Sri J. Syam Kumar

1 C.C No.138/2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANTHANI

Present: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

Friday this the 22 nd day of March, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.138 of 2018 CALENDAR CASE No.138 of 2018

Between : State : Sub Inspector of Police, Adavimutharam, P.S., (Cr.Nos.41/2017) … COMPLAINANT AND

Bhukya Venkatram, S/o.Mangu Nayak, Age: 38 years, Caste: Lambada,

R/o.Lambadipally H/o.Korlakunta. ...ACCUSED

This case is coming on 07.03.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri C.Raman Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Adavimutharam laid charge sheet in Cr.No.41/2017 against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act. 1995, with the following allegations that :

2.On 08.06.2017 at 18.30 hours PW6 M.Raju the then S.I of Police, P.S., Adavimutharam, on receiving credible information, he along with his constables i.e., PW5 D.Sreedhar, PC 1258 and LW2 N. Subba Rao PC-234 left police station and rushed to Lambadapally village at 1900 hours, on seeing the police party, the consumers and accused fled away from his house, and they found 10 liters ID liquor in the house premises of accused, later in the presence of two panchans i.e., PW1-Bhukya Ravi and PW2-Loudya Praveen seized 10 liters of ID liquor and brought to police station at 1930 hours and registered a suo-motto case in Cr.No.41/2017 for the offence U/Sec.7-A r/w 8 (e) of AP Prohibition Act.

3.During the course of investigation PW6 drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of PW1 and PW2 and later examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 18.06.2017 notice u/sec41-A Cr.P.C has been served to accused and later on 21.06.2017 PW6 apprehended the accused wherein, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused. Hence the charge.

2 C.C No.138/2018

4.On considering the material placed before the court, cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act 1995 was taken against the accused.

5. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

6. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) AP Prohibition Act 1995, the substance of accusation was read-over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was ordered for trial.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, against the accused, has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MO1 and the evidence of LW2 was closed.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. The learned APP submitted that the prosecution with the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 and Ex.P5 to P10 and MO1 has successfully proved its case against the accused as PW6 and his party seized the contraband U/Sec.102 of Cr.P.C wherein the contraband was found in suspicious circumstances from the possession of accused and therefore the burden lies on the accused to rebut the same. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose and further the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and also there was no material to connect the accused with this case. Finally, he submitted to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

10. Now the point for determination are: -

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of

AP Prohibition Act 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:-

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10 and MO1. PWs.1 and 2 are panch witnesses for CDF Panchanama. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the confession panchas. PW5 is police constable. PW6 is investigating Officer.

3 C.C No.138/2018

12. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.6 found the alleged contraband of 10 liters ID liquor from the house premises of the accused and same was seized under the cover of Ex. P5 seizure panchanam in the presence of punch witnesses Pws 1 and 2, wherein the accused was illegally selling I.D liquor (Gudumba) to eke out his livelihood and later he registered a suo moto case in Cr.41/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act 1995 under Ex.P.6 FIR and send the MO1 samples to Chemical Examiner and later apprehended the accused, wherein he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. Later P.W.6 collected Ex.P9 FSL report from the chemical examiner and filed charge sheet against the accused.

13. The prosecution showed P.Ws.1 and 2 as punch witness to the Ex.P5 seizure panchanama and PW3 and PW4 as panch witnesses for ExP8 confessional statements. However, all P.Ws.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution case and they in one voice stated that about two years back the Adavimutharam police obtained their signatures on some papers but they do not know its contents and no property was seized and no one made any confession of crime in their presence and accordingly their signatures were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.4 on Ex.P.5 and P8. Though the learned APP declared the witnesses as hostile but did not elicit anything from their mouth, except giving suggestion in the lines of Ex.P5 and P8. Therefore the only available evidence on record is of P.Ws.5 and 6 who are the police officials. Now, the question arises, whenever the panch witnesses turned hostile or seizure proceedings are not followed and same vitiates the proceedings. In Narender vs. State 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the failure to comply with the provisions of Sec. 100(4) and Sec. 165 of Cr.P.C. does not in any manner vitiate the trial or conviction especially when the failure to comply with the said provisions is bonafide and not malafide.

14.Thus, it is clear from the above dictum that merely the panch witnesses turned hostile, the evidence of police officials cannot be disbelieved and their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. Further, bonafide non-compliance of provisions of Sec. 100(4) and 165 of Cr.P.C. would amount to an irregularity and does not vitiate the entire search proceedings.

1 2009 CrLJ 3613 4 C.C No.138/2018

15.In the present case, both P.W.5 and PW6 deposed in the lines of Ex.P5 seizure panchanama. In addition PW6 deposed that he obtained samples of I.D liquor under MO1, and registered a suo-motto case in Cr.No.41/2017

U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act 1995 and he issued Ex.P6 FIR, took up investigation and examined and recorded the statements of his staff i.e., PW5 and LW2 and on 21.06.2017 arrested Accused and recorded his Ex.P8 confessional statement in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and after collecting Ex.P9 chemical examination report filed charge sheet against the accused.

16.Both PWs.5 and 6 were cross examined by the defence counsel. PW6 in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not examine any independent witnesses and colour of the can and mode of transport was not mentioned in Ex. P5. PW6 has also admitted that he was the complainant and also the investigating officer in this case. Both the PWs.5 and 6 denied the suggestion that the accused did commit any offence and they did not seize any property from the possession of accused and that accused was falsely implicated in this case for statistical purpose.

17. In the present case, the entire case of the accused are total denial. Since it is the specific case of the prosecution that PW6 and his party allegedly seized 10 liters of I.D liquor from the possession of accused, then the prosecution must prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of its case, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of Pws.5 and 6. Though PW5, who is a constable, in his evidence corroborated with the evidence of PW6 with regard to accompanying the PW6 in seizing the contraband from the possession of accused under Ex.P5 seizure panchanama. But Ex.P5 did not show the signature of PW5 to come to a conclusion that he accompanied the PW6 as deposed by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW5 is doubtful. Further PW6 except examining his constables, who allegedly accompanied him, did not choose to examine any independent witnesses to come a conclusion that the accused was selling the ID liquor to the public to eke out his livelihood. Further, the PW6 did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 100 and 165 Cr.P.C. in as much as they did not serve or issue any search memo on the accused. Further no seizure list, C.D. report is furnished to the accused showing the alleged contraband seized from the possession of accused and also no material has been filed to show that the house from which contraband was seized belonged to the accused and thus, they thereby failed to comply the provision under Section 51 of Cr.P.C. In so far as M.O.1 is concerned, it is not such a difficult task to secure such samples of liquor since the same would be available at least at some places. Besides this, as per Sec.102 (3) of Cr.P.C a duty is cast upon the police officer to produce the seized contraband immediately before the court. But 5 C.C No.138/2018 unfortunately the sample/Mos.1 was deposited only at the time of filing charge sheet and further the Mos.1 samples were sent to the expert on 29.06.2017 and thus there is a delay of more than 20 days in sending the same. Thus, there is clear non-compliance of sec.102(3) of Cr.P.C. But, the prosecution has failed to give any explanation for all these infirmities in their investigation to come to a conclusion that PW6 has conducted fair investigation in this case. Therefore on the basis of sole evidence of PW6 it cannot be held that the prosecution able to prove its case. Moreover the Ex.P8 is hit by Sec.25 of Evidence Act, wherein the two punch witnesses i.e., PW3 and 4 were turned hostile.

18. From the above discussion there was no compliance of Sec.100(4), 102 (3) and 165 of Cr.P.C by PW6 and as such the sole evidence of PW6 cannot be believable and in the said circumstances, the entire search and seizure becomes doubtful. When the above mandatory provisions concerning the seizure are violated, a benefit of doubt of irregularity has to be extended to the accused. Since all the above evidence creates doubts with regard to seizure of the contraband from accused the benefit of doubt is extended to them. Accordingly this point is answered.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.7-A r/w 8

(e) AP Prohibition Act 1995. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C., MO1 (Sl.No.42/2018) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22 nd day of March, 2019.

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Bhukya Ravi, Punch witness. -None- P.W.2: L.Praveen, Punch witness. P.W.3: M.Naveen Kumar, Confession Punch. P.W.4: Azmeera Lal, Confession Punch. P.W.5: D.Sreedhar, Police person. P.W.6: M.Raju, S.I of Police, Adavimutharam.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on Seizure Panchanama - Nil - Ex.P.2: Signature of PW2 on Seizure Panchanama Ex.P.3: Signature of PW3 on Confessional Panchanama Ex.P.4: Signature of PW4 on Confessional Panchanama 6 C.C No.138/2018

Ex.P.5: Seizure Panchanama Ex.P.6: First Information Report Ex.P.7: Crime Detail Form Panchanama Ex.P.8: Confessional Statement Ex.P.9: FSL Report Ex.P10: Photograph of the CD can.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 – White Colour 10 liters Plastic Can containing remaining ID liquor

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANTHANI

Present: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR ,

ADDL. JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS, MANTHANI

Friday this the 22 nd day of March, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.90 of 2017 CALENDAR CASE No.90 of 2017

(Old C.C. No. 498 of 2016 on the file of(Old C.C. No. 498 of 2016 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)

Between : State : Sub Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur, P.S., (Cr.No.92/2016) … COMPLAINANT AND

Kondra Srinivas , s/o. Kistaiah, Age: 38 years, Caste: Goud, R/o.Kaleshwaram village.

...ACCUSED

This case is coming on 20-03-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri U.Subhash, Counsel for the Accused and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 125/2014 alleging that the accused has committed the offence U/Sec. 498-A, 324 of IPC & Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that :

In the year 2013, the marriage of the complainant Smt. Kondra Srivani(Pw1) was performed with the accused. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.63,000/- as dowry to the accused and within 10 days of the marriage, he spent the dowry amount and later started harassing her by saying that she has illegal connections with the others and also demanded for

additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and thus he harassed her both physically

and mentally and later necked out her from the house. Thereafter Pw1 went to her parents and conducted several Panchayaths with the elders and later she was sent to house of accused, but there was no change in his attitude and again he harassed her for additional dowry and sent her to her parents house. On that her mother PW2(Smt. K.Kamalakka) and brother PW3(Sri K. Shiva) brought her to Kaleshwaram and informed the matter to their caste elders LW5(G. Ramanayarana) and LW6(K. Srinivas) wherein they conducted panchayath and admonished the accused for his acts and they again sent her to accused house. The accused kept quite for one month and later started demanding for additional dowry and on 31-07-2016 at 18-30 hours the accused harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry and beat her indiscriminately with stick and caused injuries on her back, neck and 2 waist. On hearing hues and cries of PW1, her neighbor PW4(B.Rajababu) rescued the PW1 from the clutches of accused. Thereafter, the PW1 went to the police station Mahadevpur and lodged a report with the Police.

3.Basing on the report of PW1, LW10(Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, SI of Police, PS Mahadevpur) registered a case in Cr.No. 92/2016 U/Sec. 498-A, 324 of IPC, Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued F.I.R and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW10 recorded the statements of all the witnesses, referred Pw1 to the Hospital, followed all the formalities of observing the scene and prepared CDF panchanama. Upon surrender of the accused on 23-08-2016 Lw10 served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and released him. After receipt of medical certificate from LW9(Dr. Chandrashekar, CAS Government Hospital, Mahadevpur), he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, the court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani had taken cognizance for the offence

punishable U/Sec.498-A, 324 of IPC, Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.

5.At the stage of furnishing of case copies U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide proceeding order communicated in Dis.No.9193/ADM/DCK, dt: 30.11.2016, this case has been transferred from the Court of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Manthani to the file of this Court for disposal as per the law.

6. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

7.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charges for the offence U/Sec. 498-A, 324 of IPC, Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of LW5 to LW10 was given up the learned APP.

9.Since there is no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses the examination of accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

10.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

3

11.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A, 324 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with which he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

12.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1, her mother as P.W.2, her brother as P.W.3 and eye witness as P.W.4. All P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 in one voice gave evidence stating that accused is husband of P.W.1 and in the year 2003 her marriage was performed with the accused and at the time of marriage

Rs. 55,000/- was given as dowry and both have lived together happily for a period of 10 years and during their wedlock two children were born to them and younger son was died. They also deposed that 3 years back a dispute was arose between P.W.1 and accused and on that P.W.1 went to police station and lodged a report against the accused wherein the police obtained her signature on some papers but she did not know its contents and police did not examine any of the witnesses.

13.P.W.4, who is the eye-witness to the alleged incident occurred on 31-07-2016 also did not support prosecution case and he also turned hostile stating that he do not know anything about the facts of this case.

14.Since all the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP sought permission for cross-examining them and during the cross-examination, the P.W.1 to

P.W.4 even denied their statement given to the police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P5. The P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are mother and brother of the P.W.1 also did not support the prosecution case. During the cross-examination by the learned APP, all the witnesses deposed that both P.W.1 and accused have settled their dispute and since last 4 months they have been living together along with their son and all P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 decided to don't want to press the prosecution against the accused so as to lead future life with the accused and her son.

15.In the present case, P.W.1 to PW4 did not support the prosecution case and gave a complete go-bye to the case of the Prosecution, and further, PW1 to PW3 don't want to prosecute the case against the accused as they have settled their dispute and living together with their son. Therefore, the 4 learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses 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. Further it is a case of matrimonial dispute and for proving harassment and cruelty, the evidence of Defacto complainant i.e., P.W.1 is alone essential and without her evidence no allegations of harassment and also causing simple hurt and alleged demand for additional dowry can be attributed against the accused person. As stated supra, there is no evidence on record to show that accused has harassed the P.W.1 in the name of dowry and caused simple hurt, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused.

Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.498-A, 324 of IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act with which he is charged and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence 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.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Srivani, Complainant -None- P.W.2: K. Kamalakka, Mother of P.W.1 P.W.3: K. Shivas, Brother of P.W.1 P.W.4: B. Rajababu, Eye Witnesses

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on report. - Nil - Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANTHANI

Present: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR , Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

Friday this the 22 nd day of March, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.888 of 2017 CALENDAR CASE No.888 of 2017

(Old C.C. No.351 of 2012 on the file of(Old C.C. No.351 of 2012 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)

Between : State : Sub Inspector of Police, Kataram, P.S., (Cr.Nos.87/2012) … COMPLAINANT AND

A1Sudati Sugunakar Rao, S/o.Rama Rao, Age: 30 years, Caste: Velama, R/o.Borlagudem village of Maha Mutharam Mandal.

A2Gandra Srinivas Rao, S/o.Rangarao, Age: 35 years, Caste: Velma, R/o.Borlagudem village of Maha Mutharam Mandal.

...ACCUSED

Note: The accused No.2 was died and on 12.09.2017 case against him was abated.

This case is coming on 18-03-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri S.Srinivas, Counsel for the Accused No.1 and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S,. Kataram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.87 of 2012 for the offence U/Sec.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC with the following allegations that :

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows :

The victim/complainant Sri Sudari Malhalrao (PW1) worked as Home guard and he has one sister by name Tanduri Manjula(LW2) and her marriage was performed with one Tanduri Ramakrishna and they were blessed with two children and later some disputes arose between them, and his sister left her husband, started living in the PW1 house along with her child. PW1 made efforts to reunion both his sister and her husband, but it went in vain. While so, on 03.06.2012 when PW1 was going to SDPO Office, GDK for joining his Home guard duty, A1 called him over phone to know his presence. At about 7.30 hours, when the PW1 reached Chintakani Cross Road on the Auto, both the accused wrongfully restrained the PW1 and forcibly get down him from the Auto and lifted him into their car bearing No.AP-09-2788 and proceeded to Kothapally village. On the way, they stopped their car, get down the PW1 and abused him in most obscene language by stating that they were feeling very shameful as their family prestige has gone due to failure of his sister to 2 go to her in-laws house. Then PW1 escaped from them and came to police station, but the accused again followed him and threatened him to kill him and same was witnessed by LW3 T.Ravi, LW4 V.Papaiah, LW5 L.Sambashiva

Rao. Thereafter, he consulted his Dr. Om Prakash, Warangal for his disease of giddiness and lodged report with the police.

3.Basing on the report of PW1, PW2 Sri.G.Narsaaiah, the then ASI of Police, P.S., Kataram registered a case in Cr.No. 87 of 2012 U/Sec.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW2 examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, observed the scene and prepared CDF panchanama in the presence of punch witnesses. Later LW9 B.Raju, S.I of Police took up further investigation and verified the investigation of PW2 and found it in correct lines. On 16.07.2012, A1 and on 08.08.2012, A2 surrendered before the court and later they were enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation LW9 filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, the Court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani had taken cognizance for the offences

punishable U/Sec.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

5.At the stage of appearance of the accused, in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide proceeding order communicated in Dis.No.9193/ADM/DCK, dt:30.11.2016, this case has been transferred from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani to the file of this Court for disposal as per the law.

6.At the stage of appearance of both the accused, the accused No.2 was died and on the certificate issued by the Panchayath Secretary of Borlagudem Grampanchayath, on 12.09.2017, the case against the accused No.2 was abated.

7. On appearance of the accused No.1 before the court, copies of documents as contemplated U/s.207 of the Cr.P.C., was furnished to him.

8.The accused No.1 was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offences U/Secs.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of T.Manjula/LW2 T.Ravi/LW3 V.Papaiah/LW4, L.Sambashiva Rao/LW5, S.Narayana Reddy/LW6 and K.Thirupathi Reddy/LW7.

3

10.This court, upon closure of the prosecution evidence, posted the matter for examination of accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. This court explained the incriminating circumstances that appeared against the accused in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the prosecution evidence as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

12.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC with which he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13.Unfortunately, in the present case, the victim/PW1 turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution case. PW1 in his evidence deposed that about 3 to 4 years back, due to non sending of his sister LW2/T.Manjula to her in-laws house a quarrel took place with A2 and on that he gave report against the A2 and except that no one made any quarrel with him. PW2 even failed to identify his report and signature and stated that the signature was not belonged him. In view of the victim turning hostile, the learned APP examined him U/Sec.154 of evidence Act r/w proviso to sec.162 of Cr.P.C, but the learned APP except marking his 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P1 and compromising the matter, nothing was elicited from his mouth to connect the accused No.1 with this case. Therefore, the learned APP has given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e., Lws.2 to 7 and examined one of the investigating officer Sri.G.Narsaiah, ASI of Police as PW2, who deposed in the lines of registering the case, issuing FIR, recording the statements of witnesses, preparing CDF panchanama and verification of his investigation by LW9 and filing charge sheet by him.

14.Since material witness/victim i.e., PW1 did not support the prosecution story, the sole evidence of investigating officer is no way helpful to this case to connect the accused no.1 that he committed the alleged offences. Moreover, there is inordinate delay of 13 days in lodging the report and the explanation that PW1 took treatment with his doctor was also not supported by any material and further, the PW1 is not an ordinary person as he was working as home guard at that time. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to explain the said inordinate delay in lodging the report. As such this Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish its case and accordingly the accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

4

15.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S.290, 323, 341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly the accused No.1 is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment. Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22 nd day of March, 2019.

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: S.Malhar Rao, Complainant. -None- P.W.2: G.Narsaiah, Investigating Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1. - Nil - Ex.P.2: Report. Ex.P.3: First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MANTHANI

Present: S RI . J.S YAM K UMAR ,

ADDL. JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOF FIRST CLASS, MANTHANI

Friday this the 22 nd day of March, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.302 of 2017 CALENDAR CASE No.302 of 2017

(Old C.C. No. 554 of 2013 on the file of(Old C.C. No. 554 of 2013 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Manthani)

Between :

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Kataram, P.S., (Cr.No.141/2013) … COMPLAINANT AND

Gomasa Ramesh, s/o. Mallaiah, Age: 35 years, Caste: Nethakani, Occ: Cooli, R/o. Guduru village now at Garepalli village.

...ACCUSED

This case is coming on 20-03-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri C.Ramana Kumar Reddy, Counsel for the Accused and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kataram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 141/2013 alleging that the accused has committed the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that :

That the complainant Smt. Gomasa Padmavathi(P.W.1) is working as ANM Kataram Mandal. Prior to 5 years of giving report, her marriage was performed with the accused and they lead happy martial life for some days and later the accused started harassment and demanded the P.W.1 to register her property in his name and also give her salary and thus harassed her both mentally and physically. Due to constant harassment of accused, P.W.1 informed the same to Garepalli village elders Thota Janaradhan(Lw4) and Jadi Rajaiah(Lw5) and both have conducted panchayath between them; and accused admitted his mistakes and gave assurance that he would not harass the P.W.1 in future. Later the accused looked after the P.W.1 for some days well and 10 days prior to the giving of report; when the accused harassed her, she went to her mother's house and thereafter at 09-00 hours the accused called her over phone and harassed her for going to her mother's house without informing to him. Later the P.W.1 lodged a written report with police Kataram.

2

3.Basing on the report of PW1, P.W.2(Sri B. Raju, SI of Police, PS Kataram) registered a case in Cr.No. 141/2013, U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and issued F.I.R, took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses and conducted CDF panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. Later on 22-10-2013 arrested the accused and remanded to the court for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4.On considering the material placed before the court, the court of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Manthani had taken cognizance for the offence

punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC.

5.At the stage of furnishing of case copies U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar vide proceeding order communicated in Dis.No.9193/ADM/DCK, dt: 30.11.2016, this case has been transferred from the Court of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Manthani to the file of this Court for disposal as per the law.

6. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.,

7.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and charges for the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of LW2 to LW7 was given up the learned APP.

9.This court, upon closure of the prosecution evidence, posted the matter for examination of accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. This court explained the incriminating circumstances that appeared against the accused in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied the prosecution evidence as false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC, with which he is charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

POINT:

12.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 and investigating officer Sri B. Raju the then SI of Police, Kataram PS as P.W.2. P.W.1 deposed that she is working as ANM and about 9 years back her marriage was performed with the accused and after marriage they lead happy marital life for some days and thereafter some disputes arose between them and on one occasion the accused beat her and she went to police station where police prepared complaint under Ex.P3 but she did not know its contents.

13.Since the P.W.1, who is victim in the hands of the accused did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP sought permission and examined the wintessess U/Sec. 162 Proviso of Cr.P.C. and Sec.154 of Evidence Act. During the said examination P.W.1 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2 i.e., her Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement but has admitted that they have no children and presently both are living together amicably and stated to close the case against her husband and permit her to live with her husband.

14.In view of above evidence given by the P.W.1 during her cross- examination by the learned APP, he later on given up the evidence of other witnesses i.e., L.W.2 to L.W.7 and only examined the investigating officer as P.W.2 who deposed in the lines of investigation done by him and got marked Ex.P3 report, Ex.P4 F.I.R. and Ex.P5 is CDF panchanama.

15.In the present case, P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case and gave a complete go-bye to the case of the Prosecution, and further, she don't want to prosecute the case against the accused as they have settled their dispute and living together. Therefore, the learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses 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. Further it is a case of matrimonial dispute and for proving harassment and cruelty, the evidence of Defacto complainant i.e., P.W.1 alone is essential and without her evidence no allegations of harassment can be attributed against the accused and the sole evidence of P.W.2 can not be relied upon without corroboration from the victim i.e., P.W.1. As stated supra, there is no evidence on record to show that accused has harassed the P.W.1 as alleged by the prosecution therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

4

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.498-A of IPC, with which he is charged and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence 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.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Gomasa Padmavathi, Complainant -None- P.W.2: B. Raju, SI of Police, Investigating Officer

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on report. - Nil - Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1. Ex.P.3: Report. Ex.P.4: F.I.R. Ex.P.5: CDF panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

ADDL . JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

MANTHANI

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT : MANTHANI

Present: Sri J. Syam Kumar, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Manthani.

Wednesday, this the 20 th day of March, 2019

O.S.No.80 of 2018

Between:

Penugonda Rajaiah, S/o.Chandraiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.Ambatipalli village, Mahadevpur Mandal, Jayashanker Bhupalpally District.… Plaintiff

AND

Asampally Ramesh, S/o.Pochaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Lenkalagadda village, Mahadevpur Mandal, Jayashanker Bhupalpally District. … Defendant

Claim :Suit forRecovery of Money Date of Presentation:26.06.2018. Date of Filing:26.06.2018.

@ @ @ This suit is coming on 18­03­2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,142/­ (Rupees sixty eight thousand one hundred and forty two only) with future interest and costs stating that on 15.07.2015 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/­ (Forty thousand only) from the plaintiff to meet his personal necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. It is stated that the defendant failed to repay the amount inspite of his repeated oral and written demand vide legal notice dt: 9.4.2018 

2.On 19.02.2019, the defendant was remained exparte on his failure to attend before the court.

3.The plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 documents on his behalf.

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

5.Now the point for consideration is:­

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from

the defendant as prayed for?

6.POINT:­ The plaintiff, in his evidence as PW1, has reiterated his case that on 15.07.2015, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/­ from 2 the plaintiff for his personal necessities and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note on the same day and promised to repay the principal amount with the accrued interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Thereafter, the defendant, inspite of repeated oral and written demands under

Ex.A2 legal notice dt: 09.04.2018, failed to repay the principal amount and interest or part thereof. The defendant did not choose to challenge the evidence of PW1 and he remained exparte. 

7.From the above unchallenged evidence of PW1, coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 it is evident that on 15.07.2015, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.40,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family needs and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note dt.15.07.2015 in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the

principal amount with the accrued interest @24% per annum to the plaintiff or

to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of his repeated demands even by issuing Ex.A2 Legal notice dt: 09.04.2018 the defendant failed to repay either the principal amount and interest or part thereof. Hence, there cannot be any hesitation to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as pryaed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.68,142/­ (Rupees sixty eighty thousand one hundred and forty two only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.40,000/­ (Rupees forty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of March, 2019.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff:For Defendant: PW­1: P.Rajaiah ­Exparte­

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: 

i)Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note dated 15.07.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.40,000/­. ii)Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal Notice, dt: 09.04.2018. iii)Ex.A3 is the Postal Receipts dt: 09.04.2018 iv)Ex.A4 is the on­line postal extract For Defendant: ­ Nil ­

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI