Miss.M.Prameela Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

Wednesday, this the 15 th day of February, 2012.

Present :- Miss. M.Prameela Rani, M.B.A., LL.B.,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore.

C.C.NO.28 OF 2011

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station.… Complainant

Vs.

1. Annam Srinivasulu, S/o.Ramanaiah, aged about 37 years, Gowda by caste, Cultivation, N/o.Gamallapalem, Peduru Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Now at Mutyalapalem Village, Nellore Rural Mandal.

2. Annam Ramanaiah, S/o.Chinnaiah, aged about 68 years, Gowda by caste, Cultivation, N/o.Gamallapalem, Peduru Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal, Now at Mutyalapalem Village, Nellore Rural Mandal.

3. Bandla Chenchuramaiah, S/o.Subbaramaiah, aged about 62 years, Gowda by caste, Cultivation, R/o.Ramachandrapuram,

Near II Town Police Station, Nellore.... Accused.

This case coming on 08.02.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P.Nageswara Rao, advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P. Gudur Police Station has filed a Charge sheet against A1 to A3 alleging that A1 to A3 have committed an offence punishable under Sections.452, 506 and 188 r/w.34 IPC in Cr.No.135/2009 of T.P.Gudur Police Station.

2

2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-

The complainant Annam Suguna (LW.1) married A1 on 7.10.1992 and they are blessed with two male children ie., A.Susanth and A.Nisanth (LWs.2 and 3). Some disturbances took place between

A.Suguna (LW.1) and A1 upon which A1 discorded A.Suguna (LW.1) in the year 2005 and since then he has been residing in Nellore Town separately, whereas A.Suguna (LW.1) has been residing in the house of

A1 located at Gamallapalem, Peduru Village of T.P. Gudur Mandal along with her two children. As A1 is not taking care of A.Suguna (LW.1) as well as her children A.Susanth and A.Nisanth (LWs.2 and 3), A.Suguna (LW.1) filed a Domestic Violence Case before the IV Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.2872/2009 and DVC

No.9/2009. In this case the Hon'ble Court has directed the Station

House Officer, T.P. Gudur to give protection to A.Suguna (LW.1). The

Hon'ble Court also given residential order to A.Suguna (LW.1). Upon

that A.Suguna (LW.1) has been residing in the same house along with

A.Susanth and A.Nisanth (LWs.2 and 3). Knowing it A1 to A3 wanted to evict A.Suguna (LW.1) from her residing place claiming that it is their house by violating the order of Hon'ble Court. In furtherance of their common intention on 20.12.2009 at about 19 hours A1 to A3 trespassed into the residing house of A.Suguna (LW.1) abused her in filthy language and forced her to vacate the house. As part of which A1 to A3 beat

A.Suguna (LW.1) with hands and when Mannem Bujjamma and

K.Pullaiah (LWs.5 and 6) came to the rescue of A.Suguna (LW.1), they were also beaten by A1 to A3 with their hands. After that while leaving the place A1 to A3 threatened A.Suguna (LW.1) that if she do not vacate the house they will see her end. The same was also directly witnessed by M.Seshaiah, M.Bujjamma and K.Pullaiah (LWs.4 to 6). A.Suguna,

A.Susanth and A.Nisanth (LWs.1 to 3) did not got medical treatment.

3 Basing on the report of A.Suguna (LW.1), T.Narasimha Reddy, Sub-

Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station (LW.8) registered the case in Crime No.135/2009 under Section.452, 506, 188 r/w.34 IPC of T.P.

Gudur Police Station on 21.12.2009 at 15 hours and investigated.

During the course of investigation T.Narasimha Reddy, Sub-Inspector of

Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station (LW.8) examined and recorded the statements of A.Suguna, A.Susanth, A.Nisanth, M.Seshaiah,

M.Bujjamma, K.Pullaiah and M.Nagendra Rao (LWs.1 to 7) and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. A1 to A3 got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble Court of Addl. District and Sessions

Judge – Cum – Family Court, Nellore vide Crl.M.P.No.1447/2009,

dt.7.1.2010 and in obedience of the orders of the Hon'ble Court

T.Narasimha Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station (LW.8) arrested the accused on 8.1.2010 on their surrender and released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. Thus A1 to A3 are punishable for the offence under Sections.452, 506, 188 r/w.34 IPC.

Hence, the charge.

3.My learned Predecessor Officer took cognizance of the case against A1 to A3 for the offence under Sections.452, 506, 188 r/w.34 IPC.

4.Originally this case was numbered on the file of IV

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore as CC No.140/2010.

Subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.2855, dt.11.6.2010 and the same was renumbered as

C.C. No.28/2011 on the file of this Court.

4

5.After receipt of summons all the accused appeared

before the court and they were supplied copies of documents. All the

accused were examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the acquisition made against them, for which they denied the offence.

Charges are framed for the offence under Sections.452, 506, 188 r/w.34

IPC against A1 to A3. They did not plead guilty and they claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW.1 is A.Suguna @

Sugunamma (Defacto complainant). PW.2 is A.Susanth (Son of PW.1).

PW.3 is M.Seshaiah (Father of PW.1). PW.4 is K.Pullaiah (Eye Witness).

PW.5 is T.Narasimha Reddy (Investigation Officer). Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1 to the police, dt.20.12.2009. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.4, dt.22.12.2009. Ex.P3 is the F.I.R. in Crime

No.135/2009 of T.P. Gudur Police Station, dt.21.12.2009. Ex.P4 is the

Rough Sketch in Crime NO.135/2009 of T.P. Gudur Police Station, dt.22.12.2009.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, all the accused were examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Here also they denied the allegations levied against them and submitted there is no defence evidence on their behalf and no documents were marked. But A1 filed 13 documents, which are photocopies of certified copies along with a memo.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

5

9.Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether A1 to A3 trespassed into the house of PW.1 after preparation to cause

hurt or assault to PW.1?

2. If so, whether they have caused criminal intimidation to PWs.1 to 3 and A.Nisanth and M.Bujjamma (LWs.3 and 5)?

3. Whether A1 to A3 have disobeyed the order of the IV Addl. Judl. Magistarate of I

Class, Nellore?

POINT NO.1 : Whether A1 to A3 trespassed into the house of PW.1 after preparation to cause hurt or assault to PW.1 :

10.To prove this fact the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 5. PW.1, who is the defacto complainant and wife of A1, in her evidence she deposed that her marriage was performed with A1 on 7.10.1992 and within one year of the marriage disputes arose between herself and her husband and with her in-laws and all the accused used to suspect her character and many times she was sent to her parents house and she came back after a compromise and all the accused demanded her to give divorce. In the year 2005 her husband beat her and necked out her and her two children from his house. Then she gave a report to the District Superintendent of Police, Nellore and a counseling is held at the Nellore Rural Police station in the presence of the Rural Inspector and Sub-Inspector of Police and after the counseling she went to her in-law house at Peduru Village and after four days all the accused went away to Nellore by locking all the rooms except Kitchen.

6 And after two months A1 sent a legal notice to her for divorce and all the accused used to come to her house and asked her to vacate the house, as the house belongs to them. Then she filed a Domestic Violence Case in IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class Court, Nellore and that Court gave her a residential order. Then A1 to A3 came to her house and asked her to get out of the house. Then she has shown them the residential order given by the IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I First Class, Nellore, then A1 teared the order copy of the court and A1 beat her and her children and

A1 and A2 throttled her neck and in the mean time her father and mother came there and rescued her from their hands.

11.In the cross-examination of PW.1 it is elicited that a suit is filed by A2 herein for eviction and declaration against her in

O.S.No.10/2006 on the file of Addl. Sr. Civil Judge Court, Nellroe and the

suit was decreed in favour of A2 and she preferred an appeal on the said decree on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court, Nellore as

A.S.No.9/2007 and the said appeal was dismissed confirming the decree

of the Lower Court and she preferred a Second Appeal in the Hon'ble

High Court as S.A.No.690/2008 and the High Court ordered her to vacate the house within one year and it also confirming the absolute title of the suit schedule property to A2 herein. The learned defence counsel suggested to PW.1 that taking the advantage of the observations made by the High Court in the said appeal, she has filed the said Domestic

Violence Case with false allegations, for which PW.1 denied. From the cross-examination of PW.1, it is further elicited that in the report given to the Protection Officer in Domestic Violence Case it is mentioned that on 29.7.2009 in the night her Father-in-law and her husband and her

Sister-in-law came in an auto and caught hold of her neck and caught hold of her tuft and said that “ If you won't vacate the house , we will 7 chope you, and we cut your tuft” and the report to the Protection Officer is dated.3.7.2009. And it is also further elicited that after one year of the order of the High Court, A2 herein filed an Execution Petition on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Nellore in E.P. No.25/2010. And it is further elicited that in the affidavit which she has filed in Domestic Violence

Case she has mentioned that the respondents therein will come on 5.8.2009 and remove her from the house with the police aid and so under Domestic Violence Act she prayed for exparte order. It is also further elicited that she has filed a partition suit against A1, A2, the mother of A1 and Sister of A1 and a divorce OP is pending on the file of I

Addl. District Judge's Court, Nellore and in that said OP she has filed a petition for Interim maintenance and the said petition was dismissed.

Then she preferred a Revision before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in CRP.No.1286/2011 on the orders in the said petition. And the

Hon'ble High Court given an exparte order and according to that order

A1 herein has to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month. It is further elicited that in Domestic Violence Case an interim order was passed granting Rs.2000/- each Per Month to her and her two children and A1 herein preferred a Revision on the said interim order in CRP

No.9/2010 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore and the

Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore ordered maintenance to her two

children only at Rs.1500/- each. PW.1 deposed that she do not know that the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition in CRP No.1286/2011 referring the observations made in CRP No.9/2010 on the file of Principal

Sessions Judge, Nellore. From the cross-examination of PW.1 it is further

elicited that when the time given by Hon'ble High Court in their order granting one year time to vacate the house and at that time she filed the Domestic Violence case. From the cross-examination of PW.1 it is further elicited that she has not appeared before the Lok Adalath and 8 hence, the Lok Adalath has returned the record to IV Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

12.PW.2, who is the son of PW.1 and A2, in his evidence he deposed that he along with PW.1 and A.Nishanth, M.Seshaiah and

M.Bujjamma (LWs.3 to 5 ) are residing at Peduru Village and A1 left them and he was staying at Nellore and he is not looking after him and

PW.1 and A.Nisanth (LW.3). Prior to the incident A1 used to come to the house and he threatened them to vacate the house as that house belongs to A2. On 20.12.2009 at about 7.00 PM all the accused came to his house and asked PW.1 to vacate the house and A1 beat PW.1 with hands and legs and when he went to the rescue of PW.1, A1 beat him also and all the accused threatened him by saying that if they do not vacate the house, they would kill him, PW.1 and A.Nishanth (LW.3) and they have put all the household articles in one room and looked it. The house belongs to A2, but PW.1 obtained residential order from the Court in A Domestic Violence Case and hence, according to the order of the

Court they were staying in that house on the date of incident.

13. PW.3, who is the father of PW.1 corroborated to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 in all material particulars.

14.PW.4, who is an independent eye witness and a resident of Peduru Village, in his evidence he deposed that he do not know anything about this case facts and police never examined him.

15.PW.5, the Investigation Officer in his evidence he deposed the manner in which he registered the crime and conducted the investigation by examining PWs.1 to 4 and A.Nisanth, M.Bujjamma 9 (LWs.3 and 5) and recording their statements and preparing rough sketch and arresting the accused.

16.On a perusal of the material placed on record, it is found that the house in which PW.1 is residing belongs to A2, and the

Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Second Appeal No.690/2008 without

costs while making it clear that, “any opinions expressed and any conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court or the 1st Appellate Court or that

Court in their respective judgments, except regarding the declaration of absolute title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, shall have no bearing on any proceedings to which the appellate/2nd defendant may take recourse to, if she is so advised under the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which proceedings shall be determined on their own merits, and the appellate/2nd defendant is granted one year's time from the date of the judgment to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff, subject of course to any orders under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in this regard, in the meanwhile.”

17.From the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that the absolute title of the said house was given to A2 and from the evidence of PW.1 it is clear that she has obtained an interim residential order from IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

18.The learned defence counsel in his arguments submitted that taking the advantage of the observations made in the

Judgment of Hon'ble High Court, PW.1 filed Domestic Violence Case at 10 the fag end of the year, which was granted by the Hon'ble High Court to vacate the said house.

19.Though the said Domestic Violence case is filed at the fag end of the year, it is found that PW.1 has an interim residential order. When the house belongs to A2, then even though if they come into the house it does not amount to criminal trespass. PW.1 obtained residential order that does not mean that A2, who is the owner of the house and Father-in-law of PW.1, A1 husband of PW.1 and A3 Son-in-law of A2 does not have any right to come into the house.

20.The learned defence counsel in his arguments submitted that all the accused never went to the house at Peduru village and they are trying to evict PW.1 from the said house legally, but not with any force.

21.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is found that the evidence of PW.1 is supported by her family members ie., her son and her father. It is found that the independent witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. If it is true that all the accused went into the house forcefully after making preparation to caused hurt or assault to PW.1 at about 7 PM, then definitely neighbouring persons of the said house would know about it and as it is a village, and many persons would come and witness the incident. The prosecution has listed only one person as independent witness by name K.Pullaiah (PW.4) and the said PW.4 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

22.From the above discussion, it is clear that all the accused did not trespassed into the house at Peduru village after 11 making preparation to cause hurt or assault to PW.1. This point is answered accordingly.

POINT Nos.2 AND 3 : 2) If so, whether they have

caused criminal intimidation to PWs.1 to 3 and

A.Nisanth and M.Bujjamma (LWs.3 and 5); AND

3) Whether A1 to A3 have disobeyed the order of the

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore :

23.These two points can be answered together. To prove these facts the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5. PW.1, who is the defacto complainant in her evidence she deposed that all the accused came to her house and asked her to get out of the house, then she has shown them the residential order given by the IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nelore, then A1 teared the order copy and A1 beat her and her children and A1 and A2 throttled her neck, then her father and mother came there and rescued her from the hands of all the accused.

24.PW.2, who is the son of PW.1 corroborating to the evidence of PW1. In all material particulars. And he further deposed that all the accused threatened him by saying that if they do not vacate the house, they would kill him, PW.1 and A.Nisanth (LW.3) and they put all their household articles in one room and locked that room.

25.PW.3, who is the father of PW.1 corroborated to the evidence of PW.1 in all material particulars.

12

26.PW.4, who is an independent eye witness and who is a resident of Peduru village, in his evidence he deposed that he do not know anything about this case facts and police never examined him.

27.On a perusal of the evidence placed on record it is found that the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by her son PW.2 and her father PW.3 and the independent alleged eye witness, who is a resident of the village of PW.1 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that A2 herein filed a suit for eviction against PW.1 and the said suit is decreed in favour of A2 and PW.1 herein preferred an appeal on the file of I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Nellore and the said appeal was dismissed confirming

the decree of the lower court and she preferred a Second Appeal in the

Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court ordered her to vacate the

house within one year and the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the absolute title of the suit schedule property to A2 herein. And from the evidence of PW.1 it is further found that when the time given by the

Hon'ble High Court in their order granting one year time for vacation, at

that time she filed the Domestic Violence Case. May be she has filed the said Domestic Violence case on the observation made by the Hon'ble

High Court in S.A.No.690/2008. And from the evidence of PW.1 it is further found that A2 herein filed an Execution Petition on the file of I

Addl. District Judge, Nellore in E.P.No.95/2010 for eviction.

28.The learned defence counsel in his arguments submitted that A1 and A2 were residing at Nellore and they never went to Peduru Village and they are trying to vacate PW.1 from the house of

A2 only through the Court, but not using any force. He further submitted that PW.1 is dragging on the matter by filing one petition 13 after the other. To avoid the eviction she filed the Domestic Violence

Case with all false allegations and obtained an Interim Residential Order.

He further submitted that in Domestic Violence Case PW.1 herein deposed that A1, A2 and the wife of A3 came to her house on 29.7.2009 and caught hold of her neck and caught hold of her tuft and said that “If you won't vacate the house, we will chope you and we cut your tuft”.

But the said fact is not deposed in this case. He further submitted that in order to avoid the eviction, PW.1 is filing one petition after the another. And he further submitted that PW.1 is leading adulteress life and one Y.Sivaiah is convicted for the offence under Section.497 IPC and

A1 herein filed a divorce O.P. on the file of I Addl. District Judge, Nellore and PW.1 herein filed a suit for partition, and in the said divorce O.P.,

PW.1 filed a petition for Interim Maintenance and the said petition was dismissed and she preferred a Revision before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Revision referring is observation made in C.R.P.No.9/2010 on the file of Principal Sessions

Judge, Nellore.

29.If it is true that all the accused went to the house of

PW.1 at Peduru Village at about 7 PM, and beat PW.1, PW.2 and

A.Nisanth (LW.3) and threatened them that they would kill as they do not vacate the house, then, there is every possibility that the residents of the village at least neighbours would witnessed the scene and gathered near the house of PW.1. The prosecution listed only one independent person in their list of witnesses by name K.Pullaiah (PW.4).

The Investigation Officer in his evidence deposed that when he went to the said village he could secured only PW.4 and he is not able to secure any other person. It is not believable that in a village no persons are available who could say about the alleged incident. And it is further 14 found that the sole independent alleged eye witness turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and though the learned Sr. APP cross- examined him, no material is elicited which helps the case of the prosecution. From the prosecution side evidence, it is found that only

PWs.1 to 3 and the Investigation Officer supported the case of the prosecution. PWs.2 and 3, who are the son and father of PW.1 are interested witnesses in this case. The contention of the learned defence counsel that PW.1 is filing one petition or the other to avoid the eviction of her from the house of A2 herein cannot be ruled out. May be this case is filed in order to avoid the eviction. And it is further found that

PWs.1 to 3 in their evidence deposed that when all the accused came to their house they have shown the residential order copy of the IV Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore and A1 has torned it. If it is true that

A1 has torned the residential order copy of IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Nellore, PW.1 would have mentioned the same in her Ex.P1 report, which is given soon after the alleged incident. But Ex.P1 report do not contain anything about the showing the residential order copy to

A1 and A1 tearing it. Hence, it arises a doubt in the case of the prosecution.

30.In view of that matter, this court is of the view that except the interested witnesses, no other witness supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence placed by the prosecution is not reliable and trustworthy and the contentions of the learned defence counsel cannot be ruled out. The benefit of doubt shall go in favour of all the accused. These points are answered accordingly.

31.In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 for the 15 charges under Sections.452, 506, 188 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

32.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections.452, 506, 188 r/w.34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section.248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, and

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 15th day of , February, 2012.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBIE COURT, NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :- FOR DEFENCE :-

PW.1: A.Suguna @ Sugunamma - NONE - (Defacto complainant). PW.2 : A.Susanth (Son of PW.1). PW.3 : M.Seshaiah (Father of PW.1). PW.4 : K.Pullaiah (Eye Witness). PW.5 : T.Narasimha Reddy (Investigation Officer).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1/20.12.2009 : Report given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2/22.12.2009 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P3/21.12.2009 : F.I.R. in Crime No.135/2009 of T.P. Gudur Police Station. Ex.P4/22.12.2009 : Rough Sketch in Crime NO.135/2009 of T.P. Gudur Police Station.

FOR DEFENCE : NILL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NILL.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JMFC,

SPL. MOBILE COURT,

NELLORE.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

Tuesday, this the 3 rd day of January, 2012.

Present :- Miss. M.Prameela Rani, M.B.A., LL.B.,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore.

CC NO.219 OF 2010

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore.… Complainant

Vs.

1. Vemuru Srihari, S/o.Venkataseshaiah, aged 29 years,

2. Vemuru Bhagyalakshmi @ Bhagyamma, W/o.Venkata Seshaiah, aged 50 years,

3. Vemuru Venkata Seshaiah, S/o.Late Raghavulu, aged 55 years,

All are Vysya, Viruvuru Village, Podalakur Mandla. Now residing at Narukuru Road Centre,

Nawabet, Nellore. ... Accused

This case coming on 28.12.2011 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P.Venu Gopal and Sri V.Ravi, advocates for the accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station (L&O),

Nellore has filed a Charge sheet against A1 to A3 alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section.498-A IPC and Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.19/2009 of II Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore.

2

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows :-

The marriage of V.Sathya Venkata Krishna Haritha (LW.1) was performed with A1 on 23.5.2004 at NWS Kalyana Mandapam,

Rebalavari Street, Nellore in the presence of both sides of elders as per

Hindu custom. At the time of marriage Rs.2,01,116/- cash and 21 sovns of gold given to the accused as dowry by T.Narasimha Rao and

T.Kamakshamma (LWs.2 and 3). after passing some days A1 who developed illegal intimacy with one lady began to harass V.Haritha (LW.1) with the instigation of A2 and A3 and put V.Haritha (LW.1) under tantalization to bring more dowry from T.Narasimha Rao and

T.Kamakshamma (LWs.2 and 3) for his business purpose. Having knowing this T.Narasimha Rao and T.Kamakshamma (LWs.2 and 3) arranged cash for their expenses. Even though the accused did not satisfied and not changed their attitude and all the accused colluded with each other and beat V.Haritha (LW.1). Later A1 shifted his family to the parental house of V.Haritha (LW.1) and stayed there for three months in their house. There also A1 continued his harassment by scolding V.Haritha (LW.1) by demanding more dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents for his business purpose. And the parents of V.Haritha (LW.1) ie., T.Narasimha Rao and T.Kamakshamma (LWs.2 and 3) made negotiations with the help of T.Venkata Prasad and B.Lalithamma (LWs.5 and 6) to set right their family. But the accused did not heed their words. On the report endorsed by the Court, P.Srinivasa Rao, Head

Constable, II Town PS (L&O), Nellore (LW.7) registered the same as a case in Crime No.19.2009 under Section.420,498-A IPC and Section.4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. on 2.2.2009 at 13 hours and investigated into. During the course of investigation P.Srinivasa

Rao, Head Constable, II Town PS (L&O), Nellore (LW.7) examined as many as 6 witnesses and a prima facaie of the offence has been made 3 out against A1 to A3 under Section.498-A IPC and Section.4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Section.420 IPC was not attracted against the accused as per the statements given by V.S.V.K.Haritha, T.Narasimha Rao,

T.Kamakshamma, G.Lakshmi Narayana, T.Venkata Prasad and

B.Lalithamma (LWs.1 to 6). K.Maruthi Krishna, SI of Police, II Town PS (L&O), Nellore (LW.8) arrested A1 on 2.6.2009 and sent him for judicial custody. During the course of investigation on 3.7.2009 at 9.30 hours

K.Maruthi Krishna, SI of Police, II Town PS (L&O), Nellore (LW.8) arrested

A2 and A3 at their residence at Narukuru Centre and they are being forwarded to the Hon'ble court along with the charge sheet with a request to seek remand to them. Thus, A1 to A3 are liable for the offence punishable under Sectio.498-A IPC and Section.4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Hence, the charge.

3.My learned Predecessor Officer took cognizance of the case against A1 to A3 for the offence under Section.498-A IPC and

Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.Originally this case was numbered on the file of II

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore as CC No.325/2009.

Subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.2855, dt.11.6.2010 and the same was renumbered as CC

No.219/2010 on the file of this Court.

5.After receipt of summons A1 to A3 appeared before the Court and copies of documents were furnished to them. All the accused were examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the acquisition made against them, for which they denied the offence.

4 Charges are framed for the offence under Section.498-A IPC and

Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3. They did not plead guilty and they claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case against A1 to A3 the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

PW.1 is V.S.V.K.Haritha (Defacto Complainant). PW.2 is T.Narasimha

Rao (Father of PW.1). PW.3 is G.Lakshmi Narayana (Mediator). PW.4 is

B.Lalithamma (Mediator). PW.5 is P.Srinivasa Rao (Head Constable).

PW.6 is K.Maruthi Krishna (Investigation Officer). Ex.P1 is the private complaint filed by PW.1 in the II A.J.M.F.C. Court, Nellore, dt.7.2.2008.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4, dt.2.2.2009. Ex.P3 is the

F.I.R. in Crime No.19/2009 of II Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore, dt.2.2.2009. Ex.P4 is the Rough Sketch in Crime No.19/2009 of II Town

Police Station (L&O), Nellore, dt.2.2.2009.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Here also they denied the allegations levied against them and submitted there is no defence evidence on their behalf and no documents were marked.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the charge under.498-A IPC and

Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 5 POINT :

10.To prove the case against A1 to A3 the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6. PW.1, who is none other than the defacto complainant, in her evidence she deposed that on 23.5.2004 her marriage was performed with A1 at NWC Kalyanamandapam, Nellore according to Hindu custom. At the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,01,116/- and 22 sovns of gold to all the accused. After the marriage she went her matrimonial house at A.C.Nagar, Nellore. At that time A1 was running finance business. All the accused looked after her well for one year. Later all the accused used to harass her to bring an

additional amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Then her father PW.2 gave the said

Rs.1,00,000/- to A1. Later A1 opened a medical shop at

Buchireddypalem and she used to stay in the medical shop and A1 used to move with one girl by name Lakshmi. He developed illicit intimacy with that girl. When she questioned A1 about it, A1 beat her and abused her in filthy language and A2 and A3 supported A1. All the accused tired to kill her. She informed the matter to her parents by going to their house. In the year 2006 her parents PW.2, T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) and

PW.3 and brothers of T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) went to the house of the accused and talked with them. A1 agreed to stay in the house of PW.2 along with PW.1 and A1 came to the house of PW.2 in the year 2006 on

Dasara festival. He stayed there for week or 10 days and he went away to his house and sent a legal notice to her and she gave reply notice to it. After this A1 refused to accept her and asked for divorce. Later she went to the Woman PS and lodged a report. At the Woman PS the police held counseling, A1 accepted to take her to his house. When elders approached A1, he refused to accept her, and he would allow her if she 6 give some amount to him. Then she approached one advocate and filed a private complaint in the II AJFC Court, Nellore.

11.In the cross-examination of PW.1, the learned defence counsel elicited that she do not know the area and the name of the owners of the house at Buchireddypalem Town wherein Pw.1 alleged to stay. And it is further elicited that there is no name or licence to the medical shop which is alleged to be put up by A1. and it is also elicited that she used to stay in the medical shop from morning to evening and she cannot read the doctor prescription well and she used to give one drug correctly and failed to give another drug correctly. And it is further elicited that Ex.P1 complaint is filed in II AJMFC Court, Nellore in the year 2008 and after filing of the private complaint II Town Police called all the accused and made counseling and at the time of counseling, her mother

T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) asked all the accused to give Rs.3,00,000/- for giving divorce to A1 or to give Rs.2,00,000/- for sending PW.1 to her matrimonial home and in that counseling A1 submitted that he do not have the capacity to give Rs.2,00,000/- and he has only Rs.50,000/- and requested PW.1 to come to his house by taking Rs.50,000/-. And her maternal uncle by name Lakshmi Narayana, resident of Kodur made two

FDRs bearing Nos.017865 and 017864 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each bond in State Bank of India Employees Corporate Credit Society for a period of 36 months. The said bonds were purchased on 19.2.2009 and the said bonds will get matured by 19.2.2012. It is further elicited that after filing of the private complaint in the court, she gave birth to her child. After giving reply notice to the accused she went to the house of the accused. And it is further elicited that after receiving the court notice from Hon’ble Family Court PW.1 filed Ex.P1 private complaint in II

AJMFC Court, Nellore.

7

12.PW.2 in his evidence deposed that PW.1’s marriage was performed with A1 on 23.5.2004 at NWS Kalyanamandapam,

Rebalavarai Street, Nellore and at the time of the marriage he gave cash of Rs.2,01,116/- towards dowry and gave 21 sovns of gold to all the accused and he gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and

Rs.3000/- towards Adapaduchu katnam. After the marriage PW.1 went to her matrimonial house at Srirangarajapuram, Usmansahebpet, Nellore and PW.1 lived happily there for a period of one and half year. Later A1 put up a medical shop at Buchi. Later A1 and PW.1 shifted their family to

Buchireddypalem. A1 made PW.1 to sit in the medical shop and he used to move with another girl in the town. After knowing it he went to Buchi and questioned A1, then A1 and his parents did not responded properly.

After one month PW.1 and A1 closed the medical shop and came back to the parental house of A1. At In-laws house all the accused started harassing PW.1 and demanded additional dowry as they have sustained loss at Buchireddypalem by putting up a medical shop. Then he has given totally Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- to all the accused in two instances. Later PW.1 and A1 put up a cloth shop at Puttaveedhi, Balaji

Nagar, Nellore and A1 informed him that he and PW.1 would come and live in his house. Then in the year 2006 A1 and PW.1 came to his house on the festival of Dasara and A1 stayed in his house for a period of 2 months. Later A1 left PW.1 in his house and went away as PW.2 refused to put up a shop for him. Later PW.2 and PW.1 went to the police station and lodged a report. Then the police held counseling. Then A1 agreed to take PW.1 along with him, but he has not taken PW.1 to his house. If he has to take PW.1 along with him, he demanded to give Rs.1,00,000/-.

And as PW.2 did not have the ability to give Rs.1,00,000/-, hence they have filed a private complaint in the court.

8

13.In the cross-examination of PW.2 by the learned defence counsel it is elicited that PW.2 sell chocolates and biscuits on a cycle since three years. Prior to it he used to do rice business. And it is further elicited that by the time the private complaint is filed, PW.1 do not have any issues and on 20.8.2010 PW.1 gave birth to a child and at the time of the delivery of PW.1, A1 and PW.1 were living together and on 19.2.2009 A1 took PW.1 to his house. And it is further elicited that

PW.2 did not stated to the police that A1 and PW.1 put up a medical shop at Buchi and later they came back as they have sustained loss in that business and later they put up a cloth shop at Puatta Veedhi, Balaji

Nagar, Nellore and PW.1 and A1 came to his house for Dasara festival and A1 left PW.1 in his house as he refused to give amount to put up a shop for him.

14.PW.3, who is relative of PW.1, corroborated to the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the marriage of PW.1 with A1 and dowry given to A1 at the time of the marriage. And he further deposed that he came to know through PW.1 and T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) that A1 to A3 harassed PW.1 for want of additional dowry for doing business. Then he informed to T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) to get adjusted. In the year 2006 he mediated between PW.1 and A1 and in that mediation A1 accepted to stay with PW.1 in the house of PW.2. Accordingly A1 stayed in the house of PW.2 for a period of three to four months and in that house A1 harassed PW.1 for want of amount for doing business. After three or four months A1 went away to his parents house leaving PW.1 in the house of PW.2 and A1 filed a case on PW.1 for divorce and again on 19.2.2009 he mediated and A1 agreed to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the name of PW.1 and then he and the grand father of A1 brought PW.1 and 9 left her in the house of A1. And police examined him before he left PW.1 in that house.

15.In the cross-examination of PW.3, the learned defence counsel elicited that a Manovarthinama is reduced into writing and according to it Rs.3,00,000/- is to be paid by A1 to PW.1 and accordingly

Rs.50,000/- is deposited in the name of PW.1 and another rs.50,000/- was deposited in the name of A1 naming PW.1 as the nominee and a document is also reduced into writing for giving monthly maintenance of

Rs.2000/- to PW.1, in the month February 2010 and the amount which is remaining to be paid on or before 12.2.2011 and he has put his signature on that document and the said maintenance of Rs.2000/- shall be given till February, 2011 only. And it is also elicited that he has not stated to the police that marriage expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to all the accused and in the year 2006 he mediated the matter between

PW.1 and A1 and in the mediation A1 accepted to stay in the house of

PW.1 and accordingly A1 stayed in the said house for three or four months and in that period A1 harassed PW.1 for want of money for the purpose of doing business.

16.According to PW.4, she deposed that she do not know anything about this case facts and police never examined her.

17.According to PW.5, the Head Constable on 2.2.2009 he received a report from II AJMFC Court, Nellore and he registered the same as a case in Crime No.19.2009 under Section.420, 498-A IPC and

Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and 156 (3) Cr.P.C and submitted the copies of all the concerned and conducted the investigation by going to the house of PW.2 and preparing the rough sketch of the scene and 10 examing PWs.1 to 4 and T.Kamakshamma (LW.3) and T.Venkata Prasad (LW.5) and recording their statements and basing on the staements of the witnesses he deleted Section.420 IPC.

18. PW.6 in his evidence deposed the manner in which he arrested A1 on 2.6.2009 and A2 and A3 on 3.7.2009 and sending them for judicial custody.

19.On a perusal of the evidence placed on record it is found that the main allegation on A1 is he developed illicit intimacy with a girl and all the accused demanded PW.1 to give some amount, then only A1 would accept her. From the material placed on record it also shows that the private complaint is filed on 6.2.008. And after filing of the private complaint PW.1 went to the house of A1 and lead marital life with A1 and she gave birth to a child on 20.8.2010 after a mediation.

From the evidence of PW.1 it also shows that when the private complaint is forwarded to II Town PS and when the police held counselling at that time the mother of PW.1 asked all the accused to give Rs.3,00,000/- for giving divorce to A1 or to give Rs.2,00,000/- for sending PW.1 to her matrimonial house and A1 submitted that he do not have the capacity to give Rs.2,00,000/-, but he has only Rs.50,000/- and he requested PW.1 to come to his house by taking the said Rs.50,000/- and PW.1's maternal uncle one Lakshmi Narayana called A1 and PW.1, and A1 made two FDRs bearing Nos.017865 and 017864 of Rs.50,000/- each in State Bank of India Employees Cooperative Credit Society for a period of 36 months. But PW.1 in the chief examination deposed that A1 demanded to give some amount, then only he would accept her. On the other hand PW.2 says that A1 demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to accept PW.1 and as he do not have give Rs.1,00,000/-, PW.1 filed the private 11 complaint. And PW.1 on the other hand she says that her mother only demanded to Rs.3,00,000/- for giving divorce to A1 or to Rs.2,00,000/- for sending PW.1 to her matrimonial house. This arises a doubt in the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand of additional amount by the accused. And it is also found that there are no specific overt acts against A2 and A3 with regard to the harassment or abetting A1 in harassing PW.1. And from the evidence of PW.1 it shows that she used to stay in the medical shop and giving medicines to the customers and she also says that she cannot read the doctors prescription correctly and cannot give the correct drug. This arises a doubt in putting up a medical shop at Buchireddypalem and the medical shop which does not have any name and do not have any licence. And coming to A1 having illicit intimacy with one girl by name Lakshmi, except the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, no other witness supported the version of PW.1, and PW.2 being the father of PW.1 is an interested witness. And from the evidence of

PWs.1, 2, 3 and 5 it clearly shows that a manovarthinama is reduced into writing to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to PW.1 by A1 and accordingly a sum of

Rs.50,000/- is deposited in the bank in the name of PW.1 and another sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the name of A1 naming PW.1 is the nominee and a document is also reduced into writing for giving monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- to PW.1 in the month of February, 2010 and the said maintenance of Rs.2000/- shall be given till February, 2001 only.

20.From the above discussion, it arises a doubt in the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand of additional dowry by all the accused and harassing PW.1 with regard to the said additional dowry. In view of this matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 to A3 for the charges 12 under Sections.498-A IPC and Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections.498-A IPC and Section.4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section.248(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 3rd day of January, 2012.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBIE COURT, NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :- FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1 : V.S.V.K.Haritha (Defacto Complainant). - NONE - PW.2 : T.Narasimha Rao (Father of PW.1). PW.3 : G.Lakshmi Narayana (Mediator). PW.4 : B.Lalithamma (Mediator). PW.5 : P.Srinivasa Rao (Head Constable). PW.6 : K.Maruthi Krishna (Investigation Officer).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1/07.02.2008 : Private complaint filed by PW.1 in the II A.J.M.F.C. Court, Nellore.

Ex.P2/02.02.2009 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4.

Ex.P3/02.02.2009 : F.I.R. in Crime No.19/2009 of II Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore.

Ex.P4/02.02.2009 : Rough Sketch in Crime No.19/2009 of II Town Police Station (L&O), Nellore.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JMFC

SPL. MOBILE COURT,

NELLORE.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

Wednesday, this the 18 th day of January, 2012

Present :- Miss. M.Prameela Rani, M.B.A., LL.B.,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore.

C.C.NO.23 OF 2011

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P.Gudur Police Station.… Complainant

Vs.

1.Kulluru Seshaiah, S/o.Subrahmanyam, 25 years, Rajaka by Caste, Patha Kodur Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal.

2.Indla Koteswara Rao, S/o.Narasimha, 52 years, Mutharasi by caste,

Patha Kodur Village, T.P. Gudur Mandal. ... Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri M.Kota Reddy, advocate for the accused No.1 and Sri Sk.Nanne Saheb, advocate for the accused No.2, and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P. Gudur Police Station has filed a Charge sheet against A1 and A2 alleging that A1 and A2 have committed an offence punishable under Sections.290, 324 r/w.34 IPC in

Cr.No.20/2008 of T.P. Gudur Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-

A1 and A2 are the residents of Patha Kodur Village,

T.P. Gudur Mandal and they are eking their livelihood by means of doing prawn business. While so one Nagireddy Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3), who is now residing at Nellore having prawns ponds at Patha Kodur Village.

N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1), who is the relative of Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3) is looking after the ponds of Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3) by arranging a 2 watchman to the ponds. Both A1 and A2 who are native of Patha Kodur village used to purchase the prawns from the ponds of Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3). While so A1 and A2 did false weighment and their activities were observed by the watchman A.Sreenivasulu @ Seenaiah (LW.6) and informed the same to the owner Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3). On that the said Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3) informed the same to Vinna Lingaiah (LW.7). In this connection N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) attended for mediation at Kodur village. At that time the elders and Vinna Lingaiah (LW.7) advised both the accused to pay the amount of Rs.80,000/- to Rajagopal

Reddy (LW.3) as their fraud was disclosed. Since then A1 and A2 developed grudge against N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1). While so on 28.2.2008 at about 8.30 PM N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) while coming to his house on the road of Padamati Veedhi of Kodur village, A1 and A2 who are having common intention to assault N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) waited in the darkness and when N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) came near to them, then

A2 caught hold of him and A1 abused N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) and tried to stab him with a knife. When N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) restricted with hands, then the knife caused injury on his nose. R.Sudarsan Rao, Head

Constable, V Town Police Station, Nellore (LW.11) recorded the statement of N.Sesha Reddy (Lw.1) and sent the same to K.Srinivasa

Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P. Gudur Police Station (LW.12) on the point of jurisdiction and the same is registered as a case in crime

No.20/2008 under Sections.290, 324 r/w.34 IPC on 1.3.2008 at about 9.30 hours and took up investigation. During the course of investigation

K.Srinivasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P. Gudur Police Station (LW.12) inspected the scene of offence and examined as many as 9 witnesses including the defacto complainant and recorded their statements. On 21.5.2008 at 8.30 hours K.Srinivasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, T.P. Gudur Police Station (LW.12) arrested A2 in front of 3 Electric Sub-Station in Narukur village and sent him for remand. On 30.5.2008 A1 surrendered in the Court. Dr.K.Seshaarathnam, Civil Asst.

Surgeon, DSR Govt. Hospital, Nellore (LW.10), who rendered treatment to N.Sesha Reddy (LW.1) issued wound certificate and opined the injury is simple in nature. Thus A1 and A2 are liable for the punishment for the offence under Sections.290, 324 r/w.34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.My learned Predecessor Officer took cognizance of the case against A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections.290, 324 r/w.34 IPC.

4.Originally this case was numbered on the file of IV

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore as CC No.189/2008.

Subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.2855, dt.11.6.2010, and the same was renumbered as

C.C.No.23/2011 on the file of this Court.

5.After receipt of summons A1 and A2 appeared before the court and they were supplied copies of documents and they were examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the acquisition made against them, for which they denied the offence. Charges are framed for the offence under Sections.290 and 324 IPC against A1 and charges are framed for the offence under Sections.290 and 324 r/w.34 IPC against A2, for which they did not plead guilty and they claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1 is N.Sesha 4 Reddy (Defacto Complainant). PW.2 is K.Madhusudhana Reddy (Eye

Witness). PW.3 is T.Babaiah (Eye Witness). Ex.P1 is the statement of

PW.1 given to the police, dt.29.2.2008. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of PW.2, dt.1.3.2008. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of

PW.3, dt.1.3.2008.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Here also they denied the allegations levied against them and submitted there is no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 for the charges under Sections.290 and 324 IPC and A2 for the charges under

Sections.290 and 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

10.To prove its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3. PW.1, who is the defacto complainant, in his evidence he deposed that he know both the accused and they are having prawn business dealings with N.Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3) and A1 and A2 has done fraud while weighing the prawns and the workers of N.Rajagopla Reddy (LW.3) found that fraud and informed the same to N.Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3).

And after two days D.Pradeep Reddy (LW.9), the relative of N.Rajagopal 5 Reddy (LW.3) called him as an elder person to act as a mediator since

A1 and A2 belong to his village. And in the mediation A1 agreed to pay

Rs.80,000/- within one week to N.Rajagopal Reddy (LW.3) for the fraud committed by them. And after ten days A1 did not paid the amount and as such he questioned A1 about the payment. Then A1 stated that if he pay the said amount, he would become a thief and hence he refused to pay the amount. But PW.1 insisted him to pay the said amount as he admitted the same in the mediation before all the elders.

On that a dispute arose between him and A1, and A1 abused him in filthy language. On hearing their voices, PW.2 came and many other persons also came there and A2 was also present there, at that time A1 was on a motor cycle and during the quarrel A1 attacked him with an iron rod or knife, he could not know as it was dark and as a result he sustained a bleeding injury on his nose and his spectacles were broken and the persons present there pacified the matter and PW.2 took him to the hospital on his motor cycle.

11.In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that he has compromised the case with both the accused and he deposed that he never acted as a mediator and A1 never beat him and he cannot say who beat him on the date of the incident as it was dark. And he do not know the contents of Ex.P1 statement and he deposed in his chief examination at the instance of the police.

12.PWs.2 and 3, who are said to be eye witnesses, in their evidence they deposed that they do not know anything about this case facts and police never examined them.

6

13.The learned Sr. Addl. Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as the matter is compromised out of court.

14.On a perusal of the evidence placed on record it shows that though PW.1 deposed in his chief examination, he turned hostile in the stage of cross-examination. In his cross-examination he says that he cannot say who beat him on the date of the incident as it was dark and he says that he do not know the contents of Ex.P1 statement and he deposed in his chief examination at the instance of the police. And it is also elicited that he has compromised the case with both the accused. And PWs.2 and 3 also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. And though the learned Sr. APP cross-examined them after treating them as hostile, no material is elicited which helps the case of the prosecution.

15.From the evidence of PW.1 it shows that PW.1 is changing his version from time to time. And hence his evidence is not believable and his evidence cannot be considered. And it shows that he has compromised the case with both the accused and may be in order to give effect to the said compromise, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in cross-examination stage, so as to facilitate both the accused to get an acquittal in this case.

16.In view of the above discussion there is no cogent and consistent evidence on record to say that A1 and A2 has committed the said offence.

7

17.In view of this matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 for the charges under

Sections.290 and 324 IPC and A2 for the charges under Sections.290 and 324 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.IN THE RESULT, A1 is found not guilty for the Charges under Sections.290 and 324 IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the charges under Sections.290 and 324 r/w.34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section.248(1) Cr.P.C. and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of January, 2012.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBIE COURT, NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :- FOR DEFENCE :-

PW.1 : N.Sesha Reddy (Defacto Complainant). - NONE - PW.2 : K.Madhusudhana Reddy (Eye Witness). PW.3 : T.Babaiah (Eye Witness).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1/29.02.2008 : Statement of PW.1 given to the police. Ex.P2/01.03.2008 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P3/01.03.2008 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JMFC,

SPL. MOBILE COURT,

NELLORE.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

Tuesday, this the 6 th day of March, 2012.

Present :- Miss. M.Prameela Rani, M.B.A., LL.B.,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore.

C.C.NO.16 OF 2011

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam Police Station.… Complainant

Vs.

Kavali Daveedu, S/o.Narasaiah, aged 32 years, Caste by Harijana,

Kavaliharijanawada, Muthukur Mandalam. ... Accused.

This case coming on 29.02.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri P.C.Krishnaiah, advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam Police Station has filed a Charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections.337 and 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V. Act in Cr.No.33/2009 of Krishnapatnam Police

Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-

On 12.12.2009 at about 9.30 hours near

Krishnapatnam Port the accused being the drive of the auto bearing

No.AP 26 Y 1043 drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed proceeding to Krishnapatnam port from Muthukur and when he reached near Krishnapatnam Port the said auto lay down, in which

S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) caused injuries on left parictal region, right tibia 2 below knee, back of left ear. A.Ravi Kumar (LW.2) caused injuries on the right knee, left knee, back side of right shoulder, back side of right chest, back side of left chest. P.Ammulu (LW.3) sustained swelling near left claricle region. K.Jaya Ram (LW.4) caused small swelling on right elbow, small injury on lower lip, small injury on right knee, on right thigh, left foot, on left knee. S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) admitted in Narayana

Hospital, Nellore for treatment. A.Ravi Kumar, P.Ammulu and K.Jaya

Ram (LWs.2 to 4) are also shifted to Narayana Hospital, Nellore for treatment by port ambulance. Basing on the report of S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1), Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnapatnam Police

Station (LW.7) registered this case as a case in Crime No.33/2009 under

Section.337 IPC on 13.12.2009 at 7 hours and investigated into. On 19.12.2009 at about 7 hours the accused turned up to the police station and surrendered before Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Krishnapatnam Police Station (LW.7). Venkata Rao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Krishnapatnam Police Station (LW.7) arrested him on 7.15 hours and sent him for remand. Dr.Nalini, CMO, Narayana Hospital, Nellore (LW.6), who issued the wound certificates of S.Paradesi Raju, A.Ravi

Kumar and P.Ammulu (LWs.1 to 3) and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The injuries of K.Jaya Ram (LW.4) are grievous in nature. Thus the accused is liable for punishable for the offence under

Sections.337, 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V. Act. Hence, the charge.

3.My learned Predecessor Officer took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under Sections.337, 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V. Act.

4.Originally this case was numbered on the file of IV

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore as CC No.129/2010.

3 Subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.2855, dt.11.6.2010 and the same was renumbered as

C.C. No.16/2011 on the file of this Court.

5.After receipt of summons the accused appeared

before the court and he was supplied copies of documents. The accused

examined under Section.251 Cr.P.C. with regard to the acquisition made against him for the offence under Sections.337, 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V. Act, for which he denied the offence. He did not plead guilty and he claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. PW.1 is P.Ammulu (Injured Person). PW.2 is G.Venkata Rao (Investigation Officer). Ex.P1 is the Hospital Intimation, dt.12.12.2009. Ex.P2 is the Statement of

S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) to the police, dt.13.12.2009. Ex.P3 is the F.I.R.

in Crime No.33/2009 of Krishnapatnam Police Station, dt.13.12.2009.

Ex.P4 is the Rough Sketch in Crime No.33/2009 of Krishnapatnam Police

Station, dt.13.12.2009. Ex.P5 is the Wound certificate of S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6), dt.14.12.2009. Ex.P6 is the Wound certificate of Ravi (LW.2) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6), dt.14.12.2009.

Ex.P7 is the Wound certificate of P.Ammulu (PW.1) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6), dt.23.12.2009. Ex.P8 is the Wound certificate of Jaya Ram (LW.4) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6), dt.23.12.2009.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against him in the evidence of the prosecution 4 witnesses. Here also he denied the allegations levied against him and he submitted that there is no defence evidence on his behalf and no documents were marked.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sections.337, 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V.

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

10.To prove its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2. PW.1, who is one of the passenger in the said auto at the time of the accident, in her evidence she deposed that on 12.12.2009 at about 9.30 AM she was going in an auto to Krishnapatnam port from Muthukur, on the way at one place the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 26 Y 1043 applied sudden breaks and the auto turned down and she sustained fracture to her left hand and along with her, there were four members in the said auto and they also sustained injuries and some people admitted her in the Narayana Hospital, Nellore. She identified the accused in the court as the driver of the said auto at the time of the accused.

11.In the cross-examination of PW.1 by the learned defence counsel, no material is elicited to discredit the testimony of

PW.1, except putting a suggestion that for the first time she is seen the accused in the Court and prior to this she has never seen him and she 5 do not know anything about this case facts and he never sustained injuries, for which PW.1 denied.

12.PW.2, the Investigation Officer in his evidence he deposed the manner in which he registered the crime and also going to

Narayana Hospital and there examining S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1), A.Ravi kumar (LW.2), PW.1 and K.Jaya Ram (LW.4) and recording their statements and going to Krishnapatnam port Main gate, which is the scene of offence and preparing the rough sketch of the scene and there examining P.Ramanaiah (LW.5) and on 19.12.2009 arresting the accued at the police station when he surrendered before him and sending him to judicial remand and receiving the wound certificates of all the four injured persons and filing of the charge sheet.

13.On a perusal of the evidence placed on record it is found that the prosecution has failed to examine the defacto complainant ie., S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1), who lodged a report in the police station. But the prosecution examined PW.1, who is one of the passenger in the said auto at the time of the accident. And from her evidence it is clear that on 12.12.2009 she was travelling in the auto bearing No.AP 26 Y 1043 and due to applying sudden breaks by the accused, who is the driver of the said auto, the auto turned down and she sustained fracture to her left hand and other four members in the auto also sustained injuries. From her evidence it is clear that along with her all the members in the auto sustained injuries. The prosecution failed to examine the doctor, who examined the injured persons and issued wound certificates. But from the evidence of PW.2 it is clear that he has received the wound certificates of all the injured persons in this case and he got marked the said wound certificates. Ex.P7 is the wound 6 certificate of PW.1 shows that she sustained a swelling injury near the right claricle region and it is opined that the injury is simple in nature.

14.On a perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P7 wound certificate it shows that the evidence of PW.1 is not supported by

Ex.P7 wound certificate. PW.1 in her evidence says that she sustained fracture to her left hand, but Ex.P7 wound certificate shows that she sustained a swelling injury near right claricle region. And this arises a doubt on the injury sustained by PW.1.

15.PW.2, the Investigation Officer did not deposed anything about the accused driving the vehicle without any driving licence.

16.From the above circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections.337 and 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections.337 and 338 IPC and Section.181 of M.V.Act.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section.255(1) Cr.P.C and his bond shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, and

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 6th day of March, 2012.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBIE COURT, NELLORE.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :- FOR DEFENCE :-

PW.1 : P.Ammulu (Injured Person) - NONE - PW.2 : G.Venkata Rao (Investigation Officer)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1/12.12.2009 : Hospital Intimation.

Ex.P2/13.12.2009 : Statement of S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) to the police.

Ex.P3/13.12.2009 : F.I.R. in Crime No.33/2009 of Krishnapatnam Police Station.

Ex.P4/13.12.2009 : Rough Sketch in Crime No.33/2009 of Krishnapatnam Police Station.

Ex.P5/14.12.2009 : Wound certificate of S.Paradesi Raju (LW.1) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6).

Ex.P6/14.12.2009 : Wound certificate of Ravi (LW.2) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6).

Ex.P7/23.12.2009 : Wound certificate of P.Ammulu (PW.1) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6).

Ex.P8/23.12.2009 : Wound certificate of Jaya Ram (LW.4) issued by Dr.Nalini (LW.6).

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JMFC,

SPL. MOBILE COURT,

NELLORE.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.

Thursday, this the 1 st day of March, 2012.

Present :- Miss. M.Prameela Rani, M.B.A., LL.B.,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Nellore.

C.C.NO.78 OF 2012

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthukur Police Station.… Complainant

Vs.

Nellipudi Haranath, S/o.Subbaiah, aged 39 years, SC-Mala, Royyalapalem Village,

Muthukur Mandal. ... Accused.

This case coming on 29.02.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri K.Ramesh Reddy, advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthukur Police Station has filed a Charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sections.324, 323 IPC in

Cr.No.66/2010 of Muthukur Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-

There are ill-feelings between the accused and

R.Srinivasulu @ Sreenu (LW.1) on various reasons. On 1.6.2010 at about 13.30 hours the accused took up a quarrel with 104 Ambulance service staff B.Reddappa and B.Jayaram (LWs.4 and 5) for keeping the vehicle at Elementary School, Royyalapalem village of Muthukur Mandal.

On seeing the same, R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) questioned the accused about his arrogant behaviour towards 104 service staff. On that the accused 2 grew wild at R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) and abused him in filthy language, pushed him down and intentionally dashed him with his bike and caused injury to the left ankle of R.Srinivasulu (LW.1). R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) was admitted in DSR Government Hospital, Nellore. B.Penchala Raju, Head

Constable (LW.7) being the Incharge, Out Post Police Station at DSR

Government Hospital, Nellore recorded the statement of R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) and sent the same to Muthukur Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. On receipt of the same G.Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Muthukur Police Station (LW.8) registered the same as a case in

Crime No.66/2010 under Sections.324, 323 IPC on 3.6.2010 at 10.00 hours and investigated into. Dr.S.Subramanyam, CAS, DSR Govt.

Hospita, Nellore (LW.6) who treated R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) issued wound certificate and opined that the injury sustained by R.Srinivasulu (LW.1) is simple in nature. G.Rama Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthukur Police

Station (LW.8) arrested the accused on 18.6.2010 at 8 hours near

Sravani Hotel, Muthukur and sent him for judicial custody. Thus the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Sections.324, 323

IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.My learned Predecessor Officer took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence under Sections.324, 323 IPC.

4.Originally this case was numbered on the file of IV

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore as CC No.431/2010.

Subsequently this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in

Dis.No.4120/2011 and the same was renumbered as CC No.78/2012 on the file of this Court.

3

5.After receipt of summons the accused appeared

before the court and he was supplied copies of documents. The accused

examined under Section.239 Cr.P.C. with regard to the acquisition made against him, for which he denied the offence. Charges are framed for the offence under Sections.324, 323 IPC against the accused. He did not plead guilty and he claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the case the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. PW.1 is R.Srinivasulu @

Sreenu (Defacto complainant). Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the statement given to the police, dt.2.6.2010. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.1, dt.3.6.2010.

7.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the examination under Section.313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“ Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges under

Sections.324, 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT :

10.To prove its case the prosecution has examined PW.1, who is the defacto complainant and the sole injured in this case. PW.1 4 in his evidence he deposed that on 1.6.2010 at about 1.30 PM he was going from Royyalapalem to Muthukur on his bike, on the way his motorcycle skid and he fell down from the bike and he sustained a fracture injury to his left leg and some persons shifted him to the government hospital, Nellore and at the hospital the police obtained his signature on some papers, but he do not know its contents.

11.The learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor cross- examined PW.1 after treating him as hostile. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that PW.1 compromised the case with the accused.

12.On a perusal of the evidence on record it shows that

PW.1 compromised the case with the accused and he even denies any statement given to the police against the accused and he also denies his examination by the police. From the evidence of PW.1 it only shows that he has sustained injuries. But there is nothing on record to say that the said injuries are caused by the accused. And from his cross-examination by the learned Sr. APP it is clear that he has compromised the case with the accused.

13.This Court closed the evidence of the remaining witnesses as PW.1, the sole injured in this case compromised the matter with the accused.

14.In view of that matter, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sections.324, 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

15.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections.324, 323 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section.248(1) Cr.P.C and his bond shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, and

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 1st day of March, 2012.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

SPL. MOBIE COURT, NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :- FOR DEFENCE :-

PW.1 : R.Srinivasulu @ Sreenu - NONE - (Defacto complainant).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1/02.06.2010 : Signature of PW.1 on the statement given to the police.

Ex.P2/03.06.2010 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- M.Prameela Rani

JMFC,

SPL. MOBILE COURT,

NELLORE.

// TRUE COPY //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT : NELLORE.