Sri J.Sujin Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –

CUM – ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

AT YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri J. Sujin Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge ,

Yellamanchili

FAC - Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

Thursday, this the 23 th day of December, 2021.

C.C.No.47/2018

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Rural Police Station, Visakhapatnam District. ….Complainant And:

Jerry Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Lingam, aged 58 yrs, lorry driver, r/o Ragampeta, Ranga Naidu Street, Kakinada. East Godavari District.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 15-11-2021 in the presence of learned APP for the state and Sri.R.Govinda Rao, counsel for accused and after hearing bothsides and on perusal of relavent material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following judgment:

J U D G M E N T

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

Yellamanchili Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the

Accused in Crime No.120/2017 of Yellamanchili Rural Police station alleging that Accused committed the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 15.09.2017 at 08.30 p.m, deceased Jerry Pothula Siva

Senkara Rao and his brother PW2 went to P.Dharmavaram village on

Honda Activa bike bearing registration No.AP 31 0018. After

purchasing kirana articles at the village, both the deceased and PW2 2 started returning to their village. When they reached near PW’s 3 tea stall at 10.30 p.m., they stopped the vehicle on mud road and started having talks with PW3 and PW4. Meanwhile, the accused being the driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP4 X 2915, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle. Due to which, the deceased sustained severe injury over his head and died on spot.

Whereas, PW2 and PW3 received severe injuries. PW4 escaped from the spot and informed about occurrence of incident to LW2/J.Sunitha and others. Later all the injured were shifted to government hospital,

Yellamanchili for treatment.

On 16.09.2017 at 6.00 hours PW1 presented a report before

PW11 stating about the occurrence. In turn PW11 registered it as a case in Cr.No.120/2017 under Sec.304-A, 338 & 279 of IPC and took up the investigation in this case. During the course of investigation PW11 visited the scene of offence, examined the same and got drafted scene observation report in the presence of PW6 and LW10 J.Vasu. Later he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW7 and LW12 G.Nageswararao. He also examined the witness and recorded their statements. After receiving postmortem certificate of deceased and wound certificates of PW2 and PW3 and after serving 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice on accused, LW18/P.Ramu the then S.I of police,

Yellamanchili rural PS filed charge sheet in this case.

3.On 02.02.2018 this court took cognizance of case against accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 279 IPC.

4.On 16-04-2018 on appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C.

3

5.On 12.03.2019 Accused was examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C in Telugu language by explaining substance of accusation levelled against him for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 338 & 279 IPC, for which accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution has examined

LW1, LW3, LW6 to LW9, LW11, LW14 to LW17 as PWs1 to PW11 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW2/Jerripothula

Suneetha, LW7/Kaligetla Satyanand, LW8/Nallala Prakasa Rao,

LW10/JerripothulaVasu,LW12/GonnabathulaNageswararao,

LW13/D.Sanjeevarao and LW18/D.Ramu. Hence the prosecution side evidence is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 04.03.2020 the accused was examined Under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating material which was available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in telugu language, for which accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

9.Now the point that arise for consideration are that:

(1) “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home

the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?’

(2) “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home

the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.338 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?’ 4

(3) “Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home

the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.279 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?’

10.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW11 out of 18 listed witnesses. PW1 is de facto complainant,

PW2 and PW3 are injured persons, PW4 is direct witness, PW5 is person who shifted the dead body of the deceased to government hospital, Yellamanchili. PW6 is mediator of scene observation report,

PW7 is inquest panchayatdar, PW8 and PW9 are the medical officers who gave treatment to PW2 and PW3 respectively and issued wound certificates, PW10 is medical officer who conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem certificate and PW11 is investigation officer in this case.

11.Ex.P1 is report lodged by PW1 dated 16.07.2017. Ex.P2 is the scene observation report, Ex.P3 is inquest report of deceased,

Ex.P4 is wound certificate of PW2, Ex.P5 is wound certificate of PW3,

Ex.P6 is postmortem report of deceased, Ex.P7 is First Information

Report, Ex.P8 is rough sketch of the scene of offence and Ex.P9 is motor vehicle inspection report.

12.The stand of accused is of total denial.

13.The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 coupled with the evidence of other witnesses including medical officials and investigation officers clearly establishes that the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased. She further submitted that accused also caused severe injuries to PW2 and PW3. Therefore, accused is liable for conviction under the levelled offences.

5

14.On the other hand, the learned counsel for defence did not dispute the factum of deceased’s death and injuries sustained by PW2 and PW3 in road accident. It is his prime contention is that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident and he was responsible for the death of deceased and injuries sustained by PW2 and PW3. He further contended that no satisfactory evidence was brought on record to establish the nexus between the accident and act of accused. In view of the above stated circumstances accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In view of rival contentions. The entire evidence is perused.

16.Point No.1 & 2:-

It is allegation of the prosecution that accused being a driver of crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing registration No.AP4 X 2915 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, caused death of deceased and injuries to PW2 and PW3. In order to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 338 IPC the prosecution is burdened to prove the following ingredients (I) That the deceased Jerri Pothula Siva Senkara Rao Died and

PW2 and PW3 sustained severe injuries in a road accident.

(ii) That the accused is driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

(iii) that there is proximity and nexus between death of deceased injuries sustained by PW2 and PW3 and act of accused.

17.In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 to PW11. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that she came to know about the incident through PW1 and she lodged Ex.P1 report before the police. In her cross 6 examination, she admitted that he is not having any personal knowledge about the incident. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 goes to show that on 16.09.2017, they both sustained injuries due to hitting of one lorry at hotel. Though they deposed about the occurrence in a detailed manner. They failed to testify before the court that accused is the driver of crime vehicle and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the incident.

18.The evidence of PW4 and 5 goes to show that they do not know the accused in this case. Both PW4 and PW5 testified that deceased and two other persons were shifted to government hospital,

Yellamanchili for treatment. Evidently, they did not depose any incriminating material against the accused. The evidence of PW6 and 7 reveals about the observation of crime scene by the police under the cover of Ex.P2 scene observation report and also about the conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased under the cover of Ex.P3 inquest report respectively.

19.The evidence of PW8 and 10 discloses about the treatment rendered to PW2 and PW3 and also about the conducting of postmortem over the dead body of deceased under Ex.P4 to P6 respectively. Lastly the evidence of investigation officer i.e., PW11 goes to show about the receiving of Ex.P1 report from PW1, registration of

Ex.P7 FIR, examination of witnesses, conducting of inquest over the dead body of deceased, preparation of rough sketch of scene of offence and complying to the statutory formalities regarding issuance of 41 (A)

Cr.P.C to accused, receiving of wound certificates of PW2 and PW3 and postmortem report of deceased and also about the filing of charge sheet.

7

20.The unchallenged contents of Exs.P3 to P6 coupled with the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW5 clearly establishes that deceased died in a road accident and PW2 and PW3 sustained severe injuries, they were shifted to government hospital, Yellamanchili for treatment. No question was posed by the defence counsel disputed about the above said aspects. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established about the occurrence of road incident on 15.07.2019. It has also proved about death of deceased and sustaining of injuries by PWs2 and 3 in that incident.

