Smt K.Aruna,ajcj,Kadiri

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE :: KADIRI

Present: Smt.K.ARUNA,

Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

Monday, the 29 th Day of April, 2019

C.C. No.555 of 2014

Between :

The State Rep.by Inspector of Police,

Talupula PS. .... Complainant

AND

Mankamuthaka Suryanarayana@ Suri, age 35 years, Indukuripalli village, Talupula Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on 26.4.2019 for final hearing before me in theof learned A.P.P. K.Khadar Basha for Complainant, Sri.P.C.Byrava Prasad, Advocate for accused, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G E M E N T

1.State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Talupula Police

Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No.99 of 2014 of Talupula Police station for the offences punishable under sections 341, 506, 507 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case were as follows:

LW1-Attar Chand Basha is the resident of Vallisab Road. On 11.8.2014 at about 10.00am LW1 visited the house of LW2 on his personal work, at about 11.13am LW1 received missed call and that one person called to his phone by threatened the LW1 with dire consequences as the LW1 is not resign to the MLA post within a month the accused would see his end of life. Thereafter, LW1 enquired about the said person it was noticed that the accused made a phone call to him thereby LW1 lodged report to police basing on it LW8 registered the case in Cr.No.99/2014 u/sec.341, 506, 507 IPC and took up investigation, 2 collected ample of evidence by examined LW. 1 to 5. On 18.8.2014 LW8 arrested the accused and sent him to the Hon'ble court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed the charge sheet

before the court.

3. This case was taken on file under section 341, 506, 507 IPC and against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused the case copies furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On 1.8.2016 accused was examined under Sec 251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation leveled against him u/secs. 341, 506, 507 of IPC by the predecessor of this court and the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During course of trial, the prosecution had examined LW14 to

LW8 as PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO.1. The prosecution has failed to examined LW1 to LW3 who are main and material witnesses. After closure of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, reported no evidence and no documents were marked.

7.Now the point for determination is

Whether the accused restrained and threatened the

LW1 with dire consequences over phone? If so, whether the

prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable u/s 341, 506, 507 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt

or not?

P O I N T:

8.In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined P.W1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO.1. Apart from that P.W1 and 3

PW2 are said to be independent witness who were witnessed while accused threatened the LW1 over phone. PW3 and PW4 who are said to be mediators at the time of drafted the seizure cum confession statement dt.18.8.2014. PW5 is the Investigating officer. In so far as

Exhibits concerned Ex.P1 and P2 are 161 statements of P.W1 and PW2.

Ex.P3 and P4 are the signatures of PW3 and PW4 on the seizure cum arrest mahazarnama dt.18.8.2014 EX.P5 is the original FIR. MO.1 is the

Karbann K9 black and white cell phone.

9.The case of the prosecution is that the LW1 visited the house of LW2 on his personal work being MLA of Kadiri constituency thereby accused made restrained and threatened the LW1 over phone by saying that if he will not resign to MLA the accused would see end of life of LW1.

The learned APP and accused counsel reported that the arguments may be treated as heard.

10. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, as seen the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are the independent witnesses they deposed that they do not know the LW2 and LW3 and accused, they do not know the facts of the case and they were not examined by the police. But whereas the earlier version of PW1 and PW2 goes to show that while accused threatened the LW1 with dire consequences by the time the LW1 on the cell phone speaker thereby they heard the threaten of accused to PW1. But in their evidence they denied the entire their earlier version and they were not supported to the prosecution case.

Thereby the learned APP declared them as hostile witness and the learned APP was permitted to cross examine the witness but nothing could be elicited during the cross examination and they denied to have state before the police as EX.P1 and P2.

4

11. It is the case of the prosecution that th PW3 and PW4 were present at the time PW5 arrested the accused and accused confessed the alleged offense thereby the PW5 seized the MO.1 and drafted the confession cum seizure mahazarnama dt.18.8.2014 in the presence of

PW3 and PW4. But whereas the evidence of PW3 and PW4 goes to show that at about 2 or 3 years ago police called them to the police station then they went to police station on that police obtained their signatures on written paper but they do not know the contends of the same. So the evidence of PW3 and PW4 are not proved anything about the contents of seizure cum arrest mahazarnama dt.18.8.2014. At the instance of learned APP they were declared as hostile witnesses and learned APP was permitted to cross examine the PW3 and PW4 but nothing could be proved anything about the contents of seizure cum arrest mahazarnama dt.18.8.2014.

12. In addition to that as seen the evidence of PW5 who I is investigating officer he deposed that on 17.8.2014 at 3.00pm LW1 came to police station and lodged the report on that he issued EX.P5 FIR and examined LW1 to LW3 and PW1 and PW2 recorded their statements. On 18.8.2014 he received the credible information and that he arrested the accused ad seized MO.1 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW3 and PW4 under the cover of arrest cum seizure mahazarnama.

Wherein cross examination the PW5 categorically stated that the LW1 lodged the report after one week of the alleged incident. So admittedly there is delay of one week in lodging the report by LW1 such delay has to be explained by the prosecution but the prosecution has failed to explain the said delay in lodging the report by LW1. Moreover, LW1 to

LW3 are main and material witness it is fact that the persecution has failed to examine the LW1 to LW3. So the reasons best known to the 5 prosecution for non examination of LW1 to LW3 main and material witnesses. So in the absence of examination of main and material witnesses it is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, except the evidence of PW5 there is no material evidence placed before this court to show that the accused restrained and threatened the PW1 wit dire consequences through MO.1 phone. Moreover, the said MO.1 phone is not in working condition and nothing could be displayed about the voice recorder of accused in MO.1 phone. So by considering all these facts and circumstances this court comes to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offense u/sec.341, 506, 507 IPC.. Thus, the accused is entitled to be acquittal.

13.In the light of above discussion this court has no hesitation to arrive at conclusion the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused restrained and threatened the LW1 with dire consequences over

MO.1 phone beyond all reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated supra the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answered this point against the prosecution.

14. In the result, the court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 341, 506, 507 of IPC , as such the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 Karbann K9 black and white cell phone is not in working condition so it shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer of this court and typed on the computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 29th day of April, 2019.

Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate

Kadiri 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE.

P.W.1:S.Gouse Mohiddin, -Nil- PW.2:Attar Usuf, PW.3:P.Gangi reddy, PW.4:S.Venkata Siva Reddy, P.W.5:G.Gopaludu,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1:161 statements of P.W1 -Nil- Ex.P2:161 statements of P.W2 EX.P3: signature of PW3 EX.P4: signature of PW3 EX.P5: original FIR

Mos.MARKED MO.1: Karbann K9 black and white cell phone.

Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate

Kadiri

Calendar and Judgment

In the Court of the Addl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Kadiri

C.C. No. 555 of 2014

Date of offence11.08.2014 Date of complaint17.08.2014

Date of apprehension of 18.08.2014 accused: Date of release on bail of 20.08.2014 accused Date of commencement of 27.03.2019 trial Date of close of trial25.04.2019 Date of sentence or Order 29.04.2019 Explanation of delay if anyDue to non-production of witness by prosecution. Complainant: State Rep.by Inspector of Police, Talupula PS. Name and particulars of the Mankamuthaka Suryanarayana@ Suri, age 35 years, accused:Indukuripalli village, Talupula Mandal.

Section of law: under sections 341, 506, 507 IPC. Finding of the accusedFound not guilty

Sentence/order In the result, the court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under section 341, 506, 507 of IPC , as such the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 Karbann K9 black and white cell phone is not in working condition so it shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class,

Kadiri.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. Copy to the Supdt of Police, Anantapuramu.

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000033/2019 The SHO Tanakallu prohibition and excise Police station Vs Edagotta Gangulamma

Date : 27-04-2019

Business: accused called present. Matter is referred to lokadalath compromise effected ward passed matter is settled before lok adalath in view of the award passed today in pursuance of lokadalath settlement accused is acquitted u.sec.320(8) Cr.Pc for the punishable u/s.8(b) of APP Act Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 27-04-2019 Addl. Junior Civil Judge

9/25/23, 3:11 PMKiosk

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000043/2019 The SHO Tanakallu excise prohibition Police station Vs Nare Lakshmi Narasimha

Date : 27-04-2019

Business: Lokadalath compromise effected ward passed matter is settled before lok adalath in view of the award passed today in pursuance of lokadalath settlement accused is acquitted u.sec.320(8) cr.pc for the punishable u/s.8(b) of APP Act Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 27-04-2019 Addl. Junior Civil Judge 172.17.45.194/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1

9/25/23, 3:08 PMKiosk

Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000031/2019 prohibition excise Tanakallu police station Vs Guda Nagamuneppa

Date : 27-04-2019

Business: Lokadalath compromise effected ward passed matter is settled before lok adalath in view of the award passed today in pursuance of lokadalath settlement accused is acquitted u.sec.320(8) cr.pc for the punishable u/s.8(b) of APP Act Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 27-04-2019 Addl. Junior Civil Judge 172.17.45.194/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1

9/25/23, 3:07 PMKiosk

In the Court of :Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000047/2019 The ShO Tanakal prohibition excise police station Vs Charmala Mareppa

Date : 27-04-2019

Business: Lokadalath compromise effected ward passed matter is settled before lok adalath in view of the award passed today in pursuance of lokadalath settlement accused is acquitted u.sec.320(8) cr.pc for the punishable u/s.8(b) of APP Act Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 27-04-2019 Addl. Junior Civil Judge 172.17.45.194/swecourtis/kiosk/1/1