Sri KVMS Sarma

C.C.No.913/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

HUSNABAD

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Husnabad

Thursday, the 07th day of October, 2021.

C.C.No. 913 of 2014

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mulkanoor Police Station (Cr.No.112/2014) …Complainant

And

A.1: Md.@ Shaik Usman S/o. Nabisab, Age: 70 years, R/o. Kothakonda (The case against A.1 is abated)

A.2: Md.@ Shaik Sukru Pasha S/o. Usman, Age: 42 years, R/o. Kothakonda

A.3: Md.@ Shaik Arif Pasha S/o. Sukru Pasha, Age: 19 years, R/o. Kothakonda.

…Accused No.2 & 3

This case is coming on 30-09-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned A.P.P.O Sri. P.Ravi Kiran for the prosecution and of Sri. M.Yesudas & Sri.K.Ramesh, Counsels for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mulkanoor Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.112/2014 against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 326, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as ‘IPC’).

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: - 1 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

(i)That on 23-07-2014 at 1100 hours the P.W.1 lodged a report stating that there was a transaction of sale of house between himself and A.1 and in that connection he gave Rs.60,000/- to A.1 as advance, and one week later A.1 refused to sell the house on which a panchayath was convened during which the A.1 apologized and returned the amount by adding interest which was agreed that the wall which was removed by P.W.1 is to be constructed back by the A.1 himself. On 23-07-2014 the A.1 along with A.2 & A.3 were erecting thorn fencing between the lands instead of constructing a wall on which the P.W.1 questioned their act then the A.1 to A.3 abused the P.W.1 in filthy language and hit the P.W.1 & 2 and

L.W.3/Rahimunnisa with hands and further A.2 has hit the P.W.1 with stone and caused him bleeding head injury and the incident was witnessed by P.W.4 & P.W.5.

(ii) Basing upon the report, the P.W.9 registered the case and issued FIR and took up investigation and recorded the statements of P.W.1 to 5, 7 and

L.W.3/Rahimunnisa & L.W.8/Pusaverla @ Mudrakola Prameela and secured the presence of P.W.6 and L.W.10/Uppula Kumaraswamy and conducted Crime Detail

Form Panchanama (CDF Panchanama) and collected the medical certificate of

P .W.1 from P.W.8 and the medical certificate of P.W.2 & L .W.3/Rahimunnisa from L.W.12/Dr.S.Kavitha and that the injury sustained by L .W.3/Rahimunnisa shows grievous injury. On 31-07-2014 P.W.9 arrested A.1 to A.3 and during the interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and A.1 stated that the stone used by him during the commission of offence to beat P.W.1 is thrown away and hence beyond recovery and later after completion of investigation the P.W.9 filed the charge sheet for the offence U/sec.323, 326, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

2 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

3.The case was taken on file against the accused no.1 to 3 for the offences u/secs.323, 326, 504r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution intended to rely were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’).

4.Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence U/sec.323, 326, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and the charges were read over and explained in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.9 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.7. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of L.W.3/Rahimunnisa, L.W.8/Pusaverla @ Mudrakola Prameela,

L.W.10/Uppula Kumaraswamy and L.W.12/Dr.S.Kavitha.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/Secs.504, 323, 326 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

8.Head both sides.

Answer to point basing on evidence on record:

9.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove that the accused with common intention have hit the P .W.1, 2 and L.W.3/Rahimunnisa 3 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014 with a deadly weapon and also with hands and further have intentionally insulted the P.W.1 so as to break public peace.

10.The P.W.1 in his chief examination has stated that the A.1 to A.3 came to their house and hit him and that the A.2 has hit him with a stone and A.1 has pushed his mother due to which his mother sustained fracture injury and the A.3 has hit the P.W.2.

11.In cross examination he stated that the dispute took place when the A.1 was not receiving balance sale transaction and further stated that the accused have returned the Rs.60,000/- and also Rs.27,000/- as penalty as per the resolution passed by elders, and he further admitted that he is using the land of accused illegally and further stated that A.2 has hit him with stone and he does not know who have hit the P.W.2 and L.W.3/Rahimunnisa and denied other suggestions.

12.The P.W.2 who is the father of the P.W.1 has stated that he has some land disputes between A.1 to A.3 and all the three of them have come to their house and demanded their house back and at that the P.W.2 suggested to convene a panchayat but the A.1 to A.3 have refused to do so, they hit P.W.1 and L.W.3/Rahimunnisa and pushed him aside.

13.In cross examination, P.W.2 admitted that the A.1 has given Rs.87,000/- as directed by the panchayat and stated that they have kept their part of agreement to construct the wall but the accused instead of constructing the wall as agreed have put fencing obstructing the way and admitted that he cannot state on which parts he sustained injury and denied other suggestions.

14.The P.W.3 who was working as sarpanch at the time of incident has stated that he conducted a panchayat regarding the land dispute and later came to know 4 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014 that the P.W.1 & P.W.2 and the accused fought among themselves and in cross examination he stated that he was not present when the dispute took place and he came to know about the incident from the villagers.

15.The P.W.4 & P.W.5 shown as eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and the learned APPO cross examined these two witnesses but nothing that is useful for the case of prosecution was elicited.

16.The P.W.6 who is one of the panch for CDF in his chief examination has stated that he has signed on the panchanama and in cross examination stated that he does not know any case facts and have signed on the panchanama before

Kothakonda Temple in the presence of the village Upa-Sarpanch.

17.The P.W.7 in his chief stated that the accused offered to sell the house along with open land to P.W.1 and after some time have demanded the P.W.1 that they want their house back and for that they returned the amount along with penalty and stated that he does not know what happened after words and in cross examination he told that police has examined him after few days from the incident.

18.The P.W.8 who is the doctor who issued the medical certificate for P.W.1 have stated that the injury sustained by the P.W.1 are simple in nature and the learned APPO through her have also got marked the injury certificates of P.W.2 and

L.W.3/Rahimunnisa, though the doctor who examined the P.W.2 & P.W.3 were not examined.

19.In cross examination, P.W.8 stated that she has not mentioned the age of injury and that the injury sustained by the P .W.1 can be contracted by having a free fall and further stated that the details about prior treatment taken by P.W.2 and

L.W.3/Rahimunnisa is not known to her.

5 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

20.The P.W.9 who is investigating officer in his chief narrated the contents of the charge sheet and in cross examination stated that it has not come to his notice in the investigation about any civil dispute between the accused and the P.W.1 and denied suggestion posed by the counsel.

21.From the entire evidence that is brought on record, the evidence of P.W.3 & 7 have stated that they have conducted panchayath regarding the house and they came to know that some dispute took place between them and their evidence is useful only to ascertain that the accused have returned the advance amount with interest, which fact the P.W.1 & 2 have also admitted.

22.The evidence of P.W.4 & 5 is not at all useful to the case of prosecution as they have not supported the case of prosecution and the P.W.6 who is the panch for

CDF Panchnama has stated that he has signed on the panchnama at Kothakonda temple which shows that the panchnama was also not conducted in proper manner.

23.Now, it is clear from the evidence that there are civil disputes between the accused and the P.W.1 & 2, wherein the A.1 has offered to sell the house and have taken the advance and later before the panchayath has returned the advance amount with penalty, this fact was admitted by P.W.1 & 2. Further even after receiving the advance with penalty, the P.W.1 has not delivered back the land is also clear from the admission of the P.W.1 himself, wherein he admitted that he is using the land illegally.

24.The evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that the incident took place and that he sustained injuries and the counsel for the accused have no where denied that the incident did not took place or that the accused has not beaten the P.W.2 and this amounts to admission which can be safely relied on.

6 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

25.Both P.W.1 & 2 have in their chief have not stated the reason for the dispute, but only in the cross-examination they have admitted about the land issue and in their chief have tried to project that the accused without any right or provocation have come to their house and have hit them, and only in cross examination when it was asked about the return of amount, then they stated about the half constructed wall and the illegal enjoyment of land in their possession and further P.W.2 stated that the fencing was obstructing his way. The P.W.1 has failed to produce any document that as per the agreement only a brick wall has to be erected and not fencing and neither panchayath elders examined have told anything about the same.

26.On combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1 & 2, it is clear that there is an interference by the P.W.1 family with the construction of fencing wall being erected by the accused and provoked the accused. The P.W.1 & 2 have any issue they should have convened a panchayath, as they did for recovering penalty and advance amount given for the house, for removal of fencing or should have approached a civil court for appropriate remedy rather than having a dispute there, and from the cross examination it is clear that, the provocation was caused from the P.W.1 &family members themselves.

27.The P.W.1 stated that he sustained injury with stone and there is no mention of any weapon used by the accused other than the stone and the P.W.1 has not sustained grievous injury as his injury certificate reveals that he sustained simple injuries, further the injury certificates of P.W.2 & L.W.3/Rahimunnisa were marked not throug the doctor who issued the certificates and the Lrd APPO has given up the evidence of that doctor and no where it is brought on record that the accused have used any weapon to inflict injuries on P.W.2 & L.W.3/Rahimunnisa.

7 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

28.Further the non examination of the concerned doctor to prove that the injury sustained by the L.W.3/Rahimunnisa is grievous in nature has to be read against the prosecution and this court holds that firstly there is no weapon used by the accused to injure L.W.3/Rahimunnisa and further there is no x-ray or any radiology report to show that she sustained fracture injury and in these circumstances the offence U/Sec.326 IPC is not at all proved by the prosecution

29.There is nothing on record to show from the evidence of P.W.1 & 2 that there is an intentional insult on the part of the accused to disturb peace and in the absence of the required ingredients the offence U/Sec.504 IPC is not attracted and the prosecution has failed to prove this offence as charged

30.From the foregoing discussion it is clear that the incident took place on the sudden provocation given by the P.W.1 & his family and in circumstances this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.2 & 3 for the offences U/Sec.323 IPC and was able to prove the offence U/Sec.334 IPC against the A.2 & A.3 and the point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, the A.2 & A.3 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences

U/secs.323, 326, 504 r/w 34 IPC and are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. and the

A.2 & A.3 are convicted for the offence U/Sec.334 IPC and are convicted

U/Sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. and the conviction U/s.334 IPC is tenable as per Sec.222(2)

Cr.P.C, though not charged with it. The bail bonds of A.2 & A.3 shall stand forfeited forthwith. No Order as to property as nothing is deposited before this court.

Dictated to my personal assistant, taken down and transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 07th day of October, 2021.

I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C:

HUSNABAD

8 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

Hearing on Sentence:

1.Plea of the Accused No.2/Md. @ Shaik Sukru Pasha:

On questioning the quantum of sentence accused no.2 has pleaded that due to the pressure of this case the A1 died and that his mother is attacked with paralysis and stated that he is the sole bread winner of the family and that due to covid the income of the family has also become meagre and if he is sent to jail his family would suffer huge loss and prayed to take lenient view.

2.Plea of the Accused No.3/Md. @ Shaik Arif Pasha:

On questioning the quantum of sentence accused no.3 has pleaded that he lost his job during covid and just now he has started to go to another job and that his family is in debts and that he and his father has to work to meet the ends and if they sent to jail his family would suffer badly and prayed to take lenient view.

3.Submissions of Lrd APPO & Lrd Counsel for A.2 & A.3:Lrd APPO has contended that, as the offence is proved beyond doubt prayed to impose maximum sentence. The Lrd Counsel for A.2 & A.3 has contended that the A1 died during the pendency of the case unable to bear the pressure and since the Hon’ble court has come to conclusion that it was on provocation and not a deliberate act and prayed to impose fine only.

4.Order on Sentence: Heard. This court, after considering the plea of the counsels and also the plea of the Accused No.2 & 3, is not inclined to invoke the benevolent provisions of section 3 & 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (P.O.Act) and taking stock of all the aggravating and mitigating factors and considering the prevailing COVID-19 situation, this court sentences the accused as follows:

(i)Sentence of Accused No.2/Md. @ Shaik Sukru Pasha (convicted for the offence 334 IPC):

Accused No.2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) and in default of payment of fine is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen (15) days;

(ii) Sentence of Accused No.3/Md. @ Shaik Arif Pasha (convicted for the offence 334 IPC):

Accused No.3 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) and in default of payment of fine is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen (15) days;

I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C:

HUSNABAD

9 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1: Shaik Rafiq Nil

P.W.2: Shaik Eqbal

P.W.3: Siddamalla Ramesh

P.W.4: Podaparthi Ramesh

P.W.5: Janagam Kanukamma

P.W.6: MD.Yousuf

P.W.7: Kankala Sammaiah

P.W.8: Dr.S.Annapurna

P.W.9: S.Sathish Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Report lodged with police by P.W.1

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement by P.W.4

Ex.P.3: Crime Detail Form Panchanama by P.W.6

Ex.P.4: Medical certificate by P.W.8

Ex.P.5: Medical certificate by P.W.8

Ex.P.6: Medical certificate by P.W.8

Ex.P.7: First Information Report by P.W.9

FOR ACCUSED: -

Nil

No. of Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C:

HUSNABAD.

10 of 11

C.C.No.913/2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C at Husnabad, Karimnagar District.

Date of Offence:

Date of report or complaint:

Date of apprehension of accused:

Date release on bail, if any:

Date of commencement of trial:

Close of trial:

Date of sentence or other order:

Explanation of delay and remarks:- _____________________________________________________________

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1059/2014 on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad.

Complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police,

Mulkanoor Police Station, Husnabad

Sl.No.Name of AccusedAgeFather/Husband NameResident of

Accused No. 1Edulapuram Ravi52 yearsNarsaiahDharmaram village of Bheemadevarapally mandal.

Accused No.2Edulapuram Laxmi46 yearsRaviDharmaram village of Bheemadevarapally mandal.

Offence: 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC

Finding:NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec.324, 504 r/w 34 IPC

I-Addl.J.M.F.C Husnabad.

11 of 11

D.V.C.06/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

HUSNABAD

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Husnabad.

Thursday, the 07th day of September, 2021.

D.V.C .No.6/2018

Between:

Poosala Deepika @ Vedire Madhu Priya W/o Srikanth, Age: 22 Years, Occ: House Wife, R/o H.No.6-95, Thangallapally village of Koheda mandal of Karimnagar District, Now Siddipet District.

…Petitioner

And

1. Vedire Srikanth S/o Narsaiah, Age: 26 Years, Occ: Agriculture cum Pvt employee,

2. Vedire Mallavva W/o Narsaiah, Age: 46 Years, Occ: House wife

Both are R/o H.No.1-21/B, Ganneruvaram village & Mandal of Karimnagar district.

... Respondents no.1 & 2

SUB: PETITION U/SEC.12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

This Case is coming on 30-09-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

S.Ashok Kumar counsel for petitioner and of Sri.B.Sampath Kumar counsel for the respondents and having perused material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This Domestic Violence Case (DVC) is filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents no. 1 & 2 for grant of (i) protection orders against the respondents

U/s 18 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Herein after DV Act) (ii) To award monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner

U/s 20 of DV Act (iii) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent no.1 towards mental agony U/s 22 of DV Act, (iv) To Direct the respondents to hand 1 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 over the house hold articles and Dowry amount of Rs.60,000/- presented at the time of marriage, (v) Anyother orders this court may deem fit.

2.Case of the petitioner:- (i) The respondent no.1 (Herein after R.1) is the husband and respondent no.2 (Herein after R.2) is mother-in-law of the petitioner.

That the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 was performed on 12- 03-2018 at the house of the parents of petitioner at Thangalapally and at the time of marriage the parents of the petitioner has given Rs.60,000 (Sixty thousand Rupees) as dowry on demand made by R.1 & R.2 and other household articles and they led happy marital life for two months and thereafter the R.1 started ill-treating the petitioner for additional dowry of Rs.30,000/- and when the petitioner informed the same to her mother, then they convened a panchayath at Gannaruvaram village and the R.1 agreed to look after the petitioner well and on 18-6-8018 both the respondents have started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally to bring

additional dowry and on the same day the petitioner unable to bear the anguish has

lodged a report with Ganneruvaram police.

(ii)That the police have referred them for counselling at DLSA, Karimnagar and on 11-07-2018 the petitioner went there, but the respondents have not appeared

before the committee and a crime is registered against the respondents for the

offence U/Sec.498A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

(iii)That after the panchayath the petitioner has joined the conjugal society of

R.1 and the R.1 has again started harassing the petitioner stating that she got such a meagre dowry and had R.1 married another woman he would have got more dowry and the R.2 supported the version of R.1. It is the further contention of petitioner that she was subjected to mental agony since date of marriage and the conduct of the respondents constitute domestic violence and such violence caused severe 2 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 distress to the petitioner and hence they are liable to be penalized and prayed to allow the reliefs as prayed for.

3.Case of the Respondents:-The respondents filed counter admitting the relationship of petitioner with respondents and the factum of marriage and denied all other contents and have only setup the plea that the respondents have never caused any mental agony to the petitioner and have not committed any domestic harassment and that the petitioner has voluntarily deserted the conjugal society of the respondent.

4. The petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and have examined one independnt witness as P.W.2 and no one was examined on behalf of the respondents.

Arguments

5.Heard both sides.

6.To decide whether the petitioners are entitled or not for the reliefs prayed for the below points need to be answered:

(i) Whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no.1?

(ii) Whether there is an any domestic relationship between Respondents No.1 & 2 with the petitioner and whether any domestic violence took place during the time when the petitioner and Respondents were in a shared household and whether the petitioner is right in seeking the relief of protection orders from the respondents?

(iii) Whether the petitioner was able to prove any mental agony that she underwent and is entitled to the compensation as sought for?

3 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018

(iv) Whether the petitioner has proved the right to claim the maintenance from respondent no.1?

(v) Whether any dowry and other house hold articles were given to the Respondent no.1 and whether the petitioner is entitled for the return of the same?

Answer to the points basing on evidence on record:

Answer to Point No (i):-

7.It is admitted by the respondent no.1 that the petitioner is his legally wedded wife, and the point no.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner

Answer to Point No (ii) to (iv):

8.In order to hold as to whether there has been any act, omission, or commission or conduct which constitute domestic violence, it is necessary to show that the petitioner is in domestic relationship in a shared household with the respondents, against whom the acts of domestic violence was alleged.

9.The petition and the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner does not in asmany words disclose that the petitioner has led her conjugal life with the R.1 in a shared household and that there formed a domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, but have stated that she joined the conjugal society of R.1, which the R.1 in his counter denied.

10.On perusal of the cross examination of the petitioner, the Lrd Counsel for the respondents have elicited from the petitioner that, the petitioner was looked after well for only two months and that the respondents have asked the petitioner to call her mother to bring Rs.30,000/- to which the petitioner stated that she would call but will not ask amount and that she would rather die and at that the respondents have taken in writing that if the petitionre commits suicide, then the respondents 4 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 were not responsible, which shows that the respondents and petitioner were living together in a shared household and further there is domestic relationship amongst them.

11.Further it was suggested to the petitioner that on the day when she tried to commit suicide, the R.1 has saved her, to which the petitioner admitted and stated that the R.1 was forced to save her as there were four other people, another suggestion was put to petitioner that after the incident the R.1 has dropped the petitioner at her mothers place, which the petitioner denied, but from this suggestion of the counsel for the respondents, it is further clear that the incident took place in a shared household and the domestic relationship was also proved from this.

12.Now that the domestic relationship is clearly brought on record, now let us see whether the petitioner is put to mental agony by the acts of the respondents and whether such acts constitute domestic violence.

13.Again on perusal of the cross examination of the petitioner and as reproduced above, the petitioner has categorically stated the reason that she attempted to commit suicide and have also stated that even after the incident the

Respondent has hit the petitioner and unable to bear the harassment has filed the case with police and this evidence is not denied by the counsel for the respondents and have not even offered any explanation for these suggestions.

14.It was further stated in the cross examination of petitioner, that everytime the respondents meet the petitioner, she was scolded and was hit by the respondents and this happened before a sarpanch and also at thangalapally when the respondents went there asking to withdraw the case and even this was not denied by the counsel for the respondents.

5 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018

15.Explanation II to Section 3 of D.V.Act reads as: “For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.”

16.From the plain reading it is clear that to come to a conclusion whether any domestic violence actually took place, the overall facts and circumstances has to be considered and from the entire foregoing discussion made by considering the whole circumstances, this court is of the firm opinion that the Petitioner has clearly established that the respondents have committed domestic violence and have also caused inconvenience even after she left the matrimonial society and living at thangalapally and that the petitioner has suffered mental agony from the acts of the respondents is clear and that there is threat for her peaceful existence from the respondents is established and since the marital status is not disputed by the respondents and the fact that they are now living separately makes her entitled for mainenance from R.1, and the petitioner has clearly established that she is entitled for the protection orders, compensation for mental agony suffered and for maintenance and the point no.2 to 4 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

Answer to Point No (v):

17.On the point of giving dowry and household articles, the respondents have denied the fact in their counter but in the cross examination it is not put to the

P.W.1 that the same is false and the petitioner to prove the factum of giving the amount of Rs.60,000/- to the respondents have got examined her brother as P.W.2 and in chief examination he mentioned about the giving of dowry of Rs.60,000/- on the demand of respondents and the P.W.2 was cross examined by the counsel for the respondents and there is not even a single suggestion denying the chief 6 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 affidavit in the said cross examination and the cross examination has hovered around that the R.1 is not a government job holder and does not have any lands or house in his name and tha the R.2 is suffering from old age ailments, but no suggestion that the giving of dowry amount is false, in circumstance it can be safely assumed that the respondents have received Rs.60,000/- cash as dowry.

18.The petitioner and the P.W.2 though have claimed to have given house hold articles, but have not mentioned what articles are given and what is its worth and since the same is not conclusively proved by the petitioner, this court holds that the relief of return of house hold articles is not proved and the issue no.5 is partly proved by the petitioner entitling her for the return of dowry amount of

Rs.60,000/-.

19.In view of the foregoing discussionthis court holds that the petitioner has proved her case that domestic violence occurred as mentioned in Sec.3 of D.V.Act; and that dowry amount of Rs.60,000/- was given to the respondents at the time of marriage and the same has to be returned by the respondents; and have also proved her case to seek compensation for the mental agony she suffered & maintenance to maintain herself with dignity and hence the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Order on Reliefs Sought:

20.On relief of passing protection orders: The respondents are restrained from interfering into the affairs of the petitioner or from causing any type of domestic violence at any place against the petitioners including and not limited to verbal abuse, physical abuse, assault and any kind of violence which will undermine or deter the dignity of petitioner to lead a peaceful life.

7 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018

21.Order on Monthly maintenance : (i) The petitioner has sought a monthly maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and both parties have filed the affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner she mentioned that she is presently residing at her parental home since 2018 and that there are no other dependants on her and stated that there is no independent source of income for her and there are no assets and liabilites on her name and stated that the R.1 is employed and also does agriculture and decoration works and that he has two houses and agricultural lands but have not filed any document to prove the same.

(ii)The R.1 on the other hand in his affidavit has admitted that the petitioner is living separately after three months of marriage, and stated that he does not have any source of income and does not have any properties in his name, and mentioned that he has taken hand loans from various persons and is paying Half yearly installments and that his parents are dependant on him, but have not filed proof of any document to show that he is paying any EMI and have ot entered the witness box to sustantiate his averments.

(iii)There is no estimation of any sort or the expenses statement showing that the petitioner is incurring a particular amount of expenses every month. Petitioner neither have shown that during the time the petitioner lived with respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 used to incur a particular amount on the petitioner and in the absence of any valid estimation and proof except for a recital in the affidavit that she is incurring Rs.10,000/- as expenses per month, this court feels that the amount of maintenance sought, by petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) is excessive and this court feels that an amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance is just and the R.1 though pleaded that he does not have any means, but the plea is not 8 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 tenable and it is his bounden duty to maintain his legally wedded wife. The R.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month, starting from the date of this judgment, and the amount has to be paid on or before the 7th of every subsequent month to the petitioner.

22.Order on Compensation for mental agony suffered: The petitioner sought

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs), but in the considered opinion of this court this amount is arbitrarily mentioned and from the pleadings and considering the fact that the petitioner no.1 was also driven to commit suicide, this court feels that an amount of Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation would meet the ends of justice and accordingly this court orders Rs.50,000/- to be paid as compensation by the respondents No.1 & 2 together for the mental agony underwent by the Petitioner and the same has to be paid within 60 days from the date of pronouncing of this judgment.

23.Order on relief of Return of dowry amount & House hold articles: As discussed above the relief of return of house hold articles is refused by this court and the Respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to return the dowry amount of

Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of pronouncing this judgment.

24.Order on other reliefs: On perusal the interim maintenance was awarded at

Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner vide order dated: 07-06-2019, in Crl.M.P

No.769/2018 and since then three petitions viz. Crl.M.P.No.842/2019 for amount of Rs.6,000/- and Crl.M.P.No.149/2021 for amount of Rs.36,000/- and

Crl.M.P.No.150 of 2021 for amount of Rs.21,000/- are filed and the total

outstanding amount is Rs.63,000/-, and the respondent no.1 has not paid any amount from all these petitions, hence this court directs the respondent no.1 to pay 9 of 10

D.V.C.06/2018 the arrears due under these three petitions i,e Rs.63,000/- to the petitioner within 60 days from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 07th day of October, 2021.

Sd/-

I- ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C:

HUSNABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER(S): FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

P.W.1: Poosala Deepika @ Vedhire -NIL- Madhupriya

P.W.2: Poosala Rajashekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER(S):

- Nil -

FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):

Nil

Sd/-

I-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Husnabad.

10 of 10

CC No.899/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

HUSNABAD

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Husnabad

Friday, the 08th day of October, 2021.

C.C.No. 899 of 2014

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Mulkanoor Police Station (Cr.No.86/2014) …Complainant

And

Shaik Lal S/o. Shaik Bada Hussain, Age: 29 years, R/o. Turkashapalli H/o Rangaiahpally Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Driver of AUTO Bearing No. AP-15-TA-4380.

…Accused

This case is coming on 05-10-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ravi Kiran Learned A.P.P.O for the prosecution and of Sri.D.Nagaraju, Counsel for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mulkanoor Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.86/2014 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A & 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “IPC”).

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: -

(i)That on 27-05-2014 the P.W.1 lodged a report stating that on the same day around 1300 hours while his mother along with her colleague i.e P.W.5 and their villagers i.e P.W.3 & P.W.6 were all going to Mulkanoor in auto bearing no.AP-15- 1

CC No.899/2014

TA-4380 and when the auto passed Mulkanoor bridge, suddently one dog came in front of the auto and at that time the accused was driving the auto i.e crime vehicle at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied breaks due to which the auto turned turtle and passangers sustained injury and immediately they were shifted to Sudhakar hospital, Mulkanoor for treatment and while undegoing treatment the mother of P.W.1 Kalva Laxmi (deceased) succumbed to the injury at 1330 hours.

(ii)Based on the report, P.W.10 registered a crime for the offene U/sec.304-A, 337 IPC, took up investigation and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at the police station and proceeded to Sudhakar hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.4 & L.W.8/Ragunayakula Ramchandra Reddy and photographed the dead body with the help of P.W.7 and recorded the statements of P.W.2, 3, 5 & 6 and referred the dead body for autopsy and the crime vehicle for the inspection by motor vehicle inspector and later obtained the post mortem report from P.W.9 and the report of the crime vehicle from P.W.8 and injury certificates were collected from L.W.11/Dr.S.Kavitha. That on 30-05-2014 the accused surrendered before P.W.10 and he verified the lisence and other documents of the crime vehicle and found the same to be in order and during interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and he was remanded and later after completion of the investigation the P.W.10 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences alleged.

3.The case was taken on file against accused for the offence u/secs.304-A and 337 of IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as “Cr.P.C”).

2

CC No.899/2014

4.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/secs.

304-A and 337 of IPC and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.10 marked as indicated in appendix of evidence and the learned APPO has given up the evidence of L.W.8/Ragunayakula

Ramchandra Reddy, L.W.9/Ambala Laxmi @ Lachavva and L.W.11/Dr.S.Kavitha.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against him and reported no defence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

(i)“Whether the prosecution established that the accident took place at the alleged scene of offence and that the accident involved the crime vehicle and the vehicle driven by the deceased?”

(ii) “Whether the prosecution established identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle?”

(iii) “Whether the prosecution established that the death of deceased (Kalva

Laxmi) and the injuries caused to P.W.3 are caused due to rash or negligent act of accused?”

(iv) “Whether prosecution established guilt of the accused for offence u/sec 304-

A, and 337 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

Head both sides.

Answer to Point No.1 to 3 :

3

CC No.899/2014

8.On perusal of the evidence on record, the P.W.1 & P.W.2 are circumstantial witnesses to the accident and the P.W.1 in his cross examination initially stated that he reached the scene of offence within 30 minutes and again in the same breach have stated that he directly went to the hospital from the village and have not visited the scene of offence and admitted that there is one pot hole at the scene of offence and has not identified the driver of the crime vehicle.

9.The P.W.2 in his cross examination has also stated that he directly went to the hospital after knowing the incident and though he stated that the accused is the one who was driving the auto at the time of incident but he has not stated how he was show of the fact when he was not present at the scene of offence at the time of accident is not explained by the prosecution on the evidence of this witness regarding the rash and negligent act and also on the identification of the accused cannot be relied upon.

10.The P.W.3 in her chief examination has stated that while they were travelling in the auto suddenly a dog came across and in a bid to stear clear from the dog the driver have tried to move away from the dog and the accident took place and stated that she does not remember driver of the auto but only remember that a dog came across in front of the auto.

11.This P.W.3 in her cross examination has clearly stated that there are pot holes at the scene of offence and further that the auto was going at the normal speed.

12.The evidence of P.W.3 shows that no doubt the accident occurred and also there is a death due to the accident though she cannot state whether the death was immediate or after words but the point here is this injury victim being a passanger 4

CC No.899/2014

of the auto at the time of incident has categorically stated that the auto was going at normal speed and further she also has not identified the accused.

13.The P.W.4 in his chief examination has stated that he acted as panch witness for CDF and also acted as panch for inquest and both the CDF and inquest report were got marked through him and in cross examination has stood his ground that he only signed one signature at the scene of offene and one at the hospital. Be that so, but the evidence of this witness proves that an accident occurred at the place at the scene of offence and further there is an inquest conducted by the police and the

CDF and the inquest panchanama were proved but this alone does not make the case of the prosecution strong in identification of the accused or bringing on record the rash or negligent act on part of the accused.

14.The P.W.5 who is another injury wintess and was travelling in the auto at the time of incident, in her chief stated that while they were travelling in the auto a stray dogs suddently came across the vehicle and the auto turned turtle and she sustained injury on her head and has categorically stated that the accident took place as the dogs suddenly came on the road and admitted that she has not noticed the driver and she cannot recognize him and can neither state the registration number of the auto. This wintess was declared hostile and was cross examined by the learned APPO but nothing that is useful for the case of the prosecution was elicited.

15.This P.W.5 was also cross examined by the counsel for the accused and in that she denied the suggestion that she has not stated to the police that she sustained injury on her head.

5

CC No.899/2014

16.From the evidence of P.W.5 has also it is very categorical that the accident took place as some stray dogs suddently came on to the road and another fault of the accused or any rash or negligent act of the accused was stated and also there is no identification of the accused by this witeness also.

17.P.W.6 who is another co passanger in the auto has also stated that suddently some stray dogs came across the auto and the auto turned turtle and he has not received any injury and has categorically stated that the accident took place as the dog suddenly came on to the road and he has not notice the driver and cannot say the registration number. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross examined by the learned APPO is only to get his 161 Cr.P.C statement marked and further this witness was also cross examined by the counsel for the accused and he denied suggestion that the police have not examined him.

18.From the evidence of this wintess also there is no rash or negligent act atributed to the accused or to the driver of the auto and in the first place there is no identification by this wintess also.

19.P.W.7 who is the photographer have stated on the request of the Mulkanoor police he went to the scene of offene and have taken photographs and have submitted the same along with CD to the police and the same were marked but this wintess has not stated anything about taking photographs of the dead body. In cross examination he denied suggestions posed and stated that he has not filed his lisence of photography before this court.

20.From the evidence of this witness the fact of taking photographs is proved but since the CD filed is not led under secondary evidence this court discards this exhibits and even other wise the photographs of the crime vehicle and the 6

CC No.899/2014

photographs of the dead body does not come to the aid of the prosecution for the identification of the accused.

21P.W.8 who is the motor vehicle inspector has stated that on receiving the requisition he inspected the crime vehicle and found that the front wind screen glass damaged and right side part of the auto was damaged and he has not found any break failures and accordingly given his report and in cross examination he stated that the damages are caused any accident but he cannot say in which accident.

22.The P.W.9 who conduct post mortem has opend that the cause of death is due to loss of blood due to multiple injuries and in cross examination she admitted that she has not stated in the report that the death was due to bleeding from multiple injuries and denied other suggestions.

23.The evidence of P.W.8 & 9 though show that there is a vehicle involved in the accident and there is a death that occurred due to multiple injuries and this fact has not denied but as observed earlier as observed above the identification of the accused was not made and further none of the injury witnesses have spoken about the rash or negligent act or about any excessive speed at which the crime vehicle was driven at the time of accident hence the evidence of P.W.8 & 9 though are relevant but are not conclusive to bring home the guilt of the accused.

24.The investigating officer in his chief examination has narrated the contents of the charge sheet and in cross examination has stated that the accident occurred at 1300 hours and in his investigation it was revealed that there are three passangers including the deceased wintess and again corrected himself and stated that there are four passangers and the driver and further stated that the deceased shifted to 7

CC No.899/2014

hospital but he does not know who shifted the deceased to hospital and have further admitted that he has not taken any permission from the doctor to donduct inquest and denied other suggestions.

25.From the evidence of this witness nothing that is brought on record about the occurrence of incident and neither was but categorical stated or denied about how the accident took place but however as the admissions made in front of the police or not to be considered as evidence and there is no other evidence relating the crime to the accused or to any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused.

26.This court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the point no.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

27.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence u/sec. 304-

A, 337 IPC and is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A

Cr.P.C. No order as to property as nothing is deposited before this court.

Dictated to my personal assistant, taken down and transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 08th day of October, 2021.

I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C:

HUSNABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1: Kalva Sadanandam -None-

P.W.2: Kalva Thirupathi

P.W.3:

P.W.4:

8

CC No.899/2014

P.W.5:

P.W.6:

P.W.7:

P.W.8:

P.W.9:

P.W.10:

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P.2: Positive Photographs (5) in number with CD by P.W.5

Ex.P.3: Inquest panchanama by P.W.8

Ex.P.4: Signature on Crime Detail Form by P.W.9

Ex.P.5: Crime Detail Form Panchanama by P.W.10

Ex.P.6: First Information Report by P.W.12

Ex.P.7: Post Mortem Report by P.W.12

Ex.P.8: Injury Certificate by P.W.12

Ex.P.9: Motor Vehicle Inspector report by P.W.12

Ex.P.10: Medical Certificate of P.W.1 by P.W.14

Ex.P.11: Medical Certificate of P.W.2 by P.W.14

FOR ACCUSED: - NIL.

No. of Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

I-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF .F.C.

HUSNABAD

9

CC No.899/2014

::CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT::

Calendar cases tried by I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C at Husnabad, Karimnagar District.

Date of Offence:15-06-2011

Date of report or complaint:16-06-2011

Date of apprehension of accused:21-06-2011

Date release on bail, if any:21-06-2011

Date of commencement of trial:16-02-2018

Close of trial:26-09-2019

Date of sentence or other order:17-01-2020

Explanation of delay and remarks: - _____________________________________________________________

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.504/2014 on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Husnabad.

Complainant : State represented by the S.I of Police,

Mulkanoor Police Station, Husnabad

Sl.No.Name of AccusedAgeFather/Husband NameResident of

Sole AccusedChittampalli Suresh40 yearsSathyanarayanaSundaragiri, Chigurumamidi mandal.

Offence: 304-A & 337 of IPC

Finding:NOT GUILTY for the offence U/sec.304-A and 337 of IPC.

I-Addl.J.M.F.C, Husnabad 10

CC No. 98/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: HUSNABAD

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Husnabad, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Husnabad

Tuesday, the 25th day of February, 2020.

C.C.No. 98 of 2015

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station (Cr. No.31/2011) …Complainant A N D

A1. Aleti Malla Reddy s/o. Kista Reddy, 52 years, Reddy, r/o. Potharam (S) (Compromised in Lok Adalat) A2. Aleti Malla Reddy s/o. Thirupathi Reddy, 45 years, Reddy, r/o. Potharam (S) A3. Aleti Agam Reddy s/o. Raghava Reddy, 36 years, Reddy, r/o. Potharam (S) (Compromised in Lok Adalat) …Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming on 14-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Ravi Kiran Learned A.P.P.O for the prosecution and of Sri. V.Murali Mohan, Counsel for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.31 of 2011 against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: -

(i)The PW1 herein has filed a private complaint before this court and this court has referred the same for investigation and report basing on which the FIR No.31 1

CC No. 98/2015

of 2011 was registered by PW7. The contents of private complaint would reveal that complainant and the accused are residents of same village and that the complainants are the owners and possessors of land to an extent of Ac.0-39 1/2 guntas in Sy. No.13/A situated in Potharam village of Husnabad mandal of

Karimnagar District and the accused No.1 to 3 are the agnets of complainant and bore grudge as the complainants are earning more and that the land mentioned above is on the road side and has become very valuable than the land of accused

No.1 to 3 and hence were making active preparation to illegally remove the boundary stones on 4.12.2010 which act the complainant tried to prevent and questioned them at that all the accused caught hold of the color of the complainant and have hit him with hands and abused the PW1 in filthy language.

(ii)PW7 took up investigation based on the referred complaint and visited the scene of offence conducted scene of offence in the presence of PW5 and

LW7/Bommagani Kankaiah and collected pahani from LW6/Malla Reddy and recorded the satements of Pws.1 to 4 and on 8.3.2011 LW10/V.Anil Kumar has arrested the accused No.1 to 3 and during interrogation voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence then the accused were given notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

and later after the completion of investigation LW10 filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against accused for the offence U/Secs.323, 447, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered as CC No.84 of 2011. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C).

4.Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence

U/Secs.323, 447 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and the substance of accusation is read 2

CC No. 98/2015

over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In the meanwhile, the case against the accused No.1 and 3 is compromised and settled before Lok Adalat as such, the case against the accused No.2 is separated and numbered as split up CC No.98 of 2015.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused No.2, the prosecution examined witnesses

P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.4 marked as indicated in

Appendix of evidence.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.2 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against him and reported no defence.

8.Now the point for determination is: whether the prosecution established

the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence U/Sec.323, 447 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Heard both sides.

10.Answer to the point basing on evidence on record:

(i)In order to prove the offence U/Sec.323, 447 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC the prosecution has to prove that the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention have trespassed into the land of PW1 and have caused simple hurt to him and further have threatened PW1 by using words which would create reasonable apprehension that the life of PW1 is in danger.

(ii)The PW1 in his chief has stated that on 4.12.2010 at around 4.00 pm the accused came to his land with blade tractor and damaged his boundary fencing stones and he came to know about the incident from Pws.3 and 4 who called him 3

CC No. 98/2015

and informed the same at that the PW1 went there and asked the accused why they are damaging his property, upon which the accused have hit the PW1. From the chief evidence of this witness the contradictions from his complaint is very clear wherein in the Ex.P1 he has not stated anything about any blade tractor used as a weapon to commission of offence and further in Ex.P1 he has not stated anything about how he came to know about the act of the accsed and now in the chief examination has stated that he came to kow about the incident from Pws.3 and 4 which is clear improvisation from Ex.P1 and further the Ex.P1 show that no offence showing that this witness sustained any loss was stated in Ex.P1 but now

before this court has stated that the boudnary stones were removed which shows

that this witness is not at all speaking the truth before the court or have omitted to mention the same in Ex.P1 but whatever may be the reason the complete facts were not brought before the court at the time when the complaint was lodged before the court for returning the same for investigation.

(iii)Futther the cross examination this witness would show that he admitted that he cannot say the tractor number or the name of the driver with which the accused damaged boundaries and further stated that by the time he reached the scene of offence only accused No.2 was present at that place. Which shows that the contents in Ex.P1 are entirely false and further no reason why the names of accused No.1 and 3 were included when only accused No.2 was present and have hit him and threatened him is not explained.

(iv)PW2 who is the brother of PW1 has stated that the Pws.3 and 4 have called both PW1 and himself upon which they went to the scene of offence and called the accused and his brothers on that all the accused have threatened PW1 and himself and have also pushed them to the ground and this witness in his cross examination 4

CC No. 98/2015

has stated that accused No.1 to 3 have hit PW1 which statement is in direct contradiction with the evidence of PW1 and further he also admitted that the lands of PW1 and Accused No.2 are adjacent to each other facing road and even this witness was unableto state the name of the driver of the tractor or the registration number which shows that this witness is also deposing false.

(v)Pws.3 and 4 who were shown as eye witnesses have in their cross examination stated that the police have never examined them and have admitted that the land of accused No.2 which is in the name of accused No.2’s wife was also present adjacent to the land of PW1 and that the PW3 has called PW1 at the instance of accused No.1 to 3 and when he called PW1 was at Kottakonda and he does not know when PW1 visited the scene of offence and when the complaint was lodged and the PW4 have also deposed in the cross examination on the same lines and have admitted that accused No.2 also has lands abutting to the road by the side of the land of PW1 and from the evidence of these witnesses it is clear that the lands of PW1 and accused No.2 are adjacent to each otber but the most important contradiction between the evidence of Pws.3 and 4 is that the PW4 in his cross examination has stated that all the accused have come to the land but have not done anything whereas the PW3 has stated that he saw the accused damaging two or three boudary stones which shows that these witnesses are not deposing the truth on the fact of damaging the boundary stones or about the trespass and since it is the contention of the Pws.3 and 4 that they were not present when PW1 came to the scene of offence then they cannot be said to have witnessed what happened when the PW1 came there and in such circumstances it is very clear that the offence

U/Sec.447, 323 and 506 of IPC were not proved against the accused.

5

CC No. 98/2015

(vi)Another interersting point is that one K.Shankar Rao was examined as PW6 claimed to have issued the pahani but whereas in the charge sheet filed one Malla

Reddy was shown as VRO who issued the pahani which shows how the investigation in this matter was conducted by the police and further the pahani marked as Ex.P3 also show the name of wife of accused No.2 as pattadar and possessor for Ac.0-22 1/2 guntas.

(vii)PW7 who is the invstigating officer in the chief examination narrated the contents of the charge sheet to the extent of investigation done by him and in cross examination has categorically stated that PW1 has never lodged any report and furtehr admitted that he has not visited the scene of offence and hence he cannot exactly say the scene of offence which shows that the CDF was not conducted at the scene of offence and hence this court holds that the CDF is disproved by the counsel for the accused.

11.From the entire evidence that is brought on record there is no evidence whatsoever shwoing that the accused have caused hurt to Pws.1 and 2 and further it is not in dispute that both PW1 and wife of accused No.2 have land abutting to each other and the point of trespass is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and further there is no mention of any categorical words uttered by the accused to have raised apprehension in the minds of Pws.1 and 2 that there is a clear threat to their life and in the absnce of any such evidence this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this point is answered against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused No.2 is found NOT GUILTY for the offence u/sec.323, 447 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as 6

CC No. 98/2015

contemplated U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property order passed as nothing was deposited in this case.

Dictated to my personal assistant, taken down and transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of February, 2020.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad, FAC: JMFC, Husnabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1: Aleti Eshwar ReddyNone.

P.W.2: Aleti Devender Reddy

P.W.3: Aleti Sammi Reddy

P.W.4: Aleti Ravinder Reddy

P.W.5: P.Ashok

P.W.6: K.Shankar Rao

P.W.7: Md.Rahimuddin

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P.2: Crime Detail Form

Ex.P.3: Pahani for the year 2008-2009

Ex.P.4: First Information Report

FOR ACCUSED: - NIL.

No. of Material Objects Marked

Nil

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad, FAC: JMFC, Husnabad.

7

CC No.262/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS: HUSNABAD

Present:- K. Venkata Mallik Subrahmanya Sarma,

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Husnabad, FAC: JMFC, Husnabad.

Tuesday, the 25th day of February, 2020

C.C.No.262 of 2015

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station (Cr. No.273/2015) …Complainant

A N D

Elkapalli Sudershan s/o. Ramaiah, age 35 years, SC Madiga, r/o. Mogilipalem v/o. Thimmapur mandal. …Accused

This case is coming on 14-02-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Ravi Kiran Learned A.P.P.O for the prosecution and of Sri. V.Murali Mohan, Counsel for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.273 of 2015 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: -

(i)On 15.10.2015 PW1 lodged a report stating that on 9.10.2015 at 17.00 hours while PW2 was coming towards his agricultural lands on foot at Nagaram Road,

Husnabad the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-15-TA-8881 was going towards

Nagaram drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and with high speed and have hit the PW2 from behind resulting the PW2 received fracture injuries on his 1

CC No.262/2015

chest and meanwhile the PW1 who was attending agricultural work witnessed the incident along with his villagers i.e., Lw3/Bairi Rajaiah, LW5/Mallethula

Mahender and Pws.3 and 4 and immediately shifted PW2 to KPR Hospital,

Karimnagar where the Doctors performed surgery and stated that seven bones were fractured in the chest and since the PW1 was attending the needs of PW2 there is delay in lodging the report.

(ii)Basing on the report PW7 registered a case and issued FIR took up the sinvestigation and recorded the statements of PW1 and visited KPR Hospital,

Karimnagar and examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and then visited the scene of offence at Nagaram Road and secured the presence of PW5 and

LW8/Marupaka Ramesh and conducted CDF panchanama and later secured the presence of Pws.3 and 4 and LW3/Bairi Rajaiah and LW5/Mallethula Mahender and recorded the statements. While the steps are in progress to apprehend the accused, on 5.11.2015 at 10.00 housr PW7 apprehended the accused and during interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and later the LW11/E.Kiran/Second Investigaiton Officer took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by PW7 to be on proper lines and collected the medical certificate from PW6 and after completion of investigation have filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.337 IPC.

3.The case was taken on file against accused for the offence u/secs.338 of

IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C).

2

CC No.262/2015

4.Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/secs.338 of IPC and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to the accused in

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

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.4 marked as indicated in Appendix of evidence. The Learned APPO has given up the evidence of L.W.3/Bairi Rajaiah,

LW5/Mallethula Mahender, LW8/Marupaka Ramesh and LW11/E.Kiran.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against him and reported no defence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

(i)“Whether the prosecution established that the accident took place at the alleged scene of offence and that the accident involved the crime vehicle?”

(ii) “Whether the prosecution established identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle?”

(iii) “Whether the prosecution established that the injuries sustained by P.W.2 is caused due to rash or negligent act of accused?”

(iv) “Whether prosecution established guilt of the accused for offence u/sec.338

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

8.Heard both sides.

3

CC No.262/2015

9.Answer to the points No.1 to 4 basing on evidence on record:

(i)The PW1 in Ex.P1 has stated that he was working in his field when the accident took place and in chief examination has stated that his field is adjacent to the road and further stated that he along with Pws.2 to 4 and Lws.3 and 4 were walking along the road towards their field and at that time an Auto came from behind and hit PW2 and soon after the accident the auto stopped at a distance and the auto driver came and saw the position of the PW2 and went away along with auto. The contradictions in the chief examination of PW1 are so stark that it make his version unbelievable as in the Ex.P1 he stated that he and also Pws.3 and 4 and

LW3/Bairi Rajaiah and LW5/Mallethula Mahender were working in their field when the accident took plance and now in the chief examination has stated that all of them together were walking towards their fields and further has not explained clearly when all of them were walking together how only PW2 was hit by the vehicle and how others are not sustained any injury is also not explained.

(ii)It is no doubt settled law that the identification of the accused made in the court for the first time can be relied upon but the basis to identify the accused in the open court for the first time has to be clear and the PW1 has no where in Ex.P1 mentioned that the accused stopped the auto at a distance and came back to see the

PW2. Which is a clear improvisation. Further this witness has admitted that he cannot read or write and does not even know the numerals and in such circumstances how he stated the registration number of the crime vehicle is not explained by the prosecution.

(iii)The PW2 who is the injured has stated that he was going on bicycle to his agricultural field and have parked his vehicle and was going to his well at which time he was hit by an auto and he lost conscious and no where in his evidence he 4

CC No.262/2015

stated that the other witnesses were also walking with him and from the evidence of this witness what can be established is that he sustained injury and apart from that no identification of the accused nor any identification of the crime vehicle and of any rash or negligent act on the part of the accused can be drawn. Pws.3 and 4 who were shown as eye witnesses have also stated that they were walking along with the PW2 and at that time PW2 was hit by an auto.

(iv)The PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he stated to the police that he was at his field when the incident took palce and further PW3 have also stated that PW1 who lodged the report was also working in his field at the time of incident and from all these admissions it is clear that all these witnesses were not deposing the true and which intentionally trying to hit the real facts further the identification of the accused by Pws.3 and 4 cannot be relied upon as there is nothing in their evidence to show that how they can identify the accused though the PW3 has stated that the auto driver came to see the position of the injured but as stated previously that this is a clear improvisation from the evidence of PW1 and all these witnesses have taken cue from the evidence of PW1 and have deposed in the similar lines and hence this court finds that the identification made by these witnesses is not convincing and also the involvement of the crime vehicle was not proved and hence the issue No.1 answered against the prosecution.

(v)On the second issue even considering for a while that the auto is the one in volved in the accident but none of the witnesses have stated the kind of rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and in fact none of the eye witnesses have deposed anything to show that some rash or negligent act was committed by the accused. Hence this point is also answered against the prosecution.

5

CC No.262/2015

10.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence u/sec.338

IPC and is acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged after the expiry of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

No property order passed as nothing was deposited in this case.

Dictated to my personal assistant, taken down and transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of February, 2020.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad, FAC: JMFC, Husnabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR ACCUSED:-

P.W.1: G.MalleshamNone.

P.W.2: G.Sammaiah

P.W.3: B.Srinivas

P.W.4: Mallam Rajumallu

P.W.5: Gulla Ramesh

P.W.6: K.Maheswar Reddy

P.W.7: S.Sudhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Complaint given by P.W.1

Ex.P.2: Crime Detail Form

Ex.P.3: Medical Certificate

Ex.P.4: First Information Report

FOR ACCUSED: - NIL.

6

CC No.262/2015

No. of Material Objects Marked

Nil

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad, FAC: JMFC, Husnabad.

7