Sri K. Mothilal

CC.No.276/20161

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU,

Present:­ Sri S.DAMODARA RAO,M.A.,LL.M.,

 Prl.Jr.Civil Judge. Tiruvuru. 

 Monday, this the 9th day of May, 2016

C.C.No.276/2015 (Old C.C.100/2013 )

Between:­

State represented by Sub­Inspector of police A.Konduru police station. …Complainant.

And

1. Kola Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 40 years, Mutharasi, Atlapragada village Now at Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 

2. Kola Narasimha Rao, S/o.Venkaiah Nyapalli Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 29 years, Mutharasi, Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal.

3. Mareedu Jamalaiah, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 43 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

4. Morla Thirupathi Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

5. Parasa Venkateswara Rao, S/o.China Nageswara Rao, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

6. Tulluri Butchi Babu, S/o.Koteswara Rao, Aged 32 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

7. Vuyyuru Jamalaiah, S/o.Gopaladu, Aged 50 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

8. Vuyyuru Rajesh, S/o.Jamalaiah, Aged 25 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

9. Bezawada Gopala Rao, S/o.Lakshmi Parumallu, Aged 22 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 10.Morla Pullaiah, S/o. Bushaiah, Aged 42 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 11.Bezawada Goplarao @ Gopi, S/o.Tataiah, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 12.Madam Seetharamaiah, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 30 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 13.Vuyyuru Nagaraju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 20 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 14.Sk.Jan Basha, S/o.Nagu, Muslim, Aged 22 years, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 15.Ummadi Kondulu, S/o.Kotaiah, Aged 35 years, Yadava, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal (All are residents of cheemalapadu village) …Accused.

This case is coming on today i.e. on 9 th day of May 2016 for final hearing before this court in the presence of learned APP and Sri K.Venkateswara Rao, learned Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20162

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of a Police report filed by the S.I of police, A.Konduru police station in Cr.No.156/2012 for the offence punishable Under Section 143, 341, 323 IPC. 

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:­ The Accused are residents of 

Cheemalapadu village of A.Konduru mandal and they are close associates with each other. one Gunju Nagaraju, S/o.Late Jamalaiah is the injured complainant, resident of Cheemalapadu village of A.Konduru Mandal, working as Press Reporter of Visalandra News Paper and G.Ramana (LW2) is the wife of the complainant. 

The scene of offence is situated at Milk Center of Cheemalapadu village. The 

Accused No.1 and 2 are working as RMP Doctors in Cheemalapadu village since 20 years in that village and giving treatment as per their disease and being paid some amount to them on their own willing. While it is so, the Drug Inspector visited their hospitals, booked cases against them about 20 days back. During their enquiry, they came to know that the complainant contacted the Drug Inspector and also advised to inspect their hospital. This was known to the villagers. In this connection, A1 and A2 approached to Mareedu Venkaiah (Lw.6) and informed about the attitude of the complainant and to pacify the matter at his level. While the matter stood thus, on 27.9.2012 evening, M.Venkaiah called the complainant through M.Seetharam (Lw.5). The complainant came to the house of M.Venkaiah at about 19.30 hrs, when some other villagers also came there to know the fact and what is going to be done. M.Venkaiah (LW6) asking the complainant, whether you contact the Drug Inspector for inspecting the hospitals of A1 and A2 or not? When the complainant raised all of sudden and stated that are you an elder ? On that 

M.Venkaiah (LW6) requested the complainant to go away from here without talking further. Immediately the Complainant left the house of M.Venkaiah when the villagers followed him and when reached near Milk Chilling Center, all the accused persons have formed themselves in to an unlawful assembly and pounced up on the 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20163

complainant and beat him with sticks and kicked him with legs due to sudden provocation as the complainant did not give proper answer to the question of 

Venkaiah and without observing his status, due to which the complainant fell on the ground due to injuries, when his wife came there and trying to remove the complainant, the accused wrongful restrained the complainant and obstructed him not to move further, in connection with the above subject matter. In the meanwhile police came there, on seeing them, they all escaped from there. This was witnessed by G.Ramana, G.Ankaraju, S.Suresh and M.Seetharam (Lw.s.2 to 5) only. On receipt of Hospital Admission Intimation, SI of police (LW8) recorded the statement from the injured complainant on 27.9.2012 between 20.30 hrs, and 21.00 hrs, who in turn registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.156/2012 U/s.143, 341 and 323 IPC of 

A.Konduru PS and investigated in to this case.. The SI of Police inspected the scene of offence, examined the same and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence and he examined the witnesses (Lw.1 to 5) and recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements. During investigation, SI of police arrested the accused A1 to A15 on 15.10.2012 at 10.00 hrs, later sent them for Judicial Custody along with remand report on the same day. Dr.K.Sahanam (LW7) Medical Officer, Area Hospital, 

Mylavaram who examined complainant opined the injuries sustained by Lw.1 are simple in nature and issued wound certificate to that effect. After completion of investigation the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C for offence Under sections 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, charge framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20164

6.During Trial, prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.7, and Ex P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. The learned APP given up the Lw.6 M.Venkaiah from list cited witnesses. 

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined u/s.313 

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence. 

8. Heard arguments. 

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 143, 341 & 323 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt ? 

10.POINT: ­ The learned A.P.P has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P.1 to P6, the accused called the complainant to milk center of said village, stopped him without proceeding and bet him, the prosecution established it's case against accused by examining the Pw.1 to 7. Hence, prayed to convict the accused. 

11. The learned counsel for accused has argued that there is no obstruction made by the accused at milk center of said village, on that day the lord Vinayaka procession was held in the village, the complainant earlier worked as an agent in a finance company, the villagers deposited amount through complainant but it was not returned to the villagers on that aspect they questioned him. It was further argued that except wife of P.W.1 no independent witnesses supported to the case of the prosecution. The brother of P.W.1 who examined as PW5 is also not an eye witness to the alleged case incident. The eye witnesses who examined in this case are did not support to the prosecution case. The PW1 and 2 deposed with later developments and exaggerated version. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the case of prosecution and he further argued that accused did not made any obstruction or injury on the body of P.W.1 the same is revealed through the evidence of medical officer, the complainant is present reporter in a newspaper 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20165

having acquaintance with police people got it registered a case against accused, to escape from his liability being earlier agent of said finance company, since the accused are insisting to repay their deposits made to the finance company through the defecto­complainant. The prosecution party failed to establish its case against accused and prayed to acquit the accused. 

12. In order to fasten the liability against accused for the offence u/s 143, 341 & 323 of IPC the prosecution examined P.W. 1 to 7 Ex.P1 to 6 marked. Accused did not examine either themselves as witness or any person on their behalf.

13. Now coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the defecto­ complainant examined as Pw.1 deposed that on 27.09.2012 at about 7­30 PM, that accused 1 & 2 called him to attend at milk center stating that they have some work with him, on his attendance stopped at milk center and bet him. A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, 

A8, A10, A11, A13, A15, stopped him at milk center bet with hands sticks and kicked with their legs. He sustained seviour injury on head and fallen on ground. 

Some person available at scene of offence called the 108 ambulance shifted to mylavaram hospital. While shifting him to the hospital some persons came in the middle of the way stopped the ambulance. The SI of police rescued him caused to pass the ambulance from that place to Mylavaram hospital. Police recorded his statement at hospital, statement marked as Ex.P1.

14. The P.W.2 who is the wife of P.W.1 deposed that on 27­09­2012 at about 7­ 7.30 PM some of their villagers bring her husband on their hands stating that he was beaten. He was shifted to the hospital in an 108 ambulance, in the meanwhile the persons who bet to her husband came and obstructed the ambulance, SI of police A Konduru came and allowed to pass the ambulance to the hospital. The evidence of P.W.2 itself speaks that she is not a direct witness to the alleged case incident.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20166

15. The P.W.3 who is eye witness and P.W.4 who called the P.W.1 to milk center of that village direct witness to this case incident did not support to the prosecution case and they re­sailed from their earlier statements given to the police.

16. The P.W.5 who is the brother of P.W.1 deposed that one venkulu called the 

P.W.1 to milk center with a view to have converse in panchayatin in connection with drug inspector visit to the hospital of RMP doctor, P.W.1 reached there and he was available at milk center with injuries. P.W.5 and SI of police shifted the P.W.1 to Mylavaram Hospital.

17. The P.W.1 in his cross­examination deposed that on the date of this case incident lord Vinayaka procession was held, while he collects photos from Vinayaka idol at Kothuru center the A1 & A2 called him to Milk center which is situated at a distance of 300 meters from there, bet him with hands, sticks and kicked with legs. 

According to P.w.1 he sustained sevier injury on his head. The P.W.5 stated that 

P.W.1 available on ground at milk center with injuries. The P.W.2 stated some of the villagers bring the P.W.1 on their hands. Where in the Medical officer who examined the P.W.1 on the same day issued Ex.P6 wound certificate and examined as P.W.7 deposed that, No Visible and external injuries noticed by him. At least did not depose as he complained pain to attract the offence under section 323 of I.P.C. 

During cross examination of P.W.7 medical officer, it was revealed that the injured stated before him that some one beat with hands. There is no specific overt act aslo. 

So the evidence of P.W.1 is not supported by Medical evidence and it seems to be the 

P.W.1 and P.W.2 came with developed version.

18. The another contention of the prosecution party is P.W.1 wrongfully restrained by the accused. According to P.W.1 after this case incident while shifting him on 108 Ambulance accused came in the middle of the way and stopped the ambulance, on interference of S.I of police allowed passing the ambulance to the hospital, the same is deposed by P.W.2 & 5, by then P.W.1 is in unconscious state, according the prosecution version the P.W.1 regained his conscious in the hospital 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20167

at about 11­00 P.M. wherein the P.W.7 medical officer deposed by the time of his arrival to the hospital the P.W.1 is in conscious state. The P.W.6 investigating officer evidence revealed that P.W.1 did not state before him while he is collecting pobots from lord Vinayaka at kothuru cneter A1 & A2 called him to have converse. 

P.W.2 did not state before him as some of the villagers bring the P.W1 to his house on their hands. The P.W.5 did not state before him that accused made obstacles to the ambulance and after his arrival made it clear to pass the ambulance to the hospital. The P.W.6 visited hospital and did not notice any visible injuries on the body of P.W.1., milk center situated in the middle of the village, having surrounding residential houses and investigating officer did not examine the surrounding people to ascertain the occurrence of alleged incident. According to investigating officer after receipt of phone call he rushed to the scene of offence, after his arrival, it was learns that the injured was shifted to the Mylavaram hospital in an ambulance. So in the presence of investigating officer he made is clear way to the ambulance by removing the obstacles of accused is not correct. According to the I.O. by the time of his arrival to the scene of offence he noticed that about 50 to 60 persons available there, on that day it is Ganesh Nimajjanam and it is already over. So the contention of P.W.1 that the accused made obstacles to the ambulance not to proceed in the way which have right to proceed is also not established.

19. The another allegation of the prosecution party is an un­lawful assembly. 

It is onus on the prosecution party to establish unlawful assembly. In order to slip from its liability the learned counsel for accused suggested the probability that on that day the Ganesh Nimajjana Procession is in the village, the same is admitted by the prosecution party. But the accused took another folder of plea that in respect of character and earlier profession of P.W.1 as agent of private finance company collected deposits from villagers, on failure to return their deposits by finance company to its customers of their village assembled and questioned him. The evidence of P.W.1 is also revealed that while he collects photos from lord Ganesh 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20168

idol the accused sent a word to come to the milk center of said village on his presence bet him. Even though there is neighbouring residential houses at scene of offence, the purpose of gathering is for common purpose to question the P.W.1 about loosing their deposits made to the Kranthi Kiran and Subhodaya finance company through P.W.1 being agent of said company, the same is revealed in the evidence of 

P.W.1 that he worked as an agent of Kranthi Kiran and Subhodaya finance company earlier to this profession as reporter. So the good cause for assembled villagers on that day is revealed in the prosecution evidence, by leaving the same and root cause of this case incident, motive for an un­lawful assembly is established themselves by the accused during cross­examination of P.W.1.

20. In this case more than 5 persons assembled for common object to question the 

P.W.1 in connection with their deposits in Kranthi Kiran Subhodaya Finance company through P.W.1 being agent of said finance company, in that connection some criminal force shown against P.W.1 which is not caused any visible injuries and seems to be compelled to cause production of their deposited amounts. So there is existence of assembled more than five persons with common object, the circumstances of this case inferred the common object in a planned to attack the victim among the persons who present there, the accused being the same villager can identify them and accused having knowledge of consequential action in furtherance of initial common object itself attract the offence under section 143 of 

IPC.

21. On close scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious that no independent witnesses supported to the case of the prosecution. The eye witnesses who examined in this case are not supported to the prosecution case. The 

PW1, 2 and 5 deposed with later developments and exaggerated version. There are number of omissions and contradictions in the case of prosecution and Medical evidence not supported to the prosecution case to establish the alleged offence under section 323 of IPC. The prosecution party failed to establish its case against 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/20169

accused for the offence punishable under section 323 and 341 of IPC and established its case against accused for the offence punishable under section 143 of IPC. hence, this court found that the accused 1 to 15 are not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341 of IPC and accused 1 to 15 are found guilty for the offence of unlawful assembly punishable under section 143 of IPC. Accordingly, point is answered.

Typed by me on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of May, 2016.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

22. Accused 1 & 15 are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. They pleaded mercy on the ground that they have family members and they are only persons to see their family welfare and requested to take lenient view as first offence.

23. By considering the facts of the case, the benefits of either Probation of 

Offenders Act or u/s.360 of Cr.P.C are not extended to the accused and they are deserves punishment.

24. However, in view of the circumstances prevailed in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused following will meet the ends of Justice. 

25.In the result, this court found that the accused No.1 & 15 are not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same in terms section 248(1) Cr.P.C. and accused No.1 to 15 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143 of IPC, and they are convicted for the same and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) by each accused for the offence punishable u/s 143 of IPC, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 15 days for each, in terms of Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non­valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Prl.Jr.Cvil Judge,Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.276/201610

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw.1.Sri. G.Nagaraju None 

Pw.2. Smt.G.Ramana 

Pw.3: Sri.S.Suresh.

Pw.4:Sri. M.Seetha Ramaiah.

Pw.5: Sri.G.Anka Raju.

Pw.6: Sri.N.Venkateswara Rao, SI of police.

Pw.7: Dr. K.Sahanam. Medical Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED 

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1. Statement given by injured. ...Nil...

Ex.P2: 161 Statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P3: 161 Statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P4: First Information Report.

Ex.P5: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P6: Wound Certificate. 

(Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao,

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge

Tiruvuru.

//True Copy//

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT 

AT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE No.276/2015

1.Offence: 27.09.2012 2.Complaint : 27.09.2012 3.Apprehension of accused: ­­­­­­ 4.Commencement of Trail: 22.01.2016 5.Close of Trail: 04.03.2016 6.Judgment: 09.05.2016 7.Complainant:State represented by Sub­Inspector of police

A.Konduru Police Station.

8.Name of the Accused :

1. Kola Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 40 years, Mutharasi, Atlapragada village Now at Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 

2. Kola Narasimha Rao, S/o.Venkaiah Nyapalli Rama Krishna, S/o.Satyanarayana, Aged 29 years, Mutharasi, Cheemalapadu Village, A.Konduru Mandal.

3. Mareedu Jamalaiah, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 43 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

4. Morla Thirupathi Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

5. Parasa Venkateswara Rao, S/o.China Nageswara Rao, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

6. Tulluri Butchi Babu, S/o.Koteswara Rao, Aged 32 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

7. Vuyyuru Jamalaiah, S/o.Gopaladu, Aged 50 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

8. Vuyyuru Rajesh, S/o.Jamalaiah, Aged 25 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal.

9. Bezawada Gopala Rao, S/o.Lakshmi Parumallu, Aged 22 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 10.Morla Pullaiah, S/o. Bushaiah, Aged 42 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 11.Bezawada Goplarao @ Gopi, S/o.Tataiah, Aged 35 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 12.Madam Seetharamaiah, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 30 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village. A.Konduru Mandal. 13.Vuyyuru Nagaraju, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged 20 years, Gouda, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 14.Sk.Jan Basha, S/o.Nagu, Muslim, Aged 22 years, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal. 15.Ummadi Kondulu, S/o.Kotaiah, Aged 35 years, Yadava, Cheemalapadu village, A.Konduru Mandal (All are residents of cheemalapadu village)

9. Charges framed: U/s. 143, 341 & 323 of IPC 10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY 11.Result

In the result, this court found that the accused No.1 & 15 are not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 323, 341 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same in terms section 248(1) Cr.P.C. and accused No.1 to 15 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 143 of IPC, and they are convicted for the same and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) by each accused for the offence punishable u/s 143 of IPC, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 15 days for each, in terms of Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non­valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

12. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 02.03.2013 the prosecution evidence started on 22.01.2016 and closed on 04.03.2016. The Judgment was 

pronounced on 09.05.2016. Hence the delay. 

(Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Copy to :­

1. The Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

3. Copy to the Asst.Public Prosecutor.

//True Copy//

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU

Present: Sri.S.Damodara Rao, M.A.,LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Monday, this the 2nd day of May, 2016

C.C.No.172/2015 Old C.C.265/2014

Between:­ 

Semara Selva Raju, S/o.Muthu, Hindu, aged 55 years, BC.Colony, A.Konduru Adda Road, A.Konduru Village, A.Konduru Mandal, A.Konduru Police Station. ….Complainant.

And

Chinnam Suresh, S/o.Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 44 years, business, Ramachandrapuram Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, within the limits of A.Konduru Police Station. …Accused.

This case is coming on 28.04.2016 before this court for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.Ch.Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is a private complaint filed by the complainant for the offence punishable u/s.138 & 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused.

2.The complainant is resident of A.Konduru, accused is resident of 

Ramachandrapuram Village of A.Konduru Mandal both are residing with in the limits of this court. The accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/­ (Rupees 

Seven Lakhs only) from the complainant for his family expenses on 03.11.2011 and executed a promissory note in favour of complainant undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a on demand either to complainant or his order., subsequently, the accused failed to repay said amount, inspite of several requests made by the complainant at last on 23.12.2013 the accused issued a cheque For 

Rs.7,00,000/­ bearing No.329141 of Coastal Local Area Bank Ltd., Nuzvid Branch branch towards repayment of said debt. The complainant presented the above said cheque in his savings bank account vested with the Andhra Bank, 

Kambhampadu Branch for collection. But it was returned with an endorsement that dishonoured as “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”, memo served on complainant dt.30.12.2013.

As the cheque was unpaid the complainant gave a statutory regd., lawyer’s notice to the accused Dt.02.01.2014, Said notice was served on accused on 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.2

06.01.2014, after provided statutory period for arrangement of amount, this complaint filed by the complainant. Hence, the complaint. Therefore, the accused committed an offence u/s 138 of NI Act and prayed to punish the accused according to law.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused by my predecessor in office u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.When accused appeared before this Court, copies of documents, on which the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished, in terms of Section 207 

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act, read over the allegations and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate his case, the complainant him self examined as Pw.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

7. After closure of the evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of the complainant, Accused denied the same. And reported for defence evidence.

8.The accused him self examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 documents were marked on his behalf and he examined one Banavathu Vasu as Dw.2.

9. Heard oral arguments submitted by both the counsel.

10. Now, the point for determination is: ­

Whether the Prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence 

u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.P O I N T:­ The learned counsel for the complainant has argued before this court that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ under Ex.P1 promissory note dt.03.11.2011, on repeated demands he issued Ex.p.2 cheque, 

Ex.P3, P4 are cheque returned memos issued by Coastal Area Bank, Nuzvid and 

Andhra Bank, Kambhampadu. He further argued that he issued Ex.P.5 Legal notice to the accused, the same is served on accused and the acknowledgment is 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.3

marked as Ex.P6. Even after receipt of summons in this case the accused neither paid the cheque amount nor issued the reply notice to the complainant.

12.He further argued that when the signature of the accused on Ex.P.1 is not denied, the complainant discharged his liability and it is for the accused to rebut the same by way of his evidence, unless and until disprove the version of complainant it can be presumed under section 139 of N.I Act that said debt is legally enforceable debt. He further argued that the accused contended that the complainant has no capacity to lend huge amount, it is not an ingredient to ascertain the liability in the cases of 138 of NI Act on that aspect he relied on reported decision in between:­ M.Vidyavathi Vs Chaidraiah @ Chandrababu and another 2010(1) ALT (Crl) 347 (AP) in the above reported decision the complainant established her case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to issuance of Ex.P1 cheque for legally enforceable debt for the amount advanced and explained why the cheque was given for higher amount with interest, so the capacity to lend amount by complainant is not a good ground to disbelieve the version of complainant and prayed to convict the accused.

13. The learned counsel for accused has argued that the accused never borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­, the complainant has no capacity to lend such huge amount. He further argued that the accused borrowed amount from one Banavathu Vasu in that connection said Vasu obtained five blank cheques and promissory notes from the accused, he filed one of the similar case against accused and by using the another promissory note and cheque this case filed against the accused through complainant here in, the complainant is a cooli hails from Tamilnadu having no capacity to lend huge amount to the accused, he is not an income tax assesse, the source of the huge amount to the complainant was not explained, one B.Vasu used the complainant as name lender and filed this case through him, the complainant failed to establish his case against the accused and prayed to dismiss the complaint and acquit him.

14.In order to prove the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act there must be a debt in between the complainant and the accused in existence and the cheque must be issued to clear off the legally enforceable debt, cheque should be presented within three months, it should be dishonoured, notice should be given to the accused within thirty days, complaint should be filed after fifteen days. 

There is a presumption, unless the subsisting debt proved legally enforceable one 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.4

the complainant is not entitled to the relief. The initial burden is on the complainant and when the complainant discharges his burden, the burden shifts to the accused, then only the accused disproves the same by adducing rebuttal evidence.

15.The complainant himself examined as P.W.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P6. The accused examined him self as D.W.1, D.W.2 examined on his behalf and Ex.D1 to D5 were marked.

16. The P.W.1(S.Selva Raju) deposed by supporting his contention of complaint that, Ex.P1 is the promissory note and Ex.P2 is the cheque issued to discharge the debt due under Ex.P1. The plea of the complainant is that Ex.P2 was issued towards part satisfaction of existing debt covered under Ex.P1 pronote and the same was presented for collection in Andhra Bank Kanbhampadu branch, the same was returned with Ex.P3,P4 memos with an endorsement ''FUNDS 

INSUFFICIENT''. Basing on that he got issued Ex.P5 legal notice and the same was served on accused evident Ex.P6 acknowledgment. During cross­examination of 

PW1 the accused tried to establish his plea by way of his cross examination, that the accused never borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ from complainant. He further contended that the complainant has no capacity to lent such huge amount, it was further contended that this complaint filed by one B.Vasu through the complainant here in with the help of blank signed pronotes and cheques available with one Vasu, the same is denied by the P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 revealed that he does not know whether the accused borrowed amount from one B.Vasu who is residing in the same street of complainant and said Vasu obtained signatrues of accused on five blank pronotes and cheques in connection with his financial transaction with accused or not. According to P.W.1 he passed consideration under Ex.P1, by the time of said transaction P.W.1, accused, scribe of Ex.P1 by name A.Gopi and one M.Venkateswara Rao were present. He gave consideration of Rs.7,00,000/­ to the accused after preparation of Ex.P1 promissory note. He paid interest for one year @ Rs.14,000/­ per month. The 

P.W.1 denied that Ex.P1 and P2 filled in his name at the instance of B.Vasu with a view to help him. 

17.A reading of the complainant and his evidence as a whole would clearly indicate that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/­under a promissory Note Dt.03.11.2011 and to discharge the said debt he issued the 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.5

cheque in question towards part payment of the amount borrowed under Ex.P1. 

Further, the evidence of PW.1 Would clearly go to show that to discharge the amount due under Ex.P1, he gave Ex.P2 cheque. Therefore, the entire averments in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 would clearly indicate that the cheque was given to discharge the debt contracted by accused, so the initial burden of the complainant was discharged.

18.The accused him self examined as Dw.1. In his evidence deposed that the complainant is friend of one Banavathu.Vasu. The accused never borrowed amount from complainant under Ex.P1 and never issued Ex.P2 cheque. On 14.8.2008 the accused borrowed amount in that connection Vasu obtained three cheques of accused belongs to Grameena bank Cheemalapadu and two cheeques of Coastal area bank nuzividu and he filed similar cheque bounce case against accused by using one of the cheques and pronotes, thereafter filed this case through the complainant herein. The complainant has no land and he is cooli, he has no capacity to lent huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ to the accused. He filed certified copies of documents belongs to C.C.40/2011 which ever marked as 

Ex.D1 to D5. On perusal of said documents it is obvious that one B.Vasu filed a complaint against same accused, but it can not be presumed that the same complainant filed this case through the complainant here in even though they are neighbours residing in the same street. During the cross­examination of D.W1 it was revealed that he did not issue any notice to the complainant in C.C.40/2011 requesting him to return the blank cheques and promissory notes available in the hands of B.Vasu i.e. complainant in C.C.40/2011 and also did not issue notice to the banker stating that he issued blank cheques and promissory notes to 

Banavathu Vasu i.e. complainant in C.C.40/2011, by stating bearing numbers of said cheques if anybody presented for collection requesting to return by making endorsement of his notice. He further admitted after dishonoured the Ex.P2 cheque the complainant here in issued Ex.P5 legal notice and the same is served on him and he did not issue reply notice to the complainant. The accused not denied his signatures on Ex.P1 & P2. 

19.The D.W2 examined and deposed as he filed a cheque bounce case bearing 

C.C.40/2011, accused is convicted and second appeal is pending. According to 

D.W.2 the complainant here in is resident of A.Konduru, he is a quarry contractor and he is earning Rs.2,00,000/­ per annum. So, the evidence of D.W2 is not much useful to the accused to establish his plea. 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.6

20. The learned counsel for accused taken plea that the complainant has no capacity to lend huge amount of Rs.7,00,000/­ the evidence of D.W2 itself shows that the complainant is capable to earn Rs.2,00,000/­ per annum. Even it is not considered the complainant pleaded that to establish the offence under 138 of NI act, if the complainant established the issuance of cheque for legally enforceable debt by placing promissory note, the financial capacity of complainant is not a point to be determined in the cases like 138 of N.I.Act, on that aspect he relied on reported decision in between:­ M.Vidyavathi Vs Chaidraiah @ Chandrababu and another 2010(1)ALT (Crl)347(AP) his lordship held in para.18. The trial court has come to conclusion that P.W.1. has no capacity to lend the amount.

Capacity to lend the amount is not an ingredient for the offence punishable under section 138 of the act. Therefore, the complainant has established her case beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to issuance of Ex.P1 cheque for legally enforceable debt for the amounts advanced. It is not the case of the accused that he has not taken any amount in doing contracts works and for the purpose of purchase of machinery. 

There is quite possible for the accused to borrow certain amounts from P.W.1 who is no other than the friend's wife. Therefore, in those circumstances, the trial court has given a perverse finding. When the amounts advanced is Rs.7,00,000/­, why the cheque was given for Rs.8,06,000/­. That was properly explained by P.W.1 that remaining amount was towards interest. Non­taking of receipts for a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/­is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of the act and accordingly he is convicted for the same. 

So, in view of the above reported decision it is obvious that when the complainant established his case beyond all reasonable doubt with regard to the issuance of Ex.P1 cheque for legally enforceable debt for the amount advanced, the capacity of the complainant to lent huge amount and non­taking of receipts for repayments is not a good ground to disbelieve the complainant's evidence. So in view of the above reported decision the pleas taken by the accused in respect of capacity of complainant etc can not be taken into consideration while determine the offence under section 138 of NI Act. 

21. On close perusal of evidence available on record and on scrutiny of Ex.P1 itself speaks that the amount is borrowed by the accused and the signature of accused on Ex.P1, P2 was not denied. In such a circumstance the accused cannot be said to have rebutted the presumption with regard to the existence of 

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.7

subsisting liability. In such a circumstance the accused cannot deny the execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and the Ex.P2 cheque issued towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt. Since the accused failed rebut the presumption available under Negotiable instruments Act, it can be said that it was executed by the accused on the date mentioned in it and received consideration under Ex.P1. So, the burden on the accused to show that it was not issued by him towards any legally enforceable debt or liability is not discharged and it shall be presumed unless and until the contrary is proved. In this case the complainant discharged his initial liability the burden of the accused not discharged by way of cogent rebuttal evidence.

22.The above all discussion amply proves that there is legally enforceable debt that exists in between the complainant and accused, in order to discharge the same, the accused got issued Ex.P.2 cheque, on presentation, it was bounced it is obvious under Ex.P.3, P4 cheque return memos and Ex.P5 is o/c of legal notice, the accused did not give any reply or paid the amount or even after his appearance in this case. The complaint has made out all required ingredients for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption u/s.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative to this court, except to say that the complainant has made out it's case against the accused for the offence u/s.138 of 

Negotiable Instruments Act and the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

23.Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Typed by me on Lap Top, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2ndday of May, 2016.

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

24.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. 

He pleaded mercy on the ground that he has got wife and children, he has to maintain them and requested to take lenient view.

25.The offence is u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which is a white collar offence, the accused is not entitled to the benefits of either Probation of 

Offenders Act or u/s.360 of Cr.P.C. The accused deserves punishment.

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.8

26.However, in view of the amount involved in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused to suffer S.I. For (1) one year and also sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­ in default, S.I. for (3) three months will meet the ends of Justice.

27.In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to suffer S.I. For (1) one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for (3) three months, in terms of Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment as contemplated under section 437­

A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me on Lap Top, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru, Krishna Dist.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: FOR ACCUSED:­

Pw.1.Sri.S.Selvaraju. Dw.1.Sri.S.Suresh Dw.2.Sri.B.Vasu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT

Ex.P.1. Original pronote Dt.03.11.2011 Ex.P.2.Cheque bearing Dt.23.12.2013. Ex.P.3. Cheque returned memo, issued by Coastal Area Bank, Nuzvid through Andhra Bank, Kambhampadu, dt.30.12.2013. Ex.P.4. Cheque returned memo issued by Andhra Bank, Dt.30.12.2013. Ex.P.5. Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P.6. Postal Acknowledgment.

FOR ACCUSED

Ex.D.1.Certified copy of promissory note in CC.No.40/2011 Ex.D.2.Certified copy of cheque in CC.No.40/2011 Ex.D.3.Certified copy of return memo in CC.No.40/2011. Ex.D.4.Certified copy of registered notice. Ex.D.5.Certified copy of reply notice in CC.No.40/2011

Prl.J.C.J, Tirvuru.

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.172/2015Page No.9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT 

AT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE NO.172/2015

1.Offence: 03.11.2011 2.Complaint: 05.02.2014 3.Apprehension of accused: ­­­­­­ 4.Commencement of Trail: 16.07.2015 5.Close of Trail:17.08.2015 6.Judgment: 02.05.2016 7.Complainant: Semara Selva Raju, S/o.Muthu, Hindu, aged 55 years, B.C.Colony, A.Konduru Adda Road, A.Konduru Village, A.Konduru Mandal, A.Konduru Police Station.

8.Name of the Accused: Chinnam Suresh, S/o.Vasudeva Rao, Hindu, aged 44 years, business, Ramachandrapuram Village, A.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District, situated within the limits of A.Konduru Police Station.

9. Offence: U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY 11.Finding: Convicted. 

12.Result In the result, this court found that the accused is guilty for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and accordingly, he is convicted and sentenced to suffer S.I. For (1) one year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/­(Rupees five thousand only) in default, Simple Imprisonment for (3) three months, in terms of Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of judgment as contemplated under section 437­ A of Cr.P.C.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 05.02.2014 the prosecution evidence started on 16.07.2015 and closed on 17.08.2015. The Judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2016. Hence the delay. 

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru. Copy to :­

1. The Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

3. Copy to the Accused.

4. One spare copy.

Corrections : Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20151

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU,

Present:­ Sri S.DAMODARA RAO,M.A.,LL.M.,

 Prl.Jr.Civil Judge. Tiruvuru. 

Tuesday, this the 10th day of May, 2016.

C.C.No.332/2015 (Old C.C.473/2013 )

Between:­

State represented by Sub­Inspector of police Tiruvuru police station. …Complainant.

And

Boddukolla Pullayya, S/o.Muthayya, aged 22 years, Mala, R/o.Mallela Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. …Accused.

This case is coming on to day i.e. on 10.05.2016 for final hearing before this court in the presence of learned APP and Sri Ch.Venkata Reddy, learned Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered

the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of a Police report filed by the S.I of police, Tiruvuru police station in Cr.No.87/2013 for the offence punishable Under Section 304(A) and 

Section 181 of MV Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:­ The accused is a resident of Mallela 

Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, he is the rider of Motor Cycle No.AP20AG 5484 by the time of accident. This case incident taken place at Tiruvuru­Vissannapeta main road at Mallela Village, with in the jurisdiction of this Court. The complainant is resident of Mallela Village and elder brother of deceased Kukkadapu Nageswara 

Rao, K.Venkateswararao (Lw.2) is father of deceased and K.Latha (Lw.3) is wife of the deceased, K.Varalakshmi (Lw.4) is sister­in­law of the deceased, S.Rajeswara rao, N.Vijaya lakshmi, K.purushottamarao, A.Venkateswararao (Lw.5 to 8) are the eye witnesses. On 16.5.2013, in the morning the deceased came to Mallela village center on his motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Pro F/R and after taken tiffen he came on the road at 08.45 hrs, to go to the house, then the rider of Motor Cycle 

Bajaj Discover No.AP20AG 5484 drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeding from Putrela side to Mallela Side, dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased in an opposite direction, with the result the deceased fell on the road to his back wards and he sustained bleeding injury on the back of his head. The accused rider also sustained injuries and they were shifted to 

Area Hospital, Tiruvuru for treatment. Where the Medical Officer examined the deceased and declared dead. In this connection on a statement from complainant(Lw.1), The SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.87/2013 U/s.304(A) 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20152

IPC at Tiruvuru PS on 16.5.2013 and investigated the same. During investigation, the SI of police visited the scene of offence, got drafted observation report and seized the crime motor cycle under cover of observation report in the presence of mediators, prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses, held inquest over the dead body and send the body fore autopsy. The SI of police (Lw.14) arrested the accused on 31.3.2013 at 12.00 hrs, and sent him for judicial remand. The Medical officer (LW12) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased 

Kukkadapu Nageswara Rao, issued postmortem, certificate with opinion that the cause of death due to head injury. The M.V.I, Nuzvid who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI Report. The accused who is rider of motor cycle bearing 

No.AP20AG 5484, is caused for the death of the deceased by his rash driving, after completion of investigation the sub­inspector of police filed charge sheet against accused under Section 304(A) IPC and Section 181 of M.V. Act.

3. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections Section 304(A) and Section 181 of MV Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C for offence Under Section 304(A) 

IPC and Section 181 of M.V Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. 

6.During Trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to 8 and Ex P1 to Ex.P16 were marked. The learned APP given up K.Venkateswararao (Lw.2),K.Latha (Lw.3), 

K.Varalakshmi (Lw.4), N.Vijaya lakshmi Lw.6, Dr.B.SambasivaraoLw.12, N.U.N.S 

Srinivas L.W.13 from list cited witnesses.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined u/s.313 

Cr.P.C. with the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence. 

8. Heard arguments. 

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC and Section 181 of MV Act 

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT: The learned A.P.P has submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 who is the brother of deceased K.Nageswara Rao and Pw.2 to Pw.4 are the eye witnesses, 

Pw.5 is the VRO, Pw.6 & Pw.7 are the mediators for inquest, Pw.8 is the 

Investigating Officer coupled with documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 establishing the case of prosecution against the accused, hence prayed to convict the accused.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20153

11.The learned­defense­counsel has argued that the Pw.1 to Pw.4 who are said to be eye witnesses to the case incident did not support to the case of the prosecution, Pw.5 to Pw.7 are the mediators for the scene of observation and inquest report, Pw.8 is the Investigating Office. The evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8 and Ex.P1 to 

Ex.P16 are not revealed that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased by name K.Nageswara Rao. The prosecution party not established its case by way of their oral and documentary evidence. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

12.Now coming to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that as per the 

Ex.P1 report the Pw.1 is eye witness and he noticed that the accused also belongs to their village, known person, he is passing at scene of offence in a rash and negligent manner, his brother by name K.Nageswara Rao who have tiffin at tiffin center and coming to road met with an accident at scene of offence, with those aspects he gave 

Ex.P1 report to the Police, during his evidence he didn't support to the case of the prosecution and not identified the person who drove the vehicle. 

13.Pw.2 to Pw.4 who are the eye witness available at the scene of offence also not supported the case of the prosecution, the Pw.5 is the mediator for scene observation report also not supported to the prosecution version, according to him the motor cycle is Bajaj Discovery, he accompanied to the scene of offence with police, they seized the motor cycles and also glass pieces whichever fallen on the spot and he did not remember the which vehicle fallen on which direction on the road and signed as one of the elder for Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 scene inquest report and scene observation report and Pw.6 ad Pw.7 who are the mediators for inquest and scene observation report are also not supported to the case of the prosecution.

14.Pw.8 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about his investigation and he arrested the accused on his surrender before him at police station. During his cross­examination it was held that the incident was taken place on the left side of the road, according to his investigation the deceased person have tiffin at the hotel of Sri Lakshmi and coming on road on his bike, by that time this case incident was occurred. The deceased person came on his bike from hotel and entering on the road, so as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses including Investigating 

Officer itself obvious that there is negligence on the part of the either accused or deceased by entering on the road can not be ascertained with the material available on record. During cross­examination of Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant brother of deceased K.Nageswara Rao itself revealing he did not state before police as per 

Ex.P2 that on 16.05.2013 at about 08.45 AM the accused with his motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 AG 5484 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and 

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20154

hit the motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 BN 9 of his brother, as such he fallen on his back and sustained head injury and died.

15.The evidence of the Pw.1 also revealing that he did not identify the accused, who drove the motor vehicle. So, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not reveal that the negligence on the part of the accused, while driving the motor cycle and caused to the death of the deceased K.Nageswara Rao. The evidence available on record not revealing that the negligence on the part of either driver of the crime vehicle or deceased K.Nageswara Rao. In such circumstances, a benefit of doubt given to the accused for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC. 

16.The another offence alleged against the accused is Sec.181 of MV Act. 

Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:­  whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to three months, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees, or with both.

17.The prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused even though he belongs to their village. As seen from the evidence of the Investigating Officer and remand report itself speaks that the accused himself surrendered before Police, after completion of legal formalities he was sent to the court along with remand report. As seen from remand report also disclosing the same. So the accused himself admitted that he is the driver of said crime vehicle by the time of this case incident. 

If the accused having valid driving license as on the date of this case incident and aged above 18 years and other conditions if contemplated as contemplated under 

Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he will be slip from the liability for above section. Herein this case, the crime vehicle is motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 AG 5484 driven by the accused. According to remand report his age is shown as 22 years. So the Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not attracted to this case incident, wherein the Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 concerned, no person shall drive a motor cycle in any public place, unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drove the vehicle.

18.Herein this case the accused did not produce his driving license to the Investigating Officer as on the date of his arrest or not placed his driving license even at the time of trial to say that as on the date of incident he has valid driving license. In those circumstances the accused is liable to be punished under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, point is answered.

Typed by me on laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of May, 2016. (Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao, Prl.Jr.Civil Judge, Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20155

19.Accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. 

He pleaded mercy on the ground that he have family members and dependant on them and requested to take lenient view as first offence.

20.However, in view of the circumstances prevailed in this case, the mercy pleaded by the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this court feel that sentencing the accused following will meet the ends of Justice. 

21.In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) of IPC and he is acquitted for the same in terms section 255(1) Cr.P.C. and accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, and he is convicted for the same and sentenced to under go SI for two (2) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/s 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, in default, Simple 

Imprisonment of 15 days, in terms of Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The documents of both parties, if any, available on record shall be return to the respective parties on proper identification. The unmarked non­valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation by Typist on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of May, 2016.

(Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao,

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw.1.Sri.K.Sarveswara Rao. None Pw.2.Sri.S.Rajeswara Rao. Pw.3.Sri.A.Venkateswara Rao. Pw.4:Sri.K.Purushotham. Pw.5:Sri.K.Suryanarayana Pw.6:Sri.P.Mallaiah. Pw.7:Sri.D.Prasad Babu. Pw.8:Sri.M.Narasimha Rao. SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED 

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1: Police report given by the Pw.1. ...Nil... Ex.P2: Underlined portion of 161 statement of Pw.1 (K.Sarveswara Rao) Ex.P3: Underlined portion of 161 statement of Pw.2 (S.Rajeswara Rao) Ex.P4: Underlined portion of 161 statement of Pw.3 (A.Venkateswara Rao)

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CC.No.332/20156

Ex.P5: Underlined portion of 161 statement of Pw.4 (K.Purushotham) Ex.P6: Signature of P.W.5 on scene observation report. Ex.P7: Signature of P.W.5 on Inquest report. Ex.P8: Signature of P.W.6 on scene observation report Ex.P9: Signature of Pw.6 on Inquest report Ex.P10: Signature of Pw.7 (D.Prasad Babu) on Inquest report Ex.P11: First Information Report Ex.P12: Rough Sketch Ex.P13: Scene observation report Ex.P14: Inquest report. Ex.P15: MVI Report. Ex.P16: Postmortem Report. (Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao,

Prl.Jr.Civil Judge

Tiruvuru.

// True Copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil

PJCJ, TVR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT 

AT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE No.332/2015

1.Offence: 16.05.2013 2.Complaint: 16.05.2013 3.Apprehension of accused: ­­­­­­ 4.Commencement of Trail: 14.07.2015 5.Close of Trail: 22.04.2016 6.Judgment: 10.05.2016 7.Complainant:State represented by Sub­Inspector of police

Tiruvuru Police Station.

8.Name of the Accused:Boddukolla Pullayya, S/o.Muthayya, aged 22 years, Mala,R/o.Mallela Village, Tiruvuru Mandal, Krishna District. 

9. Charges : Under Section 304(A) and Section 181 of MV Act.

10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY 11.Result In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 304(A) of IPC and he is acquitted for the same in terms section 255(1) Cr.P.C. and accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, and he is convicted for the same and sentenced to under go SI for two (2) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/­ (Rupees Five Hundred only) for the offence punishable u/s 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, in default, Simple Imprisonment of 15 days, in terms of Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled, after expiry of 6 months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C. The documents of both parties, if any, available on record shall be return to the respective parties on proper identification. The unmarked non­valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

12. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 11.11.2013 the prosecution evidence started on 14.07.2015 and closed on 22.04.2016. The Judgment was 

pronounced on 10.05.2016. Hence the delay. 

(Sd/­) S.Damodara Rao,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Copy to :­

1. The Hon'ble 1st Addl.District Judge, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

3. Copy to the Asst.Public Prosecutor.

// True Copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

CC.No.33/2016Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Monday, This the 2nd day of May, 2016

C.C.No. 33/2016 (Old CC.23/2013)

Between:-

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Konduru Police Station, Krishna Dist.

...Complainant

And

1.Dubbaku China Babu, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 27 years, Madiga, Kunaparajuparva, Reddigdem Mandal. 2.Dubbaku Yeleesamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 45 years, Madiga, Kunaparajuparva, Reddigudem Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on 28.04.2016 before this Court for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. M.Nagendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Station House Officer of Police, A.Konduru Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.164/2012 against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-

A, of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in brief as follows:-

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The accused are residents of

Kunaparajuparva Village of Reddigudem Mandal, A.1 (D.China Babu) is the younger son of A.2 (D.Yeleesamma). Lw.1 (D.Mounika) is the complainant and the wife of A.1 (D.China Babu) resident of Kunaparajuparva village, Reddigudem

Mandal and her birth place at Patha Repudi Village of A.Konduru Mandal. Lws 2 and 3 (M.Vijaya Rao and M.Kumari) are the parents of complainant.

3. On 19.10.2012 at 10.00 hours, the complainant along with her parents came to the PS and presented a report that after the marriage of the complainant with her husband A.1 (D.China Babu) during 2010, they lived amicably for about one year. The complainant was given Rs.2,00,000/- on the promise that the in- laws will purchase land with the money and convert it into fertile land. After one year by virtue of the previous evil views of her husband the in-laws I.e father-in- law, mother-in-law and elder brother-in-law joined with the ideas of her husband and all of them demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- besides taunting words that her husband would be presented a gold chain instead of the gold ring presented by her parents. As the complainant informed to her parents they paid Rs.10,000/-to her husband for treating her well without any differences.

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.33/2016Page No.2

After some time her husband and in-laws repeated the same. The matter was brought to the notice of elders and during that Panchayat also the elders suggested to pay another Rs.10,000/- for the peaceful life of the complainant (D.Mounika). On 09.10.2012 at 17.00 hours again the complainant was assaulted and she informed the same to her parents house through the cell phone of her husband. As her father is away from the house, her mother came and the accused assaulted her mother also along with her. The same was brought to the notice of elders and on their suggestion the complainant (D.Mounika-Lw.1) lodged the report. On receipt of the report from Lw.1/complainant (D.Mounika), Lw.7 (SI of

Police) registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.164/2012 under Sections 498-A of IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act and investigated the matter. Lw.7 (SI of Police) examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II of the case diary. The parents of Lw.1/Complainant (D.Mounika) did not speak about the participation of

A.3 (Dubbaku Venkateswara Rao) and A4 (Dubbaku Nageswara Rao) in this case and their daughter did not inform about their involvement. On examination of the witnesses 4 to 6, who are the village elders did not speak about the harassment of

A.3 and A.4. The persons A.3 and A.4 mentioned in the report of

Lw.1/Complainant (D.Mounika) have been deleted from the accusation as per the orders of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid. Lw.7 (SI of Police) arrested the accused A.1 and A.2 on 29.10.2012 and later sent them for judicial custody along with remand report on the same day. Thus, the A.1 and A.2 are liable for punishment under Sections 498-A and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act as the accused harassed Lw.1/Complainant (D.Mounika) to bring some more dowry physically and mentally and also sent out her from the house and filed charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

5. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents was supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C for offence Under sections 498-A of IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, charges framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7. During Trial, prosecution has examined PW1 and 2 and also marked Ex

P1 to P.3. The learned APP given up Lw.3(M.Kumari), Lw.4(M.Yeliah), Lw.5(K.Nani),

Lw.6(V.Mariya Dasu) and Lw.7 (Sri.N.Venkateswara Rao, SI of Police); from the list

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.33/2016Page No.3

cited witnesses in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material on record, The examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 498-A of I.P.C and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11.POINT: The learned APP and the learned defence counsel has argued that, the case may be disposed off as per the material available on record.

12.It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused beat and harassed the complainant physically and mentally. Charge for the offence U/s. 498-A of IPC and

Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused. However, Pw.1 has not supported the case of the Prosecution and simply stated due to their trivial disputes with her husband she lodged report to the Police by turned to her parents house thereafter and subscribed her signature on report. Thereafter, they compromised the matter and residing happily.

13.The Pw.2 who is the father of Pw.1 also deposed as well as PW1. According to the Pw.2 now, Pw.1 and Accused were residing together without any disputes and in view of compromise deposing her evidence. Pw.1 denied the contents of

Ex.P2 statement given to Police. Pw.2 who is the father of Pw.1 denied his Ex.P3 statement given before the Police.

14.Thus, PW-1 & PW-2 did not speak anything against Accused though they were cross examined by the learned APP nothing could be elicited. PW-1 & PW-2 denied as having stated before the Police as in Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 which is the portion of their statements recorded by Police U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. Since, the material witness have not supported the case of the Prosecution the learned APP has given up the remaining list cited witnesses in the charge-sheet as no useful purpose would be served by examining them. Since there is no incriminating material against the Accused in the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 the examination of the

Accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

15.Hence, there is no specific incriminating material available against the

Accused in the evidence of material witness regarding the commission of the offence alleged against them. Thus, the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.33/2016Page No.4

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, point is answered.

16.In the result, this Court found that the Accused 1 & 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, typed by him on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1. Smt.D.Mounika. None

P.W.2. Sri.M.Vijaya Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1.Signature of Pw.1 on Police Report. Nil

Ex.P.2.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1

Ex.P.3.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.33/2016Page No.5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT

AT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE NO. 33/2016

1.Offence: 09.10.2012 2.Complaint: 10.10.2012 3.Apprehension of accused: ------ 4.Commencement of Trail: 01.04.2016 5.Close of Trail: 01.04.2016 6.Judgment:02.05.2016 7.Complainant: The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, A.Konduru Police Station, Krishna Dist.

8.Name of the Accused :1. Dubbaku China Babu, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 27 years, Madiga, Kunaparajuparva, Reddigdem Mandal.

2. Dubbaku Yeleesamma, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 45 years, Madiga, Kunaparajuparva, Reddigudem Mandal.

9. Offence: U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act 10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY 11.Finding: Acquitted.

12.Result In the result, this Court found that the Accused are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 31.01.2013 the prosecution evidence started on 01.04.2016 and same day closed. The Judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2016. Hence the delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Copy submitted to:- 1The Hon'ble First Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 3The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam. 4The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.263/2015Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TIRUVURU

Present : Sri S.Damodara Rao,M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Monday, This the 2nd day of May,2016

C.C.No. 263/2015 (Old CC.2245/2012)

Between:-

The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chatrai Police Station, Krishna Dist.

...Complainant

And

1.Arelli Adam, S/o.Sanjeevi, SC Madiga, aged 25 years, East Harijanawada, Chittapur Village. 2.Chatla Surayya, S/o.Venkatesu, SC Madiga, aged 35 years, East Harijanawada, Chittapur Village.

...Accused

This case coming on 29.04.2016 before this Court for hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant and Sri. A.Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Station House Officer of Police, Chatrai Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.85/2012 against the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.509 and 290 of IPC and in brief as follows:

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- Prior to 18.09.2012, the complainant along with her husband have been watching the mango garden at

Hyderabad since from about 5 years on monthly salary. As the daughter of complainant was pregnancy, complainant came to Chittapur East Harijanawada about 5 months back, the complainant along with her pregnant daughter are living at their house in Chittapur. After complainant came to Chittapur, A.1 (Arelli

Adam) was used to harass and tease the complainant Arelli Padma very oftenly by asking her to come with him to fulfill his sexual desire. For not obliging his desire, the accused No.1 (Arelli Adam) was abusing her a lot. While so, on 18.09.2012 at about 7.00 PM. Both Accused came towards complainant in drunken state and

A.1 by abusing the complainant, tried to catch her hand and during so, Lw.2 (Arelli Surayya) saw the act of the A.1 (Arelli Adam) and by questioning his act, while chastising him, both the accused have abused the Lw.2 (Arelli Surayya) in filthy language, commented his elder-ship, frightened them and caused nuisance.

3.After the incident the Complainant by name Arelli Padma(LW1) and Arelli

Surayya (LW2) have informed the above incident to Ubbala Lazar and Admilli

Jeevaratnam (LW3 &4 caste elders), who in turn have advised Lw.1/Complainant to report the matter to the Police. On the report given by Lw.1/Complainant in

Chatrai PS at 14.00 hours. On 09.09.2012, a case in Cr.No.85/2012 under

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.263/2015Page No.2

Sec.509 of IPC and 290 of IPC was registered by the HC.531 who was the then in- charge of the PS and he investigated into the case. During the investigation

HC.No.531 visited the spot, inspected the scene of offence and also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. The scene of offence is on Eastern side of East

Harijanawada Metal Road, opposite to the house of Lw.1/complainant in

Chittapur East Harijanawada. The accused were arrested and duly sent them for judicial remand to the Court. As the A.1 (Arelli Adam) was used to harass and tease the Lw.1/complainant very often prior to 18.09.2012 for illegal sexual course with her by asking her to come with him and hence he is liable under Section 509 of IPC. As the both accused went towards Lw.1/complainant in drunken state, A.1 (Arelli Adam) abused her and tried to catch her hand and during so, when Lw.2 (Arelli Surayya) warned, both A.1 (Arellia Adam) and A.2 (Chatla Surayya) have abused Lw.2 (Arelli Surayya), commented his elder-ship and have caused public nuisance there and hence the accused are liable under Section 509 and 290 r/w.34 of IPC and filed charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file by my predecessor in office against the accused for the offence under sections 509 and 290 r/w.34 of IPC.

5. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents was supplied to accused as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C for offence Under sections 509 and 290 r/w.34 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7. During Trial, prosecution has examined Pw1 and 2 and also marked Ex

P1 & P.2. The L.W.1(Arelli Padma) closed from list cited witness on filing of death certificate. The learned APP given up Lw.2(Arelli Surayya), Lw.5(HC.No.531,

B.S.Singh) and Lw.6(Sri.Y.Chitti Babu, SI of Police); from the list cited witnesses in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material on record, The examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 509 & 290 r/w.34 of I.P.C, beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

11.POINT: The learned APP and the learned defence counsel has argued that, the case may be disposed off as per the material available on record.

12.It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused used to harass and tease the complainant (Arelli Padma) and for illegal sexual course with her by asking her

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.263/2015Page No.3

to come with him. The defecto-complainant is no more and closed from list cited witnesses. The elder to whom the defecto-complainant inforemd this case incident examined as Pw.1 has not supported the case of the Prosecution and simply stated that he is the neighbour and he is also village elder and he simply stated that he do not know anything with regard to this case. Thereafter, they compromised the matter and residing happily.

13.The Pw.2 who is resident of Chittapoor Village of Chatrai Mandal, he stated that he know Lw.1-Padma and shed died at about 6 months back, Lw.2-Suraiah is no more and he died at about 3 months back. Pw.1 denied the contents of Ex.P1 statement given to Police. Pw.2 also denied his Ex.P2 statement given before the

Police.

14.Thus, PW-1 & PW-2 did not speak anything against Accused though they were cross examined by the learned APP nothing could be elicited. PW-1 & PW-2 denied as having stated before the Police as in Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 which is the portion of their statements recorded by Police U/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. Since, the material witness are no more and elders who advised to give report to the police have not supported the case of the Prosecution the learned APP has given up the remaining list cited witnesses in the charge-sheet as no useful purpose would be served by examining them. Since there is no incriminating material available on record against the Accused in the evidence of PW-1 & PW-2 the examination of the

Accused U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

15.Hence, there is no specific incriminating material available against the

Accused in the evidence of available witness regarding the commission of the offence alleged against them. Thus, the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.509 & 290 of IPC. Accordingly, point is answered.

16.In the result, this Court found that the Accused 1 & 2 are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.509 & 290 of IPC and they are acquitted in terms of Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2016.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.263/2015Page No.4

Tiruvuru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Pw.1. Sri.LazarNone

Pw.2. Sri.A.Jeeva Rathnam

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR: THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.P.1.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 None

Ex.P.2.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.

CC.No.263/2015Page No.5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT

AT TIRUVURU

CALENDER CASE NO. 263/2015

1.Offence: 18.09.2012 2.Complaint: 19.09.2012 3.Apprehension of accused: ------ 4.Commencement of Trail: 04.03.2016 5.Close of Trail: 22.04.2016 6.Judgment:02.05.2016 7.Complainant: The State, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chatrai Police Station, Krishna Dist.

8.Name of the Accused :1. Arelli Adam, S/o.Sanjeevi, SC Madiga, aged 25 years, East Harijanawada, Chittapur Village.

2.Chatla Surayya, S/o.Venkatesu, SC Madiga, aged 35 years, East Harijanawada, Chittapur Village.

9. Offence: U/s.509 & 420 of IPC 10.Plea of Accused: NOT GUILTY 11.Finding: Acquitted.

12.Result In the result, this Court found that the Accused are not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.509 & 290 of IPC and they are acquitted in terms of Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of 6 months from the date of Judgment as contemplated U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay: The case was taken on file on 31.12.2012 the prosecution evidence started on 04.03.2016 and closed on 22.04.2016. The Judgment was pronounced on 02.05.2016. Hence the delay.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tiruvuru.

Copy submitted to:- 1The Hon'ble First Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 3The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam. 4The Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Corrections: Nil P.J.C.J., Tiruvuru.