Sri. K. Ramesh Babu

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (SPL. MOBILE) COURT NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:-Sri K.RAMESH BABU, B.Sc.,LLB., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, FAC: JFCM (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated Wednesday this the 1st day of July, 2015

CC. No 773 of 2009

Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Navipet, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

AND

1. Kadiyala Srinivas Rao, S/o Jamalaiah, age 40 years, caste: Kamma, occ: Agriculture, R/o Saleem faram, H/o Mokanpally village(A1).

2. Gundlapalli Venugoud, S/o Ramchander goud, age 37 years, caste: Goud, occ: Agriculture, R/o Mokanpalli village (A2).

3. Jalla Srinivas, S/o Gangaram, age 33 years, caste: SC , occ: Coolie, R/o Mokanpalli village of Navipet mandal(A3).

… Accused A1 to A3

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri M.Sanjagoud, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over consideration till this day the Court delivered the following.

::JUDGMENT::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Navipet Police station laid charge sheet in Crime No. 160 of 2007 for the offence

U/Sec.387 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) against A1 to A3, namely Kadiyala Srinivas S/o Jamalaiah 2 (A1), Gundlapalli Venugoud S/o Ramchander goud (A2),

Jalla Srinivas s/o Gangaram (A3).

The gravaman of the charge made against the accused are that defacto complainant Marni Rambabu had purchased land to the extent of Ac 1.19 guntas in

Sy.No.133/A situate at Saleem faram h/o Mokanpally of the

Dharmaram-A in the name of his wife Marni Padmaja from one Mogulapu Laxmi wife of Sai Krishna for a consideration of Rs.1,85,000/-(Rupees One lakh Eighty five thousand only) and got registered land and raising crops for the past 4 years. Accordingly he raised paddy crop for this season and when the crop has ripen for harvesting on 13-10-2007 while he was harvesting the paddy crop with the aid of paddy crushing machine at about 11-00 A.M, both A1 and A2 went to him and disputed for the land, under threat and questioned for purchasing the land without their knowledge and on that ground demanded

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) to settle the land in their name and would bury him in the same land. Due to the fear the defacto complainant did not visit the land however on 11-11-2007 when the son of the defacto complainant by name Srinivas Rao went to set fire to the grass again accused A1 and A2 questioned him for entering into land without paying settlement amount of 3 Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) before Srinivas Rao escaped from them. Again on 14-11-2007 A1 under threat directed the defacto complainant to get Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) near the petrol bunk at Navipet limits with a threat to kill him and his son. As consequence on 14-11-2007 at about 5-00P.M, Marni Rambabu, his friends Chitti Madhu and Rajendra Prasad went to Dhaba near petrol bunk in the limits of Navipet there A1, A2 and another person questioned Rambabu whether he brought the amount before Rambabu replied he had no such huge amount. Upon which the accused abused Rambabu and ordered to get the amount with in a day or else they would kidnap and kill him. Upon the complaint from the victim

Marni Rambabu on 14-11-2007 at 6-00P.M this

Cr.No.160/2007 U/Sec. 387 has been registered.

In the course of investigation statements of witnesses were recorded, visited the scene and also recorded statements of some more witnesses. That being so, once again the accused over telephone directed him to get Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) near petrol bunk at 8-00 A.M on 15-11-2007 and on such information the

Sub inspector of police along with staff rushed to Dhaba hotel near petrol bunk at about 8-00A.M, and there accused A1 to A3 were questioning the defacto 4 complainant, before the Sub inspector of police apprehended all the accused, who on interrogation confessed to have committed the offence. Upon their confession, their confessional statements were recorded in presence of two mediators Bobba Muralikrishna and

Pathipati Shesubabu and seized three cell phones from the possession of accused and took them to the police station arrested them on compliance of section 50.Cr.P.C and sent them for remand. The investigation disclosed that when the defacto complainant had purchase Ac 1.19 Guntas of land in Sy.No.133/A in the limits of Saleem faram h/o of

Mokanpally village, the accused questioned the defacto complainant for purchasing the land without their knowledge and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) for settlement under the threat to kill him and his son and that thereby committed the offence U/Sec.387 of IPC.

Hence Charge.

After taking cognizance of the offence U/Secs.

387 of the IPC against A1 to A3 and copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/S 207 of Cr.PC.

When accused persons examined U/sec 239 of

Cr.P.C., they denied the offence. Charge U/Secs.387 of the

IPC have been framed read over and explained to them. A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 In order to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3 prosecution examined nine witnesses (PWs.1 to 9) and

DW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

After the closure of prosecution evidence accused A1 to A3 are examined U/sec 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them. A1 to A3 denied the said circumstances however, one Ramakrishna, a neighbouring land owner examined as DW1 in their defence.

Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether prosecution established the guilt of these accused A1 to A3 for the offence U/Secs.387 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

The contention of the prosecution is that the evidence of PW1 shows, his purchase of land to an extent of Ac 1.19 guntas in Sy.No.133/A in the name of his wife

Padmaja for Rs.1,85,000/- and got registered the land in the year 2014 under registered sale deed Ex.P2 bearing

No. 1371/2002. Further it shows that on 13-10-2007 while he was harvesting the paddy crop at about 11-00A.M accused A1, A2 and another person went to him and 6 questioned for his purchase of his land demanding

Rs.1,00.000/-(Rupees one lakh only) under threat to kill him, and that on 11-11-2007 when his son went to the land, A1 went to him saying why they have not arranged

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and told them only on giving Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) they could enter the land and again on 14-11-2007 A1 over phone asked him as to why he had not given Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and warned him to get the money of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) to Dhaba hotel at

Navipet whereupon himself and Chitti Madhu and

Yarlagadda Rajendra Prasad went to Dhaba where A1, A2 and another person present to whom he told that he cannot provide Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and requested time but A1 and A2 and another person warned and threatened to kill him, if he did not arrange the amount before he escaped from accused and lodged the complaint Ex.P1. PW2 son of PW1 corroborated PW1 regarding the threat of the accused demanding

Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) from PW1 and also questioning him on 11-11-2007 for doing agriculture work without arranging Rs.1,00.000/-(Rupees one lakh only).

PW3 a friend of PW1 corroborated PW1 with respect to the demand made by accused when he accompanied PW1 to the Dhaba where accused did not listen to their words and 7 threatened to kidnap Pws 1 and 2. PW4 supports Pws 1 to 3 to the extent of PW1 along with other persons going to the Dhaba hotel where PW1 informed him that accused asked him(PW1) to go to Dhaba hotel near petrol bunk along with Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only). PW5 speaks of PW1 informing about the demand made by A1 and A2 on 13-10-2007 while PW1 was harvesting the crop for the purchase of land without their knowledge and further speaks of PW1 informing him that accused asked

PW1 to go to Dhaba hotel near petrol bunk on 14-11-2007 so also PW6, corroborates Pws 1 to 3 regarding the incident on 11-11-2007, when PW2 was cultivating, the accused went there and threatened saying how can they cultivate the land without paying Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only). PW7 also corroborated Pws 1 to 6 stating that on 14- 11-2007 when PW1 informed him of the demand of

Rs.1,00,o00/-(Rupees one lakh only) to permit him to cultivate the land purchased by him(PW1) on the same day evening himself and PW1 went to a Dhaba Navipet petrol bunk where accused questioned PW1 as to why he did not bring Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) and threatened to kill him before PW1 lodged a report to the police. Apart from the evidence of Pws 1 to 7 the crucial witness PW8 (Muralikrishna) support the version of prosecution stating that on 15-11-2007 at 8-30 A.M police, Navipet summoned 8 him and Pathipati Seshubabu (not examined) to the Dhaba hotel near by petrol bunk where all the three accused were in the custody of the police of whom A1 confessed of their threat to PW1 for giving Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in connection with the land purchased by PW1 from Mogulapu Laxmi without their consent and also their threat to kill PW2, if he cultivate the land and the demand made over telephone on 14-11-2007 to come to

Dhaba hotel at Navipet and that when PW1 with his friends went there, their questioning why he came with his friends and asked him not to report to the police. He also confessed of their threat to kill PW1, if he did not pay the amount. PW8 also stated upon the confessions of A1 to A3, the police have seized three cell phones. PW9 the investigating officer speaks that on 14-11-2007 at 6-00P.M

PW1 lodged a report and he registered the Cr. No.160/2007

U/sec.387 of the IPC and issued FIR Ex.P5 and that on 15- 11-2007 at 8-00A.M when the accused persons questioned

PW1 at Dhaba hotel at petrol bunk at Navipet with the help of his staff the Sub Inspector of police apprehended the accused and recorded their confessional statements and seized one mobile phone from each of the accused, arrested them and sent for remand. Therefore the evidence of Pws 1 to 9 with the help of the confessional cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 establish that accused 9 with intention to extort amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) from the accused for his purchase of the land, alleging that he had not taken consent from them and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) as such the definition of section 387 attracts to the acts of the accused. Section 387 of the IPC reads “ Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion. Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Here as already referred to above the evidence of

Pws 1 and 2 coupled with the evidence of Pws 3, 7 and 8 with the aid of Ex.P4 confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused would support the prosecution that accused have threatened Pws 1 and 2 for the land purchased by A1 and demanded Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) for not taking the consent under threat to kill Pws 1 and 2 as such all the accused are liable for the offence U/Sec. 387 of IPC.

The learned counsel for the accused contended obviously Pws 1 and 2 are related to each other and interested witnesses in the complaint given by PW1. The evidence of Pws 4 to 6 is not admissible in evidence 10 because their evidence is nothing but hearsay, why because all the three of them have deposed that PW2 informed him of the demand made by the accused but they are not direct witness to the alleged demand. Coming to the cross examination of PW1 on 11-11-2007 the accused have threatened his brother's son but he did not file any report on that day and more so, on 13-10-2007 accused threatened him in the agriculture field and that he did not have occasion to meet the accused persons in at any where, after their threat on 13-10-2007, if that be so, the version of PW1 going to Dhaba on 14-11-2007 where accused questioned him for the amount and also threatening him would not arise and the version that he along with PW3 and 7 going to the Dhaba also unbelievable story. Consequently the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 said to have been prepared by

PW9 on 15-11-2007 at 8-30 A.M would gives rise to a doubt, why because according to PW9 on 15-11-2007 at 8- 00A.M on information he went to a Dhaba hotel near petrol bunk at Navipet where accused were questioning PW1, he apprehended the accused, with the help of his staff thereafter on their confession he recorded the confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 and seized one mobile phone from each of the accused. Whereas PW1 never stated anything regarding the accused questioning him on 11 15-11-2007 police went there and apprehended the accused. According to PW2 on 11-11-2007 he was alone working in the agriculture field Sy.No.133/A and at the time of incident no one was present in the land on 11-11-2007 but PW1 claims that no report was made by him on 11-11- 2007.

The learned counsel for the accused also contended that without admitting the seizure of cell phones from the accused under Ex.P4, confession cum recovery of panchanama even if it is accepted for the arguments sake that cell phones are seized, in the absence of the conversation that had taken place, between A1 and

PW1 is proved, by placing the sim cards of the cell phones, the threat over telephone cannot be believed. Moreover

PW3 has categorically stated he did not witness any incident on 13-10-2007 and admits that he does not know exactly who made threatening calls to PW1 on 14-111- 2007 and that he did not narrate about the incidents on 13-11-2007 and 14-11-2007 to the villagers. What all he stated is that PW1 informed him of the threat given by accused to PW2 on 13-10-2007. Therefore the very contention of the prosecution that the accused have threatened PW1 and 2 and demanded Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) is not established by any cogent 12 evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer PW9 has categorically stated that the cell phone seized by him have sim cards but he did not collect the particulars with respect to those sim cards from the concerned telephone company. Obviously PW9 stated that he did not collect any ownership record with respect to

Ac.1.19 guntas of Sy.No.133/A at Saleem farm. Therefore when the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 were interested witnesses and the evidences of Pws 3 and 7 cannot be believed. PW9 did not examine the owner of the Dhaba who could speak the true facts, on the contra when the accused examined the owner of Dhaba as DW1 in the defence he has denied the entire galata and in particular

PW1 going to him and requested him to give evidence against the accused, stating a galata took place at his hotel. Therefore prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations against the accused.

Considering the contentions of the prosecution and the counsel for the accused and the evidence on record there is no dispute regarding the purchase of land by Pw1 in an extent of Ac.1-19 guntas in Sy.No.133/A situate at Saleem farm H/o of Dharmaram village from

Mogalapuram Laxmi under Ex.P2, certified copy of registered sale deed. Further from the evidence it is clear 13 that there is a demand made by the accused from PW1 for purchase of land but obviously no amount was received by the accused nor Pws 1 and 2 have paid the amount. In the circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the definition of Sec.387 of the IPC cited supra what is to be seen is whether demand for money made by the accused under threat would amount to extortion in the absence of any apparent overt act leading towards the act of extortion?. In the case on hand absolutely there is no visible overt act except oral demand made by the accused for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) under threat but to substantiate the threat as already discussed earlier according to Pws 1, 2, 3 and 7 the accused threatened Pw1 on 14-11-2007 but they never speak of the incident on 15-11-2007 as is the evidence of Pws 8 and 9 and is manifest from the confessional cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P4 said to have been recorded on 15-11-2007.

Therefore in the light of decision Reported in 1987 Crl.

LJ.137(RAMJEE SINGH V/S STATE OF BIHAR)wherein it is held:

“That the offence as contemplated under Sec.387 of the IPC is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is apparent that it cannot be said that there was extortion on the part of the petitioner because it would appear that the petitioner happened to be a money lender and the informant, in fact, had taken loan and, therefore, the petitioner had simply demanded back the money given to the informant. Thus the simple demand never constitutes and act of 14 extortion. However, now I proceeded to examine the allegation, considering the statement of the informant that the petitioner had given a threat that he would take away the eyes and he would kill him. Even if demand of money was made, coupled with these statements, I am afraid, it is not a case of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt. Absolutely there is no visible sign of any overt act in support of that overt act. In order to constitute an offence as laid down under S.387 of the IPC., there ought to be some visible overt act which may reflect the natural and normal inference that the wrong doer had, in fact, put a person or had made an attempt to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt. In absence of any apparent overt act leading towards the act of extortion and thus putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt cannot be said to be an offence committed for extortion by threat. I am afraid, without any visible sign of physical act, simply use of words is not enough to constitute that offence and in the instant case, in absence of any physical act on the part of the petitioner and also any such material which may indicate that, as a matter of fact, the petitioner had practiced extortion by threat of fear of death and hurt, the offence is not constituted”.

Therefore viewing the evidence on record, I do feel that the threat said to have been made to PWs 1 and 2 in the circumstance the case and the evidence do not attract the ingredients of sec.387 of the IPC. Consequently this court has no hesitation to hold that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold accused A1 to A3 guilty for the offence U/Sec.387 of the IPC.

In the Result A1 to A3, Kadiyala Srinivas s/o

Jamalaiah (A1), Gundlapalli Venugoud S/o Ramchander goud (A2), Jalla Srinivas s/o Gangaram (A3) are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.387 of the 15 IPC. They are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. Their bail bonds, if any, shall continue to be in force for six months.

The unmarked case property three cell phones shall be confiscated to this case after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of July, 2015.

FAC: J.M.F.C, (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw1. Marni Rambabu DW1. P.Ramakrishna

Pw2. Marni Srinivas Rao

Pw3. Yarlagadda Rajendraprasad

PW4. Cherukuri Suresh

Pw5. Devidas

Pw6. Mogulapu Venkatrao

PW7. Chitti Madhu

PW8. Bobba Muralikrishna

Pw9. T. Srinivas Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Complaint Nil

Ex.P2 Certified copy of registered Sale deed bearing No.1371/2002.

16

Ex.P3 Certified copy of sale deed, dated. 16.02.2004.

Ex.P4 Confession cum seizure panchanama of A1

Ex.P5 First Information Report.

Mos. Marked

Nil

FAC:Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile) Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF PROHIBITION AND 

EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:­ Sri K.RAMESH BABU, B.Sc., LLB., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences Nizamabad

Dated Wednesday this the 29th day of July, 2015

CC. No 129 of 2014

Between:­ The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police Station. 

...Complainant

AND

1. Kaligot Srinivas, S/o Narsimloo, Age:25 years, Caste:Bestha, Occ:Fisher man, R/o Ghanpoor village of Machareddy mandal of Nizamabad Dist.(A1).

2. Smt. Kaligote Laxmi, W/o Narshimulu, Age:50 years, Occ:Beediroller, R/o Ghanpoor village of Machareddy mandal, Nizamabad Dist.(A2).

3. Kaligot Murali, S/o Narsimloo, Age:23 years, Caste:Bestha, Occ:Fisher man, R/o Ghanpoor village Machareddy mandal, Nizamabad Dist. (A3).

… Accused Nos. 1 to 3

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri. N.Subash Reddy, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:­ 2

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police 

Station filed Charge sheet in Cr.No.17 of 2011 for the offence 

U/S 498­A of the Indian Penal code (for short “ the IPC”) against three accused, Kaligot Srinivas S/o Narsimloo(A1), 

Smt. Kaligote Laxmi W/o Narshimulu(A2) and Kaligote 

Murali S/o Narsimloo (A3).

Originally the charge sheet is filed only against A2 showing A1 and A3 as absconding. Subsequently a separate charge sheet is filed against A­1 and A­3. Since the offence has arisen out of the same complaint of the victim/defacto complainant all the three accused tried together. 

Case of the prosecution in brief is that that marriage of the defacto complainant Smt.Kaligote Jyothi was performed with Kaligote Srinivas on 30­12­2009 offering 

Rs.70,500/­ cash, one tula gold besides Rs.50,000/­ house hold articles towards additional dowry. After the marriage the married couple and mother of A­1 used to live together and that the defacto complainant led good marital life for three months that thereafter her husband and mother­in­law started harassing the victim for additional dowry. All the accused/A­2 mother and A­3 brother of A­1 were cruel 3 towards defacto complainant and even beating her ignoring her pregnancy. Further the mother and brother of A­1 instigating A­1 to leave the defacto complainant so as to go for another marriage to get extra dowry and with that view all of the accused used to abuse her for additional dowry. 

That being so, the defacto complainant gave birth to a boy named Akhil, however after the delivery all the accused used to abuse the defacto complainant, disowning the child, saying that the boy was not born to A­1 and she begot the child through some other person. Thereby all the accused used to harass the victim mentally and physically and subjecting her to cruelty in different manner for additional dowry. Upon the complaint from the victim, Smt.Kaligote 

Jyothi this crime No.17 of 2011 U/S 498­A IPC has been registered.

In the course of investigation the statement of witnesses were recorded. Pending investigation, when the 

Sub Inspector of police served notice U/S 41(A)(1) of Cr.P.C., on 15­3­2011 only A­2 appeared before him at the police station on 17­11­2011. The investigation disclosed that A­1 married Smt.Kaligote Jyothi on 13­12­2009 and that at the time of marriage accused were given cash of Rs.70,500/­, one tula gold and house hold articles worth of Rs.50,000/­ 4 and that after marriage A­1 and his wife lead good matrimonial life for three months before A­1 and A­2 started harassing her for additional dowry and even assaulted during her pregnancy and that A­2 and A­3 were instigating A­1 to leave his wife so as to perform another marriage to get extra dowry and that in the meanwhile 

Smt.Kaligote Jyothi blessed with a male child in the month of October, 2010 named Akhil, whereafter the accused disowned the child born to A­1 saying that A­1 has no concern with the baby. Thus all the accused A1 to A3 have committed the offence punishable U/S 498­A of the IPC. 

Hence the Charge.

After taking cognizance of the offence against all accused (A1 to A3) for the offence U/s 498­A of the IPC on their appearance copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec 207 of Cr.P. C. 

When accused A1 to A3 examined U/sec 239 of 

Cr.P.C., they denied the offence. Charge U/s 498­A of the 

IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them. All accused A1 to A3 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5 In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined six witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 6) and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

After the closure of prosecution evidence all accused (A1 to A3) are examined U/sec 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. Though all of them have denied those circumstances,theydidnotchooseto putforth any defence. 

Now the point that arises for determination is:­ “Whether prosecution established the guilt of all accused (A1 to A3) for the offence U/S 498­A of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.?”

Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant 

Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. 

The learned APP drew my attention to the evidence of PW­1, who has categorically stated that on 13­12­2009 her marriage was performed with A­1 at her parent’s house at 

Dharpally giving cash of Rs.70,500/­, one tula gold besides 

Rs.50,000/­ house hold articles to A­1 and A­2 and that 6 after the marriage she joined her husband and led happy martial life for a period of three months during which period all the accused used to stay as joint family members, who later started demanding cash of Rs.1,00,000/­ towards 

additional dowry while she was carrying fourth or fifth 

month pregnancy. It is also spoken to by PW­1 that on one occasion all the accused beat her with hands and sticks demanding Rs.1,00,000/­ which she informed to her mother over telephone before her parents went to Ghanpur (V), questioned the accused for their harassment and pacified the issue. PW­1 further stated that her parents left her with the accused since A­1 and A­3 have assured that they will not demand additional dowry, however from the next moment accused have started demanding additional dowry and A2 even threatened to go for second marriage to A­1. 

PW­1 further stated on 13­10­2010 when she gave birth to a male child on information to the accused, one week thereafter accused came to her parents’ house and on seeing the baby, A­2 declared the boy was not born to A­1, so also 

A­1 stated boy was not born to him before A­2 abused her and her parents and both A­1 and A­2 asked her (Pw1) not to return to Ghanpur (V).whereupon when they approached the caste elders Ashanna and others and all the accused at 

Gangaputhra sangam and in the panchayath when accused 7 were questioned for their demand for additional dowry, in reply all the accused informed that they are not in need of 

additional dowry but interested to go for second marriage so 

she gave complaint, Ex.P­1 to the police.

PW­2 mother of PW­1 repeated the version of PW­1 regarding the payment of Rs.70,500/­ cash, one tula gold besides Rs.50,000/­ house hold articles and expressing their inability to pay Rs.50,000/­ which the accused demanded as 

additional dowry. PW­3 brother­in­law of PW­1 so also PWs­4 

and 5, who have attended the marriage of PW­1 with A­1 corroborated PWs­1 & 2 regarding the marriage of Pw1 and 

A1, and payment of dowry at the time of marriage and later the demand of accused for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/­. 

PW­6, the Investigating Officer speaks of receiving complaint,ExP­1 from Pw1 basing on which he registered this crime No.17 of 2011 U/S 498­A of IPC and issued FIR 

Ex.P­2. According to him on 17­3­2011 he released A­2 on bail and filed charge sheet showing A­1 & A­3 as absconding. 

The contention of the prosecution is that the evidence of PWs­1 to 5 is consistent regarding the marriage of Pw1 with A1 and that after the marriage couple blessed with a male child and also the harassment caused to PW­1 8 by accused demanding additional dowry. As such all the accused are liable for the offence punishable U/S 498­A of 

IPC. 

