Smt. M.Anjani Priya Darshini

C.C.No.136/2023 1 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS ::

RAILWAY KODUR

Present: Smt.M.Anjani Priyadarsini,

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Railway Kodur

Wednesday, this is the 24 th day of April, 2024.

C.C.No.136/2023

Between The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, SEB Station, Railway Kodur:: Complainant

Vs

Chemuri Ravi, S/o Pedda Venkataiah, age:36 years, resident at D.No.2- 40, Tadivandlapalli Village, Railway Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District.

:: Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sri D.Chinna Babu Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and of Sri R.Suresh Babu counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of SEB Station,

Enforcement Bureau Station Railway Kodur filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.199/2021 for the offence punishable under section 7(B) r/w 8 (A) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act 2020 of SEB, Railway

Kodur P.S.,

2) The prosecutions case in brief is as follows:

On 01.10.2021 at about 8.20 AM during raids conducted by the

LW.4 and staff conducted raids at Desetipalli Village Cross situated on

Tadivandlapalli to Peddarachapalli road of Kodur Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa

District at that time they found the accused having one white colour

C.C.No.136/2023 2 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

plastic bag in his right hand. On seeing them tried to escape the accused but detained him. The accused admitted that with a fear of arrest him tried to escape. Then LW.3 deputed LW.1/v.Ravi to secure mediators but it was in vain. On questioning the accused, he revealed his identity and the white colour plastic bag contains liquor in it. LW.3 examined the white colour bag and found 16 polythene packets each containing 160 Ml I.D.Arrack (Total 2.56 Lts of ID arrack). LW.3 has drawn two polythene packets of I.D.Arrack from the white plastic bag and wrapped in a newspaper, duly sealed and labeled for the purpose of chemical analysis and seized the remaining property in the same white plastic bag which also duly sealed and labeled. On enquiry about the I.D.Arrack packets, the accused did not reveal anything. After informed the grounds of his arrest the accused under the cover of special report drafted on the spot. Basing on Ex.P.1 report, LW1 registered a case in Cr.No.199/2021 U/Sec.7-B r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1995 and the accused sent judicial remand. During the course of investigation the sample was sent to the Regional

Prohibition and Excise Laboratory Kurnool after analyzing the sample has opined his letter vide C.E.No.1648/2021 dated 28.06.2022, that the sample is illicit distilled liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The seized property was produced before the

Superintendent of Police, Kadapa for confiscation and the same was confiscated to state vide in the proceedings of the Superintendent of

Police, Kadapa Rc.No.1979/2021/B1 dated 28.06.2022 and same was destroyed before the Assistant Excise Superintendent, SEB kadapa

C.C.No.136/2023 3 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

under cover of panchanama dated 28.06.2022. The accused punishable

U/Sec.7-(B) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act 1995. Hence, the charge sheet.

3) This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. (Amendment) Act 2020 and issued summons to the accused.

4) On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished and when he was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Amendment Act 2020 is framed and got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) The prosecution to prove it’s case got examined PW.1 to

PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and MO.1 is the sample bottle. No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the defence.

6) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and got read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

7) Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public prosecutor for complainant and the learned counsel for the accused.

C.C.No.136/2023 4 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

8) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P.

Amendment Act 2020?

9) In order to make out an offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Amendment Act 2020, the prosecution shall prove that an accused is found in importing, exporting, transporting, manufacturing, collecting, or possessing or selling any intoxicant without any license or permit in that regard and the same is seized from his possession as per the procedure laid down under law.

10) Coming to the evidence adduced before the Court,

PW.1/V.Ravi, SEB Constable deposed that on 01.10.2021 at about 10.30

AM he along with LW.3 and other staff were reached at Desettypalli village Cross situated on Thadivandlapalli village to Peddarachapalli road of Rly.Kodur Mandal. There they saw one male person sitting and holding one white colour Plastic Bag in his right hand, upon seeing them, he tried to skulk away, at the instruction of LW.3, himself and other constables caught hold the accused and the Inspector of Excise

Police questioned the accused as to why he was trying to escape for which he replied that he was in possession of I.D.Arrack Plastic Packets.

On verification of the Plastic bag by L.W.3 total 16 polythene packets each containing 160 ml ID Arrack and the total 2.56 liters of ID Arrack.

At the instructions of the L.W.3/G.Chandra Sekhar sent him to secure mediators in and around the near by village i.e., Desettypalli and he

C.C.No.136/2023 5 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

went there and he tried for Revenue Officials but they are not available so he returned back to the scene of offence. Accused revealed his identity particular as C.Ravi S/o Pedda Venkataiah, aged 36 years,

Thadivandlapalli village of Rly.Kodur Mandal. LW.3 drawn two polythene packets of ID Arrack from the Plastic Bag for Chemical

Analysis. LW.3 questioned the accused with regard to license or permit for which he replied that he does not possess any license or permit to sell the I.D.Arrack. Then LW.3 informed the accused that possessing, transporting and selling of ID arrack is illegal. The remaining property was seized and labeled and arrested the accused under cover of special report and submitted before the Honourable Court for judicial custody on that day.

In the cross examination he deposed that the distance between

Excise Police and scene offence is 04 KM. He admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and surrounded by residential houses. He has not seen any customers buying I.D.Arrack from accused. They did not asked the pedestrians to act as mediators but in vain. He cannot say the names whom he asked to act as mediators. He cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that they did not arrested accused at scene of offence, only for statistical purpose we filed this case against accused and that accused is no way connected to this case and that they conducted table investigation and accused is no way connected to this case and not committed any offence and that only for statistical purpose he filed this case against accused, accused is no way connected to this property.

C.C.No.136/2023 6 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

11) PW.2/G.Chandra Sekhar, Inspector of Police, SEB Station deposed in his chief examination that on 01.10.2021 at about 10.30 AM he along with P.W.1 and other staff were reached at Desettypalli village

Cross situated on Thadivandlapalli village to Peddarachapalli road of

Rly.Kodur mandal. There they saw one male person sitting and holding one white colour Plastic Bag in his right hand, upon seeing them, he tried to skulk away, on his instructions, P.W.1 and other constables caught hold the accused and he questioned the accused as to why he was trying to escape for which he replied that he was in possession of

I.D.Arrack Plastic Packets. On his verification of the Plastic bag, the total 16 polythene packets each containing 160 ml ID Arrack and the total 2.56 liters of ID Arrack. On his instructions P.W.1 went to secure mediators in and around the near by village i.e., Desettypalli and he went there and he tried for Revenue Officials but they are not available so he returned back to the scene of offence. Accused revealed his identity particular as C.Ravi s/o Pedda Venkataiah, aged 36 years,

Thadivandlapalli village of Rly.Kodur Mandal. He drawn two polythene packets of ID Arrack from the Plastic Bag for Chemical Analysis. He questioned the accused with regard to license or permit for which he replied that he does not possess any license or permit to sell the

I.D.Arrack. Then he informed the accused that possessing, transporting and selling of ID arrack is illegal. The remaining property was seized and labeled and arrested the accused under cover of special report and submitted before the Honourable Court for judicial custody on that day.

Basing on the Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr.No.199/2021 U/Sec.7(A),

C.C.No.136/2023 7 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

8(e) of APP Act and the same is marked under Ex.P2. M.O.1 is the

Sample of ID Arrack pocket. Ex.P3 is the Letter of Advice

dated:01.10.2021.Ex.P4is the Chemical analysis report

dated:24.12.2021 vide CE.No.1648/2021.

In the cross examination that the distance between Excise Police and scene offence is 04 KM. He admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality and surrounded by residential houses. He has not seen any customers buying I.D.Arrack from accused. they did not asked the pedestrians to act as mediators but in vain. He cannot say the names whom he asked to act as mediators. He cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence. He denied the suggeation that they did not arrested accused at scene of offence, only for statistical purpose they filed this case against accused and that accused is no way connected to this case and that they conducted table investigation and accused is no way connected to this case and not committed any offence NS that only for statistical purpose he filed this case against accused, accused is no way connected to this property.

12) PW.3/K.Narasimha Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, SEB Station deposed in his chief examination that he took up further investigation in this case from P.W.2. He produced the Contraband before Deputy

Commissioner of SEB, Ananthapur and the same was order for destruction vide R.C.No.1979/2021/B1 dated:28.06.2022. The property was destroyed on 16.07.2022. Ex.P5 is the Attested copy of proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Ananthapur. Ex.P6 is the Destruction Panchanama dated:16.07.2022. After completion of

C.C.No.136/2023 8 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

investigation he filed the charge sheet before the Hon’ble Court.

In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that they made table investigation and got filed the charge sheet against the accused.

The accused are no way concerned to the present case and that they foisted a false case for statistical purpose.

13) The learned APP contended that the evidence on record clearly proves the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he was charged and that the accused may be convicted and sentenced accordingly.

14) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused did not commit any offence as alleged and that the accused was brought from his house and this case was foisted falsely against him for statistical purpose. He further submitted that no independent witnesses were examined in this case and thus the so- called seizure is against the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C.

He thus prayed that the accused is entitled to acquittal.

15) It may be seen from the evidence on record that PW.2 sent

PW.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the property was found in possession of the accused but they returned back to the scene of offence and informed to him that nobody came forward to act as mediators. In the cross-examination of PW.2, he categorically deposed that he had not issued any written notices to

PW.1 sought to be served on the mediators and PW.1 did not state

before him the names of the person or persons to whom he requested

to act as mediators and who refused to do so. It is well settled principle

C.C.No.136/2023 9 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

of law that a police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public who is legally bound to assist him, such police officer can take action against such a person under the law for declining to assist him. In this case apparently no such action is initiated against the person or persons who allegedly refused to act as mediators. It is therefore very doubtful whether really PW.2 sent PW.1 to secure the presence of independent mediators once the case property was alleged to have been found in the possession of the accused. Even otherwise, P.W.2 is Police Official and his evidence manifestly demonstrates that he did not make any sincere efforts to secure the presence of independent mediators albeit it was stated in the evidence before the Court that the scene of offence is a busy locality. According to the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., whenever any property is to be seized the officer who seizes such property is under an obligation to call for two or more respectable inhabitants of that locality and in this case that has not happened.

Therefore, the very seizure of the property from the alleged possession of the accused is in flagrant contravention of the provisions of Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C.

16) In MUDAVATH MOTHIA v. STATE OF A.P. [2002 (1) ALT (Crl.) 437 (A.P.)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

“Adverting to the same, the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Amendement Act 2020 is made cognizable offence and once the excise officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizable offence, they become police officials and the excise officials

C.C.No.136/2023 10 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

can never say that they are not the police officials. .........The non- examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version. ......... It is not a case where the property was seized by virtue of confession made. When it is also not admissible in view of the legal bar and invalid proceedings, it is a fit case where the accused be given the benefit of doubt......”

17) Again in GAJAMKER NARAYANA v. STATE OF A.P. [2005 (3) ALT (Crl.) 1 (AP)], our Hon'ble High Court inter alia held thus:

"Thus, from the evidence on record, it is clear that the Police

Officials picked up punch witnesses at the police station and took along with them to the scene of offence. Neither the testimony of PW.2 nor that of PW.1 discloses that they tried to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality where the offence was allegedly committed, to act as mediators. Special report also does not disclose that any effort was made by Police Officials to secure independent respectable inhabitants of the locality. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence in that regard, I am bound to come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed by the

Police Officials while seizing the white bag containing I.D.Arrack in it.

Therefore, the seizure made in this case is illegal.”

18) Further, a perusal of the record shows that the sample was reached to the Chemical Examiner, Kurnool, on 24.12.2021 but as per the evidence on record the alleged offence took place on01.10.2021 when the alleged sample was drawn. Thus, there was a delay of nearly two months in reaching samples to the Chemical Examiner, Kurnool, for

C.C.No.136/2023 11 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

analysis and the said delay was not explained properly and therefore such delay is also fatal to the case of the prosecution, as has been inter alia observed in S.BABU SAHEB @ BABU v. STATE OF A.P. [2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 32].

19) From the above it is crystal clear that except the evidence adduced by the Police Official-PW.1 to PW.3, PW.2 deposed in the cross examination that he denied the suggestion that except signing on panchanama he donot know anything about this case. He cannot say the number of cans that were destroyed and he is deposing false at the request of police though he donot know anything of this case. who are very much interested in the outcome of the case no independent witnesses were examined in support of their case. Thus, the case of the prosecution that the accused found in possession of pots containing

I.D.Arrack and the same was seized from his possession at the scene of offence is highly doubtful in as much as the evidence of excise official does not inspire the credibility and confidence of the Court in the absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses. It is well established principle of law that no conviction can be based on mere assumptions and presumptions or on mere surmises and conjectures.

Further, there must be concrete legal evidence to convict an accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, in the light of the above discussion, it is obvious that the prosecution has miserably failed to wholly bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, this Point is

C.C.No.136/2023 12 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act 2020 and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class

Railway Kodur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution:-

PW.1: V.Ravi P.W.2: G.Chandra Sekhar PW.3: K.Narasimha Rao Witnesses examined for defence:- Nil

Exhibits marked for prosecution:- Ex.P.1: Special Report Ex.P.2: FIR in Cr.No.199/2021 of SEB Railway Kodur PS., Ex.P.3:Letter of Advice Ex.P.4: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P.5:Attested copy of proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner of SEB Ananthapuram Ex.P6: Destruction panchanama Exhibits marked for defence:-Nil

Material objects marked for prosecution:-

MO.1 is sample bottle. Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class

Railway Kodur.

// True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

C.C.No.136/2023 13 Dated:24.04.2024

JFCM., Court Rly Kodur

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT:KADAPA

Calendar AND Judgment tried by the Judicial .Magistrate of I Class: Railway Kodur. Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleaseCommenceClose of trialJudgment Of AccusedOn bailment of trial 24.04.2024 0 01.10.2021 1.10.2021–--31.10.202319.04.2024

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.136/2023 on the file of J.F.C.M, Railway Kodur.

Complainant: The Sub-Inspector, SEB, Rly.Kodur PS., in Cr.No.199/2021.

Name of the accused withAgeReligionResidence father’s Name Chemuri Ravi, S/o PeddaAge:36 yearsResident at D.No.2-40,

Venkataiah, Tadivandlapalli Village, Hindu Railway Kodur Mandal,

Kadapa District.

Offence : For the offence under section 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.P. Amendment Act 2020

Finding : The accused is found not guilty.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.7(B) r/w Sentence: 8 (B) of A.P. Prohibition Act 2020 and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused with that of his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Railway Kodur.

Remarks: Explanation for the delay From: The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Railway Kodur Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

// True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

C.C.No.210 of 2019 1 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

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

RLY.KODUR

PRESENT:- Smt. M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rly.Kodur.

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.210/2019

Between:

The State of A.P. represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Obulavaripalli P.S.

...Complainant

Vs.

1. Pokala Sivaiah, S/o Chalamaiah, age:64 years,

2. Pokala Balaji, S/o Sivaiah, age:28 years,

3. Pokala Prasad, S/o Siviah, age:25 years,

All are the resident at Y.Kota Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal.

… Accused/A1 to A3

This case is coming on 12.01.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri D.Chinna Babu on behalf of the State and learned advocate Sri A.Venkata Rama Raju for the Accused/ A1 to A3 and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli P.S.

filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.119/2019 against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offence u/sec 326 read with 34 IPC alleging as follows:

LW.1 is resident of Y.Kota village, Obulavaripalli and lived by cultivation and also having one acre of mango garden and some cultivating land in their village fields, beside to the mango garden of LW.1 the accused No.1 is also having mango garden, Lw.1 cultivated bulrush millet crop along with mango garden, there were ill-feeling are having in between LW.1 and the

C.C.No.210 of 2019 2 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

accused regarding land boundaries, on 05.08.2019 at morning LW.1 went to his fields for watching the birds did not lean on his bulrush millet crop and while watching his crop about 7.00 AM he observed that the accused No.1 to 3 were cleaning the garbage in their mango garden and dumping the garbage into his mango garden of LW.1, LW.1 asked the accused as why they are dumping the garbage from their garden into his garden, for which the accused No.3 scolded him as “Endira nee katha maa istam vachinathlu chestahamu , nuvvendira adigedi” saying as the accused No.1 to 3 came and used criminal force on LW.1, LW.1 tried to prevent the accused, the accused No.2 came and firmly caught hold of from back side of LW.1, the accused No.1 and 3 fisted with a sickle grip on the amount of LW.1, then blood oozed from the mouth and a tooth was borken and fell down from the frontal lower teeth of LW.1, LW.3 to 5 came, the accused went away from the spot. LW.1 came to the Obulavaripalli Police Station and apprised what had happened and given his statement to the police and produced the teeh

before the LW.1. That on 05.08.2019 at 10.15 AM upon a report of LW.1,

LW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.119/2019, U/Sec.326 r/w 34 of IPC of

Obulavaripalli Police Station and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW.7 seized the teeth of the LW.1 under a cover of police proceedings. During the course of investigation on 07.08.2019 A1 to A3 arrested and sent them for judicial remand. LW.6 who is the medical officer treatment to LW.1 has opined that he received injuries are grievous in nature.

2. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.

C.C.No.210 of 2019 3 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

3. On appearance of accused/A1 to A3 before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused/A1 to A3 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which, they denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The evidence of LW.7/Y.Gurvaiah is given by learned APP.

6. The accused/A1 to A3 were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C by explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which they pleaded not guilty and reported no evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. T he point that arises for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the offences U/s. 326 read with 34 IPC against accused/A1 to A.3 beyond reasonable doubt?"

Point:

9. The case of the prosecution is that the accused/A1to A3 voluntarily caused hurt to the husband of defacto complainant by name Kapilaiahgari

Sivaiah fisted with a sickle grip on the mouth of LW.1 teeth blood oozed from the mouth and a tooth was broken and fell down from the frontal lower teeth of LW.1.

10. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is husband of PW1. PW3 and PW4 are independent witnesses. PW.5 is Medical

Officer, PW6 is the investigating officer.

C.C.No.210 of 2019 4 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

11. PW.1 deposed in his chief examination that A2 and A3 are sons of

A1. He has an Ac.1.00 Cents Mango garden in his village. In remaining part of the agriculture land he raised Sajja crop. A1 is having mango garden adjacent to his land. Prior to galata they have disputes with regard to mango garden to him and accused. On 05.08.2019 at 7.00 AM he went to his fields to secure sajja crop from the birds. A1 to A3 by the time he reached they were in his mango garden by throwing garbage from their land. He questioned the accused as to why they were throwing garbage in his land for which A1 to a3 got angry and came upon him. A2 caught hold him from back side, A3 beat him with sickle on his mouth resulting his tooth were removed and fell down and blood oozed out of his mouth. Himself and his wife went to there he informed the same to his wife. Himself and his wife went to Obulavaripalli Police Station and gave complaint at 10.00 AM.

On his dictation drafted by LW.7/R.Mohan S.I of police, Obulavaripalli Police

Station. He was examined by S.I of police at Police Station and recorded his statement U/Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement. He handed over his tooth that were moved when accused No.3 beat him, to police. S.I of Police sent Head constable of Obulavaripalli PS along with him to Government Hospital,

Rajampet for treatment.

12. PW.2 deposed in his chief examination that she has an Ac.1.00 cents mango garden in her village. In remaining part of the agriculture land she raised sajja crop. A1 is having mango garden adjacent to her land. Prior to galata they have disputes with regard to boundaries/ridges of mango garden to her and accused. On 05.08.2019 after 15 minitues of the incident she was informed by neighbouring land owners after that she rushed to the scene of offence and saw the her husband PW.1 blood oozing out of his

C.C.No.210 of 2019 5 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

mouth asked him what happened he informed her that at about 7.00 AM he went to their fields to secure sajja crop from the birds. A1 to A3 by the time he reached thy were in their mango garden by throwing garbage from their land. He questioned the accused as to why they were throwing garbage in their land for which A1 to A3 got angry and came upon him. A2 caught hold him from back side, A3 beat him with sickle on his mouth resulting his tooth were removed and fell down and blood oozed out of his mouth. Herself and her husband/PW.1 went to Obulavaripalli PS and PW.1 gave complaint at 10.00 AM. She was examined by S.I of Police at Police Station and recorded her statement U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. They handed over his tooth that were removed when accused No.3 beat her, to police. S.I of Police sent constable of Obulavaripalli PS along with them to Government Hospital, Rajampet for treatment.

13. It is the evidence of PW3 & PW4 categorically deposed that they donot know anything about this case. They were not present in the village when the incident occurred. The learned APP cross examined them after declared them as hostile. But nothing is elicited in cross examination of

PW3 to PW4 except identifying Ex.P2 to Ex.P3.

14. PW.5 who is medical officer deposed in her chief examination on 05.08.2019 at about 11.40 AM, she received requisition from Head constable HC.No.2021 from Obulavaripalli PS to examine K,.Sivaiah and found following injury. . loss of lower central incisor (tooth preserved by

Head constable)

Basing on the above external injuries and internal examination am opinion that the above said injury grievous nature duration 4 to 6 hours

C.C.No.210 of 2019 6 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

might have been caused due to blunt object. Ex.P.4 wound certificate

dt:05.08.2019

15. The evidence of PW6, who is investigated the case that, on 05.08.2019 at about10.15 AM, while LW7/S.I of Police was present in the police station, PW1 came to P.S and lodged report. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.119/2019 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. He recorded the U/Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 in the police station itself and also PW.2. PW.1 handed over the teeth that was got broken and came out in the attack of the accused from his mouth and the same is seized under police proceedings. Along with tooth P.W.1 was sent to Govt.,

Hospital, Rajampet to get treatment by accompanying Head Constable

No.2021 along with Medical requisition. He went to scene of offence on the same day itself and prepare rough sketch marked under Ex.P7. There he examined P.W.3, P.W.4 and L.W.5 and recorded their Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statements. On 07.08.2019 he arrested the A1 to A3 at Y.Kota Bus Stop at 8.00 AM. After completion of all formalities the A1 to A3 were sent to judicial remand. He received wound certificate from Govt., Hospital,

Rajampet marked under Ex.P8. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

16. It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.2 there exist civil disputes with regard to mango garden and in the cross examination also the defence counsel has taken a plea of with regard to disputed land where as coming to the occurrence of offence with the help of deadly weapon i.e., sickle is not supported by PW.3 and Pw.4 who are independent witnesses as they turned hostile, which is the crucial thing that is to be seized by the investigating officer to attract the offence of Sec.324 of IPC is deadly

C.C.No.210 of 2019 7 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

weapon i.e., sickle but doesnot seized by the investigating officer. The

Medical Officer i.e., PW.5 did not recorded in her wound certificate I.e, Ex.P.8 with regard to any simply injury and oozing of the blood from the mouth and same is lying on lips but simple the medical officer mentioned that there is loss of lower central incisor and same is preserved and brought by

Head constable. It seems that there is no detailed medical examination by the PW.5 except giving them opinion as grievous injury caused due to blunt object. The Investigating Officer of Obulavaripalli did not sent the PW.1 to the immediate medical offficer available in Obulavaripalli Mandal, he also did not mentioned in his charge sheet or in C.D part I with regard to availability or non availability of the medical officer at Obulavaripalli Mandal but simply and directly he sent the PW.1 to Government Hospital and got examined and obtained Ex.P.8. Therefore, the evidence of other witnesses and official witnesses which was given by prosecution has no material on record to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 326 r/w34 IPC. Hence the accused/A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

After going through the discussion stated supra, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused/A1 to A3 if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time. MO.1 and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RLY. KODUR.

C.C.No.210 of 2019 8 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW1: K.SivaiahNIL

PW2: K.Rajeswari

PW3: Pesala Chengaiah

PW4: N.Mallaiah @ Mallikharjuna

PW5: Dr.Dhana Sree

PW6: R.Mohan

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Written Report of PW1 dt.05.08.2019 NIL

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P4: Wound Certificate of K.Sivaiah

Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.No.119/2019 of Obulavaripalli PS

Ex.P6: Police proceedings

Ex.P7: Rough sketch

Ex.P8: Wound certificate

MAERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: one tooth

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

// True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

C.C.No.210 of 2019 9 JFCM., Rly Kodur

Dated:29.04.2024

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT:KADAPA

Calendar AND Judgment tried by the Judl. Magistrate of I Class:Rly.Kodur.

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleaseCommenCloseJudgment nsionOn bailcementOf trial Ofof trial Accused 05.08.20105.08.201–--06.01.20216.08.202329.04.2024 992

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.210/2019 on the file of J.F.C.M, Rly.Kodur.

Complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli P.S

Name of the accused withAgeCallingReligionResidence father’s Name 12345

1. Pokala Sivaiah, S/o64–Hindu Chalamaiah,

All are the resident at

2. Pokala Balaji, 25–Hindu S/o Sivaiah, Y.KotaVillage,

Obulavaripalli

3. Pokala Prasad,25–Hindu S/o Siviah, Mandal.

Offence:U/Sec. 326 r/w 34 IPC Finding:Accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty Sentence: In the result, the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused/A1 to A3 if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time. MO.1 and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

Remarks: Explanation for the delay From: The Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rly.Kodur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis No.

// True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

1 O.S.No.63/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAILWAY KODUR

Present:- Smt.M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Rly. Kodur.

Dated this the 29th of April, 2024

O.S.No.63/2022

Punga Lakshmi, W/o Gambiram, aged about 48 years, residing at

Obulavaripalli Village and Post, Mandal, Annammaiah District.

… Plaintif

Vs.

Thimmapuram Jagadeswara Rao, S/o Nithyapoojaiah, aged about 39 years, residing at Obulavaripalli Village and Post, Mandal, Annamayya District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on 15.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Advocate Sri R.C.Suresh Babu for plaintiff and

Learned Advocate Sri A.Venkata Rama Raju for defendant and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.91,680/- being the principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 14.02.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.72,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs.

2. The contents of the plaint in brief is as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.72,000/- on 14.02.2021 from plaintiff for an interest 24% pa repayable on demand either to plaintiff or to her order. But the defendant inpite of repeated demands failed to repay Rs.72,000/- with interest on pronote though the plaintiff issued legal notice dated 30.03.2022 demanding to repay the amount due and interest there of as executed in pronote. The defendant received notice on 2 O.S.No.63/2022 31.03.2022 but he did not replied for the same the suit pronote is executed at the house of plaintiff in Obulavaripalli Village for an outstanding amount of Rs.91,680/- the plaintiff prayed the court in plaint to grant decree on trail as cause of action arose on 14.02.2021 itself.

The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff para No.3 and 4 and submitted that plaintiff is put strict proof facts alleged by her in the plaint and submitted that the suit is maintainable either in law and facts. Further the defendant is written statement submitted to the Court by raising allegations against the plaintiff that the plaintiff is created suit pronote and forged signatures of defendant as misunderstandings arose during the chit transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and prayed to court to dismiss the suit.

4. Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount basing on pronote an amount of Rs.91,680/- as prayed for?

3.Whether the pronote is fabricated by forging the signature of defendant or not?

4.To what relief?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined PW1, attestor of suit promissory note was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the defendant executed suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 at the house of the plaintiff at

Obulavaripalli upon receiving consideration amount of Rs.72,000/- at 3 O.S.No.63/2022 24%pa. Though Ex.A2 legal notice was given there was no reply though it was received by the defendant under Ex.A3. Further the plaintiff argued that defendant borrowed the amount in the presence of witness he himself the scribed of suit pronote and question of forgery doesnot arose and the entire transaction took place in the presence of PW.2. further the counsel for plaintiff contended that there are money transaction between plaintiff and defendant with regard to chit transaction as per cross examination of

DW.1 and he admitted his signature on revenue stamp of Ex.A1 and the

DW.1 denied the signature in the written statement as that of him. He admitted that though the defendant raised the plea of forgery of Ex.A1 they donot take any further steps to prove that there is forgery of his signature as well as forgery of Ex.A1 document and more over the defendant himself admitted that the signature that was affixed on revenue stamps was of him and he did not replied to Ex.A2 legal notice.

The arguments the counsel for defendant submitted the arguments as follows.

That the defendant and plaintiff are having chit transactions in which disputes were arose boring the grudge of the same, the plaintiff created false document i.e., suit pronote Ex.A1 and filed the same before the Court by forging the same. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit as there is no maintainable of suit pronote.

8. PW.1 cross examination nothing elicited by the defence counsel as

PW.1 denied the suggestion that he is doing private chit business and defendant is a chit member so that for security purpose no filled promissory note is obtained by PW.1 in chit business from the defendant. PW.1 denied the suggestion that defendant never borrowed any amount from PW.1 and 4 O.S.No.63/2022 did not executed any promissory note as that of Ex.A1. PW.1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is filled by herself and also attestors there by fabricated document by affixing forged signatures on Ex.A1. PW.1 denied the suggestion that she never made demand regarding Ex.A1 debt before filing the suit and also he denied the suggestion that as there are disputes arose between PW.1 and defendant during the period chit business. PW.1 filed false suit by creating Ex.A1.

9. PW.2 deposed he donot know whether the Pw.1 is doing chit business and he donot know whether the defendant is a party to chit transaction or not. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 is fabricated document filed for wrongful gain as misunderstandings arose. Plaintiff and defendant in the chit business transaction and also he denied the suggestion that he donot know anything about the particulars of Ex.A1 and also the particulars of parties to the suit.

10. The defendant got examined himself as DW.1 in the cross examination he admitted that himself is the scribed of Ex.A1. He admitted that he acknowledged Ex.A2 legal notice and but he denied the suggestion that he donot know sent reply to the Ex.A2 legal notice. He denied the suggestion that he borrowed an amount of Rs.72,000/- from the plaintiff on 14.02.2021 and also he denied the suggestion that the execution Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and also he denied the suggestion that he is liable to pay suit amount with interest to the plaintiff.

11. The defendant has not taken any step to disprove the case of the plaintiff by proving the execution of Ex.A1 as forged document but the defendant did not takes step to prove the suit promissory note Ex.A1 as false document by filing Sec.45 Indian Evidence At petition and also the 5 O.S.No.63/2022 defendant failed to disprove the plaintiff during the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 by cross examination and also the defendant did not produce any other document to disprove the case of the plaintiff and the defendant did not tried to get back the suit promissory note from the plaintiff by any means. The onus of proof lies on the defendant as he pleaded in written statement with regard to fabrication of the Ex.A1 and forging of signatures of defendant. The suit is filed within limitation from the date of execution.

12. So, once the execution of Promissory note is admitted or proved, it has to be presumed that the said promissory note is supported by valid consideration u/sec.118 of Negotiable instruments act. Though the presumption is a rebuttable presumption, the defendant is not able to rebut the same with oral or documentary evidence. In view of the evidence produce by the plaintiff, this Court raised the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this Court holds that the suit Promissory note is valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant.

In the above foregoing discussions leads to this Court, is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount. Accordingly, this Issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff .

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.91,680/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of

Rs.72,000/- from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and partly taken dictation and transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

6 O.S.No.63/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

Plaintif: Defendant:

PW1: Punga Lakshmi DW1: P.Jagadeswara Rao

PW2: Nooka Chandra Sekhar Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original pronote dated 14.02.2021

Ex.A2: office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt dated 30.03.2022.

Ex.A3: on line copy of postal track consignment dated 31.03.2022.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant: NIL

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

7 O.S.No.63/2022

Plaint presented on: 08.04.2022 Plaint filed on: 08.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAILWAY KODUR

Present:- Smt.M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Rly. Kodur.

Dated this the 29 th day of April, 2024.

O.S.No.63/2022

Punga Lakshmi, W/o Gambiram, aged about 48 years, residing at

Obulavaripalli Village and Post, Mandal, Annammaiah District.

… Plaintif

Vs.

Thimmapuram Jagadeswara Rao, S/o Nithyapoojaiah, aged about 39 years, residing at Obulavaripalli Village and Post, Mandal, Annamayya District.

… Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.91,680/- being the

principal and interest due under suit promissory note dated 14.02.2021

executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.72,000/- payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and for costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.91,680/- on this a court fee of Rs.3,266/- is paid u/sec.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 15.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Advocate Sri R.C.Suresh Babu for plaintiff and

Learned Advocate Sri A.Venkata Rama Raju for defendant and upon hearing on plaintiff side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree is as follows:

1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.91,680/- with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.72,000/-;

8 O.S.No.63/2022

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,628/- being the costs of the suit. The defendant do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

Memorandum of Costs

Costs Plaintif Defendant Vakalath002-00 Court fee3,266-00 Batta and process fee60-00 Typing charges100-00(C.M.Not filed) Advocate fee4200-00 Total: 7628-00 NIL

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

Note:- The parties should apply as early as possible for return of all documents which they wish to preserve as the records will be else liable for destruction after 3 years from the date of this decree.

C.C.No.134/2024 1 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAILWAY KODUR

PRESENT:- Smt. Anjani Priyadarsini Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Railway Kodur.

Friday, this the 26 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.134/2024

The State of A.P. represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Railway Kodur PS … Complainant

Vs.

Lomada Krupa Kumar, S/o Yesanna, Age:33 years, resident at Ram Nagar,

RS road, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Annamayya District.

… Accused

This case is coming on 24.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri D.Chinna Babu on behalf of the State and the accused appear before the Honourable Court and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway

Kodur P.S. filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.79/2024 against the accused for the offence u/sec.354-A, 506 of IPC alleging as follows:

2. That that on 09.02.2024 at about 7.00 PM wherein you stopped the motorcycle for urine and while the LW.1 get down from the motorcycle and standing there at that time you caught hold of her hand and said that she likes him. The LW.1 feared to his acts and went some distance from there and made a call to LW.2 and informed about the happened. LW.2 called to LW.3 and said that to him to take the auto and leave to LW.1 in the home, on that the LW.3 took the auto for rent along with LW.4 and came to

C.C.No.134/2024 2 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

LW.1 and boarded to her and dropped to her in her house. After LW.2 came to home and the LW.1 and LW.2 were went to you house and asked to him why you did this, on that he said that do what you do and abused to them with filthy language and trying to beat to them. Then they left from the place and went to their house and told to their elders about that happened and on 10.02.2024 they came to police station and prepared a report.

Basing on the complainant LW.7 registered as a case in

Cr.No.79/2024 U/Sec.354-A, 506 of IPC of Railway Kodur Police Station.

During the course of investigation the LW.6 secured the presence of LW.1 to

LW.4 and recorded their statements and also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. That on 10.02.2023 the

LW.6 served Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused and released on station bail after obtained the sufficient sureties. That on 11.02.2024 the LW.7 verified the investigation done by LW.6 and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC.

4. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC. The accusations of the charge sheet were read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 & PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The evidence of LW.3 to LW.7 was given up by

APP.

C.C.No.134/2024 3 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against accused.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. The learned APP argued that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence by examination of PW1 & PW2 coupled with

Ex.P1 & Ex.P3. Hence, he prayed to convict the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for defence argued that there was no incriminating material against the accused available on record and no iota of evidence placed by the prosecution to show that on 09.02.2024 at about 7.00 PM wherein you stopped the motorcycle for urine and while the LW.1 get down from the motorcycle and standing there at that time you caught hold of her hand and said that she likes him. The LW.1 feared to his acts and went some distance from there and made a call to LW.2 and informed about the happened. LW.2 called to LW.3 and said that to him to take the auto and leave to LW.1 in the home, on that the LW.3 took the auto for rent along with LW.4 and came to LW.1 and boarded to her and dropped to her in her house. After LW.2 came to home and the LW.1 and LW.2 were went to you house and asked to him why you did this, on that he said that do what you do and abused to them with filthy language and trying to beat to them.

Then they left from the place and went to their house and told to their elders about that happened and on 10.02.2024 they came to police station and prepared a report.. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

10. T he point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences u/sec.354-A, 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

C.C.No.134/2024 4 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

Point:-

11. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.02.2024 at about 7.00

PM wherein you stopped the motorcycle for urine and while the LW.1 get down from the motorcycle and standing there at that time you caught hold of her hand and said that she likes him. The LW.1 feared to his acts and went some distance from there and made a call to LW.2 and informed about the happened. LW.2 called to LW.3 and said that to him to take the auto and leave to LW.1 in the home, on that the LW.3 took the auto for rent along with LW.4 and came to LW.1 and boarded to her and dropped to her in her house. After LW.2 came to home and the LW.1 and LW.2 were went to you house and asked to him why you did this, on that he said that do what you do and abused to them with filthy language and trying to beat to them.

Then they left from the place and went to their house and told to their elders about that happened and on 10.02.2024 they came to police station and prepared a report..

12. To prove the above case of prosecution, prosecution examined

PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 & Ex.P2. PW.1 is the defacto complainant,

PW2 is the husband of defacto complainan. The description of the Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3 are mentioned in appendix of the evidence.

13. It is the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 are wife and husband categorically deposed that PW.1 and PW2 have some difference with the accused. On 09.02.2024 some serious quarrel occurred between them and the accused. Elders held panchayath between them one of the elder took

PW.1 signatures on some white papers. PW.1 never complained against the accused before the SHO., Railway Kodur PS. At this stage the learned APP declared witness as hostile and sought permission of the court to put

C.C.No.134/2024 5 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

questions in the nature of cross examination. Permission granted. In the cross examination that since accused is her relative she is deposing false in order to benefit the accused He denied the suggestion that he stated before police as in their Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statements.

14. The evidence of PW1 and PW.2 who are the wife and husband turned hostile to the prosecution case and not supported its case and denied for the suggestions put by the prosecution in the cross examination.

It need not to say, mere suggestions to the witness are not evidence and there is no valid. It is well settled law that “suggestive questions cannot be held evidence of fact if denied”.

15. The evidence of PW1 and PW.2 stood hostile to the prosecution case and not supported its case and denied the suggestions put by the prosecution in the cross examination. It need not to say, mere suggestions to the witness are not evidence and there is no valid. It is well settled law that “suggestive questions cannot be held evidence of fact if denied”. So there is no evidence placed by the prosecution to show that the accused never misbehaved with

PW.1. PW.1 is never preferred complaint against accused. They donot know anything other facts of this case.

16. On perusing the record, there is no incriminating material against the accused as that never misbehaved with PW.1. PW.1 is never preferred complaint against accused. Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of PW1 & PW2. Therefore, the evidence of other witnesses and official witnesses was given up by the prosecution.

There is no material on record to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same

C.C.No.134/2024 6 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time, and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 26th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: Dasari Madhuri NIL

PW2: D.Surya Harichandra Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Police Report. NIL

Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Material Objects marked

NIL

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

//True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

C.C.No.134/2024 7 JFCM., Railway Kodur

Dt:26.04.2024

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT:KADAPA

Calendar AND Judgment tried by the Judl. Magistrate of I Class:Rly.Kodur.

Date of OffenceReportAppreheReleaseCommencCloseJudgment nsionOn bailementOf trial Ofof trial Accused 09.02.202409.02.2024–--26.04.202426.04.202426.04.2024 Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.134/2024 on the file of J.F.C.M,Rly.Kodur. Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Kodur P.S in Cr.No.79/2024 U/Sec.354A, 506 of IPC.

Name of the accused withAgeResidence father’s NameReligion 1234

Lomada Krupa Kumar,Age:33HinduResident at Ram Nagar,

S/o Yesanna, yearsRS road, Railway Kodur

TownandMandal,

Annamayya District.

Offence : under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time, and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

Remarks: Explanation for the delay

From: The Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rly.Kodur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Dis No.

//True Copy //

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Railway Kodur.

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur

Case No. :OS/0000019/2024 Union Bank Of India Vs Guduru Chengamma

Date  : 25-04-2024

Business: Judgment pronounced (vide separate judgment) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,48,797/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the

principal amount of Rs.1,30,000/-.

Nature of Disposal: DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 25-04-2024 Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur