the advocate office and narrated about the entire incident to her counsel. Thereupon she got issued a legal notice to the accused on 12-01-2015 (Office Copy of

Legal Notice is marked as Ex.P3) calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice. The accused has received the same on 13-01-2015 ( Evidenced by Ex.P6/Postal acknowledgment) and he did not give any reply till the filing of present complainant .

12.In support of her contention she has got examined her husband

Mekala Harikrishna as P.W.2, his evidence goes in the same lines as deposed by P.W.1. In addition to this, he testified that in his presence accused borrowed an amount on 05-09-2014 from PW1 and accused issued Ex.P1/cheque on 09-05-2015 to P.W.1. That P.W.1 also filed a civil suit against accused in District Court, Ongole for recovery of pronote debt.

13.The accused in his 251 Cr.P.C. examination denied the borrowal of Rs.16,00,000/- from P.W.1. The defence of the accused is that the complainant have foisted a criminal case against the accused (Registered as FIR in Crime No,145 of 2013 of Kandukur Town Police

Station), by using political influence, complainant and her husband have forcibly obtained the signatures of accused on blank promissory and blank Cheque belonging to his account. By filling up the columns of empty signed cheque and promissory note, the complainant filed this false case against him.

14.Undisputedly the cheque i.e. Ex.P1 was issued by the accused 7 C.C.532 of 2015 but he has contended that the said cheque was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. At this juncture, it is not out of place to mention the following case laws;

2002 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 14

in between

K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan and another

Wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “in the

complaint U/s.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act the Court has

to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or

liability and the burden of proving that cheque had not been

issued for a debt or liability is on the accused”.

15.In the citation reported in

2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 214 (SC)

in between

T.Vasanthkumar Vs.Vijayakumari

The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “once the accused has

admitted the issuance of the cheque as well as the signature,

the presumption U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act would

operate and the burden was on the accused to disprove the

cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or

liability”.

16.In the citation reported in

2010 (2) ALD Crl. 734

in between

Rangappa vs. Mohan

The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “when an accused has

to rebut the presumption U/s.139 the standard of proof is that

of preponderance of probabilities and if the accused is able to

8 C.C.532 of 2015

raise a believable defence which creates doubts about the

existence of legally enforceable debt or liability the

prosecution can file. The accused can rely on the material

submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence

and the accused may not need to adduce evidence”.

17.Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the above citations, this Court is scrutinizing the evidence on record. In this case on hand,

PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that on 05-09-2014, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) from her for his family and business expenses and executed a promissory note (Certified Copy of Promissory note is marked as Ex.P7) in favour of her on the same date agreeing to repay the debt along with 24 % interest per annum. The accused is disputing the receipt of

Rs.16,00,000/- and further contends that the complainant has no capacity to pay the said amount. PW1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he gave Rs.16,00,000/- to accused by selling her agricultural land PW1 further stated that she lent an amount of

Rs.16,00,000/- to accused even without knowing for what purpose accused borrowed it.

18.Assuming for a moment, if PW1 did not have money what was the necessity to the complainant to sell her agricultural land and advance the obtained sale consideration to accused that too without knowing the purpose of borrowal by accused. Assuming for a moment if the complainant had sold her agricultural land, there should be some document executed by her in the favour of vendee of the said agricultural land. The complainant did not produce the said document to show that he received sale consideration for the transaction and 9 C.C.532 of 2015 advanced the same to the accused.

19.PW1 has deposed that she is a housewife. When a person was a house wife, obviously she would not be in a position to advance

Rs.16,00,000/- that too without knowing the purpose of borrowal by other person. The Court is entitled to take note of the conduct of the parties. When the complainant did not approach with clean hands his conduct is contrary to the conduct of a prudent man and failed to explain why he sold her agricultural land and advanced the obtained sale consideration to the accused that too without knowing the purpose of borrowal of accused is a relevant question which could be posed in this case.

20.It is contended by the defence counsel, during the course of P.Ws 1 and 2 cross examination that PW1 and PW2 have forcibly obtained the signatures of accused on blank promissory and blank Cheque belonging to his account and filed the present complaint by filling up the contents of it. Apropos this contention, this court feels it germane to peruse the Ex.P7/ certified copy of the promissory note. As seen from Ex.P7 there are two attestors namely K.Brahmaiah and Sri Rama

Kumara Swamy and one K.S.Rao has scribed the promissory note. It is pertinent to mention here that no doubt the promissory note is not a compulsory attestable document. Be that as it may, when the very execution of promissory note is disputed, it is to be established by the complainant that accused executed the promissory note in her favour atleast by examining the attestor or its scribe. But same is missing in the present case.

21.Ex.P1 is the cheque dated 08-01-2015 . The naked eye examination of Ex.P1 shows that the name of the payee, Rupees 10 C.C.532 of 2015 coloumn (Sixteen Lakhs Rupees Only) and digit “1” in the amount coloumn is noted by using a different pen (Moreover ink shade was spread on the background of them) and the remaining portion in amount column i.e. “6,00,000/-” is written by using different pen.

On this aspect, it is to be enunciated that no doubt the cheque need not be in the hand writing of the drawer, but the complainant has to explain who has filled the name of the payee and amount on Ex.P1.

Absolutely, there is no evidence to that effect.

23.In the citation reported in

2014 (3) SC

In between

John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C.Abraham and another

The Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the similar issue and held that “it has to be stated that in order to draw the presumption

U/s.118 r/w Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act the

burden was heavily upon the complainant to have shown that

he had required funds for having advanced the money to the

accused that the issuance of the cheque in support of the said

payment advanced was true and that the accused was bound

to make the payment as had been agreed while issuing the

cheque in favour of the complainant”.

In this case on hand, the complainant has failed to establish that she had Rs.16,00,000/- cash as on 05-09-2014. On the other hand, she did not file any record pertaining to sale of her agricultural land Hence, the above citation is applicable to the case on hand.

24.Hence, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused could able to rebut the presumption U/s.139 of Negotiable Instrument Act, burden will shift on to the complainant and complainant failed to establish that Ex.P1 was issued towards 11 C.C.532 of 2015 discharge of legally enforceable debt. This point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

25.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section-437A of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: PW1 : Mekala Usha rani -Nil- PW2: Mekala Hari Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Cheque bearing No.057264, dated 09-01-2015 for Rs Rs.16,00,000/-. Ex.P2 : Counterfoil . Ex.P3 : Office Copy of the lawyer notice issued to the accused dated 12-01-2015. Ex.P4 : Cheque return memo dated 10-01-2015. Ex.P5 : Postal receipt. Ex.P6 : Postal Acknowledgment DEFENCE :

- Nil -

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur // True copy //

AJMFC, Kandukur 12 C.C.532 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.532 /2015

1.Date of offence09-01-2015

2.Date of filing16-02-2015 Date of apprehension of

3.-- accused

4.Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of

5.28-09-2016 trial

6.Date of close of trial21-06-2019

7.Date of Sentence or Order25-06-2019 Mekala Usha Rani, W/o Hari Babu, Age: 37 years, Agriculturist ,

8.Name of the ComplainantR/o Gurramvaripalem of Kandukur Town, Prakasam District. Vpputuri Madhava Rao S/o Nagaiah, 40 years, R/o Proprietor, Jana Priya Home

9.Description of accused Needs, D.No.22-1-46/8, Kovuru road, Kandukur town.

10.Nature of Offence 138 r/w.142 of N.I.Act

11.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

12.Finding of CourtFound not guilty

14. Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section-437A of Criminal Procedure Code.

15. Fine amount :--

16. Explanation for delay and Remarks: This case was taken on file on 04-11-2015. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him on 05-01-2016. The accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C on 23-06-2016. On behalf of complainant, PW1 and PW2 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked. After closure of the complainant side evidence, on 21-06-2019 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. On 24-06-2019 arguments heard on behalf of complainant and accused and posted for judgment. Judgment pronounced in open court on 25-06-2019. Hence, the delay. Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole. // True copy //

AJMFC, Kandukur

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

KANDUKUR.

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Monday, this the 19th day of October, 2020.

CALENDAR CASE No.133 of 2017

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police. Ponnalur police Station…Complainant.

Vs.

1. Kadiyala Ramanaiah S/o Chinna Ramaiah, 46 years,

2. Kadiyala Thirupathaiah S/o Chinna Ramaiah, 39 years,

3. Kadiyala Narayana S/o Chinna Ramaiah, 42 years, All are R/o Orugantivaripalem village, Ponnalur mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State/Complainant and of Sri.T.Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration and having perused the material and available on record, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 341, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:

2. The brief averments of the charge is that there is land dispute between the accused and LW1/Ch.Satyawathi, that on 16-02-2017 at about 8-00AM at Z.Mekapadu village outskirts, Ponnalur mandal, when

LW1/Ch.Satyawathi along with LW2/Ch.Lakshmi Narasimham and

LW3/Manda Prem Kumar were sprinkling the pesticide to the bengal gram crop in the said land, then A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention have came there and abused her in filthy language, and also threatened them, wrongfully restrained them with dire consequences by stating that they will kill them, if they tried to cultivate the said land.

Basing on the report of LW1/Ch.Satyawathi, LW6/I.Venkata Rao, Asst. Sub-

Inspector of Police, Ponnalur police station, registered a case as in

Cr.No.09/2017 U/sec. 341, 509 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. On 26-02-2017 LW7/K.Suresh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur police 2 station, issued and served section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice on the accused, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 341, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code.

4.After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Perused the entire record, FIR, charge sheet, and evidence collected by the investigation officer. Upon which, it is evident that neither in the report, lodged by the defacto-complainant, nor in the charge sheet, filed by the investigating officer, nothing was there to indicate that all the accused in furtherance of common intention outraged the modesty of the defacto-complainant or intruded into her privacy. Mere averment in the report about insulting the defacto-complainant by the accused is different from outrage of the modesty. When there is nothing to make out prima facie case U/sec. 509 of Indian Penal Code, the accused cannot be examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Hence, A1 to A3 are examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC are read over the explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded guilty. On questioning, they voluntarily admitted the offences punishable under sections 341 and 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code free of coercion. Considering the submission made by accused the Court is satisfied that the admission of guilt made by accused is voluntarily and free of coercion.

6.In the result, A1 to A3 are found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, A1 and A3 are convicted for the said offences under section 252

Cr.P.C, A1 to A3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under section 341 r/w 34 of

IPC, in default of the said fine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Further A1 and A3 are 3 convicted for the said offences under section 252 Cr.P.C, A1 to A3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of the said fine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. In this case, no case property is produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

Total fine amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me through Bluejeans app, this the 19th day of October, 2020.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

KANDUKUR.

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Thursday, this the 15th day of October, 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.25 of 2017

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police. Ponnalur police Station…Complainant.

Vs.

1. Nadipineni Narasimha Rao @ Narasimha S/o Krishnaiah, 57 years,

2. Nadipineni Kiran S/o Narasimha Rao, 29 years, Both are R/o Chowtapalem village, Ponnalur mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming on today for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State/Complainant and of Sri M.Maheswara Rao, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration and having perused the material and available on record, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 188, 447 and 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, with the following allegations:

2. The brief averments of the charge is that there is civil dispute between the accused and LW1/B.Jyotshna, that on 15-04-2016 at about 9- 00AM at Chowtapalem village, Ponnalur mandal, A1 and A2 in furtherance of their common intention have trespassed into the fields of

LW1/B.Jyotshna and caused damage of eucalyptus trees with a tractor bearing No.AP27 DD 4344, and mischief to a tune of Rs.70,000/- to her.

Basing on the report of LW1/B.Jyotshna, LW6/P.Srinivasa Rao, Head

Constable, Ponnalur police station, registered a case as in Cr.No.18/2016

U/sec. 188, 447 and 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Later

LW10/V.Anjaneyulu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnalur police station, issued and served section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice on the accused, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

2

3.This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 188, 447 and 427 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code.

4.After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.In the light of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh rendered in VVR Anjaneyulu Vs. State of A.P., 1997(5) ALD 775 “Cognizance for the offence U/sec. 188 of IPC shall not be taken except on the complaint filed by public servant in view of express bar contained in Sec.195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.”. As the present case was registered basing on the report lodged by the defacto-complainant, taking of cognizance U/sec. 188 of IPC against the accused itself is bad in law.

Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C..

The substance of accusation for the offences sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded guilty, they are voluntarily admitted the said offences. On questioning, the accused have stated that they admitted the guilt voluntarily and free of coercion. Considering the submission made by the accused, the Court is satisfied that the admission of guilt made by the accused are voluntarily and free of coercion.

6.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, the A1 and A2 are convicted for the said offence under section 252 Cr.P.C, A1 and A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each (Rupees Three hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 447 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of the said fine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. Further A1 and

A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each (Rupees Five hundred only) for the offence punishable under section 427 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of the said fine amount, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. In this case, no case property is 3 produced, as such no specific order is passed for disposal of the case property.

Total fine amount of Rs.1,600/-(Rupees One thousand and six hundred only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me through Bluejeans app, this the 15th day of October, 2020.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESS EXAMINED.

- NIL -

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS,

KANDUKUR.