21.Whereas, coming to the identification of accused as driver of crime vehicle on the date of accident and also about the act of rashness or negligence. No cogent and reliable material was brought on record to show that accused drove the vehicle at the time, and he dashed against the deceased and other injured persons. The court is not satisfied about the alleged fact of involvement of accused in the incident. Moreover there is no sufficient material was available on record to show that there was nexus between death of deceased injuries sustained PW3 and PW4 and rash or negligent act of accused.

22.In view of above said discussion this court is the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 338 of IPC.

Accordingly, Points No.1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

POINT NO.3

23.It is also the allegation of the prosecution, that accused drove the lorry bearing registration No.AP 4 X 2915 in public place in a rash or negligent manner endangering human life or to be likely to 8 cause hurt or injured to any other person. So the accused is liable for conviction under Section 279 of IPC. In view of the discussion and finding made in above stated paragraphs, it is aparant that the prosecution is unsuccessful to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident, then the question of convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC for rash driving on public way does not arise at all. Needless to state that the prosecution also miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC. Accordingly, the point

No.3 is answered against the prosecution.

24.In the result, accused found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-A, 338 & 279 IPC. Therefore accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Sec. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Dictated to Personal Assistant of this court, transcribed by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23 rd day of December, 2021.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili, FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 Srivenkata Bangaru Babu PW2Jerripothula Venkatarao PW3Choppa Govindhu PW4Isarapu Sreenu PW5Jerripothula Vasu PW6Vutakunti Satyanarayana PW7Genji Srinivas Rao 9

PW8Dr.K.Raja Sagar PW9Dr.B.Surya Kumari PW10Dr.D.Appala Naidu PW11V.Chakaradhararao

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex. P1: Report lodged by PW1 dated 16.07.2017 Ex. P2: Scene observation report Ex. P3: Inquest report of deceased Ex. P4: Wound certificate of PW2 Ex. P5: Wound certificate of PW3 Ex. P6: Postmortem report of deceased Ex. P7: First Information Report Ex. P8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex. P9: Motor vehicle inspection report

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

--NIL--

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili, FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

// True Copy //

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

YELLAMANCHILI

FAC: ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JKUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

10

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, YELLAMANCHILI.

CALANDER IN C.C.No. 47/2018.

1.Date of offence15-09-2017

2.Date of Report or complaint16-09-2017

3.Date of taken on file02-02-2018

4.Date of apprehension of accused41 A Cr.P.C Notices issued to accused

5.Date of release on bail

6.Date of commencement of trial08-04-2019

7.Date of close of trial04-03-2020

8.Date of Sentence or Order23-12-2021 State represented by the Sub-Inspector of

9.Complainant Police, Yellamanchili Rural Police Station Jerry Satyanarayana, S/o Rama Lingam, aged 58 yrs, lorry driver, r/o Ragampeta, 10Description of accused Ranga Naidu Street, Kakinada. East Godavari District. 11Section of Law u/Sec. 304 (A), 338, 279 IPC. 12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty. 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338 & 279 IPC. Therefore accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated Under Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case no property is produced, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on file on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Yellamanchili and numbered as C.C.47/2018. On 16.04.2018, copies furnished to the accused. On 12.03.2019 accused were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 are examined, Exs. P1 to P9 got marked. After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 04-03-2020 accused was examined under Section 313 of 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. Arguments heard on 15.11.2021. Judgment

pronounced in open court on 23.12.2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili .

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili

FAC Addl Junior CivilJudge, Yellamanchili.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT YELLAMANCHILLI

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 66/2017.

1.Date of ofeene12-11-2016

2.Date of Report or nomplaiet21-12-2016

3.Date of takee oe fle21-01-2017

4.Date of appreheesioe of annused----

5.Date of release oe bail----

6.Date of nommeenemeet of trial12-03-2019

7.Date of nlose of trial21-10-2019

8.Date of Seeteene or Order21-01-2022 Sri Thumpala Naeaji, S/o Latnha Babu, Hiedu, aged about 35 years, R/o Sytharupeta

9.Complaieaet Village, S.Rayavaram maedal, Visakhapateam Distrint. Dadi Kumar Swamy, S/o Demullu, Hiedu, aged about 43 years, nable Operator, R/o 10Desnriptioe of annused D.No. 11-5-1/1, Bhaskarraopeta, eear Ramakrishea Theater, Aeakapalli Mueinipality, Visakhapateam Distrint. u/Sen. 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Iestrumeet 11Sentioe of Law Ant 12Plea of Annused Pleaded eot guilty. 13Fiedieg of Court Foued eot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

Ie the result, the nomplaiet is dismissed aed annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 138 of Negotiable Iestrumeet Ant. Therefore he anquitted ueder sentioe 255 (1) of Crimieal Pronedure Code for the said ofeene aed he is set at liberty. The bail boeds of the annused aed his sureties shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per Sentioe 437(A) of Crimieal Pronedure

Code. Ie this Case, eo property is produned.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This nase was takee oe fle of Addl. Jueior Civil Judge’s Court, Yellamaenhili aed eumbered as C.C.66/2017. nopies fureished to the annused. Oe 24-01-2019, Annused was examieed ueder Sen 251 of Cr.PC by explaieieg the substaene of annusatioe levelled agaiest the annused Ueder Sentioe 138 r/w 142 of Ant ie Telugu laeguage, for whinh annused deeied the same, pleaded eot guilty aed nlaimed to be tried. Oe behalf of the nomplaieaet, P.Ws. 1 to 4 are examieed, Exs. P1 to P4 aed after nlosure of nomplaieaeat side evideene, oe 21-10-2019 annused was examieed ueder Sentioe 313 of Cr.P.C by examieieg the ienrimieatieg portioe of nomplaieaet’s evideene ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied aed reported eo defeene evideene. Argumeets heard oe 21.01.2022. Judgmeet proeouened ie opee nourt oe 21.01.2022. Heene, the delay.

Sd/ J.Sujin Kumar

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili . Copy submitted to : The Hoe’ble Chief Judinial Magistrate, Visakhapateam.

2 //True Copy//

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili .

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Preseet: Sri J. Sujie Kumar Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge , Yellamaenhili FAC - Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge –num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

Friday, this the 21st day of Jaeuary, 2022.

C.C.No.66/2017

Betweee:

Sri Thumpala Naeaji, S/o Latnha Babu, Hiedu, aged about 35 years, R/o Sytharupeta Village, S.Rayavaram maedal, Visakhapateam Distrint.

