Sri M.s.karimulla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATTIKONDA.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

This Monday, the 7th day of April, 2014

CALENDAR CASE No.107/2012

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Pattikonda P.S. … Complainant -Versus-

B.Usman Basha, S/o.Guddu Saheb, Pattikonda Town, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP.21.TU.0592. … Accused

This case coming on 4-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri A.P.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.18/2012 against the accused for the offence punishable

Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2. The accused is resident of Pattikonda Town and Mandal and the accident took place near Pattikonda – Hosur road which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju is the Hosur village of Pattikonda Mandal and P.W.2-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.3-Boya

Chintakalayala Ramudu, P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu and P.W.5- 2

Shaikbee, p.w.6-Golla Venkatamma are eye witnesses to the incident,

P.W.7-Boya Kowlutlaiah is the owner of the crime vehicle, P.W.9-

Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha is the V.R.O. who recorded confession panchanama of accused and also attended inquest panchanama along with P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu, P.W.8-Boya Nettekallu, L.W.10-

Dr.N.Prabhakar Rao, Professor & Head of Department, Forensic

Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem certificate of the deceased, L.W.11-Seshadri is the Motor Vehicle

Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued report, L.W.12-

M.Kishore is the H.C.274 of Pattikonda Police Station, who registered the case and did investigation and L.W.13-G.Priyatham Reddy is the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station who arrested the accused and produced the accused before this Court for judicial remand and filed the charge sheet in this case.

4. On 21-2-2012 at about 1915 hrs on Pattikonda – Hosur road near old age home, the accused who is the driver of auto bearing registered No.AP 21 TU 0592 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased Boya

Chinnakka and caused injuries due to which she fell down and on seeing the same P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju called 108 Ambulance and shifted the deceased Boya Chinnakka to the Government Hospital,

Pattikonda and from there the injured Boya Chinnakka was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment and on 22-2-2012 at 22.30 hrs the deceased Boya Chinnakka died while 3 undergoing treatment. Adverting to the above, basing on the report of the complainant P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, L.W.12-M.Kishore, H.C.274,

Pattikonda Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.18/2012 u/Sec.337 of Indian Penal Code and on 23-2-2012 at 0800 hrs he received the death intimation and altered the section of law from 337 of Indian Penal Code to Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, L.W.12-

H.C.274 examined P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.2-Boya Nagaraju and

P.W.3-Boya Chinkayala Ramudu P.W.5-Shaik Bee, P.W.6-Golla

Venkatamma, and recorded their statements. L.W.13-Sub-Inspector of

Police, Pattikonda Police Station examined P.W.7-Kattubadi Mahaboob

Basha, V.R.O.-II of Pattikonda Town and recorded his statement.

L.W.12-M.Kishore, H.C.274 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Boya Chinnakka on 6-1-2012 in the presence of panchayatdars P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu and P.W.8-Boya Nettekallu,

PW.9-Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha. L.W.10-Dr.N.Prabhakar Rao,

Professor, Head of Department, Forensic Medicine, Kurnool conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Boya

Chinnakka and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased was died due to head injury. During the course of investigation, the accused surrendered before P.W.9-K.Mahaboob

Basha, V.R.O. Pattikonda along with P.W.7-B.Kowlutlaiah, who is the owner of the crime vehicle and the accused was produced before

L.W.13-Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station and he arrested the accused on 20-4-2012 and produced the accused before 4 this Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in this case.

5. This case was taken on file Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code against the accused.

6. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7. When the accused was asked about the means, he stated that he had means to engage his defence counsel. Later the accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and explained to him in Telugu language the substance of the accusation for the offence u/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To prove it’s case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and

Exs.P1 to P.6 are got marked.

9. The accused and his sureties filed a memo complying Under

Sec.437-A of Cr.Pc. before conclusion of the trial and executed their bail bonds undertaking to appear before the Higher Court as and when such Court issues notice to the accused to appear if any appeal or any petition is filed against the judgment of this case.

5

10. Heard both the sides.

11. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the Offence punishable under Section 304-A beyond all reasonable doubt ?

12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to establish the nexus between the accused and the commission of accident with rash and negligent manner. In support of the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to Pw.9 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-6.

13. During the course of evidence, the Pw.1-Boya Nagaraju deposed in his evidence that he knew P.W.5-Shaik Bee, P.W.6-Golla

Venkatamma, P.W.2-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.3-Ramudu, P.W.7-

Kowlutlaiah, P.W.9-Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha, P.W.4-Kuruva

Ramalingadu, P.W.9-Nettekallu and he did not know the accused who is in the Court hall. He further deposed in his evidence that he knew the deceased Chinnakka who is resident of his village and at about 2 years back at 7.30 p.m. he heard some cries from inside of their old age home and he came out and saw the deceased Chinnakka was sustained a bleeding head injury and he did not know how she was sustained head injury and he immediately called 108 ambulance and he shifted the deceased Chinnakka to the Government Hospital,

Pattikonda and from there they shifted the deceased Chinnakka to the

Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment and there the deceased Chinnakka succumbed to injuries on the next day and he 6 admitted his signature on the report and denied its contents and police did not examine him. Ex.P1-Signature of the P.W.1 on the report is marked through this witness.

14. Pw.2 Boya Nagaraju deposed in his evidence that he knew

P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, he did not know P.W.5-Shaik Bee, P.W.6-Golla

Venkatamma, P.W.3-Ramudu is his uncle and he did not know P.W.7-

Kowlutlaiah and he knew P.W.9-Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha and

P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu and he did not know P.W.9-Nettekallu and he did not knew the accused who is in the Court hall. He further deposed in his evidence that he came to know the deceased Chinnakka died in an accident and he did not know who is responsible for the accident and police did not examine him and the deceased Chinnakka is his paternal grand mother.

15. P.W.3-Boya Chintakayala Ramudu who is the son of the deceased

Chinnakka deposed in his evidence that the deceased Chinnakka is his mother, he knew P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.5-Shaik Bee, P.W.6-Golla

Venkatamma and P.W.2-Nagaraju is his elder brother’s son and he knew P.W.7-Kowlutlaiah, P.W.9-Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha, P.W.4-

Kuruva Ramalingadu and P.W.8-Kuruva Ramalingadu and he did not know the accused who is in the Court hall. He further deposed in his evidence that he came to know that the deceased Chinnakka was died in an accident and he did not know who is the responsible for the accident and police did not examine him.

7

16. P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu deposed in his evidence that he knew the deceased Chinnakka in this case and he did not attend for any inquest panchanama in this case and he admitted his signature on the inquest panchanama and denied its contents and he knew P.W.8-

Nettekallu and he did not know whether P.W.8-Nettekallu singed or not in the inquest panchanama. Ex.P2 signature of P.W.4 on inquest panchanama is marked through this witness.

17. P.W.5-Shaik Bee deposed in his evidence that she knew P.W1-

Boya Nagaraju, P.W.3-Boya Chintakayala Ramudu, P.W.6-Golla

Venkatamma and P.W.7-Boya Kowlutlaiah and she did not know the accused who is in the Court hall. She further deposed in her evidence that at about two years back, during evening hours the deceased

Chinnakka in this case went outside of their old age home for calls of nature then one unknown vehicle hit her and ran away and she was sustained severe bleeding head injury and later she was dead at

Government General Hospital, Kurnool and police did not examine her.

18. P.W.6-Golla Venkatamma deposed in her evidence that she knew

P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.2-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.3-Boya Chintakayala

Ramudu, P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu and P.W.5-Shaikbee and P.W.7-

Boya Kowlutlaiah and she did not know the accused who is in the

Court hall. She further deposed in her evidence that at about two years back during evening hours the deceased Chinnakka went outside 8 of their old age home to answer calls of nature then one unknown vehicle hit her and ran away and she was not present at the time of the accident and she did not know who hit the deceased and she came to know that the deceased was died in the Government General

Hospital, Kurnool and police did not examine her.

19. P.W.7-Boya Kowlutlaiah deposed in his evidence that he did not know P.W.1-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.2-Boya Nagaraju, P.W.3-Boya

Chintakayala Ramudu, P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu, P.W.5-Shaikbee,

P.W.6-Golla Venkatamma and the he did not know the accused who is

in the Court hall. He further deposed that he did not know anything

about the facts in this case and he did not witness anything and police did not examine him. Ex.P3-161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7 is marked through this witness.

In his cross-examination by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he is having a Trolley auto bearing No.AP 21 TU 0592 and denied that the accused who is the driver of his auto is at the time of accident, he also denied that the accused who was in the Court hall was not Osman Basha, who is the accused in this case. He further denied about the driving of his auto by the accused and occurrence of accident near old age home at Hosur road and appearing of the accused and crime vehicle before V.R.O. Pattikonda along with him and the confession of commitment of offence by the accused in this case.

9

20. P.W.8-Boya Nettekallu deposed in his evidence that he knew

P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu and he did not know P.W.9-Kattubadi

Mahaboob Basha, VRO-II of Pattikonda Town and he did not know how the deceased Chinnakka was dead in this case and nothing was present in his presence. He further admitted Ex.P-4 his signature on the inquest panchanama and denied its contents and he also denied about the presence of himself and P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu at the time inquest over the dead body of the deceased Chinnakka at

Government General Hospital, Kurnool. His signature under Ex.P4 on inquest panchanama is marked through this witness.

21. P.W.9-K.Mahaboob Basha, V.R.O. II of Pattikonda Town deposed in his evidence that he did not know P.W.4-Kuruva Ramalingadu,

P.W.8-Boya Nettekallu and also the accused who is in the Court hall.

He further deposed on 20-4-2012 at about 11.00 a.m. Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station by name Ganta Subba Rao informed him that one woman was died in an accident and arrest of the accused involved in the accident and the Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement and requested to him to subscribe his signature and he signed on the statement and he admitted Ex.P5 his signature on the confessional panchanama dated 20-4-2012 at.

10.00a.m. He further deposed he knew the contents of panchanama and now he did not remember the contents of Ex.P5 panchanama and he did not know whose statement is recorded by the Sub-Inspector of

Police.

10

During the course of his cross-examination, by learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor, he denied about the accused voluntarily came to

Gramapanchayat office on 20-4-2012 at 10.00 a.m. and confessed

before him the commission of accident in this case. He also denied that

the accused voluntarily appeared before him and requested him to take him to the concerned police station and recording of confessional statement of the accused who is in the Court hall. He admitted Ex.P6 his signature on the inquest panchanama and he did not know when he signed on inquest panchanama. He further denied that about the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased in his presence in Government General Hospital, Kurnool on 23-2-2012. EX.P5 and

Ex.P6 signatures of P.W.9 on confessional panchanama and inquest panchanama are marked through this witness.

22. Since, P.W4, P.W.8 who are inquest panchayarars , P.W.7 owner of the crime vehicle and who permitted the accused to drive the crime vehicle and P.W.9 who recorded confessional statement of accused and also inquest panchayatdar did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined them with the permission of the Court but, nothing suitable to the case of prosecution is elicited. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 who even as per prosecution version are not eye witnesses to the incident directly and during the course of evidence also they did not speak anything against the accused. As the all material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, this Court is pleased to close the evidence of L.W.10-Dr.N.Prabhakar Rao, Professor & Head of 11

Department, Forensic Medicine, Kurnool, L.W.11-Seshadri Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Adoni, L.W.12-M.Kishre, H.C.274 of Pattikonda

Police Station and L.W.13-G.Priyatham Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pattikonda Police Station who are official witnesses opining that no purpose would be served even by examining them in this case as all the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

23. After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination U/sec.313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

24. In view of above oral and documentary evidence available on record, the prosecution established the death of the deceased alone and failed to establish the identity of the offender, the alleged rash or negligent act that has resulted to death of the deceased, as such the

Court determined the point holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

Under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

12

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2014.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PATTIKONDA.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For defence: Pw.1: Boya Nagaraju None Pw.2: Boya Nagaraju Pw.3: Boya Chintakayala Ramudu Pw.4: Kuruva Ramalingadu Pw.5: Shaikbee. Pw.6: Golla Venkatamma. Pw.7: Boya Kowlutlaiah. Pw.8: Boya Nettekallu. Pw.9: Kattubadi Mahaboob Basha,VRO-II, Pattikonda Town.

Exhibits marked For Prosecution: Ex.P-1: Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint. Ex.P-2: Signature of P.W.2 on the inquest. Ex.P-3: Sec. 161(3) Statement of Pw.7. Ex.P-4: Signature of P.W.8 on the inquest. Ex.P-5: Signature of P.W.9 on the confessional statement. Ex.P-6: Signature of P.W.9 on the inquest.

For defence: NIL

J.M.F.C. Pkd 13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATTIKONDA.

CALENDAR CASE No.107/2012

1. Date of Offence : 21-02-2012

2. Date of Complaint : 21-02-2012

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 20-04-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 20-04-2012

5. Date of Commencement of trial : 21-02-2014

6. Date of Closure of trial : 04-04-2014

7. Date of Judgment : 07-04-2014

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.107/2012 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

Complainant:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Pattikonda P.S.

Name of the Accused:

B.Usman Basha, S/o.Guddu Saheb, Pattikonda Town, Driver of Auto bearing No.AP.21.TU.0592.

Offence: Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- Sri.M.S.Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

//True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate – Cum-Asst.Prl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

14

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::PATTIKONDA.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

This the 4 th Day of April, 2014

CALENDAR CASE No.354/2011

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jonnagiri P.S. … Complainant -Versus-

1. Boya Manikindi Raghu Ramudu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 35 years,

2. Boya Manikindi Hanumanthu, S/o. Raghu Ramudu, Age 19 years,

3. Boya Manikindi Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 30 years,

4. Boya Manikindi Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 28 years, …. Accused

All are R/o.Jonnagiri Village, Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

This case coming on 3-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri M.C.S.Naidu and B.Nagaraju, Advocates for the A1 to A4 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jonnagiri Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.39/2011 against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

1. The A1 to A4 are the residents of Jonnagiri Village of Tuggali

Mandal. The offence took place in Jonnagiri Village which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Boya Manukindi Devendra is a resident of Jonnagiri village, P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma, P.W.3-

Boya Manikindi Padmavathi, L.W.4-Boya Manikindi Chinna Anjaneyulu and P.W.4-Boya Manikindi Surendra are also the residents of Jonnagiri

Village of Tuggali Mandal, L.W.6-Dr.Sunil Kalayan is the Medical Officer of

Government Hospital, Pattikonda, who treated the injured and issued wound certificate, L.W.7-P.Venkata Rami Reddy is the Head Constable 1197 of Jonnagiri Police Station who registered the case and did investigation and L.W.8-C.Madduleti is the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jonnagiri Police Station, who verified the investigation did by H.C.1197, arrested the A1 to A4 and filed the charge sheet.

3. P.W.1-Boya Manukindi Devendra and the A1 to A4 are the residents of Jonnagiri village of Tuggali Mandal and are living in one vicinity. On 6-9-2011, P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma who is the mother of de- facto complainant/ P.W.1-Boya Manukindi Devendra gave a rope to the

A1 for pulling the electricity line, but the A1 did not return the said rope to P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma even after completion of the work.

While so, on 8-9-2011 at about 06.30 hrs in Jonnagiri village, P.W.2-Boya

Manukindi Rangamma went to the house of P.W.1-Boya Manukindi

Devendra and asked A1 to return their rope and for which the A1 replied 3 that P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma did not give the rope to him and in the meantime, A2 beat P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma with

Charnakola on her back and later on knowing the same, P.W.1-Boya

Manukindi Devendra went to the house of A1, A2 and asked their attitude on P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma who is the mother of P.W.1-Boya

Manukindi Devendra, due to this A1 to A4 caught hold the P.W.1-Boya

Manukindi Devendra and A1 beat P.W.1-Boya Manukindi Devendra with cart peg on the back side of his head and caused bleeding injury and on that P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma, P.W.3-Boya Manikindi

Padmavathi, L.W.4-Boya Manikindi Chinna Anjaneyulu and P.W.4-Boya

Manikindi Surendra witnessed the occurrence of offence and rescued the

P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma, P.W.3-Boya Manikindi Padmavathi,

L.W.4-Boya Manikindi Chinna Anjaneyulu and P.W.4-Boya Manikindi

Surendra from the hands of A1 to A4. Adverting to the above, basing on the statement of the de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Boya Manukindi

Devendra, L.W.7-H.C.1197 of Jonnagiri Police Station registered a case in

Cr.No.39/2011 u/Sec.324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into and during his investigation L.W.7-P.Venkata Rami Reddy, H.C.1197 examined and recorded the statements of P.W.1-Boya Manukindi

Devendra, P.W.2-Boya Manukindi Rangamma, P.W.3-Boya Manikindi

Padmavathi, L.W.4-Boya Manikindi Chinna Anjaneyulu and P.W.4-Boya

Manikindi Surendra. L.W.6-Dr.Sunil Kalyan, Medical Officer examined and treated the de-facto complainant P.W1-Boya Manukindi Devendra and issued wound certificate opined that the injury sustained by P.W.1-Boya

Manukindi Devera is simple in nature. During the course of investigation, on 20-9-2011, L.W.8-C.Madduleti, Sub-Inspector of Police, Jonnagiri

Police Station arrested the A1 to A4 and produced them before this Court 4 for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the A1 to A4. The copies of all documents were furnished to the A1 to A4 as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5. The A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied the same. Charge under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code against the A1 to A4 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.

1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

5

POINT:

9. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined the de-facto complainant P.W.1–Boya Manikindi Devendra who is injured person deposed that P.W.2-Rangamma is his mother, P.W.3-Padmavathi is his wife, L.W.4-Chinna Anjineyulu is his junior paternal uncle, P.W.4-

Surendra is his brother by courtesy and A1 to A4 are his relatives. He further deposed in his evidence at about three years back while he was coming on his bicycle he fell down and was sustained an injury on his head and except that nothing was happened, he did not give report to the police and he admitted his signature on the report and denied its contents and police did not examine him. Ex.P1 his signature on the report and

Ex.P2-161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 are marked through this witness.

10. P.W.2–Boya Manikindi Rangamma who is the mother of P.W.1–Boya

Manikindi Devendra and witness of the offence deposed in her evidence that P.W.1 is her son, P.W.3-Padmavathi is his daughter-in-law, L.W.4-

Chinna Anjineyulu, P.W.4-Surendra are her relatives and A1 to A4 are her relatives. She further deposed in her evidence that she did not know anything about facts in this case and he did not witness anything and police did not examine her. Ex.P3-161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 is marked through this witness.

11. P.W.3-Boya Manikindi Padmavathi who is the wife of P.W.1-Boya

Manikindi Devendra deposed in her evidence that P.W.1-Boya Manikindi

Devendra is her husband, P.W.2-Boya Manikindi Rangamma is her mother-in-law, L.W.4-Chinna Anjaneyulu, P.W.4-Surendra are her 6 relatives and A1 to A4 are her relatives. She further deposed in her evidence that she did not know anything about the facts in this case and she did not witness anything and police did not examine her. Ex.P4- 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 is marked through this witness.

12. P.W.4-Boya Manikindi Surendra who is the witness in this case deposed in his evidence that he knew P.W.1-Boya Manikindi Devendra,

P.W.2-Boya Manikindi Rangamma, P.W.3-Boya Manikindi Padmavathi,

L.W.4-Chinna Anjaneyulu and A1 to A4 in this case. He further deposed in his evidence that he did not know anything about the facts in this case and he did not witness anything and police did not examine him. Ex.P5- 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 is marked through this witness.

13. As the de-facto complainant/P.W.1–Boya Manikindi Devendra who is injured person in this case and P.W.2-Boya Manikindi Rangamma who is the mother of P.W.1, P.W-3-Boya Manikindi Padmavathi who is wife of

P.W.1 and P.W.4-Boya Manikindi Surendra who is eye witness to the incident did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor cross-examined them with the permission of Court, but, nothing suitable to the case of prosecution is elicited. As the main victim and injured person i.e., P.W.1–Boya Manikindi Devendra, his mother

P.W.2-Boya Manikindi Rangamma, his wife P.W.3-Boya Manikindi

Padmavathi, and eye witness in this case P.W.4-Manikindi Surendra did not support the case of prosecution, and the Station House Officer,

Jonnagiri Police Station filed a special report stating the L.W.4-

B.M.Chinna Anjineyulu is bed ridden and unable to move from bed and this Court is pleased to close the evidence of L.W.4-Boya Manikindi 7

Chinna Ajnaneyulu and this Court also pleased to close the evidence of

L.W.6-Dr.Sunil Kalayan, Medical Officer of Government Hospital,

Pattikonda, L.W.7-P.Venkata Rami Reddy, Head Constable-1197 of

Jonnagiri Police Station and L.W.8-C.Madduleti, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Jonnagiri Police Station who are official witnesses opining that no purpose would be served even if they are examined in this case.

14. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

15. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the A1 to

A4 and the A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2014.

Sd/-.Sri.M.S.Karimulla

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Pathikonda 8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Boya Manikindi Devendra None

P.W.2: Boya Manikindi Rangamma

P.W.3: Boya Manikindi Padmavathi

P.W.4: Boya Manikindi Surendra

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

1. Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report.

2. Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

3. Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

4. Ex.P4: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

5. Ex.P5: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

FOR DEFENCE:-

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-.Sri.M.S.Karimulla

J.M.F.C. Pkd // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Pattikonda 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATTIKONDA.

CALENDAR CASE No.354/2011

1. Date of Offence : 08-09-2011

2. Date of Complaint : 08-09-2011

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 20-09-2011

4. Date of release on bail : 20-09-2011

5. Date of Commencement of trial : 19-03-2014

6. Date of Closure of trial : 03-04-2014

7. Date of Judgment : 04-04-2014

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.354/2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Pattikonda.

Complainant:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Jonnagiri

Name of the Accused:

1. Boya Manikindi Raghu Ramudu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 35 years,

2. Boya Manikindi Hanumanthu, S/o. Raghu Ramudu, Age 19 years,

3. Boya Manikindi Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 30 years,

4. Boya Manikindi Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Hanumanna, Age 28 years,

All are R/o.Jonnagiri Village, Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

Offence: Under Section 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-.Sri.M.S.Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate–Cum-Asst.Prl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::PATTIKONDA.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

This the 7 th day of April, 2014

CALENDAR CASE No.252/2012

State represented by

Sub Inspector of Police,

Pattikonda P.S. … Complainant -Versus- 1.Harijana Yesu

S/o Dubba Anjanea

Aged about 27 years, 2.Harijana Ramanjaneyulu

S/o Ramanna Aged about 26 years 3 Harijana Muniswamy

S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 44 years

All are Residents of Atikalagundu village,

Pattikonda Mandal. .. Accused

This case coming on 4-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri Y.Madhu Babu, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pattikonda Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.145/2012 against the accused A.1 to A.3 for the offenses punishable U/Sec.323,324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

1. The accused A.1 to A.3 are residents of Atikalagundu Village of

Pattikonda Mandal. The offence took place in Atikalagundu Village which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

1. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Harijana Narsanna is injured person in this case. P.W.2-Harijana Sreeramulu is father of P.W.1. P.W.3 Harijana

Ramanjaneyulu P.W.4 Harijana Narsanna are ill-witnesses in this case.

L.W.5 Dr.P.Mahendra Kumar who treated P.W.1 and issued Would

Certificate. L.W.6 G.Priyatham Reddy S.I. Of Police who registered the case , did investigation and filed charge sheet in this case.

1. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1 had to give Rs.100-00 to the Ist accused for hiring the Auto of A.1. The de-facto complainant did not pay the said Rs.100-00 to first accused despite the Ist accused requested several times. On 14-10-2012 at 9:00 p.m. While the P.W.1 was at his house the A.1 to A.3 came to P.W.1 and entered into a quarrel with A.1 with regard to the above said amount of which the P.W.1 replied he would give the amount whenever he get same. Then A.1 bet P.W.1 with a stick on his head due to which P.W.1 was sustained a contusion injury on his head. Then the P.W.2 who is father of P.W.1 tried to rescue P.W.1 the A.1 to A.3 made P.W.1 and P.W.2 to fall on the ground and bet them 3 indiscriminately with their hands and legs. Then P.W.3 and P.W.4 came to scene and rescued P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the A.1 to A.3 went to away.

2. Adverting to the above, basing on the statement of P.W.1-

H.Narsanna L.W.6.G.Priyatham Reddy S.I.of police registered a case in

Cr.No.145/2012 u/Sec.323,324 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated the matter and examined P.W.1-H.Harsanna P.W.2-H.Sreeramulu P.W.3-

H.Ramanjaneyulu P.W.4 H.Narsanna and recorded their statements.

L.W.5-Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Pattikonda who examined and treated the injured P.W.1-H.Narsanna and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature and on 19- 10-2012 during the course of his investigation L.W.6 -S.I. of Police,

Pattikonda Police Station arrested the accused and produced before this

Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in this case.

3. This case was taken on file under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused. The copies of all documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

4. The accused A.1 to A.3 were examined under section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied the same.

Charges under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused A.1 to A.3 were framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.

1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

4

6. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

8. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined the de-facto complainant P.W.1– Harijana Narsanna who is injured person deposed that P.W.2-Sreeramulu is his father. P.W.3-Ramanjaneyulu is his brother by courtesy. P.W.4- Narsanna is his Junior paternal uncle and he knew the accused A.1 to A.3 He further deposed that in his evidence at about two years back during noon hours while himself and his father i.e., P.W.2 were going to their field in a bullock cart and at that time the bullock cart wasl fallen down due to which he was sustained an injury to his right eye and his father was sustained an injury behind in his head and except that nothing was happened. He further deposed that he did not given any report to the police but the police was obtained his left theum impression on a white blank paper and police did not examined him. Ex.P.1 his

U/Sec. 161 cr.p.c. Statement was marked through him.

9. P.W.2–Harijana Sreeramulu deposted that P.W.1 is his son P.W.3

Ramanjaneyulu is his brother's son, P.W.4 Narsanna is his brother by his curtosy and he knew A.1 to A.3 in this case who are his relatives. He further deposted that at about two years back during noon hours while himself and his son P.W.1 were going to their field in a bullock cart and at that time the bullock cart was fallen down due to which he was sustained 5 an injury to his back side of head and P.W.1 was sustained an injury to his right eye and except that nothing was happened and police did not examine him Ex.P2 - U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 is marked through this witness.

10. P.W.3-H.Ramanjaneyulu deposed that the P.W.1 is his brother by courtesy, P.W.2 is his junior uncle by courtesy, P.W.4 Narsanna is also his brother courtesy and he knew A.1 to A.3 in this case. He further deposted that he did not know anything about facts in this case, he did not witness anything and police did not examined him Ex.P3 - U/Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 is marked through this witness.

11. P.W.4-Harijana Narsanna deposed that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are relatives and he knew A.1 to A.3 in this case. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the facts in this case, he did not witness anything and police did not examine him. Ex.P4 - U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of

P.W.4 is marked through this witness.

12. As the de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Harijana Narsanna who is injured person in this case and P.W.2-Harijana Sreeramulu who is father of P.W.1, P.W.3-Harijana Ramanjaneyulu who is brother of P.W.1 by courtesy , and P.W.4-Harijana Narsanna who are eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor cross-examined them with the permission of Court, but, nothing suitable to the case of prosecution is elicited. As all the main victim and injured person i.e., P.W.1-Harijana Narsanna his father of 6

P.W.2-Sreeramulu, his brother P.W.3-Ramanjaneyulu and P.W.4-

Narsanna did not support the case of prosecution, this Court is pleased to close the evidence of L.W.5-Dr.Mahendranath Kumar, Medical Officer,

Government Hospital, Pattikonda, L.W.6 G.Priyatham Reddy S.I. Of

Police Pattikonda Police Station opining that no purpose would be served even if they are examined in this case.

13. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused A.1 to A.3 the examination u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

14. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused and the accused A.1 to A.3 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused A.1 to A.3 shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of April, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Pathikonda 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1:Harijana Narsanna None

P.W.2: Harijana Sreeramulu

P.W.3:Harijana Ramanjaneyulu

P.W.4: Harijana Narsanna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

1. Ex.P1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

2. Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

3. Ex.P3: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

4. Ex.P4 : Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

FOR DEFENCE:-

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

J.M.F.C.

Pkd 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATTIKONDA.

CALENDAR CASE No.252/2012

1. Date of Offence : 14-10-2012

2. Date of Complaint : 15-10-2012

3. Date of apprehension of accused : 19-10-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 10-10-2012

5. Date of Commencement of trial : 06-03-2014

6. Date of Closure of trial : 04-04-2014

7. Date of Judgment : 07-04-2014

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.252/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Pattikonda.

Complainant:-

State represented by

Sub Inspector of Police,

Pattikonda.

Name of the Accused:

1.Harijana Yesu

S/o Dubba Anjanea

Aged about 27 years,

2. Harijana Ramanjaneyulu S/o Ramanna Aged about 26 years

3. Harijana Muniswamy S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 44 years

All are Residents of Atikalagundu village,

Pattikonda Mandal.

Offence: Under Sections 323 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and 9 they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A.1 to A.3 and sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-.Sri.M.S.Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Pattikonda

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::PATTIKONDA.

Present: Sri M.S. Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda.

This the 4 th Day of April, 2014

CALENDAR CASE No.258/2012

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Tuggali P.S. … Complainant -Versus-

1. Harijana Ladda Surendra S/o. Late Lakshmanna, Age 23 years,

2. Harijana Ladda Arunamma, W/o. Ladda Surendra, Age 20 years,

3. Harijana Narsivemula Narasimhudu, S/o. Late Lakshmanna, Age 50 years

All are R/o.Marella Village of Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

This case coming on 3-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri N.Krishnaiah, Advocate for the A1 to A3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Tuggali Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.60/2012 against the A1 to A3 for the offence punishable

U/Secs.323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

1. The A1 to A3 are the residents of Tuggali Village and Mandal. The offence took place at Marella village which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

2

2. The de-facto complainant/P.W.1-Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma is the resident of Marella village. P.W.2-Harijana Ladda Lakshmanna is the husband of P.W.1, P.W.3-Harijana Chinna Peddaiah is the brother- in-law of P.W.1 and P.W.4-Harijana Sadguramma is the sister-in-law of

P.W.1 and are also residents of Marella Village of Tuggali Mandal,

L.W.5-Dr.Swapna is the Medical Officer of Government Hospital,

Pattikonda, who treated the injured and issued wound certificate,

L.W.6-N.Hanumanthaiah is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuggali Police

Station, who did investigation, arrested the A1 to A3 and filed the charge sheet.

3. P.W.1-Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma is the resident of Marella village of Tuggali Mandal and is living with doing agricultural work.

P.W.2-Harijana Ladda Lakshmanna is her husband and they have three sons and one daughter and their second son A1 was fallen in love with A2 and got married with A2 and living away from her parents. While so, on 29-11-2012 at 20.30 hrs in Marella village due to ill-feelings about A1 had married with A2 without consent of de-facto complainant, A1 beat P.W.1-Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma with stick on her head and caused contusion and P.W.1 fell down on the ground and A2 and A3 beat her with hands and legs on her stomach.

Adverting to the above, basing on the report of P.W.1-Harijana Ladda

Hanumanthamma, L.W.6-N.Hanumanthaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Tuggali Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.60/2012 u/Sec.324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code of Tuggali Police Station and investigated into. L.W.5-Dr.Swapna, Medical Officer, Government Medical Officer, 3

Pattikonda examined and treated the P.W.1-Harijana Ladda

Hanumanthamma, issued wound certificate and opined that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are simple in nature. During the course of investigation, L.W.6-Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuggali Police Station arrested the accused on 5-12-2012 and produced him before this

Court for judicial remand and on completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

4. This case was taken on file under Section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian

Penal Code against the A1 to A3. The copies of all documents were furnished to the A1 to A3 as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The A1 to A3 were examined under section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code. The contents of charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they denied the same. Charge under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code against the A1 to A3 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.

1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record. Considered both submissions.

4

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

9. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined the de- facto complainant P.W.1–Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma who is injured person deposed that P.W.2-Lakshmanna is her husband,

P.W.3-Chinna Peddaia is her younger brother-in-law, P.W.4-

Sadugaramma is her neighbor and A1 is her son and A2 is her daughter-in-law and A3 is father of A2. She further deposed in her evidence that about one year back she was fallen down by herself and she was sustained a minor injury on her head and except that nothing was happened and neither she did not give any report to the police nor she was examined by the medical officer and police did not examine her. Ex.P1-161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 is marked through this witness.

10. P.W.2–H.Ladda Lakshmanna who is the husband of P.W.1–

Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 is his wife, P.W.3-Harijana Chinna Peddaiah is his younger brother,

P.W.4-Sadugaramma is his neighbor and the A1 is his son, A2 is his daughter-in-law and A3 is father of A2. He further deposed in his evidence that he did not know anything about facts in this case and he did not witness anything and police did not examine him. Ex.P2-161(3)

Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 is marked through this witness.

5

11. P.W.3-H.Chinna Peddaiah deposed in his evidence that P.W.1 is his elder sister-in-law, P.W.2-Harijana Ladda Lakshmanna is his elder brother, P.W.4-Sadugaramma is his neighbor, A1 is son of P.W.2-

Lakshmanna, A2 is A1’s wife and A3 is father of A2. He further deposed in his evidence that he did not know anything about the facts in this case and she did not witness anything and police did not examine him. Ex.P3-161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 is marked through this witness.

12. P.W.4-Harijana Sadugaramma who is the witness in this case deposed in her evidence that P.W.1- Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma is wife of her younger brother, P.W.2-Lakshmanna and P.W.3-Chinna

Peddaiah are her brothers by courtesy and she knew A1 to A3 are her relatives in this case. She further deposed in her evidence that she did not know anything about the facts in this case and she did not witness anything and police did not examine her. Ex.P4-161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement of P.W.4 is marked through this witness.

13. As the de-facto complainant/P.W.1–Harijana Ladda

Hanumanthamma who is injured person in this case and P.W.2-

Harijana Ladda Lakshmanna who is the husband of P.W.1, P.W-3-

H.Chinna Pedaiah uncle of P.W.1, P.W.4-Saudugaramma relative of

P.W.1 who are eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross-examined them with the permission of Court, but, nothing suitable to the case of prosecution is elicited. As the main victim and injured person i.e., 6

P.W.1–Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma, her husband P.W.2-

Lakshmanna, her younger brother-in-law P.W.3, her relative and neighbor P.W.4-Sadugaramma did not support the case of prosecution, this Court is pleased to close the evidence of L.W.5-Dr.Swsapna,

Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Pattikonda and L.W.6-

N.Hanumanthaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tuggali P.S. who are official witnesses in this case opining that no purpose would be served even if they are examined in this case.

14. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

15. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the

A1 to A3 and the A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 and their sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April, 2014.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Pathikonda 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: Harijana Ladda Hanumanthamma None

P.W.2: Harijana Ladda Lakshmanna

P.W.3: Harijana Chinna Peddaiah

P.W.4: Harijana Sadugaramma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

1. Ex.P1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

2. Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

3. Ex.P3: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

4. Ex.P4: Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

FOR DEFENCE:-

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

J.M.F.C.

Pkd //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda 8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: PATTIKONDA.

CALENDAR CASE No.258/2012

1. Date of Offence : 29-11-2012

2. Date of Complaint : 30-11-2012

3. Date of apprehension of accused :05-12-2012

4. Date of release on bail : 05-12-2012

5. Date of Commencement of trial : 02-04-2014

6. Date of Closure of trial : 03-04-2014

7. Date of Judgment : 04-04-2014

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.258/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Pattikonda.

Complainant:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Tuggali

Name of the Accused:

1. Harijana Ladda Surendra S/o. Late Lakshmanna, Age 23 years,

2. Harijana Ladda Arunamma, W/o. Ladda Surendra, Age 20 years,

3. Harijana Narsivemula Narasimhudu, S/o. Late Lakshmanna, Age 50 years

All are R/o.Marella Village of Tuggali Mandal, Kurnool District.

Offence: Under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 and their sureties shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/-M.S.Karimulla

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda //True Copy//

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Pattikonda

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl.Magistrate–Cum-Asst.Prl.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.