Smt. K. Swapna Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. K. SWAPNA RANI,

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Wednesday, this the 19 th day of December, 2018.

CC 657/2015

Between:

Kareti Rambabau, S/o Late Sambasiva Rao, Age 33 years,

Real Estate business, R/o Yadavapalem, Pedakakani Village and Mandal. ...C OMPLAINANT .

And

Gade Basava Punna Reddy, S/o China Kotireddy, Age 40 years,

Real Estate Business, R/o Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal. ...A CCUSED.

This case is coming on 19-12-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

Ch.Radha Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri D. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the

Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of dishonour of cheque punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 05-02-2012, the accused Gade Basava Punna Reddy borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant for purpose of his family expenses, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a either to the complainant or his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant the accused issued cheque bearing

No.501860 dated 22-03-2013 for a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- drawn from Andhra Bank, Kaza branch,

Guntur District towards full and final settlement of the amount due. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection at State Bank of India, Pedakakani Branch, Guntur District. But the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” and the same was intimated through memo

dated 27-03-2013. Again, the complainant presented said cheque for collection at State Bank of India,

Pedakakani Branch, Guntur District. But the said cheque was again dishonoured for the reason ‘Funds

Insufficient’ and the same was intimated through memo dated 15-06-2013. Under the above circumstances, on 06-07-2013 the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The accused who 2 received the said notice instead of making payment kept quite. It is alleged that the accused intentionally issued the above said cheque with a dishonest intention and is there by liable to be punished U/s.138 of N.I.Act.

3.On receipt of complaint and after the examination of the complainant U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., cognizance of the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act, 1881 was taken and process issued against the accused.

The substance of accusation U/Sec.138 of NI Act was explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

4. At the trial, the complianant examined himself as PW1 and the scribe of promissory note as

PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

5.At the closure of the evidence of the complainant, the statements of the accused have been recorded U/Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him.

The plea of the accused is of total denial. In support of his plea, the accused has examined himself as

DW1 and examined his friend as D.W2 and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

6.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for complainant, Sri Ch. Radha Krishna Murthy and learned counsel for the accused, Sri D. Srinivasa Rao.

7.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the accused had issued cheque bearing No. 501860 dt.22-03-2013,for

Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Khaja Branch, Guntur in favour of the

complainant towards payment of legally enforceable debt and the same was dishonoured on presentation for encashment, due to insufficient funds?

2. Whether the accused failed to pay the money as demanded within 15 days of receipt of

notice and thereby has committed offence punishable U/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881?

8. To determine Point No.1, the first and foremost consideration is that whether the cheque has been issued by the accused towards payment of legally enforceable debt. PW1, the complainant Kareti

Rambabu submitted his evidence supporting the facts narrated in his complaint. He stated that the 3 accused issued cheque bearing No. 501860 for Rs.4,80,000/- on 22-03-2013 towards full and final payment amount due under the promissory note dt.05-02-2012. PW1 exhibited the said cheque as

Ex.P2 and the promissory note as Ex.P1.

8(a).In the cross examination, PW1 stated that real estate business is his only source of income and he is a facilitator on commission basis and earns about Rs.2 to 2.5 lakhs per annum. He expressed his ignorance that amount higher than Rs.20,000/- is to be lent by way of account payee cheque or that under AP Money Lenders Act., without licence a person cannot do money lending business. He further stated that he is not aware of the reply notice under Ex.P4 issued by accused. He admitted that he did not specifically state either in his complaint, legal notice or in his chief affidavit that he has advanced the amount in the presence of attestors and scribe of Ex.P1 promissory note to the accused. He also stated that he is not maintaining account book in respect of his earnings to establish that he secured

Rs.4,00,000/- from his profession. He further stated in his cross examination that his mother is having financial transaction with one Kaasa Veeranjaneyulu. He admitted that there is difference in the writing and the signature of accused on the cheque and that Ex.P1 promissory note contain the signature of accused in Telugu language and the signature on Ex.P2 cheque is in English language and that there is difference between the signature of accused on Ex.P5 acknowledgment and Ex.P1 promissory note and

Ex.P2 cheque.

9.The scribe of Ex.P1 promissory note is examined as PW2. In the cross examination, he stated that he scribed the promissory note on the request of complainant. He further admitted that there is a wording on promissory note that “Raasi itchina promissory note” which conveys meaning that the borrower has scribed the promissory note. But he denied the suggestion that it is not he who scribed the

Ex.P1 promissory note.

10.Denying the execution of Ex.P1 promissory note and issuance of cheque under Ex.P2, the accused who examined himself as DW1 stated in his cross examination that he does not know the name and address and other details of the complainant, but he stated that he knows one Kasa Veerajaneyulu.

He stated his ignorance that the said Kasa Veeranjaneyulu filed suit against mother of complaianant and 4 her property was put to auction in E.P.313/2015 on the file of Hon’ble I ASCJ, Guntur. He admitted that he received Ex.P4 notice and he got issued reply notice under Ex.D1 to the complainant.

11.DW2 G.Srinivasa Reddy who is friend of accused stated that on 07.08.2010 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu and at that time, himself and one

Jonnadula Krishna were present and at that time 3 cheques, 3 promissory notes and 100/- stamp paper were obtained by Kasa Veeranjaneyulu from accused. He further stated that after six months accused repaid the amount borrowed from Kasa Veeranjaneyulu along with interest and when accused demanded for return of promissory notes and cheques, Kasa Veeranjaneyulu stated that they were misplaced and he will return them whenever he finds.

11(a).In the cross examination, DW2 admitted that there is no documentary proof to establish that he was present on that day when accused borrowed money from one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu and he has not signed any of the promissory note as attestor. He also stated that he cannot say the date and time of the above mentioned transaction.

12.In order to discharge his initial burden, complainant produced Exs.P1 to P6 i.e, promissory note, cheque, cheque return memo, statuatory notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment etc., and by examining himself, and scribe as PW1 and PW2 respectively, complainant had initially discharged his burden. Whereas, the accused during cross examination stated that the alleged cheque and promissory note were given to one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu with whom a money transaction took place. Furher the accused examined DW2 in support of his contention that accused lent money from one Kasa

Veeranjaneylu and at the time of transaction empty cheques, pronotes and stamp paper were taken by one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu and he was present at the time of such transaction. In the cross examination,

DW2 stated that there is no documentary proof to establish that he was present on that day and he also did not sign on any of the pronotes as attestor. This being the evidence of accused and DW2, and when the evidence of PW1 is perused, nothing material is elicited from the cross examination of both PW1 and PW2 by the accused and their evidence remained unshaken.

5

13.The main defence of accused is that the empty cheques of promissory notes issued by him to one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu are misused by complainant in collusion with Kaasa Veeranjaneyulu. On perusal of complaint, it is filed on 14.08.2013. The alleged reply notice issued by accused is dated 21.08.2013 i.e, seven days after filing of the complaint, reply notice came to be issued by the accused.

The allegation of accused that for non returning of empty promissory notes and cheques he issued notice to the said Kasa Veeranjaneyulu on 24.07.2013 is also not proved as no such notice is produced.

Even otherwise, the very allegation that the accused had issued cheque in favour of Kasa

Veeranjaneyulu itself seems vague, since on one hand the accused contends that he had issued promissory notes and cheques to Kasa Veeranjaneyulu and one such cheque is misused by the Kasa

Veeranjaneyulu through complainant, and on the other hand accused cross examined PW1 on the point that said Kasa Veeranjaneyulu had filed a suit against the mother of complainant for recovery of money basing on promissory note and also filed execution petition upon decree thereof. Had really the said

Veeranjaneyulu colluded with complainant and filed the present complaint against accused, he would be in good terms with complainant and the question of filing suit against complainant’s mother will not arise if at all there is collusion between complainant and Kasa Veeranjaneyulu.

14.Learned counsel for complainant contended that complainant has proved borrowal of amount by accused by examining complainant and the scribe of promissory note and that the cheque was returned and even after issuance of statutory notice under Ex.P4, accused gave a vague reply notice and has failed to pay the cheque amount. Thus the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

15.On the other hand, learned counsel for accused submitted that one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu had misused the cheque by filing complaint through the complaint Kareti Rambabu and that accused has proved his case by examining accused and one G.Srinivasa Reddy in whose presence the alleged borrowal of amount took place between accused and Kasa Veeranjaneyulu and also by exhibiting two documents i.e, Ex.D1reply notice and its postal acknowledgment.

15(a).In support of his contention learned counsel for accused relied on certain decisions:- 6

(a).Vallabhaneni Srinivasa Rao Vs. Mangalapudi Venkateswarlu and another, 2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 510. But it is a case wherein no document was produced before the court to show receipt of money by the accused. Whereas, it is not the case of the accused herein that no document is produced by the complainant to show receipt of money by accused.

(b).K.Venkata Krishna Prasad Vs. Peram Sai Swarupa and another, 2017 (1)

ALT 259. In this case the financial capacity of complainant was not proved and legally enforceable debt was not shown. But in the present case complainant has stated his financial capacity and legally enforceable debt is also proved by producing Ex.P1 promissory note and

Ex.P2 cheque.

(c).N.Narasamma Vs. Chinna Mukkiranna and another, 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 221 (A.P.). In this case no money transaction was shown between accused and complainant and no piece of paper was executed. But in the instant case there is promissory note evidencing money transaction.

(d).R.Chennakesava Rao, Hyderabad Vs. P.Laxmi Narasaiah, Hyderabad, 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 279 (A.P.). In this case, complainant admitted that he has no proof to show that the accused borrowed amount but stated that he is an income tax assessee, and failed to produce income tax returns, which is not the case herein.

16.Under the above circumstances, it is concluded that the accused failed to establish that Ex.P1 promissory note and Ex.P2 cheque are not executed by him in favour of complainant. Furthermore the suggestion of accused that signature of the accused on Exs.P1 and P2 and Ex.P5 acknowledgement differ is merit less. Hence the presumptions U/sec.139 and 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 are raised in favour of the complainant that the accused had issued the Ex-P2 cheque for discharge of the debt payable by him under Ex-P1 promissory note. The accused has to rebut the presumptions. The accused has to have an explanation and has to prove that the explanation is true. In this regard, the accused vaguely deposed that the complainant had obtained promissory note and unfilled cheque from one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu to whom they were given during previous transaction towards security and that the complainant had misused the cheque and promissory note under Exs.P1 and P2, respectively.

7

Strangely, the accused did not take any steps for return of pronote and cheque from the said Kasa

Veeranjaneyulu who is alleged to have wrongfully obtained empty cheques, pronotes and stamp paper, except issuing legal notice on 24.07.2013 which is also not produced.

17.When the evidence of P.W.1 satisfies the consciousness of this Court in regard to the execution of Ex-P1 pronote, there is no impediment in law for this Court to come to `the conclusion that Ex.P1 pronote has been executed by the accused. Hence the presumption U/s 114 is against him. In the light of an overall conspectus of the whole case, this Court holds that Ex.P1 pronote has been executed by the accused.

18. From the above discussion it is clear that the accused failed to prove that Ex.P2 is a cheque which was issued to one Kasa Veeranjaneyulu. Further, the accused neither disproved the promissory note under Ex-P1 nor proved the discharge of debt under it. It leads to the conclusion that the complainant has satisfactorily proved that on 22-03-2013 i.e. the date put on the cheque, there was a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused to the complainant under Ex-P1 promissory note dated 05-02-2012. Thus, it is proved that the accused had issued cheque bearing No.501860 dt.22-03-2013 for Rs.4,80,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank, Kaza Branch, Guntur, in favour of complainant for full and final payment of legally enforceable debt. The explanation of accused that one Kasa Veeranjaneylu wrongfully possessed empty cheques, pronotes and stamp paper cannot be considered in view of failure on the part of accused to prove such contention with cogent and convincing evidence.

19.The next aspect that falls for consideration under point No.1 is dishonour of the cheque for insufficient funds.

To establish the dishonour of the cheque, the complainant has to prove the following components:

1) Drawing of the cheque;

2) Presenting of the cheque to the bank;

3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank;

4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount;

5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice; 8

20.In the light of the above, it has to be examined whether the complainant established all the five components.

1) Drawing of the Cheque:

The complainant alleged in his complaint and reiterated while giving the evidence that the accused had issued Ex.P.2 cheque on 22-03-2013 to him for an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards discharge of debt under Ex.P.1 promissory note dt.05-02-2012. As discussed above, it is established that the cheque under Ex.P2 was drawn on 22-03-2013.

2) Presentation of cheque to the bank:

This aspect has been proved not only from the oral evidence of PW.1 complainant, but as well from the very stamps put on front and back of Ex.P.2 cheque reflecting the presentation of the cheque on 08.04.2015.

3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank:

The third aspect of returning the cheque is also been proved not only from the oral evidence of

PW.1 but as well from the cheque return memo under Ex.P.3 dt.15-06-2013 that it has been returned unpaid by the drawee bank for the reason "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT".

4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount:

The fourth aspect relates to issuance of statutory notice, the issuance of which is mandatory

U/sec. 138 (b), within 30 days of receipt of the cheque return memo. The complainant proved that such notice is got issued vide Ex-P4 Notice on 06.07.2013.

5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice:

With regard to the fifth aspect that the accused being the drawer of the Ex.P.2 cheque has not made the payment within 15 days of receipt of notice as required U/sec. 138 (c) of Negotiable

Instruments Act, the accused admits that he received such notice under Ex.P5.

21.The aspect of service of notice under Ex-P5 being proved thus, it is to be examined whether the accused paid the amount covered under Ex-P2. As stated above, the complainant deposed that the accused had not paid the cheque amount. This is not denied by the accused. Therefore, it is also proved 9 that the Ex-P2 cheque is dishonoured on presentation for encashment for the reason the FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT and the accused failed to make payment.

22.From the above discussion it is concluded that the complainant has established the fact that there was existence of debt between himself and the accused and the disputed cheque was issued by the accused in his favour towards discharge of the said debt pursuant to demand made by him.

The cheque was dishonoured bounced back unpaid for the reason 'Funds Insufficient' and on presentation of the same by the complainant and despite of issuance of demand notice with regard to the fact of dishonour of the cheque, the accused had not complied with demand. Hence he maintained the complaint in time. Thus, the complainant has proved all the essential ingredients of

Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to bring home the guilt of the accused under

Section.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

23.Therefore, in view of the above discussions and reasons, it is held that the presumptions arising in favour of the complainant U/s. 118 & 139 of the Act have not been rebutted by the accused by preponderance of probabilities. Resultantly, this court finds the accused

G. Basava Punna Reddy guilty of the offence punishable u/s 138 NI Act and hence, he stands convicted U/Sec.255(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure Code.

Typed to my dictation, by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/K.Swapna Rani, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

G UNTUR .

24.Heard the accused on point of sentence. Accused stated that he has not committed the offence and added that he has wife and children dependent on him and pleaded for mercy.

25.Having regard to the nature of the offence that has been proved against the accused I am of the view that the accused despite having opportunity to pay up and thus end the matter amicably, had remained obdurately inert, and his release on probation of good conduct under 10 probation of offenders Act, 1958 seems most inappropriate. The time, money and effort expended by the complainant in continuing with this proceeding must not be lost sight of.

Thus the accused, Gade Basava Punna Reddy is sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

26.Further, the accused by not discharging the liability i.e, by not paying the amount mentioned in Ex.P2 cheque to the complainant which he was entitled to receive, made him to suffer. As such, in addition to the sentence of imprisonment passed against the accused as afore said, it is appropriate to award compensation to the complainant to a tune of Rs.4,80,000/- i.e, the Ex.P2 cheque amount herein.

27.IN THE RESULT, the accused namely Gade Basava Punna Reddy is convicted U/s.255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The quantum of compensation is determined at Rs.4,80,000/- i.e, amount covered under the cheque (Ex.P2), on hearing the accused. The accused is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- to the complainant U/s.357 (3) of Cr.P.C. within three months from this date, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further, the accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal aid through Hon’ble Chairman, District Legal Services Authoruity, Guntur, if he has no means.

Typed to my dictation, by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/K.Swapna Rani, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

G UNTUR .

//True Copy//

11

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR CASE N O .657/2015

1. DATEOF OFFENCE: 15-06-2013

2. DATEOF COMPLAINTORREPORT: 14-08-2013

3. Date of apprehension of the accused: ---

4. Date of release on bail: ---

5. DATEOFCOMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL: 15-09-2016

6. DATEOFCLOSEOFTRIAL: 15-05-2018

7. DATEOF SENTENCEOR ORDER: 19-12-2018

COMPLAINANT: Kareti Rambabau, S/o Late Sambasiva Rao, Age 33 years,

Real Estate business, R/o Yadavapalem, Pedakakani Village and Mandal.

ACCUSED: Gade Basava Punna Reddy, S/o China Kotireddy, Age 40 years,

Real Estate Business, R/o Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal.

Offence : Dishonour of Cheque.

Section of Law : U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding of Court : Accused found guilty.

Sentence/ Order : IN THE RESULT, THEACCUSEDNAMELY GADE BASAVA PUNNA REDDYISCONVICTED U/S.255 (2) CR.P.C. ANDSENTENCEDTOSUFFERSIMPLEIMPRISONMENT FORAPERIODOFTHREEMONTHSFORTHEOFFENCEPUNISHABLE U/S.138 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THEQUANTUMOFCOMPENSATIONISDETERMINEDAT RS.4,80,000/- I.E, AMOUNTCOVEREDUNDERTHECHEQUE (EX.P2), ONHEARINGTHEACCUSED. THEACCUSEDIS ALSODIRECTEDTOPAYTHECOMPENSATIONOF RS.4,80,000/- TOTHECOMPLAINANT U/S.357 (3) OF CR.P.C. WITHINTHREEMONTHSFROMTHISDATE, INDEFAULT, TOSUFFERSIMPLE

IMPRISONMENTFORTHREEMONTHS.

Explanation for delay:-

On 11-08-2016, the accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec. 138 of N.I Act. On 15-09-2016, P.W1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On 09-08-2017, P.W.2 was examined and no documents are marked. On 19-09-2017, the complainant evidence is closed. On 03- 10-2017, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. On 01-02-2018, D.W1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 are marked. On 15-05-2018, D.W2 was examined and no documents are marked and the defence evidence is closed. On 19-12-2018, heard both sides and Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/K.Swapna Rani, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

G UNTUR .

//T RUE C OPY //

1 C.C.116/2015

In the Court of VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Present: Smt K. Swapna Rani,

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Thursday, the 15th day of November, 2018.

CC.No.116/2015

Between:

State, represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Woman Police Station. … COMPLAINANT.

-And-

1. Sadaraboina Samuel, S/o. Kannaiah, 32 years. (died)

2. Sadaraboina Chittema, W/o. Kannaiah, 32 years.

3. Guntur Anupuma, W/o. Kiran, 28 years.

4. Karumuri Kumari, W/o. Suresh, 26 years.

5. Sadaraboina Wilson, S/o. Kannaiah, 25 years.

….All the accused are R/o. 5th lane Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur.

… ACCUSED.

This case is coming before me on 15.11.2018 for final hearing in the presence of

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri. S.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. (a) All the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code and U/secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act for subjecting LW1-Sadaraboina Santhi to cruelty and for demanding additional dowry.

(b) LW6-B.Koteswara Rao, ASI of Old Guntur P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.285/2014 upon receipt of report from the complainant– Sadaraboina Santhi, by issuing First Information

Report for the offence U/s.498 of I.P.C. and U/secs.3 & 4 of D.P.Act against both the accused.

As narrated in the chargesheet, on 22.08.2004 the defacto complainant- Saradaboina Santhi got married to A1 and at the time of marriage Rs.50,000/- was given to accused towards dowry.

Soon after married she joined her matrimonial house and she was blessed with two children. A1 2 C.C.116/2015 is a mason worker and since her marriage subjecting her to cruelty both physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- which was also supported by other accused A2 to

A5. Owing to this Saradaboina Santhi reported to Tadepalli P.S. and counseling was conducted to A1 to look after her wishes. But the attitude of A1 remain unchanged due to which

Saradaboina Santhi again reported the matter to Old Guntur P.S. on 07.07.2014. Again the matter was referred to family counseling centre, but A1 has not attended it.

(c)During the course of investigation the case was transferred to Women P.S. for further investigation and LW7-J.Anuradha, SI of police of women P.S. examined as many as five witnesses who are witnesses to the occurrence. She inspected the scene of offence, examined the same and drew the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 04.08.2014 she he served notices to the accused U/s.41(A) of Cr.P.C. after explaining them the facts of the case.

After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A5.

2.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused under Section 498-A IPC., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.

3.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of all the documents, on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

4.When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charge under Section 498-A IPC and U/secs.3 & 4 of D.P.Act have been framed against A1 to A5. The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. During the course of trial, A1 died and case against him was abated vide order dated 16.11.2017.

3 C.C.116/2015

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused have been called upon to explain the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of PWs-1 to 5, as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which the accused A1 to A5 denied the offence and reported no defense evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused,

S.Nageswara Rao and perused the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and Exs.P1 and P2.

8.Now the point for determination are:

1. Whether the accused persons A2 to A5 had subjected defacto complainant-

Saradaboina Santhi to cruelty, both physical and mental, with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful dowry demand, and compelled her to leave the marital home, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498(A) IPC ?

2. Whether the accused persons A2 to A5 had demanded additional dowry from parents of defacto-complainant Saradaboina Santhi in the form of cash and thereby

committed an offence punishable U/secs. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

3. Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused

A1 to A5 U/s.498 of IPC and U/secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9. Points: (a)Accused nos.2 to 5 stood charged for committing the offence under Section 498-A IPC., and Section 3 and 4 of the Act for for subjecting to cruelty, the complainant –

Saradaboina Santhi, both physically and mentally for additional dowry. The parents of the complainant performed marriage of complainant with A.1 by presenting Rs.50,000/-. A.1 started harassing complainant both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry. A.2 to

A.5 supported A1 to harass the complainant to bring additional dowry.

(b)To sustain the charge under Section 498-A IPC., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, the 4 C.C.116/2015 prosecution must prove the following ingredients:

i) Whether the conduct of the accused is of such nature as is likely to drive PW-1 (Saradaboina Santhi) to commit suicide or cause danger to her health or subjected her physically or mentally to cruelty ? or ii) Whether the harassment of the accused is with a view to coercing PW-1 (Saradaboina Santhi) to meet the unlawful demand for bringing additional dowry amount from her parents or on account of failure of PW-1 to meet such demand ?

and

iii) Whether there was giving of dowry of Rs.50,000/- and demand of additional dowry amount on PW-1 or her relatives by the accused ?

(c) The term ‘cruelty’ is defined under explanation to Section 498-A IPC as; (a) any will conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mentally or physically, of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet the demand.

(d) It is settled proposition of law that what is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case and that intention is not necessary element in cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impart of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etcetera. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty.

In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not.

5 C.C.116/2015

(e)(1) The complainant PW1 stated that her marriage was performed with late

Samuel on 22.08.2004 and at the time of marriage Rs.50,000/- dowry was given to her inlaws and that she was blessed with two children. A1 used to work as mason. Her mother in law used to instigate her husband that she has brought meagre amount of dowry. On hearing her words her husband A1 used to harass her that the dowry brought by her is not sufficient. Her mother in law used to instigate her husband A1 to marry him with another woman. She further stated that her sisters in law used to come very often and upon their visit quarrels took place in our family. She also stated that A1 used to come in drunken condition and necked her out of the house. On one day when he necked out her she waited for her mother and her mother came and took her back to her house and after two days A1 came and promised to lookafter her well and took her back. She further stated that both her sisters in law instigated A1 to desert her. A1 after two days necked her out of the house stating that she is not necessary. She stated that she reported to police at Tadepalli. And Counselling was conducted and that even after counseling the behaviour of all the accused remain unchanged. That on the instigation of A2 to A5, A1 deserted her.

(2) PW2 who is the mother of PW1 stated that marriage of PW1 was performed 13 years ago with A1 and now A1 is no more. She stated that at the time of marriage

Rs.50,000/- dowry was given as dowry and later they were blessed with two children. She stated that A1 used to work as mason and he got addicted to vices and he used to beat PW1 demanding additional dowry. She further stated that accused A1 necked out PW1 once and she took her back to their house. After two days A1 came and promised to lookafter her well and took her back. Later both the sisters in law of PW1 instigated A1 to desert her and then A1 after two days necked her out of the house stating that PW1 is not necessary to him. Even after coducting of counselling all the accused did not change their attitude and upon instigation of

A2 to A5, A1 deserted her daughter.

(3) PW3 and PW4 who are the relatives of PW1 stated that in the year, 2004 PW1 6 C.C.116/2015 was married to A1 at the time of marriage Rs.50,000/- was given as dowry. Again demanding

Rs.50,000/- addl. dowry A1 used to harass PW1 upon instigation of all other accused.

(4) PW5 is the investigation officer and he deposed as to the investigation conducted by him i.e., as to registration of crime according to the statement of witnesses, visiting scene of offence, service of notice u/s. 41 Cr.P.C against accused filing of charge sheet against them.

(f) (1) The contention of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of PW-1, corroborated by the evidence of PW2 to 4 supported by the evidence of PW-5 – investigating officer and the documentary evidence under Exs.P1 and P2, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as PW-1 was subjected to cruelty by the accused for illegal demand of additional dowry and that, therefore, PW-1 filed complaint against the accused, the accused are liable for punishment for the offences with which they are charged.

(2) On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the except the family members no other independent witness are examined. Further in the cross ex- amination PW1 herself admitted that her in laws i.e, A2 to A5 paid house tax, water tax, elec- tricity bill and gas bill from the date of death of her husband. He also argued that there is noth- ing on record which arraigned the accused person as reasonable doubts persisted about the prosecution’s version and it is only to demand money from A2 to A5, PW1 has continued to prosecute this case even after the death of her husband, A1. Hence he prayed to dismiss the case against A1 to A5.

(g) (i) Explanation (a) of Section 498-A IPC defines cruelty as any willful conduct of the accused which is of such nature as is likely to drive woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mentally or physically, of a woman. The 7 C.C.116/2015 entire evidence of PW-1 – defacto complainant and her mother – PW-2 did not disclose that the cruelty of the accused is of such nature as is likely to drive PW-1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mentally or physically.

(ii) Though, it is the version of PW-1 that dowry was given and additional dowry was demanded and that she was harassed by A1 upon instigation of A2 to A5, Ex.P1 did not disclose the same. PWs-2 to 4 are not the direct witnesses to speak about the alleged harassment meted out to PW-1 by the accused.

(h) (i) Now the the court has to see whether there is harassment on PW-1 coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet the said demand as explained in the Explanation (b) of Secton 498-A IPC.

10.(a).During cross examination PW1, she admitted that her elder sister in law was married prior to her marriage and that she resides at Repalle. She further admitted that her mother in law and her husband’s brothers are paying house tax, water tax, electricity bill and gas bill from the date of death of her husband and the house where she reside and her brother in law's house are side by side and the houses are got constructed by her mother in law. She stated that A2 and A5 are residing under same roof of A5. She further stated that her father is mason so also her husband and they used to work together. She denied the suggestion that her father had prior acquittance with her husband before marriage. She stated that at first she gave complaint at Tadepalli P.S against only her husband.

(b).When examined in cross PW2 stated that there is complaint filed by A4 against her daughter PW1 alleging that PW1 beat A4. She also stated that she did not make any efforts to settle the matter.

8 C.C.116/2015

11.On consideration of entire evidence of record, both oral and documentary, this court finds that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498-A

IPC., as the term cruelty, as defined in clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to section 498-A IPC., is not established. This court is of the opinion that the evidence of PWs-1 to 5 and Exs. P1 and

P2, is not sufficient to the prosecution case for convicting the accused with the charge leveled against them and that, therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

12.IN THE RESULT, the accused A2 to A5 are found not guilty for offence under Sec.498A

IPC and U/secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a further period of six months from today in view of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15 th day of November, 2018.

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Saradaboina Santhi -None- P.W.2: Pinapati Koteswara Rao P.W.3: Kukkamalla Ramulu P.W.4: Kukkamalla Ankamma P.W.5: B.Koteswara Rao, SI of Police

Exhibits Marked. For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P.2: First information report dt.24-07-2014

Material objects marked Nil

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

9 C.C.116/2015

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

GUNTUR

C.C.NO.116/2015

1. DATE OF OFFENCEPRIOR TO 22.08.2004

2.DATE OF REPORT OR COMPLAINT24.07.2014

3.DATE OF APPREHENSION OF THE--

ACCUSED

4.DATE OF RELEASE ON BAIL--

5.DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF01.08.2018 TRIAL

6.DATE OF CLOSE OF THE TRIAL12.10.2018

7.DATE OF SENTENCE OF ORDER 15.11.2018

8.EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND-

REMARKS

REPRESENTED BY

COMPLAINANTHE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

TWOMEN POLICE STATION.

1. Sadaraboina Samuel, S/o. Kannaiah, 32 years. (Died)

2. Sadaraboina Chittema, W/o. Kannaiah, 32 years.

ACCUSED

3. Guntur Anupuma, W/o. Kiran, 28 years.

4. Karumuri Kumari, W/o. Suresh, 26 years.

5. Sadaraboina Wilson, S/o. Kannaiah, 25 years.

….All the accused are R/o. 5th lane Vinobha Nagar, Old Guntur.

OFFENCEPUNISHMENT FOR CRUELTY AND HARASSMENT AND

PENALTY FOR DEMANDING DOWRY

SECTION OFUNDER SECTIONS 498-A IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF LAW D.P.ACT.

FINDINGOFACCUSED FOUND NOT GUILTY.

COURT IN THE RESULT, THE ACCUSED A2 TO A5 ARE FOUND NOT

GUILTY OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 498-A OF SENTENCE/ ORDERIPC AND SEC.3 & 4 OF DP ACT AND THEREBY THEY ARE

ACQUITTED U/SEC 248 (1) OF CR.P.C. THE BAIL BONDS OF

THE ACCUSED SHALL BE IN FORCE FOR A PERIOD OF SIX

MONTHS AS PER SECTION 437 (A) OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE CODE.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE V. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

C.C.No.43/2018

1. DATEOF OFFENCE21.12.2017

2.DATEOF REPORTOR COMPLAINT21.12.2017

3.DATEOF APPREHENSIONOFTHE22­12­2017

ACCUSED

4.DATEOF RELEASEONBAIL­­

5.DATEOF COMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL28­5­2018

6.DATEOFCLOSEOFTHETRIAL28­11­2018

7.DATEOF SENTENCEOF ORDER13­12­2018

8.EXPLANATIONOFDELAYANDREMARKS ­

REPRESENTEDBY

COMPLAINANTTHE SUB­INSPECTOROF POLICE, ARUNDELPET POLICE STATION. CR.NO.460/2017 Katta Nani, S/o.Srinivas, 27 years, C/Yerukula, ACCUSEDR/o. Opp. Government Hospital, Nizampatnam village and Mandal, Guntur District. SECTIONOFU/SECS. 224 OF IPC. LAW

FINDINGOFACCUSEDFOUNDGUILTY.

COURT

IN THE RESULT, ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 224 OF IPC AND IS, ACCORDINGLY SENTENCE / CONVICTEDUNDER SECTION 255(2) OF CR.P.C. FURTHER THE

ORDER

ACCUSED SHALL UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF

ONEYEARFOROFFENCEPUNISHABLE U/S.224 OF IPC. THEREMAND

PERIODALREADYUNDERGONEBYTHEACCUSEDFROM 22.12.2017 TO

TILLDATESHALLBESETOFF U/S.428 OF CR.P.C.

S D /­K.S WAPNA R ANI

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR. 

FAC.V. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. 

COPYTO: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CUM­PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR.

Present: K. Swapna Rani, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC.V.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. Thursday, the 13th day of December, 2018.

Calendar Case No.43/2018

Between: State: Rep., by Sub­Inspector of Police, Arundelpet PS, Guntur Urban.

...COMPLAINANT

and

Katta Nani, S/o.Srinivas, 27 years, C/Yerukula, R/o. Opp. Government Hospital, Nizampatnam village and Mandal, Guntur District. …ACCUSED

This case is coming on 13­12­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and the learned Legal Aid Counsel

Sri. M.Srinivasrao, counsel for accused, and after hearing both sides and having perused the material available on record, and matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Inspector of Police, Arundelpet Police Station, Guntur Urban has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.460/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 224 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i)That the Defacto Complainant PW.1 and LW.2 are the police constables of

Vedullapalli Police Station. On 21­12­2017 they took the accused and LW.4

Vasavarapu Sagar @ Samudralu from District Jail, Guntur and caused their prosecution before Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla. After such production, PW1 and LW2, another constable reached Guntur District Jail along with both the accused persons. But while producing them at District Jail, one of the accused person K.Nani, escaped from their lawful custody.

3

(ii)Based on the report of PW.1­Enagaluru Venkata Siva Reddy,

PC.No.4107 of Vedullapalli PS, PW.4­T.Tirupathi Rao, Sub­Inspector of police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.460/2017 for the offences punishable under

Sections 224 of Indian Penal Code, of Arundelpet PS on 21­12­2017 at 10­00 p.m.

During the course of investigation PW.4 examined Lws.1 to 4 as witnesses and recorded their statements and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 22­12­2017 on credible information PW.4 arrested the accused at Tenali

Road, Budampadu Highway after identification in the presence of mediators PW.3 and LW.6 and sent for judicial remand and after completion of investigation PW.4 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s.224 of IPC.

2.The case was taken cognizance on file against accused persons under Sections 224 of IPC.

3.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.When examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having committed any offence. When the substance of examination was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is the report of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the letter addressed to the Hon’ble I. Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla by the Superintendent of

District jail, requesting the production of two remand prisoners involved in

Cr.No.129/2017 registered by the Vedulapalli PS on execution of PT warrant. Ex.P3 is the attested copy of letter depicting issuance of PT warrant by the Hon’ble I.Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla to the Superintendent of District jail, Ex.P4 is 4 mediatornama duly signed by PW.3, Ex.P5 is FIR, Ex.P6 is Rough sketch of scene of offence. Since Pw.1 the witness cited to prove the alleged occurrence, supported the prosecution, and the evidence of Pws.2 to 4 corroborated evidence of PW.1, and in view of such evidence the learned APP gave up the evidence of LW.2­Marrapu

Srinivasarao, LW.4­ Vasavarapu Sagar @ Samudralu, LW.6­Reddyobina Adam, the remaining witnesses to the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution proved its case.

6. The examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. was held on 28­11­2018, the evidence of PW.1 to 4 incriminating the accused was read over to the accused in Telugu and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record, both, oral and documentary.

8.Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable  under Sections 224 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

9.POINT :

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined

Pws. 1 to 4. PW1­Enagaluru Venkata Siva Reddy, who is the defacto complainant deposed that he has been working as Police constable, Vedullapalli Police station since 4 years. That he knows LW.2 M.Srinivasarao PC.4129 and the accused herein.

He further stated that on 21­12­2017 the SHO, Vedullapalli deputed him and LW.2 for production of accused herein and another prisoner Samudrala @ Sagar before

Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla from district jail, Guntur on

execution of P.T.Warrant. Accordingly both went to District Jail, Guntur and took them in to their custody and produced before Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Guntur in Cr.No.129/2017 U/s.379 of IPC on the file of Vedullapalli

5 police station and after that PW.1 and LW.2 took up them into their custody along with other accused to District jail, Guntur at about 6.30 to 6.45 p.m. When they were handing over them to District Jial Authorities, accused herein escaped from the custody of PW.1 and LW.2 in the guise of changing clothes and ran way towards

Arundelpt 5th lane and pushed PW.1, inspite of his efforts to catch hold of the accused. Hence, PW.1 and LW.2 gave report before SHO, Arundelpet PS. Ex.P1 is report. PW1 also exhibited two other documents evidencing requisition for issuance of P.T. warrant and the very issuance of P.T. warrant against accused as Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3.

10.PW.2­M.Rajarao, deposed in his evidence that he is working as document writer at MRO Office compound, beside Sub Jail, Guntur. He further stated that on 21­12­2017 at about 7.00 p.m two constables were running for chasing the escaped remand prisoner. He identified the accused present in the court has as remand prisoner who escaped on that day. He added that he saw him escaping towards

Arundelpet main road from the jail. 

11.PW.3­Jada Satish, deposed in his evidence that on 22­12­2017 police constable called him at about 9­30 a.m. He went to police station and accepted to act as Mediator. Police took up to Budampadu High way. One person was escaping by seeing the police. Police caught hold and on enquiry, he revealed his name as

Katta Nani and confessed that when he was remanded in a crime by Chandolu police in a bike theft case, he escaped from the jail and added that he came to

Budampadu high way to go to his village on a vehicle as he had no money and upon seeing the police he tried to escape. To this effect mediatornama was prepared by police. PW.3 stated that he attested the same mediatornama prepared by police.

Ex.p4 is Mediatornama.

12.PW.4­T.Tirupathirao, Sub­Inspector of police, deposed that he received report from PW.1 on 21­12­2017. Basing on the report of PW.1 he registered a case in 6

Cr.No.460/2017, U/s.224 of IPC and took up investigation. He examined PW.1,

LW.2 Srinivasarao, and on 22­12­2017 he visited the scene of offence at District

Jail, Guntur and examined PW.2 and prepared rough sketch of scene of ofence and on information he proceeded to Budampadu junction by securing mediators, PW.3 and LW.6­Reddiboina Adam, and arrested the accused in the presence of PW.3 and

LW.6 and recorded confessional statement of accused under cover of mediatornama, and also examined Lw.4­Vasavarapu Sagar who is co­accused with the accused in

Cr.No.129/2017 of Vedullapalli PS at District jail upon seeking permission from the

Court and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. PW4 exhibited 2 documents i.e, FIR and rough sketch of scene of offence as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 respectively.

13.From the above, it is clear that there is incriminating material against the accused, both oral and documentary as to escaping from lawful custody of

Enagaluru Venkata Siva Reddy­PW.1, LW.2 Srinivasa Rao who were escort police to the accused to produce him along with LW4­ Vasavarapu Sagar before the Hon’ble

I.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Thus the prosecution has proved accusation against the accused. On the other hand nothing material is elicited during cross examination of prosecution witneses to disbelieve the version of prosecution. Basing on the oral evidence of PWs1 to 4 and docuemtary evidence under Ex.P1 to Ex.P6, this court holds that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. 

14. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s. 224 of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted U/sec 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. 

 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13 th day of December, 2018.

Sd/-K.Swapna Rani

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR. 

 FAC.V. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

7

15.Heard the accused on point of sentence. The accused submitted that he has two daughters dependant on him and pleaded for mercy.

16.Having regard to the nature of offence that has been proved against the accused, I am of the view that his release on probation of good conduct under probation of offenders Act, 1958 seems inappropriate. As such, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

17.Thus, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable U/s.224 of IPC. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 22.12.2017 to till date shall be set off U/s.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right of appeal before Hon’ble Sessions Court and also informed about his right to get free legal aid through Hon’ble Chairman, District

Legal Services Authority, Guntur, if he has no means.

 VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR. 

 FAC.V. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: ­None ­ P.W.1: E.V.Siva Reddy, PC.4107, PW.2:M.Rajarao, PW.3:Jada Satish, PW.4:T.Tirupathi Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: ­Nil­ Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1. Ex.P.2 : Letter addressed to I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Ex.P3 : Attested copy of letter. Ex.P4: Mediatornama, Ex.P5: FIR, Ex.P6: Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBECTS

­Nil­

Sd/­K.Swapna Rani

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR. 

FAC.V. ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT:- Smt K. Swapna Rani,

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 2 nd day of November, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No.887/2015

Between:

State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, East Traffic PS, Guntur. … C OMPLAINANT .

-And-

Simhadri Siva Koteswara Rao, S/o Somaiah, Age 32 years, Gouda, R/o H.No. 1-138, Vadlamudi village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District. Driver cum owner of milk lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 9292.… A CCUSED .

D ECEASED : SWARNA YESUDASU, S/OLATE PREMADASU, AGE 30 YEARS, MADIGA, 1STLANE, ISRAILPET, GUNTUR TOWN.

This case coming before me on 02-11-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri. M. Suresh Babu, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. (a)The Inspector of police, East Traffic P.S, Guntur filed charge sheet in Cr. No.

227/2015 against the accused U/sec. 304-A of IPC.

(b)In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is as follows:

On 12.10.2015 at about 3:00 A.M, on Vijayawada-Guntur road infront of out gate of NTR RTC bus stand, Guntur the deceased by name Swarna Yesudasu who was crossing the road along with his co-workers i.e., L.Ws.2 to 4 by name Intha Narayana Reddy, Pallepu

Durga Prasad and Burra Rajesh respectively from Lodge side to NTR bus station was dashed by lorry. At that time the accused being the driver of milk lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 9292 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and hit the pedestrian Yesudasu due to which the pedestrian deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head, abrasive injuries on his right temple of his head, on his forehead, on the above region of right eye, right leg foot, left leg ankle, right hand wrist, left hand writ and it was bleeding from his nostrils and ears. Then, L.Ws.2 to 4 who were accompanied by the

2

deceased, witnessed the incident and stopped the milk lorry driver but the lorry driver left the lorry and fled away and then L.Ws.2 to 4 shifted the deceased to GGH, Guntur for treatment.

On 12.10.2015 at 3:00 P.M, based on the statement of L.W1, L.W19/Inspector of police registered it as a case in Cr.No. 227/15 U/sec. 337 IPC and took up investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, L.W19 visited the scene of offence and observed the same in the presence of L.Ws.11 and 12 under cover of observation report and found the crime lorry parked at the scene of offence, photographed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 14.10.2015 at about 10:10 A.M, the deceased was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

Based on the death intimation of deceased, L.W19 altered the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC. During the course of further investigation, L.W19, held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayatdars and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination. On 15.10.2015, L.W19 served notice to the accused U/sec. 41-A of

Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.The offence was taken cognizance on file against the accused under Section 304-A of

IPC.

3.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied, were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having committed any offence. When the substance of the accusation is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 7 and Exs. P1 to P11 were marked.

6.P.W1 is the defacto-complainant/wife of deceased in this case but she did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution but they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W5 is the brother-in-law of deceased

3

but he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W6 is the inquest panchayatdar but he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W7 is the investigation officer who did entire investigation in this case.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence appearing against him from the testimony of P.W.7 was explained and read over to him, which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the Accused.

Perused the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Ex.P1 to P11.

9.Now the point for determination is

“whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt” ?

10.Point:

To prove the above point the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7.

11.P.W1 is the defacto-complainant/wife of deceased in this case. But she did not support the case of the prosecution. She deposed in her evidence that on 11.10.2015, her brother

P.W5 informed to her that her husband met with road accident at Guntur bus stand. Then, she went to GGH, Guntur and her husband was sustained severe injury and the surgery was also done at GGH, Guntur but he succumbed to injuries on 14.10.2015. She further deposed that she does not know what vehicle caused such accident and for what reason the accident occurred. In view of her evidence, the learned APP for state declared her hostile and cross- examined her by putting forth the contents in her 161 Cr.P.C statement which she denied and nothing worthwhile was elicited from the said cross-examination.

12.P.Ws.2 to 4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution. But they did not support the case of the prosecution. They consistently deposed that they do not know anything about this case and also do not know how the deceased died but the police came there and enquired about their details. In view of their evidence the learned APP for state declared them hostile and cross-examined them by putting forth the contents in their 161

4

Cr.P.C statements which they denied and nothing worthwhile was elicited from the said cross- examination.

13. P.W5 is the brother-in-law of deceased. But he did not support the case of the prosecution. He deposed that his brother-in-law died in road accident but he has not witnessed the accident. In view of his evidence, the learned APP for state declared him hostile and cross-examined him by putting forth the contents in his 161 Cr.P.C statement which he denied and nothing worthwhile was elicited from the said cross-examination.

14.P.W6 is the mediator in whose presence inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased. He deposed in his evidence that the deceased is his friend and in the year 2015, he died and police have conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in his presence and also L.Ws.13 and 14.

15. P.W7, the investigation officer deposed that on 12.10.2015, L.W18/Head constable received information from GGH, Guntur and he rushed to hospital and recorded the statement of L.W1/Swarna Mariyamma and based on the statement, he registered a case in Cr.No.

227/15 U/sec. 337 IPC and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statement of

P.W1 and went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and also prepared scene observation report under Exs.P8 and P9 respectively. On 14.10.2015, he held inquest over the body of the deceased and sent the crime vehicle lorry to the MVI for inspection. He also sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination. On 15.10.2015, he served notice to the accused U/sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C and after receipt of all reports, he filed charge sheet.

16.On perusal of the evidence of P.W7, it is clear that he failed to collect any material evidence to connect the accused with the accident which caused the death of the deceased.

17. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash/negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not reveal or establish that the accused is indeed the driver of the crime vehicle who drove it in a rash/ negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased and also injuries to P.W1.

5

18. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence.

19.In the result,the accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A IPC and is accordingly acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months as per the provisions under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced on this the 2 nd day of November, 2018.

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Swarna Mariyamma.-None- P.W.2: Burra Rajesh. P.W.3: Intha Narayana Reddy. P.W.4: Pallepu Durga Prasad. P.W.5: Chinthaguntla Chanti. P.W.6: Syed Subhani. P.W.7: T. Murali Krishna.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1.-Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P.3: Sec 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P.4: Sec 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4. Ex.P5: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W-5. Ex.P6: Inquest Report. Ex.P7: FIR. Ex.P8: Rough Sketch. Ex.P9: Scene observation report. Ex.P10: MVI Report. Ex.P11: Postmortem Report.

Material objects marked. -NIL-

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

6

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

GUNTUR

C.C.N O .887/2015

1. DATEOF OFFENCE12-10-2015

2.DATEOF REPORTOR COMPLAINT12-10-2015

3.DATEOF APPREHENSIONOFTHEACCUSED02-08-2016

4.DATEOF RELEASEONBAIL15-10-2015

5.DATEOF COMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL09-08-2018

6.DATEOFCLOSEOFTHETRIAL31-10-2018

7.DATEOF SENTENCEOF ORDER02-11-2018

REPRESENTEDBY

COMPLAINANTTHE INSPECTOROF POLICE,

EAST TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, GUNTURURBAN.

Simhadri Siva Koteswara Rao, S/o Somaiah, Age 32 years, Gouda, R/o H.No. 1-138, Vadlamudi village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District. ACCUSEDDriver cum owner of milk lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 9292.

OFFENCEPUNISHMENTFORCAUSINGDEATHBYNEGLIGENCE.

SECTIONOFUNDER SECTION 304-A OF IPC. LAW

FINDINGOFACCUSEDFOUNDNOTGUILTY.

COURT

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and is accordingly acquitted under Section 255(1) SENTENCE / Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six

ORDER

months as per the provisions under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. EXPLANATIONCopies of documents were furnished to the accused on 02-08-2016 as FORDELAYcontemplated U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. On 21-02-2017, the accused was examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec. 304-A IPC. On 09-08- 2018, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. On 27-09-2018, P.Ws.3 to P.W5 was examined and Exs.P3 to P5 are marked. On 15-10-2018, P.W6 was examined and Ex.P6 was marked. On 31-10-2018, P.W7 was examined and Exs.P7 to P11 were marked and the prosecution evidence is closed. On 02-11-2018, the accused was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C andheard both sides and Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

VI A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

G UNTUR .

1

In the Court of the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Present:­ Smt. K. Swapna Rani. 

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Friday, this the 30 th day of November, 2018.

CALENDAR CASE No.522/2017

Between: State, represented by The Inspector of police, Old Guntur Police Station. … C OMPLAINANT .

­And­

1. Challa Srinivasa Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 42 years, Tirumala Residency, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur.

2. Nurjahan Begum, W/o Late Salam, Age 65 years, near Baraiman Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

3. Abdul Rafi, S/o Late Salam, Age 40 years, near Baraiman Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

4. Razia Sultana W/o Shaik Rahim, Age 30 years, near Baraiman Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

5. Abdul Rizvan, S/o Late Mohammad Yakub, Age 30 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

6. Abdul Razak, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 35 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

7. Abdula Irfan, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 30 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

8. Abdul Rehman, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 28 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

...A CCUSED .

****

This case coming up before me on 30­11­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri. R. Kantha Rao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.(a) The Inspector of police, Old Guntur P.S filed charge sheet against the accused

No.1 to 8 in Cr.No. 22/15 for the offences punishable U/secs. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of

IPC. 

(b)In brief, the case of the prosecution is that:­

Prior to 05.09.2015, the father­in­law of complainant namely Thikamal

Bathmal Rathi has purchased the site 0.50 cents in survey No. 98/A, 981/A located by the side of Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur from one Abdul Sattar 2 who is father­in­law of A2. Later, the said site was devolved to L.W1­Saroj Rathi from her father­in­law as she is legal heir and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Then, A1 colluded with A2 to A8 who are the legal heirs of the late Abdul Sattar with an intention to grab the land of L.W1 for wrongful gain,

A1 to A8 took L.Ws.3 and 4 by name Yemaineni Ammaiah and Mulupuri Venkata

Ramana Reddy respectively to the site of L.W1 and showed the land to L.Ws.3 and 4 by saying that the land was dilapidated and requested L.Ws.3 and 4 to buy the land.

Then, L.Ws.3 and 4 purchased site to the extent of 1000 square yards each to L.W3 and 4 in survey No. 980/A, 981/A for Rs.3,000/­ each square yards in total 60,00,000/­ under registered document No. 4658/13 on the name of L.W4 and another sale deed on the name of L.W3 on 30.03.2013 in SRO, Guntur. Later L.Ws.3 and 4 came to know about cheating of A1 to A8. Thus L.W1 and L.Ws.3 and 4 also are cheated by A1 to A8. On 05.09.2015 at 2:00 P.M, L.W1 gave report to L.W7­

Inspector of police, Old Guntur P.S who registered it as a case in Cr.No. 220/15

U/secs. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation.

(C)During the course of investigation, LW7­P. Bala Murali Krishna, Inspector of

Police, Old Guntur PS, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses; later, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 13­08­2015, L.W7 arrested A1 and sent him for remand. On 22.09.2015, L.W7 produced A1 before the court on PT warrant. The accused persons are said to have involved in so many crimes of Old

Guntur P.S. later, L.W7 served notices to A2 to A8 U/sec 41­A of Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 

2.The case was taken on file against the accused No.1 to 8 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

4.When the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having committed any offence. Thereafter, charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution examined PW.1 and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked. P.W1 is the defacto­complainant/victim in this case but she did not support the case of the prosecution.

6.In view of the evidence of PW.1, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LWs 2 to 7, who are alleged eye witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and investigation officer.

7. Since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of PW.1, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has been dispensed with.

8. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the accused. Perused the evidence of

PW.1 and Exs. P1 and P2.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10.Point:­

To prove the above point, the prosecution examined P.W.1. P.W1 deposed in her evidence that there were land disputes between her and all the accused persons and for that reason she filed civil suit against them. She never gave any report to the police but the police obtained her signature on some blank papers. She does not know who scribed the report. In view of her evidence, the learned APP for state declared her hostile and cross­ 4 examined her by putting forth the contents in her 161 Cr.P.C statement which she denied and nothing worthwhile was elicited from the said cross­examination. 

11. From the above, it is clear that there is no incriminating material against the accused. Thus prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.IN THE RESULT,accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty of the offences under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly the accused No.1 to 8 are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this judgment as u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30 th day of November, 2018.

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution:For Defence: P.W.1: Saroji Rathi ­None­

Exhibits Marked. For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Signature of P.W1 on the report. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1. 

Material objects marked. ­NIL­

VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

5

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

GUNTUR

C.C.N O .522/2017

1. DATEOF OFFENCEPRIORTO 05.09.2015

2.DATEOF REPORTOR COMPLAINT05­09­2015

3.DATEOF APPREHENSIONOFTHE­­

ACCUSED

4.DATEOF RELEASEONBAIL­­

5.DATEOF COMMENCEMENTOFTRIAL27­11­2018

6.DATEOFCLOSEOFTHETRIAL30­11­2018

7.DATEOF SENTENCEOF ORDER30­11­2018

REPRESENTEDBY30

COMPLAINANTTHEINSPECTOROFPOLICE,

OLD GUNTUR POLICE STATION. 

1. Challa Srinivasa Rao, S/o Anjaneyulu, Age 42 years, Tirumala Residency, 3rd line, Lakshmipuram, Guntur.

2. Nurjahan Begum, W/o Late Salam, Age 65 years, near Baraiman

ACCUSED

Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

3. Abdul Rafi, S/o Late Salam, Age 40 years, near Baraiman Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

4. Razia Sultana W/o Shaik Rahim, Age 30 years, near Baraiman Panja Mosque, Ponnur road, Guntur.

5. Abdul Rizvan, S/o Late Mohammad Yakub, Age 30 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

6. Abdul Razak, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 35 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

7. Abdula Irfan, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 30 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur.

8. Abdul Rehman, S/o late Mohammad Yakub, Age 28 years, 2nd line, Hussain Nagar, near Andhra Muslim college, Ponnur road, Guntur. SECTIONOFUNDER SECTIONS420, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC LAW

FINDINGOFFOUNDNOTGUILTY.

COURT

IN THE RESULT,accused No.1 to 8 are found not guilty of the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC. SENTENCE / Accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

ORDER

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this judgment as u/sec 437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

6

EXPLANATIONCopies of documents were furnished to accused on 27­11­2018 as

FORDELAY

contemplated U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C and on the same day, the accused was examined U/secs. 239 Cr.P.C for the offences U/secs. 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and the charges were framed for the said offences. On 27­11­2018, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 and P2 were marked and the learned APP gave up evidence of remaining witnesses and the examination of accused U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused. On 30­11­2018, heard both sides and judgment was

pronounced on the same day. Hence, no delay.

VI A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE ,

G UNTUR .