Sri M.Bhaskara Rao

1

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

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Palasa

Monday, this the 7th day of December,2020.

Calendar Case No. 237/2019

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

…. Complainant

And: Marri Ashokkumar, S/o. Chiranjeevulu, aged about 30 years, Caste: Agnikula Kshatriya, Occ: Lasbour, R/o. New Colony, Kasibugga Town, Palasa Kasibugga Municipality, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. …. Accused

This case came up on 04-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri. B.K.R. PatnaikAdvocate for the Accused upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.307 of 2019 of Kasibugga Police

Station.

2)The nub of the prosecution theory is that:

(i)on 05.11.2019 after having lunch, while LW.1/Smt. Belamara

Chudamani was sleeping at her house by closing the front door and by opening the rear side door, at about 3.30 p.m., the accused who was a tenant of herself trespassed into her house through the rear side way and attempted to snatch gold chain and necklace due to which she pushed the accused and ran away from the house, the accused fled away from the house by taking Rs.2,000/-.

(ii)During the course of investigation on 08.11.2019 on receipt of reliable information LW.10/Sri. B.K.V. Prasad, Assistant Sub Inspector of

Police, Kasibugga Police Station arrested the accused at about 8.30 a.m, near Railway Station, Palasa in presence of LW.8/Sri. Kanithi Suresh and

LW.9/Sri. Rusva Mohanarao the accused confessed about the offence 2 and he seized two Rs. 500/- notes which are the part of stolen property from the possession of accused under the cover of confession report.

Based on the same LW.11/Sri. R. Venugopal, the Inspector of Kasibugga

Police Station verified the investigation of LW-10 and filed charge sheet against the Accused. Hence, this case.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused was examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charge under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian

Penal Code were framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined P.Ws.1 to P.Ws. 6 out of 11 cited witnesses and exhibited

Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.5 and M.O-1. The evidences of LW.3/Smt. Buthada

Kamala, LW.4/Sri. Kotni Balachandrarao, LW.5/Smt. Potnuru Laxmi,

LW.7/Sri. Telakacharla Srinivasarao and LW.11/Sri. R. Venugopal, the

Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station are given up by the

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. The specific contention of the defense is that the accused is a tenant of defacto complainant and in order to evict the accused this case is foisted against the accused. No eye witness examined and there are contradictions in the evidence of mediators i.e., P.W-3 and P.W-4 . Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of the prosecution.

3

9.In view of the rival contentions now the point for determination is:-

(i)Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed theft at dwelling house of PW.5/Smt. Belamara Chudamani by committing lurking house trespass and the P.W-6 recovered M.O-1 which is the part of stolen property from the possession of the accused ?

10.P o i n t

(i)In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged, the prosecution must establish that the accused committed theft at dwelling house of PW.5/Smt. Belamara Chudamani by committing lurking house trespass by attempted to snatch gold chain and necklace due to which she pushed the accused and ran away from the house, the accused fled away from the house by taking Rs.2,000/-and the P.W-6 recovered M.O-1 which is the part of stolen property from the possession of the accused. In order to determine the same, the evidence available

before this court is the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 to P.Ws.6 and Exts.P1 to

Exts.P5.

(ii). P.W.1 is the son of LW.1/Smt. Belamara Chudamani, PW.2 is the witness to scene observation report and in whose presence the scene of offence was said to have observed. PWs.3 and P.w-4 are said to be mediators and in whose presence the accused was said to have confessed about the theft and arrested and recovered of part of stolen property of two Rs.500/- notes from the possession of the accused. PW.5 is the defacto complainant, PW.6 who is an investigation officer in this case.

(iii)PW.1 testified that on 06.11.2019, at about 3.30 p.m., while he was at his school, he received phone call from his sister LW.3/Sri. Buthada

Kamala informing that the accused trespassed into the room in which his mother was sleeping and attempted to snatch the gold chain, as such she came out from the house and the gold chain was broken into pieces, the accused took Rs.2000/- which was kept under the pillow and fled away, as such, he rushed to his home and enquired his mother LW.1/Smt.

Belama Chudamani about the incident. He further deposed that he called the accused and his mother, the mother of the accused gave adamant reply, as such his mother, LW.1/Smt. Belama Chudamani lodged report

before the police.

4

(iv)On perusal of evidence P.W-1, he is son of defacto complainant who is examined as PW-5 . Even though cross examined nothing was elicited to disbelieve the version of P.W-1. More over P.W-1 is a hearsay and circumstancial witness and PW-1 categorically deposed in his chief examination about he received phone call from his sister L.w.3/Buthada.

Kamala about the accused tresspassed into the room of his mother and attempted to snatch the gold chain as such his mother came out from the house and the said gold chain was broken into pieces and the accused took Rs.2000/- which was kept under the pillow and fled away as such

P.W-1 rushed to his home and enquired his mother about the incident .

PW-1 also categorically deposed that he called the accused and his mother and the mother of the accused gave adamant reply as such the evidence of PW-1 will be scrutinized in the light of evidence of his mother who is examined as PW-5.

(v)PW.2 testified that on 07.01.2019 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was at his house situated in new colony, Kasibugga, he was summoned to the scene of offence situated at the house of LW.1/Smt. Belamala Chudamani by the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, police observed the scene of offence in his presence and drafted scene observation report. Even though cross examined nothing was elicited to disbelieve the version of P.W-2.

(vi)PW.3 testified that on 08.11.2019, at about 8.00 a.m, while he was going towards Railway Station, Palasa, the Assistant Sub Inspector of police caught the accused who was running and the Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police stopped him while he was going towards Railway

Station by the time the accused was in the custody of Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police. He enquired the accused about the offence for which the accused confessed, the accused was in possession of Rs.500/- notes two in number, they were seized by the police and a report was drafted to that effect, he signed on the same. The signature shown to him on the confession statement dated 08.11.2019 belongs to him.

(vii)Coming to cross examination of P.W-3 by the learned counsel for accused P.W-3 admitted that his wife was expired and she committed suicide by burning and the accused and his family members supported 5 the parents of his wife in the said incident but the said animosity is not considered to disbelieve the genuenity of testimony of P.W-3 about the recovery of M.O-1 from the possession of accused where P.W-3 denied the suggestion that there are disputes in between P.W-3- and accused.

where P.W-4 also acted as mediator along with P.W-3 . Even though P.W- 4 declared as hostile, during cross examination P.W-4 supported the version of prosecution about the recovery of M.O-1 from possession of accused as P.W-4 admitted during cross examination by learned A.P.P.

that it is true the accused confessed in his presence and Rs.1000/- was recovered from his possession ,thereafter he signed on Ex.P2.

(viii) PW.4 testified that on 08.11.2019 in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., while he was going towards railway station, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police caught the accused, out of curiosity he stopped over there and on enquiry he informed to the police that all belong New Colony,

Kasibugga, a report was drafted by the police and secured their signature.

The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station informed that he recovered Rs.1000/- from the accused. The signature shown to him on the Ext.P.2 belongs to him. Hence P.W-4 declared hostile and with the permission of the court, the learned A.P.P cross examined the P.W-4 and during cross examination P.W-4 admitted that it is true the accused confessed in his presence and Rs.1000/- was recovered from his possession ,thereafter he signed on Ex.P2.

(ix)PW.5 testified that the accused is tenant of her younger brother as such she has got acquaintance with him. On 06.11.2019 during the after noon hours, while she was sleeping at the room, at about 3.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the said room and pressed her neck and closed her mouth and accused attempted to snatch her chain, as such, she hold it due to which the chain was broken. He also took Rs.2000/- which were kept on the cot. She further deposed that she came out from her house and rushed to the room where LW.3/Smt. B. Kamalamma was staying, she lodged report before the police.

(x) During cross examination of P.W-5 by learned counsel for accused also P.W-5 deposed that the mother of the accused paid entire due to them . The accused is having wife ,children,mother and father and stated that except the accused all of his family members are good. Hence even 6 though cross examined nothing worthy is elicited to dislodge or disbelieve the testimony of P.W-5.

(xi)On careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record , the P.W-5 is a direct witness and the accused is known offender to P.W-5 . The evidence of P.W-5 is corroborated with Ex.P1 report and her previous statement in all material particulars and trust worthy on aspects which constitute the core of prosecution case. The evidence of P.W-5 is also corroborated with the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 with regard to theft committed at the dwelling house of PW-5. Further more the evidence of

P.W-5 could stand well corroborated by P.W-3 and P.W-4 who acted as mediators under Ex.P2 and P.W-6 about recovery of M.O.-1 in the presence of P.W-3 and P.W-4 from the possession of the accused. In such circumstances theft is proved in dwelling house of P.W-5 by accused by committing lurking house trespass. Hence , he is liable to be convicted for the offences charged under sections 454,380 and 411 of Indian penal code. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian penal code as such he is convicted under section 248(2) of code of criminal procedure.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Grade – III, prints are taken by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Palasa.

The accused is heard on quantum on sentence, he stated that he is having wife and children and he is eking out livelihood by doing coolie work. He has to look after the welfare of his family as such sought to take lenient leave.

Considering the nature of the offence committed by him, this court is not inclined to invoke the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders

Act. However considering the dependency of the accused and his representation, this court considered view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

In the result the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine sentenced to undergo simple 7 imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under section 454 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period from 08-11-2019 to 02-12-2019 undergone by the accused shall be set of u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.

M.O-1 i.e., Rs. 500/- notes 2 in number deposited vide C.P.No:1/2020 dt.

03.01.2020 entrusted to the P.W-5 shall be retained by her after expiry of appeal time. The accused complied section 437-A of Criminal Procedure

Code in order to ensure his presence before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Grade – III, prints are taken by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Palasa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1:Sri. Belama Nageswararao; P.W.2:Sri. Belamala Srinivasarao; P.W.3:Sri.Kanithi Suresh; P.W.4:Sri. R. Mohanarao; P.W.5:Smt. B. Chudamani; P.W.6:Sri. B.K.V. Prasad, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station;

For Defence:None were examined

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ext.P1:Scene observation report dt. 07.11.2019; 8

Ext.P2:Confession statement dated 08.11.2019;

Ext.P3:Report lodged by P.W.5/Smt. B. Chudamani dt. 06.11.2019;

Ext.P4:Original First Information Report dt. 06.11.2019;

Ext.P5:Rough sketch of the scene of offence dt. 07.11.2019;

For Defence:No documents were marked.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

For Prosecution: For Defence:

M.O.1:Rs.500/- notes two in number deposited vide CP.No.1/2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Palasa.

9

FORM NO.71 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there is one accused person)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

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

DATE OF OFFENCE:05.11.2019REPORT OR 06/11/19 COMPLAINT:

APPREHENSIONOF08/11/19RELEASEONBAIL02/12/19 ACCUSED :ACCUSED: REMAND OF ACCUSED:08/11/19

COMMENCEMENTOF04.12.2019CLOSE OF TRIAL:03/01/20 TRIAL:

SENTENCE OR ORDER:07/12/20 EXPLANATION OF DELAYDue to non production of the prosecution witnesses and in view of the notification AND REMARKS:issued by the Hon'ble High Court due to lock down, this matter is adjourned for several days for pronouncing the judgment. JUDGMENT IN C.C:237 of 2019 Cr.No. 307/2019 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

NAME, AGE, FATHER’S Marri Ashokkumar, S/o. Chiranjeevulu, aged about 30 years, Caste: Agnikula NAME,RELIGION,Kshatriya, Occ: Lasbour, R/o. New Colony, Kasibugga Town, Palasa Kasibugga CALLING, RESIDENCEMunicipality, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

AND TALUK OF THE

ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian Penal Code. U/sec.454 of Indian Penal Code: Lurking house trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. U/sec.380 of Indian Penal Code: Theft in dwelling house, etc. U/sec.411 of Indian Penal Code: Dishonestly receiving stolen property. FINDING:Found guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 454, 380 and 411 of Indian penal code as such he is convicted under section 248(2) of code of criminal procedure. The accused is heard on quantum on sentence, he stated that he is having wife and children and he is eking out livelihood by doing coolie work. He has to look after the welfare of his family as such sought to take lenient leave. Considering the nature of the offence committed by him, this court is not inclined to invoke the beneficial provisions of probation of offenders Act. However considering the dependency of the accused and his representation, this court considered view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice. In the result the accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under section 454 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and shall pay fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default of payment of fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days for the offence punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code. Further the accused is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period from 08-11-2019 to 02-12-2019 undergone by the accused shall be set of u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. M.O-1 i.e., Rs. 500/- notes 2 in number deposited vide C.P.No:1/2020 dt. 03.01.2020 entrusted to the P.W-5 shall be retained by her after expiry of appeal time. The accused complied section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure his presence before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. DATE OF RECEIPT07/12/20

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

PALASA.

10

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.237/2019 Date of Judgment:07/12/20 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulum

Note: The Accused paid fine amount of Rs.1,000/- vide TBR.No.40126840422020 Dt.07.12.2020.

1

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

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Palasa

Tuesday, this the 08th day of December, 2020

Calendar Case No. 265 of 2016

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. … Complainant

And:

1.Gorakala Mohanarao, S/o. Late Kamayya, aged about 49 years, Palli, Pedda Muraharipuram village, Vajrpaukotturu Mandal. Aadhar No.823898171382.

2.Gorakala Santhamma, W/o. Mohanarao, aged about 40 years, rest do; Aadhar No.412870384298. (Occupations of accused are not mentioned in the charge sheet) … Accused

This case came up on 04-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri P.G. Raja Ratnam,Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 and 2, upon hearing of both sides and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The then Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in

Cr.No. 72 of 2016 of Vajrapukotturu Police Station based on the report lodged by L.W.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi.

2)The nub of the prosecution theory is that:

i)The Accused No.1 is brother-in-law and Accused No.2 is co-sister of

LW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi and residents of Peddamuraharipuram village. G. Kamayya who is the father-in-law of LW.1/Smt. Gorakala

Dhanalaxmi had a landed property Ac.1.80 cents of tope in Sy.No.199/7 and half part of the tope was partitioned to his two sons and the remaining is cultivated by him. After demise of said G. Kamayya about two years back remaining tope also shared between two brothers as front part to G. Apparao and back part to Accused No.1 but Accused No.1 did not accept the sharing 2 and disputed with LW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi. On 25.10.2016, at about 09.00 a.m., while the defacto complainant by name L.W.1/Smt.

Gorakala Dhanalaxmi went to the said tope to provide drink for cattle and noticed the collection of Coconuts and cutting neem tree by the accused from the disputed tope and when she asked about the same the accused disputed with LW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi and Accused No.1 beat

LW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi with stick over her both hands and

Accused No.2 beat LW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi with hands and kicked with legs resulting which she sustained bleeding injuries on her hands.

(ii)Based on the report lodged by L.W.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhanalaxmi,

LW.10/Sri. Ch. Prasad, the then Sub-inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu

Police Station registered the case and investigated into. After completion of the investigation he laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and

2. Hence, this case.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 506(1) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239

Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge under sections 324, 323, 506(1) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 and 2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.11 out of 11 cited witnesses and exhibited

Exts.P.1 to Exts.P11 and M.Os.1 and 2.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

3

8. Heard both sides. The contention of the defence is that this case is foisted against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 due to civil dispute regarding the property between the PW.1, her husband and A1. The evidence of PW.1 is contradictory and improvements. No direct witness examined. P.Ws.2 to 9 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be convicted for the offences charged, based on the self serving testimony of the P.W.1. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of the prosecution.

9.In view of the rival contentions now the point that requires determination is:-

Whether the Accused No.1 caused injuries to P.W.1 with M.O.1 over her both hands and the Accused No.2 caused injuries to P.W.1 with hands and legs and the Accused threatened her with dire consequences in furtherance of their common intention?

10.P O I N T

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences charged, the prosecution must establish that the Accused

No.1 caused injuries to P.W.1 with M.O.1 over her both hands and the

Accused No.2 caused injuries to P.W.1 with hands and legs and the

Accused threatened her with dire consequences in furtherance of their common intention. In order to determine the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 and 2, the evidence available before this court is the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.11and Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.11 and M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and said to be the victim in the hands of the

Accused Nos.1 and 2, P.Ws.2 to 5 are said to be the eye witness to the incident, P.Ws.6 and 7 are said to be the hearsay witnesses. P.Ws.8 and 9 are said to be the mediators and whose presence Ext.P9 scene observation report was said to have drawn by PW.10 and M.Os.1 and 2 was said to have seized from the scene of offence. P.W.10 is the investigation officer who conducted material part of the investigation,

P.W.11 is the doctor who is said to have treated the P.W.1 and issued

Ext.P.11 wound certificate of PW.1.

(ii)PW.1 testified that Accused No.1 is her brother-in-law and

Accused No.2 is his wife. Her father-in-law had an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Peddamuraharipuram village and during the life time of her father-in- 4 law it was partitioned and divided into four shares. Two shares were allotted to her father-in-law and her husband and Accused No.1 got one share each. Out of the two shares of her father-in-law one share consists of one thatched house. During the partition it was settled that the said house would be given to her husband after the demise of her father-in-law and her father-in-law was died about 4 years ago. She further deposed that at about 3 years before her examination in this court, on one day, at about 10.00 a.m., she went to the tope, while she was feeding draff to the cow, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were collecting the coconuts, as such, she questioned the accused, for which Accused No.1 secured a stick and beat her on her body, in the meanwhile Accused No.2 came there and caught hold her tuft. Accused Nos.1 and 2 beat her with hands and kicked with legs as such, she sustained injuries on her hands, she has also sustained graze injuries due to breaking of bangles. She further deposed that since she sustained injuries the report was lodged before the police. She identified the stick and deposited in this court as it was the offensive weapon and also identified the broken bangles pieces as they were broken in the incident.

(iii)Coming to cross examination PW.1 deposed that partition took place about one month after her marriage i.e., about 20 years ago. From the date of partition they have been enjoying their respective shares.

Accused No.1 beat her at her back side and also beat her for 3 times on her head with M.O.1 as such she lost her conscious which is contradictory to her previous statement and Ext.P1 where she stated that A1 beat her with stick over her two hands but not stated about A1 beat her on her head three times with M.O.1 which creates a doubt about the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1 and about occurrence of the offence as such the evidence of PW.1 requires corroboration.

(iv)PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 are said to be eye witnesses not supported the version of the prosecution and declared hostile and even the cross examined nothing was elicited. PW.6 and PW.7 are hearsay witnesses and they also not supported the version of prosecution. Even the cross examined nothing was elicited during the cross examination of

PW.6 and PW.7. Hence Exts.P2 to P7 not having any bearing.

5

(v)PW.8 and PW.9 are said to be mediators to scene of offence and for recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 in their presence but they turned hostile and they denied their signatures on scene observation report. Even though cross examined nothing worthy elicited during the cross examination of

PW.8 and PW.9.

(vi)PW.11 testified that on 25.10.2016, at about 07.05 p.m., he has examined patient by name Smt. Gorakala Dhanalakshmi (PW.1) on the requisition of SHO, Vajrapukotturu P.S and found the following injuries I)

Lacerated injury measuring 1cms x ½ inch on the right wrist, which was cleaned and dressing was done by him, ii) Abrasion on the left wrist, he was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature, he issued a wound certificate to that effect.

(vii)coming to cross examination PW.11 deposed that lacerated injury is three dimension injury. PW.11 admitted that he has not mentioned the other dimension with regard to the injury No.1 and PW.1 admitted that he has not mentioned the measurements of injury No.2 and age of the injuries and possibility also not mentioned in the Ext.P11 as such in

Ext.P11 possibility of the injury of the object not mentioned in Ext.P11.

(viii) On careful marshaling of the evidence on record, PW.1 testified in his chief examination and previous statement and Ext.P1 report about A1 beat her with M.O.1 with stick over her two hands but during cross examination she deposed that A1 beat her with M.O.1 on head for three times with M.O.1 which is contradictory to her previous version which requires corroboration. But the PW.2 to PW.7 said to be eye witnesses turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution.

Moreover PW.8 and PW.9 said to be mediators turned hostile as such the prosecution has not found support from PW.8 and PW.9 with regard to recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 in their presence by PW.10 under Ext.P9.

PW.11 testified about the injuries PW.1 as i) Lacerated injury measuring 1cms x ½ inch on the right wrist, which was cleaned and dressing was done by him, ii) Abrasion on the left wrist, he was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature, he issued a Ext.P11 wound certificate to that effect but PW.11 during cross examination admitted that he has not mentioned the possibility of injuries in Ext.P11. Moreover PW.11 evidence is not corroborating with PW.1 with regard to the head injury and 6 body injury. Hence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is falling much short to connect the accused for the offences charged. Hence, it is held that the prosecution is unable to establish that the Accused No.1 caused injuries to P.W.1 with M.O.1 over her both hands and the Accused

No.2 caused injuries to P.W.1 with hands and legs and the Accused threatened her with dire consequences in furtherance of their common intention. As such they are entitled to be acquitted for the offences charged. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, as such they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 complied section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure their presence before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them. M.O.1i.e., stick,

M.O.2 i.e., 3 pieces red colour, 1 violet colur and 3 green pieces of broken bangles which are deposited vide C.P. 50/2019 shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade-III, prints are taken by her and corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

PW.1:Smt. Gorakala Dhana Lakshmi;

PW.2:Sri. Putcha Naikanna;

PW.3:Smt. Putcha Rupa;

PW.4:Smt. Putcha Laxmamma;

PW.5:Sri. Putcha Daneshu;

PW.6:Sri. P. Dasmirao;

PW.7:Smt. Putcha Nayakamma; PW.8:Sri. Kalisetti Devadas; PW.9:Sri. Gorakala Madhavarao; PW.10:Sri. Ch. Prasadarao, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrpaukotturu Police Station; PW.11:Dr. Hemanth, the then Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Health Center, Palasa; 7

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

Ext.P1:Report lodged by PW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhana Lakshmi dt.25.10.2016;

Ext.P2:Statement of PW.2/Sri. Putcha Naikanna recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt. 26.10.2016;

Ext.P3:Statement of PW3/Smt. Putcha Rupa recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.26.10.2016;

Ext.P4:Statement of PW.4/Smt. Putcha Laxmamma recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.26.10.2016; Ext.P5:Statement of PW.5/Sri. Putcha Daneshu recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.26.10.2016; Ext.P6:Statement of PW.6/Sri. P. Dasmirao recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.26.10.2016; Ext.P7:Statement of PW.7/Smt. Putcha Nayakamma recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.26.10.2016; Ext.P8:Original First Information Report dt.25.10.2016; Ext.P9:Scence observation report dt. 26.10.2016; Ext.P10:Rough sketch of the scene of offence dt.26.10.2016;

Ext.P11:Wound certificate of PW.1/Smt. Gorakala Dhana Lakhsmi dt.25.10.2016 issued by Dr. Hemanth, the then Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Health Center, Palasa;

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence:-Nil-

M.O.1:Stick M.O.2:3 pieces red colour, 1 violet colour and 3 green pieces of broken bangles deposited vide CP.No.50/2019.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

8

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

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

DATE OF OFFENCE:25.10.2016REPORT OR 25.10.2016 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41-A Cr.P.C NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL--- ACCUSED Nos.1 andACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 : 2:

REMANDOF---

ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2: COMMENCEMENT OF17.05.2019CLOSE OF TRIAL:20.02.2020 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR08/12/20 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of prosecution witnesses.

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:265 of 2016 Cr.No.72/2016 COMPLAINANT:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

NAME, AGE, FATHER’S 1.Gorakala Mohanaerao, S/o. Late Kamayya, aged about 49 years, NAME,RELIGION,Palli, Pedda Muraharipuram village, Vajrpaukotturu Mandal. Aadhar

CALLING, RESIDENCE

No.823898171382.

AND TALUK OF THE

2.Gorakala Santhamma, W/o. Mohanarao, aged about 40 years, rest ACCUSED: do; Aadhar No.412870384298. (Occupations of accused are not mentioned in the charge sheet)

OFFENCE:under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code: U/sec.324 of IPC : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means; U/sec.323 of IPC : Voluntarily causing hurt; U/sec.506 of IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation; U/sec.r/w 34 of IPC: Act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention. FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 complied section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code in order to ensure their presence before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them. M.O.1i.e., stick, M.O.2 i.e., 3 pieces red colour, 1 violet colur and 3 green pieces of broken bangles which are deposited vide C.P. 50/2019 shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time. DATE OF RECEIPT08/12/20

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS PALASA.

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.265/2016 Date of Judgment:08/12/20 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam.

1

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

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Palasa

Wednesday this the 09th day of December, 2020

C.C.No. 252 of 2017

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

.... Complainant

And:

Kaviti Ramesh @ Ravi, S/o. Ram Murthy, aged about 44 years, Kalinga by caste, R/o. Gopalapuram village, Palasa Mandal. Aadar No.352541498664.…. Accused

This case came up on 04-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri Y. Hema Kumar, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.121/2017 of Kasibugga Police

Station, based on the written report lodged by Smt., Kaviti Neelaveni,

W/o. Bairagi, R/o. Gopalapuram village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam

District.

2) The essence of the charge sheet is that:

(i)on 06.08.2017 during the morning hours LW.1/Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni along with her husband i.e., LW.2/Sri. Kaviti Bairagi went to their agricultural fields situated at the outskirts of Chinnabadam village and attended their agricultural work. After that at about 9.00 a.m., both of them returning to their house, on the way to their house, when they reached to the fields of one Kaviti Hari, the accused who is the close relative of

LW.1/Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni picked up quarrel with her in view of the previous disputes and beat her with a spade on her left shoulder and caused simple injury. The incident was witnessed by the LW.2/Sri. Kaviti

Bairagi, LW.3/Sri. Boddepalli Prasad and LW.4/Sri. Kaviti Ajaykumar and 2 rescued her. Then LW.1/Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni along with her husband went to the police station and lodged written report against the accused.

Based on same, LW.8/Sri. K.V. Suresh, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Kasibugga Police station registered the case and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal

Code.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.Heard. The Accused was examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charge under section 324 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.7 out of 8 cited witnesses and exhibited

Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.9 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.2/Sri. Kaviti Bairagi given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defence.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same he denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. The specific contention of the defence is that this case is foisted against the Accused due to previous civil disputes, there is no independent corroborative evidence to connect the accused for offence charged except the self serving testimonies of PW.1 and PW.7 who is an investigation officer in this case. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence charged, based on their self serving testimonies. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of the prosecution.

3

9.In view of the rival contentions now the point that requires determination is:-

(i)Whether the Accused voluntarily caused hurt on the left shoulder to PW.1/Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni with M.O.1 and caused simple injury ?

10.Point No.(i):-

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the accused for the offence charged under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the following essential ingredients;

(a) Accused voluntarily caused hurt;

(b) Hurt was caused by a dangerous weapon or means;

(ii)In order to determine whether the Accused voluntarily caused hurt on the left shoulder to PW.1/Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni with M.O.1 and caused simple injury, the evidence available before this court is the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.7 and Exts.P.1 to Exts.P.9 and M.O.1.

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and said to be the injured in the incident,

P.Ws.2 and 3 are said to be the mediators in whose presence Ext.P8 scene observation report was said to have drawn by PW.7 and M.O.1 said to have seized from the scene of offence. P.Ws.4 and 5 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.6 is the doctor who is said to have treated the P.W.1 and issued Ext.P6 wound certificate. P.W.7 is an investigation officer.

(iii)PW.1 testified that at about 2 years before her examination in this court, on one day, at about 9.00 a.m., while herself and her husband

LW.2/Sri. Kaviti Bairagi were returning from their fields situated at

Gopalapuram village in Chinnabadam boundary, in view their previous disputes relating to the land, the accused caused injuries to her on her left shoulder with a spade, LW.3/Sri. Boddepalli Prasad and LW.4/Sri. Kaviti

Ajaykumar who is the brother of the accused rescued her from the hands of the accused, as such, she lodged report before the police.

