Smt. M.Eunice

1 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. :

AT : MANTHANI

Present:Smt. M.Eunice, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani. FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F. C., Manthani.

TUESDAY ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.168 of 2017

(Old CC No.469 of 2013)

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kataram (Cr. No.125 of 2013) …Complainant A N D

A1. Azmeera Sammaiah, S/o.Maadunaik, Age: 54 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kothapalli village. A2. Jorupula Sathyanarayana, S/o.Achunaik, Age: 60 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: RetiredForestSectionOfficer, R/o.Kothapally village. A3Jarupula Saramma, S/o.Sathyanarayana, Age: 55 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kothapalli village. A4Azmeera Devanaik, S/o.Ravooji, Age: 55 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Kothapalli village. … Accused No.1 to 4

Note: The case against accused No.2 is abated on account of his death.

This case is coming on 22.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 4 having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

The Sub - Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kataram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.125 of 2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013)

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2013 at 12.00 noon the complainant Gaddam Ramadevi came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that she and her sister Amrutha having land admeasuring 4 acres 27 guntas at Kambalapdu village.

On 03.08.2013 at about 12.00 her and her brother i.e., Gaddam

Madhukar and Gaddam Chandraiah were cultivating her land and raised cotton crop in the field, at that time the accused herein criminally trespassed into the land and argue with the complainant that he did not purchase the land from Yarlagadda Mallaiah and that they are selling into Yarlagadda Mallaiah, the damaged paddy crop to an extent of 30 guntas area. When her brothers questioned them why to destroy the land, the acused stated that they took the land in lease and also threatened them with direconsequences to kill, the accused caused loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. She further mentioned that the delay in loding complaint occurred due to fear of the accused. Basing on the above complaint, the S.I of Police registered a case and issued FIR to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of D.Devakka and G.Arjaiah and also took the pictures of scene of offence panchanama. After completing the investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused and numbered as

CC No.168 of 2017 (Old CC No.469 of 2013).

3 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013)

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused are examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC by explaining the substance of accusation. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The case against A-2 is abated on account of his death.

7.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P6. PW1 is the complainant. Pws.2 and 3 are the brothers of complainant. PW4 and PW7 are the eye witnesses to the incident.

PW5 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW6 is the Photographer. PW8 and PW9 who are investigating Officers in this case.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC?

10.It is the case of prosecution that the accused persons 4 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) criminally trespassed into the land of PW1 and damaged the crop of

PW1 and due to which, the complainaint caused loss of Rs.10,000/- and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

11.PW1 who is the complainant in this case has deposed that about 18 years back, she purchased an agriculture land in Sy.No.31 at Khambalapadu outskirts of kataram village. About 4 years back, the accused No.1 to 4 trespassed into her land and damage the cotton crop raised in her land to an extent of 13 guntas. Thereafter, she went to police station and lodged a complaint i.e., Ex.P1. PW2 and PW3 who are brother of PW1 deposed that on 03.08.2013 at 12.00 noon while they were at the fields of PW1, the accused No.1 to 4 illegally tresspassed into the land and damaged the crop by saying that they are having right to purchase the land from the vendors and PW1 is having no right to purchase. Thereafter, the accused No.1 to 4 damage the cotton crop in the field of PW1 to an extent of 30 guntas width and caused loss to a tune of Rs.10,000/-.

When they questioned them, the accused threatened them with direconsequences. PW4 who is an eye witness to the incident deposed that she do not know anything about this case. PW5 who is a panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that about six years back, police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene. At the time of panchanama, himself and D.Devakka/LW8 were present, Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. PW6 who is photographer in this case deposed that on 20.08.2013 at the request of police Katatam he took the photos of the scene of offence where the cotton crop is 5 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) disturbed. Later, he gave three photographs along with C.D. PW7 who is an eye witness to the incident deposed that he do not know anything about this case. PW8 and PW9 are the investigating officers who deposed to the extent of investigation done by them in this case.

12.With the above evidence, the prosecution has to establish that the accused have criminally trespass into the land of complainant and damaged the cotton crop causing a loss to a tune of Rs.10,000/- and threatening the complainant and her brothers with dire consequences.

13.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused trespassed into the land of PW1 illegally and damage the standing crop causing loss to a tune of Rs.10,000/- and when they questioned them, the accused threatened PW1 to 3 with direconsequences. PW1 who is complainant in this case has deposed that the accused No.1 to 4 have tresspassed into her land and damage the cotton crop in her land which is raised to an extent of 13 guntas. PW2 and PW3 who are the brothers of PW1 also deposed that the accused have illegally tresspassed into the land of PW1 and damage the cotton crop. In the cross examination PW1 admitted that she did not file any document showing that she is the owner and possessor of the land in which, the accused have tresspassed. She further admitted that she did not mention the Sy.No of the land in her complaint under Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1 report wherein, PW1 stated that the accused entered into her land and questioned about the ownership of the land. She did not state the Sy.No of the land. PW2 6 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) who is the brother of PW1 admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say the name of the person who ploughed the land of PW1 but he is a family member of the accused. He further admitted that at the time of incident, one Arjaiah and Devakka have witnesses the incident. He also admitted that he did not give the Sy.No of the land of PW1 in his statement before the police. PW8 who is the investigating officer in this case admitted in his cross examination that there are land disputes between the accused and PW1. PW2 who is a victim in this case admitted in his cross examination that at the time of incident, one Arjaiah and Devakka were present and witnessed the incident. The said Gogu Arjaiah is examined as PW5 who is none other than the panch witness for Crime Detail Form but he never stated that he was present at the time of incident. On perusal of the charge sheet, one Elgam Sathaiah and Soma Bhanu

Chander are shown as the eye witnesses to the incident but, PW1 to 3 never stated about the presence of PW4 and PW7 at the time of incident either in Ex.P1 or in their statement before the police. On perusal of the evidence of PW4 and PW7, they both turned hostile by stating that they do not know anything about this case. Thus, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 who are the victims in this case is not supported by any of the witnesses. Even the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is inconsistence with each other in respect of damage and threatening. Though PW1 in Ex.P1 deposed that the accused threatened to kill, but during her evidence before this Court, she never stated a single word about the accused threatening them. On the other hand, PW2 and PW3 have stated that the accused threatened them. Whereas, PW1 who is the complainant and victim 7 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) in this case did not state about the threatening of the accused.

Thereby, the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in respect of threatening of the accused.

14.Further, no document is filed before this Court to show the ownership and possession of PW1 to the land in which the accused alleged to have trespassed into it. In the absence of ownership and possession of the land, it cannot be said that the accused illegally tresspassed into the land of PW1. Even the trespass is also not proved through the evidence of any of the independent witnessess.

Even the investigating officer is also admitted in his cross examination that he did not collect any records showing that PW1 is the owner of the land. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused have criminally trespassed into the land of PW1. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence Under

Sec.447 of IPC.

15.Further, it is the case of the prosecution and the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 that the accused damaged the standing crop by causing loss to a tune of Rs.10,000/- but no document is filed before this

Court showing that PW1 is cultivating cotton crop in her land and that the accused damaged the said crop by causing loss to a tune of

Rs.10,000/-. None of the witnesses were examined before this Court to establish that the accused damaged the crop. No material objects are marked before this Court showing the damage of the crop or the impliments used by the accused to damage the crop. Even the panch witnesses for the sence of offence panchanama i.e., PW5 though stated about the police conducting scene of offence 8 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) panchanama in his presence but in the cross examination, he admitted that the police drafed panchanama on white paper. On perusal of Ex.P3 scene of offence panchanama, it is drafted on a printed proforma by filling the columns. PW6 is a photographer and he deposed that he took the photographs of the scene of offence which are marked as Ex.P4. By seeing the photograhs in Ex.P4, it cannot be said that the land pertains to PW1 and the crop was damaged. PW6 who is a photographer did not state in his evidence that the land in which he took the photographs under Ex.P4 belong to PW1. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the land shown in photographs under Ex.P4 belong to PW4. The evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 is not corroborated with any independent witnesses establishing that the crop belong to PW1 is damage by the accused.

Thereby, the prosecution has failed to establish offence U/Sec.427 of IPC.

16.Now coming to the offence U/Sec.506 of IPC, though PW1 in

Ex.P1 stated that the accused threatened to kill her, but he did not stated a single word about the accused threatening her in her evidence before this Court. Her brothers are examined as PW2 and

PW3 they deposed that the accused threatened them but the victim did not state about the threaning of the accused. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 cannot be relied upon.

17.Further, the investigating officer/PW8 admitted in his cross examination that there are civil disputes in between the accued and

Pws.1 to 3. When there are civil disputes in between the accused 9 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) and Pws.1 to 3, there is every possibility of implicating the accused by them by way of filing false complaint. The evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not corroborated by any of the independent witnesses to establish that the accused committed the offence.

18.Further, the learned counsel for the accused argued that there is a delay of 17 days in lodging complaint before the police. PW1 in her complaint under Ex.P1 stated that the delay is occurred due to fear of the accused. Admittedly, the incident occurred on 03.08.2013 and complaint is lodged on 20.08.2013 and there is a delay of (17) days in loding Ex.P1 report. When PW1 stated in her complaint under Ex.P1 that due to fear of the accused the delay is occurred in lodging complaint. Then what assurance they got to lodge complaint on 20.08.2013 instead of 03.08.2013. She did not state anything that due to involvement of some village elders she got strengthen and lost the fear and went to the police and lodged a complaint. On the persual of Ex.P1 and also in her evidence, she never stated as to what prevented her in lodging report on the date of incident though she stated that due to fear of the accused. She could not lodge the report but the said facts cannot be believed since none of the village elders or the leader have come to the rescue of the PW1 and supported her and gave confidence to lodge a complaint on 20.08.2013. As per Ex.P1. It can be elicited that things which were on 03.08.2013 are also the same circumstances prevailing on 20.08.2013 but it is not known as to what prevented

PW1 from lodging Ex.P1 on 03.08.2013. When she approaching the police definetly, the police will come to her rescued and the accused will have fear of the police but, the reasons stated by the PW1 is not 10 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013) reasonable cause and cannot be accepted to be true. The delay in lodged Ex.P1 report before the police in the back drop when there are civil disputes in between them goes against the case of the prosecution. Thereby, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the accused in the present offence.

19.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and thereby, the accused are entitled for an acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.In the result, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case against A-2 is abated on account of his death.

Dictated to the Stenographer (G-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of November, 2018.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – G.Rama Devi - Nil - PW2 – Gaddam Madhukar PW3 – Gaddam Chandraiah 11 CC No.168 of 2017 (CC No.469 of 2013)

PW4 – Elgam Sathaiah PW5 – Gogu Arjaiah PW6 – B.Umesh PW7 – S.Bhanuchander PW8 – M.A Rawoof PW9 – B.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P3 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P4 – (3) Positive Photos along with CD Ex.P5 – 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW7 Ex.P6 – First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

1 CC No.919 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF 

FIRST CLASS MANTHANI

Present:Smt. M.Eunice, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani. FAC: Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS THE 28 th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

NEW CALENDAR CASE No.919 of 2017

OLD CALENDAR CASE No.107 of 2012

Between:

The Sub-Inspector of Police Police Station,Adavi Mutharam (Crime No.10 of 2012) …Complainant A N D

Ramatenki Suramma W/o.Mallaiah, Age 34 years, Caste Nethakani R/o.Yamanapalli village … Sole Accused

This case is coming on 23.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.A Ramulu and C Ramankumar Reddy, Advocate for Accused having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following :-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Adavi Mutharam filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.10 of 2012 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 17.02.2012 at 8.00 p.m, the complainant by name Kondagorla Ellamma came to Police station and lodged a complaint stating on the same day at about 6.00 p.m while he was cooking in her house the accused by name

Ramatenki Suramma trespassed into her house and questioned her as to why she put up a case against her husband in the Police station and caught hold of her hairs and pushed her on the ground 2 CC No.919 of 2017 and beat her with hands indiscriminately over her chest and also beat her with stick on her right hand, causing bleeding injuries on her right hand and wrist. On hearing her cries, her husband by name Mallaiah came there and on seeing him the accused threatened her and fled away. The incident was witnessed by one

Sammaiah and her sons by name K Srinivas and K Mallaiah and as such, she lodged a present complaint. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime

No.10 of 2012 and issued First Information Report to the concerned.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence panchahanama, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Rathnam Bakkaiah and Jadi Sadavali and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance taken for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPC against the accused and numbered as

CC No.919 of 2017 (Old CC No.107 of 2012).

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and she denied the allegation levelled against her. Hence, charges under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.919 of 2017

6.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P-6. Pw1 is the complainant and victim in this case.

Pws.2 to 4 & 5 are the husband and sons of PW-1. PW-6 & PW-7 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama. PW-8 is the Investigating officer.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against her by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPC ?.

9.PW1 who is the complainant and the injured in this case has deposed that about six years back at about 4 or 5 p.m the accused trespassed into her house and beat her with stick on her right hand and also beat her with hands on her chest. The accused beat her on the pretext that she lodged a complaint against her husband in the police station. At the time of incident, her husband, sons and son-in-law have witnessed the incident. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the police. PW-2 who is the husband of PW-1 deposed that about six years back while he was in the backyard he heard hues and cries of his wife/PW-1, then he went inside the house, then the accused fled away from there and on enquiry PW-1 revealed that the accused beat her with hands on her chest and also on her hand with stick on the ground that she lodged a complaint against her husband in the police station. PW-3 to 5 who 4 CC No.919 of 2017 are the eye witnesses to the incident deposed that on 07.02.2012 at about 6.00 p.m the accused came to the house of PW-1 and beat her on her chest and hand on the ground that as to why she lodged a complaint against her husband. PW-6 and PW-7 who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama have deposed that no panchanama is conducted in their presence. PW-8 who is the the Investigating officer who deposed about the investigation done by him in this case.

10It is the case of the prosecution that the accused trespassed into the house of PW-1 beat her with hands and stick on her right hand and chest, causing bleeding injury to her. The incident was witnessed by PW-2 to PW-5. It is the evidence of PW-1 that the accused trespassed into her house and beat her on her chest with hands and also beat her on her hand. On perusal of Ex.P-1 report which is lodged by PW-1 at first instance, wherein, she stated that the accused trespassed into her house and abused her in filthy language, caught hold of her hairs, pushed her down, beat her with hands on her chest and also beat her on her right hand with stick, causing bleeding injuries to her whereas, in her evidence before the

Court, she never stated that the accused abused her in filthy language. Though, in Ex.P-1 report PW-1 stated the specific abusing words used by the accused towards her, but she is silent in her evidence before this Court and she never stated that the accused abused her in filthy language. Further, she did not even state that the accused caught hold of her hairs, pushed her down and beat her with hands and stick indiscriminately over her body, causing bleeding injuries to her. In her evidence, she did not state that the 5 CC No.919 of 2017 accused caught hold of her hairs, pushed her down and beat her indiscriminately. In her evidence, PW-1 stated that she sustained injuries on her chest and right hand. It is the case of the prosecution that after receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint, the SI of Police referred the injured to Government hospital for treatment. On perusal of Ex.P-6 Injury certificate wherein, it is mentioned that

PW-1 sustained injury on the left forehand, abrasion on the right forehand and laceration on the right forearm. As per the injury certificate under Ex.P-6, PW-1 sustained two injuries on the left forehand and one injury on the right forehand whereas, it is the evidence of PW-1 that she sustained injury on her right hand and chest. She did not state that she sustained injury to her left hand.

Even, on perusal of Ex.P-1 report also she stated that she sustained injury on her right hand and chest. She did not state that she sustained injury on her left hand. Ex.P-1 also she did not state that she sustained injury to her left forehand. As per Ex.P-6 the Wound certificate, she sustained two injuries on the left forehand and one injury on the right forehand. Thereby, Ex.P-9 is not corroborated through the evidence of PW-1. Even the doctor who treated PW-1 and issued Ex.P-6 is also not examined before this Court to establish as to whether PW-1 sustained injuries. As per the evidence available on record, the injuries sustained by PW-1 is not proved through Ex.P-6. Even, PW-1 did not depose in her evidence that she was referred to the hospital by the police and she was treated by a doctor. Though, PW-2 to PW-5 who are the family members of

PW-1 deposed in the same lines as that of PW-1, but in view of the evidence of PW-1 as her evidence did not corroborate the contents 6 CC No.919 of 2017 of Ex.P-6 the injuries sustained by PW-1 is not proved through their evidence.

11Further, it is the case of the prosecution that Ex.P-1 is lodged by PW-1 on the next day of the incident. But on perusal of Ex.P-1 report it is mentioned that Ex.P-1 is lodged on the same day of the incident and the Investigating officer is also endorsed in Ex.P-1 that he received complaint Ex.P-1 at 8.00 p.m whereas, the incident occurred on 17.02.2012 at 6.00 p.m, but PW-1 in her cross- examination admitted that she lodged Ex.P-1 on the next day of the incident and the police referred her to the hospital on the next day.

Even PW-2 also admitted that PW-1 lodged Ex.P-1 report on the next day of the incident whereas, as per Ex.P-1 report, it is lodged after two hours after the incident but the incident occurred on 17.02.2012 at 6.00 p.m. The complaint is lodged at 8.00 p.m.

Thereby, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not corroborating the contents of Ex.P-1 report in respect of date and time of lodging

Ex.P-1 report.

12.Further, the learned counsel for the accused had argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e.,PW-2 to PW-5 are the family members of PW-1 and no independent eye witnesses were examined in support of the case of the prosecution and the police not seized the material object i.e.,stick which is used by the accused in the commission of offence and there is previous enmity in between the accused and PW-1 and as such, in the above circumstances, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 cannot be believed.

On perusal of evidence available on record, it is true that PW-2 to 7 CC No.919 of 2017

PW-5 are the family members of PW-1 and as such, they are the interested witnesses. Hence, their evidence is to be evaluated with great care and caution. As already discussed above, the evidence of PW-1 is not corroborating with the contents of Ex.P-1 complaint and Ex.P-6 Medical certificate and when the evidence of the victim itself is not corroborating to the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW-2 to PW-5 is of no use to the case of the prosecution. Even, the Investigating officer/PW-7 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not examine any independent witnesses in this case. It is an admitted fact that no independent eye witnesses are examined in support of the case of the prosecution and as the PW-2 to PW-5 belongs to one family, naturally they are the interested witnesses in their case. Hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon in view of the evidence of

PW-1.

13Further, PW-1 to PW-5 in their cross-examination admitted that there were previous disputes in between PW-1 and the accused herein and in such circumstances, there is every possibility of PW-1 implicating the accused in the alleged offence and as such, the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 is to be evaluated with great care and caution. Further, the accused beat the PW-1 on the pretext that she lodged a complaint against her husband in the police station and the same was deposed by PW-2 to PW-5 who are the family members of PW-1 but, no such copy of complaint or FIR is filed

before this Court to establish that the PW-1 lodged a complaint

against the husband of the accused. Thereby, the above fact is not not proved through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5.

8 CC No.919 of 2017

14.Further, the material object used by the accused in the commission of offence i.e.,stick is not seized by the police from the scene of offence. It is the evidence of PW-8 that he conducted the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P-5 in the presence of PW-6 and PW-7 but on perusal of their evidence, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution by saying that no panchanama is conducted in their presence at any point of time.

Thus, the scene of offence is not proved through the evidence of

PW-6 and PW-7.

15.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPCand thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 324 and 506 IPCand she is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of November ,

2018.

I-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani. FAC:Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Manthani.

9 CC No.919 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – K Yellamma- Nil - PW2 – K Mallaiah PW3 – S Sammaiah PW4 – K Srinivas PW5 – K Madhunaiah PW6 – R Bakkaiah PW7 – Jadi Sadavli PW8 – M Raj Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – is the complaint Ex.P2 – is the signature of PW-6 on the Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 – is the signature of PW-7 on the Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 - is the First Information Report Ex.P5 - is the Crime Detail Form Ex.P6 - is the Medical certificate

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I-Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani. FAC:Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Manthani.

1 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. :

AT : MANTHANI

Present:Smt. M.Eunice, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani. FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F. C., Manthani

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 16 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.866 of 2017

(Old C.C No.399 of 2013)

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kataram (Cr. No.63 of 2013) …Complainant

A N D

Jakkula Sathish, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Munnuru Kapu, R/o.Gangaram. … Accused

This case is coming on 14.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri U.Subhash, Advocate for Accused having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

The Sub - Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kataram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.63 of 2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.509 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.05.2013 at 7.00 p.m, the complainant by name Cheerla Venkata Swamy came to the

Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that he is an employee in Singareni Company at Bhupalapalli and he intend to have perform the marriage of his daughter Ramya with his nephew by name V.Sharavan Reddy. Accordingly, he went to his house along 2 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013) with his relatives, but they demanded more dowry and as such, he settled another match for his daughter and thereafter, he performed the engagement with a groom namely Suram Praveen Reddy,

S/o.Madhavareddy. On 29.09.2013 at 9.45 a.m the said Praveen

Reddy came to him and stated that he received a obscene message to his mobile phone number from the mobile number i.e., 9553084687 about the character of his daughter. As such, he got suspicion on his nephew i.e., V.Shravan Reddy as he denied to give his daughter to him and as such with an intention to disturb the new proposal, the said V.Shravan Reddy has send the message about the character of his daughter to the mobile phone number of groom

Suram Praveen Reddy. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub -

Inspector of Police, Kataram registered a case and issued First

Information Report to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and examined other witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.509 of the IPC against the accused and numbered as CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013).

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.509 of IPC by explaining the substance of accusation. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013)

6.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 4 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3. PW1 is the complainant and father of the victim. PW2 is the brother-in-law of complainant. PW3 is the victim. PW4 is the

Investigating Officer. The learned APP has given the evidence of

Lws.3 to 6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.509 of the IPC?

Point :

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused insulted the modest of Ramya by sending abscene messages of her character to the phone of her groom with an intention to disturb her marriage proposal.

10.PW1 who is complainant in this case and father of the victim deposed that Ramya his daughter. In the year 2013, he intend to perform the marriage of his daughter with his nephew by name

V.Shravan Reddy but the said proposal is not worked out and as such, they withdraw the proposal. Thereafter, he searched for another proposal and found one Suram Praveen Reddy of

Bellampally and performed the engagement of Ramya with him. On 29.04.2013 at about 9.45 a.m, the said Suram Praveen Reddy had received a massage insulting the modesty of his daughter Ramya 4 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013) and also abused her. The said massage was received by the said

Suram Praveen Reddy from the phone No.9553084687. Then he had suspicion that the said massage might have sent by his nephew

V.Shravan Reddy. Since he refused to give his daughter to him. As such, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint i.e.,

Ex.P1 to the police but later on police found that the massage was not sent by the said V.Shravan Reddy but it was sent by the accused herein. PW2 who is the brother-in-law of PW1 deposed that the engagement of the daughter of PW1 by name Ramya was performed with one Suram Praveen Reddy. On 29.04.2013 at 9.45 a.m the said Suram Praveen Reddy received abuse massage and insulting the modesty of the daughter of PW1 from the cell phone

No.9553084687. As such, they felt that the said massage might have sent by V.Shravan Reddy who is the nephew of PW1, but later, they came to know that it was sent by the accused herein, who is resident of the village of Suram Praveen Reddy. PW3 who is victim in this case deposed that in the year 2013 her parents intend to performed her marriage with their relative by name V.Shravan

Reddy, but the said proposal is not worked out and the same is canceled. Later, his parents performed her engagement with one

Suram Praveen Reddy of Bellampally. On 29.04.2013 at 9.40 a.m, the said Suram Praveen Reddy received abusive and obscene SMS from other cell phone. Immediately he came and showed the same to them and they suspected that V.Shravan Reddy might have sent the SMS keeping in mind that he denied of marriage with her. As such, his father i.e., PW1 lodged a complaint against the said

V.Shravan Reddy in the police station. Later on, during the course of 5 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013) investigation, it is found that the accused had sent the massages to her would be husband by name Suram Praveen Reddy. PW4 is the investigating officer who deposed to the extent of investigation done by him in this case.

11.With the above evidence, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused.

12.It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 who is father of the victim by name Ramya had intend to perform the marriage of

Ramya with Suram Praveen Reddy by dening to give her to

V.Shravan Reddy. PW1 also perfomed engagement of PW3 with

Suram Praveen Reddy. After engagement on 29.04.2013, he received a massage at 9.45 p.m from the cell phone

No.9553084687 using abscene language and insulting words against the said Ramya and the said Suram Praveeen Reddy informed the same to Pws.1 to 3, who in turn got suspicion that the said massages might have sent to Suram Praveen Reddy by

V.Shravan Reddy since he was refused for the marriage to his daughter. As such, PW1 lodged a report against the said V.Shravan

Reddy. Later, during the course of investigation, it is came into light that the said V.Shravan Reddy did not send the massage to the victim but it was sent by the accused herein.

13.PW1 is father of the victim, PW2 is the brother-in-law of PW1,

PW3 is the victim. All the witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 3 have deposed that on earlier stage they suspected V.Shravan Reddy as the person who might have sent the vulgar massage to Suram Praveen Reddy 6 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013) but later on, they found that the accused has sant the said massage to Suraram Praveen Reddy. In the cross examination Pws.1 to 3 have admitted that the abusive messages insulting the character of

PW3 were sent to Suram Praveen Reddy, but the said Suram

Praveen Reddy is not examined before this Court to establish that he received such massages. The investigating officer PW4 also admitted in his cross examination that he did not seize the mobile phone of Suram Praveen Reddy and also did not record his statement. Even the cell phone number of the Suram Praveen

Reddy is also not stated by any of the witnesses. The said Praveen

Reddy is neither examined by the police nor cited as witnesses in the charge sheet. In the present case, the said Suram Praveen

Reddy is the material witness but, as per the own admission of the investigating officer PW4, he neither examined him nor cited as a witness in the charge sheet which clearly goes to show the lapse on the part of the investigating officer. When it is the case of the prosecution that the abusive message were received by the said

Suram Praveen Reddy to his cell phone from the cell

No.9553084687, it is the bounden duty of the investigating officer to enquire the said Suram Praveen Reddy, during the course of investigation, but the said Suram Praveen Reddy is neither cited as a witness nor examined before this Court. Even the cell phone of

Suram Praveen Reddy is not seized by the police, the reason not know to the investigating office. In such circumstances, the accused sending abusive messages to Praveen Reddy cannot be believed.

7 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013)

14.Further, none of the witnesses on record have stated the exact massages sent by the accused to Suram Praveen Reddy. Even on perusal of Ex.P1 report, PW1 did not state the abusive words used by the accused in the said SMS to Suram Praveen Reddy. In such, circumstances it cannot be said that the accused sent vulgar

SMS insulting the character of PW3. As already stated above, neither the cell phone number of the Suram Praveen Reddy is mentioned nor the Suram Praveen Reddy is examined before this

Court or the alleged abusive words used by the accused is mentioned either in Ex.P1 complaint or in the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3.

15.Further, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is a delay of two days in lodging complaint under Ex.P1 before this Court. On perusal of Ex.P1 report, there is a delay of two days.

None of the witnesses nor the investigating officer have given the reasons for the said delay. The delay in lodging complaint also goes fatal to the case of the prosecution.

16.Further, on persual of Ex.P3 which is the call data, it is found that no authentication of the document as to who had issued the said data is mentioned and at whose instance it is issued is also not mentioned. No official signature and office seal is appearing on

Ex.P3. Further, it is also not mentioned as to on whose name the call data stands for and on whose name and to whom the said massages were sent and received by whom is mentioned in the

Ex.P3. Therefore, on the above grounds, Ex.P3 has no validity in the eye of law. None of the witnesses have mentioned the exact abusive 8 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013) words used by the accused in the SMS and no evidence is placed

before this Court showing what is the massage the accused sent to

Suram Praveen Reddy. It is also not mentioned what is a cell phone number of the accused and to which number it was sent. In the absence of such crucial evidence, it is not known as to how the investigating officer has come to the conclusion that the accused is involved in this case, since neither the cell phone number of the accused nor the cell phone number of the Suram Praveen Reddy or the cell phone of the Suram Praveen Reddy is mentioned or seized by the prosecution in their entire investigation. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the offence alleged against him. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.509 of IPC and thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.509 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (G-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16thday of November, 2018.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Manthani 9 CC No.866 of 2017 (CC No.399 of 2013)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – Cheerla Venkataswamy- Nil - PW2 – Bommena Raju PW3 – Cherla Ramya PW4 – B.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Report Ex.P2 – First Information Report Ex.P3 – Call data records (15 pages)

FOR THE DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

1 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. :

AT : MANTHANI

Present:Smt. M.Eunice, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani. FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F. C., Manthani.

TUESDAY ON THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.779 of 2017

( Old C.C No.183 of 2013)

Between:

The state of A.P. through the SHO, Police Station, Kataram (Cr. No.171 of 2012) …Complainant AND

A1. Yellavaena Mallesh, S/o.Appaiah, Age: 25 years, Caste: Golla, R/o.Devarampalli. A2. Borrakunta Ravi, S/o.Lasmaiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: Nethakani, R/o.Devarampalli. A3. Borrakunta Sathish, S/o.Sammaiah, Age: 26 years, Caste: Nethakani, R/o.Devarampalli. A4. Sidhe Odelu, S/o.Lasmaiah, Age: 26 years, Caste: Thenugu, R/o.Devarampalli. … Accused No.1 to 4

This case is coming on 14.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.P.Vasunder, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 4 having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

The Sub - Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kataram filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.171 of 2012 for the offence punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2012 at 8.00 p.m, the complainant Ilaveni Vasantha came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that she is the resident of Devarampalli village and on 20.10.2012 at 7.00 a.m she along with her husband 2 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013) went to coolie work by locking their house. At about 1.00 p.m her brother-in-law by name Annevena Beemaraju informed me over phone that, some unknown offenders have entered into her house.

Then she immediately she along with her husband rushed to her house and found that her house doors were closed and the almirah doors are broken and on verification she found ½ tulas gold,

Kammalu, Buttalu and net cash of Rs.1000/- they were missing.

Later she came to know through her sister-in-law Ilavena laxmi that one Borrakunta Ravi was jumped from her house roof and ran away.

Basing on the above complaint, the Sub - Inspector of Police,

Mahadevpur registered a case and issued First Information Report to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of T.Saraiah and L.Venkateshwarulu. Thereafter on 31.10.2012 at 8.00 a.m the Sub-Inspector of Police while conducting vehicle checking at Garepalli Centre they noticed four persons moving in suspicious circumstances, then they stopped them in order to question them about there identity, but they managed to escape from them. But the police chased and caught them. During the course of interrogation accused No.1 to 4 disclosed their names and identity and further confess that they are committed theft to earn money and accordingly they have committed theft in the house of the complainant. Basing on their confession they recovered ½ tulas gold, Kammalu, Buttalu and net cash of Rs.1000/- from the accused under the cover on confession of recovery panchanama in the presence of V.Saraiah and G.Sadavali. After 3 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013) completing the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused

No.1 to 4.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of the IPC against the accused and numbered as CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013).

4.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused No.1 to 4 are examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and they denied the allegations levelled against them. Hence, charge

U/Sec.454 and 380 of the IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 and MO2. PW1 is the complainant in this case. PW2 is the husband of complainant. PW3 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchana. PW4 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama. PW5 is the eye witness to the incident. PW6 is the investigating officer.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

4 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013)

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of the IPC? Point:

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 to 4 entered into the house of PW1 by breaking open Almirah locks and committed theft of ½ tula gold, Kammalu, Buttalu and net cash of

Rs.1000/-.

10.PW1 who is complainant in this case has deposed that, about five years back she locked the house and went to cooli work, on her returned she found that the almirah was opened and on verification she found that ½ tulas gold, Kammalu, Buttalu and net cash of

Rs.1000/- were missing, she do not know the accused. PW2 who is witness to the incident deposed that, he do not know anything about this case. PW3 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchana deposed that no panchanama is conducted in his presence. PW4 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that he do not know the accused and the accused never confessed any crime in his presence and police did not recover anything in his presence. PW5 is the eye witness to the incident and sister-in-law of complainant deposed that about six years back at 1.00 p.m she found the doors of PW1 was opened and by suspecting she went there and found the things were in pell-mell condition and she witness that accused No.2 getting down from the house and on seeing her she escaped from there immediately she informed the same to PW1. PW6 is the investigating officer who deposed to the extent of investigation done by him.

5 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013)

11.With the above evidence, the prosecution has to establish whether the accused have committed theft of MO1 and MO2 from the house of PW1.

12.It is the evidence of PW1 that some unknown offenders have committed theft in her house and she lost Mos.1 and 2 from her house. PW6 is the investigating officer in this case has deposed that he received Ex.P1 from PW1 about the theft committed in her house. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1 and PW6 coupled with the document under Ex.P1 complaint, Ex.P8 First Information

Report, Ex.P9 seizure panchanama, Ex.P10 confession cum seizure panchanama and Mos.1 and 2 which goes to show that a theft took place in the house of PW1 and she lost Mos.1 and 2 from her house.

13.Now it to be seen whether the accused has committed such theft in the house of PW1. PW1 in her evidence deposed that she do not know the accused. PW5 who is an eye witness to the incident informed that she found accused No.2 getting down from the house of PW1. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 to 4 have committed theft in the house of PW1 and that accused No.1 and 2 were apprehended by PW6 investigating officer and accused No.1 and 2 have confessed before PW4 that they have committed theft of

MOs.1 and 2 from the house of PW1. Thereafter, the police recovered Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused under the cover on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P10 but the panch witness for confession who is examined as PW4 has deposed

before this Court that he do not know the accused and the accused

6 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013) never confessed in his presence and that police did not recover

Mos.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused. Thereby, the panchanama of confession and recovery under Ex.P10 is not proved from the evidence of PW4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW6 conducted the panchanama in the presence of PW3 under the cover of Ex.P9 scene of offence panchanama, but the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile by stated that no panchanama is conducted in his presence. Thereby, the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P9 is not proved through the evidence of PW3 panch witness. Further, the hushand of PW1 is examined as PW2, he also turned hostile by stating that he do not know anything about this case. If really a theft occurred in his house definitely, he will support the case of the prosecution, but he did not do so, which goes against the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the entire evidence on record except the evidence of PW5 eye witness who deposed that she observed accused No.2 getting down from the house of PW1, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to

A4 have committed theft in the house of PW1 but, PW5 stated that accused No.2 getting down from the house of PW1 and the evidence of PW2 is not corroborate by any of the witnesses in this case. In the cross examination PW5 admitted that she was not examined by the police and that PW1 is her relative, when she denied of recording her evidence by the police during the course of investigation, how she depose before this Court about observing the accused No.2 getting down from the house of PW1 cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence. When the evidence of PW5 is 7 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013) discarded, there is no other evidence on record stating that the accused have committed theft in the house of PW1. Though the investigating officer PW6 has deposed before this Court, that the accused have committed theft, and that he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and confession panchanama of the accused and recovered MOs.1 and 2 from the possession of the accused but,

Ex.P9 and 10 are not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses. In the cross examination PW6 also admitted that he did not collected any receipts showing that PW1 is the owner of the house and that PW1 did not mentioned the denomination of the amount which she lost. There is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the offence alleged against them. None of the witnesses deposed about the involvement of accused No.1, 3 and 4 except PW5 who deposed that she found the accused No.2 getting down from the house of PW1 but she did not state that she saw the accused committing theft in the house of PW1. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record about the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence.

14.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of the IPC and thereby, the accused are entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013)

15. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.454 and 380 of the IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property deposited in this case vide property

Sl. No.22 of 2013 i.e, MO.1 and MO.2 which were already returned to its owner i.e., Ilaveni Vasantha as per the orders of this Court in

Crl.M.P. No.73 of 2013, dt.22.02.2013 for interim custody shall holds

good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (G-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of November, 2018.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – Itaveni Vasantha PW2 – A.Bheemaraju PW3 – T.Saraiah PW4 – V.Saraiah PW5 – I.Laxmi PW6 – B.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 – Signature of PW3 on White Paper Ex.P4 to P7 – Signatures of PW4 on white papers Ex.P8 – First Information Report Ex.P9 – Crime Detail Form Panchanama Ex.P10 – Confessional-cun-seizure panchanama Ex.P11 to P13 – Confessional panchanama of A2 to A4 respectively 9 CC No.779 of 2017 (CC No.183 of 2013)

FOR THE DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 – ½ Tula of Gold MO.2 – Net Cash of Rs.1000/-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

1 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. :

AT : MANTHANI

Present:Smt. M.Eunice, I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani. FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F. C., Manthani.

TUESDAY ON THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

CALANDER CASE No.539 of 2017

(Old CC No.265 of 2012)

Between:

The State through the Station House Officer,Police Station, Mahadevpur (Cr. No.131 of 2011) …Complainant A N D

A1. Golusula Ramulu, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Waddera, R/o.Seetharampur village, Devrupla Mandal of Warangal District, Now at Mukunur village of Mahadevpur Mandal. A2. Amudala Narsaiah, S/o.Komuraiah, Age: 36 years, Caste: Padmashali, R/o.Madaka village, Odela Mandal, Now at Javaharnagar of Sulthanabad.

…... Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on 14.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.P.Vasunder, Advocate for Accused having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:-

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Mahadevpur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.131 of 2011 for the offence punishable U/Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2011 at 5.15 a.m on reliable information about the illegal possession of the explosives the Sub-Inspector of Police along with his staff proceeded to

Bommapur cross road and found one person standing at the cross road by holding white Urea bags under suspicious circumstances, 2 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012) then they asked said person that the accused herein to produce any license in his possession, then he failed to produce any license, immediately the Sub-Inspector of Police secured in the presence of two mediators i.e., K.Gangaiah and Ch.Pochi Reddy and in their presence the accused confessed that he is working as trench contract at Mega site at Devadula Pipe line works and he is using the explosive in trench holes illegally without any license. He further confessed that he purchased explosive from one Amudala Narsaiah i.e., accused No.2 herein. Then the Sub-Inspector of Police seized one Urea bag containing (250) Electrical detonators and one Urea bag containing (250) large Dia slurry explosives under a cover of confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of above said panchas. Later he brought the accused along with seized property to police station, Mahadevpur and registered the case in Cr.No.131 of 2012 and issued First Information Report to the concerned.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and arrest the accused No.1 and produced him before this Court for judicial remand. Thereafter on 14.12.2012 he arrested the accused No.2 and recorded the confession in the presence of J.Thirupathi and Ch.Venkataswamy and also arrested him and produced him before this Court for judicial remand. Later the Sub-Inspector of Police defused the explosive by bomb disposal expert and remnants were sent to FSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis report. After receipt of expert opined that the property explosive contain Ammonium Nitrate along with Emulsifier a high explosive composition in it. After completing investigation and receipt received FSL Report filed charge sheet before this Court.

3 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Sec.9(B) (1)(b) of Explosives Act against the accused and numbered as CC

No.539 of 2017 (Old CC No.265 of 2012).

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused are examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act by explaining the substance of accusation. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P14. PW1 is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama of accused No.1. PW2 is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama of accused No.1. PW3 is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama of accused No.2. PW4 is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama of accused No.2. PW5 is the First

Investigating Officer. PW6 is the Investigating Officer. PW7 is the

Police personnel and assisted to PW5.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable U/Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act?

4 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

9.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 was transporting the explosives without having any valid license and which was purhchased from accused No.2.

10.Pws.1 to 4 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 have turned hostile by stating that they do not know anything about this case and no panchanama of confession and seizure is conducted in their presence. PW7 is constable who accompained the investigating officer in detecting the crime. PW5 and 6 are the investigating officers who deposed to the extent of investigation done by them in this case.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is in possession of explosives without valid license or permit and he confessed that he is using the same in trench wholes. It is the case of the prosecution that

PW1 to 6 have seized the property from the possession of accused No.1 and under the cover of Ex.P9 and P13 in the presence of PW1 to PW4 but

PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile by stating that they do not know the accused and accused never confessed in their presence and the police never seized any property i.e., MOs.1 to 6 from the possession of accused

No.1 in the present case. PW1 to PW4 who are panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama plays an important role since the other witnesses i.e., PW5 to 7 are the police personnels and they are the interested witnesses. No eye witnesses were examined before this Court to establish that the accused are in possession of explosives and the same were recovered by the police.

12.The learned counsel for the accused had argued that in this case the complainant and investigating officer are one and the same which goes fatal to the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the evidence of 5 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

PW5 he himself admitted in his cross examination that he is the complainant and also the investigating officer in this case. In this regard this Court relied on a decision reported in Mohanlal Vs State of Panjab (Supreme Court) Criminal Appeal No.1880 of 2012 wherein it is held that accused is entitled for acquittal when complainant and I.O are one and the same person. It is admitted by PW5 that he is the complainant and investigating officer in this case and as such, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Absolutely there are no eye witnesses to the case of the prosecution to corroborate the version of PW5 to PW7 who are the police personnel. Admittedly the incident occurred on cross road at 5.15 p.m and usually, at that time, there will be heavy public on the roads, but none of the eye witnesses were examined before this Court to corroborate the version of PW5 to PW7. PW5 to PW7 are interested witnesses as they are the police personnel and as such, their evidence is to be evaluated with great care and caution but, none of independent witnesses have supported the version of PW5 to PW7 and corroborating the version of

PW5 to PW7 that the accused have committed the offence. Even the panch witnesses have also turned hostile. In such circumstances, the sole testimony of the police personnel cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence and as such, the evidence of PW5 to 7 cannot be believed in the absence of corroborative evidence.

13.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act and thereby, the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for an acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

6 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

14. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.9(B)(1)(b) of Explosives Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The Mos.1 to 6 were already destroyed by the Bomb

Defuse Expert and as such, no further orders is required to be passed with regard to the property.

Dictated to the Stenographer (G-III), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20thday of November, 2018.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 – Ch.Pochi Reddy - Nil - PW2 – K.Gangaiah PW3 – Ch.Venkataswamy PW4 – J.Thirupathi PW5 – Ch.Vidyasagar PW6 – B.Rajeshwar Rao PW7 – A.Thirupathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on confessional cum recovery Panchanama of A1 Ex.P2 – Signature of PW1 on confessional cum recovery Panchanama of A1 Ex.P3 – Signature of PW2 on confessional and recovery Panchanama of A1 Ex.P4 – Signature of PW2 on confessional and recovery Panchanama of A1 Ex.P5 – Signature of PW3 on confessional cum seizure Panchanama of A2 Ex.P6 – Five signatures on Xerox copy of Agreement Ex.P7 – Signature of PW4 on confessional cum recovery Panchanama of A2 7 CC No.539 of 2017 (CC No.265 of 2012)

Ex.P8 – Signature of PW4 on confessional cum recovery Panchanama of A2 Ex.P9 – Confessional Statement of A1 Ex.P10 – First Information Report Ex.P11 – Copy of license Ex.P12 – Copy of Agreement Ex.P13 – Confessional cum recovery panchanama of A2 Ex.P14 – FSL Report

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 is the 250 Electrical Detonators MO2 is the 250 large diaslurry explosives MO3 is the 250 Electrical Detonators MO4 is the 261 large diaslurry explosives MO5 is the Jiliten Sample Bottle MO6 is the Electronic Detonator Remnant

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani

FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C.,

Manthani