Ms.K.Prasanthi

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE KAKINADA.

PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi. V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class (FAC) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Monday, 25th d ay of March, 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.190/2016

(Crime No.81/2016 of Karapa Police Station) Between :

State – Represented by its Karapa Police Station. ...Complainant.

A N D

1. Mortha Rajashekar, S/o. Venkateswarao, 25 yrs, C/SC Mala, Occ: coolie, Kurada village of Karapa Mandal.

2. Mortha Venkateswararao, S/o.Suranna, 50 yrs, C/SC Mala, Occ: coolie, Kurada village of Karapa Mandal.

3. Mortha Yedukondalu, S/o. Venkateswararao, 30 yrs, C/SC-Mala, Occ. Coolie, Kurada village of Karapa Mandal.

4. Mortha Jayalaxmi W/o. Venkateswararao, 45 yrs, C/SC Mala, Occ: Housewife, Kurada village of Karapa Mandal.

...Accused

**** This case is coming before this court for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and of Sri S. David Samuel, Learned counsel for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

A1 to A3 are arrayed before this Court for the offence punishable U/Secs.324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC) in Cr.No.81/2016 of Karapa Police

Station.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that there are boundary disputes are going on between accused and L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli, A2 used to dispute with L.W.1 by tying his buffaloes in his site boundary, on 15-05-2016 the wife of L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli i.e., L.W.2 Kedasi Yesamma was fetching water from the public tap, wife of A2 fetched water in a meta pot and later she thrown away the metal pot of wife of L.W.1 Kedasi

Vadapalli while she was getting water and there is an altercation took place between them and the wife of A2 started abusing towards L.W.2 Kedasi Yesamma by using vulgar language and then L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli intervened and asked the behaviour of wife of

A2 and A1 to A4 came and rebelled against L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli and beat him with

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada hands and kicked him with legs indiscriminately, among them, A1 beat L.W.1 with a crowbar on his head and caused bleeding injuries, when the neighbours intervened, accused all left from there, later L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli was shifted to GGH, Kakinada and admitted him for treatment by his brother-in-law namely Rambabu.

3. In this connection, on receipt of the Hospital Intimation of the injured L.W.1 Kedasi

Vadapalli, L.W.8 T. Ganga Raju, HC, recorded the statement of the injured L.W.1 Kedasi

Vadapalli on 15.05.2016 at 10.30 P.M and forwarded the same to SHO, Karapa P.S., on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the same, L.W.9 NV.Ramana HC, Karapa P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.81/2016 U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC of Karapa P.S., on 16.05.2016 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.9 visited the scene of offence and examined it minutely, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined as many as 6 witnesses and recored their statements seized the crow bar which is used for the commission of offence when handed over by L.W.3, arrested all the accused 1 to 4 on 20.05.2016 and released them on bail after having obtained sufficient sureties bty executing bail bonds. L.W.6 is medical officer, Government General Hospital ,

Kakinada who treated L.W.1 Kedasi Vadapalli and isued wound certificate and he opined that the injuries of L.W.1 are simple in nature. L.W.10 A. Ganga Raju, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, after investigation he filed charge sheet.

4 The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3.

5. A1 to A4 appeared before this Court. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed against A1 to A4 read over and explained to them in

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

7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, Exs.P1 to P6 and

M.O.1 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the Report given by P.W.1 to the police, Ex.P.2 is the

Wound certificate, Ex.P.3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6, Ex.P.4 is the

Hospital Intimation, Ex.P.5 is the original F.I.R, Ex.P.6 is the Rough sketch.

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

8. After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against them in oral and documentary evidence for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on behalf of accused.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 for the

offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9.

12. PW.1 K. Vadapalli has deposed that he is a resident of Kurada village of Karapa

Mandal. He do coolie works. He know A.1 to A.4 as A1 to A4 of you his neighbours. L.W.2

K.Yesamma is his wife. L.W.3 Nagamani is his daughter in law. Prior to the date of present incident there are disputes between his family and the accused of you regarding the cattle.

The accused of you used to tie their cattle belongs to A.2 of you in his site in spite of his repeated objections. He placed the matter before their caste elders but the accused of you did not obey the instructions of their elders. Later when he reported the matter to the police Police solved the issue. The present incident in this case took place in the month of

May at about two years back at about 5.00 PM near public tap situated besides his house.

By the time of offence he returned from his fields and by the time he noticed his wife

Yesamma and A.4 Jayalakshmi are fetching water from the public tap. A.4 of you thrown away the vessel belong to his wife and kept her vessel under the tap. Then A.4 of you started abusing his wife by throwing away their vessel. On hearing the same he questioned

A.4 as to why she is abusing his wife. P.W.1 also deposed that then A.1 to A.3 of you came there and all the accused of you questioned as to why he is questioning A.4 of you and pounced upon him and pulled him down on the ground and all the accused of you beat him with the hands and kicked him with legs indiscriminately. Then A.1 of you picked up one crowbar and beat him with the said crowbar on his head and due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his head. His wife L.W.2 Yesamma, his daughter in law Nagamani

L.W.3, his neighbours L.W.5 M.Ratnakumari and L.W.6 G.Simhadri witnessed the incident.

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada Later his brother in law L.W.4 Rambabu shifted him to the Government General Hospital ,

Kakinada for treatment. Ex.P.1 is his statement recorded by the police. Police examined him and recorded his statement. On the next day of the incident police visited the Scene of offence and seized the crowbar with which A.1 of you beat him on his head.

13.PW.2 K. Yesamma has deposed that she is a resident of Kurada. She do coolie works.

P.W.1 is her husband. She know all the accused of you and also residents of their village. The offence in this case took place at about two years back in the month of May at 5.00 PM near public tap nearer to her house. On the date of offence at about 5.00 PM she went to public tap to fetch water by that time A.4 also came there. While she was fetching water A.4 removed her vessel (Bindi) and kept her vessel. On that she removed her vessel and again kept her vessel. Then A.4 abused her in filthy language. By that time A.2 of you who is husband of A.4 of you came there he also started abusing her. Then P.W.1 her husband came there and questioned A.2 and A.4 of you as to why they are abusing her. Then A.2 of you pounced upon P.W.1 and both of them fell down.

By that time A.1, A.3 of you also came there and A.1 to A.3 of you started beating P.W.1 with hands and kicked with legs. A.1 picked up one crowbar (M.O.1) and beat P.W.1 on head due to which

P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on you head. Then she called her younger brother L.W.4

P.Rambabu and on his arrival he shifted P.W.1 to Government General Hospital , Kakinada. The neighbors witnessed the incident. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

14.P.W.3 K.Nagamani had deposed that she is a resident of Kurada. She do coolie works. P.W.1 is her father in law. P.W.2 is her mother in law. She know all the accused of you. The offence in this case took place on 16.05.2016 at about 5.00 PM near public tap in their village. On that day P.W.2 went to public tap to fetch water and there is a dispute between P.W.2 and A.4 of you with regard to fetching water. Then A.2 to A.4 of you abused

P.W.2 and on seeing the same P.W.1 went there and when questioned the accused of you about abusing P.W.2, A.2 to A.3 of you pounced upon P.W.1 and on that P.W.1 fell down.

Then A.1 of you picked up on crowbar (M.O.1) and beat P.W.1 on his head. Due to the blow given by A.1 with crowbar P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury on his head. Neighbours gathered there, witnessed the incident and P.W.2 called P.W.2 younger brother L.W.4

P.Rambabu and came to the place of offence and shifted P.W.1 to the Hospital. Police examined her and recorded her statement on the next day. During the visit of the police

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada police observed the Scene of offence and she handed over the crowbar M.O.1 to the police

15.PW.4 P. Rambabu has deposed he is a resident of Kurada village. He do agricultural works.

P.W.1 is his brother in law. P.W.2 is his sister. He know all the accused. The offence in this case occurred about two years back at 5.00 PM near public tap nearer to the house of P.W.1. On the date of offence at about 5.00 PM while he was present at his house P.W.2 came to his house and informed that the accused of you beat her husband P.W.1 as a result of a dispute between herself and A.4 in fetching water at the public tap. Immediately he rushed to the place of offence i.e. the public tap where he found P.W.1 lying on the ground with head injury. Then he made a phone call to Ambulance and after the arrival of Ambulance he shifted P.W.1 to Government General Hospital,

Kakinada. On enquiry with P.W.1 he came to know that P.W.1 was beaten by A.1 of you with a crowbar on his head and A.2 to A.4 of you also beat him. Police examined him and recorded him statement.

16.P.W.5 Dr. B. Srinivasa Rao has deposed that he has been working as CMO,

Government General Hospital, Kakinada since 2004. on 15.05.2016 at 20.27 PM he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries. 1. Lacerated injury of size 7x1/2 cm on the left side of back of the head, red in color, active bleeding present. I am of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate.

17.P.W.6-Mellam Ratna Kumari deposed that she do agricultural works. She know P.Ws. 1Nad 2 and also A.1 to A.4. about two years back on one day at about 4.00 P.M., while she was present at her home she heard shouting and also came to know that the dispute is going on. On that she went to the place where on the ground with bleeding injury on his head. She also noticed A.1 and A.2 at that place. She do not know how P.W.1 sustained injuries. She did not witness how

P.W.1 sustained injuries. She do not remember whether. She was examined by the police or not.

18.P.W.7 T. Gangaraju has deposed that at present he is working as head constable, Gollapalem P.S., Since 24.08.2014 till this date. During the month of

May, 2016 out of turn according to Roster he also acted as SHO, OPPS.,

Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On 15.05.2016, at about 9.45 P.M., He received hospital intimation from causality of Government General Hospital,

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada Kakinada of K. Vadapalli and on that he visited causality and secured the presence of P.W.1 with the help of Duty Doctors and recorded his statement as in Ex.P.1.

Ex.P.4 is the Hospital Intimation of P.W.1 received by him. After recording Ex.P.1 statement he read over the contents of statement to P.W.1 and obtained his Thumb impression on the statement. Later he forwarded Ex.P.1 statement along with Ex.P.4

Hospital Intimation to the concerned police i.e., S.H.O, Karapa Police station for further action.

19.P.W.8 N. Venkata Ramana has deposed that he has been working as Head

Constable, Karapa P.S., Since 14.08.2014. On 16.05.2016, 4.00 P.M., while he was in-charge of P.S., He received Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1 and Ex.P.4 Hospital

Intimation. Basing on Ex.P.1 statement he registered a case in Crime No. 81/2016 under sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC and submitted original FIR along with the statement to this court and it copies to all concerned officials. Then he visited Government

General Hospital, Kakinada where he secured the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 examined them and recorded their detailed statements. Later he visited the scene of offence situated in Kurada village. The scene offence is near Public Tap in

Kurada village and he observed the same and prepared a rough sketch. Ex..6 is the Rough sketch prepared by him . There he secured the presence of P.Ws. 3,4 and 6 examined them and recorded their detailed statements. P.W.6 stated before him as in Ex.P.3. During the examination P.W.3 shown one Crowbar i.e., M.O.1 stating that accused of you beat P.W.1 with the said Crow-Bar and on that he seized the same from P.W.3. Basing on the out put of his investigation he added

Sec. 323 IPC in this case and filed memo before this court to that extent. Further investigation was done by the then ASI of police L.W.10. A. Appalaraju.

20.P.W.9 A. Gangaraju has deposed that at present he is working ASI of police under V.R.O. S.P. Office, Kakinad. Previously he worked as ASI of Police, Karapa

Police Station from the year 2014 to 03.01.2019. he took up investigation in this case on 17.05.2016, from P.W.8 and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. On 23.05.2016, while he was present Police Station at 10.00a.m., A.1 to A.4 of you came to P.S., and surrendered before him and after

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada identifying them as accused in this case. He arrested them and enlarged them on station bail. After obtaining wound certificate and he filed charge sheet in this case.

13.On careful scrutinization of evidence on record, P.Ws.1 to 3 testified in their chief examination that on the date of alleged incident, A1 to A3 came to the house of P.W.1, beat P.W.1 on her legs with sticks and thereafter beat P.W.2 on her left hand, as a result

P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. P.Ws.4 to 8 the eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.9 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P7 and P8-

Wound Certificates. As per the evidence of P.W.9, there are no external injuries on the body of P.W.1. But as per the evidence of P.W.1, she sustained injuries on her legs. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in chief on 06-10-2017 on the said date, as the counsel for accused did not turn up for cross examination, the cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 was treated as nil, thereafter the counsel for accused filed a petition to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for cross examination and the same was allowed. But inspite of granting sufficient time, police failed to produce P.Ws.1 to 3 for cross examination and on 22-01-2017, police filed a memo along with VRO reports of P.Ws.1 to 3 stating the whereabouts of PWs.1 to 3 were not known. So, the chief evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is inadmissible into evidence as prosecution failed to produce P.Ws.1 to 3 for cross examination. So, the chief examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be used as evidence. The evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who treated P.Ws.1 and 2 and issued Exs.P7 and P8 does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused as P.W.9 deposed during cross examination that the injury sustained by P.W.2 may be possible if any person falls on hard surface. Hence, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused to the alleged offence. Therefore, in view of above foregoing discussion, this Court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 324, 323 and 506 r/w 34of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs. 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and set at liberty. The bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25th day of March, 2019.

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1/26-07-2018 : K. Vadapalli-None- P.W.2/19-09-2018 : K. Yesamma P.W.3/19-09-2018 : K. Nagamani P.W.4/25-10-2018 : P. Rambabu P.W.5/12-11-2018 : Dr. B.Srinivasa Rao P.W.6/13-02-2019 : Mellam Ratna Kumari P.W.7/13-02-2019 : T. Gangaraju P.W.8/13-02-2019 : N. Venkata Ramana P.w.9/ 20-02-2019 : A. Gangaraju, ASI of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : -Nil- Ex.P.1/15-05-2016 : Report given by P.W.1 to the police Ex.P.2/15-05-2016 : Wound certificate Ex.P.3/16-05-2016 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6 Ex.P.4/15-05-2016 : Hospital Intimation Ex.P.5/16-05-2016 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.6/16-05-2016 : Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

M.O.1 :Crowbar

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

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

KAKINADA

CALENDER CASE No.190/2016

Crime No.81/2016 of Karapa Police Station. DATES OF : 1.Offence : 15-05-2016 2.Complaint : 16-05-2016 3.Apprehension of accused : ---- 4.Commencement of Trail : 26-07-2018 5.Closer of Trail : 20-02-2019 6.Judgment pronounced : 25-03-2019 7.Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, Karapa P.S. 8.Name of the accused : 1. Mortha Rajashekar, S/o. Venkateswarao

2. Mortha Venkateswararao, S/o.Suranna

3. Mortha Yedukondalu, S/o. Venkateswararao

4. Mortha Jayalaxmi W/o.Venkateswararao

9. Offence : U/Secs.324,323, r/w 34 IPC 10.Plea of Accused : NOT GUILTY

11. Result In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/secs. 324, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and set at liberty. The bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

12. Explanation for delay : No Delay.

Sd/- K.Prasanthi

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kakinada

Copies submitted to: The Hon`ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

//True Copy//

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada

Judgment in C.C.190/2016 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

1 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA.

PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi.

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class (FAC) IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada

Saturday, 23rd d ay of March , 2019

CALENDAR CASE No.153/2017

(Crime No.33/2017 of III Town CCS., P.S., Kakinada)

Between : State – Deputy Superintendent of Police,

CCS, E.G.District, Kakinada...Complainant.

A N D

Eerothu Bullammai, W/o. Late Satyanarayana, 65 yrs, C/Kapu, D.No.3-72, Govindarajupalem, Jalluru,

Pithapuram Mandal. ...Accused

**** This case is coming before this court for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, Learned counsel for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arrayed before this Court for the offence punishable U/Secs.380 or 411

Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC) in Cr.No.33/2017 of III Town CCS, Kakinada.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 02.03.2017 morning L.W.1

Kailash Kumar came to Kakinada at about 11.30 AM he reached P.S.R & Sons Jewelers shop which was located at Main Road, Kakinada. He handed over the gold Ornaments to

L.W.2 Rachuri Nagu who is working as Sales boy of the shop. L.W.2 R. Nageswara Rao kept the Gold Ornaments on the table of the shop and separate the gold ornaments which was he deliver in that shop in the mean time one unknown lady aged about 65 years gained entry into the shop and committed theft of 25 Nos. of gold Rings i.e., 14 Nos of plain gold rings and 11 Nos. of stoned Gold Rings all are weighing at about 120 Gms., and worth at about Rs.3,00,000/- of L.W.1 Kailash Kumar and escaped with the booty. On the strength of the report of L.W.1 Kailash Kumar a case in Cr.No.33/2017 U/sec. 380 IPC 2 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada of III Town CCS P.S., has been registered on 03.03.2017 at 3.00 P.M., by L.W.7 SM.

Pasha and L.W.8 A. Pallapu Raju took up further investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 visited the scene of offence, examined the same and prepared rough sketch and got drafted scene observation report by L.W.5

Adabala Veera Bhadra Rao and L.W.6 Dharanikota Simhadri and photographed the scene.

L.W.8 A. Pallapu Raju examined the L.Ws. 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation L.W.8 A. Pallapu Raju, arrested the above noted accused on 09.03.2017 at 3.30 PM. The accused was sent for Judicial Custody to the Hon’ble IV

AJFCM Court, Kakinada on 10.03.2017, Property identification was conducted with the

L.Ws. 1 by the L.Ws. 5 And 6 on 29.03.2017. L.W.8 A. Pallapu Raju after completion of investigation and filed charge sheet.

4 The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 380 of IPC against accused.

5. Accused was produced before this Court. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under sections 380 of

IPC has been framed against the accused read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.P1 to P7 and

M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the report given by P.W.1 to the police, Ex.P.2 is the

Scene observation report, Ex.P.3 is the Mediators report, Ex.P.4 is the property identification report, Ex.P.5 is the Original FIR, Ex.P.6 is the Rough Sketch and Ex.P.7 is the Photos six in number.

8. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in oral and documentary evidence for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the

offence under sections 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4.

12.PW.1 Kailash Kumar has deposed that on 02.03.2017, at about 11.30 a.m., he came to Kakinada to the shop of PSR Jewellery shop situated at Main Road and while he was showing the Gold Ornaments which were placed for Orders to the owner of the shop by name Srinivas, by the time the staff of said Jewellery shop and also one Old aged woman were present and in the meanwhile he was showing the gold Ornaments, then he noticed one packet containing 25 gold rings were missing. Then he searched in and around the shop, but in vain. In the meanwhile the old aged lady left the shop. On enquiry the sale boys of said jewellery shop suspected the Old Lady who came to the shop and committed theft of packet containing gold rings. The sale boys also stated that said old lady native of

Jallru of Pithapuram Mandal. Then he gave report to the police. Ex.P.1 is his report. He can identity the said Old Lady and the accused of you is said is the person. Thereafter, police informed him about recovery of 25 Gold Rings. M.O.1 is the 14 plain Gold rings.

M.O.2 is white and green stone rings 2 in number. M.O.3 is the white stone Rings 7 in number. M.O.4 is the white and Green Flower Design gold ring one in number. M.O.5 is the white and Red stone Gold ring one in number. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

13.PW.2 Adabala Veerabhadrarao has deposed that on 03.03.2017, police, III Town

CCS, Kakinada summoned him to act as mediator along with L.W.6 DSA Narasimharao at the time of observation of scene of offence for which they consented. On that day at about 4.00 P.M., they accompanied the police and went to PSR and Sons Jewellers shop, Main

Road, Kakinada near to Old Market Center. DSP, Crimes observed the scene of offence in their presence and after observing the scene of offence, he himself prepared a scene 4 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada observation report by incorporating all the observations made by them. Ex.P.2 is the scene observation report. Police also prepared rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence. Again on 09.03.2017, CCS Police, summoned them and accordingly they agreed to act as mediators and on that day at about 3.30 PM, they accompanied police and sent to

Patanala Chittiyya Center, of Rajaji Street, Kakinada and by the time they went there they found one old lady aged about 65 years at standing that place and on seeing police she tried to escape and police detained her. P.W.2 further deposed that on that DSP, crimes ascertained her identity particulars and she disclosed her identity as that of accused herein.

He can identify the accused, later police interrogated her in their presence and she voluntarily confessed about commission of offence in this case and committed theft of 25

Gold Rings from one person in PSR Jewellary shop, main road, Kakinada. She furterh confessed that about commission of offence in I Town CCS P.S. Limits. During the course of interrogation the accused voluntarily produced M.Os. 1 to 5 and also one gold Chain belongs to I Town CCS P.S., Kakinada and police seized all the stolen property from the possession of accused of you at her instance under the cover of a separate mediators report, which was drafted by him. Himself and L.W.6 DSA Narasimharao put their signatures on the said report. Ex.P.3 is the Mediators report, dt. 09.03.2017, at about 3.30 PM Police obtained the thumb impression of accused on Ex.P.3 agains on 29.03.2017, CCS Police,

Kakinada requested him and L.W.6 to conduct test Identification parade with the property committed theft by the accused for which they consented. On that day police handed over

M.O1 to 5 and other similar items for the purpose of T.I Parade. On at that himself and

L.W.6 DSA Narasimharao went to Kanaka Durga Temple at SRK Center, Cinema Road,

Kakinada at 1.00 P.M., where they arranged the stolen property M.Os. 1T o 5 by mixing with other similar items and then called one Kailash Kumar asked him to identify the property. Then P.W.1 identified M.Os. 1 to 5 from all the items and declared as his stolen property. On that a separate property identification report is prepared by L.W.6 and they put their signatures on the said report. Ex.P.4 is the property identification report, dt.

5 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada 29.03.2017 at about 1.00 P.M., on which they also obtained the signature of P.W.1. No police Official is present at the time of conducting identification through P.W.1. 

14.PW.3 S.M. Pasha has deposed that on 03.03.2017 at about 3.00 PM while he was in­ charge of the police station P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a report to him.

On that he registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 33/2017 U/sec. 380 IPC and submitted the Original FIR to this court and its copies to all concerned officials. Ex.P.5 is the Original

FIR registered by him. Then he informed and handed over the case record and the FIR in this case to the they Dy.S.P., CCS, Kakinada for further investigation in view of the nature of the case who conducted further investigation in this case.

15.PW.4 A. Pallapu Raju has deposed that on 03.03.2017 he took up further investigation in this case and he received copy of FIR from P.W.3 and he examined the

P.W.1 in the police station and recorded his statement. He visited the scene of offence along with the P.W.2 and L.W.6 DSA Naraismharao at 4.00 PM and he observed the scene of offence and got drafted the scene observation report. He prepared rough sketch. Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch. He got photographed the scene of offence. Ex.P.7 is the photographs with corresponding CD. There is examined L.Ws. 2 to 4 recorded their detailed statements. On 09.03.2017 he received information about the accused then he secured the mediators P.W.2 and L.W.6 and proceeded to Rajaji Veedhi, Patnala Chittiyya center, Kakinada. Where he found one old lady Eerothu Bullammayi with the assistance of his woman PC he stopped her and he interrogated her in the presence of mediators. She confessed the offence in Cr.No.

33/2017 along with to her crime number 19/17 of I town P.S. he seized property M.Os. 1 to 5 from the possession of the accused and arrested her and prepared mediators report. On the next day he sent her to the Judicial custody. On 29.032017 at about 1.00 PM he held property identification Parade in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.6 there P.W.1 identified her property M.Os. 1 to 5 after completion of investigation and he filed charge sheet.

16.On careful scrutinization of evidence on record, the testimony of P.W.1 does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused as he deposed that M.Os.1 to 3 were committed theft by some unknown persons. P.W.2 is the mediator for arrest of the 6 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada accused and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3. P.W.3 is the Instigating Officer. The testimony of P.W.3 in whose presence the accused allegedly confessed about the offence is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act which makes the confession before police inadmissible into evidence. Except the sole testimony of P.W.2, there is no other evidence on record to connect the accused to the alleged offence. Hence, the sole testimony of P.W.2 have to be scrutinized carefully. Admittedly P.W.2 is not the local inhabitant of the place of seizure of

M.Os.1 to 3 as he was secured by the police in the police station. P.W.2 stated in his chief evidence that on 6-10-2016 the accused confessed that he committed theft of M.Os.1 to 3, then P.W.3 seized M.Os.1 to 3 from the possession of accused. During cross examination,

P.W.3 stated that Ex.P2-Mediators report was drafted by one constable. P.W.3 the

Investigating Officer also admitted that Ex.P3-Mediators report was drafted by one constable. There is no identification of the accused in the Open Court by P.W.2. The sole testimony of P.W.2 is not inspiring the confidence of this Court as P.W.2 is not the scribe of

Ex.P2-Mediators report and also he is not the local in habitant of place of seizure of M.Os.1 to 3. Hence there is no evidence on record to connect the accused to the alleged offence.

Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 379 or 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.380 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. M.O.1- Motor cycle Honda Ticker bearing No.AP05 DA 7273, M.O.2-Nokia White colour cell phone and

M.O.3-Samsung Black colour cell phone given to interim custody of P.W.1 holds good after expiry of after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 23rd day of March, 2019.

(FAC) IV ADDL.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1/30-01-2019 : Kailash Kumar-None- P.W.2/04-02-2019 : Adabala Veerabhadra Rao P.W.3/05-02-2019 : SM Pasha 7 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada P.W.4/11-03-2019:A. Pallapu Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE : --Nil--. Ex.P.1/05-09-2016 : Report given by P.W.1 to the police. Ex.P.2/06-10-2016 : Scene observation report Ex.P.3/05-09-2016 : Mediators report Ex.P.4/05-09-2016 : Property Identification reported Ex.P.5/ : Original F.I.R Ex.P.6/ : Rough sketch. Ex.P.7/ : Photos 6 in number.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

M.O.1-14 Plain Gold rings M.O.2-White and Green Stone Rings 2 in number. M.O.3-White stone rings 7 in number. M.O.4-White and Green Flower Design gold ring one in number M.O.5-White and Red Stone Gold ring one in number.

(FAC) IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada.

8 Judgment in C.C.153/2017 of IV AJFCM, Kakinada

CALENDAR AND JUDGEMENT

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

KAKINADA

CALENDER CASE No.318/2016

DATES OF : 1.Offence : 04-09-2016 2.Complaint : 05-09-2016 3.Apprehension of accused : 07-10-2016 4.Commencement of Trail : 30-01-2019 5.Closer of Trail : 05-02-2019 6.Judgment pronounced : 26-02-2019 7.Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, Thimmapuram P.S., 8.Name of the accused : Koyya Mojesh @ Moshe, S/o. Koyya Appanna, 28 yrs, C/Reddika, Swarnandhra Colony, Transformer Street, Sanjeevanagar, D.No. 17-10-326/2, Kothapakalu,Kakinada.

10.Plea of Accused : Not Guilty

11. ResultIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.380 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. M.O.1- Motor cycle Honda Ticker bearing No.AP05 DA 7273, M.O.2-Nokia White colour cell phone and

M.O.3-Samsung Black colour cell phone given to interim custody of P.W.1 holds good after expiry of after appeal time.

12. Explanation for delay : No Delay.

(FAC) IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada. Copies submitted to: The Hon`ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

//True Copy// te, (FAC) IV Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada

1 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KAKINADA

PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada

Saturday, the 21st day of March 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.305/2018

(Crime No.47/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station) Between :- State – Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Indrapalem Police Station. ...Complainant.

A N D

Anusuri Yedukondalu @ Nani, S/o.Krishna aged 24 years, C/Settiblija, D.No.2-231, Near water tank, Madhavapatnam village Samalkot Mandal … Accused **** This case is coming on 18-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Learned counsel for accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arrayed before this Court for the offence punishable U/Secs.354(D), 506 of Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC) in Cr.No.47/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station,

Kakinada.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that L.W.1-Ketha Srilekha is the resident of Madhavapatnam village and accused is also the resident of same village and he used to follow her stating that he is loving her upon that she informed the matter to her parents and elders. On that elders warned the accused not to repeat again. Later

L.W.1-Ketha Srilekha engagement was performed with another person. Again accused used to follow L.W.1-Ketha Srilekha and continuing the harassment by demanding to chat with him, if not he would kill her and spoil the lives of her family. Due to that the marriage of L.W.1-Ketha Srilekha was cancelled. On that the elders of her village requested the accused to marry her, but he denied to marry her. As there is no other way, L.W.1-Ketha Srillekha reported the matter to police.

On the strength of report given by L.W.1-Ketha Sriekha, a case in Cr.No.47/2018

U/sec.354-D and 506 of IPC was registered by L.W.7-D.Rama Rao SI of police, Indrapalem 2 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

P.S. During the course of investigation, L.W.7-D.Rama Rao, SI of police, Indrapalem P.S.,

Kakinada visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, arrested the accused and released him on station bail and after completion of investigation filed chargesheet U/s.

354-D and 506 of IPC, against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under sections 354(D) and 506 of IPC against accused.

4. Accused appeared before this Court. Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under sections 354(D) and 506 of IPC has been framed against accused read over and explained to him in

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

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7, EXs.P1 to P4 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the Report given by P.W.1 to the police, Ex.P.2 is 161 Cr. P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P.3 is F.I.R and Ex.P.4 is rough sketch. On behalf of defence two photographs along with C.D are marked as Ex.D.1.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in oral and documentary evidence for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of Accused for the

offences under sections 354(D) and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT :- In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7.

PW.1-Ketha Srilekha deposed that in the year 2017, the accused used to harass her stating that he loved her, then she informed him to talk to her parents, but he did not inform the matter to her parents. PW.1 also deposed that she Informed the matter to her parents about the harassment of the accused, on that her parents placed the matter

before the elders, the elders admonished the accused. PW.1 also deposed that in the

year November 2017, her marriage engaged with one person, on coming to know about 3 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada the same, the accused used to harass her by making phone calls to her and threatened that he would get the engagement cancel, later, the elders advised the accused as he got cancelled her engagement and advised him to marry her for which the accused refused to marry her and again he continued harassment towards her. On that she gave

Ex.P.1 report to the Police.

PW.2-Ketha Prabhavathi mother of PW.1 deposed that P.W.1 informed her that accused is harassing her by stating that he loved her, then they placed the matter before the elders, but accused refused to marry P.W.1. PW.2 also deposed that they performed the engagement of P.W.1 with another person, again accused started following P.W.1 and harassing her, as a result, the marriage of PW.1 is cancelled, on that they placed the matter before elders and requested the accused to marry P.W.1, but he denied.

PW.3- V. Veeravenkata Satyanarayana deposed that P.W.1 is his Cousin Sister, In the year 2017, P.W.2 informed him that accused is harassing P.W.1 by stating that he is loving her. Then they placed the matter before the elders, but accused denied to marry

P.W.1. PW.3 also deposed that they performed the engagement of P.W.1 with another person, again after six months accused started following P.W.1 and harassing her. As a result, P.W.1's marriage is cancelled. On that they placed the matter before elders and requested the accused to marry P.W.1, but he denied to marry P.W.1.

PW.4-Dandi Nukaratnam deposed that she came to know from P.Ws.1 and 2 that accused harassed P.W.1 that he will marry her though she was engaged to another person. On that P.W.1 gave a report to the Police.

PW.5-Ganduboina Syamala devi deposed that accused used to follow PW.1 and harassed her by stating that he is loving her, the matter was placed before the elders and the parents of PW.1 requested the accused to marry PW.1 for which he did not agree.

Later, she came to know even after the engagement accused used to make phone calls to PW.1 stating that he is loving her.

PW.6-Kesana Krupamma deposed that PW.1 and accused loved each other but their parents not interested for their marriage. He do not know what happened in the presence of elders. Since this witness does not support the case of prosecution, the 4 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

A.P.P cross-examined her by obtaining permission from the court and her 161 Cr. P.C statement given to police is marked as Ex.P.2.

PW.7-B.Rama Rao, the then S.I of police Indrapalem PS deposed that on 17.02.2018, PW.1 presented Ex.P.1 written report basing on it, he registered a case in

Cr.No.47/2018 U/s.345-D, 506 IPC and issued Ex.P.3 F.I.R. Then he visited the scene of offence situate at the house of PW.1, prepared rough sketch and he served Sec.41-A notice to the accused and released him on station bail and after completion of investigation he filed charge-sheet.

11. The case of prosecution is that accused used to harass PW.1 by following her and stating that he is loving her and further threatened her and her family members by making phone calls that he would kill them. The charges are levelled against accused for the offences under section 354(D) and 506 I.P.C.

Sec.354(D) reads as follows:- 354(D)—Stalking—(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts , or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the Internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man pursued it proves that--

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by state; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

12. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.354(D) prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7. PWs 1 to 3 stated in their chief evidence that the accused used to harass PW.1 by following her and when the matter was placed before elders, the accused refused to marry her and later the accused got cancelled her engagement with another person, thereafter the matter was again placed before the elders and in the presence of elders the accused refused to marry PW.1. During cross-examination PWs 1 to 3 deposed that accused and PW.1 loved each other. PWs 1 and 2 also deposed during 5 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada cross-examination that the matter was not placed before the elders but when PW.2 asked the accused through her neighbour, the accused agreed to marry PW.1 but the parents of accused not agreed for their marriage. PW.2 mother of PW.1 deposed during cross-examination that there is only one marriage proposal for PW.1 with whom she is married. Hence, the evidence on record discloses that PW.1 and accused loved each other and the accused agreed to marry PW.1 but the parents of PW.1 not agreed. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 is hear say evidence as they came to know about the alleged harassment of the accused. PW.6 did not support the case of prosecution. So, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused harassed PW.1 by stating that he is loving her and thereafter got cancelled her engagement. The evidence of PW.7 investigating officer does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.354(D) IPC

13. Coming to the offence U/s.506 I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove the following points; (1) Accused threatened someone with injury to his person reputation or property or the property, etc., or another in whom the former was interested; (2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offences; (3) He did so to cause that victim go perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.

PW.1 the defacto complainant stated in her evidence that the accused used to make phone calls to her by threatening that he would cancel her engagement and further threatened her that he would kill her and her parents. During cross-examination PW.1 deposed that the accused used to converse with her over telephone but she is not having the recording facility in her phone. PW.7 the investigating officer not seized the call data pertaining to the cell phone of PW.1. During cross-examination PW.7 admitted the same. Hence, there is no evidence on record to show that accused used to make phone calls to PW.1 and threatened her that he would cancel her engagement and he would kill her parents. Hence, prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.506 IPC.

6 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

14. Therefore, in view of above foregoing discussion, this court opines that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 354(D) and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354(D) and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and set at liberty. The bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21st day of March 2020 .

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 : K.SrilekhaNone PW.2 : K.Prabhavathi PW.3 : V.V.V.Satyanarayana PW.4 : D.Nookaratnam PW.5 : G.Syamala PW.6 : K.Krupamma PW.7: B.Rama Rao,(S.I of police)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Report given by P.W.1 to the police Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr. P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P.3 : F.I.R. Ex.P.4 : Rough sketch

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D.1 : Two photographs with C.D.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-Nil-

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada 7 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KAKINADA

PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada

Saturday, the 21st day of March 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.305/2018

(Crime No.47/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station)

DATES OF :

1.Offence : Prior to 17-02-2018 2.Complaint : 17-02-2018 3.Apprehension of accused : 18-02-2018 4.Commencement of Trail : 16-12-2019 5.Closer of Trail : 18-03-2020 6.Judgment pronounced : 21-03-2020 7.Explanation for delay : : Since 10-10-2018 to 16-12-2019 witnesses not present there is delay.

8.Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, Indrapalem P.S., 9.Name of the accused : Anusuri Yedukondalu @ Nani, S/o.Krishna

10. Offence : U/Secs.354(D), 506 IPC 11.Plea of Accused : Not guilty.

12.Finding : Not guilty.

13. Result:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354(D) and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., and set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

d/- K.PrasSanthi V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kakinada

Copies submitted to:

The Hon`ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

//T Copy//

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada 8 Judgment in C.C.305/2018 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KAKINADA

PRESENT: - Ms.K.Prasanthi V Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020

P.R.C.NO.4/2020

(Crime No.86/2019 of Indrapalem Police Station)

BETWEEN:- State: Represented by S.I of police, Indrapalem Police Station. …COMPLAINANT

AND

Nadumpalli Krupanandam @ Anand S/o.Suryanarayana Murty, aged 33 years D.No.7-190, Ravindranagar, Turangi(v) Kakinada Rural Mandal …ACCUSED.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the A.P.P.

for the complainant and of Sri Sunil Nair, Sri A.S.Raghavendra, advocate for accused, this

court made the following:

O R D E R

The Sub-Inspector of police, Indrapalem P.S filed Charge-sheet against the accused in

Crime No.86/2019 of Indrapalem P.S for the offence under section 417, 420,306 R/w.116 I.P.C.

and Sec.4 of D.P.Act 1961.

2.On appearance of accused copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the victim woman LW6-Koduri Bala Tripura Sundari is resident of Turangi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. She is working as computer operator in

Venky Pharma Company at Salipeta, Kakinada. She used to go to “ prayer house of Jesus

Church” at Muttanagar, Kakinada to attend prayers. In the year 2008 accused used to visit the said church to attend the prayers where he got acquaintance with the victim woman and made believe her with deceitful words by disclosing that he loves her and he will marry her.

On believing the same, she fell in love with him and they used to wander in and around

Kakinada. Later, accused got job as S.P.F constable in the year 2010. The accused took the salary amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the victim woman on several occasions by promising that he will return back the amount soon. Later, he did not receive the phone calls of victim woman, ultimately he disclosed that he will not marry her and he is getting matches who are willing to give Rs.30 lakhs towards dory and denied to marry her. On that victim woman disclosed the matter before her parents and on 11.3.2019, the parents of victim woman and elders summoned the accused to the house of victim woman and requested the accused to marry the victim woman. The accused denied to marry her and shouted on the victim woman stating that “Nuv Chaste yee Godava Undadu, Nee Chavu Nuvvu Chavu, Chaste Peeda

Vadalipoddi”. Due to the abatement of the accused, the victim woman underwent mental distress on her life and committed suicide by consuming chlorpysiphos 20% poison at her house and she was shifted to Aruna hospital, Gandhinagar, Kakinada. Later LW.2-Koduri

Nageswara Rao father of victim woman begged the accused to marry his daughter. On that the accused demanded Rs.30 lakh as dowry to marry his daughter. As there is no other way

LW.1-Koduri Sridevi mother of victim girl presented report to the police. Basing on the report,

LW.12-P.Vijaya Shankar, S.I of police, Indrapalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.86/2019,

U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act.

During the course of investigation LW.12-P.Vijayasankar, S.I of police visited the Aruna hospital, Gandhinagar, Kakinada examined witnesses, and recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation, accused obtained anticipatory bail from III Addl.Sessions Judge, Kakinada and he was released bail.

After obtaining wound certificate of victim woman from LW.11 Dr.Ch.Seshagiri Rao, and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence under U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and

Sec.4 of D.P.Act.

5.On perusal of record, this Court finds that there is prima facie case against the

Accused for trial of offence under section under U/s.306 R/w.116 IPC.

6.The offence under section under U/s.306 R/w.116 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Rajamahendravaram. Therefore, it is a fit case for committal to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C.

7.Accused obtained anticipatory bail from the court of Hon’ble III Addl.Sessons Judge,

Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.358/2019 , dt.29.3.2019 and he was released on bail on 01-04-2019.

8.Office is directed to submit the case record, documents and material objects, if any to the Court of Sessions, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram as provided U/Sec.209(c) of

Cr.P.C.

9.On questioning about the accused means, the accused stated that he is having sufficient means and he will engage Advocate before Sessions Court, Rajamahendravaram during the trial of the case.

10.Accused is directed to appear before the Sessions Court on receipt of summons from the Court, bind over accused and his sureties.

11.The committal of this case shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram under section 209(d) Cr.P.C.

12.In the result, the case is committed to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions,

Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.209(a) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of March 2020.

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRTE

KAKINADA

EXTRACT

Extract in P.R.C.No.4/2020 (Cr.No.86/19 of Indrapalem Police Station) on the file of V Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada.

1. Number of the Case P.R.C.No.4/2020

2. Name of the accused Nadumpalli Krupanandam @ Anand S/o.Suryanarayana Murty,

3. Substance of the complaint The victim woman LW6-Koduri Bala Tripura Sundari is resident of Turangi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. She is working as computer operator in Venky Pharma Company at Salipeta, Kakinada. She used to go to “ prayer house of Jesus Church” at Muttanagar, Kakinada to attend prayers. In the year 2008 accused used to visit the said church to attend the prayers where he got acquaintance with the victim woman and made believe her with deceitful words by disclosing that he loves her and he will marry her. On believing the same, she fell in love with him and they used to wander in and around Kakinada. Later, accused got job as S.P.F constable in the year 2010. The accused took the salary amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the victim woman on several occasions by promising that he will return back the amount soon. Later, he did not receive the phone calls of victim woman, ultimately he disclosed that he will not marry her and he is getting matches who are willing to give Rs.30 lakhs towards dory and denied to marry her. On that victim woman disclosed the matter before her parents and on 11.3.2019, the parents of victim woman and elders summoned the accused to the house of victim woman and requested the accused to marry the victim woman. The accused denied to marry her and shouted on the victim woman stating that “Nuv Chaste yee Godava Undadu, Nee Chavu Nuvvu Chavu, Chaste Peeda Vadalipoddi”. Due to the abatement of the accused, the victim woman underwent mental distress on her life and committed suicide by consuming chlorpysiphos 20% poison at her house and she was shifted to Aruna hospital, Gandhinagar, Kakinada. Later LW.2-Koduri Nageswara Rao father of victim woman begged the accused to marry his daughter. On that the accused demanded Rs.30 lakh as dowry to marry his daughter. As there is no other way LW.1-Koduri Sridevi mother of victim girl presented report to the police. Basing on the report, LW.12- P.Vijaya Shankar, S.I of police, Indrapalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.86/2019, U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act.

4. Name of the complainant State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Indrapalem P.S.

5.Name of the witnesses for 1.Koduri Sridevi Prosecution 2. Koduri Nageswara Rao

3. Koduri Raju

4. Malladi Veerababu

5. Malladi Venkata Satyanandam

6. Koduri Bala Tripura Sundari

7. Bonda Siva Kumar

8. Juthuka Vara Prasad

9. Darapu Daramma 10.Medisetti Swathi 11.Dr.Ch.Seshagiri Rao 12.P.Vijaya Shankar, S.I of police, Indrapalem PS.

6. Result of enquiry Case is committed to the Court of Sessions, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, U/Sec.209(c) of Cr.P.C.

7. Date of offence 11-03-2019

8. Date of complaint 14-03-2019

9. Apprehension of accused 26-02-2020 10.Closing enquiry 17-03-2020 11.Explanation for the delay No delay.

12.Remarks --

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada

PROFORMA

INTIMATION OF COMMITMENT OF CASE TO SESSIONS COURT BY THE V ADDL.J.F.C.

MAGISTRATE, KAKINADA.

1. No. of P.R.C.: 4/2020

2. Name of the Police station : Indrapalem Police Station,

Crime No.: Cr.No.86/2019

3. Date of commitment : 17-03-2020

4. No. of persons committed : 1

5. No. of persons on bail: : 1

6. No. of P.Ws. cited Witnesses : 12 witnesses 7.a) Whether any of the properties In this case were sent to the Chemical examiner : No

b) Whether the properties sent to The Chemical examiner has been received. : No 8.a) Whether the opinion of the radiologist has been required : --

b) Whether the accused report has Serologist has been received : --

9. Whether the accused has means to engage Lawyer to defend him/ them at trial : Yes

10. Special circumstances if only to be Taken into consideration in : -- posting the case.

V ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

Office of the V Addl. JFCM Court, Kakinada, dated 24-03-2020.

From To Ms.K.Prasanthi The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, East Godavari District, Kakinada. Rajamahendravaram.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Entire record in P.R.C.No.4/2020 on the file of V Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada along with committal order – Submitted ***

I submit herewith the entire record in P.R.C.No.4/2020 on the file of V

Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate Court, Kakinada along with committal order in duplicate.

Yours faithfully,

V ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE

KAKINADA

Encl:1. Entire record in P.R.C.No.4/2020

2. Copy of committal order (in duplicate)

3. Pro-forma (One)

4. Extract in P.R.C.

5. Entire docket order in fair

DOCKET ORDER

In the Court of V Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Court

Kakinada

P.R.C.4/2020

Dt.24-01-2020 : Perused the record. Primafacie case is made out. Hence, case is taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P. Act against the accused. Issue summons to Accused. Call on 06-02- 2020

Dt.06-02-2020 : P.O is on C.L. Call on 26-02-2020.

Dt.26-02-2020 : Accused present. Copies furnished for committal call on 06-03-2020

Dt.06-03-2020 : Accused absent, petition filed, for committal call on 12-03-2020

Dt.12-03-2020 : Accused present. At request for committal call on 17-03-2020

Dt.17-03-2020 : Accused present. Solvencies produced and accepted.

Orders Pronounced (VSO)

In the result, prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P. Act Hence, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, E.G District at Rajahmundry as per Section 209(a) Criminal Procedure Code. The Public Prosecutor, E.G. District at Rajahmundry is notified to the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209(d) Criminal Procedure Code. The Office is hereby directed to submit the entire record to the Hon’ble District Court, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, after duly indexed.

V Add. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE

TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Magistrate of V Addl. Judicial First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District hereby gives notice that she has committed Nadumpalli Krupanandam, S/o.Suryanarayana Murty,

Accused in P.R.C.4/2020) for trial at the next Sessions, and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case. The charge against the accused is U/Sec. U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P. Act in Cr.No.86/2019 of

Indrapalem police Station.

Dated this 17th day of March 2020.

V Add. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada.

(Seal)

NOTICE OF COMMITMENT BY MAGISTRATE

TO PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Magistrate of V Addl. Judicial First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District hereby gives notice that she has committed Nadumpalli Krupanandam, S/o.Suryanarayana Murty,

Accused in P.R.C.4/2020) for trial at the next Sessions, and the Magistrate hereby instructs the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution of the said case. The charge against the accused is U/Sec. U/s.417, 420, 306 R/w.116 IPC and Sec.4 of D.P. Act in Cr.No.86/2019 of

Indrapalem police Station.

Dated this 17th day of March 2020.

V Add. J.F.C. Magistrate, Kakinada.

(Seal)

1 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KAKINADA

------ PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada

Friday, the 20th day of March 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.112/2019

(Crime No.135/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station)

Between :- State – Represented by Inspector of

Police, Indrapalem Police Station ...Complainant.

A N D

Chittimuri Simhachalam, S/o.Gangaraju @ Chinakamma (Late), A/65 years, C/SC

Mala, Pulimeru village, Peddapuram Mandal .. Accused

**** This case coming on 19-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the Prosecution and of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the

Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Accused is arrayed before this Court for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC) in Cr.No.135/2018 of Indrapalem police station.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that one Gudala Kiran Kumar is deceased in this case. On 30-5-2018 at about 4 PM, the deceased came to the house of

LW.1-Saadi Ramesh on Glamour motor cycle bearing registration No.AP37DQ 5646 belongs to his elder brother from his house. Later, the deceased along with LW.1-

Saadi Ramesh started to the house of deceased to Prathipadu village. While the deceased is riding the motor cycle, LW.1-Saadi Ramesh sat on the motor cycle as a pillion rider, when they reached Kotipalli Railway bridge, Kakinada to Samalkot road, at about 11 PM, the accused driver of the concrete mixture lorry bearing No.AP05TA 3379 stopped his lorry on the road in a negligent manner. Due to that the deceased did not watch the lorry on the road and dashed the lorry. As a result, the deceased received severe bleeding injuries on his person and died at the spot. On receipt of 2 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada statement of LW.1-Saadi Ramesh and MLC intimation LW14-D.Rama Rao, S.I of police,

Indrapalem PS registered a case in Cr.No.135/18, U/s.304(A), 337 IPC on 31.5.18.

During the course of investigation, LW14-D.Rama Rao, S.I of police, inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, got drafted scene of observation report, held inquest over the dead body of deceased and arrested the accused on 26.9.2018 and released him on station bail and after obtaining P.M report,

M.V.I report and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.304-A and 338 IPC.,

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under section U/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC against Accused.

4. Accused present before the court. Copies of case documents were furnished to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and EXs.P1 to P14 marked. Ex.P.1 to P.3 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 1 to 3, Ex.P.4 is hospital intimation, Ex.P.5 is statement of PW.1, Ex.P.6 if F.I.R, Ex.P.7 is scene of observation report, Ex.P.8 is rough sketch , Ex.P.9 is inquest report, Ex.P.10 is P.M.report, Ex.P.11 is wound certificate, Ex.P.12 is M.V.I report, Ex.P.13 is Accident information report,

Ex.P.14 is four photographs with C.D.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in oral and documentary evidence for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on behalf of accused.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the

offence U/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

10. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4.

11. PW.1-G.Gangadhar deposed that the deceased Gudala Krishna Kumar is his younger brother and he died in a road accident about 3 years back. On the date of accident some unknown person telephoned to him over phone that his brother met with an accident caused by lorry in Between Madhavapatnam and Samalkota Railway bridge and died on the spot and he was shifted to GGH, Kakinada. Then immediately, he rushed to the hospital and noticed his brother died. PW.1 further deposed that he does not know the accused. As this witness does not support the case of prosecution, the A.P.P cross-examined him by obtaining permission from the court and his 161 Cr.

P.C statement given to police is marked as Ex.P.1.

PW.2-Gudala Nagu deposed that the deceased Gudala Krishna Kumar is his younger brother who died in road accident about three years back. He do not know the accused. Since this witness is also not supported the case of prosecution, the A.P.P cross-examined him by obtaining permission from the court and his 164 Cr. P.C statement given to police is marked as Ex.P.2. PW.3-Anusuri Srinu deposed that he never saw the accused at any point of time and he did not witness the accident. Since this witness is also not supported the case of prosecution, the A.P.P cross-examined him by obtaining permission from the court and his 164 Cr. P.C statement given to police is marked as Ex.P.3. The evidence of PW.4-D.Rama Rao disclosed about registering the F.I.R in this case and investigation done by him.

12.In this case PWs 1 and 2 brothers of deceased deposed that their brother deceased Gudala Kiran Kumar died in the road accident occurred in between

Madhavapatnam and Samalkot Railway bridge. But they do not know the accused.

Thus, there is no identification of the accused in the open court to show that he is the driver of the lorry at the time of accident. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused. PW.3 who said to have witnessed the accident not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. The evidence of PW.4 investigating 4 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada officer does not disclose any incriminating material against the accused. So, there is no evidence on record to show that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle lorry on the date of accident and is responsible for the alleged accident caused to deceased

Gudala Kiran Kumar.

13.Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A and 338 of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

14. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC., and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of March 2020.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FORPROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1:G.GangadharNone PW.2:G.Naagu PW.3: A.Srinu PW.4: D.Rama Rao(S.I of police)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FORPROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE Ex.P.1 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW1. Nill Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW2. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW3. Ex.P.4 : Hospital intimation. Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.6 : F.I.R Ex.P.7 : Scene of observation report. Ex.P.8 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.9 : Inquest report. Ex.P.10: P.M report. Ex.P.11: wound certificate. Ex.P.12: M.V.I report. Ex.P.13: Accident information report. Ex.P.14: Four photographs with C.D.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil Sd/-K.Prasanthi V Addl.J.FC.Magistrate, Kakinada 5 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KAKINADA

------ PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada

Friday, the 20th day of March 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.112/2019

(Crime No.135/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station) DATES OF :

1.Offence : 30-05-2018 2.Complaint : 31-05-2018 3.Apprehension of accused: 11-12-2019 4.Commencement of Trail : 05-03-2020 5.Closer of Trail : 19-03-2020 6.Judgment pronounced: 20-03-2020 7.Explanation for delay :No delay 8.Complainant : The Inspector of police, Indrapalem P.S 9.Name of the accused : Chittimuri Simhachalam 10.Charges framed against accused : U/s.304-A and 338 of IPC.

11.Plea of Accused : Not guilty.

12. Finding : Not guilty.

13. Result :- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC., and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kakinada

Copy to;

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

6 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada 7 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada 8 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

14.Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of

IPC., and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of February 2020.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, KAKINADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FORPROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW.1:D.KannayyaNil PW.2:D.Lakshmi PW.3:D.Yegiliya PW.4:K.V.Babu PW.5:D.Rama Rao, S.I of police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FORPROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE 9 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on report. Nil Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW3. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW4. Ex.P.4 : Report given by PW.1 to police Ex.P.5 : F.I.R. Ex.P.6 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.7 : Scene of observation report. Ex.P.8 : Photos with C.D. Ex.P.9 : Inquest reported Ex.P.10: M.V.I reported Ex.P.11: P.M report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS : KAKINADA

PRESENT : Ms.K.Prasanthi V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kakinada Friday, the 28th day of February 2020

CALENDAR CASE No.1501/2018

(Crime No.192/2018 of Indrapalem Police Station) DATES OF :

1.Offence : 04-08-2018 2.Complaint : 06-08-2018 3.Remand period of accused : -- 4.Commencement of Trail : 18-02-2020 5.Closer of Trail : 20-02-2020 6.Judgment pronounced: 28-02-2020 7.Explanation for delay :Since 18-01-2019 till 1.11.2019 summons pending against accused, there is delay. Hence, the delay.

8.Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, Indrapalem P.S 9.Name of the accused : Nakka Raju 10.Charges framed against accused : U/s.304-A of IPC.

11.Plea of Accused : Not guilty.

12. Finding : Not guilty.

13. Result :- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC., and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-K.Prasanthi

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class 10 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

Kakinada

Copy to;

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl. Sr.Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

11 Judgment in CC No.112 of 2019 of V AJFCM, Kakinada

V Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate,

Kakinada