Sri. K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 11th day of January, 2019.

Present: D.V.R. Tejo Karthik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, FAC Chairman-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Members: 1. Peddibotla Nagalakshmi

2. Sri. M.Galanna,

J.C.C.No.61 of 2018

Between:- State of A.P. rep. by Circle Inspector of Police, PS.Mahabubnagar Rural Cr.No.116/2017 of PS.Mahabubnagar Rural.

..Complainant.

A N D

Mohmad Hussain s/o Moulana, age 12 yrs, r/o Mothinagar area, Mahabubnagar town, n/o Kothalabad village of Koilkonda.

… Child in conflict with law

Section of Law : U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC

Plea of JCL : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Board : Set at liberty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences

U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The CCL shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.

Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

2

This JCC came before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri N.Subramanyam, Legal Aid Counsel for the

Child conflict with law. Upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the

Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, PS.Mahabubnagar Rural has filed

Final report against CCL in Cr.No.116 of 2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18-3-2017 at around 5.00 PM PW1 along with PW2 loaded the stone tiles in their lorry at Bethamcherla in order to unload the same at Pune and while they were leaving to Pune on the way after crossing TD Gutta,

Koilkonda cross roads on the intervening night of 18/19/3-2017 at around 3.00 AM A1, A2 and CCL armed with stones, stopped the lorry and beat PW1 on his head and the driver PW2 and caused bleeding injury and they also committed the offence of robbery of an amount of

Rs.25,000/- and they also came in an auto and they were speaking in

Urdu language and they are Muslims and during discussion they heard the name of one accused as Jahangeer and thereafter they went to the hospital and took treatment and later they went to police station and gave oral statement to LW15/G.Kashi, the then Sub Inspector of

Police, who reduced it into writing and translated the same to them in

Hindi and thereafter basing on the statement, LW15/G.Kashi, Sub

Inspector of Police registered case in Cr.No.116/2017 U/Sec.394 IPC and took up the investigation.

During investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 to 4 and handed over the CD file to LW16/Y.Ramakrishna,

Circle Inspector of Police for further investigation as the offence was 3 grave in nature and LW16/Y.Ramakrishna, Circle Inspector of Police during further investigation, re-examined PWs1 to 3 and recorded their statements and thereafter visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PWs8 and 9 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene and on 19-3-2017 at around 1.00

PM on receiving reliable information, A1 was apprehended at his house and when he was about to confess the commission of offence, PW11 secured the presence of LW10/S.Kurumurthy and LW11/P.Raju and recorded the confessional statement of A1 wherein A1 confessed that he was fruit vendor near Boyapally Gate, Mahabubnagar and for his needs he along with his friend A2 and CCL went on NH.44 road at

Janampet outskirts and committed the offence of robbery from one motorcyclist, which is registered as Cr.No.61/2016 U/Sec.384 r/w 34

IPC of PS.Addakal. Further, A1 also confessed that as preplan on 18-3-2017 at around 12.00 noon in the midnight they visited New Bus

Stand, Mahabubnagar and took the auto of PW7, who is younger brother of Ramu and they went to Kosgi road and way laid and they were armed with sticks and at around 3.00 AM they saw one lorry coming and they over took the lorry and stopped the auto in front of the lorry and they beat the driver and another person with sticks and robbed away an amount of Rs.25,000/- and while they were leaving the scene, he incidentally fell down from the auto and sustained injury on his hands and legs. A1 also testified that he had spent Rs.1,000/- for his needs and handed over the remaining amount to A2 instructing him to disburse the amount. It was confessed by A1 that he was at his house when the police apprehended him. After recording of confessional statement of A1, he had handed over Rs.1,000/- and one stick, which was used in the commission of offence and after 4 conducting confessional proceedings, A1 was arrested and was produced before the Court for judicial custody.

On 5-7-2017 at around 12.00 noon PC.617 apprehended the CCL near Boyapally railway gate, Mahabubnagar and produced him before

PW11 and on interrogation the CCL was about to confess his guilty,

PW11 secured the presence of PW10 and LW13/V.Raja Shekara Chary and recorded the confessional statement, wherein the CCL confessed that he had spent Rs.1,000/- which was given to him by A1 and A2 as his share and CCL had led the police and panchas near Koilkonda cross road where the seized the stick was hidden and the stick was seized and later PW11 produced the CCL before the Board. On 7-7-2017 at around 11.30 PM A2 was apprehended at his house by PW11 and when he was about to confess his guilty and PW11 secured the presence of

PW10 and LW13/V.Raja Shekara Chary and recorded the confessional statement of A2 wherein he confessed that he along with A1 and CCL as per their plan on the night of 18-3-2017 at around 11.00 PM they went to New Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar and took one auto of

LW11/P.Raju and they went to outskirts of Kosgi and way laid by carrying sticks and at around 3.00 PM on the intervening night when a lorry was came from Mahabubnagar and they chased the lorry in their auto and stopped the auto in front of the lorry and they beat the driver and another person with sticks and they robbed away Rs.25,000/- and he took remaining amount after A1 and CCL taking Rs.1,000/- each and he also confessed that he had spent amount for his needs and basing on the confessional statement of A2, handed over the causative weapon used in the commission of offence and after recovery of the stick, A2 was arrested and produced before the Court.

5

During the investigation, PW11 also examined and recorded the statements of PWs5 to 7 and PW5 and 6 have stated that they saw two persons and one boy holding sticks. PW7 who is owner of the auto stated that on 18-3-2017 at around 11.00 PM A1 and A2 and CCL came and took his auto stating that A1 had to drop his sister-in-law and therefore he gave auto to A1 on rent of Rs.150/-.

LW14/Dr.V.Vikram Kumar, medical officer treated PW1 and issued wound certificate opining that he sustained simple injuries.

After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence collected during investigation, PW1 laid final report against the CCL before the

Board and he laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 before the Court concerned.

3. This Final Report was taken on file for the offences punishable

U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC against the CCL.

4. On appearance of the CCL, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Later the CCL was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the CCL in Telugu by the Board for which he denied the accusation and on question of the plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be enquired.

6. For proving the accusation against the CCL, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 11 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the de- facto complainant and injured. PW2 is the injured. PW3 is an eyewitness. PWs4 to 7 are the circumstantial witnesses. PWs8 and 9 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. PW10 is the 6 panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama. PW11 is the investigation officer. The evidence of LW10/S.Kurumurthym

LW11/P.Raju, LW13/V.Raja Shekara Chary, LW14/Dr.V.Vikram Kumar and LW15/G.Kashi was closed by this court as the prosecution failed to produce them despite granting several adjournments.

7. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW10 in certified copy of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of FIR. Ex.P5 is the certificate copy of confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Child in conflict with law was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence on his side.

9. Heard, the learned Sr.APP and the learned Counsel for CCL.

10. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:- PW1 in his evidence testified that he is the owner of lorry bearing No.MH-12-LT-9957 and he used to drive his own vehicle and he will be travelling to other States along with PW2. On 18-3-2017 while he was travelling to Pune and on reaching Koilkonda cross road, one auto obstructed them and four persons got down from the auto with sticks and attacked them and they beat them and CCL was also present and CCL along with three others robbed away Rs.25,000/- 7 from them and then the CCL attacked him with stick and he received injury to his head and all the accused beat PW2 and fled away from the scene and thereafter they went to police station and filed report to the police and as per his narration, the police scribed the report in

Telugu and contents were explained to them in Hindi and he appended his signature and his statement was recorded by the police.