….nomplaieaet Aed:

Dadi Kumar Swamy, S/o Demullu, Hiedu, aged about 43 years, nable Operator, R/o D.No. 11-5-1/1, Bhaskarraopeta, eear Ramakrishea Theater, Aeakapalli Mueinipality, Visakhapateam Distrint. …..Annused

This nase is nomieg oe this day before me for feal hearieg ie the preseene of Sri Kooeisetti Srieivas, nouesel for nomplaieaet aed of Sri.S.V.A Prasad, nouesel for annused , up oe hearieg aed noesiderieg the material available oe renord, this nase havieg stood over for noesideratioe till this day, this nourt has delivered the followieg:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Complaieaet fled this nomplaiet agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioe 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Iestrumeet

Ant ,1881 (hereie after referred to as “ the Ant’ for the sake of brevity)

2. The allegatioes of the nomplaieaet as eeshrieed ie the nomplaiet are earrated ie a eut shell maeeer as follows:

a) The annused is rueeieg nable busieess at Old State Baek noloey, Yellamaenhili Mueinipality aed he is also doieg noetrants work at 3

Visakhapateam. Oe 29-05-2016, the annused took haed loae of ae amouet of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees oee lakh aed ffty thousaed oely) from the nomplaieaet for his busieess expeeses . At the time of said haed loae traesantioe, 1) Suedrapu srieivasa Rao, S/o Nagaraju, R/o

Yellamaenhuili, 2) Lakkaraju Ramae, S/o Ramaea Naidu, Saithurupeta

Village were also preseet. At that time, annused promised to repay the above said haed loae withie 15 to 30 days.

b) Thereafter ,the nomplaieaet demaeded the annused to repay the haed loae amouet, oe 24-10-2016 , the annused issued a nheque bearieg No. 000112 to the nomplaieaet for ae amouet of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees oee lakh aed ffty thousaed oely) drawe oe Karur Vysya baek,

Yellamaenhili Braenh.

n) The nomplaieaet beieg a annouet holder of State baek of

Iedia, Yellamaenhili Braenh, preseeted the said nheque through his baeker for realizatioe, but the same was dishoeoured with ae eedorsemeet “Iesufnieet Fueds” whinh was ietimated to the nomplaieaet oe 12-11-2016 . The nomplaieaet nollented nheque aed retureed memo from State Baek of Iedia, Yellamaenhili braenh.

d) The nomplaieaet got issued a legal eotine through his nouesel oe 01-12-2016 nallieg up oe the annused to make paymeet of the haed loae amouet due to him. The annused did eot reneive the said legal eotine . After waitieg for a period of 15 days from the date of reture of legal eotine . The nomplaieaet fled the preseet nomplaiet statieg that the annused nommitted pueishable ueder Sentioe 138 r/w 142 of the Ant aed he is liable for the pueishmeet.

4

3.Oe reneipt of the nomplaiet , this Court took nogeizaene of the nomplaiet Ueder sentioe 138 r/w 142 of the ant agaiest the annused aed issued proness to the annused.

4.After appearaene of annused ie respoese to the summoes, the nopies were fureished to annused.

5. Whee the Annused was examieed ueder Sen 251 of Cr.PC by explaieieg the substaene of annusatioe levelled agaiest him for ofeene

Sentioe 138 r/w 142 of the Ant ie Telugu laeguage, he deeied the same, pleaded eot guilty aed nlaimed to be tried.

6.To substaetiate his nase, the nomplaieaet got himself examieed as PW1, Oee Suedrapu Veekateswara Rao as PW2 , Ch

Chaedra Rao, Braenh Maeager, State Baek of Iedia as PW3 aed

G.Viswaeadha Reddy, Braenh Maeager of Karur Vysya Baek as PW4.

Exs.P1 to P4 are marked oe his behalf. Annordiegly nomplaieaet side evideene was nlosed.

7. Oe nlosure of nomplaieaet side evideene, the annused was examieed ueder Sen 313 of Crimieal pronedure node with regard to the ienrimieatieg material agaiest him oe renord for whinh he deeied the same aed reported eo defeene evideene.

8. Heard the argumeets of the leareed nouesel for nomplaieaet aed leareed nouesel for the annused.

9.Now the poiet that arises for determieatioe is :

Whether the complainant is able to establish the guilt of

the accused for the ofence Secs.138 r/w 142 of the act

beyond all reasonable doubt?’ 5

10.a) At the outset, it is pertieeet to eote that it is a settled propositioe of law that ie prosenutioe of ofeene ueder Sentioe 138 of the

Ant, the ieitial burdee lies oe the nomplaieaet to prove the Ex.P1 nheque ie questioe was issued ie disnharge of a legally eeforneable debt or aey other liability. Oene he disnharges from his ieitial burdee, the oeus of proof shifts oe the annused to rebut the presumptioe ueder sentioe 139 of the Ant whinh exists ie favour of the nomplaieaet.

b) Keepieg ie view of the aforesaid propositioe, it has to be evaluated whether the nomplaieaet nould disnharge his ieitial burdee to prove that Ex.P1 nheque ie questioe was issued towards legally eeforneable debt or aey liability due to the nomplaieaet aed ie nase the nomplaieaet nould disnharge the said burdee, thee planes evideetial burdee oe the annused to rebut the presumptioe ueder sentioe 139 of the Ant that the nheque ie questioe was eot issued to disnharge the debt due to the nomplaieaet.

n) What is required for the nomplaieaet to disnharge his ieitial burdee is that he has to satisfy the basin nompoeeets noetemplated ueder Sentioe 138 of the Ant. At this juenture, it is imperative to disnuss the esseetial iegredieets to noestitute ofeene ueder Sentioe 138 of the Ant. While the maie sentioe defees the ofeene of dishoeour of nheque, the provisos appeeded thereto presnribe the eenessary legal formalities to be fulflled

before lauenhieg sunnessful prosenutioe for ae ofeene ueder Sen.138 of

the Ant The ofeene ueder Sen.138 of the Ant nae be nompleted oely with the noenateeatioe of the followieg ants:

(i) Drawieg of the nheque by the drawer oe ae annouet maietaieed by him with a baek; 6

(ii) Issuaene of the nheque for disnharge of aey debt or other liability;

(iii) Preseetatioe of the nheque to the baek withie a period of six moeth or withie the period of its validity;

(iv) Retureieg of the nheque uepaid by the drawee baek for the reasoe of iesufnieet fueds or the amouet exneedieg the arraegemeet made with the baeker;

(v) Givieg eotine ie writieg to the drawer of the nheque demaedieg paymeet of the nheque amouet withie a period of the moeth from the date of reneipt of ieformatioe of dishoeour;

(vi) Aed failure of the drawer to make paymeet withie days of the reneipt of the eotine.

11.Thus, for the very purpose of noestitutieg a valid nomplaiet ueder the Ant aed for drawieg presumptioe ueder sentioe 138 of N.I Ant the iegredieets maedated ueder Sentioe 138 of the Ant shall be prima fanie established by the nomplaieaet by way of his evideene .

12.Ie order to prove his nase the nomplaieaet testifes oe oath by way of nhief depositioe afdavit as Pw1 that oe 29-05-2016 the annused borrowed ae amouet of Rs.1,50,000/- (Oee lakh ffty thousaed oely) from him as haed loae, agreeieg to repay the same withie 15 to 30 days. That the said traesantioe was witeessed by 1) Suedrapu Srieivasa

Rao, S/o Nagaraju, R/o Yellamaenhuili, 2) Lakkaraju Ramae, S/o Ramaea

Naidu, Saithurupeta Village. That oe several demaeds made by him to repay the haed loae amouet, oe 24-10-2016 annused issued Ex.P1 nheque bearieg No. 000112 drawe oe Karur Vysya baek, Yellamaenhili

Braenh aed that whee he preseeted the nheque for nollentioe through his baeker state baek of Iedia, Yellamaenhili Braenh, the same was retureed with ae eedorsemeet “Iesufnieet fueds”. Further he testifed that the same was ietimated to him oe 12-11-2016. vide Cheque retureed memo ie., Ex.P2 . He also stated that he got issued a legal eotine oe 01-12- 7 2016 marked as Ex.P3 to the annused demaedieg to pay the amouet ueder Ex.A1 aed therefore annused is liable for pueishmeet ueder the provisioes of Ant.

13.The evideene of PWs 2 to 4 norroborates the versioe of PW1 regardieg all the material aspents pertaieieg to the takieg of haed loae by annused, preseetatioe of Ex.P1 nheque aed reture of the same with ae eedorsemeet “fueds iesufnieet” . But mere reture of nheque by the baeker would eot amouet to ofeene ueder the Ant. Needless to state that all the pronedural formalities have to be nomplied before iestitutieg a nomplaiet ueder the provisioes of the Ant.

14.it is the noeteetioe of the defeese nouesel that the preseet nomplaiet is a premature oee aed it is eot maietaieable at all. Ie order to establish his defeene, he nross examieed PW1 at leegth aed drawe the atteetioe of this Court to Ex.P3/ legal eotine dated 1-12-2016 aed

Ex.P4 /retureed nover dated 10-12-2016.

15.Ie this noetext , the noetest of the annused is that Ex.P4/ retureed nover dated 10-12-2016. was retureed as uenlaimed oe 10-11- 2016. That the nomplaiet has to wait for a period of 15 days from the reneipt of the Ex.P4 retureed nover oe 10-12-2016. Ie other words the nomplaieaet has to fle the nomplaiet oe 26-12-2016 or after wards.

however the nomplaieaet fled the preseet nomplaiet oe 21-12-2016 vide DDR No. 12868/2016 dated 21-12-2016 aed the stipulated period of 15 days as noetemplated ueder sentioe 138 proviso (n) is eot at all nompleted before approanhieg this Court. The same fant was also elinited by defeene nouesel durieg the nross examieatioe of PW1 .

8

16. Apropos, the defeene took by the nouesel, it is germaee to meetioe here that it is eot ie noetroversy that the Ex.P4 postal reture nover was retureed oe 10-12-2016 with ae eedorsemeet uenlaimed aed the said day is to be exnluded for nomputieg the limitatioe, the nause of antioe for flieg the nomplaiet would arise oely after oe 25-12-2016 or subsequeet date aed eot earlier. But however the nomplaiet was fied oe 21-12-2016. At this juenture it is pertieeet to go through the denisioe of

Hoe’ble High Court of Aedhra Pradesh ie S Damodar Reddy Vs S

Narashimulu and another,2004 (3) Law summary 243, where ie the Hoe’ble High Court held that “ the period of 15 days as spenifed ie

Sen 138 of the Ant is maedatory, aey nomplaiet whinh was fled before the expiry of time presnribed ueder proviso (n) to sentioe 138 of the Ant is premature aed eo nogeizaene nould be takee by the magistrate oe it.”

The earlier denisioe of Hoe’ble High Court of Aedhra Pradesh ie

Venkata Siva Rama Prasad Vs. Rajeswari Constructions 1996

Crl.LJ 3409 was also reiterated ie the above stated Judgmeet.

17.Ie view of the above nited denisioe of Hoeorable High Court of Aedhra Pradesh aed takieg ie to noesideratioe about the fants of the preseet nase, this Court is of the view that the preseet nomplaiet is eot at all maietaieable as it was fled at a premature stage ie noetraveetioe to proviso (n) of sen 138 of the Ant. Thus the nomplaieaet failed to establish the esseetial iegredieets to noestitute ae ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 138 r/w 142 of the Ant. Coesequeetly the annused is eetitled for ae order of anquittal . Annordiegly poiet is aeswered ie favour of the nomplaieaet aed agaiest the annused.

18.Ie the result, the nomplaiet is dismissed aed annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 138 of 9

Negotiable Iestrumeet Ant. Therefore, he anquitted ueder sentioe 255 (1) of Crimieal Pronedure Code for the said ofeene aed he is set at liberty. The bail boeds of the annused aed sureties shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per Sentioe 437(A) of Crimieal Pronedure

Code. Ie this Case, eo property is produned.

Dintated to the persoeal assistaet of this Court, traesnribed by him, norrented aed proeouened ie opee Court oe this the 21st day of Jaeuary 2022.

Sd/ J.Sujie Kumar Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Complainant : For Accused :

P.W.1: Thumpala Naeaji -NONE P.W.2: Suedrapu Srieivasa Rao P.W.3: Ch Chaedra Rao P.W.4: G Viswaeadham Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR Complainant : -

Ex.P1 is the Origieal Cheque issued by the annused dated 24-10-2016. Ex.P2 is the Cheque retureed memo issued by State baek of Iedia, Yellamaeaenhili Braenh dated 12-11-2016. Ex.P3 is the ofne nopy of legal eotine dated 01-12-2016 Ex.P4 is the retureed postal nover dated 10-12-2016.

FOR Accused: -

- NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

FOR Complainant: -

Nil

FOR Accused: -

- NIL – Sd/ J.Sujie Kumar Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

//True Copy// 10

Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 820/2016.

1.Date of ofeece02-09-2016

2.Date of Report or complaiet03-09-2016

3.Date of takee oe fle07-10-2016

4.Date of appreheesioe of accused----

5.Date of release oe bail41 (A) Cr.PC eotice served to accused

6.Date of commeecemeet of trial05-09-2019

7.Date of close of trial13-12-2021

8.Date of Seeteece or Order04-01-2022 State represeeted by the Sub-Iespector of

9.Complaieaet Police, Yellamaechili Rural Police Statioe Sri Kolli Srieivasa rao, S/o late Suryaearayaea, aged 42 years, Caste by K 10Descriptioe of accused Velama, Cultivatioe, R/o Aeaedmarg Coloey, Regupalem Village, Yellamaechili Maedal, Visakhapateam District. 11Sectioe of Law u/Sec. 323,506,509 of IPC. 12Plea of Accused Pleaded eot guilty. 13Fiedieg of Court Foued eot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

Ie the result, Accused is foued eot guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 323,506,509 of Iediae Peeal Code aed he is acquitted ueder sectioe 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. aed thereby accused is set at liberty. The bail boeds of the accused aed his sureties shall remaie ie force for a period of six moeths as per sec 437-A Cr.PC. Ie this case, eo property was produced. Heece eo property order is passed with its disposal.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was takee oe fle of Addl. Jueior Civil Judge’s Court, Yellamaechili aed eumbered as C.C.820/2016. Oe 01-08-2019, copies fureished to the accused. Oe Oe 01-08-2019, Accused was examieed ueder Sec 251 of Cr.PC by explaieieg the suspeese of accusatioe levelled agaiest the accused for the ofeeces pueishable U/Secs.323, 509, 506 of IPC ie Telugu laeguage, for which accused deeied, pleaded eot guilty aed claimed to be tried. Oe behalf of the prosecutioe, P.Ws. 1 to 7 are examieed, Exs. P1 to P5 aed. After closure of prosecutioe side evideece, oe 13-12-2021 accused was examieed ueder Sectioe 313 of Cr.P.C by examieieg the iecrimieatieg portioe of prosecutioe evideece ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for which he deeied aed reported eo defeece evideece. Argumeets heard oe 14.12.2021. Judgmeet proeoueced ie opee court oe 04.01.2022. Heece, the delay. Sd/ J.Sujin Kumar

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili .

Copy submitted to : The Hoe’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapateam.

//True Copy//

Priecipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaechili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- cum- Additioeal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaechili.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Preseet: Sri J. Sujie Kumar Priecipal Jueior Civil Judge , Yellamaechili FAC - Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge –cum- Additioeal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaechili.

Tuesday, this the 4th day of Jaeuary, 2022.

C.C.No.820/2016

Betweee:

The State represeeted by the Sub Iespector of Police, Yellamaechili Rural Police Statioe, Yellamaechili ….complaieaet Aed:

Sri Kolli Srieivasa rao, S/o late Suryaearayaea, aged 42 years, Caste by K Velama, Cultivatioe, R/o Aeaedmarg Coloey, Regupalem Village, Yellamaechili Maedal, Visakhapateam District.

…..Accused

This case is comieg before me for feal hearieg oe 21-12-2021 ie the preseece of leareed APP for the prosecutioe aed Sri.R Govieda Rao, advocate for accused aed havieg stood over till this day for coesideratioe this court delivered the followieg:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represeeted by Sub iespector of police, Yellamaechlili

Rural Police Statioe fled charge sheet agaiest the accused ie

Cr.No.84/2016 of yellamaechili Rural Police statioe U/sec 323,506 aed 509 of Iediae Peeal Code.

2. The brief avermeets of charge sheet are as follows:

PW1 is the resideet of Aeakappli aed she has beee ekieg out her livelihood by the rueeieg tea shop eear Aeakapalli Railway statioe. At about 9 years back, accused’s mother used to work ie Aeakapalli

Railway statioe, at that time Pw1 leet ae amouet of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees sevee lakshs oely) to mother of accused. Later the mother of 3 accused failed to repay the borrowed amouet . Afterwards, PW1 came to keow about the traesfer of the laeded property by accused’s mother to accused’s mother-ie-law, thereupoe PW1 asked accused’s mother-ie-law to clear of the existieg debt. Accused’s mother-ie-law agreed to repay the borrowed amouet to PW1 aed executed a promissory eote for

Rs.2,55,000/- ie her favour. As the mother-ie-law of accused failed to repay the said amouet, PW1 approached the Court seekieg recovery of moeey due ueder the promissory eote. Ieture the Hoe’ble Court issued

Decree ie favour of PW1 aed ordered for the sale of laed property, staedieg ie the eame of accused’s mother-ie-law. As per iestructioes givee by the Court, PW4, the Court Amie, weet to Regupalem Village aloeg with Pws 1 aed 2 aed proclaimed the Court order to talayari oe 2- 9-2016 at 12.00 hrs. At that time accused abused PW1 ie a flthy laeguage, threateeed her ie dire coesequeeces. Accused also beat PWs1 aed 2 with haeds.

Oe 03-9-2016 PW1 came to the police statioe aed lodged a report

before PW.7. seekieg eecessary actioe. Basieg oe the report lodged by

Pw1, PW7 registered a case ie crime eo. 84/2016 aed took up ievestigatioe ie this Case. Durieg the course of ievestigatioe, PW7 visited the sceee of ofeece, examieed PWs 1 to 6 aed recorded their statemeets. Thereafter PW7 served 41 A Cr.pC eotice ueder accused.

After completioe of ievestigatioe he fled charge sheet ie this case.

3.Oe 07-10-2016 this Court cogeizaece agaiest the accused 1 to 4 for the ofeeces pueishable U/Secs.323, 506, 509 of IPC.

4.After appearaece of accused copies of documeets were fureished to them as coetemplated ueder sectioe 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Oe 01-08-2019, Accused was examieed ueder Sec 251 of Cr.PC by explaieieg the substaece of accusatioe levelled agaiest the accused for 4 the ofeeces pueishable U/Secs.323, 509, 506 of IPC ie Telugu laeguage, for which accused deeied, pleaded eot guilty aed claimed to be tried.

Heece the case was posted for trial.

6.Durieg the course of trial, Prosecutioe has examieed LW1,

LW2,LW4,LW3,LW5 to LW7 as PWs 1 to 7 respectively aed got marked exhibits P1 to P5. Accordiegly prosecutioe side evideece was closed.

7. After completioe of prosecutioe side evideece, the accused was examieed ueder Sec 313 of Cr.PC by explaieieg the iecrimieatieg portioe of prosecutioe evideece ie Telugu laeguage for which he deeied aed reported eo defeece evideece.

8. Heard the argumeets of the leareed APP aed Leareed couesel for the accused. Perused the eetire material oe record.

9.Now the poiet with arises for determieatioe of :

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the quilt of

Accused for the ofence Secs. 323, 506 and 509 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?’

10. Ie order to prove the case the prosecutioe has examieed Pws 1 to 7 out 7 listed witeesses . PW1 is the defacto complaieaet cum iejured .

Pws 2 to 6 are direct witeesses to the alleged iecideet . PW7 is the ievestigatioe ofcer ie this case. Ex.P1 is the report givee by PW1 to the police, Ex.P2 aed Ex.P3 are the statemeets of Pws 3 aed 5 recorded ueder sec 161(3) Cr.PC. Ex.P4 is First Ieformatioe Report, Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of sceee of ofeece.

11.The staed of accused is total deeial .

12.The leareed Assistaet Public Prosecutor submitted that the evideece of Pw 1 supported by evideece of PW2, PW4 aed PW6 cliechiegly establishes that accused beat PW1 with haeds , threateeed 5 her with dire coesequeeces, therefore accused is liable to be coevicted for levelled ofeeces.

13.Oe the other haed, the leareed defeece couesel argued that the evideece of all prosecutioe witeesses is quite coetradictory with each other aed eo where the prosecutioe witeesses stated that the accused caused iejuries to PW1. He further submitted that PW1 beieg the defacto complaieaet, who set the Crimieal Law ieto motioe by lodgieg Ex.P1 report , did eot depose about the alleged fact of iejury caused by accused agaiest her. Ie the abseece of coeviecieg aed satisfactory evideece the accused is eetitled for beeeft of doubt. .

14.Ie view of rival coeteetioes the eetire evideece is perused.