(iv)Coming cross examination PW.1 admitted that there were no disputes prior to the incident. PW.1 further admitted that she has not filed any case against the accused. The accused also not filed any case against which is contrary to her version in Ext.P1 as mentioned the accused beat her with spade on her left shoulder in view of the land 4 disputes between the accused and PW.1 which creates a doubt about the accused beat PW.1 with M.O.1 on her left shoulder and which requires corroboration.

(v)PW.4 and PW.5 said to be eye witnesses to the incident and who are said to be rescued the PW.1 from the hands of the accused but the

PW.4 and PW.5 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any aspect. Even though cross examined nothing significant elicited by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I do not see any reason to lie by them. Hence it is not prudent to rely upon

Exts.P4 and P5. Moreover, as per the testimony of PW.1 and her report under Ext.P1 her husband was present at the time of of alleged incident and shown as LW.2 as such her husband is material witness to the case of the prosecution but he was not examined in connection with the case which casts cloud upon the theory of prosecution.

(vi)The basic theory of the prosecution is that PW.7 observed the scene of offence and seized M.O.1 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 but

PW.2 and PW.3 not supported the version of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of M.O.1 and scene observation under Ext.P8 in their presence. Even though they were declared hostile yet nothing significant could be elicited during their cross examination. During the cross examination PW.7 also admitted that as per Ext.A1 the alleged offence has taken place while PW.1 and her husband were at their fields. As per

Ext.P8 and Ext.P9 the alleged scene of offence is situated in the fields of

Kaviti Hari which creates a doubt about the scene of offence. The husband of PW.1 is a material witness to the case of the prosecution but he was not examined. The above discrepancy raises a doubt about the incident of attack. Hence, no assumption or presumption as regards to the incident and also use and seizure of M.O.1 can be drawn by relying upon the Ext.P8 and basing upon the testimony of PW.1 and PW.7 who is the investigation officer.

(vii)In order to substantiate the theory of prosecution it got examined

PW.7 who is the doctor said to have examined LW.1/Smt. Kaviti

Neelaveni and PW.7 testified about the injuries. He has not ruled out the possibility of sustaining injuries by fall on surface.

5

(viii) It is not proper on the part of the Courts to ipso facto accept the evidence of an injured witness. It is observed that courts would be well to remember that injuries only at the best guarantee the presence of a witness; they do not ensure the credibility or truthfulness of a witness: and even in the case of an injured witness, no court ever convicts unless it is satisfied that the said injured witness is a truthful witness on aspects which constitute the core of the prosecution case, which is absolutely lacking in the case in hand. On careful marshaling of the evidence available on record, there is no cogent and corroborative evidence to connect the accused for the offence charged. Hence, it is not safe to connect the accused for the offence charged. As such he is entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, as such he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

Accused executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against him in compliance with section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 i.e.,

spade which is deposited vide C.P. 57/2019 shall be destroyed after the

expiry of Appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by Stenographer Grade-III, prints are taken by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this thethe 09th day of December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

PW.1:Smt. K. Neelaveni;

PW.2:Sri. Pyla Kamayya;

PW.3:Sri.Kancharana Anand;

PW.4:Sri. Boddepali Prasada Rao;

PW.5:Sri. Kaviti Ajay Kumar;

PW.6:Dr. V. Prakash Varma, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon Community Health Center, Palasa;

PW.7:Sri. K.V. Suresh, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station; 6

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ext.P1:Report lodged by PW.1 (Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni) dated 06.08.2017;

Ext.P2:Signature of (PW.2/Sri. Pyla Kamayya) on the scene observation report dt. 06.08.2017;

Ext.P3:Signature of (PW.3/Sri. Kancharana Anand) on the scene observation report dt. 06.08.2017;

Ext.P4:Statement of PW.4/Sri. Boddepalli Prasada Rao recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt.06.08.2017;

Ext.P5:Statement of PW.5/Sri. Kaviti Ajay Kumar recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C dt. 06.08.2017;

Ext.P6:Wound certificate of PW.1 (Smt. Kaviti Neelaveni) issued by Dr. V. Prakash Varma, the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Palasa,

dt. 19.08.2017;

Ext.P7:Original First Information Report dt. 06.08.2017; Ext.P8:Scene observation report dt. 06.08.2017; Ext.P9:Rough sketch of the scene of offence dt. 06.08.2017;

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

M.O.1 : Spade deposited vide CP.No.57/2019.

Judl Magistrate of I Class Palasa.

FORM NO.71 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there is accused one person)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

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

DATE OF OFFENCE:06.08.2017REPORT OR 06/08/17 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41-A Cr.P.C NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL--- ACCUSED:ACCUSED:

REMANDOF---

ACCUSED: COMMENCEMENT OF06.05.2019CLOSE OF TRIAL:05/02/20 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR09/12/20 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non furnishing of sureties by accused and non production of DELAYANDprosecution witness. REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:252 of 2017 Cr.No.121/2017 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

NAME,AGE, Kaviti Ramesh @ Ravi, S/o. Ram Murthy, aged about 44 years, FATHER’SNAME,Kalinga by caste, R/o. Gopalapuram village, Palasa Mandal. Aadar RELIGION, CALLING,No.352541498664.

RESIDENCEAND

TALUKOFTHE

ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under sections 324 of Indian Penal Code: U/sec.324 of IPC : Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, as such he is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- but undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against him in compliance with section 437- A of Criminal Procedure Code. M.O.1 i.e., spade which is deposited vide C.P.

57/2019 shall be destroyed after the expiry of Appeal time.

DATE OF RECEIPT09/12/20

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS PALASA.

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.252/2017 Date of Judgment:09/12/20 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam.

1

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

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Palasa

Monday, this the 30th day of November, 2020

Calendar Case No. 176/2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

... Complainant

And:

1.Erothu Visweswara Rao @ Srinu, S/o. Late Chinnarao, aged about 38 years, Coolie works, Caste by Palli, R/o. Uddanam – Gopinadapuram village, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2.Erothu Sumalatha, W/o. Visweswararao, aged about 27 years, rest do; … Accused

This case came up on 26-11-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri B. K. R. Patnaik,Advocate for the Accused upon hearing of 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) The then Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 93 of 2019 of vajrapukotturu Police Station.

2)The nub of the prosecution theory is that:

i) On 04.06.2019 around at about 06.00 a.m., LW.1/Sri. Karni Tirupathi

Rao went to the house of Accused No.1 and requested him to send back his wife and some heated wards exchanged between them. Around at about 07.00 a.m., while the L.W.1/Sri. Karni Tirupathi Rao, present at his house he saw the son of accused No.1 and questioned him for not sending his wife

Bhanumathi to his house and to that effect accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to the house of LW.1/Sri. Karni Tirupathi Rao, handled with his sickle and a stick respectively and dragged the L.W.1/Sri. Karni Tirupathi Rao from the verandah by attacked him. The accused No.1 attacked the L.W.1/Sri. Karni

Tirupathi Rao, and beat him with sickle and caused bleeding injuries on back side of left thigh and on left knee, the accused No.2 attacked and beat the 2

L.W.1/Sri. Karni Tirupathi Rao, with a stick on left eye and on left ear and caused bleeding injuries. On receipt of medical intimation, LW.12/ Sri. A.

Srinivasarao, Head Constable of Vajrpaukotturu Police Station visited the

Govt. Hospital, Palasa and recorded the statement of Lw.1/Sri. Karni

Tirupathirao and based on the same, he registered the case vide

Cr.No.93/2019 for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code and investigated into. After completion of the investigation LW.14/Sri. M. Govinda, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Vajrpaukotturu Police Station laid charge sheet u/sec. 448, 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 and 2. Hence, this case.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offences punishable under sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 239

Code of Criminal Procedure. Charge under sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 and 2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined

P.W.1 out of 14 cited witnessess and exhibited Exts.P.1 and Exts.P.2.The

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of LW.2/St. Karni

Punnamma, LW.3/Sri. Karni Sambamurthy, LW.4/Smt. Karni Varalaxmi,

LW.5/Sri. Karni Srinivasarao, LW.6/Sri. Karni Prasanth, LW.7/Sri. Karni

Ramesh, LW.8/Smt. Karni Parvathi, LW.9/Sri. Karni Lavanna, LW.10/Sri.

Nemalapuri Dilleswararao, LW.11/Dr. Sankar, Civil Asst., Surgeon,

Community Health Centre, Palasa, LW.12/Sri. A. Srinivasarao, Head

Constable, Station Hosue Officer, Vajrpaukotturu Police station, LW.13/Sri. P.

Narasimha Murthy, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station and LW.14/Sri. M. Govinda, the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrpaukotturu

Police Station.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material available against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the evidence of prosecution witness, the examination under section 313 of Code 3 of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that requires determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed house-trespass and the Accused Nos.1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 with dangerous weapon i.e., sickle and caused injuries on backside of left thigh and on left knee and Accused No. 2 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 with dangerous object i.e., stick and caused injuries to him on left eye and on left ear?

10.P o i n t

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences charged, the prosecution must establish that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed house-trespass and the Accused Nos.1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 with dangerous weapon i.e., sickle and caused injuries on backside of left thigh and on left knee and Accused No. 2 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 with dangerous object i.e., stick and caused injuries to him on left eye and on left ear. In order to determine the culpability of the

Accused Nos.1 and 2, the evidence available before this court is the sole testimony of PW.1 who is said to be the defacto complainant and victim in the hands of the accused. But, he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any aspect for the reasons best known to him. He testified that Accused No.1 is his brother-in-law and Accused No.2 is wife of Accused

No.1. He was not examined by the police. He admitted the his signature on the statement dated 04.06.2019 but deposed that he do not know the contents of the report. Though he is declared hostile, during the cross examination nothing worthy could be elicited. As such Exts.P1 and Exts.P2 are not having any bearing. On bare perusal of the evidence available on record absolutely there is no iota evidence before this court to believe that the Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed house-trespass and the Accused Nos.1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 with dangerous weapon i.e., sickle and caused injuries on backside of left thigh and on left knee and Accused No. 2 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 with dangerous object i.e., stick and caused injuries to him on left eye and on left ear. Hence, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged. This point is answered accordingly.

4

In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed bonds for an amount of

Rs.5,000/- each undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them in compliance with section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed on case property as no property produced and marked on behalf of the prosecution.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenograher Grade-III, prints are taken by her and corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of November, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

P.W.1:Sri. Karni Tirupathirao;

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

Ext.P-1 The signature of PW.1 (Sri. Karni Tirupathirao) on the report dated 04.06.2019. Ext.P-2The statement of PW.1 (Sri. Karni Tirupathirao) recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, dt. 04.06.2019.

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

5

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

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

DATE OF OFFENCE:04.06.2019REPORT OR 04/06/19 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41-A Cr.P.C NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL--- ACCUSED Nos.1 andACCUSED Nos.1 and 2 : 2:

REMANDOF---

ACCUSED Nos.1 and 2: COMMENCEMENT OF11.11.2020CLOSE OF TRIAL:26.11.2020 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR30.11.2020 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of prosecution witnesses.

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:176 of 2019 Cr.No.93/2019 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu Police Station, Vajrpaukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District.

NAME,AGE,1. Erothu Visweswara Rao @ Srinu, S/o. Late Chinnarao, aged about FATHER’SNAME,38 years, Coolie works, Caste by Palli, R/o. Uddanam – RELIGION, CALLING,Gopinadapuram village, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. RESIDENCEAND2. Erothu Sumalatha, W/o. Visweswararao, aged about 27 years, rest

TALUKOFTHE

do; ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under Sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code: U/sec.448 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for house trespass; U/sec.324 of Indian Penal Code: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means; U/sec.r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed bonds for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them in compliance with section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed on case property as no property produced and marked on behalf of the prosecution. DATE OF RECEIPT30.11.2020

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS PALASA.

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.176/2019 Date of Judgment:30.11.2020 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam.

1

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

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Palasa

Tuesday, this the 08th day of December, 2020

Calendar Case No. 177/2018

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

... Complainant

And:

Munakala Mahalaxmi, W/o.Jagadeeswararao, aged about 34 years, Kapu by caste, Occ: Finance and Housewife, R/o. Annapurna Asramam, Palasa. … Accused

This case came up on 04-12-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri G. Prabhakarao Rao,Advocate for the Accused upon hearing of 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) The then Inspector of Police, Kasibuhhs Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No. 107 of 2018 of Kasibugga Police

Station.

2)The nub of the prosecution theory is that:

i)On 28.05.2018 at about 7.00 am., while LW.1/Smt. Munakala

Thavitamma present at her house, accused and JICL went there and disputed. JICL beat LW.1/Smt. Munakala Thavitamma with a stick and caused simple injury over right wrist and accused and JICL threatened with dire consequences and exited and based on the same, LW.10/Sri. K. Ashok

Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station registered the case for Cr.No.107/2018 u/sec. 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into. After completion of the investigation he laid charge against the accused. Hence, this case.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal

Procedure, for the offence punishable under sections 324 of Indian Penal

Code against Accused.

2

4.On appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused was examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charge under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused was framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, having understood the same, she denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined

P.W.1 out of 10 cited witnessess and exhibited Ext.P.1.The Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidences of LW.2/Sri. Munakala Jaadeesh,

LW.3/Smt. Munakala Sujatha, LW.4/Sri.Kolli Ammanna, LW.5/Sri. Munakala

Naveen, LW.6/Sri. Jadu Ramudu, LW.7/Sri. Yalla Ravikumar, LW.8/Dr. V.

Prakash Varma, CAS, Community Health Centre, Palasa, LW.9/Sri. P.

Srinivasarao, Head Constable of Kasibugga Police Station, LW.10/Sri. K.

Ashok Kumar, the then Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station as

PW.1 victim turned hotile and there is no incriminating evidence to prove the case.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material available against the Accused in the evidence of prosecution witnes, the examination under section 313 of Code of Criminal

Procedure was dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that requires determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that while LW.1/Smt. Munakala Thavitamma is present at her house the accused along with JICL went there and JICL beat the LW.1/Smt. Munakala Thavitamma as such voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 over right hand wrist with dangerous weapon of stick in furtherance of their common intention?

10.P o i n t

(i)In order to establish the culpability of the Accused for the offence charged, the prosecution must establish that while LW.1/Smt. Munakala

Thavitamma is present at her house the accused along with JICL went there and JICL beat the LW.1/Smt. Munakala Thavitamma as such voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 over right hand wrist with dangerous weapon of stick in furtherance of their common intention. In order to determine the culpability of the Accused, the evidence available before this court is the sole testimony of 3

PW.1 who is said to be the defacto complainant and victim in the hands of the accused. But, she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any aspect for the reasons best known to her. She testified that Accused is her daughter-in-law. She was not examined by the police. She never put thumb impression on any paper. Though she is declared hostile, during the cross examination nothing worthy could be elicited. As such Exts.P1 is not having any bearing. On bare perusal of the evidence available on record, absolutely there is no iota evidence before this court to believe that while LW.1/Smt.

Munakala Thavitamma is present at her house, the accused along with JICL went there and JICL beat the LW.1/Smt. Munakala Thavitamma as such voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 over right hand wrist with dangerous weapon of stick in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, the Accused is entitled to be acquitted for the offence charged. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such she acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

Accused executed bonds for an amount of Rs.5,000/- undertaking to appear

before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against her in

compliance with section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed on case property as no property produced and marked on behalf of the prosecution.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenograher Grade-III, prints are taken by her and corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of December, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None

P.W.1:Smt. Munakala Thavitamma;

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL

Ext.P-1 The statement of PW.1 (Smt. Munakala Thavitamma) recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, dt.28.05.2018; 4

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence: -Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Palasa.

5

FORM NO.71 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there is one accused person)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

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

DATE OF OFFENCE:28.05.2018REPORT OR 28/05/18 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41-A Cr.P.C NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL--- ACCUSED2:ACCUSED :

REMANDOF---

ACCUSED 2: COMMENCEMENT OF04.12.2020CLOSE OF TRIAL:04/12/20 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR08.12.2020 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of prosecution witnesses.

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:177 of 2018 Cr.No.107/2018 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

NAME,AGE,Munakala Mahalaxmi, W/o.Jagadeeswararao, aged about 34 years, FATHER’SNAME,Kapu by caste, Occ: Finance and Housewife, R/o. Annapurna RELIGION, CALLING,Asramam, Palasa.

RESIDENCEAND

TALUKOFTHE

ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code: U/sec.324 of Indian Penal Code: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means; U/sec.r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as such she acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused executed bonds for an amount of Rs.5,000/- undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against her in compliance with section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No order is passed on case property as no property produced and marked on behalf of the prosecution. DATE OF RECEIPT08/12/20

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS PALASA.

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.177/2018 Date of Judgment:08.12.2020 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam.