Sri K.Sree Ranga Raju

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri K. Sreerangaraju, LLB.,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

WEDNESDAY, this the 30 th day of January, 2013

CC No.172/2012

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station, Sabbavaram …Complainant A n d:

Varri Tata Babu @ Raju, S/o Appalanaidu, 29 years, K. Velama, Pillavarithota, Chodavaram Village and Mandal. …Accused

This case coming on 29-01-2013 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri G. Paradesi, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.106/2012 against the sole accused for the alleged offences u/sec. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC.

2.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 23-08-2012 at 7.00 p.m. L.W.1 Lanka Venkata Satya Kameswara Rao after completion of “Deeparadhana”, locked the inner and main doors of

Sri Venugopalaswamy Temple. Subsequently in the early hours on 24-08- 2012 when L.W.1 Lanka Venkata Satya Kameswara Rao came to the temple and he noticed the main doors and inner doors of the temple were broken and also noticed that Silver Kundhilu Wg. about 30 tulas, Silver

Plate Wg. about 10 tulas, Silver Krishna idol Wg. about 2 tulas, Silver

Lakshmi idol Wg. about 2 tulas, Silver Radhakrishna idol Wg. about 3 tulas,

Silver Sathagopuram Wg. about 10 tulas, and a D.V.D Player were stolen by an un-known person. The total worth of the stolen property is Rs.

17,000/-. Basing on the complaint of L.W.1, L.W.10 D.V.Ramana, S.I of

Police registered a case in Cr.No. 106/2012 u/sec. 457, 380 and investigated into. During the course of investigation L.W.10 visited the scene of offence, examined the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene and also examined four witnesses and recorded their statements and on 27-09-2012 L.W.9 B. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police, Chodavaram P.S.

arrested the accused and recovered Silver Plate, Silver Krishna idol, Silver

Lakshmi Idol, Silver Sathagopam and HSMI Company D.V.D. Player from the possession of the accused under cover of mediators report which was attested by L.W.5 Pulapa Rambabu and L.W.6 Pasumarthi Kamaraju Gupta and the accused forwarded for judicial remand. L.W.1 identified the recovered property during test of identification conducted by

L.W.7 Tatipamula Sekhar and L.W.8. Lakhinana Kessavarao. After completion of investigation, L.W.10 laid charge sheet against the accused for the above said sections.

3.The case was taken on file against sole accused for the offences under Section 457 and 380 IPC.

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

5 The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charges for the offences under Section 457 and 380 IPC and alternatively 411 IPC were framed for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The accused stated that he has no sufficient means to engage a counsel to defend his case. On request of accused Legal Aid Counsel is appointed to defend the case of accused and the accused is in jail through out the period of trial.

7.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.Os 1 to 4. The Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 4, 6 and 7.

8.After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against him for which he denied and reported no defence.

9Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is: -

11. “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences

punishable U/Secs. 457 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC or not”?

12. To prove the case of the prosecution that some unknown person committed theft of the silver idols of Radha Krishna, Lakshmi, Sri

Krishna, Satagopam and Silver Kundhulu and one D.V.D. Player from

Venugopalaswamy Temple in the late hours of 23-08-2012. Noticing the same L.W.1 lodged a report in the police station on 24-08- 2012. At the time of evidence before the court L.W.1 who was examined as P.W.1 stated that the property which was recovered by the police and handed over to him and that property are not one of the same. He further stated that M.Os 1 to 4 were recently donated by the donor and which were in his custody at the time of theft and were used occasionally.

13. However, the property which were marked as M.Os 1 to 4 are branded new idols which were never being used. P.W.2 who was ranked as mediators which was alleged to be present on 27-09-2012 at the time of arrest and recovery of the property, turned against the prosecution.

L.W.9 who was examined as P.W.4 in his evidence categorically admitted that no property was seized or recovered from the possession of the accused at the time of arrest. As per the deposition of P.W.4 the accused simply stated that he was involved in an offence committed in a temple at Sabbavaram Police Station limits. Except that there was no confession or statement given by the accused to lead the police for recovery of any material object. So from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4, it can be said that no property was seized or recovered from the possession of the accused. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to bring out the guilt against the accused for the offences u/secs.457, 380 or 411 I.P.C.

14. The present case is filed basing on the statement given by the accused.

However, P.W2 ranked as mediator who was present at the scene at the time of preparing mediators report, turned against the prosecution.

