Sri K. Srikanth

1

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

AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 07th day of January, 2020

Present: Sri K.SRIKANTH

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

C.C.No.908/2017 in old C.C.No.441/2014

Between: State through represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Wyra

….....Complainant.

AND A1:Korivi Seshagiri,S/o.Srinivasa Rao, 20 yrs, Coolie, R/o.Musalimadugu Village of Wyra Mandal. A2:Korivi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Seethaiah, 20 yrs, R/o.Muslaimadugu Village of Wyra Village and Mandal (Absconding)

….......Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 02.01.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri D. Jagan Mohan Rao and Sri.M.Satish Advocates for accused A1 and A2 upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of 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, P.S. Wyra filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.354(D) r/w.34 of IPC Criminal

Amendment Act 2013 in Cr.No.265/2013 of Wyra police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 04.11.2013 at 1800 hours, the complainant Lw.1/Adimoolam Varalaxmi, came to police station Wyra and lodged a telugu written petition, stating that her marriage was performed with Rama Krishna about 5 years back. Her villager

Korivi Seshagiri Rao followed and harassed her to come with him otherwise he warned to kill her for the last year. Thereafter, she informed to the elders about the activities of Seshagiri Rao. On that the elders called him and admonished him, he said apology and he promised that he chance his attitude. But he did not change his attitude and continued the same 4 days back she went to her relative’s house at Tiruvuru for attending the function. At that time the said

Seshagiri advertised in the village that she will call him along with her. Further he followed her whenever she visits any place and also made sexual signs towards her. He also sent the Korivi Venkateswarlu to her house and called her to come 2 along with him. Finally she requested to take necessary action against A1 and

A2. Basing on the report, Lw.8 registered a case in Cr.No.265/2013 U/s.354(D) r/ w.34 of IPC issued FIR and tookup the investigation. After completion of investigation Lw.9 laid down the charge sheet before the court for the offence punishable U/s.354 (D) r/w.34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

3.The court has taken the cognizance for offence U/s.354(D) r/w.34 of IPC and on appearance of accused, the case copies were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C in brevity).

4. A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and on considering the material on record and upon hearing, a charge for the offence U/s.354(D) r/w.34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in telugu for which they denied the allegations leveled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is proceeded with trial.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw.8.

Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 who are circumstantial witnesses. Pw.4 and Pw.5 who are panch witnesses. Pw.7 is investigating officer.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 are examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is that:- “ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the offence U/s.354(D) r/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts or not?.”

POINT:

9.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the A1 and A2 harassed the Pw.1 and outraged her modesty. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7 and cross 3 examined.

10. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, this court feels it is essential to assign a glance upon the ingredients of Sec.354(D) of IPC:-

i) The accused followed a woman and contacted or attempted to contact her to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite showing clear disinterest by the said woman, or ii) Accused monitored the use by the woman of the internet email or any other form of electronic communication.

11. The crux of the prosecution story is that the defacto complainant-cum- victim/Lw.1 the wife of Pw.1 and they are residing at Musalimadugu village. A1 and A2 also belongs to the same village. A1 put an evil eye over the Lw.1, then he used to follow and harassed to come with him. Thereafter, Lw.1 informed the same to Lw.2 to Lw.5 and held panchayath they admonished the A1 in the said panchayath. After apology made to the Lw.1 with a promise that he did not repeat the same in future. It is further version of the prosecution is that A1 did not change his attitude and continued to follow the Lw.1 with an intention to outraged her modesty and also sent the A2 to the house of Lw.1. Both the accused persons created nuisance and advertised badly against Lw.1 in the village. A1 followed and used objectionable words towards her and to come with him, whenever Lw.1 visits any place in the village.

12. To prove the alleged acts of the A1 and A2, the prosecution choose to examine Lw.2 who is husband of Lw.1 deposed that in the year 2013 Lw.1 went to collect grass, meantime A2 informed to the Lw.1 that A1 asked to fulfill his sexual lust and then Lw.1 informed to him about the harassment of A1 and A2.

Thereafter held panchayath before the village elders. A1 admitted his acts done by him and requested that they would not repeat in future. He further deposed that the accused persons doing the same and made propaganda about Lw.1 character. Then, they went to police station and gave a report to the police.

Thereafter, A1 and A2 harassed the Lw.1 due to which she committed suicide.

13. During the cross examination of Pw.1 deposed that he denied the 4 several suggestions put forth by the defence counsel by denied alleged harassment caused to the Lw.1 by the A1 and A2. Further the Pw.1 admitted that they went to jail in a case by committing suicide of his wife/Lw.1.