During the cross examination, PW1 testified that he did not know

Telugu and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was not recovered. PW1 denied the suggestion that the contents in Ex.P1 were not read over and explained to him in Hindi and Ex.P1 was lodged at about 5.00 AM.

12. PW2 in his evidence testified that he will be travelling to other

States along with PW1. On 18-3-2017 while he was travelling to Pune and on reaching Koilkonda cross road, between 3.00 to 4.00 AM one auto obstructed them and four persons got down from the auto with sticks and attacked them and beat them and CCL was also present and

CCL along with three others robbed away Rs.25,000/- from them and then the CCL attacked him with stick and he received injury to his mouth as the CCL beat him with stock and PW1 was also beat him with stick on his head by the CCL and three others, who fled away from the scene and then PW1 went to police station and filed report and as per

PW1 narration, the police scribed the report in Telugu and contents were explained to him in Hindi.

During the cross examination, PW2 testified that he was with

PW1 at the time of lodging report and at about 5.00 AM one the date of alleged incident, PW1 lodged report and one person who was along with CCL was taken to police station.

8

13. PW3 in his evidence testified that about 1½ years ago when he was returning to his village Appannapally from the village of his maternal grandmother Chinnadarpally village, he saw four persons and out of them, three persons are Muslims and they were beating the driver of lorry belongs to Maharastra State and out of three Muslims, he knew A1 and he identified him as A1 is his friend’s friend and on seeing him, all the four persons fled away from the spot and the driver of lorry sustained injuries on his right cheek and another person who was with the driver also sustained injuries and he was also beaten up by the said four persons and he sustained injury on his head and he shifted the injured to hospital and later a report was lodged with the police by the owner of the lorry and the police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW3 testified that he did not give evidence to this case in any other court and except the name of A1, he did not know the names of other person and he cannot identify them and he did not know against whom the case is prosecuted before the

Board.

14. PW4 in his evidence testified that he is working as PC.Nawabpet since three months and at the material point of time of registration of the case, he worked as PC at PS.Rural, Mahabubnagar and on 19-3-2017 he was on watch duty at police station and at about 6.30

AM PWs1 and 2 came to police station and they were injured and they were with plasters on their faces and heads and they informed him that they are from Maharastra State and they spoke Hindi and they also informed him that they were transporting the stones from

Bethamcherla, Kurnool to Pune and on the way near Koilkonda cross roads, one Bajaj Auto over took their vehicle and they stopped the 9 vehicle and threatened them and beat them with stick and extorted

Rs.25,000/- and fled away and he drafted Ex.P1 in Telugu and explained the contents to them in Hindi and obtained the signature of

PW1 and later the Sub Inspector of Police recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW4 testified that he did not state in his statement that he scribed the statement of PW1 in Telugu and explained the contents to PW1 in Hindi and the Sub Inspector of

Police recorded his statement between 10.00 to 11.00 AM on the same day of registration of the case.

15. PW5 in his evidence testified that about one year ago, he was proceeding in his auto along with load of vegetables, he saw one lorry and an auto stationed near Koilkonda cross roads and he thought that accident might have happened and he stopped his auto and enquired with three persons present near the lorry and auto and they informed him that no accident took place and he left the place and the police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW5 testified thathis statement was recorded by the police at 3.00 AM in the morning and he cannot say the exact place where the above mentioned incident took place.

PW5 testified that it was dark at the time of incident and he did not know why the said vehicles were stationed.

16. PW6 in his evidence testified that on 18-3-2017 he was proceeding in his auto to Hanwada for bringing vegetables and on crossing Koilkonda cross roads, he saw one lorry and auto stationed and he also saw the auto of PW5 and he enquired with PW5 and he also saw three persons, who told him to leave the place and he left the place and the police examined and recorded his statement.

10

During the cross examination, PW6 testified that he did not remember at what time his statement was recorded by the police and he did not remember where his statement was recorded.

17. PW7 in his evidence testified that about 1½ years ago, he gave his auto on rent to A1 and previously A1 took his auto on rent for his brother’s marriage and thereafter he returned his auto and paid the rent and for the second time he took his auto in the night, but he did not pay the rent and later brought the auto and parked the auto in front of his house without informing him and after 3 to 4 days he came to know that A1 beat one lorry driver and extorted money of

Rs.25,000/- and he used his auto for the commission of offence and the police examined and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination, PW7 testified that he cannot say the date and month when his statement was recorded and the auto was not registered in his name and he took the auto from the finance company and there is no document to show that he took the auto from finance company.

18. PW8 in his evidence testified that about one year ago the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of PW9 on the way leading to Hanwada after crossing

Koilkonda cross roads as someone beat the driver of the lorry and he appended his signature as a witness to the proceedings and the contents were explained to him and rough sketch was drawn.

During the cross examination, PW8 testified that the panchanama was conducted between 11.00 AM to 12.00 Noon and no requisition was issued by the police requesting him to act as mediator to the proceedings and he cannot say the boundaries and at the time 11 of panchanama, no lorry and auto were shown to him at the scene offence panchanama. PW8 testified that he did not know the contents and at the instance of the police, he appended my signature.

19. PW9 in his evidence testified that about one year ago, the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in the presence of PW8 on the way leading to Hanwada and he appended his signature as a witness to the proceedings and the contents were read over and explained to him and rough sketch was drawn.

During the cross examination, PW9 testified that he did not receive any written requisition from the police concerned requesting him to act as mediator and the panchanama was conducted at around 10.00 AM and the panchanama was conducted by the Sub Inspector of

Police and he is resident of Laxmi Naik Thanda and the distance from the scene of offence to his thanda is approximately one kilometer.

PW9 denied the suggestion that no scene of offence panchanama conducted and at the instance of police he appended his signature in the proceedings.

20. PW10 in his evidence testified that he did not know any facts of the case and nobody confessed in his presence and no seizure panchanama was conducted in his presence, but about one year ago the police obtained his signature on some paper.

21. PW11 is the investigation officer and he testified the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

During the cross examination, PW11 testified that PW4 recorded the statement of PW1 and in column No.10 of Ex.P4, it was mentioned 12 that the stolen amount was Rs.25,000/-, but only Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the possession of A1 and also in column No.14 of FIR is blank and he did not summon the mediators of panchanama. PW11 denied the suggestion that PWs8 and 9 are the stock witnesses and

Ex.P2 was drafted within 30 minutes.

22. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, it could be seen that there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of

PWs1 and 2 and PW1 in his statement to Sub Inspector of Police testified that he can identify the persons who beat him but he did not give the physical features of the persons who beat him and for the first time in the Board, he identified CCL as one of the offenders and PW2, who was also injured along with PW1 also identified the CCL for the first time in the Board that the CCL along with others had beat him and quite surprisingly in his cross examination, PW2 testified that one person along with CCL were taken to the police station. No steps were taken by the police to conduct test identification parade when it is the case that PWs1 and 2 could identify the offenders and further PW3, who was arrayed as an eyewitness in his evidence testified that he had shifted the injured PWs1 and 2 to hospital, but PWs1 and 2 never testified that PW3 shifted them to the hospital and PW3 witnessed the incident. PWs5 and 6 have testified that they saw the auto and lorry after the incident and on enquiry PW5 informed him that no incident took place and he left the place and PW6 testified that PW5 was present and on enquiry with PW5, he was told to leave the place. The panch witness for confession panchanama of A2 and CCL turned hostile and there is no cogent evidence brought on record to connect the CCL with the alleged crime and there is no evidence to prove the 13 fact that the CCL was armed with stick and he along with other accused committed the imputed crime, causing injuries to PWs1 and 2 and also committed the offence of robbery. Since there is no cogent evidence brought on record against the CCL, therefore, the CCL is entitled for acquittal

In the result, the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The CCL shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other case. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, on this the 11th day of January, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases, Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution:- PW1 D.Abhi Ram. PW2 J.Kiran. PW3 P.Venkatesh. PW4 Md.Javid. PW5 Basappa. PW6 Sree Ramulu. PW7 Nagaraju. PW8 Shankar. PW9 K.Pandu. PW10 P.Pandu PW11 Y.Rama Krishna, Circle Inspector of Police, PS.Rural, Mahabubnagar. For Defense:- None

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1 is the certified copy of report. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama.

14

Ex.P3 is the signature of PW10 in certified copy of confession-cum- seizure panchanama. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of FIR. Ex.P5 is the certificate copy of confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P6 is the wound certificate.

For Defense:- -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for ::

- Nil–

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases, Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

15

TABULAR FORM

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

1. JCC No. : J.C.C.No.61 of 2018

2. Name of the Police : PS.Rural, Mahabubnagar. Station

3. FIR/Cr.No. : Cr.No.116 of 2017

4. Section of Law : U/Sec.392 and 394 IPC

5. Description of JCL :

Mohmad Hussain s/o Moulana, age 12 yrs, r/o Mothinagar area, Mahabubnagar town, n/o Kothalabad village of Koilkonda.

6. Date of

Offence 18-3-2017

Complaint 19-3-2017

Apprehension 5-7-2017

Released ---

Commencement of 16-11-2018 enquiry Close of enquiry 28-12-2018

Order 11-1-2019

7. Explanation for delay : Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution from time to time.

Property Order:- Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases,Mahabubnagar To

The Hon’ble I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Dis.No. Dt: - -2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE (FTC) AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 18th day of February, 2020

Present:- Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao, Asst. Sessions Judge, FAC II Addl.Asst Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

S.C. No.34 of 2018

(Preliminarily Registered Case No.6 of 2017 was committed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr.No.532/2016 of Sub

Inspector of Police, Jadcherla P.S for the offence punishable U/Sec 306 r/w 34 I.P.C).

ProsecutionSri B.Ramnath Goud Addl. Public Prosecutor Accused1] Bagam Sathyamma w/o Bheemaiah, Age:30 years, Occupation:Coolie R/o Kistaram village of Jadcherla Mandal. 2] Badugual Pentaiah s/o late Chandraiah, Age:24 years, Occupation:Coolie, R/o Chennareddipally H/o Ippatur village of Nawabpet Mandal. 3] Mende Mangamma w/o Gangapuri, Age:28 years, Occupation:Coolie R/o Garlapadu village of Koilkonda Mandal. 4] Badgula Kistamma s/o late Chandraiah, Age:60 years, Occupation:Coolie R/o Chennareddipally H/o Ippatur village of Nawabpet Mandal.

Counsel for AccusedSri N.P.Venkatesh Offence under sectionU/Sec 306 IPC Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, accused No.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 306 I.P.C, thereby, they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six (06) months U/Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

This case is coming up for hearing before me on 13-02- 2020 in the presence of Sri B.Ramnath Goud Addl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar for the State and Sri N.P.Venkatesh

Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:- 2

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Jadcherla filed charge sheet against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Sec 306

IPC.

2.The brief facts mentioned in the charge sheet about the case as follows:-

a)That on 15-11-2016, at 11.00 hours, Yerrolla Chittemma (LW.1) has lodged a complaint stating that on 15-11-2016, at about 8.00 hours, she was at her home, her cousin brother/LW.3

B.Narsimulu informed her through phone that her own brother by name Bhagam Bheemaiah (herein after referred to as “deceased”) was died by falling topsy-turvy state near babool tree, his neck tied with cloth rope at his agricultural land situated in the limits of

Kistaram village. Immediately, she rushed to the Kistaram village and found her brother was died topsy-turvy state by falling near babool tree at his Redgram crop. On enquiry she came to know that on 13-11-2016, deceased and his second wife i.e., A-1 quarreled over coolie work issue, in which the deceased beat A-1.

Following which, on 14-11-2016, at around 16.00 hours, all other accused together came and beat the deceased. Her brother afraid and escaped from their clutches. Her brother vexed on his life as his wife and her relatives beat him, keeping the same in mind on 14-11-2016, her brother went to his agricultural land and committed suicide by hanging. Hence, she requested to take action against accused.

3

b)Basing on the report of Yerrolla Chittemma (LW.1), N.Madhusudhan Goud, Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S.Jadcherla (LW.12) registered a case. During course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Yerrolla Sathemma (LW.2), Bagam Narsimhulu (LW.3), Vaggula Yerranna (LW.4) and

Angalli Srinivasulu (LW.5). In the presence of Kavali Narsimhulu (LW.9) and Yeggula Ramulu (LW.10) conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and took photographs and sent the dead body to Government Community Health Centre, Badepally. In the presence of LW.9 and LW.10 conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch in Crime Detail Form and seized one part of the cloth rope from neck of deceased length about 6 feet and another part of cloth rope from babool tree length about 6 feet. On requisition, Dr.Nagaraju, Government

Community Health Centre, Badepally (LW.11) conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued Post Mortem

Examnation report by opining that the cause of death is due to “Cerebral hypoxia due to hanging”. He examined and recorded the statements of Dasari Ramulamma (LW.6), B.Anitha (LW.7) and Gaddala Bhagya (LW.8) in detail statements U/Sec 161 (3)

Cr.P.C. On 19-12-2016, at 14.00 hours, he apprehended A-1 to A- 4 and on interrogation, they admitted the guilt and after completion of investigation, he sent them for Judicial Remand.

After completion of PME, he handed over the dead body to blood relatives. After completion of investigation and on receipt of medical certificates, he filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable U/Sec 306 IPC.

4

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla took the cognizance against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/Sec 306 IPC and after following the Committal procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar taken the cognizance for the said offences and made over the case to this

Court for disposal according to law and this Court numbered the same as S.C.No.34/2018.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court examined A-1 to A-4, U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C and framed the charge U/Sec 306 of IPC against them, read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12, and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O.1 marked on the side of the prosecution and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are relevant portions of 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 marked on the side of the defence.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and no documents and witnesses were examined on behalf of A-1 to A-4.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:- 5

9.The case of the prosecution is that on 13-11-2016, deceased and his second wife herein A-1 had some quarrel with regard to the coolie work due to which on 14-11-2016, at about 04.00 P.M, A- 2, who is brother of A-1, A-3 sister of A-1, A-4, her brother-in- law and her mother Kistamma A-5 all together beat the deceased, as a result, the deceased escaped from their clutches and rescued his life and committed suicide in his agriculture field by hanging over to a tree. Basing on that, the deceased sister PW.1 lodged a report vide Ex.P1.

10.PW.1 in her evidence stated that while she was present in her village at Shadnagar, she received a phone call at 08.00 A.M from her cousin brother PW.4 that her brother committed suicide by hanging over to a babool tree in the agricultural fields of their neighbours. Then, immediately, she went to place of incident and found the dead body of her brother lying on the ground and also noticed cloth rope over the neck of her brother and on enquiry from the villagers she came to know that the accused harassed her deceased brother due to some arguments took place between

A-1 and her deceased husband and the evidence of PW.1 is clear that she is not the direct eye witness to the incident and she came to know about the quarrel from the villagers. PW.1 also admitted in her cross examination she do not know how her deceased brother and his second wife herein A-1 were living. As such, PW.1 do not know as to what exactly has taken place between A-1 and her deceased husband. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

6

11.PW.2 another sister of the deceased is also not direct eye witness to the incident and she stated that two days prior to committing suicide by her brother, her brother informed her on phone that quarrel took place between her deceased brother and

A-1 that she was not behaving with deceased and her conduct is not good and on the next day PW.3 informed that her brother committed suicide by hanging over to Babool tree in the agricultural fields of their neighbours. Later, she came to know that some quarrel took place between her deceased brother and accused. Here, the evidence of PW.2 is also very clear that she do not know what actual happened between her deceased brother and her sister-in-law herein A-1. PW.2 also admitted in her cross examination that she do not know how her deceased brother and

A-1 are living in the village as she is residing away from the village and also do not have personal knowledge about them. She further admitted that the first wife of her deceased husband by name

Thirupathamma is living in the house of her deceased brother and also cultivating the lands including the lands purchased in the name of A-1. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 is also not supporting the case of prosecution.

12.PW.3, who is uncle of the deceased stated that he knows A-1 but do not know remaining accused and stated that while he was at Annaram village, he received a phone call from the villagers of Kistaram that his son-in-law herein the deceased

B.Bheemaiah died by hanging over to a tree in his agricultural field and committed suicide and he also came to know from the 7 villagers that the deceased committed suicide due to his brother- in-law Seenaiah, who is brother of A-1 beat the deceased and unable to bear them, he committed suicide. Here, PW.3 stated a different version, wherein none of the witnesses stated about that brother of A-1 Seenaiah beat the deceased. PW.3 further admitted in his cross examination that he did not witness the incident personally and also he came to know the facts from the villagers.

As such, he too do not know what actually happened between the deceased and among the accused and the evidence of PW.3 is also not supporting the case of prosecution.

13.PW.4, who is cousin of deceased stated that about 3 years ago, his deceased brother and A-1 had an argument with each other but he do not know the reasons about their argument and in the early morning at 8.00 A.M, he came to know from the villagers that his cousin was found in his agricultural field under babool tree. Then, he went there and saw a rope beside the body of his cousin and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile. For which, PW.4 denied the contents of 161

Cr.P.C statement marked as Ex.P2. Further, PW.4 in his cross examination admitted that he did not witness the incident personally and he came to know from the villagers. As such, the evidence of PW.4 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.

14.PW.5, who is the circumstantial witness and neighbor of the deceased stated that on 13-11-2016, at about 4.00 P.M, a quarrel took place between A-1 and her deceased husband but he 8 do not know the reasons for their quarrel. He noticed the said quarrel while he was coming to his house after attending his duties. Then, immediately again he noticed a quarrel at the house, wherein all the accused were beating the deceased B.Bheemaiah due to which, the deceased escaped from the place.

15.PW.5 in his cross examination admitted that he did not state before the police that on 13-11-2016, while he was going to

Mylon Company, which is an omission though he stated the said fact in his statement given to the police, which is marked as

Ex.D1. Similarly, he admitted that he did not state before the police that on 14-11-2016, at 08.00 P.M, while he was at his house, he heard the noise in the house of the deceased Bheemaiah and when he went to his house, he noticed A-1 to A-4 and the brother- in-law of A-1 Gangapuri, all of them beating the deceased and due to fear he fled away from the place which is marked as Ex.D2 and he omitted to give the said fact in his evidence. Though, he stated the same vide Ex.P2 in his statement given to the police. Further, when Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were confronted to the investigating officer herein PW.12, he stated that PW.5 stated before him as in Exs.D1 and D2 but whereas, PW.5 denied the contents of Exs.D1 and D2, which becomes a contradiction. Further, though PW.5 stated that he saw the accused beating the deceased Bheemaiah is not sufficient to attract the ingredients of Sec.306 IPC and the post mortem examination report vide Ex.P6 goes to show that there are no external injuries found in the body of the deceased except the neck injury is due to hanging. Hence, the evidence of PW.5 is not 9 corroborating with the evidence of PW.2 in order to believe that there were some injuries caused by A-1 to A-4. As such, the evidence of PW.5 is also becomes doubtful.

16.PW.6, who is shown as the eye witness and father of

PW.5 stated the similar facts as stated by PW.5. Further, PW.6 stated that quarrel between the accused and the deceased happened only once. As such, the evidence of PW.6 is also similar to that of his son PW.5. Hence, need not be considered.

17.PW.7, who is shown as the eye witness by the prosecution stated that one day he saw a quarrel between the deceased B.Bheemaiah and other persons at one ration shop at the house of deceased and he do not know the reasons for the quarrel and on the next day he came to know that B.Bheemaiah died. Here, the evidence of PW.7 is entirely different. He do not know the cause and also the reason for the quarrel. As such, he was declared hostile by the prosecution, for which PW.7 denied the contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement marked as Ex.P3.

18.PW.8 who is also shown as the eye witness by the prosecution and stated that he used to hear quarrel in the house of the deceased and his wife A-1 but he do not know the reasons for their quarrel and prior to the death of the deceased also a quarrel took place between them and on the next day she came to know that the deceased committed suicide by hanging to a babool tree in his agricultural field. As such, the evidence of PW.8 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution, as she too did not witness 10 actually what happened between A-1 and her deceased husband.

As PW.8 stated that some quarrel took place but there is no whisper to show that A-1 and the remaining accused abetted the deceased Bheemaiah in committing suicide. As such, the evidence of PW.8 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.

19.PW.9, who is panch witness to the scene of offence stated that on the day of the incident when he went to the

Government Hospital at Jadcherla, he saw the dead body of

B.Bheemaiah, where the police obtained his signatures on some papers and he do not know what is written in those papers. The witness identified his signatures in Crime Details Form marked as

Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 in the inquest panchanama.

20.PW.11, who is another panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama and inquest stated that. He do not know

PW.9 and about 3 years ago, the police Jadcherla conducted inquest over the dead body of B.Bheemaiah at his agricultural field in his presence and thereafter, he put his signature on it and Ex.P7 is the inquest panchanama. Further, he stated that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch by seizing two pieces of rope at the place of offence and Ex.P8 is the scene of offence panchanama and M.O.1 is one rope containing two pieces made of cloth.

21.PW.10, who is the Medical Officer stated that on 15-11- 2016, at 04.00 P.M, he received requisition from SHO, P.S.Jadcherla to conduct autopsy over the dead body of deceased Bagam 11

Bheemaiah. Accordingly, he commenced the examination at 04.00

P.M and found the following injuries i.e.,

1)Contusion around the surface of neck measuring 10 x 3 cms;

2)No other external injuries are noted;

3)Hyoid bone fracture is present.

Ex.P6 is the Post Mortem Examination Report.

22.PW.12, who is the investigating officer stated the similar facts as mentioned in the charge sheet and got marked Ex.P9 is

FIR. Though, PW.12 stated that the accused confessed commission of offence in his presence but according to the

Evidence Act., the confession made before the police officer is not an admissible. Similarly, he stated that PW.4 and PW.7 stated

before him as in Exs.P2 and Ex.P3 but the said statements were

not corroborated by PW.4 and PW.7.

23.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon following reported decisions.

1]Makkena Balaiah and Others V/s State of Andhra Pradesh [2010 (2) ALD (Crl.)]. 2]M.Mohan V/s State of Tr.Dy.Supdt [2011 (2) ALT (Crl.)] 3]Ramesh Kumar V/s State of Chattisgarh [2002 SCC (Crl.)] 4]Bura Manohar V/s State of Andhra Pradesh [2002 (2) ALT (Crl)] 5]Allaveni Rajeshwari V/s State of Andhra Pradesh [2006(1) ALD(Crl.)] 6]Sri Jangaiah V/s State of Andhra Pradesh [2007(4) Crimes] 7]Santosh Vishwakarma and Another V/s State of Madhya Pradesh [2004(3) Crimes] 12 8]Neelam @ Bondila Lachaiah and Another V/s State of Andhra Pradesh [2002 (2) ALT (Crl.)]

24.Though, the above said rulings are explaining as to the interpretation of Sec.107 of IPC and U/Sec 306 IPC in different cases and the present case on hand, wherein the facts and circumstances are different but coming to whether the ingredients of Sec.107 and Sec.306 IPC are attracting to the case on hand should be looked into. On this aspect none of the ingredients of

Sec.107 IPC i.e., instigation, conspiracy and aiding by the accused to the deceased are not attracted in order to believe the case of prosecution. The basic ingredients to be attracted U/Sec 306 IPC is depended on the ingredients of Sec.107 IPC and the said ingredients are missing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25.In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 306 I.P.C, thereby, they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of Six (06) months U/Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18thday of February, 2020.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC II Addl.Asst Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar .

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution:- 13

PW.1: Sri Y.Chittamma PW.2: Smt.Y.Sathyamma PW.3: Sri V.Yerranna PW.4: Sri B.Narsimulu PW.5: Sri A.Srinivasulu PW.6: Sri D.Ramulamma Pw.7: Smt.B.anitha PW.8: Smt.G.Bhagya PW.9: Sri K.Narsimulu PW.10: Dr.A.Nagaraju PW.11: Sri B.Ramulu PW.12: Sri N.Madhusudhan Goud Defence:- -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

Prosecution:- Ex-P1 is report, Dt:15-11-2016 Exs.P2 and P3 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.4 and PW.7 Exs.P4 and P5 are signatures of PW.9 on Crime Details Form and Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P6 is Post Mortem Report. Ex.P7 is Inquest Panchanama, Dt:15-11-2016 Ex.P8 is Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P9 is FIR, Dt:15-11-2016

Defence:- Exs.D1 and D2 are relevant portions of 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.5

Material Objects Marked M.O.1 is one rope containing two pieces

ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE

FAC II Addl.Asst Judge (FTC) Mahabubnagar

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 11th day of January, 2019.

Present: D.V.R. Tejo Karthik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, FAC Chairman-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Members: 1. Peddibotla Nagalakshmi

2. Sri. M.Galanna,

J.C.C.No.3 of 2018

Between:- State of A.P. rep. by Circle Inspector of Police, PS.Atmakur. Cr.No.22/2017 of PS.Atmakur.

..Complainant.

A N D

Sathvai Hanmanthu @ Soutabai Anjaneyulu s/o Gokaranna, age 16 yrs, occ: Inter 1st year (Vocational AET Group), r/o Guntupally village of Atmakur mandal. … Child in conflict with law

Section of Law : U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

Plea of JCL : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Board : Set at liberty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bond of CCL shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked property i.e., HF Deluxe (New Vehicle) bearing Engine No.HA11EKG9L20613 and Chasis No.MBLHA11AZG9L20645 which was given towards interim custody to S.Gokaranna vide Orders in

Crl.M.P.No.529/2017,dt.13-3-2017

shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal period.

2

This JCC came before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri T.Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the Child conflict with law. Upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1. The Circle Inspector of Police, PS.Atmakur has filed Final report against CCL in Cr.No.22 of 2017 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28-1-2017 at around 6.00 AM PW3 informed PW1 that she was going out to meet her friend and left the house and did not return to the house even after college hours. PW1 enquired with the friend of his daughter PW3 and her friend told PW1 that PW3 did not came to her house and thereafter PW1 searched for his daughter PW3, but in vain and he suspected the CCL for missing of his daughter and he also telephoned to the cell phone of CCL, but his cell phone was switched off and went to police station and lodged report with PW4 seeking necessary action against the CCL.

Basing on the contents of above report, PW4 registered a case in

Cr.No.22/2017 under the head of Girl Missing and took up the investigation.

During investigation, PW4 examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 and 2 and later PW4 formed a special team to trace out PW3 and also prepared look out notices and dispatched them to all police stations at Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar, Gadwal and

Nagarkurnool and he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at

Nandimalla village and secured the presence of LW9/Md.Naveed and 3

LW10/T.Sai Kumar and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene and further investigation was conducted by LW22/Ch.Raju, Sub Inspector of Police and on 21-12-2017 at around 5.00 PM PW1 informed that his daughter returned to their house and he also informed that the CCL committed the offence of cheating in the name of love and took his daughter from their village to Pamdhurthi of Ananthapur District and kept her in a hut and participated in sexual intercourse with her regularly in the name of love and cheated her and finally reduced to marry his daughter and

LW22/Ch.Raju, Sub Inspector of Police along with LW20/Kumari

Ramadevi, WPC.2871 of Wanaparthy town proceeded to Nandimalla village and as per the instructions of LW22/Ch.Raju, LW20/Kumari

Ramadevi examined and recorded the statement of PW3 and basing on the statement of PW3, the provision of law was altered from Girl

Missing to Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 366 IPC and

Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and memos were issued to the concerned and LW22/Ch.Raju had sent PW3 to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Wanaparthy for medical examination and LW15/Dr.Pallavi, medical officer examined

PW3 and preserved vaginal swabs and sent to FSL for chemical analysis and report. On 21-12-2017 LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Atmakur received report from

LW22/Ch.Raju and as the case was grave in nature, he took up further investigation and on 22-2-2017 LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy visited the

Nandimall village, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and

LW4/MD.Mahaboob, LW5/G.Srinivas Reddy, LW6/M.Venkatanna and addressed a letter to LW7/Smt.Pranathi Reddy to furnish the bonafide certificates of CCL and PW3 and as per the school records, PW3 was 4 born on 10-2-2001 and the CCL was born on 16-8-2001 and both are minors. LW20/Kummari Ramadevi, WPC.2871 examined and recorded the statement of LW7/Smt.Pranati Reddy and during further investigation, PW3 after medical examination returned to Nandimalla village along with PW2 and on the same day evening

LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of PW2. On 23-2-2017 LW23/R.Prabhakar

Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police along with PW3 and WHG.184 went to

Pamdhurthi village, Bukkapatnam mandal, Anantapur District and visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW11/C.Ramu and LW12/N.Sri Ramulu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene. LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle

Inspector of Police further examined and recorded the statement of

LW8/H.Buchanna and also recorded the statement of LW20/Kummari

Ramadevi, WPC.2871.

On 27-2-2017 on receipt of credible information,

LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police along with HC.11,

PC.3087 rushed to Guntipally village and apprehended the CCL and on interrogation, the CCL was about to confess his guilt and

LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police secured the presence of LW13/P.Sailoo and LW14/G.Nasimha and recorded the confessional statement of CCL and also conducted seizure panchanama and seized the motorbike, which used for the commission of offence in the presence of panchas and CCL then sent to Government Civil

Hospital, Atmakur for potency test and LW17/Dr.Raghavendra Kumar, medical officer examined the CCL and issued potency certificate opining that the CCL was potent and capable to do sexual Act and the

CCL was brought to the Office of LW23//R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle 5

Inspector of Police and later he was produced before the Board and as per the request of LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police

LW18/Sri Milind Kamble, the then Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Wanaparthy recorded the statement of PW3. On transfers further investigation conducted by LW24/B.Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police. LW16/Dr.Srinivasa Chowdary examined PW3 and issued medical age certificate opining that PW3 aged between 16 to 18 years.

LW24/B.Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police obtained FSL report from laboratory and LW19/Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant Director of FSL issued FSL report opined that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item

No.1. LW24/B.Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police collected certified copy of 164 Cr.P.C and also obtained final opinion from

LW15/Dr.Pallavi, medical officer that no definite opinion regarding the occurrence of sexual assault can be given. After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence collected during investigation,

LW24/B.Shankar, Circle Inspector of Police laid final report against the

CCL.

3. This Final Report was taken on file for the offences punishable

U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the CCL.

4. On appearance of the CCL, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Later the CCL was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the CCL in

Telugu by the Board for which he denied the accusation and on 6 question of the plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be enquired.

6. For proving the accusation against the CCL, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 4 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and father of PW3. PW2 is the mother of PW3. PW3 is the victim girl. PW4 is the investigation officer. The evidence of

LW4/MD.Mahaboob, LW5/G.Srinivas Reddy, LW6/M.Venkatanna,

LW7/Smt.Pranathi Redddy, LW8/H.Buchanna, LW9/Md.Naveed,

LW10/T.Sai Kumar, LW11/C.Ramu, LW12/N.Sri Ramulu,

LW13/P.Sailoo, LW14/G.Narsimha, LW15/Dr.Pallavi,

LW16/Dr.Srinivasa Chowdary, LW17/Dr.Raghavendra Kumar,

LW18/Milind Kamble, LW19/Dr.G.Pandu, LW20/Kumari Ramadevi,

LW21/B.Devendar, LW22/Ch.Raju, LW23/R.Prabhakar Reddy and

LW24/B.Shankar was closed by this court as no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined, since the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

7. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report. Ex.P2 is the 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the report. Ex.P6 is the FIR. Ex.P7 is the crime details form.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of CCL U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

9. Heard, the learned Sr.APP and the learned Counsel for CCL.

7

10. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:- PW1 in his evidence testified that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and he filed report to police, but he did not know its contents and his signature was obtained and the police never examined and recorded his statement. PWs2 and 3 testified that they did not know anything about the facts of the case and the police did not examine and record their statements.

12. PW4 in his evidence testified that he is working as Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, PS.Pangal and at the material point of time he worked as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Atmakur and on 28-1-2017 at 2.00 PM he received report from PW1 and basing on the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.22/2017 under the head of Girl

Missing and issued FIR and during the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the house of victim and he conducted crime details form in the presence of LW9/Naveed and

LW10/Sai Kumar and handed over the CD file to LW22/Ch.Raju, Sub

Inspector of Police.

During the cross examination, PW4 denied the suggestion that on 28-1-2017 PW1 did not lodge any report with him and he did not went to the scene of offence and he did not conduct any crime details form.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the material witness PW3 turned hostile stating that she did not know about the facts of the case and her statement was never recorded by 8 the police and the parents of PW3 i.e., PWs1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and there is no iota of evidence brought on record by the prosecution in order to secure the conviction of CCL for the offence U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and therefore, the CCL is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bond of CCL shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The unmarked property i.e., HF Deluxe (New Vehicle) bearing Engine No.HA11EKG9L20613 and Chasis No.MBLHA11AZG9L20645 which was given towards interim custody to S.Gokaranna vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.529/2017, dt.13-3-2017 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal period.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in open court, on this the 11th day of January, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases, Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution:- PW1 Md.Riyaz. PW2 Raziya Sulthana. PW3 Saziya Sulthana. PW4 Devender, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police PS.Atmakur.

For Defense:- None 9

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the report. Ex.P6 is the FIR. Ex.P7 is the crime details form.

For Defense:- -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for ::

- Nil–

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases,Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

10

TABULAR FORM

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

1. JCC No. : J.C.C.No.3 of 2018

2. Name of the Police : PS.Atmakur Station

3. FIR/Cr.No. : Cr.No.22 of 2017

4. Section of Law : U/Sec.376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 417, 420, 366 and Sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012

5. Description of JCL :

Sathvai Hanmanthu @ Soutabai Anjaneyulu s/o Gokaranna, age 16 yrs, occ: Inter 1st year (Vocational AET Group), r/o Guntupally village of Atmakur mandal.

6. Date of

Offence 28-1-2017

Complaint 28-1-2017

Apprehension 27-2-2017

Released 28-2-2017

Commencement of 9-11-2018 enquiry Close of enquiry 4-1-2019

Order 11-1-2019

7. Explanation for delay : Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution from time to time.

Property Order:- The unmarked property i.e., HF Deluxe (New Vehicle) bearing Engine No.HA11EKG9L20613 and Chasis No.MBLHA11AZG9L20645 which was given towards interim custody to S.Gokaranna vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No.529/2017,dt.13-3-2017 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal period.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases, Mahabubnagar To

The Hon’ble I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Dis.No. Dt: - -2020.

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

On this Friday, the 11th day of January, 2019.

Present: D.V.R. Tejo Karthik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, FAC Chairman-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, for Juvenile Cases, MAHABUBNAGAR.

Members: 1. Peddibotla Nagalakshmi

2. Sri. M.Galanna,

J.C.C.No.10 of 2018

Between:- State of A.P. rep. by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet. Cr.No.48/2016 of PS.Maddur.

..Complainant.

A N D

Mangali Mahipal s/o M.Narsimulu, aged about 17 yrs, occ: Inter Student and Barber Work, r/o Khajipur village of Maddur mandal.

… Child in conflict with law

Section of Law : U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015) Plea of JCL : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Board : Set at liberty

Sentence or Order : The accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015) are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bond of CCL shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

2

This JCC came before me for final hearing in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri M.Yogeshwar Raj Yadav and Sri Y.Ravi Kumar

Yadav, Advocate for the Child conflict with law. Upon hearing and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day the Board delivered the following:-

FINAL ORDER

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet has filed Final report against CCL in Cr.No.48 of 2016 for the offences punishable

U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act

No.1 of 2015).

2. The brief averments in the Final report are that PW5, who was prosecuting intermediate 1st year at Girls Residential College, Marikal came to village for holidays and stayed with LW1, who is the father of

PW5 and on 1-5-2016 at around 2.00 PM PW5 went to attend calls of nature and did not return and PW1 searched for PW5 and could not trace her and he suspected the CCL that he might have been kidnapped his daughter and therefore, he lodged report with PW7 seeking necessary action against the CCL.

Basing on the contents of above report, PW7 registered a case in

Cr.No.48/2016 U/Sec.366 IPC and took up the investigation.

During investigation, on 3-5-2016 at around 1.00 PM PW6 came to the police station along with PW5 and CCL and PW7 then instructed

LW13/Ramadevi, WPC.2874 to record the statement of PW5 and accordingly LW13/Ramadevi recorded the statement of PW5 and basing on the contents of statement of PW5, PW7 added

Secs.376(2)(i) IPC, Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 in addition to

Sec.366 IPC and dispatched the letter to the Hon’ble Judicial 3

Magistrate of First Class, Kodangal and he had sent PW5 to District

Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar for medical examination for determining her age and the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar appointed LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO, Narayanpet as investigation officer vide appointment Order No.74/C3/10-

Apr/DCRB/2016, dt.3-5-2016 and on 3-5-2016 LW15/P.Sreenivas

Reddy, SDPO, Narayanpet took up the investigation.

During investigation, LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO,

Narayanpet examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 to 3 and 6, visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW7/Budda

Balu and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene. LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO,

Narayanpet apprehended the CCL and on interrogation the CCL confessed about the commission of offence and furnished his original bonafide certificate dt.12-6-2015 issued by Head Master and as per the bonafide certificate, the CCL was born on 10-10-1999 and his age is about 17 years as on the date of commission of the offence and

LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO, Narayanpet produced the CCL before the Board.

On 5-8-2016 LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO, Narayanpet collected the bonafide certificate of PW5, examined and recorded the statement of LW6/Rafiyoddin. LW9/S.Chander, Tahsildar issued caste certificate of CCL and PW5 belongs to SC mala caste and the CCL belongs to BC-A caste. LW10/M.Sai Kumar, Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Narayanpet recorded the statement of PW5. LW11/Dr.D.Sony, medical officer examined and recorded the statement of PW5 and issued report. LW12/Dr.Srininvas, medical officer conducted potency test over the CCL and issued his report. After completion of 4 investigation, basing on the evidence collected during investigation,

LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy, SDPO, Narayanpet laid final report against the CCL.

3. This Final Report was taken on file for the offences punishable

U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and

Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act

No.1 of 2015) against the CCL.

4. On appearance of the CCL, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Later the CCL was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015) and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the CCL in Telugu by the Board for which he denied the accusation and on question of the plea of guilt, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be enquired.

6. For proving the accusation against the CCL, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 7 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. PW1 is the de- facto complainant and father of PW5. PW2 is the circumstantial witness and mother of PW5. PW3 is the circumstantial witness and elder brother of PW5. PW4 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW5 is the victim. PW6 is the circumstantial witness.

PW7 is the investigation officer. The evidence of LW6/Rafiyoddin,

LW7/Budda Balu, LW9/S.Chander, LW10/M.Sai Kumar,

LW11/Dr.D.Sony, LW12/Dr.Srinivas, LW13/Ramadevi and

LW15/P.Sreenivas Reddy was closed by this court as no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined, since the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

5

7. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report. Ex.P2 is the 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the signature of

PW4 in crime details form. Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P8 is the complaint.

Ex.P9 is the FIR. Ex.P10 is the section alteration memo.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of CCL U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

9. Heard, the learned Sr.APP and the learned Counsel for CCL.

10. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences punishable U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015) beyond reasonable doubt?

11. POINT:- As seen from the evidence of PWs1 to 7, they all turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW1 who is father of the victim testified that he did not know the facts of the case and he received information from the Board and therefore he appeared before the Board and he had not lodged any report with the police stating that his daughter was aged 17 years and on 1-5-2016 in the afternoon hours at about 2.00 PM he left the house stating that she would go to nearby road and thereafter did not return and on enquiry he came to know that his villager namely Mangali Mahipal i.e., CCL had enticed away his daughter and therefore he suspected that he would have taken his daughter and it was also testified by PW1 that he admitted 6 his signature in the report, but he denied the knowledge of its contents.

12. PW2 who is mother of PW5 testified that she did not know the facts of the case and the police did not examine and record his statement. PW3 testified that he did not know the facts of the case and the police did not examine and record his statement. PW4 testified that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence, but the police obtained his signature on some paper. PW5 is the material witness and she testified that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and she did not know who lodged the report and the police did not examine and record his statement. PW6 testified that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and the police did not examine and record his statement.

During the examination in the nature of cross by the learned

APP, nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution.

13. PW7 is the investigation officer testified that on 2-5-2016 at around 1.30 PM he received a report from PW1 and as per the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.48/2016 U/Sec.366 IPC and issued FIR and deputed LW13/Ramadevi, WPC.2874 for recording the statement of PW5 and after recording her statement, he filed alteration memo and after that case file was handed over to

LW15/Srinivas Reddy for further investigation.

During the cross examination, PW7 denied the suggestion that

PW1 did not lodge any complaint before him and he did not depute

LW13/Ramadevi to examine and record the statement of PW5.

14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, since the material witness PW5 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution stating that she did not know the facts of the case and the police never 7 recorded her statement and no evidence was brought on record before the Board in order to connect the CCL with the imputed crime as there is no speck of evidence, therefore the CCL is entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, the accusation leveled against the CCL for the offences U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by

Act No.1 of 2015) are not proved and accordingly he is set at liberty for the same U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The relevant bond of CCL shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of January, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases,Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

For Prosecution:- PW1 C.Ramulu. PW2 C.Laxmi. PW3 Krishnaiah. PW4 J.Narsimhulu. PW5 CH.Renuka. PW6 M.Siddappa. PW7 Y.Narender, Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Maddur

For Defense:- None

:: Documents marked on behalf of ::

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

8

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 in crime details form. Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6. Ex.P8 is the complaint. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Ex.P10 is the section alteration memo.

For Defense:- -NIL-

:: Material objects marked for ::

- Nil–

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases,Mahabubnagar 1.

2.

9

TABULAR FORM

IN THE COURT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

1. JCC No. : J.C.C.No.10 of 2018

2. Name of the Police : PS.Maddur Station

3. FIR/Cr.No. : Cr.No.48 of 2016

4. Section of Law : U/Sec.366, 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec.3(A), 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sec.3(1)(w)(i)(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015)

5. Description of JCL :

Mangali Mahipal s/o M.Narsimulu, aged about 17 yrs, occ: Inter Student and Barber Work, r/o Khajipur village of Maddur mandal.

6. Date of

Offence 16/17-1-2018

Complaint 17-1-2018

Apprehension 14-2-2018

Released 15-2-2018

Commencement of 16-11-2018 enquiry Close of enquiry 28-12-2018

Order 4-1-2019

7. Explanation for delay : Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution from time to time.

Property Order:- Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Spl.Mobile Court FAC Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class for Juvenile Cases,Mahabubnagar To

The Hon’ble I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Dis.No. Dt: - -2019.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 11th day of January, 2019.

Present: D.V.R.Tejo Karthik, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Spl.Mobile Court,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mahabubnagar.

C.C.No.345 of 2015

Between:

The State represented through Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Women, Mahabubnagar. …Complainant

And

Sayyed Mahimood s/o Sayyed Rasool, age 37 yrs, occ: Coolie, r/o Yenugonda village of Mahabubnagar. …Accused.

Section of law: 498-A IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable 498-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher

Court, from this judgment by prosecution.

Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

@ @ @

This CC came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. APP, on behalf of prosecution and of Sri T.Chandra Shekar,

Advocate for the accused and having stood over for determination, this day the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Women, Mahabubnagar laid charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.38/2015 for the offence punishable U/Secs.498-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that about eight years back the mother of PW1 was performed her marriage with the accused and at the time of marriage the parents of PW1 presented net cash of Rs.15,000/- and 2 tulas of gold towards dowry. After the marriage, PW1 went to

Yenugonda village along with her husband to lead marital life and they blessed with two daughters namely Hasma and Hasra. Since the marriage of PW1, the accused addicted for consuming liquor and used to commit thefts and when PW1 questioned the accused to stop theft, the accused used to harass her mentally and physically. About 3½ years back the parents of PW1 held a panchayath in the presence of elders, but the accused did not charge his attitude towards PW1 and quarreled with

PW1. On 28-12-2014 at around 2.00 PM the accused came to her house and forcibly took his younger daughter Hasra and denied to give her daughter. As such on 18-2-2015 at 5.00 PM PW1 lodged report with PW7 seeking necessary action against the accused.

Basing on the contents of report, LW6/Jyothi Laxmi, Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.38/2015 U/Sec.498-A IPC and entrusted the investigation to PW7. Accordingly, PW7 took up further investigation, examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 and 2.

During investigation, PW7 visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of

PWs3 to 6 and therefore, PW7 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, basing on the evidence 3 collected in the course of investigation, PW7 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC was taken against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On appearance of the accused before the court, the copies of documents pertaining to the case were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C., and after furnishing the copies of documents, the accused was examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC for which he denied the accusation and after hearing the prosecution and the accused and on consideration of the submissions made by the prosecution and the accused, a charge u/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable

U/Sec.498-A IPC was framed against the accused and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the charge framed against him, he denied the charge and on question of plea of guilt they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial against the accused.

4. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 7 and got exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and victim. PWs2 to 6 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW7 is the investigation officer, who filed charge sheet. The evidence of

LW7/Smt.Jyothi Laxmi was closed by this Court as the prosecution failed to produce him, despite granting several adjournments.

5. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report. Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 are the 161

Cr.P.C statements of PWs1 to 6 respectively. Ex.P8 is the report. Ex.P9 is the

FIR.

4

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C enabling him to explain personally the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defence evidence on his side.

6. Heard, the learned Sr.APP and the learned counsel for the accused

7. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused by proving the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A

IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

8. Point:- As seen from the evidence of PWs1 to 6 they all turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW1 being the de-facto complainant and the victim in her evidence testified that in the year 2006 her marriage was performed with the accused and at the time of marriage, house hold articles worth Rs.25,000/-, one bicycle, ½ tula gold, 5 tulas of silver were given to A1 and she did not want to prosecute the case and she entered into compromise with the accused out of the Court and she did not know the contents of the report lodged with the police and the police did not examine and record her statement. PWs2 to 6 testified that they did not know anything about the facts of the case and the police never examined and recorded their statements.

During the examination in the nature of cross by the learned Sr.APP, nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution.

9. PW7 is the investigation officer and he testified the chronological events of his investigation in his chief examination, which are similar to the allegations made in the charge sheet.

During the cross examination, PW7 denied the suggestion that PW1 did not came to police station and lodge Ex.P8 and he did not examine 5 and record the statements of PWs1 to 6. PW7 testified that though he stated in the charge sheet that the accused is a habitual offender, but no documents were filed by him to prove that he is habitual offender.

PW7 denied the suggestion that the accused never harassed PW1 and no panchayath was held in the presence of PWs4 to 6 and the accused never took the second daughter along with him and did not hand over the child to PW1.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence on record, it could be seen that the de-facto complainant in her evidence testified that she did not want to prosecute the case against the accused and the remaining witnesses have turned hostile and since the essential ingredients of the offence U/Sec.498-A IPC were not brought on record by the prosecution for securing the conviction of accused. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, on this the 11th day of January, 2019.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mahabubnagar.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 Reshma, PW-2 S.K.Rahaman, PW-3 Hussain, PW-4 Abdullah, PW-5 Fareed Ahmed, PW-6 Khairunnisa, PW-7 J.Jagannatham, Sub Inspector of Police, PS.Mahabubnagar. FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- Exhibits marked FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 in the report.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW1.

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW3.

Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW4.

Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW5.

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW6.

Ex.P8 is the report.

Ex.P9 is the FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- Material Objects marked -NIL-

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mahabubnagar.

7

Tabular form to be annexed to the Judgment U/Sec71 Crl.R.P.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: MAHABUBNAGAR.

CC No.345 of 2015

1. Sl.No.

2. Cr.No Name of the PS. Cr.No.38 of 2015 of PS.Women, Mahabubnagar

Sl.No. Name Father’s name Age: race, occ: Resident

Sayyed Mahimood s/o Sayyed Rasool, age 37 yrs, occ: Coolie, r/o Yenugonda village of Mahabubnagar.

3. Date of

Occurre Complain Apprehen Released Commence- Close of Sentence

nce t sion On bail ment of trial trial or Order

--- 18-2-2015 18-2-2015 18-2-2015 10-9-2018 10-1-2019 11-1-2019

5. Explanation for delay if any:

1. Due to non production of witnesses by prosecution from time to time.

2. Due to heavy work, calendar is not submitted in time.

6. Order as to disposal of property:- Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to the property.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, FAC Judl. Magistrate of First Class Mahabubnagar.

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Dis.No. dated: - -2019