Smt. M.Kumudini

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka) · Visakapatnam · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. M.Kumudini, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, is posted at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka), Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 273 court orders on record since 2018. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, PRC cases.

273

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/291/2017 Acquitted

STATION HOUSE OFICER SILERU vs LAMMASINGI SIAVA

07 Dec 2018

C.C.NO.291/20171

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

. CHINTAPALLI

,Present : Smt M.Kumudini ,Principal Junior Civil Judge Narsipatnam ,F.A.C. Judicial First Class Magistrate Chintapalli .Friday, this the 7 th day of December, 2018

C.C.NO:291/2017

: Between

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sileru Police .Station, Visakhapatnam District Complainant . . . . . . : And

Lammasingi Siva, S/o Pothuraju, Aged 27 years, Caste by1.

Valimiki, Coolie, Kinnarala Village, Kothapalem Panchayat, .Chintapalli Mandal

Puttapalli Dorababu, S/o Chinna Rao, Aged 28 years, Caste2.

by Valmiki, Meson, Antharla Village, Chinthapalli Panchyath .and Mandal

Gubalangi Bala Raju, S/o Rama Rao, Age 29 years, Caste by3.

Bagatha, Constable, 15th Battalion, Sathupalli, Talangana

State, N/o Kinnerla Village, Kothapalem Panchyat, Chintapalli .Mandal

Accused . . . . . . .

This case is coming before me on 30.11.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Complainant and of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused, having stood over for :consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

C.C.NO.291/20172

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sileru Police Station, has laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in Cr.No.08/2017 under Section 384, 419, 448 r/w .34 IPC : The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows2.

The accused Nos.1 and 3 are the resident of Kinnerla village,

Kothapalem Panchayath, accused No.2 is the resident of Antharla Village,

Chintapalli mandal. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are living by doing coolie work, accused No.3 is working as Police Constable at 5th battalion, Sathupalli,

Telangana State. On 14.08.2017 at 4.30 PM LW3 Kimudu Seethamma was present at her house and at that time three unknown persons, out of them one person wear Police uniform, came to her house and introduced themselves as Excise Police, Chinthapalli and threatened her that they received information about illegal manufacturing of country made liquior in her house and threatened that they will register criminal case against them and they forcibly entered into the house and took Rs.3,000/- which was kept under the mattress. Immediately LW3 Kimudu Seethamma informed about the incident to her husband LW4 Kimudu Budra and he searched in and around his house and he found one police uniform and Aadhar card and he informed the same to Village elders and V.R.A and they found that the

Aadhar card belongs to Accused No.1. When LW1 Reddy Babulal enquired

Excise police, Chintapalli they informed that no such person is working in their police station and they did not conduct any ride in the house of LW4

Kimudu Budra. Basing on the report presented by LW1 Reddy Babulal, LW9

A.Vibheeshana Rao registered a case in Cr.No.08/2017 under section 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and

C.C.NO.291/20173

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

also examined the witnesses and recoded their statements. On 08.12.2017 at 15.30 Hrs he received credible information about the accused and he secured LWs.7 and 9 and went to Ramalayam Junction at 4.00 PM and he arrested all the accused under the cover of mediators report and sent them for remand. After completion of investigation, he field charge sheet. Hence, .the case

My learned predecessor took cognizance of the case under sections.3 .448, 419, 384 r/w 34 IPC

On appearance of the accused 1 to 3 before this court, they were4.

.furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C

Accused 1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and after5.

hearing both sides, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against accused 1 to 3, read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and .claimed to be tried

To prove the case of prosecution PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1.6 .to P8 are marked

On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined7.

under Section 313 Cr.P.C and when the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence was explained to them in Telugu, they denied the same and further they stated that they have no defence .evidence on their behalf. Hence, defece side evidence was closed .Heard both sides. Perused the material on record8.

: Now the point for consideration is9.

C.C.NO.291/20174

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1

to 3 for the offence under sections 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 of IPC

?beyond reasonable doubt : POINT

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined as.10 many as nine witnesses on its behalf. It is the case of prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 3 went to the house of PW2 and introduced themselves as

Excise Police and threatened that they received information about illegal manufacturing of country made liquior in her house and threatened her they will register criminal case against her and they took Rs.3,000/- which was kept under the mattress. PW2 informed the same to her husband I.e., PW4 and he searched for the accused and noticed them while they are changing

Police uniform and in the mean while the accused escaped by leaving bag and on seeing the bag he found one Police uniform and Aadhar card of

Accused No.1 and he informed the same to villagers and in turn PW1 .presented report to police

PW1, who is V.R.A of Darakonda Village deposed that PW2 came to him.11 and informed that three persons came to her house by stating that they are

Excise Police and out of three persons, one person is police uniform and threatened her and taken away an amount of Rs.3,000/-. On that he .presented report to police i.e. Ex.P1

PW2 is the crucial witnesses to the case of prosecution because.12 according to the case of prosecution all the accused threatened PW2 and taken away Rs.3,000/- which was kept under mattresses in her house. Her evidence discloses that at early hours three unknown persons came to her house and stated that they are police and on that she ran away from the

C.C.NO.291/20175

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

house and informed to PWs.1 and 4. But she failed to identify the said persons. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution. Learned APP cross examined her, but failed to elicit anything against the accused except .marking her section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as in Ex.P2

PW4, who is husband of PW2 deposed that one year back PW2.13 informed him that some persons came to the house and demanded money from PW2 and took amount in the house. On that he informed the same to

PW1 and later, PW1 presented report to police. PW4 also did not depose any .single word against the accused

PW3 is Surpanch of Darakonda Village and he also deposed.14 corroborating PW1 that PW4 came to his house and informed about the alleged offence and on that he informed the police through phone. PW5 evidence reveals that PW2 informed about the alleged offence to him and that PW1 presented report to police. PW 6 stated that while he was present out side of his house she came to know that some offence took place in the house of PW2. As PW6 did not support the case of prosecution, learned APP cross examined him, but failed to elicit anything from his mouth except .marking his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as in Ex.P3

PWs.7 and 8, who are mediators for arrest of the accused 1 to 3 did.15 not support the case of prosecution and they stated that police obtained their signatures on some papers and police did not prepare any report in their presence. As PWs.7 and 8 did not support the case of prosecution, learned

APP cross examined them, but failed to elicit anything from their mouth. PW9 is the Investigation officer and his evidence categorically shows about the registeration of Ex.P6 F.I.R. and preparation of rough sketch at the scene of

C.C.NO.291/20176

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

offence i.e. Ex.P5 and arrest of all accused under Ex.P8 in the presence of .PWs.7 and 8

It is necessary to mention here that the prosecution has to necessarily.16 establish that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are the persons who committed the offence at the house of PW2. PW2 is the direct witnesses to the case of prosecution, but she did not speak any single word against the accused and she failed to identify the accused. The evidence of PW4 is no way helpful to prosecution case. Because, according to the case of prosecution PW4 noticed the accused while changing the police uniform and they escaped by leaving bag and on seeing the bag he found one Police uniform and Aadhar card of

Accused No.1. Further PW4 did not depose anything against the accused.

PWs.1 and 3 came to know about the alleged offence through PWs.2 and 4 and they are not direct witnesses to the case of prosecution. Likewise, PW5 also did not state anything against the accused. According to prosecution case, the accused came to Darakonda on 13.08.2017 and they committed offence and it is within the knowledge of PW6, but PW6 did not support the case of prosecution. The prosecution even did not able to establish that the accused Nos.1 to 3 confessed about the alleged offence before PWs.7 and 8 because PWs.7 and 8 categorically stated that police obtained their signature at Police Station and they does not know the contents of Ex.P8. Except the evidence of PW9, who is the Investigation Officer and PWs.1 and 3, who came to know about the alleged offence through PWs. 2 and 4 and there is no iota of evidence brought on record to connect accused Nos.1 and 2 with the crime. Further, the prosecution did not produce the bag containing the police uniform and aadhar card of Accused.No.1 before the court for the best known to the prosecution and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore,

C.C.NO.291/20177

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 of IPC.

.Hence, this point is answered accordingly

In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence.17 punishable under Sections 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall .stand canceled after six months

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

.pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2018

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

, MAGISTRATE

CHINTAPALLI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE FOR

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NILPW1 Reddy Babulal

PW2 Kimudu Seethamma

PW3 Gorli Raju Yesu Vara Rao

PW4 Kimudu Budra

PW5 Killo Komati

PW6 Chenchu Dara Malleswararao

PW7 Kare Srinu Vas

PW8 Nalla Venkata Rao

PW9 A.Vibheeshana Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

C.C.NO.291/20178

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NilEx.P1 report of PW1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P4 Signature of Mediators report Ex.P5 Signature of Mediators report FIREx.P6 Ex.P7 Rough sketch Ex.P8 Mediators report

M.OS MARKED

Nil

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

, FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI

// True copy //

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

. IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHINTHAPALLI

C.C. No:291/2017

14-08-2017:Date of offence 16-08-2017:Date of Report by Complainant 08.12.2017:Date of apprehension of accused 12.12.2017:Date of accused released on bail 24-03-2018:Date of commencement of trial 26-10-2018:Date of closure of trial 07-12-2018:Date of sentence or order of court

Nil:Explanation for delay and remarks

Lammasingi SivaA1:Name of the accused

Puttapalli DorababuA2

Gubalangi Bala RajuA3 under Sections 384, 419, 448 r/w :Section of Law 34 IPC

In the result, the accused 1:Sentence or order to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 419, 448 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after .six months

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI

Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

CC/70/2018 Acquitted

STATION HOUSE OFFCER CHINTHAPALLI vs KODEM RAMUDU

30 Nov 2018

DRAFT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT CHINTHAPALLI

PRESENT : Smt. M.Kumudini,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam. F.A.C. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Friday, this the 30th day of November, 2018

CC.NO.70/2018

Between:-

StateRepresentedbySub-InspectorofPolice, Koyyuru Police Station. . . . . . . . . Complainant And :

1.Kodem Ramudu, S/o Surya Rao, Aged 23 years, Driver,

Ginjarthi Village, Rajavommangi Mandal, Driver of Blade

Tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173.

2.Sivalanka Dorababu, S/o Sivalanka Rajayya, Aged 39 years, Caste ST-Koya Valasampeta Village, Nathavaram

Mandal, Owner of Crime involved vehicle bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173.

. . . . . . . . . . Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22-11-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, counsel for the accused having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of police, Koyyuru Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under sections 336, 427 of IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 181 and 180 of M.V.Act in Crime No.34/2017.

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

The accused is the resident of Ginjarthi Village of Rajavommangi Mandal and he is the driver of blade tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173. The accused No.2 is the resident of Valasampeta Village, Nathavaram Mandal and he is the owner of blade 2 tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173. On the night of 28.06.2017 at about 21.15 Hrs, the accused being the driver of blade tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173, while reverting his vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the filling machine of the petrol and diesel bunk machine at Kakarapadu petrol bunk, resulting which the petrol filling station is completely damaged and the machinery is not working. At that time the driver of the vehicle is completely in drunken state.

3.On 29.06.2017 at 16.30 Hrs LW1 Pala Durgaprasad presented report to LW9

G.Arjun, who in turn registered it as a case in Cr.No.34/2017 under sections 336, 427 of IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and got drafted scene observation report in the presence of the marginal noted mediators and prepared rough sketch and take photographs through his own mobile and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. LW9 G.Arjun also secured the accused by serving notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. and directed him to attend the court after receiving summons and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

Hence, the case.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 336 and 427 of

I.P.C and section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 181 and 180 of M.V.Act. On appearance of accused, case documents were furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in

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

6.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P7 are marked.

7.After closure of prosecution case, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the record.

9.Now the point arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the

guilt of accused for the offence under section 336 and 427 of

IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 181 and 180 of

M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the driver of Blade

Tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173 on 28.06.2017 at about 21.15 hours while reverting the vehicle drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petrol and diesel filing machine which is situated at Kakarapadu petrol bunk, resulting which the petrol filing station of petrol bunk is completely damaged and the machine was not working and at the time, the accused No.1 was in drunken state. The accused No.2, who is owner of the crime vehicle allowed accused No.1, who is not holding effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses on its behalf.

11.PW1, who is incharge of G.C.C. petrol bunk at Kakarapadu while he was present at his house, he received phone call from PW2 on 28.06.2017 in between 9.00 to 10.00 PM that one blade tractor bearing No.AP 15 AC 9173 came to the petrol bunk and after filling diesel the tractor proceeded further and it was reverted in negligent manner and dashed the petrol and diesel filling machine and it was completely damaged. On that he went to the bunk and noticed the damage and informed the same to PW4. At that time the driver of the said tractor appears to be in intoxication state.

12.PWs.2 and 3, who are direct witnesses to the offence stated that they do not know anything about this case and they never witnessed any accident. As PWs.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned A.P.P. cross examined them but, nothing is elicited from their mouths except marking their 4 section 161 Cr.P.C statements as in Exs.P1 and P2.

13.PW4 is working as Manger in G.C.C. petrol bunk, Kakarapadu. On 28.06.2017 at about 9.15 PM while he was present at Narsipatnam PW1 made a phone call to him and informed him that tractor blade hit the petrol pumping machine in G.C.C.

petrol bunk, Koyyuru. He came to know the name of the driver of the tractor is one

Ramu. He also informed about the damage to his higher authorities and they instructed him to present report to police. On the next day morning, he went to

Koyyuru and noticed the damage and presented report to police as in Ex.P3.

14.PW5 is the Investigating Officer. On 29.06.2017 at 16.30 Hrs PW1 presented report to him and he registered the same and issued Ex.P4 FIR. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined the scene and drafted scene observation report as in Ex.P5. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the crime vehicle to LW8 M.Sasi Kumar and he issued report that there are no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.P7 is the M.V.I. Report.

15.It is necessary to mention here that PWs.1 and 4 are not eye witnesses to the case of prosecution and they came to know about the accident through Pws.2 and

3. PWs.2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the case of prosecution, but they did not speak any single word against the accused No.1 and 2. There is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused No.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle and in drunken state he reverted the same in negligent manner and damaged the petrol and diesel filling machine in G.C.C. petrol bunk at Kakarapadu. Further the prosecution also did not exhibit any documents before the court to show that the accused No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle and he allowed the accused No.1 to drove the crime vehicle without holding effective driving license. Without any cogent evidence on record, this case cannot connect the accused No. 1 and 2 with the crime. The prosecution miserably failed to establish that the accused No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle reverted the same in negligent manner in 5 intoxication state and damaged the petrol and diesel filling machine in G.C.C. petrol bunk at Kakarapadu on 28.06.2017 and accused No.2 allowed accused No.1 to drive the crime vehicle without holding effective driving license. PW1 and 4 are not direct witness to the case and they came to know about the accident. PWs.2 and 3 are direct witnesses to the offence and they did not support the case of prosecution. None of the witnesses identified the accused No.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle.

16.Except the evidence of PW5, who is the Investigating Officer, there is no evidence brought on record to show that both the accused committed the offence under sections 336 and 427 of IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 181 and 180 of M.V.Act. Therefore, without any material evidence on record merely basing upon the evidence of PW5 it is not appropriate to hold that the said accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilt for the offence under sections 336 and 427 of IPC and section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 181 and 180 of

M.V.Act and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:For Defence :

PW1 B.LaxmanadoraNIl PW2 Nalli Sanjeevarao PW3 Arigela Lovaraju PW4 P.Durga Prasad PW5 G.Arjun

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

Ex.P1 161 statement of PW2 Ex.P2 161 statement of PW3 NIL Ex.P3 Report of PW3 Ex.P4 FIR Ex.P5 Scene observation report Ex.P6 Rough sketch. Ex.P7 M.V.I. Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIl

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT CHINTHAPALLI.

C.C. No:70/2018

Date of offence:28.06.2017

Date of report by complainant:29.06.2017

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date of accused released on bail: --

Date of commencement of trial:19.10.2018

Date of closure of trial:14.11.2018

Date of sentence or order of court:30.11.2018

Explanation for delay and remarks::Nil

Name of the accused:Kodem Ramudu,

Sivalanka Dorababu

Section of Law :Under Sections 336 and 427 of IPC.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilt for the offence under sections 336 and 427 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after six months.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Chinthapalli.

Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

CC/56/2018 Acquitted

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINTHAPALLI vs ULLI JOGI RAJU

18 Dec 2018

C.C.NO.56/20181

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

. CHINTAPALLI

,Present: Smt M.Kumudini ,Principal Junior Civil Judge Narsipatnam ,F.A.C. Judicial First Class Magistrate Chintapalli .Tuesday, this the 18 th day of December, 2018

C.C.NO:56/2018

: Between

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli .Police Station Complainant . . . . . . : And

Ulli Jogi Raju, S/o Late Bheema Raju, Aged 29 years, Konda Dora by caste, Cultivation, Korabu Village, Anjali Sanivaram Panchayat, .Chintapalli Mandal

Accused . . . . . . .

This case is coming before me on 14.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Complainant and of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused, having stood over for :consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli Police Station has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.05/2018 under Section 324, 323, 506 of .IPC :The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows2.

The accused is the resident of Korabu Village, Anjali Sanivaram

Panchayat, Chintapalli Mandal. LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao is living by doing cultivation along with his parents. The father of LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao have Ac 3.00 cents of land and he gave it to his aunt, but the 3rd son of Aunt i.e the accused used to quarrel with LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao and his parents

C.C.NO.56/20182

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

that the land which they were cultivating is his land. On 14.01.2018 the cattle of LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao entered into the land of accused and spoiled his crop for which the accused came to the house of LW1 Kuda

Bhaskara Rao and raised quarrel with them. LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao and his father promised the accused to pay for loss. On 17.01.2018 at 14.30 Hrs

LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao and his parents went to the road to give send off to his sister and brother-in-law, who came to their house on the eve of festival and after getting them into jeep and while they reached near the house of accused, the accused keeping the dispute which was happened previously in his mind beat LW1 Kuda Bhaskara Rao with stick from back resulting he received bleeding injury on the left side of the neck on that his tooth are loosen and in the meanwhile LW2 Kuda Gowramma tried to stop the accused, but the accused also beat LW2 Kuda Gowramma on her left hand causing swelling and bleeding injury and the accused ran from there by threatening them with dire consequences that he would kill them. Meanwhile, the residents of Tamarapalli Village i.e. LWs.5 and 6 namely Sideri Gowtham and

Killo Devadasu were going to their village on motor cycle took him to

Gondhipakalu Village to the house of LW3 Gamu Venkata Ramana and on knowing the incident LW3 Gamu Venkata Ramana sent his brother to Korabu

Village to bring LW2 Kuda Gowramma to his house. After first aid, they were admitted in CHC, Chinthapalli. Basing on the statement of LW1 Kuda

Bhaskara RAo, LW9 P.V.Ramana registered a case in Cr.No.05/2018 under sections 324, 323, 506 of IPC and investigated into. During investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and he visited the scene of offence and searched for the weapon, but he did not found at the scene of offence and he prepared rough sketch. During investigation, LW10 J.Ramesh examined

LWs.4 to 6 namely Kuda Chinnabbai, Sideri Gowtham and Killo Devadasu and

C.C.NO.56/20183

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

recorded their statements and he also served section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and enlarged him on bail and after receipt of wound certificate, .LW10 J.Ramesh filed charge sheet. Hence, the case

This case was taken on file for the offence under section 324, 323 and.3 .506 of I.P.C

On appearance of the accused before this court, he was furnished with4.

.the copies of documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C

Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and after hearing both5.

sides, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 of

IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in .Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

To prove the case of prosecution PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1.6 .to P8 are marked

On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under7.

Section 313 Cr.P.C and when the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence was explained to him in Telugu, he denied the same and further he stated that he have no defence evidence on his .behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed .Heard both sides. Perused the material on record8.

:Now the point for consideration is9.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence under sections 324, 323 and 506 of

?IPC beyond reasonable doubt : POINT

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined as.10 many as four witnesses to prove its case. According to the case of prosecution, the accused beat PWs.1 and 2, in view of the disputes prevailing

C.C.NO.56/20184

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

between them and caused injuries to PWs.1 and 2 and they were shifted to

CHC, Chintapalli for treatment. PWs.1 and 2 are the injured witnesses. PW1 stated that on 17.01.2018 at about 4.30 PM while he was returning from fields one person bet him with stick on his left jaw and he received injuries.

On that he was shifted to CHC, Chinthapalli. He further stated that he did not notice the said person, who bet him. He also denied the contents of his statement and he simple admitted his signature on the statement i.e. Ex.P1.

He failed to identify the person, who bet him. PW2, who is the mother of

PW1 deposed that she did not know anything about this case and she came to know that PW1 received injuries. She further stated that she did not receive any injuries in the hands of accused. PW3, who is father of PW1 stated that he did not know about this case and he never witnessed any offence. He further stated that he did not know, who bet PWs.1 and 2. As

PWs.1 to 3 did not support the case of prosecution, Learned A.P.P. cross examined them, but failed to elicit anything against the accused from their .mouth except marking their section 161 Cr.P.C. statement as in Exs.P2 to P4

PW4 is the Investigation Officer and he categorically stated that LW9.11

P.V.Ramana recorded the statement of PW1 and registered a case in

Cr.No.5/2018 under section 324, 323 and 506 of IPC and investigated into.

Ex.P5 is the statement. Ex.P6 is the FIR. He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch i.e. Ex.P7. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. PW4 served the notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C.

to the accused and released him on station bail. He received wound certificate i.e. Ex.P8 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge .sheet

Pws.1 to 3 are crucial witness to the case of prosecution, but they did.12 not depose any single word against the accused. PWs.1 and 2 even did not

C.C.NO.56/20185

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

identify the accused. Except the evidence of Investigation Officer, there is no material brought on record to show that the accused committed the offence under section 324, 323 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 324, 323 and 506 of IPC. Hence, this point is .answered accordingly

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable.13 under Sections 324, 323 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six .months

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

.pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of December, 2018

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

, FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTAPALLI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE FOR

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NILPW1 K.Bhaskararao

PW2 Vuda Gowramma

PW3 K.Chinnabbai Dora

PW4 K.Bhaskararao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NilEx.P1 Signature on the statement. Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5 report Ex.P6 FIR Ex.P7 Rough sketch .Ex.P8 Scene observation report

M.OS MARKED

C.C.NO.56/20186

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

Nil

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

, FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI

//True copy//

,PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

.NARSIPATNAM

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

. IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHINTHAPALLI

C.C. No:56/2018

17-01-2018:Date of offence 18-01-2018:Date of Report by Complainant --:Date of apprehension of accused -- :Date of accused released on bail 28-07-2018:Date of commencement of trial 07-12-2018:Date of closure of trial 18-12-2018:Date of sentence or order of court

Nil:Explanation for delay and remarks

Ulli Jogi Raju:Name of the accused under Sections 324, 323, 506 of IPC:Section of Law

In the result, the accused is:Sentence or order found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand .canceled after six months

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI

C.C.NO.56/20187

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

.Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

CC/47/2018 Acquitted

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINTHAPALLI vs GUNJITI MATHYARAJU

21 Dec 2018

1C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

CHINTHAPALLI

PRESENT : Smt. M.Kumudini,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam. F.A.C. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chinthapalli.

Friday, this the 21st day of December, 2018

CC.NO.47/2018

Between:-

State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Police Station. . . . . . . . . Complainant And :

Gunjili Mathyraju, S/o Late Apppala Swamy, Aged 36 years,

Valmiki by caste, R/o Tajangi Village and Panchayat,

Chintapalli Mandal, N/o Mettabungalow, Chintapalli Village and Mandal (Driver of tractor bearing No.AP31AR4719) . . . . . . . . . . Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 14-12-2018 in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, counsel for the accused having stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of police, Chintapalli Police Station filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 181 of

M.V.Act in Crime No.39/2017.

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

The accused is the resident of Tajangi Village, Chintapalli Mandal. On 13.12.2017 deceased Lingeti Gali Babu (herein after refereed to as deceased) along with few others went to Burada Veedhi of Lammasingi Panchayat on Tractor bearing No.AP31AR4719 and Trailer No.AP16U9507 of the accused to unload paddy 2C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

rice bags. After completion of their work they engaged an auto to go to their village and the auto was not started and as such, the deceased get into the tractor by stating that he is having important work and when the tractor reached the turning near Burada Veedhi at 8.30 PM, due to rash and negligent driving of the accused the deceased lost his control and fell on the road and the wheels of the tractor ran over him and he died on the spot and the accused ran away along with his tractor without any concern. On 14.12.2017 basing on the report presented by

LW1 Lingeti Suresh, LW13 P.V.Ramana registered the case in Cr.No.39/2017 under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC, 181 of M.V.Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW13 P.V.Ramana conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence on 14.12.2017 and sent the dead body to postmortem examination. Later, he visited the scene of offence and examined the same in the presence of LWs.7 and 8 namely Kimudu Krishna, Chokakula Ramana and he also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 01.02.2018 at 4.00 PM the accused voluntarily surrendered before LW14 J.Ramesh and he arrested the accused and released him on station bail. During the course of investigation, LW14 J.Ramesh learnt that the accused is not holding effective driving license. After receipt of M.V.I report and postmortem report and after completion of investigation LW14 J.Ramesh filed charge sheet against the accused.

Hence, the case.

3.My learned predecessor took cognizance of the case under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC, 181 of M.V.Act. On appearance of accused, case documents were furnished under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs.1 3C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution case, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides arguments. Perused the record.

8.Now the point arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the

guilt of accused for the offence under sections 304-A, 279 of

IPC, 181 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9.It is the case of the prosecution that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP31AR4719 and Trailer No.AP16U9507, the deceased met with the accident and the accused also did not hold any effective driving license. PW1 is the son, PW2 is the brother, PW4 is the nephew of the deceased. They categorically stated that they came to know that the deceased met with an accident and on that they proceeded to Burada Veedhi and noticed the dead body of the deceased. PW1 presented report to police i.e Ex.P1. PW3 is direct witness to the case of prosecution, but he stated that he did not know about this case and he never witnessed any accident. As PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned A.P.P. cross examined him but, failed to elicit anything from his mouth except marking his section 161 Cr.P.C statement as in Ex.P3. PW2 stated that he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased.

Ex.P2 is the inquest report.

10.PW5 is the Investigation Officer. According to him LW13 P.V.Ramana received report from PW1 and registered the same and issued FIR i.e. Ex.P4. He visited the scene of offence and examined the same and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch i.e. Exs.P5 and P6 and also held inquest over 4C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

the dead body of deceased in the presence of LWs.9 and 10 namely Burada Ravi

Kumar and Korra Raghunadh and sent the dead body to LW11 Dr.P.Raghuram for postmortem examination. He also sent the crime vehicle to LW12 G.Satyanarayana,

M.V.I for Inspection. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. PW5 arrested the accused and released him on station bail. After receipt of Postmortem certificate and M.V.I report i.e. Exs.P7 and P8, he filed charge sheet.

11.PWs.1, 2 and 4 are not direct witnesses to the case of prosecution and they came to know about the accident and noticed the dead body of deceased. PW3 is the crucial witness to the case of prosecution, but he did not support the case of prosecution and he simply stated that he do not know about the case. Except the evidence of PW5, who is Investigation Officer, there is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused was driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP31AR4719 and Trailer No.AP16U9507 and he drove the same in rash and negligent manner and committed the offence. Therefore, without any material evidence on record merely basing upon the evidence of PW5 it is not appropriate to held that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilt for the offence under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 181 of M.V.Act. and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 th day of December, 2018.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

5C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:For Defence :

PW1 Lingeti SureshNil PW2 Lingeti Yerresu PW3 Bobbili Rajesh PW4 Borada Ravi Kumar PW5 J.Ramesh

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED

For ProsecutionFor Defence

Ex.P1 report of PW1 Ex.P2 Inquest report NIL Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 F.I.R Ex.P5 Scene observation report Ex.P6 Rough sketch Ex.P7 Postmortem Certificate Ex.P8 M.V.I. report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIl

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

FAC.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI.

//True copy//

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSIPATNAM.

6C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

CHINTHAPALLI.

C.C. No:47/2018

Date of offence:13.12.2017

Date of report by complainant:14.12.2017

Date of apprehension of accused: --

Date of accused released on bail: --

Date of commencement of trial:28.07.2018

Date of closure of trial:07.12.2018

Date of sentence or order of court:21.12.2018

Explanation for delay and remarks::Nil

Name of the accused:Gunjili Mathyraju

Section of Law : under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 181 of M.V.Act.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilt for the offence under sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Section 181 of M.V.Act. and he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled 7C.C.No.47/2018

JFCM, CTP.

after six months.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Chinthapalli.

Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

CC/142/2018 Acquitted

STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAMPA vs KADALA ATCHIRAJU

14 Dec 2018

C.C.NO.142/20181

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

. CHINTAPALLI

,Present: Smt M.Kumudini ,Principal Junior Civil Judge Narsipatnam ,F.A.C. Judicial First Class Magistrate Chintapalli .Friday, this the 14 th day of December, 2018

C.C.NO:142/2018

: Between

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mampa Police .Station Complainant . . . . . . : And

Kadala Atchiraju, S/o Kannababu, Age 28 years, ST, Konda .Dora, Revallu Kantaram Village, Koyyuru Mandal

Accused . . . . . . .

This case is coming before me on 07.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the Complainant and of

Sri.R.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the accused, having stood over for :consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mampa Police Station has laid charge .sheet against the accused in Cr.No.07/2018 under Section 324 of IPC :The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows2.

The accused is the resident of Revallu Kantaram Village, Koyyuru

Mandal and he is living by doing agricultural labour work. The accused is the son of LW1 Kadala Kannababu. LW1 Kadala Kannababu is having Ac 0.50 cents of land. On 11.08.2018 at 6.00 PM while Lws.1 and 2 namely Kadala

Kannababu and Kadala Rajulamma were present in the land, the accused

C.C.NO.142/20182

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

came there and asked LW1 Kadala Kannababu for not planting paddy plants and picked up quarrel with LW1 Kadala Kannababu and bet him with stick over the left eye and at that time LW1 Kadala Kannababu went back and his head hit to the pole and he received bleeding injury and his left eye was swollen. On 12.08.2018 he went to P.H.C., Koyyuru and after taking first aid he went to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam. On 16.08.2018 LW9 D.Srinivasarao, visited Government Hospital, Narsipatnam and recorded the statement of

LW1 Kadala Kannababu and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.07/2018 under section 324 of IPC and investigated into. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined the same and seized the bamboo stick from the scene of offence under the cover of scene observation report in the presence of Lws.6 and 7 namely Luppa Nookaraju and Madala

Sathibabu and prepared rough sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He secured the accused by serving notice under section 41-A of Cr.P.C. After obtaining wound certificate and after completion .of investigation he filed charge sheet. Hence, the case .This case was taken on file for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C.3

On appearance of the accused before this court, he was furnished with4.

.the copies of documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C

Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and after hearing both5.

sides, charge for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of IPC was framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for .which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

To prove the case of prosecution PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1.6 .to P8 are marked

On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under7.

Section 313 Cr.P.C and when the incriminating material appearing against

C.C.NO.142/20183

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

him in the prosecution evidence was explained to him in Telugu, he denied the same and further he stated that he have no defence evidence on his .behalf. Hence, defence side evidence was closed .Heard both sides. Perused the material on record8.

: Now the point for consideration is9.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused ?for the offence under sections 324 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt : POINT

In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined as.10 many as three witnesses on its behalf. It is the case of prosecution that accused bet his father i.e. LW1 Kadala Kannababu with stick over the left eye and at that time LW1 Kadala Kannababu went back and then his head hit to .the pole and he received bleeding injury and his left eye was swollen

Pws.1 and 2 are the parents of the accused. PW1 deposed before the.11 court that he did not receive any injuries in the hands of the accused and he sustained injury when he fell down while attending coolie work. He admitted his thumb impression on the statement as in Ex.P1 and denied the statement. PW2 categorically stated that she did not witness any offence and she was not present at the time of alleged incident. As Pws.1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution, Learned APP cross examined them, but failed to elicit anything against the accused except marking their section 161 .Cr.P.C. statements as in Exs.P2 and P3

PW3 is the Investigation officer and his evidence categorically shows.12 about the registration of the statement of PW1 i.e. Ex.P4 as a case in Cr.

No.7/2018 under section 324 of IPC. Ex.P5 is the F.I.R. He visisted the scene of offence and examined the same and seized one bamboo stick under the cover of scene observation report in the presence of Lws.6 and 7 namely

C.C.NO.142/20184

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

Luppa Nookaraju and Madala Sathibabu and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the scene observation report. Ex.P7 is the rough sketch. M.O.1 is the bamboo stick. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He received the wound certificate i.e. Ex.P8 from LW8 Dr.Vijaya Santhi, C.A.S.

Area Hospital, Narsipatnam. His evidence further discloses about arrest of .the accused and filing of charge sheet

It is pertinent to mention here that Pws.1 and 2 are crucial witnesses.13 to the case of prosecution. PW1 is the injured witness and PW2 is the direct witness. But they both did not depose anything against the accused. Though they are cross examined by Learned A.P.P nothing is elicited against the accused from their mouths. Except the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e. PW3 there is no iota of evidence brought on record to connect the accused with the crime. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under .sections 324 of IPC. Hence, this point is answered accordingly

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable.14 under Sections 324 of IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The .bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after six months

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and .pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of December, 2018

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

, MAGISTRATE

CHINTAPALLI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE FOR

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NILPW1 K.Kannababu

PW2 K.Rajulamma

C.C.NO.142/20185

.J.F.C.M., C.T.P

PW3 D.Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

DEFENCE PROSECUTION

NilEx.P1 Thumb impression on the report Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4 Statement of PW1 Ex.P5 FIR .Ex.P6 Scene observation report Ex.P7 Rough sketch Ex.P8 Wound certificate

M.OS MARKED

M.O.1 – Bamboo Stick

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

, FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

CHINTHAPALLI

//True copy//

,PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

.NARSIPATNAM

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

. IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHINTHAPALLI

C.C. No:142/2018

11-08-2018:Date of offence 12-08-2018:Date of Report by Complainant --:Date of apprehension of accused -- :Date of accused released on bail 02-11-2018:Date of commencement of trial 30-11-2018:Date of closure of trial 14-12-2018:Date of sentence or order of court

Nil:Explanation for delay and remarks

Kadala Atchiraju:Name of the accused under Sections 324 of IPC:Section of Law

In the result, the accused is:Sentence or order found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of

IPC and they are acquitted under

Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled .after six months

, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

. NARSIPATNAM

FAC. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

CHINTHAPALLI

.Copy submitted to Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam

Order Record 257 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/35/2018	STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB BRANCH, NARSIPATNAM vs SURLA APPALANAIDU	31 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/247/2019	Lokavarapu Nookaraju vs Anisetti Ramakrishna	24 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/245/2019	Arli Apparao vs Akkireddi Rajubabu	23 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/135/2019	Kambe Suri Babu vs Koruprolu Mahalakshmi Naidu @ Nani Babu	22 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/238/2019	Adigarla Sanyasayya vs Lagudu Appalanaidu	22 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/246/2019	Gudiwada Yashoda vs Gorli Chinnayya Naidu	22 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/90/2019	Kalla Nookaraju vs Sasum Annamani	21 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/134/2018	BANDARU BULLAMMA vs SABBAVARAPU YELLAYYANAIDU	21 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/227/2019	THAMMANA SANYASI SETTY vs CHINDADA NOOKARAJU	21 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/31/2019	Vannum Appalakonda vs Vanum Kannayamma	17 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/225/2019	Gogulapati Jagadeesh Kumar vs Kalla Lova Prasad	17 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/187/2015	Majji Satyavathi vs Digumarthi Prabhavathi	16 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/216/2019	Bantu Nookaraju vs Sunkara Kondamma	15 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/176/2019	Bheemireddi Varalakshmi vs Bheemireddi Venku Naidu	25 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/208/2012	medisetty atchiyamma vs Vsvantaakulapentamma	19 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/234/2018	STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB BRANCH, NARSIPATNAM vs KAPARAPU APPALANAIDU	18 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/184/2017	Koruprolu Appalanaidu vs Makireddi Ramana	17 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/204/2019	Tadi Srinuvasa Reddy vs Lagudu Appalanaidu	17 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/66/2017	KORUPROLU YERUKU NAIDU vs LALAM ATCHIRAJU	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
EP/13/2017	SAMALA SOMARAJU vs SURLA PRASAD	12 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/190/2014	GUDIVADA RAMUNAIDU ALIAS SRIRAMAMURTHY vs GUDIVADA SURYANARAYANA ALIAS SURIBABU	12 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/147/2019	Gollu Narayanamma vs Chinthamreddy Srinu	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/174/2019	Gavireddy Ammaji vs Neelam Arjunna	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/185/2019	Matta Satish vs Siyyadri Rambabu	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/191/2015	PANCHADA LAKSHMI vs BOBBILI RAJUBABU	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/191/2018	Y.CH.APPARAO vs PYLA SANYASINAIDU @ CHITTIBABU	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/202/2018	KATTA NARASINGA RAO vs LAGUDU RAMANA	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/247/2018	DANTHULURI SARASWATHAMMA vs KANDUKURI VENKATA SATYANARAYANA	11 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/30/2009	KUCHIMANCHI UDAYA BHASAKARAM vs VYASELAPU RAMAMURTHY	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/184/2019	Avireddy Mohan Rao vs Theeda Seethamma	29 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/194/2018	GAVIREDDI DALINAIDU vs LALAM SATHIBABU	28 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/171/2019	Chitikela Nagamani vs Chitrada Ramana	26 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/238/2011	Chinthakayala Kannathalli vs Surla Latchababu	26 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/193/2018	KADMISETTY KRISHNA REDDY vs BOTSA RAMARAO @ RAMBABU	22 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/225/2018	SUTHAPALLI BANGARRAJU vs PALAIKARAMUTHU KANDASWAMY	22 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/121/2017	Surla Appalanaidu vs Kamireddy Venkata Satyanarayana	21 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/183/2019	Bypureddy Seetha vs Paturi Kiran Kumar	20 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/168/2013	LAGUDU NAGARAJU vs RAMOJU SATYAVATHI	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/170/2019	Vegi Sivajee vs Vijjapu Jagadeesh Kumar	19 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/90/2018	PARVADA NAGAMANI vs ANKAMREDDY VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY	14 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/142/2018	KUPARALA SURIBABU vs TALLABATHINA PARWATHI	13 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/121/2018	VARRI SREENU vs ADAPUREDDY APPALANAIDU	08 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/148/2019	Reddy Lakshmi vs Sarvasuddhi Ramana	08 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/188/2012	KOLA YESU LAKSHMI vs LANKA VENKATALAKSHMI	08 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/69/2019	Ittamsetty Ramanamma @ Ramana vs Bobbili Sathibabu	06 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/94/2019	Revu Radha Krishna vs Narapureddi Sriramachandramurthy	06 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/160/2019	Challa Rajeswari vs Kanithi Dilleswari	06 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/91/2018	SURLA CHINNABBAYI vs RALLAPALLI NOOKARAJU	05 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
OS/256/2008	PYLA SURYANARAYANAMMA vs DALIYA GANGA	05 Aug 2019	Judgement	—
EP/38/2018	KAMIREDDY LATSULU vs SEERAMREDDY RAJUBABU	31 Jul 2019	Order	—
OS/187/2018	PAMU RAMANA vs SHEIK NAGOOR	31 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/11/2017	ANKAMREDDI YERRAPATRUDU vs JALDILU VEERABABU	30 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/141/2014	padisetty jayasri vs Betha Parvathi	29 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/15/2012	CHIKKALA SRIRAMAMURTHY vs LALAM SRINIVAS	25 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/58/2017	SARVASIDDI RAMAKRISHNA vs MAKIREDDI SURYA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA	23 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/12/2017	MAKIREDDI SAMBHA vs Vs	18 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/108/2014	DALEY RAJULAMMA vs DALEY VENKATA RAMA NAGESWARA RAO @ SREENU	16 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/239/2018	SUNKARA GOPALAKRISHNA vs GUDEPU APPARAO	15 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/140/14	Neelikannayya vs Neeli Ramana	11 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/89/2019	Karedla Govinda vs Poornachandra Pathro	08 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/11/2011	PYLA AMMALU vs KATCHELLA SREENU	04 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/49/2013	Bypureddy Rajubabu vs Gadila Chinnabbai	01 Jul 2019	Judgement	—
OS/46/2018	SIDABATHULA PEDADORA vs PINAPATHRUNI VENKATA RAMANA	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/121/2019	Earla Sathi Babu vs Kotte Musali Naidu	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/159/2018	RUTHALA NARAYANA RAO vs CHINTHAKAYALA KITHAYYADORA @ KITHAYYA	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/170/2018	RUTHALA NARAYANA RAO vs CHINTHAKAYALA KITHAYYADORA ALIAS KITHAYYA	28 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/84/2014	EDLA KONDABABU vs PADI GANGANNADORA	26 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/80/2019	Gudivada Ravi vs Bangaru Atciyyamma	24 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/186/2018	KALAGANA RAJABABU vs SHEIK NAGOOR	24 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/10/2018	Lalam Rajubabu vs Chokkakula Sannibabu	20 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/43/2019	Kachalla Nagabhushanam vs Nallabelli Nagalakshmi	18 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/88/2019	Gudivada Krishna vs Nagam Umamaheswararao(died)	18 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/140/2017	KANITHI RAJESWARI vs KANKIPATI SURI BABU	17 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/187/2014	Bangaru Venkata satyanarayana vs Bangaru Rajulunaidu	12 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/22/2018	SELA VENKATA RAMANA vs SURABOYINA SRAVAN KUMAR	11 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/71/2019	Gandi Vikram Rep by M Bangaraju vs Ruthala Venkayyama	11 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/72/2019	Rayapureddi Naga Sreenu Vasarao Rep by M Bangaraju vs Ruthala Venkayyamma	11 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/92/2007	BANGARU RAJULAMMA vs CHITIKELA ANJANEYULU	04 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/169/2018	KOMAKULA RAMAYYAMMA vs POTHURAJU SURIBABU	04 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/69/2013	LAGUDU NARAYANAMMA vs LAGUDU NARAYANA MURTHY	03 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/134/2013	PADALA MANGA vs KOTTE KANNABABU	03 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/172/2000	SAGARA VARALAKHSMI vs BIDIJANA APPALARAJU ALIAS APPALAKONDA	03 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/174/2004	POTHALA CHINA ATCHIYYANAIDU vs CHITIKELA SOMANAMMA	03 Jun 2019	Judgement	—
OS/365/2004	THOLETI ATCHIYYAMA vs THOLETI LAXMI (SINCE DIED)	09 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/4/2019	Marri Thatalu vs Bolem China naidu	08 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/20/2018	Randhi Venkatalakshmi vs Nara Varalakshmi	08 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/4/2019	Marri Thatalu vs Bolem China naidu	07 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/76/2019	Chitikela Nageswara rao vs Makireddy Nooka Raju Naidu	07 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/213/2018	RAMGALA LAKSHMI PAVANI vs GURUTHURTHI KALYNAM	07 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/119/2017	RAMOJU SURYANARAYANA vs AASAPU SURYA PRAKASHA RAO	06 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/46/2019	State Bank Of India,ADB Br.Narsipatnam, rep.by its Br.Manager, Nallala Ramesh babu vs Thota Ramanamma	02 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/49/2019	State Bank Of India,ADB Branch, Narsipatnam, rep.by its Br.Manager, Nallabilli Ramesh Babu vs Dibbidi Apparao	02 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/103/2018	THAMMANA SANYASI SETTI vs DANNINA SOMARAJU	02 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/233/2018	STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.D.B BRANCH, NARSIPATNAM vs ELUSURI BANGARI	02 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/36/2013	KANKIPATI ADINARAYANA vs KAKINADA LAKSHMI	01 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/64/2019	Petla Kannayyanaidu vs Pulagala Rambabu	01 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/81/2019	Illapu Mahalakshmi vs Ellapu Nookaraju	01 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/228/2017	Tamarana Pentamma vs Tamarana Venkata Swamy Naidu(died)	01 May 2019	Judgement	—
OS/159/2009	SURLA RAMACHANDRA RAO vs MADDU SRIBABU	25 Apr 2019	Judgement	—
OS/140/2018	VANUM TATAJI vs Sreekakopu Prasad	22 Apr 2019	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 257 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2019		14
Sep 2019		15
Aug 2019		21
Jul 2019		23
Jun 2019		22
May 2019		15
Apr 2019		17
Mar 2019		16
Feb 2019		17
Jan 2019		21
Dec 2018		10
Nov 2018		17

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. M.Kumudini handled?

Smt. M.Kumudini has handled 273 court orders since 2018 at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 15 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. M.Kumudini hear?

Based on available records, Smt. M.Kumudini primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka).

Where is Smt. M.Kumudini currently posted?

Smt. M.Kumudini is posted as JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka), Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. M.Kumudini available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt. M.Kumudini are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. M.Kumudini dispose cases?

Smt. M.Kumudini disposes approximately 15 cases per month, based on 273 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. M.Kumudini serving?

Smt. M.Kumudini has been serving at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka) since 2018.

Case Types

OS 78%

CC 17%

PRC 4%

EP 1%

Posting History

May 2018 — Nov 2019

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT · 57 orders
May 2018 — Nov 2019

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) · 216 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. D.sribharani

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT

4 orders

← View all judges at Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chintapalli (Taluka)