Smt. M. Anjani Priyadarsini

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), PONNUR

Present: Smt.M. Anjani Priyadarsini Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Tuesday, this the 26th day of November, 2024

CALENDER CASE No. 593 of 2021

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S. (Cr.No.140/2021) … COMPLAINANT

And -



1. Vasimalla Vijay, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 25 yrs, Mala,

2. Vasimalla Kumari @ Jagan, W/o. Venkateswarlu, 41 yrs, Mala,

3. Lingam Syam Kumar, S/o. Anjaneyulu, 39 yrs, Mala,

4. Vasimalla Raviteja, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 21 yrs, Mala,

5. Mande Madhavi W/o. Narasimharao, 44 yrs, Mala, Chiluvuru, Guntur Town.

6. Mande Vinayateja @ Vinay, S/o. Narasimharao, 24 yrs, Mala, Chiluvuru, Guntur Town.

7. Mande Giriteja @ Vijay, S/o. Narasimharao, 23 yrs, Mala, Chiluvuru, Guntur Town.

8. Lingam Subbulu, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 70 yrs, Mala,

9. Nilam Swarnalata, W/o. Yesu, 52 yrs, Mala

10. Lingam Koteswara Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 36 yrs, Mala,

11. Kurapati Dileep Kumar, S/o. Balasouri, 39 yrs, Mala,

12. Kurapati Anil Kumar, S/o. Balasouri, 35 yrs, Mala,

A1 to A4 and A7 to A12 are R/o. Kasukarru Village, Ponnur Mandal.

...... ACCUSED (A1 to A12)

2

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me on 21.11.2024 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sri P.Vijaya Kumar, advocate for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S has filed a charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A12 in Crime

No.140/2021 for the offence punishable U/sec.354, 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC of Ponnur Rural P.S.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 08.05.2021 night at about 20.00 hrs, while LW.2/Kaki

Sudhakar was sitting infront of his house, A1 came by driving his auto in drunken state in high speed, dashed the motor cycle which was kept infront of their house, having noticed the same, LW.2 asked A1 to go in slow motion, for that A1 picked up quarrel against L.W.2 and abused him in filthy language and beating him with hands and legs, when L.W.1 came out from the house, raised cries loudly for which A1 went away. Again after 30 minutes, A1 along with A12 came to L.W.s.1 and 2 and all of them together abusing them in filthy language as "NAA KODAKALLAARA MEEKU

VUNDI RENDU ILLU, MIMMULANU KODITHE DIKKEVARU" and fallen down the vehicles and beat L.W.2/Kaki Sudhakr with sticks.

A1, A3 and A11 are already in drunken state and abused L.W.1 also in filthy language and caught hold L.W.1 hand, dragged by putting their hands on her chest and torned her wearing jacket for that L.W.1/Kaki Ratna Kumari raised hue and cry loudly, L.Ws.3 to 6 came there and saved L.Ws.1 and 2 and later the accused A1 to

A12 went by saying that "EE SSARIKI MEERU BRATHIKI POYINARY,

EE SARI MAA JOLIKI VASTHEMMULANU CHAMPUTHAMU" with criminal intimation and the same was witnessed by L.Ws.3 to 6.

On that L.W.1 presented a report to the police.

3

Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.8/ASI of Police, Ponnur

Rural P.S., registered it as a case in Cr.No.140/2021, U/Secs.354 324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC of Ponnur Rural P.S. During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C statements and on 16.09.2021 he served 41(A)

Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. L.W.7/Medical Officer, treated L.W.2 and issued Wound Certificate and after completion of investigation, L.W.8/S.I. of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This Court taken cognizance against A1 to A12

U/Secs.354, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to them as required

U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.A1 to A12 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec.354, 324, 506 r/w 34 of 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.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. The evidence of

LW.5/ Kurapati Ludharpaul, L.W.6/Dane Siddaiah and L.W.9/P.

Bhagya Raj was given up by the learned A.P.P.

7.A1 to A12 were examined U/sec.351 B.N.S.S.by explaining incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which they pleaded not guilty and reported no evidence on their behalf.

4

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.T he point that arises for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the offences U/Sec.354, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?"

Point:-

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2021 at about 20.00 hrs, at Kasukarru Village, L.W.2/Kaki Sudhakar was sitting infront of his house A1 drove his auto speedily near to her house, then, her husband/L.W.2 asked about his attitude then the accused beat L.W.2 with hands and legs, meanwhile L.W.1/Kaki

Ratna Kumari raised cries then he went away and after 30 minutes, all the accused came and scolding and beat her husband wit sticks among them A1, A3 and A11 who are already in drunken state behaved indecently against L.W.1 with an intent to outrage the modesty of L.W.1 by putting their hands on her chest and torned her jacket and that thereby the accused/A1 to 12 committed the offences U/Sec.354, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

11. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is husband of P.W.1. P.W.3 is elder brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 is the elder brother of P.W.1. P.W.5 is the

Medical Officer. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the

Report given by P.W.1, Ex.P2 is Wound Certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P3 is the FIR, Ex.P4 is the Rough sketch.

12. P.W.1 deposed that the incident occurred on 18.05.2021 at about 08:00 P.M. at her house at that time, she was present on the Terrace of the house, from there, she noticed A1 was hitting her husband, when he was seated infront of her house and immediately, she got-off from the terrace and questioned A1 as to 5 why he was assaulting him, on which, he left the crime scene and after half an hour of the occurrence, A2 to A12 came to their house, among them, A1, A3 and A11 held the Sticks in their hands, A1 to A12 hit L.W.2 with sticks, by hands and foot. Then, she intervened to prevent the quarrel, meanwhile, A1, A3 and A11 placed hands on her chest and pushed her a little and pulled her boarder of the saree. After the occurrence, A1 to A12 left the crime scene. L.W.2 sustained injury on his hand and head. Then, she lodged the Ex.P1/Report. A1 hit the TVS Motor Bike of L.W.2 and when L.W.2 questioned about the mischief, on which, A1 to

A12 bore grudge and carried out the assault. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

P.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that A1 is son by courtesy, A3 and A11 are her cousins. The incident occurred on 08.05.2021, where as the Ex.P1 is lodged on 12.05.2021. She admitted that that A1 lodged Report against vide crime no.139/2021. She denied a suggestion that she framed a false case as a counter blast to the case filed by A1 and that no such incident took place and she is deposing false.

13.P.W.2, husband of P.W.1 deposed that the incident occurred on 18.05.2021 at about 08:00 P.M. at his house at that time he was seated infront of his house, A1 came and assaulted him and whereupon, P.W.1 got off from Terrace and questioned A1 as to why he was hitting her husband on which, A1 left the crime scene. After half an hour of the occurrence, A1 to A12 came to their house, A1,A3 and A11 held the Sticks in their hands, A1 to

A12 hit him with sticks and by hands and foot, then, P.W.1 intervened to prevent the quarrel meanwhile, A1,A3 and A11 placed hands on her chest and pushed her a little and pulled her boarder of the Saree, then, she sustained injuries on his right side chest. A1 hit his motor bike with his motor bike, when she 6 questioned about the same A1 to A12 bore grudge and carried out the assault.

In cross-examination P.W.2 deposed that he was admitted in the Hospital after four days of the occurrence and the incident occurred on 08.05.2021, where as the Ex.P1 is lodged on 12.05.2021. He admitted that A1 lodged Report against him and

P.W.1 vide crime no.139/2021. He denied a suggestion that he framed a false case as a counter blast to the case filed by A1 and that no such incident took place and that he is deposing falsehood.

14.P.W.3, elder brother of P.W.1 deposed that he was not physically present at the time of occurrence and by the time, he reached to the crime scene, the quarrel already got over.

In her cross-examination P.W.3 denied the suggestion that no such incident took place and that she is deposing falsehood and his testimony is interested testimony.

15.P.W.4, elder brother of P.W.1 deposed that the incident occurred on 08.05.2021 at about 08:30 P.M. at the house of P.W.1 and at that time, he heard a wordy quarrel at the house of P.W.1, then, immediately he came out and found A1 to A5 were quarreling with P.W.1. Then, she intervened and asked not to get into quarrel.

In her cross-examination P.W.4 deposed that one house is intervened in between his house and P.W.1. He denied a suggestion that no such occurrence took place and he was not physically present in the house and that he is deposing falsehood and his testimony is interested testimony.

7

16. P.W.5, Medical Officer deposed in his evidence that on 12.05.2021 at about 08:15 P.M., he examined P.W.1 and found the injuries:- (1) Pain and Tenderness over right side of chest (2) Pain and Tenderness over right hand

No opinion can be given as there are no external injuries.

Pain and Tenderness are not external injuries. Accordingly, he issued Ex.P2/Wound certificate.

In her cross-examination, P.W.5 deposed that he examined is

Kaki Sudhakar and he received a Memo from Ponnur Rural Police

Station at 08:15 P.M. He denied that he issued wound certificate on political influence.

17.P.W.6, Investigation Officer deposed that on 08.05.2021 at about 02:00 P.M., he received Hospital Intimation of P.W.1. I went to Government Hospital, Ponnur and recorded the statement of Kaki Ratna Kumari and he registered Ex.P3/ FIR in Crime

No.140/2021 the offence u/sec.354,324,506 r/w 34 IPC and later, he examined P.W.1 at Hospital itself and recorded her statement u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. On 12.05.2021 he went to the scene of offence there he examined P.W.2 to P.W.4, L.W.5, L.W.6 and recorded their detailed statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. and on the same day he drafted Ex.P4/ Rough Sketch at the scene of offence itself. On 12.05.2021 he served the Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused.

On 24.05.2021, he received the Ex.P2/Wound Certificate. Later he handed over the case record to L.W.9/P.Bhagya Raj, S.I. of Police of Ponnur Rural P.S.

P.W.6 in his cross-examination deposed that P.W.1 came to the Police Station on 12.05.2021 at about 08:00 P.M. and he received the Hospital Intimation at 08:00 P.M. on 08.05.2021. He denied a suggestion that the Vijay i.e. A1 filed a report against 8

L.W.1 to L.W.6 and it is registered as Crime No.139/2021 on political influence as a counter blast the crime no.140/2021 was registered against A1 to A12 though the P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not sustain any injuries and no such incident was happened as that of

Ex.P1 and 161 Cr.P.C. statements. He admitted that he has not examined any of the neighbours those are shown in the Rough

Sketch and he has done table investigation.

18.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that

P.W.1 is the victim woman and her evidence coupled with P.W.2 and P.W.6 clearly proves that the accused beat P.W.1 with stick which causes voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and the accused outrage the modesty of P.W.1 by put her hands on the chest and also threatened to kill them and hence prayed the court to convict the accused.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused argued that

P.W.1 did not depose in her evidence as deposed in her Ex.P1 report and in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that the accused torned her jacket and also except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no independent witness to corroborate the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the Wound certificate of P.W.2 issued by P.W.5/Medical Officer evidence also did not prove that the injured only received tenderness and no external injuries and the investigation officer evidence also did not support the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, and hence prayed the court to acquit the accused.

19.On perusal of prosecution witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 are the wife and husband except their evidence there is no evidence of independent witnesses to corroborate the version of P.Ws.1 and

2. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.2 was beaten by the accused and he sustained injuries on his right side chest and he took treatment by the medical officer on 12.05.2021 and as per 9 wound certificate, the injuries are only internal injuries but no external injuries and the incident was happened on 08.05.2021 whereas the Medical Officer examined P.W.2 on 12.05.2021 at 08.15 p.m., but the wound certificate issued to P.W.2 by the

Medical Officer on 24.07.2021 and it shows that whether the examination of P.W.2 by the Medical officer is doubtful as the issuance of wound certificate to P.W.2 by the Medical officer takes two months time for a simple injury and the investigating officer also did not seize the weapon i.e., stick which was used in the commission of alleged offence to prove the ingredients of Sec.324

IPC. Furthermore, as per the evidence of investigation officer/P.W.6 that he received hospital intimation on 08.05.2021 at about 02.00 p.m., but the injured P.W.2 deposed in his cross examination that though the incident occurred on 08.05.2021, he was admitted in the hospital after four days of the occurrence of incident and it creates doubt that the injured/P.w.2 without going to hospital on the date of occurrence of offence how the hospital authorities sent hospital intimation to the investigation officer on 08.05.2021, how it is possible for the investigation officer that he received hospital intimation on the date of alleged incident which itself proves that the investigation done by the investigating officer is doubtful and the investigating officer made self contradiction with regard to his investigation which is fatal to the prosecution version. The incident was occured on 08.05.2021 and the report lodged by P.W.1 was on 12.05.2021 and the reason for delay of 4 days was not explained by the investigating officer in column No.8 of the FIR.

Coming to the offence U/Sec.506 IPC - Criminal Intimidation of threatening to kill P.W.1 and 2 was no where deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination except stated in their 161(3)

Cr.P.C statements and the report given by P.W.1 and the said fact was silent in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

10

As per Section 354 of the IPC - Outraging the Modesty of a

Woman and outraging the modesty of P.W.1 and as per Ex.P1 and the 161 Cr.P.c. statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, the accused A1, A3 and

A11 placed their hands on chest by caught hold her hands pushed her a little and torned her jacket whereas P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in their chief examination that the accused put the hands on her chest and pulled her boarder of the saree but they deposed different version in their evidence as previously stated in the report and their 161 Cr.P.C statements either accused torn the jacket or pulled the boarder of the saree of P.W.1 and their evidence not inspiring confidence of the court to prove the ingredients of Sec.354 IPC and lastly r/w 34 IPC - the specific overtact of each accused ie., A1 to A12 is not at all mentioned by

P.Ws.1 to 4 either in Ex.P1 or in their 161 Cr.P.C statements and also in the chief eaxamination which was deposedbefor the court, so Sec. 34 IPC could not be established by the prosecution.

Further, there is no support from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.3 is the relative of P.W.1 and he admits that he did not present at the time of alleged offence and P.W.4 evidence is the hearsay evidence and their evidence is not corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove the alleged offences of Sec.324, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

On perusal of entire record, there are several lacunas in the investigation and also failed to produce documentary evidence to prove the ingredients of Sec.324, 354 aned 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the alleged offences of Sec.324, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

11

20.In the result, A1 to A12 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.354, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code, accordingly, A1 to A12 are acquitted of the same, under section 271 (1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of A1 to A12, 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 to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

P.W.1 : Kaki Ratnakumari - None -

P.W.2 : Kaki Sudhakar

P.W.3 : Kaki Ramakrishnaiah

P.W.4 : Pedapalli Janardhan

P.W.5 : Md. Noorul Huda

P.W.6 : N. Kondala Rao the then A.S.I of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1. - Nil -

Ex.P2 : Wound Certificate of P.W.2

Ex.P3 : FIR

Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR

Present: Smt.M. Anjani Priyadarsini Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

e Monday, this the 25th day of November, 2024.

C.C.592/2021

Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police Station. … Complainant.

And

1. Kaki Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Ramachandrarao, 68 yrs, Mala, Kasukaarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Kaki Sudhakar, S/o. Ramachandrarao, 47 yrs, Mala, Kasukarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Kaki Suresh Babu @ Chinna, S/o. Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah, 38 yrs, Mala, Kasukarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. …. Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant Sri. B. Ankamma Rao, advocate for the accused and the matter having heard on 21.11.2024 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 139/2021 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences U/Sec.341 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

L.W.1/Vasimalla Vijay is a resident of Kasukarru Village,

Ponnur Mandal. During attending coolie works of his wife,

L.W.1/Vasimalla Vijay is dropping his children at the house of his grand mother i.e., L.W.2/Lingam Subbulu now and then. On 2 08.05.2021 night at about 20.00 hrs, L.W.1 went to Kasukarru

Village to take his children by conveying his auto, A1 to A3 are being kept their vehicles in the adjacent Bazar of Peda Ludharan

Church in his village and not to allow then L.W.1 took the obstruction vehicles and proceeding ahead. In the similar manner, yesterday, L.W.1/VAsimalla Vijay left the house and proceeding towards Ponnur by taking his children in his auto, A1 to A3 have restrained and stopped his auto among them A2 dragged L.W.1 by caught hold his shirt from the auto, A1 and A3 also came to him and saying that if he would come into the said bazaar, they would broken the glass of the auto, dragged him from the auto, saying that "CHAMPESTHANU NAA KODAKA NINNU THANTHE DIKKE EVARU,

NEE DIKKUNNA CHOTA CHEPPUKO AND CAME TO HIM ARMED

WITH SUTTI AND CROW BAR" and he got suspected and fear about his life from their clutches and L.Ws.2 to 5 witnessed and tried to stop the accused, but they did not hear the words of L.Ws.2 to 5.

Then, L.W.1 presented a report to the police.

Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.6/Asst. Sub Inspector of

Police, Ponnur Rural P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.139/2021,

U/Secs.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined L.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Later, on 15.07.2021, L.W.6/Asst. Sub Inspector of Police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet under section 341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Cognizance of the offence was taken against A1 to A3 under

Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

3

5. The accused A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.239 of Code of

Criminal Procedure Code and charges framed against A1 to A3 for the offences U/Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined U/Sec.351 of B.N.S.S. by explaining the incriminating evidence made against them from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A3

for the offences U/Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?”

10. POINT:-

The case of the prosecution that on 08.05.2021 at about 08.30 p.m., while the complainant/L.W.1/Vasimalla Vijay taking his children from the house of L.W.2 who is grand mother by conveying his auto at that time, all the accused obstructed him and dragged him from the auto and uttered as Auto ee bazar loki Ravvaddu ante vasatav and all the accused warned him to end of his life and that all the accused thereby committed the offences U/Secs.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

11.It is the evidence of defacto complainant/P.W.1 that the incident occurred on 08.05.2021 at about 08:00 PM. at the house of

A1. On the date of occurrence, he went to Kasukarru in an Auto to bring his children back home and when he reached to the house of 4

A1, A1 stopped the Auto and caught hold the Shirt and threatened him that he would kill him, if he come to his place. In the meanwhile, A2 and A3 came to the crime scene by holding hammer and crowbar to damage the auto and Al kept the Bike on the way through which he has to pass and re-pass. When he asked Al about keeping his Bike, on which, he got angry and began bearing and keeping the grudge in mind, assaulted him. Then, he lodged

Ex.P1/Report which bears his signature.

In his cross examination P.W.1 deposed that the Kasukarru is at a distance of one kilometer from Ponnur and it takes ten minutes time in an auto to reach from Kasukarru to Ponnur. The alleged incident was happened at about 08.00 p.m., and he lodged a report on 12.05.2021. P.W.2 is his brother and P.W.3 is his Junior Paternal

Aunt. P.W.1 further deposed that the wife of A2 lodged a report against her vide CC No.593/2021 in which himself, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the accused in the aforementioned case. A Panchayath Office is located infront of the house of A1 and he did not lodge any report against Al to the Panchayath Officials for causing obstruction, he did not lodge any report when he was threatened by Al for violence. He denied a suggestion that in order to get over from the case filed by the wife of A2 vide CC No.593/2021, he framed a false case against the accused and he is deposing falsehood.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.1 is his brother and the incident occurred on 08.05.2021 at about 08.00 p.m., on the road at that time, he was present in the center, A1 to A3 caught hold the shirt of P.W.1 and pulled his shirt and A1 to A3 brought the spade and crowbar and threatened P.W.1 that they would kill him, if he passes through their house.

In his cross examination P.W,2 deposed that Kasukarru center is at a distance of four hundred meters from the crime scene. He deposed that there were no cross terms in between the accused and

P.W.1 prior to the alleged occurrence and he is arrayed as accusd in 5

CC.593/2021. He denied the suggestion that in order to get over

from the case filed by wife of A2 in CC.593/2021, he framed a false case against the accused.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.3 that P.W.1 is son by courtesy and deposed that the incident was occurred on 08.05.2021 at about 08.00 p.m., on the road at that time, he was present in the house and he heard a wordy commotion outside, and noticed A1 caught hold the shirt of P.W.1 and pushed him against the Thatched thatty, and he intervened and separated them and A1 brought the hammer and cobar.

P.W.3 deposed in his cross-examination that five houses are intervened in between him and the house of A1 and the wife of A2 lodged a report against him, P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 is the son by courtesy. He denied the suggestion that in order to get over from the case filed by wife of A2 in CC.593/2021, himself, P.W.1 and P.W.2 framed a false case against the accused and he is deposed falsehood.

14.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that grandmother of P.W.1 deposed that the incident occurred around two years back at about 08.00 p.m., on the road while, he was present in the house, P.W.1 was taking his children in an auto to his house, at that time A1 to A3 stopped the auto and hit P.W.1 with a stick, whereupon the report was lodged.

P.W.4 deposed in his cross-examination that he is one of the accused in CC.593/2021 and there were no cross terms in between the accused and P.W.1 prior to the alleged occurrence and five houses are intervened in between her house and the house of A1.

She denied the suggestion that in order to get over from the case filed by wife of A2 in CC.593/2021, they framed a false case against the accused. There are no previous quarrels in between him and

L.W.5.

6

15.It is the evidence of P.W.5/investigation officer deposed that on 12.05.2021 at about 01:30 P.M., he received the Report from P.W.1, then he registered Ex.P3/FIR in Crime No.139/2021 for the offence u/secs.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC. On 12.05.2021 he went to the scene of offence and he examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, L.W.5 and recorded their detailed statements u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. and on the same day, he drafted Ex.P3/ Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. On 15.07.2021 he served the Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Later he handed over the case record to L.W.7/P.Bhagya Raj, S.I. of Police of

Ponnur Rural P.S.

In his cross-examination P.W.5 admitted that according to

Ex.P1 the occurrence of incident was on 08.05.2021 and the distance between scene of offence and the Police Station is 3 kms and it will take 20 minutes to reach Police Station from the Scene of offence. He admitted that there is a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint and the reason for delay is not mentioned in column number 8 of Ex.P2/FIR and also in Ex.P1 and there is no seizure of material object and weapon in this case. He further admitted that he has not mentioned the date of drafting the Rough Sketch, not examined any of the neighbours those are shown in the Rough

Sketch and in his investigation, it is not traced as that of Ex.P1 that previously two to three times there were disputes between the both parties and he is the investigating officer in the crime no.140/2021 also, which was filed by the wife of A2 and others against P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and others. He denied the suggestion that he had done table investigation.

16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 along with the documentary evidence

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused are liable to be convicted. The counsel for the accused argued that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 who are family members and P.W.5 is the investigating officer no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution and the 7 prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

17.On perusal of evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the family members i.e., brother, aunt, grandmother and except their evidence, no independent witness to support the version of P.W.1 with regard to obstruction of P.W.1. As per the evidence of P.W.1 the incident occurred at the house of A1 whereas as per the evidences of P.W.2 to 4 the incident occurred on the road and there is no corroboration with regard to scene of offence. In the cross-examination P.W.1 deposed that he lodged report on 12.05.2021 and that the wife of A2 lodged report against him vide C.C.No.593/2021 wherein himself,

P.W.2 and 3 are the accused in that case. He did not lodge any report against A1 to the Panchayat Officials for causing obstruction and he did not lodge any report when he was threatened by A1 for violence. A1 is aged about 70 yrs and he is not aware that A2 is infected with corona virus during the pandemic period. P.W.2 in his cross examination deposed that there were no cross terms in between the accused and P.W.1 prior to the alleged occurrence and he is arrayed as accused in CC.593/2021. In his cross examination

P.W.3 deposed that the wife of A2 lodged report against himself,

P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that while he was present in the house P.W.1 taking his children in an auto to his house at that time, A1 to A3 stopped the auto and hit P.W.1 with a stick. P.W.3 admits in the cross examination that she is the one of the accused in CC.593/2021. She admits that P.W.1 her daughter by courtesy and there were no cross terms in between P.W.1 and the accused prior to the alleged occurrence. As per the evidence of investigating officer there is a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint and the delay is not mentioned in column No.8 of the FIR.

He admitted that he has not examined the neighbours which are shown in the rough sketch.

18.On perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 the date of commission of offence is 08.05.2021 whereas the date of giving complaint is 8 12.05.2021 but, the delay was not mentioned in the column No.8 of the FIR by the Investigating Officer and the reason is not explained.

The evidence of P.W.3 and 4 apparently shows that their evidence is hearsay evidence and also in cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 4 there is an admission with regard to counter case that was filed by the accused against P.Ws.1 to 3. By going through the evidence,

Threatening of P.W.1 by A1 was not established by the prosecution as well as stopping of P.W.1 i.e., restraining of P.W.1 to prove the ingredients of Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. As per the admission made by P.Ws.1 to 3 that there are no cross terms between A1 and

P.W.1. As there is no corroboration between the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.4 to prove their contention, and the entire evidence clearly shows that this case is filed against the accused as a counter blast of C.C.593/2021. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the sections 341, 506 of IPC and lastly r/w 34 IPC - restraining and threatening of each accused ie., A1 to A3 is not at all specifically mentioned by P.Ws.1 to 4 either in Ex.P1 or in their 161 Cr.P.C statements and also in the chief examination which was deposed before the court, so Sec. 34

IPC could not be established by the prosecution.

19.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code, accordingly they are acquitted under section 271 (1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 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 to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1 : Vasimalla Vijay - None -

P.W.2 : Vasimella Raviteja

P.W.3 : Mande Madhavi

P.w.4 : Lingam Subbulu

P.W.5 : N. Kondala Rao

A.S.I of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report given by P.W.1. - NIL -

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR

Present: Smt.M. Anjani Priyadarsini Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

CC.No.592/2021

Dates of : Offence:: 08.05.2021

Complaint: 12.05.2021

Apprehension of Accused: --

Release on Bail: --

Commencement of Trial: 23.05.2022

Close of trial: 31.07.2024

Sentence or order: 25.11.2024

Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of prosecution witnesses in time.

Name of prosecution : The State: Sub-Inspector of police, Ponnur Rural P.S, (Cr.No.139/2021) Name of the accused:

1. Kaki Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah, S/o. Ramachandrarao, 68 yrs, Mala, Kasukaarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Kaki Sudhakar, S/o. Ramachandrarao, 47 yrs, Mala, Kasukarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Kaki Suresh Babu @ Chinna, S/o. Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishnaiah, 38 yrs, Mala, Kasukarru Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

Offence: U/Secs.341, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Plea of the accused: Not guilty Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code, accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section 271 (1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 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

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur Copy Submitted to: The Chief Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR

Present: Smt.M. Anjani Priyadarsini Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of November, 2024

C.C.13/2022

Between: State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Rural Police Station.… Complainant.

And

1. Sareddu Rambabu, S/o. Yogeswara Rao, 45 yrs, Yadava, Chinthalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Now at Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

2. Kurra Srinivasarao @ Vasu, S/o. Subbarao, 32 yrs, Kamma, Chinthalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Now at Sidardha Colony, Ponnur Town.

3. Kommalapati Srinivas, S/o. Yedukondalu, 22 yrs, Mala, Balaji Nagar, Nandivelugu Road, Guntur. Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 7189

4. Khambhampati Yesupadam, S/o. Andreya, 20 yrs, Nagaraju Colony, 11th line, Reddypalem, Pedakakani, Guntur. Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 07 TE 0043

5. Kollipara Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Khadraiah, 46 yrs, Vysya, D.No.8-8-91, 3rd line, Nehru Nagar, Guntur. ….Accused

This case has come up before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Lakshmi garu, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor

for the complainant Sri. Ch. Nagaraju garu, advocate for the accused

and the matter having heard on 04.11.2024 and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.108/2020 against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences U/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act.

2

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 01.06.2020 at 01.30 p.m., on receipt of credible information about the illegal storage of PDS rice at Balaji Rice Mill,

L.W.9/Sub Inspector of Police along with his staff, mediators conducted raid on Balaji Rice Mill, Chinthalapudi Village, Ponnur

Mandal and While A3 and A4 unloaded the PDS rice to the Balaji

Rice Mill on two lorries with coolies at that time police caught hold them and on enquiry all the accused revealed that A1 being the

Manager and working partner of the Balaji Rice Mill illegally possession and unload the PDS rice to the rice mill on the two lorries, A2 being the lease holder, A3 and A4 being the lorry drivers belongs to Guntur are the drivers of the lorry bearing Nos. AP 05 U 7189 and AP 07 TE 0043 are collected the PDS rice from nearest villages of Guntur in low cost and same was selling to the rice mill for RS.16/- per Kg and while the PDS rice bags were downloaded from the lorries to the rice mill, police came and the accused tried to skulk away and the police seized total 513 plastic bags of PDS rice (each bag containing 50 Kgs. of PDS rice) from two lorries from the possession of accused under cover of mediatornama and the same was handed over to Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Suppliers, Ponnur and seized both lorries are kept in police station.

Basing on the Mediatornama, L.W.9/Sub Inspector of Police,

Ponnur Rural P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.108/2020, U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 7 of E. C. Act. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. Later, L.W.9/Sub Inspector of Police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notices to A1 to A55. Later, sent the seized rice for opinion and the analysis report report confirmed as raw rice grade A and it is not possible to distinguish between PDS and other rice and the corporation cannot confirm the referred sample as rice under PDS.

After completion of investigation, the case was culminated into charge sheet U/Sec.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act.

3

3.Cognizance of the offence was taken against A1 to A5 under

Section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act against A1 to A5.

4.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.262 B,N.S.S and charges were framed against A1 to A5 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act was read over and explained to them in

Telugu language, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. P.W.1 is the police constable. P.W.2 is the Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies, Ponnur

Town P.W.3 is the investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the Mediatornama.

Ex.P2 is the Signature of P.W.2 on the mediatornama. Ex.P3 is the

FIR, Ex.P4 is the Rough Sketch, Ex.P5 is the Chemical Analysis

Report.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 were examined U/Sec.351 B.N.S.S. by explaining the incriminating evidence made against them from the prosecution evidence in

Telugu, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence U/Sec. 420 r/w 34 of IPC and u/Sec.7 of

Essential commodities Act. ?” 4

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses along with Exs.P1 to Ex.P5 categorically proved the case of the prosecution and hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no proof to show that the sized rice is PDS rice and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused are entitled to be acquitted.

11. The evidence of P.W.1 who is Police Constable of Ponnur Rural

P.S., deposed that on 01.06.2020 at about 01:30 P.M., while he was present in the Police Station, on receipt of credible information, himself, L.W.2, L.W.3 accompanied with S.I. of Ponnur Rural P.S.

proceeded to the crime scene situated at Balaji Rice Par Boiled and

Raw Rice Mill, Chintalalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal and thereat, they noticed that A1 and whereupon, they caught hold A1 and the

S.I. of Police interrogated, during the interrogation in the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.6 and L.W.7, he made a disclosure statement with respect to the PDS Rice in first lorry total 250 plastic bags are found and verify the weigh among one Plastic Bag 50 Kgs, thereafter counting second Lorry total 263 plastic bags are found at second lorry, then verify the weigh among one plastic bag 50 Kgs. Total 513 plastic bags of rice each one 50 Kgs are found and seized 513 bags of PDS rice (each one bag 50 Kg) from the possession of A1 under the cover of Mediatornama. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

In the cross examination P.W.1 admitted that the crime scene is surrounded by Houses and Public Offices i.e., MRO Office, SRO

Office, STO Office and they noticed the general public at the crime scene. PDS rice is available in the Open market. He admitted that they did not notice any stickers on the Rice Bags and they did not 5 produce any documentary proof to show that the Rice is question in

PDS Rice.

12.P.W.2/Deputy Tahsildar of Ponnur Town who acted as mediator deposed in his evidence that on 01.06.2020 at early hours, the call received by the police, he himself proceeded to the crime scene situated at Balaji Rice Mill, Chinthalapudi village, Ponnur

Mandal and thereat they noticed that the accused whereupon,

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and S.I of Police of Ponnur Rural P.s., caught hold the accused and during interrogation by the S.I of POlice, the accused made a dislosure stataement with respect to the PDS rice totally 250 plastic bags are found at lorry, then verify with among one plastci bagas 50 Kgs. The total 513 plastic bags of riace each one 50 Kgs. are found from the possession of the accused. Pursuant the confessional statement, S.I of Ponnur Rural P.S., seized the aforementioned bags under the cover of Ex.P1/ mediatornama which bears his signature marked as Ex.P2.

In cross-examination P.W.2 admitted that Police did not summon him to act as Mediator and he has not drafted Ex.P1 and the Police gave him the Receipt and he affixed his signature on it.

He does not know what kind of Rice it is. He further admitted that there is no signature of the Scribe on the Mediatornama and the bags does not contains any stickers/labels to show that the Rice is

PDS Rice and he did not obtain the signature of the accused. He denied a suggestion that Police did not handover any rice bags, but obtained the Receipt and he is deposing false.

13.The investigation officer examined as P.W.3 and he deposed that On 01.06.2020 at about 03:00 P.M., on receipt of credible information, himself, P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.2, L.W.3 to L.W.8 proceeded to the crime scene situated at Balaji Rice Par Boiled and

Raw Rice Mill and thereat, we caught hold A1 and during the 6 interrogation in the presence of mediators i.e. L.W.6 and L.W.7, he made a disclosure statement with respect to the PDS Rice in first lorry total 250 plastic bags are found and verify the weigh among one Plastic Bag 50 Kgs, thereafter counting second Lorry total 263 plastic bags are found at second lorry, then verify the weigh among one plastic bag 50 Kgs. Total 513 plastic bags of rice each one 50

Kgs are found and seized 513 bags of PDS rice (each one bag 50 Kg) from the possession of A1. Pursuant the Confessional Statement, he seized the aforementioned bags under the cover of Mediatornama vide Ex.P1/Mediatornama. Basing on Ex.P1/ Mediatornama, he registered the case in crime no.108/2020, U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC & Sec.7 of E.C.Act under Ex.P3/FIR. Later, he lifted the samples and send the same to obtain the Ex.P5/Chemical Analysis Report, he had drawn Ex.P4/ Rough Sketch of the scene of offence at scene of offence itself. On 01.06.2020 served section 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to

A1 and on 03.06.2020 served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to A2 to

A5. After completion of investigation, L.W.11/P.Bhagya Raj, S.I. of

Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A5.

In the cross-examination P.W.3 admitted that tThe crime scene is surrounded by Public Offices and at the crime scene several persons gathered, he did not examine the Independent Witnesses.

He admitted that the First Lorry bearing Number AP 05 U 7189 and

Second Lorry bearing Number AP 07 TE 0043 not produced before the Court. He further admitted that he did not try to secure the mediators and did not notice any stickers on the PDS rice bags and it is not possible to distinguish between PDS and other Rice, the

Corporation cannot confirmed the referred samples as the Rice is

PDS rice. He denied the suggestion that even though, no case is made out, he framed a false case against the accused and he has done table investigation for the purpose of statistics.

14.On perusal of evidence on record, P.W.1 is the police personnel and his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case to know 7 about the seizure of rice is PDS or not. P.W. admitted in his cross examination that the crime scene is surrounded by residential houses and Public Officer whereas P.W3 admitted that the crime scene is surrounded by Public Offices. There is no corroboration in between the evidence of P.W.1 and the police official P.W.3 with regard to scene of offence which itself creates doubt whether the police seized the PDS rice from the possession of the accused at the crime scene or not. But, none of the mediators were secured by the police officials at the time of seizure of PDS rice from the possession of the accused. Further, P.W.1 to 3 admitted that they did not notice any stickers on the PDS rice bags. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the rice in question is PDS rice and as per the admission of P.W.2 that he does not know what kind of rice it is and P.W.3 also admitted that it is not possible to distinguish between PDS or other rice and the corporation cannot confirmed the referred samples are as PDS rice or not. Basing on the admissions of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no clarity that the rice seized by the investigating was PDS rice or not. Hence, the above elcitations made out from the cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are in support of the contention of the counsel for the accused that the alleged seizure of rice by the police officials from the possession of the accused in the absence of the mediators vitiates the proceedings and the mediatornama is not supported by the signature of scribe, accused and mediators i.e., independent witnesses who are very much essential to prove the case.

15. Further, normally it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in market and it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in open market, through naked eye. Without verifying documents and registers, it is not possible to confirm that the seized rice, as that variety of PDS rice is available in open market. Except making allegation that accused procured PDS rice, the prosecution failed to 8 place any material to show that alleged seized rice for beneficiaries (below poverty line families). Hence, in view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 8 rice bags was proved by prosecution and accordingly the point is answered in favour prosecution.

16. In view of the discussion it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act. This point is answered accordingly.

17. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of

Essential Commodities Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.271 (1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1 : K. Siva Krishna - None -

P.W.2 : Thota Niranjan Babu,

Deputy Tahilsdar, Civil Suppliers, Ponnur Town.

P.W.3 : P. Koteswara Rao,

The then S.I of Police, Ponnur Rural P.S.

9

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Mediatornama - NIL -

Ex.P2 : Signature of P.W.2 on the mediatornama

Ex.P3 : FIR

Ex.P4 : Rough Sketch.

Ex.P5 : Chemical Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

10

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PONNUR

Present: Smt. M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

CC.No.13/2022

Dates of :

Offence:: 01.06.2020 Complaint: 01.06.2020 Apprehension of Accused: -- Release on Bail: -- Commencement of Trial: 23.08.2024 Close of trial: 25.11.2024 Sentence or order: 28.11.2024 Explanation for delay: Due to non-production of prosecution witnesses in time.

Name of prosecution : The State : Sub-Inspector of police, Ponnur Rural P.S, (Cr.No.108/2020) Name of the accused:

1. Sareddu Rambabu, S/o. Yogeswara Rao, 45 yrs, Yadava, Chinthalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Now at Nidubrolu, Ponnur Town.

2. Kurra Srinivasarao @ Vasu, S/o. Subbarao, 32 yrs, Kamma, Chinthalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Now at Sidardha Colony, Ponnur Town.

3. Kommalapati Srinivas, S/o. Yedukondalu, 22 yrs, Mala, Balaji Nagar, Nandivelugu Road, Guntur. Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 05 U 7189

4. Khambhampati Yesupadam, S/o. Andreya, 20 yrs, Nagaraju Colony, 11th line, Reddypalem, Pedakakani, Guntur. Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 07 TE 0043

5. Kollipara Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Khadraiah, 46 yrs, Vysya, D.No.8-8-91, 3rd line, Nehru Nagar, Guntur.

11

Offence: U/s. 420 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C. Act

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/sec.271 (1) of B.N.S.S. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur Copy Submitted to: The Chief Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION), PONNUR

Present: Smt.M. Anjani Priyadarsini Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ponnur.

Tuesday, this the 3rd day of December, 2024

STC.No.260/2023

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S. (Cr.No.240/2023) … Complainant

And

Putla Srinivasa Rao @ Sreenu, S/o. Prakasa Rao, 49 yrs, Mala, R/o. Mannaa Village, Ponnur Mandal (A10)

This case is against A10 split up from STC.60/2022 against (A1 toA9 and A11 to A13) … Accused

This case is coming on before me today i.e.,03.12.2024 in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the state and of Sri G. S. Royal Advocate for Accused A10, and upon perusing all the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ponnur Town P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused(A10) in Cr.No.09/2021 for the offences u/s.143, 341 IPC of Ponnur Town P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18-01-2021, at about 08-00 Hrs while he and PC 4430 are regulating traffic duties at Island centre, Ponnur and found A1 to A13 of you formed into an un-lawful assembly and causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic vehicular on the road and raised slogans by playing drums must release state leader of KNPS viz Duddu Prabhakara Rao holding a flexi banner written abolition of Un-lawful activities of Prevention Act 2

PORATA SAMITHI took a procession in protest against the abolition of UAP Act, then he and L.Ws.2 to 6 asked him not to take a dharna without prior permission when 30 police Act was in force but they paid deaf ear and staged dharna upto 11-20 Hrs from 10-40 Hrs and moved in procession up to the office of Mandal Revenue Officer,

Ponnur Town, forming into members of Unlawful Assembly, causing wrongful restraint to the free flow of traffic defying the orders of the government, then L.W.1 presented a report to the police, Basing on it, L.W.11/S.I of Police registered it as a case in Cr.No.09/2021

U/Sec.188, 143, 341 IPC and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the scene, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded the statements of

L.Ws.1 to 8. On L.W.11/S.I of police served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.143, 341 IPC.

3. This court after perusing the charge sheet and other material on record took cognizance for the offence u/sec.143, 341of IPC against the accused/A10.

4.On appearance of accused, Copies were furnished to him as per

Sec.230 B.N.S.S.

5.Accused is examined U/Sec.274 B.N.S.S. The sum and substance of accusation alleged against the accused is read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he admitted guilt voluntarily. Hence, Accused/A10 is found guilty for the offence

U/Sec. 143, 341 IPC i.e., New 189, 126(2) BNS, 2023 and he is convicted U/Sec.275 B.N.N.S.

6.Accused/A10 is questioned on quantum of sentence for the offence New U/Sec.143, 341 IPC i.e., New 189, 126(2) BNS, 2023 which is imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.2,500/- for which the accused stated that it is he is suffering highly with spinal 3 cord problem and he did not stand his own and he is bedridden patient and he is depending on others for his daily needs also, hence, prayed the court to take lenient view. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the accused, this court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

7.In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offences U/s.

143, 341 IPC i.e., New 189, 126(2) BNS, 2023 and he is convicted

U/s.275 BNSS. The accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- for the offences under Sec.143, 341 IPC i.e., New 189, 126(2) BNS, 2023 and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 7 days. The

Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 3rd day of December, 2024.

Sd/- M. Anjani Priyadarsini

Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

FAC. Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ponnur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/- M. A. P

PCJ (JD)/PONNUR FAC. ACJ(JD)/PONNUR.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PONNUR

Present:Smt.M.Anjani Priyadarsini Prl.Civil Judge,(Junior Division),Ponnur

Thursday, the 5th day of December, 2024

E.P.No.26 of 2024 in O.S.No.172 of 2021

Between:

1.Manduru Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Manduru Peda Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Private Employee, R/o Presently residing at House No.1-13-5, Suryanagar Colony, Opposite to Lifeline, Hospital Kapra, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

2.Kodali Jyothi Kumari, D/o Late M.Peda Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 47 years, House-wife, R/o Door No.21-2-10, Gajulapalem, Ponnur Town and Mandal, Guntur District. …. Plaintiffs/D.Hrs

and

Nannapaneni Veeraiah Chowdary, S/o N.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business, C/o Koganti Gokul Chand, Near Vinayaka Temple, Mannevari Veedhi, Nidubrolu Town, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.

...Defendant/J.Dr.

This E.P is filed U/o 21, R.37 of CPC and the D.Hr personally and through mediators approached the J.Dr and requested him to pay the decree amount, but the J.Dr postponing the same on some pretext or the other even the J.Dr is having sufficient properties and in order to put the D.Hr in troubles and subsequently to issue warrant of Arrest against the J.Dr U/o 21 and R.38 of CPC if he fails to pay the E.P warrant amount and he may be committed to civil prison for realization of the E.P warrant amount with costs and for payment of the same to the DHr.

This E.P is coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri M.Eresu, and of Smt

D.Nasaramma, Advocates for D.Hr and at the stage of notice to J.Dr through Court and

R.P. on payment of process; and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

J.Dr paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to D.Hrs. F.S. memo filed by D.Hrs and the same is recorded. Hence, the E.P is terminated. Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this 5th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Prl.Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ponnur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- M.Anjani Priyadarsini

Prl.Civil Judge,(Junior Division), Ponnur.