M. Radha Krishna Chahavan

1 CC 84 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE IIADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan, II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2015

CC.No. 84 of 2012

Between:

The State of AP through P.S.Town-V, Nizamabad …Complainant //and//

A1:Shaik Masood S/o Shaik Mahamood, aged 27 years, Muslim, Occu: Business, R/o Ashok Nagar, Poorna District, Pharbhani, Maharashtra State R/o H.No.11-3-366/4/13, Srinivasnagar colony, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. A2:Shaik Mahamood S/o Late Khasim, aged 55 years, Muslim, Occu: Welder R/o Ashok Nagar, Poorna District, Pharbhani, Maharashtra State R/o H.No.11-3-366/4/13, Srinivasnagar colony, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad. A3:Smt.Noorjahan S/o Shaik Mohamood, aged 50 years, Muslim, Occu: House-hold, R/o Ashok Nagar, Poorna District, Pharbhani, Maharashtra State R/o H.No.11-3-366/4/13, Srinivasnagar colony, Chilkalaguda, Secunderabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on 22-5-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Hari Krishna, Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Md.Moosa and Smt.Tahera Inayath, Advocates for the accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP

Act. The brief facts of the case, as narrated by the SHO PS Town-V, Nizamabad in his charge sheet are that; on 10-1-2008 PW.1 compromised the case in

F.I.R.No.2/2008 of P.S.Town-V, Nizamabad with the accused and the accused assured to maintain PW.1 peacefully, but did not return the gold ornaments as well as did not treat her properly and under compelling circumstances PW.1 again returned back to her parents house. The parents of PW.1 called the accused on phone to settle the matter finally by giving Maher Jahez gold etc., to her, but they did to return and there is no hope of any compromise and the accused intended to dupe the entire marriage property for their use and have misappropriated the valuable property of PW.1 and retained the marriage gold ornaments worth of Rs.2,47,000/-, jahez articles worth Rs.58,000/- and also took

Rs.50,000/- as dowry plus Rs.30,000/- given to A.1 for purchasing bike.

2. Basing on the private complaint referred by this Court, the Station House Officer,

Town-V, Nizamabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 178 of 2011

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 2 CC 84 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP Act. After completing entire investigation, the SI of Police, Town-V, Nizamabad filed charge sheet against the accused herein.

3.This Court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP Act against accused No.1 to 3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.by explaining the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the accused denied their involvement.

Hence a charge under Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and

Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. PW.1 is the complainant. Pws 2 to 4 are the witnesses. PW.5 & PW.6 are the investigating officers.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the charged offence under Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. Heard both sides.

8. POINT : This is case of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and

Section 6 of D.P.Act. PW.1 is the complainant in this case, who says that her marriage with A1 was performed on 19-5-2006 and at the time of their marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- cash, 12 tulas of gold, 15 tulas of silver, furniture and house-hold articles as dowry to the accused. She says that after one month from the date of their marriage, the accused started harassing her. After the cradle ceremony of their daughter, the accused has started demanding

additional dowry as spoken by her. She says that Rs.50,000/- was arranged by

her father by taking finance. She says that all the articles and gold ornaments belonging to her were kept by the accused. On 30-12-2007 the accused have necked out her from their house by taking all the gold ornaments and articles from her, as such she filed the present case in Court, which was referred to the police for investigation. Ex.P.1 is the original complaint filed by her in the Court.

Ex.P.2 is the original list of jahez articles. Ex.P.3 is the translation of Ex.P.2.

Ex.P.2 was marked subject to the objection of the learned counsel of the accused, wherein the learned counsel had denied the signature appearing on

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 3 CC 84 of 2012

Ex.P.2 and says that the signature is not of the accused. The said objection was recorded and this Court made an endorsement that the objection will be decided at the time of judgment. Though the learned counsel had taken the plea that the signatures on Ex.P.2 are not of the accused, the prosecution had not taken any steps to prove the signature. When the prosecution had failed to prove the document, it cannot be taken into consideration, as such Ex.P.2 is of no use, though it is marked. During the cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that all the transactions regarding the alleged giving and taking of ornaments had happened at Purna on 30-12-2007. She has admitted that she has mentioned the date of the offences to be 19-5-2006, 10-1-2008 and 11-4-2011. She says that the alleged incident of necking her out by the accused had happened on 30-12-2007. She has also admitted that no incident happened on 19-5-2006, 10-1-2008 and 11-4-2011. During the cross examination she also admitted that she has also filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against accused persons on 10-1-2008 and the same was closed in Lok Adalath. She admitted that there was no mention in Lok Adalath settlement about the said gold ornaments, as she claims that she has also mentioned about the taking of gold ornaments by the accused in the case of 498-A IPC. She also says that she has taken divorce from

A1 in the year 2014 at her instance and even there is no mention in the application for Khula (divorce) about the alleged ornaments. She also admitted that the said Khula had taken place during the pendency of this case. The learned counsel had put a question to PW.1 that all the alleged incidents regarding the gold ornaments had occurred at Purna of Maharashtra, but not at

Nizamabad, which she admitted to be true.

9. PW.2 is the mother of PW.1, who also says that they have presented

Rs.50,000/- as jode-ki-rakam, Rs.50,000/- for bike, 12 tulas of gold, 15 tulas of silver and house-hold articles to the accused. She also says that the accused have taken all the jewelery from PW.1 after one month from the date of marriage.

During the cross examination she admitted that all the 12 tulas of gold, 15 tulas of silver ornamnets were presented to PW.1 during the programme “Sanchak” which will be performed one day prior to the marriage. PW.2 had admitted that there is no signature of either A1 or PW.1 or even of her signature on Ex.P.2.

She has also admitted about the case under Section 498-A IPC and its settlement before the Lok Adalath.

10.PW.3 is the cousin of PW.1 who is a hear-say witness. He has narrated almost similarly to that of Pws.1 & 2 and stated categorically that he came to know about all the incidents through PW.1. He did not speak about the gold ornaments, but had stated that when he was asked thrice by the APP during the

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 4 CC 84 of 2012 chief examination. During the cross examination, he says that he came to know about the incidents through the father of PW.1, which is contrary to his chief examination.

11.PW.4 is the friend of PW.1 and her father. He says that the accused persons and

PW.2 are related to each other even prior to the marriage of PW.1 with A.1. He says that at the time of marriage, the parents of PW.1 gave Rs.50,000/- as jode-ke-rakam, Rs.50,000/- towards motor cycle, 12 tulas of gold. He says that there happened some disputes between PW.1 and A.1. Throughout his examination he never spoke that the accused have taken away the properties nor about the entrustment of properties by PW.1 to accused. During the cross examination he admitted that he attended the marriage on receiving the wedding invitation and he has not participated in any transactions, where the parents of

PW.1 had presented the ornaments to her.

12.PW.5 and PW.6 are the investigating officers, who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of their investigation.

Both of them have admitted that the alleged transaction even as per

Ex.P.1/complaint were said to have happened at Purna of Maharashtra. The learned counsel had taken a plea that the police at Nizamabad and Court of

Nizamabad has no jurisdiction to try this case under Section 177 Cr.P.C.

13. On keen consideration of entire material available on record, clubed with the arguments of the counsel for the accused and the learned APP, it has to be dealt initially that whether this Court has got jurisdiction. Thelearned counsel for the accused had argued vociferously, that this Court has got no jurisdiction, as the alleged incidents have occurred at Purna of Nanded District of Mahrashtra

State. He relied on Section 1771 Cr.P.C which says that the ordinary place of trial for an offence would be the place where it was committed. The learned counsel

for the accused had submitted a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Rajendra Ramachandra Kavelekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr2 The learned APP on the other hand argued that it is a continuing offence and he relied on Section 181(4)3 Cr.P. which says that in a case of criminal breach of 1Sec. 177 Cr.P.C .Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 22009 ALL MR (Cri) 954 (S.C.) 3Sec.181 Cr.P.C. Place of trial in case of certain offences. (4)Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose localjurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 5 CC 84 of 2012 trust, the place where the property was received or retained or was required to be accounted for, would also be a competent place for trial. In this regard, the learned APP had submitted a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pretham Singh and Ors Vs. State of Delhi & Anr4 and a case of Roshan

Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Delhi5. Considering both the sections and the ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it can be said that ordinarily the case shall be tried where it was committed and the place where the property required to be accounted would also acquire the jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it can be held that this Court has got jurisdiction as Pw.1 is living at

Nizamabad with her parents and if at all the property is taken by the accused persons, they have to account it at Nizamabad to PW.1. Accordingly, this particular point is answered.

14.When the question of law is decided holding this Court to be a competent Court to decide the matter, it would be proper now to dwell into the issue of criminal breach of trust. PW.1 says in her evidence that the properties were taken away by the accused persons and sent her away from their house. The same fact is also mentioned at para No.4 of page No.2 in Ex.P.1/complaint. By placing reliance on this point, the learned counsel for the accused had argued that the very basic ingredient of Section 406 IPC is missing in the own version of PW.1.

He argues that there was no entrustment of property to accused persons by

PW.1 at any point of time, as such question of criminal breach of trust would not arise at all. The learned counsel for the accused also argued by placing reliance on the admissions of PW.1 at various levels that in none of the cases filed by her, she has mentioned about the entrustment of the properties to the accused.

When there is no entrustment of the property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust, as per Section 406 IPC. The admissions of PW.1 shows that there was no property transaction between PW.1 and the accused persons and even considering the statement of PW.1, the case of criminal breach of trust would not come into picture. PW.1 on one hand says that the accused have forcefully taken away the properties from her and necked her away from their house and on the other hand she files a case for criminal breach of trust which are contrary to each other. Throughout the case of the prosecution, there is no piece of evidence that there was entrustment of the properties by PW.1 or her parents to the accused persons, as such the question of misappropriating or breaching the trust definitely would not crop up.

41(1999) DMC 666 52000 VAD Delhi 693

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 6 CC 84 of 2012 15.Considering the entire discussion made supra, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case with emphatic evidence, as such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under

Section 406 IPC, Section 6 of DP Act and they are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr P C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today. No property.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1:Smt.Shabana Tabasumm/complainant-NIL-

PW.2:Smt.Parveen Sultana/witness

PW.3:Mohd.Shabir Khan/witness

PW.4:M.A.Muqtar/witness

PW.5:M.Basheer Ahmed, PSI of police/IO

PW.6:M.Lingam, SI of police/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Original Complaint-NIL-

Ex.P2:Original List of Jahez Articles

Ex.P3:True translation of Ex.P2

Ex.P4:FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD.

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C

-1- CC 389 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2015

CC.No. 389 of 2012

Between:

The State of AP through P.S. Rural, Nizamabad ...Complainant.

//and//

Nagani Srinivas S/o Venkataiah, aged 32 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occu: Record Assistant – Education Department, Karimnagar R/o Ramnagar, Karimnagar.

..Accused.

This case came before me on 21-05-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Manikraj, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, wherein the facts of the case as given in the charge sheet are that, the marriage of PW.1 was performed with accused on 20-12-2008 and since then the accused started harassing her mentally and physically on one or the other pretext by picking up quarrel with her. The elders tried to convince the accused to change his attitude to lead a happy matrimonial life, but he did not change his attitude and continued to harass PW.1 mentally and physically

2. Basing on the report of PW.1, a case was registered vide crime No. 35 of 2011 by the SHO PS Rural, Nizamabad and after completing entire investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the accused.

3. On such charge sheet, this Court took the cognizance of the offence and examined the accused as required and as he denied & claimed to be tried, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pw.1 to 3 in total and

Ex.P1 & P2 were marked. Pw.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the witness. PW.3 is the investigating officer. The evidence of Nakka Kanakalaxmi/witness was given up by the prosecution as Pws.1 & 2 supported the case.

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-2- CC 389 of 2012

5. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defense.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the accused to the home of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the accused. ?

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. POINT : The case of the prosecution is that the accused herein had harassed

PW.1 for want of additional dowry and also harassed her both physically and mentally. To substantiate this version, PW.1 was examined who is the complainant and victim in this case. She says that her marriage with accused was performed on 20-12-2008 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad and the said marriage was against to her will. She says that she was taken to Hyderabad forcefully and the marriage was also performed against to her wish. According to her version, she was brought to Nizamabad on the same day and was left at

Kanteshwar at about 11.00 p.m. There happened a panchayath at her parents house and she says that the accused had demanded additional dowry of

Rs.15.00 lakhs from her and from her parents. She also says that on 27-2-2011, the accused went to their house and tried to beat her with a stick when she was sitting in her bed room and when her mother stopped, the accused also beat her mother. In furtherance, she says that the accused had created nuisance at her house. She added during the chief examination itself that the date was not 27-2-2011, but it was 27-2-2010. Ex.P.1 was marked by her which is the report. During the cross examination, lot of improvements were brought on record by the defense which were marked in the form of omissions. The statements of PW.1 before the Court are fully improved statements to that of her statement before the police. She admitted during the cross examination that there will be huge crowd at Kanteshwar bus stop at about 8.30 a.m from where she was alleged to be kidnapped and taken to

Hyderabad forcefully. She has stated that her parents came to know about the marriage in the year 2009. This case is of 2011 and lodged on 23-1-2011. The alleged incident of beating PW.1 and the mother of PW.1 was said to have happened on 27-2-2010. There is absolutely no material as to why such enormous delay had occurred. She however admitted that herself and the

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-3- CC 389 of 2012 accused have performed marriage for the second time on 16-12-2012 at

Nizamabad i.e., during the pendency of this case. She was also admitted that there is was a condition at the time of second time marriage that the accused should join her at Hyderabad and even there was no mention of alleged demand of dowry by the accused. She admitted that no condition in the said deed reflects that the accused had either demanded dowry or even that he should not demand dowry in future. All the other suggestions put by the defense were however denied by her.

9. PW.2 is the father of PW.1, who says that on 27-10-2010 the accused went to their house with some other persons and demanded for either dowry or for divorce from PW.1. PW.2 never spoke that the marriage of PW.1 was performed forcefully by the accused. He spoke categorically that on 20-1-2011 the accused went to their house along with the members of Mahila mandali and demanded for dowry through them. All these statements of PW.2 are the improvements to that of statement before the police which were marked as omissions by the defense.

10.PW.3 is the investigation officer who is the investigating officer, who deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of his investigation. He spoken categorically that PW.1 never spoke before him about the demand of Rs.15.00 lakhs by accused. All the improvements of both the witnesses were confronted to PW.3.

11.Considering the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution it can be seen that this case is lodged on a marriage which infact is voidable marriage even according to PW.1. Though marriage is not declared to be void, the very statement of PW.1 shows that it is a voidable marriage. The rest of the things had followed from that incident. It was never the case of PW.1 that she lived with the accused for some time and straight away says that the accused had demanded dowry. Her own report as in Ex.P.1 shows that the accused had demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs, whereas she speaks before the Court that the accused had demanded Rs.15.00 lakhs, which is contrary to her own version.

The versions of Pws.1 & 2 are also contrary to each other. The narration of

PW.1 about the incident where she was taken to Hyderabad forcefully by the accused is not believable even according to her own statement. She says that she was taken forcibly in the day light by the accused when there is a huge

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-4- CC 389 of 2012 crowd. She could ot have resisted the accused and even could have raised alarm throughout the journey to Hyderabad. The marriage was said to have performed at Arya Samaj, where also she could have escalated the issue to the persons present, but she remained quiet. She gives explanation that there was a threat. She has not even chosen to inform anybody inspite of she was dropped at Nizamabad on the same day. She has not even chosen to inform the same to her parents. The alleged incidents narrated by PW.1 and 2 were said to have happened about one year ago from the date of report and there is absolutely no whisper from either of the witnesses as to why they kept quiet for such long time. The version of PW.2 is also not so believable, wherein he says that the accused had demanded dowry through the members of Mahila

Mandali. There is absolutely no material as to how the accused harassed

PW.1 as the statements of PW.1 are having lot of improvements. The admissions of PW.1 during the cross examination that the conditions which were agreed by both the parties during the second time marriage does not contain anything regarding either demand of dowry or additonal dowry, as such it can be said that the said statements of the witnesses are created only for the purpose of this case. There is absolutely no material or independent witness to show that there was demand for dowry by the accused and even about the alleged harassments. In the absence of such crucial evidence, the accused cannot be said to be guilt of the offence with which he is charge. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled for an acquittal, by holding that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case.

12. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and he is acquitted of the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today. No property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-5- CC 389 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Smt.Nagani Archana/complainant -NIL- PW.2: Nakka Hari Babu/witness PW.3: M.Somanadham, SI of police/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report given by PW1 to the police-NIL-

Ex.P2:FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD.

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-6- CC 389 of 2012

Dt.25-5-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-1- CC 140 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan, II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2015

CC.No. 140 of 2014

Between:

The State of AP through P.S. Dichpally ...Complainant.

//and//

A1: Ramagiri Sridhar S/o Gangaram, aged 35 years, Caste: Bestha, Occu: RMP Doctor R/o Indalwai village. A2: Ramgiri Rama W/o Sridhar, aged 34 years, Caste: Besta, Occu: House-wife R/o Indalwai village. A3: Smt.Motar Chandrakala W/o Hanmandlu, aged 60 years, Caste: Besta, Occu: House-hold R/o Bibipet village.

..Accused.

This case came before me on 22-05-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Narender Reddy, Counsel for accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of offence punishable under Section 506, 509, 209 IPC, wherein the facts of the case as narrated in the charge sheet are that, on 7-2-2014 at about 3.00 p.m A1 while proceeding near the house of the PW.1, made signs to her, on that PW.1 abused A1 and A.1 was harassing PW.1 mentally to cooperate her in sexual intercourse with him, otherwise threatened to blame

PW.1 and her daughters in the society. On 8-2-2014 at 8.30 p.m A.1 along with

A.2 and A.3 went to the house of PW.1 and abused PW.1 in filthy language and defamed PW.1 in the society and threatened to kill PW.1 and her children.

2. Basing on the report given by PW.1, the SHO PS Dichpally has registered a case in F.I.R.No. 140 of 2014 under Section 506, 509, 290 IPC against the accused. After completing entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506, 509, 290 IPC.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 506, 509, 290 IPC and accused

No.2 & 3 were examined for the offences punishable under Section 506, 290

IPC, by explaining the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the accused denied their involvement.

26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-2- CC 140 of 2014

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 4 in total and

Ex.P1 & P2 were marked. Pw.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the witness. PW.3 is the eye witness. PW.4 is the investigating officer.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the accused to the home of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 506, 509, 290 of Indian Penal Code against A1 and for the offences punishable under Section 506, 290 of Indian Penal Code against A2 & A3 ?

8. POINT : The case of the prosecution is that the accused herein have abused

PW.1 in filthy language and A1 had caused inconvenience to PW.1 by way of asking for illegal sex. To prove the case, prosecution examined all the witnesses, wherein PW.1 is the complainant and the victim in this case. She has spoken before the Court, that some unknown persons have pasted paper pamphlets on the wall showing her character to be vulgar and shown her to be a prostitute. As those posters were defaming, she started abusing the persons who were responsible for such posters. She says that A2 and A3 have heard those words of PW.1 and started abusing her. In furtherance she says that A1 was harassing her from one year and used to ask her to participate in sex with him. When the said incident was informed to the police, the police have pacified the issue, per PW.1. As she got doubt that the said posters were created by A2 and A3 and as they have abused her, she lodged case against all the accused persons. During the cross examination, she admitted that one

Pavan is her relative who works as constable at Dichpally police station. By placing reliance on this issue, the defense took a plea that PW.1 has foisted this case with the help of said Pavan. Many omissions were marked by the defense and the learned counsel for the defense says that evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed as her statement is having full of improvements to that of her statement before the police. The issue of posters by some unknown persons was brought on record by PW.1 for the first time in the Court and never before. PW.1 has also admitted during the cross examination that

Ex.P.1/report was scribed by the police on the instructions of Pavan.

26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-3- CC 140 of 2014

9. PW.2 is the relative of PW.1 who says that about one year back, A2 and A3 have abused PW.1 in filthy language using the word “lanja” . She says that she intervened and asked as to why they are abusing PW.1, on which A3 had informed her that PW.1 is having illegal relation with A1, as such they are abusing her.

10. PW.3 is the neighbour of PW.1. She says that PW.1 beat A1 with sandal and she do not know about other incidents. PW.4 is the investigating officer, who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of investigation. He has admitted during the cross examination that there is a delay of one day in lodging the report and he has not mentioned the reason for said delay in column No.8 of FIR. He has also admitted that there is no date on Ex.P.1/report, which is marked as Ex.D1. All the improved versions of the witnesses are confronted to him by the defense, which he says that those statements were not spoken by the respective witnesses before him.

11.On careful consideration of entire material available on record, it can be seen that all the witnesses have spoken in different versions and there is no consistency among them. There is absolutely no nexus among the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW.1 had spoken with lot of improvements which were brought on record in the form of omissions by the defense. PW.2 is however a relative to PW.1 and the independent witness i.e., PW.3 had not spoken anything specifically against the accused persons. Even considering the evidence of PW.1, the case is completely not believable, as she had given lot of variations even in her own statement. PW.1 says that she was asked for illegal sex by A1, which infact is contrary to the statement of Pws.2 & 3. The issue of posters by some unknown offenders is spoken by PW.1 for the first time in the Court. PW.1 had not spoken as to how she was abused by the accused persons, though PW.2 had spoken it. There are lot of improvements in the versions of prosecution witnesses, which is definitely fatal to the case of

12. the prosecution. When there are doubts in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be enlarged to the accused as contemplated under

Criminal Jurisprudence, as such the accused persons are entitled to an acquittal.

13. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences under

Section 290, 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code and accused No.2 & 3 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 290, 506 IPC and they are acquitted 26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-4- CC 140 of 2014 of the said offences under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today. No property.

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

me in the open court on this the 26th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Smt.L.Rupa/complainant -NIL- PW.2: L.Gangavva/witness PW.3: Irla Poshavva/Eye witness PW.4: P.Sridhar Goud, SI of police/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report given by PW.1 to police -NIL-

Ex.P2:FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

1 CC 480 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri M.Radha Krishna Chahavan, II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2015

CC.No. 480 of 2014

Between:

The State of AP through P.S.Makloor …Complainant //and//

A1:Baja Shankaramma W/o Venkati, aged 46 years, Caste: Gosangi, Occu: Coolie R/o Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad. A2:Dokka @ Chinthala Kala @ Laxmi W/o Ramulu, aged 46 years, Occu: Coolie R/o Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad. A3:Dokka @ Kallem Saraswathi W/o Ramdas, aged 40 years, Caste: Gosangi, Occu: Coolie R/o Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad. A4:Thurpati Sayamma W/o Late Isha, aged 42 years, Caste: Gosangi, Occu: House-wife R/o H.No.6-17-270, Ambedkar colony, Nizamabad.

...Accused

This case is coming on 25-5-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Hari Krishna, Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Ashok & Sri SS Varma, Advocate for the accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of offence punishable under Section 382 IPC. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution in its charge sheet are that; on 5-10-2013 at 3.00 p.m at Toddy shop situated near Borgam(K) village, while

PW.1 took out his wallet and while counting the amount, A.1 went to him and forcibly taken the amount of Rs.3,500/- and one mobile phone and on that PW.1 made hue and cry, then A2 to A4 went to him and threatened and took the amount and mobile phone from him and spent the money lavishly and sold out the mobile phone for Rs.500/- to one unknown person.

2.On receipt of said report, the Station House Officer, Makloor Police

Station registered a case in Crime No. 249 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 382 IPC. After completing entire investigation, the SI of Police,

Makloor filed charge sheet against the accused herein.

3.This Court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 382 against accused No.1 to 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C.by explaining the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the accused denied their involvement. Hence a charge under

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 2 CC 480 of 2014

Section 382 IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and

Ex.P1 to P8 were marked. PW.1 is the complainant. Pws 2 & 3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama. PW.4 is the panch witness for confession panchanama. Pws.5 & 6 are the investigating officers. PW.7 is the

Panch witness for confession panchanama. The evidence of Shaik

Shadullah/brother of PW.1 was given up by the prosecution.

5.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the charged offence U/s 382 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. Heard both sides.

8. POINT : The allegation of the prosecution is that A1 to A4 herein have attacked

PW.1 and taken away his money along with micromax mobile. To substantiate the version of the prosecution, it examined Pws. 1 to 7. PW.1 is the victim in this case, who says that about 16 months ago four ladies have attacked him in a toddy shop and took away his money of Rs.3,500/- and a micromax cell phone.

He also says that all of them have beat him and fled away with the said amount.

He had identified A1 to A4 to be the said four ladies who have attacked him at toddy shop. During the cross examination, he says that about 10 to 15 persons were present at the toddy shop at the time of alleged incident.

9. PW.2 and PW.3 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, who have resiled from the prosecution.

10.PW.4 & PW.7 are the panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama who have also resiled and did not support the prosecution's version. They did not speak either regarding the confession of the accused or seizure of anything.

11.PW.5 and PW.6 are the investigating officers, who nevertheless deposed the chronological order of events occurred during the course of their investigation.

Both Pws.5 & 6 have deposed the procedural aspects PW.6 has spoken categorically that he apprehended A1 to A3 on 11-7-2014, who have confessed their guilt and also involvement of A4.

12.On consideration of entire material on record, it can be noticed that there is absolutely no material as against the accused persons herein, except the evidence of Pw.1 and the investigating officers. All the remaining witnesses have

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 3 CC 480 of 2014 turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution. The prosecution has not chosen to examine any eye witnesses from the scene of offence as the version of PW.1 is clear that there were about 10 to 15 persons at the time of alleged incidents. The owner of the said toddy shop is also not examined to throw light in the case. Except the confession of the accused before the police, there is nothing on record as against them which is of-course not proved as the panch witnesses have turned hostile. Though, the same is proved, it cannot be taken into consideration as it will be hit by Section 25 and 26 of

Indian Evidence Act. Except the evidence of PW.1, there is absolutely no material on record and there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 in any manner. It is not the case of the prosecution that the stolen property is recovered from the possession of the accused persons herein. There are lot many doubts about the involvement of the accused persons and even there is no substantive evidence to say that the accused herein have attacked PW.1 and taken away the properties. When there are doubts in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as contemplated under Criminal

Jurisprudence. Hence, the accused are entitled for an acquittal.

13. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/s 382 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr P C. The Superintendent, District Jail,

Nizamabad is directed to release the accused No.4 forthwith, if she is not required in any other case. No property.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of May, 2015.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1:Shaik Bilal/complainant-NIL-

PW.2:Dammai Sanjeev/Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW.3:Thonduru Saireddy/Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW.4:K.Narendar/panch witness for confession panchanama PW.5:Jan Reddy, SI of police/IO

PW.6:V.Santosh Kumar, SI of police/IO

PW.7:Chukka Sailu/Panch witness for

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C 4 CC 480 of 2014 confession panchanama

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1:Report given by PW.1 to the police-NIL-

Ex.P2:Sign of PW.2 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P3:Signature of PW.3 on Crime Details Form Ex.P4:Confession cum Recovery Panchanama Ex.P5: FIR

Ex.P6:Crime Details Form

Ex.P7:Confessional Panchanama

Ex.P8:Signature of PW.7 on Confessional Panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD.

Dt.25-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C

-1- CC 1013 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri M.Radha Krishna Chavahan, II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 26th day of May, 2015

CC.No. 1013 of 2011

Between:

The State of AP through P.S. Makloor ...Complainant.

//and//

Sidde Ashok S/o Sidde Buchaiah, aged 26 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occu: Lorry Driver R/o H.No.158, Turka Yamzal, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District. (Driver of Lorry No.AP29-T-2589).

..Accused.

This case came before me on 22-05-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Gangadhar, Counsel for accused having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, wherein the facts of the case are that, on 28-10-2011 at 8.00 p.m at Mamidipally village,

NH 16, Armoor-Nizamabad road, accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP29-T- 2589 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to a Bajaj

CT 100 motor cycle No.AP25-L-6213 which was coming in the opposite direction, due to which the riders of the said motor cycle i.e.,Md.Haji and

Md.Shanawaaz both fell down on the road and died on the spot.

2.On the complaint given by PW.1, the S.H.O PS Makloor registered a case in F.I.R.No. 293/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the accused and after completion of the entire investigation, PW.7 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the accused.

3.On such charge sheet, this Court took the cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C and examined the accused as required, to which the accused denied his involvement and also claimed to be tried.

26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-2- CC 1013 of 2011

4. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 7 in total and

Ex.P1 to P.9 were marked. PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the witness.

Pws.3 & 4 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama of the deceased. PW.5 is the eye witness. PW.6 is the

Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.7 is the investigating officer. The evidence of

Md.HaseemaBegum/witness,Md.Mustaq/witness,Smt.Naziya

Begum/witness, Mohammad Quamar/witness, as Pws.1 & 2 supported the case. The evidence of Kothagolla Yadaiah/owner of crime vehicle was given up by the prosecution by way of filing memo stating that he is not residing in the said address.

5. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defense.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought the accused to the home of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused ?

7. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

8. POINT : On considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be noticed that there is no piece of evidence as against the accused in particular. The sole eye witness to this case is PW.5 who has also turned hostile to the case and stated specifically that he do not know the driver of the said lorry. He could only say that he found two persons to be dead in a road accident and he did not witness the said incident personally. The owner of the crime vehicle though cited as witness, was not examined by the prosecution and his evidence was given up saying that his whereabouts are not known.

Prosecution has also filed a memo along with a report to that effect. Rest of the witnesses are of-course, ancillary to the case and could only say regarding the accident and the death of the deceased. The investigation officer and the

Motor Vehicle Inspector i.e., Pws.6 & 7 are also ancillary, who could only say about the procedural aspects. There is no material on record to say that the accused herein had caused the accident, in which both the deceased have died. When there is no material to say that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident, the question of rash and negligence on 26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-3- CC 1013 of 2011 the part of the accused cannot be held against him. The essential ingredient to be proved in the case of offence under Section 304-A IPC is rash or negligence on the part of the accused, which is missing in the present case, as such the accused is entitled for an acquittal by holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

9. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today. No property.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 26th day of May, 2015

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

PW.1: Mohd.Umar/complainant -NIL- PW.2: Md.Mukthar/witness PW.3: Shaik Arif/Panch witness for scene & Inquest of D1 & D2 PW.4: Shaik Nazeer/Panch witness for scene & Inquest of D1 & D2 PW.5: Gangoni Santhosh/eye witness PW.6: Thulsi Rajan, Motor Vehicle Inspector PW.7: D.Rama Rao, SI of police/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 to the police-nil-

Ex.P2: Inquest panchanama of D1

Ex.P3: Inquest panchanama of D2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P5: MVI Report

Ex.P6: FIR

Ex.P7: Scene of Offence panchanama

Ex.P8: Post Mortem Report of D1

Ex.P9: Post Mortem Report of D1 26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-4- CC 1013 of 2011

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

NIZAMABAD.

26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.

-5- CC 1013 of 2011 26-05-2015 II Addl.J.M.F.C.