15. Point:

It is allegatioe of prosecutioe that oe 02-09-2016, the accused beat PW1 with haeds, abused her flthy laeguage aed threatee her with dire coesequeeces. Ie order to substaetiate its case, prosecutioe has examieed PWs 1 to 7 . The evideece of PW1 goes to show that the mother of accused borrowed ae amouet of Rs. 2,55,000/- from her aed subsequeetly she failed to repay the same . She further deposed that upoe placieg the matter before the elders, the accused aed his mother assigeed their laed ie favour of Koriea Varalakshmi. Thereafter the mother of accused fled civil cases agaiest the Gorikiea Varalakshmi through her daughters aed the said suit was dismissed by the Court.

Later process server of the Court came to the property aed made tom tom, durieg that time accused came there ie a druekee stage , abused her aed tried to beat her. So, she lodged a report Ex.P1 report.

6

16.The evideece of PW2 goes to show that PW1 gave ae amouet Rs. 2 lakhs to accused as haed loae, the accused aed his mother sold laed iefavour of accused’s mother-ie-law . Thereupoe the mother of accused executed promissory eote ie favour of PW1. Subsequeetly Civil cases were fled by PW1 agaiest the accused aed she obtaieed a decree ie her favour. PW2 further deposed that PW 5/feld assistaet of Court came to

Regupalem Village aed made tom tom ie the village. Thee accused pushed PW4 oe to the bushes. So, PW4 received scratches ie his haed .

17.Oe perusal of the evideece of Pws 1 aed 2, is appareet coetradictioe betweee their testimoeies regard the persoe upoe whom the iejuries were caused by the accused. To be more clear PW1 deposed that accused tried to beat her, whereas PW2 stated that accused beat

PW4 aed pushed him ie to the bushes. Their evideece was iecoesisteet aed total coetradictory with each other ie maey other material aspects such as borrowieg of moeey by accused’s mother aed obtaieieg of decree from Civil Court.

18.Where as comieg to the evideece of direct witeesses PWs 3 to 6, the evideece of PWs 3 aed 5 goes to show that they do eot keow aey thieg about the facts of the case aed they were eever examieed by the police. As Pws 3 aed 5 did eot support the prosecutioe versioe. The leareed APP declared them as hostile aed cross examieed them with the permissioe of the Court. Pws 3 aed 5 deeied to have stated before the police as ie Ex.s P2 aed P3, their statemeets recorded ueder sec 161(3) of Cr.PC. Ie spite of cross examieatioe eothieg was elicited from PW3 aed 4 supportieg the prosecutioe case.

19.The testimoey of PW4 goes to show that oe 2-9-2019 he weet to

Regupallem Village for attachieg the property of Kuedrapu varalakshmi.

7

That after completioe of attachmeet accused came there aed pickup a quarrel with PW1 aed caused scratch iejuries upoe Pw2’s eeck. He further deposed that PW1 did eot receive aey iejury from the haeds of accused .

20.Durieg the cross examieatioe of PW4, the leareed couesel for defeece got marked Ex.D1 which shows that PW4 is a hear say witeess.

The Ex.D1 marked portioe was admitted by PW7 /Ievestigatioe ofcer, as such the coetradictioe beieg proved, the evideece of PW5 eeed eot be attached with substaetive value. Needless to state that the evideece of

PW4 comes ueder the category of hear say evideece aed it is eot admissible as per the provisioes of Iediae Evideece Act 1872 .

21.Other witeess eamely PW6 deposed that at about three years back, PWs1 aed 2 took him to Regupalem village. There a galata took place ie betweee accused aed PW4 aed he separated them.

22.Lastly the evideece of PW7/the ievestigatioe ofcer goes show about the receivieg of Ex.P1 report from PW1 , registratioe of Ex.P4 frst ieformatioe report basieg oe Ex.P1, preparatioe of rough sketch of sceee of ofeece Ex.P5, examieatioe of witeesses. Durieg the cross examieatioe he admitted that PW4 stated before him as ie Ex.D1/ Red

Marked relevaet portioe ie PW4’s 161(3) Cr.PC Statemeet. He further admitted that PW4 was eot obstructed by accused aed he did eot receive aey iejuries from the haeds of accused.

23.Oe culmieatioe of eetire evideece it is crystal clear that eoe of the prosecutioe witeesses categorically stated about the alleged acts committed by accused. PW1 beieg material aed iejured witeess did eot state about the iejuries sustaieed by her ie the haeds of accused.

Surprisiegly she stated that accused tried to beat her. The evideece of 8

PW2 aed PW4 goes ie coetra with each other. PW2 stated that, PW4 the fled assistaet received scratched iejuries ie the haeds of accused.

However PW4 did eot corroborate the versioe veetilated by Pw2. Oe perusal of above stated aspects aed ie view of coetradictory testimoeies of all the prosecutioe witeess a doubt creeps ie the mied of this Court about the actual happeeieg of the iecideet as projected by the prosecutioe. Ie additioe to this, PW7 beieg ae ievestigatioe ofcer failed examiee the persoes , who are showe ie the rough sketch. This is also a vital lacueae ie prosecutioe case . All this defects will eetail ie the acquittal of the accused oe the groued of beeeft of doubt.

24.Ie the result, Accused is foued eot guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 323,506,509 of Iediae Peeal Code aed he is acquitted ueder sectioe 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. aed thereby accused is set at liberty. The bail boeds of the accused aed his sureties shall remaie ie force for a period of six moeths as per sec 437-A Cr.PC. Ie this case, eo property was produced. Heece eo property order is passed with its disposal.

Dictated to the persoeal assistaet of this Court traescribed by him, corrected

aed proeoueced ie opee Court oe this the 4th day of Jaeuary 2022.

Sd/ J Sujie Kumar Priecipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaechili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- cum- Additioeal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaechili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1: M Varalakshmi -NONE P.W.2: Mariseti Rambabu P.W.3: Vuda Visalakshi P.W.4: G Hareedra P.W.5: Rajaea Gaegayyamma P.W.6: Pilla Siva P.W.7:Ch.Veekata Rao 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: - Ex.P1 is the is the report givee to the police. Dated 03-09-2016 Ex.P2 aed P3 are the statemeets of Pws 3 aed 5 recorded ueder Sec 161(3) Cr.PC. Ex.P4 is First Ieformatioe Report dated 03-06-2016 Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of sceee of ofeece. FOR DEFENCE: - - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Nil

FOR DEFENCE: - - NIL – Sd/ J.Sujin Kumar

Priecipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaechili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- cum- Additioeal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaechili.

//True Copy//

Priecipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaechili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- cum- Additioeal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaechili.

10

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI.

CALANDER IN C.C.No. 2174/2021.

1.Date of ofeene03-08-2020

2.Date of Report or nomplaiet05-10-2020

3.Date of takee oe fle17-09-2021

4.Date of appreheesioe of annused41 A Cr.P.C Notine served oe annused

5.Date of release oe bail--

6.Date of nommeenemeet of trial17-12-2021

7.Date of nlose of trial17-12-2021

8.Date of Seeteene or Order29-12-2021 State represeeted by the Sub-Iespentor of

9.Complaieaet Poline, Yellamaenhili Towe Poline Statioe Pilla Bogaliegeswara Rao, S/o Naidu , age 60 years, Gavara by naste, R/o D.No. 18-38, 10Desnriptioe of annused NE Layout, eear Pipeliee P & T Coloey, Seethammadhara , Visakhapateam. for the ofeene pueishable U/Sen. 498-A of 11Sentioe of Law IPC 12Plea of Annused Pleaded eot guilty. 13Fiedieg of Court Foued eot Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

Ie the result, Annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeene U/Sen 498(A)of Iediae Peeal Code. Annused is anquitted ueder sentioe 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofeene aed he set at liberty. The bail boeds of the annused shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per sen 437-A Cr.PC. Ie this nase, eo property was produned, as sunh eo order is passed with regard the same.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This nase was takee oe fle of Addl. Jueior Civil Judge’s Court, Yellamaenhili for the ofeenes U/Sen 498(A) of IPC aed eumbered as C.C.2174/2021. Oe 07.12.2021, nopies fureished to the annused. Oe 14.12.2021 annused was examieed u/s.239 Cr.P.C. A nharge ueder sentioe 498 (A) of IPC was framed agaiest the annused, read over aed explaieed to him ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied the ofeene aed nlaimed to be tried. Oe behalf of the prosenutioe, P.W.1 examieed, Exs. P1 aed P2 are marked. As the material witeess tureed hostile . The leareed APP has givee up the evideene of remaieieg witeess. Annordiegly the prosenutioe side evideene was nlosed. As eo ienrimieatieg material is available ie the evideene of prosenutioe witeesses, the examieatioe of annused ueder Sen 313 of Crimieal pronedure node was dispeesed with. Judgmeet proeouened ie opee nourt oe 29.12.2021. Heene, the delay.

Sd/ J.Sujae Kumar

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili . Copy submitted to : The Hoe’ble Chief Judinial Magistrate, Visakhapateam.

//True Copy//

Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Preseet: Sri J.Sujie Kumar Prienipal jueior Civil Judge Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge –num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of December, 2021.

C.C.No.2174/2021 Betweee:

The State represeeted by the Sub Iespentor of poline, Yellamaenhili Towe Poline Statioe,Yellamaenhili ….nomplaieaet Aed:

Pilla Bogaliegeswara Rao, S/o Naidu , age 60 years, Gavara by naste, R/ o D.No. 18-38, NE Layout, eear Pipeliee P & T Coloey, Seethammadhara , Visakhapateam.

…..Annused

This nase is nomieg before me for feal hearieg oe 24-12-2021 ie the preseene of leareed APP for the prosenutioe aed Sri. P.S.N.Raju, Advonate for annused aed upoe hearieg of both sides aed havieg stood over till this day for noesideratioe this nourt delivered the followieg:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represeeted by the Sub iespentor of Poline,

Yellamaenhili Towe Poline Statioe fled nharge sheet agaiest the annused for the ofeene pueishable U/Sens.498(A) IPC.

2.The brief avermeets of the nharge sheet are as follows:

The marriage of the PW1 was performed with the annused oe 10-4-2015 as per Hiedu nustoms ie the preseene of elders. Annused married Pw1 after death of his earlier wife. After solemeizatioe of marriage, annused made PW1 to believe his false words aed thereby

PW1 has uedergoee family plaeeieg operatioe. Annused retired from

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 3 his servine as Assistaet Eegieeer ie R & B Sentioe-II oe 30-6-2020. Due to Covid paedemin oely few members atteeded the retiremeet fuentioe .

After solemeizatioe of annused’s 1st soe marriage, annused started harassieg PW1. Oe 03-08-2020, annused aloeg with his youeger soe eenked out PW1 from their house. They also demaeded her to brieg additioeal dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- for residieg the house. So, Pw1 lodged a report before the LW12/K Naga Karthik, the thee Sub-

Iespentor of Poline, Yellamaenhili Towe Poline Statioe . Basieg oe the report, he registered a nase ie Crime No.424/2020 of Yellamaenhili

Towe Poline Statioe. Durieg the nourse of ievestigatioe, he examieed witeesses , renorded their statemeets. Later LW13/Ch.Narasiegarao took further ievestigatioe ie this nase aed he deleted the eames of A2 aed A3 due to abseene of sufinieet material agaiest them. After nompletioe of ievestigatioe, LW15/A Neelakaeta Rao the thee Sub-

Iespentor of Poline, Yellamaenhili Towe Poline Statioe fled nharge sheet agaiest the annused.

3.Oe 19-9-2021 this Court nogeizaene for the ofeene pueishable U/Sen.498(A) of Iediae Peeal Code.

4.Oe 07-12-2021, oe appearaene of annused nopies of donumeets were fureished to him as noetemplated ueder sentioe 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Oe 14-12-2021 annused was examieed ueder sentioe 239 of

CR.P.C ie Telugu laeguage for whinh he deeied the same. Oe noesiderieg eetire renord aed oe hearieg both sides . Charge for the ofeene pueishable Ueder Sentioe 498(A) of Iediae Peeal Code is framed agaiest the annused. The said nharge was read over aed explaieed to the annused, ie Telugu laeguage for whinh he deeied, pleaded eot guilty aed nlaimed to be tried. Heene the matter is posted for Trial.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 4

6.Durieg the Course of trial, prosenutioe has examieed

LW1/Pilla Tulasi Sury Kumari as PW1 aed got marked Ex.P1 aed P2. As the material witeess tureed hostile, the leareed APP has givee up the evideene of remaieieg witeess. Annordiegly the prosenutioe side evideene was nlosed.

7.Oe 17-12-2021, as eo ienrimieatieg material was available ie the evideene of prosenutioe witeesses, the examieatioe of annused ueder Sen 313 of Crimieal pronedure node as dispeesed with.

8.Heard the argumeets of leareed Assistaet Publin Prosenutor aed leareed defeene nouesel. Perused the eetire evideene brought oe the renord.

9.Now the poiet that arises for noesideratioe is

Whether the prosecution successfully has established the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable U/Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code?

Point:-

10. It is the allegatioe of the prosenutioe that annused harassed

Pw1 for waet additioeal dowry aed eenked her out of his house.

Thereby annused nommitted for the pueishable ofeene ueder sentioe 498(A) of Iediae Peeal Code.

11.Ie support of the nase, the prosenutioe has examieed Pw1 aed got marked Ex. P1 aed P2 . PW1 is the defanto nomplaieaet ie this nase Ex.P1 is the sigeature of PW1 oe report givee to the poline dated 05-10-2020. Ex.P2 is the statemeet of Pw1 renorded ueder Sen 161(3)

Cr.PC.

12.The evideene of Pw1 goes to show that at about oee year bank, oe oee day, petty quarrels took plane betweee her aed annused.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 5

At that time, some persoes obtaieed her sigeatures oe some papers.

Though, she ideetifed her sigeature ie., Ex.P1 oe report givee to the poline dated 05-10-2020. She further deposed that she is happily livieg with her husbaed aed there are eo quarrels betweee us. As Pw1, beieg a material witeess did eot support the prosenutioe nase. The leareed

APP denlared her as hostile aed nross examieed her with the permissioe of this Court. Ie spite of nross examieatioe, eothieg was elinited from PW1 supportieg the prosenutioe nase.

13.It is eeed less to meetioe that PW1 beieg the material witeess, did eot support the prosenutioe nase aed eo iota of material was available oe renord to prove that annused harassed Pw1 for waet additioeal dowry aed eenked her out of his house. Therefore it nae be noenluded without aey hesitatioe that the prosenutioe miserably failed to prove the guilt of of the annused for the ofeene pueishable u/Sen 498(A)of Iediae Peeal Code.

14. Ie the result, Annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeenes

U/Sen 498(A)of Iediae Peeal Code. Annused is anquitted ueder sentioe 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofeenes aed he set at liberty. The bail boeds of the annused shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per sen 437-A Cr.PC. Ie this nase, eo property was produned. As sunh, eo order is passed with regard the same.

Dintated to the Steeographer-G-III, traesnribed by him, norrented aed proeouened by me ie opee nourt, this the 29th day of Denember, 2021.

Sd/- J.Sujie Kumar

Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Pilla Tulasi Surya Kumari

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex. P1 : Sigeature of PW1 oe report, dated 05-10-2020 Ex. P2 : Statemeet of PW1 renorded u/Sen 161(3) Cr.P.C

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

Sd/ J.Sujie Kumar Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

//True Copy//

Prienipal Jueior Civil Judge, Yellamaenhili FAC Additioeal Jueior Civil Judge- num- Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamaenhili.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: YELLAMANCHILI.

CALANDER IN C.C.No. 2174/2021.

1.Date of offence03-08-2020

2.Date of Report or complaint05-10-2020

3.Date of taken on file17-09-2021

4.Date of apprehension of accused41 A Cr.P.C Notice served on accused

5.Date of release on bail--

6.Date of commencement of trial17-12-2021

7.Date of close of trial17-12-2021

8.Date of Sentence or Order29-12-2021 State represented by the Sub-Inspector of

9.Complainant Police, Yellamanchili Town Police Station Pilla Bogalingeswara Rao, S/o Naidu , age 60 years, Gavara by caste, R/o D.No. 18-38, 10Description of accused NE Layout, near Pipeline P & T Colony, Seethammadhara , Visakhapatnam. for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of 11Section of Law IPC 12Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty. 13Finding of Court Found not Guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 498(A)of Indian Penal Code. Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and he set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per sec 437-A Cr.PC. In this case, no property was produced, as such no order is passed with regard the same.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This case was taken on file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Yellamanchili for the offences U/Sec 498(A) of IPC and numbered as C.C.2174/2021. On 07.12.2021, copies furnished to the accused. On 14.12.2021 accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. A charge under section 498 (A) of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 examined, Exs. P1 and P2 are marked. As the material witness turned hostile . The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witness. Accordingly the prosecution side evidence was closed. As no incriminating material is available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Sec 313 of Criminal procedure code was dispensed with. Judgment

pronounced in open court on 29.12.2021. Hence, the delay.

Sd/ J.Sujan Kumar

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

YELLAMANCHILI.

FAC: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili . Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

//True Copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM –

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

YELLAMANCHILLI

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar

Principal junior Civil Judge

Yellamanchili FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of December, 2021.

C.C.No.2174/2021 Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of police, Yellamanchili Town Police Station,Yellamanchili ….complainant And:

Pilla Bogalingeswara Rao, S/o Naidu , age 60 years, Gavara by caste, R/o D.No. 18-38, NE Layout, near Pipeline P & T Colony, Seethammadhara , Visakhapatnam.

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24-12-2021 in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution and Sri. P.S.N.Raju, Advocate for accused and upon hearing of both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state represented by the Sub inspector of Police,

Yellamanchili Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.498(A) IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

The marriage of the PW1 was performed with the accused on 10-4-2015 as per Hindu customs in the presence of elders. Accused married Pw1 after death of his earlier wife. After solemnization of marriage, accused made PW1 to believe his false words and thereby

PW1 has undergone family planning operation. Accused retired from

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 3 his service as Assistant Engineer in R & B Section-II on 30-6-2020. Due to Covid pandemic only few members attended the retirement function .

After solemnization of accused’s 1st son marriage, accused started harassing PW1. On 03-08-2020, accused along with his younger son necked out PW1 from their house. They also demanded her to bring

additional dowry of Rs. 5,00,000/- for residing the house. So, Pw1

lodged a report before the LW12/K Naga Karthik, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Town Police Station . Basing on the report, he registered a case in Crime No.424/2020 of Yellamanchili

Town Police Station. During the course of investigation, he examined witnesses , recorded their statements. Later LW13/Ch.Narasingarao took further investigation in this case and he deleted the names of A2 and A3 due to absence of sufficient material against them. After completion of investigation, LW15/A Neelakanta Rao the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On 19-9-2021 this Court cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code.

4.On 07-12-2021, on appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 14-12-2021 accused was examined under section 239 of

CR.P.C in Telugu language for which he denied the same. On considering entire record and on hearing both sides . Charge for the offence punishable Under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code is framed against the accused. The said charge was read over and explained to the accused, in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter is posted for Trial.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 4

6.During the Course of trial, prosecution has examined

LW1/Pilla Tulasi Sury Kumari as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2. As the material witness turned hostile, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witness. Accordingly the prosecution side evidence was closed.

7.On 17-12-2021, as no incriminating material was available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Sec 313 of Criminal procedure code as dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire evidence brought on the record.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration is

Whether the prosecution successfully has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code?

Point:-

10. It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused harassed

Pw1 for want additional dowry and necked her out of his house.

Thereby accused committed for the punishable offence under section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code.

11.In support of the case, the prosecution has examined Pw1 and got marked Ex. P1 and P2 . PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on report given to the police dated 05-10-2020. Ex.P2 is the statement of Pw1 recorded under Sec 161(3)

Cr.PC.

12.The evidence of Pw1 goes to show that at about one year back, on one day, petty quarrels took place between her and accused.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 5

At that time, some persons obtained her signatures on some papers.

Though, she identified her signature ie., Ex.P1 on report given to the police dated 05-10-2020. She further deposed that she is happily living with her husband and there are no quarrels between us. As Pw1, being a material witness did not support the prosecution case. The learned

APP declared her as hostile and cross examined her with the permission of this Court. In spite of cross examination, nothing was elicited from PW1 supporting the prosecution case.

13.It is need less to mention that PW1 being the material witness, did not support the prosecution case and no iota of material was available on record to prove that accused harassed Pw1 for want

additional dowry and necked her out of his house. Therefore it can be

concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec 498(A)of Indian Penal Code.

14. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec 498(A)of Indian Penal Code. Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences and he set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per sec 437-A Cr.PC. In this case, no property was produced. As such, no order is passed with regard the same.

Dictated to the Stenographer-G-III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court, this the 29th day of December, 2021.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

CC 2174/2021 AJCJ/YLM

Dt.29-12-2021 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1Pilla Tulasi Surya Kumari

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex. P1 : Signature of PW1 on report, dated 05-10-2020 Ex. P2 : Statement of PW1 recorded u/Sec 161(3) Cr.P.C

FOR ACCUSED:NIL

Sd/ J.Sujin Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.

//True Copy//

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Yellamanchili FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellamanchili.