Smt. K. Syamala Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : : BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT : Smt. K. SYAMALA DEVI-*

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Thursday, the 23rd day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No. 43/2016

Between :

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant And :

Golagani Appalanaidu S/o Surappadu, 24 years, Yadava by caste, Nerallavalasa Village and Panchayat, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Driver of Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148). … Accused

This case is coming on 21.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for Prosecution and of Sri E.

Eswara Rao, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.

304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M. V. Act 1988 in Cr. No.

32/2016 of Padamanabham Police Station alleging that;

The accused is the resident of Nerallavalasa Village of

Padmanabham Mandal. The deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar is residing at Vizianagaram and doing Onion business. On 29.03.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., he started from his house for collection of dues from his regular customers on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 Q 4734 to

Padmanabham via Chinnapuram and when reached near Sarikandam

Village i.e., near Sunkarigiribabu layout, the accused being the driver 2 of auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations and hit his motorcycle. On that, the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries to his head and other parts in unconscious state. Then, the persons gathered at the scene of offence informed the incident to him and shifted the injured to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. Later, the deceased

Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar died at about 8.10 p.m., while undergoing treatment in the hospital. On 30.03.2016 at about 8.00 a.m., he presented a written report to PW.10 who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 32/2016 U/Sec. 304-A of IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it. Later, he observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW.9 and LW.18

Korada Raju and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar in the presence of PW.8, LWs 13, 14, 15 and 17 Ramasingi Sanyasi Rao, Kalla Gopalam, Rowthu

Sreenu and Ura Kameswara Rao. He has also taken photographs of the dead body of deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar with the cell phone of LW.3 Koyyana Swarup Kiran at Mortuary, M. R. Hospital,

Vizianagaram and sent the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @

Ravi Kumar for post mortem examination to LW.19 Dr. V.

Satyanarayana, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital,

Vizianagaram who in turn conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar and issued post mortem certificate opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury. On 01.04.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he arrested the accused in the police station when he surrendered before him along 3 with vehicle records. Later, he served Notice U/Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C., to the accused and then released him on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties since the punishment for 304-A of IPC is within seven years of imprisonment. LW.20 R. Suman Kumar, Assistant Motor Vehicle

Inspector who inspected both the vehicles has issued accident report opining that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Thereafter further investigation was took up by LW.23 B. Simhachalam, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Padmanabham PS Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under the aforesaid section of law.

2.On 16.07.2016 this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M. V. Act against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against him for the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M.V. Act in Telugu. For which, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 – Turpati Ramesh Kumar, PW.2 – Akiri

Adhibabu, PW.3 – Puppala Padmanabam, PW.4 – Reddipalli

Chandrarao, PW.5 – Basavana Sattibabu, PW.6 – Allu Appalaraju,

PW.7 – Bora Appalanaidu, PW.8 – Vakada Venkata Ramesh Babu,

PW.9 – Chandaka Ramu and PW.10 – V. A. V. Satyanarayana, Head 4

Constable of Police, Padmanabham PS and got marked Exs P.1 to P.13 – Report given by PW.1 to the police, 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs 2 to 7, Signature of PW.8 on Inquest Report, Signature of PW.9 on

Scene Observation Report, FIR, Rough Sketch, Post Mortem Certificate of the deceased and MVI Report. On 14.10.2016, 11.11.2016 and 25.01.2017 the evidence of LWs 2 to 6, 13 to 15, 17 and 18 is closed as the police failed to serve summons to them since 29.08.2016, 14.10.2016 and 16.12.2016. On 09.02.2017 the evidence of LWs 20, 21 and 23 was given up by the learned A.P.P.

5.After the evidence of prosecution was closed, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard, the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

7.The point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C., and Secs 181 and 196 (a) of M. V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.P O I N T :

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of I.P.C., and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of

M. V. Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused being the driver of Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148 without having licence and insurance to the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent 5 manner without observing THE traffic rules and regulations dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar.

As a result of which, the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of his body and later died in the hospital while undergoing treatment and thereby, he committed the aforesaid offence.

9.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 - to speak about the facts of the offence and his giving report to the police,

PWs.2 to 6 – to speak about their presence at the time of accident and facts of the case, PW.7 – To speak about his ownership of the crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148, PW.8 – to speak about his presence at the time of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar, PW.9 - to speak about his presence at the time of drafting the scene observation report, PW.10 – to speak his registration of FIR, his investigation and arrest of the accused etc.

10.PW.1 who gave report to the police has stated that the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar is his own brother. He does not know the accused. On 29.03.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., he received phone call from District Hospital, Vizianagaram that his brother met with an accident. On that, he went to the hospital and found fracture to the right hand of his brother. On the same day at about 8.00 a.m., the Doctors declared that her brother was died. Then, he went to

Padmanabham Police Station and gave a report under Ex-P.1 to the police. Whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that Ex-P.1 report 6 was drafted by police officials. He does not know the contents of Ex-

P.1 report completely.

11.PWs 2 to 6 who alleged to be the direct eye witness to the offence had stated that they do no know the deceased Turupati Ravi @

Ravi Kumar, PW.1 and the accused. They do not know anything about the offence in this case. In their cross-examination by the learned APP, they denied the suggestion that they stated before police as in Exs P.2 to P.6 and now they are deposing falsely to help the accused.

12.PW.7 who alleged to speak about the offence and brother- in-law of the accused has stated that he is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto. In the month of March, 2016 the accused informed him that his auto was involved in an accident. Except that, he does not know anything about the offence in this case. In his cross-examination by the learned APP, he denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex-P.7 and now he is deposing falsely to help the accused.

13.PW.8 who alleged to have been present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi

Kumar has stated that on 30.03.2016 at about 9.30 a.m., police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar at M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram. But, he does not remember the contents of the inquest report. In his cross-examination by the learned APP, he denied the suggestion that he signed on the inquest report dt.30.03.2016 at about 9.30 a.m., at the time when the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati 7

Ravi @ Ravi Kumar at M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram and now he is deposing falsely to help the accused.

14.PW.9 who alleged to have been present at the time of drafting Scene Observation Report has stated that about two years back in morning hours at the request of PW.1, he signed on white paper at Vizianagaram. But, he does not know the contents of the said

Scene Observation Report. In his cross-examination by the learned

APP, he denied the suggestion that he signed on the scene observation report dt.30.03.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., at the time when the police got drafted scene observation report and now he is deposing falsely to help the accused.