On the contra, the learned counsel for the accused stated that there is no substance in the contentions of the prosecution inasmuch as the very evidence of PW­1 goes to show that she did her school and college education at 

Secunderabad where her parents are staying and that because PW­1 accustomed to the city atmosphere and life style of metropolitan she herself could not adjust with the accused at Ghanpur (V) and insisted A­1 for living separately from A­2 and that since her husband (A1) did not agree for it 

Pw1 created a false story and filed this complaint with false allegations. Learned counsel contended that there is a discrepancy in the evidence Pws 1 to 3 regarding demand of 

additional dowry. According to PW­1 the additional dowry 

demanded by the accused is Rs.1,00,000/­ whereas PWs­2 to 5 states the additional dowry demanded by the accused is 

Rs.50,000/­, Further PW­1 in her complaint has not at all mentioned the amount of demand made by the accused except claiming the demand of additional dowry. Thus there is inconsistency regarding the demand of additional dowry from PW­1 and PWs­2 to 5, so their version is not acceptable. Apart from it complaint (Ex.P­1) is also silent 9 regarding the amount of demand. Therefore no credence can be given to the evidence of PWs­1 to 5 who are all family members and are interested witnesses. 

The learned counsel further argued that according to PW­1 her husband took her to her in­laws house one month after delivery whereas PW­2 stated after the birth of child the accused did not take PW­1 and her son to their society. Thus there is inconsistency between PWs­1 and 2 about taking PW­1 and son to their house by the accused. 

Furthermore PW­1 states accused have taken her gold pustela thradu which fact was not spoken to by any of the witnesses including PWs­2 to 5, family members. That apart according to PW­1, A­1 and A­2 proclaimed she need not come to Ghanpur (V) for marital life before she approached the caste elders who called A­1 to A­3 to Gangaputhra sangam, where A­1 and A­2 were questioned for their harassment for which A­1 to A­3 have replied that they need not require any additional dowry which fact was not spoken to by PW­2. According to PW­2 panchayath was convened at 

Dharpally (V) two or three days earlier to filing the complaint and that no other panchayath was held prior to above mentioned panchayath. Contrary to it PW­3, a relative and brother­in­law of PW­1 states twice there were panchayaths at the house of accused prior to the complaint while PW­4 10 speaks of accused coming to Dharpally on two occasions for panchayaths before the complaint given by PW­1. PW­5 who attended the marriage speaks that after the marriage of 

PW­1 when he along with others went to Ganpur (V) to see 

PW­1 at her in­laws house, they found Pw1 was happily living with accused itself falsifies the entire version of prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged harassment. 

Learned counsel also contended that according to PW­4 the accused did not take back PW­1 after the delivery so PW­1 remained with her at her parents’ house which is contrary to the version of PW­1/ victim. According to PW­3, none other than the brother­in­law of PW­1 has stated that the betrothal negotiations were not reduced into writing though discussions were held for the formalities and list of items of house hold articles settled between the parties was prepared which is self contradictory with respect to the list of article. 

PW­1 states they did not hand over any receipt in respect of the items given in the marriage to the police so also PW­ 6/Investigating Officer states that PW­1 has not given any list for the items of house hold articles given to the accused along with the complaint. This evidence of Pws 1, 3 and 6 given raise to a suspension regarding the list of articles alleged to have given to the accused. 

11 Lastly the learned Counsel for the accused contended irrespective of the above many contradictions as pointed out above, the very investigation by the Investigating 

Officer, in non examining the independent witnesses, other than the interested witnesses who gave different versions regarding the demand of additional dowry. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the offence U/S 498­A of IPC, inasmuch as even after the delivery of PW­1 she was sent to the house of accused as admitted by PW­1 herself. If really the accused have harassed and tortured PW­1 on the ground of disowning the child, alleging that the child was not born through A1 then it is difficult to believe the version of prosecution that PW­1 would go and join the company of accused and would attend the marriage of A3 subsequently. In all such circumstances the Court cannot rely on the evidence of PWs­1 to 5. 

Therefore the accused need to be given benefit of doubt. 

Consequently all the accused are entitled for acquittal.

Having considered the contentions of the prosecution, the learned Counsel for the accused and the evidence on record, it is a fact that there are variations in the evidence of 

PWs­1 to 5 with respect to the panchayath convened after 

PW­1 coming to the house of her parents for delivery and 12 that after delivery her stay with her parents. Of course there is inconsistency in the evidence of PWs­1 and 2 regarding 

Pw1 giving to the house of accused after delivery but from the evidence of PWs­1 to 5 undoubtedly it is made clear that there were mediations regarding the issue of PW­1 being with her parents, when the accused did not take her to his house. Be that as it may, the evidence of PWs­1 and 2, very much show accused No.1 being the husband has not convinced with the advise of the elders in the panchayath to take care of PW­1. No doubt Pws 1 to 5 are family members and attended the marriage but it is not out of place to mention here, that in cases of this nature attributing improper investigation on the part of Investigating Officer claiming no independent witnesses are examined cannot be a ground to discard the total evidence placed by the prosecution when there is consistency in the evidence of witnesses like PWs­1 to 5 regarding the marriage of Pw1, with A1 and subsequent events. However I see no evidence for the allegation that A­2 and A­3 have instigated A­1 to harass PW­1. Therefore in the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record the Court is not inclined to accept story of the prosecution that A2 and A3 have instigated A1 to harass his wife Pw1. Undoubtedly it is the responsibility and duty of A­1 to look after his wife and son as any order 13 husband or father. He cannot be carried away by the instigation of others. Therefore considering the overall evidence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could establish the harassment caused to his wife, by her husband A1 attracting the ingredients of section 498­A of IPC, though the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to rope accused A­2 and A­3 for the harassment caused to PW­1.

In the light of the above this Court has no reason to discard the evidence against A­1. Consequently Court finds A­1 alone guilty of the offence punishable U/S 498­A of the IPC. At the same time this Court is of the view the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold A2 and A3 guilty for the said offence. Consequently the court finds A­1 is guilty for the offence U/S 498­A of IPC. A2 and A­3 are found not guilty for the offence U/S 498­A of IPC and they are entitled for acquittal. 

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad.

When accused A1 examined U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C., he pleaded his ignorance and claims that he is the bread earning member of the family and has to look after the aged mother. 

14 Considering the plea of the accused, his age and the nature of the offence with which accused A1 is found guilty, I do not consider there is any reason to extend the benefits provided U/S 360(2) of Cr.P.C., or the provisions under 

Probation of Offenders Act. As a consequence accused A1 who is found guilty for the offence U/s 498­A of IPC is convicted U/S 248(2) of Cr.P.C., He is sentenced to suffer 

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only). In default of payment of fine amount A­1 shall suffer simple imprisonment for two months. 

The default clause of sentence shall run consecutively. 

A2 and A3 who are found not guilty for the offence 

U/S 498­A of IPC are acquitted U/S 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall continue to be in force for six months.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of July, 2015.

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad.

15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw1. Koligote Jyothi Nil 

Pw2. Valgot Gangamma

Pw3. Bokala Balaiah

PW4. Nadipi Ashanna

PW5. Basanapally Asha Ramulu

PW6. J. Hanmanthu

 EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Complaint of PW1 Nil

Ex.P2 First Information Report 

Material Objects marked

Nil

Spl.J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offence, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 

OF FIRST CLASS FOR THE TRIAL OF PROHIBITION AND 

EXCISE OFFENCES, NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:­Sri K.RAMESH BABU, B.Sc.,LLB., Spl JFCM for trial of P&E Offences Nizamabad.

Dated Tuesday this the 28th day of July, 2015

CC. No 27 of 2014

Between:­ The State through Sub Inspector of police, Dichpally police station, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

And

1.Rajam Komaraiah, S/o Kashaiah, Age: 52 years, Caste :Golla, Occ: Agriculture,R/o H.No.4­18, Dharmaram(B) village of Dichpally Mandal (A1)

2. Rajyam Ranjith S/o Komaraiah, age: 26 years, Caste: Golla,Occ: Pvt Employee in Enadu office R/o Dharmaram(B) Village of Dichpally Mandal.(A2) … Accused Nos. 1 & 2

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri Jai Prakash Loya, advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:­

::JUDGMENT::

The Sub­Inspector of police, Dichpally police station, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet in Crime No. 185 of 2013 for the offence U/Ss 341, 447 and 506 of the Indian 2 Penal Code (for short ‘’the IPC”) against both accused, Rajam 

Komaraiah, S/o Kashaiah(A1) and Rajyam Ranjith S/o 

Komaraiah (A2).

Case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the defacto complainant Smt.Rajam Laxmi has got AC.1.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.412 of Bardipoor village which she is in possession. That being so, her brother in law(Rajam 

Komuraiah S/o Kashana) (A1) illegally trespassed into her land under threat to kill her if she enters into the land as she has no male issues and in that context 15 days before 15­6­2013, while she was cultivating the land.A1 and his son 

Rajam Ranjith(A2) went to her and caused obstruction to her cultivation witnessed by Chinthapally Raju and neighbouring land owners Sharath and others. Upon her complaint on 15­06­2013 at 4­00 P.M this Cr.No.185/13 for the offence U/Ss 341,447 and 506 of IPC has been registered.

In the course of investigation statements of witness recorded, visited the scene, where in the presence of 

Nallabolu Mohiz and Rajam Lingaiah prepared the crime details form showing the scene of offence along with rough 3 sketch. Both accused were served notice U/Sec. 41­A Cr.PC by the Assistant Sub Inspector of police. The investigation revealed that both accused went to the land of the defacto complaint 15 days prior to 15­06­2013 and illegally trespassed into the land of defacto complaint under threat and caused obstruction to her while she was cultivating the land. That thereby accused A1 and A2 became liable for the offence U/Ss 341,447 and 506 R/W34 of Indian Penal Code. 

Hence the charge. 

After taking cognizance of offence against both accused (A1 and A2) for the offence U/Ss 341, 447 and 506 

R/w 34 of I.P.C on their appearance copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec 207 of Cr.P.C.

When both accused (A1 and A2) are examined 

U/sec 251 of Cr.P.C they denied the offence. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the guilt of accused A1 and A2 prosecution examined six witnesses (Pws 1 to 6) and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. 

4 After the closure of prosecution evidence two accused (A1 and A2) examined U/sec. 313 (i) (b) of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. 

Both of them denied said circumstances, however, did not choose to putforth any defence. 

 Now the point that arises for the determination is:­ “Whether prosecution established the guilt of accused A1 and A2 for the offence U/Ss 341, 447 and 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt.?”

Heard the arguments for the State and the learned 

Counsel for the accused.

The contention of the prosecution is that the evidence of PW1, Smt. Rajam Laxmi shows, after the death of her husband she got mutated land of Ac.1.15 guntas in Sy.No. 412 of Bardipoor village in her name but since there was some mistake in the Survey numbers, Mandal 

Revenue Officer and Surveyor pointed out of her land on her approach later when she got ploughed the land both accused beat her before so she gave complaint Ex.P1. It is also her version that she succeeded in the Civil suit and after receipt of the orders from the court when she engaged tractor for tilling the land, both accused taking objection for ploughing pushed her aside so she fell down before the accused 5 threatened her saying that they will kill her if again she go to the land. PW1, filed the certified copy of decree and judgment in OS.No. 125/2007 dated.28­2­2013 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge(Ex.P3),the original pattedhar pahany copy(Ex.P2) and the certified copy of decree in 

OS.No.125/2007(Ex.P4). PWs 2 and 3 eye witness to the 

occurrence have also corroborated PW1 regarding the obstruction caused by the accused. 

According to PW2 he was engaged by PW1 for tilling her land and that on that day while he was ploughing her land A1 went there and questioned as to why he was ploughing the land before he replied that he was ploughing the land on the instructions of PW1 whereupon A1 directed him to get away from the land, so he stopped ploughing the land and took away the tractor out of the field. He also speaks of accused and PW1 quarreling with each other for the right over the land abusing each other. PW3 speaks that about 2 years back while he was engaged in his agriculture land, by the side of the land of the PW1 at about 12­00 noon 

PW2 was ploughing in the field of PW1 with a tractor, then there was some quarrel in the land of PW1 so after some time PW2 took away his tractor. He also speaks of PW1 informing him about accused beating her when he asked the 6 course for her crying. PW5, the mediator for the crime details form speaks of police calling him and one Nallabolu 

Mohiz to the field of PW1, where police prepared crime details form(Ex.P5).PW5, Assistant Sub Inspector of police, who registered the crime on the complaint from PW1 and issued FIR(EX.P6) speaks of handing over CD file to the Sub 

Inspector of police after serving notice U/S 41­A Cr.PC on the accused. While PW6 the Sub Inspector of police speaks of filing the charge sheet against the accused.

In the light of the above evidence the learned APP submits that despite the court orders is as clear from Ex.P3 and P4 with respect to the land to an extent of Ac.1.15 guntas in Sy.No.412 of Dharmaram village shivar in favour of 

Pw1 which she was getting ploughed through Pw2 the accused took objection for her ploughing the land and entered the land of PW1 and beat her. Therefore for trespass into the land of PW1, the accused have committed for the offence U/S 447 of IPC. Further since PW1 was obstructed by the accused from getting land ploughed through PW2, the accused also committed offence punishable U/S 341 of IPC for wrongful restrainment. It is also clear from the scene of 

PWs 1 and 3 that accused have threatened PW1 with dire consequences that thereby accused A1 and A2 have committed the offence punishable U/S 506 as usual. 

7 On the other hand the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused is that PW1 herself is not specified any date of interference counsel by the accused. On the other hand she stated that he land sold by her land in 

Sy.No.416 to one Kamalamma but not Survey number is 412 and claims survey number has been wrongly entered in the sale deed 7930/1999 dated.21­12­1999. As such without there being any correction with respect to the land sold to the Kamalamma, PW1 cannot claim that accused has trespassed into her land. PW2 in his cross examination stated that after the incident they have not examined him but enquired over telephone as such the version of the prosecution that PW2 was engaged by PW1 cannot be believed. Further PW2 stated that he has not handed over any document pertaining to the tractor to the police. PW3 in his cross examination states that his land is about one furlong from the scene and that there are lands of others in between and also he sought the clear from his land and did not go to the scene of offence except the information given by 

PW1. This would go to show the evidence of PW3 is only hearsay, as such the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 who did not speak of the accused trespassing into the land of PW1 nor causing obstruction took PW1 while getting the land ploughed nor any threat given to PW1 by the accused is not 8 reliable. The Assistant Sub Inspector of police (Pw5) states that he did not verify whether PWs 2,3 and Raju have lands at the spot, who were present there and that in the crime details form(Ex.P5) he has not shown the names of PWs 2,3 and Raju have their lands abutting the scene. PW5 also states that he has not verified the Revenue record to show 

PW1 was in possession of the land in dispute. Therefore the evidence of PW5 is in anyway strengthens evidence of PW1. 

The evidence of PW6 is of any help to the case of the prosecution, because except filing the charge sheet he has not conducted any investigation regarding the allegations. 

The only mediator for crime details form (Ex.P5) examined prosecution admittedly related to PW1 and that the distance between the road and field of PW1 is about ½ kilometer and that there are residential houses in between the road and land of PW1 but except PW2, said to be the tractor owner allegedly engaged by Pw1 and PW3 who did not go to the scene none other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, as such it is clear from the evidence on record that because of the decree and judgment in her favour PW1, who has no male issues only on apprehension having inimical terms with the accused has made a false complaint and got filed this crime against the accused, who never objected or interfered with the possession of PW1. It is 9 argued that in fact PW1 has already sold out her land to 

Kamalamma as such she is not at all in possession of the land to make allegations against the accused in such circumstances prosecution must fail to substantiate the allegations against the accused for the offence U/Ss 447,341 and U/S 506 of IPC.

Having considered the contentions of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the accused and the evidence on record, in particular Exs.P3 and P4, the certified copies of judgment and decree in OS.No.125/2007, dated 28­ 2­2013, it is clear the the defacto complainant is in enjoyment of Ac.1.15 guntas in Sy.No. 412 of Bardipoor shivar and that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 also show that 

PW1 was getting the land ploughed with the tractor of PW2, where the accused went and driven out PW2, while he was ploughing the land of PW1. Of course there is no evidence with respect to the assault caused on PW1 by the accused. It is urged by the counsel for accused that against the judgment and decree appeal is pending before the Court of 

Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad which is not substantiated by 

any piece of evidence. Therefore the court is not inclined to concede to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused that prosecution failed to substantiate the 10 allegation made against the accused. Undoubtedly the issue has arisen out of a civil dispute and the accused are in relations with PW1. Therefore the very act of the accused in driving of PW2 from the land of PW1 and also claming right over the same land without there being any proof of their ownership in respect of the said land and interfering with the land amounts to trespass into the land of PW1 which attracts the ingredients of offence U/S 447 of IPC, so also amounts to criminal intimidation punishable U/S 506 of 

IPC. However the evidence on record does not attract the offence U/S 341 of IPC. Accordingly accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence U/S 447 and 506 of IPC alone while accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence 

U/S 341 of IPC.

In the Result, both accused A1 and A2 Rajam 

Komaraiah, S/o Kashaiah(A1) and Rajyam Ranjith S/o 

Komaraiah (A2) are found guilty for the offence U/Ss 447 and 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. They are convicted U/sec.255(2) of 

Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay Rs.500/­ each for the offence 

U/S 447 of IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall suffer simple Imprisonment for one month. 

11 Further both accused A1 and A2 are convicted U/S 248(2) of Crpc for the offence U/S 506 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200/­ each. In default of payment of fine amount they shall suffer simple Imprisonment for one month.

The default clause of sentence for the offence 

U/Ss 447 and 506 of IPC shall run consecutively. 

Both accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/S 341 of IPC. They are acquitted U/S 255(1) of 

Cr.PC for the said offence only. 

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of July, 2015.

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw1. Smt. Rajam Laxmi Nil

Pw2 Chinthapally Rajeshwer

Pw3 Dronavally Sharath Babu

PW4 Rajam Lingaiah 

Pw5 B.Gangaram

Pw6 J.Naresh 12

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE

Ex:P1Complaint of Pw1 Nil 

Ex: P2 Original Pattedar pahani/Adamgal

Ex: P3 CC of Judgment in O.S. No.125 of 2007

Ex: P4 CC of Degree in O.S. No.125 of 2007

Ex: P5 Crime details form

Ex: P6 FIR

Material objected marked ­Nil­

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences,Nizamabad. 

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (SPL. MOBILE) COURT NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:-Sri K.RAMESH BABU, B.Sc.,LLB., Spl. JFCM for trial of P & E Offences, FAC: JFCM (Spl.Mobile), Nizamabad.

Dated Tuesday this the 14th day of July, 2015

CC. No 269 of 2011

Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, town-I, Nizamabad.

...Complainant

AND

1. Chinthala Ramarao, S/o Poshetty, age 25 years, caste: Gosangi, occ: Labour, r/o H.No. 6-17-143, Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad (A1).

2. Chinthala Raju, s/o Poshetty, age 22 years, caste; Gosangi, occ: Labour, R/o 6-17-143, Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad (A2).

3. Chinthala Vijaya, D/o Poshetty, age 22 years, caste: Gosangi, occ: Labour, R/o H.No. 6-17-143, Ambedkarcolony, Nizamabad(A3).

4. Chinthala Shanthi, S/o Poshetty, age 20 years, caste: Gosangi, occ: Labour, R/o H.No. 6-17-143, Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad(A4).

… Accused persons

This case coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri.B.Ashok, Advocate for the accused having been heard and stood over consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- 2 ::JUDGMENT::

The Sub Inspector of Police, Town-I Police station laid charge sheet in Crime No.63 of 2010 for the offence

U/Secs.387 and 388 of the Indian Penal Code( For short “the IPC”)against four accused Chinthala Ramarao, S/o

Poshetty(A1), Chinthala Raju, s/o Poshetty (A2), Chinthala

Vijaya, D/o Poshetty(A3) and Chinthala shanthi, D/o

Poshetty (A4).

Since A1 died pending trial case against him by abated by order dated 25-06-2014 and the present case is against A2 to A4 only.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11- 03-2010 about 7-30P.M while Jaligama Eashwaraiah was waiting for a bus to go to Navipet at RTC bus stand,

Nizamabad two women went to him and allured him and claimed that he is looking like their uncle and asked him to stay for the night and to go on the next day morning and that they would introduce their husbands, who were working at Khaleelwadi stadium believing their words

Easwaraiah accompanied them to Khaleelwadi stadium, where the two women took him into a room under construction there two male persons questioned him as to 3 why he took the women into the room under threat to file a rape case against him and to kill him extorted one 7 gms gold ring, one 6gms silver ring, one Nokia cell phone model- 2100 and a Sonata wrist watch from him. Later on enquiry he learnt the names of those people as Ramarao, Raju,

Vijaya and Shanthi. Due to fear the defacto complainant did not complain on the same day but gave a complaint on 14-10-2014 at 6-00 P.M with the support of the family members. Upon the said complaint this Cr.No.63/10

U/Secs.387 and 388 of the IPC was registered.

In the course of investigation statements of witnesses were recorded, visited the scene, prepared crime details form showing the scene of offence before two mediators Neredikonda Shekar and Abdul Kareem. That pending investigation on 15-3-2010 at 8-45 A.M the Sub

Inspector of police, town-III police station, arrested all the accused A2 to A4 herein, along with the deceased accused

A1 at Santhosimatha temple near Railway quarters relating to Cr.No.60/10 U/Secs.387 and 388 of IPC and that on their confession the Sub Inspector of police recovered one

Sonata wrist watch from the possession at the instance of

Ramarao(Deceased), One silver ring studded with white pearl(Muthyam) of 5 gms from Chinthala Ravi(A2), one gold 4 ring studded with green colour stone of 7 gms from the possession of Chinthala vijaya(A3) and one Nokia Cell phone from the possession of Chinthala Shanthi(A4) before the mediators Kothwal Gangadher and Poppani Raju. Then the Sub Inspector of police, Town-III police station took all of them to the town-III police station and sent for remand under intimation to the Sub Inspector of police, town-I,

Nizamabad, who issued formal arrest memos against A2 to

A4 and deceased(A1) in this crime. The investigation disclosed that A3 and A4 allured the victim and took him on the pretext of introducing their husbands working at

Khaleelwadi Stadium where they took him into a room in the stadium under construction before A1(deceased) along with A2 under threat of giving a complaint for rape extorted above said articles. Thereby the accused A2 to A4 along with A1( deceased) have committed the offence punishable

U/Secs.387 and 388 of IPC.

After taking cognizance of the offence U/Secs. 387 and 388 of the IPC against all the accused A1 to A4 on their appearance copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/S 207 of Cr.PC.

5

Subsequently since A1 died before examination

U/S 239 of Cr.PC only A2 to A4 are examined U/sec 239 of

Cr.P.C., who denied the offence. Charge U/Secs.387 and 388 of the IPC have been framed read over and explained to them (A2 to A4) who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the guilt of A2 to A4 prosecution examined nine 4 (PWs.1 to 4) and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and Mos. 1 to 4.

After the closure of prosecution evidence accused

A2 to A4 are examined U/sec 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them.

A2 to A4 denied those circumstances however they did not choose to put forth any witness in their defence.

Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether prosecution established the guilt of these accused A2 to A4 for the offence U/Secs.387 and 388 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused.

6

The contention of the prosecution is that the evidence of PW1 shows that at about 7-30 P.M about four years back while he was at Nizamabad bus stand, two women went to him and informed that he is appearing as of their relative missing and took him to Ambedkar colony where two male persons beat him with sticks all over his body and forcibly took away 5 gms silver ring, 7 gms gold ring, one wrist watch and Nokia cell phone besides Rs.400/- to 500/- from his pocket before one of the ladies gave him

Rs.50/- to go to his house. He identified A3 present in the court hall. PW2 mediator for the confession of the accused and seizure of cell phone and some amount from the possession of accused under confession and seizure panchanama (Ex.P2) supported the version of PW4 the Sub

Inspector of police. According to PW4 he apprehended the accused all the accused A1 to A4 including A1 (deceased) in connection with Cr.No.60/10 U/Secs.387 and 388 of IPC on the file of the town-III police station, Nizamabad and on their confession recovered Mos.1 to 4, before the mediators and send them for remand. PW4 also speaks that PW3

Srinivas Rao, the Sub Inspector of police has taken copy of the panchanama (Ex.P2) relating to Cr.No.63/10 and identified Mos. 1 to 4 as the articles recovered. PW3 the investigating officer corroborated PW4 with respect to the 7 intimation of the arrest of all the accused by PW4 at

Santhosimatha temple near Railway quarters and recording the confession of accused so also recovery of Sonata watch, silver ring, gold ring and Nokia cell phone( Mos.1 to 4) and also identified the photograph Ex.P5 showing Mos.1 to 4.

The learned APP submits that in view of evidence of PW2 to 4 and the confession panchanama (Ex.P2) it is established that A3 and A4 allured PW1 and took him to a room under construction at Khaleelwadi stadium where A2 along with A1(deceased) under threat of filing complaint for rape extorted Mos. 1 to 4. Therefore the prosecution has proved the accusation against accused A2 to A4 for the offence U/Secs. 387 and 388 of IPC.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused contended that the evidence of PW1 shows he does not know the accused person with whom he went to the scene. Obviously PW1 stated he cannot say the exact place where they took him but states one male person forcibly took Mos.1 to 4 and that he did not notice the accused persons clearly due to darkness and that after 4 or 5 days he gave the complaint. PW2 the crucial witness for the confession though speaks of police recording confession of the accused and he signing the seizure panchanama 8 (Ex.P2) he has not whispered the individual items Mos.1 to 4 recovered from the accused. PW4 the investigating officer, said to have arrested the accused has categorically stated that he did not inform the SHO town-I police station so also not examined any persons present near the temple while he was recording panchanama Ex.P2. PW4 said to be the officer who issued FIR Ex.P3 and prepared scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch in the crime details form (Ex.P4) has not examined any of the person at the out post are in the depot though he speaks of an out post in the bus stand.

The learned counsel for the accused contended the very version of PW1 that he was allured by A3 and A4 being strangers and following them to the stadium around 7-30 P.M from the bus stand itself gives any amount of doubt as to the case of the prosecution. PW2 as rightly argued by the counsel for accused has not whispered about the recovery of Mos.1 to 4 separately from which of the accused as shown in the panchanama (Ex.P2) though PW1 identified A3 in the court, obviously the police have not conducted any test identification parade to identify the accused which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, because even according to PW1, the women are strangers 9 to him and that after the alleged incident there was no occasion for PW1 to see any of the accused, as such the identity of A3 by PW1is nothing personal to his memory but only at the instance of police he could pinpoint to A3 in the court for the first time after the incident. Therefore non examination of the any locality people, the very allegations made against the accused are unbelievable quite abnormal and in such circumstances the panchanama (Ex.P2) cannot be used against these accused. As a consequent the prosecution has utterly failed to substantiate the allegations against the accused which entitles them for acquittal.

Having considered the contentions of the prosecution and the evidence on record except evidence of

PW2, said to be the mediator for the confession cum seizure panchanama (Ex.P2) there is no evidence in support of said panchanama Ex.P2 in particular when PW4 himself said to have prepared scene panchanama Ex.P2.

Obviously he has not examined the persons near by the temple where the accused were apprehended though according to him the temple falls within the jurisdiction of town-III police station and that one of the mediator Poppani

Raju is a resident of Dubba, whom the prosecution did not 10 examine. Therefore when PW2 since did not speak the recovery of Mos.1 to 4 from which of the accused specifically and that because PW3 has not informed PW4 regarding the confession of accused though PW3 claims the accused were apprehended within the limits of town-III police station, Nizamabad, the case of the prosecution is unbelievable as such the accused cannot be made liable for offence U/Secs.387 and 388 of IPC. Apparently PW1 victim himself has not spoken to the fact of identifying the accused, on the contra he stated that he did not see the accused clearly due to darkness and that after 4 or 5 days he went to the police station and lodged a complaint without their being any explanation whatsoever. For the above said reasons this court has no hesitation to hold that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of these accused A2 to

A4 for the offence U/Secs.387 and 388 of IPC.

In the Result A2 to A4, Chinthala Raju, s/o Poshetty (A2), Chinthala Vijaya, D/o Poshetty(A3) and Chinthala shanthi, D/o Poshetty (A4) are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.387 and 388 of the IPC. They are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence.

11

Bail bonds of A4 if any shall continue to be in force for six months. A2 and A3 who are in judicial custody shall be released forth with not required for any other cause.

Mos.1. sonata Wrist watch, Mo2. Silver pearl ring, Mo 3.Gold ring with green stone and Mo 4. Nokia cell phone which were given as interim custody to PW1 the defacto complainant by order dated 26-4-2010 in

Crl.MP.No.1041/2010 by the I.Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nizamabad shall become absolute after the

expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of July, 2015.

FAC:Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Pw1. J.Eshwaraiah Nil

Pw2. K.Gangadher

Pw3. S.Srinivas

PW4. P.Srishylam 12

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Complaint Nil

Ex.P2 Attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P3 First Information Report

Ex.P4 Crime details form with rough sketch

Ex.P5 Photograph(Mos.1 to 4)

Material Objects Marked

1. Sonata Wrist watch

2. Silver pearl ring

3. Gold ring with green stone

4. Nokia cell phone

FAC:Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile), Nizamabad.

1 CC.213-13

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BODHAN

PRESENT:-Sri K.RAMESH BABU, B.Sc.,LLB., Spl JFCM for trial of P&E Offences Nizamabad. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Dated Friday this the 22nd day of July, 2015

CC. No.213 of 2013

Between:- K.Kalidas Chari S/o K.Ramchander, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o Shivalayam Road, Kumargally, Bodhan Town, Dist.Nizamabad.

...Complainant

And

Parashuram S/o Veeranna, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Occ:Business- Running Anu Driving School at Bodhan, in the premises of H.No.1-4-1025, besides Sai Baba Kaman Gunj Road, Bodhan Town R/o Hunsa village of Bodhan Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

… Accused

This case coming before me on 20-7-2015 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri C.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri Venkateshwar Rao Desai, Advocate for the accused, and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:- ::JUDGMENT::

This is a private complaint filed under Sec.200 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act by one K.Kalidas Chari against Parashuram,the accused herein.

The allegations made against the accused by the Complainant is that he is running Sri Laxmi Silver Merchant Gold Shop and that accused as a customer borrowed a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to meet his family and personal necessities by executing a promissory note on ;18.9.2010 for the said sum of Rs.10 Lakhs. Subsequent to the transaction, the accused despite several demands failed to repay the amount covered under 2 CC.213-13 promissory note and that after repeated requests on 27.12.2012 the accused had issued a post-dated cheque bearing No.571695 dtd. 6-1-2013 for Rs.10 Lakhs drawn in Syndicate Bank, Bodhan Branch towards the discharge of debt through his Account bearing No.3511/220/83633.

Consequently, on 27.3.2013 when the cheque was presented with the same bank by the Complainant into the Account No.3511/220/146834 vide

Memo 23.3.2013, the cheque bearing No.571695 was returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient”. Subsequently, on 26.3.2013 when the statutory notice calling upon the accused to pay the amount was sent through Courier, the accused having received the Courier Service on 29.3.2013 and registered cover on 27.3.2013, did not respond to the

Notice. However, the accused had sent a complaint dt. 3.4.2013 through registered post on 5.4.2013 received on 6.4.2013 stating he had kept gold as mortgage for Rs.5000/- and repaid the amount and on demand for the return of gold and promissory note and blank cheques, the complainant is postponing it only to avoid the debt payable by him and to make a ground for defence in Civil Suit. That thereby the accused has committed the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, on perusal of the documents, cognizance of the offence u/Sec.138 of NI Act has been registered against the accused and issued summons for his appearance.

Pursuant to the summons, on appearance of accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. When the accused examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to substantiate the allegations against the accused, the complainant examined himself as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

After the closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, the accused examined u/Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating 3 CC.213-13 circumstances appearing against him. The accused denied the said circumstances however examined himself as RW1 besides two witnesses as

RW2 and RW3 in his defence and to rebut the case of the complainant.

On the basis of evidence, the Point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the complainant has proved the allegations made against the accused for the offence u/Sec.138 of NI Act beyond reasonable doubt.?

Heard both sides.

The contention of the complainant is that there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of cheque Ex.P1 pertaining to the accused account which on presentation with the Bank of the accused on 23.3.2013, the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank through cheque return memo

Ex.P2. Further according to Pw1, he got issued a Statutory Notice on 26.3.2013 which the accused received by Courier on 29.3.2013 and the registered post dtd.4.4.2013 but no reply was given by the accused claiming the cheque was issued in connection with mortgage transaction as mentioned in the Complaint. On the contra, the only defence taken by the accused is that the complainant had no capacity to lend Rs.10 Lakhs and that taking advantage of the blank promissory notes and the cheques issued towards security for the loans of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- obtained which in fact is not established. Even in the cross-examination the accused as RW1 has admitted that he has not filed any case against

Pw1 for not returning the security papers such as Cheque Leaves which were obtained by Pw1 while lending the amounts of Rs.5000/- and

Rs.10,000/- as claimed by the accused.

Rw2 also did not support the version of accused that he had borrowed Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- from Pw1. What all Rw2 stated is that accused borrowed Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- from Pw1 and repaid

Rs.15,000/- to Pw1 after 5 months.

4 CC.213-13

Rw3 though stated in his examination in chief that accused borrowed Rs.5000/- first time and Rs.10,000/- second time from the complainant in their presence for that complainant had took the blank signed cheques and also obtained signatures of the accused on blank pronote, in his cross-examination he(Rw3) has categorically stated that he does not remember the dates on which the accused obtained Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- from Pw1 so also he does not know the date of the cheque or the cheque was issued on 27.12.2012.

It is argued for the Complainant that from the evidence of Rw1 to

Rw3, it is clear that Pw1 was given cheque by the accused which on presentation returned for “insufficient funds” by the banker of the accused.

Therefore, when once the issuance of cheque by the accused to the complainant is established, the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I.Act comes into play and it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of consideration thereunder and the debt deemed to be a legally enforceable debt. In that view of the matter the issue whether the complainant has capacity or not in the light of the admission of Rw1 himself that the complainant is running a shop in the name of “Sri Laxmi Silver Merchant” and that he had borrowed Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- but claims to have repaid without proof, therefor, the story created by the accused that

Complainant has no capacity to lend the amount is nothing but a way to avoid the repayment of the cheque amount and to cheat the complainant.

As such no significance need to be given for such unbelievable pleas, the accused is liable for the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act.

Contrary to the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant, the main attack of the accused in his defence is that the very admission of Pw1 that he does not know how much balance he had by 18.9.2010 and that on 18.9.2010 he had not drawn any amount from the bank and also there was no Fixed Deposits in the Bank by 18.9.2010 would 5 CC.213-13 give raise to a doubt as to wherefrom such huge amount was given to the accused. In such circumstances, it is for the complainant to explain the source of such huge amount of Rs.10 Lakhs alleged to have been lent to the accused. Further the admission made by Pw1 that on 3.4.2013 accused addressed a letter asking for return of blank promissory note and cheque but the complainant remained silent and does not made any denial of issuance of cheque or blank promissory notes towards security as security by the accused. From the act of the Complainant it appears that when once the complainant fails to establish the legally enforceable debt payable by the accused, in particular when the accused had taken a definite plea of issuance of blank promissory notes and cheques in presence of Rw2 and Rw3, the burden shifts on the complainant to rebut the same which the complainant has failed to do so. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the complainant has failed to establish the payment of Rs.10 Lakhs under promissory note and cheque which in fact the complainant has not filed before the Court claming that it was filed in the Suit for recovery of money is not sufficient to show that there exists legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the accused contended that once the complainant fails to show his capacity to extend loan the complainant must fail. To fortify his contention the learned Counsel relied on a decision reported in 2015 (2) CRJ 399 wherein it is held that “ the complainant knows source of income to lend a sum of Rs.14 Lakhs to the accused and he failed to prove that there is legally enforceable debt payable by the accused to him”.

Here in this case, obviously the complainant had failed to show his source and capacity to lend Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused without proper security or the financial position of accused. Further the learned counsel

for the accused placed reliance on another decision reported in 2015(2)

CRJ 355 and contended that advancing loan of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused 6 CC.213-13 without ascertaining the capacity of the accused to repay the amount in particular when the accused claims to have borrowed Rs.5000/- and

Rs.10,000/- for his necessities, would reflect the financial position of accused and in such circumstances it is difficult to believe the version of the complainant that he had lent Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused, the version of the defence need not be looked into. Therefore in the light of admissions made by Pw1 that neither he had withdrawn money from the bank on that day nor he had net cash of Rs.10,000/- in his house and that there was any Fixed Deposits in his Bank and that the accused used to approach his shop for preparation of gold ornaments as a customer, it is difficult to accept the version of the complainant that the cheque/Ex.P1 was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt.

Having given deep consideration to the contention of the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused and perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, I see substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations against the accused that accused has issued the cheque/Ex.P1 having borrowed Rs.10 Lakhs from Pw1 in discharge of the same for the reason that Pw1 himself failed to satisfy his capacity for lending Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused, who said to have borrowed Rs.5000/- and Rs.10,000/- for his personal necessities. Apart from that it is his evidence that he has not withdrawn any amount from the Bank nor he had such amount for in his Bank Account or at-least Fixed Deposits for redeeming the same to pay huge amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the accused only on the basis of Ex.P1/Check. Therefore, when once as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused with the aid of the decisions referred to above that the Complainant failed to prove his case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that accused is not liable for offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Consequently, the complainant must fail.

7 CC.213-13

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.138 of N.I.Act. He is acquitted u/s.255(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall continue to be in force for six months.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of July, 2015.

Sd/-

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad. FAC: Judl Magistrate of First Class Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE: Pw1. K.Kalidaschari Rw1:Pashuram Rw2:A.Anand Rao Rw3:S.Venkat Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION; DEFENCE

Ex.P1 :Original Cheque bearing Nil No.571695, dt. 6.1.2013 Ex.P2: Memo issued by Manager, Syndicate Bank Br.Bodhan. Ex.P3:Office copy of legal notice dt. 26.3.2013 Ex.P4:Copy issued by Professional Courier Service dt.29.3.2013 Ex.P5:Postal Acknowledgment dt. 27.3.2013

Material Objects marked Nil

Sd/-

Spl. J.M.F.C, for Trial of P & E Offences, Nizamabad. FAC: Judl Magistrate of First Class Bodhan.

8 CC.213-13 9