CC.No.65/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT
ASIFABAD
Present: Sri K.Balachander, B.A., LL.M. Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad
Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2015
CC.No.65/2014 (Old CC.No.146/2007)
Between: The State of A.P through The Sub Inspector of Police, Wankidi. …. Complainant //AND// Sende Bapurao, S/o.Jayaram, Age:32 years, Caste:Bare, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Wankidi
…..Accused
This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP Sri G.Ganeshanand for the State and of Sri M.Suresh, Advocate for the accused, after hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police, Wankidi filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/S.417,420, 506(i) IPC.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: 5 months prior to 22.01.2007
LW.1/Mandhade Punjubai went to the cotton fields of accused for coolie, in that field accused developed closeness with her duly making deceitful words and had sexual intercourse with her.
Accused used to have sexual intercourse with the victim now and then in the cotton field and at the house of victim in the absence of parents of victim on the promise of marrying her. Due to which victim became pregnant. When she demanded to marry her, accused denied to do so and threatened her to terminate the pregnancy, otherwise he will kill her.
Basing on the above report from LW.1/Mandhade Punjubai, LW.11/Sub Inspector of police, Wankidi registered a case in Cr.No.9/2007 for the offences U/S.417,420, 506 (i) IPC.
During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.
LW.9/Dr.N.Vidyavathi, Civil Asst. Surgeon, APVVP Community hospital, Asifabad examined the victim and issued certificate that she was pregnant and foetus is 16 weeks. On 19.6.2007 he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/S. 417,420, 506(i) IPC.
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J. 15.5.2015 2CC.No.65/2014
3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance taken for the offences U/S. 417, 420, 506(i) IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after accused was examined U/S. 239 Cr.P.C., charges framed for the offences U/S.417, 420,506(i) IPC, read over and explained to the accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 9 and Ex.P1 to P4, Ex.D1 to
D.9 marked. Several adjournments and conditional orders passed by this court, memos vide
O.M.Dis.No.255/15, Dt: 30.4.2015 issued to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of concerned police to produce LWs.10 & 11. Inspite of conditional order, memos neither the police nor the prosecution showed any interest to produce LWs.10 & 11. It shows pronounced negligence on the part of the duties of prosecution and police. Hence the evidence of LWs.10 & 11 is closed by this Court. U/S.311 Cr.P.C. petitions vide
Crl.M.P.No.37/2015,Dt:11.5.2015, Crl.M.P.No.39/2015, Dt:14.5.2015 were allowed with a
condition to produce LWs.10 & 11 on the next date of hearing without fail. Memo also issued vide O.M.dis.No.281/2015, Dt:11.5.2015, O.M.Dis.No.290/2015, Dt:14.5.2015 to the concerned
SDPO, Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of police to produce LWs.10 & 11 on the next date of hearing without fail. Inspite of allowing two times U/S.311 Cr.P.C. petitions and issuing memos to the concerned police prosecution failed to produce the above said witnesses. It shows their
pronounced negligence of the part of the duties of the prosecution and police. Hence evidence of
LWs.10 & 11 is closed by this court.
5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating material appeared against him and reported no defence evidence.
6.Heard both sides.
7.Now the point for determination is that : Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/S. 417, 420, 506(i) IPC?
8.PWs.1 to 3 deposed that about 7 or 8 years back when PW.1 went to the fields of accused to do coolie work, accused eloped illicit contact with PW.1 and made her pregnant by saying deceitful words that he will marry her as a second wife. Then they reported the same to their
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 3CC.No.65/2014 village elders. Then PW.8 and other caste elders called the accused and asked about the pregnancy, on that accused agreed before the caste elders that he will keep her. After (4) days of panchayath accused came to their house and threatened her to get abort as early as possible otherwise he will see the end of PW.1. Thereafter PW.1 went to the police station and lodged report to the police.
`Whereas PWs.4 to 7 who are the circumstantial witnesses to the case of the prosecution they deposed in one voice that about 7 years back one day PW.2 came to their house and reported that accused cheated PW.1, then they conducted panchayath. In that panchayath PW.1 stated that accused eloped illicit contact with her, then she got pregnancy. Then accused not admitted his guilt first time and denied allegation made by PWs.1 & 2 against him. Then PW.4 stated that after sometime he admitted his guilt about his act with PW.1 and requested one week time to marry PW.1. After 2 to 3 days of the panchayath PW.2 again approached to them and stated that accused threatened PW.1 stating that to get abortion otherwise he will kill her.
Thereafter they went to the police station and lodged report.
PW.8 stated that he did not conduct any panchayat with regard to this case at any point of time and police never examined him and recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.
Whereas PW.9 who is the medical officer and crucial witness to the prosecution case, in the capacity of medical officer she deposed that she received requisition from LW.11/Sub
Inspector of police,Wankidi to examine PW.1, upon which she examined PW.1 and found that she was carrying. Basing on the ultra sound scan of abdominal test done by Dr.Sunitha of
Aditya Nursing Home of Kagaznagar she issued Ex.P3 pregnancy certificate. Ex.P4 is scanning report of Aditya Nursing Home, Kagaznagar.
9.POINT:
PW.1 is the complainant, PW.1 categorically deposed that about (7) years back she went to the fields of accused by name Sende Bapurao to attend the coolie work. At hat time accused came to the PW.1 and caught hold her hand, then she questioned him why he caught hold her hand, then he replied that he like her and he will marry her as a second wife and accused promised that he will provide all necessities to the PW.1. From this incident PW.1 continuously went to the fields of the accused 10-12 days for work. Then PW.1 became pregnant. After
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 4CC.No.65/2014 pregnancy also she attended the coolie work in the fields of accused. With the act of the accused she became pregnant. The same was disclosed to PWs.2 & 3, and then they reported the same to their village elders. Then PW.8 who is their caste elder he called the accused and asked about the pregnancy, on that accused agreed before the caste elders that he will keep her. After (4) days of panchayath accused came to their house and threatened her to get abort as early as possible otherwise he will see the end of PW.1. Thereafter PW.1 went to the police station and lodged report to the police. Ex.P1 report given by her. After lodging Ex.P1 with the police frequently galata was took place in between PW.1 and the accused. Then she blessed with the female child. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
In her cross examination she deposed that no document was executed by the village elders with regard to the panchayath in-between her and accused. She belongs to Mera caste.
Nearly 200 to 300 their caste families were there in their village. One Bheemaiah i.e. PW.8 is the elder of their caste. Nearly 50 to 60 caste persons gathered. After (3) days of the panchayath accused came to her and threatened. After (4) or (5) days of the panchayath she lodged Ex.P1.
She further admitted that she was not stated to the police that prior to the one month of lodging of Ex.P1 accused came to their house and he stated her infront of her parents in a polite manner that she should get abort. This portion is marked as Ex.D.1. She is residing with her parents i.e.
PWs.2 & 3 till now. At the time of first month pregnancy she disclosed the same to her parents.
In the same month panchayath was held. Further she stated that she went to the house of accused and demanded to get marry her. Further witness stated that she went to the house of accused alongwith one Bhiva, Bheema along with other persons. At the time of lodging of Ex.P1 she was four months pregnant. She went to the police station along with elder persons. Ex.P1 was scribed in their village. Further she deposed that Ex.P1 was scribed by the accused. She stated to the LW.11/Sub Inspector of police, Wankidi about the incident. She further admitted that she do not know Telugu and she can not speak Telugu. She admitted that she has given her 161
Cr.P.C. statement to the Investigating officer in Marati and she clearly admitted that accused is a married person and having three children. Several fields are located adjacent to the fields of accused and she alone used to attend the coolie work in the fields of accused. Nearly 100 houses of her community persons are there. One Lendigure Srinu is there of their caste.
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 5CC.No.65/2014
10.PWs.2 & 3 who are the parents of PW.1 they categorically stated in one voice that 8 years back accused called PW.1 to do coolie work in his fields and he eloped illicit contacts with her, due to which she got pregnant. Then PW.1 disclosed the same to them. Thereafter they held a panchayat before the caste elders. There the accused admitted his guilt. Thereafter they lodged
Ex.P1 report with the police. In their cross examination they categorically stated that PW.1 is residing with them. When she was carrying (2) or (3) months pregnancy she disclosed them.
After two days of the disclosing they conducted a panchayath. One Gugurle Bheemaiah,
Kotrange Pandu, Purushotham i.e. PW.4, Santhar and one Pandu were conducted panchayath.
No documents were executed in the panchayath. Further admitted that they cannot say after how many days of the panchayath they presented Ex.P1. Nearly 100 houses of their community persons there. The surname of Vadai of their caste houses nearly 2 to 3 are there in their village.
Further they admitted that they did not state to the police that Vadai Bapurao eloped the illicit contact with PW.1, through him PW.1 got pregnant. This portion is marked as Ex.D.2 & D.4.
Further PW.2 denied the suggestion that said Vadai Bapuro came to their house and threatened
PW.1 to get abortion immediately, otherwise he will kill her. This portion too marked as Ex.D.3
As per the contents of PWs.1 to 3 that accused caught hold the hands of PW.1 at the fields of accused when she went to do coolie work. Then accused by promising PW.1 he eloped the illicit contact with her and promised her that he will look after her well as second wife and he will provide all the necessities to her. Then PW.1 got pregnancy with the act of the accused.
Thereafter same was disclosed to PWs.2 & 3. After two days of it they conducted a panchayath
before their village elders namely Gugurle Bheemaiah, Kotrange Pandu, Purushotham i.e. PW.4,
Santhar and one Pandu and no documents were executed in the panchayath. PWs.2 & 3 not stated after how many days of the panchayath they lodged Ex.P1 with the police. Whereas PW.1 stated that after four days of the panchayath accused came to their house and threatened PW.1 to get abort the pregnancy as early as possible otherwise he will see the end of PW.1. Then she lodged report with the police. She clearly admitted in her cross examination that she did not state to the police that prior to one month of lodging of Ex.P1 accused came to their house and stated her in the presence of PWs.2 & 3 in polite manner that she should get abort. This portion is marked as Ex.D.1. PWs.2 & 3 too deposed as in Ex.D2 to D.4 that Vadai Bapurao eloped illicit contact with PW.1, she got pregnancy through him. Said Vadai Bapurao went to their
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 6CC.No.65/2014 house and threatened PW.1 to get abortion immediately otherwise he will see the end of PW.1.
As per the version of PW.1 that the accused name is Sende Bapurao., whereas as per the version of PWs.2 & 3 the name of the accused is Vadai Bapurao. The version of PW.1 not corroborated with the version of PWs.2 & 3. The changing of surname of accused reason best known to the investigation officer whether mistake occurred by the investigation officer or by the PWs.2 & 3.
Further PW.1 stated that at the time of conducting panchayath she was one month pregnant. As per the version of PWs.2 & 3 that at the time of panchayath PW.1 carrying two or three months and PW.1 stated that she went to the house of accused lonely, further she admitted that she went to the house of accused along with Bheeva and Bheema alongwith other persons. Further PW.1 clearly admitted that Ex.P1 scribed by the accused and she do not know Telugu, atleast she cannot speak in Telugu and she deposed her statement to the investigation officer in Marati. The name of the panchayatdars stated by PWs.1 to 3 as Gugurle Bheemaiah, Kotrange Pandu,
Purushotham i.e. PW.4, Santhar and one Pandu. On perusal of the charge sheet prosecution cited the panchayath elders as circumstantial witnesses in this case and they were examined as PWs.5 & 8. As per the version of PW.1 is that she was reported the same with PWs.2 & 3, then they went to PW.8 and reported the same to PW.8 about the incident. Then PW.8 called the accused and conducted a panchayath. But as per the version of PW.8 is that he did not receive any information about the facts of the case from anybody and he did not conduct a panchayath at any point of time and police never examined and recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. As discussed above supra this point is answered in favour of the accused.
11.Whereas PWs.4 to 7 who are the circumstantial witnesses to the case of the prosecution they deposed in one voice that about 7 years back one day PW.2 came to their house and reported that accused cheated PW.1, then they conducted panchayath. In that panchayath PW.1 stated that accused eloped illicit contact with her, then she got pregnancy. Then accused not admitted his guilt first time and denied allegation made by PWs.1 & 2 against him. Then PW.4 stated that after sometime he admitted his guilt about his act with PW.1 and requested one week time to marry PW.1. After 2 to 3 days of the panchayath PW.2 again approached to them and stated that accused threatening PW.1 stating that to get abortion otherwise he will kill her.
Thereafter they went to the police station and lodged report. In their cross examination they categorically admitted and deposed in one voice that they are having agricultural fields, on their K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 7CC.No.65/2014 request PW.1 used to come to their fields like that she also attended the coolie work to the adjacent villages. Nearly 120 families are there of their community. Like that surname of Sende and Vadai are also there. Vadai surname families about 4 or 5 are there. At the time of alleged incident PW.4 is the community elder. As per the version of PWs.5 to 7 that PW.4 never acted as caste elder of their village at any point of time. PWs.5 to 7 deposed in a one voice that they did not stated to the police that Vadai Bapurao eloped the illicit contact with the PW.1, through him PW.1 got pregnancy. This portion is marked as Ex.D6, D.7 & D.9 and PW.6 further denied the suggestion that Bapurao came to their house and threatened PW.1 to get abortion immediately, otherwise he will kill her. Its marked as Ex.D8. On perusal of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PWs.5 to 7 are that they stated to the investigation officer that said Vadai Bapurao eloped the illicit contact with PW.1 through, through him PW.1 got pregnancy and said Vadai
Bapurao came to the house of PWs.1 to 3 and threatened PW.1 to get abortion, otherwise he will kill her. The changing of surname of the accused instead of Sende concerned investigating officer mentioned as Vadai, the reason best known to the investigation officer whether mistake occurred by the investigation officer or by the PWs.5 to 7.
12.As per the version of circumstantial witnesses i.e. PWs.5 to 7 are that they are acted as panchayathdars in this case. But as per the version of PWs.1 to 3 that Gurle Bheemaiah,
Kotrange Pandu, Purushotham i.e. PW.4, Santhar and one Pandu acted as panchayatdars in this case. From the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, it clearly reveals that PWs.5,6,7 are not acted as panchayatdars. The names of PWs.5 to 7 are not disclosed by PWs.1 to 3 and prosecution too did not examine the Gurle Bheemaiah, Kotange Pandu, Santhar and Pandu. PWs.1 to 3 admitted that the surname of the accused is Sonurle, but 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs.2 to 7 reveals that surname of the accused is Vadai, the same was marked as Ex.D2 to D.9. Investigation Officer mentioned the surname of the accused is as Vadai. The reason best known to the investigation officer about the mentioning of the surname of the accused as Vadai. As per the version of PW.4 is that he was acted as their caste elder in their village. But as per the version of PWs.5 to 7
PW.4 never acted as village elder at any point of time. As per the version of PWs.1 to 7, PW.8 also acted as panchayatdar in this case and as per the version of PW.1 she disclosed the same to the PWs.2,3 & 8. But as per the version of PW.8 is that he did not conduct any panchayat with regard to this case at any point of time and police never examined him and recorded his K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 8CC.No.65/2014 statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. As per the version of PW.1 she disclosed the same to PW.8, but he has not supported the version of PWs.1 to 3 as a elder of that village he is not supported their version. Considering the same and as discussed above supra this point too answered in favour of the accused.
13.Whereas PW.9 who is the medical officer and crucial witness to the prosecution case, in the capacity of medical officer she deposed that she received requisition from LW.11/Sub
Inspector of police, Wankidi to examine PW.1, upon which she examined PW.1 and found that she was carrying. Basing on the ultra sound scan of abdominal test done by Dr.Sunitha of
Aditya Nursing Home of Kagaznagar she issued Ex.P3 pregnancy certificate. Ex.P4 is scanning report of Aditya Nursing Home, Kagaznagar. In her cross examination she admitted that she was gone through the court record thoroughly but she did not found the requisition of LW.11/Sub
Inspector of police, Wankidi to show that PW.1 was referred by LW.11 for examination. She cannot say who accompanied with the PW.1 at the time of issuing of Ex.P3. witness adds that
PW.2 accompanied with PW.1. further she admitted that she was not referred PW.1 for further examination to any other hospitals. Further she clearly admitted that basing on ultra sound of abdomen test i.e. ExP4 done by Dr.Sunitha of Aditya Nursing home, Kagaznagar she was issued
Ex.P3, she cannot say who brought Ex.P4 and handed over to her. As per the version of medical officer that basing on Ex.P4 medical officer issued Ex.P3. Ex.P3 is the certificate of pregnancy issued by the medical officer. PW.9 clearly admitted that after thoroughly gone through the court records but she did not found the requisition of LW.11 to show that LW.11 referred PW.1 for examination and PW.9 too clearly admitted that basing on Ex.P4 only she issued Ex.P3 and she did not refer PW.1 for examination to any other hospitals.
14.On perusal of FIR the date of presenting of Ex.P1 with the police is 22.1.2007. As per the version of PW.1 is that by that time she was 5 months pregnant. In which investigating officer has filed charge sheet on 12.3.2007. By that time she was carrying seventh month pregnant. Knowingly the investigating officer has not take the care and precaution of the case of the prosecution, if the investigation officer takes minimum care and if he would have been sent
PW.1 and accused through process of law from the Hon’ble court for conducting DNA test from the date of filing of this case to till the date of the disposal, petitioner will not be suffered. Purely
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 9CC.No.65/2014 table investigation done by the investigation officer. PW.1 got irreparable loss and no one can get cure. There are several lacunas in investigation. In these circumstances and as discussed above supra prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
15.However counsel for accused has relied on decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by his lordship Sri Justice B.Seshasayanna Reddy in
Surpathi Laxman Rao v. State of A.P. (2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 251 (A.P.) wherein it is observed as follows: (vide Se.417, 415 IPC)
If a full grown girl consents to the acts of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues in such activity until she becomes pregnant, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of act (Sec.1984 Crl.L.J.1535).
Consent given by prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with the person she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.
PW.1 loved the accused for 3 years – Sexual relationship preceded by love and not vice versa – evidence of PW.1/victim, her mother PW.2 and sister of PW.1/PW.3 considered – PW.1 consented for sexual intercourse as she was deeply in love with the accused – Consent not obtained by way of inducement.
Learned counsel for petitioner/accused contends that the failure to keep the promise of marriage on future uncertain date does not amount to misconception of fact at the inception of the act itself and therefore the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence U/S.417 IPC is not sustainable. It is also contended by him that if a full grown up girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.”
It is explicit from the above referred decisions that the consent given by the prosectrix to sexual intercourse with the person with whom she is deep love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.
16.Several adjournments and conditional orders passed by this court, memos vide
O.M.Dis.No.255/15, Dt: 30.4.2015 issued to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of concerned police to produce LWs.10 & 11. Inspite of conditional order, memos neither the police nor the prosecution showed any interest to produce LWs.10 & 11. It shows that pronounced negligence on the part of the duties of prosecution and police. Hence the evidence of LWs.10 & 11 is closed by this Court. Then prosecution moves two petitions
U/S.311 Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.37/2015,Dt:11.5.2015, Crl.M.P.No.39/2015, Dt:14.5.2015 were allowed with a condition to produce LWs.10 & 11 on the next date of hearing without fail.
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 10CC.No.65/2014
To that extent memos also issued vide O.M.dis.No.281/2015, Dt:11.5.2015,
O.M.Dis.No.290/2015, Dt:14.5.2015 to the concerned SDPO, Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector of police to produce LWs.10 & 11 on the next date of hearing without fail. Inspite of allowing
Sec.311 Cr.P.C. petitions and issuing memos to the concerned police, and prosecution failed to produce the above said witnesses. This case is pertaining to the year 2007. Summons issuing to the witnesses since 6.7.2009. Trial began on 19.3.2014. Till the disposal of case prosecution failed to produce crucial witnesses i.e. medical officer and investigating officer. It shows their
pronounced negligence of the part on the duties of the prosecution and police. Hence evidence of
LWs.10 & 11 is closed by this court.
17.In the result, accused found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 417,420, 506(i)
IPC. Accordingly accused is acquitted U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court
on this the 15th day of May, 2015.
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
ASIFABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For prosecution For Defence PW-1: Mandhade Punjubai (LW.1/complainant/victim) -NONE- PW-2: Mandhade Bhikku (LW.2/circumstantial witness) PW-3: Mandhade Rambai (LW.3/victim) PW-4: Sonurle Purushothham (LW.4/circumstnatial witness) PW-5: Kotrange bhivva (LW.5/circumstnatial witness) PW-6: Sonurle Santhosh (LW.6/circumstantial witness) PW-7: Mahandore Bheemrao (LW.7/circumstantial witness) PW-8: Sonurle Bheemaiah (LW.8/circumstantial witness) PW-9: Dr.N.Vidyavathi (LW.9/M.O.)
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1, Dt:22.1.2007 Ex.D.1: Some portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, Dt:22.1.2007 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8, Dt:24.1.2007 Ex.D.2: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, Dt:22.1.2007 Ex.P3: Pregnancy certificate of PW.1, Dt:31.1.2007Ex.D.3: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, Dt:22.1.2007 Ex.P4: Scanning report of PW.1, Dt: 31.1.2007 Ex.D.4: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3, Dt:22.1.2007 Ex.D.5: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Dt:24.1.2007 Ex.D.6: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Dt:24.1.2007 Ex.D.7: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Dt:24.1.2007 Ex.D.8: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Dt:24.1.2007 Ex.D.9: Name in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7, Dt:24.1.2007 M.O.s MARKED -NIL-
ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 11CC.No.65/2014
ASIFABAD
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015 12CC.No.65/2014
CALANDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT ASIFABAD
CC.No.406/2013
1.Date of Offence9.5.2013
2.Date of report to PS/Court9.5.2013
3.Date of arrest of accused/Surrender in court18.6.2013
4.Date of release on bail 18.6.2013
5.Date of commencement of trial17.3.2015
6.Date of Close of Trial23.3.2015
7.Date of Order/Judgment6.4.2015
8.Explanation of delay, if any--
The State of A.P. through Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S.Asifabad. // AND //
1. A.1: Chandri Ramaiah, S/o.Pochaiah,Age:53 years, Caste:SC Mala, Occ;Sr. Asst. at Employment Exchange, Bellampalli, R/o.Dhobi colony, Adilabad
2. A.2: Chandri Thirumal, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:25 years, Caste:SC Mala, Occ:typist at MPDO Office, Jainath, R/o.Dhobi colony, Adilabad
3. A.3: Chandri dharma Bai, W/o.Ramaiah, Age:45 years, Caste:SC Mala, Occ:Sweeper at ITI Utnoor, R/o.Dhobi colony, Adilabad 09Plea of accusedNot Guilty.
10.Offence chargedU/S. 420 IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act.
11.Finding of the courtfound not guilty In the result, A.1 to A.3 found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 420 IPC and Sec.4 of DP Act.
12.Result of Order/JudgmentAccordingly A.1 to A.3 acquitted U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled.
PRL.JUDL.M
AGISTRATE OF I CLASS
ASIFABAD
K.Balachander Prl.JFCM Asifabad D.O.J.15.5.2015