Ms. Kanaka Lakshmi Balireddy

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ONGOLE

PRESENT: Kum B Kanaka Lakshmi,

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

C.C. No. 163 OF 2018

Between:

The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka P.S., (Cr. No. 144/2018) … Complainant.

And

Guddala Venkateswarlu @ Chinna, S/o. Pattabhisetty, aged about 42 years, Caste by Pattusali, r/o. MIG – 74, Housing Board colony, Ongole. … Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Defence counselfor Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T // //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluka Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 144 of 2018 for the offence U/sec. 420 and 506 of IPC alleging in brief as follows:

P.W1 is the defacto complainant and P.W2 to P.W6 are victims in the hands of the accused and the accused is the resident of housing board colony, Ongole and doing private job and the accused is in habit of cheating the innocent persons by promising false words. Like wise about 5 years back the accused took an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W1, Rs.1,55,000/- from

P.W3, Rs.1,55,000/- from P.w.4 by promising them that he will arrange house site pattas at Pragathi colony, Ongole . P.W1 to P.W6 questioned the accused to repay the amount but the accused threatened them to file SC and ST atrocities case against them. The accused intentionally denied either arranging of house site or repaying the amount paid by the victims and thereby cheated them.

On 17.04.2018, Pw7 received the report of P.W1 and registered case in Cr. No. 144 of 2018, U/S. 420 and 506 of IPC. During the course of 2 investigation, Pw.7 examined PW.1 to Pw6 recorded their sec. 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statements and also visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 18.04.2018, P.w7 arrested the accused and seized the

Xerox copies documents I.e, Rs.100/- stamped paper in the name of Anala

Brahmananda Rao, D.K No. 1418 F in the name of Gunji Nagendram, D.K.No.

59/1418 polt No.45 in the name of Potla Gowry and D.K No.200/1415 polt

No.64 in the name of Guddala Venkateswarlu from the possession of the accused and produced the accused before the court for remand and after completion of investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/S.420 and 506 of IPC.

2.This court took cognizance against the Accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code on 15.06.2018.

3.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., on 30.07.2018.

4.On 12.06.2019 accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and the charge framed against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was read over and explained the same in telugu language to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.8.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 01.04.2022, the accused person was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence,

7. Heard on both sides. The learned Assistant Public prosecutor submitted that P.W1 to P.W6 supported the version of the prosecution case and there is no contradiction found in the evidence of prosecution and the accused made false promise and cheated P.W1 and received amounts and prayed this court to convict the accused. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments and submitted that the P.W1 3 filed false case against the accused and the accused did not commit any offence at any point of time and there number omission and improvements found in the evidence of prosecution case and the prosecution failed file any documentary evidence to show that the accused received any amounts from the witness and further submitted that the prosecution failed prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to acquit the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offences U/secs. 420 and 506 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. To prove the prosecution case the prosecution has to establish that the accused person with an intention to cheat the P.W1, PW.2 and PW.4 made false promise that he will proved house site/D.K Patta site and taken the amounts from P.W1,PW.2 and PW.4.

10 To prove this case the prosecution has examined P.W1 to P.W7. P.W1 is the defacto complainant cum victim in this case and in his evidence he deposed that he know all the witness and also accused and the accused is an acquaintance with M.R.O, Ongole and in the year 2009 and the government issued D.K. Patta in pragathi colony people and at that time the accused acted as elder for distributing pattas. On that P.w1 approached the accused for house site and requested him to give a patta to him and then the accused replied that all pattas were distributed and informed him if any opportunity is there he will provide. He further deposed that after 3 days the accused made phone call to him and informed him that to approach P.W6 for house site and on the same day he meet the P.W6 and he requested to him to arrange house site and after four days the accused made phone call and arrange for Rs.2,00,000/- and then he bargained the accused the rate is fixed Rs.1,65,000/- and asked Rs.5,000/- for other expenses. He further deposed that he arranged Rs.1,50,000/- and informed to the accused and the accused informed him to write promissory note for Rs.20,000/- and he executed the promissory note and on the same day he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to 4 accused at M.R.O., Office and the accused brought one patta in the name of devadanam and he asked the same and the accused stated to him that he purchased D.K.Patta from that person and he is not the resident of pragathi colony and also assured that there is no problem occurred in the future. He further deposed that the accused assured him that if there is any problem arise he will allot one patta to him and on one day on polaiah constructed in the patta land which was given by the accused and he came to know that and went to the site and also informed to accused but the accused did not responded and not shown any other site and not repaid the amount.

11.During cross examination he deposed that there is no documentary proof to show that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to accused for the purpose of house site and he further admitted that he did not stated before the police that the accused acted as elder to distributing D.K Pattas and he approached the accused for house site and requesting him to give patta and also the accused stated to him to approach P.W6. He further deposed that the accused filed one writ petition against him, P.W2 and P.W5 and he do not know that whether the accused filed any civil suit against him in O.S

No.534/2018 and he further deposed the government granted D.K Patta in the name his father. He further deposed that he has not stated before the police that after 4 days the accused made phone call to arrange

Rs.2,00,000/- and also executed one promissory note for an amount of

Rs.20,000/- and he gave Rs.1,50,000/- at M.RO office. He further deposed that he has not stated before the police that the accused person brought one person by name devadanam and the accused purchased D.K Patta of

Devandam. Further, the learned counsel of accused recorded the suggestions.

12.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W2 who is one of the victim and in his evidence she deposed that he know the accused and she purchased the vacant site for Rs.2,25,000/- but the accused did not provide any vacant site but the accused gave one patta in the name of Gowri and he did not gave any patta in her name. She further deposed that she questioned the accused why he did not arranged site her 5 and the accused quarreled with each other and the accused also cheated

P.W1 and received amount from the accused. During cross examination she deposed that the accused executed one agreement in her favour after receiving of Rs.2,25,000/- and he did not file the above agreement before this court. She further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that she never gave any amount to the accused and the accused never promise that he will arrange one patta in her name.

13.In support of prosecution the prosecution has examined P.W3 and in his evidence he deposed that he know the witness and also accused, at about 2 year ago on one day while he was going to his work he observed that P.W1 and accused quarreling with each other and he went to the place of scene of offence and he saw that P.W1 to 4 questioning the accused why he gave wrong pattas in the name of same other and asked the accused to repay the amount but the accused stated that he belongs Balineni Srinvasa

Reddy who is the politician in the locality and you can not do anything and he advised the accused to lodge report. During cross examination he deposed that the accused filed criminal and civil case against him and the civil suit decree against him. He further deposed that he has not stated

before the police that he saw when the accused P.W1 to P.W3 quarreling

with each other and asked the accused to repay the amount which was received by the accused for purchasing site.

14.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W4 and in his evidence he deposed that he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused for the purpose of house site and the accused gave one patta in the name of

Gunji Nagendramma and also promised that he will provide house site. He further deposed that the accused did not provide house site but received the amounts. During cross examination he deposed that the accused wife and some other filed civil suit against him and there is no documentary proof to show that he gave Rs.1,50,000/- to accused and he further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel.

6

15.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W5 who is son of PW4 and in his evidence he deposed that at about 12 years ago his father asked the accused to allot land and in the year 2009 his father gave Rs.1,50,000/- and the accused gave one patta in the name of

Gunji Nagendram and for the last 12 years they are requesting the accused to show the land but the accused failed to show and did not return the amount to him . He further deposed that he came to know that Accused also promised P.W1 and PW2 to allot the house plots and taken amount. During cross examination he deposed that police not examined him and he has not filed any documents to show that his father gave Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused and he further denied suggestion of the accused counsel.

16.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W6 and in his evidence he deposed that he know the accused and PW1 to P.W3 approached for the accused for house site and the accused promised to them that he will provide house site and also gave patta in the name of others and believing the words of the accused P.W1 to P.W3 gave amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- but the accused failed to handover the site and also failed to repay the amount. During cross examination he deposed that he do not know whether there is any documentary proof to show that the PW1 to PW3 paid Rs.2,00,000/- and he denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused.

17.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W7 who is the investigation officer and in his evidence he deposed that he conducted the investigation and during cross examination he deposed that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that P.W1, P.W2 P.W5 gave amounts to the accused person and he has not filed any original documents to show that the accused executed any agreement in favour of PW1 and

Pw2 and he has not examined any boundary owners at the place of scene offence and he further dined the suggestion of the accused counsel.

7

18.As seen from the record, admittedly the prosecution has not filed any documentary proof to show that the P.W1, PW2, P.W4 gave cash to the accused person for purchasing of D.K. Pattas and the investigation officer also not seized any original documents form the possession of the accused and the prosecution also not marked any documentary proof on behalf of the prosecution to show that the accused executed any agreement in favour of the PW1 and P.W2. Even though, on perusal of the evidence of P.W1 and

P.W2 it show that the accused executed agreement after receiving amounts form P.W1 and P.W2 but admittedly P.W1 and P.w2 not filed any original agreement before this court. Though, during course of argument the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation officer seized the xerox copies of agreement and D.K Patta from the possession of the accused but without marking of those documents this court cannot relied upon to accept that the accused executed agreement in favour of PW.1 for the purpose of house site. Moreover, on perusal of the evidence the investigation officer did not seized the above documents in the presence of any witnesses of mediators under cover of any mediator nama.

19.Further, on perusal of the evidence of P.W1 and Ex.P1 it disclose that in the year 2009 the government issued D.K Patta and the accused acted as elder and PW.1 requested the accused for granting patta and paid money to accused but on perusal of the record, P.W1 lodged report against the accused in the year 2018 and there is no proper explanation given by the P.W1 why he did not lodge any report against the accused at earlier point of time. Even though, PW1 deposed that he asked accused orally for granting of patta in his name but the explanation given by the PW.1 not satisfactory as P.W1 know that the accused allegedly given wrong patta to

P.W1 in the year 2009, hence non explaining of delay to lodge report against the accused is fatal to prosecution case.

20.Further, on perusal of Ex.P1 it disclose that the accused and one

R.Devadanam received the amount form P.W1 but the investigation officer not examined the above said devadanam and further, the investigation 8 officer also not examined the original holders of D.K patts where accused allegedly purchased the patta and given to P.W1 and P.W2 and without examination of original owners this fact can not be elicited that the accused allegedly purchased D.K patta. Hence, non examination above persons is also fatal to the prosecution case.

21.Further, as seen from the above evidence of the prosecution it is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused made false promise stating that he will provide D.K. patta to P.W1, PW.2 and PW.4 and received amounts from P.W1, P.W2 and P.W4 and failed to provide patta in the name of P.W1, 2 and 4 and also failed to repay the above amount received by the accused and cheated P.W1. On perusal of the record except the oral evidence of P.W1 there is no eye witness to prove to that P.W1 paid amount to the accused and P.W1 also not witnessed when P.W2 and P.W4 gave amounts to the accused and admittedly there is no documentary evidence to prove the same. Even though, P.W3 deposed that he saw when P.W1,

P.W2 and PW.4 questioning the accused about giving of wrong patta to them and also demanding to repay the amount but such version not stated

before the police and on perusal of the section 161 Cr.P.C., statement it was

not mentioned and there are improvements and omission found in the evidence of P.W3 hence, the evidence of P.W3 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

22.Further, to prove the prosecution case the prosecution has examined

P.W6 who is the eye witness to alleged cheating even though P.W6 supported the version of P.W1 and deposed that P.W1, PW.2 and P.W4 approached the accused for D.K. Patta/house site and paid amount to accused but on perusal of section 161 Cr.P.C it was mentioned that he came to know that accused cheated P.W1, PW.2 and created Patta and P.W6 did not deposed the date and time when the accused received the amounts from P.W1, PW.2 and PW.4 and on perusal of Ex.P1 it disclose that P.W1 came to know that the accused also cheated P.W2 and 4. In view of the above improvements found in the evidence of P.W6 it did not inspire much confidence to accept that in the presence of P.W6 the accused made 9 promise and received amounts from P.W1, PW.2 and PW.4 and cheated them. Moreover, on perusal of the evidence of P.W1 and Ex.P1 it disclose that the P.W1 himself approached the accused for D.K. Patta/house site and requested him to provide D.K. Patta/house site. For a moment if this court assumes that the accused made promise to P.W1 for providing house site and executed agreement but the prosecution failed to prove the initial dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the P.W1 at the time of making promise. Further, as seen from the record the accused has no power to distributing any D.K Patta but how P.W1 can asked the accused for allotting house site. Moreover, when the accused allegedly give wrong patta why the P.W1 not filed any case against the accused at earlier point of time.

Hence, the evidence of P.W1 to P.W6 did not inspire much confidence to accept the version of prosecution to prove that the accused cheated them making false promise and received amounts and admittedly the prosecution failed to filed documentary proof to show that the accused received amount and gave wrong patta to the PW.1, PW.2 and PW.4.

23. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution has to travel the entire distance to establish the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, has to be extended to accused. In view of the above admission, improvements and omission sound in the evidence of P.W1 to P.W6 this court is of opinion that the evidence of

P.W1 to P.W6 does not inspire much confidence to accept the prosecution version that the accused cheated P.W1, P.W2 and P.W5 and received the amounts by making false promise that he will provide D.K Patta in their name. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused threatened PW1 with dire consequence. Hence, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 420 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused entitled for an acquittal.

24. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 248 (1) of 10 Cr.P.C.,The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of case property.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court this the 12 th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 – A.SrinivasuluN I L PW2 – A.Bullemma PW3 – P.Anjaiah PW4 – K.Rangaiah PW5 – K.Sudhakar PW6 – B.Satish Babu PW7 – D.Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 – Report of PW.1 given by police. Ex.P2 – First Information Report. Ex.P3 – Rough sketch of scene of offence.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

// True copy //

III-AJFCM, Ongole.