14. To corroborate the version of the Pw.1, the prosecution choose to examine the Pw.2 and Pw.3 they also deposed in true lines of Pw.1 about the alleged acts of the A1 and A2 and also deposed that panchayath was conducted in connection with the alleged acts of the accused persons. Wherein A1 and A2 admitted their guilt and promised not to repeat the same in future against the

Lw.1. When it comes to the cross examination of Pw.2 he also admitted about the case registered against them for committing suicide by Lw.1 and got acquittal in that case. It is elicited that the case registered against the Pw.1 and

Pw.2 and the same was got acquittal in that case. When it comes to the suggestions put forth by the defence counsel is denied with regard to the A1 and

A2 did not sexually assaulted or harassed to the Lw.1. Similarly Pw.3 also deposed in a similar version during the cross examination of Pw.3 deposed that the alleged incident took place at heiric heap in the field. It is also elicited that there was matrimonial disputes between lw.1 and Pw.1 with regard to demand of

additional dowry and also other disputes by suspecting the character of the Lw.1

prior to registering the case.

15. Further, the prosecution examine the another eye witness as Pw.6, wherein he deposed that he turned hostile without state anything. Further the prosecution establish the scene of offence panchanama conducted by the police in the presence of Pw.4 and Pw.5. Ex.P1 marked on behalf of Pw.4.

16. When it comes to the cross examination of Pw.4 he admitted that he does not know the contents of panchanama and not known what was written in the panchanama by the police in difference. Another panch witness examined as

Pw.5 turned hostile without supporting the case of prosecution. Lastly the investigating officer examined as Pw.7 deposed that reiterated the contents of charge sheet and deposed the manner in which the investigation completed by him.

5

17. The learned APP argued that though Lw.1 is not examined, Pw.1 to Pw.3 clearly deposed about the alleged harassment caused by the A1 and A2 against the Lw.1. Pw.1 to Pw.3 deposed in a corroborative manner to each other in respect of date, place and the manner in which the alleged incident was took place between Lw.1 and accused persons. Further argued that to prove that there was an incident took place Pw.5 clearly deposed that the police came to the village and conducted the panchanama in this case. Ex.P1 also marked on behalf of the prosecution to establish that the alleged incident was took place.

18. On the other hand the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offence with the aid of victim who said to be harassed by the A1 and A2 in this case and there is no report was marked in this case which is crucial and vital document to sets the law into the motion. However, Pw.1 and Pw.2 who are the accused persons in another case registered on the death of Lw.1 herein. Further, argued that A1 and A2 did not harassed the Lw.1 and there was no such incident occurred between them. The prosecution also failed to establish the case with the support of independent eye witnesses or any of the village elders as alleged by the prosecution that there was a panchayath was took place between them. They did not examine the persons who were present in the panchayat to support their case. Pw.6 who is said to be elder of panchayat alone was examine, but he did not depose anything against the A1 and A2 to believe the version of the prosecution.

Moreover, there is no other evidence except Pw.1 to Pw.3 who are the same family members and relatives to each other to believe the version of the prosecution.

19. It is further contention of the defence is that the alleged scene of offence is doubtful as per the version of the prosecution witness the Pw.1 deposed that

Lw.1 went to field to collect grass, meantime A2 informed to the Lw.1 that A1 asked to fulfill his sexual desire or lust, per contra Pw.3 deposed that during cross examination of Pw.3 that the alleged incident was occurred at heiric heap and caught hold the hand of Lw.1 by the A1. As already pointed out by the 6 defence counsel is that there is a doubtful in respect of incident took place between the Pw.1 and accused persons. Pw.1 stated that A2 went to the Lw.1 and informed to come to A1 fulfill his sexual desire. Whereas, the Pw.3 deposed

A1 caught hold the hand of Lw.1, when she went to field for cutting grass. The version of the Pw.3 is not consistence with regard to the place of offence and also deposed in difference versions with the Pw.1 who came to the Lw.1 when she went to field. It is an admitted fact that there was a several instances were took place between them and panchayath was held in connection with the case.

20. As already noted about to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2, the prosecution established the essential ingredients of the offence punishable

U/s.354 (D) of IPC. When it comes to the evidence on record the prosecution did not examine the Lw.1 who is victim in this case. The prosecution further failed to prove the contents of report given by the Lw.1 in support of the version of the

Pw.1 to Pw.3. It is well established fact that in a criminal case the report is a vital peace of evidence which sets the law into motion for entire case. Whereas, the instance case the prosecution miserably failed to establish the report. As such the version of the prosecution is not believable without other independent, oral or documentary evidence. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

21. Thus, the evidence brought on record and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution or not only established but also not conclusive in nature no circumstances having a definite tendency to unerringly pointed out towards the guilt of the accused is established in the absence of present evidence to prove the circumstances relied upon, the evidence accused taken cumulatively is not even sufficient to make out a primafacie case against the accused leave alone proving the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.

22. On perusal of the evidence on record and other averments in the charge sheet it reveals that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case of the prosecution and interestingly the person who initiated the criminal action did not support the case of prosecution and failed to prove the guilt of the accused 7 person beyond all reasonable doubt and A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

23. On careful consideration of entire evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.7, this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilty of the A1 and A2 for the charged offense U/s.354 (D) r/w.34 of IPC. Hence, the A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

24. In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.354 (D) r/w.34 of IPC, as such they are acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to computer by the Steno-Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of January, 2020.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil. Pw.1: A.Rama Krishna Pw.2: A.Ravi Pw.3: K.Srinu Pw.4: K.Seetharamulu Pw.5: P.Srinivas Pw.6: Sk.Peersaheb Pw.7: T.Gopi, investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Nil. Ex.P1: is CDF. Ex.P2: is Signature on CDF. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P4: is FIR Ex.P5: Is CDF Material Objects: -Nil-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA

Corrections carried out by:

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADHIRA

Dated this the 6th day of January,2020.

Present: Sri. K.Srikanth Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

O.S.No. 160 of 2017

Between: Bhukya Saida, S/o.Ramulu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Bonakal (V) &(M), Khammam District.

...…Plaintiff.

And

1. Nallamucharathula Malathi, W/o. Late Venugopal, Age: 43 years, Occ: House wife, C/o. Cheemala Narayana Charyulu, R/o. Bayyarapu Ashoka Veedhi, Madhira Road, Kalluru Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Nallamuchararthula Lavanya, D/o. Late Venugopal, Age: 20 years, Occ: Student, C/o. Cheemala Narayana Charyulu, R/o. Bayyarapu Ashoka Veedhi, Madhira Road, Kalluru Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Nallamucharathula Vyshnavi, D/o. Late Venugopal, Age: 19 years,Occ: Student, C/o. Cheemala Narayana Charyulu, R/o. Bayyarapu Ashoka Veedhi, Madhira Road, Kalluru Village and Mandal, Khammam District.

…Defendants.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 31.12.2019 in the presence of Sri E.V.Prabhakar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.N.Ch.Srinivasacharyulu, Advocate for Defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both the sides and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The original suit belongs to Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Madhira and the same was transferred to this court through

Dis.No.7020/OP.CELL/2018 dt.31.12.2018, as per the orders of the Hon’ble

Principal District Judge, Khammam.

2

2.Initially, this suit was exparte decreed on 13.12.2017 and as per the orders in I.A.No.495 of 2017 dt. 10.7.2018, the exparte decree was set-aside and also filed written statement.

3.This suit is filed for recovery of money on the strength of Promissory note.

4.The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

(a)That the husband of the Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant

Nos.2 and 3 by name Nallamuchararthula Venugopal borrowed Rs.1,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.06.2015 at Bonakal village, Khammam District for his family necessities and promising to repay the borrowed money along with interest @ 24% p.a on demand either of the plaintiff or to his order and thesaid Nallamucharathula Venugopal had executed a promissory note on the same day i.e., on 20.06.2015 at Bonakal village and Mandal, Khammam

District in favour of plaintiff.

(b) That the plaintiff has demanded the said Venugopal many a time for the repayment of the said promissory note amount with the said rate of interest, but he failed to repay the same and used to procrastinate the days one pretext or the other. Unfortunately, the said Nallamucharathula

Venugopal died on 11.8.2017 leaving the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. After the death of the said Venugopal, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 succeeded his properties and enjoying them as a joint owners. Further the husband of the Defendant No.1 discharged his duties in Veterinary

Department and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 received some death benefits of the deceased Venugopal.

3

(c)That immediately after the death of the said Nallamuchararthula

Venugopa, the plaintiff approached the defendant Nos.1 to 3 requested them to pay the above said promissory note amount and then the defendant nos.1 to 3 promised to repay the said promissory note amount and then the defendant Nos.1 to 3 promised to repay the said promissory note amount with in a month bu they procrastinated the days one pretext or the other without discharging their liability. Being the Legal representatives of the deceased Venugopal who are enjoying the estate of the Late Venugopal, it is the duty of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to discharge the debts contacted by him for the welfare of their joint family, but the defendant nos.1 to 3 intentionally avoiding the payment.

(d)Then vexed with the attitude of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 the plaintiff got issued a registered demand notice to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 09.10.2017 but all the defendants intentionally refused to receive those notices as such they were returned unserved with the endorsement “

Refused to receive”. Even though, they are having knowledge upon issuance of the registered notice they did not choose to repay the above said promissory note amount. Now the defendant nos.1 to 3 intentionally trying to alienate the properties belongs to the deceased Venugopal with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. There is no hope of recovery of the said promissory note amount without intervention of the Hon’ble Court as such the plaintiff constrained to file this suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 for recovery of the promissory note amount.

4

5. Defendants filed written statement denying all the material contentions of the plaint. Apart from denying, the defendants put forth their positive contentions which are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts there is no cause of action to file the present suit, it is invented for the purpose of filing this false suit to knock away the suit schedule property, the plaintiff created a concocted story and filed the present suit. It is mainly contended that there is needle point of truth in the allegations made by the plaintiff in fact the plaintiff is a stranger to the defendants family, previously also the plaintiff in collusion with some others hatched a plan to knock away the properties of the defendants taking the undue advantage of the defendant is a lady. It is further contended that no transaction was occurred between the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, ever after gone through the surname it is clearly evidencing the plaintiff formed the scribe and witness making such illegal activities to gain the amounts illegally in fact either the plaintiff or the scribe witness are strangers to this defendants they never seen them or never heard about them. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6.Basing on the pleadings of both the sides the court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount together with interest as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff fabricated and forged suit promissory note as prayed by the defendant?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

4. To what relief?

7.To prove the claim of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 are marked.

5

8.P.W.1 filed chief-examination affidavit wherein he stated in support of all the contents of plaint. He stated that the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 by name

Nallamuchararthula Venugopal has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from him on 20.06.2015 at Bonakal (V) &(M), Khammam District, promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and the said

Nallamuchararthula Venugopal has executed promissory note in his favour.

At the time of transaction, he himself, Venugopal, Mareedu Srinivasa Rao,

J.Jaggaiah and B.Ravi Kumar were present at his house. At the request of said Venugopal, M.Srinivasa rao scribed the promissory note and the above said J.Jaggaiah and B.Ravi Kumar attested the said pronote as attestors. He paid the consideration of rs.1,80,000/- to the said Venugopal in their presence and the said Venugopal signed on the said promissory note in their presence and handed over the same to him. It is submitted that he demanded the said Venugopal for the repayment of promissory note amount with interest, but he failed to repay the same and used to procrastinate one pretext or the other. It is further contended that the said Nallamuchararthula

Venugopal died on 11.8.2017 leaving the defendant nos.1 to 3 as his legal heirs. It is further contended that the defendants procrastinated the days one pretext or the other without discharge of their liability being legal heirs of Late

N.Venugopal. He prayed the court to decree the suit.

9. P.Ws.2 to 4 filed their chief-examination affidavits, wherein they stated that they were present at the time of borrowing transaction covered by 6

Ex.A.1. They supported the version of PW1. They further stated that the suit pronote was scribed by PW4 and attested by PW2 and PW3.

On behalf of defendants, neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced inspite of giving sufficient time. But the defendants did not do so.

Hence, the evidence of defendants is treated as Nil”

For the sake of convenience, the issues 1 to 3 are settled together.

10. ISSUE No.1 TO 3:

Heard the counsel for plaintiff. The arguments of the counsel for defendant are treated heard. The counsel for plaintiff contended that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 which is corroborated by documentary evidence sufficiently and categorically establishes the claim of the plaintiff. Perused the entire material on record consisting of oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. After careful and cautions examination and scrutiny of the entire material on record, I am of the view there is sufficient merits in the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence inspite of giving sufficient time in support of his contention though the defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement that the suit pronote is created one and invented for the purpose of filing suit but the defendants failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention. As such the contentions of the defendants in written statement cannot be given much consideration. Once the defendants pleaded that the suit pronote is forged and created one, there is heavy burden on her to establish the same by adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence, but she failed in doing so. As such I hold that the 7

Late N.Venugopal borrowed Rs.1,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-6-2015 and executed pronote and I further hold that the suit pronote is not at all fabricated and created as contended by the defendant. Evidence of PW.1 to

PW4 further establishes the failure of the defendants in repaying the borrowed money. This Court placed reliance on judicial precedent of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court decided in Vidyadhar vs Manik Rao and Others

reported in 1993 (3) ALT 1 (SC) held that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. As such the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Thus, I decide all the three issues in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant

ISSUE No.4:

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.2,81,100/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of January, 2020.

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADHIRA.

- Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : B.Saida

P.W.2 :Jarpala Jaggaiah 8

P.W.3 : B.Ravi Kumar

P.W.4 : M.Srinivasa Rao

For Defendants:

-None-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Promissory note, dt.20.06.2015 executed by husband of D1. Ex.A2: Office copy of register notice dt.09.10.2017. Ex.A3: unserved notice of D1 Ex.A4: unserved notice of D2 Ex.A5: unserved notice of D3

For Defendants:

-Nil-

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADHIRA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 11th day of October, 2021

Present: SRI K.SRIKANTH,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

C.C.No.314 of 2017

Between: The State through Proh & Excise Inspector, Madhira.

….....Complainant.

AND 

A1. Bathula Krishna, S/o.Yellaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o.Mahabubabad village of Warangal District.

A2. Bokkala Raju, S/o.Yalla Swamy, Age: 27 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.Gummaduru, Nandi Nagar Colony, Mahabubabad.

A3. Thalari Ramesh, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Age; 29 years, Bajaj Show room owner,N/o.Dendukuru Village, R/o. Mahabubabad village of Warangal District.

….......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 11.10.2021 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri E.V.Prabhakar, Advocate

for accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the

arguments of 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 Inspector of Police Proh.& Excise, Madhira filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.P Act 1995 in COR.No.6/2015­16 of Proh.& Excise station Madhira.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 22.12.2014 at 1600 hours the S.I of police,Madhira Town

Lw5/G.Ashokon along with staff were conducting “NAKABANDI” on R& B Road in front of Market yard, at that time one TATA Indica Car bearing NO. AP 36 2

AH 2711 was coming from Vijayawada Side. Then the Lw5 stopped the car and checked the car in which he found 50 liters of ID liquor and som blue color imperial blue liquor full bottle caps and some Aristrocat full bottle seal caps.

Then Lw5 arrested the accused and secured two panch witnesses and conducted confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses. In which the A1 revealed that they are adultering the branded liquor byu using ID liquor and they went to Vijayawada and purchased 475

Seal caps of Aristrocrate Premium red color bottle and 875 imperial blue seal caps from one unknown person at Vijayawada and coming back to their village on the way they purchased 50 liters of ID liquor from one unknown person to adulterate the branded liquor by mixing color with Id liquor and fix seal caps .

On that accused A2 and A3 confessed the commission of offence and immediately he seized TATA India Car bearing No.AP 16 AH 2711 and 50 liters of ID liquor and 75 Seal caps of Aristrocrate Premium red color bottle and 875 imperial blue seal caps from the possession of accusedc before the mediators

Lw3 and Lw4 and samples darwn from thie seized liquor and registered a case in Cr.No.408/2014 U/sec.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act and Sec.34(e) (h) of

A.P.Excise Act against the accused persons. Subsequetnly, the Lw5 transferred the CD file to P&E station Madhira on 02.03.2014 and Lw6 received the CD file and found it on correct lines and re­register the case in COR.No.06/15­16 on 08.04.2015 and took up investigation.

3. During the course of investigation, the drawn samples were sent for chemical analysis at R.P.E.L, Warangal. The chemical examiner for Proh. &

Excise at Warangal who analyzed the sample opined that the sample was Illicit

Distilled Liquor unfit for portable purpose and injurious to health, vide letter

CE No.47/2015, Dt:07.01.2015, Sl.No.220.The seized property was produced

before the Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise, Khammam and the same

was confiscated by the respected authority through Proc.in Cr.No.60/2015/P 3 &Ex/A2, dt: 15.04.2015 and in compliance with the orders issued thereof, the

I.D Liquor was destroyed on 03.08.2015 in the presence of Assistant Proh.&

Excise, Superintendent, Khammam under cover of panchanama. The Crime vehicle was auctioned vide order NO.250/2010/P&E/A1, dt.21.04.2017 the auction amount of Rs.27000/­ vide Challana No.0000000408 dt.06.05.2017 in

SBH Madhira. and after the completion of investigation Lw7 laid charge sheet

before the court. Hence, the charge.

4.This court has taken the cognizance for offence U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 and Sec.34(e) (h) of A.P.Excise Act and on appearance of the accused the case copies was furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C in brevity). 

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s. 7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995and Sec.34(e) (h) of A.P.Excise Act , Charge framed against them read over the explained in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is proceeded with trial. 

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 & P2.

7.The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw2/K.Subba Rao,

Lw5/G.Ashok, Lw6/V.Kishan Rao and Lw7/Hindumathi. 

8. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the evidence on record.

10.Now, The point for determination of this court is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused persons

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence Act U/sec.7(a) r/w

Sec.8(e) of APP Act, 1995 and Sec.34(e)(h) of A.P.Excise Act?”

4

POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused were having illegal possession and sale of ilicit liquor.

11. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pw.1 to PW3. To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed the ocular evidence of Pw1 to PW.3 and marked Ex.P1 & P2. Pw.1 and 2 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama. PW3 is police constable who assist to

Investigation officer.

12.Now let us examined whether the prosecution could be able to prove the case with the aid of Pw.1 to Pw.3

13.Scanning the evidence on record it transpires that the evidence of Pw.1 to

Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 & P2. Pw.1 & Pw.2 who are Panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama deposed that the police had obtained their signatures on white papers at police station. The Police did not held confession and seizure panchanama in their presence and nothing was seized and no one confessed in their presence. The witnesses identified their signatures. Ex.P1 and P2 are the signatures on the confession and seizure panchanama. Coming to the cross examination of the PW1 & PW2 by the learned APP treated them as hostile witnesses. Nothing elicited during their cross­examinatoin to disbelive their version. 

14. PW3 who assisted to the investigatiion officer/Lw5 he deposed about the conducting of vehicle checking by Lw5, securing the panch witnesses, preparing of panchanama by Lw5, brought the accused to the police station.

15. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw2/K.Subba Rao,

Lw5/G.Ashok, Lw6/V.Kishan Rao and Lw7/Hindumathi. who are police officials. The prosecution failed to produce the the evidence of Lw2, Lw5 to Lw7 5 who are the police officials to prove the case of the prosecution.

16.Having gone through the documents on record Ex.P1 & P2 reveals that

Lw5 G.Ashok seized the alleged indian made liquor from the scene of offence and the same was destroyed after drawn samples. The prohibited ID liquor which said to be seized from the scene of offence is not established with the aid of PW1 & PW2. who are the crucial confession and seizure witnesses. They did not supported the alleged seizure of the said contra band from the scene of offence. Therefore, the material available on record did not enough to come to the conclusion that the accused persons were the possessor of the indian made liquor. In addition to that the investigating officer did not comply the mandatory provision and requirement U/s.100 (4) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

17. It is a well settled law is that where the prosecution did not examine its witnesses and others afford them to be cross­examination is itself amounts to abandoning of ones own witness, such an approach seriously effected to the credibility of the prosecution case held in a case Sukhawanth Vs state of

Punjab AIR SC 1601. Therefore, in the absence of any independent witness and the non examination of investigation officer to prove the guilt of the accused, it is not safe to convict the accused, basing on the lack of evidence on record. Prosecution miserably failed to established the case against the accused with the evidence adduced on record. Hence, the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

18. Thus, the evidence brought on record and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution or not only established but also not conclusive in nature no circumstances having a definite tendency to unerringly pointed out towards the guilt of the accused are established in the absence of present evidence to prove the circumstances relied upon, the evidence accused taken 6 cumulatively is not even sufficient to make out a primafacie case against the accused leave alone proving the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.

19. Since circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the accused or to be drawn or not established and the contention of the prosecution that the arranged offence must have been committed by accused cannot be accepted.

20. On careful consideration of entire evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 coupled with Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charged offence U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of

A.P.P Act,1995 and Sec.34(e)(h) of A.P.Excise Act. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly. 

21. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995 and Sec.34(e)(h) of A.P.Excise

Act, as such they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995 Sec.34(e)(h) of A.P.Excise Act. The accused are set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of October, 2021.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:  PW.1: Kanakapudi Srinu PW.2: Yanagala Kanakaiah ­None­ PW.3: K.Venkateswara Rao 7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is signature of PW1 on the confession and seizure panchanama Ex.P2: is signature of PW2 on the confession and seizure panchanama

Defence: Nil. Material Objects: ­Nil­

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 08th day of October, 2021

Present: SRI K.SRIKANTH,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

C.C.No.311 of 2017

Between: The State through Proh & Excise Inspector, Madhira.

….....Complainant.

AND 

A1. Kedasu Susheela, W/o. Venkateswarlu, Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Vangaveedu village of Madhira Mandal, Khammam District.

A2. Pothuraju Srinu, S/o. Gopal, Age: 26 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Vangaveedu (V), Madhira (M).

A3. Sanka Venkata Rao, S/o.Janardhan, R/o.Jaggaiahpeta (V) & (M), Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

….......Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 08.10.2021 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri D.Subramanyam, Advocate

for accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the

arguments of 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 Inspector of Police Proh.& Excise, Madhira filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of A.P.P Act 1995 in COR.No.26/2016 of Proh.& Excise station Madhira.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 02.07.2014 at 1700 hours on credible information the Lw.6/G.Srinivas,

Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.Madhira along with staff proceeded to Vangaveedu village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District for conducted raids, there he secured the presence of panch witnesses i.e., Lw2 and Lw3. On seeing them, 2 the accused A1 to A3 absconded by leaving the 05 liters of ID liquor from the scene of offence. Then, Lw6 seized the contra band under cover of panchanama in the presence of said panch witnesses. Thereafter they brought the seized property to the police station and samples drawn and registered a case in

Cr.No.132/2014 U/sec.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act against the accused persons and took up investigation. 

3. During the course of investigation, the drawn samples were sent for chemical analysis at R.P.E.L, Warangal and Lw6 arrested the accused A1 on 07.07.2014 and A2 on 11.07.2014 and A3 obtained an order restraining the police from arresting him and conducted confession panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses Lw4 and Lw5. The chemical examiner for Proh. &

Excise at Warangal who analyzed the sample opined that the sample was Illicit

Distilled Liquor unfit for portable purpose and injurious to health, vide letter

CE No.25115/2014, Dt:28.07.2017, Sl.No.25114. Thereafter the case was transferred to Proh & Excise Station, Madhira on point of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Lw7/V.Kishan Rao re­register the case in COR No.26/2016.The seized property was produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and

Excise, Khammam and the same was confiscated by the respected authority through Proc.in Cr.No.101/2015/P &Ex/A2, dt: 06.10.2016 and in compliance with the orders issued thereof, the I.D Liquor was destroyed on 06.04.2017 in the presence of Assistant Proh.& Excise, Superintendent, Khammam under cover of panchanama and after the completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before the court. Hence, the charge.

4.This court has taken the cognizance for offence U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995, and on appearance of the accused the case copies was furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C in brevity). 

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/s. 7(a) 3 r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995, Charge framed against them read over the explained in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case is proceeded with trial. 

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. 

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material evidence against them and they reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidee incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the evidence on record.

9.Now, The point for determination of this court is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused persons

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence Act U/sec.7(a) r/w

Sec.8(e) of APP Act, 1995?”

POINT: In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was having illegal possession and sale of ilicit liquor.

10. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pw.1 to PW4. To establish the said fact, the prosecution has placed the ocular evidence of Pw1 to PW.4 and marked Ex.P1 to P4. Pw.1 to 4 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama. 

11.Now let us examined whether the prosecution could be able to prove the case with the aid of Pw.1 to Pw.4

12.Scanning the evidence on record it transpires that the evidence of Pw.1 to

Pw.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. Pw.1 to Pw.4 who are Panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama deposed that the police had obtained their signatures on white papers at police station. The Police did not held confession and seizure panchanama in their presence and nothing was seized and no one 4 confessed in their presence. The witnesses identified their signatures. Ex.P1 to

P4 are the signatures on the confession and seizure panchanama. Coming to the cross examination of the Pw.1 to Pw.4 by the learned APP treated them as hostile witnesses. Nothing elicited during their cross­examinatoin to disbelive their version. 

13. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw6 to Lw8 who are police officials.

14.Having gone through the documents on record Ex.P1 to P4 reveals that

Lw6, who is the Investigating Officer seized the alleged indian made liquor from the scene of offence and the same was destroyed after drawn samples.

The prohibited ID liquor which said to be seized from the scene of offence is not established with the aid of Pw.1 to Pw.4. who are the crucial confession and seizure witnesses. They did not supported the alleged seizure of the said contra band from the scene of offence. Therefore, the material available on record did not enough to come to the conclusion that the accused persons were the possessor of the indian made liquor. In addition to that the investigating officer did not comply the mandatory provision and requirement U/s.100 (4) of

Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

15. It is a well settled law is that where the prosecution did not examine its witnesses and others afford them to be cross­examination is itself amounts to abandoning of ones own witness, such an approach seriously effected to the credibility of the prosecution case held in a case Sukhawanth Vs state of

Punjab AIR SC 1601. Therefore, in the absence of any independent witness and the non examination of investigation officer to prove the guilt of the accused, it is not safe to convict the accused, basing on the lack of evidence on record. Prosecution miserably failed to established the case against the accused with the evidence adduced on record. Hence, the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

5

16. Thus, the evidence brought on record and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution or not only established but also not conclusive in nature no circumstances having a definite tendency to unerringly pointed out towards the guilt of the accused are established in the absence of present evidence to prove the circumstances relied upon, the evidence accused taken cumulatively is not even sufficient to make out a primafacie case against the accused leave alone proving the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.

17. Since circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the accused or to be drawn or not established and the contention of the prosecution that the arranged offence must have been committed by accused cannot be accepted.

18. On careful consideration of entire evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.4 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charged offence U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of

A.P.P Act,1995. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995, as such they are acquitted

U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.7(a) r/w Sec.8(e) of APP Act,1995

The accused are set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437­A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of October, 2021.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:  PW.1: Gudida Narasimha Rao PW.2: Pothuraju Venkateswarlu ­None­ PW.3: Gudida Krishtaiah PW.4: Gudida Ravi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Ex.P1: is signature of PW1 on the seizure panchanama Ex.P2: is signature of PW2 on the confession panchanama Ex.P3: is signature of PW3 on the seizure panchanama Ex.P4: is Signature of PW4 on the confession panchanama.

Defence: Nil. Material Objects: ­Nil­

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA.

1

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

AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020

Present: Sri K.SRIKANTH

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

C.C.No.738/2017 in Old C.C.No.91/2015

Between: State through represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Wyra

….....Complainant.

AND Kanakapudi Bhaskar, S/o. Nagesh, Age: 33 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Gollapudi village, Wyra mandal, Khammam district.

