K.mothilal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURAM

PRESENT: - Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Palakol,

FAC/Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class,Narsapur. Thursday, the 6th day of December, 2018.

C.C. No.520/2014

Between State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogaltur Police Station.… Complainant

A n d

Karna Muralikrishnam Naidu, S/o Ramakrishna Age 32 yrs, C/Kapu, R/o China Mamidipalli 31st ward, Narsapur of Narsapur Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on 30-11-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri K.Soma Sekhar,

Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is arraigned for the offence punishable under section 419,420,384 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) in Cr.No.188/2014 of

Mogaltur Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed form the charge sheet are that :-

On 29-09-2014, the L.Ws.2 and 3 who are tractor drivers by profession went to Thuruputallu village for sand load and as well as transport for the riots and after purpose is over when they are on the way and at about 12:30PM and when reached the crime scene with sand load tractors the accused noted above way laid L.Ws.2 and 3 and dishonestly inducing them that he is report of N-14 channel and when demanding money by threats and when L.Ws.2 and 3 were replied that no money with them, the accused noted above further put them under feat and rand up phone to Tahsildar/L.W1 by dishonest inducement that he is N-24 channel reported and by exertion and using criminal force he taken Rs.500/- each from the pockets of L.Ws.2 and 3 2 and made L.Ws.2 and 3 round up through the Tahsildar office and caused them intentionally with troubles and on enquiry by L.Ws.2 and 3 it is learnt that the accused is not real reporter of N-24 channel is represented by him

before them and found that the accused is fake reported and then L.Ws.2

and 3 made out statements before L.W1 for necessary action and on enquiry

L.W1, his subordinate officials L.Ws.4 to 6 found that the accused is fake reporter of N-24 channel and is threatening the public and as well as the officials with his deeds and acts by demanding money and finally L.w1 reported the issue before police for necessary action.

On receipt of report from the L.W.1, the L.W9/ASI of police, Mogaltur

Police Station registered the above case against the accused on 02-10-2014 at 7:00PM, and investigated into. During the investigation he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch. He examined L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. Later he handed over the entire CD file to L.W10/SI of police, Mogaltur police station. L.W10/SI verified the investigation done by L.W9 and it is on correct lines. On 10-10- 2014, L.W10/SI arrested the accused and got confessional statement of accused through mediators i.e., L.Ws. 7 and 8 and seized Rs.200/- from the possession of the accused and sent him for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, L.W10/SI filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 419,420,384 IPC against accused.

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

5. Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under section 419,420,384 IPC against accused was 3 framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.12 and M.O1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence available against him and reported no defence evidence.

8. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the offence under section 419,420,384 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubts”?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the complainant as P.W1, the eye witnesses of the alleged incident as P.Ws.2 to 6, other victims as P.Ws.2 to 4, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.7 and 8, the investigating officers as P.Ws.9 and 10 and got marked the report of L.W1 as Ex.P1, the joint statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 as Ex.P2, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.Ws.2 to 6 as Exs.P3 to P7, the signatures of P.Ws.7 and 8 on the confessional statement as Exs.P8 and 9, original FIR as Ex.P10, rough sketch as Ex.P11, confessional statement as Ex.P12 and cash of Rs.200/- as

M.O1.

POINT:

11. The evidence of P.W1 reveals that in the year 2014, P.Ws.2 and 3 and other farmers informed him that the accused demanded amounts from them by stating that he is reporter of N-24 Channel. Later, accused also called him over phone and also demanded him to do the works which he 4 sought to be done. He also came to his office and demanded him. On 29-09- 2014, the P.Ws.2 and 3 came to his office and gave complaint against the accused orally. Then, his RI recorded the joint statement of P.Ws.2 and 3. On the said date the accused and other reporters came to his office casually, then, through other reporters, he came to know that accused is not a reporter of N-24 Channel. Due to the acts of accused so much of disturbance was caused to himself and his staff and they lost their valuable time. He also cheated them by saying that he is reporter of N-24 Channel. Hence, he gave

Ex.P1 report to Mogaltur police by enclosing the Ex.P2 statement of P.Ws.2 and 3. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

12. The evidence of P.W4 reveals that about 4 or 5 years back when he was present in MRO office, Narsapur, P.W1 called him and informed that accused pretended as news reporter and he cheated P.W1 and the villagers.

He also informed him that he was going to give report against that person and asked him to act as witness in the said case. He further stated that except this he do not know any thing about case facts. He further stated that he do not remember whether police examined him and recorded his statement in relations to this case as 4 or 5 years lapsed. He did not support the prosecution version, at this stage the learned prosecutor cross examined him but nothing could be elicited from his cross examination except marking his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P5.

13. The evidence of P.W5 reveals that in the year 2014, nearly 20 to 30 persons came to MRO office and stated that the sand at Turputallu village was illegally transported by some persons. His MRO stated to them that he would file cases against the said persons. He further stated that except this he do not know any thing about this case fact. Police never examined him and recorded his statement. He did not support the prosecution version, at this stage the learned prosecutor cross examined him but nothing could be 5 elicited from his cross examination except marking his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P6.

14. The evidence of P.W9 reveals that on 02-10-2014 at about 7:00PM, he received a report through post from P.W1 and basing on the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.188/2014 U/Sec 419,420,384 of IPC against accused. He issued Ex.P10 FIR. On 03-10-2014, he went to scene of offence situated at Turputallu village and he got examined L.Ws.2 to 6 and he prepared a Ex.P11 rough sketch. Later, he handed over the case file to

P.W10.

15. The evidence of P.W10 reveals that on 05-10-2014, he was handed over the entire case file by P.W9 and he verified the entire investigation done by him and found in correct lines. On 10-10-2014 at about 5:00AM, he went to Sitaramapuram along with P.Ws.7 and 8 and found accused and recorded his confessional statement and also seized Rs.200/- from his possession and the accused confessed the said Rs.200/- is pertaining to the present crime.

The said confessional statement is marked as Ex.P12 and M.O1 is cash of

Rs.200/-. Later, he arrested the accused and produced before this court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

16. The learned public prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W1 coupled with Exs.P1,P2,P10 to P12 proves the charge against the accused and she prays to convict the accused. On the other hand the learned counsel

for accused argued that the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of

defacto complainant and other witnesses. The evidence of P.W1 is not consistent and the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the charge against accused and hence he prays to acquit the accused.

17. On going through the entire ocular and documentary evidence available on record, it is a case of the prosecution that the accused cheated

P.Ws.1 to 3 on the pretext of he is a reporter of N-24 Channel, and he extortion the money from P.Ws.2 and 3. According to evidence of P.W1, he 6 only deposed that the accused cheated himself and his staff by saying that he is a reporter, but the remaining all witnesses are turned hostile, there is no corroboration with him. The eye witnesses of the alleged incident i.e.,

P.Ws.2 and 3 and the independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 6 are turned hostile, they are not supported to the prosecution version, the learned prosecutor cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to

P7. The material witnesses of this case i.e., P.Ws.7 and 8 stated in their evidence about 4 years back, the Mogaltur SI called them to police station and he obtained their Exs.P8 and P9 signatures on a paper. They are identified their signatures in confessional report. They are further stated in their evidence they do know the contents of said statement and they do not know any thing about case facts. They are also not supported to the prosecution version. P.Ws.2 to 8 are deposed in their evidence they are not examined by police, where he create a doubt regarding the 161 Cr.P.C statements of them.

18. Hence, from the above discussion supra this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence accused are entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 419,420,384 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in-force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of December, 2018.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Sripada Harinadh -- NONE -- P.W.2: Baddy Subbarao P.W.3: Geddada Yesu P.W.4: Iaitem Satyanarayana P.W.5: Pithani Naga Vara Prasad P.W.6: Kothapalli Mutyalarao P.W.7: Kasani Kumar Nehru P.W.8: Kasani Ram Kumar P.W.9: Y.V.Nageswararao, ASI P.W.10: K.Sudhakara Reddy, SI DOCUMENTS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: The report of P.W1 Ex.P.2: The Joint Statement of P.Ws.2 and 3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W3 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4

Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W5 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W6 Ex.P.8: The signature of P.W7 on confessional report Ex.P.9: The signature of P.W8 on confessional report Ex.P.10: Original FIR Ex.P.11: Rough Sketch Ex.P.12: Confessional Statement

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked: M.O.1: Cash of Rs.200/-

ID/K.M.L, P.J.C.J.Pkl, FAC/A.J.F.C.M N.S.P.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29-09-2014 02-10-2014 10-10-2014 15-10-2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 26-02-2018 22.11.2018 06.12.2018 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment of Calendar Case No.520/2014 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Cr.No.188/2014 of Mogaltur P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Karna Muralikrishnam Naidu, S/o Ramakrishna Age 32 yrs, C/Kapu, R/o China Mamidipalli 31st ward, Narsapur of Narsapur Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence:under sections 419,420,384 IPC Finding:Accused is found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 419,420,384 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in-force for a period of six months from the date of judgment.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURAM

PRESENT: ­ Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018.

C.C.No. 470 of 2017

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town Police Station. … Complainant 

A n d

Yalla Rakesh Sindhu, S/o hanoc Vardhan, Age 30yrs, C/SC­Mala, Gandhi Nagar­1, Narsapur. … Accused 

This case is coming on 07­12­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri R.Pullaji, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 353,323,290,510 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr.No.137/2017 of

Narsapur Town Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that : 

The L.W1 by name Pilli Durga Prasad, Home Guard is working as Jeep

Driver in Narsapur Town Police Station. On 30­08­2017, the complainant and the

L.Ws.2 and 3 and some CPOs are conducting visible policing along with SI of

Police(L.W6) while conducting visible policing with some CPOs from main traffic point center towards Mathsyapuri Bridge, the complainant and the L.Ws.2 and 3 when going towards Godavari Bund Road in the part of visible policing, when reached nearly Kondalamma Temple at about 7:00PM, the complainant and L.Ws.2 and 3 saw the four persons while they were drinking alcohol in public place by shouting loudly and causing public nuisance, on seeing them the complainant and

L.Ws.2 and 3 approached them, then tried to catch them, in which the accused caught hold the shirt collar of complainant and stated that they will drink the 2 alcohol as they like, who are you to asked him stating in like manner, the accused beat the L,.W3 also on his jaw and abused the L.W2 uttering with vulgar language and deterred them from discharging their legitimate duty. When the accused trying to eloping from there, the complainant caught hold the accused with assist of L.Ws.2 and 3. On that L.Ws.1 to 3 took the accused to the police station and informing to SI of Police(L.W6) the same and filed a report against the accused. 

Basing on the report of L.W1, L.W6/SI of police, Narsapur Town police station registered the above case against accused on 30­08­2017 at 8:00PM, issued

FIR and investigated into. He examined L.Ws.1 to 3 at police station and recorded their statements. On 31­08­2017 at 9:00AM, he arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody on 01­09­2017. On 02­09­2017, he produced the rest of respondents before the Hon’ble SJSCM, Narsapur U/Sec. 290 IPC who accompanied with accused in this case during the offence occurred for causing public nuisance.

The Hon’ble court imposed fine to them to the tune of Rs.100/­ for each one and issued STC No.414/2017. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 353,323,290,510 IPC against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution was furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under section 353,323,290,510 IPC has been framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Ex.D1 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence available against 3 him and reported no defence evidence. 

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now points for determination is

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges against him?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined de­facto complainant as P.W.1, the eye witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.4 and 5, the investigating officer as P.W6 and the report of P.W.1 as Ex.P.1 and Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.4 and 5 as Exs.P.2 and P3, Original FIR as Ex.P4, Rough Sketch as Ex.P5, the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement as

Ex.D1.

POINT

11.P.W.1 the defacto complainant of in this case reveals that on 30­08­ 2017 at about 5:00PM, towards petrol (Visible Polie) himself, P.Ws.2,3 and 6 went to main road at a traffic point and from there P.W6 along with vinay kumar and one

Sai (CPO) proceeded towards Matsyapuri bridge and whereas himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 proceeded towards Godavarigattu. Accordingly, when they reached Kondalamma temple at bout 7:00PM and they found four persons causing nuisance by having liquor and when they questioned about their acts one out of them came to him and caught hold the collar of his shirt and dragged him and when P.W3 came to his rescue the said accused also slapped P.W3. When P.W2 came to him rescue the said accused also scolded in filthy language and thereby caused obstructions to his duty.

On the enquired they came to know about the identified particulars of the accused and brought him to the police station. Thereafter, he lodged a complainant in the

Narsapur Town police station. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 are also run in the same lines as that of P.W1.

12.P.W6 deposed in his evidence On 30­08­2017 at about 8:00PM, he 4 received Ex.P1 from P.W1 and basing on the Ex.P1, he registered the case in

Cr.No.137/2017 U/Sec 353,290 IPC against accused and accordingly, he issued

Ex.P4 FIR. Later, immediately he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statement. On the next day, he went to the scene of offence and secured the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and recorded their statements, he also prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. On 31­08­2017, he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet U/Sec 353,323,290,510 of IPC. 

13.The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex.P1 proves the case of the prosecution. She further argued that the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 are consistent and hence she prays to convict the accused. On the other hand the learned counsel argued that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the interested witness and there is no other evidence available on record to corroborate with the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3. He argued that basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are interested witness, the accused cannot be convicted and hence he prays to acquit the accused.

14.P.W1 reveals in his evidence himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 proceeded towards

Godavarigattu, P.W3 also deposed same thing, but P.W2 deposed in his chief examination P.W1 informed them that there were some persons consuming liquor and when P.W1 and P.W3 questioned the same the accused made a galata with

P.W1 and immediately they went towards Godavarigattu. He further stated in his cross examination he did not state the before the police that himself, P.Ws.1 and 3 went to Godavarigattu together for visible Police. The relevant portion in 161

Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.D1. He also stated in his cross examination

P.W1 informed him about the alleged offence by phone. He also admitted in his cross examination he do not have a personal knowledge about the alleged offence except the information given by P.W1. As per the evidence of P.W1, he admitted in his cross examination the accused and remaining persons were consuming liquor by sitting over the foot path situated on the bund of Godavari, but P.W3 deposed in his 5 evidence they found the accused sitting on the steps at Kondalamma temple, there is no corroboration of both the evidence in scene of offence. P.W1 admitted in his cross examination himself, P.Ws.2 and 3 are went to the scene of offence in

Government Jeep, but P.W3 admitted in his cross examination they went to

Godavarigattu as visible policing on their respective two wheelers, here also no corroboration both of them. P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted in their cross examination the accused was consuming beer, but they all are cannot say its brand and the said alcohol bottle are not handed over to the P.W6.

15.The learned counsel for the accused contended that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the interested witness. P.Ws.4 and 5 are turned hostile to the prosecution case, the learned APP cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 and P3 against the accused. Finally, they deposed that they were not examined by the police and where they create a doubt creating the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.4 and 5.

P.Ws.1 and 2 are police officials who are certainly interested witnesses. Their evidence runs in a routine manner. The reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not inspire confidence. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, this court hold that in the absence of any independent testimony, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon.

16.As seen from the evidence, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused and consequently, this hold that the accused are entitled for acquittal as prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused.

17.Therefore, In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353,323,290,510 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of

Judgment.

6

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of December, 2018.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: 

P.W.1: Pilli Durga Prasad ­­­ NIL ­­­

P.W.2: Sanaboina Srinivasulu

P.W.3: Killada Raja Siva Naga Vinay

P.W.4: Degala Edukondalu

P.W.5: Viswanadhapalli Balaraju

P.W.6: K.Chandra Sekhar, SI

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

Ex.P.4: Original FIR

Ex.P.5: Rough Sketch

For Defence:

Ex.D.1: The relevant portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2.

M.Os. Marked:

­­ Nil ­­

ID/K.M.L P.J.C.J.Pkl, FAC/A.J.F.C.M N.S.P 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offenceReport of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30-08-2017 30-08-2017 31-08-2018 05-09-2017 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01-11-2018 06-12-2018 12.12.2018 Due to non-production of witnesses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.470/2017 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class

Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Cr.No.137/2017 of Narsapur Town P.S.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yalla Rakesh Sindhu, S/o hanoc Vardhan, Age 30yrs, C/SC­Mala, Gandhi Nagar­1, Narsapur. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- under sections 353,323,290,510 IPC Offence: Finding:Accused is found not guilty

Sentence: Therefore, In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353,323,290,510 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the said charges under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURAM

PRESENT: ­ Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. Wednesday, the 12th day of December, 2018.

C.C. No.60 of 2018

State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Narsapur Rural Police Station. … Complainant

A n d

Tirumani Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 25 yrs, C/A.K.Kshatriya, Vemuladeevi East Village, Narsapur Mandal. Driver of pulsar bike chasis No.MD2­A11­CY4HWA05149, Engine No.DHYWA50811.… Accused

This case is coming on 07­12­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri Ch.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: ­

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused is arraigned for the trial of offence punishable under Section 304­A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr. No.64/2017 of Narsapur Rural Police

Station.

2.The brief facts of the case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that: ­

On 04­05­2017 morning L.W1 father went for fishing from his house in

Antharveedhi Godavari on his bicycle towards his boat area, when he reached near

Biyyaputippa water tank at about 9:00AM, the accused, driver of black and red color sticker pulsar motor cycle its chases No. JE401400 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed, the deceased bicycle, on its back side, resulting of which he was fell on the road with his bicycle, due to which he caused head injury on his right side, and on his skull was fractured and he fell unconscious, immediately,

L.W1 shifted the deceased to Bhimavaram Hospitals, Bhimavaram on private

Ambulance and admitted him, while undergoing treatment, Bhimavaram II Town police came and asked him said facts they wrote it.

2

Basing on the statement of L.W1, L.W16/ASI of police, Narsapur Rural police station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.64/2017 U/Sec 338 IPC on 04­ 05­2017 at 9:30PM and investigated into. On 05­05­2017 at 11:30PM, the deceased was expired while shifting him to area Hospital Narsapur, on that

L.W16/ASI altered the section of law from 338 IPC to section 304­A IPC on 06­05­ 2017 at 7:30AM. During the investigation L.W16/ASI examined L.Ws.1 to 10 recorded their statements and inspected the crime scene prepared observation report under cover of mediators report drafted by L.Ws.11 and 12. On 06­05­2017,

L.W16/ASI conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 8:30AM to 11:00AM in the presence of L.Ws.11 to 13 and got drafted inquest proceedings during the time L.W16 examined L.Ws.1 to 10 and recorded their statements and photographed the dead body of the deceased by his service camera. After completion of the inquest L.W16 sent the dead body of the deceased to the L.W15 for autopsy. L.W15 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate and she opined that the cause of death of the best of his knowledge is due to fatal head injury due to road traffic accident.

L.W14 is MVI inspected the crime vehicle issued detailed report with opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in accident. On 11­05­2017, L.W16 served section 41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, arrested the accused and released on bail. After completion of investigation,

L.W17/SI prepared charge sheet. 

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 304­A IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.

P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. Hence, the charges under sections 304­A IPC has 3 been framed, read over and explained in Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence available against him and reported no defence evidence. 

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence against him?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the son’s of deceased as

P.W1, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, the wife of deceased as P.W4, the investigating officer as P.W5 and got marked Signature of P.W1 as Ex.P1, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 as Exs.P2 to P5, Hospital Intimation as Ex.P6, the statement of P.W1 as Ex.P7, Original FIR as Ex.P8, rough sketch as Ex.P9, scene observation report as Ex.P10, Photographs as Ex.P11, death intimation as Ex.P12,

Altered FIR as Ex.P13, inquest report as Ex.P14, MVI report as Ex.P15, autopsy report as Ex.P16. 

POINT

11.Admittedly P.W1 is not the direct witness to the incident and he came to know the incident through others. P.Ws.2 to 4 are the interested witnesses and they did not support the prosecution case. They turned hostile to the prosecution case.

The evidence of P.W1 shows that he do not know the accused. He came to know the information of accident and he found his father succumbed to death due to that accident. He was identified his Ex.P1 signature on report, but he denied the 4 contents of the report. Later, he stated that he do not know anything about the case facts of the case. Later, he stated that he never examined by the police. P.Ws.2 to 4 are not supported the prosecution version, at that stage the learned prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to P5. 

12.P.W5 who is the investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 04.05.2017, he received a Ex.P6 Hospital Intimation. He recorded the Ex.P7 statement of P.W1 and basing on that he registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.64/2017 U/Sec 338 IPC and issued Ex.P8 FIR. On the next day, he went to scene of offence situated at Vemuladeevi and he prepared a Ex.P10 scene observation report through mediators. He also got Ex.P11 photographed the scene of offence. He secured the presence of L.Ws.3 to 5 and recorded their statements.

He received Ex.P12 death intimation from Government Hospital, Narsapur on 06­ 05­2017. Basing on the Ex.P12, he altered the section of law from 338 IPC to 304­

A IPC and accordingly he issued Ex.P13 altered FIR. Again he examined the all witnesses. Later he sent the body of deceased for autopsy. He got prepared Ex.P14 inquest report in the presence of mediators. Later he received Ex.P15 MVI report and also Ex.P16 autopsy report by L.W17. Later, he issued 41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused of you. Later, he handed over the case file to L.W17 who verified the entire investigation and filed the charge sheet.

13.P.W1 the interested witnesses and P.Ws.2 to 4 are independent witnesses of this case are did not support the prosecution version. The learned prosecutor cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P5 to 8. Further, the prosecution given up the remaining witnesses of this case. P.W.5 is investigating officer, whose evidence cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of other corroborating evidence. 

5

14.Hence, in view of foregoing discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the offence against accused punishable under section 304­A IPC by placing cogent evidence. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. 

 15.Therefore, in the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304­A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall stand discharge. 

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of December, 2018.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, palakol,

 FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: malladi Arjunarao ­­ NONE ­­

P.W.2: Malladi Srinu

P.W.3: Malladi Dhanalakshmi

P.W.4: Malladi Dharmaraju 

P.W.5: B.Srinivasa Rao, ASI

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W1 on the report.

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1 

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W3

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4

Ex.P.6: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P.7: Statement of P.W1

Ex.P.8: Original FIR

Ex.P.9: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.10: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.11: Photographs 6

Ex.P.12: Death Intimation

Ex.P.13: Altered FIR

Ex.P.14: Inquest Report

Ex.P.15: MVI Report

Ex.P.16: Autopsy Report

FOR DEFENCE:

­NIL­

Material Objects Marked:

­NIL­

ID/K.M.L,

 P.J.C.J.Pkl, FAC/A.J.F.C.M N.S.P 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,NARSAPUR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04-05-2017 04-05-2017 11-05-2017 11-05-2017 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28-11-2018 06-12-2018 12-12-2018 --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.60/2018 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Cr.No.34/2017 of Narsapur Rural P.S.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tirumani Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 25 yrs, C/A.K.Kshatriya, Vemuladeevi East Village, Narsapur Mandal. Driver of pulsar bike chasis No.MD2-A11-CY4HWA05149, Engine No.DHYWA50811. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under sections 304-A IPC

Finding:Accused is found not guilty

Sentence: Therefore, in the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall stand discharge.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURM

Present : ­ Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. Thursday, the 6th day of December, 2018.

C.C.No. 312 of 2018

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town Police Station. … Complainant

A n d

1. Chikkam Surya Vinayaka Dasaradhnath, S/o Surya Prabhakar Rao, Age 20 yrs, C/Kapu, Main Road, Uppalaguptham E.G.Dist., Present. R/o Jakkamvari Street, Narsapur Town and Mandal.

2. Thota Phanikumar, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 31 yrs, C/Kapu, D.No.8­8­50, Addagallavari Street, Narsapur Town and Mandal. … Accused 

This case is coming on 29­11­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri B.Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: 

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused are prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 352,384,323,506 R/W 34 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr.No.102/2018 of

Narsapur Town Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that : 

The L.W1 by name Vatti Durga Prasad is resident of Narsapur. A1 made friendship with L.W1 during studying 9th class, every day the A1 used to come to Ground to play shuttle with L.W1 which is nearly L.W1’s house, finally the L.W1 lost 5 games in the hand of A1 in the year of 2018 during Sankranthi Festival. On 02­04­2018 at about 5:00PM, the A1 to A3 came across the complainant at the scene and demanded Rs.7,000/­. On that the L.W1 when questioned him, the A1 replied “you have to give the betting amount for lost 5 games in shuttle”. On that the L.W1 replies “we taken it as sportive and played, it is not betting”. On that the

A1 assaulted against complainant and took two cell phones from complainant by 2 exertion, the A1 and A3 and Juvenile conflict with law (A2) beat him with their hands, threatened on fear of death in furtherance common intention. 

Basing on the report of complainant, immediately the L.W8/SI registered the above case on 07­04­2018 at 05:30PM, and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he secured the complainant and his father at P.S examined them and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the scene of offence examined the same and and prepared rough sketch and he secured L.Ws.3 to 6 and examined them and recorded their statements. On 07­04­2018 at 8:00PM, the L.W8/SI arrested the A1 at his Grandfather house and recovered two cell phones which belongs to Nokia

Company model No.200, 2nd one is Vell­Com company which were taken from L.W1 by extortion. During the course of investigation L.W8/SI served the 41­A Cr.P.C notice to A3a dn served the same to father of A2 on 12­04­2018 as the A2 is

Juvenile Conflict with law in this case. In this case A2 is juvenile hence a separate summary sheet was filed before in the Hon’ble Court of Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, West Godavari, Eluru. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence under sections 352,384,323,506 R/W 34 IPC against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. They denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under section 352,323,506 r/w 34 IPC has been framed against A1 and A2, charge for the offence under section384 IPC against A1 read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral 3 evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with since there is no incriminating evidence available against accused.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now points for determination are

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges against them?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined defacto complainant as P.W.1, his father as P.W2, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.3 to 5 and got marked signature of P.W.1 as Ex.P.1 and Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of

P.Ws.1 to 5 as Exs.P.2 to P.6.

11.P.W.1 the defacto complainant has not supported the prosecution story. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. He identified the signature in the complaint, but he denied its contents.

The said signature is marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 has not even made single overt act against accused. More over P.W.1 denied that he has stated before police as in

Ex.P.2. Though P.W.1 admitted Ex.P.1 signature is of his but he denied the knowledge of the contents of the statement which contains Ex.P.1 signature of

P.W.1. In such case no reliance can be placed on the statement that contains Ex.P.1 signature. Though the learned prosecutor cross examined P.W.1 nothing could be elicited to support prosecution version. Hence, P.W.1 is declared hostile to prosecution.

12.Further, the father of P.W1 i.e., P.W2 also deposed in his evidence that he do not know any thing about case facts. P.W2 also did not depose any act against accused. Though the learned prosecutor cross examined P.W.2 nothing could be elicited to support prosecution version. Hence, P.W.2 is also declared 4 hostile to prosecution. The independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5 also did not support the prosecution case, they categorically deposed that they do not know anything about case facts. Though the learned prosecutor cross examined P.Ws.3 to 7 nothing could be elicited to support prosecution version, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P­4 to P­6. The learned prosecutor also cross examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 with the permission of the court, but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination, except marking their section 161 Cr.P.C statements as

Exs.P2 and P3. The learned prosecutor suggested to all witnesses that they are deposing false as they compromised the case with accused. Hence, P.Ws.1 to 5 are also declared hostile to prosecution. There is no other evidence on record to prove that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1, tried to outrage her modesty and threatened P.Ws.1 & 2 convict them for the charges framed against them. 

13.Since P.Ws.1 to 5 turned hostile, the prosecution has given up the evidence of other witnesses i.e. Vatti Bhavani, Ravi Kota Satyanarayana @ Kotayya,

K.Chandra Sekhar, Sub­Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town PS (L.Ws.3,5 and 8) cited by the prosecution.

14.As seen from the evidence, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove the charges against the accused and consequently, this hold that the accused are entitled for acquittal as prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused.

15.Therefore, In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 352,323,506 r/w 34 IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said charges under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharge.

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of December,2018.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1: Vatti Durga Prasad ­­­ NIL ­­­ P.W.2: Vatti Narasimha Rao P.W.3: Chitturi Srinivas P.W.4: Dondapati Sadik Ambedkar P.W.5: Chinimilli Durga Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5

For Defence: ­­ Nil ­­

M.Os. Marked: ­­ Nil ­­

ID.K.M.L, P.J.C.J.Pkl, A.J.F.C.M N.S.P 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offenceReport of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02­04­2018 07­04­2018 10­04­2018 10­04­2018 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29­11­2018 29­11­2018 06.12.2018 Due to non­production of witnesses -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.312/2018 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class 

Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub­Inspector of Police

Cr.No.102/2018 of Narsapur Town P.S.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Chikkam Surya Vinayaka Dasaradhnath, S/o Surya Prabhakar Rao, Age 20 yrs, C/Kapu, Main Road, Uppalaguptham E.G.Dist., Present. R/o Jakkamvari Street, Narsapur Town and Mandal.

2. Thota Phanikumar, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 31 yrs, C/Kapu, D.No.8­8­50, Addagallavari Street, Narsapur Town and Mandal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under sections 352,384,323,506 r/w 34 IPC

Finding:A1 and A2 are found not guilty 

Sentence: Therefore, In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 352,323,506 r/w 34 IPC and A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said charges under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharge.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURAM

PRESENT: - Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur. Thursday, the 6th day of December,2018

C.C. No.280/2017

Between State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town Police Station. … Complainant

A n d

1. Thirumani Anjaneyulu, S/o Veeraswami, Age 77 yrs,

2. Thirumani subbarao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 48 yrs,

3. Thirumani Krishna, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 45 yrs,

4. Thirumani Yesu Babu, s/o Lakshmana Rao, Age 46 yrs, All are C/AK.Ksthariya, 3rd ward, Ponnapalli, Narsapur. … Accused

This case is coming on 29-11-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri G.Satyanarayana,

Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused are tried for the offence under section 435,506 r/w 34

IPC of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC) in Cr.No.32/2017 of Narsapur Town

Police Station.

2. The SI of police, Narsapur Town police station filed a report under section 173 Cr.P.C with the following allegations in brief as follows: -

The complainant by name Mupathi Lakshminarayana is resident of

Ponnapalli, Narsapur Mandal. He will be fishing together which having 32 members group in the river of Godavari on 32 boats. They will keep the boats at ashore of Godavari River, nearly Kondalamma temple. Before one and half month, the NTR foundation and VALAKATLA group members i.e., L.Ws.5 to 7 as yet rest of members asked the two engines which belongs to L.W1 group, the L.Ws.1 and 2 are as presidents to their group, agreed to that the gave two boats as assist. From that time the accused are wreak against L.W1 they 2 asked him why have you gave the boats to them, as yet the above cited

Valakatlu members are contrasted to them, they cannot hearing his word, in like manner the accused were threatened the L.W1, as yet they will see end the life of L.W1, for giving the boats. Besides the accused were threatened would set the fire on the boats and nets. Since then the accused are behaving with misfeasance, last night at about 12:00noon, the marginally noted A1 to A4 and their men’s were scattered the petrol and set the fire on the boats which were kept in an ashore of Godavari River, near Kondalamma

Temple. Meantime the neighbours called the fire engine, the fire engine has extinguished the fire. In this incident the L.W1 boat and nets completely burnt, Mupith elisha boat which is aside partly damaged. Immediately the

L.W1 and some others reached there, when enquired about this incident, it is revealed by L.W2 while the marginally noted accused were moving in that area, the L.W1 has seen the A4 having with petrol bottle, when the L.W2 asked the A4, he stated that why it is you, I will see you next, stating in like manner, he went away. So, that this is clearly obvious that this incident was done by the marginally noted A1 to A4 and some others were set fire on boat of L.W1 by pouring the petrol with wreak upon them. When the incident were seen by some boats man who were fishing in the river, the accused were eloped from there. For this cause the L.W1 has lost to the tune of

Rs.4,00,000/- and suffered his family livelihood. Hence, he lodged a report requesting take necessary action against the accused, to do justice to him.

Basing on the report given by P.W1, L.W15/SI of police, Narsapur Town

Police Station registered the above case on 06-02-2017 at 07:30PM, and issued FIR. On 07-02-2017, he visited the scene of offence and got photography of the scene by L.W12 and drafted scene observation report in the presence of L.Ws.13 and 14 and prepared rough sketch of the scene and examined as many as witnesses L.Ws.1 to 8. On 05-06-2017 at about 1:10AM, he received a phone call, that the boats are burning, nearly 3 kondalamma temple, Narsapur on receiving the same he left the station along with his staff at about 1:11AM, rushed to the scene which is located in the ashore of Godavari River, near Kondalamma temple and extinguished the fires. The L.Ws.10 and 11 inspected the burnt boat and nets, estimated the value of burnt boat and nets and gave their opined that the cost of damage of burnt boat and nets value is Rs.3,25,000/-. On 07-02-2017, L.W15/SI served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused, on receiving the same the accused replied to the notice on 10-02-2017. After completion of investigation, L.W15/SI filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 435,506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused.

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

5. Accused were examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. They denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charges for the offence under sections 435,506 r/w 34 IPC against accused were framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with since there is no incriminating evidence available against accused.

8. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now point for determination is:

4

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

accused for the charge levied against them”?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as P.W1, the eye witness as P.W2, the independent witnesses as

P.Ws.3 and 4 and got marked the signature of P.W1 on the report as Ex.P1, the section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws1 to 4 as Ex.P2 to P5.

11. P.W1 who is said to be the defacto complainant to the alleged incident, P.W2 who is eye witness of alleged incident, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are independent witness did not support the prosecution version. Their evidence reveals that they do not know any thing about case facts. They have not spoken any stray sentence against accused. As they did not support the prosecution version, the learned prosecutor cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to

P5. Later, the prosecution given up the evidence of L.Ws.5 to 15 on the bases of P.Ws.1 to 4 evidence. Hence, there is no incriminating evidence in this record to prove the charges alleged by prosecution to accused. Hence from the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, the accused i.e., A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 435,506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds if any shall stand discharge.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of December, 2018.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Mupathi lakshminarayana -- NONE -- P.W.2: Ponnala Rambabu P.W.3: Natina Rambabu P.W.4: Boddu Nagaraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: The signature of P.W1 on the report Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W3 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL- Material Objects Marked: -NIL-

ID/K.M.L, P.J.C.J.Pkl, FAC/A.J.F.C.M N.S.P.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 05/06.02.2017 06.02.2017 10-02-2017 10.02.2017 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 29.11.2018 29.11.2018 06.12.2018 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment of Calendar Case No.280/2017 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narsapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Cr.No.32/2017 of Narsapur Town P.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Thirumani Anjaneyulu, S/o Veeraswami, Age 77 yrs,

2. Thirumani subbarao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 48 yrs,

3. Thirumani Krishna, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 45 yrs,

4. Thirumani Yesu Babu, s/o Lakshmana Rao, Age 46 yrs, All are C/AK.Ksthariya, 3rd ward, Ponnapalli, Narsapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence:under sections 435,506 r/w 34 IPC Finding:Accused are found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused i.e., A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 435,506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted for the said charge under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds if any shall stand discharge.

SD/Sri.K.Mothilal,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru