Sri. J.Syam Kumar

1C.C No. 302 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

METPALLY.

PRESENT:- SRI AJAY KUMAR JADHAV,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLY.

Tuesday, on this the 12th day of October 2021

CC. NO. 302 OF 2021

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S. (Crime No. 115 of 2021 ) ….Complainant.

And

A-1: Balaji Nivruti Gayakwad S/o Nivruti Gayakwad, 21 years, R/o Chikli V/o Kinwat Taluka of Nanded district, Maharashtra state. A-2: Nunavath Bheemraj S/o Mangya Nayak, 36 years, R/o Sirpur village, now at Metpalli town and mandal.

….Accused.

This case is coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri. N.Rajender, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mallapur P.S., filed Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03-06-2021 at about 19.30 hrs the complainant State Police through G.Raju Nayak, S.I of Police, P.S Mallapur along with PC’s 640, 2403 while conducting village patrolling and when they reached at the outskirts of Valgonda village at about 20.00 hrs they found one without number plate

Mahindra Yuvo Company Tractor vide Chassis No.MBNSF AVTEMZK01031 and

Engine No.ZMK5FBF3587 loaded with sand, immediately the S.I of Police stopped the above said vehicle and apprehended the accused No.1. Immediately secured the presence of two mediators and conducted confessional and seizure panchanama in which the accused No.1 confessed that he is the driver of the above said tractor and as per the instruction of his tractor owner/accused No.1 he went to Godavari river at the outskirts of

Valgonda village and committed theft of sand and illegally transporting and selling it to needy people on high rates.

2C.C No. 302 of 2021

Later the Lw.5/G.Raju Nayak, S.I of Police, Mallapur along with the A-1 along with seizure property was brought to Police Station at 21.30 hrs and registered a sue motto case vide Cr.No. 115/2021, U/s. 379 of I.P.C and Sec.21 (1) of Mines and Minerals

Act and issued issued F.I.R and took up the investigation and after completion of entire investigation Lw.5 filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act against the accused persons.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to accused as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sections 188 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals

Act were framed, contents was read over and explained to them, to which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

6. During the course of the trial, prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW-4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P-4 and no material objects were marked. Hence prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After closer of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 3C.C No. 302 of 2021

10.In the present case the prosecution to prove its case should prove that on 03.06.2021 at about 20.00 hours on the instruction of accused No.2, the accused No.1 went to Godavari river at the outskirts of Valgonda village and illegally transporting the sand without having any valid license or permit, and they also violated the orders promulgated by a public servant lawfullly empowered to promulgate such order in view of spreading of corona virus (Covid-19) in Telangana State and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable U/s.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and

Minerals Act.

The prosecution to prove its case have examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked

Ex P-1 to Ex P-4. Pws.1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for seizure and confession panchanama, Pw.3 is the Police constable and assisted the Investigation Officer and Pw.4 is the Investigation Officer who filed the charge sheet.

9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offence punishable U/s.379 of

IPC, the prosecution has to establish two essential ingredients i.e. the Government is the owner or possessor of the stolen property i.e, sand and the said sand should be stolen property. The accused with dishonest intention took the sand without knowledge of the owner of the sand. In order to prove the ownership of the sand, which is the stolen property, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of the Pws.1 to 4. Coming to the evidence of the Pws. 3 and 4, they categorically deposed that on 03-06-2021 they conducting village patrolling and they noticed a tractor with sand and the accused No.1 confessed that on the instruction of accused No.2 he illegally transporting the sand and

Pw.4 secured the presence of the Pws.1 and 2 seized the tractor under cover of panchanama. Thereafter, they went to the police station along with seized property.

Thereafter Pw.4 registered a suo-motto case and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

10.In a case decision reported in GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3395), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a question 4C.C No. 302 of 2021 whether the prosecution case has to be doubted if all the witnesses are from police department. While referring to the previous case on the subject, it is categorically held in the said decision at Para Nos. 25 and 26.

11.In GURUJALA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF A.P. 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 12 A.P. the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has categorically held that when a Police Officer

who detected the offence and arrested the accused, gave a report which was registered as FIR and the same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, any conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained.

12.In a case judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between VINOD

KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, DATE OF DECISION: 21 January 2015

Citation: 2015 Law suit (SC) 53, in para Nos.16 to 18 as follows: Para No.16. Learned senior counsel would contend, (solely on the basis of evidence of recovery, a conviction is not sustainable and in the obtaining factual matrix, the presumption under section 20 of the Act would not be attracted. To substantiate the said proposition, strengthen has been drawn from C.M. Girish Babu V.C.B.I., Cochin, 2009 3 SCC 779 and Benarsi Das V. State of Haryana, 2010 4 SCC 450.)

Para No.17. The last plank of submission of Mr. Jain is that in the instant case, the prosecution was launched by Narinder Pal Kaushal, PW8, who has investigated into the case and therefore, the concept of fair investigation, has been totally marred as a consequence of which, the trial is vitiated. Learned senior counsel would contend that a person who is a part of the trap party is an interested witness and he would be enthusiastic to see that the trap is sustained in every manner and in such a situation, it is per se an unfair and blased investigation that frustrates the essential principle inhered under Article 21 of the constitution and eventually the trial.

Para No.18. Mr. Madhukar, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, per contra, would contend that the view expressed by the learned trial judge and the High Court cannot be found fault with, for a conviction under the Act can be based on the evidence of trap witnesses, if they are trustworthy and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied and in the case at hand, the High Court on x-ray of the evidence has so recorded. It is urged by him that neither the learned trial judge nor the High Court has fallen into error by applying the principle of presumption as engrafted under section of the Act. It is canvassed by Mr. Madhukar that the evidence of the hostile witnesses can be placed reliance upon by the prosecution and in the obtaining factual matrix, the testimony of PW7, one of the shadow witnesses, renders immense assistance for establishing the case of the prosecution. He has with great pains, taken us through the evidence to substantiate the stand that the conviction recorded against the appellant is totally defensible.

13.It is the case of the accused that the police filed a false charge sheet against them for the statistical purpose and they were innocent persons. It is further contention of the accused that the police conducted panchanama and recorded the seizure panchanama in the police station itself, therefore, the independent panch witnesses did not support the 5C.C No. 302 of 2021 case of the prosecution in any manner. Therefore the accused is implicated in a false case and they are entitled for acquittal.

14. Now, in the light of the above parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and High Court of A.P, the present factual matrix now requires to be analyzed to ascertain whether the testimony of the Pws.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama. The Pws. 3 and 4 are police witnesses. In the cross- examination of Pws.1 and 2 the learned A.P.P nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. In the absence of any independent corroboration is cogent, convincing, credit worthy and reliable. Interestingly, according to the prosecution, the confession and seizure were conducted simultaneously and the confession of accused did not lead to discovery of any new fact. In this view of the matter, the seizure panchanamas under

Ex.P3 becomes inadmissible in evidence in view of the provisions U/Sec.25 and 26 of the

Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly the prosecution did not file any documentary evidence to show that the Government is the owner or possessor of the sand quarry from where the accused alleged to have excavated. Under those circumstances this court feels that the prosecution neither established nor proved the ownership of the stolen property.

Admittedly, no material is collected against the accused who alleged to have committed theft of the sand. Therefore, in the absence of any material adduced by the prosecution connecting to the accused to the offence alleged against the accused, this court is of considered view that the testimonies of Pws.1 to 4 are not cogent, convincing, credit- worthy and as a sequel, the accused are entitled for acquittal, the point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.188, 379 of I.P.C and Sec. 21 (1) of Mines and Minerals Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled subjected to Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The seized tractor i.e., Mahindra Yuvo Company

Tractor vide Chassis No.MBNSF AVTEMZK01031 and Engine No.ZMK5FBF3587 which is already given to its owner for interim custody shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of October, 2021.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLI.

6C.C No. 302 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION; FOR THE DEFENCE PW.1: R.Raji Reddy None PW.2: M.Mallaiah PW.3: D.Ramesh PW.4: G.Raju Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW-1 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.2: Signature of PW-2 on confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P.3: Confessional and seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P.4: First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE

NIL. M.O.’s MARKED NIL

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

METPALLI.

1 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KORUTLA

P RESENT : J. S YAM K UMAR

Judl. Mag. of First Class, Korutla

Wednesday, on this the 17 th day of August, 2022

CALENDAR CASE No. 99 of 2022 CALENDAR CASE No. 99 of 2022

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police PS Kathalapur. (Crime No. 75/2021).….Complainant.

And

Todeti Vijay Kumar, S/o Laxman, 35 years, SC Madiga, R/o H.no.4-7/2, Pegadapalli village and Mandal, Jagtial Dist. ….Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M. Rajani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Korutla and of Sri. Udutha Prashanth, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

The then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kathalapur, filed charge sheet in

Crime No. 75/2021 of P.S. Kathalapur against the accused alleging that he committed the offence U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) with the following allegations that:-

2.Pw1/Gopu Rajeshwari is resident of Thandrial village and IS living by doing agriculture. She is the mother of deceased/Gopu Mahesh and

Pw2/Gopu Krishna and both used to attend agricultural works. Pw1 is having agricultural land at the outskirts of Thandrial village and they have decided to lay a new way to their agriculture land and poured the soil on it. One support wire of the electric pole is situated across the way and in 2 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022 this regard they have approached to the accused and requested to remove the support wire. But the accused neither removed the wire nor visited the spot. On 27-05-2021 when the Lw3/Mittapalli Goutham Reddy noticed the accused and asked him about the same; and that the accused informed that, he would give the cutter to cut the support wire and same was informed to PW2 and deceased. Therefore, on 28-05-2021 at 9:00 hours the Pw2 and deceased went to their agricultural land and when they were cutting the support wire, the wire touched with 11 KV wire, and accidentally passed current over the support wife from the electric pole and due to which the Pw2 and the deceased has got electrocution, resulting which Pw2 fell down on the ground at a distance of spot and the deceased was fell on on the ground and became unconscious. But the deceased Gopu Mahesh died on the way to hospital while he was shifting to hospital in a car of PW3/Kaalu Shankar. Due to negligent act of the accused the death of the deceased happened. Later PW1 lodged a report with LW10/D. Prithvidhar Goud, the then S.I of Police, PS Kathalapur for taking necessary action against the accused.

Basing on the written complaint submitted by the PW1, LW-10/D.

Prithwidhar Goud, the then SI of Police, PS Kathalapur registered a case in

Cr.No.75/2021 U/sec. 174 of Cr.P.C, issued FIR, visited the Government

Hospital Korutla and secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

Lw6/Gadila Gangaprasad and LW7/Gopu Limbaiah, held inquest over the corpse of deceased and got photographed the dead body with the help of 3 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022 photographer Lw5/Kokkula Murali and also examined and recorded the statements of Lw2 to 5. Later he made requisition to Lw8/Dr. Sudheer,

Duty Medical officer, CHC, Korutla to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Later he visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch of the scene and incorporated the crime detail form in the presence of Lws6 and LW7.

LW10 collected PME report from Lw8/Dr. Sudheer, Duty medical officer, CHC Korutla in which he opined that the cause of death of the deceased due to cardio respiratory arrest suddenly as electrical shock.

Later he made a requisition to Lw9/Gangadhar, A.E. TSNPDCL, Hyderabd to visit the scene of offence and furnish report and accordingly, LW10 received the LW9 report opining that the deceased got electrocuted and accordingly recorded his statement.

Subsequently the Lw11/A. Rajitha, the then SI of Police, Kathalapur took up further investigation from Lw10 and verified the investigation done by Lw11 found it on correct proper lines. She took up further investigation. She took up further investigation and on the strength of the statement of Lw3 the prima facie made out against the accused. Therefore she altered the section from 174 Cr.P.C to Sec.304-A IPC. Later Lw11 secured the presence of accused and issued Sec.41-A Crpc and after complying of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C she released him on bail. After completion of investigation LW11 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

4 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022

3.Basing on the above material, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/sec.304-A IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution was furnished to him as provided under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”).

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and contents of the accusations were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P 3 documents. The evidence of Lw3, 5 to 11 was given up by the learned APP.

7.Since there is no incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.

313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

5 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022

10. POINT:

The prosecution in support of its case has examined the complainant/mother of deceased as Pw1, brother of the deceased as

Pw2, one of the eye witness as Pw3 got marked Ex.P1 to P3 documents.

11.PW1 deposed that about on hearing from the villagers that her son Gopu Mahesh fell down in their fields, she went there and noticed that he is breathing heavily. Later she shifted her son to the hospital in the car of PW3 but he died. PW1 also deposed that Police came there but she did not know what was done by them and she did not lodge any case against anyone. Police obtained her thumb mark on some papers, but she did not know its contents and police did not examine and did not record her statement.

12.PW2 who is the brother of the deceased and one of the victim and eye witness to the incident deposed that at the time of incident he was not with his brother and he was in the fields and by the time he came to the place of his brother, he died and stated the same to the police.

13.PW3 deposed that upon knowing that the deceased got electrocution, he brought his car and shifted the deceased to hospital, but died and police did not examine him and record his statement.

6 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022

14.Thus, except deposing that deceased/Gopu Mahesh died due to electrocution, none of the witnesses including the PW2, who is eye- witness and injured in the said incident did not support the prosecution case that the deceased died to negligent act of the accused in attending his legitimate duties. Therefore, the learned

APP declared them as hostile, but except marking their Ex. P1 to P3 nothing was elicited from their mouth.

15. Since the material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 3 turned hostile, the leaned APP has given up evidence of other witnesses i.e., Lws 3, 5 to 11 and she rightly did so, in my opinion, as even if they are examined there would not have been any improvement in the case of the prosecution. Therefore this court is left with no other option to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, as such, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused which leads to his acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

304-A of I.P.C and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

7 of 7 C.C.No. 99/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: Gopu Rajeshwari None PW2: Gopu Krishna Pw3: Mittapally Goutham Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1Nil Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

1 of 5 C.C. NO. 102/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KORUTLA

P RESENT : J. S YAM K UMAR

Judl. Mag. of First Class, Korutla

Wednesday, on this the 17 th day of August, 2022

CALENDAR CASE No. 102 of 2016

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Korutla P.S. (Crime No. 65 of 2016).….Complainant.

And

Ippa Naresh @ Kashiram, S/o. Ramulu, 23 years, Budigajangam, R/o. Allamaiagutta, Korutla. ….Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M. Rajani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Korutla and of Sri. Baddi Narsaiah, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Korutla filed charge sheet in

Crime No. 65/2016 against the accused for the offences U/sec.452, 354-A of Indian

Penal Code (for short "IPC") with the following allegations that :

2. Pw1/Chithari Laxmi and accused are residing at Allamaiahgutta, Korutla.

The accused developed sexual lust over PW1 and with a greedy eye and with an intent to outrage her modesty, on 12-03-2016 at night hours about 11.30 Pm the accused went to PW1 house and knocked the door. On which, PW1 woke up from sleep and opened the door, and all of a sudden he entered into her house and caught hold her hands and tried to outrage her modesty. Immediately she raised hues and cries, on which her husband/Chitari Srinivas(PW2) woke up from the sleep and Pw3 Kadamanchi Sailu, her mother in law i.e., Pw4/Chithari Pentavva and mother LW5/Kadamanchi Yellavva came there and found the accused escaping from there.

2 of 5 C.C. NO. 102/2016

Later on 14-03-2016 PW1 gave written report and basing on the same

LW11/Sri. K. Babu Rao, the then S.I of police, PS Korutla registered a case in

Cr.No.65/2016 under Secs. 452, 354-A of IPC, issued FIR, took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of Pws1 and 2. He also visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared CDF panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses i.e., LW8/Perla Rani and LW9/Miryala Anand and also examined and examined and recorded the statements of PW3, PW4 and LW5. He also got recorded the statement of PW1 through woman constable LW6/D. Rajasri, WHC 2132 of PS Mallapur and got photographed the same with the help of LW7/Kokkula

Murali. Later he went to the house of accused and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed of committing the offence and brought him to PS and issued Section 41-

A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on his failure to comply with the notice, effected his arrest and produced him before the court the for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, LW11 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

3.Basing on the above material, cognizance of the offence U/sec.452 and 354-

A of IPC was taken against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as provided under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and contents of the charge u/sec. 452 and 354-A of IPC were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to P3. Lws4 to 11 evidence was given up the learned APP.

7. On completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material appearing in the prosecution 3 of 5 C.C. NO. 102/2016 witnesses and accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/sec.452 and 354-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined victim as

PW1, her husband as Pw2 and one of the eye-witness as PW3.

11.PW1 in her chief examination deposed that about six years back, due to disputes she lodged this case against accused stating that he dragged her with hands as the incident was occurred at evening hours and on the next date of incident she lodged Ex. P1 report with the police.

12.However, PW1 in her cross-examination admitted that accused is noway concerned with this case, police did not examined her, and she has no objection for closing this case and she stated that she does not want to prosecute the accused as they have compromised the matter.

13.Her husband PW2 deposed that due to petty disputes they went to police station and police obtained their signatures, but police did not examine them.

14.Eye witness is examined as PW3, but did not support the prosecution case and he completely turned hostile. Though the PW2 and PW3 were declared hostile, but except marking their Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.

P2 and P3 nothing was elicited from their mouth.

15.Although PW1 stated about lodging Ex.P1 report with the police but she did not state that due to the acts of accused her modesty was outraged.

Thus there is no evidence of outraging the modesty of PW1. So also none of 4 of 5 C.C. NO. 102/2016 the witnesses stated that the accused committed the offence under Sec. 452 of IPC. Thus there is no evidence that accused developed sexual lust and with a greedy eye outraged her modesty by entering into her house. Therefore, it appears for the prosecution that no purpose would be served in examining other witnesses and has given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e., LWs.4 to 11, and she rightly did so, in my opinion, as even if they are examined, there would not have been any improvement in the prosecution case to prove that the accused was the person criminally trespassed into the house of PW1 at night hours and outraged her modesty.

Therefore this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused and as such the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 452 and 354-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

T yped to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17 th day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: Chithari Laxmi PW2: Chithari Srinivas Pw3: Kadamanchi Sailu

FOR ACCUSED: NONE

5 of 5 C.C. NO. 102/2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report Ex.P2:Sec. 161 Crpc statement of Pw2 Ex.P3:Sec. 161 Crpc statement of Pw3

FOR ACCUSED:

Nil

Material objects

Nil

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

1 of 5 C.C. NO.20/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KORUTLA

P RESENT : J. S YAM K UMAR

Judl. Mag. of First Class, Korutla

Tuesday, on this the 16 th day of August, 2022

CALENDAR CASE No. 20 of 2017

Between:

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Medipally P.S. (Crime No. 08 of 2017). ….Complainant.

A N D

Mogulla Venkavva, W/o. Gangamallaiah, 37 years, Kurma, R/o Kammaripet village. ….Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. M. Rajani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, Korutla and of Sri. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the accused, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Medipally filed charge sheet in Crime No. 8/2017 against the accused alleging that he committed the offence U/sec.435 and 290 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) with the following allegations that:-

2.PW1/Pooranapu Anjaiah is resident of Kammaripet village and living by doing agriculture, he is having Ac.2-00 of agriculture land under

Nallagutta and the accused is also having agriculture land by the side of his land. On 23-12-2016 at 10.00 hours the accused set fire to waste material in her land, but the fire and flames spread out to the field of

PW1, resulting which his property i.e., 80 meters of electrical wire, 60 ft.

length of pipes and one current motor were completely burnt and caused 2 of 5 C.C. NO.20/2017 loss to a tune of Rs.20,000/- and same was witnessed by PW2/Puppala

Rajam and pw3/Mamidi Laxmirajam; and in this issue, the Pw1 called the accused before sarpanch's husband and village elders, upon which the accused abused him in filthy language by alleging he can report anywhere and therefore reported to the P.S. Medipalli by lodging complaint with them.

Basing on the complaint given by the Pw1, the Lw9/M. Munaiah, the then Head constable of Police, P.S Medipally registered a case in

Cr.No.08/2017 U/sec.435 and 290 IPC and issued FIR, took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene in the presence of panch witnesses, drew the rough sketch map of the scene and incorporated the details in crime detail form. Later Lw10/Sri A. Kiran Kumar, the then S.I of Police PS Medipally took up further investigation and served Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice on the accused but she did not comply with the Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C notice. Therefore on 11-01-2017 the Lw10 apprehended the accused and on interrogation she voluntarily confessed of committing the offence and later brought her to PS and produced her before the court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation Lw10 filed charge sheet against the accused for offence U/sec.435 and 290 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.Basing on the above material, this Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/sec.435 and 290 IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as provided under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”).

5.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and contents of the charge U/sec.435 and 290 of IPC was read over and explained to him 3 of 5 C.C. NO.20/2017 in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly the matter was posted for trial.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3 documents. The evidence of Lws 4 to 10 were given up by the learned APP.

7.Since there is no incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under Sec. 435 and 290 of IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT:

To prove its case the prosecution examined the complainant as

PW1, eye witnesses as PW2 and 3 and got marked Ex. P1 to P3 documents.

11.All PWs 1 to 3 in one voice deposed that the did not know anything about this case and police also did not examine them. PW1 also deposed that at the request of police he put his signature on some papers, but he did not know its contents. Though the learned

APP declared the witnesses as hostile, but in the cross-examination except marking their respective Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements as Ex.P2 to P4 nothing was elicited from their mouth.

4 of 5 C.C. NO.20/2017

12. In view of the hostile of all the material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 3 the leaned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses i.e.,

Lws 4 to 10, who are circumstantial witnesses, photographer, CDF panch witnesses and investigating officers and he rightly did so, in my opinion, as even if they are examined there would not have been any improvement in the case of the prosecution. Therefore this court is left with no other option to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused, as such, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused which leads to his acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec. 435 and 290 of I.P.C. and accordingly she is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16 th day of August, 2022.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW1: Pooranapu Anjaiah None PW2: Puppala Rajam Pw3: Mamidi Laxmirajam 5 of 5 C.C. NO.20/2017

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on ComplaintNil Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KORUTLA

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: KORATLA

Present: Sri. J Shyam Kumar, Junior Civil Judge,

KORATLA .

17-08-2022

CC/76/2019

TSJI030003422019

Korutla

Between:-

The Statethrough SHO, PS Korutla R/by Raju Nayak Address: SHO PS Korutla … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Ubidi Nagaraju Address: R/o. Allamaiahgutta of Korutla … Defendent/Respondent

DOCKET ORDER

Both parties present and filed joint memo to refer the matter to Lok Adalath. Accordingly case is referred to Lok adalath Bench. Both parties present and respective counsels present. reported that they compromised the matter recorded and accordingly the award is passed in terms of compromise. Hence accused is acquitted u/sec 320(8) crpc for the offence.

Date : 17-08-2022

Junior Civil Judge

KORATLA