Hence as there is no evidence against the accused. It can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of January, 2013.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: L.V.Satya Kameswara Rao None

P.W.2: P. Rambabu

P.W.3: D. V. Ramana, S.I of Police, Sabbavaram P.S.

P.W.4: B. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police, Chodavaram P.S.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Signature of the statement of P.W1

Ex.P.2:Signature of the statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.3 : Rough Sketch

Ex.P.4: Mediators report.

For Accused:Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O1 : Silver Satagopam

M.O2: Silver idol of Venugopalaswamy

M.O3: Silver idol of Lakshmi Devi

M.O4 : Silver plate.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle. //True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 23-08-2012 Date of report or complaint: : 24-08-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 27-09-2012 Date release on bail, if any: - Date of commencement of trial: 04-01-2013 Close of trial: 29-01-2013 Date of sentence or other order: 30-01-2013

Explanation of delay and remarks: There is no delay __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.172/2012 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name Varri Tata Babu @ Raju, S/o Appalanaidu, 29 years, K. Velama, Pillavarithota, Chodavaram Village and Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:457, 380 or 411 IPC

Finding: found not guilty

Sentence: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri K. Sreerangaraju, LLB., Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Thursday, this the 31 st day of January, 2013

CC No.42/2010

Between:

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

A n d:

Angati Trimurthulu, S/o Ramulu, 25 years, Settibalija, Driver of motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 AX 9723, R/o Mogalipuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 30-01-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri K. P.Naidu, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.01/2010 against the accused for the alleged offence u/sec. 338 IPC.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 31-12-2009 at about 2.30 hrs., the accused driver of motor cycle bearing no. AP 31 AX 9723 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Pinagadi Village and proceeding towards Gullepalli Village and dahsed L.W.2 Rayavarapu Appalanaidu from behind. As a result L.W.2

Rayavarapu Appalanaidu received grievous injuries to his both legs. He was rescued by L.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 Sabbavarapu Ramana, Rayavarapu Srinivasa Rao and

Rayavarapu Appalanaidu and admitted him in S.R.Hospital, Gopalapatnam,

Visakhapatnam for treatment. On 02-01-2010 at 11.00 a.m L.W.7 Y. Murali Rao,

S.I of Police registered a case in Cr.No.1/2010 u/sec.338 IPC and investigated into.

L.W.7 also visited the scene of offence on the same day and examined the same and prepared rough sketch and also examined four witnesses and recorded their statements. On 19-01-2010 L.W.7 arrested the accused and forwarded him for remand and after receipt of wound certificate, M.V.I report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said section.

03.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under

Section 338 IPC.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05 The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 338 IPC for which he denied the entire allegation made against him and intended to be tried.

06The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and

Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

07After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and explaining the incriminating circumstances alleged against him by the prosecution which was denied by the accused and reported no defence evidence.

08Heard arguments on both sides.

09Now the point for determination are: -

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 338

IPC or not”?

As per the evidence of P.W 2, he had seen the accused driving the motor cycle on the date of incident and as per his evidence it was the accused who drove the motor cycle and hit L.W.2 Rayavarapu Appalanaidu. So as per the evidence of P.W.2 it can be said that the prosecution has proved that the accused was the person driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. As per the prosecution witnesses except P.W.2 none witnessed the incident. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the accused drove the crime vehicle speedily, hit L.W.2

Rayavarapu Appalanaidu. Though L.W.2 stated that the accused drove the crime vehicle with speedy manner. There was no evidence said that at what speed the vehicle was driven.

10. In order to prove the guilt against the accused driving the crime vehicle at speedy manner is not only the criteria. There was no evidence from the prosecution to said that there had been a rash and negligent act on the part of the accused in driving the crime vehicle.

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P in 2010 Vol. II A.L.D Page 376 (A.P) at

Para No.34 stated that: “It is an overact that most of the Investigating Officers make investigation in a crucial manner. In most of the cases, particularly in accident cases, the drivers should be strangers to the witnesses and the injured witnesses. Therefore, Investigation Officers must be very careful.

Normally, the vehicle involved in the accident will be present at the scene of offence. Thus, Investigation Officer must try to seize all the necessary documents which connect the accused with the crime like trip sheet, driving license or any other documents which reveal the identity of the accused. In the case of APSRTC bus or even a private bus, the police must seized the statistical report and other documents, if any, available with the conductor or in the cabin to connect the driver of the bus with the crime. Similarly, wherein a case the witnesses claim that they can identify the driver of the bus, then the investigation officer must have some patience, and record the physical features of the accused as narrated by the witnesses. If at all the accused had left any of his personal belongings at the scene of offence or in the bus, then those material objects should be collected so that they establish the identity of the accused wherein a case a bus is involved in the accident normally besides injured persons or the other witnesses who are available at the scene of offence, passengers and the crew of the bus will be available. The examination of the conductor of the bus or the cleaner of the bus. It is unfortunate that in most of the case, the Investigating Officer do not follow such procedure. In some cases driver of the vehicle had in fact rendered some help to the injured persons or even if he is available at the scene of offence, for the best reasons known to the police officers, do not show the arrest of the accused.”

So from the above evidence it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to bring out the guilt against the accused u/sec.338 IP'C.

11.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/sec.338 IPC and he is acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court

on this the 31 st day of January, 2013

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused: P.W.1: Sabbavarapu Ramana None P.W.2: Rayavarapu Srinuvasa Rao P.W.3: Dr. V.S.S.Sarma P.W.4: Y. Muarali Rao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 :Police Report given by P.W1. Ex.P.2 :Rough Sketch. Ex.P.3 :Wound Certificate. Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch Ex.P6 : M.V.I Report.

For Accused:Nil.

Material Objects Marked

Nil.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

//True copy//

AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 31-12-2009 Date of report or complaint: : 02-01-2010 Date of apprehension of accused: 19-01-2010 Date release on bail, if any: 19-01-2010 Date of commencement of trial: 16-11-2012 Close of trial: 28-01-2013 Date of sentence or other order: 31-01-2013

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.42/2010 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle. Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. ________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name Angati Trimurthulu, S/o Ramulu, 25 years, Settibalija, Driver of motor Cycle bearing No. AP 31 AX 9723, R/o Mogalipuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:338 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: The accused is found guilty for the offence u/sec.338 IPC and he is acquitted u/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of

judgement.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri K. Sreerangaraju, LLB.,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

THURSDAY, this the 31 ST day of January, 2013

CC No.1177/2008

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station, Sabbavaram …Complainant A n d:

Balireddy Demudu, S/o Appala Naidu, 21 years, Kapu by caste, Nayanammapalem, R/o Marripalem, Sabbavaram Mandal. …Accused

This case coming on 30-01-2013 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri P.V.Ramana Rao Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.110/2012 against the sole accused for the alleged offences u/sec. 457 and 380 or 411 IPC.

2.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On the night of 20-12-2002 at about 21.00 hrs., L.W.1 Bokam Demudu closed his shop by locking the same and went to his house. On the intervening night of 20/21-12-2002 an unknown culprits gained entry into the shop of L.W.1 Bokam Demudu by breaking the lock of the shutter of the shop located at the rear side of the shop and committed theft of one

Sound Max made black & white Television and one Videocon Colour TV and purloined with the stolen Televisions, all worth of Rs.8,000/-. On the report given by L.W.1, L.W.8 M.Abbas Hussain, A.S.I of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.110/2002 u/sec.457 and 380 I.P.C. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined the scene of offence in the presence of L.Ws 4 Lakhinana Kesavarao and L.W.5 Gampa Seetha

Ramaiah under the cover of an Observation report and L.W.9 S.I of Police verified the investigation done by L.W.8 and arrested the accused on 14-01-2003 and the accused made a confession involving his complicity in commission of this offence and disclosed further that he kept the stolen

Videocon Protable Colour TV at the house of his grand father located at

Marripalem. L.W.9 also conducted identification parade of both the seized

Televisions duly identified by L.W.1 Bokam Demudu in the presence of

L.Ws 6 Donga Jagannadha Rao and 7 Dandeti Jogalingeswararao and sent the accused for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said sections.

3.The case was taken on file against sole accused for the offences under Section 457 and 380 or 411 IPC.

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

5 The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charges for the offences under Section 457 and 380 IPC and alternatively 411 IPC were framed for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P4 and M.Os 1 and 2. The Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.Ws.5 to 8.

7.After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against him for which he denied and reported no defence.

9Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is: -

11. “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC or not”?

12. It is the case of the prosecution that an unknown person gained entry into the shop of P.W.1 by breaking the locks of the shutter and stoled M.Os 1 and 2 worth of Rs. 8,000/-. Upon the report of P.W.1,

P.W.3 registered a case in Cr.No.110/02. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he came to know about the incident from the neighbouring shop owners and when he rushed to the scene and he noticed two Televisions were missing. The evidence of P.W.1 was not cross examined. P.W.2 who was the mediator and who attended while drafting mediators report deposed that he observed the shutter of the shop was broken and in his presence the police drafted scene observation report and also attested the same and he also further deposed that upon the dictation of P.W.3 he drafted

Ex.P4 report. Even though he was cross examined, nothing was elicited to impeach the credibility of the witness. P.W.3 who verified the investigation made by L.W.8 M.Abbas Hussain, A.S.I of Police was not cross examined by the accused.

13. However, L.W.8 M.Abbas Hussain, A.S.I of Police, the

Investigation Officer in the present case was given up by Learned A.P.P.

Had there been an opportunity for the accused to examine the

Investigation done by L.W8 who is Investigation Officer without any reason assigned. L.W.8 was given up by Learned A.P.P. Hence without examining the Investigation Officer it cannot be said that the accused had a fair opportunity while examining or elicit the facts which would be vital in bringing out the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the circumstances though the mediator supports the case of the prosecution without any corroboration. It cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 31 st day of January, 2013.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: Bokam Demudu None

P.W.2: K. Kesavarao

P.W.3: K. Kumaraswamy , S.I of Police

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Police Report given by P.W1

Ex.P.2:Scene Observation report

Ex.P.3 : Confession Statement.

Ex.P.4: Mediators report.

For Accused:Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O1 : Black & White Portable Colour T.V.

M.O2: Videocon Portable Colour T.V.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

//True copy//

AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 20/21-12-2002 Date of report or complaint: : 21-12-2002 Date of apprehension of accused: 14-01-2003 Date release on bail, if any: 20-01-2013 Date of commencement of trial: 13-12-2012 Close of trial: 17-01-2013 Date of sentence or other order : 31-01-2013

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several

adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses

__________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1177/2008 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name Balireddy Demudu, S/o Appala Naidu, 21 years, Kapu by caste, Nayanammapalem, R/o Marripalem, Sabbavaram Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:457, 380 or 411 IPC

Finding: found not guilty

Sentence: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 457, 380 or 411 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri K. Sreerangaraju, LLB.,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this the 15 th day of February, 2013

CC No.1157/2008

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station, Kasimkota …Complainant

A n d:

1. Pothala Nookaratnam, W/o Musilinaidu, age 45 years, Kapu by caste, Cultivation,Vissannapetavillage,KasimkotaMandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Nadisetti Mani, W/o Mallinaidu, age 28 years, Kapu, Cultivation of Vissannapeta village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…Accused

This case coming on 12-02-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri D. Chalapathi Rao Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.49/2008 against the sole accused for the alleged offences u/sec. 324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C.

2.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 20-04-2008 at 4.00p.m. A.1 and her daughter A.2 beat P.W.1 Pothala

Jyothi with brass pot and she reported the matter to elders with who warned them and on 21-04-2008 at 5.00 p.m. when her husband was not present at her house the accused 1 and 2 came to her house with kerosene and a match box, abused P.W.1 with filthy language, caught hold of her tuft of hair and dragged her from her out. L.W.1 escaped from their hands and reported the incident to the village elders as they did not take any action against A1 and A1, she filed complaint at police station. On 23- 04-2008 L.W.5 T. Bhaskara Rao, A.S.I of Police, Kasimkota Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 49/2008, u/sec.324, 509 r/w 34

I.P.C. and during the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. L.W.4 who treated the injured, issued Wound Certificate and opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. L.W.5 arrested the accused on 03-05-2008 and forwarded them to remand. After verifying the investigation done by L.W.5, L.W.6 K.V. Balakrishna, Sub

Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under Section 324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charges for the offences under Section 324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C were framed for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P5 marked.

7.After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against them for which they denied and reported no defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is: -

10. “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C or not”?

11. As per the version of P.W.1, A.1 and A.2 beat her in her house.

She admitted that there are some previous disputes between her and A.1 and A.2. As per the report given by P.W.1, A.1 and A.2 beat her with brass pot and dragged her out of her house and abused her in filthy language.

Even though the prosecution has examined P.Ws 2 and 3 who were the neighbours of P.W.1 they turned against the prosecution and did not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1

12.The Investigation Officer who investigated the case deposed that he examined the neighbours of P.W.1. The Investigation officer stated that they never heard any quarrels on the day of alleged incident. The evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated by the prosecution witnesses and as per the evidence of P.W.4 no dispute had taken place as alleged by

P.W.1 In the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring out the guilt against the accused A1 and A.2 and they are acquitted.

13. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 324, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of February, 2013.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: P. Jyothi None

P.W.2: D. Appalanarasamma

P.W.3: L. Ammaji

P.W.4: T. Bhaskara Rao, S.I of Police.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Police Report given by P.W1

Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R.

Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch.

.

For Accused:None

Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 21-04-2008 Date of report or complaint: : 23-04-2008 Date of apprehension of accused: 03-05-2008 Date release on bail, if any: 03-05-2008 Date of commencement of trial: 22-11-2012 Close of trial: 04-01-2013 Date of sentence or other order : 15-02-2013

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several

adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses

__________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1157/2008 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

1. Pothala Nookaratnam, W/o Musilinaidu, age 45 years, Kapu by caste, Cultivation, Vissannapeta village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Nadisetti Mani, W/o Mallinaidu, age 28 years, Kapu, Cultivation of Vissannapeta village, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C.

Finding: found not guilty

Sentence: The accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 324, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri K. Sreerangaraju, LLB.,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

MONDAY, this the 28 th day of January, 2013

C.C. No.1304/2008

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station.

…Complainant

A n d:

Vatsavayi Sudarshana Raju, S/o Narayana Murthy Raju, 32 years, Kshtriya by caste, Driver of lorry AP31X-8649, Sramikanagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. …Accused

This case coming on 16-01-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri B.V.Ramana, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of police, Kasimkota Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.140/2008 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 338 I.P.C.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 23-10-2008 at 16.30hrs., while L.W1 Adapaka Prakasha

Rao going to Bayyavaram on his Bajaj Pulsor Motor Cycle No. AP 31Y 1368, when he reached opposite to the Cooperative Bank, Kasimkota in the mean time the accused being the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 31 X 8649 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in wrong route dashed against L.W1. As a result, L.W1 fell down and sustained simple injuries. On 23-10-2008 at 20.00 hrs., L.W1 gave a report to L.W6 Asst.

Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station. Basing on the report, a crime was registered by Kasimkota Police and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer visited the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. L.W5, who treated L.W1 and issued wound Certificate and opined that the injury is grievous in nature.

On 24-10-2008, L.W7 Sub Inspector of Police verified the investigation of

L.W6 and on 23-10-2008 L.W7 arrested the accused and enlarged him on bail and after obtaining wound certificate of L.W1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said section. Hence the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207,

Cr.P.C.

04. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 338 IPC for which he denied the entire allegation made against him and intended to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.W.1 and marked Exs. P.1 and P2. As the material witnesses turned hostile the

Learned A.P.P felt that the examination of other witnesses is of no use and hence, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of other remaining witnesses i.e., L.Ws.2 to 7 and later the prosecution evidence is closed.

06.As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 338 I.P.C. or not”?

09.POINT :

In this case P.W1 is the injured and the complainant. Even though in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and in the complaint stated about the participation of the accused in the accident, he deposed nothing incriminating evidence against the accused. The Learned APP sought permission of the court to declare P.W1 as hostile. As the complainant himself did not made any incriminating evidence against the accused and the rest of the witnesses given up by A.P.P there was no evidence by the prosecution to bring out the guilt against the accused.

10.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Typed directed to dictation to the Personal Assistant,corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of January, 2013.

Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution P.W.1: Adapaka Prakasha Rao

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Thumb Impression of P.W1 on police report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1.

For Accused:

Nil. No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

// True copy//

AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 23-10-2008 Date of report or complaint: : 23-10-2008 Date of apprehension of accused: 23-10-2008 Date release on bail, if any: 23-10-2008 Date of commencement of trial: 11-01-2013 Close of trial: 11-01-2013 Date of sentence or other order: 28-01-2013

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1304/2008 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station, Kasimkota. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

Vatsavayi Sudarshana Raju, S/o Narayana Murthy Raju, 32 years, Kshtriya by caste, Driver of lorry AP31X-8649, Sramikanagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence: 338 I.P.C

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 338

I.P.C and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgement.

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP