Smt M Jagadeeswari

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 1

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present : SMT JAGADEESWARI MEESALA, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram . Friday, the17th day of January, 2025.

C.C.No.784/2019

Between:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prakash nagar Police Station. …….Complainant

A N D 1. Jakkampudi Raja Indravandith @ Raja S/o.Late Rammohanarao, 30 years, D.No.74-11-3, karthikeya enclave, Prakashnagar,Rajamahendravaram.

2.Kommula Satya Sai Chakravarthi, S/O Chakrapani Rao,A/54,D.NO, 86-3-16-1, Shirdi Sai margah, JN Road,Rajamahendravaram.

3.Sunkara Chinni, S/O Ramarao,A/40,D.NO.22-2-5/1, Veerabadrapuram, Rajamahendravaram.

4. Dabbiru Udaya Venkata Naga Sivakumar@ siva, S/O Anand Rao,A/29,D.NO.35-6-7/1,Chinni bazar, Mangalavarapupeta, Rajamahendravaram.

…...Accused 1 to 4

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri M.R.Satya Sai , Advocate for accused No.1 to 4, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arose out of Crime No.231/2016 of Prakash nagar Police

Station registered against accused 1 to 4 for the offences u/Sec. 353,323,506 r/w.34 of

IPC .

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 2

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

2.The brief case of prosecution is as follows:

On 28-11-2016 due to demonitization of high currency notes such as Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- rupee notes by the central government of India the opposition parties across India has given call for the bharath bandh in which YSRCP party has also partici- pated. In pursuance of the above Bharath Bandh call, elaborate bandobasth arrange- ments have been made to any untoward incidents. On 28.11.2016 at 4:00 am PW-1/ R.-

Subrahmanyeswararao the then Inspector of police Prakashnagar P.S., alongwith his staff have been performing bandobasth duties at RTC complex. While so, at about 11:00 am about 200 people headed by YSRCP party members namely A1- Jakkampudi

Raja, Rowthu Suryaprakasharao has conducted a rally on motor cycles in view of bharathbandh against the demonitization and by that time they reached the spencers shop on seeing the opening of the shop the protestors mainly A1- Jakkampudi Raja,

Kommu Sai, and one Siva all together picked up a dispute with the staff of the spencers mall and causing hurt to the manager by beating him and forcibly attempted to close their shop by abusing the manager in vulgar language with their highhanded acts.

At that time, PW-1 and his staff arrived there and foiled their bid to close the shop. At that juncture A1- Jakkampudi Raja questioned PW-1 that who is he to prevent them besides abusing him and challenged him that, who he was to perform his duties and further questioned that why he had filed cases on his younger brother nephew and thereby obstructed PW-1 from performing his legitimate duties and further threatened with dire consequences. Hence PW-1 lodged EX.P1/report and the offence took place on the road at Spencer’s shop Ramalayam centre Rajahmahendravaram on the strength of the EX.P1/report PW-5 K. Srinivasarao HC-2367, Prakashnagar P.S., regis- tered Ex-P5, FIR in crime no.231/2016 under section 353, 506,323 r/w 34 IPC and ex- amined PW-1, and recorded his statement. On 29-11-2016 PW-5 visited scene of of- fence and prepared rough sketch. And examined the LW1 to LW5 and recorded their statement.

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 3

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

Basing on the evidence brought on record there is no evidence with regard to involvement of accused no 3 Sunkara Chinni , as such PW5 obliterated his name from the list of accusation and the names of the accused are renumbered in FIR array as A1 to A3. Later, PW-6/ Shaik Bajilal, Inspector of Police took up investigation in this case and verified investigation done by PW-5 and found on correct lines, and served a notice

U/s 41-a CR.P.C., on the Accused no.1, on 25-03-2019 served to A2 to A4. After com- pletion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. The II AJFCM On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences under section 353, 323, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4.

Later, the record is received by this court as per district court proceedings in dis.no.5496 dt.19.11.2020.

4. On 30-05-2022 as A1 is Member of Legislative Assembly to Rajanagaram constituency the entire case record is submitted to the honorable special court for trial of criminal cases relating to MP’s and MLA’s Vijayawada on point of jurisdiction. Later the entire record is re-transmitted from the honorable special court for trial of criminal cases relating to elected MP’s and MLA’s Vijayawada in letter dis.no.294 dated 16.08.2022., to this court for disposal of the case according to law. On appearance of the accused 1 to4 relevant copies of documents were furnished to accused 1 to 4 as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., and examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation stated to them which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. On behalf of accused no one was examined and nothing was marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 4 were examined

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 4

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating evidence available on record in telugu and their plea was a total denial and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the learned counsel for APP., and the learned defence counsel for A1 to

A4 and submitted his written arguments U/s. 314 Cr.P.C and also filed the decisions in support of their contentions.

7.Now the points for determination is :

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/Sec 353?

2. whether the prosecution has established the guilt if A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/Sec. 323, 506 r/w of IPC ?

P O I N T S No. 1 & 2 :

8. It is the case of prosecution that the accused 1 to 4 being sympathisers of political party I.e YSRCP party call for bharath bund in view of demonitization of high currency notes I.e RS.500 and RS.1000 and conducted rally on motor cycles and reached spencers shop . On seeing the spencers shop in open the A1 and other persons raised dispute with staff of spencers shop and beaten the manager causing hurt to him on such the PW1 and his staff questioned the A1 and others on such the 1st accused threatened him and obstructed his legitimate duties,while he was discharging his duty at Spencers shop, Ramalayam street ,Rajamahendravaram.

9. Before evaluate the evidences of prosecution , it has to be looked into the section 353 of indian penal code ,1860,which deals with the offence of assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from performing their duty . The section is specifically designed to protect public servants from violence or attempts prevent them from carrying out their lawful duties. To constitute the offence under section 353

IPC, the following elements has to be satisfied :

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 5

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

1. Assault or use of Criminal force:There must be assault or the use of criminal force against a public servant. Criminal force includes any force that is used to intimidate or harm, and assault includes an attempt to apply force.

2. Public servant:The victim must be a public servant performing their official duty. The definition of a public servant is quite broad and includes police officers, government employees.

3. In the execution of duty :The public servant must be performing their duty when the assault or criminal force is used . If the public servant not performing their duty at the time , this section does not apply.

4. Intent to deter from discharging duty:The accused must have the intention to prevent the public servant from discharging his duty.

10. In order to prove this offence under section 353 ipc the PW1/R.

Subramanyeswara Rao ,the then inspector of police , Prakash nagar P.S deposes, on 28-11-2016 the opposition party called for Bharath bundh for the reason of demonitization of high currency notes, on that purpose he along with his staff exercising their duties at RTC complex, Rajamahendravaram from 4.00 am onwards and received an information from control room at about 11:00 am informing that one

Jakkampudi Raja, YSRCP leader along with Rowthu Suryaprakasarao who is Ex-MLA accompanied with 200 people commenced bike rally towards Ramalayam centre under prakash nagar limits on that PW-1 along with his staff reached Ramalayam centre on jeep at about 11:15 am and found there is a spencer’s shop situated at Ramalayam

Centre .The said Jakkampudi Raja along with his followers altercated with the manager of Spencer’s shop to close shop on such PW-1 along with his staff went to the

Spencer’s main gate. Jakkampudi Raja, Sai, Siva, Sunkara Chinni were beaten the manager at Spencer’s shop. He further deposed that he rescued the manager from the hands of those persons on that the said Jakkampudi Raja stating that the manager without obeying the Bharathbandh they continuing the shop open with the support of

PW-1 and questioned him,that ” who are you to interfere we will close the shop” and threatened the PW-1 that he will see his end and also questioned him that PW-1 foisted

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 6

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

the false case against his brother and nephew and threatened the PW-1 with the gesture by showing his finger. As such the accused interfered his legitimate duties and resisted the PW-1 on that he lodged EX-P1 report and he identified A1 to A4.

11. During the cross-examination of PW-1, he admitted that in the general diary(G.D. in short) their regular duties are mentioned and also admitted it was reflected in G.D. that by the alleged date that he was on duty at RTC complex at

Rajamahendravaram. ThePW1 denied the suggestion that it was not reflected in G.D.

that by the alleged date he was present at spencer’s shop. The learned defence counsel conducted cross examination at length. According to PW1 evidence he alongwith his staff went to scene of offence by jeep but in his cross-examination he stated that he did not remember the vehicle which was used by the alleged date and admitted that it has to be mentioned in the G.D. entry. PW-1 further admitted that every government vehicle has log book. On questioning the PW1 about entry in log book as wellas G.D. entry he replied it might be present in log book in alleged date and time they used the vehicle and proceeded to spencer’s shop and also stated that he did not handover any logbook to the investing officer. PW-1 further stated he did not registered any FIR against A1 and his brother during his tenure. He further deposed according to him in the alleged incident himself and manager of spencer’s shop are the victims. He further stated by that time he went to the scene of offence the said spencer’s shop is in open and it is being open as long as he was present there and either the manger or any staff of spencer shop did not gave any report to PW1. It is elicited in the cross- examination of PW-1 that the spencer’s shop under the surveillence of CC cameras.

PW-1 further admitted whenever any rallies are conducted by any political parties one of the police person may take videos. He did not tried to collect any CC tv footages of spencer’s shop. The PW-1 admitted that, by the alleged date after completion of his duties he reported to his superiors that he has successfully discharged

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 7

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

his duties. Pw-1 deposes that when he present at spencer shop he questioned the said manager regarding his name and particulars but he did not disclose his name. PW-1 admitted that the spencer shop is located in the first floor of building and the alleged incident occurred at the entrance of the shop in the first floor. PW-1 further stated by that time he entered into spencer shop there are 20 people were present and they are all found to be supporters of YSRCP party and he did not made request to his superiors for additional force to the alleged place.

12. While observing the evidence of PW-1, On 28-11-2016, while he was exercising his duty at RTC complex PW-1 has informed by control room at 11:00 am about Jakkampudi Raja, who is YSRCP leader alongwith Rowthu Suryaprakasa Rao

Ex-Mla, accompanied with 200 people and conducting bike rally on such he reached scene of offence the spencer shop and found the manager has beaten by A1 to A4 , while PW-1 tried to rescue the manager the said A1 threatened the him and obstructed his legitimate duties, in his cross-examination it is elicited that he was on duty at RTC complex Rajamahendravaram. With supporting this contention there was no documentary proof adduced before this court in particularly the General diary entry which plays the key role in day to day duties have discharged by the police officials.

13. The logbooks pertaining to the police jeep on which the PW-1 and his staff were reached to the scene of offence after receiving the information about the rally conducted by A1 and other sympathisers of YSRCP party, was not handover to investigation officer and the same was not placed before this court to supporting their contention. He further stated by that time the TDP is the ruling party the YSRCP party is in opposition and the A1 is strong supporter of YSRCP party though he denied the suggestion that with the influence of the then ruling party he registered the present case. According to the prosecution the manager of spencer shop has beaten by A1.

This court finds that the manager of spencer shop not cited as a witness and not even

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 8

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

examined by the investigating officer. According to PW-1 the alleged incident occurred while the PW-1 rescued the manager of spencer shop from the hands of A1 and others.

It is well known fact that every shoping malls more particularly the spencer’s shop are under surveillance of CC TV cameras if such incident was happened the investigating officer has to secure the CCTV footage covers the alleged incident which was occurred at entrance of the spencer shop as narrated by PW-1. In this case the investigating officer not even try to collect the crucial evidence i.e. CC TV footage.

14. While coming to the evidence of PW-2 kandubothula Laxmi who cited as eye witness not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile in her cross- examination by learned APP though she admitted that in the month of november 2016 she had been working as house keeper in spencer shop situated at A.V. Apparao road, along with PW-3 lingala Triveni who also working in the same department . She further admitted the central government has cancelled Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes, by that time a rally took place by the YSRCP party ,but she do not know that A1 to A4 were present in the said rally it is further elicited in her cross-examination the persons of the

YSRCP party demanded to close the spencer shop. But in cross-examination conducted by defence counsel she says that she do not know by the time of dharna which party people came to spencers shop. The evidence of PW-2 no way prove the prosecution version. The other witnesses PW-3 Lingala Triveni who is working as house-keeper and PW-4, Gutha Nageswararao not supported the prosecution version and no favourable point was elicited in their cross-examination by learned APP.

15. While coming to the evidence of PW-5, K. Srinivasrao, the then head constable in prakashnagar P.S., deposed that on 28-11-2016 at about 3.00pm while he was present in the police station PW-1 presented a report i.e., EX-P1, basing on it he registered Ex-P5 FIR in Crime no. 231/2016 under section 353,323,506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Then he examined PW-1 and recorded statement of PW-1 on the same day he

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 9

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

proceeded to scene of offence at spencer shop situated at Ramalayam street and examined the list of witnesses and recorded their detailed statements later he handed over the entire case file to PW-6. During the cross-examination of PW-5 he admitted that he mentioned in Ex-P5 FIR in column no.3 about the G.D.entry no.2 and he did not seize the G.D. entry as well as the log-book in his investigation. He denied the suggestion that PW-1 was not on duty on the said date and exercising his duties. He further stated according to him PW-1 is the victim and in his investigation PW-1 was beaten with hands by the accused. PW-5 further deposed according to his investigation except PW-1 no one received injuries in this alleged incident and also stated he did not examined the manager of said spencer shop. According to his investigation the Rowthu

Suryaprakasharao also committed offence. Pw-5 admittedly stated according to PW-1 report there are about 200 people were participated in the above said rally on the alleged date and time but he registered FIR against only four persons. He categorically stated the spencer shop is in three storied building and the spencer shop located in first floor.

16. While observing the evidence of PW-5 he admittedly stated that he did not handover any G.D. entry which shows by the time of alleged incident PW-1 was on duty and he proceeded to spencer shop after receiving information about alleged incident and he did not seize CC TV footage of spencer shop which created doubtful ness in the mind of the court about the commission of the alleged offences. PW-5 clearly stated according to ExP1 report 200 people were gathered but he registered FIR only on A1 to

A4 .The other person Rowthu suryaprakasarao who is alleged to be present in the above said date and time also not even shown as accused though the PW-5 stated he also committed the offence. The investigation itself is incomplete and no cogent material on record to prove the alleged charges against A1 to A4.

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 10

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

17. While coming to PW-6/R.Sk. Bajilal the then inspector of police

Prakashnagar P.S., deposes he verified the investigation made by PW-5 and also secured the presence of list of witnesses and examined them over phone and they stated same facts which was stated before PW-5. And also stated about issuance of notices under section 41-A Cr.p.c., to A1 to A4 and filing of charge-sheet. In his cross- examination he categorically stated that he did not examine the manager of spencer shop and also not mentioned the name of the said manager. He further stated he did not examined the jeep driver he further stated he has visited the scene of offence and the spencer shop situated in the ground floor and the alleged offence is occurred in the ground floor. He admitted that the place of offence is located at busy commercial locality. He also deposed that the record of investigation does not reveal whether the spencer shop having any CC TV footage. He did not seize any record to show that PW- 1 was on duty. The entire prosecution witnesses in their evidences except PW-1, PW- 5&6 i.e., investigating officers no other evidence on record to prove the alleged incident.

18. If such rally has been conducted by A1 to A4 along with 200 people there might be presence of the common people and some more police personnels who were on duty by the time have to be examine by PW-5/Investigating officer. The PW-5, who is investigating officer in the cadre of head constable subordinate to PW-1 who is informant in this case are of the same department. The investigating officer have not lost any option to secure the primary evidence which might be easily available in the spencer shop. As per the prosecution version the scene of offence is spencer shop.

PW1 stated that the spencer shop is located in First Floor and PW-6 basing on record he stated the offence took place at the spencer shop which is situated in the ground floor. There are major discrepancies in the evidence of informant and investigating officers. The place of alleged scene of offence not supported by the evidence of informant and investigating officers.

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 11

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

19. There is no material on record to show that by the date of alleged incident

PW1 was on duty. There is no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the main ingredient under section 353 IPC by that time the informant/PW1,who is public servant is on duty and the accused committed offence with intent to prevent or deter the public servant in discharging his duties. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the decision of honourable Supreme court that the state of punjab vs. Ajaib singh 1953 in this case the honourable supreme court explained the essence of section 353 IPC, the use of force or assault on public servant who is in the lawful execution of his duties. It clarifies that the public servant must be performing his official duties when the offence takes place.Unfortunately there was no material placed by prosecution to prove PW-1 was performing his legitimate duties by the alleged date,time and place. The ingredient of 353 of IPC has not satisfied by the prosecution.

20. While coming to the other alleged charge U/s 323 IPC who sustained simple hurt is the victim and he has to be shown as list of witness. But in present case as per the story of prosecution A1 to A4 has beaten the manager of spencer shop and

PW1 rescued the manager of spencer shop in the hands of A1 to A4 and there is no hurt caused to PW-1 according to his evidence. The prosecution not proved the ingridients to constitute the offence under section 323 IPC. Though the PW1 spoken that the A1and others has beaten spencers shop manager , the investigating officer not examined the said manager to prove the said charge. According to evidences of PW1,

PW5 and PW6 it was not spoken by them either the manager or PW1 causing hurt.

There was no corroboration between them with regard to causing hurt, and also no material placed before this court to substantiate the said charge.The another charge under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC, A1 to A4 in furtherance of common intention threaten the PW-1. But there is no material on record to substantiate the alleged charge. The evidence of the PW1 and PW5,PW6. The entire burden lies on the prosecution tom prove the guilt of accused for alleged offences. This court while reading the entire

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 12

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

evidence it appears to be not truthful in the given circumstances of the case. In this case the investigating officer not examined any individual persons to prove the incident

PW5 categorically stated there are 200 persons alleged to have been participating in rally and it is occurred at spencers shop , there is every possibility to examine the individual persons to prove the prosecution version. But it was not done by investigating officer . Though he examined the PW2,3 and PW4 they are not supported the case of prosecution.

21. The learned counsel for accused submitted his written arguments along with

judgements: 1) AIR 1978 (SC) Page No.1441, 2)AIR. 1967 (SC) Page No.170, 3)AIR.

2019(SC) Page NO.2109, 4) 2024 (2) A.L.D.(CRL) Page No. 587(SC), 5)2000(0)

SCC(CRL) Page No.285, 6)2015 (1) ALD(CRL) Page No.663 (SC). This court have gone through the judgments supplied by learned defence counsel , the PW1 admitted in his cross examination admitted that it is true the alleged date after completion of his duties and reported to his superior that he has successfully discharged his duties, basing on this admission the learned counsel for accused submits that no hindrance caused while discharging the duties. At this juncture he relied on the decision of

honble supreme court in D.Chattaiah and Another vs. State of A.P. AIR 1978(SC)

1441, It is the case for the offence 332 I.P.C . in this case where in it was held in para 10; that “there was not even a scintilla of evidence from which it could be

reasonably inferred that the intent of assault was to prevent or deter PW1 from

dicharging of his duties as such public servant ”. Though the decision pertaining to voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. The intention to interfere the duties of public servant not proved in the present case.

22. The another decision placed by the learned defence counsel for accused

Chandrika sao vs state of Bihar 1967 AIR (SC) 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarifies the interpretation of use of criminal force in section 353 IPC, signifying that

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 13

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

even a forceful act without direct physical contact can be considered as using force against a public servant. The facts are different in decision placed by accused and in present case.

23. While perusing the other judgment placed by accused in his behalf is AIR 2019 (sc) page no 2109 pertaining to ingredients of section 506 criminal intimidation. As discussed by this court in above said paragraphs the ingredients for the said offence not proved by the prosecution in present case. The learned counsel for accused also relied on judgment 2024 (2) ALD(CRL)587 also pertaining to ingredients of section 506 ipc.

The another decision 2015 (1) ALD (CRL)663 SC Thomas Bruno and another vs

State of U.P pertaining to collection of CCTV footage to establishing the prosecution case and admissibility of section 65B. Honourable supreme court held wherein “omission to produce CC TV footage in our view which is best evidence , raises serious doubt about the prosecution case”. The counsel for accused argued that it is highly essential to verify the cc tv footage which is very much available in the spencers shop and which has got important to the case of prosecution. But the investigating officer did not seize the cc tv footage which is nothing but suppression of material evidence. This court as discussed above and also relied on these decisions and considering all evidences on record it opines that it is unsafe to rely on the evidences of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the levelled charges.

24. Therefore, after careful scrutiny as there is no evidence left on record to prove the guilt of accused, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 353, 323, , 506r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, points No.1 and 2 are answered against the prosecution.

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 14

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

25. In the result, accused 1 to 4 is found not guilty for the offences under section 353, 323, 506r/w 34 of IPC and Accused 1 to Accused 4 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to My dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of January, 2025.

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE –

P.W.1: R.Subramanyeswara Rao

P.W.2: Kandubothula Lakshmi

P.W.3: Lingala Triveni

P.W.4: Guthu Nageswara Rao

P.W.5: K.Srinivasarao

P.W.6: R.SK.Bajilal

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report. -Nil-

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P5: First Information Report M.O’s MARKED: -- NIL –

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

I A.J.F.C.M, RJY. 15

CC 784/2019, Dt 17-01-2025

IN COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No. 784 of 2019

Date of Offence: 28-11-2016 Date of Report: 28-11-2016 Date of Apprehension of accused : 10-02-2023 Date of Commencement of trial: 23-02-2024 Date of Close of trial: 17-01-2025 Date of sentence of Order: 17-01-2025 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

Name and address of the complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Prakash Nagar P.S.

Name of the accused:

1. Jakkampudi Raja Indravandith @ Raja S/o.Late Rammohanarao, 30 years, D.No.74-11-3, karthikeya enclave, Prakashnagar,Rajamahendravaram.

2.Kommula Satya Sai Chakravarthi, S/O Chakrapani Rao,A/54,D.NO, 86-3-16-1, Shirdi Sai margah, JN Road,Rajamahendravaram.

3.Sunkara Chinni, S/O Ramarao,A/40,D.NO.22-2-5/1, Veerabadrapuram, Rajamahendravaram.

4. Dabbiru Udaya Venkata Naga Sivakumar@ siva, S/O Anand Rao,A/29,D.NO.35-6-7/1,Chinni bazar, Mangalavarapupeta, Rajamahendravaram.

Section of Law:: Under Secs. 353, 323, 506r/w 34

Finding of the Court:

In the result, accused 1 to 4 is found not guilty for the offences under section 353, 323, 506r/w 34 of IPC and Accused 1 to Accused 4 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravcaram.

Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

1

Judgment in CC 2071/18

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

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt. JAGADEESWARI MEESALA, I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum -I Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday Day, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No. 2071/2018

Between:

State- the Inspector of Police, Korukonda Police Station …… Complainant AND

1. Bathina Venkata Rao @ Chinni, S/o Veerabhadra Rao, Age 41 years, D.No.2-96, West Gonagudem village Korukonda Mandal.

2. Bathina Aparna W/o Venkata Rao @ Chinni, S/o Veerabhadra Rao, Age 32 years, D.No.2-96, West Gonagudem village Korukonda Mandal. ….A1 and A2

This Calendar Case coming on this day 17-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and Sri G.U.V.B.Raju Advocate for A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Korukonda circle laid Charge Sheet against the Accused No.1 and A2 in Crime No.98/2018 for the offence punishable under Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2

Judgment in CC 2071/18

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, as follows:

a)Surisetty Sai Surya/P.W.1/Complainant in this case and the accused persons are residing at West Ganugudem village of Korukonda

Mandal. Previously P.W.2/Surisetty Usha Rani filed criminal cases against the accused in Korukonda police station. Since then, the both families disputing each other. On 07.04.2018 after noon

P.W.1/Surisetty Sai Surya committed rape on Battina Padmini who is a 12 years girl and daughter of A1. On enquiry the A1 to A4 at about 2.30 PM rushed to P.W.1 house and noticed Battina Padmini who is daughter of A1 near the house of P.W.1 and after knowing about the sexual assault committed by P.W.1, A1 to A4 trespassed into the house of P.W.1 with intent to cause injury. A1 caught hold shirt collar of P.W.1 and beat him with hands and dragged out him from his house and all the accused beat P.W.1 with hands and kicked with legs indiscriminately. A2/Battina Aparna beat P.W.1 with a brick on his head and caused bleeding injury. CCL1/Battina Narasimha and CCL2/Battina

Veerabhadra Rao @ Chinna beat P.W.1 with bricks and caused injuries on his right cheek and right shoulder. A2 beat P.W.1 with hands and scratched on his right side chest with nails. A1 and A2 abused P.W.1 as “Maa kuturni padu chestava Lanjakodaka” and they dragged from his house upto Andhra Bank by beating with hands and kicking with legs.

By the time P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.5 and L.W.5/K.Ramesh were intervened and rescued P.W.1. Later he was shifted by P.W.3 to

Rajamahendravaram on his bike and got him admitted in Government hospital for medical treatment. L.W.10/T.Ravi, ASI 312 Incharge of out post police station recorded the statement of P.W.1 on 07.04.2018 and 3

Judgment in CC 2071/18 forwarded the same to Korukonda P.S. On receipt of MLC intimation and statement of P.W.1, P.W.7/RJ Ravi kumar, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.98/2018 U/Sec 448, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, in counter, a case was registered in crime no.97/2018 U/Sec 376(2)(i) IPC and Sec 3 r/w 4 of POCSO Act 2012 against PW1. P.W.7 examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 at government hospital, Rajamahendravaram and recorded their statement and visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared rough sketch and examined P.W.3 to P.W.5, L.W.5/K.Ramesh,

L.W.7/Tanniru Lakshmi and L.W.8/Kesana Lakshmi and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation there was no case was proved against alleged A5/Battina Padimini and after obtaining permissionfromDSP,NorthZonevideproceedings

C.No.49/DSP-N-Z/2018 dt.19.06.2018 and deleted her from this case.

On 19.05.2018 P.W.7 served 41-A CrPC notice to A1 and A2 and they complied the same. P.W.6/Dr Mary Ludia Suchita who examined P.W.1 and got issued wound certificate and gave an opinion injuries were simple in nature. A separate charge sheet is filed against CCL 1 and 2 i.e., A2 and A4 before the Hon’ble Principal Juvenile Justice Board,

Rajamahendravaram. Hence, the charge.

3.The V AFJCM Court, Rajamahendravaram taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against

A1 and A2. The entire record is transferred to IV AJFCM,

Rajamahendravaram as per the proceedings of Hon’ble CJM,

Rajamahendravaram in Dis No.538 dt.26.07.2019.

4.The IV AJFCM Court, Rajamahendravaram on appearance of the

Accused No.1 and A2 copies furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C., the 4

Judgment in CC 2071/18

Accused No.1 and A2 were examined U/sec.239 CrPC and they denied the accusation for the offence U/Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against them and charges framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The entire record is received by transfer from IV AJFCM by the proceedings of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Raajamahendravaram in Dis No.758 dt.14.11.2023..

6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of Accused examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked EXs.P1 to Ex.P6.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 and A2 examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating material appearing against A1 andA2 in the prosecution evidence explaining the same in Telugu for which they denied the same and further stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf. Heard learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor andthe counsel appearing for Accused

No.1 and A2.

8.Heard the arguments both prosecution and defence. The learned APP filed a decision AIR 2005 SC 2382 Anwarul Haq Vs The state of Uttarpradesh dt.26.04.2005 mere non recovery of weapon cannot be a factor to discard the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and relied upon the said judgment and pleased the Hon’ble Court to convict the A1 and A2. The learned counsel for defence filed his written submissions along with judgment copy of JCC 61/2020 and also contended that as A1 registered POCSO case against P.W.1 in 5

Judgment in CC 2071/18 counter blast the P.W.1 foisted the present false case against A1 and A2. There is no corroboration with the evidences of P.W.1 and other witnesses. Except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no supporting evidence to prove the guilt of the Accused no.1 and A2 and prays the Hon’ble Court to acquit the A1 and A2.

9. POINT FOR DETERMINATION;

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused No.1 and A3 U/sec U/Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

It is the case of prosecution that on 07-04-2018 pw1 committed rape on daughter of accused 1 and 2 who is 12 years old. After that at 02:30 pm A1 and A2 rushed to the house of pw1 and found their daughter near the pw1 house,after knowing the sexual assault of pw1 A1 to A4 together criminally trespassed into the house of PW1

A1 caught hold the pw1 and drag him an beat him with hands and legs . A2 also beat with brick on the head of pw1 and scratched him on his right side chest with nails and CCLs 1and CCLs 2 also beat

PW1 with bricks and caused blunt injuries on his right cheek and right shoulder. To substantiate prosecution version P.W.1 to 7 were examined. Ex.P1 to P6 marked.

10.a) While coming to the evidence of P.W.1/Surisetty Sai Surya who is victim in the present case deposed that he is resident of

Korukonda village and working in a hotel. P.W.2 is his mother. On 07.04.2018 at about 2.30 PM when he was in his house somebody knocked the door then, he opened, immediately A1 and A2 along with

Battina Narasimha, Battina Chinna and Battina Padmini were 6

Judgment in CC 2071/18 attacked on him and dragged him from his house and beat with hands and legs and scratched on him. A2/Battina Aparna beat him with a brick on his head due to which he received bleeding injury over his head. Battina Narasimha and A1 beat him with a brick on his right jaw and he sustained contusion injuries and his teeth were loosen. He further deposed that Battina Aparna scratched with her nails on his right side of chest and A1 and A2 and other accused abused him in a vulgar language. All the accused persons took him to near to Andhra Bank by beating which is half kilometer away from his house. A1 and A2 and their children beat him keeping in mind the old disputes between them and made false allegations against him stating that P.W.1 did something against accused daughter Battina

Aparna. People gathered there at Andhra Bank as such his mother along with two persons viz., Ravi Kumar and Lova Raju (L.W.4 and 6) who were working in the near by hotel. Immediately rushed to him and they rescued P.W.1 from the hands of the Accused. The said accused abused his mother. P.W.1 cousin brother L.W.3 shifted him to GGH, Rajamahendravaram for treatment and he underwent treatment for four days as inpatient. Later police recorded his statement which is marked as Ex.P1.

b)In his cross examination he denied the suggestions that by the time the accused knocked his door the daughter of Accused by name Padmini is in his house and also denied the suggestion that accused never beat him and dragged him from his house to Andhra

Bank. P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that the Andhra bank is one kilometer away from his house and admitted that the accused filed a case against P.W.1 under POCSO Act which is pending before

Hon’ble POCSO Court, Kakinada. He further stated at the time of

7

Judgment in CC 2071/18 incident he was not observed who were present at that time. P.W.1 also admitted JCC No.61/2020 which is filed by him against the sons of accused is ended with acquittal.

11.a) While Coming to the evidence of P.W.2/Surisetty Usha

Rani who is mother of P.W.1 deposed the evidence that in the year 2018 herself and P.W.1 had been working in a Kalyani hotel situated at Korukonda village. In that year on one day while she was in that hotel she heard the cries of her son i.e., P.W.1 and found that the said accused Venkatrao and his wife Aparna beat him indiscriminately with hands and legs as such her son sustained bleeding injuries on his head. At that time she tried to rescue her son and pacifying the quarrel but they did not care her words, on questioning her son/P.W.1 stated that A1 and A2 and some other persons knocked their door and dragged P.W.1 and beat him. There were previous disputes in between A1 and P.W.2 with regard to sexual harassment committed by A1 and P.W.2 foisted a case against him and he was under went judicial custody for a period of 23 days in that case. A1 and A2 bore the grudge and beat the P.W.1 indiscriminately. Later

L.W.3/P.w.3/Kattoj Ramu shifted P.W.1 to government hospital,

Rajamahendravaram.

b)In her cross examination she stated that the incident was occurred at Kalyani hotel and the distance between Kalyani hotel and her house is three par longs. The Andhra Bank situated at the same lane to Kalyani hotel. She further stated that L.W.4 to 6 had been working in same hotel. The alleged offence took place at around 4.00 PM. At that time around 10 people were gathered at the place.

She admitted that A1 filed a POCSO case against P.W.1 and herself.

8

Judgment in CC 2071/18

She further stated she know that the case against CCLs who are the sons of A1 and A2 was ended with acquittal in Juvenile justice Board.

P.W.1 was in unconscious state while he was admitted in hospital and he underwent treatment for a period of one week. P.W.2 in her cross examination denied the suggestion that they foisted the false case against A1 and A2 as a counter blast.

12.a) While coming to the evidence of P.W.3/Kattoji Ramu who is resident of Korukonda village deposed that in the month of April, 2018 at around 2.30 PM to 3.00 PM while he was present in his home, he received phone call from the house of P.W.1 and called him to come to their house and stating that A1 and A2 beat the P.W.1 and they brought P.W.1 to the shop of P.W.2. on that P.W.3 went to the shop of PW.2 and found P.W.1 sustained injuries. Later P.W.3 shifted

P.W.1 on his bike to the government hospital, Rajamahendravaram for treatment.

b)In his cross examination P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 is his distant relative. Shop of P.W.2 situated at Ganugudem village and it was one kilometer away from his house at korukonda village . He admittedly stated that he did not state before the police in his statement that on that day he received phone call from the house of the P.W1 . He denied the suggestion that he is not deposing false hood as PW1 and PW2 are my relatives .

13.While coming to the evidence of P.W.4/N.Lovaraju not supported the prosecution version , in his cross examination by the learned app no favourable point was elicited.

9

Judgment in CC 2071/18

14. a)PW5/ Chitikena Ravi kumar @Nani deposed that bythe time of alleged incident he had been working in kalyani hotel, korukonda.He further deposed that on 07.04.2018 at about 03.00 pm when PW1 went outside to drop his owners daughter, after that he heard cries of the PW1 and the same was Informed to his mother /PW2, later PW1 was shifted to the hospital.

b)In his cross examination he deposed that the alleged incident was occurred infront of the hotel. The said kalyani hotel situated at west ganugudem . He further stated the distance between Andhra bank and said hotel is 100 meters. He also stated that he witnessed the said alleged incident. The PW5 denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police that PW5 came to know about the incident through PW1.

15. Dr.Mary Lydia Suchita who examined the PW1 deposed her evidence as PW6 and stated that on 07.04.2018 at about 04:30 pm she examined a patient by name surisetty surya accompanied by his brother Ramu and alleged to have been beaten by three known persons with stones at his residence and examined patient and found following injuries .

1.A laceration 2x1/8x1/8 cm over the left parietal region .

2. swelling over the right maxillary region of 1x1 cm.

3.patient complained that pain in the right ear .

Patient was admitted in male ENT ward . CT brain was taken

MLC X ray numbers are 9232 and 9233 dt . 09.04.2018. according to radiologist opinion there is no significant abnormality.pw6 opined that injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature and might be caused by blunt object and duration might be 0-6 hours prior to examination and 10

Judgment in CC 2071/18 issued exp3 wound certificate. In his cross examination she admittedly stated that the patient was in conscious state by the time of admission and he joined in hospital at 04:30 pm. She further stated she did not notice any injuries if a person was dragged on floor for 15 meters distance in which the injuries he caused.

16.a) While coming to the evidence of PW.7 who is previously working as inspector of police deposed that on 08.04.2018 at about 06:45 pm LW11 T. Vali Sugriv Hc 2310 received hospital intimation basing on it LW11 registered EX P5 FIR in cr.no 98 of 2018 for the offences under section 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 ipc of korukonda ps against Bathina Venkatarao@ chinni, Bathina Narasimha, Battina

Aparna, Battina Chinna and Battina Padmini except A1,A3,A5 remaining are CCLs. As per the instructions of DSP, North zone, PW7 have taken the investigation , counter case was registered under

POCSO act, on the same day he visited government hospital

Rajamahendravaram and examined PW1 and PW2 and recorded their statements. On 09.04.2018 he visited scene of offence prepared

EX P6 rough sketch. He examined PW4 and PW5 LW5/ Ramesh, LW7/

T.Lakshmi and LW8/K.Lakshmi and recorded their statements. During his investigation no evidence was found against A5 he deleted the same. Later he issued 41-A CrPC notices to A1 and A2 on receiving

Ex.P3 wound certificate later filed charge sheet.

b) In his cross examination he admitted that there is correction in EX P5/FIR with regard to date and further admitted that Kalyani hotel and Andhra bank were not shown in EXP6 rough sketch. He further admitted that he did not seize any alleged weapons or material objects i.e., bricks and blood stained clothes. He further 11

Judgment in CC 2071/18 admitted that the houses of PW.4, PW5, LW5 and LW7 were not reflect in Ex.P6 rough sketch.

17.The alleged charges against A1 and A2 are U/Sec 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w34 IPC as per the section 448 of IPC which is punishment for house trespass. As per Section 442 of IPC house trespass means who ever commits criminal trespass by entering into all remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or any building, used as place for worship or as a place for the custody of property is said to commit house trespass.

Explanation: the introduction of any part of the criminal trespassers body is entering sufficient to constitute house trespass.

According to P.W.1 A 1 and A2 along with CCLs came to their home at 2.30 PM on 07.04.2018 and knocked the door of his house and

P.W.1 opened the door, immediately A1 and A2 along with CCLs dragged him from his house and attacked him. After gone through all the evidences it is elicited that no one witnessing the alleged Act of

A1 and A2 against P.W.1. The other witness P.W.2 who is mother of

P.W.1 also came to know through P.W.1. P.W.3/Kattoji Ramu received information over phone about alleged Acts committed by A1 and A2. One Chitikena Ravi Kumar @ Nani/P.W.5 nothing stated about the said A1and A2 trespassed into the house of the P.W.1 and dragged him. Except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence on record to prove the alleged charge against A1 and A2. It is elicited in the chief and cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 there is a case under POCSO Act registered against P.W.1 by accused. The entry of A1 and A2 with intent to commit an offence is come under purview of the house trespass. In this present case the entry of A1 12

Judgment in CC 2071/18 and A2 was not proved by any evidence. Hence, the above said charge was not proved against A1 and A2.

18.While coming to the another charge U/Sec 452 IPC house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. To prove the said charge is essential to establish that the dominant intention of the accused was to cause hurt, or to assault or to wrongfully restrain any person. To prove this charge it is necessary that the accused should have actually entered into the house of

P.W.1. The house trespass was not proved in the present case. If this court presumed for a while if prosecution is required to prove not only house trespass but must also prove that house tress pass was after having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongfully restraining any person.

19.It is not elicited in the evidence of P.W.1 the A1 and A2 made some preparation before entering into house of the P.W.1. According to P.W.1 on 07.04.2018 at about 2.30 PM when he was in his house somebody knocked his door then, he opened immediately A1 and A2 along with Battina Narasima, Battina Chinna and Battina Padmini were attacked on him, dragged him from his house. Beat with hands and legs and scratched on him. There is no material on record to prove the charge U/Sec 452 IPC.

20.While coming to the another charge U/Sec 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC prosecution must be prove there must be common intention to A1 and A2 voluntarily causing hurt to PW.1. To establish the said charge prosecution must prove accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, 13

Judgment in CC 2071/18 deceased or infirmity to P.W.1. The second ingredient that the accused did so, with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would there by cause hurt to the victim. According to P.W.1 the A1 and A2 along with CCLs entered into house of the P.W.1 and dragged him beat with hands and legs and scratched on him.

A2/Battina Aparna beat him with a brick on his head due to which he received bleeding injury. Battina Narasimha and A1 beat P.W.1 with a brick on his right jaw due to which he sustained contusion injury and teeth were loosen. Battina Aparna scratched with her nails on right side chest of P.W.1. P.W.1 is the injured person in his case and he narrated in his evidence, how he sustained injuries and who caused to it. The injuries of P.W.1 was treated by P.W.6/Dr.A.Mary

Lydia Suchita who issued Ex.P3/Wound certificate.

21. In her cross examination she stated that she did not notice any injuries would cause if a person was dragged on floor for 15 meters distance. Though the P.W.1 narrated the alleged Acts which have been committed by the A1 and A2 which was occurred at

Kalyani hotel to Andhra Bank. At this point while observing the evidence of P.W.7 who is investigating officer in this case in his cross examination admittedly stated Kalyani hotel and Andhra bank were not shown in Ex.P6/Rough sketch. Which creates the ambiguity with regard to scene of offence as alleged to be mentioned by P.W.1.

admittedly there is a POCSO case against P.W.1 as he alleged to commit sexual assault against the daughter of A1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the mother and son and their evidences is in the same line.

14

Judgment in CC 2071/18

22. To supporting the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 prosecution has examined P.W.3 to 5. P.W.3/Kattoji Ramu who is here say evidence and he admittedly stated in his cross examination P.W.1 is his distant relative. He further admitted that he did not witness the alleged incident. He also admitted that he did not state before the police in his 161 CrPC statement that he received phone call from the P.W.1 and 1st time he deposed before this court. This court opined that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be considered and it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.3.

23.The other witness P.W.4/N.Lovaraju not supported the prosecution version though he cited as corraborated witness nothing was elicited in his evidence. The other witness P.W.5/Chitikena Ravi

Kumar @ Nani deposed that on 07.04.2018 at about 3.00 PM when

P.W.1 went outside to drop to his owner’s daughter. After that A1 and A2 brought P.W.1 and beaten him. On hearing the cries of PW.1 it was informed to his mother i.e., P.W.2. As per the evidence of P.W.5 on alleged date about 3.00 PM when P.W.1 went outside to drop owner’s daughter. According to PW1 the alleged commission of offence was occurred on 07.04.2018 at about 2.30 PM. The time mentioned by the P.W.1 and P.W.5 not corroborated with each other.

If this court rely on the evidence of P.W.5 the said alleged offence was committed after 3.00 PM. The major discrepancies with regard to time of commission of offence cannot make the Court to believe the version of P.W.1.

24.P.W.5 in his cross examination stated that the alleged incident was occurred in front of the Kalyani hotel. The said Kalyani hotel was 15

Judgment in CC 2071/18 not cited in Ex.P6/Rough sketch by P.W.7. The prosecution version not corroborated with the material on record and there is no other evidence on record to constitute the offence committed by A1 and

A2. The discrepancies shake the truthfulness of evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Basing on the evidence of prosecution the guilt of the accused not proved. Admittedly there is a POCSO case registered against P.W.1 by the accused. The evidence of P.W.7 which clearly indicates improper investigation in this case. Though there is

Ex.P3/Wound certificate there is no evidence has to who caused the said injuries to P.W.1. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2.

25.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 and A3 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Jagadeeswari Meesala/-

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined. For prosecution:For defence: Nil PW.1: 23-06-2023: Surisetty Sai Surya PW.2: 12-01-2024: Surisetty Usha Rani PW.3: 19-01-2024: Kattoji Ramu PW.4: 19-01-2024: N.Lovaraju 16

Judgment in CC 2071/18

PW.5: 09-02-2024: ChitikenaRavi Kumar @ Nani: PW.6: 21-11-2024: Dr. A.Mary Lydia Suchita PW.7: 11-04-2025: R.J.Ravi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- For defence: Nil Ex.P1: Statement Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement Ex.P3: Wound certificate Ex.P4: Hospital Intimation Ex.P5: FIR in Crime No.98/2018 of Korukonda P.S Ex.P6: Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

Sd/- Jagadeeswari Meesala/-

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copies submitted to: 1.TheHon’bleChiefJudicialMagistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

17

Judgment in CC 2071/18

IN COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.2071/2018

Date of Offence: 07-04-2018 Date of Report: 07-04-2018 Date of Apprehension of accused : 41-A CrPC notice to the A1 &A2 Date of Commencement of trial: 23-06-2023 Date of Close of trial: 11-04-2025 Date of sentence of Order: 24-04-2025 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

Name and address of the complainant : Inspector of Police, Korukonda P.S.

Name of the accused:

1. Bathina Venkata Rao @ Chinni, S/o Veerabhadra Rao, Age 41 years, D.No.2-96, West Gonagudem village Korukonda Mandal.

2. Bathina Aparna W/o Venkata Rao @ Chinni, S/o Veerabhadra Rao, Age 32 years, D.No.2-96, West Gonagudem village of Korukonda Mandal.

Section of Law:: U/Sec 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Finding of the Court: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 448, 452, 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sentence : --

Sd/- Jagadeeswari Meesala/-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravcaram.

Copies submitted to: 1.TheHon’bleChiefJudicialMagistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

1 Judgment in CC 320/17

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

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT. JAGADEESWARI MEESALA, I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum -I Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday Day, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No. 320/2017

Between: State- the sub- Inspector of Police, Korukonda Police Station. …… Complainant AND

1. Gondyala Veera venkata Durga Rao@ Durgayya, S/o Vypari , Age 29 years, D.No.6-28/1, Perika street, Vadisaleru Village,Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Gondyala Parvathi, W/o Vyapari,Age 49 years, D.No.6-28/1, Perikastreet, Vadisaleru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

3.Gondyala Vyapari, S/o Naganna,Age 52years, D.NO. 6-28/1, Perikastreet, Vadiseleru Village,Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.(ABATED)

4. Gondyala Bulli Dora, S/o Vyapari, Age 27 years, D.NO.6-28/1,Perikastreet, Vadisaleru Village, Ranagampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.….A1 , A2 and A4

This Calendar Case coming on this day 24-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and Sri MRSS Advocate for A1 to A4, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Korukonda circle laid Charge Sheet against the A1 to A4 in Crime No.80/2016 for the offence punishable under Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2 Judgment in CC 320/17

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, as follows:

a)P.W.1/Bottu Nagamani is the complainant in this case. P.W.1 and

A2/Gondyala Parvathi are the sisters. A2 and P.W.1 having a mango topes with an extent of 10 acres at Kanupuru village. P.W.1 and A2 used to acquire the benefit of mango tope turn wise. On 26.05.2016 due to heavy storm the mangoes from the tree are fallen due to which the P.W.1 along with her husband went to said mango tope to pick up the mangoes. while so, the A1 to A4 entered into mango tope and asked the P.W.1 and her husband to why they picked the mangoes and altercated with P.W.1. The A1 brought a stick and beat on P.Ws 1 head and A2 also beat P.W.1 with a stone. A3 brought toddy stem and beat the

P.W.1 indiscriminately. The husband of P.W.1 tried to rescue the complainant , but A4 caught hold him and he was beaten by A1 to A3 with their hands and kicked with their legs. The surrounding people rushed there then the accused escaped. The P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries on her forehead and contusions on her left hand. The husband of P.W.1 received contusion injuries on his both hands. Later they went to police station P.W.6/N.Hanumantha Rao, ASI of

Korukonda P.S recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered FIR in crime no.80/2016 for the offence U/Sec 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A4. During the investigation P.W.6 examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and L.W.5/Yellapu Satyanarayana recorded their detailed statements and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. PW.6 issued 41-A CrPC notice to A1 to A4 and they complied the same. P.W.5/Dr Pranav Kosuri issued wound certificate of P.W.1. Later

L.W.8/D.Rambabu, SI of police verified the investigation of PW.6 and

L.W.9/R.Murali Mohan, SI Of police, Koruknoda P.S filed charge sheet against the A1 to A4. Hence, the charge.

3 Judgment in CC 320/17

3.The V AFJCM Court, Rajamahendravaram taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 324 IPC against A1 to A3 and 323 IPC against

A4. The entire record is transferred to IV AJFCM, Rajamahendravaram as per the proceedings of Hon’ble CJM, Rajamahendravaram in Dis No.538 dt.26.07.2019.

4.The IV AJFCM Court, Rajamahendravaram on appearance of the

Accused No.1 to A4 copies furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C., the

Accused No.1 to A4 were examined U/sec.239 CrPC and they denied the accusation for the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34,323 IPC against them and charges framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The entire record is received by transfer from IV AJFCM by the proceedings of the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raajamahendravaram in

Dis No.758 dt.14.11.2023.

6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of Accused examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked EXs.P1 to Ex.P4 and on behalf of defence Ex.D 1 to Ex.D 5 were marked.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the A1,A2 and A4 examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating material appearing against A1, A2 and A4 in the prosecution evidence explaining the same in Telugu for which they denied the same and further stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for Accused 1,2 and A4.

8.Heard the arguments both prosecution and defence.

9.POINT FOR DETERMINATION; 4 Judgment in CC 320/17

1.Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused No.1 to A3 U/sec 324 IPC and beyond all reasonable doubts ?

2. Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of Accused No.4 U/sec 323 IPC and beyond all reasonable doubts ?

It is the case of prosecution that P.W.1 who is younger sister of A2. On 26.05.2016 due to the heavy rain the mangoes were fallen from the mango trees in mango tope which belongs to both A1 and P.W.1 as such P.W.1 went to the said mango garden to collect the mangoes while she picked up the mangoes A1 to A4 came and beat P.W.1 and sustained injuries.

10.a) While coming to the evidence of P.W.1/Bottu Nagamani deposed that her father having an extent of 10 acres land situated at Kanupuru village.

A2 and P.W.1 only the daughters of her father. P.W.1 father cultivated the mango trees, paddy and dry land. P.W1 father died 18 years ago. After his death one person by name Yelisetty Satyanarayana cultivating the above said land and handed over the profits to P.W.1, A2 and their mother. P.W.1 further deposed at about 7 years ago in the month of May at about 8.30 AM P.W.1 and herself went to mango garden to collect the mangoes which was fallen due to heavy wind. While they picked up the mangoes A1 to A4 came there. A2 beat

P.W.1 on her left side head with a stone. As such P.W.1 sustained bleeding injury. A3 beat P.W.1 with thatched stem on her left shoulder. On that she sustained scratch injury,, A1 and A4 beat her with their hands on her back side.

Immediately L.W.2 husband of P.W.1 tried to rescue ,on that A1, A3 and A4 beat L.W.2 on his hands and back side with sticks. At that time the persons in adjacent lands i.e., LW.3/Ch.Suribabu and L.W.4/V.Sivaji tried to rescue P.W.1 and P.W.2 from the hands of A1 to A4. Later they went to police station and lodge a report and police shifted them to hospital for treatment.

5 Judgment in CC 320/17

b) In the cross examination of PW1 she stated that the land in which the incident took place was not belongs to her mother and it belongs to one

Suryaprakasam . She further stated they did not partitioned their properties when their mother was alive. After two months of demise of their mother , the alleged incident was occurred,prior to that there is no disputes between herself and accused no 2 and they have good relations prior to this alleged incident.

The mother of PW1 leased out the property during her lifetime. PW1 further stated her mother used to share the income out of the leased property. PW1 s mother used to pay RS.20,000/- per year towards her share. She further stated

PW1 and her sister A2 partitioned the land before village elders but they did not took possession as per their partition.

c) It is further observed in the cross examination of PW1,she admitted the suggestion that she did not state before the police that after death of their father one person by name Yelisetty Satyanarayana cultivating the above said land and handover the profits to PW1 and her mother and sister and she first time deposed before this court. She denied the suggestion that by the alleged date of incident the land was in the possession of A2 . When she sustained injury on her head blood oozed out and her clothes I.e blouse saree strained with blood.

She did not gave blood strained clothes to the police . PW1 voluntarily says the accused taken away her blood strained clothes. She further stated the statement denied by PW1 which is marked as Ex.D1 that “I am native of

Kanupuru Village and I married one Lazar of kavuru village, Cherkupalli mandal of Guntur District after loving him’’.

11. a) While coming to the evidence of PW2 / Bottu Lazar who is husband of PW1 deposed that at about 7 years back on one day PW1 and himself went to mango garden and picking up mangoes in kanupuru village .

6 Judgment in CC 320/17

A2 along with A1,A3 and A4 came there beat his wife/PW1 with stone, stick and thatched stem. While A4 beaten his wife on that PW2 intervened as such

A4 kicked him with legs. Later they went to police station . Police referred them to hospital, on that they went to GGH Rajamahendravaram.

b) while coming to the cross examination of PW2 he deposed that he is resident of kavuru village , their marriage is love marriage and it was performed at kavuru village. He further stated there is property disputes between A2 and PW1 s family since 7 years . The disputed property is in the possession of PW1 and A2 . There is an understanding between PW1 and A2 to cultivation in alternative years . PW2 also stated the person by name

Elisetty Satayanarayana doing cultivation in the said land , PW2 do not have any documentary proof to show that the said Elisetty Satyanarayana doing cultivation. He denied the suggestion that by the date of EXA1 and EXA2 in

OS. NO.294/2017 there are disputes exist between PW1 and A2 which is

marked as EXD3 . He further denied the suggestion he did not state in his deposition in OS no 294/2017 as PW1 that there is disputes exists between

PW1 and A2 prior to death of his mother in law, during the lifetime of his mother in law only the both defendants disputed with respective shares in the properties which marked as EX D4. He admittedly stated that in his Adhar card his address discloses as Kavuru village and he denied the suggestions that he did not state before the police that A2 beat his wife with stone,stick and thatched stem and A4 beat his wife i.e. PW1.

12. While coming to the evidence of PW3 / Challapalli Suribabu who is resident of konthamuru previously resided in kanupuru village. He know A1 to

A4 who are residents of same village. At about 7 or 8 years ago on one day he along with other farmers went to LW4/Sivaji to take the mangoes from the ground, himself and LW4 and other farmers pickup the mangoes from the 7 Judgment in CC 320/17 ground he heard hue and cries of Nagamani on such they rushed to said land and noticed Nagamani , sister of Nagamani and her brother in law caught hold tuft of hair and Nagamani sustained injuries . Who is sister of Nagamani questioned LW4/Sivaji and PW3 why they entered into their land,in return

LW4 stated on hearing the cries of Nagamani they came to their land. On that

Nagamani left the place. He further deposed he do not know about the altercation. He not support the prosecution version and turned hostile. In his cross examination by learned app he denied the contents of his entire 161 Cr p c statement . PW3 cross examined by the defence counsel and he stated that he do not know A1 to A4 and he did not see A1 to A4 at alleged scene of offence by the alleged time. The entire evidence of PW3 is completely different version to his earlier statement . The other witness PW4/Velisetty Sivaji also deposed as PW3. PW4 evidence also not support the prosecution version.

13. While coming to the evidence of PW5/ Dr.Pranav kosuri he deposed his evidence by mentioning the injuries mentioned in EXP2 wound certificate. In his cross examination he admitted that the injuries might be caused if any person fell down from the height .

14. At lastly, PW6/ Nalla Hanumantharao, ASI of korukonda ps.

Deposed that on 27-05-2016 at about 11:30 a.m while he was present in police station PW1 and PW2 came to police station and recorded the statement of PW1 . Basing on that he registered the same as a case in cr no.

80/2016 under sec. 324,323 R/W 34 IPC. EX P3 of Korukonda P.S. against accused and referred them to GGH , Rajamahendravaram. Later he visited the

Government Hospital, and examined recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2 and visited scene of offence which belongs to A2 and prepared rough sketch

EXP4 and examined recorded the statement of PW3,PW4 and LW5/

Satyanarayana. Later he issued 41A CRPC notice to A1 to A4. Later, 8 Judgment in CC 320/17 he handedover entire case file to LW8/Rambabu, SI of police , korukonda ps.

He received wound certificate of PW1 and 2.

15. The prosecution has to establish the guilt of accused, it has to be looked into the section 324 of Indian Penal Code ,1860,which deals with the offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means . To constitute the offence under section 324 IPC, the following elements has to be satisfied :

1. Accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim .

2. accused must commit an act with the knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to the victim.

3. it was caused -

a) by any shooting instrument, b) by any stabbing instrument,c) by any cutting instrument,d) by any instrument ,if used as a weapon of offence, likely to cause death or e) by means of any poison ,f) by means of any corrosive substance or,g) by means of any explosive substance or, h) by means of any animal.

16.As seen from the evidence of PW1 it is undisputed fact that the both

PW1 and A2 are sisters and they having mango tope . It is the case of prosecution that On 27.05.2016 at 08:30 am While PW1 and her husband PW2 picking up mangoes which was fallen due to heavy storm A1 to A4 came there and questioned them why they picked up the mangoes in the said garden , the

PW1 and PW2 stated their turn to pickup the mangoes in this year on that they raised dispute with the PW1 and PW2 and Durgaiah beat with stick on her head parvathi bet with stone on the head of the PW1 ,Vyapari bet the PW1 with thatched stem on PW1’s person indiscriminately. While PW2 try to rescue the pw1 , A4 caught hold the PW2 then he was beaten by A1 to A4 with hands and legs and also A4 kicked the PW1 with his legs. On that PW1 sustained bleeding 9 Judgment in CC 320/17 injuries on her left side of forehead and contusions on back side and left hand and pw2 also sustained injuries.

17. It is observed in the cross-examination of PW-1, she stated that they did not partitioned their properties when their mother was alive. She further stated the alleged incident was occurred after two months of their mother’s death and there is no disputes between PW-1 and her sister A2 prior to the death of their mother. PW-1 stated about the property that they jointly have. She further stated

A2 and PW-1 got partitioned the land before the village elders but they did not take the possession of lands as per their partition by the time of alleged incident the lands were in possession of other person to whom their mother leased out. it is observed in the evidence of PW-1 and the investigating officer PW-6, that there is no material on record under whom the possession of the said property is with,

PW-1 first time stated in her cross-examination regarding the incidents happened prior and after death of her mother in respect of properties. PW-1 in her chief examination stated that she sustained scratch injury on her left shoulder which was caused by A3. But, in her statement before the police did not state about the said injury though she denied in her cross-examination she omit the same to state in her statement before the police. PW-1 categorically stated that at that time LW-3 Ch. Suribabu and LW-4 V. Sivaji, who were present in adjacent land who tried to rescue them from the hands of A1 to A4 and the same was not even mentioned either in Ex- P1 report or in her 161 statement, the same suggestion given by the learned defense-counsel though she denied it is found that it is a omission.

18. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 who were said to have been present in the adjacent land they stated in their chief-examination was not corroborated with the evidence of PW-1 and not supported the prosecution version. PW-3 10 Judgment in CC 320/17 turned hostile and no new thing was elicited in favor of prosecution. The entire evidence of PW1, having major omissions which creates doubt in the mind of court. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 and her Ex-P1 report.

The exaggerations in the evidence of PW-1 lingering suspicion on the part of PW- 1 there is a contradiction which is marked as EX-D1 and D2 about the residence and marriage of PW-1 and PW-2 completely denied by PW-1 which reveals the two versions of PW-1 with regard to her basic details about her marriage.

Normally it is not expected that a person would give false details regarding her residence and marriage which is not in dispute to her statement and evidence

before the court but in the present case PW-1 denied what she stated in her

report and statement. Though the injured witness is having probative value that the discrepancies elicit in the evidence of PW-1 not inspires confidence regarding the commission of offence. The evidence of PW1 doesnot inspires confidence with regard to commission of offence by A1 to A4.

19. While observing the evidence of PW-2 Bottu Lazar, he categorically stated that there are property disputes between their family and A2 family since 7 years . The entire evidence of PW2 clearly established there is property disputes between accused family and PW.1. It was established by placing the Ex.D3 and

Ex.D4 which marked through PW.2. The entire evidences of PW.1 and PW.2 having omissions and major discrepancies.

20. The investigating officer PW6 categorically stated in his cross examination that the EXP6 rough sketch which shows entire property is mango garden in total 10 acres. But according to PW1 there is another agricultural lands were also present in 10 acres of land. He further stated he did not verify or seize any property documents pertaining to alleged scene of offence. Even the investigating officer not conducted investigation whether the PW-1 at first time 11 Judgment in CC 320/17 entered into said alleged mango garden or she has been in possession since long back.

21.In the evidence of PW-1, she stated that when she sustained bleeding injuries her blouse strained with blood and she did not give the blood stained clothes to the police she voluntarily states that the said accused taken away her blood stained clothes. According to the evidence of PW-1 the blood stained clothes are saree and blouse which she wore on the alleged date of commission of offence. But PW-1 not stated anywhere when the accused taken away her clothes. She further stated there is two miles of distance between her house and alleged place of incident after the alleged incident the accused taken away the clothes with in one minute. Later she went to her house. Which inconcistancy the probabilities of that the accused said to have been taken away the clothes of

PW-1. Except the evidence of PW-1 & 2 which is uncorroborated there is no other evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 4. this court opines that it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW-1 there is no cogent material on record.

22. Though it is elicited there is property disputes between the both families the investigating officer not placed any material before this court in his investigation regarding the possession of said alleged scene of offence. The evidence of PW-1 & 2 which was shaken in their cross-examination which fails to establish the commission of offence as alleged by them. Hence, this court not rely on the evidence of PW1 & 2. The PW-5 who examined PW-1 and issued Ex-

P2 Wound Certificate, categorically stated that the patient did not state at what time and place she sustained the injuries. There is no corroboration with regard to

PW-5 and PW-1. Medical evidence is no evidence of fact . It is only opinion based evidence. It must be corroborated with other witnesses even pw1 and pw2 evidence not corroborated with medical evidence.

12 Judgment in CC 320/17

23. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused

A1,A2 and A4 beyond all reasonable doubts.

24.In the result A1,A2 and A4 found not guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC they acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused No.1,2 and 3 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Jagadeeswari M,

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined. For prosecution:For defence: Nil

PW.1: 18-01-2024: Bottu Nagamani PW.2: 09-02-2024: Bottu Lazar PW.3: 10-04-2025: Challapalli suribabu PW.4: 10-04-2025: velisetty sivaji PW.5: 10-04-2025: Dr.Pranav kosuri PW.6: 17-04-2025: Nalla Hanumantha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Statement Ex.P2: wound certificate Ex.P3: FIR In Crime no.80/2016 Ex.P4: Roughsketch

For defence: Ex.D1: Statement of PW1” I am native of kanupuru village and I married one Lazar of kavuru village,cherukupalli mandal of Guntur district after loving him”.

Ex.D2:Statement of PW1 “ I am native of kanupuru village and I married one Lazar of kavuru village, cherukupalli mandal of Guntur district after loving him”.

13 Judgment in CC 320/17

Ex.D3: PW2 evidence in OS294/2017”BY the date of EXA1 and EXA2 In

OS.294/2017 there is disputes existed between PW1 and A2 “

EX.D4: PW2 evidence in OS 294/2017“During the life time of my mother in law only both defendants disputed with regard to their respective properties”.

Ex.D5:Photographs shown to me depicts of mother in law”.

Material Objects Marked

--NIL--

Sd/- Jagadeeswari M,

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

14 Judgment in CC 320/17

IN COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.2071/2018

Date of Offence: 27-05-2016 Date of Report: 27-05-2016 Date of Apprehension of accused : 41-A CrPC notice to the A1 to A4 Date of Commencement of trial: 23-06-2023 Date of Close of trial: 18-01-2024 Date of sentence of Order: 24-04-2025 Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

Name and address of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Korukonda P.S. Name of the accused:

1. Gondyala Veera Venkata Durga Rao@ Durgayya, S/o Vypari, Age 29 years, D.No.6-28/1, Perika street,vadisaleru village,Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Gondyala Parvathi, W/o Vyapari, Age 49 years, D.No.6-28/1, Perikastreet, Vadisaleru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

3.Gondyala Vyapari, S/o Naganna, Age 52 years, D.No. 6-28/1, Perikastreet, Vadiseleru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.(ABATED) 4.GondyalaBulliDora, S/o Vyapari, Age 27 years, D.No.6 D.No.28/1, Perikastreet, Vadisaleru Village, Rangampeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

Section of Law:: U/Sec 324r/w 34 IPC

Finding of the Court: In the result A1,A2 and A4 found not guilty for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC they acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of Accused No.1,2 and 3 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under section 437- A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Jagadeeswari M,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravcaram. Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

1 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

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

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt. JAGADEESWARI MEESALA,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Junior Division)

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Friday, this the 9th day of August, 2024.

C.C.No. 1913/2018

Between:

State- the Sub Inspector of Police, Gokavaram Police Station …. Complainant

AND 1. Kandha Sathiyya @ Sathibabu S/o Ramana, A/23 years, Gokavaram Village and Mandal 2. Udeti Raju S/o Nukaraju (late), A/26 years, Gokavaram village and Mandal.

….A1 and A2

This Calendar Case coming on this day 26-07-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and Sri K.R.K.Dora Advocate for A1 and A2 upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the entire material on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Gokavaram P.S. laid Charge Sheet against the A1 and A2 in Crime No.24/2018 for the offence punishable under Sec.326 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 and A2.

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet, in brief, as follows:

a) P.W.1/Defacto-Complainant Edhi Ramana is the resident of Sanjeev Nagar,

Gokavaram village and Mandal. P.W.2/Edhi Nagamani is wife of P.W.1. P.W.3/Edhi

Mahesh who is son of PW.1 is a drunkard person. On the particular day one post master by name Raju’s Daughter’s engagement function was going on. On that

P.Ws.1 son came in drunken state and raised cries unnecessarily, for which the

P.W.1 admonished him and beat him and took him inside of his house. But the

P.Ws.1 son again went out and came to their house in a drunken mood and while raised cries again, the P.W.1 took him to inside and admonished and beat him with his hands. By that time the A1 and A2 unnecessarily went to the P.W.1s house and 2 Judgment in CC 1913/2018 beat him with their hands and pushed him down. Later they armed with fuel sticks and beat him with the same and caused bleeding injuries on his right eye and right ear and swelling injuries on his right thumb finger and right index finger. They also beat the P.W.1 wife while she came across her husband (P.W.1) and caused her swelling injuries. Later P.W.1 admitted in the government hospital,

Rajamahendravaram with the help of P.W.2 and other neighbours. L.W.7/A.S.Kumar,

HC, OPPS received hospital intimation and recorded the statement of the P.W.1 and sent the same to the Gokavaram P.S.

b)P.W.7/G.Uma Maheswara Rao, SI of Police, Gokavaram P.S received the hospital intimation and registered the same in FIR in Crime No.24/2018 for the offence punishable under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 and A2 and invested into the case and visit the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and examined the same. P.W.7 examined L.W.1 to 5 and recorded their detailed statement and seized the Crime stick at the scene of offence. During the court of investigation on 03.02.2018 P.W.7 got issued 41(a) CrPC notice to the A1 and A2. On 14.02.2018 A1 and A2 complied the same.

P.W.6/Dr. Sravanthi who examined the injured P.W.1 gave treatment to him, opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature, Injury 2 and 3 are simple in nature. Hence, section of law 324 r/w 34 IPC altered to 326 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 and A2. Hence the charge.

3.The V AJFCM Court taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 and A2 and the entire record iss transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble CJM, Rajamahendravaram in Dis

No.784, dt.19.03.2018

4.On appearance of the A1 and A2 copies furnished under section 207

Cr.P.C., the A1 and A2 were examined U/sec.239 CrPC and he denied the accusation for the offence U/Sec 326 r/w 34 IPC against them and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 examined

P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P8 and M.O.1 .

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 and A2 are examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating material appearing against A1 and A2 in the prosecution evidence explaining the same in Telugu for which they denied the same and further stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf.

3 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

7.Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for

Accused No.1 and A2. Perused the material available on record.

8. POINT FOR DETERMINATION;

Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence

U/Sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ?

9. a)Prosecution in order prove their case PW.1 to PW.7 examined and

Ex.P1 to EX.P8 and MO.1 marked. The P.W.1/Edhi Ramana who is Defalcato-

Complainant of the present case. During his examination in chief, he deposed that he did not remember the date of the incident, but it happened at about 4 years back on one day at around 12.30 to 1.00 PM. His son was came in drunken state and create nuisance in front of his house and he took him to his home and admonished him. He further deposed that at that time A1 and A2 who were in a drunekn state came to his house and entered into his home and scolded him in filthy language and P.W.1 questioned A1 and A2 why they entered into house, on that A1 throne

P.W.1 on coconut tree which is situated in the backyard of P.W.1 house.

b)P.W.1 further deposed that at that time his wife P.W.2 interfered and questioned A1 and A2 why they pushed away her husband and A1 by name

Sattayya slapped on P.W.2 cheek. In return P.W.1 questioned A1 and A2 while they beaten his wife on that A1 and A2 beaten P.W.1 with sticks which lies in backyard. On that P.W.1 sustained injuries on his right side fore head and right ear, right shoulder as to that effect P.W.1 sustained bleeding injuries on his fore head and his ear was cut and there is a contusion on his shoulder. Later the neighbours shifted P.W.1 to Gokavaram Government hospital, later he was shifted to GGH,

Rajamahendravaram on 108 Ambulance. He also stated that he had given his report to the police under Ex.P1.

c)P.W.1 was duly cross examination by learned defense counsel. During his cross examination he deposed that his house situated in Sanjeevayya Nagar,

Gokavaram. He admitted the suggestions that if any galata is happened in that area people will gathered. P.W.1 further stated his son was arrived to his home in drunken state at around 12.30 to 1.00 PM. He is doing coolie works, but he did not go to the work on that day. P.W.1 further deposed that his son came in drunken state and create nuisance infront of his house and abuses the bystanders on the road, on that P.W.1 took his son into the home and admonished him. P.W.1 admitted that he took his son into his home again his son went to out side and create abuses the bystanders on the road.

4 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

d)P.W.1 further deposed that there is an engagement function was going in his street on that day. P.W.1 admitted that the elders of his attended to the said function and denied the suggestions that A1 and A2 came to attend the function and he further denied that there is a Galata between P.W.1 and his son due to drunken state, on that his son pushed the P.W.1 and P.W.1 sustained injuries. He further stated that he was shifted to the hospital immediately after Galata and he cannot say in what time he was shifted to Gokavaram and GGH of

Rajamahendravaram. P.w.1 further denied A1 and A2 not entered into his home and the matter was not placed before the elders.

10. a)While coming to the evidence of P.W.2/V.Nagamani deposed in her examination in chief that at about 5 years back at 12.00 PM P.W.3 came to her house in druken state and he made nuisance. Then, her husband P.W.1 beaten the

P.W.3 and took him into the house. On that A1 and A2 in drunken state passed infront of her house and entered into P.W.2 house and A1 pushed her husband on coconut tree and P.W.2 scolded them not to interfere in family issues. In return A1 scolded P.W.2 in filthy language by saying Lanja and slapped her, on that she fell down and her husband was asked them why they beat his wife. On that A1and A2 beaten P.W1 with a stick on his head and ear, due to that he sustained bleeding injury on his head and cut his ear and P.W.2 shifted P.W.1 to GGH

Rajamahendravaram.

b)In cross examination of P.W.2, he denied that he husband beat her son, he pushed away her husband and fell on coconut tree and further denied that her husband sustained injuries when fell on the coconut tree and pushed by his son, the said A1 and A2 were entered into her home to pacify the Galata. P.W.2 stated that she handed over the stick which is her husband beaten by A1 and A2.

11.a) In the examination in chief of P.W.3, he deposed that at about 5 years back one day at about 1.00 PM at his house the said A1 and A2 beat his father with a stick on that his father sustained injury on his head,ear, thumb of his left hand. He further stated A1 also slapped his mother/P.W.2 on her cheek. He further deposed that at the time of the incident a function was going on, some of the persons who attended the function were gathered among them one person by name Raju and others also witnessed the same. He further stated he shifted his father to GGH in 108 Ambulance. Later police examined and recorded his statement. The M.O. 1 stick vide CPR No.35/2023.

5 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

b)In his cross examination he stated that he is doing coolie work i.e., cutting logs. On the date of the incident P.W.3 came to his house at 10.30 AM after that he took bath again went to out side and came to his house in drunken state at about 12.30 PM. He further deposed that on that time he was drunken state and abused his father in front of his father. On that admonished the P.W.3 and beaten and took him in to the house. P.W.3 denied the suggestions that while his father tried to stop him on that time he fell on the coconut tree due to that he sustained injuries. P.W.3 deposed that while A1 and A2 beat his father with two stick among that one stick was broken into pieces and he further deposed P.W.3 handed over only one stick to the police.

12.In the examination in chief of P.W.4/Repaka Prema Kumari and

P.W.5/Repaka Bhulokam though they are shown as corroborating witness. They did not support the prosecution version and in their cross examination also no favourable point were elicited.

13. In the examination in chief of P.W.6/Dr.G.Sravanthi Medical Officer stated that on 01.02.2018 at 5.05 PM at District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram, she has examined a patient by name V.Ramana, aged 45 years and found the following injuries:

1. A laceration of size 3 x ½ x 1/8 centimeters over right side of fore head red in colour.

2. Complying of pain on left side of chest

3. Complying of pain on right hand and wrist.

Based on the investigations and clinical examination she opined that the above 2 and 3 injuries are simple in nature and injury no.1 is grievous in nature and opined that it might have been caused by blunt object and duration might be 0-12 hours prior to examination and issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. In her cross examination though she is admitted the said injury might be caused if any person fell from the bike.

14. a)Lastly coming to the evidence of P.W.7/G.Uma Maheswara Rao, SI of

Police, Gokavaram P.S deposed that on 03.02.2018 at about 10.30 AM while he was present in the police station, he received MLC intimation under Ex.P5 and statement of P.W.1 and basing on it he registered Ex.P6 FIR in crime no.24/2018

U/Sec 324 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 and A2. On the same day he visited the government hospital and examined the P.W.1 and P.W.2/Nagamani and recorded 6 Judgment in CC 1913/2018 their detailed statement and also visited the scene of offence situated at

Sanjeevayya Nagar, SC Peta of Gokavaram village and Mandal and prepared

Ex.P7 rough sketch and secured the presence of P.W.3/Mahesh, P.W.4/Prema

Kumari and P.W.5/Bhulokam and examined and recorded their detailed statement.

He further deposed that by the time of the recorded statement P.W.3/Eedhi Mahesh himself handed over the stick. When witness confronted the M.O.1 stick (wooden ramp) admitted the same. On the same day he issued 41(a) CrPC notice to the A1 and A2 and on 14.02.2018 they complied the same.

He further deposed on 14.06.2018 he received wound certificate of

P.W.1 from GGH, Rajamahendravaram and altered the Section from 324 to 326

IPC under Ex.P8 alteration memo. After completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the A1 and A2.

b)In his cross examination he stated he visited the scene of offence after recording the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at government hospital. P.W.7 further stated that the alleged took place at the house of P.W.1/Ramana. In his cross examination P.W.7 volunteers that the dispute raised at P.W.1 house and scene of offence is infront of the Rapaka Yasodamma’s house, he further stated that it was not reflected in the P.W.1 statement that the alleged incident was occurred at the house of the Rapaka Yasodamma. P.W.7 admitted that primarily dispute raised between P.W.1 and P.W.3. he denied the suggestions that the alleged incident was occurred in between P.W.1, P.W.3 and A1 and A2 no way connected in this incident. He further denied that there is dispute raised between PW..1 and PW..3 in the result P.W.1 sustained injury as he visit the hospital basing on that P.W.1 alleged falsely against the A1 and A2.

c)P.W.7 admitted that he did not prepare any mediators report by the time of recovery of the MO.1 which was handed over by the PW.3. he denied the suggestions that P.W.1 and P.W.3 raised a dispute in drunken state as there is no incident was occurred by him. P.W.7 further admitted that P.W.1 stated before him in his 161CrPC statement that when his son P.W.3 came to the house in drunken state and raised a dispute with P.W.1, on that P.W.1 beaten him with his hands.

P.W.7 further denied the suggestions that P.W.3 beaten the P.W.1. in the result

P.W.1 sustained injuries but not by the Act of A1 and A2.

15.In order to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2 the prosecution adduced the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.7, it is the case of the prosecution that at about 5 years back on one day at around 12.30 PM to 1.00 PM when the P.W.1 admonished the

P.W.3, the A1 and A2 entered into the house of the P.W.1 and beaten the P.W.1.

due to which he sustained bleeding injuries. Firstly the evidence of P.W.1 which 7 Judgment in CC 1913/2018 clearly shows that according to P.W.1 his son P.w.3 came to the house in drunken state and create nuisance infront of his house and P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the P.W.3 into home and admonished him. At that A1 and A2 were entered in a drunken state and scolded P.W.1 in filthy language and he questioned A1 throne on coconut tree which is situated on backyard.

16.While observing the evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 it clearly shows that there is a incident happened in between P.W.1 and P.W.3 it was clearly mentioned by them that they admonished the P.W.3 who came to the house in a drunken state and the same was also stated by the P.W.2 who is the mother of the P.W.3. Though the

PW.2 and P.W.1 are stated the same that P.W.3 abused the bystandars of the street when he was in drunken state and he was admonished by his parents. But in the evidence of P.W.3 it is found that he categorically stated that he abused his father in front of his house and his father admonished him and beat him and took him into the house.

17.He further stated he handed over the stick which was used by the A1 and A2.

While any offensive weapon is seized. The investigating officer must be follow the procedure of search and seizer as contemplated under CrPC, but the P.W.7 did not follow the procedure and the entire itself silent about the seizure of the MO.1 which was handed over by the P.W.3 itself. There is a contradiction between the P.W.2 and P.W.3 that P.W.2 stated that herself handed over the MO.1 to P.W.7. there is a contradiction between the P.W.2 and P.W.3 evidence. Except the P.W.1 to 3 there is no other witness was deposed the evidence in the favour of prosecution.

18.a). According to the prosecution version the alleged incident was occurred in the backyard of the P.W.1 house. It is further found that in the investigation of

PW.7 he deposed in his evidence that the scene of offence is a Sanjeevayya Nagar and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch. In his cross examination he categorically stated that the scene of offence is situated infront of Rapaka Yasodamma House.

Unfortunately the said Rapaka Yasodamma was not cited as witness in the charge sheet and it is further found that in Ex.P7 according to P.W.7 the scene of offence which shows on CC Road. But according to PW.1 to P.W.3 the said alleged incident was occurred backyard of the P.W.1 house.

b)The investigating officer prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch in nominal and which contradict the statements given by the P.W.1 to PW.3. this contradiction which creates doubtfulness to the court. The prosecution not inspires the confidence and miserably failed to prove their version. Though there is a Ex.P4 8 Judgment in CC 1913/2018 wound certificate issued by the P.W.6 to supporting the Ex.P4 there is no other evidence in the record and there is material witnesses to substantiate those injuries mentioned in the Ex.P4 was caused due to the Act of A1 and A2 as mentioned by prosecution. It might be caused when there is a altercation took place between

P.W.1 to P.W.3. This court feels that it is unsafe to rely the evidences of P.W.1 to

PW.3. though there is MO.1 was marked. There is no supporting Mahazarnama and no mediators were cited in the charge sheet. Which clearly shows that the investigating officer did not prepare any Mahazar nama by the time of the receiving the M.O.1.

Accordingly prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 and A2.

19. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC Act they acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 Stick shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 9th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined. For prosecution: PW.1: 19-12-2022 : E. Ramana PW.2: 23-01-2023 : V. Nagamani PW.3: 03-03-2023 : E. Mahesh PW.4: 30-05-2024 : Repaka Prema Kumari PW.5: 30-05-2024 : Repaka Bhulokam PW.6: 11-07-2024 : Dr. G.Sravanthi PW.7: 25-07-2024 : G. Uma Maheswara Rao

For defence: NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Statement given by the Complainant Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of P.W.4 Ex.P3: 161 CrPC statement of P.W.5 Ex.P4: Wound certificate Ex.P5: Hospital intimation Ex.P6: FIR in Crime No.24/2018 of Gokavaram P.S 9 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: Alteration memo

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1- Stick vide CP No.35/2023

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M

I ADDL. J.F.C MAGISTRATE

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

10 Judgment in CC 1913/2018

IN COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.1913/2018

Date of Offence: 01-02-2018

Date of Report: 03-02-2018

Date of Apprehension of accused : U/Sec 41(a) CrPC notice served to A1 and A2 .

Date of Commencement of trial: 19-03-2020

Date of Close of trial: 25-07-2024

Date of sentence of Order: 09-08-2024

Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

Name and address of the complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gokavaram P.S. Name of the Accused No.1 to A3:

1. Kandha Sathiyya @ Sathibabu S/o Ramana, A/23 years, Gokavaram Village and Mandal 2. Udeti Raju S/o Nukaraju (late), A/26 years, Gokavaram village and Mandal.

Section of Law:: U/Sec 326 r/w 34 IPC

Finding of the Court: In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC Act they acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO.1 Stick shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period

Sd/- Smt Jagadeeswari M

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravcaram.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.Dt, Rajamahendravaram.

1 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Smt. Jagadeeswari Meesala, I Addl Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum-I Addl.J.F.Class Magistrate Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday, the 8th day of August, 2024

O.S.No. 1198/2007

Between :

Association for promoting Spiritual and Socio Economic Activities, Syamala Nagar, Rajahmundry with registered No.1984, represented by its Secretary

Vallepalli Venkata Bhaskara Rao. ...Plaintiff

And

Kalidindi Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju S/o Satyanarayana Raju, Hindu, Aged 47 years, Business, Chaitanya Nagar, G.E.I.T. Campus,

Velugubanda, Rajanagaram Mandal, JCJ Rajhmundry. ...Defendant

This suit having come on 23.07.2024 for Arguments before me in the presence of Sri I.V.Ramana Murti, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri CH.Prabahakara Rao, Advocate for Defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivering the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing any sale deeds or sale deed or any other documents in respect of the schedule property or otherwise disposing of the same and by not interfering with peaceful possession of the enjoyment of the schedule property and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint in nut shell are that:

The plaintiff is society registered under Society Registration Act in the year 1984 with registration no.571/1984. The plaintiff society agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant for a consideration of

Rs.14,67,200/-. The defendant agreed to pay sale consideration by way of DD 2 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

and obtain a registered sale deed. Thereafter when the president and Co-

Authorized signatory of the plaintiff society attended the Sub-Register Office.

The defendant that he could not obtained the demand draft for the sale consideration payable, as funds were not adjusted and so he would cheques for the said amount in the name of the plaintiff society and that the required amount for honouring the cheques will be deposited into his account shortly and requested the plaintiff society executed a sale agreement cum-GPA in his favour and issued three cheques dt.17.02.2004, 2 cheques each for an amount of Rs/- 5lakhs and one cheque for Rs/- 4,67,200/- and bearing nos.

623908, 623909 and 623912 drawn on Punjab National Bank,

Rajamahendravaram in favour of the plaintiff society. Believing the assurances of the defendant the plaintiff society executed a Sale Agreement cum GPA dt.17.02.2004 in favour of the defendant and it was pending for registration as the defendant did not pay required stamp duty.

3 . The defendant from time to time requesting the plaintiff society not to present the cheques for encashment and successfully dragged on time till the expiry of the cheques. When demands were being made for payment the defendant revalidate the cheques on 09.12.2004 and requested the plaintiff society to present the cheques for encashment on 22.02.2005. Accordingly the cheques were presented for collection on 22.02.2005 into Indian Bank,

Rajamahendravaram and same was dishonoured as there are no sufficient funds in the account. The plaintiff society got issued a lawyer’s notice dt.19.07.2005 demanding for payment of amount of Rs.14,67,200/- payable under Sale Agreement Cum GPA. After receiving the said notice the defendant requested the plaintiff to wait some more time, thereafter re- validating the cheques again on 06.10.2005 and requested to present the said cheques for encashment two months later. The plaintiff presented the cheques for collection on 17.12.2005 into Indian Bank for collection and the said cheques were again dishonour by Punjab National Bank,

Rajamahendravaram on 19.12.2005 as there are no sufficient funds in the account of the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff society got issued legal notice to the defendant on 30.12.2005 and received the same and kept quiet without paying the amount. There after the plaintiff filed CC No.106/2006 on the file

II AJFCM Court, Rajamahendravaram against the defendant U/Sec 138 of NI 3 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

Act and U/Sec 420 IPC and the said CC is pending adjudication. Under the above said circumstances the Sale Agreement Cum GPA in favour of the defendant did not take effect by the reason of the failure of the consideration which was also followed by a telegraphic notice dt.14.02.2007 issued by the plaintiff society to the defendant informing about the cancellation of the Sale

Agreement Cum GPA w.e.f. 14.02.2007. On 15.02.2007 the president of

Plaintiff Society issued a notice to the defendant which notice was also addressed to the Co-Authorized signatory of the plaintiff society and to the

Sub-Register, Rajanagaram intimate about the cancellation of the Sale

Agreement Cum GPA and requesting the sub-register, Rajanagaram not to accept or register any document on behalf of the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society also gave notice to General public through paper publication in Eenadu

Telugu daily dt.15.02.2007 about the cancellation of the Sale Agreement Cum

GPA to the General public.

4. The plaintiff further submitted that the Sale Agreement Cum GPA in favour of the defendant in respect of plaint schedule property did not take effect and defendant is not entitle to execute or register any document or documents relating to the schedule property on behalf of the plaintiff society.

The possession of the schedule property is always with the plaintiff society and it is continuing it . About 3 days ago the defendant along with henchmen forcebily tried to occupied the schedule property and it was resisted by the plaintiff. However the defendant has been proclaiming that he would occupy the schedule property. On enquiry the plaintiff society learnt that the defendant is about to pay the required amount for registration of Sale Agreement Cum

GPA and basing on the same to execute sale deed or sale deeds or some other documents in favour of others suppressing the facts to make wrongful gain for himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff society. The plaintiff society stated that said Sale Agreement Cum GPA did not take effect, the defendant is about to pay the required stamp duty and get the Sale Agreement Cum GPA registered and execute sale deeds in favour of others. Hence, the suit.

5.Summons was issued to the defendant. Written statement filed. The defendant vehemently opposed the allegations made by the plaintiff and specifically denied the averments of the plaint. The defendant submitted that since the very registration was kept pending regarding the stamp duty payable etc., by mutual agreement the funds could not be provided by defendant to 4 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

honour the cheques. In any view of that matter the remedy is such a case the

plaintiff is to recover the amount if any due, the plaintiff but not in the nature of the relief prayed for in this application.

6.He further submitted that the suit document is acted upon and it has coming to effect on the date of execution itself and therefore the allegations made contra to the same or incorrect. He further submitted that the Sale

Agreement Cum GPA coupled with power of attorney and therefore as per

Law the same is irrevocable. The defendant stated that the plaint schedule property is always in possession of the defendant from the date of execution of the suit agreement Cum power of attorney. Subsequent to the suit transaction the defendant made multiple payments to the plaintiff who were collected by

Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, President of the society towards to plaint consideration, interest etc., are as follows:

02.05.2006Rs.2,00,000 11.05.2006Rs.50,000 22.05.2006Rs.1,00,000 02.06.2006Rs.1,50,000 22.06.2006Rs.1,00,000 20.06.2006Rs.1,00,000 18.09.2006Rs.3,00,000 25.09.2006Rs.2,00,000 16.10.2006Rs.5,00,000 18.10.2006Rs.5,00,000 31.07.2007Rs.2,00,000 14.08.2007Rs.50,000 21.08.2007Rs.50,000 25.09.2007Rs.2,00,000 04.10.2007Rs.1,00,000 15.10.2007Rs.1,00,000

Total Rs.29,00,000/-

5 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

7.The defendant does not admit that the person represented the plaintiff in this suit is competent to represent the society and the plaintiff is not entitle for any reliefs prayed for in this suit. Even otherwise the relief of injunction consist of two prayers and therefore they are required to be valued separately.

Hence, the value of the suit and court fee paid thereon is not correct and also stated that mere suit for injunction is not maintainable and prays the court to dismiss the suit.

8.Basing on the rival contentions in the plaint and written statement my predecessor framed following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff society is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3. Whether the court fee paid is not correct ?

4. To what relief, If any, is the plaintiff entitled for ?

9.In order to prove the case the Plaintiff society represented by its

Secretary by name Narapureddy Venkata Pratap Kumar filed his chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to A19 were marked. The defendant filed his chief affidavit as

D.W.1.

10.Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed his written arguments the plaintiff is in possession of the property and in reply the defendant counsel submitted his arguments that defendant is in peaceful possession in plaint schedule property by virtue of EX.A1 . Plaintiff is to establish he is in possession but he failed. And take the reliance of judgment

AIR 1995 SC 2372. Further submitted that it is not the case whether the defendant has valid title or not and it is not suit for declaration and the entire property is ac 18 .34 cents , and pray the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the suit.

11.POINT :

Issue No.1 and 2

a)The issue no.1 and 2 are interlinked and they are discussed simultaneously to avoid repetition. In order to prove the case P.W.1 filed his chief affidavit by retreating the contents of the plaint . It is the case of the 6 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

plaintiff that the plaintiff is a society represented by its Secretary and it was a

Registered under society registration act in the year 1984 under Reg

No.571/1984. The plaintiff society agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the defendant for an amount of Rs.14,67,200/- and the same was agreed by the defendant to pay the sale consideration by way of demand draft and obtained a Registered Sale deed. Thereafter when the plaintiff and co- authorized signatory attended the Sub-Register office, the defendant informed that he could not obtain the demand draft as funds were not adjusted and he issued three(3) cheques dt.17.02.2004 for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs each for two cheques and Rs.4,67,200/- in another cheque in favour of the plaintiff society and requested the some time for honouring the cheques and also requested for execution of Sale Agreement Cum General Power of Attorney in his favour and agreed the same by plaintiff society executed Ex.A1 Sale

Agreement Cum GPA.

b)But the defendant requesting the plaintiff society time to time to not present the cheque and it was revalidated on 09.12.2004. At the request of defendant those cheques presented on 22.02.2005 and the same was dishonored .To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff regarding the dishonour of the cheques Ex.A2 to A4 were marked . As such the plaintiff society got issued Ex.A5 legal notice to the defendant and the same was received . Later plaintiff filed a CC No.142/2006 on the file of II AJFCM,

Rajamahendravaram which is marked as Ex.A7. The remaining Ex.A8 to A12 are the notices issued by the plaintiff society to the defendant and also public.

c)The main relief seek by the plaintiff society is that a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing any sale deed in respect of schedule property or otherwise disposing of the same and not interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff Society in plaint schedule property. To obtain permanent injunction the plaintiff society has to prove its possession in plaint schedule property by the time of the institution of the suit.

12.While observing the evidence of P.W.1 there is no document was produced by the plaintiff society that the plaint schedule property is belongs to the said society. Even a piece of document was not filed by the plaintiff 7 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

society to prove its legal possession in the plaint schedule property by the time of institution of the suit.

13. a) In the cross examination of P.W.1 it is found that the entire cross examination with regard to the cheques dishonored for sale consideration covered under Ex.A1 . It is further found that the PW.1 stated that there was no resolution about the Cancellation of Agreement of Sale in the even of bouncing of the cheque issued towards sale consideration. It is further observed by the court that the defendant gave a suggestion that Ex.A1 does not show the property was under P.W.1 possession and enjoyment.

b)It is further admitted by the P.W.1 that the members of the society filed suits challenging the allegations by the society that the society already allotted the house cites in their favour out of 1000 members only 100 members were filed the suit and the same are still pending. It is further noticed that the defendant gave a suggestion that P.W.1 received the payments referred in para no.6 of the written statement representing the plaintiff organization and suppressing the facts intentionally filed the present suit and the same was denied. In this cross examination at one point the defendant taken the stand that the Ex.A1 not shown the plaint schedule property is in the possession of the P.W.1 but defendant also did not file any document on his behalf that he was in possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendant paid the amounts mentioned in para no.6 of the written statement and the same suggestion was given to P.W.1 in his cross examination and it was denied by the P.W.1 . But it is not the case of plaintiff to cancel the Ex.A1 document .

He seek only permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to execute any documents or registered the plaint schedule property to any other person and not to interfere of the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property.

It is found that the plaintiff submitted in his written arguments that the plaintiff filed the suits covered by EXA13, EXA15 and EXA17 for recovery of the sale consideration amount . It is settled legal position of law that in respect of the registered sale deeds, if the vendee does not pay the sale consideration amount , the remedy available to the vendee is to recover the sale consideration amount and not seek for cancellation of the sale deed. The learned counsel for plaintiff further submitted that the the above such analogy 8 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

can not be stretched to the present suit, for simple reason that what was executed by the plaintiff society, in favour of the defendant is sale agreement cum general power of attorney in respect of the plaint schedule property and not a sale deed.

14.The plaintiff society did not place any piece of document that the plaint schedule property is belongs to society and there is no particulars were furnished regarding the society except Ex.A19 .The plaintiff filed the suit without having any material on his hand. There are documents were marked on behalf of P.W.1 which are not useful to support the version of the Plaintiff society, that they have the peaceful legal possession in the plaint schedule property by the time of the institute of the suit . There is no cogent material on the record to prove the possession of the plaintiff .

15.At this juncture it is pertinent to refer “Bansidhar Behera Vs Bhani Dei AIR 1967 Odissa 187 at P.188:33” .Hon’ble Supreme court held that the onus is on the plaintiff to establish the initial possession was permissive. In this case the plaintiff society did not place any documentary proof that it have possession of the plaint schedule property.

18.While observing the evidence of D.W.1, he retreated his contents of written statement. The entire cross examination of the D.W.1 was relating to the cheques issued for the consideration covered under Ex.A1 and they dishonored. if the plaintiff society have the legal and valid title and possession it was interrupted by the defendant, then only he seek suit for permanent injunction. In the present suit the plaintiff has to shown the property covered under plaint is in possession and enjoyment of plaintiff society . Mere the suit for permanent injunction prayed by the plaintiff society can not be maintainable and this court take the reliance of the decision of Anatula Sudhakar Vs. p.

Buchireddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033, in which held that in a suit for injunction , if the matter involves the complicated question of fact and law relating to title, in such cases , the court shall not decide the issue of title injunction, but direct the parties to file the comprehensive suit for declaration.

9 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

19. Though the plaintiff submitted in his written submissions that the plaintiff seek amendment in the year 2016 through I.A. 172/2016 for amendment of the plaint seeking possession the schedule property ,alternatively for a declaration that the sale agreement cum general power of attorney dt 17-02-2004 executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant stood cancelled and became unenforceable and consequential relief of possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff by the defendant removing the construction made therein, past and future profits. The said petition was dismissed and the petitioner preferred CRP 1965/2016 before

Hon’ble High Court and same was dismissed. Whatever the reasons the

plaintiff did not take any steps in the said petition. Plaintiff is failed to prove his possession in plaint schedule property. Accordingly issues no 1 and 2 are answered against plaintiff.

20. Issue no 3 :

The plaintiff seek the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing any sale deeds or sale deed or any other documents , in respect of the schedule property, or otherwise disposing of the same, and by not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the schedule property and costs. It is the contention of defendant suit is not properly valued as the plaintiff seek two reliefs in one prayer . It is observed by the court that the relief can be seen as whole not in part the entire relief is only for obtaining permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to execute any documents pertaining to suit schedule property and not interfered the plaintiffs possession . The court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and it was proper valued. Hence issue no 3 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

21. Issue no 4

In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and pronounced in open court by me on this 8th day of August, 2024.

Sd/- Jagadeeswari Meesala,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

10 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:-

PW.1 : Narapureddy Venkata Pratap Kumar

For Defendant:-

D.W.1 : K.V.V. Satyanarayana Raju

Documents Marked as Exhibits:

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-NIL-

Ex.A1: Registration extract of Sale Agreement Cum GPA executed by the plaintiff society in favour of the defendant dt.17.12.2004.

Ex.A2: Certified copy for the memorandum given by Punjab National Bank, Rajahmundry along with dishonoured cheque dt.17.12.2005

Ex.A3: Certified copy for the memorandum given by Punjab National Bank, Rajahmundry along with dishonoured cheque dt.17.12.2005

Ex.A4: Certified copy for the memorandum given by Punjab National Bank, Rajahmundry along with dishonoured cheque dt.17.12.2005

Ex.A5: Certified copy of notice got issued by the plaintiff society to the defendant dt.30.12.2005.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of the postal acknowledgment of the defendant dt.31.12.2005.

Ex.A7: Certified copy of compliant in CC No.144/2006 on the file of II AJFCM, Rajamahendravaram.

Ex.A8: Certified copy of Telegram issued to the defendant and others dt.15.02.2007.

Ex.A9: Office copy of notice issued to the defendant and others dt.15.02.2007

Ex.A10: Postal acknowledgment of the defendant

Ex.A11: Paper publication in Eenadu Telugu daily dt.15.02.2007

Ex.A12: Intimation refusal given by the Sub-registrar, Rajanagaram dt.20.12.2007.

11 Fair judgment in OS No. 1198/2007

Dt. 08.08.2024

Ex.A13: Certified copy of Plaint in OS No.159/2007 on the file of II Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A14: Certified copy of written statement in OS No.159/2007 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A15: Certified copy of Plaint in OS No.161/2007 on the file of II Addl.

Senior civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A16: Certified copy of written statement in OS No.161/2007 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A17: Certified copy of plaint in OS No.163/2007 on the file of II Addl.

Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A18: Certified copy of written statement in OS No.163/2007 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.

Ex.A19: Certified copy of bye laws of plaintiff association.

Sd/- Jagadeeswari Meesala,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajamahendravaram.