Smt. K. Asha Rani

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.K.Asha Rani, B.Com., LL.M.,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 322/2015

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police station, Vizianagaram.

…Complainant. And :

1. Kotla Kiran @ Suresh, S/o Mohanarao, age 28 years, Telaga by caste, R/o D.No. 17-8-16, Tupakula Veedhi, Vizianagaram.

2. Pinninti Saradhi, S/o Sanyasirao, age 26 years, Kapu by caste, Pandrangi village, Padmanabham mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 26.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri

K.V.N,Thammannasetty, Sri K.Ashokbabu and Sri N.Sureshkumar, Advocates for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 420/2014 for the offences under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 12.12.2014 night LW1 Guggilapu Ravindra, AR PC 1533 and LW2

Y.V.Seshu, Inspector of Police perform night rounds on sumo vehicle bearing No. AP 9 P 6648 and at about 11.30 p.m., they reached near Clock Tower junction found some persons gathered and taking tiffin, on seeing them all are dispersed except accused, on that they instructed them to disperse from the place, on that accused aggressively questioned Lw1 that who he is to question them and asked to show his identity card, argued with LW2 and obstructed their duties, assaulted them and ran away by leaving their motor cycle bearing No. AP 35 G 4728. Basing on the report of Lw1, LW5 B.M.K.Kishore, HC 678 registered a case in crime no. 420/2014 u/S.

353 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation Lw5 HC 678 visited scene of 2 offence, prepared rough sketch, examined as many as 4 witnesses and recorded their statements, he served Sec. 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C. notice to accused. Lw6 SI of

Police verified the investigation of Lw5 HC 678 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 353 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offences u/sec. 353 r/w 34 IPC, having understood the same, accused denied the offence. After hearing both sides, Charges U/s. 353 r/w 34 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined L

Ws 1 to 3 and 5 as PWs1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.3. The learned APP given up the evidence of L Ws 4 and 6.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against them, for which they denied the same and they reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration in this case is,

Whether accused in furtherance of common intention, used criminal force to deter PW1 from discharging their duties at Clock Tower Junction,

Vizianagaram and the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 353 r/w 34 IPC ?

3

POINT :

10. The learned APP contended that PWs1 and 2 are victims and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. Hence the Court may convict the accused.

11. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no corroboration between the prosecution evidence. PW4 had made table investigation and foisted false case against the accused. Hence he prayed the Honourable Court to acquit the accused.

12. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. PW1 is the defacto-complainant and also

ARPC 1533. PW 2 is Inspector of Police. PW3 is independent witness. PW 4 is Head

Constable 678 of I town P.S.

13. G.Ravindrarao, PC deposed that he is working as Driver for Inspector of

Police, CCS, Vizianagaram for the Sumo vehicle bearing no. AP 9 P 6648. About one year back while he was performing night rounds along with CI of Police at about 11.00 p.m., they noticed gathering of people approximately above 100 at clock tower, Vizianagaram and as per the instructions of CI of Police, he tried to disperse people from there and accordingly few people dispersed, but other argued with him stating who he is to questioned them and asked him to show his identity card and also pushed him with their hands. But PW1 stated that he cannot identify the said persons who pushed him due to lapse of time. However he stated that approximately 30 people were present when the incident occurred. Then immediately Inspector of Police intervened and requested the mob to disperse, but they did not heed to his advice. Hence Inspector of Police called up Constables from Police Station and got them into the police jeep. Thereafter PW1 gave report to police. Ex.P.1 is report. Police examined him.

4

14. Y.V.Seshu, Inspector of Police, PW2 deposed that he has been working as

Inspector of Police, CID, Visakhapatnam since 17.09.2015. Previously he worked as

Inspector of Police, CCS, Vizianagaram February 2014 to 31st May 2015. On 4.12.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., he along with Driver, AR PC 1533 started for night patrolling duties in Sumo vehicle no. 6648 and they reached the place situated near Gantastambham, Vizianagaram at 11.30 p.m., by the time there they found one person was serving tiffins near by petrol bunk. Hence he informed the tiffin baddi owner to close the baddi as it was late in night. Some of the customers disersed, but two persons stood and argued with ARPC asking him to show his identity card and questioned his designation and also pushed PW1, then he intervened and asked them to move away, but they started arguing with him.

Meanwhile PW1 informed the incident to I Town P.S., and Police Constables came to scene of offence seeing them the said two persons dispersed. They left the scene of offence by leaving their pulsar motor cycle bearing on. AP 35 G 4728. Hence Pw1 took the vehicle to I town P.S. and gave report. Thereafter PW1 continued night rounds, however he was examined by police on the next day morning after registration of FIR. Further stated that he can identify the said persons who argued with them, their names are Kotla Kiran and Pinninti Saradhi and that he got to know the names of accused on enquiring by near by people.

15. B.Siva Ramprasad, PW3 independent witness deposed that at about 2 or 3 years back during night at about 11.30 p.m., or 12.00 a.m., near Gantastambham after finishing his work he went to take tiffin near Gantastambham, then he saw one person caught hold of filt of one Police Constable and that he can identify the said person if shown to him and the witness identified A.1 as the said person who caught hold of filt of Police Constable and before he could intervene to ask dispute the said person had fled away. However police asked address and other particulars including his phone number and he gave the same. Police examined him.

16. B.Muralikrishna Kishore, HC 678 deposed that on 12.12.2014 at about 11.30 a.m., while he was present in the police station LW1 came to the police 5 station and gave a report. Basing on which he registered a case in crime no.

420/2014 for the offence u/S. 353 r/w 34 IPC. Original FIR submitted to the

Honourable Court and all copies to concerned. Ex.P.2 is FIR. He examined L Ws 1

and 2 at police station. On the next day he visited scene of offence and examined L

Ws 3 and 4, recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.3 is rough sketch. Accused 1 and 2 surrendered before him at police station and he served

Sec. 41 (a) Cr.P.C. notice to accused. Further investigation is done by Lw6 of re-verifying his investigation and filed charge sheet.

