Smt.M.Manasa

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAYACHOTY

PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI,

FAC/ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.

C.C.No.336/2015

Between:

Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty Range.

….. Complainant

Vs.

1Syed Khalid Basha, S/o S.Sardar Basha, age 25 years, R/o Basani Konda, Pungunur Road, Madanapalli (P), Chittoor District. Caste: Muslim, Occupation Driver. (A.1) 2Gaju Muthka Nagabushanam, S/o G.Venkata Ramana, age 29 years, R/o Vanka Vaddevaripalli, Chinnathippa Samudram (V), Madanapalli (P), Chittoor District. Caste: Vaddera, Occupation: Driver. (A.2)

…..Accused

This calendar case coming on this day before me for final hearing on 31-07-2018 in the presence of Sri D.Anil Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and of Sri B.Narasimha Reddy and Sri V.Chinna Reddeppa Reddy, Advocates for A.1 and A.2, 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 ::

Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty Range laid charge sheet against A.1 and

A.2 in O.R.No.144/2013-14 for the offences punishable under Sec.20(i) (c) (iii) (iv) and

(x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and 379 of IPC.

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

a) On 08-01-2014 at about 2.00 p.m., the Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty along with Deputy Range Officer, Rayachoty i/c Forest Beat Officer, Kesapuram Beat and strike force, protection watchers have proceeded in hire vehicle bearing No.AP-03- 2

TV-7389 to Kesapuram beat, Uravakonda R.F. After perambulation of Eucalyptus

Plantation they returned to Kesapuram Check post and halted, checking the vehicles at

Forest Check Post, Kesapuram. At about 5.30 p.m., one white coloured Ashok Leyland (Dost) bearing No.AP-03-TV-8066 vehicle came from Rayachoty. The Protection watchers of Check post have descended the barricade and stopped the vehicle. There was

Timber in the body of the vehicle. The protection watchers examined the timber and identified them as Red Sanders wood hut material (old) which were covered by mud soil. Immediately they have alerted the Forest Officers being the timber has traced as

Red Sander wood. They caught hold of the two persons and took them into the check post. Then Forest Range Officer asked caught hold persons about their identity. Then they revealed their names and identity particulars as A.1 and A.2.

b)Later Forest Range Officer asked A.1 and A.2 if they are having any permit to transit the Red Sander, but A.1 and A.2 replied that they have not having any permit with them and also asked A.1 and A.2 from where they were transporting the Red

Sander hut material (old) and to where the material had been transported. Then A.2 replied that A.1 had approached him for a rented vehicle today at 6.00 a.m., and took him to his owner by name Nagabushanam, R/o Kotha Illu, Madanapalli and arranged a vehicle for transporting the timber from Kadapa ITI circle to Punganur @ Rs.2,800/- as a rent. A.1 talked to one Sudarshan and told him about the rent. Sudarshan agreed the rent and told him to bring the vehicle with driver to him. A.1 and Nagabushanam (Driver) took the vehicle to Sudarshan as per the instructions of his owner

Nagabushanam. Both met Sudarshan in Madanapalli town and proceeded to Kadapa with Sudarshan at about 11.00 a.m., and reached Kadapa by 3.00 p.m. Sudarshan brought 4 persons from ITI circle and loaded the Red Sander hut material (old) in the vehicle near ITI circle, Kadapa. Sudarshan paid the labourers who loaded the vehicle with Red Sanders hut material (old). Then Sudarshan gave them Rs.2,000/- for diesel and told them that he was going to Punganur by bus and after you reaching the Punganur he will pay money to them.

c)Then they started from Kadapa at about 4.00 p.m., towards

Madanapalli and on Rayachoty to Madanapalli road at Forest Check Post, Kesapuram forest staff stopped the vehicle and caught hold of A.1 and A.2. Then the Forest Officers send the i/c Forest Beat Officer, Kesapuram to Devalampet for Panchayatdars to conduct 3 panchanama but the villagers have not came forward due to the fear of forest case. The

Forest Officers have unloaded the vehicle and have taken measurements and weight in the presence of the accused and staff. There were 40 nos., of Red Sanders hut material (old) weighed 782 kgs, and its values comes to Rs.25,806/-. The Forest Officials recorded the confession statements of A.1 and A.2. The Deputy Range Officer,

Rayachoty has prepared Special proceedings and registered a case in OR.No.144/2013- 14 of Rayachoty Range. Hence, A.1 and A.2 are committed the offence U/Sec.20(i) (c)

(iii) (iv) and (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and 379 of IPC. Basing on the facts of the case the Prosecution Orders against the A.1 and A.2 are issued by the Divisional Forest

Officer, Kadapa vide OR.No.144/2013-14/A5, dt.23.05. Hence, the CHARGE.

3) In this case cognizance was taken by my predecessor in office for the offences punishable under Sec. 20(i) (c) (iii) (iv) and (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and 379 of IPC against A.1 and A.2.

4) On appearance of A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5)A.1 and A.2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. They denied the accusation leveled against them. Charges Sec. 20(i) (c) (iii) (iv) and (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and 379 of IPC against A.1 and A.2 and the contents of the said charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6) To prove its case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked

Ex.P.1 to P.7.

7) On closure of prosecution evidence, A.1 and A.2 were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence by explaining to them the same in Telugu, for which they denied the same and further they stated that they have no defence evidence on their behalf.

8) Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

9) Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 and A.2 or the offences under Sec. 20(i) (c) (iii) (iv) and (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and 379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10)POINT:

4

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.7. L.W.1/Smt.S.Vijayamma, Asst.Beat officer, I/c Forest Beat Officer,

T.Sundupalli is examined as P.W.1, L.W.2/R.Ramakrishna, Deputy Range officer,

Rayachoty Section is examined as P.W.2 and L.W.3/G.Jaya Prasada Rao, Forest Range

Officer, Rayachoty Range is examined as P.W.3. Ex.P.1 is the statement of A.1. Ex.P.2 is the A-Form. Ex.P.3 is the C-Form. Ex.P.4 is the B-Form log list. Ex.P.5 is the special proceedings. Ex.P.6 is the statement of A.2. Ex.P.7 is the prosecution sanction orders.

11)P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that on 08.01.2014 at 2.00 PM

FRO i.e., PW.3 received credible information about R.S smuggling and immediately she along with P.Ws.2 and 3 along with striking force staff went to Kesapuram beat and were doing checking at Kesapuram beat. PW.1 deposed that they reached Kesapuram check post at about 5.00 PM and one Ahok Leyland lorry came from Rayachoty side B.No.AP- 03-TV-8066 and stopped near the check post and they checked the vehicle which contained old R.S logs. She deposed that immediately they came and said to their F.R.O about it. She deposed that then they caught hold of A.1 and A.2 and enquired them. She deposed that P.W.3 enquired the identity particulars of A.1 and A.2 and they revealed their names as A.1 is Syed basha A.2 is Nagabhshanam. She deposed that then PW.3 questioned them whether they had valid license or permit for transportation and possession of R.S logs on which they did not show any and on questioning to where they were transporting those R.S logs and from where they were brought A.2 replied that they were transporting from Kadapa to Punganoor of Chittoor district. She deposed that then they checked whether they had any government hammer marks or seals they did not find any. She deposed that P.W.3 sent her to secure independent witness to Devalampeta village and she came back by saying that nobody came forward as it was Red Sandal case. She deposed that then she along with other staff members weighed the 40 R.S logs which weighed 722 kgs., whose worth is about Rs.25,806/-. She deposed that PW.2 drafted special proceedings at the scene of offence and she signed on it. She deposed that then she recorded the confessional statement of A.1 at scene of offence and obtained the signature of A.1 and the same is marked as Ex.P.1. She deposed that based upon the special proceedings she registered Form-A in OR.No.144/2013-14, U/sec.29(2)(b) and

Sec.29(iv)(b) of A.P.R.S.W & R.S.W.T.Act., 1969 and issued Form-A to all concerned officers and the same is marked as Ex.P.2. She deposed that then she kept the property in 5 her safe custody and issued Form-C i.e., Ex.P.3. She deposed that she also issued Form-

B i.e., list of logs at scene of offence and the same is marked as Ex.P.4. She deposed that then PW.2 conducted further proceedings in this case and she assisted PWs.2 and 3.

12)PW.2 in his chief examination deposed in the same lines of PW.1. PW.2 further deposed that he drafted special proceedings at the scene of offence and the same is marked as Ex.P.5. PW.2 deposed that PW.1 recorded the confessional statement of

A.1 at scene of offence and upon his instructions one of his staff recorded the confessional statement of A.2 and the same is marked as Ex.P.6. PW.2 deposed that

PW.1 registered the case and issued Form-C and prepared log list and then they seized the contraband and arrested the accused after informing the grounds of arrest and brought the contraband along with A.1 and A.2 to their Rayachoty FRO office and after completion of formalities remanded to judicial custody on the next day and forwarded through this Hon’ble court.

13)PW.3 the then Forest Range Officer, Rayachoty Range District in his chief examination deposed that on regular perambulation on 08.01.2014 at about 2.00 p.m., he along with PWs.1 and 2 and other forest watchers proceeded to Kesapuram beat and at about 5.00 p.m., they conducted vehicle check. PW.3 deposed that at about 5.30 p.m., they noticed one Ashok Leyland lorry B.No.AP-03-TV-8066 came from Rayachoty and they stopped the same and checked the vehicle which contained old R.S logs. PW.3 deposed that immediately with the assistance of staff they caught hold of two persons.

PW.3 deposed that on his enquiry the said two persons disclosed their identity particulars as A.1 and A.2 in this case. PW.3 deposed that then they asked the accused to show I.D permit or bills and the accused failed to produce any permit or bills. PW.3 deposed that they also did not find any hammer marks on the said R.S logs. PW.3 deposed that on enquiry A.2 confessed that at the instance of one Nagabhushanam they committed the offence in this case. PW.3 deposed that then he sent PW.1/S.Vijayamma to secure panchayatdars to Devalampeta village and after some time PW.1 returned and reported that none were came forward to act as mediators as it was a red sandal case. PW.3 deposed that then they counted the said logs and total 40 R.S logs at the scene of offence. PW.3 deposed that then they weighed the said 40 R.S logs and its weight comes to 782 kgs., and it’s worth Rs.25,806/-. PW.3 deposed that then they arrested A.1 and A.2 and seized the said 40 R.S logs under cover of Ex.P.5 special proceedings and also 6 recorded the confessional statement of A.1 and A.2 under Ex.P.1 and P.6 at the scene of offence. PW.3 deposed that basing on Ex.P.5 special proceedings PW.1 registered the same under Ex.P.2 A-form in OR.No.144/2013-14, U/sesc.29(2)(b) and Sec.29(iv)(b) of A.P.R.S.W & R.S.W.T.Act, 1969. PW.3 deposed that then they handed over the seized property to PW.1 under Ex.P.3 C-Form. PW.3 deposed that they also prepared list of seized property at the scene of offence under Ex.P.4. PW.3 deposed that he obtained prosecution sanction orders from Divisional Forest Officer, kadapa for launching prosecution against A.1 and A.2. Ex.P.7 is the prosecution sanction orders. PW.3 deposed that after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against A.1 and A.2.

14)Learned APP argued that during trial prosecution has examined total three witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that where the evidence of the forest officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and in the absence of some independent witnesses of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. Learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor further argued that admissions or confessions made to Forest Officials is admissible and they are not hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor relied on a decision reported in 1989 Crl.L.J., 2038 of Hon’ble Kerala High

Court. Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor further argued that the minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which evidence can be rejected in its entirety. Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor finally argued that prosecution has placed sufficient evidence in order to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 and hence, they are liable for conviction for the offences with which they charged.

15)Per contra, learned counsel appearing for A.1 and A.2 argued that prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3. He argued that all the witnesses are forest officials and hence, the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of forest officials/interested witnesses. He argued that the non-examination of independent panchayatdars for arrest and seizure of red sander logs from the possession of A.1 and

A.2 is fatal to the prosecution and the explanation given by the prosecution for non securing independent panchaytadars is not at all satisfactory. He further argued that the forest officials have not taken steps for securing mediators and without corroboration 7 from the independent witnesses, the sole testimony of forest officials cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, seizure of red sander logs from the possession of A.1 and

A.2 is doubtful. He argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is full of contradictions and material discrepancies and as such, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of P.Ws.1to 3.

He further argued that there are several discrepancies, inconsistencies, embellishments, improvements and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He further argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A.1 and A.2 and hence, benefit of doubt may be given to A.1 and A.2 and accordingly, acquitted A.1 and A.2.

16)The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for A.1 and A.2 is that

P.Ws.1 to 3 are forest officials and they are interested witnesses to the prosecution case and the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses with regard to seizure of red sander logs from the possession of the accused. In such a case, it is the paramount duty of the court to be more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the interested witnesses, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an interested witness. Caution is to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole witness. The prosecution's non-examination of independent witnesses itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement.

17)Now, it has to be seen whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 forest officials inspires confidence in the mind of the court and their evidence can form basis for conviction of A.1 and A.2. P.Ws.1 to 3 were subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for accused. Therefore, now it has to be seen that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is corroborated with each other in the test of cross-examination or not.

18)P.W.1 in her chief-examination deposed that P.W.3 sent her to secure independent witness to Devalampeta village and she came back by saying that nobody came forward as it was red sandal case. P.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that the 8 scene of offence is situated between Kesapuram beat and FRO, Rayachoty office. P.W.1 deposed that after examining A.1 and A.2 for 5 minutes, they tried to secure independent witnesses. P.W.1 in her cross-examination specifically deposed that there are many houses at the scene of offence and there are few petty shops present there. P.W.2 in his chief-examination deposed that P.W.3 sent P.W.1 to secure independent witness to

Devalampeta village and she came back by saying that nobody came forward as it was red sandal case and the place was far away near check post. P.W.2 in his cross- examination deposed that the scene of offence is near Devalampeta village. P.W.3 in his chief-examination deposed that he sent P.W.1/S.Vijayamma to secure panchayatdars to

Devalampeta village and after sometime she returned and reported that none came forward to act as mediators as it was a red sandal case. P.W.3 in his cross-examination admitted that scene of offence is a busy locality and Taluka police station, Kadapa is located at a distance of 200 meters.

19) As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 more particularly the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 the scene of offence is a busy locality, surrounded by several residential houses and the Taluka police station is at a distance of 200 meters, when such is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 what prevented P.Ws.1 to 3 to secure the mediators at the residential houses or at the Taluka Police station. According to P.Ws.1 to 3 they returned to FRO, Rayachoty, along with the accused and seized property, even at Forest Range office, Rayachoty also the Forest officials did not try for securing mediators for seizure of red sander logs. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that they made an attempt for securing mediators, but none were came forward to act as mediators cannot be believed.

In the absence of evidence of independent panchayatdars, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are interested witnesses to the prosecution cannot be accepted with regard to the arrest of accused and seizure of red sander logs from the possession of A.1 and A.2.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the arrest of A.1 and A.2 and seizure of red sander logs, Ashok leyland vehicle and cell phone from the possession of A.1 and A.2.

20)In this case, even the forest officials did not produce the vehicle record of

Ashok Leyland vehicle and also did not ascertain ownership particulars of the said vehicle and even they did not choose to cite the owner of the Ashok Leyland vehicle as witness in this case. It shows that the forest officials even did not make any efforts to ascertain ownership particulars of the vehicle. If really the forest officals found the red 9 sander logs from the Ashok Leyland vehicle, certainly they would ascertain ownership particulars of the seized vehicle. Therefore, non seizure of the vehicle record of the

Ashok Leyland vehicle and non ascertain the ownership particulars of the said vehicle is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution. In this case no rough sketch of the scene of offence is prepared. Even P.Ws.1 to 3 did not produce the beat map of the scene of offence. Therefore, non preparation of the rough sketch of the scene of offence is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution. With regard to the preparation of Ex.P.5 special proceedings also there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 in her cross-examination deposed that the special proceedings were recorded at the scene of offence by keeping on the jeep. PW.1 deposed that at the time of recording the special proceedings time was about 06-30 p.m., and they recorded by using torch light. P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that at the time when they recorded the special proceedings it was at dark and it was sun set time. P.W.2 deposed that they prepared special proceedings at the scene of offence. P.W.2 deposed that they recorded the special proceedings inside the check-post keeping the papers on the table and there are two chairs. P.W.2 deposed that himself and FRO/Jayaprasad Rao were sitting. P.W.2 deposed that after examining A.1 and A.2 they recorded the special proceedings. P.W.3 forest range officer in his cross-examination deposed that they prepared Ex.P.5 special proceedings at Kesapuram check post. Therefore, there is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 about preparation of Ex.P.5 special proceedings. If really Ex.P.5 special proceedings was prepared at the scene of offence, P.Ws.1 to 3 ought to have deposed same version in their evidence, but as can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 they deposed different versions with regard to preparation of Ex.P.5 special proceedings in their evidence. In this case, Ex.P.3 is the C-Form. In Ex.P.3 C-Form also the details of the red sander logs are not mentioned as noted in list of seizure. In this case the prosecution failed to exhibit the list of seizure though available on record for the reasons best known to it. Hence, Ex.P.3 is doubtful as it did not contain the weights and measurements of each red sander log.

21)P.W.3 in his cross-examination also did not ascertain the particulars of one

Sudarshan, R/o. Punganoor in whose instance the accused allegedly tried to transport the red sander logs. P.W.3 in his cross-examination deposed that the accused transported seized red sander logs in open lorry without any cover. P.W.3 in his cross-examination 10 deposed that he did not file any documentary evidence before this court to show the exact value of the seized contraband. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P.5 special proceedings, Ex.P.3 C-Form there is variation with regard to the worth of the seized property. Further, in this case the staff who accompanied P.Ws.1 to 3 are not shown as witness in this case. Therefore, non citing the forest staff who accompanied P.Ws.1 to 3 and non-examination of them is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution.

22)It is the contention of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor that A.1 and A.2 confessed the offence, their confessional statements also recorded and confession to forest officials is admissible in evidence in view of the decision reported in 1989

Crl.L.J., 2038 between Forest Range Officer Vs., Aboobacker and another, decided on 14-03-1989. In this case, the prosecution did not mark the confessional statements of accused for the best reasons known to it. I have gone through the decision relied on by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor reported in 1989 Crl.L.J., 2038 between Forest

Range Officer Vs., Aboobacker and another, decided on 14-03-1989, in which the

Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that “The admissibility of the confession made to the

Forest Officer is not open to doubt since the embargo contained in Section 25 of the

Evidence Act is not applicable to it. Forest Officers, though they are invested with some of the police powers, are not police officers. Hence they can give evidence before court regarding admissions or confessions made to them by accused persons, whether or not such persons were then in custody. If the court considers such confession to be reliable, there is no legal bar in acting on such confession” In the above decision it is specifically mentioned that if the court considers such confession to be reliable, there is no legal bar in acting on such confession. But in the present case, as discussed supra the facts and circumstances are creating a doubt with regard to actual incidents happened at the scene of offence and preparation of Exs.P.1 to P7. In such case it is unsafe to rely on the confessional statements of A.1 and A.2. Hence, with due respect to the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the above decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

23)In the light of above discussion, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of A.1 and A.2 for the offences with which they stood charged beyond all 11 reasonable doubt. Hence, the A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal.

24)In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.20(i) (c) (iii) (iv) and (x) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and U/sec.379 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquittedunder Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 and A.2 shall be in force for six months under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed in my personal Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 03rd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sri.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI,

FAC/ADDL.JUDIL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1 Smt.S.Vijayamma -NONE- P.W.2 R.Ramakrishna P.W.3 G.Jaya Prasada Raio Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Statement of A.1 recorded by forest officials Ex.P.2 Form-A Ex.P.3 Form-C Ex.P.4 Form-B log list Ex.P.5 Special Proceedings Ex.P.6 Statement of A.2 recorded by forest officials Ex.P.7 Prosecution sanction orders Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL Material objects marked: NIL

Sd/- Sri.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAYACHOTY

PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI,

FAC/ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

C.C.No.39/2013

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S.,

….. Complainant

Vs.

Cholaraju Subbarama Raju, S/o Annam Raju, age 50 years, Annamrajugaripalli Village, H/o Sibyala, Rayachoty Mandal, Kadapa District.

..... Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 24-07-2018 in the presence of Sri D.Anil Kumar,Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State and Sri S.Md.Basha,Advocate for accused, 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 ::

State represented by Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G Police Station laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.410/2012 for the offences punishable

U/secs.427, 341 of IPC.

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

a)P.W.1/C.Venkatarama Raju dig a bore in his field.

P.W.1/C.Venkatarama Raju fitted a 7 ½ H.P.Motor to the depth of 350 feet length pipes to the bore well with clamp. P.W.1 went to Rayachoty and brought some pipes and fallen in front of their house. On 29.11.2012 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1 and P.W.2/C.Venkata Subbamma were proceeded to their field by the side of

K.P.Devalalu road, at that time his neighboring land owner by name Cholaraju

Subbarama Raju removed the clamp with cutting player and the bore motor fell down into the bore. On seeing the P.Ws.1 and P.W.2, accused skulked away from the scene of offence. P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding to the Rayachoty police station 2 for lodging complaint, in the mean while accused was came there and obstructed both of them and stated that “you are dig the bore in my land, you could not tell it” and threatened them with dire consequences. In the mean while,

P.W.3/C.Ramachandra Raju came there and warned the accused. Later P.Ws.1 and 2 came to Rayachoty U/G P.S., and appraised facts before the PW.4/A.S.I of

Rayachoty U/G P.S. As the accused intentionally damaged the bore of the PW.1 and caused heavy loss to the PW.1.

b)Upon the statement of PW.1, PW.4/A.S.I-963 of Raychoty U/G

P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.410/2012, U/sec.427, 341 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation PW.4/A.S.I-963 of Raychoty U/G P.S., examined PWs.1 to 3 (C.Venkatarama Raju, C.Venkata Subbamma and

C.Ramachandra Raju) LW.4/C.Devendra Raju and visited the scene of offence and the offence committed by the accused has been proved U/sec.427 and 341 of IPC.

During the course of further investigation on 03-12-2012, PW.4/A.S.I-963 of

Raychoty U/G P.S., arrested the accused and sent the accused for remand. LW.6/the then Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S., verified the investigation done by

PW.4 and filed charge sheet against the accused. Thus, the accused committed offences liable to be punished U/Secs.427, 341 of IPC. Hence, the CHARGE.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Secs.427, 341 of IPC against the accused.

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

5.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation leveled against him for the offences under Secs.427, 341 of IPC was orally read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined out of the list of 6 cited witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were exhibited. The evidence of L.W.4 was closed, and the evidence of LW.6 was given up by the prosecution.

7.On closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same 3 and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. The point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the accusation levelled against the accused under Secs.427, 341 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the de-facto complainant, P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the independent witness and P.W.4 is the investigation officer.

11.In this case, the accusation leveled against the accused is for the offences punishable U/Secs.341 and 427 IPC. The points requiring for proof of Sec.341

IPC are that :-

i) The accused obstructed a person.

ii) Such obstruction was caused voluntarily.

iii) Such obstruction prevented him from proceeding in the direction in which he had a right to proceed.

The points requiring proof of Sec.427 IPC are that:-

i) That the thing in question was property; ii) That the accused caused its destruction or such change therein, or in the situation there of, as has destroyed or diminished its value or utility or affected it injuriously; iii) That the accused did so intending or knowing that he was likely to cause loss or damage to the public or to any person; iv) That the loss or damage was wrongful;

v) that the loss or damage amounts was at least to Rs.50.

12.Now, is has to be seen whether the ingredients of Secs.341 and 427

IPC are attracted in this case and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is sufficient to prove the ingredients U/Secs.341 and 427 IPC. Now, this court has to proceed to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 with meticulous care and caution.

13.P.W.1/C.Venkatarama Raju in his chief-examination deposed that on 29-11-2012 in the evening hours he dig water bore in his agricultural land in the 4 middle of the work he came back to Rayachoty town for purchase of some instruments for completion of that bore well. P.W.1 deposed that after purchase of that instrument he along with his wife i.e., P.W.2 went to agricultural land. P.W.1 deposed that on his enquiry some of the people told him that the accused came to there and removed the Texmo motor clamps, due to which the Texmo motor which is tagged to the clamps fell down into the bore well due to the acts of accused and also three pipes fell into the bore well and one pipe was thefted by the accused.

P.W.1 deposed that total damage was of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 deposed that by knowing about it he started to go to the village elders to report about the matter, in the meantime the accused stopped him and P.W.2 on out way and entered into wordy altercation and warned them with dire consequences and threatened them not to inform about this mischievous act done by accused to anyone. P.W.3 came there and pacified the issue and accused fled away from that place. P.W.1 deposed that then he and P.W.2 his wife came to Rayachoty P.S., and preferred oral complaint. P.W.1 deposed that police recorded his statement and read over the contents and he signed on it. Ex.P.1 is the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police. P.W.1 deposed that police came to the scene of offence i.e., his field and observed it.

14.P.W.2/C.Venkatasubbamma who is the wife of P.W.1 in her chief- examination deposed that on 29-12-2012 in the evening they were digging bore well in their field, which is situated to the south of their village and they fixed the motor and pipes to the said bore well and there was deficit of some pipes so that she along with P.W.1 came to Rayachoty and bought pipes and went near the bore, and observed that the motor was missing and also pipes were missing and some villagers told her and P.W.1 that accused had removed the bolts of the motor due to which the motor and the pipes fell into the bore well. P.W.2 deposed that immediately she along with P.W.1 were about to go to PS to give complaint against the accused, the accused came and threatened her and P.W.1 by saying that the said field is his field and threatened them not to give complaint to police. P.W.3 and

L.W.4/C.Devendra Raju came there and pacified the issue and accused did not agree, thereafter P.W.1 came to PS and preferred complaint against the accused.

15.P.W.3/C.Ramachandra Raju who is the relative of P.Ws.1 and 2, who according to prosecution is independent witness did not support the case of the 5 prosecution and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that he does not know anything about this case. P.W.3 deposed that police did not examine him. As P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution, learned

A.P.P., requested the court to declare P.W.3 as hostile witness and also requested the court to grant permission to cross-examine P.W3. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.3 by learned A.P.P., P.W.3 denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P.2 which is his 161 Cr.P.C., statement.

16.P.W.4 is the investigation officer. P.W.4 in his chief-examination deposed about preferring of oral complaint by P.W.1 and the same was reduced into writing under Ex.P.1, registration of the same under Ex.P.3 FIR, examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2, recording their statements, visiting of the scene of offence, preparation of Ex.P.4 rough sketch of the scene of offence, examination of P.W.3 and L.W.4 and recorded their statements, arrest of the accused and filing of the charge sheet by L.W.6/SI of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S.

17.Learned A.P.P., argued that the prosecution by examining P.Ws.1,2,4 and by marking Exs.P.1 to P.4 proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence accused is liable for conviction.

18.Learned counsel appearing for accused argued that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no independent eye witness to the occurrence. He argued that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witnesses to the prosecution and hence their evidence cannot be believed. He argued that the independent witness ie., P.W.3 who is the relative of P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. He argued that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and their evidence cannot be believed. He argued that accused filed civil suit against P.Ws.1 and 2 and others bearing O.S.No.12/2013 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty and the same is pending. He argued

that in view of the civil dispute between P.Ws.1 and 2 and accused, P.W.1 foisted a false case against the accused to wreck vengeance against the accused. He argued that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients U/Secs.341 and 427 IPC by examining P.Ws.1 to 4. He argued that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubts and hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are subjected to cross-examination by the learned 6 counsel appearing for accused. Before discussing the cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4, it is necessary to look into the Ex.P.1 which is statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police. In Ex.P.1 statement P.W.1 stated that on 29.11.2012 evening at about 06-00 p.m., himself and his wife went to their field, they noticed the neighbouring land owner i.e., accused removed clamps of the motor with the help of cutting- player, on seeing them the accused went away. Later himself and his wife started to go to the village elders to report about the matter, in the meantime accused stopped them and threatened them with dire consequences and claimed that the scene of offence land belonged to him. As can be seen from the Ex.P.1 statement of P.W.1,

P.W.1 stated that himself and his wife i.e., P.W.2 witnessed the accused removing clamps of the motor with the cutting-player. As can be seen from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, their evidence is contra to the contents of the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that on enquiry some of the villagers told them that the accused came to their field and removed Texmo motor clamps, due to which the Texmo motor which is tagged to the clamps fell down into the bore well due to the act of the accused and also three pipes fell down into the bore well and one pipe was thefted by the accused and the total damage is about

Rs.50,000/-. In Ex.P.1 also P.W.1 did not state about the damage caused to him.

20.P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not take permission from the revenue authorities before digging bore well and he cannot say the survey number of his land. P.W.1 deposed that he did not give any receipts regarding the purchase of pumps sets and pipes of the bore well which was dug by him. P.W.1 deposed that he has no knowledge about the DKT patta issued to wife of accused in

Sy.No.151/2 to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents and P.W.1 admitted that there is a road in this Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.151/2 in to an extent of Ac.2.50 cents land which run from East to West. P.W.1 admitted that the northern side of the road there is Ac.1.50 cents and to the southern side there is Ac.1.00 cents. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know whether the accused is having Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.151/2 in the name of his wife. P.W.1 deposed that he has no knowledge about the issuance of pattadar passbook and DKT patta and title deed in the name of accused wife on the date of offence and till date. P.W.1 admitted that the accused filed suit for permanent injunction against him and his wife and two other relatives in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.151/2 in O.S.No.12/2013 on the file of Principal 7

Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty. P.W.1 admitted that he does not have any

DKT patta or any other documents regarding the Sy.No.151/2, but it is in his possession since his father's time. P.W.1 deposed that but he did not file any proof regarding it that it is in his possession since his father's time in this court. The said evidence of P.W.1 is contra to the contents of Ex.P.1 which is his statement recorded by the police. P.W.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that he did not see the accused removing the clamps of the motor. Therefore it is clear that

P.W.1 is not the eye witness to the occurrence.

21.P.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that beside the scene of offence accused is having land. P.W.2 admitted that their lands beside the scene of offence they have bore. P.W.2 admitted that at the scene of offence they have no power connection and they did not obtain permission for necessary authorities for getting bore. P.W.2 deposed that they purchased the bore motor at Rayachoty and she cannot say the shop name and they did not submit the bills regarding purchase of motor in the court. P.W.2 depose they got the motor fixed with the help of mechanic and the depth of the bore dug by them is about 350 feet. P.W.2 deposed that the motor is 7 1/2 watts horse power and the clamps were fixed by the mechanic. P.W.2 admitted that they did not submit before the court the bill relating to the digging of bore well by a bore mechanic. P.W.2 deposed that on 29-11-2012 they have dug the bore well and after 2 or 3 days they fixed a motor. P.W.2 deposed that they came to Rayachoty to buy some more pipes for bore. P.W.2 deposed that she does not remember the shop from which they purchased the pipes. P.W.2 deposed that she came along with her husband i.e., P.W.1 and to purchase pipes.

P.W.1 deposed that they bought pipes from Rayachoty and went to their house and kept them near at house at about 07-00 p.m., and it was dark. P.W.2 deposed that they heard from someone that their motor clamps were removed at scene of offence and immediately she along with P.W.1 went to the scene offence. P.W.2 deposed that she saw the accused at the scene of offence and on seeing them he went away.

P.W.2 deposed that they did not see the accused removing the clamps of their motor, somebody told them that the clamps are removed by the accused. P.W.2 admitted that clamps cannot be removed with hands. P.W.2 deposed that by time they went to scene of offence the motor was removed and not there. P.W.2 deposed that they did not find any spanners or cutting blades at the scene of offence. P.W.2 8 deposed that on seeing her and P.W.1 accused ran away. P.W.1 deposed that the accused came and met them in between scene of offence and their house and threatened them. Further P.W.2 deposed that when herself and P.W.1 were about to go to police station accused came in the middle and threatened them. P.W.2 admitted that there is a civil dispute pending between accused and them in

O.S.No.12/2013 in Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty. P.W.2 deposed

that the accused removed the clamps of the motor as he claims that the scene of offence is his land. The evidence of P.W.2 is also contra to the contents of Ex.P.1 the statement of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 at one stage deposed that they heard from someone that their motor clamps were removed at scene of offence and immediately she along with P.W.1 went to the scene offence and she saw the accused at the scene of offence and on seeing them he went away and at another stage P.W.2 deposed that they did not see the accused removing clamps of their motor and clamps cannot be removed with hands. P.W.1 did not depose the same as deposed by P.W.2 either in his evidence or in his statement under Ex.P.1.

22. Admittedly, accused filed civil suit against P.Ws.1 and 2 and other relatives in O.S.No.12/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court,

Rayachoty. P.W.1 did not file any document before this court to show that the land where the bore is located belonged to him. Further P.W.1 did not file any bills pertaining to the Texmo motor or the pipes which were purchased by him. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence deposed that they did not file any purchase bills before the court. In Ex.P.1 P.W.1 stated as if they witnessed that accused removed clamps, but evidence P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that they came to know somebody that accused removed the clamps. In this case except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 there is no independent evidence that accused obstructed P.Ws.1 and 2 when they intend to go to police station and threatened them with dire consequence and that accused removed the clamps and committed theft of Texmo motor and caused loss of

Rs.50,000/- to them. Therefore, it is not safe to act upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are interested witnesses to the prosecution case. Moreover the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 is not corroborated with each other on all material aspects.

23. P.W.4 investigation officer in his cross-examination deposed that he did not investigate about the particulars of the property i.e., owner of the property where bore well is situated. P.W.4 deposed that he does not know whether accused 9 filed civil suit against P.W.1 pertaining to the property where bore well is located.

P.W.4 deposed that he did not seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence. P.W.4 deposed that P.W.1 did not file any receipt pertaining to the bore well or any electricity bill that he paid the electricity charges in respect of the bore well. P.W.4 deposed that he did not examine the surrounding land owners of the scene of offence. P.W.4 deposed that he did not investigated the case whether the scene of offence property and bore well is purely belonged to the accused. As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.4 did not conduct proper investigation in this case, even he did not ascertain the particulars i.e., who is owner of the property where the bore well is situated and P.W.4 also did not examine the surrounding land owners of the scene of offence to know whether the scene of offence land is belonged to P.W.1 or accused and even he did not seize any incriminating material at the scene of offence. Therefore, P.W.4/Investigation officer did not conduct proper investigation in this case and hence his evidence is also not useful to the case of prosecution.

24.With regard to the giving oral complaint and recording the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 by the police, there is discrepancy in the evidence of

P.Ws.1,2 and 4. P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he gave complaint in police station at about 06-00 on 29-11-2012. P.W.1 deposed that at about 07-00 p.m., one police constable came to his field to check motor and pipes as complained by him and he does not know his name. P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that after about one hour they reached the police station by about 08-00 p.m., to give complaint. P.W.4 in his cross-examination deposed that he visited the scene of offence at 1-30 p.m., on 30-11-2012. P.W.4 deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1 on the date of offence at about 10-00 p.m. As can be seen from Ex.P.1 which is recorded by the P.W.4 on 29-11-2012 at 09-30 to 10- 00 p.m. In Ex.P.3 FIR also at column No.3 (b) the information was received at police station on 29-11-2012 at about 10-00 p.m. It shows that P.W.1 deposed false with regard to giving oral complaint to police and visiting of the police to the scene of offence at 07-00 p.m., on 29-11-2012. As can be seen from the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 at every stage they deposed different versions with regard to all material aspects. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed that accused obstructed them, threatened them with dire consequence and caused loss of 10

Rs.50,000/- .

25.In light of the above discussion prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 and 427 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

26.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs.341 and 427 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be remain in force for six months under

Sec.437A Cr.P.C.

Typed in my personal Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of July, 2018.

SRI.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1 C.Venkatarama Raju -NONE-

P.W.2 C.Venkata Subbamma

P.W.3 C.Ramachandra Raju

P.W.4 M.R.K.Basha

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Complaint of PW.1

Ex.P.2 Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P.3 Original FIR in Cr.No.410/2012 of Rayachoty U/G P.S.,

Ex.P.4 Rough sketch

Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL

Material objects marked: NIL

SRI.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS: RAYACHOTY

PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI,

FAC/ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

C.C.No.171/2016

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sambepalli P.S.,

….. Complainant

Vs.

1Rachapalli Dharma Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, age 50 years, Palannagaripalli, H/o Chitlur of Ramapuram Mandal, C/Kapu, O/Cultivation (A1).

2Rachapalli Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Gangi Reddy, age 60 years, Palannagaripalli, H/o Chitlur of Ramapuram Mandal, C/Kapu, O/Cultivation (A2).

3Motakatla Subba Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, age 37 years, Motakatla of Sambepalli Mandal, C/Kapu, O/Cultivation.

…..Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 31-07-2018 in the presence of Sri D.Anil Kumar,Assistant Public Prosecutor

for complainant/State and Sri B.Narasimha Reddy,Advocate for A.1 to A.3, 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 ::

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sambepalli Police

Station laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.34/2016 for the offences punishable U/secs.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

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

a)On 24.03.2016 at about 1.30 p.m., at Motakatla

Kum.M.Bhavana who is the relative of accused expired in the National High

School Student Bus accident. This is the subject matter of Sambepalli P.S., in 2

Cr.No.33/2016, U/sec.304-A of IPC. In this incident PW.1/P.Siva Prasad written the news to Eenadu daily newspaper with wrong version and it was published on 25.03.2016. As deceased was relative of accused, the A.1 to A.3 keep this issue in their minds and developed grudges against PW.1 and are waiting for opportunity to take revenge against PW.1.

b) On 25.03.2016 at 9.30 a.m., in furtherance of their common intention

A.1 telephoned to PW.1 and threatened that “why you wrote wrong version news about his relative Bhavana who met a road accident and threatened PW.1 as to see end to the life of PW.1. Immediately PW.1 left on his motor cycle from his village

Mudinenivandlapalli and reached near Achireddy House at Motakatla and A.1 to

A.3 came up on PW.1 and wrongfully restrained PW.1 and beat with hands and kicked with legs and by saying to PW.1 that “why you wrote wrong version news with dire consequence and threatened PW.1 to see his life as end”. Then

PW.2/U.Ramanjulu, LW.3/P.Ramesh Babu and PW.3/P.Vishwanadha intervened and separated PW.1 from the clutches of A.1 to A.3. Due to fear of accused PW.1 went to his house and informed the matter to his Newspaper higher authorities. On the suggestion of his paper authorities the PW.1 lodged a complaint against A.1 to

A.3 to PW.4/S.I of Police, Sambepalli P.S.

c)LW.5/M.Jaya Prasad being a reporter to Sakshi daily news paper written the news about the accident of Kum.Bhavana and published in the Sakshi daily news paper. On 25.03.2016 morning A.1 telephoned LW.5/M.Jaya Prasad and abused and threatened to see his life as end. Further LW.5/M.Jaya Prasad knows the assault of PW.1 by A.1 to A.3. Basing on the complaint of PW.1, the PW.4/S.I of

Police, Sambepalli P.S., registered F.I.R as a case in Cr.No.34/2016, U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC at first instance and investigated.

d)During the course of investigation PW.4/S.I of Police,

Sambepalli P.S., secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3, LW.3/P.Ramesh Babu, and

LW.5/M.Jaya Prasad and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 25.03.2016 the PW.4/S.I of

Police, Sambepalli P.S., basing on the strength of the statements PW.1, PW.2, LW.3,

PW.3 and LW.5 the wrongful restrain of PW.1 by A.1 to A.3 was well established the section of law under section 341 IPC was added to the already existing sections 3 and further investigated. On 11.04.2016 the PW.4/S.I of Police, Sambepalli P.S., arrested the A.1 to A.3 and send them to this Hon’ble court and A.1 to A.3 were released on self surety bonds by this Hon’ble Court. On 12.04.2016 the PW.4/S.I of

Police, Sambepalli P.S., filed charge sheet against the A.1 to A.3 U/sec.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the CHARGE.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the A.1 to A.3.

4. On appearance of A.1 to A.3, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.A.1 to A.3 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences under Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC was orally read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined out of the list of Six cited witnesses and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were exhibited and M.O.1 is exhibited. The evidence of LWs.3 and 5 was given up by the prosecution.

7.On closure of the evidence let in by the prosecution, accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. The point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the accusation levelled against the A.1 to A.3 under Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:

PW.1 depositions:

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY SRI.A.P.P:- I know Lws.2 to 5 they belong to my village. I know the accused A.1 to A.3. I 4 am working as journalist for Enadu paper since about 7 years. On 24.03.2016 at about 1.30 PM at Motakatla one accident was occurred and one small girl aged 4 years died in the accident. And I reported about the accident in the Enadu paper and published the same on 25.3.2016 in Enadu daily. Then A.1 made a telephone call to me on 25.03.2016 at about 9.30 AM by saying why l had written wrong news about his relative who is a deceased in the road accident and threatened me with dire consequence. Then I started from my house to Sambepalli in my bike and on the way at Motakatla village at the house of A.3, A.1 to A.3 stopped my bike and caught hold of my caller and kicked me with hands and legs by saying why you had written wrong news published in the news paper and threatened me with dire consequence to end my life. Then LW.2 and LW.4 came and rescued me and separated me from the clutches of A.1 to A.3. Then A.1 to A.3 went away from there. Thereafter I went to my house due to fear of accused and thereafter informed by phone call to my news paper higher authorities. On the same day at about 3.30 PM I went to

Sambepalli P.S and preferred a complaint against A.1 to A.3. The complaint which is shown to me is given by me and I signed on it and the same is marked as Ex.P.1.

Police examined me.

PW.1 Cross Examination by learned defense counsel for accused by

Sri.B.N.R:- It is true on 26-03-2016 in Enadu District edition news paper it is published that accident occurred due to negligence of the bus driver. I am not a qualified journalist I did not persue journalism academically. It is not true to suggest that, accident occurred due to running of front tire of the crime bus. It is not true to suggest that, I published distorted version of the accident that happened and it caused agony to the relatives of the deceased. It is not true to suggest that, when I was passing through the house of accused the accused never beat me. PW.2 is my relative. It is not true to suggest that, accused never beat me and nobody witnessed the same and all the witness cited in the charge sheet are my relatives and my supporters. It is true I did not go to hospital for treatment. It is not true to suggest that, for the present offence as wound certificate from government Civil Surgeon is 5 not necessary I did not go to government hospital and also that I did not sustain any injuries. It is not true to suggest that, I published false information in the news paper on 25-03-2016 and caused mental agony to the relatives of deceased. The news paper report published on 25-03-2016 in Enadu District addition news paper is edited and prepared by me and the same is marked as M.O.1.

PW.2 DEPOSITION:

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY SRI.A.P.P:- I know PW.1 he is my cousin brother. I know LW.3, LW.4. I do not know

LW.5 he is PW.1’s friend. A.1 to A.3 belong to my village. On 25.03.2016 at about 9.00 AM when I was near motakatta and wanted to come to Rayachoty and I was standing near one person by name Acchireddi’s house PW.1 came in one two wheeler vehicle and immediately A.1 to A.3 whose house is also present there came there and beat PW.1 with hands and legs, and threatened to kill him and by saying that he wrote wrong news about their daughter by publishing in news paper that their daughter had died in an accident and that it was wrong news. And immediately myself along with Lws.3 and 4 rescued PW.1 and took PW.1 to his house. Police examined me.

PW.2 Cross Examination by learned defense counsel for accuse by

Sri.B.N.R:-

PW.1, LWs.3 and 4 are my relatives. PW.1 is my elder brother’s son. I do not know since how many years PW.1 is working as journalist. It is not true to suggest that, I did not go to the PW.1 and accused and did not rescue PW.1 from clutches of accused. It is not true to suggest that, as PW.1 is a journalist and because of his influence he managed with the police and foisted false case against A.1 to A.3. It is not true to suggest that, I am deposing false at the instance of PW.1 as he is my elder brother’s son.

PW.3 DEPOSITION:

6

PW.1 is my brother. PW.2 is my uncle. PW.3 is my cousin brother. I know A.1 to

A.3. I know them as they altercated with PW.1. On 25.03.2016 at 9.00 AM I went to Motakatla village on my personal work and at about 9.30 AM PW.1 came to motakatla on his bike and A.1 to A.3 stopped PW.1’s bike and hit

PW.1 with hands and legs by saying that he has written wrong news regarding that their child’s accident and I was standing a distance at about 20 feet when accused beat PW.1. Then myself PW.2 and LW.3 rescued PW.1 and later

PW.1 preferred complaint before police. Police examined me.

Cross Examination by learned defense counsel for accused by

Sri.B.N.R:-

It is not true to suggest that, I was not present at scene of offence at the time of offence. It is not true to suggest that, as PW.1 is my brother I am deposing false to support him. PW.1 preferred complaint before police on the same day at 10.30 AM. It is not true to suggest that, PW.1 and myself foisted false case against accused. PW.1 did not go to govt.hospital. It is not true to suggest that, I am deposing false.

PW.4 DEPOSITION:

CHIEF EXAMINATION BY SRI.A.P.P:-

Presently, I am working as sub Inspector of Police, R.K.Valley P.S from 23.07.2017 to till date. Previously, I worked in same cadre at Sambepalli P.S.

from 05.09.2015 to 25.06.2016. On 25.03.2016 while I was present at Police

Station at about 3.00 P.M., PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P.1.

Based upon which I registered a case in Cr.No.34/2016 U/Sec.323, 506 r/w 34

IPC and issued FIR to all concerned officers and the same is marked as Ex.P.2.

At the same time I examined PW.1 and recorded his statement U/Sec.161(3)

Cr.PC. Immediately, I along with PW.1 went to scene of offence i.e., Motakatla

Village of Sambepalli Mandal and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and the same is marked Ex.P.3. Then I secured the presence of PW.2, 3, LW.3 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.PC statements. Then I came back to the PS and secured the presence of LW.5 and recorded statements of 161(3) Cr.PC. On 11.04.2016 while I was present at Police station, I received credible information about A.1 to A.3 at Motlakatta Bus stop and immediately I along with my staff went there and found A.1 to A.3 and after informing them ground of his arrest and ensuring their identity particulars I arrested A.1 to 7

A.3 and brought them to the police station and produced before this Hon’ble

Court and got them remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation I filed charge sheet against the accused by adding Sec.341 IPC to this Hon’ble Court.

Cross Examination by accused in person:-

It is true I did not forward the injured to the government hospital for treatment. It is true 25.03.2016 and 26.03.2016, a news edition was published in the Eeenadu District Edition paper in which on 25.03.2016 (Sambepalli Edition) it was stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the child and this news was edited by PW.1 and that on 26.03.2016 (Rayachoty Edition) it was stated the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver and the child died and it was edited by some other editor of newspaper. I did not enquire about which of the above news was correct and I did not given any paper statement. It is not true to suggest that in order to do favour to Pw.1, I did not investigate the case in proper lines and foisted false case against A.1 and A.2 at the instance of PW.1. It is not true to suggest that as there are no injuries to PW.1 and that he did not go to hospital for treatment, no offence occurred and that it is table investigation.

It is not true to suggest that I did not examine independent witnesses in this case and that I am deposing false.

Typed in my personal Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 02nd day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sri.P.Rajasekhar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1 P.Siva Prasad -NONE- P.W.2 U.Ramanjulu P.W.3 P.Vishwanadha P.W.4 K.Raghuram

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 Complaint of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Original FIR in Cr.No.34/2016 of Sambepalli P.S., Ex.P.1 Rough sketch

Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL

Material objects marked: M.O.1 i.e., Eenadu News Paper

Sd/- Sri.P.Rajasekhar,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS: RAYACHOTY.

PRESENT: PALLAGANI RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI,

FAC/ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.

C.C.No.308/2017

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G P.S.,

….. Complainant

Vs

Gownipalli Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Venkata Ramana, D.No.53/35, K.Ramapuram, Rayachoty town, caste by Kuruva, occupation Driver.

…..Accused

This calendar case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 31-07-2018 in the presence of Sri D.Anil Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant/State, Sri P.Reddy Basha, Advocate for accused, 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 ::

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G Police

Station laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.157/2017 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

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

a)About 6 years back the L.Ws.2/G.Siddaiah and 3/G.Lakshmi Devi performed the marriage of PW.1/G.Tirumala with accused in the presence of elders of both side as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage L.Ws.2/G.Siddaiah and 3/G.Lakshmi Devi presented sufficient dowry like cash of Rs.3,00,000/-, 5 tulas 2 gold jewels and 2 ½ cents site and bear all marriage expenses. After marriage both

P.W.1 and accused led happy marital life for some days. Later accused addicted to bad vices like consuming alcohol and used to harass and humiliate PW.1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded to get register Ac.2.50 land on the name of accused stands in the name of PW.1. PW.1 bears all kind of harassment of accused with pond hope of changing of accused, but accused did not change his attitudes and continued his harassment against PW.1, when PW.1 informed same to L.Ws.2/G.Siddaiah and 3/G.Lakshmi Devi, then

L.Ws.2 and 3 consoled and advised PW.1 to lead happy marital life with the accused.

b)Later on the request of the L.Ws.2/G.Siddaiah and 3/G.Lakshmi

Devi, the L.Ws.4/A.Venkata Ramana and 5/G.Naga Mallaiah held panchayat and advised accused to change his attitudes and lead happy marital life with PW.1, but the adamant and ignorant accused did not heed the words of L.Ws.4/A.Venkata Ramana and 5/G.Naga Mallaiah and continued his harassment by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and also demanded to get register land an extent of Ac.2.50 cents on the name of accused stands in the name of PW.1. As there is no other option except to approach the police, PW.1, L.Ws.2/G.Siddaiah and 3/G.Lakshmi Devi came to police station and PW.1 lodged a report before LW.7/S.I of police, Rayachoty U/G

P.S., against accused on 18.04.2017 about his harassment by demanding additional dowry.

c)On the report of PW.1, the LW.7/S.I of police, Rayachoty U/G

P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.157/2017, U/sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act., of Rayachoty U/G P.S., and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW.7/S.I of police, Rayachoty U/G P.S., secured the presence of PW.1,

L.Ws.2 to 6 and recorded their detailed statements. Accused got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble V Additional Sessions Judge, Rayachoty vide Crl.MP.No.765/2017, dt.01.05.2017 and as per the direction of Hon’ble V Additional Sessions court,

Rayachoty accused surrendered before this Hon’ble court on 03.05.2017 and later released on bail. Thus accused is liable to be punishable U/sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Hence, the CHARGE.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material 3 available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act., against accused.

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

5.Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. A charge under

Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, framed against accused and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined out of the list of Seven cited witnesses and Exs.P.1 and P.2 were exhibited. The evidence of

L.Ws.2 to 7 was given up by the prosecution.

7.Since there is nothing incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 against accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. The point germane for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Secs.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

The prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused, examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P2. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant.

P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 deposed that there are petty disputes between her and her husband. P.W.1 deposed that later some of her villagers obtained her signature in the white written paper and presented the same before the Rayachoty U/G P.S. P.W.1 deposed that she does not know the contents of the said white written paper. Ex.P.1 is her signature in the white written paper. As P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution learned APP requested the court, to declare the witness as hostile stating 4 that she resiled from her previous statement and requested the court to cross-examine

P.W.1. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 by the learned APP, P.W.1 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P.2 which is her 161 Cr.P.C., statement.

11.As can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 she compromised with the accused and as such she did not depose anything against accused and she showed volt-face to the case of the prosecution. As P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, learned APP rightly given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 7. Since, there is nothing incriminating material appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 against accused, this court dispensed with the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.,

12.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

D.P.Act., and hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act., and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months under Sec.437A Cr.P.C.

Typed in my personal Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 01st day of August, 2018.

Sd/- Sri.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: P.W.1 G.Tirumala -NONE-

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Signature of P.W.1 in complaint.

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1

Exhibits marked for Defence: NIL 5

Material objects marked: NIL

Sd/- Sri.P.RAJASEKHAR,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LAKKIREDDIPALLI.

FAC/ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

C..C.No.464 of 2016 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: RAYACHOTY.

Present:- Smt. M.Manasa.,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

Wednesday, this the 08 th day of August, 2018.

C.C.No.464 of 2016

Between: The state: The Sub Inspector of Police Rayachoty U/G P.S. … Complainant.

And

Derangula Anjaneyulu, S/o Subbaiah, age 23 years, r/o Patha Vattam Vandlapalli Village, H/o Kothapalli Village, Chinnamandem Mandal, Kadapa District. Caste by Yadava, Occupation: Coolie.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant

Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and Sri.D.Nagamuni, advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.173/2016 of Rayachoty U/G Police Station for the offence U/sec.324 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, PW.1/D.Venkata Rayudu got closeness with his relative Derangula Reddamma, hence he is moving closely wither. Accused is the son of above Derangula Reddamma, he has dislike to the above and used to quarrel with PW.1. On 02.06.2016 at about 4.30 p.m., while PW.1 was at bungalow circle, Rayachoty town accused went to him and quarreled over his behavior towards his mother Reddamma. So saying the above, accused beat PW.1 with wooden reaper, caused bleeding injuries on his head and right hand. In the

C..C.No.464 of 2016 2 meanwhile LWs.2 to 4 (A.Gopinath, D.Karna and K.Gangadhar) who are nearby came and rescued, found went away of accused. Later the PW.1 was shifted to government hospital, Rayachoty for treatment.

Basing on the hospital intimation and statement of PW.1, LW.6/S.I of police,

Rayachoty U/G P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.173/2016, U/sec.324 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW.6/S.I of police, Rayachoty

U/G P.S., secured the presence of PW.1, LWs.2 to 4 and recorded their detailed statements and also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. During further investigation on 04.06.2016, LW.6/S.I of police,

Rayachoty U/G P.S., arrested accused and released accused on bail after obtaining sufficient surety from sureties. LW.5 being Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community

Health Centre, APVVP, Rayachoty who examined PW.1 issued wound certificate and opined that the sustained injury on PW.1 are simple in nature. Hence, the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences under Sec.324 of IPC against accused.

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

5.Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. Charge under

Secs.324 of IPC, has been framed against the accused and the contents of the said charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined out of the list of 6 cited witnesses and Ex.P.1 was exhibited. The evidence of L.Ws.2 to 6 was given up by the prosecution.

C..C.No.464 of 2016 3

7.Since no incriminating material appearing in the evidence of P.W.1 against the accused, the examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9. The point germane for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to establish guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sec.324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. POINT:

The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused has examined

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1. According to the prosecution PW.1 is the defacto complainant/injured. LWs.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses who came to the occurrence, intervened and rescued the PW.1 and sending the PW.1 to hospital.

11.PW.1 in his evidence deposed that at about 2 years back on one day he came to Rayachoty for the purpose of coolie work. After completion of his work he was about to go to his village at about 4.30 p.m., he waited for private auto at bungalow junction, Rayachoty at that time some unknown persons gathered as a mob and altercated each other. PW.1 deposed that to see that he went to said mob, at that time one of the person in that mob thrown one stick on his head due to which he sustained bleeding injury on his head and also he received bleeding injury on his right hand but he do not know who pelted stick on him. PW.1 deposed that immediately LWs.2 to 4 who are present at that place shifted him to government hospital, Rayachoty in one private auto. PW.1 deposed that during the course of treatment the police of Rayachoty obtained his left thumb impression on some written paper but he does not know the contents of the paper. P.W.1 deposed that police did not examine him. As P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution, learned A.P.P., requested the court to declare the P.W.1 as hostile witnesses and requested to permit him to cross-examine P.W.1. During the course of cross- examination of P.W.1 by learned A.P.P., P.W.1 denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P.1 which is his 161 Cr.P.C., statement.

C..C.No.464 of 2016 4

12. Absolutely, there is no convincing or cogent evidence on record to say that the accused caused hurt to PW.1 as alleged by the prosecution version this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/sec.324 of IPC.

14.In such facts and circumstances, this court finds no incriminating evidence against the accused, that he caused hurt to PW.1 and therefore, this court holds that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against him. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. Since, the injured witness turned hostile, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor had rightly given up the evidence of remaining immaterial witnesses.

13. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.324 of IPC and therefore, accused is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of 6 months as per

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case. There is no remand period.

Typed to direct dictation to the Typist, on office computer and corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this day 08 th August, 2018.

Sd/-Smt.M.Manasa,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: D.Venkata Rayudu - NONE–

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence: EX.P.1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1- NIL –

C..C.No.464 of 2016 5

Material Objects Marked: NIL.

Sd/-Smt.M.Manasa,

A.J.F.C.M/Rct.