Smt K.aruna, B.a., L.lm.,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA.

Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM.,, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA., is posted at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 840 court orders on record since 2012. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, A cases.

840

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/200313/2011 Acquitted

The S.H.O., Challapalli P.S. vs Bonam Venkateswara Rao

24 Jul 2013

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri. M. Babu, M.Com., L.L.M., Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Dated this the 24thday of July, 2013.

C.C.No:313/2011

Between State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Challapalli P.S. ………….Complainant.

And

1) Bonam Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, 42 years, Kapu, Chinthalamada village, Challapalli Mandal.

2) Bonam Sriravamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 36 years, Kapu, Chinthalamada village, Challapalli Mandal. ….......A-1 & A-2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.07.2013 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri M. Dwarakanadh and Sri Ch.V.K. Prasad, advocates for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Challapalli Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 & 2 for the offences punishable u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.82/2011 of Challapalli Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that:

I) L.Ws.1 and 2 viz., Bonam Nageswaramma and Bonam Rama

Rao has got two portioned daba house at Chintalamada village and they were living separately in one portion and the accused are living in another portion. The accused with into grab the portion of L.Ws.1 and 2, they started harassing them both mentally and physically demanding them to vacate the portion. On 14.06.2011 at about 20:30 hours, both the accused criminally trespassed into the house of L.Ws.1 and 2, beat and kicked them with hands and legs demanding to vacate the house portion and also

2

threatened them with dire consequences that they would see their end, if not vacate the house.

ii) On 15.06.2011 L.W.1 presented her report in Challapalli P.S., L.W.5-

S.I of Police registered the same as FIR u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and arrested the accused on 17.06.2011. After completion of investigation,

L.W.5-S.P.V. Goud, the then SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences u/s. 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC on 06.08.2011. On appearance, the accused were supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined u/s. 251 of Cr.P.C. explaining the allegations made against them for the offences u/s. 448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of

IPC, read over and explained in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the offences against the accused, the

Prosecution examined the witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6. After the conclusion of trial, Accused were examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in

Telugu for which they denied, but did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard bothsides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the offences against the accused punishable u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

9.It is the case of the Prosecution that A-1 is the son of P.W.1 and

L.W.2-Bonam Rama Rao and A-2 is the wife of A-1. P.W.1 got constructed two portioned daba house in Chinthalamada village. The accused are

3

residing in one of the portions of the said house. The accused having bad intention to grab the said house property, on that the accused harassed

P.W.1 mentally and physically demanding to vacate the said portion of the house. On 14.06.2011 at about 08:30 P.M., both the accused criminally trespassed into the house of P.W.1 and kicked with hands and legs demanding to vacate the house and threatened with dire consequences that they would end the life of P.W.1, if she will not vacate the house. On the report given by P.W.1, P.W.4 registered a case and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 and L.W.2-Bonam Rama Rao and after completion of investigation, P.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

As such, the accused are liable to be punished for the said offences.

10.To substantiate the version of Prosecution case, the defacto complainant by name Bonam Nageswaramma, examined as P.W.1. In her evidence she deposed that she had own lands an extent of Ac:2-25 cents, out of which she gifted Ac:1-00 of land to A-1. She further stated that she constructed the two portioned house. The accused has been residing in one of the portions of the said house and another one she has been residing.

She further stated that she constructed the bathrooms in the said house and the accused did not allow her in the bathroom. At about two years back, when her husband L.W.2-Bonam Rama Rao was taking meals, her grand daughter kicked with her leg on meals plate. A-1 and A-2 kicked with chutney ponder on all over her body. The accused also beat L.W.2, then she went to Police Station and presented Ex.P1 report.

11.Seeram Veera Raghavaiah, who is the eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.2. In his evidence he deposed that at about two years back, while he was going to P.W.1 house on the road accompanying with L.W.4, they noticed that the accused beat with hands and sticks on

P.W.1 in order to vacate the house.

4

12.Seeram Venkateswara Rao, who is the eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.3. He did not support the version of Prosecution, he deviate the contents that was stated before Police in his 161 statement.

Ex.P2 is his 161 statement was marked.

13.S.P.V. Goud, the then SI of Police, who investigated the case, examined as P.W.4. In his evidence he deposed that on 15.06.2011 P.W.1 presented Ex.P1 report, on that he registered a case in Cr.No.82/2011 u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and issued Ex.P3-FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1 and L.W.2 in Police Station and visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch under Ex.P4. He also examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3. On 17.06.2011 he arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

14.The learned A.P.P., by submitting his argument stated that the accused is none other than the son of P.W.1. A-2 is none other than the wife of A-1. In order to grab the house portion, the accused harassing P.W.1 and also beat P.W.1 and L.W.2 and prays to convict the accused.

15.The learned defence counsel by submitting his argument stated that there is a contradiction and omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 that

P.W.1 did not state in her report about kicking of meals plate by her grand daughter. P.W.2 is none other than the brother of P.W.1 and they are interested witness. The independent witness, who was examined as P.W.3 did not support the version of Prosecution. He further contended that P.W.1 offered to sell the land to another person through P.W.2, for which the accused made objection for selling the said land. On that boring grudge,

P.W.1 filed a false case against the accused. There is no medical evidence to prove the injury and prays to acquit the accused.

16.On scrutinizing tCC 210-10 (447,427,506,509 r.whe evidence of

Prosecution witness, P.W.1 is the aggrieved person and defacto complainant.

5

P.W.2 is none other than the brother of P.W.1, who is the eye witness to the incident. P.W.4 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation.

As per Ex.P1 report, it is the contention of the Prosecution that P.W.1 had three daughters and one son. She performed the marriages of her children and residing in one portion of the house, which was constructed by her. The accused has been residing in another portion of the said house and the accused demanding her to vacate the said portion. On 14.06.2011 at about 8:30 P.M., when P.W.1 and her husband taking meals, A-1 and A-2 came and abused in filthy language and kicked on her stomach, A-2 caughthold her hair and beat by benting her. At that time, P.Ws.2 and 3 came there and rescued her. The accused also threatened with dire consequences that if she will not vacate, they will pour kerosene and set fire. But as per the evidence of P.W.1, she stated that the accused did not allow her to take bath in the bathroom and also she further stated that her grand daughter kicked with her legs on meals plate. In the entire evidence of P.W.1, she no where stated the same, which is deviating with Ex.P1 report. Further in her evidence she categorically deposed that A-1 and A-2 kicked her with chutney ponder and it was also not mentioned in Ex.P1 report. It shows that the evidence of P.W.1 is entirely deviating with Ex.P1 report. In the entire cross examination of P.W.1, she denied about the beating of the accused.

17.In the evidence of P.W.2, he also stated that the accused beat

P.W.1 with hands and sticks, which is contrary to the version of Prosecution.

P.W.3, who is the independent witness, he did not support the version of

Prosecution. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are none other than the sister and brother. As such, the independent witness who was examined as P.W.3, did not support the version of Prosecution. As seen from the evidence and material record, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 and accused are residing in the same house in separate portions. So, the question of criminal trespass by the accused does not arise. P.W.4, who is the Investigating Officer, he

6

speaks about the mode and manner of investigation done by him. In his cross examination, several omissions and contradictions were elicited, which is deviated the version of Prosecution. To prove the injury, P.W.4 did not send the P.W.1 to Government Hospital. If really, as per the evidence of

P.W.1, the accused kicked with chutney ponder, there would be likely possible to cause contusion injury or fracture injury, as P.W.1 is an old woman aged about 60 years.

18.Inview of the above facts and circumstances, P.Ws.1 and 2 evidence is deviating the entire story of the Prosecution and Ex.P1 report.

Further, in the evidence of P.W.1, she no where stated that the accused threatened her to vacate the house. Inview of the facts and circumstances, the Prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused.

19.IN THE RESULT, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 and A-2 are acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 24th day of July, 2013.

Sd/- (M. BABU)

ADDL., JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused P.W.1: Bonam Nageswaramma. P.W.2: Seeram Veeraraghavaiah.--None-- P.W.3: Seeram Venkateswara Rao. P.W.4: S.P.V. Goud, Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

ProsecutionAccused

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P2: 161 statement of P.W.3.--Nil-- Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch. M.O.’S MARKED -Nil--

Sd/- (M. BABU)

AJFCM::AVG. //TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

7 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDL.,JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

Report or Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of Sentence or Complainantsion of on bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 14.06.1115.06.1117.06.1117.06.1112/06/1305/07/1324.07.13

Date of Judgment in Calendar Case No.313/2011on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Avanigadda. Complainant:-State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Challapalli P.S. (Cr.No.82/2011) NameAgeS/o.CasteCallingResidence, Taluk

1) Bonam 42Rama RaoKapu–Chintalamada Venkateswara Raovillage.

2) Bonam 36W/o. Kapu–Chintalamada SriravammaVenkateswara village. Rao

Offence: U/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. Finding: Not Guilty.

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.448, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 and A-2 are acquitted u/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. Explanation for delay:- On 06.08.2011 the case is taken on file. On 23.08.2011 the copies of case record are furnished to accused. On 02.03.2013 the accused were examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. On 12.06.2013, 13.06.2013 & 27.06.2013 P.W.1 is examined. On 12.06.2013 & 27.06.2013 P.W.2 is examined. On 28.06.2013 P.W.3 is examined. On 05.07.2013 P.W.4 is examined and the Prosecution evidence reported closed. On 11.07.2013 the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence. On 22.07.2013 heard the learned A.P.P arguments and the learned defence counsel arguments. On 24.07.2013 Judgment

pronounced. Delay caused due to non-production of some of the witnesses by the

prosecution. ___________________________________________________________________________________

Sd/- (M. BABU)

Addl., Judl., First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble 1st Addl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

8

9

10

CC/200427/2012 Acquitted

The S.H.O., Avanigadda P.S. vs Rajanala Lakshmi

24 Jul 2013

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri. M. Babu, M.Com., L.L.M., Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Dated this the 24thday of July, 2013.

C.C.No:427/2012

Between State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda P.S. ………….Complainant.

And

Rajanala Lakshmi, W/o. Late Pandu Ranga Rao, 52 years, Kapu, Lankamanyam, 3rd ward, Avanigadda.

……...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.07.2013 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri P. Rama Chandra Rao, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 in Cr.No.117/2012 of Avanigadda Police Station.

2) The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that:

i) The accused used to purchase Brandy bottles and used to sell them with a margin of Rs.5/- each bottle. On information, L.W.4-SI of Police collected L.Ws.2 and 3, he alongwith his staff and mediators rushed to

Lankamanyam on 17.07.2012 at 21:30 hours,and found the accused in possession of liquor bottles and selling the same for higher prices having no licence. Then, he arrested the accused in the presence of the mediators and seized the (1) American Deluxe Whisky 180 ML quantity having batch No. 27 plastic bottles – 9, (2) American Deluxe Whisky 180 ML quantity having batch

No.41 plastic bottles – 6, (3) Old Tavern rare whisky 180 ML quantity having batch No.122 plastic bottles – 7 (4) Old Tavern rare whisky 180 ML quantity having batch No.122 plastic bottles – 3, total 25 quarter bottles from her

2

possession and separated two 180 ML bottles for sample from one each from each brand as sample under the cover of mahazar dated 17.07.2012.

ii) L.W.4-SI of Police registered the mediator's report as FIR in

Cr.No.117/2012 u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and sent he effected the arrest of the accused and sent her for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence u/s. 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 on 03.09.2012. On appearance, the accused was supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. explaining the allegations made against her in Telugu for which she denied and on that charge u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 framed against her read over and explained in Telugu for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of Prosecution P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.O.1. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After the conclusion of trial, Accused was examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appeared against her in Telugu for which she denied, but did not choose to adduce any evidence on her behalf.

7.Heard bothsides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the offence against the accused punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

9.It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused used to sell the brandy bottles on the margin of Rs.5/- on each bottle. P.W.2 received the information about the selling of liquor bottles on higher price without having licence. On 17.07.2012 at about 09:30 P.M., P.W.2 alongwith P.W.1 and one

Bandreddy Rambabu and L.W.3-Ghantasala Raja Mohana Rao proceeded to

3

Lankamanyam and found the accused and she is having 25 quarter bottles in her possession, which was marked as M.O.1. On that P.W.2 drafted the mediator's report which was marked as Ex.P1 and seized the quarter bottles by drawing the sample in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.3-Ghantasala Raja

Mohana Rao and effected the arrest of the accused. Basing on the mediator's report, he registered a case in Cr.No.117/2012 u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he sent the samples to the Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory and issued Ex.P4-

Analyst Report. As such, the accused is liable to be punished for the above said offence.

10.To substantiate the version of Prosecution case, one Gudivaka

Seshu Babu, Village Revenue Officer, who is the mediator, examined as

P.W.1. In his evidence he deposed that on 17.07.2012 at about 09:30 P.M., the SI of Police called him and L.W.3-Ghantasala Raja Mohana Rao went to 3rd ward Avanigadda and found the accused is having bag in her hand. Then, the Police questioned, then she disclosed her name as Rajanala Lakshmi. The accused shown the bag in which whisky bottles containing 25 in number with different brands and the said bottles were seized under the cover of mediator's report under Ex.P1. M.O.1 is the quarter bottles (23 in number), two samples were sent for analysis. In the entire cross examination of P.W.1, he denied about the proceeding to Lankamanyam and apprehending the accused with bottles.

