Currently Serving

Ms Kandikatla Rani

Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru

Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

Ms Kandikatla Rani, Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru, is posted at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3,056 court orders on record since 2020. 36 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

3,056

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/502/2024 Bail Granted

THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Tegala Nani Kumar

17 Jan 2025

Date : 17.01.2025 1

(C.C No. 502/2024)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1st CLASS

KOTHURU

Present : Ms. K. Rani

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class

Kothuru

On Friday, this the 17 th day of January, 2025

C.C. No. 502/2024

Between :

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station.

..… Complainant And :

Tegala Nanikumar, S/o Late Sudhakararao, Aged 20 years, R/o Kaspa Street, Palakonda Village & Mandal. ..… Accused

This case is coming on 17.01.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant; and of Sri. M. Appa Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 245/2024 against the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that LW1/Yandava

Ravikumar came to the police station and gave a report to LW10/M.A

Ahammad, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S and gave a report to LW10 stating that is a resident of Parapuram Village, Kothuru Mandal. He is CEO of local cable channel name Suryudu Niranthara Jwala TV Channel. He is using

Vivo-2200 blue colour smart phone, Redmi Note-8 red colour smart phone

Date : 17.01.2025 2

(C.C No. 502/2024) and Nokia white colour keypad phone. On 27.09.2024 evening at about 6.30 pm., as the health condition of his son was unwell, he took his son to

Government Hospital, Kothuru for treatment and returned back home. After having dinner, he along with his family members slept that night in the house at about 9.30 pm. On the next day i.e., on 28.09.2024 morning at about 6.00 am., he got up and found that his 3 cell phones were not available. He asked his family members about the phone s but they did not know about it. The doors of their house were opened when they woke up in the morning.

Likewise, after having supper, his younger sister Yandava Sailaja whose house situated opposite his house, slept in the night and on the next day i.e.

on 28.09.2024 at about 6.00 am., when she woke up, her house doors were opened and her smart phone was also found missing. Accordingly, after having supper, one Vajragadda Nirmala W/o Krishnarao whose house situated in the next street, slept in the night and on the next day i.e., on 28.09.2024 at about 6.00 am., when she woke up, her house doors were opened and her smart phone was found their cell phones. After having dinner, when they slept in the house with their respective families, some unknown culprits entered into their houses by opening the doors and committed theft of their cell phones. The worth of those five cell phones is worth Rs. 22,500/-. Hence he requested to take necessary action in accordance with law. Basing on the report of LW1/Yandava Ravikumar,

LW10/M.A. Ahammad, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 245/2024 U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS of Kothuru

Police Station on 28.09.2024 at 10.00 am and investigated into.

3.During the course of investigation, LW10 examined the witnesses

LWs 1 to 6 and recorded their statements, inspected three scene of offences in the presence of mediators LWs 7 & 8, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offences and got drafted the scene observation reports by the mediators duly attested by them. During the course of investigation, on 30.09.2024

LW10 arrested the accused at Badigam Junction, near Karlemma Village,

Date : 17.01.2025 3

(C.C No. 502/2024)

Kothuru Mandal and recovered intact stolen properties from his possession in the presence of mediators LWs 8 & 9 under the cover of confession statement/mediators report in Cr.No. 245/2024 U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS of

Kothuru Police Station and Cr.No. 246/2024 U/Sec. 303(2) BNS of Kothuru

Police Station. During the confession, the accused confessed to have committed theft offences in both cases. LW10 seized 5 mobile phones viz., 1)

Vivo-2200 blue colour smart phone, 2) Redmi note-8 red colour smart phone,

3) Nokia white colour keypad, which is stone property in Cr.No. 245/2024 of

Kothuru P.S and also seized one motorcycle splendor plus bearing No.AP- 35N-3752 which is stolen property in Cr.No.246/2024 of Kothuru P.S. After arrest and recovery of intact stolen property, LW10 forwarded the accused to the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, LW10 was filed charge sheet.

4.Investigation revealed that in between 27.09.2024 at about 9.30 pm and 28.09.2024 at about 6.00 am., the accused gained entry into the houses of LWs 1, 3 & 5, committed theft of five mobile phones viz., 1) Vivo- 2200 blue colour smart phone, 2) Redmi note-8 red colour smart phone, 3)

Nokia white colour keypad out of them cell phone No.s 1 to 3 belongs to LW1, cell phone No. 4 belongs to LW3 and cell phone No. 5 belongs to LW5, and decamped with the booty worth of Rs. 22,500/-. LW10 recovered intact stolen property from the possession of accused. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS. Hence the charge.

5. This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 331(4) & 305

BNS against accused and issued summons to the accused.

6. After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as per Sec. 230 BNSS. Accused was examined U/Sec. 262 BNSS and charge framed U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS.

The contents of charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Date : 17.01.2025 4

(C.C No. 502/2024)

7. To prove the case, the prosecution examined LWs 1, 3, 5, 9 & 10/Yandava Ravikumar, Yandava Sailaja, Vajragadda Nirmala, Dornana Anil,

VRA of Kothuru and M.A. Ahammad, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru P.S as

PWs 1 to 5. Ex.P1 to P9 and MOs 1 to 5are marked. The evidence of LWs 2, 4, 6 to 8/Yandava Tulasi, Yandava Narendra, Vajragadda Krishnarao,

Vajragadda Yetheeswararao and Jampa Ramu were given up by prosecution as there is no incriminating evidence on record.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 351 BNSS. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 BNS beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Section : 331(4) BNS : Punishment for house-trespass or house breaking : Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after sunset and before sunrise, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section : 305 BNS : Theft in a dwelling house, or means of transportation or place of worship, etc

a) in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or used for the custody of property; or

Date : 17.01.2025 5

(C.C No. 502/2024)

b) of any means of transport used for the transport of goods or passengers; or

c) of any article or goods from any means of transport used

for the transport of goods or passengers; or

d) of idol or icon in any place of worship; or

e) of any property of the Government or of a local authority, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

10.The evidence of PW1/Yendava Ravikumar, News Reporter deposed that the LW2 is his wife. The LW3 is his younger sister. The LW4 is his younger brother. He know the LWs 5 to 7 who are my neighbours. On 27.09.2024 at about 6.30 pm his son Gowri Kamalakar fell in sick in order to they admitted the his son in the Government Hospital at Kothuru. After got treatment to his son we return to home at 8.30 pm on the same day and they slept at 12.00 pm at mid night. On the next day morning at 6.00 am they searched in his house for his 03 mobile phones viz., VIVO 2200-Blue color,

Redmi Note 8-Red Color, Nokia Key Pad–White color are missed in his house and also in the house of LW3 one Redmi Note-Red color mobile is missing.

On the same day in the house of LW5 one mobile phone is missing. After that at about 8-30 to 9-00 am he made a phone call to the 100, the police came to his house at 9 am and enquired in his house for missing of 3 mobile phones and also the police enquired in the house of LW3 and 5 for missing of mobile phones. On the same day he went to the SHO, Kothuru P.S and lodged a report before the Kothuru P.S. The Ex.P1 is report of PW1.Police examine me and recorded hisSec.161 Cr.P.C statement.

11. During the course of Cross examination of PW1 deposed that he do not know in which time mid night the theft is happened in his house. He do not know who committed the theft in his house. PW1 admitted that the LWs 3 & 5 are did not gave any report before the Kothuru P.S for missing of mobile

Date : 17.01.2025 6

(C.C No. 502/2024) phones in their houses, he did not gave any receipts with regard to missing of cell phones to the SHO, Kothuru P.S. He denied the suggestion that himself is press reporter in view of the he was influence by the police and filed this case against the accused and also denied that the accused did not commit any offence and he is innocent.

12. The evidence of PW2/Yendava Sailaja deposed that the PW1 is her elder brother. The LW2 is her sister-in-law, who is wife of PW1. The LW4 is her elder brother. She know the LWs 5 to 7 who are her neighbours. On 27.09.2024 at about 6.00 am she searched in her house her mobile phone

Redmi-8 was missing in her house. Immediately, she was called to her elder brother/PW1 and informs to her elder brother her mobile phone was missed in her house. After that the PW1 made a phone call to the 100 at about 10.00

AM the police came to her house and enquired for missing of mobile phone.

Then, the PW1 gave a report to the SHO, Kothuru P.S. for missing of mobile phone. The Police examine her and recorded her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement.

13. During the course of Cross examination of PW2 deposed that she did not handover any receipts to the SHO, Kothuru P.S for missing of her mobile phone. She do not know who committed theft of her mobile phone. She did not gave any report before the Kothuru P.S.

14.The evidence of PW3/Vajragadda Nirmala, Asha Worker, deposed that she know the PWs1 & 2, LWs 2 & 4. The LW6 is her husband.

The LW7 is her son. On 27.09.2024 at about 10.00 to 11.00 pm her mobile phone Techno Spark was missed in her house. On the next day morning i.e.

28.09.2024 she searched in her house, then her mobile phone missed by some other. After that her neighbours PWs 1 & 2 and LWs 2 & 4 also informed to her their mobile phones are also missed in their houses. Then, the PW1 gave a report to the Kothuru P.S for missing of their mobile phones. The

Police examine her and recorded her Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement.

Date : 17.01.2025 7

(C.C No. 502/2024)

15. During the course of Cross examination of PW3 deposed that she did not handover any receipts to the SHO, Kothuru P.S for missing of her mobile phone. She do not know who committed theft of her mobile phone.

She did not gave any report before the Kothuru P.S.

16.The evidence of PW4/Dornana Anil Kumar, V.R.A at Kothuru deposed that he know the PWs 1 to 3 and LWs 2, 4, 6 to 8. He is residing at

Kothuru. On 28.09.2024 the S.I of Kothuru Police made a phone call to him and come to police station. After that they went to the Parapuram Village.

Then, the Kothuru P.S observed the houses of PWs 1 to 3 and examined the

PWs 1 to 3 and others in his presence and enquired how the mobile phones were missed in the houses of PWs 1 to 3 and others. The Kothuru Police prepared scene observation report dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 am. The Ex.P2 is Scene Observation Report dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 am., and also prepared another scene observation report in the house of PW2 at 10.00 am.

The Ex.P3 is Scene Observation Report dated 28.09.2024 at 10.00 am. Again the Kothuru P.S prepared the scene observation report the house of PW3 at 11.00 am. The Ex.P4 is Scene observation report dated 28.09.2024 at 11.00 am. After that on 30.09.2024 again the S.I of Kothuru P.S made a phone call to him to come to Karlemma village. On that himself and LW8 are went to the

Karlemma Village. At the time, the S.I of Kothuru and two Police constables of Kothuru are stayed at Karlemma Village. They found one person is moving and seeing the Kothuru P.S on the suspect of that person, the Kothuru P.S caught hold that person and enquired his name and identity, then he revealed his name as Tegala Nanikumar, S/o Sudhakar is resident of Palakonda Kaspa

Veedhi and also disclosed as he is addicted to alcoholic bad vices for want of money he habituated to committed thefts in various places i.e. Palakonda,

Parapuram and also committed theft one motorcycle Splendor Plus bearing

No.AP35-3752 in one street and he committed theft of 05 mobile phones in

Parapuram Village. The mobile phones viz., Two Redmi mobiles, one Vivo, one Techno and one Nokia. Then the police recovered five mobile phones

Date : 17.01.2025 8

(C.C No. 502/2024) and motorcycle from the accused and taken him to police custody. Then the police prepared confessional statement/Nera Oppudala Nama in his presence. The Ex.P5 is Nera Oppudala Nama/Confessional Statement. He can identified the accused, the witness identified the accused who is standing at court hall. The MOs 1 to 5 are Mobile Phones viz. The MO1 is VIVO 2200 (Blue Colour). The MO2 is Redmi Note-8 (Red Color). The MO3 is Nokia Key

Pad Phone (White Color). The MO4 is Redmi 8A Smart Phone. The MO5 is

Techno Spark Air2 Smart Phone.

17.During the course of cross examination of PW4 deposed that he did not obtain his Tahsildar permission to acting as a mediator in this case. He did not mentioned in his movement register for attending mediator’s purpose.

He did not received any written requisition from the S.I of Kothuru P.S for acting as a mediator in this case. He do not know who scribed the Ex.P2 to

P4/Scene Observation Reports. He do not know two constable names are present at the Karlemma Village at the time of recovered the property from the accused. PW4 admitted that the PWs 1 to 3 did not stated before the Kothuru

P.S while preparing the Ex.P2 to P4 who committed the theft of mobile phones in their houses. PW4 denied the suggestions that the accused is not committed any offence and he saw the accused on 30.09.2024,at the request of the Kothuru P.S he deposing the evidence before this Honourable Court and also denied the suggestion that the MOs 1 to 5 for recovered from the accused by Kothuru P.S in his presence. PW4 denied the suggestion that the

Ex.P2 to P5 are prepared in his presence and he signed on it as a mediator, at the request of Kothuru P.S, he signed on the Ex.P2 to P5 as a mediator he do not know anything this facts of this case.

18.The evidence of PW5/M.A.Ahmed, Sub Inspector of Police,

Intelligence Department, Visakhapatnam, presently he is working as Sub

Inspector of Police, Intelligence Department in Visakhapatnam District since 28.11.2024 to till date, previously he worked as Sub Inspector of Police at

Kothuru P.S from 12.09.2023 to 22.11.2024. On 28.09.2024 at about 10.00

Date : 17.01.2025 9

(C.C No. 502/2024) hrs., the complainant name/Menda Ravikumar, S/o Late Adinarayana, aged 41 years, SC Madiga by caste, Parapuram Village came to Kothuru P.S. and gave written report before me. Basing on the report he registered a case in

Cr.No.245/2024 U/Secs. 331(4) and 305 BNS. The Original F.I.R and report sent to the Hon’ble JMFC Court, Kothuru and copies sent to the concerned officers. The Ex.P6 is Original F.I.R. On the same day he visited the scene of offence and he draw the 03 rough sketches at the scene and prepared 03

Scene observation reports at the scene. 1st scene observation report/Ex.P2 prepared at Yendava Ravi Kumar/PW1 house, dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 AM.

2nd scene observation report/Ex.P3 prepared at Yendava Sailaja/PW-2 house,

dated 28.09.2024 at 10.00 AM. 3rd scene observation report/Ex.P4 at

Vajragadda Nirmala/PW3 house, dated 28.09.2024 at 11.00 AM. The 1st rough sketch at Yendava Ravi Kumar/PW1 house dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 AM. The 2nd rough sketch at Yendava Sailaja/PW2 house, dated 28.09.2024 at 10.00

AM. The 3rd rough sketch at Vajragadda Nirmala/PW3 house, dated 28.09.2024 at 11.00 AM. The Ex.P7 is 1st rough sketch dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 AM. The Ex.P8 is 2nd rough sketch dated 28.09.2024 at 10.00 AM. The

Ex.P9 is 3rd rough sketch dated 28.09.2024 at 11.00 AM. After that he secured the LWs 1 to 7 and recorded their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. On 30.09.2024 at about 10.30 hrs himself along with two mediators and his staff conducted vehicle checking at Kothuru Mandalam, Karlemma Village at Badigam junction. At that time one person is coming on one motorcycle bearing

No.AP35-N-3752 immediately they stopped that person at that time he is trying to escape that place, then he taken him into his custody with the help of his staff and enquired his name and address then he revealed his name as

Teegala Nanikumar, S/o late Sudhakararao, aged about 20 years, SC Mala by caste, Kaspa Veedhi, Palakonda Village and Mandal, Manyam District and also he disclosed that he is studied up to 8th class and he stopped his education for studying not interest to him and also he addicted to bad voices and also he is confessed before him on 27.09.2024 at 9.30 pm he came to the

Date : 17.01.2025 10

(C.C No. 502/2024)

Kothuru village and he enquired surrounding places in the Kothuru. On 28.09.2024 at about 1-30 hrs., he committed theft of 03 mobile phones at

Kothuru in one house, while sleeping the house owners of that house. After that he committed theft of one mobile in another house at Kothuru and also committed theft of another mobile in another house at Kothuru. On the same day he committed theft of one motorcycle bearing No.AP35-N-3752 at

Parapuram Village in SC Street, he seized 05 mobile phones and one two wheeler motorcycle from the accused in the presence of mediators. At that time he prepared confession report from the accused/Nera Oppudala

Nama/Ex.P5 and he obtained signature of the accused and mediators on the

Ex.P5 report. Later he disclosed the grounds of the alleged offence to the accused, after that he brought the accused to the Kothuru P.S. and on the same day he sent the accused to the Kothuru Hospital for medical checkup, on the same day he verified the previous cases history of the accused and found that he involved in 5 crimes viz., Cr.No.103/2021 U/Sec.379 IPC of

Palakonda P.S., Cr.No.243/2021 U/Sec. 457 & 380 IPC of Palakonda P.S;

Cr.No.244/2021 U/Sec.457, 380 IPC of Palakonda P.S., Cr.No.139/2023

U/Sec.379 of IPC of Santhakaviti P.S and Cr.No.167/2023 U/Sec.457 & 380 of

IPC of Regidi-Amadalavalasa P.S and on the same day he sent the accused

before the Honourable JMFC Court, Kothuru for judicial remand. He registered

the Crime No. 245/2024 of 5 mobile phones and one motorcycle bearing

No.AP35-N-3752 registered a Cr.No.246/2024 these two crimes also registered against the accused in another case. After completion of investigation on 07.11.2024 he filed a charge sheet against the accused.

19.During the course of cross examination of PW5 deposed that the

PW1 did not gave any particulars of the culprit who committed the theft of 5 mobile phones, and he admitted that the LWs 1 to 7 are also did not mentioned in their Sec. 180(3) of BNSS statements, who committed the theft of 5 mobile phones, the LWs 1 to 7 are belongs to same family members. He did not examine the 3rd persons of the LWs 1 to 7. He denied the suggestion

Date : 17.01.2025 11

(C.C No. 502/2024) he prepared the confessional report of the accused at the police station not at the Karemma Village, he suspect the accused in previous crimes as if he involved the accused in this case he may committed this offence and the accused is innocent person and he deposing the false.

20.The PWs 1 to 3 are did not saw the accused and also they did not identified the accused. In view of the accused only committed theft of 5 mobile phones in the houses of the PWs 1 to 3. No persons prove the guilt of the accused, the accused committed the theft of 5 mobile phones in the houses of PWs 1 to 3.The PW4 is a mediator and the PW5 is the investigation officer. No one is direct witness in this case to prove guilt of the accused. He committed theft of 5 mobile phones from the houses of PWs 1 to 3.

21.In view of the above, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the benefit of doubt goes to accused. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 of BNS. Accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec.

271(1) BNSS for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stands to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The Marked property i.e.,

MOs 1 to 5, five mobiles phones shall be confiscated to the state, after expiry of appeal time.

23.The Superintendant of Sub Jail, Pathapatnam is directed to release the accused forthwith in C.C No. 502/2024 in Cr.No. 245/2024 of

Kothuru Police Station, for the offence U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 of BNS, except this case not in any other case.

Dictated to the Typist-cum-Assistant, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 17th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- Ms. K. Rani

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class

Kothuru

Date : 17.01.2025 12

(C.C No. 502/2024)

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1 :YandavaRavikumar

PW2 :YandavaSailaja

PW3 :VajragaddaNirmala

PW4 :Dornana Anil, VRA of Kothuru

PW5 :M.A. Ahammad, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station

For Defence : - None -

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 :Report of PW1 to Kothuru Police, dated 28.09.2024.

Ex.P2 : Scene Observation Report, dated 28.09.2024

Ex.P3 : Scene Observation Report, dated 28.09.2024

Ex.P4 :Scene Observation Report, dated 28.09.2024

Ex.P5 :NeraOppudalaNama/Confessional Statement.

Ex.P6 : Original First Information Report, dated 28.09.2024.

Ex.P7 :1st Rough Sketch of the scene of offence, dated 28.09.2024 at 9.00 am.

Ex.P8 : 2ndRough Sketch of the scene of offence, dated 28.09.2024 at 10.00 am.

Ex.P9 : 3rdRough Sketch of the scene of offence, dated 28.09.2024 at 1.00 am.

For Defence : - Nil -

Material Objects Marked

MO1:Vivo-2200 (Blue Colour).

MO2 :Redmi Note4-8 (Red Colour).

MO3 : Nokia Key Pad Phone (White Colour).

MO4 :Redmi 8A Smart Phone.

MO5 : Techno Spark Air2 Smart Phone.

Date : 17.01.2025 13

(C.C No. 502/2024)

Sd/- Ms. K. Rani

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class

Kothuru

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS,

KOTHURU

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO.502/2024

Date of offence : 28.09.2024 Date of Complaint or report: 28.09.2024 Date of apprehension of accused:30.09.2024 Date of Release on Bail: Bail granted on 15.10.2024, but not produced solvency sureties. Date of commencement of trial : 07.01.2025 Date of close of trial: 10.01.2025 Date of sentence or order: 17.01.2025 Explanation for delay:Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the complainant:State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothuru Police Station in Crime No. 245/2024. Name of the accused :TegalaNanikumr, S/o Late SudhakaraRao, Aged 20 years,R/o Kaspa Street, PalakondaVillage&Mandal. Offence:U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 of BNS Finding:Accused is found not guilty. Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 of BNS. Accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 271(1) BNSS for the above said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stands to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time.The Marked properties i.e., MOs 1 to 5, five mobiles phones shall be confiscated to the state, after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendant of Sub Jail, Pathapatnam is directed to release the accused forthwith in C.C No. 502/2024 in Cr.No. 245/2024 of Kothuru Police Station,

Date : 17.01.2025 14

(C.C No. 502/2024) for the offence U/Sec. 331(4) & 305 of BNS, except this case not in any other case.

Sd/- Ms. K. Rani

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Kothuru

OS/8/2019

GOUDU GANDHARI vs GOUDU GURUVARI

22 Apr 2026

Date : 22.04.2026 1 O.S No.08/2019

APSR120001902019

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISON), KOTHURU

Present: Ms. K. Rani

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kothuru

On Wednesday, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026

Original Suit No. 08/2019

BETWEEN

Goudu Gandhari W/o Bariki aged about 50 years, R/o Bahtili village and post, Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District.

…....Plaintiff

AND :

Goudu Guruvari, W/o Trinath, aged about 43 years, R/o Patha colony, Bathili village and post, Bhamini Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

…...Defendant

The suit is coming on 30.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. V. Sudhakararao, Advocate, for the Plaintiff and Sri. P.E.Satyanarayana and Sri. A. Dharamarao, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from entering upon or otherwise interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by herself or by her agents, servants and kith and kin and costs of the suit.

a)The brief avernments mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff, the plaintiff belongs to Bathili Village in Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District

Date : 22.04.2026 2 O.S No.08/2019

so also the defendant is resident is the co-sister of the plaintiff being the plaintiffs husband's brothers’ wife. So, both are related each other. The plaintiff purchased the landed property from 1) Voona Tavitayya, S/o Late

Sriramulu, 2)Voona Anantharao, S/o Late Viswanadham, 3) Voona

Sarveswarao, S/o Satayanarayana, 4) Voona Vykuntarao, S/o Late

Jagannadham,situated in revenue village,Bathili of Bhamini Mandal,in

Sy.No.65-1 amended as per the orders in IA.137/2022 dated 23-08-2024 for an extent of Ac.2.08 cents through registered sale deed bearing registration

No.198/1981 executed in the office of Sub Registrar's Office Hiramandalam for a valid consideration of Rs.9,800/-, dated 10-03-1981. The executants of the sale deed as delivered the peaceful, un interrupted possession of the landed property to the plaintiff and the plaintiff ever since from the date of purchase has been exercising her right, title, interest and possession over the purchased property by cultivating the same herein after called as suit property.

b)The Revenue authorities also issued title deed and pass book in favour of the plaintiff by recognizing her right, title and possession over the suit property. The revenue authorities also issued 1.B and Agandal also.

The defendant without having any manner of right, title and interest and possession openly proclaiming in the village that she will occupy the schedule property by force with her kith and kin and henchmen to cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. On 01-06-2019 while the plaintiff has preparing the suit land for seed beds the defendant all of sudden with supporters appeared and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and to occupy the suit land by force but on heavy protest by the plaintiff the defendant failed to dispossess the plaintiff but while leaving the suit land the defendant openly threatened and proclaimed that she will occupy the suit land in future at any cost.

c)The plaintiff apprehends danger to the suit property in the hands of defendant and in the event the defendant executes her threat to

Date : 22.04.2026 3 O.S No.08/2019

occupy the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff in that event the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated otherwise. So, the plaintiff obliged to file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to protect the suit property.

3.a)The brief avernments mentioned in the written statement filed by the defendant That all the material allegations stated in the plaint are not true valid and binding on these defendant. The plaintiff are put to strict proof of those allegations which are not specifically admitted. The defendant is contended that the plaintiff is belongs to the Bathili village in

Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District and that the defendant is the co-sister of the plaintiff being the plaintiff's husband brothers’ wife and so both are related to each other and the plaintiff has purchased the landed property from 1) Voona Tavitayya, S/o Late Sriramulu, 2) Voona Anantharao, S/o

Late Viswanadham, 3)Voona Sarveswarao, S/o Satayanarayana, 4) Voona

Vykuntarao, S/o Late Jagannadham, situated in revenue village, Bathili of

Bhamini Mandal in Sy.No.65-1 amended as per the orders in IA.137/2022

dated 23-08-2024 for an extent of Ac.2.08 cents through registered sale

deed bearing registration No.198/1981 executed in the office of Sub

Registrar's Office, Hiramandalam for a valid consideration of Rs.9,800

dated 10-03-1981,all are not true and binding on the defendant and she put

to strict proof of the same. The executants of the sale deed as delivered the peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the landed property to the plaintiff ever since from the date of purchase has been exercising her right, title, interest and possession over the purchased property by cultivating the same herein after called as suit property and the revenue authorities also issued title deed and pass book infavour of the plaintiff by recognizing her right, title and possession over the suit property and the revenue authorities also issued 1.B and adangal also, all are not true valid and binding on these defendant, and they are put to strict proof of the same. The defendant without having any manner of right and interest and possession openly

Date : 22.04.2026 4 O.S No.08/2019

proclaiming in the village that she will occupy the suit schedule property by force with her kith and kin and henchmen to cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff and on 01-06-2019 while the plaintiff has preparing the suit land for seed beds the defendant all of sudden with supporters appeared and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and to occupy the suit land by force but on heavy protest by the plaintiff the defendant failed to dispossess the plaintiff but while leaving the suit land the defendant openly threatened and proclaimed that she will occupy the suit land in future at any cost, all are not true and binding on these defendant, and they are put to strict proof of the same.

b) The plaintiff apprehends danger to the suit property in the hands of defendant and in the event the defendant executes her threat to occupy the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff in that even the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated otherwise so the plaintiff obliged to file the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to protect the suit property, all are not true and binding on these defendant, and they are put to strict proof of the same.

c)The defendant contended that her husband left the defendant long back and not heard for more than 20 years. The defendant eking out her livelihood by doing cultivation, the defendant is blessed with two children and are dependents on this defendant. The defendant contended that in the year 1996, the plaintiff while in dire need of money sold away part of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.100 cents covered by

Sy.No.65-1 covered under sale deed, executed in the year 1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,300/- in the presence of attester and scribe.

Due to illicit and lack of knowledge, the said sale deed was not registered.

But the possession was handed over the defendant in the year 1996 immediately after the sale transaction. The defendant got much faith on the plaintiff being a co-sister to her.

Date : 22.04.2026 5 O.S No.08/2019

d)The defendant contended that since the year 1996, the defendant has been in peaceful possession of the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of Ac.100 cents since more than 23 years prescriptive period with absolute rights, title to and interest over the same without any locality by raising various seasonal crops. While the things stands thus, there were some mis-understanding cropped up among their family members women folk. The price of the suit schedule property is hiked up abnormally. The plaintiff having greedy over it, criminally conspired with the people who are enimical to the defendant and engineered a plan to grab the suit schedule property including the defendants land by using law as weapon, accordingly the plaintiff implemented her evil idea by filling this false suit against the defendant.

e)The defendant file a original sale deed executed by the plaintiff infavour of the defendant in the year 1996. The defendant perfect her title by way of adverse possession she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of

Ac.1.00 cents more than the prescriptive period more than 20 years. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has no right, title to interest and possession over the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of

Ac.1.00 cents. The plaintiff suppressed the true material facts and filed this suit to obtain the injunction order by mis-guiding this court and to having wrongful gain to the plaintiff and cause wrongful loss to the defendant. The defendant further contended that she being a widow along with her family members are eking out their lively hood by cultivating the suit schedule property for an extent of Ac.100 cents since more than 23 years, if this court is believe the false version of the plaintiff, the defendant and her family members fall on the road and their livelihood would become very difficult.

f)The defendant contended that the plaintiff cannot claim for relief of injunction over the entire suit schedule property as she never been in possession and enjoyment over the since more than 23 years to the

Date : 22.04.2026 6 O.S No.08/2019

knowledge of one and all in the locality. The documents file by the plaintiff are false, created, concocted and fictitious documents and obtained by the managing the lower cadre revenue officials by using men, muscle and political power. The suit schedule is not correct and the survey no.65/4 which discloses in the suit schedule is not correct. The defendant reserves her right to file a suit against the plaintiff for her redressal in the appropriate court of law. The plaintiff has no iota of right or any semblance of right over an extent of Ac.1.00 cents part of the suit schedule property in any manner and he has no lacus standi to file the above suit. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts and not appeared before this court with clean hands and clean object. The defendant contended that there is no prima-facie case to file this suit. The plaintiff has no balance of convenience. The plaintiff did not issue any prior notice to file this suit but simply created urgency with false and frivolous allegations. This suit is not maintainable either facts or law and its devoid of merits. The cause of action is not correct. The suit is bad for the non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties .The court fee paid is incorrect. There are no grounds to entertain the suit. The suit schedule is in correct. No jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any reliefs as prayed for. Therefore the defendant prays to the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss this suit with costs in the ends of justice.

4.Upon careful perusal of pleadings placed on record by both parties and after hearing respective counsels, the following issues were settled for trail.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether the registered sale deed bearing number 198/1981 executed in the Sub Registrar Office, Hiramandalam dated 10- 03-1981 filed by the plaintiff is true valid or not?

Date : 22.04.2026 7 O.S No.08/2019

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder necessary parties?

4. Whether the defendant is having any right and title and possession over the plaint schedule property?

5. Whether the Court Fee filed by the plaintiff is correct or not?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant permanent injunction against the defendants to restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents?

7. To what relief?

5.In the trial afforded by both parties, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1/Goudu Gandhari and got exhibited

Exs.A1 to A5. The Ex.A1 is Original Registered sale Deed, dated 10-03- 1981 executed by Voona Tavitayya and others in favour of the plaintiff, vide document No.840/1981. Ex.A2 is Original Pattadar Pass Book in the name of the plaintiff, Ex.A3 is Original Tile Deed in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A3 is 1-B Extract in the name of plaintiff, dated 07-06-2019, Ex.A5 is the adangal pahani in the name of plaintiff, dated 27-05-2019 except the plaintiff no one examined on behalf of the plaintiff to strengthen the case of the plaintiff. In other hand the defendant neither come to witness box nor produce any oral or documentary evidence to strengthen her case.

6.The PW1/Goudu Gandhari Testifies thatthe she belongs to

Bathili Village in Bhamini Mandal, Srikakulam District and also the defendant is resident is the co-sister of the her being the her husband's brothers’ wife. So, both are related each other. She purchased the landed property from 1)Voona Tavitayya, S/o Late Sriramulu, 2)Voona Anantharao,

S/o Late Viswanadham, 3) Voona Sarveswarao, S/o Satayanarayana, 4)

Voona Vykuntarao, S/o Late Jagannadham situated in revenue village,

Bathili of Bhamini Mandal in Sy.No.65-1 amended as per the orders in

Date : 22.04.2026 8 O.S No.08/2019

IA.137/2022 dated 23.08.2024 for an extent of Ac.2.08 cents through

registered sale deed bearing registration No.198/1981 executed in the office of Sub Registrar's Office, Hiramandalam for a valid consideration of

Rs.9,800 dated 10-03-1981.

7.The executants of the sale deed as delivered the peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the landed property to the her and her ever since from the date of purchase has been exercising her right, title, interest and possession over the purchased property by cultivating the same herein after called as suit property. The revenue authorities also issued title deed and pass book in favour of her by recognizing her right, title and possession over the suit property. The revenue authorities also issued 1.B and Agandal also.

8.The defendant without having any manner of right ,title and interest and possession openly proclaiming in the village that she will occupy the schedule property by force with her kith and kins and henchmen to cause irreparable loss and injury to the her. On 01-06-2019 while the she has preparing the suit land for seed beds the defendant all of sudden with supporters appeared and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff and to occupy the suit land by force but on heavy protest by the her the defendant failed to dispossess her but while leaving the suit land the defendant openly threatened and proclaimed that she will occupy the suit land in future at any cost.

9.She apprehends danger to the suit property in the hands of defendant and in the event the defendant executes her threat to occupy the suit land by dispossessing the plaintiff in that event the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated otherwise. So, she obliged to file this suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to protect the suit property. The PW1 was not cross examined by the defendant hence for the cross examination of the PW1 is closed, except the plaintiff/PW1 no one examined on behalf of the plaintiff to strengthen the

Date : 22.04.2026 9 O.S No.08/2019

case of the plaintiff. In other hand the defendant neither come to witness box nor produce any oral or documentary evidence to strengthen her case.

10.Heard the arguments of the plaintiff, Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

ISSUE Nos.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6):-

11.Before adverting to the point, this is a suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs. Before going into discussion, it is relevant refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in AGNIGUNDALA VENKATA RANGARAO

VS INDUKURU RAMACHANDRA REDDY (2017) 7 SCC 694::2017 SCC

OnLine SC 392, in Para No.37 held that "It is a settled principle of law that in order to claim prohibitory (temporary or permanent) injunction, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove apart from establishing other two ingredients, namely, irreparable loss and injury that his possession over the suit land is “legal”.

12.Hence, the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove that he has prima facie case and he is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of filing of the suit.

13.To shore up the contention of the plaintiff, to prove his possession, enjoyment and ownership in respect of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff/Gowda Gandhari herself examined as PW-1 and sought to rely on Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5. After extensive examination of documents and oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is discernable that indisputably, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. To strengthen his case, Ex.A-1 to Ex.A5 were marked, it is show the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The main contention of the

Date : 22.04.2026 10 O.S No.08/2019

plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she got the property under Registered sale deed/Ex.A.1 executed by Voona

Tavitayya and others in favour of the plaintiff vide document No.840/1981.

On the other hand, the contention has been canvassed by the defendants.

The defendant contended that in the year 1996, the plaintiff while in dire need of money sold away part of the suit schedule property to an extent of

Ac.100 cents covered by Sy.No.65-1 covered under sale deed, executed in the year 1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,300/- in the presence of attester and scribe. Due to illicit and lack of knowledge, the said sale deed was not registered. But the possession was handed over to the defendant in the year 1996 immediately after the sale transaction. The defendant got much faith on the plaintiff being a co-sister to her.

14.The defendant contended that since the year 1996, the defendant has been in peaceful possession of the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of Ac.100 cents since more than 23 years prescriptive period with absolute rights, title to and interest over the same without any locality by raising various seasonal crops. While the things stands thus, there were some mis-understanding cropped up among their family members women folk. The price of the suit schedule property is hiked up abnormally. The plaintiff having greedy over it, criminally conspired with the people who are enimical to the defendant and engineered a plan to grab the suit schedule property including the defendants land by using law as weapon, accordingly the plaintiff implemented her evil idea by filling this false suit against the defendant.

15.The defendant file a original sale deed executed by the plaintiff infavour of the defendant in the year 1996. The defendant perfect her title by way of adverse possession she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of

Ac.1.00 cents more than the prescriptive period more than 20 years. The defendant contended that the plaintiff has no right, title to interest and

Date : 22.04.2026 11 O.S No.08/2019

possession over the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of

16.The defendant contended that the plaintiff cannot claim for relief of injunction over the entire suit schedule property as she never been in possession and enjoyment over the since more than 23 years to the knowledge of one and all in the locality. The documents file by the plaintiff are false, created, concocted and fictitious documents and obtained by the managing the lower cadre revenue officials by using men, muscle and political power. The suit schedule is not correct and the survey no.65/4 which discloses in the suit schedule is not correct. The plaintiff has no iota of right or any semblance of right over an extent of Ac.1.00 cents part of the suit schedule property in any manner and he has no lacus standi to file the above suit. The plaintiff suppressed the material facts and not appeared

before this court with clean hands and clean object. The defendant

contended that there is no prima-facie case to file this suit. The plaintiff has no balance of convenience.

17.The contention raised by the defendant the defendant perfect her title by way of adverse possession she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the part of the suit schedule property for an extent of

Ac.1.00 cents. But she did not file any documents in this case. The plaintiff

Date : 22.04.2026 12 O.S No.08/2019

has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and also filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

18.To strengthen the case further with regard to possession, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A5. The ExA1 is Original Registered sale

Deed, dated 10.03.1981 executed by Voona Tavitayya and others in favour of the plaintiff, vide document No.840/1981. The Ex.A2 is Original Pattadar

Pass Book in the name of the plaintiff. The Ex.A3 is Original Tile Deed in the name of plaintiff. The Ex.A4 is 1-B Extract in the name of plaintiff, dated 07.06.2019. The Ex.A5 is the adangal pahani in the name of plaintiff, dated 27.05.2019.

19.On the other hand, the prima facie case of the plaintiff and the defendants put forth his contention in the form of written statement, they did not place any incontrovertible material before the court as alleged in the written statement the defendants are not having any piece of land adjoining the suit schedule. It is well settled principle of law, where a party to the under section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act that the case set up by him is not correct. I am fortified in my above view by the dicta of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that in VIDHYADHAR Vs. MANIKRAO (AIR 1999 SC 1441). Unless the defendants are proved their forensic plea by adducing best probable evidence as such the inherent story propounded by the defendants cannot be accepted without any pinch of salt.

20.It is indeed true, that the oral testimony of P.W.1 substantially corroborated by the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 except the plaintiff no clinchingly establishes the plea of the plaintiff in respect of the of plaint schedule property. Hence, plea of the defendants would not be considered. The documentary testimony of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the credibility of PW1 evidence shows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

Date : 22.04.2026 13 O.S No.08/2019

21.The above discussion with respect to facts and circumstances of the case, he humble opinion that, the plaintiff is discharged his initial onus of proof by placing tangible document which contains in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 would in all probability has been establishes the prima-facie case of the plaintiff is in respect of the plaint schedule property. The probative possession of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property clinchingly establishes and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. Relief of injunction is equitable relief. Hence the plaintiff is entitled equitable relief as prayed.

Thus, I hold that this issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(7).To what relief?

22. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, from entering upon or otherwise interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by herself or by her agents, servants and kith and kin.

Typed in my laptop corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this the 22ndday of April,2026.

Sd/-Ms.K. Rani

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Kothuru.

A ppendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff

PW1: Goudu Gandhari

For Defendant : - Nil -

Date : 22.04.2026 14 O.S No.08/2019

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1:Original Registered sale Deed ,dated 10.03.1981 executed by Voona

Tavitayya and others in favour of the plaintiff, vide document

No.840/1981

Ex.A2: Original Pattadar Pass Book in the name of the plaintiff.

Ex.A3: Original Tile Deed in the name of plaintiff

Ex.A4: 1-B Extract in the name of plaintiff, dated 07.06.2019

Ex.A5: The adangal pahani in the name of plaintiff, dated 27.05.2019.

For Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/-Ms.K. Rani

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Kothuru

JCC/40/2021

SHO Ponduru P.S., vs Tammineni Sai Kumar

19 Apr 2024

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //1// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Ms.K.Rani,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Srikakulam.

Members: 1) Smt. K.Sridevi

Friday, this the 19th day of April, 2024

J.C.C.No.40 of 2021

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakonda Police Station.

Complainant

And :

1.XXX

2.XXX.

CICL No.1 and 2

This case has come before me on 01.03.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State; and Sri P.Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for Child in Conflict with Law; and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Palakonda Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed the Information Report against the Child in

Conflict with Law No.1 and 2 (here-in-after will be referred as CICL No.1 and 2, for the sake of brevity) in Crime No.493/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

02) The case of Prosecution in brief is that; LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana is living by running welding shop in his village. He has one wife and two sons. On 28.11.2020 at about 7.30 hours, while he is at welding shop,

LW.2/P.Purnachand made a phone call and asked that after bathing at

Gedda and he returned back to home when he is reached Accused No.3 house there is a mud on the road and he changed his direction through the

A.3 house, A.7 clapped to him why you are coming to this side. In the

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //2// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM meanwhile LW.3/P.Padmavathi, daughter-in-law Sanyasamma, his mother

Krishnaveni are asked to A.7 to her high handed behavior and both are disputed. At that time he reached his house and cheering on his ladies and return to go to shop one CICL No.1 beat him with a knife on his left leg knee and caused bleeding injury. When he fell down A.2, A.3, CICL No.2 and A.5 to A.7 are beat with hands and kicked with legs and dragged him on the road in which LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana received abrasions on left fore hand, left leg and also pains injuries on the body. When his wife

LW.3/P.Padmavathi rushed the spot for rescue him, CICL No.1 and 2 are beat LW.3/P.Padmavathi with sticks on head and caused swelling injury on her head. At that time LW.5/P.Ramu came to the spot for rescue him and all the above persons beat him with hands and he received abrasions on both leg knees. In the meanwhile, LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana observed Accused

No.5 took away Pustulatadu from his wife neck. The complainant with the help of his villagers he was admitted in Government General Hospital,

Srikakulam. The Medical Officer rendered treatment and he gave statement to O.P. Police. LW.12/Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, A.S.I., Ponduru P.S., received medical intimation along with the statement of LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana, from in-charge, Hospital OP, GGH, Srikakulam on point of jurisdiction for taking necessary action.

02(a). Basing on the medical intimation and statement of

LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana as a case in Cr.No.493/2020 under Section 324, 323, 379 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Ponduru Police Station was registered by

LW.12/Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, A.S.I., Ponduru P.S., on 28.11.2020 at 17.30 hours and investigated into. LW.13/Sri R.Devanand, S.I., of Police,

Ponduru P.S., took up further investigation in this cae at the stage of FIR, during the course of investigation LW.13/Sri R.Devanand, S.I., of Police,

Ponduru P.S., examined LW.1 to 8 (LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana,

LW.2/P.Purnachand, LW.3/P.Padmavathi, LW.4/P.Chinnayya, LW.5/P.Ramu,

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //3// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

LW.6/K.Appamma, LW.7/K.Suresh and LW.8/A.Upendra) and recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of LW.9 and 10 (LW.9/P.Venugopalam and LW.10/K.Narsingarao), got prepared an observation report and also drew the rough sketch and take photos.

LW.13/Sri R.Devanand, S.I., of Police, Ponduru P.S., have obtained the aadhar cards in respect of above CICL No.1 and 2 from his parents and according to the aadhar card their ages are below 17 years and completed all the formalities and handed over the CICL to their parents under proper acknowledgment and they are directed to appear before the Hon’ble Juvenile

Justice Board, Srikakulam whenever their presence is required in the Hon’ble

Court, LW.11/Dr.S.Seetharam, CMO., Government General Hospital,

Srikakulam who treated LW.1/P.Venkata Ramana and LW.3/P.Padmavathi issued wound certificates stating that the injuries on the both are simple in nature. After completion of the investigation, LW.13/Sri R.Devanand, S.I., of

Police, Ponduru P.S., filed information report against the CICL No.1 and 2.

03) The Board took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., against the CICL No.1 and 2. On appearance of CICL No.1 and 2 before the Board, copies of documents were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The CICL No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., have been read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04) To prove the guilt of the CICL No.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined LWs.1 to 13 as PWs 1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P.12 were marked through them.

05) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CICL No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //4// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM material evidence appeared against them, for which they denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

06) Heard Arguments on both sides.

07) Now the point for determination is:

Whether the CICL No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., and Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the CICL No.1 and 2, beyond all reasonable doubt?

08) Point :-

Before going deep into the case, Sections 324, 323 of I.P.C., are

reiterated, for the sake of brevity.

Section 324 : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

means.- Whoever, excepted in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily cause hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is Kelley to cause death, or by means or fire or any heated substance ,or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 323 : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Whoever, expect in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

Section 34 : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of

common intention - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

I have perused the oral and documentary evidence. In support of the contention of the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses were examined as

PW’s.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P.12 were marked through them. PW.5, PW.6,

PW.8 and PW.9 are turned hostile, not supported the case of the prosecution.

09). PW.1/P.Venkataramana deposed that on 25.11.2020 at about 6.30 a.m., he went to his welding shop which was situated at the out cuts of his village and after half an hour, he received a phone call from his younger son/LW.2 and informed him that after taking bath at Gedda and return to home and when he reached the house of Anandarao, there is a mud on the

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //5// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM road the he changed his direction to the house of Ananda Rao on that

Tammineni Venkatalaxmi slapped on the left side of the cheek to LW.2 and immediately LW.2 came to their house and informed about the same to his wife. Immediately, he returned to his home and he noticed Pydi Padmavathi (his wife), his sister-in-law Sanyasamma, Krishnaveni were questioning

Tammineni Ananda Rao, Usha, Bharathi and Venkatalaxmi and disputing with each other. He stopped his family members and dragged them into his house and while he was returned to his shop by crossing the house of Ananda Rao at a distance of 10 feet CCL 1 and 2 and other family members came before him and dragged him and caught holding his hair and beat him with stick and hands and he sustained injuries to his left leg and scratch injuries to his body meanwhile LW.2 to 4 came there to rescue him. CCL’s 1 and 2 and their family members also attacked them. CCL 1 beat LW.3 with stick on the middle of the forehead and head. Immediately they went to Ponduru Police

Station and Police referred them to RIMS, Hospital, Srikakulam since they sustained bleeding injuries and Police came to the Hospital and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of his statement and Police examined him and recorded his statement. Their villagers have witnessed the incident and at present he cannot say their names. During the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that he has not stated before the Police that disputes arose between their two families about 3 years back.

10. PW.2/Pydi Purnachand deposed that on 28.11.2020, at about 7.30 a.m., he went to the bath in canal at Thungapeta and after completion of bath, then while returned to home, the father of the CICL, Tammineni

Ananda Rao, paternal junior aunt, Tammineni Venkata Laxmi, beat him on his cheek with her hands, then he went to his home, later he told to his mother/LW.3, his mother raised cries his father returned to his home and suggested to his mother do not cries on them and on the same day, at 9.30 a.m., Tammineni Sai Kumar, CCL 1 and 2, Tammineni Thaviti Raju,

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //6// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Tammineni Ananda Rao, Tammineni Usa and Tammineni Venkata Laxmi and dragged in canal and then one rod broke his father’s left leg and later he along with father and mother went to Ponduru P.S. and lodged report and later they went to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment to his father. The outpost Police prepared a complaint and on the next day of incident, the

Police came to his house and recorded his statement and obtained his signature. During the cross examination, he admitted that from Tungapeta to Tadivalasa takes on hour and on the date of incident, he did not go to school and his house and CCL houses are side by side. Prior to this offence, there were no disputes between their family and CCL family and admitted that doctor at RIMS Hospital not given any treatment to him.

11. PW.3/Pydi Padmavathi deposed on 28.11.2020, at 7.30, PW.2/his son went to the batch in canal at Thungapeta. After completion of bath, then while returned to home, the father of the CCL, Tammineni Ananda Rao, paternal junior aunt, Tammineni Venkata Laxmi, abused PW.2 in vulgar language and beat PW.2 on his cheek with her hands, then PW.2 came to home, later told him, then she raised cries her husband returned to their home and suggested them to do not raise cries on them and on the same day, at 9.30 a.m., Tammineni Sai Kumar, CCL.1and 2, Tammineni Thaviti

Raju, Tammineni Ananda Rao, Tammineni Usa and Tammineni Venkata Laxmi and dragged in canal her husband and then, one rod broke the

PW.1/husband’s left leg and later she along with PW.1 and 2, LW.5 went to

Ponduru Police Station and lodged report and later they went to RIMS

Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment to her husband/PW.1. The doctor conducted a treatment to PW.1 and the outpost police prepared a complaint.

On the next day of incident, the Ponduru Police came to her house and recorded her statement and obtained her signature. During the cross examination, she admitted that she stated to Police PW.1 and she gave a false statement before the Ponduru P.S., her pustulatadu in her neck pulled

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //7// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM by one Tammineni Usha and to walk on the road, in front of CCL house or canal bed.

12. PW.4/P.Chinnayya deposed that PW.1 is his son, PW.2 is his grand-son, PW.3 is his daughter-in-law and he know CCL 1 and 2 who belongs to his village. On 28.11.2020 at about 7.30 a.m., PW.2 after taking bath at the tank while he was crossing way in front of the house of the CCL on which Tammineni Venkatamma beat the PW.2 with her hand on seeing the same PW.3 questioned the Venkatamma on which they both quarreled with each other in mean time, PW.1 came there and asked the PW.3 to left that place into the house. Later PW.1 went away from that place while going to the welding shop, the accused and CCL beat the PW.1 with hands by pushing on the ground, PW.1 received injuries to his knees of his left. Later they went to the Police station from there. Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination he deposed that he cannot say how many times quarrel took place between the PW.1 family and

CICL family prior to this incident. The village elders did not conduct any gallata/Panchayathi in his village regard this dispute and he did not state

before the Police that one Thammineni Usha pulled the Gold pusthulu thadu

from the neck of the Pw.3 and the CCL’s family members beat the PW.1 with knifes and sticks in order to the PW.1 lodged a false report against the CCL.

PW.5 and 6 are turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, except marking their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively.

13. PW.7/P.Ramu deposed that PW.1 is his elder brother, PW.2 is son of the PW.1, PW.3 is the wife of PW.1 and he know CCL 1 and 2 and they are belongs to his village. On 28.11.2020 at about 7.30 a.m., PW.2 went to take bath Polavaram canal situated at Thungapeta on that day the rain fallen while he is returning from bath, PW.2 came through the CCL 1’s house. PW.2 while coming from the canal through front road of the CCL 1 house, he

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //8// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM slipped out and some mud on the road spread on the walls of the CCL 1 house. Then CCL 1 picked up the quarrel along with his family members slapped the PW.2 and after some time, he along with PW.1 going to welding shop they obstructed CCL 1 and family members by name Anandarao, Usha,

Venkati, Sai Kumar and 2 other persons obstructed them and attacked with stick on them. Anand slapped him and pulled his ear. CCL 1 and Ananda Rao beaten his brother with stick on his right knee and he sustained pain injury both are went to the General Hospital for treatment, they sent the medical intimation to the Police and the Police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he deposed that he do not know the contents of his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement which was recorded by the

Police. PW.8 and 9 are turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, except marking their signatures on the report, dated 29.11.2020 as in Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 respectively.

14. PW.10/Dr.S.Seetharamaraju, Assistant Professor, GMS,

Rajamahendravaram deposed that he found injuries of PW.1/Pydi

Venkataramana, S/o Chinnayya, aged 40 years in habitant of Tungapeta village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam district, accompanied brother he was 1st seen at 10.25 on 28.11.2020, the said injuries were cause due to violence at his residence in Tungapeta village. The following injuries were found on him.

No.1 : A laceration of six 4 x ½ cmts on left knee bleeding present.

No.2 : Abrasion of six 5 x 5 cmts on right fore-arm red in colour, X-ray left knee showed no bone injury and he is of the opinion that the above injuries 1 and 2 are simple nature and recent origin. Ex.P.6 is the wound certificate of PW.1. He found the injuries of PW.3/Pydi Padmavathi is calling wife of Pydi Venkataramana, aged 35 years of Tungapeta village, Ponduru mandal, Srikakulam district, she said he was injured due to violence at her residence in Tungapeta village on 28.11.2020 at 5.30 a.m., the injured person was 1st seen by him at 10.25 a.m., on 28.11.2020 and found the

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //9// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM following injuries were found. Injury No.1 is swelling of six 3 x 3 cmts on forehead. Injury No.2 a swelling of size of 4 x 4 cmts on right side occipital region. X.ray right hand and skull showed no bone injuries and he is of the opinion that the above injury No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and are of recent origin. Ex.P.7 is the wound certificate of PW.3. During the cross examination, he admitted that PW.1 and 3 not stated before him exact cause how they received injuries and he did not mention the second mole to the

PW.3 in Ex.P.7 and issuing opinion date was corrected in Ex.P.7 by him and he deposed that the above injuries may cause to the PW.1 and 3 while they were working in the fields. PW.11/Kuna Appamma deposed that she do not know anything about the facts of the case and at the time of incident she was in agricultural land. Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

15. PW.12/S.Ramachandra Rao deposed that on 28.11.2020 at about 17.30 hours, he received medical intimation and statement of PW.1/Pydi

Venkataramana from the Government General Hospital, Srikakulam. Basing on it, he registered case in Cr.No.493/2020 under Section 324, 323, 379 read with 34 of I.P.C. of Ponduru Police Station, after that he handed over the further investigation to LW.13. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the F.I.R.

and he sent original FIR to the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Ponduru and copies sent to the concerned officers. During his cross examination, he admitted that Ponduru P.S. nearest place than Government

Hospital, Srikakulam. PW.13/R.Devanand, the then S.I., of Police, Ponduru deposed that he took of the further investigation from the PW.12 and on 29.11.2020 he visited the scene of offence, and prepared scene observation report and draw the rough sketch. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are the certified copies of the scene observation report and rough sketch and he secured the witnesses LW.1 to 8 and examined them and recorded their Section 161

Cr.P.C. statements at the scene and he apprehended the CCL 1 and 2, and

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //10// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM received the study certificate of the CCL 1 from Government High School,

Tadivalasa and study certificate of the CCL 2 from Government High School,

Ponduru and after that he received the wound certificate of the PW.1 from the PW.10. Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 are study certificates of the CCL 1 and 2.

After completion of the investigation, he filed information report against the

CCL 1 and 2. During the cross examination, he admitted that according to his investigation, previous disputes in between PW.1 family and CCL’s family and gold pusthula thadu missed in the dispute and also the CCL and other accused did not used any dangerous weapons in the dispute and at the rough sketch sullage water is flowing on the road and incomplete construction to the drainage and there is no tenderness injuries in the wound certificate of PW.1 and LW.1 to 5 are surnames are Pydi and blood relatives and Lw.6 to 10 are belongs to Kalinga community people.

12) On perusal of the evidence, the point is considered that the prosecution has to establish that the CICL No.1 and 2 have committed offences under Sections 324 and 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., but, this case on hand, PW.5, PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9 are turned hostile have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and PW.11 deposed that she do not know anything about the facts of the case and at the time of incident she was in agricultural land. PW.1 and 3 are injured and PW.2 is son of PW.1 and

2. PW.4 is the father of the PW.1 and father-in-law of the PW.3. PW.7 is the younger brother of the PW.1. PW.1 deposed in his cross examination that disputes arose between his family and CCL’s family about 3 years back. PW.3 admitted in her cross examination that she gave false statement before the

Police that her pustulattadeu in her neck pulled by one Tammineni Usha.

PW.7 deposed in his cross examination that he do not know the contents of

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. PW.13 who is investigating officer deposed that according to his investigation previous disputes in between PW.1 family and CCL’s family. PW.1 to 4 are belongs to one family and PW.7 also younger

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //11// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM brother of the PW.1 and hence, at this juncture their evidence cannot be believable. PW.10 who is doctor also deposed in his cross examination that the wound may be caused to PW.1 and 2 while they were working in their fields also. PW.12 and 13/Investigation Officers and, though deposed their evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, which is solely non- reliable and non-dependable, in proving the case of the prosecution.

13). Therefore, nulling over all the facts and circumstances and as can be seen from the entire evidence and upon careful perusal and scrutiny of the evidence on the record, this Board is the considered view that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of CICL

No.1 and 2 and the prosecution has failed to establish mandatory requirements of the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C., and the benefit of doubt can be given in favour of CICL No.1 and

2. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of CICL No.1 and 2, beyond all reasonable doubt. The point answered accordingly.

14). In the result, the CICL No.1 and 2 are found not guilty, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC. Hence, the CICL No.1 and 2 are Found not Guilty under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offences.The

Parental bonds of the CICL No.1 and 2, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of SIX months, as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Board, on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

MEMBERS PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //12// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1P.Venkata RamanaNil

PW-2P.Purnachand

PW-3P.Padmavathi

PW-4P.Chinnayya

PW-5 K.Suresh

PW-6 A.Upendra

PW.7 P.Ramu

PW.8 P.Venugopalam

PW.9 K.Narasinga Rao

PW.10 Dr.S.Seetharamaraju

PW.11 K.Appamma

PW.12 S.Ramachandra Rao

PW.13 R.Devanand, S.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Certified copy of the statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2Certified copy of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5.

Ex.P.3Certified copy of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6.

Ex.P.4 Signature of PW.8 on the report, dated 29.11.2020.

Ex.P.5Signature of PW.9 on the report, dated 29.11.2020.

Ex.P.6Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.7Wound certificate of PW.3.

Ex.P.8 Certified copy of the F.I.R.

Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the scene observation report.

Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the rough sketch.

Ex.P.11 Study Certificate of the CICL No.1.

Ex.P.12 Study Certificate of the CICL No.2.

For Defence: Nil

JCC-40/2021, Date:19-04-2024; //13// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Material objects

None

Sd/- Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

MEMBERS PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC/31/2019 Acquitted

SHO Saravakota P.S., vs Polumuru KesavaRao

14 Jul 2023

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //1// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Ms.K.Rani,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Srikakulam.

Members: 1) Smt. K.Sridevi

Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023.

J.C.C.No.31 of 2019

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station, Srikakulam District. Complainant

And :

XXX CICL

This case has come before me on 14.07.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri K.Nanajee, Sri K.Pratap Chandra and Sri K.Aravind, Learned Counsel for Child in Conflict with Law and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saravakota Police Station,

Srikakulam District, has filed the Information Report against the Child in

Conflict with Law (here-in-after will be referred as CICL, for the sake of brevity) in Crime No.58/2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC.

02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that : CICL is the son of

Accused No.1, LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao and A.1 are own brothers and thus all the accused are interrelated. They are residents of Aludu village, Saravakota

Mandal and neighbours. As some disputes were raised between their families, which existing to their husbands, both parties used to indulge in quarrels and accordingly, so many cases were registered on both parties and further they were initiated 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings vide Cr.No.3/2016 under

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //2// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Section 107 Cr.P.C. and 50/2018 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against them and though they were bounded over before the Sub Divisional Executive

Magistrate, Palakoda, but there is no change in their attitude and used to

indulge in disputes.

02(a). As the matter is stood thus, LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao got constructed 14” wall and gave right for 7” over the wall to the A.1 whenever he wants to build a house in the future and took an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation from accused No.1. Accordingly, LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao executed a document before the elders and later LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao started cement plastering and tile work to his house steps, he attached the tiles up to the end of wall and on seeing which, the accused No.1 came and when questioned LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao, LW.1/P.Damayanthi intervened and she tried to convince A.1 that he could break the tiles when he will starts the house work, but the Accused No.1 not convinced and raised a wordy due with her.

In the mean time, accused No.2 CICL, A.4 and A.5 joined to A.1, abused

LW.1/P.Damayanthi and his family members in foul and filthy language and wordy due became wild, the accused No.1 picked up a knife and beat with the same on the head of LW.1/P.Damayanthi and caused bleeding injury. On seeing which, when LW.2 came in rescue his mother, the A.2 picked up the knife from the hands of A.1 and he beat with the same on the back of right palm and caused bleeding injury. CICL, A.4 and A.5 beat LW.1 and 2 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi and LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar) with hands. LW.3/P.Vykunta

Rao witnessed the incident and he rescued LW.1 and 2 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi and LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar) from the hands of the accused, pressed for the service of 108 Ambulance and on its arrival, he shifted and admitted LW.1 and 2 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi and LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar) in RIMS, Srikakulam for medical treatment. LW.4 and 5 (LW.4/K.Ashok and LW.5/S.Karuvu) witnessed the incident from nearby place. On sending medical intimation by

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //3// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

LW.9/Dr.R.Anuradha, the incharge of Police out post, RIMS, Srikakulam recorded the statement of LW.1/P.Damayanthi and forwarded the same to

LW.10/M.R.K.Rao, A.S.I., Saravakota P.S., for taking further action. Basing on the statement of LW.1/P.Damayanthi, LW.10/M.R.K.Rao, A.S.I., Saravakota

P.S., registered it as a case in Cr.No.58/2019 under Section 324, 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.

02(b). During the course of investigation, LW.10/M.R.K.Rao, A.S.I.,

Saravakota P.S., examined LW.1 to 5 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi,

LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar, LW.3/P.Vykunta Rao, LW.4/K.Ashok and

LW.5/S.Karuvu) and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of LW.6 and 7 (LW.6/G.Gajapathi Narayana and

LW.7/Y.Manmadharao), got drafted scene observation report and also drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence. LW.11/E.Srinivas, S.I. of Police,

Saravakota Police Station verified the investigation of LW.10/M.R.K.Rao,

A.S.I.-609, Saravakota P.S.,, he served notices against A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and he obtained their explanations regarding the offence and consent to appear before the Court as and when required by the

Court and directed them to appear before the Court. As the A.3 as per FIR is the Juvenile in Conflict with law, on 14.05.2019, LW.11/E.Srinivas, S.I. of

Police, Saravakota Police Station served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

against him and on taking his explanation regarding the offence and got consent from A.1 he shall produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board,

Srikakulam, he handed over CICL under proper acknowledgment. During the course of investigation, LW.11/E.Srinivas, S.I. of Police, Saravakota Police

Station obtained the Date of Birth Certificate of CICL from LW.8, in which he mentioned the DOB of CICL and LW.11/E.Srinivas, S.I. of Police, Saravakota

Police Station obtained would certificates of LW.1 and 2 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi and LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar) from LW.9/Dr.R.Anuradha. LW.8/P.Padmasri

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //4// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM issued wound certificates of LW.1 and 2 (LW.1/P.Damayanthi and

LW.2/P.Chandrasekhar) opining that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature. After completion of the investigation, LW.12/Y.Ravi Kumar,

S.I. of Police, Saravakota P.S., filed information report against the CICL.

03). The Board took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC., against the CICL. On appearance of

CICL before the Board, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The CICL was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of

I.P.C., have been read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04). To prove the guilt of the CICL, the prosecution has examined

PW’s.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P6, was marked through them. The evidence of

LW.6/G.Gajapathi Narayana and LW.12/Y.Ravi Kumar, S.I. of Police,

Saravakota P.S., were given-up by the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in view of evidence of PW’s.1 to 10 respectively. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CICL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material evidence appeared against him, for which he denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

05). Heard Arguments on both sides.

06). Now the point for determination is:

Whether the CICL has committed the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the CICL, beyond all reasonable doubt?

07). Point :-

Before going deep into the case, Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of

IPC, are reiterated, for the sake of brevity.

Section 324 : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //5// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM substance ,or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 323 : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Whoever, expect in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

Section 34 : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of

I have perused the oral and documentary evidence. In support of the contention of the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses were examined as

PW’s.1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to P6, were marked through them.

08). It is the evidence of PW.1/P.Damayanthi that on 25.03.2019, at about 8.30 a.m., while his husband/LW.3 constructing the steps of his house, the father of the CICL, approached his husband and arose disputes due to previous incidents and thereby when he has interfered in the dispute, the father of the CICL, beat him with knife on his head, whereas, the other nephew by name Polumuru Narasimha Murthy beat on his right forearm with the same knife, whereas, the CICL and his mother and others beat him with their hands, thereby necked him and pushed him and as such, he sustained bleeding injury on his head and on right forearm. On seeing the dispute, his son/LW.2 approached them to rescue, but even he sustained injuries, in their hands. His son/LW.2 sustained scratched injury on his right palm.

Immediately, his husband rescued them and thereby shifted him to RIMS

Hospital, Srikakulam in 108 Ambulance. Later, the Police approached him and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is the statement of Pw.1, recorded by the

Police.

08(a). During the cross examination, PW.1 deposed that his husband along with his brothers, has 4 houses, in a row, wherein towards East of his house, the house of Laxmana Rao i.e., father of the CICL is situated, on further, towards East of Laxmana Rao’s house, house of Ramu i.e., last

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //6// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM brother of his husband was situated. There is a vacant place of Laxmana

Rao, towards of the house. He do not know the native of the parents of the

CICL’s mother and he do not know whether CICL was studying in Murapaka village or not.

9. It is the evidence of PW.2/P.Chandra Sekhar that on 25.03.2019, at about 8.30 a.m., while his father/LW.3 constructing the steps of their house, the father of the CICL approached his father and arose disputes due to previous incidents and thereby when PW.1 have interfered in the dispute, the father of the CICL, beat PW.1 with knife on her head, whereas, his other brother by name Polumuru Narasimha Murthy beat on PW.1’s right fore arm with the same knife, whereas the CICL and his mother and others beat PW.1 with their hands, whereas when he has interfered in the dispute, Polumuru

Narasimha Murthy beat him with a knife on his right palm, whereas the CICL and his mother and others beat him with their hands. As such, he sustained bleeding injury on his right palm and minor injuries all over the body, whereas, PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on her head and on right forearm and immediately, he has approached Saravakota Police Station and from thee, they were shifted to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam in 108 Ambulance and later he was examined by the Police at the time Hospital.

During the cross examination, PW.2 deposed that, he is running a Auto driver and lighting supplier. The S.I. of Police, Saravakota Police Station frequently registered a cases against him and his father also. He admitted that in the rowdy sheeter list shown to him as a Serial Number 6 which is his name. Prior to this offence, the CICL father filed criminal case against family the same is pending before Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Pathapatnam, according to this incident also the CICL father filed a criminal case against his family members and the same is pending.

10). It is the evidence of PW.3/P.Vykunta Rao that, on 25.03.2019, at

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //7// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM about 8.30 p.m., while he was constructing the steps of their house, the father of the CICL approached him and arose disputes due to previous incidents and thereby when PW.1 have interfered in the dispute, the father of the CICL, beat PW.1 with knife on her head, whereas, the mother of the CICL beat with PW.1 with her hands. Later, when his son/PW.2 was trying to rescue PW.1, his brother’s son by name Polumuru Narasimha Murthy, CICL and Polumuru Hemalatha beat PW.2 on his right fore-arm with the same knife. As such, after rescuing, PW.1 and 2 they have approached Saravakota

Police Station and from there, they were shifted to RIMS Hospital,

Srikakulam in 108 Ambulance and later he was examined by the Police at the

Hospital.

During the cross examination, PW.3 deposed that he along with his brothers has 4 houses, in a row, wherein towards East of his house, the house of Lakshmana Rao i.e., father of the CICL is situated, on further, towards east of Lakshamana Rao’s house, house of Ramu i.e., last brother of his husband was situated. Thee is a vacant place of Lakshmana Rao, towards

East of the house. He do not know whether the CICL was studying in

Murapaka village or not.

11). It is the evidence of PW.4/K.Ashok that on 25.03.2019, at about 8.30 p.m., while he was returning to his village, he has seen the father of the

CICL was disputing with PW.1, with regard to wall plastering works. He has seen that the father of the CICL beat PW.1, with a stick on her head. At time of witnessing the incident, the CICL was not present at the spot. As such, himself along with LW.5 pacified the dispute, whereas the son of PW.1 has shifted PW.1 to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam and he was examined by the

Police. During the cross examination, PW,4 deposed that he is native of Aludu village. On the day of incident, he was coming from Market to his house at

S.C. street towards Saravakota village and the house of the defacto

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //8// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM complainant will not appear on the said way.

12). It is the evidence of PW.5/S.Karuvu that he has acquaintance with PW.1 to 4 and the CICL. About 10 months back, between 8.00 to 9.00 p.m., he has been Polumuru Lakshmana Rao has beat PW.1 with a knife on her head, with regard to the house disputes. During the incident, himself and

PW.4 has witnessed it. At the time of the incident, CICL was not present at the spot. The witness did not identify the CICL to be as Polumuru Kesava Rao and he was examined by the Police.

13). It is the evidence of PW.6/Y.Manmadha Rao that on 26.03.2019, he was summoned by the Saravakota Police and as such, himself along with

LW.6 visited the scene of offence i.e., the residence of PW.1 and thereby the

Police observed the scene in their presence, drafted scene observation report and he along with LW.6 have signed on it. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the scene observation report.

14). It is the evidence of PW.7/K.Padmasri that at about one year back, Saravakota Police approached and thereby requested him to issue the

Date of Birth Certificate of the CICL and as such, he have issued his Date of

Birth Certificate showing his Date of Birth as 14.07.2003, as per the School records. Ex.P.3 is the Date of Birth certificate of the CICL issued by him.

15). It is the evidence of PW.8/M.Ramakrishna Rao, the then A.S.I. of

Police, Saravakota P.S. that on 26.03.2019 he has received medical intimation along with the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the Outpost police,

H.C., RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam basing on the statement of P.W.1, he registered a case in Cr.No. 58/2019 u/sec. 324,323 r/w 34 of IPC. The

Original FIR Submitted to the Hon’ble JMFC Court, Pathapatnam. Ex.P.3 is the Certified copy of the F.I.R. He has examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and he visited the scene offence later he secured the mediators and he prepared scene observation report and also prepared

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //9// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM rough sketch and he has examined P.W.2 to 5 and record their detailed statement. On 26.03.2019 he has served the Sec. 41-A Cr.P.c Notice to the

Accused, he also issued Notices to the parents, and further investigation took up by the L.W.11.

During the cross examination, PW.8 deposed that, he has not received any report from the P.W.1 straight away and he received medical intimation on 26.03.2019 at 10:45 A.M. without examine the P.W.1, he registered a case against the CICL and others and he registered the F.I.R against the CCL basing on the medical intimation not by the report lodged by the P.w.1 and he visited the scene of offence and there is no street name mentioned in the scene of offence. Nearly 40 to 50 houses situated at Kelavalasa Village. The husband of P.w.1 having two brothers. He is having a one civil dispute regarding the Houses and he do not who filed the Civil case against whom.

The father of the CCL house is situated at Eastern side. In the eastern side the cuisine brother/Polumuru Narasimhamurthy of the CCL house situated towards further East and he do not know who are the officer situated towards Eastern side. The dispute arose between CCL and his family and

P.W.1 at CC Road towards Northern side the P.W’s1 house situated. The offence is situated at P.w.1 house. He also admitted that the father of the

CCL family is poor family and P.w1 family is rich family. He left the station by transfer in the month of June, 2019 later the SHO displayed the rowdy sheeters names displayed the SHO in Notice Board dated 16.05.2019.

16). It is the evidence of PW.9/Dr.R.Anuradha that on 25.03.2019 he has examined P.W.1 at 11:35 P.M and found the following injuries:

1.Curved laceration of size 4x1/2x1/2 C.M. over left frontal region of the secap with regular margins and Red in Colour.

2.Small cut of size 1.C.M over left forearm Red in Colour.

He is of the opinion that the above said injuries simple in nature and the age of the injures at the time of incident less then 20 years. Ex.P 5 is the wound Certificate of P.w.1.

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //10// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

On the same day he has examined P.W.2 at 11:35 P.M and found the following injuries:

1.Laceration of size 2x1/2x1/2 C.M. over Left Palm Red in Colour.

2.Laceration of size 2x1/2x1/2 C.M. over Left Palm near index finger

Red in Colour.

3.Laceration of size 2x1x1 C.M. over Left knee Red in Colour.

He is of the opinion that the above said injuries simple in nature. Ex.P6 is the wound Certificate of P.w.2.

During the cross examination, PW.9 admitted that some times in some cases it might be possible to sharp object on the ground may receive injuries in ground in Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6.

17). It is the evidence of PW.10/E.Srinivasa Rao, the then S.I. of

Police, Saravakota P.S., deposed that he declared the age of the CICL basing on the Aadhar card and send him to Juvenile Justice Board for judicial custody.

18). On perusal of the evidence, the point, to be considered is that the prosecution has to establish that the CICL beat LW.1 and 2 with hands and caused simple injuries. In this case PW.1 and 2 are injured and they both deposed that CICL and his mother and others beat them with hands and caused bleeding injury. PW.3 who is husband of PW.1 and father of PW.2 cited as Eye witness to the incident though corroborated the evidence of

PW.1 and 2, but his evidence cannot be believable since he is family member of the PW.1 and 2. PW.4 and 5 who are circumstantal witnesses deposed that

CICL was not present at the spot. PW.6 is the mediator for scene observation report and he deposed that that he visited the scene of offence and Police observed the scene in their presence, drafted the scene observation report and he signed on the scene observation report. PW.6 is not the direct witness to the incident. PW.7 who is Head Mistress of the CICIL school deposed about the issuance of the Date of Birth Certificate of the CICL. PW.8 is doctor examined the injured/PW.1 and 2 and she found injuries and found

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //11// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM that the injuries are simple in nature and issued Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 wound certificates and during her cross examination she stated that the above injuries might be possible to sharp object on the ground may receive the injuries in ground, but, nothing is extracted against the offence committed by the CICL. PW.9 and 10/Investigation Officers deposed in their evidence, but, nothing is elicited from their evidence, against the CICL.

19). Nulling over all the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution should not sufficient to prove the guilt of the CICL that the prosecution has failed to establish the mandatory requirements of the offence, the benefit of doubt shall be given in favour of the CICL. As such, the Court opinion the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the CICL, beyond all reasonable doubt. The CICL is entitled for acquittal and the point is answered accordingly.

20). In the result, the CICL is found not guilty, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 of IPC.

Hence, the CICL is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The Parental bonds of the CICL, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of SIX months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The CICL shall be under the Supervision of the

District Probation Officer (DPO), Srikakulam for a period of one year.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Board, on this the 14 h day of July, 2023.

Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

Sd/- PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

MEMBERS. JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC-31/2019, Date:14-07-2023; //12// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1P.DamayanthiNil

PW-2P.Chandra Sekhar

PW-3P.Vykunta Rao

PW-4K.Ashok

PW-5S.Karuvu

PW-6Y.Manmadha Rao

PW-7P.Padmasri

PW-8M.Ramakrishna Rao

PW-9Dr.R.Anuradha

PW-10E.Srinivasa Rao, S.I., of Police.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Statement of the PW.1.

Ex.P.2Certified copy of the scene observation report.

Ex.P.3Date of Birth Certificate of the CICL.

Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the F.I.R.

Ex.P.5Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.6Wound certificate of PW.2.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

Nil

Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

Sd/- PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

MEMBERS. JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

JCC/20/2023

SHO, Srikakulam Traffic P.S. vs Karigi Jyothiprasad

19 Apr 2024

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//1// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Ms.K.Rani,

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Srikakulam.

Members: 1) Smt. K.Sridevi

Friday, this the 19th day of April, 2024

J.C.C.No.20 of 2023

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam District. Complainant

And :

XXX CICL

This case has come before me on 15.03.2024 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri P.Raja Rao, Learned Counsel for Child in Conflict with Law and upon hearing on both sides and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:

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

01). The Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam

District, has filed the Information Report against the Child in Conflict with

Law (here-in-after will be referred as CICL, for the sake of brevity) in Crime

No.23/2023, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and

Sections 134 (a) and (b) and Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988.

02). The case of Prosecution in brief is that : On 07.04.2023 at 9.00 hours, LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth left from room for attend spoken English classes at Visakha A colony, Srikakulam, later after completion of class

LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth returned to home through 80 feet road on his cycle and reached near Anandamayi function hall at about 10.30 hours, at that time one milk van came behind, the driver of said vehicle drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, without blow horn and dashed his cycle from back, as a result of which LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth fallen on road and

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//2// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM received abrasion injuries on his left foot, right and left knee. The driver of said vehicle fled away from the place without stop milk van, later few minutes LW.2/G.Rajarajeshwari came back who is also studying spoken

Engligh class who came in auto noticed, stopped auto and informed

LW.3/P.Sandhya mother of LW.2/G.Rajarajeshwari, who in turn came to accident place and shifted the injured to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam for treatment. Later LW.3 and 5 (LW.3/P.Sandhya and LW.4/S.Manikanta) visited the Hospital on knowing the accident of friend, LW.3/P.Sandhya revealed the features of the crime vehicle which is blue colour and milk cans are in green colour, LW.4 and 5 (LW.4/S.Manikanta and

LW.5/P.Kishore)enquired about the crime vehicle and finally they obtained the vehicle number as AP 39 UG 2653 which was drove by Karigi

Jyothiprasad, S/o Balakrishna, Ponnda village. On admission of

LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth, LW.6/Dr.G.Sravani sent Medical intimation to in- charge RIMS OP for admission of injured in Road accident, accordingly in- charge RIMS OP recorded the statement of LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth, further submitted to LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station,

Srikakulam for necessary action.

02(a). Upon which LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police

Station, Srikakulam registered it as case in Cr.No.23/2023 under Section 337 of I.P.C. and Section 134 (a) & (b) M.V.Act of Traffic Police Station on 08.04.2023 at 8.00 hours, submitted the original FIR along with original statement of the complainant to the Hon’ble SJSCM Court, Srikakulam and copies of FIR to all officers concerned. During the course of investigation,

LW.6/Dr.G.Sravani examined LW.1 to 5 (LW.1/A.Srikanth,

LW.2/G.Rajarajeshwari, LW.3/P.Sandhya, LW.4/S.Manikanta and

LW.5/P.Kishore) and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. and visited the scene of offence and drew the rough sketch in that effect. At the time of registration of FIR, LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth did not

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//3// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM mention the number of the vehicle, but he revealed exact timing of offence and features of the vehicle. LW.3/P.Sandhya revealed the features to LW.4 and 5 (LW.4/S.Manikantha and LW.5/P.Kishore) and timing of the occurrence, accordingly they were enquired and finally to LW.4 and 5 (LW.4/S.Manikantha and LW.5/P.Kishore) and timing of the occurrence, accordingly they were enquired and finally they confirmed that crime vehicle is AP 39 UG 2653 and the driver of the said vehicle is Karigi Jyothiprasad,

S/o Balakrishna as per the aadhar card driver of crime vehicle i.e., Milk van is under age, as such LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police

Station, Srikakulam prepared notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and served against the owner of the crime vehicle by name Nakkita Lakshminarayana,

S/o. Suryanarayana, 23 yrs., Yadava by caste, R/o.H. No. 3-32/A,

Singupuram village, Srikakulam Rural mandal, Owner of the crime vehicle

Milk van bearing No. AP 39 UG 2653. LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police,

Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam is also verified the CC footages nearby the scene and confirmed the crime vehicle is Milk van having blue colour and in which milk cans are in green colour and vehicle number is AP 39 UG 2653.

2(b). LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station,

Srikakulam secured the presence of Juvenile in conflict with law who is driver of crime vehicle Milk van bearing No. AP 39 UG 2653, obtained the

Aadhar proof, found his date of birth as 10-05-2007 the rider of the motor cyclist so far he completed 15 yrs, 11 months. So, LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam confirmed that milk van is a

Juvenile on 07-04-2023 i.e. date of commission of offence. LW.7/Sri

S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam approached owner of JCL and prepared notice U/Sec 160 Cr.P.C. and served against him with instructions to turn up before SHO, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam on behalf of his driver who committed an offence; on or before 10-04-2023 itself without fail with all relevant records and explanation. Accordingly, the

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//4// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM parent of JCL acknowledged. In response to my notice dated 10-04-2023;

Issued notice to the owner of the crime vehicle about JCL Karigi

Jyothiprasad, S/o Balakrishna, 15 yrs., SC (Mala) by caste, R/o. H.No. 9- 56/1, Ponnada village, Etcherla mandal gave his consent in writing by assuring that (1) he shall co-operate in the investigation officer in this case, also did not make inducement juvenile before Juvenile Justice Board as and when required under the above circumstance. On 10-04-2023, he served notices U/Sec 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused owner of crime vehicle No. AP 39

UG 2653 with instructions to turn-up before SHO, Traffic PS, Srikakulam on or before 13-04-2023, offering her explanation. Accordingly, on 10-04-2023, accused owner of the crime vehicle turned up before LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora,

S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam and gave his consent in written. Upon which LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station,

Srikakulam satisfied and freed him. During verification of vehicle records found crime vehicle having all records are in force, as such owner of the crime vehicle is liable for punishment U/s 5/180 who gave crime vehicle to minor person.

2(c). LW.6/Dr.G.Sravani, who is Casualty Medical Officer G.Sravani,

RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam issued wound certificate of LW.1/Adapaka

Srikanth and opined that injuries of LW.1/Adapaka Srikanth is in Simple in nature. On completion of investigation, LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police,

Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam prepared and filed a memo before the

Hon'ble Juvenile Justice board against Juvenile in Conflict with Law U/Sec

337 IPC, Sec 134 (a) & (b), Sec 181 MV Act against the JCL and also filed charge sheet against the accused who gave the crime vehicle for drove the vehicle on public place to minor person who is liable for punishment U/s 5/180 MV Act. After completion of the investigation, LW.7/Sri S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam filed information report against the CICL.

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//5// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM 03). The Board took cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) and Section 181 of M.V.

Act, 1988, against the CICL. On appearance of CICL before the Board, copies of documents were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of

Cr.P.C. The CICL was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the accusation under Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) and

Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988, have been read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04). To prove the guilt of the CICL, the prosecution has examined

PW’s.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P.5, were marked through them. The evidence of

LW.5/P.Kishore, was closed by this Board, in view of the memo filed by the

Station House Officer, Srikakulam Traffic Police Station.

05). After closure of the prosecution evidence, the CICL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material evidence appeared against him, for which he denied it totally and reported no Defence evidence.

05). Heard Arguments on both sides.

06). Now the point for determination is:

Whether the CICL has committed the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) and Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988 and Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the CICL, beyond all reasonable doubt?

07). Point :-

Before going deep into the case, Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134

(a) and (b) and Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988, are reiterated, for the sake of brevity.

Section 337 of I.P.C.: Causing hurt by act endangering life or

personal safety of others.— Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//6// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

Section 134 (a) and (b) of M.V. Act, 1988:

Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person. - When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall

(a)unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, [by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend to the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural formalities], unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise;(b)give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence, including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence.

Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988 : Driving vehicles in contravention

of section 3 or section 4. - Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

08). I have perused the oral and documentary evidence. In support of the contention of the prosecution, the prosecution witnesses were examined as PW’s.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P.5, were marked through them. PW.1/Adapaka

Srikanth clearly deposed in his cross examination that he cannot say the registration number which dashed against him and he admitted that he did not stated before the Police that he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. PW.2/G.Raja Rajeswari deposed in her cross examination that she do not know who caused the accident to the PW.1. PW.3/G.Sandya deposed in his evidence that on information by PW.2 that PW.1 met with accident at

Anandamayi function hall 80 feet road, he came to know one milk van dashed against PW.1 and immediately he rushed to the scene of offence.

108 Ambulance came there and they shifted PW.1, RIMS, Srikakulam and he did not found any vehicle at the scene of offence. PW.4/S.Manikanta deposed in his evidence that on phone call from PW.3 as the PW.1 met with accident and one milk van dashed against his cycle due to which he received injuries

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//7// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM and immediately he along with LW.5 rushed to the scene of offence and they verified the CC cameras fixed at Function hall and they observed one milk- van blue colour bearing No.AP 39 UG 2653 dashed against the PW.1 and he did not observed the face of driver as there is a blue in the picture. During his cross examination he deposed that he do not know who drove the Milk van.

09). PW.5/Dr.G.Sravani deposed that on 07.04.2023 the PW.1 came to the RIMS Hospital in the 108 Ambulance accompanied with the PW.3 who is aunt at 11.48 a.m., and examine the W.1 by name is Adapaka Srikanth with id marks black mole on the left fore arm and black more on the right leg and following injuries found on the body PW.1.

1.Abrasion of six 2 x 1 on left wrist.

2.Abrasion of six 1 x 1 cm on left ankle and 1 x 1 cm near left great toe finger.

3.Abrasion of six 3 x 2 cm on left knee.

4.3 abrasions of sixe 1 x 1 cm, 0.5 x 0.5 cm near right knee. Investigation done of patient.

5.X-ray pelvis with both hips AP/anteroposterior no bone injury.

6.X-ray LS spine AP/Lateral no bone injury.

7.X-ray right knee AP/Lateral no bone injury.

8.X-ray left ankle AP/lateral no bone injury. Above injuries are simple in nature as per his opinion and radiologist opinion and later he issued wound certificate of the PW.1 as simple in nature. Ex.P.2 is the wound certificate of PW.1.

10). Finally the Investigation Officer i.e., PW.6/S.S.Dora, the then S.I.

of Police, Traffic P.S., deposed before the Board and reiterating the information report contents during his chief examination. During cross examination also nothing material is elicited in favour of the prosecution case except denial of the suggestion posed by the learned counsel for CICL and the prosecution not established anything for the offence charged against him. PW.5/Doctor and PW.6/Investigation Officer though deposed their evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, which is solely non- reliable and non-dependable, in proving the case of the prosecution. The

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//8// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not reveal at anywhere, that due to negligent act of the CICL, this incident was occurred.

11). Therefore, nulling over all the facts and circumstances and as can be seen from the entire evidence and upon careful perusal and scrutiny of the evidence on the record, this Board is the considered view that the evidence placed by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of CICL and the prosecution has failed to establish mandatory requirements of the offences punishable under Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) and Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988 and the benefit of doubt can be given in favour of CICL. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of CICL, beyond all reasonable doubt. The point answered accordingly.

12). In the result, the CICL is found not guilty, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and Sections 134 (a) and

(b) and Section 181 of M.V. Act, 1988. Hence, the CICL is Found not

Guilty under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The

Parental bonds of the CICL, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of a period of SIX months, as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in open Board, on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

MEMBERS PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:-

PW-1Adapaka Srikanth Nil

PW-2G.Raja Rajeswari

PW-3 G.Sandya

PW-4 S.Manikanta

PW-5 Dr.G.Sravani

JCC-20/2023, Date:19-04-2024;//9// Prl.Magistrate/JJB/SKLM

PW-6 S.S.Dora, S.I., of Police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.2Wound certificate of PW.1.

Ex.P.3Medical intimation.

Ex.P.4 Original F.I.R.

Ex.P.5Rough sketch.

For Defence: Nil

Material objects

Nil

Sd/- Sd/- Ms.K.Rani,

MEMBERS PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

SRIKAKULAM.

Order Record 3,026 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/15/2025	KARRI SRINIVASAREDDY vs SHEK IMAM SAHEB	04 May 2026	Order	—
OS/8/2019	GOUDU GANDHARI vs GOUDU GURUVARI	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/65/2025	KONCHADA NEELAKANTESWARARAO vs NOOLU MALLIKHARJUNARAO	21 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/64/2025	Yarlanki Tavudu vs Matam Simchalam	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/20/2023	Ravada Venkata Ratnam vs Arifelli Venkata Ramana	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/31/2015	SIMHADRI VENKATA RAMANA vs Vs1.PEDDINA ESWARAMMA AND OTHER	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/403/2023	The SHO, Hiramandalam P.S vs Chandramahanti Srinivasarao	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/251/2022	The S.H.O., S.E.B., Kothuru vs Sri Vyaka Ajay	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/607/2023	SEB SUB INSPECTOR, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, KOTHURU vs BHAVIRI MALLIKHARJUNARAO	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/201/2023	The SHO, Kothuru PS vs Belamala Dharmarao	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/432/2023	The SHO, Bathili P.S vs Addasari Nageswararao	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/129/2022	SHO BATHILI PS vs GUJJA JANARDHANARAO	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/339/2024	THE SEB KOTHURU P.S vs KADRAKA RAMA RAO	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/94/2023	The SHO, SEB, Kothuru vs Baditamanu Laxmanarao	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/266/2024	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs Kumbirika Parshan	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/493/2023	The Sub Inspector, SEB, Kothuru Station vs Dhanupuram Venkayya	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/91/2018	The Station House Officer vs Kancharana Mohana rao	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/164/2024	THE S.E.B., KOTHURU P.S vs BORA SIMMANNA	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/209/2024	THE SHO, SEB KOTHURU vs POTNURU RAMESH	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/349/2024	THE SHO, HIRAMANDALAM P.S vs Desetti Anjaneyulu	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/583/2023	THE SHO, KOTTURU PS vs VOOLAKA PURUSHOTTAM	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/111/2023	THE S.E.B SUB-INSPECTOR vs Savara Ravi Kumar and other	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/126/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs KINJARAPU SIMHACHALAM	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/586/2023	THE SHO, BATTILI PS vs VALUROUTHU DHARAMARAO	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/590/2023	THE SHO, BATTILI PS vs JAMANA BASHAKAR RAO	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/7/2020	CHITTI GAJALAXMIA ND OTHER vs INTI APPALARAJU AND OTHERS	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/18/2018	1.PILLI ASIRAMMA 2. PILLI SRINU vs Vs1.CHANDRAMAHANTHI SURYANARAYANA, 2. PIRIYA RAJARAO	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/101/2023	THE SHO, SEB, KOTHURU vs Yendu Santhu	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/338/2024	THE SEB KOTHURU P.S vs VUYYAKA SANKARARAO	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/168/2020	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs KONURU CHANTI	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/327/2024	THE SHO S.E.B, KOTHURU P.S vs KALLEPALLI LAXMI	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/374/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Komanapalli Prasadarao	03 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/186/2020	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs DEVADI MALLESU	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/387/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Kalamata Venkata Ramana Murthy	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/216/2024	THE SHO, SEB, KOTTURU vs Ratnala Nirmala	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/310/2024	THE S.E.B. KOTHURU P.S vs NIMMAKA HARINATH	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/587/2023	THE SHO, BATTILI PS vs ARIKA PARAVATHI	20 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/301/2024	THE S.E.B. KOTHURU P.S vs SAVARA KANTHARAO	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/12/2025	LOTHUGEDDA SIVAKESHAVARAO vs BOMMALATA SURYARAO	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/1/2020	BARATAM NARASINGA RAO vs Vs1.AGATAMUDI BHASKAR RAO, 2. AGATHAMUDI GUNAVATHI	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/73/2023	THE SHO KOTHUR PS vs Simhadri Santha Rao	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/105/2024	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs SUNNAMSETTI BULLU	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/395/2023	The State rep. by the Sub Inspector, SEB Station, Kothuru vs Kurmana Jammayya	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
MC/6/2025	SIMHADRI VIJAYALAXMI vs SIMHADRI KRISHNA	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
CC/4/2021	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs SAVADANA HARI KRISHNA	11 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/343/2023	The Station House Officer, Bathili P.S vs Biddika Badama	11 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/212/2024	THE SHO, SEB, KOTTURU vs Himaraka Krishnarao	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/313/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs NIMMALA UGLASU	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/323/2024	THE SHO S.E.B, KOTHURU P.S vs BIDDIKA RAMESH	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/246/2021	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs BIDDIKA BHASKARARAO	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/303/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI PS vs NIMMALA ANANDU	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/345/2023	The Station House Officer, Hiramandalam P.S vs Agadala Mokhalingam	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/76/2024	THE SHO, S.E.B, KOTHURU P.S vs VOONA RAMAKRISHNA	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/171/2024	THE S.E.B., KOTHURU P.S vs BATTILI LAXMI	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/287/2022	SHO, SEB, KOTHURU vs Tangudu Ravikumar	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/130/2023	The SHO, Kothuru PS vs Savukari Govindarao	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/303/2024	THE S.E.B. KOTHURU P.S vs SAVARA SANKARA RAO	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/321/2024	THE SHO S.E.B, KOTHURU P.S vs SAVARA NAVEENA	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/491/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Chodi Rajesh	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/93/2020	THE SHO, HIRAMANDALAM PS., vs CH NAGARAJU	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/198/2021	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs PALAKONDA BABURAO	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/326/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs PATHIKA VASAMESWARARAO	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/24/2019	VYKUNTA AMARAVATHI vs BODDIPALLI SANTHARAO, BODDIPALLI VARALAXMI	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/184/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Balaga Janardhanarao	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/164/2020	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs KALINGAPATNAM VUNNATH KUMAR AND K SRINU	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/114/2025	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Nallana Harichandrarao	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/373/2022	SEB KOTTURU vs G RAMU	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/41/2025	NALLAMILLI VENKATAREDDY vs CHINCHALI RAMBABU	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/129/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs KOLLETI JAGANNADHAM	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/557/2023	THE SEB SUB INSPECTOR, KOTHURU STATION vs BAGADHI MANULA	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/22/2025	THE PROH AND EXCISE STATION, KOTHURU vs TOGARANA SIMHACHALAM	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/312/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs TOYIKA HARIBABU	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/81/2013	PEDDINA RAMASANKARA RAO vs PEDDINA UMAMAHESWARARAO	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/199/2022	The S.I. of Bathili vs Biddika Rambabu	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/376/2022	SEB KOTTURU vs THULALA BHASKARARAO	22 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/308/2024	THE S.E.B. KOTHURU P.S vs SAVARA LITTESWARARAO	21 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/116/2025	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Chodi Rajesh	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/155/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs BIDDIKA RAJESH	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
MC/1/2025	PADALA SUJATHA vs PADALA NARAYANA RAO	20 Jan 2026	Order	—
CC/44/2021	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs TANDASI SOMESWARARAO	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/288/2021	SHO vs CHINDRI MURALIKRISHNA	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/65/2021	THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER vs Bora Shiva	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/566/2023	THE SHO, BATTILI PS vs BADITHAMANU SURYANARAYANA	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/591/2023	THE SHO, BATTILI PS vs KALYANI VARALAXMI	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/28/2025	THE PROH AND EXCISE STATION, KOTHURU vs BILLINGI PRABHAVATHI	02 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/108/2024	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S vs NIMMALA ANANDU @ NIMMALA ANANDU	02 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/148/2023	THE SHO, BATHILI P.S, BHAMINI MANDAL vs Koduru Ramarao	02 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/3/2019	BHOGAPURM BHASKARARAO vs Vs1. THE SARPANCH, KARLEMMA, 2. LOTHUGEDDA TIRUPATHI RAO	30 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
MC/11/2025	KOMARA ALIAS GANGITLA MOHINI vs KOMARA MOHANDATA	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/25/2021	CHINNI ADINARAYANA vs KOTTURU PRASADARAO	23 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/253/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Trinadh Nayak	16 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/556/2023	THE SEB SUB INSPECTOR, KOTHURU STATION vs MADDI SRINIVASARAO	16 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
CC/618/2023	THE MRO HIRAMANDALAM vs KALAMATA VENKATA RAMANA AND 7 OTHERS	15 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
STC/156/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Koyilapu Laxmanarao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/159/2024	THE SHO, KOTHURU P.S vs Poddini Sridhar	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/432/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Hiramandalam P.S., vs Rajana Naveen	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/433/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Hiramandalam P.S., vs Kuppili Sivasankara rao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/434/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Hiramandalam P.S., vs Dupathi Siva	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/435/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Hiramandalam P.S., vs Namana Srinu	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
STC/436/2025	Sub Inspector of Police, Hiramandalam P.S., vs Burralla Minna Rao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 3,026 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		1
Apr 2026		3
Mar 2026		30
Feb 2026		28
Jan 2026		26
Dec 2025		317
Nov 2025		34
Oct 2025		28
Sep 2025		134
Aug 2025		23
Jul 2025		272
Jun 2025		30

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms Kandikatla Rani handled?

Ms Kandikatla Rani has handled 3056 court orders since 2020 at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru. The average disposal rate is 45 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms Kandikatla Rani hear?

Based on available records, Ms Kandikatla Rani primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru.

Where is Ms Kandikatla Rani currently posted?

Ms Kandikatla Rani is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms Kandikatla Rani available online?

Yes. 36 judgments by Ms Kandikatla Rani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms Kandikatla Rani dispose cases?

Ms Kandikatla Rani disposes approximately 45 cases per month, based on 3056 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru.

Since when is Ms Kandikatla Rani serving?

Ms Kandikatla Rani has been serving at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru since 2020. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 54%

STC 28%

OS 11%

MC 3%

JCC 3%

EP 1%

PRC 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Mar 2025 — Present

Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru · 1,010 orders
May 2024 — Jan 2025

Junior Civil Judge, Kothuru · 632 orders
Jan 2024 — Apr 2024

Judl.Magistrate of 1st class Spl.Mobile Court
Nov 2023 — Apr 2024

Addl Jr.Civil Judge · 178 orders
Sep 2022 — Jul 2023

Addl Jr.Civil Judge · 227 orders
Jul 2021 — Apr 2022

Junior Civil Judge · 223 orders
Jul 2021 — Apr 2022

Spl.Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class Proh. and Excise · 275 orders
Jul 2021 — Apr 2022

Junior Civil Judge
Jul 2021 — Apr 2022

Junior Civil Judge · 98 orders
Oct 2020 — Aug 2022

Addl Jr.Civil Judge · 413 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 9

Convicted Disposal Date: 11-12-2021 Spl 2

Compromised 1

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 11-12-2021 Spl 1

Settled Before Lok 1

Bail Granted 1

Convicted 1

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge Court,kothuru