11 Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 163 OF 2018 on the file of III-Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

1. Date of Offence: 17.04.2018

2. Date of report: 17.04.2018

3. Date of arrest of accused: 18.04.2018

4. Date of release on bail: 18.04.2018

5. Date of commencement of trial: 17.02.2020

6. Date of close of trial: 30.03.2022

7. Date of judgment: 12.04.2022

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of police Ongole Taluka P.S.,

9. Accused:

Guddala Venkateswarlu @ Chinna, S/o. Pattabhisetty, aged about 42 years, Caste by Pattusali, r/o. MIG – 74, Housing Board colony, Ongole.

10. Offence : U/Ss.420, 506 of IPC

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.,The bail bonds executed by the accused is shall stand in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of case property.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 15.06.2018 for the offences U/sec.420, 506 IPC against the Accused. On 30.07.2018, Accused called present and copies of all documents were furnished to him U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and posted for consideration of charges. On 12.06.2019, Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty, charges framed U/sec. 420, 506 IPC; read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried and the case posted for trial from time to time. On 17.02.2020, PW.1 examined in chief. On 10.03.2020, PW.1 examined and Ex.P.1 is marked. On 16.11.2021, LW.3 and LW.4 examined as PW.2 and PW.3. On 17.11.201, PW.1 to PW.3 cross examined. On 24.11.2021, LW.5 examined as PW.4. On 09.12.2021, LW.2 examined as PW.5. On 03.01.2022, LW.6 examined as PW.6. On 30.03.2022, LW.7 examined as PW.7 and Exs.P.2 to P.3 and learned APP given up the evidence of LW.8 and prosecution evidence is closed. On 01.04.2022, accused was examined U/S. 313 Cr.P.C., by incriminating material available in prosecution witnesses against him and same is read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 04.04.2022, written arguments filed on behalf of defence counsel. On 07.04.2022, APP side of arguments heard and posted for Judgment. On 12.04.2022, Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

12

Copy submitted to:-

The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole for favour of information.

Copy to:-

The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Praksam District for information.

// True copy //

III-AJFCM, Ongole.

13

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

// True copy //

III-AJFCM, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPL. MOBILE COURT ::

ONGOLE

PRESENT: Kum B.Kanaka Lakshmi, III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I Class, SPL. Mobile Court, Ongole.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE No. 2113 OF 2021

Between:

The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Maddipadu P.S., (Cr. No. 141/2021) … Complainant.

And

Gudimetla Ananda Rao, S/o Pedda Nagaiah, age 42 years, SC Madiga by caste, R/o Dosakayalapadu Village, Thallur Mandal. Driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 27 TY 7815, Trolley bearing No. AP 27 TY 7816 … Accused.

This case is coming on 28-03-2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri G. Ravinadha Reddy,Defence Counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Maddipadu Police Station, filed charge sheet against the the accused in Cr. No. 141/2021 for the offences U/Sec. 379 of

IPC, Sec. 21 (ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec. 3 of P.D.P.P. Act alleging in brief as follows:

On 19-07-2021, night at about 07.30 hours, PW.4 along with PW.3 and

Lw.3-Sk. Yousuf Sharif conducted vehicle checking with regard to illegal transportation of sand on Mallavaram to Nelaturu village donka road, at that time the accused came to the place of scene of offence on tractor and PW.4 intercepted the tractor with the assistance of PW.3 and Lw.3-Sk. Yousuf Sharif and found there was sand in the trailer, on that PW.4 asked the tractor driver/accused to show the documents and bills from government regarding the transporting of sand and the accused disclosed his identity particulars and he says that there is no documents regarding the loaded sand and he was transporting the sand illegally without any receipts and license documents and inquired the accused regarding source of sand, but the accused did not gave any information. PW.4 has decided that the accused was transporting sand illegally without any permission from government lands and 2 illegally digging, transportation and selling of sand and the said tractor along with loaded sand were seized by PW.4 under cover of special report.

Basing on the special report of PW.4, PW.6 registered the case in Cr. No.

141 of 2021, U/Sec. 379 IPC, Sec. 21 (ii) M.M.D.R. Act and Sec. 3 P.D.P.P. Act on 19-07-2021. During the course of investigation, PW.6 examined PW.1 to PW.4 and

Lw.3-Sk. Yousuf Sharif and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence PW.6 served notice u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused. After completion of investigation, Lw.9-Y. Nagaraju, Sub Inspector of

Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

2.This court took cognizance against the accused for offences punishable

Under Sec. 379 of I.P.C., Sec. 21 (ii) M.M.D.R. Act and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act on 29-09-2021

3.After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., on 05-11-2021.

4.On 09-11-2021, accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the same. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, charges U/Sec.379 of I.P.C., Sec.21(ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec. 3 of P.D.P.P. Act were framed. The same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lws.3, 7 and 9.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 23-03-2022, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel on behalf of accused. During the course of arguments the 3 learned A.P.P. submitted that all the witness supported the prosecution case and the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the police falsely filed case against the accused and there is no independent witness to prove that the accused transporting the sand. He further submitted that the PW.4 did not follow the search procedure mentioned U/Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C. and the prosecution failed to proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences U/sec.379 of IPC, Sec.21 (ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec.3 of PDPP

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences for the offences U/sec.379 of IPC, Sec.21 (ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused committed the theft of sand and transporting the same without any permit and caused loss to the public property.

9.In order to prove the same the prosecution has examined PW.3 and

PW.4. PW.4 is the Sub Inspector, SEB, Ongole in his evidence he deposed that on 19-07-2021, at about 06.30 P.M., he received a phone call from some unknown person who informed him with regard to illegal transportation of sand. Then he left

SEB station, Chimakurthy along with staff and reached Mallavaram – Nelaturu village donka road by 7.00 P.M. and after few minutes they observed a tractor loaded with sand proceeding from Mallavaram to Nelatur and he stopped the said tractor and tried to secure the mediators in this case but in vain. Then he enquired the accused and during his enquiry the accused revealed his name and identity particulars and he further confessed that he transporting the sand from Gundlakamma vaagu.

During his further enquiry the accused further confessed that he do not have valid license or permit to transport the sand in tractor and he further confessed that the said tractor and trailer stands in the name of one Gudimetla Narendra. Then PW.4 seized the tractor under cover of special report which was scribed by PW.3 on his dictation at the scene of offence itself, which was marked as Ex.P1. Then he went to 4 the Maddipadu police station along with PW.3 and Lw.3-Sk. Yousuf Sharif and handed over the accused, case property.

10.During cross examination he deposed that the distance between the scene of offence to police station is about 7 kms and there is Mallavaram village near to the scene of offence. He further deposed that he sent PW.3 to Mallavaram

Village to secure mediators, but in vain and he did not serve notices to the revenue officials or public to act as mediators and he did not weigh the sand loaded in M.O.1.

He further denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused that he did not conduct the vehicle checking along with his staff nor he did not seize the tractor loaded with sand. He further admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 that it was scribed by PW.3 on his dictation.

11.In support of prosecution case the prosecution has examined PW.3 and

PW.3 who is the SEB Constable, Chimakurthy and in his evidence he supported the version of the PW.4 and deposed that he also present along with PW.4. During cross- examination he denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.

12.To prove the prosecution further examined PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5. PW.1 and PW.2 deposed that at about three months back on one day at about 8.00 P.M., while they returning from fields to their houses they observed the tractor loaded with sand was stopped in between Nelaturu – Mallavaram road. They enquired the two persons who were standing near the tractor and during their enquiry they revealed that they are SEB Constable. Thereafter they left the place.

13.The PW.1 and PW.2 were treated as hostile by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor and cross-examined with the permission of the Court, but nothing favour is elicited by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the cross examination of PW.1 and PW.2, excepting marking of section 161 Cr.P.C., statements as Exs.P1 and P2.

14.To prove the prosecution further examined PW.5, who is working as VRO of Mallavaram Village, in his evidence he deposed that on 20.07.2021, at about 5.00

A.M., while he was at his residence, he received a phone call from the S.H.O.,

Maddipadu P.S. and informed him that they have caught holded the tractor loaded with sand and requested him to come to police station to act as mediator. Then he 5 called D. Ayyanna to accompany him to the police station. Then they went to the

Maddipadu police station and in the police station police informed them that they are going to be recorded the confession statement of the accused in their presence under the cover of mahazarnama. During enquiry by the police the accused disclosed his identity particulars and confessed that he is transporting the sand from Mallavaram sand reach in order to sell the same personal profit and Police recorded confession statement of accused under Ex.P4 and he along with

D. Ayyanna signed the same. On the same day at about 10.00 A.M. he along with

D. Ayyanna went to Nelatur donka from their Mallavaram Village Secretariat at the request of the police. In their presence accused shown the place where SEB officials seized M.O.1 loaded with sand under the cover of Ex.P3 and the same was recorded by the police under cover of scene observation mahazar dated:20.07.2021 at about 10.00 A.M. On 31.07.2021, at about 10.00 A.M. he along with D. Ayyanna went to the Maddipadu police station at the request of the police and police shown them four bidders and informed to them that they are participating in the sand auction and in the said auction one N. Satyanarayana purchased the sand for an amount of

Rs.1,450/- and police prepared auction proceedings in the police station under cover of auction proceedings dated:31.07.2021 at about 10.00 A.M.

15.But in the cross-examination, he deposed that police did not serve any notice or summons to him to act as mediators and he did not obtain permission from his superior officers in writing to accompany the police to act as mediator. He further deposed that he did not go to the Mallavaram sand reach. He further denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for accused that he did not go to the police station nor police did not record the confession statement of accused in his presence nor conducted scene observation mahazarnama and auction proceedings in his presence.

16.To prove the prosecution further examined PW.6 who is the investigation officer in his evidence he deposed that he registered the crime and issued Ex.P7 and conducted the investigation in this case. During cross-examination he deposed that

V.R.O. and V.R.A. are available at Maddipadu revenue limits and they are with them after recording of confession statement of accused and they continued with them to 6 the scene of offence. He further denied the suggestion that he did not conduct the investigation on proper lines and without verifying his investigation Y. Nagaraju, Sub

Inspector of Police filed false case against the accused.

17.As seen from the above evidence except of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 the investigation officer did not examine any other independent witnesses in this case and admittedly PW.4 not secured any mediator for the proceedings of Ex.P3. It is settled principal that whenever the officer conducted the search they shall follow the procedure mentioned in the section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., where in the present case the on hand the PW.4 conducted the vehicle checking but as seen from the evidence, the PW.4 did not follow the procedure mentioned under section 100 of Cr.P.C., As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., “the person making search shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attended and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. In the present case on hand, on perusal of the Ex.P9 it disclose that near to place of scene of offence there is Mallavaram village is there and PW.4 can secure the presence of mediator for the proceedings of Ex.P3 but he did not secure the same. Though the

PW.4 deposed that he tired to secure the presence of mediators but the version of

PW.4 is unbelievable as near to the alleged incident there have two village are situated and he can try to secure the same.

18.Though, PW.4 deposed that the accused confessed that he transporting the sand without bills. As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence even though the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 with regard to the scene of offence, but PW.1 and PW.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the prosecution case. Though, PW.5 supported the version of prosecution buthe is not an eye witness tothe actual occurrence . Though the Ex.P4 is marked and the P.W5 supported the prosecution case but Ex.P4 drafted when the accused is in police custody and on perusal of the Ex.P3 it disclose that P.W4 already seized the

MO.1 under Ex.P3 and the question of recovery of MO.1 in the presence of P.W5 does 7 not arise. Further, though P.W5 deposed in his evidence that the accused shown the place where P.W4 seized M.O1 and loaded sand in MO.1 but the above admission is no way helpful to the prosecution case as it is not come under the purview of section 27 of Indian evidence Act and the confession made by the accused under Ex.P3 hit the section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act and it cannot be looked into. Hence, the evidence of P.W5 is no way helpful to the prosecution case and Ex.P4 is relied by the prosecution cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the public did not lodge any report against the accused as he committed theft of sand in their surrounding areas.

Though the investigation officer marked the Ex.P10 but it did not disclose that they seized the above sand in the possession of accused. It only discloses that PW.6 conducted the auction for seized sand. As seen from the above evidence the prosecution failed to prove the presence of the accused along with M.O1 on the date of alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt. In present case, except the evidence PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 who are the police officials there is no independent witnesses were present at the time of preparing of Ex.P1.

19.It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution has to travel the entire distance to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, has to be extended to the accused. In view above said discussion, this Court holds that the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 are not sufficient to prove that the accused committed the theft of sand and transporting the same without any permit or bills and they caused damage to the public property beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, the PW.4 not follow the search procedure mentioned under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. Thus, this Court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.379 of IPC, Sec.21 (ii) of

M.M.D.R. Act and Sec.3 P.D.P.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused are entitled for an acquittal.

20.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.379

IPC, Sec. 21 (ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., The accused is required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437 (A)

Cr.P.C., The M.O.1 already given to its registered owner namely Gudimetla Narendra 8 as per Crl.M.P. No. 141/2021 for interim custody and it shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. Since the seized sand was already auctioned and the auction proceeds was remitted to the state as per Ex.P10, hence, no order need to be passed in that regard.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in open Court, this the 31 st day of March 2022.

Sd/- S. Kanaka Lakshmi /-

III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

PW1/LW4 – M. Rangaiah PW2/LW5 – Ch. Ramakoteswara Rao PW3/LW2 – K. Venkata Ramireddy PW4/LW1 – M. Sree Nagesh PW5/LW6 – Ch. Deepak Raj PW6/LW8 – Ch. Umamaheswara Rao, HC-573

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1 – Portion of 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 – Portion of 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 – Special report, dt. 19-07-2021 Ex.P4 – Confession statement dt.20.07.2021 at 10.00 A.M. Ex.P5 – Scene observation mahazar dt.20.07.2021 at 10.00 A.M. Ex.P6 – Sand auction mahazar dt.31.07.2021 at 10.00 A.M. Ex.P7 - First Information Report Ex.P8 – Rough Sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P9 – Rough sketch (Mallavaram sand reach) Ex.P10 – Challan, dt.04-08-2021

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

M.O.1 – Tractor bearing No. AP 27 TY 7815 & Trolley bearing No. AP 27 TY 7816

Sd/- S. Kanaka Lakshmi /-

III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole

// True Copy //

III A.J.F.C.M., Ongole

FAC: J.F.C.M., S.M.C., Ongole

9

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 2113 OF 2021 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole.

1. Date of offence: 19-07-2021

2. Date of report: 19-07-2021

3. Date of arrest of accused: - - -

4. Date of release on bail: Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C. notices

5. Date of commencement of trial: 15-11-2021

6. Date of close of trial: 28-03-2022

7. Date of Judgment: 31-03-2022

8. Complainant: Sate : Sub Inspector of Police, Tangutur P.S.

9. Accused :

Gudimetla Ananda Rao, S/o Pedda Nagaiah, age 42 years, SC Madiga by caste, R/o Dosakayalapadu Village, Thallur Mandal. Driver of Tractor bearing No. AP 27 TY 7815, Trolley bearing No. AP 27 TY 7816

10. Offences : U/Sec.379 of I.P.C., Sec.21(ii) of MMDR Act and Sec.3 of P.D.P.P. Act

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.379 IPC, Sec. 21 (ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C., The accused is required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., The M.O.1 already given to its registered owner namely Gudimetla Narendra as per Crl.M.P. No. 141/2021 for interim custody and it shall holds good after expiry of appeal time. Since the seized sand was already auctioned and the auction proceeds was remitted to the state as per Ex.P10, hence, no order need to be passed in that regard.

14. Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 29-09-2021 against the accused for offences punishable u/Sec.379 of I.P.C., Sec.21 (ii) M.M.D.R. Act, Sec.3 of PDPP Act. On 05-11-2021, accused called present and copies of all documents were furnished to him U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and posted for consideration of charges. On 09-11-2021, accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.379 of I.P.C., Sec.21(ii) of M.M.D.R. Act and Sec. 3 of P.D.P.P. Act were framed and same were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the case posted for trial. On 15-11-2021, LW.4 and LW.5 examined as PW.1 and PW.2, Exs.P1 and P2 marked. On 22-11-2021, LW.2 examined as PW.3 and Ex.P3 marked. On 02-12-2021 LW.1 examined as PW.4 and M.O.1 marked. On 16-12-2021 LW.6 examined as PW.5 and Exs.P4 to P6 marked. On 21-12-2021 LW.8 examined as PW.6 and Exs.P7 to P10 marked. The learned A.P.P. given up the evidence of Lws.3, 7, 9. and closed the prosecution evidence. On 23-03-2022, accused was were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by incriminating evidence available against the accused and the same was 10 read over and explained the same in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, posted for arguments. On 28-03-2022, arguments heard on both sides and posted for Judgment. On 31-03-2022, Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S. Kanaka Lakshmi /-

III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC: Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole for favour of information.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

// True Copy //

III A.J.F.C.M., Ongole

FAC: J.F.C.M., S.M.C., Ongole

1 C.C.No.386/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. M.Sudha, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Excise Court, Ongole. FAC. III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Monday, this the 22nd day of October, 2018.

C.C.No. 386 of 2017

STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Inkollu Police Station.... Complainant

and

Yejarla Venkateswarlu, Son of Subba Rao, aged 38 years, caste by Madiga, Resident of Thimmasamudram village,

Naguluppalapadu Mandal... Accused

This case is coming up on 15.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and and of Sri R.Kesava Rao and N.Veerajnajenylu, Advocates for accused and upon perusal of material on record and 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, Inkollu Police Station, laid charge sheet in Crime No.83/2017 for the offence punishable under section-506 and 509 IPC, against the accused.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: on 16.10.2017 morning while L.Ws.1 to 3/P.Ws.1 to 3 are present in their house, at about 11.30 hours the accused went to the house of L.W.1/P.W.1 and called

L.W.3/P.W.3-Mondithoka Sreenu to out side, then the accused told

L.W.3/P.w.3 that L.W.1 makes phone call to him. The accused threatened

L.W.3/P.W.3 by stating that if the L.W.1/P.W.1 makes a phone call to him in one more time, he would not calm. Then P.W.1 questioned the accused when she did phone, on that the accused abused L.W.1/P.W.1 in filthy language by uttering abusive words and threatened her that she talk more he would kill her. Then L.Ws.4 & 5/P.W.4 and 5 who witnessed the same intervened, admonished the accused and sent him away from that place.

On that L.W.3/P.W.3 has been angry with L.W.1 about the version of the 2 C.C.No.386/2017 accused and said that he does not like her and go to her parents house,

L.W.2/P.W.2 intervened and settled the quarrel, the accused has put blames on L.W.1 with an intention to spoil her conjugal life. Then

L.W.1/P.W.1 came to police station on 17.10.2017 along with L.w.2/P.W.2 and gave report to L.W.6/P.W.6-V.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Inkollu about the occurrence. Basing on the report of L.W.1/P.W.1, L.W.6/P.W.6 registered a case in Crime No.83/2017 under Section 509 and 506 IPC of

Inkollu Police Station on 17.10.2017 at 18.30 hours and the original FIR along with original report to L.W.1 submitted to the Court and copies of the FIR to officers concerned and took up investigation. During the the course of investigation P.W.6 secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Then he served notice to accused on 29.10.2017 under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section-506 and 509 IPC against the accused.

04.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of

Cr.P.C.

04.Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under Section-506 and 509 IPC against accused have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution P.Ws 1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Prosecution side evidence was closed.

06. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused examined 3 C.C.No.386/2017 under section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

07.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel. Perused the evidence and material on record.

08.Now the points for determination are:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the charges leveled against accused under Section 506 and 509 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point :

09.The main case of the prosecution is that on 16.10.2017 at morning hours the accused went to the house of P.W.1 and called P.W.3 to out side and told him that P.W.1 making phone calls to him and harass him daily and on that he told to P.W.1 not to make phone calls to him. Then the accused threatened P.W.3 by stating that if P.W.1 makes phone call to him in one more time he would not calm. Then, P.W.1 questioned to accused when she did phone calls, on that accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language by uttering “లలజ నవ ఫన చయలద.....” and threatened her that he will kill her. Then, P.Ws.4 and 5 witnessed the same, admonished the accused and send him away from that place. On that P.W.3 became angry with P.W.1 about the version of the accused and stated to P.W.1 to go to her parents house and said that he does not like her and go to her parents home. Then, P.W.1 presented a report on 17.10.2017 at 6.30 PM.

10.The case of the accused is denial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1-Mondithoka

Mariyamma is the defacto complainant. P.W.2-Mondithoka Mariyamma is the mother in law of P.W.1. P.w.3-Mondithoka Sreenu is the husband of

P.W.1. P.W.4-Yejarla Subba Rao @ Padmaiah and P.W.5-Devathori Kiran are the independent witnesses and P.W.6-V.Rambabu is the Investigating 4 C.C.No.386/2017

Officer.

11.At first when I consider the evidence of P.W.1-Mariyamma, she deposed that on 16.10.2017 at 11.30 AM, while she was in her house and

L.W.4(P.W.4) and P.W.5 her husband were chitchatting in their house.

Meanwhile, the accused came to her house and complain to her husband against her that she was making phone calls to accused regularly. On that she questioned the accused that she did not made any phone calls to him at any time. On that accused abused her in filthy language and threatened her to kill her by saying that he got the call date and call record and her husband. P.Ws.4 and 5 sent away the accused from their house. She also deposed due to the facts of the accused her husband suspected her fidelity and conduct and quarreling with her and on the next day i.e., on 17.10.2017 she gave Ex.P1 report.

Her cross examination is testified, she speaks that she did not state either in Ex.P1 or in 161(3) Cr.P.C., statement that the accused threatened her by saying that he got the call data and call record and that the accused complaint to her husband against her alleging that she was making phone calls to the accused regularly. Further speaks that she did not state the date of alleged incident in Ex.P1.

12.P.W.2-Mondithoka Mariyamma, who is mother in law of P.W.1 deposed that about one year back the accused came to her house and complain against P.w.1 that P.W.1 was making phone calls to the accused and threatened and there was an altercation took place between accused,

P.W.1 and her son.

In her cross examination she speaks that on 16.10.2017 herself,

P.W.1 and her son went to police station. Further police prepared contents of Ex.P1 and obtained signature of P.W.1 on the said report. As per P.W.1 cross examination, she does not know whether the accused and her husband got acquaintance or not and there are no any financial 5 C.C.No.386/2017 transactions between accused and her husband and that as per P.W.2 cross examination prior to alleged incident there is friendship between her son and accused and accused used to come to their house.

13.Coming to the evidence of P.W.3-Mondithoka Sreenu who is husband of P.W.1, deposed that about one year back on one day at about 11.15 AM while he was present in his house accused came to their house informed to him that P.W.1 used to call him daily over phone and thereby disturbing him. On hearing the same, P.W.1 interfered, questioned the accused that she never made any phone call to the accused. But, the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened to P.W.1 to kill her.

As per his cross examination he knew the accused for the last one year, further he does not remember the date of offence, but it was in the month of October, 2017.

14.Coming to the evidence of P.W.4-Y.Subba Rao @ Padmaiah, deposed that about one year back in the month of October on one day himself and P.W.5 went to the house of P.W.3 to get his tractor for hire. By the time the accused was also present in the house of P.w.3 and quarreling with P.W.3 by complaining that P.W.1 used to made phone calls to the accused.

But, in his cross examination he does not remember the exact date of offence. Further there are 200 houses in between his house and house of P.W.3.

15.Coming to another independent witness P.W.5-D.Kiran stated that about one year back in the month of October, on one day himself and

P.W.4 went to the house of P.W.3 to get his tractor, by that time accused also present in the house of P.W.1 and quarreling with P.W.3 and abused

P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened her to kill her.

In his cross examination he does not remember the exact date of offence and there are 200 houses in between his house to house of P.W.3, 6 C.C.No.386/2017 further himself and P.W.3 are residing in the same locality and the house of P.W.3 is adjacent to water tank.

16.Coming to the evidence of P.W.6-V.Rambabu, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Inkollu Police Station, who is Investigating Officer deposed that on 17.10.2017 at 6.30 PM P.W.1 came to police station, presented Ex.P1 report. Basing on the report he registered a case in Cr. No.83/2017 under

Section 509 and 506 IPC, issued Ex.P2 First Information Report and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, then he visited scene of offence situated at water tank of Thimmasamudram, there he prepared Ex.P3 rough sketch. Then, he examined P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

As per his cross examination, his investigation was not revealed whether there are any financial transactions between P.W.3 and the accused. As per his investigation P.W.3 is doing cultivation and accused is auto driver. Further there a little distance between the house of accused and P.W.1. As per P.W.2 Ex.P1 report was prepared by police. As per P.W.6 he does not know who is scribe of Ex.P1 report and P.W.1 came to police station with written report. He examined who are present at the time of alleged incident, but he did not examine the neighbors to the alleged incident of offence and as per P.W.1 the alleged incident occurred on 16.10.2017 at 11.00 AM, but she presented the report on 17.10.2017 at 6.30 PM. But, there is no explanation for the said delay and P.W.1 herself admits that she did not state either in Ex.P1 report or in 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement that accused threatened her by saying that he get the call date and call record and that he complained to her husband against her alleging that she was making phone calls to the accused regularly. She also did not state in Ex.P1 about the alleged date of incident and it creates doubt about the occurrence of the alleged incident. Further none of the witnesses deposed about the uttering words used by the accused so also 7 C.C.No.386/2017 abusive words allegedly used by the accused.

More over, P.W.6 Investigating Officer also failed to examine neighbors to the alleged scene of offence. As per P.W.3 and Investigating

Officer one Sivaiah and Abbulu are neighbors of P.W.3 and they were not examined by the prosecution. Further the house of P.W.3 and P.W.4 are far away to the alleged scene of offence. As per their evidence there are 200 houses between the house of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5.

Hence, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused that there is no explanation for delay of presentation of Ex.P1 report and non mentioning of uttering words used by the accused and non examination of neighbors to the alleged scene of offence and P.W.1 failed to mention the exact date of alleged offence in Ex.P1 and in 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement, thereby prosecution failed bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Sections 509 and 506 of IPC, therefore, accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 22nd day of October, 2018.

Sd/-M.Sudha

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Excise Court, Ongole.

FAC: III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, ONGOLE.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

-: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution For Defence: P.W.1 : M.Mariyamma P.W.2 : M.MariyammaNone 8 C.C.No.386/2017

P.W.3 : M.Sreenu P.W.4 : Y.Subba Rao P.W.5 : D.Kiran P.W.6 : V.Ram Babu / / DOCUMENTS MARKED / / For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1 Ex.P2 : First Information Report. Ex.P3 : Rough sketch

For defence: NIL // Material objects marked // -NIL-

Sd/-M.S

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Excise Court, Ongole.

FAC: III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Ongole. // True copy //

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Excise Court, Ongole.

FAC: III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

ONGOLE.

9 C.C.No.386/2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN Calendar Case No.386/2017 ON THE FILE OF III­ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

1. Date of offence:16.10.2017

2. Date of Complaint/report: 17.10.2017

3. Date of apprehension of accused :41­A Cr.P.C

4. Date of release of accused on bail: ­­­­­

5. Date of commencement of trial: 26­04­2018

6. Date of closure of the trial: 27­09­2018

7. Date of judgment: 22­10­2018 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

8.Complainant : State : Sub­Inspector of Police, Inkollu P.S. (Crime No.83/2017)

9.Description of the accused :­

Yejarla Venkateswarlu, s/o Subba Rao, aged 38 years, caste by Madiga, r/o Thimmasamudram village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal. 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

10. Offence/charge: U/Sec. 506 and 509 IPC.

11. Plea of accused : Not guilty 

12. Finding of Court : Not guilty

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 509 and 506 of IPC, therefore,accused is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and that of his sureties, if any, shall be in force for a period of Six months as per the provisions of Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, no specific order is passed. 

14.Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 14.11.2017. At this stage, the case being adjourned from time to time due to summons pending against the accused. On 22.02.2018 after appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and 07.03.2018 the accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and charges framed against him for the offences u/sec. 509 and 506 IPC., read over and explained to him in Telugu language and that he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In this case, trial was commenced on 26.04.2018 and concluded on 27.09.2018. During the course of trial PW1 to PW.6 were examined and Ex.P1 to P3 were marked and prosecution side evidence was closed and on 04.10.2018 the accused was examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C ., On 15.10.2018 heard both sides and posted for judgment. On 22.10.2018 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate judgment). Hence, the delay. Sd/­M. Sudha

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS, EXCISE

COURT, ONGOLE

FAC­ III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

// True copy // 10 C.C.No.386/2017

SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I­CLASS, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

FAC­ III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ONGOLE

PRESENT: Kum B. Kanaka Lakshmi, III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

MONDAY, THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 2022.

CALENDAR CASE No. 1433 OF 2020

Between:

The state: Sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., (Cr. No. 47/2020) … Complainant.

And

1. Patchava Ashok, S/o. Punnaiah, aged 29 years, SC Mala by caste, D. No. 1- 56, SC colony, Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal.

2. Patchava Nagendram, W/o. Punnaiah, aged 32 years, SC Mala by caste, D. No. 1-56, SC colony, Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal.

3. Burri Anjini, W/o Sudhakar, aged 25 years, SC Mala by caste, JVR Colony, Podalakur Road, Nellore District.

4. Burri Sudhakar, S/o Papaiah, aged 38 yaers, SC Mala by caste, JVR Colony, Podalakur Road, Nellore District. … Accused/A1 to A4

This case is coming on 08.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri M. Rahim Baiz., Defence counsel for A1 to A4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T ////

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Ongole filed charge sheet against Accused No. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 47 of 2020 for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/ w 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act alleging in brief as follows:

A1 being the husband of PW.1 and married her on 05.12.2019 as per their traditions and customs and at the time of marriage the brother of P.W1 gave

Rs.1,00,000 and half sovereign of gold ring to A1 towards dowry and also agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/-. A1 to A4 used to demand additional dowry, gold and beat P.W1 with drunken state of mind. When P.W1 gave birth to female child A1 did not come to house to see her and the accused also not attended any function of girl child and in the absence of A1 and A2 came PW.1 house and demanded PW.1 to get additional dowry, gold AND abused her in filthy language. Further, A1 and A2 also threatened

PW.1 with dire consequence.

PW.1 came to Women Police Station and gave report and LW.7-A. Bhaskara

Rao, A.S.I.-525, registered a case in Cr.No. 47 of 2020 u/Sec.498-A and 506 of I.P.C.

and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and examined PW.1, LW.2 to LW.6-D. Jyothi, M. Vijaya 2

Kumari, P. Anjaiah, P. Suresh and B. Thirupathamma, recorded their statements and visited scene of offence prepared the rough sketch and on LW.7-A. Bhaskara Rao,

A.S.I.-525 served the Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused persons and after completion of investigation LW.8-D. Neelima, WSI-4105, verified the investigation and filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 4.

2. On 30.11.2020, this Court taken cognizance against the Accused No.1 to 4 to for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.

Act.

3.On 07.01.2022, copies of case documents were furnished to Accused No.1 to 4 as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.,

4.On 07.01.2022, Accused No.1 to 4 are examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges framed against them for the offences u/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and

Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, read over and explained them in Telugu language for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 got marked

Exs.P1 and P2. The evidence of LW.2 to LW.8-D. Jyothi, M. Vijaya Kumari, P. Anjaiah, P.

Suresh, B. Thirupathamma, A. Bhaskara Rao and D. Neelima given up by the learned A.P.P. as the material witness turned hostile to the prosecution case.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 to 4.

7.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused No.1

to 4 for the offences U/sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4

of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.To prove this case PW.1 Victim/ De-Facto complainant is examined by prosecution. The PW1 did not choose to support the prosecution case. During the course of trial PW.1 deposed that on 05.02.2019 her marriage was performed with the accused No.1 and they live happily for a period of one year and during their wedlock they blessed with female child and thereafter in the year 2020 on one day some petty disputes arose between them in that occasion some of the elders 3 obtained her signature on white papers and except that she do not know anything about the facts of the case and she never gave any report against the accused persons. She identified her signature in the report and the signature is marked as

Ex.P1.

10.The PW.1 was treated as hostile by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and cross examined with the permission of the court, but nothing favour is elicited by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the cross examination of P.W.1, excepting marking of section 161 Cr.P.C., statements as Ex.P2.The Learned Assistant public prosecutor given up of the evidence of remaining witnesses as the material witness turned hostile to the prosecution case.

11. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 did not choose to depose anything against the accused persons and PW.1 categorically deposed that she never lodged any report against the accused persons and in the evidence of PW.1 she did not made any single allegation against the accused persons and also stated that police never examined her, though the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor marked the

Ex.P1 but PW.1 denied the contents of report. There is no evidence to show that the accused person used to harass PW1 physically and mentally and demanded

additional dowry. Further, there is no evidence to show that the accused person

threatened P.W1 and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations and charges of cruelty or harassment and demanding dowry by the accused persons. In the evidence of PW.1 did not made any single allegations against the accused person. There is no evidence to prove the guilty of the accused person for the offence under section 498A, 506 of Indian penal code and section 3 and 4 of D.P.

Act . Except, PW.1 none were examined by the prosecution and there is no material found in prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. Hence, the examination of the accused persons under section 313 criminal procedure code was dispensed with.

This court found no material against the accused No.1 to 4 and the PW.1 is not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove its case. Hence, the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal the point answered accordingly.

4

12. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offences u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., The

Accused No.1 to 4 are required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for six (6) months u/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., No property was produced in this case.

Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of case property.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th

day of April, 2022.

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1/LW1 – Patchava SrilakshmiNil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW.1 on statement Nil Ex.P2 – Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- BKL.,

III-A.J.M.F.C., Ongole // True Copy //

III AJFCM, Ongole 5

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 1433 OF 2020 on the file of III-Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

1. Date of Offence: 13-11-2020

2. Date of report: 13-11-2020

3. Date of arrest of accused: - - -

4. Date of release on bail: Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice

5. Date of commencement of trial: 08-04-2022

6. Date of close of trial: 08-04-2022

7. Date of judgment: 11-04-2022

8. Complainant: State: Sub Inspector of police Ongole Taluka P.S.,

9. Accused/A1 to A4:

1. Patchava Ashok, S/o. Punnaiah, aged 29 years, SC Mala by caste, D. No. 1-56, SC colony, Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal.

2. Patchava Nagendram, W/o. Punnaiah, aged 32 years, SC Mala by caste, D. No. 1-56, SC colony, Mukthinuthalapadu Village, Ongole Mandal.

3. Burri Anjini, W/o Sudhakar, aged 25 years, SC Mala by caste, JVR Colony, Podalakur Road, Nellore District.

4. Burri Sudhakar, S/o Papaiah, aged 38 yaers, SC Mala by caste, JVR Colony, Podalakur Road, Nellore District.

11. Offence : U/Sec.498(A), 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. &

U/Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act

12. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

13. Finding of court: Found not guilty

14. Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offences u/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C., The Accused No.1 to 4 are required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for six (6) months u/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders with regard to disposal of case property.

15. Explanation for delay: This case was taken on file on 30-11-2020 for the offences U/sec.498(A), 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act against A1 to A4. On 07-01-2022, A1 to A4 called present and copies of all documents were furnished to them u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and on the same day, i.e., on 07-01-2022,

A1 to A4 were examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and charges framed for the offences punishable U/sec.498 (A), 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.

Act and same were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and the case posted for trial. On 08- 04-2022, LW.1 examined as PW.1, Exs.P1 and P2 are marked and closed the prosecution evidence. As there is no incriminating evidence against A1 to A4, the examination U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with and arguments heard on both 6 sides and posted for Judgment. On 11-04-2022, Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ONGOLE.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole for favour of information.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Ongole, Prakasam District.

// True Copy //

III AJFCM, Ongole

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 400/2017 on the file of III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Ongole

1. Date of Offence: Prior to 15-08-2017

2. Date of report: 15-08-2017

3. Date of arrest of accused: 41-A notice

4. Date of release on bail: --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 281-06-2019

6. Date of close of trial: 28-06-2019 7…Date of judgment: 28-06-2019

8. Complainant: State : Sub Inspector of police Women P.S., Ongole.

9. Accused : Tadi Ramudu @ Rama Rao, S/o.Venkataramaiah, Aged 36 years, Muthrasi, N/o.Mutrasaipalem, Pernamitta village, Now at Nehrunagar, Ongole.

10. Offences : U/sec.498-A IPC

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order: In the result, the Accused is found not guilt for the offence U/sec.498-A IPC; and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, property order does not arise.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 29-11-2017 for the offence

U/sec.498-A of IPC against the Accused and the case is posted for appearance of the

Accused from time to time. On 23-10-2018, Accused called present Copies of all documents were furnished to him U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. and posted for consideration of charges. On 30-10-2018, Accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty, charges framed U/sec.498-A IPC; read over and explained to him in Telugu, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried and the case posted for trial. On 28-06-2019

PW.1 examined and Exs.P1 & P2 are marked and closed the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination U/sec.313 of

Cr.P.C. is dispensed and arguments heard on both sides and pronounced Judgment on the same day on 28-06-2019. Hence the delay.

Sd/-.B.Kanaka Lakshmi

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Ongole. Copy Submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The Superintendent of police, Ongole. // True copy //

III-AJFCM, Ongole 2

IN THE COURT OF THE III- ADDL.JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : ONGOLE

Present : Kum.B.Kanaka Lakshmi III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Friday this the 28th day of June, 2019.

CALENDAR CASE No. 400/2017

Between: State: Sub Inspector of police, Women Police Station, Ongole… Complainant

Vs.

Tadi Ramudu @ Rama Rao, S/o.Venkataramaiah, Aged 36 years, Muthrasi, N/o.Mutrasaipalem, Pernamitta village, Now at Nehrunagar, Ongole. …. Accused

This case is coming on today i.e., 28-06-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.O.Srinivasa Rao, Legal Aid Advoate for the Accused; upon perusing entire material available on record and arguments on both sides; and this case having stood over for consideration and this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Ongole filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.68/2017 for the offences U/sec.498-A of IPC alleging in brief as follows:-

The PW.1-Tadi Janaki is the wife of the accused. They are residing at

Nehrunagar Ongole, they had two daughters. Since the ate of marriage, the accused used to harass and ill-treat PW.1 both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity. The accused is a physically handicapped person to his leg and earlier he harassed and ill-treat her and then PW.1 lodged a case and the same was compromised and both of them were leading marital life. There was no change in his attitude, due to unbearable harassment of him on 15-08- 2017, PW.1 consumed rat poison by mixing with milk, since one week quarrels are going on. Due to unbearable situation with a view to commit suicide she attempted to commit suicide, later she was shifted to RIMS to hospital. .

2.The further allegation of the prosecution is that, basing on the report of

PW.1, LW.8-M.S.Prasad, S.I. of police, registered the case in Cr.No.68/2017 for 3 the offence U/sec.498-A of IPC and submitted the copies of FIR to all concerned officers.

3. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. While the investigation is in progress on appearance of the accused before, LW.6/Investigating Officer, he served notices U/sec.41-A

Cr.P.C. with a direction to appear before the Hon’bnle Court as and when summons are received. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused and the same is taken on file U/sec.498-A of IPC.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents furnished to him

U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C., explaining the charge U/sec.498-A of IPC against the Accused, in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and got marked

Exs. P1 & P2. The learned APP given up the other witnesses.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused.

7. Heard on both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence U/sec.498-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

To prove this case P.w.1 victim/ defacto complainant is examined by prosecution. the P.w1 did not choose to support the prosecution case. During the trial P.w.1 deposed that at about 13 years ago her marriage was performed with the Accused, they blessed with two daughters. At about one year ago, some petty disputes arose between her and the accused and some of the elders obtained her Ex.P1-signature on the white paper. Pw1 also stated that she do not know contents of the Report. She never sustained any harassment or ill- treatment from the hands of the accused 4

The P.w.1 was treated as hostile by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and was subjected to cross examination with the permission of the court, but nothing favour is elicited by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the cross examination of P.w.1 except marking of 161 Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2. It is revealed in the cross examination of P.w.1 by learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor that they compromised themselves and settled their disputes through elders. They are living happily.

9. The learned Assistant public prosecutor given up of the evidence of other witnesses Lw.2-T.Venkata Sanjani; LW.3-T.Maheswari; LW.4-Ch.Bhaskara

Rao; LW.5-Ch.Govindamma; w.6-M.Hanumantha Rao, LW.7-Dr.Hanuma Naik & & LW.8-M.S.Prasad/SI of police.

10. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 she did not choose to depose against the accused. P.W.1 stated that they lived happily and she was never subjected to cruelty by accused and she never lodged any report against the accused P.W.1. she did not choose to depose anything against the accused.

According to P.W1 was compromised with the accused and settled all their disputes through elders. P.w.1 categorically deposed that due to petty disputes in the family the elders obtained her signature on the report, but she do not know its contents and that she never lodged any report against the accused. There is no incriminating material found against accused. There is no evidence of cruelty or any harassment.

11. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations and charges of cruelty or harassment and voluntarily causing of simple hurt by the accused. In the evidence of Pw1 did not made any single allegations against the accused person. There is no evidence to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence charged against the accused under section 498-A of indian penal code. Except,

Pw1 none were examined by the prosecution. There is no material found in prosecution evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused hence,even the examination of the accused under section 313 criminal procedure code was dispensed with. I found no material 5 against the accused. Pw1 not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile to the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove its case. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal the point answered accordingly.

12.In the result, the Accused is found not guilt for the offence U/sec.498-A

IPC; and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A)

Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, property order does not arise.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-.B.Kanaka Lakshmi

III-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

ONGOLE.

Appendix of evidence Witness examined

For prosecution For defence

PW1: T.JanakiNone

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to police. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil.

I/d.BKL III-AJFCM, Ongole // True copy //

III-AJFCM, Ongole