16. On over all perusal of prosecution witnesses evidence, the case of prosecution against accused is that accused had caused obstruction to the public servants viz., Pws 1 and 2 while they were discharging public duties and to prove the offence u/S. 353 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused had used criminal force or assaulted public servant while he was in discharge of public duty with an intent to prevent or deter the person from discharging the duty. But in this aspect, it was the contention of defence that prosecution had not filed any piece of evidence viz., extract of G.D.entry to show that PWs 1 and 2 were engaged in discharge of public duties as patrolling officers on the day of alleged incident and that no preventive orders were shown to have issued by the higher authorities restricting to move around at 11.30 p.m., at public place nor any piece of docuemtn to that effect filed into the Court by the prosecution. The alleged incident of prosecution story shows that Pw1 was pushed by some persons after questioning his designation and identity card and witness also stated that he could not identify the people who pushed him with their hands. But Pw2 stated that it was A.1 Kotla

Kiran and A.2 Pinninti Saradhi who committed the offence, but how PW2 got to know the names of accused is that on enquiring near by people, they stated to have given their names. But whether accused are frequent visitors to said Tiffin

Centre to know their names is not put forth by prosecution. It is a fact that it is for the prosecution to prove that Pws 1 and 2 were engaged in night rounds of patrolling on the alleged date of incident. But no G.D. entry extract to that effect 6 was filed by the prosecution or atleast stated that PWs 1 and 2 were in uniform while conducting duties.

17. PW3 being independent witness had stated about witnessing holding of

Police Constable filt by one person and said person is A.1, but his evidence is not in corroboration to Pws 1 and 2 evidence. Being victim of the incident, PW1 not at all stated about holding of his filt by any person whereas Pw3 stated so and also Pw1 had not filed the passport showing that he is working as Driver in CCS,

Vizianagaram and when material witness Pw1 admitted that he cannot specify what happened during the said incident, the case of prosecution does not stand for want of the ingredients required to prove the offence u/S. 353 of IPC.

18. PW2 stated during cross-examination that they generally go for patrolling as per the specified schedule maintained by Control Room. But he did not submit said schedule to police during his examination. Further he admitted that his Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statement is silent on that aspect, A.1 and A.2 obstructed them from discharging their duties nor he stated in Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he can identify the persons if shown to him. Hence this Court considering the time factor when the alleged incident occurred is at 11.30 p.m. wherein there would be rare possibility of capturing the appearance of the persons when the scene of offence is crowded with people above 50 and also Ex.P.1 shows that accused were apprehended only after seizure of motor cycle, but whether they were owners of motor cycle or were present at the time of alleged incident is not stated by prosecution and even the seized motor cycle was not produced before the Court.

Further PW4 has stated during cross-examination that he got to know accused only after seizure of bike from scene of offence and that he visited scene of offence on the next day. There are also contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as Pw1 stated that he gave report to police on the instructions of CI of

Police and that Ex.P.1 was drafted by PW1 at Police Station. When Pw2 was present whereas PW2 stated that after instructing Pw1 to give complaint, he continued night rounds and he was examined by police on next day whereas Pw4 stated that 7 he examined Pws 1 and 2 at Police Station on the alleged date of incident. When admittedly scene of offence is busy locality consisting floating of people even at 12.00 a.m., due to near to Railway Station there seems difficulty for any one to identify the persons who disputed with Pws 1 and 2 and when prosecution could not prove the ingredients of Sec. 353 IPC or that PWs 1 and 2 were on duty of patrolling or that A.1 and A.2 are the persons who obstructed Pws 1 and 2, case of the prosecution for the alleged offence against accused is not made out. The evidence of Pw4 shown contradictory statements about when he seized motor cycle and also prosecution could not show the possibility of accused leaving their vehicle at the spot.

19. The defence counsel filed a decision reported in Jawahir Singh v. State wherein it was held that

It is submitted in the complaint, that on 19th Baisakh 1986 the accused kept his car standing in Chowk Maharaj Bazar for an unusually long time and when he was required by Police Constable No. 690 to move on, he refused to do so. Owing to the prolonged halt of the accused, obstruction and inconvenience were caused to the public. In support of the complaint the aforementioned Police Constable was heard, who deposed that the petitioner kept his motor vehicle standing for half an hour and paid no heed to the direction to move on.

The offence was tried summarily and the judgment of the

magistrate is fairly detailed and complete. I am not satisfied that the

Magistrate has understood the exact nature of the offence of which he

was convicted the petitioner. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the Magistrate is of opinion that any person who keeps a conveyance of any kind standing longer than is required for loading or unloading or for taking up or setting down passengers and who refuses to move on when required to do so by a police man on duty commits an offence under Section 36 of the Police Regulation. This is not so.

Before such a person can be convicted under this section it must be

found that he has acted in the manner indicated above, and found by the Magistrate; to the obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk or damage of the residents or passengers. “There is no such finding by the Magistrate, although there is an allegation to that effect in the complaint. It seems the Magistrate never brought his judicial mind to bear upon this essential requisite of the offence. This petition must be allowed and the rule made absolute. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.

Hence by virtue of above discussion, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 353 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S. 255 (1) 8

Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The accused are ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and directed to execute bonds for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each U/s.437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SD/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- None.

P.W.1: G.Ravindrarao, AR PC 1533

P.W.2: Y.V.Seshu, Inspector of Police

P.W.3: B.Sivaram Prasad

P.W.4: B.M.K.Kishore, HC 678

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 given to police dated 23.3.2014

Ex.P.2: First Information Report dated 23.3.2014.

Ex.P.3: Rough sketch dated 18.03.2014

For Defence:- -Nil- M.Os.Marked -NIL-

Sd/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.K.Asha Rani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 1505/2014

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police station, Vizianagaram.

…Complainant.

And : Thirupathi Pardha Saradhi Santosh, S/o Srinivas Pardha Saradhi, age 26 years, Patnaik by caste, House no. 1-1-45, Cantonment, Vizianagaram. … Accused.

This case is coming on 03.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri

B.V.S.Vasudevarao, Sri N.Ramesh and Sri K.Venkatarao, Advocates for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 222/2014 for the offences under Sections 448, 341, 427, 506 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

Accused along with his family resided as a tenant by paying rent to the house of Lw1 Mohammad Obdulla for long time but therefore he paying discontinued rent for months together with intent to grab the disputed house, on that LW1 filed a civil case against accused to vacate the house. While so, on 8.7.2014 accused with criminal intention trespassed into the back yard of house of

Lw1, demolished two old sheds with a view to grab the place and tried to construct a house in the said vacant place and started foundation. LW1 questioned accused about his act, at that juncture, accused assaulted Lw1, wrongfully restrained, beat him with hands indiscriminately and threatened him to see his end.

Basing on the report of Lw1, LW14 B.Ramanayya, SI of Police registered a case in crime no. 222/2014, visited scene of offence, prepared observation report, took photographs of the scene offence, examined as many as 6 witnesses and recorded their statements and served notice to accused u/S. 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C. on 14.09.2014. LW13 R.Somannarayana, Municipal Commissioner issued a report that the disputed house bearing no. 1-1-45 is belongs to Lw1 Mohammad Obdulla. After completion of investigation LW14 SI of Police filed charge sheet against accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence u/sec. 448, 341, 427, 506 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offences u/sec. 448, 341, 427, 506 of IPC having understood the same, he denied the offences and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

Lws 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 3, 11, 12 and 14 as PWs 1 to 9 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 marked on its behalf. Exs.D.1 and D.2 marked on behalf of defence. The learned APP given up the evidences of L Ws 6 to 8, 10 and 13.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against him, for which he denied the same and he reported no defence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration in this case are,

1. Whether accused committed criminal trespass into the backyard of house belonging to PW1 located at Cantonment, Vizianagaram and prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 448 of IPC ?

2. Whether accused wrongfully restrained Pw1 and whether the prosecution could prove the guilt the accused for the offence u/S.341 of IPC ?

3. Whether accused committed mischief thereby caused loss of property worth about Rs. 4,00,000/- to PW1 and whether the prosecution could prove the guilt the accused for the offence u/S. 427 of IPC ?

4. Whether accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with dire consequences to see his end and whether the prosecution could prove the guilt the accused for the offence u/S. 506 of IPC ?

POINT Nos.[I] to [4] :

10.The learned APP contended that PW 1 is the defacto-complainant and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 2, 5 to 9. Hence the Court may convict the accused.

11.The learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no corroboration between the prosecution evidence, PW9 had made table investigation and foisted false case against the accused. Hence he prayed the Honourable Court to acquit the accused.

12. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW 2 is brother-in-law of PW1. PWs 3, 4 and 6 are known persons of Pw1. Pw5 is mediator for scene observation. Pws 7 and 8 are staff of Municipal Office. PW9 is

Investigating Officer.

13. The offence arrayed against accused is u/S. 448, 341, 427, 506 IPC and to prove the same PW1 deposed that he is resident of Samarlakota, East Godavari

District. He owns one house at Cantonment, Vizianagaram by the side of Petrol

Bunk, but accused father by name T.Srinivas Pardhasaradhi was inducted as tenant of the shed located behind his house and due to PW1’s necessity, he requested accused’s father including accused to vacate the shed as they were not paying rents. In this regard he also filed civil suit against accused for eviction. Holding the grudge of it, accused criminally trespassed into the house and demolished two sheds belonging to him on 08.07.2014. Ex.P.1 is his report. Further deposed that by the act of accused and his father, he lost property worth of Rs. 4,00,000/- and that accused caught hold of him and two other persons beat him. While giving Ex.P.1 report he submitted all ownership records to police. Ex.P.2 is certified copy of sale deed dt. 11.08.2014. Ex.P.3 is certified copy of IA No. 415/2015 in OS no.

218/2014.

14. Md. Harish, PW2 deposed that PW1 owns one house by the side of Bharat

Petrol bunk near Cantonment, Vizianagaram and handed over same to him for managing the affairs and that accused, his father by name T.Srinivasa

Pardhasaradhi (died) used to stay in the house as tenants. On 8.7.2014 at about 11.00 a.m., accused and his father closed the front side doors and removed the roof of the house and also demolished the walls and structures to ground level without their consent. The same was informed to Pw1. Hence PW1 gave report to police. Police examined him.

15. Pws 3 and 4 were declared hostile by the prosecution

16. PW5 deposed that on 10.07.2014 at about 1.30 p.m., police observed scene of offence at Sai Krishna Hotel, near Collector’s office, Vizianagaram and he does not know anything about the case. However the report was drafted with boundaries of the scene of offence and he signed on it. Ex.P.6 is scene observation report.

17. PW6 deposed that he knows accused and also PW1. He saw altercation between PW1 and accused regarding demolition of shed.

18. PW7 Bill Collector deposed that on the instructions of Commissioner of

Municipality, he along with Revenue Inspector went to enquire the ownership of the house at door no. 1-1-45 and as per the records PW1 is in possession of house no.

1-1-45 and also his name is shown in documents of Sub-Registrar office. Hence accordingly RI submitted report to Commissioner about his verification. Police examined him.

19. B.Ramanayya, SI of Police, Pw9 deposed that on 10.7.2014 at 1.00 p.m., while he was present in the police station Lw1 came to the police station, and gave report basing on which he registered a case in crime no. 222/2014 for the offences u/S. 441, 341, 323, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Original FIR submitted to the Honourable

Court and all copies to concerned. Ex.P.7 is FIR. On the same day he visited scene of offence situated at Cantonment, Collector’s office near Petrol bunk and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.8 is rough sketch and also prepared scene observation report in presence of two mediators viz., Y.Apparao and Md. Afzal.

Thereafter he secured presence of L Ws 1 to 8 and examined them, recorded their detailed statements in Part-II CD. Thereafter he sent requisition to Municipal

Commissioner on 15.7.2014 requesting to issue ownership of the house in Door no.

1-1-45, in meanwhile he collected house rent receipts paid by accused i.e.,

Pardhasaradhi and also collected Municipal taxes of the house from 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2015 paid by PW1 and on 5.9.2014 Municipal Commissioner after enquiry gave possession and enjoyment certificate of house in D.No. 1-1-45 and during the course of investigation A.1 T.Srinivasa Pardhasaradhi, father of accused died in

Tirumala Hospital while undergoing treatment and death certificate was filed into the Court. On 5.9.2014 he examined L Ws 9 to 11 and recorded their statements after completion of investigation he served S. 41 (A) Cr.P.C. notice on accused and filed charge sheet. Ex.P.9 is possession and enjoyment certificate issued by the

Municipal Commissioner, Vizianagaram.

20. On over all perusal of evidences of prosecution witnesses , the allegation laid against accused is that he along with his father demolished two sheds of which they were tenants, but on perusal of Ex.P.1 it is stated that the said two sheds were in the backyard of the house of which accused and his family members were inducted as tenants. Hence there is no corroboration on material aspects of the incident because of the other witnesses viz., PWs 2, 4 and 6 stated that accused and his family members were inducted as tenants in the disputed house in Door no.

1-1-45 whereas PW1 stated that accused and his father by name T.Srinivasa

Pardhasaradhi were inducted as tenants of the sheds located behind his house and to bring clarity in this regard no photographs were filed by the prosecution, but the rough sketch Ex.P.8 prepared by Investigating Officer Pw9 shows that the sheds were in the backyard of the house. Further when accused and his father including their family members were inducted as tenants of the disputed house and as per cross-examination elicitations, it was found that accused and his father had been in possession of disputed house Door no. 1-1-45 since long time there is no offence u/S. 448 IPC made out against them as the ingredients required to prove the offence u/S. 448 IPC is house trespass wherein the person enters into the property of other having possession of the same with intent to commit an offence or lawfully enter into other property of other and unlawfully remains there with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the property, but the evidence of Pw1 itself shows that though he was owner of the house as per Exs.P.2 and P.9, the possession is being enjoyed by the accused since long time, but whether they had entered said possession as tenants or unlawfully occupied the house bearing no. 1-1-45 is not put forth by prosecution by placing any documentary proof of tenancy records or atleast filing the rent receipts or Municipal taxes. However the oral evidences of witnesses shows that accused and his family members were in the possession of disputed house since long time. Hence Sec.

448 IPC is not proved by prosecution.

21. Another allegation arrayed against accused is u/S. 341 and 506 IPC.

The ingredients required to prove the offence u/S. 341 IPC is of wrongful restraint by voluntarily obstructing any person in preventing said person to proceed in any direction in which the person has right to proceed, but no material aspect bringing home the guilt u/S. 341 IPC is stated by PW1 in chief examination. He only stated that accused caught hold of him and two other persons beat him which is material omission found in his chief evidence that has not reflected in his complaint or Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statement. Hence even Sec. 341 IPC is not made out. Further Pw1 has not stated the exact words or gestures which were used by accused in causing criminal intimidation. Hence even Sec. 506 IPC is not made out.

22. Further Sec. 427 IPC states that whenever any person causes mischief by creating a loss to a property worth above Rs. 50/- is said to have committed mischief u/S. 427 IPC. But all the oral evidences of prosecution witnesses states about witnessing altercation between accused and Pw1 regarding demolition of shed, but whether accused demolished the shed or engaged any labour for demolishing the shed was not put forth by prosecution. Moreover the incident of demolishing sheds is stated to have informed to PW1 by PW2. Pw2 stated that the offence of demolishing shed took place on 8.7.2014 whereas his Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statement shows that the act of demolishing sheds and walls of the house including structures started in 21.12.2013 and carried till 8.7.2014, but witness denied to have stated said statement during Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement and the D.2 series was marked wherein it was clearly shows that PW2 had stated the actual destruction of sheds started in 21.12.2013 to the alleged date of 8.7.2014, even his chief evidence shows that the destruction continued till 3 days. But whether accused were engaged in demolishing sheds with any labour is not put forth by

Pw2 being eye witness of the incident. Nor Investigating officer had filed photographs of demolished sheds in backyards of house. Moreover, the cross-examination elicitations and material on record shows that civil dispute between PW1 and accused is pending before the Honourable Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Vizianagaram for eviction vide OS No. 241/2014. Hence during pendency of

civil dispute arising of criminal dispute is common phenomena. But when prosecution could not put forth the damage caused to Pw1’s house by placing any documentary proof, under these circumstances, valuation of damage cannot be estimated by the Court with only oral evidence of the witnesses. Hence even the offence u/S. 427 IPC is not proved against accused. Hence from the above discussion accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s. 448, 341, 427, 506 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/S. 255 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the above said offences. The accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)

U/s.437-A Cr.P.C, to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- None.

P.W.1: Mohammad Abdulla

P.W.2: Mohammad Harish

P.W.3: Mohammad Quaresh

P.W.4: Mohammad Irshad

P.W.5: Y.Apparao

P.W.6: Mohammad Malik

P.W.7: S.H.Suryanarayana, Bill Collector.

P.W.8: S.Venkataramana, Junior Assistant, Municipal Office, Vizianagaram

P.W.9: B.Ramanayya, SI of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 given to police dt. 10.07.2014.

Ex.P.2: Gift Settlement Deed dt. 11.8.2004.

Ex.P.3: Certified copy of IA No. 415/2015 in O.S. 218/2014 dt. 22.4.2015

Ex.P.4: Marked portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 dt. 10.07.2014

Ex.P.5: Marked portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 dt. 10.07.2014

Ex.P.6: Scene observation report dt. 14.07.2014

Ex.P.7: First Information Report dated 31.07.2014

Ex.P.8: Rough sketch dt. 14.07.2014.

Ex.P.9: Possession and enjoyment certificate issued by the Commissioner, Municipality Vizianagaram

For Defence:-

Ex.D.1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 dt. 10.7.2014

Ex.D.2: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 dt. 10.7.2014

M.Os.Marked -Nil-

Sd/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.K.Asha Rani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 73/2016

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram. …Complainant. And : Thalada Padmanabham @ Demudu, S/o Late Satyanarayana, 40 years, Nagavamsam by caste, R/o Bondilagudem, Vizianagaram. … Accused.

This case is coming on 26.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri

S.Jagannadhamnaidu, Legal Aid Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 30/2015 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 411 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 18.2.2015 at about 5.15 a.m., inmates of LW1 Pyla Srihari woke up and found main doors are opened slightly and found doors of iron almyrah opened and pustulathadu wg. 5 tulas, two bangles wg. 3 tulas, black beads chain (big) wg. 3 tulas, black beads chain (small) wg. 1 tula, gold coins -2 nos. wg. 2 tulas, peacock model bangle wg. 3 tulas, ear rings 11 pairs wg. 5 tulas, garland wg. 2 tulas and silver coins-2 wg. about 10 tulas and cash of Rs. 20,000/- were stolen away by some unknown offenders from their house. Basing on the report of LW1, LW10

Y.K.K.Kumar, SI of Police registered a case in crime no. 30/2015. During the course of investigation, on 23.12.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., LW12 Ch.Ambedkar, Inspector of Police arrested accused at Kalki Bhagavan Temple junction Vizianagaram seized the stolen property i.e, gold pustulathadu, two gold bangles, black beads gold chain(big), black beads gold chain (Small), peacock model gold bangle, gold ear rings 11 pairs (different models) and gold garland from the possession, then accused confessed the offence and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation laid charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 457, 380 or 411

IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offence u/sec. 457, 380 or 411 IPC, having understood the same, he denied the offence. After hearing both sides, Charges U/s. 457, 380 or 411 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

L Ws 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 10 and 11 as PWs 1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 marked on its behalf and MOs 1 to 9 were marked through PW1. The Learned APP given up the evidence of L Ws 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against him, for which he denied the same and he reported no defence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration in this case are,

1. Whether accused had lurk trespassed into the house of PW1 and the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 457 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2.Whether the accused committed theft of MOs 1 to 9 belonging to PW1 and the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3. Whether accused was found in possession of M.Os 1 to 9 having knowledge that the same pertains to stolen property and not accounted for their possession and that thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos.[I] and [2] :

10.The learned APP contended that the evidence of PW1 proves about the theft and when the theft property MOs 1 to 9 were recovered from the possession of accused, the accused are liable for the punishment for the offences under sections 457, 380 of IPC

11.The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW 1 is not direct eye witness and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused were the persons who committed theft and no independent mediator was not examined to prove about the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused and also arrest of accused, hence prayed to acquit the accused.

12. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution had examined

P.ws.1 to 7, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and also marked MOs 1 to 9. PW 1 is the defacto-complainant. PW 2 is the mediator for scene observation. PW3 is Village

Revenue Officer and arrayed mediator. Pw4 is mediator for property identification parade. Pws 5 to 7 are police personnel.

13. The offence arrayed against accused is u/S. 457, 380 and 411 of IPC and to prove the same PW1 deposed that on 15.2.2015 when he was present in the house, theft occurred in his house and he found missing of 5 tulas of gold

Pustulathadu, two gold bangles wg. 3 tulas, gold nallapusala chain wg. 3 tulas, gold nallapusala small chain wg. 2 tulas, gold coin two each one tula, gold nemali gajulu wg. 3 tulas, ear studs 11 pairs, gold mutyalu chain, silver coins wg. 210 tulas and cash of Rs. 20,000/- from his house. Hence he gave report to police on 18.2.2015.

On 24.12.2015 police informed him about recovery of some part of stolen property.

Ex.P.1 is report. M.O.1 is pustulathadu, MO2 is gold bangles. MOs 3 and 4 are two black beads chains big and small. MO5 is Nemali gaju. MO6 is gold ear studs. MO7 is gold mutyala danda. MO8 is silver glass. MO 9 is bowl. He identified stolen property in identification parade conducted at Rajeev Kreeda Pranganam,

Vizianagaram.

14. PW2 deposed that about 1 ½ year back police observed scene of offence situated at Dasannapeta in his and Lw5 D.Eswararao presence. Thereafter police prepared scene observation report and he signed on the same at scene of offence.

15. PW6 deposed that on 18.2.2015 at about 11.00 a.m., he received complaint from PW1, basing on which he registered a case in crime no. 30/2015 for offence u/S. 457, 380 of IPC and considering the nature of offence he informed to

Inspector of Police, I town PS about registration of FIR. Ex.P.5 is FIR. Further investigation is done by Inspector of Police.

16. PW7 deposed that while he was in-charge of I town PS he received FIR in crime no. 30/2015 registered for the offence u/S. 457, 380 of IPC of II Town PS.

Immediately he visited scene of offence situated at plot no. 446, Mahalaxmi Nagar,

Town centre lay out, Vizianagaram and examined L Ws 1 to 3 and recorded their statements, prepared scene observation report and rough sketch in presence of L

Ws 4 and 5 and also took photographs of the scene of offence. Thereafter he sent requisition to Clues Team for collecting chance prints. Subsequently he got transferred and his Successor took up investigation in this case. Ex.P.6 is rough sketch. Ex.P.7 is 7 photographs along with CD.

17. PW5 deposed that on 2.5.2015 while he was present in police station,

LW1 had informed him that there are some variations in the property mentioned in earlier report and requested to rectify the same. Hence PW5 again recorded Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statement of L Ws 1 and 2 on 23.12.2015. On receiving reliable information he along with staff and mediators viz., L Ws 6 and 7, proceeded towards Ashoknagar, Vizianagaram and arrested accused under suspicion circumstances near Kalki Bhagavan temple and on verification of person he found gold pustulathadu, 2 bangles black beads chain, small chain, gold coins, peacock model bangles, ear rings gold garland, silver glass, silver bowl in a bag containing in the hand of accused. Thereafter he seized above property under the cover of mediators report and brought accused along with seized property to police station and produced accused before the Honourable Court for judicial remand and also got conducted test identification parade at Rajeev Sports Complex, Vizianagaram wherein Lw1 identified his property and report was prepared thereafter on completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

18. PW4 was declared hostile by the prosecution.

19. However PW3 another mediator deposed about accompanying PW5 to

Kalki Bhagavan temple at about 8.00 p.m., and apprehension of one person and thereafter recovery of one Pustulathadu, gold bangles and some other gold ornaments of total 7 and silver glasses. Except above evidence there is no further evidence produced by the prosecution.

20. On overall perusal of above prosecution witnesses evidence as it is the case of prosecution that theft occurred in the house of Pw1 on 17.5.2015 during night, it was noticed by Pw1 on 18.2.2015 and report was given to Pw6 on the same day. But after lapse of 3 months PW1 said to have given oral information to

PW5 stating about variations in his earlier report and rectification of few of the items listed in stolen property basing on which Pw5 had recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw1. But no fresh FIR to that effect was filed by the prosecution or the variations in earlier report to the present report were enlighted by the prosecution.

21. P.W.1 identified MOs 1 to 9 in Property Identification Parade conducted at Rajeev Sports Complex and the MOs 1 to 9 were identified by PW1 in the

Court, it is sufficient identification. It is further evident from the contents of

FIR in respect of Cr.No. 30/2015 registered and rough sketch that theft occurred in the house of PW1. So, the prosecution proved that MOs 1 to 9 pertaining to PW1 which was stolen in the house of PW1.

22. But in this case, on perusal of the evidence of Pw.1, it is found that he was not the eye witness to the theft , nor he did say about the accused as offender who committed theft and there is no other evidence on record to show that the accused had committed theft by trespassing into the house of PW1. Hence, in this case, though the prosecution proved the theft of MOs 1 to 9, but failed to prove that the accused were the person who committed the theft of MOs 1 to 9. So, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences under sections 457, 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal for the said charges.

POINT NO. [3]:-

Whether accused was found in possession of M.Os 1 to 9 having knowledge that the same are pertaining to stolen property and not accounted for their possession and that thereby committed an offence punishable under section 411 of IPC and whether prosecution proved above offence beyond all reasonable doubt?

23. The learned APP contended that the recovery of M.Os.1 to 9 from the possession of accused on the basis of confession of accused is proved by adducing cogent and convincing evidence , thereby the accused are liable for the punishment for the offence under section 411 of IPC.

24. However by virtue of marking MOs 1 to 9 the recovery is also shown to made by Pw5, but when the recovery is after 10 months of giving report, the benefit of doubt definitely extends to accused as presumption u/S. 114 Illustration

(a) of Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn. Moreover as per the evidence of Pw5 he said to have recovered above property from one bag containing in the hands of accused which would highly be impossible since no thief would retain the stolen property for longer period of 10 months by carrying said huge property in a bag moving on public place. The mediator PW3 had only deposed about apprehension of one person and seizure of some property, but he had not listed out the seized property from said person nor he stated about identity of the apprehended person by mentioning his physical appearance before identification of him in the Court.

Moreover when PW3 had stated about deposing evidence in more than 8 cases he can easily be termed as stock witness of police.

25. Further mediators report admittedly shown to have stated that accused was possessing the above recovered property in pant pocket, but not in a bag containing in his hand. Hence the defence had rightly cross-examined on that aspect stating that there is high rate of impossibility of possessing the recovered property in accused pocket. Admittedly Pw5 had also stated that there is no possibility of keeping above listed items in pockets of accused. Hence under these circumstances of impracticability of possessing the stolen property and also delay in recovery and for not preparing separate panchanama except mediators report which is cumulative aspect of confession and seizure, this Court is not inclined to believe the version of Pw5 about seizure of property from accused. No doubt recovery is shown to have made when the items were marked by the Court as MOs 1 to 9, but whether the said property is recovered from the accused is not proved by the prosecution and also from the above discussion accused is entitled for acquittal.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s. 457, 380 or 411 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C for the above said offences. MOs 1 to 9 also given to interim custody to PW1 vide order in Crl.M.P.No. 1923/2016 dated 22.02.2016 shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. The accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437-A

Cr.P.C, to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SD/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- None.

P.W.1: P.Sreehari

P.W.2: V.Dharma

P.W.3: D.Krishnamurthynaidu

P.W.4: Ch.Mohanamurali

P.W.5: CH.Ambedkar, Inspector of Police

P.W.6: Y.K.K.Kumar, SI of Police

P.W.7: R.Srinivasarao, Inspector of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 given to police dated 18.02.2015.

Ex.P.2: Scene Observation report dt. 18.2.2015

Ex.P.3: Mediators report dt. 23.12.2015

Ex.P.4: Signature of PW4 on Property Identification parade report dt. 24.12.2015.

Ex.P.5: FIR dated 18.2.2015

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch dated 18.02.2015

Ex.P.7: Photographs 7 in number along with CD

For Defence:- - N I L – M.Os.Marked

M.O.1: Pustulathadu

MO2: Gold bangles.

MO 3: Black beads chain - big

MO4: Black beads chain - small.

MO5: Nemali gaju.

MO6: Gold ear studs.

MO7: Gold mutyala danda.

MO8: Silver glass.

MO 9: Bowl

Sd/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.K.Asha Rani, B.Com., LL.M.,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 1231/2014

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram II town Police station. …Complainant. And : A.1 Vuppu Pydithallamma, S/o Late Trinadha, 30 years, Relli by caste, Lankapatnam, Vizianagaram.

A.2 Chenna Laxmi, W/o Late Gopi, 40 years, SC Relli by caste, Lankapatnam, Vizianagaram (Case against A.2 abated on 23.11.2016) … Accused.

This case is coming on 26.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri

Ch.Rambabu and P.Ravi, Advocates for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram II town Police station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 214/2014 for the offences under Section 324, 509, 506 (2) r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

A.1 and A.2 used to harass Lw1 Chenna Guramma who living along with accused in one roof, threatened with dire consequences to go out from the house, in that course, on 30.8.2014 at about 8.00 a.m., both the accused picked up quarrel with Lw1, abused her in filthy language and demanded to go out from the house. A.1 and A.2 armed with stick and broom, A.1 beat on the head of Lw1 with a stick, A.2 beat with broom indiscriminately, caused contusions and threatened with dire consequences. Basing on the statement of LW1 Chenna Guranna, LW6

L.Eswararao, ASI 902 registered a case in crime no. 214/2014 and investigated into. During the course of investigation Lw6 ASI 902 visited scene of offence, seized the crime weapons i.e., one stick and one broom from Lw3 Podugu Ramana, prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements and on 11.9.2014 served a notice u/s. 41 (1) (A) Cr.P.C to A.1 and A.2. Lw5 Dr. PVU

Sharma, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram rendered treatment to

Lw1, issued wound certificate wherein he opined that injuries are simple in nature.

LW7 Y.K.Kishorekumar, SI of Police verified investigation conducted by Lw6 ASI and after completion of investigation LW7 SI of Police filed charge sheet

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 324, 509, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offences u/sec. 324, 509, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC, having understood the same, they denied the offences. After hearing both sides, Charges U/s. 324, 509, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

L Ws 1, 3, 2, 6, 5 and 7 as PWs1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 marked and also got marked MOs 1 and 2 through Pw1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against them, for which they denied the same and they reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration in this case are,

1. Whether A.1 and A.2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating with stick (chekkapedu) and broom stick i.e., MOs 1 and 2 and whether prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.324 IPC ?

2. Whether accused intended to insult the modesty of PW1 by uttering word and whether prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s. 509 IPC ?

3. Whether in furtherance of common intention, accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with dire consequences and whether prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC ?

POINT Nos 1 to 3 :

10. The learned APP contended that PW1 is defacto-complainant and injured and corroborated with the evidence of PWs 4 to 6. Hence the Court may convict the accused.

11. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no corroboration between the prosecution evidence and PW1 foisted false case against the accused. Hence he prayed the Honourable Court to acquit the accused.

12. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and also got marked MOs 1 and 2. Pw1 is the defacto-complainant. Pws 2 and 3 are independent eye witnesses. PW5 is Doctor who issued wound certificate. PWs 4 and 6 are police personnel.

13. PW1 deposed that she is a retired employee and does not know A.1 and

A.2. She got job in Bank on the death of her husband. Further deposed that A.1 and A.2 used to beat her for no reason and often used to harass her by asking to vacate her house. Even after bringing them up they did not care to look after her welfare. Further stated that she spent all her earnings on A.1 and A.2, but they did not have any gratitude and infact they beat her for no reason and that they beat her with stick (Chekkapedu) and broom stick in demanding to vacate the house or to pay Rs. 50,000/- to them. Hence she gave complaint to police. Ex.P.1 is report.

MO1 is chekkapedu. MO2 is broom stick.

14. Pws 2 and 3 were declared hostile by the prosecution and they denied to have stated before police as Exs.P.2 and P.3.

15. Pw4 deposing about registering FIR basing on the complaint of Pw1 in crime no. 214/2014 for the offence u/S. 324, 509, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.4 is FIR.

Original FIR submitted to the Honourable Court and all copies to concerned. He examined L Ws 1 and 2 at police Station. On the same day he visited scene of offence, examined L Ws 3 and 4, recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.5 is rough sketch and that he seized crime weapons casurina stick from Lw3 on handing over the same at scene of offence. Thereafter he served Sec.

41 (A) Cr.P.C. notice on accused on 11.9.2014. Further investigation was done by

Lw7 SI of Police, II town PS.

16. PW6 stated about verifying the investigation made by Pw4 and of filing of charge sheet.

17.PW5 deposed that on 1.9.2014 at about 1.10 p.m., he examined female person by name Ch.Guramma and found following injuries 1) a black discoloration of 3 cm diameter was present on left chin. There was no external injury and no bone injury. He opined that above injury is simple in nature and issued wound certificate. Ex.P.6 is wound certificate.

18. On overall perusal of prosecution witnesses evidences, it is the case of prosecution that PW1 was beaten by accused with casurina stick and broom stick, but PW1 had denied having any relationship with A.1 and A.2 whereas it is the defence case and also evident from facts of the case that A.1 is daughter-in-law of

Pw1 and A.2 is daughter of PW1. After demise of Pw1’s husband, Pw1 got job in

Bank at Bobbili and that Pw1’s husband used to work in Army. Further she stated during cross-examination that after retirement of her husband she received retirement benefits from Army and owns one house at Bobbadipeta but sold the same for Rs. 20,00,000/-. Hence it was the contention of defence that Pw1 was leading life without any responsibility of looking after her children and grand children and her demeanor was also recorded by the Court for her reluctantness in answering the defence and for every question relating to her family she was denying the relationship and giving uncontrollable and irrelevant explanations to the questions posed by defence. However from the cross-examination elicitations it is understood that Pw1 was disputing with her family members concerning rights over the property, for which she had also filed MC 10/2015 on the file of Mandal

Executive Magistrate Office. Though she admitted to have 7 children of whom 4 are males and 3 are females of which 6 persons passed away except A.2, but inspite of one child to her, they are shown to have disputes with regard to properties.

19. Initially Pw1 had denied of having any relationships with A.1 and A.2 during her chief-examination. However in her cross-examination she admitted that she along with A.1 and A.2 including A.2’s daughter lives in Lankapatnam house and during the pendency of case, A.1 had passed away. But Pw1 had stated that she does not know whether A.1 was alive or dead. Though she admitted that she is living with A.1 and A.2 in the house at Lankapatnam. Hence it clearly shows negative attitude of Pw1 towards her family members. Further it was the contention of defence that PW1 has intoxicant habit and she creats nuisance in the house and also in street and that they often get warned by neighbours for Pw1 nuisance in the street. Though Pw1 had stated about beating of A.1 and A.2, the place where they beat with Chekkapedu is not stated by her in chief evidence and also the evidence of Pw4 states about seizure of only casurina stick from Lw3, on handing over the same by her and no broom stick is shown to have seized by Pw2. But the prosecution had got marked MO1 chekkapedu and MO2 Broom stick and LW3 examined as PW2 had denied about witnessing any dispute and she was declared hostile by the prosecution. Hence under these circumstances of inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution about crime weapons alleged to have used by accused in committing the offence or when there is no corroboration of prosecution case on material aspects of where Pw1 received injuries or with what weapon, the alleged injury was caused the prosecution case against accused for above offences is not made out. Even the evidence of Pw5 had not stated about the age of injury or the object with which the injury of discoloration of 3 cm., diameter could be sustained and place of injuries as per his evidence is Shin, but where the place is not mentioned by the prosecution, whether it is chin or shin is unclear from the evidence of Pw5 and also alleged injured witness Pw1 had not stated about the place of injury she sustained in hands of accused. However Ex.P.1 shows that A.1 had alleged to have beaten with stick on her head and about she sustained swelling injury. But Pw5 evidence had not stated about finding any external injuries of swelling on the head of Pw1 and also there is no corroboration of evidences deposed by Pw1 to that of Ex.P.1. Hence there is no corroboration of places where the injuries were sustained by Pw1 or the prosecution could not make out any offence against accused. hence under these circumstances the A.1 is entitled for acquittal.

20. In the result, the A.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.

324, 509, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly she is acquitted U/S. 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

for the above said offences. The MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is ordered to continue on bail for about 6 months and directed to execute bonds for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) U/s.437-A

Cr.P.C., to appear before Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred. Case against

A.2 abated on 2.11.2016.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr. III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

SD/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:- For Defence:- None. P.W.1: Ch.Guramma P.W.2: P.Ramana P.W.3: B.Sattemma P.W.4: L.Eswararao, ASI 902 P.W.5: Dr. P.V.U. Sharma P.W.6: Y.K.K.Kumar, SI of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 given to police dated 1.9.2014 Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 dated 1.9.2014 Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 dated 1.9.2014 Ex.P-4: FIR dt. 1.9.2014 Ex.P-5: Rough sketch dt. 1.9.2014 Ex.P-6: Wound certificate of PW1 dt. 8.9.2014 For Defence:- -Nil- M.Os.Marked

M.O.1: Stick (Chekkapedu) M.O.2: Broom Stick

Sd/- K.Asharani,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I

CLASS, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt.K.Asha Rani, B.Com., LL.M.,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Friday, the 30th day of January, 2015

C.C.No.633/2013

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram.…Complainant.

And :

1) Rongali Rama Krishna Maheswara Rao

2) Rongali Radhamani … Accused.

This case is coming on 29.01.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and of Sri L.Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Cr.No.94/2013 for the offence under Sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC against the accused 1 and 2.

3. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offence u/sec. 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC, having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 got marked.

2

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused 1 and 2 were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating evidence appeared against them, for which they denied the same and they reported no defence on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration in this case is, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

PW-1 is resident of Lenka Veedhi of Vizianagaram. A-1 is elder son of PW-1 and husband of A-2. PW-1 had two stairs building at Lenka Veedhi and she allotted the ground floor of the same to her younger son PW-2 and one vacant site to A-1 and upstairs to her 2nd son. A-1 occupied the ground floor which was allotted to PW-1.

PW-2 came down Vizianagaram on his transfer. On that PW-1 requested A-1 to vacate the house and handover it to her younger son. In that connection, A-1 and his wife A-2 grew wild against PW-1. While so, on 15.5.2013 at 8 a.m. when PW-1 questioned A-1 regarding non-vacation of the ground floor, the accused grew wild against PW-1 and beat her with hands and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the report of PW-1 a case in above crime number was registered.

10. As already stated the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5.

11. PW-1 deposed that on 15.5.2013 the accused removed current wire of motor and when she questioned the same, both the accused came upon her and A-2 caught hold her and tried to pull her to the house and beat her and A-1 attempted to kick her but she escaped. She gave report in II Town P.S., under Ex.P-1.

12.PW-2 deposed that PW-1 is his mother. On 15.5.2013 the accused damaged the motor pipes and on that PW-1 questioned, the accused beat her.

13.PW-3 deposed that he is staying for rent in one portion of the house of PW-1. He do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any offence. PW-4 deposed that he do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any 3 offence. Police never examined him. PWs 3 and 4 were declared as hostile by learned

A.P.P. After obtaining permission of the court, the learned APP cross examined PWs 3 and 4 but they denied the suggestion that they stated before police as in Ex.P-2 and

Ex.P-3 their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

14. PW-5 is Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 16.5.2013 PW-1 came to police station and gave report under Ex.P-1 and he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.94/13 and examined PW-1 and recorded statements of PW-2. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses, prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P-5 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

15. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidence clearly establishes that accused committed the offence and the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Investigating Officer (PW-5) is quite corroborative with each other and hence the accused are liable for punishment.

16.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence and the evidence of PW-1 is not corroborated with any independent witness and due to previous disputes this false case was foisted against accused and there is counter case filed by the accused against PW-1. PW-3 who said to be independent witness and staying in the house of PW-1 for rent, did not support the case of prosecution and PW-4 also did not support the case of prosecution and they completely turned hostile and hence the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused and accused hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

17.On thorough perusal of evidence on record, PW-1 in her cross examination admitted that she is not having talking terms with A-1 since 11 years and that she did not state before police that A-2 caught hold her and tried to pull her inside the house to beat her and that A-1 tried to kick her but she escaped. She further admitted that A-1 gave report against her and PW-2 Rajasekahar and the case is pending.

4

18.PW-2 is none other than the younger son of PW-1. He admitted during his cross examination that a case was registered against him and PW-1 for report given by A-1.

Though PW-2 deposed in his cross examination that PW-1 received small scratch injuries, PW-1 did not whisper anywhere in her evidence that she received any injuries.

Hence there is no corroboration in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to the injuries sustained by PW-1 as deposed by PW-2. PW-2 is being an interested witness, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

19.PW-3 is an independent witness and he is staying for rent in one portion of the house of PW-1. Hence he is a crucial witness. But he did not support the case of prosecution. PW-4 is another independent witness. He also did not support the case of prosecution.

20. On perusal of entire evidence on record, it is clear that PW-1 and A-1 has no good relations. PW-1 during her cross examination she stated that she was not speaking with A-1 for 11 years and also admitted that A-1 has filed report against

PW-1. All these circumstances show that family has some disputes but no independent witness had supported the case of prosecution. Hence the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A-1 and A-2 for the offence u/sec.323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

21. In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under section- 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- each u/0sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of January, 2014.

Sd/-K.Asha Rani

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:- For Defence:- P.W.1: Rongali Papamma -None- P.W.2: Rongali Rupa Raja Sekhar P.W.3: Vanjarpu Santhosh Kumar 5

P.W.4:Karumajji Lokesh P.W.5: Y.K.K.Kumar, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:-For Defence:-- N I L – Ex.P.1: Report of Pw-1 dt.16.5.2013 Ex.P-2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 Ex.P-3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4 Ex.P-4: Original FIR in Cr.No.94/2013. Ex.P-5: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

M.Os.Marked -Nil-

Sd/-K.Asha Rani

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.