15.PW.10 who is working as Head Constable of Police,

Padmanabham PS has stated that on 30.03.2016 at about 8.00 p.m.,

PW.1 came to police station and presented a written report to him. On that, he registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 32/2016 U/Sec. 304-

A of IPC. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence along with

PC 3069 T. Mahesh which is situated at Cherakandam, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.11. Then, he got drafted the scene observation report through PC 3069 T. Mahesh in the presence of PW.9 and LW.18 Korada Raju. Then, he went to

Government Hospital, Vizianagaram and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar at mortuary and got drafted inquest report through PC 3069 T. Mahesh in the presence of PW.8 and LWs 13 to 15 and LW.17 Ramasingi Sanyasirao,

Kalla Gopalam, Rowthu Sreenu and Ura Kamswararao. Later, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he sent 8 the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar to LW.21

Dr. V. Satyanarayana, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital,

Vizianagaram for conducting autopsy. Then, he obtained post mortem certificate from him. On 01.04.2016 at about 11.00 a.m., he arrested the accused in the police station when he surrendered before him and then served notice U/Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C., to the accused and later on released him on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. On 12.04.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., he sent a requisition to LW.20 R. Suman Kumar,

Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Visakhapatnam for inspection of crime vehicle and the vehicle of the victim and obtained accident report from him. On 08.07.2016 he handed over the CD file to LW.23

B. Simhachalam, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS who in turn verified the investigation done by him and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Whereas in his cross- examination, he stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased

Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar in the mortuary of Government Hospital,

Vizianagaram. He has shown the dead body of the deceased Turupati

Ravi @ Ravi Kumar on the road leading from Padmanabham to

Vizianagaram in Ex-P.11 rough sketch. The said Padmanabham to

Vizianagaram road leads from south to north. Whereas he has shown the said road in Ex-P.11 rough sketch from east to west. Ex-P.13 MVI

Report reveals no damages to the crime vehicle and damages to the vehicle of the victim. He denied the suggestion that he prepared the rough sketch in the police station but not at the scene and that the victim voluntarily dashed the vehicle of the accused and that he falsely involved the accused and his vehicle in this crime. He further denied the suggestion that he conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself. He further denied the 9 suggestion that he falsely registered this case against the accused in order to get insurance to the family of the deceased and that the accused is no way concerned with the offence in this case. .

16.A perusal of Ex-P.1 Report given by PW.1 to the police and

Ex-P.10 FIR disclose that he is doing business in onions at P. W.

Market, Vizianagaram. He used to go to neighbouring places for collecting dues on every Tuesday. On 29.03.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., when his brother is returning from Vizianagaram to Padmanabham via

Chinnapuram on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 354 Q 4734 and reached to the main road of Chinnapuram Village near Sunkari

Giribabu layout, the driver of the Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the pulsar motorcycle of his brother. On that, his brother fell on the ground along with his vehicle and sustained severe injuries to his head and both hands. The persons who witnessed the accident had called 108 ambulance and shifted his brother to M. R. Hospital,

Vizianagaram for treatment. On the same day at about 8.10 p.m., his brother died. The said facts were informed by the villagers through the cell phone of his brother. Then, he immediately came to M. R.

Hospital, Vizianagaram and came to know about the said accident and later gave report to the police and requests to take action against the driver of the crime vehicle. Whereas the complainant who is examined as PW.1 and gave report to the police has stated that he does not know the accused. On 29.03.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., he received phone call from District Hospital, Vizianagaram that his brother met with an accident. On that, he went to the hospital and found fracture to the right hand of his brother. On the same day at about 8.00 a.m., 10 the Doctors declared that his brother was died. Ex-P.1 report was drafted by police officials. He does not know the contents of Ex-P.1 report completely. His evidence does not disclose anything about the accused and how the accident was occurred. PWs 2 to 6 who alleged to be the direct eye witnesses to the offence had stated that they do no know the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar, PW.1 and the accused. They do not know anything about the offence in this case.

They turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

PW.7 who is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., auto has stated that in the month of March, 2016 the accused informed him that his auto was involved in the accident. Except that, he does not know anything about the offence in this case. He also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.8 who alleged to have been present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @

Ravi Kumar has stated that on 30.03.2016 at about 9.30 a.m., police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar at M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram. But, he does not remember the contents of the inquest report. He also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.9 who alleged to have been present at the time of drafting Scene Observation Report has stated that about two years back at morning hours at the request of PW.1, he signed on white papers at Vizianagaram. But, he does not know the contents of the said Scene Observation Report dt.30.03.2016. He also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.10 who is working as Head Constable of Police,

Padmanabham PS, registered the FIR and investigation into the case has stated that on 30.03.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., PW.1 came to police station and presented a written report to him. On that, he 11 registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 32/2016 U/Sec. 304-A of IPC.

On the same day, he visited the scene of offence along with PC 3069

T. Mahesh which is situated at Cherakandam, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.11. A perusal of Ex-P.11 rough sketch discloses the scene of offence on the margin of the road leading from Padmanabham to Vizianagaram. It further discloses the dead body of the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar near the bike.

Whereas PW.10 stated that he saw the dead body of the deceased

Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar in the mortuary of Government Hospital,

Vizianagaram. He has shown the dead body of the deceased Turupati

Ravi @ Ravi Kumar on the road leading from Padmanabham to

Vizianagaram in Ex-P.11 Rough Sketch. The said road leads from

South to North. He has not shown the said road in Ex-P.11 rough sketch from east to west but not from north to south. His evidence discloses that he has not conducted investigation properly and prepared the rough sketch as if he likes but not as per the physical features existing on the said road. He further stated that he got drafted the scene observation report through PC 3069 T. Mahesh in the presence of PW.9 and LW.18 Korada Raju. But, a perusal of Scene

Observation Report does not disclose that it was drafted by the said T.

Mahesh. The prosecution has not got marked the said scene observation report for the reasons best known to it. He further stated that Ex-P.13 MVI Report reveals no damages to the crime vehicle and damages to the vehicle of the victim. Except denying the suggestions that he prepared the rough sketch in the police station but not at the scene and that the deceased voluntarily dashed the vehicle of the accused and that he falsely involved the accused and his vehicle in this crime in order to get insurance to the family of the deceased and that 12 he conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself and that the accused is no way concerned with the offence in this case, the prosecution has not filed any document to show that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that due to his rash and negligent acts only, the accident was occurred and that there is no driving licence and insurance to the crime vehicle. Thus, the evidence of PW.10 and Exs

P.1, P.10 to P.13 disclose that an accident was took place near

Sunkara Giribabu layout at Cherakandam and in the said accident, the deceased Turupati Ravi @ Ravi Kumar sustained grievous injuries and later he died at M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram while undergoing treatment. Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 coupled with Exs P.1 to P.9, the evidence of PW.10 and Exs P.10 to

P.13 are no way helpful to the prosecution to establish its case against the accused for the alleged offence under section 304-A of IPC and

Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M.V. Act. There is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused for the alleged offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M.V. Act. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is miserably failed to establish its case against the accused for the alleged offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the benefit of doubt should goes to the accused and the point is answered in the negative.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M. V. Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

13

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of February,

2017.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE:FOR DEFENCE SIDE :

PW.1-Turpati Ramesh Kumar PW.2-Akiri Adhibabu PW.3-Puppala Padmanabham PW.4-Reddipalli Chandrarao PW.5-Basavana SattibabuNONE PW.6-Allu Appalaraju PW.7-Bora Appalanaidu PW.8-Vakada Venkata Ramesh Babu PW.9-Chandaka Ramu PW.10-V. A. V. Satyanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE: FOR DEFENCE SIDE :

Ex-P.1- Report given by PW.1 to the police Ex-P.2- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 Ex-P.3- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex-P.4- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 NIL Ex-P.5- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5 Ex-P.6- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6 Ex-P.7- 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.7 Ex-P.8- Signature of PW.8 on Inquest Report Ex-P.9- Signature of PW.9 on Scene Observation Report Ex-P.10-FIR Ex-P.11-Rough Sketch Ex-P.12-Post Mortem Certificate Ex-P.13-MVI Report

IV MM, BML

14

CALENDAR EXTRACT

Calendar Case No. 43/2016 tried by Smt. K. Syamala Devi, IV Metropolitan Magistrate : Bheemunipatnam.

Date of offence29-03-2016

Date of report or complaint 30-03-2016

Date of filing of complaint 30-03-2016

Date of apprehension of the accused01-04-2016

Date of commencement of trial14-10-2016

Date of close of trial09-02-2017

Date of Sentence or Order23-02-2017

Explanation of delay or remarks----

Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar ---- and Judgment

JUDGMENT IN CC. NO: 43/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV METROPOLITAN

MAGISTGRATE COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Name of the complainant :

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

Name of the Accused and full particulars:

Golagani Appalanaidu S/o Surappadu, 24 years, Yadava by caste, Nerallavalasa Village and Panchayat, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Driver of Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 9148).

OFFENCE:U/Sec. 304-A of IPC

FINDING:Found not guilty.

RESULT:In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sec. 304-A of IPC and Secs. 181 and 196 (a) of M. V.

Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : : BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT : Smt. K. SYAMALA DEVI

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Thursday, the 23rd day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No. 106/2016

Between :

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant And :

1.Raghumojji Majjamma @ Chinna Majjanna S/o late Sanyasi, 48 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2.Raghumojji Bangaramma S/o late Sanyasi, 80 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

3.Raghumojji Venkata Lakshmi W/o Chinna Majjinna, 48 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

4.Bonumanthi Sanyasi S/o late Appalaswamy, 70 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

5.Bonumanthi Rama Rao S/o Suryarao, 30 years, Kapu by aste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

6.Bonumanthi Ramana W/o Suryarao, 50 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

7.Raghumojji Bhavani W/o Ramarao, 22 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

8.Tatraju Subha W/o Srinu, 35 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam. … A.1 to A.5

This case is coming on 22.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P., for Prosecution and of Sri E. Eswara Rao and Sri B. Eswara Rao, Advocate for A.1 to A.8 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station has filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.8 for the offence under Sec.

341, 509, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr. No. 29/2015 of

Padamanabham Police Station alleging that;

A.1 to A.8 and PWs 1 to 4 are the residents of Potnuru

Village. On 08.04.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., while PWs 2 and 3 were proceeding to their house situated at Potnuru Village by walk on the public pathway, A.1 to A.8 wrongfully restrained them. On that, some altercation was took place in between them for usage of the said pathway. Then A.1 to A.8 beat PWs 1 to 3 with hands, scratched them with nails. As a result of which, PW.3 received injuries on his left shoulder. Then, A.1 to A.8 abused them in filthy language, teased and insulted them and threatened to kill them with dire consequences and left the scene. Later, they were shifted to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. On 09.04.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., she gave a report to LW.6 A. Prasada Rao the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Padmanabham PS who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr. No.

29/2015 U/Secs. 509, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. LW.5 Dr. D.

Sowjanya, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Vizianagaram who treated PW.3 has issued wound certificate opining that the injures of

PW.3 are simple in nature. On 05.11.2016 PW.5 took up further investigation and arrested the accused in the police station when they were surrendered before him. Later, he served notice U/Sec. 41-A of

Cr.P.C., to A.1 to A.8 and later on released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. Then, he added Sec. 341 of IPC to the original section of law basing on the evidence of witnesses. Therefore,

A.1 to A.8 are liable for punishment under the aforesaid sections of law.

3.On 22.11.2016 this case was taken on file for the offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A.1 to A.8.

4.On appearance of A.1 to A.8, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. They were examined under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them for the offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC in Telugu. For which, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 – Raghumajji Lakshmi, PW.2 –

Raghumajji Rama, PW.3 – Raghumajji Bangaru Naidu, PW.4 –

Raghumajji Appalakonda and PW.5 – S. Rama Murthy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS and got marked Exs P.1 to P.9 – Signature of PW.1 on the Report, 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs 1 to 4, report given by PW.1 to the police, FIR, Rough sketch and Wound Certificate of PW.3. On 13.02.2017 the evidence of LWs 5 and 6 was given up by the learned APP.

6.After the evidence of prosecution was closed, A.1 to A.8 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5

7.Heard, the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

8.The point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 to A.8 for the offence U/Secs.341, 509, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T :

To bring home the guilt of A.1 to A.8 for the offence punishable under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that A.1 to A.8 wrongfully restrained PWs 1 to 3, beat them, abused them in filthy language, insulted and threatened them with their dire consequences and thereby, they committed the aforesaid offence.

10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 - to speak about the facts of the case and her giving report to the police,

PWs.2 to 4 - to speak about the facts of the case and to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 and PW.5 - to speak about his arrest of the accused, his investigation and filing of charge sheet etc.

11.PW.1 who gave report to the police has stated that about two years back at about 8.00 p.m., some disputes arose in between them and the accused at Rachabanda of their village as her husband demanded the accused for re-payment of the amount due to him. In the said dispute, her husband sustained minor injuries on his chest as 6 he fell on the ground. The accused never wrongfully restrained them, insulter her, beat and threatened them. At the instance of her village elders, she gave report to the police. But, she does not know the contents of the said report. In her cross-examination by the learned

APP, she denied the suggestion that she stated before police as in Ex-

P.2 and now she is deposing falsely as themselves and the accused compromised the matter outside the court with the intervention of their village elders.

12.PWs 2 and 4 who alleged to speak about the offence and sisters of PW.1 had stated that they know all the accused. But, they do not know anything about the offence in this case. In their cross- examination by the learned APP, they denied the suggestion that they stated before police as in Ex-P.3 and P.5 and now they are deposing falsely as themselves and the accused compromised the matter outside the court with the intervention of their village elders.

13.PW.3 who is the husband of PW.1 has stated that he knows all the accused. About 1 ½ years back at about 7.00 or 8.00 p.m., he sat near the center of Potnuru Village. At that time, some dispute was took place in the village. Then, he went to the scene to see what was happening. In the said dispute, he fell on the ground and sustained minor injuries on his shoulder. Then, he was shifted to M. R.

Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. Later, at the instance of his village elders, PW.1 gave report to the police. But, he does not know the contents of the report given by PW.1 to the police. The accused 7 never wrongfully restrained them, insulted his wife, beat and threatened them with dire consequences. In his cross-examination by the learned APP, he denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex-P.4 and now he is deposing falsely as themselves and the accused compromised the matter outside the court with the intervention of their village elders.

14.PW.5 who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police,

Padmanabham PS has stated that on 09.04.2015 at about 11.30 p.m.,

PW.1 came to police station and presented a written report to LW.6 A.

Prasada Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS. On that, LW.6 registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 29/2015 U/Secs.

509, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence which is situated at Potnuru Village, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.8. Then, LW.6 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 05.11.2016 he received the CD file from LW.6 and arrested A.1 to A.8 in the police station when they surrendered before him and later on served notice U/Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C., to them and then released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. Later, he added Sec. 341 of

IPC to the original section of law. On 24.06.2015 LW.6 A. Prasada Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS obtained wound certificate of PW.3 from LW.5 Dr. D. Sowjanya, Civil Assistant

Surgeon, District Hospital, Vizianagaram. Later, he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.8 after completion of investigation. Whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that the daughter of A.1 also gave a 8 report against PWs 1 to 4 and four others and the said report was registered as a case in Cr. No. 28/2015 by LW.6 the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS as per the served copy of FIR shown to him. He denied the suggestion that LW.6 never visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared any rough sketch of it and that he never examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He further denied the suggestion that himself and LW.6 conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself and that A.1 to A.8 are no way concerned with the offence in this case.

15.A perusal of Ex-P.6 report given by PW.1 to the police and

Ex-P.7 FIR disclose that when she is passing through the vacant site situated in front of their house in the village, A.1 to A.8 attacked them on 08.04.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., and asked them why they are passing through the said vacant site and beat her, Korada Rajeswari,

Raghumajji Rama (PW.2), Raghumajji Bangarunaidu (PW.3),

Raghumajji Satyam and Raghumajji Papayamma with their hands and scratched them with their nails. They also pushed them by placing their hands on their chest without seeing that they are women and kicked them with their legs indiscriminately and they also tried to kill them by sitting on them. On that, they escaped from the said place. At that time some persons were present and requests to take action against the accused. Whereas the complainant who is examined as

PW.1 and gave report to the police has stated that about two years back at about 8.00 p.m., some disputes arose in between them and 9 the accused at Rachabanda of their village as her husband demanded the accused for re-payment of the amount due to him. In the said dispute, her husband sustained minor injuries on his chest as he fell on the ground. She did not sustain any injuries. The accused never wrongfully restrained them, insulter her, beat and threatened them with dire consequences. At the instance of her village elders, she gave report to the police. But, she does not know the contents of the said report. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs 2 and 4 who are the sisters of PW.1 had stated that they know all the accused. But, they do not know anything about the offence in this case. They also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.3 who is the husband of PW.1 has stated that about 1 ½ years back at about 7.00 or 8.00 p.m., he sat near the center of Potnuru Village. At that time some dispute was took place in the village. Then, he went to the scene to see what was happening. In the said dispute, he fell on the ground and sustained minor injuries on his shoulder. Then, he was shifted to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. Later, at the instance of his village elders, PW.1 gave report to the police. But, he does not know the contents of the report given by PW.1 to the police. The accused never wrongfully restrained them, insulted his wife, beat and threatened them. He also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.5 who is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS has stated that on 09.04.2015 at about 11.30 p.m., PW.1 came to police station and presented a written report to LW.6 A. Prasada Rao, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS. On that, LW.6 registered the 10 same as a case in Cr. No. 29/2015 U/Secs. 509, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On the same day, LW.6 visited the scene of offence which is situated at Potnuru Village, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.8. A perusal of Ex-P.8 Rough sketch discloses the scene of offence in the vacant place of Raghumajji China Majjanna.

It further discloses that one Raghumajji Peda Majjanna and

Raghumajji Lakshmana are having houses near the scene of ofence.

But, the prosecution has neither examined them nor shown them as witnesses in the memo of evidence filed along with the charge sheet for the reasons best known to it. PW.5 further stated that on 05.11.2016 he received the CD file from LW.6 and added Sec. 341 of

IPC to the original section of law basing on the evidence of witnesses.

On 24.06.2015 LW.6 A. Prasada Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Padmanabham PS obtained wound certificate under Ex-P.9 of PW.3 from LW.5 Dr. D. Sowjanya, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital,

Vizianagaram. A perusal of Ex-P.9 wound certificate discloses that

PW.3 sustained injury on his left shoulder due to assault and his injury is simple in nature. But, it does not disclose who assaulted him. So also, it is not corroborating with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 with regard to sustaining injuries by PW.3. But, the prosecution has not examined LW.5 Dr. D. Sowjanya who examined PW.3 and issued Ex-

P.9 wound certificate for the reasons best known to it. PW.5 further stated that the daughter of A.1 also gave a report against PWs 1 to 4 and four others and the said report was registered as a case in Cr. No.

28/2015 by LW.6 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS as per the served copy of FIR shown to him. Except denying the 11 suggestions that LW.6 never visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared any rough sketch of it and that himself and

LW.6 conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself and that A.1 to A.8 are no way concerned with the offence in this case, the prosecution has not averred anything in the charge sheet that this case is counter case to

Cr. No. 28/2015 or not. More-over, PWs 1 and 3 admitted that the accused never wrongfully restrained them, insulted them, beat and threatened them with dire consequences and PW.3 sustained injuries as he fell on the ground. The contents of Ex-P.3 are also not corroborating with the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 on all material aspects.

Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 coupled with Exs

P.1 to P.5, the evidence of PW.5 and Exs P.6 to P.9 are no way helpful to the prosecution to establish its case against A.1 to A.8 for the alleged offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC. There is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused for the alleged offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC. Hence, this

Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is miserably failed to establish its case against A.1 to A.8 for the alleged offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the benefit of doubt should goes to them and the point is answered in the negative.

15.In the result, A.1 to A.8 are found not guilty of the offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are 12 acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer – Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of February,

2017.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :FOR DEFENCE SIDE :

PW.1-Raghumajji Lakshmi PW.2-Raghumanjji RamaNONE PW.3-Raghumajji Bangari Naidu PW.4-Raghumajji Appalakonda PW.5-S. Rama Murthy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :

Ex-P.1-Signature of PW.1 on the Report Ex-P.2-161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 Ex-P.3-161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 Ex-P.4-161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex-P.5-161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 Ex-P.6-Report given by PW.1 to the police Ex-P.7-FIR Ex-P.8-Rough Sketch Ex-P.9-Wound Certificate

FOR DEFENCE SIDE :

- NIL -

IV MM, BML

13

CALENDAR EXTRACT

Calendar Case No.106/2016 tried by Smt. K. Syamala Devi, IV Metropolitan

Magistrate : Bheemunipatnam.

Date of offence09-04-2015 Date of report or complaint 09-04-2015 Date of filing of complaint 09-04-2015 Date of apprehension of the accused05-11-2016 Date of commencement of trial31-01-2017 Date of close of trial13-02-2017 Date of Sentence or Order23-02-2017 Explanation of delay or remarks---- Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar ---- and Judgment JUDGMENT IN CC. NO: 106/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV METROPOLITAN

MAGISTGRATE COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Name of the complainant : The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anandapuram P.S., I/C Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused and full particulars:

1.Raghumojji Majjamma @ Chinna Majjanna S/o late Sanyasi, 48 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2.Raghumojji Bangaramma S/o late Sanyasi, 80 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

3.Raghumojji Venkata Lakshmi W/o Chinna Majjinna, 48 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

4.Bonumanthi Sanyasi S/o late Appalaswamy, 70 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

5.Bonumanthi Rama Rao S/o Suryarao, 30 years, Kapu by Caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

6.Bonumanthi Ramana W/o Suryarao, 50 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

7.Raghumojji Bhavani W/o Ramarao, 22 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

8.Tatraju Subha W/o Srinu, 35 years, Kapu by caste, R/o Potnuru Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam. OFFENCE:U/Sec. 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC FINDING:Found not guilty.

RESULT:In the result, A.1 to A.8 are found not guilty of the offence under Secs. 341, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : : BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT : Smt. K. SYAMALA DEVI

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Monday, the 27th day of February, 2017

Calendar Case No. 87/2016

Between :

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And :

1.Kothilinka Devudu S/o late Thata, aged 60 years, Caste : SC Madiga, Ananthavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2.Kothilinka Gowramma W/o Devudu, aged 50 years, Caste : SC Madiga, Ananthavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

… A.1 and A.2

This case is coming on 23.02.2017 for final hearing

beforeme in the presence of learned A.P.P., for Prosecution and of Sri

M. V. Parvateesam, Advocate for A.1 and A.2 and the 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, Padmanabham PS has filed a charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 for the offence U/Secs.326 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr. No. 41/2015 of Padmananbham PS alleging that;

A.1 and A.2 and PW.1 are the residents of Ananthavaram

Village of Padmanabham Mandal. Himself and his wife are living separately due to some family disputes and his wife is staying at her parents house in Ananthavaram Village. On 21.04.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., while he is passing infront of his mother-in-law's house, he 2 observed that his wife is talking with somebody in mobile. Then, he asked her with whom she is talking? On that, his wife gave reply arrognatly. Then, he became angry and on that they scuffled with each other. In the meanwhile, the accused interfered in the said scuffle due to previous grudges and A.1 picked up a stick and beat him on his right arm and A.2 beat him with hands. Then PWs 2 and 3 shifted him to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. Later, he gave a report to LW.10 S. Kantha Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Padmanabham

PS who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 41/2015

U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and directed PW.7 S. Adiraju, the then Head

Constable of PS, Padmanabham PS to investigate into the case. Then,

PW.7 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it. He also observed the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 5 and 6 and seized the crime weapon i.e., stick under the cover of scene observation report. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 18.05.2015 he arrested the accused and then served notice U/Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C., to them and later on released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. LW.8 Dr. T. Venkateswarlu, Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital,

Vizianagaram who treated PW.1 has issued wound certificate opining that the injuries of PW.1 are grievous in nature. Thereafter, further investigation was took-up by LW.10 S. Kantha Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS. Then, he altered the section of law from 324 r/w 34 of IPC to 326 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC basing on the wound certificate of PW.1. Therefore, A.1 and A.2 are liable for punishment under the afore said section of law.

3

2.On 20.10.2016 this case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 326 of IPC against A.1 and Sec. 323 of IPC against A.2.

3.On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. They were examined under Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges U/Sec. 326 of IPC against

A.1 and 323 of IPC against A.2 have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 – Sarika Govindu, PW.2 – Jami

Pydamma, PW.3 – Kadithi Mutyalamma, PW.4 – Kadathi Appalakonda,

PW.5 – Kothala Suryanarayana, PW.6 – Sariki Guruvula and PW.7 – S.

Adiraju, the then Head Constable of Police, Padmanabham PS and got marked Exs P.1 to P.10 – Signature of PW.1 on the report, 161 Cr.P.C.,

Statements of PWs 1 to 4, Report given by PW.1 to the police, FIR,

Rough Sketch, Scene Observation Report and Wound Certificate of

PW.1. On 15.02.2017 the evidence of LW.2 is closed as the police failed to serve summons to him since 04.12.2017. On 22.02.2017 the evidence of LWs 8 and 9 was given up by learned APP.

6.After the evidence of prosecution was closed, A.1 and A.2 were examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4

7.Heard, the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

8.The point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A.1 for the offence U/S 326 of I.P.C., and A.2 for the offences U/Sec. 323 of IPC with which they are charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T :

To bring home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Secs. 326 and 323 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that A.1 beat PW.1 with a stick on his right arm and A.2 beat

PW.1 with hands and caused injuries to him and thereby they committed the aforesaid offences.

10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 - to speak about the facts of the case and his giving report to the police,

PWs 2 to 4 - to speak about the facts of the case and to corroborate the evidence of PW.1, PWs 5 and 6 – to speak about their presence at the time of drafting scene observation report and seizure of stick and

PW.7 – to speak about his further investigation and arrest of accused etc.

11.PW.1 who gave report to the police has stated that A.2 is his sister. A.1 is his brother-in-law. In the year 2015 at about 3.30 p.m., a dispute was arose in between him and his in-laws at

Ananthavaram Village. In the said dispute, they scuffled with each 5 other, he fell on the road. On that, he sustained injury on his right forearm. Then, he went to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment.

He was in the hospital as inpatient for 20 days. The accused never beat him. At the instance of his caste elders, he gave report to the police. But, he does not know the contents of the report dt.27.04.2015. In his cross-examination by the learned APP, he denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in Ex-P.2 and now he is deposing falsely as themselves and the accused compromised the matter outside the Court with the intervention of their caste elders.

12.PWs 2 to 4 who alleged to speak about the offence had stated that they know PW.1, A.1 and A.2. But, they do not know anything about the offence in this case. In their cross-examination by the learned APP, they denied the suggestion that they stated before police as in Exs P.3 to P.5 and now they are deposing falsely to help the accused as they belong to their village.

13.PWs 5 and 6 who alleged to have been present at the time of drafting of Scene Observation Report and seizure of crime weapon had stated that they never signed on any paper pertaining to the police. In their cross-examination by the learned APP, they denied the suggestion that they signed on Scene Observation Report dt.27.04.2015 at the time when the police arrested the accused and seized the crime weapon i.e., stick under the cover of Scene

Observation Report and now they are deposing falsely to help the accused.

6

14.PW.7 the then Head Constable of Police, Padmanabham PS has stated that on 27.04.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., PW.1 came to the police station and presented a written report to LW.10 S. Kantha Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 41/2015 U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Later, he directed him to investigate into the case. On the same day at about 12.00 noon, he took up investigation, visited the scene of offence which is situated at Ananthavaram Village, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.8. Then, he seized three feet width of stick from the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 5 and 6 under the cover of Scene Observation Report drafted by A.

Nookaraju (PC) under Ex-P.9. Later, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 18.05.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., A.1 and A.2 came to police station and surrendered before him. On that, he served notice U/Sec. 41-A of Cr.P.C., to them and later on released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. On 25.05.2015 he handed over the CD file to LW.10 who in turn verified the investigation done by him and found it is on correct lines. On 21.05.2015 LW.10 received the wound certificate of PW.1 from LW.8 Dr. T.

Venkateswarlu, Medical Officer, Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital,

Vizianagaram. Later, basing on the wound certificate of PW.1, he altered the section of law from 324 of IPC to 326 of IPC. On 24.06.2015 LW.10 filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 after completion of investigation. Whereas in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he never visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared any rough sketch of it and that he 7 never seized any crime weapon from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators under the cover of scene observation report. He further denied the suggestion that himself and LW.10 conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself and now he is deposing falsehood and that A.1 and A.2 are no way concerned with the offence in this case.

15.A perusal of Ex-P.6 report given by PW.1 to the police and

Ex-P.7 FIR disclose that A.1 and A.2 who belong to his village had beat him with sticks on his right hand on 21.04.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., by saying that the President of the village belongs to them if he speaks more and requests to take action against A.1 and A.2. Whereas the

Complainant who is examined as PW.1 and gave report to the police has stated that A.1 is his brother-in-law and A.2 is his sister. In the year 2015 at about 3.30 p.m., a dispute was arose in between him and his in-laws at Ananthavaram Village. In the said dispute, they scuffled with each other and he fell on the road. On that, he sustained injury on his right forearm. Then, he went to M. R. Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment. The accused never beat him. At the instance of his caste elders, he gave report to the police. But, he does not know the contents of the said report dt.27.04.2015. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs 2 to 4 who alleged to speak about the offence had stated that they know PW.1, A.1 and A.2.

But, they do not know anything about the offence in this case. They also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

PWs 5 and 6 who alleged to have been present at the time of drafting 8 of Scene Observation Report and seizure of crime weapon had stated that they never signed on any paper pertaining to the police. They also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.7 the then Head Constable of Police, Padmanabham Ps who investigated into the case has stated that on 27.04.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., PW.1 came to police station and presented a written report to LW.10 S.

Kantha Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 41/2015 U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC. But, a perusal of Column No. 3 (a) of Ex-P.7 FIR discloses the date of offence as 21.04.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. Column No. 3 (b) of it discloses the date of information received as 27.04.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. A perusal of Column No. 8 of Ex-P.7 FIR discloses the reasons for delay as “NO DELAY”. But, the prosecution has not explained the delay of nearly six days from the date of offence to the date of information received, though there is delay. PW.7 further stated that on the same day at about 12.00 noon he took up investigation, visited the scene of offence which is situated at

Ananthavaram Village, inspected the same and prepared a rough sketch of it under Ex-P.8. A perusal of Ex-P.8 Rough Sketch discloses the scene of offence near the house of A.1. It further discloses that one Kothalangu Sadhu, Kothalanga Demudu, Jami Narasayya, Jami

Mutyalu and Kadithi Demudu are having houses near the scene of offence. But, the prosecution has neither examined them nor shown them as witnesses in the memo of evidence filed along with the charge sheet for the reasons best known to it. He further stated that he seized three feet width of stick from the scene of offence in the presence of 9

PWs 5 and 6 under the cover of Scene Observation Report under Ex-

P.9 drafted by A. Nookaraju (PC). But, a perusal of Ex-P.9 Scene

Observation Report does not disclose that it was prepared by A.

Nookaraju. It contains the signatures of Kothala Suryanarayana (PW.5), Sariki Guruvulu (PW.6) and S. Adiraju (PW.7) and PW.7 seized the crime weapon i.e., 3 feet width and 3 feet length of stick in the presence of Kothala Suryanarayana and Sariki Guruvulu. But, the said

Kothala Suryanarayana and Sariki Guruvulu who are examined as PWs 5 and 6 had stated that the signatures on the Scene Observation

Report do not belong to them and they never signed on any paper pertaining to Padmanabham PS. He further stated that on 21.05.2015

LW.10 S. Kantha Rao, the then Inspector of Police, Padmanabham PS received the wound certificate of PW.1 from LW.8 Dr. T.

Venkateswarlu, Medical Officer, Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital,

Vizianagaram. Though, the prosecution has got marked the wound certificate issued by LW.8, it has not got examined LW.8 who examined PW.1 and issued the said wound certificate even though it discloses that Sarika Govindu (PW.1) sustained grievous injuries for the reasons best known to it. Except denying the suggestions that he never visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared any rough sketch of it and that he never seized any crime weapon from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators under the cover of scene observation report and that himself and LW.10 conducted table investigation and prepared the entire case record in the police station itself and that A.1 and A.2 are no way concerned with the offence in this case, the prosecution has not examined LW.2 Kadeti 10

Simhachalam who alleged to speak about the offence committed by the accused even though PWs 1 to 4 turned hostile and did not support its case. Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 coupled with Exs P.1 to P.5, the evidence of PW.7 and Exs P.6 to P.10 are no way helpful to the prosecution to establish its case against A.1 for the alleged offence U/Sec. 326 of IPC and against A.2 for the alleged offence U/Sec. 323 of IPC with which they are charged. There is absolutely no evidence on record to connect A.1 for the alleged offences U/Sec. 326 of IPC and A.2 for the alleged offence under Sec.

323 of IPC with which they are charged. Hence, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the prosecution is not able to establish its case against A.1 for the alleged offence U/Sec. 326 of IPC and against A.2 for the alleged offence U/Sec. 323 of IPC with which they are charged beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the benefit of doubt should goes to A.1 and A.2 and the point is answered in the negative.

16.In the result, A.1 is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.

326 of IPC with which he is charged and A.2 is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 323 of IPC with which she is charged and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer – Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of February,

2017.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

11

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :FOR DEFENCE SIDE : PW.1- Sarika Govindu PW.2- Jami PydammaNONE PW.3- Kadithi Mutyalamma PW.4- Kadathi Appalakonda PW.5- Kothala Suryanarayana PW.6- Sariki Guruvulu PW.7-S. Adiraju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION SIDE :

Ex-P.1- Signature of PW.1 on the report given to the police Ex-P.2- 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.1 Ex-P.3- 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.2 Ex-P.4- 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.3 Ex-P.5- 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.4 Ex-P.6- Report given by PW.1 to the police Ex-P.7- FIR Ex-P.8- Rough Sketch Ex-P.9- Scene Observation Report Ex-P.10-Wound Certificate of PW.1

FOR DEFENCE SIDE :

- NIL -

IV MM, BML,

.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

12

Calendar Case No. 87/2016 tried by Smt. K. Syamala Devi, IV Metropolitan Magistrate : Bheemunipatnam. Date of offence21-04-2015

Date of report or complaint 27-04-2015

Date of filing of complaint 27-04-2015

Date of apprehension of the accused18-05-2015

Date of commencement of trial11-01-2017

Date of close of trial22-02-2017

Date of Sentence or Order27-02-2017

Explanation of delay or remarks----

Explanation for delay in submitting Calendar and Judgment---- JUDGMENT IN CC. NO: 87/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV METROPOLITAN

MAGISTGRATE COURT, BHEEMUNIPATNAM

Name of the complainant : The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. Name of the Accused and full particulars:

1.Kothilinka Devudu S/o late Thata, aged 60 years, Caste : SC Madiga, Ananthavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2.Kothilinka Gowramma W/o Devudu, aged 50 years, Caste : SC Madiga, Ananthavaram Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

OFFENCE:U/Sec. 326 and 323 of IPC FINDING:Found not guilty

RESULT:In the result, A.1 is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 326 of IPC with which he is charged and A.2 is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 323 of IPC with which she is charged and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal or appeal time is over.

IV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT : SMT.K.SYAMALA DEVI,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Monday, the 27th day of February, 2017

Original Suit No. 49/2016

Between :

Balireddy Venkata Surya Maheswara Rao S/o late Sunnybabu, Hindu, aged about 46 years, R/o MamidilovaVillage,AnandhapuramMandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Plaintiff.

And :

1.Pilla Atchibabu S/o Madhavaswamy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, R/o Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Pilla Srinivasarao S/o Madhavaswamy, Hindu, aged about 51 years, R/o Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3.Pilla Naga Satyam S/o Madhavaswamy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, R/o Mamidilova Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.02.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J. Srinu and N. Janardhana Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri V. V. R. Prasad, Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit claim amount of Rs.2,51,800/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a demand promissory note dated 25.08.2013 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- repayable with interest at 24% p.a, for subsequent interest; and for costs.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The defendants 1 to 3 had jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 25.08.2013 for the purpose of discharging their 2 sundry debts and executed a demand pronote in his favour, undertaking to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to him or to his order on demand. Later, in-spite of the repeated demands made by him personally and through middle men to repay the pronote debt due to him, but the defendants have not discharged the said debt due to him and have been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The defendants are not entitled to the benefits of any Debt Relief Laws as they are not agriculturists and land lords. As such, he claimed the interest at the contract rate. Hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the suit claim amount stated as supra.

3.The 3rd defendant called absent and set exparte.

4.The 1st defendant has filed his written statement specifically denying the allegations made in the plaint. The 2nd defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of 1st defendant. They submitted that the suit pronote is rank forged and fabricated one. In fact, no consideration was passed under the suit pronote to them. There is no need to them to borrow such an huge amount from others as they are having properties and income over the said properties. They do not know the plaintiff and they never met him at any point of time. He suit pronote is brought into existence in order to grab money from them. The interest calculated in the plaint is high and usurious. The plaintiff has not got issued any notice prior to the filing of this suit. After receipt of court summons, they made enquiries about the plaintiff and came know that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such an huge amount. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit against them. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1.Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and for consideration?

2.Whether the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated one?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount as prayed for? and

4.To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, got examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. On the other hand, the 1st defendant examined himself as

DW.1 and no documents are marked on their behalf.

6. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :

In order to establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got examined one of the attestor and scribe of the suit pronote as PWs 2 and 3. The evidence of PW.1 is in accordance with the averments of his plaint as well as the contents of Exs. A1 to A3 -

Suit pronote executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in his favour for

Rs.1,50,000/- on 25.08.2013, office copy of registered notice got issued by him to the defendants on 26.05.2016 along with postal receipts and returned registered notice from 1st defendant. His evidence further discloses that the defendants had jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 25.08.2013 for the purpose of discharging their sundry debts and executed the suit pronote in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. His evidence further discloses that Ex-A.1 suit pronote transaction was took place I the house of defendants at Mamidilova. The suit pronote was scribed by one Salapu Narasingarao of Sontyam Village. He 4 is doing cultivation. He is having an extent of Ac.2.00 of land and raising casurina tope. He used to get crop for every five years and a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. He does not remember how many revenue stamps were affixed on the suit pronote. The defendants signed on Ex-A.1 in

English. He is not an income tax assessee. The amount of consideration was realized from his cultivation. He passed the amount of consideration by way of five hundred rupee denomination. Himself and his village VRO demanded the defendants to repay the amount due to him. He denied the suggestion that he did not lent any amount to the defendants and that the defendants did not execute any pronote in his favour and that no transaction under Ex-

A.1 suit pronote was took place in his presence and that he concocted the suit pronote.

7.The evidence of PW.2 who signed on the suit pronote as one of the attestor and PW.3 who scribed the suit pronote is in tune with the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Ex-A.1 suit pronote. Their evidence further discloses that at the time of suit pronote transaction, themseleves and one J. Mutyalu were present and signed on the suit pronote as attestors and scribe. The evidence of PW.2 further discloses that the suit pronote was executed at his house in Mamidilova Village. At the time of suit pronote transaction, himself, defendants 1 to 3, one Mahesh,

Salapu Narasimham and another person were present. The defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from Mahesh for discharge of their sundry debts and for agricultural expenses. He does not remember how many stamps were affixed on Ex-A.1 suit pronote. The amount of consideration was passed by way of five hundred rupee notes in three bundles. He denied the suggestion that the defendants did not execute the suit pronote in his presence and that the plaintiff obtained his signature on 5 the blank signed pronote of the defendants and that due to differences in between him and the defendants, he signed on the suit pronote.

8.The evidence of PW.3 further discloses that at the time of suit pronote transaction, seven persons were present. He knows both the parties to the suit for the last five years. PW.2 is the father of the defendants. The defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2013 for the purpose of discharging their sundry debts. The amount of consideration was passed by way of five hundred rupee notes in three bundles. He denied the suggestion that no transaction under Ex-A.1 suit pronote was took place in his presence and that in collusion with him and

PW.2, the plaintiff concocted the suit pronote.

9.As against the above evidence, the 1st defendant examined himself as

DW.1. His evidence is in accordance with the averments of the written statement. His evidence further discloses that the suit pronote is a rank forged and fabricated one. No consideration was passed under the alleged suit pronote. There is no need for them to borrow such an huge amount from others. They are having properties and income over the said properties. The plaintiff is a politician and they never met him at any point of time for borrowing the amount. The plaintiff has not got issued any notice prior to the filing of the suit. One of the attestor of the suit pronote is their father and their father and another brother colluded with the plaintiff and concocted the suit pronote. They are the big farmers in their village and due to hike in the prices of the lands, the plaintiff filed this false suit to grab their lands. Whereas in his cross-examination he stated that his native place is Mamidilova. The defendants 2 ad 3 are his brothers. The signatures on vakalat belong to him and his brothers. The signatures on the suit pronote 6 do not belong to him and his brothers. He knows the plaintiff. He does not know whether his father signed on the suit pronote as one of the attestor or not. He knows that the 2nd defendant has received the notice copy issued by the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that himself and his brothers borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2013 and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that they refused to receive the registered notice got issued by the plaintiff. He further denied the suggestion that in order to avoid the payment of liability under the suit pronote, he is deposing falsehood.

10.The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1 and clearly establishes that the defendants 1 to 3 had jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2013 for the purpose of discharging their sundry debts and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. A perusal of Ex-A.1 suit pronote dt.25.08.2013 corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on all material aspects. A perusal of Ex-A.2 Office copy of registered notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 to 3 on 26.05.2016 and Ex-A.3 returned registered notice from the 1st defendant corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the issuance of registered notice to the defendants and demanding them to repay the pronote debt due to him.

11.On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex-A.1 – Suit pronote, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the defendants 1 to 3 had jointly executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff on respective date and for consideration. On the other hand, the evidence of 1st defendant who is examined as DW.1 discloses that the suit 7 pronote is a rank forged and fabricated document. No consideration was passed under the alleged suit pronote to them. There is no need and necessity to them to borrow such an huge amount from others. They are having properties and income over the said properties. The defendants 2 and 3 are his brothers. The signatures on vakalat belong to him and his brothers. The signatures on the suit pronote do not belong to him and his brothers. He knows the plaintiff. He knows that the 2nd defendant has received the notice copy issued by the plaintiff. He does not know whether his father signed on the suit pronote as one of the attestor or not. But, a perusal of Ex-A.1 suit pronote discloses that his father Pilla Madhava Swamy has signed on it as 2nd attestor. The said Pilla Madhava Swamy was also examined as PW.2. When compared his signature on his deposition papers with that of the signature on the suit pronote is one and the same. So also when compared the signature of 1st defendant and 2nd defendant on vakalat with that of their signatures on the suit pronote as one of the first and second executants are one and the same. Except denying the suggestion that himself and his brothers borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.08.2013 and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff and that in order to avoid the payment of liability under the suit pronote, he is deposing falsehood, the 2nd defendant has not examined himself to establish his case and they did not made any attempt to file petition to send for the signatures on the suit pronote with that of their signatures to the expert for comparison to establish that the signatures on the suit pronote do not belong to them and they have not offered their explanation as to why their father came to Court and give evidence falsely against them. If the defendants did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and one Mutyalu, they would have got issued a 8 reply notice to the notice of the plaintiff as 2nd defendant has received the notice got issued by him and the 1st defendant is having knowledge about the same and they would have not kept silent. Except the evidence of Dw.1, there is no other oral or documentary evidence to establish their case.

Therefore, in the light of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and DW.1 coupled with

Exs A.1 to A.3, it can be said that the defendants had failed to establish their case. On the other hand though there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, their evidence coupled with Exs A.1 to A.3 clinchingly establish the case of the plaintiff.

12.Hence, taking into consideration of the above aspects as discussed supra, this court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the defendants had failed to establish their case that the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated one. On the other hand, the plaintiff has established his case that the suit pronote is true, valid and for consideration and thereby he is entitled to recover the suit claim amount of Rs.2,51,800/- from the defendants 1 to 3 with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and costs.

13. ISSUE NO: 4

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby decreed as hereunder:

1.that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the suit claim amount of Rs.2,51,800/- with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/-; and 9

2.that the defendants shall pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit and bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of February, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Appendix of evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Plaintiff :Defendants : PW.1: B. V. S. Maheswara RaoDW.1 – Pilla Atchibabu PW.2: Pilla Madhava Swamy PW.3: Salapu Narasimha Rao

No. of Exhibits marked for

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1- Original promissory note dated 25.08.2013 Ex.A2- Office Copy of registered notice dt.26.05.2016 along with postal receipts Ex.A3- Returned registered notice from 1st defendant.

Defendants : - NIL -

PJCJ/BML.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

PRESENT : SMT.K.SYAMALA DEVI,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

Tuesday, the 28th day of February, 2017.

Original Suit No.97/2014 Between :

1. Pilla Krishnaswamy Pathrudu, S/o Krishnamma, Hindu, aged 75 years, resident of Madhurawada, GVMC limits, Visakhapatnam.

2. Pilla Lakshmana, S/o Krishnamma @ Kistamma, Hindu, aged 72 years, resident of Madhurawada, GVMC limits, Visakhapatnam.

3. Pilla Raju, S/o Late Atchayya Pathrudu, Hindu, aged 47 years, resident of rest ditto.

4. Pilla Pothanna, S/o Suribabu @ Suri, Hindu, aged 38 years, resident of rest ditto.

5. Pilla Venkata Appa Rao, S/o Late Lakshmana, Hindu, aged 36 years, resident of rest ditto.

.. Plaintiffs

And: Tella Bala Pavan, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu aged 23 years, resident of Door No.50-117-17/12/3, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on today for final hearing before me and Sri P.Venkateswara Rao Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri S.Narayana Advocate for the defendant and the matter having been called absent and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents or whosoever acting on his behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; and for costs.

Plaintiff called absent. No representation though conditional orders passed and relaxed on the last adjournments. Hence, this suit is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of February, 2017.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHEEMUNIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

PJCJ / BML.