11.G. Srinivasu, SI of Police, who investigated the case, examined as

P.W.2. In his evidence he deposed that on 17.07.2012 he received credible information about the selling of liquor without permission. Then, he collected

P.W.1 and L.W.3 and proceeded to Lankamanyam village. When they reached near Church, one woman by name Rajanala Lakshmi, on seeing them she tried to flee away. Then, he caughthold the woman and enquired, then she confessed about the selling of liquor bottles by bringing at T.T.D.

4

Opposite brandy shop and used to sell for higher price. The accused shown 25 liquor bottles on various lables. Then he seized the said bottles under cover of mediatornama. On that basing on the mediatornama, he registered a case in Cr.No.117/2012 u/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued Ex.P2-

FIR. He also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P3. He sent the samples, which was drawn under the cover of mediatornama. After that he received Ex.P4

Analyst report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. In the entire cross examination of P.W.2, he denied about the proceeding to scene of offence and seized M.O.1 liquor bottles.

12.The learned A.P.P., by submitting his argument stated that the accused selling the liquor bottles at higher prices. On receipt of credible information, the SI of Police proceeded to alleged scene of offence and seized the M.O.1 bottles from the possession of the accused. Further, the accused confessed the offence in the presence of P.W.1 and the same was drafted under Ex.P1 mediators report. P.Ws.1 and 2 speaks with one voice and pray to convict the accused.

13.The learned defence counsel by submitting his argument stated that P.W.2 registered the case only for statistical purpose. The Prosecution did not examine the neighbours at alleged scene of offence. Further, as seen from the rough sketch, the Investigating Officer did not shown any names of the neighbours in the rough sketch at alleged scene of offence. He only shown the houses in the rough sketch, but no names of the owners of the houses. Further, as per the version of Prosecution, the place of offence is near Church. The public will not be allowed to sell the liquor at Church or any

Temples. The Prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused.

M.O.1 is only planted one and filed for statistical purpose.

14.Now, it has to be seen the seizure that was conducted by P.W.2 is bind or followed the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the version of Prosecution case, on the date of incident, it is the night

5

time at about 09:30 P.M. Admittedly, the accused being woman, P.W.2 who having known about the information of selling of liquor, he proceeded to alleged scene of offence. On that the accused was caughthold by him with the M.O.1 liquor bottles. In the evidence of P.W.1, he categorically stated that himself and SI of Police proceeded to alleged scene of offence and caughthold the accused and liquor from the possession of the accused and drafted the mediator's report in their presence. The admission of the accused about the selling of the liquor is irrelevant u/s.24 of Indian Evidence

Act.

15.Further, admittedly P.Ws.1 and 2 are the official witnesses and the Prosecution did not examine any independent witness to corroborate with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Further as per the Amendment of Criminal

Procedure Code, if the accused is a lady, she was searched by a woman constable or woman Home Guad. Further as per the evidence and version of

P.Ws.1 and 2, on that date, they proceeded at night time. They did not obtain any permission from the Magistrate concerned to conduct search at night time. Further, P.W.2 did not take woman Home Guard or Woman Police

Constable for the search of the bag or house premises of the accused, as the accused is woman. P.W.2 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Prosecution failed to miserably follow the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. As such, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.

16.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 24th day of July, 2013.

Sd/- (M. BABU)

ADDL., JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

6 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: Gudivaka Seshu Babu.--None-- P.W.2: G. Srinivasu, SI of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

ProsecutionAccused

Ex.P1: Mediator's report dt:17.07.2012. Ex.P2: F.I.R.--Nil-- Ex.P3: Rough Sketch. Ex.P4: Chemical Examiner's Report.

M.O.’S MARKED

M.O.1: Quarter Bottles (23 in number)

Sd/- (M. BABU)

AJFCM::AVG.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

7 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDL.,JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

Report or Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of Sentence Complainantsion of on bailment of trialtrialor Order Offence accused 17.07.1217.07.1217.07.1219.07.1202/07/1304/07/1324.07.13 Date of Judgment in Calendar Case No.427/2012on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Avanigadda. Complainant:-State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Avanigadda PS. (Cr.No.117/2012) NameAgeFather’s NameCasteCallingResidence, Taluk Rajanala 52W/o. Late Pandu Kapu–Lankamanyam, LakshmiRanga RaoAvanigadda.

Offence: U/s.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Finding: Not guilty.

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charged offence punishable u/s.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Explanation for delay:- On 03.09.2012 the case is taken on file. On 19.02.2013 the copies of case record are furnished to accused. On 19.06.2013 the accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. On 02.07.2013 P.W.1 is examined. On 04.07.2013 P.W.2 is examined and the Prosecution evidence reported closed. On 12.07.2013 the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence. On 18.07.2013 heard the learned A.P.P arguments. On 22.07.2013 heard the learned defence counsel arguments. On 24.07.2013 Judgment pronounced. Delay caused due to non- production of some of the witnesses by the prosecution. ________________________________________________________________________________

Sd/- (M. BABU)

Addl., Judl., First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble 1st Addl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

8

9

CC/200064/2013 Acquitted

The S.H.O., Koduru P.S. vs Tumu Murali Mohan

25 Jul 2013

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri. M. Babu, M.Com., L.L.M., Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Dated this the 25thday of July, 2013.

C.C.No:64/2013

Between State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru P.S. ………….Complainant.

And

1) Tumu Murali Mohan, S/o. Prasada Rao, 32 years, SC mala, Saradakodu, H/o. Ramachandrapuram, Avanigadda Mandal.

2) Tumu Prasada Rao, S/o. Issak, 60 years, SC Mala, Saradakodu, H/o. Ramachandrapuram, Avanigadda Mandal.

3) Tumu Jayalakshmi, W/o. Prasada Rao, 50 years, SC Mala, Saradakodu, H/o. Ramachandrapuram, Avanigadda Manal.

4) Tumu Naga Kishore, S/o. Prasada Rao, 28 years, SC Mala, Saradakodu, H/o. Ramachandrapuram, Avanigadda Mandal.

……...A-1 to A-4.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.07.2013 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri V. Rama Rao and Sri N. Eswara Rao, advocates for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable u/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act in Cr.No.92/2012 of Koduru

Police Station.

2) The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that:

i) The marriage of L.W.1-Tumu Krupa was performed with A-1 about 10 years back, and after marriage, L.W.1 and A-1 went to Hyderabad in search of their livelihood. During their stay, they had constructed a house in

Saradakodu village, for which they have fell debts. As such, about four years back, due to financial problems, the L.W.1 alongwith her children came to

Saradakodu and living alongwith their in-laws in their house. Since then, A-2 to A-4 torturing L.W.1 and compelling to bring additional dowry from their

2

parent's house. They are also abetting A-1 by propagating some lies against her. She filed a report in Koduru Police Station and the Police had counselled the accused and L.W.1 willing to go to her in-laws house.

ii) On 31.10.2012 at about 18:30 hours, L.Ws.1 and 2 went to her in- laws house, on the mediation of the elders, but the accused, who bore grudge against L.W.1 beat her with stick on her hands, legs and caused injuries. A-2 to A-4 abetted the offence.

Iii) On 31.10.2012 the report given by L.W.1 was registered as a case in

Cr.No.92/2012 u/s.498-A, 324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, L.W.9-B. Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police arrested A-1 on 09.11.2012 and sent him for judicial remand. On 11.02.2013 L.W.9 arrested the

A-2 to A-4 and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.9-SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences u/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of I.P.C., on 28.02.2013. On appearance, the accused were supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. explaining the allegations made against them in Telugu for which they denied and on that charges u/s. 324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of IPC framed against them read over and explained in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of Prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After the conclusion of trial, Accused were examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in Telugu for which they denied, but did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard bothsides.

3

8.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the offences against the accused u/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

9.It is the case of the Prosecution that all the accused harassed

P.W.1 both mentally and physically. On 31.10.2012 at about 06:30 hours,

P.W.1 and 2 went to the house of accused, then the accused beat P.W.1 with stick on her hands and legs and caused injuries. On the report given by

P.W.1, P.W.4 registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2, 3 and

L.Ws.4 to 6. As such, the accused are liable to be punished for the above said offences.

10.To substantiate the version of the Prosecution case, the defacto complainant by name Tumu Krupa, examined as P.W.1. In her evidence she deposed that in the year 2003, her marriage was performed with A-1. At that time, her parents gave Rs.19,000/-, one gold ring and they lead marital life for a period of seven years. During their wedlock, they blessed two children.

At about seven months back, the accused quarrelled with each other. Then, she intersected, result of which she received injuries. She was admitted in hospital. She further stated that she did not know the contents of the report.

Ex.P1 is her signature was marked. The learned A.P.P., declared the witness as hostile. She denied the statement under Ex.P2 161 statement.

11.Mukku Agnesu, who is the mother of P.W.1, examined as P.W.2.

In her evidence she deposed about the marriage of P.W.1 and A-1 and blessing of two children. She turned hostile, she did not support the version of Prosecution. Ex.P3 is her 161 statement was marked.

12.Karra Venkata Basavaiah, who is the eye witness to the incident examined as P.W.3. He also did not support the version of Prosecution, turned hostile. Ex.P4 is his 161 statement was marked.

4

13.M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable, who investigated the case, examined as P.W.4. In his evidence he deposed that P.W.1 presented Ex.P5 report. On that he registered a case in Cr.No.92/12 u/s.498-A, 324, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and issued Ex.P6-FIR. He examined and recorded the statemnts of P.Ws.1 and 2 in Police Station. On 01.11.2012 he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P7. He also examined and recorded the statements of P.W.3, L.Ws.4 to 6. Subsequently, he handedover the C.D.file to SI of Police L.W.9-B. Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police. On 09.11.2012 the SI of Police arrested A-1 and sent him for judicial remand. On 11.02.2013

A-2 to A-4 were arrested and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation and collecting of wound certificates, L.W.9-SI of Police filed charge sheet. Ex.P8 is the wound certificate of P.W.1.

14.It is the case of the Prosecution that as per the report of P.W.1 under Ex.P5, it is the case of the Prosecution that P.W.1 marriage was performed with A-1 at about 10 years back. They lead marital life in

Hyderabad for searching their livelihood. P.W.1, accused and his brother constructed a daba house in their native village i.e., V. Kothapalem and indebted Rs.30,000/-, but the amount which was derived in Hyderabad is not sufficient to discharge the debts. As such, P.W.1 and accused came down to native place and A-1 is working in private company. On that A-2 to A-4 suspecting the fidelity of P.W.1 and instigated A-1 by telephoned and harassed her both mentally and physically and the same was informed by

P.W.1 to her husband. P.W.1 came down to V. Kothapalem, on that she informed the same to P.W.2. Then, P.W.2 and herself went to the house of accused, then all the accused beat P.W.1 by suspecting her fidelity, result of which P.W.1 received injuries. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she entirely deviating about the beating by the accused and harassments made by the accused.

5

15.P.W.1 admitted only about the marriage and blessing of two children. She denied the contents of Ex.P5 report, since the offence is matrimonial, she might have compromised the case out of the Court. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, they also did not support the version of Prosecution. Except P.W.4, who is the Investigating

Officer, he only speaks about the mode and manner of investigation done by him. It is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the sole testimony of

P.W.4. Further, the offence is a matrimonial offence, for which P.W.1 might have compromised the case.

16.Inview of the above facts and circumstances, there is no evidence against the accused further to prove the injury. Ex.P8 wound certificate was marked by the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W.4. He is not the competent person to speak about the injuries that were received by

P.W.1 and the Prosecution did not examine the Doctor, who treated the

P.W.1. In those circumstances, the Prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused.

17.IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-4 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 25th day of July, 2013.

Sd/- (M. BABU)

ADDL., JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused P.W.1: Tumu Krupa. P.W.2: Mukku Agnesu.--None-- P.W.3: Karra Venkata Basavaiah. P.W.4: M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable.

Contd.,

6 DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

ProsecutionAccused

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1. Ex.P2: 161 statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 161 statement of P.W.2.--Nil-- Ex.P4: 161 statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: Report. Ex.P6: F.I.R. Ex.P7: Rough Sketch. Ex.P8: Wound Certificate of P.W.1.

M.O.’S MARKED -Nil--

Sd/- (M.BABU)

AJFCM::AVG.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

7 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDL.,JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

Report or Apprehen-Released on CommenClose of Sentence or Complainantsion of bailcement trialOrder Offence accusedof trial 31.10.1231.10.1209/11/12 (A1)14.11.12 (A-1)04/07/1318.07.1325.07.13 11.02.13 11.02.13 (A-2 to A-4)(A-2 to A-4)

Date of Judgment in Calendar Case No.64/2013on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Avanigadda. Complainant:-State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru PS. (Cr.No.92/2012) NameAgeFather’s NameCasteCallingResidence, Taluk

1) Tumu 32Prasada RaoSC-Mala–Ramachandrapuram Murali Mohan

2) Tumu 60IssakSC-Mala-Ramachandrapuram Prasada Rao

3) Tumu 50W/o. Prasada SC-Mala–Ramachandrapuram JayalakshmiRao

4) Tumu 28Prasada RaoSC-Mala–Ramachandrapuram Naga Kishore Offence: U/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 IPC. Finding: Not Guilty. Sentence : IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.324, 506, 498-A r/w.109 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-4 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. Explanation for delay:- On 28.02.2013 the case is taken on file. On 11.06.2013 the copies of case record are furnished to accused. On 28.06.2013 the accused were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. On 04.07.2013 P.W.1 is examined. On 11.07.2013 P.Ws.2 & 3 are examined. On 18.07.2013 P.W.4 is examined and the Prosecution evidence reported closed. On 24.07.2013 the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence and heard the learned A.P.P & learned defence counsel arguments. On 25.07.2013 Judgment pronounced. Delay caused due to non-production of some of the witnesses by the prosecution. ________________________________________________________________________________

Sd/- (M .BABU)

Addl., Judl., First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble 1st Addl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

8

9

CC/200123/2013 Acquitted

The S.H.O Gantasala P.S vs Kondeti Venkata Ramana

25 Jul 2013

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri. M. Babu, M.Com., L.L.M., Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Dated this the 25thday of July, 2013.

C.C.No:123/2013

Between State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru P.S. ………….Complainant.

And

1) Vadugu Mohana Rao, S/o. Nagendram, 40 years, Pallekari, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

2) Vadugu Mahesh, S/o. Mohana Rao, 22 years, Pallekari, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

3) Vadugu Kalyani, W/o. Mohana Rao, 38 years, Pallekari, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

4) Kokkiligadda Eswaramma, W/o. Balaiah, 28 years, Pallekari, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

5) Vadugu Nagulu, W/o. Sambasiva Rao, 45 years, Pallekari, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

……...A-1 to A-5.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.07.2013 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri I. Subba Rao, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 for the offences punishable u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.10/2013 of Koduru Police Station.

2) The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that:

i) On 13.02.2013 at about 12:00 hours, the cattle belonging to

L.W.1-Devanaboyina Venkateswaramma trespassed into the vacant land of the accused and then both of them had a wordy altercation with one another.

Then, both of them beat each other, result of which L.W.1 sustained injuries,

L.W.2-Devanaboyina Basavaiah also sustained injuries. A-1 and A-2 armed with sticks beat L.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks and caused injuries. A-3 and A-5 beat L.W.1 with hands. L.W.9-M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable recorded the statement of L.W.1 at Government Hospital, Avanigadda and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.10/2013 u/s.323, 324 r/w.324 of IPC. During the course of investigation, L.W.10- SI of Police arrested the accused on 22.02.2013 and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.10 filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of

I.P.C., on 30.03.2013. On appearance, the accused were supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. explaining the allegations made against them in Telugu for which they denied and on that charges u/s. 323,324 r/w.34 of IPC framed against them read over and explained in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of Prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After the conclusion of trial, Accused were examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in Telugu for which they denied, but did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard bothsides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the offences against the accused u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

9.It is the case of the Prosecution that on 13.02.2013 at about 12:00 hours, the cattle belonging to P.W.1 trespassed into the vacant land of accused. Then, both of them had wordy altercation took place and both of them beat with each other, result of which P.W.1 sustained injuries. P.W.2 also received injuries. A-1 and A-2 armed with sticks, beat them and caused injuries. A-3 and A-5 beat with hands and legs. On the report given by P.W.1,

P.W.5 registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 examined P.Ws.2 to 4, L.W.3 and L.Ws.6 & 7 and after completion of investigation, L.W.10-SI of Police filed charge sheet.

10.To substantiate the version of Prosecution case, the Prosecution examined the defacto complainant by name Devanaboyina

Venkateswaramma, who is the injured examined as P.W.1. In her evidence she deposed that at about five months back, the buffalows went to A-1 house, mob gathered there, somebody beat her on her hand. She went to

Police Station. She did not know the contents of the report. At this she turned hostile. Ex.P1 is her signature was marked. Ex.P2 is her 161 statement was marked.

11.Devanaboyina Basavaiah, who is the husband of P.W.1, examined as P.W.2. He also did not support the version of Prosecution, turned hostile.

Ex.P3 is his 161 statement was marked.

12.Devanaboyina Sivaiah, who is the eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.3. He also did not support the version of Prosecution, turned hostile. Ex.P4 is his 161 statement was marked.

13.Devanaboyina Gangadhara Rao, who is another eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.4. He also did not support the version of

Prosecution, turned hostile. Ex.P5 is his 161 statement was marked.

14.M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable, who investigated the case, examined as P.W.5. In his evidence he deposed that he received Ex.P6 hospital intimation on 13.02.2013. Immediately he went to Police Station and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P7. On that he registered a case in

Cr.No.10/2013 u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC and issued Ex.P8-FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P9 and examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3, 4 and L.Ws.3, 6 and L.W.7.

Subsequently, he handedover the C.D.file to SI of Police L.W.10-B. Srinivasa

Rao. On 22.02.2013 the SI of Police arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After collecting the wound certificates, L.W.10-B. Srinivasa

Rao, SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P11 is the wound certificate of P.W.2.

15.On scrutinizing the evidence of Prosecution witnesses and as per

Ex.P7 statement of P.W.1 that on the date of incident i.e., on 13.02.2013,

P.W.1 left her buffalows for grazing, on that the buffalows went to the vacant site of the accused, for which the accused abused in filthy language. The son of A-1 beat P.W.1 with stick on her head, for which she fell down. The neighbours shifted her to Government Hospital in 108 Ambulance. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she deposed that somebody in the mob beat her.

She entirely deviating the version of her statement, which was recorded by

P.W.5 in the hospital. P.W.2, who is the another injured person also did not support the version of Prosecution, he also deviating the version of

Prosecution story. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, they also did not support the version of Prosecution.

16.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and all material documents, it reveals that they compromised the case out of the Court.

Except P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, he only speaks about the mode an manner of investigation done by him. The Prosecution did not examine the Doctor, who treated P.Ws.1 and 2 to prove the injuries. Exs.P10 and P11 wound certificates are marked only through P.W.5. But P.W.5 is not the competent person to speak about the injuries that were received by

P.Ws.1 and 2. It is unsafe to convict the accused, basing on the sole testimony of P.W.5. Inview of the above facts and circumstances, the

Prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused.

17.IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-5 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 25th day of July, 2013.

ADDL., JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: Devanaboyina Venkateswaramma. P.W.2: Devanaboyina Basavaiah. P.W.3: Devanaboyina Sivaiah.--None-- P.W.4: Devanaboyina Gangadhara Rao. P.W.5: M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

ProsecutionAccused

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1. Ex.P2: 161 statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 161 statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 161 statement of P.W.3.--Nil-- Ex.P5: 161 statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P7: Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P8: F.I.R. Ex.P9: Rough Sketch. Ex.P10: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P11: Wound Certificate of P.W.2.

M.O.’S MARKED -Nil--

AJFCM::AVG.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDL.,JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

Report or Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of Sentence Complainantsion of on bailment of trialtrialor Order Offence accused 13.02.1313.02.1322.02.1322.02.1327.06.1317.07.1325.07.13 Date of Judgment in Calendar Case No.123/2013on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Avanigadda. Complainant:-State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru PS. (Cr.No.10/2013) NameAgeFather’s NameCasteCallingResidence, Taluk

1) Vadugu 40NagendramPallekari–Utagundam Mohana Raovillage.

2) Vadugu 22Mohana RaoPallekari–Utagundam Maheshvillage.

3) Vadugu 38W/o. Mohana Pallekari–Utagundam KalyaniRaovillage.

4) 28W/o. BalaiahPallekari–Utagundam Kokkiligadda village. Eswaramma

5) Vadugu 45W/o. Sambasiva Pallekari–Utagundam NaguluRaovillage. Offence: U/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of I.P.C. Finding: Not Guilty. Sentence : IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-5 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. Explanation for delay:- On 30.03.2013 the case is taken on file. On 17.05.2013 the copies of case record are furnished to accused. On 15.06.2013 the accused were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. On 27.06.2013 P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined. On 11.07.2013 P.Ws.3 & 4 are examined. On 17.07.2013 P.W.5 is examined and the Prosecution evidence reported closed. On 24.07.2013 the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence and heard the learned A.P.P & learned defence counsel arguments. On 25.07.2013 Judgment pronounced. Delay caused due to non- production of some of the witnesses by the prosecution. ________________________________________________________________________________

Addl., Judl., First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble 1st Addl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

CC/200122/2013 Acquitted

The S.H.O., Koduru P.S. vs Devanaboyina Basavaiah

25 Jul 2013

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, AVANIGADDA

PRESENT: Sri. M. Babu, M.Com., L.L.M., Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda.

Dated this the 25thday of July, 2013.

C.C.No:122/2013

Between State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru P.S. ………….Complainant.

And

1) Devanaboyina Basavaiah, S/o. Narasimha Rao, 40 years, Yadava, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

2) Devanaboyina Venkateswaramma, W/o. Basavaiah, 35 years, Yadava, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

3) Devanaboyina Nagarani, D/o. Basavaiah, 19 years, Yadava, Utagundam village, Koduru Mandal.

……...A-1 to A-3.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 24.07.2013 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri E. Lakshmi Narayana, advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record and this matter having stood over till this date for consideration and this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC in Cr.No.09/2013 of Koduru Police Station.

2) The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that:

i) On 13.02.2013 at about 12:00 hours, the cattle belonging to the accused trespassed into the vacant site belonging to the L.W.1-Vadugu

Kalyani and she drove away the cattle. Having came to know about the driving out the cattle, entered into a wordy altercation with the accused and picked up quarrel. He grew wild and beat L.W.1 and her daughter with sticks and hands and caused injuries.

ii) On 13.02.2013 L.W.1 presented a report and L.W.7 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.09/2013 u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 5, observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During

2

the course of investigation, L.W.8-B. Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police arrested the accused on 22.02.2013 and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, L.W.8-SI of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of

I.P.C., on 30.03.2013. On appearance, the accused were supplied with the copies of case papers in compliance of section, 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused were examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. explaining the allegations made against them in Telugu for which they denied and on that charges u/s. 290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC framed against them read over and explained in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of Prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of the Accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After the conclusion of trial, Accused were examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in Telugu for which they denied, but did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard bothsides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the offences against the accused u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

9.It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused and P.W.1 are residents of Utagundam village. On 13.02.2013 at about 12:00 hours, the cattle belonging to the accused trespassed into the site of P.W.1, for which

P.W.1 drove away the cattle. On knowing the same, the altercation took place between P.W.1 and accused. The accused beat P.W.1 and her daughter with hands and caused injuries. On the report given by P.W.1, P.W.5

3

registered a case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 4 and filed the charge sheet. As such, the accused are liable to be punished for the above said offences.

10.To substantiate the version of Prosecution case, the defacto complainant by name Vadugu Kalyani, examined as P.W.1. In her evidence she deposed that at about three months back, there is a scuffle in her village.

In that scuffle, she received injuries. She denied about beating by the accused. She turned hostile. Ex.P1 is signature was marked. Ex.P2 is his 161 statement was marked.

11.Kokkiligadda Eswaramma, who is the injured examined as P.W.2.

She also did not support the version of Prosecution, turned hostile. Ex.P3 is her 161 statement was marked.

12.Devanaboyina Sivaiah, who is the eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.3. He also did not support the version of Prosecution.

Ex.P4 is his 161 statement was marked.

13.Devanaboyina Gangadhara Rao, who is the another eye witness to the incident, examined as P.W.4. He also did not support the version of

Prosecution, turned hostile. Ex.P5 is his 161 statement was marked.

14.M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable examined as P.W.5. In his evidence he deposed that he received Ex.P6 report from P.W.1 on 13.02.2013 and the same was registered in Cr.No.09/13 and issued Ex.P7-FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2 in Government

Hospital. On 14.02.2013 he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P8. He also examined and recorded the statements of witnesses at alleged scene of offence. Subsequently, he handedover the

C.D.file to SI of Police B. Srinivasa Rao. On 22.02.2013 the SI of Police arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After collecting the

4

wound certificates, the SI of Police filed charge sheet. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of P.W.2.

15.It is the case of the Prosecution that on 13.02.2013 at about 12:00 hours, when P.W.1 was at house, the cattle of the accused trespassed into the site of the accused, for which there is a wordy altercation took place, then the accused grew wild and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks, resulting which they received injuries. To substantiate the same, on scrutinizing the evidence of Prosecution witness, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the injured and eye witnesses, they did not state anything against the accused. They entirely deviating the version of Prosecution story and their 161 statements. Their evidence shows that they might have compromised the case out of the Court.

P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the alleged eye witnesses, they did not support the version of Prosecution case. As seen from the evidence of Prosecution witness, except P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer, he deposed about the mode and manner of investigation done by him. Further, to prove the injuries under Exs.P9 and P10 of P.Ws.1 and 2, marked through P.W.5. But P.W.5 is not the competent person to speak about the injuries that were received by

P.Ws.1 and 2. As such, the Prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused.

16.IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-3 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 25th day of July, 2013.

Sd/- (M. BABU)

ADDL., JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

5 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution Accused

P.W.1: Vadugu Kalyani. P.W.2: Kokkiligadda Eswaramma. P.W.3: Devanaboyina Sivaiah.--None-- P.W.4: Devanaboyina Gangadhara Rao. P.W.5: M.V. Subba Rao, Head Constable.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

ProsecutionAccused

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1. Ex.P2: 161 statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: 161 statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: 161 statement of P.W.3.--Nil-- Ex.P5: 161 statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6: Report. Ex.P7: F.I.R. Ex.P8: Rough Sketch. Ex.P9: Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P10: Wound Certificate of P.W.2.

M.O.’S MARKED -Nil--

Sd/- (M. BABU)

AJFCM::AVG.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

6 CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE ADDL.,JUDL., FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

AVANIGADDA.

Report or Apprehen-Released Commence-Close of Sentence or Complainantsion of on bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 13.02.1313.02.1322.02.1322.02.1327.06.1318.07.1325.07.13 Date of Judgment in Calendar Case No.122/2013on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Avanigadda. Complainant:-State: Rep by Sub-Inspector of Police, Koduru PS. (Cr.No.09/2013) NameAgeFather’s NameCasteCallingResidence, Taluk

1) 40Narasimha RaoYadava–Utagundam Devanaboyina village. Basavaiah

2) 35W/o. BasavaiahYadava–Utagundam Devanaboyina village. Venkateswaram ma

3) 19D/o. BasavaiahYadava–Utagundam Devanaboyina village. Nagarani Offence: U/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC. Finding: Not Guilty. Sentence : IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charged offences punishable u/s.290, 324 r/w.34 of IPC, accordingly A-1 to A-3 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after six months. Explanation for delay:- On 30.03.2013 the case is taken on file. On 17.05.2013 the copies of case record are furnished to accused. On 15.06.2013 the accused were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. On 27.06.2013 P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined. On 11.07.2013 P.Ws.3 & 4 are examined. On 18.07.2013 P.W.5 is examined and the Prosecution evidence reported closed. On 24.07.2013 the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence and heard the learned A.P.P & learned defence counsel arguments. On 25.07.2013 Judgment pronounced. Delay caused due to non- production of some of the witnesses by the prosecution. ________________________________________________________________________________

Sd/- (M. BABU)

Addl., Judl., First Class Magistrate, Avanigadda. Copy Submitted: To the Hon’ble 1st Addl.

7

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//TRUE COPY//

AJFCM.,AVG.,

8

Order Record 834 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/100134/2008	Varre V enkatagopala krishna vs Vemulapalli Venkateswara rao	03 May 2017	Order	—
OS/100012/2015	Korrapati Veera Simhudu vs Vemulapalli Venkateswara Rao	03 May 2017	Order	—
EP/100044/2016	Parchuri Srinivasa Rao vs Bhimavarapu Jhani	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100079/2015	Kumbam Koteswara Rao vs Shaik Khasim	26 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100032/2011	vemuri Gopala Krishna vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100033/2011	Vemuri Basavapurnaiah vs Gajjula Sri krishna Ranganayaka venkata Subba Rao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100034/2011	Vemuri Basavapurnaiah vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100035/2011	Vemuri Basavapurnaiah vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100036/2011	Vemuri Basavapurnaiah vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100037/2011	Vemuri Basavapurnaiah vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100064/2011	Vemuri Ammanna vs Gaajula.Sri krishna Ranga Nayaka venkata Subba Rao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100065/2011	Vemuri gopala krishna vs Gaajula sri krishna ranga nayaka venkata subba rao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100066/2011	Vemuri Ammanna vs Gaajula sri krishna ranga nayaka venkata subba rao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100067/2011	vemuri Gopala Krishna vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100068/2011	vemuri Gopala Krishna vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100069/2011	vemuri Gopala Krishna vs Gaajula srikrishna Ranganayaka Venkata subbarao	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100124/2013	kaithepalli Nancharaiah vs The Gram Panchayat	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100052/2016	Vemuri Venkateswara Rao vs Boyina Narasimha Rao	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100122/2016	Katta Sowjanya vs Gorriparti Satya Vardhan Rao	24 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100261/2016	Desu Mallikharjuna Rao vs Gunda Venkateswara Rao	21 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
EP/100003/2017	Thummala Sri Latha vs Maganti Vasu	20 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100045/2012	Redrowthu seshagiri Rao vs Thota krishna Murthy	19 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100251/2016	Naraharisetti Nageswara Rao vs Yalavarthi Atma Jayaram	19 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100035/2016	Adapa Guravaiah vs Boppana Lakshminarayana Prasad	18 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100238/2016	Kolluri Seetha Ramaiah vs Chilaka Shadruk	17 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100241/2016	Atkuri Veera Bayamma vs Atkuri Vijaya Lakshmi	17 Apr 2017	Judgement	—
OS/100052/2017	Batchu Madhava Rao vs Madikumari Yesu	14 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100041/2016	Veeranki Amar Babu vs Kandula Srinivasa Rao	13 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100055/2016	Arja Padmaja vs Nandigama Kamalakara Rao	11 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100033/2016	Kagita Vara Prasad vs Chittmothu Lakshmipathi	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100080/2015	Dutta Seetha Ramaiah vs Mandali Srinivasa Rao	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100193/2016	Pamarthi Saraswathi vs Morla Siva	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100199/2014	Kondaveti Balarama krishna prasad vs The District Collector,	10 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/24/2017	Panchumarthi Venkateswara Rao vs Poharlanka Venkata Srinivasa Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100031/2017	Bollepalli Nageswara Rao vs Kolluri Sai Babu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100050/2017	Simhadri Pothu Raju vs Chinthalapudi Siva Nagamalleswari @ Siva Nagamalleswaramma	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100068/2017	State Bank of India Mopidevi Rep. by its Branch Manager vs Gunturu Dayamani	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100069/2017	State Bank of India Mopidevi, Rep. by its Branch Manager vs Arumbaka Vimala	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100090/2015	Boyapati Ratnagiri Rao vs Chunduri Ashoka Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100157/2016	Madivada Venkata Naga Raju vs Bandireddi Rambabu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100253/2016	Nadella Seshagiri Rao vs Kancherla Subhakara Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100259/2016	Chandana Srinivasa Rao vs Polimetla Venkateswara Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100262/2016	Bollepalli Nageswara Rao vs Gowrisetti Narasimha Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100037/2016	Matta Subbamma vs Kongitala Kanaka Durga	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/100026/2016	Polabathina Sujatha vs Choragudi Venkateswaramma	04 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/100043/2016	Vadlamudi Hemantha Venkata Suryanarayana Rao vs Done James	30 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100054/2016	Panchumarthi Venkateswara Rao vs Potarlanka Venkata Sreenivasa Rao	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100146/2014	Badarla Radhakrishna vs Bommasani Ramamohanrao	24 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100170/2016	Addanki Yanadhi vs Addanki Veera Babu	24 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100199/2016	Vaddi Padmavathi vs Polabathina Mohana Rao	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
A.T.C./100007/2016	Lanke Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs Kokkiligadda Sankara Rao	23 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100184/2016	Sajja Komali vs Ganta Suryanarayana	23 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100069/2014	Yarlagadda Prasantha Sekhar Vara prasad alias Pras vs Patan Ghan Shaheeda	22 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100143/2013	Pathan Nagul Meera vs SRY Prasanth Sekhar Prasad	22 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100046/2016	Akunuri Karuna vs Panthagani Nageswara Rao	21 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100031/2014	Gorumutchu Siva Naga Raju vs Gaddati Srinivasa Rao	16 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100034/2016	chennu Koteswara Rao vs Sammeta Sambasiva Rao	15 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100038/2016	Vaddi Venkateswara Rao vs Peddiboina Radha krishna	15 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100057/2015	vucha Subba Rao vs Thota Hemalatha	15 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100052/2016	Vemuri Venkateswara Rao vs Boyina Narasimha Rao	14 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100023/2016	Pandraka Ramulu vs Palanki Siva Brahmaiah	13 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100044/2016	Parchuri Srinivasa Rao vs Bhimavarapu Jhani	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100097/2014	Kanamathareddy Krishnaveni vs Marriwada Venkata reddy	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100112/2014	Puritipati Muralidhara Reddy vs Puritipati Ganga	13 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100072/2014	Nidamanuru Gopi Krishna vs Pingali Gopala Krishna Murthy	10 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100022/2016	Aduri Sankapani vs Choragudi Venkateswaramma	10 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100021/2016	Ayinapdui Venkatramaiah vs Kontham Dharma Rao	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100021/2017	Dasari Hari Prasad vs Done Mahesh	08 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100034/2017	Chinthalapudi Srinivasa Rao vs Medikonda Bala Swamy	08 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100033/2016	Kagita Vara Prasad vs Chittmothu Lakshmipathi	06 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100022/2017	Tunga Rahul vs Bhukya Kondayya	06 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100040/2016	Kota Aruna vs Parasa Sambasiva Rao	03 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100200/2016	Balla Vijaya Raghavulu vs Punuru Srinivasa Rao	02 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100016/2008	DANDAMUDI SATYA PRASAD vs Pamarthi Amaleswara Rao	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100031/2012	Pushadapu.Pavani vs Pushadapu Gopala Krishna Murthy	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/100020/2017	Pothana Surya Teja vs Repalle Rajeswara Rao	01 Mar 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100290/2005	Dokku Venkata Ratnam--Died-- vs Dokku Subbamma	01 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/100001/2017	Naraharisetti Nageswara Rao vs Pedasanaganti Nagendrudu	28 Feb 2017	Order	—
EP/100061/2014	Modumudi Vasudeva rao vs Kurapati Mohana Murali	28 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100120/2014	KAMMELA CHINNA RAMANUJAYYA vs ARZA NARAYANARAO	28 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100107/2016	Veeramachineni Sudhakara Rao vs Veeramachineni Rama Krishnaiah	27 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100030/2016	Vadlamudi Swarna latha vs Varre Jyothi	23 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100006/2017	Kokkiligadda Adi Narayana vs Rayavarapu Munemma	22 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100061/2013	Kondeti veera Prasad vs Meesala Chinnammai	21 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100048/2016	Kanakamedala Gandhi vs Padamati Raghunath	20 Feb 2017	Order	—
EP/100049/2016	Kanakamedala Radhabayamma vs Padamati Raghunath	20 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100209/2016	Meka Venkateswara Rao vs Ambati Srinivasa Rao	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100265/2008	pothula lakshmi kantamma vs Kunapareddy Sivarama prasad	20 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100021/2014	DORADLA KOTESWARA RAO vs GUTHIKONDA VENKATA MURALI PRASAD	17 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100053/2015	Mopidevi Vishnu Vardhana Rao vs Mopdevi Prasada Rao	17 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/100155/2016	Adapala Venu Gopala Rao vs Dhulipala Samba Siva Rao	17 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100140/2016	Kumba Somaiah vs Katta Venkateswarlu	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100141/2016	Kumba Ramesh vs Katta Venkateswarlu	16 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100055/2016	Vakkalagadda Bala Krishna vs Anaparthi Babu Rao	15 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100013/2016	Maganti Venkata Naga Lakshmi vs Maganti Arjuna Rao	14 Feb 2017	Order	—
EP/100040/2016	Kota Aruna vs Parasa Sambasiva Rao	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100059/2010	Neelam Venkateswara Rao vs Seeram Ramesh	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100256/2016	Kakani Purna Chandra Rao vs Borukati Krishna Kumari	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/100257/2016	Kakani Purna Chandra Rao vs Borukati Krishna Kumari	14 Feb 2017	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/100188/2004	Sanaka Guru Prasad vs Goriparthi Subba Rao	11 Feb 2017	Order	—

Showing 100 of 834 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		2
Apr 2017		43
Mar 2017		32
Feb 2017		56
Jan 2017		27
Dec 2016		28
Nov 2016		45
Oct 2016		34
Sep 2016		37
Aug 2016		35
Jul 2016		89
Jun 2016		33

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., handled?

Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., has handled 840 court orders since 2012 at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda. The average disposal rate is 14 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., hear?

Based on available records, Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda.

Where is Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., currently posted?

Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., is posted as PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA. at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., dispose cases?

Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., disposes approximately 14 cases per month, based on 840 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda.

Since when is Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., serving?

Smt K.ARUNA, B.A., L.LM., has been serving at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda since 2012.

Case Types

OS 62%

EP 35%

A 1%

CC 1%

RCC 0%

Posting History

May 2015 — May 2017

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA. · 833 orders
Apr 2012 — May 2015

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA. · 7 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. CH.Yugandhar

CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AVANIGADDA

1 orders

Smt. Swarnalatha Volga Marka

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AVANIGADDA.

576 orders

Sri P Panduranga Reddy

VI Additional District and Sessions Judge Avanigad...

300 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge Court, Avanigadda