….......Accused.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 17.01.2020 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri C.Gopal, Advocate

for accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the

arguments of 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, P.S. Wyra filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.354,324,294(b),506 of Indian Penal

Code 1860 (herein after referred as IPC in brevity) in Cr.No.254/2013 of Wyra police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 24.11.2013 at 1000 hours, the complainant Lw.1/V.Rahelu, came to Wyra police station and lodged a telugu written petition, stating that on 24.10.2013 at 0600 hours, she went to attending the nature calls at the outskirts of village vacant place, meantime the accused/Kanakapudi Bhaskar came to her back side and hugged her tightly and also tried to outrage her modesty. Then she made hues and cries the nearest house holders Lw.5/Pw.5 Lw.3/Pw.3 and Lw.4/

Pw.4 were came to the scene of offence and on seeing the accused fled away by leaving her. Thereafter, her brother-in-law went to the accused house and asked why you caught hold the Lw1/Rahelu, on that the accused abused him and also beat him on his hand and also pelted stones on him. Finally she requested to take necessary action against the accused person. Basing on the report, Lw.10/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.254/2013 U/s.354,324, 2 294(b), 506 of IPC issued FIR and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation Lw.10 laid down the charge sheet before the court for the offences punishable U/s.354,324,294(b),506 of IPC against the accused person.

3.The court has taken the cognizance for offence U/s.354,324,294(b),506 of

IPC and on appearance of accused, the case copies was furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C in brevity).

4. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C and on considering the material on record and upon hearing, a charge for the offences U/s.354,324, 294(b), 506 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in telugu for which he denied the allegations leveled against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case is proceeded with trial.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The learned APP has given up the evidence of Lw.7 to

Lw.10. Pw.1 to Pw.3 and Pw.6 who are circumstantial witnesses. Pw.4 and Pw.5 who are panch witnesses. Pw.7 is investigating officer.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, the examination U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is that:- “ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the ofences u/s.354,324,294(b),506 of IPC

beyond all reasonable doubts or not?.”

POINT:

9.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish that the accused harassed the Pw.1 and outraged her modesty.

The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.6.

10.To establish the fact, the prosecution has placed ocular evidence of

Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

3

11. In support of the case, the prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Pw.1 is the complainant deposed that she do not remember anything about the report given by her to the police, but she signed on white paper. She stated that she do not know anything about the facts of this case. In her cross examination she admitted that she compromised with the accused person. Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement.

Moreover she did not state anything to attract the ofce against the accused.

12.As seen from the evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.6 who are eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecution and they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

During their cross examination they admitted that they compromised with the accused person. Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are 161 Cr.P.C statements. Further more the prosecution did not choose to examine the other witnesses for the best reasons known to them. Therefore, it is clearly mentioned that the Pw.1 to

Pw.6 did not depose anything in connection with case to incriminate the accused in the alleged ofence for the best reasons known to them. Hence, this court do not fnd any cogent reliable and trust worthy material on record to prove the guilt of the accused.

13. From the above evdience it is clearly manifest that the victim who lodged the report and initiated criminal action in this case did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile without stating anything in connection with this case. In addition to that who is alleged to be eye witness to the incident also turned hostile and nothing was elicited from his cross examination to disbelieve her version except for marking of 161 Cr.P.C statement only. The evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.6 is no way help to the case of the prosecution. As it could be seen from the testimony of Pw.1 to Pw.6 in their cross examination they admitted that they have compromised with the accused person. Lastly, the prosecution did not choose to examine the other witnesses including the investigating ofcer to establish the guilt of the 4 accused person for the reasons best known to them.

14.Thus, the evidence brought on record and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution or not only established but also not conclusive in nature no circumstances having a defnite tendency to unerringly pointed out towards the guilt of the accused is established in the absence of present evidence to prove the circumstances relied upon, the evidence accused taken cumulatively is not even sufcient to make out a primafacie case against the accused leave alone proving the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

15.On perusal of the evidence on record and other averments in the charge sheet it reveals that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case of the prosecution and interestingly the person who initiated the criminal action did not support the case of prosecution and failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled for acquittal.

16. On careful consideration of entire evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.3 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the charged ofense U/s.354,324,294(b), 506of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the ofences punishable U/s.354,324,294(b),506 of IPC, as such he is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to computer by the Steno-Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of January, 2020.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA

5

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil. Pw.1: V.Rahelu Pw.2: V.Brahmaiah Pw.3: J.Issaq Pw.4: B.Upendra Pw.5: V.Prasad Pw.6: V.Danelu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Nil Ex.P1: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1 Ex.P2: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P5: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 Ex.P6: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6

Material Objects: Nil.

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MADHIRA

Corrections carried out by: