Sri K.Siva Shankar

C.C.990-2014 1 Dt.03.5.2019

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS TANUKU.

Present: K.Siva Sankar I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

Friday, this the 03rd day of May, 2019.

C. C. No.990/2014

Between

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station. Crime No.113/2014 Complainant

And

1. Alapati Narendra Prasad, S/o.Bala Krishna, 42 years, Kamma, Cultivation, Mortha ( V), Undrajavaram Mandal

2. Garikipati Srinu @ Appanapalli, S/o.Rama Rao, 32 years, Kamma Cultivation, Mortha ( V), Undrajavaram Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 13-02-2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N. Ram Mohana Rao Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.113/14 for the offence punishable under

Section 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against Accused A1 and A2.

The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

2i).During the elections held on 07-05-2014, the defacto- complainant acted as Telugu Desam party Volunteer. On 07-05-2014 at about 12-30 AM in the midnight, A1/Alapati Narendra Prasad of Mortha (v) came to the house of the L.W.1 with hand sticks and threatened to kill hte

LW1 and created terror in the minds of LW1/Kantipudi Venkateswara Rao and his family members. Subsequently, on 09-05-2014 at about 8:30 PM

C.C.990-2014 2 Dt.03.5.2019 the defacto-complainant and his friend Yalamanchili Kishore were going to

Tanuku from Mortha village and when they reached Anjaneya Swamy

Temple opposite to the house of Gannamani Srirama Rao then the Accused

A1/Alapati Narendra Prasad and A2/Garikapati Srinu @ Appanapalli wrongfully restrained their motorcycle and abused them. A1 beat the defacto-complainant with hands indiscriminately. Due to the beating the defacto-complainant and the Yalamanchili Kishore escaped and went to the house ofG.Subrahmanyam then A1, A2 tresspass into the house and beat the defacto-complainant indiscriminately. Though many people resisted A1 beat the defacto-complainant indiscriminately and the incident was witnessed by LW’s 4 adn LW’s 6 to 8.

ii)During the Galata caused by the Accused, the current switch board and show-cases in the house of the LW6 Gannamani Subrahmanyam were broken and the property worth about of Rs.5,000/- was damaged due to mischief caused by the Accused. At the time of one Pichukala Manikanta came to rescue the defacto-complainant. The Accused beat Pichukala

Manikanta also with iron rod over the head and caused bleeding injury to the LW2/Pichukala Manikanta. On that Pichukala Manikanta admitted in the

Hospital for treatment. On the complaiant given by the defacto-complainant the ASI registered the case in Cr.No.113/14 U/sec 341, 452, 427, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation the IO recorded the statement of the defacto-complainant and sent him for hospital with memo. Subsequently the inspector of police took up investigation and investigated the case. The inspector added section 324 IPC. On 28-05-2014

A2 was arrested and sent him for remand. The doctor treated the injured issued wound certificate and opined that the injures are simple in nature. A1

C.C.990-2014 3 Dt.03.5.2019 surrendered before the Court. After completion of investigation the SI of police charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on the file for the offences

U/sections 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and summons were issued to the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of the documents and case papers were furnished to the Accused as required U/Sec 207 Cr.P.C.

The accused examined U/S 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge U/S 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC framed read over and explained to them for which they denied pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The Prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked the

Ex.P1 to P7. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the offence U/Sec 341, 452, 427,

323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused beyond all reasonable

doubts?

Arguments:

7.The APP appearing for the prosecution vehemently argued that

A1, A2 assaulted the defacto-complainant and PW2 namely Manikantha with iron rod and caused bleeding injury due to political rivalry. She further argued that the eye witnesses supported the incident. She requested to punish the Accused by relying on the evidence of PW’s 1 to 10 and Exhibits

Ex.P1 to P7.

C.C.990-2014 4 Dt.03.5.2019

8.The Advocate appearing for the Accused argued that the

Accused and were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The complainant belongs to Telugu Desam party and the Accused are supporters of YSRCP.

There was delay in giving complaint and the complaint was given after due deliberations. The witnesses stated that the Accused beat with iron rod and some witnesses stated that the Accused beat with Gas cylinder and stove.

There is contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. The house owner never gave any complaint and trespass is not attracted.

9He argued that he received injuries somewhere else and falsely implicated the Accused due to election dispute. The IO did not seize any rod or any said weapon used in the commission of offence. The last lines in the

FIR were additionally added and the prosecution unable to explain about who added the said lines and the complainant is hit by the said alteration.

The counsel requested to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

Point:

10.I have perused the charge sheet, evidence on record and material placed by the prosecution including the Exhibits P1 to P7. The prosecution case is that while PW1 and his friend Yalamanchili Kishore/PW6 were going to Tanuku the Accused stopped them and beat them. When they ran into the house of Ganamanani Srirana Rao/A1, A2 entered the house and beat them and abused them. Thereafter the injured PW1 lodged complainant and a case was registered. The police sent the injured to hospital for treatment.

11.The defacto-complainant is examined as PW1. He deposed that on 07-05-2014 after the election, the Accused A1, A2 came to their house with sticks in their hand and threatened them. The witnesses further stated that on 09-05-2014 at 8:30 PM himself along with PW6 were going to

C.C.990-2014 5 Dt.03.5.2019

Tanuku A1, A2 stopped them and the Accused beat them with hands. He feared and ran away into the house of Ganamani Sree Ramarao. The

Accused A1 and A2 chased them. The accused entered the house of

Sreerama Rao kicked and beat PW1 and also abused meanwhile

G.Venkataraju, Simhadri RamaKrishna separated. He was taken to PS and he lodged complaint. The Accused damaged the switch board and showcase of Rama Rao and his complaint is marked as Ex.P1.

12. The chief examination of PW1 goes to show that the Accused kicked him and abused in filthy language and also beat him. PW1 did not say about the weapon used by him. I have perused the Ex.P1 in which he stated that the Accused beat PW1 and when they went into the house of

Ganamani Sree Ramarao both A1, A2 entered the house and beat them.

The last 3 lines in Ex.P1 clearly added but the said interpolation was not claimed by PW1 and the prosecution is silent as to who added those last 3 lines in the complaint. When Pw1 did not write the last 3 lines who wrote last 3 lines gives reasonable doubt. When the last lines are not within the knowledge of PW1 the report given by PW1 becomes suspicious.

13.PW2 is another injured person who received injuries. Pw2 deposed that on 09-05-2014 he heard big sounds from the house of

Gannamaneni Sree Rama Rao then he went inside and noticed that A1, A2 are beating PW1 and Y. Kishore/PW6. The Accused are beating with iron rod then he stopped the Accused, then the Accused A1 beat him with Gas stove on his right side forehead. He received bleeding injury. At that time one

Simhadri Rama Krishna ( PW3) , K.Subramanyam ( PW5) were present and they took him to hospital and the Doctor treated him.

14.In the cross examination PW2 stated that he mentioned in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he was beaten with a gas stove. The evidence of

C.C.990-2014 6 Dt.03.5.2019

PW2 shows that A1, A2 beat PW6 and PW1 with iron rod. But the said fact was not stated by PW1. The evidence of PW1 is only to the effect that the

Accused beat with hands. In the complainant Ex.A1 also mentioned that the

Accused simply beat but,no weapon was mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1.

If really the Accused used the weapon which is iron rod or the Gas stove

Pw1 would have mentioned the same in the complainant Ex.P1.

15.The Medical certificate of PW1 shows that the Accused beat with hands but there was not mention about the iron rod in the wound certificate Ex.P4 issued by the doctor. As seen from the wound certificates the Accused received one contusion, abrasion and contusion. PW2 stated that he was beat with a Gas cylinder but in the cross examination he stated that the Accused beat with Gas stove. The version of PW2 does not inspire confidence as the other injured PW1 did not mention about the Gas stove or

Gas cylinder. Further it is very difficult to beat with gas stove or Gas cylinder lifting the cylinder or stove. The version of Pw2 creates suspicion about the use of cylinder or stove.

16.PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses. PW3 stated that PW1 and PW2 came into the house of Gannamaneni Sree Rama Rao and they were sitting in the house. The Accused A1 and A2 went upon PW1 beat him so also LW3/Yelamanchili Kishore. Meanwhile the switch board and other articles are damaged. The Accused also beat PW2. The evidence shows that the witnesses came to know about the evidence of beating with gas stove and he did not verify the same. The evidence is not reliable. PW4 stated that he tried to stop the Accused when the Accused manhandling

PW1 and PW6. The witnesses did not mention about the overt-acts of PW1 and PW2. He stated that A1 beat PW2 with cylinder which is contrary to the evidence of PW3. According to PW3 the Accused beat with Gas stove but he

C.C.990-2014 7 Dt.03.5.2019 did not specifically mention where A1 beat or A2 beat. The evidence of PW4 shows that A1 beat with cylinder but he did not mention about the Gas stove.

17.In the cross examination he admitted that there are differences between A1 and G.Srinivasa Rao and the injured. PW’s 1 to 3 did not specifically mention about the articles damaged by the Accused. Only PW4 stated that articles were made pell-mell. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 gives raise to a reasonable doubt whether they were witnessed the occurrence or not. PW5 another witness who stated that he was writing the

ZPTC Agent forms in the house of Ganamani Sreeramarao. At that time A1 and another person came into the house quarreling themselves. Both quarreled inside the house. They separated the accused A1 and another person. They fell on the furniture and it was damaged. At that time PW’s 2 to 4 were present. PW2 received head injury. PW2 was hit by gas stove but the injury was received from some other place.

18.The evidence of PW1 is not trustworthy as he did not specifically mentioned about the over-tacts of Accused A1, A2. According to

PW5 A1 and another person entered the house quarrelling each other and they fell on he furniture and it was damaged. Again the witnesses stated that

PW2 received injury and he was hit by gas stove in some other place. The evidence of PW5 shows that PW2 did not receive injury inside the house of

Gannamaneni Sreeramarao. The alleged injury with Gas stove is caused somewhere else.

19.PW6 is another material witnesses who stated that A1 beat

PW1 near the house of G.Sree Rama Rao. A1, A2 went on to beat PW1 and the PW1 escaped and the switch board show case were damaged.

When PW2 came across they beat with Gas cylinder rod. PW2 received bleeding injury on forehead. A1 beat PW2. PW3 and 4 were present at that

C.C.990-2014 8 Dt.03.5.2019 time. The injured were taken to Hospital. PW1 received swelling injuries and lodged complaint. PW6 is giving exaggerated version that PW2 was beaten with cylinder rod. The nature of the weapon is not specifically mentioned by the witnesses. He stated in the cross examination that he was not beaten by the Accused. He admitted the political differences between the Accused and

PW1. As per cross examination he was not beaten.

20.PW7 is the VRO who deposed that himself and his VRA attested the scene observation mediator report which is Ex.P2. The photographs taken by the CI is Ex.P3. In the cross examination the witness stated the photographs shows only switch board was broken. I have perused the photographs which shows the hanfing switch board. No other damaged articles were appearing in the photo.

21.PW8 is the medical officer who deposed that he examined PW7 and issued wound certificates which is marked as Ex.P4. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and are possible by coming into contract with rough and hard surface. The medical evidence strengthen the evidence of

PW5. PW5 stated that the injuries occurred when the injured fell on the furniture.

22.PW8 further stated that he also examined PW2 who received

Lacerated wound and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P5. The wound certificate shows that the injured suffered abrasion, one contusion and another contusion. The alleged weapon was not mentioned either by PW1 or PW2. The evidence of PW2 shows that he was beat by Gas cylinder where as PW1 says that he was beaten with hands. Some of the witnesses deposed that PW2 was beaten with Gas cylinder rod. According to PW4 A1 beat PW2 with cylinder. There is vast difference between gas cylinder and gas stove. PW3 stated that he was told that the Accused beat with gas

C.C.990-2014 9 Dt.03.5.2019 stove. According to Pw4 it is cylinder. PW6 deposed an exaggerated version that the Accused beat PW2 with Gas cylinder. Unfortunately the IO did not seize weapon used in the offence. The evidence goes to show that the witnesses are not specific about the use of weapons. In the complaint Ex.P1 no weapon was mentioned.

23.PW9 is the ASI who registered the case basing on the report of

PW1. He deposed that he registered the case in Cr.No.113/14 U/sec 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. The original FIR submitted to the

Court is marked as Ex.P6. In the cross examination he stated that the date and time are corrected in the complaint. Ex.P1 shows that the year 2014 was corrected. He further stated that he did not mention the reason for delay of 3 ½ hours. He admitted that the 161 Cr.P.C statement is not in his hand writing.

24.According to the photographs the showcase was not broken.

The house owner did not give any complaint about the tresspass. The evidence shows that there is delay of 2 ½ hours and reasons were not mentioned in the complaint. According to PW1 the incident is occurred at 8:30 PM but the complaint was lodged at 10:45 PM though Police Station is about 100 meters from the scene of offence. The injured who received the injuries did not rush to the Police station immediately and the delay of 2 ½ hours in approaching the police about the incident was not properly explained by the prosecution. The FIR reached the Magistrate on next day.

The delay in lodging the case and dispatching the same to the Magistrate inclusing the corrections gives raise to the reasonable doubt about the FIR.

The unexplained delay shows that the FIR is after due deliberations.

25.PW10 is the CI who deposed that on 10-05-2014 he took up further investigation in the above case. After perusing the record he secured

C.C.990-2014 10 Dt.03.5.2019

LW1/PW1 and examined him who mentioned same facts as he stated earlier in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Hence he did not record the fresh statement.

He visited the scene of offence and he secured the mediators VRO and

Galinki Subba Rao/VRA he examined the scene of offence and prepared scene observation mediator report and rough sketch. The Rough sketch is

Ex.P7. He secured PW2 to PW4 examined and recorded their statements.

He proceeded to the Government Hospital Tanuku and secured the injured person PW2/Pichikula Mani kanta and PW5/Subramanyam examined them and recorded their statements. On 16-05-2014 he obtained the wound certificates and examined the Doctor. On 28-05-2014 he arrested A1 at the house of Srinivas at his house and sent him for remand. The Accused A1 surrendered before the Court on the next day. After completion of investigation he field charge sheet.

26. In the cross examination I.O stated that there is difference in the handwriting of the last para of the complaint Ex.P1. The police station is 100 meters from the scene of offence. Because of the Road curve the scene of offence is not visible directly from the police station. He do not remember whether he inquired about delay or not. The complaint Ex.P1 does not contain any weapon the Accused beat the injured. The I.O evidence clearly shows that there is no mention of weapon in FIR. The evidence of witnesses about weapon gas stove or cylinder or rod is only a later development and the same could not be given much weight. Pw1 did not mention about the use of weapon by the accused in his chief evidence.

27.When there is political rivalry betwee two groups the court has to appreciate the evidence carefully. The burdon of proving the offence beyond reasonable doubt rests heavilly on the prosecution. The prosecution witnesses are giving exaggerated version which can not be believed. The

C.C.990-2014 11 Dt.03.5.2019 alterations and inserting last lines in the FIR is fatal to prosecution case.

When the witnesses are not clear about the use of gas stove or gas cylinder their evidence is not trust worthy. Pw6 says injury received is from some other place. Prosecution couls not say any reason for not making any complaint on the previous incident. The medical evidence shows that the injuries are possible otherwise than the mode put forth by posecution. The

I.O. failed to seize the weapon which another lacuna in the prosecution. The

Prosecution failed to prove damage to the articles. Considering the overall evidence prosecution failed to prove the offiece beyond all reasonable doubts.

28.I hold that the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the Accused are given benefit of doubt.

29.In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence U/sec 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall continue for a period of 6 months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this is the 03rd day of May, 2019.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

cum I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS TANUKU.

C.C.990-2014 12 Dt.03.5.2019

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

PW1: K.Venkateswara Rao PW2: P.Manikanta PW3: S.Rama Krishna PW4: G.Venkataraju PW5: K.Subramanyam PW6: Y.Kishore PW7: Veeravali Rama Krishna PW8: G.Gowri Prasad PW9: K.Jaya Krishna PW10: K.Govinda Raju

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the scene observation report. Ex.P3 is the photographs. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. Ex.P6 is the FIR Ex.P7 is the Rough Sketch.

Ex.B1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW3.

Material Objects Marked.

NIL IAJCJ TANUKU

C.C.990-2014 13 Dt.03.5.2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.990/14 ON THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TANUKU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of offence 09-05-2014 Taken on file 26-08-2014 Apprehension 24-12-2014 Released on bail 29-05-2014 Commencement of Trial 12-10-2018 Closure of Trial 14-03-2019 Sentence of Order 03-05-2019

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : The State : Sub Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Accused

1. Alapati Narendra Prasad, S/o.Bala Krishna, 42 years, Kamma, Cultivation, Mortha ( V), Undrajavaram Mandal

2. Garikipati Srinu @ Appanapalli, S/o.Rama Rao, 32 years, Kamma Cultivation, Mortha ( V), Undrajavaram Mandal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: U/sec 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC

Cr.No. 113/14

Finding : Not Guilty.

RESULT: In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence U/sec 341, 452, 427, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused and sureties shall continue for a period of 6 months.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

cum I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS TANUKU.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

PRESENT: Sri K.Siva Sankar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

Friday, the 1st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.92/2013

Between :

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station. …Complainant.

And

Addala Bhupayya, S/o Satyanarayana, 32 years, Kapu, Near New Ramalayam temple, Varighedu, Attili Mandal. … Accused.

This case is coming on 31-10-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and of Sri K.A.Padmanabham, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.1/2013 Under Sections 498(A) and 324I.P.C. against the accused.

2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:-

The defacto complainant is the wife of accused. At the time of marriage Rs.80,000/- dowry was agreed and Rs.50,000/- was given.

The parents of defacto complainant promised to pay Rs.30,000/- later and they Rs.20 cents of land situated at Balepalli. During her conjugal life the defacto complainant gave birth to two children.

After some years the accused started harassing the defacto complainant for want of additional dowry. The matter was placed

before the elders who admonished the accused. During that period

on 23-12-2012 the complainant’s brother came and took her to the parents house in connection with installing a statue of Ammavaru.

2

The accused told that he will come later. The accused did not attend the Ammavaru festival. On 29-12-2012 she returned back to her husband’s house and asked her husband why he did not come. On that the accused picked up quarrel as she returned late and beat her with hands and a stick and thrown her on the cot and pressed her neck. When she telephoned the same, her parents came and took her back. On 31-12-2012 she went to Government Hospital and admitted for treatment. On the medical admit intimation the police recorded her statement and transferred to S.H.O., Attili on point of jurisdiction.

Basing on the statement of defacto complainant police registered the case in Cr.No.1/13 U/S 498(A), 324 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation the

Investigation Officer arrested the accused on 22.1.2013 and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation he filed chargesheet.

3) The case was taken on file under section 498-A, 324 IPC against accused and summons were issued to him.

4) On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Accused is examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge U/S 498(A), 324 IPC were framed read over and explained to him in

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

5) Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to

P.8. The Learned APP given up rest of the witnesses.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the accused, for which he denied and reported no deference evidence.

7) Heard both sides.

3

8) Now the point for determination is as follows :--

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under sections 498(A), 324 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

ARGUMENTS

9. The Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the offence against the accused and the evidence of PW.1 to 3 is reliable. She requested to rely on the evidence of

PW.s 1 to 8 and Ex.s P1 to P8 and punish the accused according to law.

10. The advocate appearing for the accused vehemently argued that the marriage of the defacto complainant took place in the year 2002 and considerable time they lived together without any differences. Subsequently the accused questioned the defacto complainant why she was repeatedly going to her parents house.

Then she filed a false case. He further argued that the injuries are simple in nature and the complainant suffered the injuries by falling on the ground. It is false to say that the accused kept quite for more than 12 years and thereafter started demanding dowry. The independent witnesses who are the neighbours PW.s 4, 5 and 6 turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. The advocate requested to acquit the accused.

POINT :

11. The prosecution case is that the accused harassed PW.1 (defacto complainant) demanding additional dowry. PW.1 stated in her chief examination that at the time of marriage her parents gave

Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and 0-20 cents of land apart from

Rs.5,000/- adapaduchu lanchanam. After marriage she joined her husband at Varighedu and during wedlock she was blessed with two male children. They lived happily for one month and thereafter disputes arose. The accused used to quarrel and send her to her parents house. This happened 5 times. After the quarrels again she gave birth to a second child. PW.1 stated that the accused asked her to sell away 0-20 cents and bring cash for the trials of his job.

4

She further deposed that about 5 years back accused beat her severely as she questioned why he came late in the night. When her brother questioned the accused why he beat PW.1 then accused beat her brother Rambabu, then they returned to the parents house.

Two year she stated with her parents. Again at the intervention of elders she was taken back. In the month of December she went to her parents house and did not return immediately. On that accused questioned and beat her with hands on her face. He beat her in front of one Kondala Rao. When the neighbours telephoned, her parents came and took her. She was treated in the hospital and her complaint is marked as Ex.P1.

12. The chief examination is with lot of development with her

FIR version. In the cross examination the witness did not say the specific demand for additional dowry. Except saying that the accused insisting her to sell away her land there is no other ingredients of harassing PW.1 to bring additional dowry. PW.1 categorically stated that accused insisting to sell her 0-20 cents of land to make job trials. The other portion of the evidence relates to her beating regarding the disputes about going and coming to the parents house.

In the cross examination she stated that she did not give any documents relating to her 0-20 cents of property. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before police that the accused insisted her to sell 0-20 cents of land for the purpose of job trials.

She denied that she did not state in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that she returned on the same day i.e. on23.12.2012 after Ammavari function.

13. The cross examination shows that there are number of omissions in the evidence of PW.1 and in 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

The reasons for delay that she became unconscious from 29-12-12 and she stayed in the hospital for two days from 29-12-2012 is not convincing. The evidence does not inspire confidence for the reason that in the cross examination she stated that the accused beat her on 29-12-2012. But in the cross examination the witness stated that she was in the hospital from 29-12-2012 to 31-12-2012. In fact 5 the wound certificate shows that she was examined by the doctor on 31.12.2012. when PW.1 was in unconscious state in the hospital from 29-12-2012 onwards, why she was not examined on the same day, was not properly explained by the prosecution. The evidence clearly shows that there is no dowry harassment and acts of cruelty were not specifically attributed to the accused. The only attribution made against the accused is that he insisted to sell away 0-20 cents of land for the purpose of job trial. As per evidence accused did not insist Pw1 to bring additional dowry amount.

14. PW.2 is the elder sister of PW.1, she deposed that the dowry was agreed at Rs.80,000/- and Rs.50,000/- was paid. After marriage they paid Rs.30,000/- and gave 0-20 cents of paddy field.

PW.1 gave birth to two children. She further deposed that the accused started demanding to execute a document for 0-20 cents in his favour. While it was so, her sister came to temple fair and stayed for five days. After 5 days her brother dropped PW.1 in the house of accused and the accused beat PW.1 on the head and shoulder questioning her late coming.

15. The evidence of PW.2 is not corroborated with the version of PW.1. PW.1 never stated that they paid dowry of Rs.30,000/- after the marriage. According to PW.1 accused insisted to sell away the land of 0-20 cents but according to PW.2 the accused insisted

PW.1 to execute document in his name. The version of PW.1 and 2 goes to show that each witness is giving their own version. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 does not disclose any dowry harassment and causing hurt for the reason of non bringing additional amount.

16. PW.3 is the brother of PW.1 who deposed that the accused used to harass his sister when she comes to parents’ house and going back lately. Except that, PW.3 did not say anything about the dowry harassment. PW.3 stated that he came to know through phone that the accused beat her with sticks. His elder brother went to the house and noticed his sister unable to walk with injuries.

But according to the evidence of PW.1 the accused beat her when

PW.3 dropped her in the house of her husband. She did not say 6 that her brother Srinivasa Rao came to see her. Pw3 is not a eye witness present at the time of alleged beating.

17. The evidence of PW.s 1 to 3 does not disclose that the accused subjected PW.1 to harassment demanding additional dowry or relating to any valuable security. There is no evidence to show that the accused insisted her to sell the land and to bring money.

According to PW.2 the accused insisted to execute document in his favour, but according to PW.1 he insisted to sell to make job trials.

PW.3 who is the another brother did not say anything about 0-20 cents of property which was gifted to PW.1. His evidence is silent about insisting to sell away the land by accused.

18. PW.s 4, 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses who stated that the accused and PW.1 quarreled with each other due to some differences between the husband and wife. Pw4 to Pw6 were declared hostile by the learned APP as they did not support the dowry harassment. The witnesses did not say anything that the accused used to demand PW.1 to bring additional dowry from her parents. Further they did not say that the accused insisted to sell the land 0.20 cents which is in the name of PW.1. The evidence of

PW.s 4, 5 and 6 is that the accused and PW.1 used to quarrel with each other due to differences. Their statements were marked as

Ex.s P2 to P4. The evidence of PW.s 4 to 6 is not helpful to the prosecution case.

19. PW.7 is the medical officer who examined PW.1 and issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P5. He stated that there are three injuries on the body of PW.1. The wound certificate shows that the injuries are 0-6 hours prior to the examination by the medical officer. Admittedly the medical officer examined the patient i.e. PW.1 on 31-12-2012. According to PW.1 the accused beat her on 29.12.2012. PW.1 was examined after two days. The age of the injuries would be more than 48 hours. But the wound certificate shows that they are only prior to six hours which goes to show that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed to the extent that the accused assaulted her on 29-12-2012. There is difference between 7 the evidence of PW.1 and the medical opinion. As there are no independent witnesses and there are no eye witnesses to the occurrence, the sole testimony of PW.1 cannot be believed about causing hurt by the accused.

20. The investigation officer examined as PW.8 who stated that on 1-1-2013 he received hospital intimation along with the statement of victim lady. He registered the statement as a case in

Cr. No.1/13 U/S 324, 498A IPC. The medical intimation is marked as Ex.P6. The original FIR submitted to the court is marked as

Ex.P7. the rough sketch is marked as Ex.P8. The statement recorded by the police basing on the medical intimation goes to show that on 23-12-2012 PW.1 went to her parents house to attend the

Ammavari function and returned on 29-12-2012 at 5-30 a.m. The accused beat her questioning that she became late though he instructed to come her on Thursday. On that she was admitted in the government hospital by her brother.

21.The material facts mentioned in the original statement

Ex.P1 are not tallying with that of her evidence. The statement was recorded on 31-1-2013 but the injuries alleged to have been caused on 29-12-2012. As per the doctor opinion the injuries might have been caused 6 hours prior to the examination. The evidence of PW.1 relating to the injuries is not trustworthy.

22. The investigation officer stated that he did not collect any document to show that the property was given in favour of PW.1.

The I.O. admitted that PW.1 did not state before him that accused used to put pressure on her to pay money by selling the land. The original statement which was recorded in the first instance Ex.P1 does not disclose any dowry harassment or there is no whisper that the accused subjected her to ill-treatment for want of additional dowry. The only allegation made as per the FIR is that the accused questioned PW.1 about her late arrival from her parents house and beat her. There are no other eye witnesses to the occurrence.

8

23. Though PW.1 stated that the accused beat her in the presence of her brother, but PW.3 did not say anything about beating. PW.2 stated that the accused picked up quarrel and beat his sister on the head and shoulder. The version of PW.2 was not corroborated with the version of PW.1 and the medical onion. The victim failed to say anything about the dowry harassment in her statement Ex.P1 in the hospital. The delay in lodging FIR and going to hospital was not properly explained. When the alleged assault took place on 29-12-2012 she went to hospital on 31.12.2012 i.e.

after two days. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the evidence of PW.1 and 2 is nothing but the testimony of interested witnesses and it cannot be considered.

24. Considering the overall evidence on record the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is given benefit of doubt. Accordingly the points 1 to 3 are answered.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 498(A), 324 I.P.C and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 1st day of November, 2019.

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS- CUM-I

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 Addala Bharathi, P.W.2 D.Srinivasa Rao, P.W.3 D.Rambabu, N O N E P.W.4 A.Narasanna, P.W.5 A.Srinivas, 9

P.W.6 A.Lakshmi, P.W.7 Dr.S.Indira Devi, P.W.8 V.Srinivasa Rao, M.O.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Statement given by PW.1. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Ex.P.5 : Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 : Hospital Intimation, Ex.P.7 : F.I.R., Ex.P.8 : Rough sketch.

For Defence: N I L

J.F.C.M.-Cum

P.J.C.J,TANUKU.

10

CALENDER EXTRACT

Calendar Case No.92/2013 in Cr.No.1/2013 of Attili Police Station tried by Sri K.Siva Sankar, Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Tanuku, W.G.Dist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01. Date & place of Offence : 31-12-2012

02. Date of complaint or report : 01-01-2013

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 30-01-2013

04. Date of apprehension of Accused : 22-01-2013

05. Date of release of Accused : 30-01-2013

06. Date of commencement of trial : 18-09-2015

07. Date of close of trial : 24-10-2019

08. Date of sentence or Order : 01-11-2019

09. Explanation for delay : ---

10. Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar & Judgment. : ---

Calendar in C.C.No.92/2013 on the file of Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Tanuku-Cum-Prl.Junior Civil Judge, West Godavari

Division, Tanuku. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Name of the Complainant : State : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station.

2. Name of the accused and Particulars

Addala Bhupayya, S/o Satyanarayana, 32 years, Kapu, Near New Ramalayam temple, Varighedu, Attili Mandal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OFFENCE: U/Sec. 498-A and 324 I.P.C.

FINDING: Accused is found not guilty.

RESULT: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 498(A), 324 I.P.C and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

C.C.31 of 2016 1 Dt. 25.10.2018

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, TANUKU.

Present: Sri K.Siva Sankar I Additional Junior Civil Judge, FAC/II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

Thursday, this the 25th day of October, 2018.

Calendar Case No.31 of 2016

Between

Smt Kundala Krishna Veni, W/o Lakshmana Rao, female, Hindu, 48 years, House wife, Sajjapuram , Tanuku (T) (M), Town P.S. …Complainant

And

Manda Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o Rama Rao, Male, Hindu, 48 years, Employee, Employee No.4920, Sanitory Inspector, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Jawaharlal Nehru Buildings, Vijayawada -1, Krishna District, Vijayawada P.S.

This case is coming on 09.10.2018 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri G.Bhaskara Murthy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri T.V.Dasaradha Ramesh, Advocate for the accused; and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following___

J U D G M E N T

The complainant filed a complaint under section 138 and 142 of NI Act against the Accused.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that:

The accused is an Employee and he approached the complainant for loan to discharge sundry debts for which the complainant accepted. On 1.2.2013 the accused borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- and executed pronote agreeing to repay with interest at 24% p.a. On demand the accused gave cheque bearing No.237181 dt.

23.4.2014 for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayawada in favour of the complainant. The cheque was issued towards part payment . The complainant presented the said cheque through Andhra Bank, Sajjapuram, Tanuku on 28.4.2014. The cheque was sent for outward clearance. The cheque issued by the accused was returned on the ground “ACCOUNT CLOSED”. The bank issued

C.C.31 of 2016 2 Dt. 25.10.2018 cheque return memo dt. 28.4.2014. The complainant got issued statutory notice

dt. 6.5.2014 as per NI Act. The notice was sent through Registered Post. The

accused avoided the notices and left without instructions. The notices were returned on 10.5.2014. The accused is aware of the dishonour and no reply or no payment was made by the accused. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint and requested to punish the accused according to law and award compensation.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 138 of NI

Act against the accused and summons were issued to the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. and substance of the offence about dishonour of cheque was explained and read over to the accused, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the complainant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7. After closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence against the accused was read over and explained to him, for which he denied and reported no defence witnesses.

8. Heard the arguments and perused the record.. Written arguments filed on behalf of accused.

9. Now point for determination is

1) Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of legal debt or legal liability?

2) Whether the cheque issued by the accused was

dishonoured with the reason “Account closed”?

3) Whether the Statutory Notice is in accordance with law and served on the accused?

C.C.31 of 2016 3 Dt. 25.10.2018

4) Whether the complainant proved the offence under

Section 138 NI Act against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

Arguments on behalf of complainant:

10. The advocate appearing for the complainant argued that the accused borrowed money and issued cheque towards discharge of legal debt. The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured with the reason “ACCOUNT CLOSED”. The accused executed the pronote shows the legal debt . After dishonor the complainant issued legal notice to the address where the accused is working and the accused intentionally avoided to receive the notice.. PWs.1 and 2 clearly supported the transaction and dishonour of the cheque. The cheque retuned memo along with cheque and other documents marked as Exs.P1 to P6. The accused wantonly issued cheque without maintaining balance and committed offence. The complainant's counsel requested to punish the accused.

Arguments on behalf of Accused:

11. The advocate appearing for the accused filed written statement and argued that the complainant and accused are strangers. The accused stood as Guarantor to the transaction of his friend. The complainant has no capacity to advance such huge amount to the stranger. He further argued that the statutory notice issued by the complainant is not in accordance with law and the promissory note amount was demanded in the notice which is against NI Act. He further argued that notice was not served on the accused and wilfully they did not mention the correct residential address of the accused. The counsel requested to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

Point Nos.1 & 2:

12. Points 1 & 2 are answered together for better appreciation . The case of the complainant is that the accused approached and borrowed money under the Pronote Ex.P.1. I have perused the pronote which is certified copy

C.C.31 of 2016 4 Dt. 25.10.2018 marked as Ex.P.1. It was signed by the accused and one attestor and another scribe. In the pronote the name of the accused is mentioned and no address was mentioned. The recital in the Ex.P.1 pronote shows the name of the accused mentioned as resident of Vijayawada but there is no Door Number or street name or the area. However since it is signed by the accused, the court has to presume passing of consideration.

13. PW.1 deposed that the accused borrowed money and executed pronote and in discharge of pronote debt the accused got issued cheque Ex.P.2 cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, Vijayawada bearing No.237181 for Rs.3,00,000/- dt 23-4-14. Pw1 presented the cheque issued by the accused through her banker

Andhra Bank, Sajjapuram, Tanuku and the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement “ Account Closed”. The cheque return memo is marked as Ex.P.3 dt.

28.4.2014. IN the cross examination PW.`1 deposed that she lent the amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- on 01.02.2013. She knows that the accused is working as Sanitory

Inspector , Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

14. Pw1 further stated that she did not have acquaintance with the accused and she did not know who filled up the blanks in the cheque signed by the accused. But she stated that the acused gave cheque . She admitted that writing in the body of the cheque and signature are having ink differences. She admitted that she used to lend amount to 3rd parties at Tanuku and she is not an

Income Tax assessee, but she is rotating an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for interest.

She further stated that the accused brought the attestor and scribe. No witnesses attended on behalf of the complainant at the time of execution of pronote. The version of PW.1 goes to show that she advanced amount to a stranger who was introduced through one K.Arjuna Rao. The evidence of Pw1 that no witnesses present on her behalf gives a suspicion about the transaction. The cross examination goes to show that the accused is doing money lending business

C.C.31 of 2016 5 Dt. 25.10.2018 without any licence and without any income tax assessment. Since there Civil suit filed on behalf of the complainant for recovery of the pronote debt the count cannot give any finding about the pronote and transaction under the pronote. The concern of the court in the present case is relating to issue of cheque and its dishonour.

15. The complainant PW.1 deposed that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured which is evident from Ex.P.3 Cheque dishonoured Memo.

The Cheque dishonour memo goes to show that the cheque was returned with an endorsement “ACCOUNT CLOSED”. However the account closed also falls under

Cheque dishonour as held in 2012 (2) L.S. 256 Between Dasari

Venkateswarlu Vs. State of A.P. and Anr. The complainant filed the cheque returned memo marked as Ex.P3 and on production of cheque dishonour memo the court shall presume that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured.

The cheque and dishonour memo along with evidence of Pw1 clearly shows that the cheque Ex.P2 issued towards discharge of the pronote debt was dishonoured. I hold that the cheque was issued in discharge of the legal debt and the same was dishonoured with the reason “Account Closed”. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 answered in favour of the complainant and against the accused.

Points 3 and 4

16. After dishonour of the Cheque the complainant issued Statutory notice on the accused demanding payment of the amount covered under the

Cheque. In the cross examination PW.1 deposed that she do not know the contents of legal notice to the accused. She further stated that she do not know that the amount was mentioned with interest to the dishonoured notice. She stated that she do not know the legal notice was returned with an endorsement that the accused left without intimation. She do not know that both notices were sent the office address only. The cross examination shows that the Complainant

C.C.31 of 2016 6 Dt. 25.10.2018 /PW.1 is not having knowledge about the notice and its contents. Further she did not supply the correct address particulars of the accused to issue the notice.

The said aspect gives reasonable doubt about the knowledge of complainant relating to the address of the accused and arguments of the defence counsel that some 3rd person is behind filing the cheque through the complainant PW.1 cannot be ruled out.

17. The important thing to discuss about the contents of legal notice and its service. The legal notice is mandatory after dishonour of the cheque calling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the cheque. Similarly complainant PW.1 got issued legal notice and the office copy is marked as Ex.P.4

dt. 6.5.2014. The complainant/PW.1 demanded to pay the total amount covered

under the cheque and also the amount covered under the promissory note with interest at 24% p.a.. The Statutory notice under NI Act shall be confined only to the Cheque amount and demanding the pronote amount along with interest is beyond scope of the Statutory notice. In the present case the demand to pay pronote debt of Rs.3,50,000 with 24% interest is beyond scope of statutory notice. I hold that demanding the pronote amount with interest is outside the scope of the present case and the notice is invalid. Basing on invalid notice the court cannot take cognizance and proceed with the case.

18. The next aspect canversed by the defence counsel is the notice was sent to wrong address and Registered post covers returned with Addressee Left without instructions. Both the notices were sent to the Office address mentioning the name of the accused Manda Subhash Chandra Bose, Employee No.4920,

Sanitary Inspector, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Jawaharlal Nehru Buildings,

Vijayawada – I , Krishna District . Both the covers were sent on 6.5.2014 and they returned on 23.5.2014. The complainant advocate argued that the accused is working in Municipal office and notice sent to correct address is deemed service.

C.C.31 of 2016 7 Dt. 25.10.2018

He further argued that intentionally the managed to send back the notices with endorsement addressee left without instructions.

19. The advocate for the accused argued that no address was mentioned in the pronote and it was blank pronote and how complainant came to know the address is not known he requested to give benefit of doubt. I have perused the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 . It was silent about how Pw1 came know about the address of accused. The accused borrowed money by executing pronote and nowhere it is mentioned that he is working as Sanitary Inspector. However at the time of giving money the complainant did not obtain the address particulars like

Door number, street name etc. of the accused. The notices sent to the office address returned with an endorsement the Accused left with instructions. The endorsement on the returned cover clearly shows that they were not served on the accused. The notices shall be served on the accused or they shall be sent to the correct address of the accused for initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused. In the present case the notice was not delivered to the accused. I hold that without service of the notice the launching of prosecution becomes vitiated.

20. The Advocate appearing for the complainant argued that once the notice is sent to the address of the accused it is for the accused to prove non service and burden lies on the accused.

21. He relied on the decision reported in 2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 378

(A.P) between Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu Sons, rep. By its Partners.

Vs. Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another . The

Hon’ble High Court held that once the notice sent to the correct address it is

sufficient compliance of issuing notice as required under the NI Act. I have gone the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court.

22. In the present case PW.1 did not say that she sent the notice to the correct address. Further PW.1 stated that she do not know the contents of legal

C.C.31 of 2016 8 Dt. 25.10.2018 notice and to which address she sent the notice. In the circumstances the Ratio laid down in the above case is not applicable to the present case as no proof filed by Pw1 that the address is the correct address of accused. The complainant/Pw.1 sent the notice to the Accused where it was not served for the reason the addressee left without instructions. It is not the case of the complainant/PW.1 that the accused is an Employee and no such proof was filed before the Court. Further she did not mention the address of the accused in the pronote and when PW.1 is not aware of the address particulars of the accused notice sent cannot be considered as it was sent to the correct address of the accused. I hold that non service of notice of notice vitiates the trial and accused given benefit of doubt.

Accordingly points are answered.

23. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 138 of N.I. Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 25th day of October, 2018.

Sd/-K. Siva Sankar

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Tanuku

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant : For Accused : Nil

PW.1: Kundala Krishna Veni PW.2: Gadugoyyala Chakri Narasimha Kishore

Documents Marked

For Complainant : For Accused : Nil

Ex.P1/1.2.2013: Certified copy of pronote executed by accused in favour of complainant for Rs.3,50,000/-

Ex.P2/23.4.2014: Cheque bearing No.237181 for Rs.3,00,000/-

C.C.31 of 2016 9 Dt. 25.10.2018

Ex.P3/28.4.2014: Cheque return memo

Ex.P4/6.5.2014: Office copy of statutory notice

Ex.P5/-- : Returned notices from the accused as left without instructions

Ex.P6/-- : Certified copy of written statement filed by the accused as defendant in the suit in OS No.22/2016 on the file of Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Tanuku

Id/- K.S.S.

I AJCJ

FAC/ IIAJFCM Tanuku.

C.C.31 of 2016 10 Dt. 25.10.2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.31/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, TANUKU.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Complaint Apprehension Release Taken Commence Close Order Offence or report of accused on bail on file -ment of trial of trial of sentence ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28.4.14 16.6.14 -- -- 26.11.15 12.03.18 27.06.18 25.10.18 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Name of the Complainant :

Smt Kundala Krishna Veni, W/o Lakshmana Rao, female, Hindu, 48 years, House wife, Sajjapuram , Tanuku (T) (M), Town P.S..

Name of the Accused:

Manda Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o Rama Rao, Male, Hindu, 48 years, Employee, Employee No.4920, Sanitory Inspector, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Jawaharlal Nehru Buildings, Vijayawada -1, Krishna District, Vijayawada P.S

Offence: Under Section 138 NI Act against the accused.

Finding : Found not Guilty

RESULT Accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-K. Siva Sankar

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/II Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Tanuku Seal Copy submitted to

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G. District, Eluru.

Id/- K. S.S.

I AJCJ

FAC/ IIAJFCM Tanuku.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-

CUM-PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

PRESENT: Sri K.Siva Sankar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

Friday, the 01st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.74/2015

Between :

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station. …Complainant.

And

1)Pilli Kalyani, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Female, Hindu, 30 years,

C/Setti Balija, Housewife, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal,

2)Tangellla Venkata Rao, S/o.Ganganna, Male, Hindu, 55 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal,

3)Tangella Durga Bhavani, D/o.Venkata Rao, Female, Hindu,

C/Setti Balija, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal,

4)Pechetti Anantha Lakshmi, D/o.Annavaram, Female, Hindu, 26 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.8-25, Koppisettivari Street, Penugonda Village & Mandal.

5)Pechetti Kanaka Ratnam, W/o.Annavaram, Female, Hindu, 44 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.8-25, Koppisettivari Street, Penugonda Village & Mandal.

This case coming on 30-10-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri Ch.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.26/2015 under sections 448, 323, 380, 506(2) & 120-B r/w 34 I.P.C. against the accused.

2

2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

The defacto-complainant is father-in-law of the accused A.1.

The marriage of the defacto-complainant was celebrated with A.1 on 27-12-2002. After the marriage A.1 used to pick up small quarrels with her husband and father-in-law. While it was so on 08-01-2015, A.1 quarreled with them and left the house and went to her parent’s house. Again on 10-01-2015 all the above accused trespassed into the house and defacto-complainant i.e., the father-in-law and beat the inmates and committed theft of gold and silver articles from their house and threatened them with dire consequences. Basing on the endorsed private complaint given by the defacto-complainant. The Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Crime No.26/2015 under sections 448, 380, 323, 506(2) & 120(B), r/w 34 IPC r/w Section 156(3) and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation the Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 08-03-2015 all the accused turned up to police station and obtained Anticipatory Bail and A.1 to A.5 produced sureties. The Investigation Officer verified the sureties and released them on bail. The investigation revealed that A.1 used to go to her parent’s house and pick up quarrel with her husband. During the wedlock A.1 was blessed with two children.

A.1 used to quarrel with her father-in-law and her husband and on 10-01-2015 all the accused hatched up a plan and trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed theft and assaulted the defacto-complainant with hand and legs. Due to huge cries raised by the defacto-complainant the neighbours went and separated. On the above grounds the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet and requested to punish the accused according to law.

3

2) The case was taken on file under sections 448, 323, 380, 506(2) and 120(B) r/w 34 IPC against the accused and summons were issued.

3) On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. They were examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and substance of the offence is read over and explained to the accused. For which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to

P.4 and Ex.D.1 marked.

5) After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them, for which they denied and reported no deference evidence.

6) Heard both sides.

7) Now the points for determination are as follows :--

i) Whether the prosecution proved the offence under sections 448, 323, 380, 506(2) and 120(B) r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

8) Arguments on behalf of the prosecution:

The Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor argued that P.Ws.1 and 2 supported the incident and requested to punish the accused.

9) The Learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the accused A.1 filed dowry harassment case U/S 498-A against the defacto-complainant and his son, who are the father- in-law and husband and others. Due to the grudge the present complaint is filed as a counter blast and to dilute the dowry harassment case. He argued that the accused A.1 was driven out by the defacto-complainant and his son demanding to bring dowry. The allegation that accused committed theft along with other people is utterly false. The police refused to entertain the 4 complaint and on that Pw1 filed private complaint. The delay is fatal to the case. The independent witnesses P.Ws.3 , 5 and 6 did not support the prosecution evidence and non examination of I.O fatal to the prosecution case. The counsel requested to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

P O I N T:

10. I have perused the charge sheet and the evidence on record, including the material placed on behalf of both sides. The defacto-complainant filed private complainant before the court which was endorsed to police for registration. Basing on the endorsed complaint police registered case and filed charge sheet.

Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 to prove the allegation against the accused. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant, who is none other than the father-in-law of A.1. He deposed that 4 years back they lost some gold and the incident occurred between 4-00 P.M. All the five accused took away the gold. The gold articles are (1)

Necklace, Gold Rings & Gold Chain. The total gold is 25 sovereigns. The silver 250 grams was taken away.

He further deposed that the accused behaved high-handedly and manhandled him and took away gold and silver. He gave police report but they did not register the case and on that he filed a private complaint. His complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and in the cross-examination the witness stated that after 15 or 20 days of the occurrence he filed private complaint. He admitted that his daughter-in-law A.1 filed dowry harassment case against him, his wife and son.

11) P.W.1 is a crucial witness and his evidence does not lend credence. Admittedly A.1 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 who filed case under 498-A IPC. The allegation that the accused along with others took the gold was not supported by any other witness.

Pw1 failed to say the date of offence. Any complaint without day and date becomes doubtful. When the theft he did not rush to the police station immediately. In the opening lines he stated that 5 about four years back they lost some gold. However when Pw1 lost the gold accused cannot be made responsible. In view of the dowry harassment case filed by A.1 false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.

P.W.1 stated that he has taken treatment, but no such certificate was produced and no such Doctor was examined. The main allegation that he filed a complaint after 15 or 20 days creates a doubt about the occurrence of theft. The further allegation that all the accused trespassed into the house is not attracted since A.1 is no other than the daughter-in-law having right of stay in the matrimonial house. There is no whisper about the threatening and beating. The section 448 is not attracted against A1.

12) P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1 and he is husband of A.1. He stated that that A.1 gave gold items and the alleged documents including cheque to A.4 and A.5. He further stated that he was not present at the time of incident. Since he was not present at the time of incident his version is nothing but hearsay evidence and the same cannot be believed. Pw.2 evidence will not help the prosecution as Pw.2 is not an eye witness.

In the cross-examination he stated that after the occurrence

A.1 stayed with him in the house for 3 months and after 3 months they lodged private complaint. The version of P.W.2 shows even after the alleged offence against A.1 to A.5 she lived with him for 3 months. If really A.1 committed theft, the defacto- complaint would not have allowed to stay without giving back gold and silver.

13) The important neighbouring witnesses Pw4 to Pw6 who are the alleged eye witnesses turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution. Their statements marked as Ex.P2 to

P6. The next witness P.W.3 is wife of P.W.1 and mother-in-law of

A.1. She deposed that about 6 years ago on one day all the 6 accused took away gold and nothing happened. When P.W.3 says that nothing happened which goes to show that the assault and other allegations made by P.W.1 are not correct and P.W.1 is giving exaggerated version.

14) The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does not disclose any date of alleged occurrence. The allegation that P.W.1 that they took away gold at 4 or 5 P.M. does not inspire any confidence. No person will committ theft during day time in the presence of the family members. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is not trustworthy. I hold that P.Ws.1 and 3 are giving exaggerated version only to water down the dowry harassment case filed by A.1.

15) In the present case, the Investigating Officer did not come before the court inspite of issuing summons number of times. The Advocate argued that the Investigating Officer registered a false case, hence he is not coming before the court to give evidence and the non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case. Though P.W.1 alleged about the theft the Investigation Officer did not recover even a single gram of gold from the accused. The court cannot believe theft without the recovery of property. It appears that the present case is filed

before the court only to create troubles and made A1 to yield to

their pressures.

16) When wife filed a dowry harassment case against in-laws the court has to be careful in appreciating the counter case against daughter-in-law by the in-laws. If the court is not careful every victim who filed 498-A case against husband and in-laws will become accused in a false case filed by husband or in-laws.

The present case is nothing but a counter blast to the case of A1 filed against her husband and in-laws.

17)Considering the overall evidence on record the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all 7 reasonable doubts and the accused 1 to 5 are given benefit of doubt.

18) In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 323, 380, 506 (2) and section 120(b) r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of all the accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-

CUM-I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 : Pilli Satyanarayana. P.W.2 : Pilli Srinivasa Rao. –None - P.W.3 : Pilli Bhulakshmi. P.W.4 : Pampana Pullamsetti. P.W.5 : Peethani Manga. P.W.6 : Ratna Kumari.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1/09-02-2015 : Complaint. Ex.P.2/12-02-2015: 161Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3/12-02-2015 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement P.W.2. Ex.P.4/12-02-2015: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3.

For Defence:

Ex.D.1/12-02-2015: 161Cr.P.C.Statement of Pilli Satyanarayana

J.F.C.M.-Cum

P.J.C.J,TANUKU.

8

CALENDER EXTRACT

Calendar Case No.74/2015 in Cr.No.26/2015 of Penugonda P.S. tried by Sri K.Siva Sankar, Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Tanuku, W.G.Dist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

01. Date & place of Offence : 08-01-2015

02. Date of complaint or report : 08-01-2015

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 14-05-2015

04. Date of apprehension of Accused : 08-01-2015

05. Date of release of Accused : 02-03-2015

06. Date of commencement of trial : 27-06-2019

07. Date of close of trial : 12-09-2019

08. Date of sentence or Order : 01-11-2019

09. Explanation for delay : ---

10. Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar & Judgment : ---

Calendar in C.C.No.74/2015 on the file of Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Tanuku-Cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, West Godavari

Division, Tanuku.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

1. Name of the Complainant : State : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penugonda Police Station.

2. Name of the accused and Particulars

1)Pilli Kalyani, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Female, Hindu, 30 years,

C/Setti Balija, Housewife, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal,

2)Tangellla Venkata Rao, S/o.Ganganna, Male, Hindu, 55 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal,

3)Tangella Durga Bhavani, D/o.Venkata Rao, Female, Hindu,

C/Setti Balija, Door No.1-29, behind Sivalayam, K.Kumudavalli Village, Iragavaram Mandal, 9

4)Pechetti Anantha Lakshmi, D/o.Annavaram, Female, Hindu, 26 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.8-25, Koppisettivari Street, Penugonda Village & Mandal.

5)Pechetti Kanaka Ratnam, W/o.Annavaram, Female, Hindu, 44 years, C/Setti Balija, Door No.8-25, Koppisettivari Street, Penugonda Village & Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - OFFENCE: U/Secs. under sections 448, 323, 380, 506(2) & 120-

B r/w 34 I.P.C.

FINDING:- Accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty.

RESULT: In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 448, 323, 380, 506 (2) and section 120(b) r/w 34 I.P.C. and they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of all the accused ad sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-CUM

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TANUKU.

PRESENT: Sri K.Siva Sankar

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.

Friday, the 1st day of November, 2019

Calendar Case No.90/2016

Between :

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Attili Police Station. …Complainant.

And

1) Dusampudi Ramadevi @ Kumari, W/o. Srinivas, 48 years, Kapu, Door No.12-1, Sai Durga Nagar, Palangi village, Undrajavaram Mandal.

2) Pattavalla Navakanth, S/o.Nataraj, 28 years, Koppuvelama, car driver, Sriram Peta, Palakaol.

3) Inti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, 43 years, Kapu, Car Driver, Sriram Peta, Palakol.

4) Nandyala Murhy @ Venkata Srirama Murthy, S/o.Suryanarayana, 26 years, Kapu, Milk Business, Velamagudem, Palakol.

5) Bhogadi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Simhachalam, 36 years, Gowda, Chothes business, Velamagudem, Palakol. … Accused.

This case is coming on 31-10-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and of Sri K.A.Padmanabham, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.1/2013

Under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

2) The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:-

On 14-04-2015 the Inspector of Police along with his staff, woman constable and mediators proceeded to door no.12-1 of Sai

Durga Nagar, Palangi village, Undrajavaram Mandal which is in the middle of dwelling house and noticed that A.1 is running prostitution. On enquiry A.1 revealed that she is running prostitution. Then they noticed two woman and two male persons coming out of a room and noticed another person standing near the house. The investigation officer rescued two victim women and seized cell phones and cash, used and unused condoms and arrested A.1 to A.5 in the presence of mediators under cover of a mediator report. Basing on the mediator report the Head Constable registered the case in Cr.No.38/2015 U/S.3,4, 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act and the Inspector further investigated the case.

During the further course of investigation the inspector arrested all the accused and sent them for remand. The victim girls

Naga Sankara Parvathi and Dharmavarapu Nagalakshmi were sent to Ujjwala shelter home, Eluru. After completion of investigation the investigation officer filed chargesheet.

3) The case was taken on file under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused A1 to A5 and summons were issued to them.

4) On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused 1 to 5 as required under section 207 of

Cr.P.C. Accused 1 to 5 are examined Under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and a charge U/S 498(A), 324 IPC were framed read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to

P.8. The Learned APP given up rest of the witnesses.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, accused 1 to 5 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to the accused, for which they denied and reported no deference evidence.

7) Heard both sides.

8) Now the point for determination is as follows :

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the accused 1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts?

ARGUMENTS

9) The Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved the offence against the accused and the evidence of PW.1 to 8 is reliable. She requested to rely on the evidence of mediator and police officials and Ex.s P1 to P8. She requested to punish the accused according to law.

10) The advocate appearing for the accused vehemently argued that except the V.R.O. and police constable, all the witnesses PW.s 2 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The

G.O. authorizing the Inspector was not filed and the CI can not investigated the case under I.T.P. Act. He requested to give benefit of doubt.

POINT :

11) I have perused the evidence, chargesheet and the material placed on behalf of prosecution. PW.1 is the V.R.O. who stated that he accompanied police and reached the door no. 12-1 where they noticed one male person and another person coming out of the bed- room. He further noticed one woman and two male persons were sitting in the house. On seeing the police they tried to ran away.

Then the Inspector along with his staff stopped them. They revealed that they are doing prostitution. The investigation officer seized eight cell phones and cash of Rs.2,900/- including Honda Splendor motor cycle and Bajaj Pulser motor cycle. The case property is marked as MO.s 1 to 12 and the mediator report is marked as

Ex.P1.

12) According to the V.R.O. he saw one woman and two male persons sitting in the house. He noticed that one male person and another person coming out of the room. Except that he did not say anything about the prostitution. The evidence that they admitted that they are doing prostitution cannot be believed since the admission made before the police is not admissible in evidence.

In the cross examination he stated that he prepared the mediator report and the head constable gave the instructions. The report was completed at 7-15 p.m, after that the police arrested the accused. He further stated that he cannot identify the accused and has no prior acquaintance with the accused. The important witness fail to identify the accused.

13) PW.s 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the independent neighbouring witnesses who turned hostile. They categorically stated that they do not know anything about the case facts.

14) PW.6 is the woman constable who stated that she followed the inspector and reached door no.12-1 of Palangi village and they noticed one girl and one person coming out of the room, similarly another girl and another person came out from the 2nd room and they detailed them, they confessed about doing prostitution. She further stated that the three ladies handed over to her.

In the cross examination she stated that she cannot say the boundaries and neighbours of the scene of offence and she do not remember the name of the V.R.O. She cannot say the details of the rooms and persons as she stay to 6-30 p.m. The evidence of woman constable gives doubt about her presence in the spot as she unable to give details. It is not safe to rely on the evidence of W.P.C without corroboration from the independent witness.

15) The Head constable who registered the case examined as

PW.7. He stated that the inspector sent the mediator report and instructed him to register a case. On that he registered the case in

Cr.No.38/15 and the original FIR is Ex.P6. Except registering the case PW.7 do not know anything about the case.

16) The investigation officer was examined as PW.8 and he the material witness. The mediator report for seizure of the property is marked as Ex.P7 and the rough sketch is marked as Ex.P8. He stated that on information he proceeded to door no.12-1 which is a daba house at 5-10 p.m. and noticed prostitution is going on, then he caught hold of A.1 who confessed that she is running prostitution. Then they rescued two victim women and noticed four male persons who came out of the room. He took them into custody under a cover of mediator report and seized cell phones and condoms and cash.

17) The witness categorically stated that A1 confessed prostitution. But it is settled law that the confession of A.1 made

before police is not admissible in evidence. The seizure of property

though affected by the Investigation officer does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that the currency notes seized were printed subsequent to the offence by R.B.I. the currency notes contains the year of printing which is subsequent to the year of occurrence i.e. 2015. When the currency notes does not tally with the year of occurrence, court cannot rely on the seizure of notes from the accused.

18) It is openly clear that the notes having subsequent year are not available in the market on the date of offence i.e. in the year 2015 and they were not seized on the date of raid. The whole theory of raid conducted by the Inspector washed away as the notes printed in subsequent year. In the cross I.O. admitted that the notes are having subsequent year and they does not relates to the year of occurrence.

19) The confession made by the accused A.1 is not admissible in evidence and the case property currency notes does not pertains to that occurrence year which creates a reasonable doubt about the arrest and seizure. I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are given benefit of doubt.

20) In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence U/S. 3, 4, 5 and 7of I.T.P. Act and they are acquitted

U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of all accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required U/S 437(A) Cr.P.C.

MO.s 1 to 8 Cell-phones which are out of use and not in working condition are ordered to be destroyed; MO.9 and 10

Vehicles are ordered to be returned to the respective registered owners; MO.11 is ordered to be destroyed; and MO.12 cash of

Rs.2,900/- is confiscated to the state; after appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade-III, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 1st day of November, 2019.

JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS- CUM-I

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

TANUKU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 P.V.Suryachandra Rao, P.W.2 G.N.S.Parvathi, P.W.3 D.Srinivas, N O N E P.W.4 P.Satyanarayana, P.W.5 D.Sromovasa Rao, P.W.6 M.Surya Kumari, P.W.7 M.Rama Rao, P.W.8 R.Anka Babu.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Report given by V.R.O. (PW.1), Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2, Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3, Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Ex.P.6 : F.I.R., Ex.P.7 : Mediator report, Ex.P.8 : Rough sketch.

For Defence: N I L

J.F.C.M.-Cum

P.J.C.J,TANUKU.

CALENDER EXTRACT

Calendar Case No.90/2016 in Cr.No.38/2015 of Tanuku Town Police Station tried by Sri K.Siva Sankar, Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge,Tanuku, W.G.Dist. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01. Date & place of Offence :14-04-2015 at Palangi

02. Date of complaint or report : 14-04-2015

03. Date of filing of charge sheet : 22-05-2015

04. Date of apprehension of Accused : 14-04-2015

05. Date of release of Accused : 21-04-2015

06. Date of commencement of trial : 18-07-2019

07. Date of close of trial : 31-10-2019

08. Date of sentence or Order : 01-11-2019

09. Explanation for delay : ---

10. Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar & Judgment. : ---

Calendar in C.C.No.90/2016 on the file of Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Tanuku-Cum-Prl.Junior Civil Judge, West Godavari

Division, Tanuku. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Name of the Complainant : State : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town P.S.

2. Name of the accused and Particulars

1) Dusampudi Ramadevi @ Kumari, W/o. Srinivas, 48 years, Kapu, Door No.12-1, Sai Durga Nagar, Palangi village, Undrajavaram Mandal.

2) Pattavalla Navakanth, S/o.Nataraj, 28 years, Koppuvelama, car driver, Sriram Peta, Palakaol.

3) Inti Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, 43 years, Kapu, Car Driver, Sriram Peta, Palakol.

4) Nandyala Murhy @ Venkata Srirama Murthy, S/o.Suryanarayana, 26 years, Kapu, Milk Business, Velamagudem, Palakol.

5) Bhogadi Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Simhachalam, 36 years, Gowda, Chothes business, Velamagudem, Palakol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFENCE: U/Secs. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956.

FINDING: Accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty.

RESULT: In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence U/S. 3, 4, 5 and 7of I.T.P. Act and they are acquitted U/S 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of all accused and sureties shall continue for a period of six months as required U/S 437(A) Cr.P.C.

--2--

MO.s 1 to 8 Cell-phones which are out of use and not in working condition are ordered to be destroyed; MO.9 and 10 Vehicles are ordered to be returned to the respective registered owners; MO.11 is ordered to be destroyed; and MO.12 cash of Rs.2,900/- is confiscated to the state; after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku.