Smt. M.sandhya Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

Present:- Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 269 of 2012

Old C.C.No. 20 of 2012 on the file of

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

Between:

The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Cr.No.125 of 2011

... Complainant

And:

A.1:Kakani Venkata Seshaiah, aged 44 years, S/o. K.Venkataiah, N/o. Boreddigaripalli, Poolikunta Post, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District. Now at D.No.8-66/4A, Sree Nagar Colony, Tirupati. A.2:Kakani Lakshmaiah, aged 36 years, S/o. K.Venkatramana, D.No.8-66/4A, III Street, Sree Nagar Colony, Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. A.3:Pattem Kannaiah, aged 68 years,The case against S/o. P.Venkatrayulu, A.3 was abated D.No.20-5-354, as per docket Sanjay Gandhi Colony, order dated Korlagunta, Tirupati. 22.04.2013 A.4: Chinnakotla Indra Lakshmi, aged 40 years, W/o. C.Venugopal, D.No.20-5-354/C, Sanjay Gandhi Colony, Korlagunta, Tirupati.

A.5:Sagabala Gudireddigari Chenga Reddy @ S.G.Chenga Reddy, aged 65 years, S/o. Pulla Reddy, D.No.4-3-488, Giripuram, Tirupati. A.6: Dudhi Ramesh, aged 49 years, S/o. Chenchuramaiah @ Chenchaiah, D.No.18-2-142/A, Ashok Nagar,

Tirupati.... Accused

2

This case is coming before me on 03.12.2015 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P., for the State and of Sri Matta Purushotham

Reddy, Advocate for the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6, and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

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

The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati filed charge sheet for the offences under Sec.143, 448, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the accused A.1 to A.6 in Cr.No.125/2011 with the following facts.

2. The case of prosecution is that L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, purchased the land in S.No.11/2B2A with an extent of Ac.0.25 cents of

Akkarampalli Group Accounts, near Upadyaya Nagar, Tirupati from the original and lawful vendor M.Nagamma under registered sale deed in favour of his wife B.Jyotheeswari vide Doc.No.2525/82 dated 12.05.1982 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tirupati. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the above 0.25 cents by constructing zinc sheet roofed shed and compound wall with cement bricks. Subsequently some of them created forged and fabricated documents pertaining to the said house site and basing on the forged documents, the accused A.1 to A.6 and some others trying to occupy the said site. As such dispute arose over the said house site in between

L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy on one side and the accused A.1 to A.6 and some others on other side. As such L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy kept L.W.2 B.Narasimhulu as watchman at his site to protect the site.

Accordingly L.W.2 B.Narasimhulu to L.W.4 T.Ammulu being the watchmen of the said site residing at the site itself. To protect his house site, on 23.05.2011 L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy started construction of 3 another four sheds with mason maistries L.W.5 G.Kumar, L.W.6

N.Saravana and others at his site with an intention to keep tenants at the sheds and kept L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy at the site to look after the construction work on his behalf. As such the accused A.1 to

A.6 bore-grudge against L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy and waiting for an opportunity to take possession of the said house site. While so, on 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused A.1 to A.6 formed into members of an unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into the house site of L.W.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, threatened mason maistries L.W.5

G.Kumar and L.W.6 N.Saravana and other labours with dire consequences to stop the construction work and also criminally trespassed into the shed, threatened the watchmen L.W.2

B.Narasimhulu to L.W.4 T.Ammulu with dire consequences saying that the house site is belongs to them and asked to go away from the site, otherwise they will kill all of them. When L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy resisted the accused, all the accused also threatened L.W.8

B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy with dire consequences and went away challenging that if they did not handover the site to the accused, they will face dire consequences. In this connection, on the report of L.W.1

B.Jagadeeswara Reddy, a case in Crime No.125/2011 under Sec.448, 506 r/w 34 IPC was registered and investigated into. Thus the accused

A.1 to A.6 have committed the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken by III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati, the accused A.1 to A.6 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 of IPC and it was transfered to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Judge,

Chittoor in Dis.No.1853/2012/OP.CELL, dated 27.02.2012.

4

4. After receiving the summons, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 were present before the court and they were furnished copies under section 207 Cr.P.C. and examined under Sec. U/sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.

Ex.P.1 is the Report given by P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dated 11.05.1982, Ex.P.3 is certified copy of rectification sale deed dated 28.03.2003, Ex.P.4 is certified copy of General power of

Attorney dated 28.05.2011, Ex.P.5 is certified copy of order in

I.A.No.262/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Ex.P.6 is certified copy of decree and Judgment in O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and Ex.P.7 is FIR in Crime

No.125/2011 dated 28.05.2011, Alipiri Police station, Tirupati.

6. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused

A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating evidence appeared on prosecution side and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The learned APP filed written arguments and argued that the prosecution examined all the material witnesses and marked the relevant documents and established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under

Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC.

5

The learned APP filed authorities reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 64 (SC) Dilawar Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and (2011) 2

Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 493 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramesh and another.

9. The counsel for the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 argued that the prosecution registered the case under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149

IPC against the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6. On behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and marked the documents

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The defence counsel argued that there is series of cases pending in all courts more particularly in Civil courts between the complainant and the accused. Further argued that P.W.1's wife purchased a land in Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 25 cents located in

Akkarampalle village accounts. After 13 years they identified the difference in the survey numbers and executed a rectification sale deed since then they are unable to trace out their land and the Tahsildar visited the said land along with the Revenue and police officers. Further argued that P.W.1 is not the owner of the property and the wife of P.W.1 by name Jyothiswari purchased the house site in Sy.No.11/2B/2A but she did not examined by the prosecution and P.W.1 and P.W.6 are not the direct witnesses to the incident. Further P.W.1 admitted that accused is also having registered sale deed and pending of civil suits and also admitted that he is not present at the time of incident and it is purely the civil litigation between the complainant and the accused, and accused having possession over the scene of offence. Further P.W.1 is unable to identify his land and P.W.1 is making efforts to construct a house in hurry manner and foisted false case against the accused A.1,

A.2 and A.4 to A.6. Further argued that there is delay in giving report by

P.W.1 the incident was happened on 27.05.2011 and he gave report on 28.05.2011. Hence, there is one day delay in giving report and it was 6 not properly explained either by the complainant or the investigation officer. Hence the prosecution failed to established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 for the offences punishable under

Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

The counsel for the accused filed list of authorities reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 140 (SC) Myladimmal Surendran and others Vs. State of Kerala is not relevant to the present case on hand because it is pertaining to the offence punishable under Sec.302 r/w 39 IPC. In this case P.W.1 admitted that he is not present at the time of offence at that time he was present in Chittoor and P.W.2 informed about the incident to him through phone, later he went to the police station and gave report.

10. Now the points that arises for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the offences

punishable under Sec.143, 448 & 506 r/w 149 IPC against the

accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT Nos.(i to iii) :

11. PW.1 B.Jagadeeswara Reddy deposed that he is resident of

Tirupati and retired Railway area officer. His wife owns a land in

Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 25 cents located in Akkarampalle village accounts. He got constructed compound wall around the site and it is in their possession from 1982 onwards. In the month of February, 2010 they got leveled the land for constructing a house. On 18.02.2010 in his absence some unknown persons destroyed the compound wall partially.

He gave report in Alipiri P.S. and filed a civil suit for injunction against

Jayaramaiah as he was claiming right over his site. He was granted permanent injunction and also police aid, he have obtained electricity connection also. He is paying tax to panchayat regularly, he approached L.W.2 as watchman at their site. He came to know that 7 some land grabbers are trying to grab his site by creating forged sale deeds. Then he lodged private complaint against one Purushotham and 6 others and also another complaint against Vanisree @ Anakamma and 6 others. Both were referred at P.S. Police filed charge sheet. Those cases are numbered as C.C.No.521/2012 and 156/2012 and those are pending before this court. On 23.05.2011 he started construction of four sheds in his site by engaging L.W.5 Kumar and L.W.6 Saravana who are mason workers. As he was suffering from ill-health, L.W.8 was supervising the work. On 27.05.2011 at around 8.00 a.m., while he was present in Chittoor L.W.2 called him and informed him that A.1 to A.3 and their followers came to their site and obstructed the work and they demolished the compound wall. He asked L.W.8 to go to the site immediately. He rushed to the site. He also came to the site in the afternoon. He noticed that compound wall and the walls raised by them were demolished partially. He went to their house, as he was not felling well and he would not got to police station on that date. On the next day he went to police station and presented the report. Ex.P.1 is complaint.

12. PW.2 B.Narasimhulu deposed that he is residing at Sreenagar

Colony in a shed, Tirupati and working as watchman at the house site of

P.W.1. On 23.05.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., himself, his wife L.W.3

Seshamma, L.W.4 Ammulu, L.W.5 Kumar and L.W.6 Saravana and other workers working at the house site of P.W.1. At that time A.1, A.2, A.4 to

A.6 were came into the site and objected for construction and removed the walls with hands and made galata and also threatened them with dire consequences since the site was belongs to them. Immediately he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone. P.W.1 replied that he was in out of station and informed that he will sent Vishnuvardhan Reddy.

8

After some time Vishnuvardahan Reddy came to the site of P.W.1.

Vishnuvardhan Reddy came to the site and resisted the accused and all the accused used filthy language against Vishnuvardhan Reddy. On the same day at about 1.30 p.m., thereafter Tahsildar and police came to the site of P.W.1 and instructed the above persons and the accused since it is a disputed land then all the accused were went away.

Thereafter P.W.1 gave report to the police.

13. P.W.3 N.Saravana deposed that he is native of Srikalahasti and he is mason by profession. He know P.W.1 and P.W.2. On 22.05.2011

P.W.1 approached them and asked to construct four sheds in his site situated at Srinagar colony, Tirupati. On 23.05.2011 himself and other labours were started construction work of four sheds at P.W.1's site. On 27.05.2011 at 8.00 a.m., himself and 5 other labours were attending construction work, in the meantime 10 persons came into the site out of them six persons warned them to not to construct the sheds and also remove the walls which were partly constructed by him. P.W.2 resisted the persons, then they threatened P.W.2. Immediately P.W.2 informed the above incident to P.W.1 over cell phone. P.W.1 sent his close relative to the spot. He also resisted the said persons. They threatened the relative of P.W.1. At about 1.00 p.m., police officers and Tahsildar came there and instructed the persons to go away from the said place, since it was a disputed site. Later P.W.1 came there and lodged a report

before police. The three persons present in the court hall and another

woman are the persons who demolished the walls on the site.

14. P.W.4 G.Kumar deposed that he is residing of Srikalahasti and working as mason. On 22.05.2011 P.W.1 asked him to construct four sheds at their site located in Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. Himself and

P.W.3 and other labours started construction work on 23.5.2011 onwards. On 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., while they are constructing 9 the sheds A.1 to A.3 to A.6 along with the 10 or 15 lab ours came into the site and threatened them and removed the walls and also threatened them to stop the construction work. P.W.2 resisted the tress passers. They also threatened P.W.2 to dire consequences later watchman i.e., P.W.2 informed the same to P.W.1 through cellphone after sometime L.W.8 B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy came there and resisted the said persons and also said persons threatened L.W.8. On the same day police and Tahasildar came to site and instructed them to stop the work then all the accused went away from the place of occurrence.

15. P.W.5 J.krishnamurthy deposed that he is residing at Settipalle

Village and lived by doing Civil contract works. He know P.W.1 to P.W.4.

On 27.05.2011 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was attending in work at

Sripuram Colony, Tirupati P.W.3 and P.W.4 was constructing wall at site of P.W.1 in the meantime A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 were came there and damaged the compound wall and also threatened the P.W.3 and P.W.4.

P.W.5 identified that A.1, A,2, A.4 and A.5 were damaged the wall.

16. P.W.6 Vishnuvardhan Reddy deposed that he is residing at

Tirupati and doing business. P.W.1 is her junior paternal uncle. He know

P.W.2 to P.W.5. P.W.1 having 0.25 cents house site in Sy.No.11/2B2A at

Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. About 20 years back P.W.1 constructed a compound wall and shed in the said site and he obtained power connection and also paid panchayat taxes in connection to the said site.

On 23.05.2011 on instructions of P.W.1 masons Kumar and Saravana started construction works in the said site. On 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 informed him over telephone that he received information from Narasimhulu who is working as watchman in the said site and he stated that A.1 to A.3 came to the site to stop the construction. Further

P.W.1 asked him that to go to site and observe what happened in the said site. Accordingly he rushed to the site and found that A.1 to A.6 10 were abusing P.W.2 and trespassed into the house site of P.W.1 and threatened the masons and labours with dire consequences and also abused them in filthy language. Then he objected their high handed acts. They also threatened him with dire consequences and also abused in unparliamentary language. Then he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone.

17. P.W.7 Raghunadh deposed that he retired from service as

A.S.I., of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati from 18.04.2011 to 31.08.2012. On 28.05.2011 while he was in-charge for the police station at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1 and he registered the same as FIR, as a case in Cr.No.125/2011 for the offence under Sec.143, 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P.7 is the FIR. He sent the original FIR along with the records to the concerned court. Then he immediately recorded the statement of P.W.1 and proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated at Srinagar Colony, Tirupati. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 and L.W.3

B.Seshamma and L.W.4 T.Ammulu and recorded their statements.

Basing on the statements made by the witnesses he added A.4 to A.6.

Further investigation was taken up by L.W.10.

18. P.W.8 B.Katamaraju deposed that he have been working as

Inspector of Police, Red Sander Anti Smuggling Task Force, Tirupati.

Previously he worked as Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station from 03.08.2011 to 03.02.2012. He verified the investigation conducted by

P.W.7 and found to be in correct lines. On 16.12.2011 he received credible information about the presence of the accused he proceeded towards Srinagar Colony along his staff and reached to the house of A.2 situated inD.No.8-66-4A,IIIStreet, SrinagarColony,

Satyanarayanapuram at 11.00 a.m., there he found six persons standing infront of house of their house, then he arrested A.1 to A.6 and 11 explained the reasons for arrest and sent the accused for judicial remand on the same day.

19. To prove the case of prosecution, the counsel for the accused examined D.W.1 A.Bhanumathi deposed that she is residing at

Annamaiah Nagar, Tirupati and retired as attender in Forest

Department. She constructed a house in Srinagar Colony in the year 2008. She know Lakshmaiah, Chenga Reddy, Indira Lakshmi, Venkata

Seshaiah, Ramesh they are her neighbours at Srinagar Colony. She know all of them since date of purchase of house at Srinagar Colony.

She do not know Jagadeshwar Reddy, but she heard his name.

Jagadeshwar Reddy is not having any house at Srinagar Colony. On 27.05.2011 at 8.00 a.m., not galata was happened at Srinagar Colony.

On 11.05.2011 she went to Bangalore to her daughter's house. D.W.1 came to Tirupati and neighbours informed that Jagadeshwar Reddy demolishing the houses at Srinagar Colony.

20. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6 it is admitted that

P.W.1 is having house site in Sy.No.11/2B/2A in an extent of 0.25 cents located in Akkarampalle Village accounts and constructed a compound wall and shed in that land and also admitted fact that there is civil cases pending with regard to pertaining to this property. Further P.W.2 who is the watchman was residing in the said shed since 10 years and P.W.1 is paying Rs.1,000/- per month as salary. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 who is the direct witness to the incident with regard to that on 27.05.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was present in his house he received phone call from P.W.2 and informed that A.1, A.2 and A.4 to A.6 were trespassed into the house site and demolished the shed and compound wall. Hence, it clearly shows that P.W.1 is having possession over that property and P.W.2 is 12 residing in that shed and also he was present at the time of incident and witnessed the incident is acceptable and believable. The counsel for the accused examined one Bhanumathi in chief as D.W.1 and D.W.1 did not turn up for the cross-examination. Hence, her evidence is not considered.

21. From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.6, I came to a conclusion that prosecution established the guilt of the accused A.1, A.2 and A.4 to

A.6 for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448 IPC r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. In the result, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.506 r/w 149 IPC.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. Further, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.143 & 448 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2015.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

When questioned as to quantum of sentence, the accused A.1, A.2,

A.4 to A.6 submitted that they are sole bread winners of their families and request to pleaded mercy stating that if they were committed to jail their families suffered with financial problems. In view of the nature of the offence, provisions of P.O. Act have no application. Having considered the plea of the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6, I am inclining to take a lenient view against them by imposing fine and I feel the same would meet the ends of Justice.

13

23. The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.143 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.448 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are informed their right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from

M.L.S.A.

Total fine amount comes to Rs.7,500/-.

Dictated to the personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2015.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution:

PW1:B.Jagadeeswara Reddy PW2:B.Narasimhulu PW3:N.Saravana PW4:G.Kumar PW5:J.Krishnamurthy PW6:B.Vishnuvardhan Reddy PW7:M.Raghunath PW8:B.Katama Raju

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Defence:

DW1:A.Bhanumathi 14

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution:Defence: Ex.P1Report given by P.W.1 Nil

Ex.P2Certified copy of sale deed dated 11.05.1982. Ex.P3Certified copy of rectification deed dated 28.03.2003 Ex.P4Certified copy of General Power of Attorney dated 28.05.2011. Ex.P5Certified copy of order in I.A.No.262/2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Ex.P6Certified copy of decree and judgment in

O.S.No.139/2010 on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Ex.P.7FIR in Crime No.125/2011 dated 28.05.2011, Alipiri Police station, Tirupati.

Id/- M.S.R.

IV AJCJ

Tirupati.

//True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

15

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Present:- Smt.M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 269 of 2012

Old C.C.No. 20 of 2012 on the file of

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

Date of offence :27.05.2011 Date of report :28.05.2011 Date of taken on file :11/01/12 Date of apprehension (appearance) :17.06.2013 Date of commencement of trial :10/03/14 Date of close of trial :03/12/15 Date of Judgment :07/12/15 Complainant :The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati Cr.No.125 of 2011

Name of the accusedFather's nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal

Kakani Venkata K.Venkataiah45 yrsTeacherHinduRayachotiRayachoti Seshaiah K.LakshmaiahK.Venkatramana37 yrsElectricianHinduTirupatiTirupati P.KannaiahP.VenkatrayuluThe case against A.3 was abated as per docket order dated 22.04.2013 Chinnakotla Indra W/o. 41 yrsTeacherHinduTirupatiTirupati LakshmiC.Venugopal Sagabala Pulla Reddy67 yrsBusinessHinduTirupatiTirupati Gudireddigari Chenga Reddy @ S.G.Chenga Reddy Dudhi RameshChenchuramaiah 39 yrsBusinessHinduTirupatiTirupati @ Chenchaiah

Nature of offenceUnder Sec.143, 448 & 506 IPC r/w 149 IPC

FindingFound guilty

Sentence or order: In the result, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Sec.506 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Further, the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are found 16 guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.143 & 448 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

The accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.143 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to

A.6 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each and also sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) each for the offence punishable under Sec.448 IPC in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 are informed their right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from

M.L.S.A.

Accused A.1, A.2, A.4 to A.6 paid total fine amount of Rs.7,500/-.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani,

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

//True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

Present:- Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 253 of 2012

Old C.C.No. 437 of 2011 on the file of

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

Between:

The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati

in Cr.No.43/2011... Complainant

And

A.1:B.Guruva Reddy, 70 years, S/o late Lakshmana Reddy, D.No.7-10, Church street, Newpet, Chandragiri. A.2:B.Jagadeeswara reddy,62 years, S/o Raghunadha Reddy, D.No.18-4-114B, 3rd cross, Railway colony, Tirupati. A.3:B.Ravi sankar redd, 48 years, S/o B.Ramakrishna reddy, D.No.3-86, N.r.Nagar, Malkajgri, Hyderabad. A.4:G.Rajendra Naidu, 66 years, S/o G.M.Mahadeva Naidu, D.No.4-2020/11, Durga Nagar colony, Chittoor. A.5:G.Ramamurthy Naidu @ K.Ramamurthy Naidu, 70 years, S/o K.Errayya Naidu, Flat No.G5, Moutain View Apartments, Road No.2 Banjara hills, Hyderabad. A.6:M.Sreenivasulu @ Seenu, 49 years, S/o Late M.Balaraju, B.Malakrishnapuram, Mangalam, Tirupati. A.7:Bochu Mani, 42 years, S/o B.Lakshmaiah, Thimminaidupalem, Harijanawada, Tirupati. A.8:K.Babu, 25 years, S/o K.Desaiah, Diguvapalem, Thimminaidupalem Harijanawada, Tirupati. A.9:S.Babu, 42 years, The case against S/o S.Jayaramaiah,A.9 was abated D.No.3-18, Mathamma Madigawada,as per docket Thimminaidupalem, Tirupati.order dated 16.08.2012.

2

A.10:M.Chengalraulu, 37 years, S/o M.Bathaiah, Thimminaidupalem H.W. Tirupati.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 02.12.2015 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P., for the State and of Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate for the accused No.1, 3 to 8 and 10 and Sri M.N.Mani, Advocate for the accused A.2 and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:

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

The Inspector of Police, Alipiri P.S., Tirupati filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sec.147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149

IPC against the accused A.1 to A.10 in Cr.No.43/2011.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the land in S.No.11/2B/2A of

Akkarampalli village Accounts, some of the persons purchased the land from the absolute owners and divided them into house plots and sold them to different persons. There are dispute over the said land in between A1 to A5 and others on one side and LW1 K.Nagaraja Naidu,

LW5 (K.Lakshmaiah), LW6 (P.Lakshmi Reddy) and some others, who have purchased house plots, constructed houses, sheds and compound walls at their respective sites. A1 to A5 threatened L.W.5 and 6 and other residents of Sree Nagar, Tirupati that the land in which they have constructed houses, sheds and compound wall at Sree Nagar, Tirupati is belongs to them and demanded to vacate and handover the same to them immediately otherwise they will face dire consequences. While so on the intervening night of 19/20-02-2011 at about 12-30 a.m., at Sree

Nagar Colony, Tirupati on the instigation of A1 to A5, A6 to A10 and some others who are the followers of A1 to A5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like crow bars, 3 spades etc., criminally trespassed into the premises of the house site of

LW1 K.Nagaraja Naidu and some others after preparation for hurt, demolished the houses, sheds and compound wall of nearly 20 to 25 house sites by behaving high handedly and caused loss about

Rs.2,00,000/-, beat the inmates of the houses including L.W.1

K.Nagaraja Naidu, L.W.2 N.Seshamma to L.W.4 G.Bujji with hands and threatened them with dire consequences with the common object of occupying the house sites of L.W.1 K.Nagaraja Naidu and others and escaped. In this connection on the report of L.W.1 K.Nagaraja Naidu, a casein Cr.No.43 of 2011 under Sec.147, 148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149

IPC was registered and investigated into. Thus the accused A.1 to A.10 have committed the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken by III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati, the accused A.1 to A.10 are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC and it was transfered to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble District

Judge, Chittoor in Dis.No.1853/2012/OP.CELL, dated 27.02.2012.

4. After receiving the summons, the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 were present before the court and they were furnished with the copies of documents under section 207 Cr.P.C. and examined them under

Sec.239 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations charged under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and M.O.1. Ex.P.1 is report of

P.W.1, Ex.P.2 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2, Ex.P.3 is 161 Cr.P.C., 4 statement of P.W.3, Ex.P.4 is gas bill, Ex.P.5 is electricity consumption bill, Ex.P.6 is property tax receipts, Ex.P.7 is FIR in Crime No.43/2011,

Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Ex.P.8 is rough sketch of the scene of offence and Ex.P.9 is police proceedings. M.O.1 is bricks.

6. In order to prove the case the defence counsel got marked

Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6. Ex.D.1 is registered sale deed, Ex.D.2 is red marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4, Ex.D.3 is red marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5, Ex.D.4 is registered documents dated 19.09.2006, Ex.D.5 is FIR in Crime No.37/2010 of Alipiri Police Station and Ex.D.6 is charge in Crime No.37/2010, C.C.No.521/2012 of Alipiri

Police Station.

7. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused

A.1 to A.7 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the incriminating evidence appeared on prosecution side and reported no evidence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned APP filed written arguments and argued that the prosecution examined all the material witnesses and marked the relevant documents and established the guilt of the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 are liable to be punishable for the offences under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

The learned APP filed authorities reported in 2011 (1) ALD (Crl.) 402 (SC) Jagat Singh Vs. State of H.P., and 2011(2) ALD (Crl.) 407 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Putchalapalli Naresh Reddy and others.

10. The counsel for the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 argued that the prosecution registered the case under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10. On behalf of the 5 prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and marked the documents

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Further argued that prosecution did not seize any deadly weapons and did not obtain any photographs at the scene of offence and only seized M.O.1 i.e., brick and did not speak anything about the injuries caused by the accused to P.W.1 to P.W.5 and there is long standing disputes between the complainant and the accused with regard to the Sy.No.11/2-B/2 Akkarampalli Village accounts in an extent of 165 acres. The accused purchased the house site in Sy.No.11/2-B/2 from the lawful owners under registered sale deeds, since then they are having possession over that properties. Meanwhile the complainant created the false documents by impersonating one Seetha and

Ankamma with intention to grab the properties and to establish the possession and ownership of the said house site but either the complainant or the prosecution did not filed any valid registered sale deeds pertaining to the said lands, it shows that they do not have any valid documents to get possession over the property and the complainant himself examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are examined as direct witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecution. Further more A.1 to A.8 and A.10 are employees and retired employees and they are residing in different places. After knowing the existence of the false documents they filed Civil suits against the complainants and some others and filed the certified copies i.e., FIR in Crime No.37/2010 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati, Charge sheet in C.C.No.521/2012 on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Tirupati, FIR in Crime No.38/2010 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati,

Charge sheet in C.C.No.156/2012 on the file of Hon'ble IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, Judgment in O.S.No.139/2010 dated 15.07.2010 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and 6

Decree in O.S.No.139/2010 dated 15.07.2010 on the file of Hon'ble

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Further prosecution did not file any

original documents pertaining to those lands to establish the ownership and possession of the complainant. Hence the prosecution failed to established the guilt of the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

The counsel for the accused No.2 filed authorities reported in [1] 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 780 Kalyan and others Vs. State of U.P., [2] 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 181 (SC) Toran Singh Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh, [3] 1998(3) Crimes 98 (SC) Swaran Singh Vs. State of J & K and [4] 2004(2) Crimes 189 (SC) Ashok Vishnu Davare Vs. State of

Maharashtra.

11. Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the offences

punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC

against the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10?

POINT:

12. The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined P.W.1 to P.W.7. P.W.1 K.Nagaraja Naidu deposed that he is residing at

Korlagunta, Tirupati. He is Ex-Servicemen. He know A.1, A.2 and A.4 only. He purchased a house site in an extent of 35 ankanams in

Sy.No.11/2-B/2 in the year 2010 from one Gajendra through registered sale deed. There was one shed and also compound wall in that site by the date of her purchasing. After purchasing it he used to reside in that shed with his family. On 19.02.2011 in the early hours at around 00.30 a.m. 30 to 40 persons came to his house. They destroyed the compound wall and his shed. They threatened that they would see his end. They destroyed cement sheet sheds in the neighbouring sites and 7 its compound walls also. They called police. Police came there. 5 or 6 days prior to the incident A.1 and A.2 came to them and claimed ownership over his site and surrounding sites and demanded them to vacate the sites and threatened that if they would not vacate the sites they have to face dire consequences. He gave report to the police. He handed over xerox copies of documents to police. Ex.P.1 is report. He cannot identify the persons who destroyed their sheds and they might have been sent by A.1 and A.2 and compound walls. He sustained loss of Rs.2.00 lakhs when the mob destroyed his shed and house.

13. P.W.2 Seshamma deposed that she is resident of Muthirevula village, Chittoor District. Temporarily she is residing at

Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati. She do not know the witnesses and also the accused. P.W.2 do not know anything about this case. Since

P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution and declaring as hostile and P.W.2 was cross examined by learned APP with the permission of the court and her 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.2.

14. P.W.3 B.Babu deposed that he is resident of

Sathyanarayanapuram, Tirupati and working as Labour. P.W.2 is his mother and do not know other witnesses. P.W.3 do not know anything about this case. Since P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and declaring as hostile and P.W.3 was cross examined by learned APP with the permission of the court and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P.3.

15. P.W.4 Lakshmaiah deposed that he is residing at Tirupati and working as electrician. He purchased a house site to the extent of 50 ankanams in Sy.No.11/2B2A from Hemalatha in the year 2007 by registered sale deed since then he is having possession over the said land and constructed a shed in the said site with D.No.8/66. He 8 regularly paying house tax and electricity bill for the said shed. On 19.02.2011 while he was sleeping in his house (shed) A.1 to A.5 along with the coolies i.e., A.6 to A.10 and some other persons demolished the compound wall. They also demolished 25 sheds. They all went to the police station and P.W.1 gave complaint in the police station. Ex.P.4 is gas cylinder supply bill, Ex.P.5 is gas connection bill and Ex.P.6 is receipt of property tax. He produced copies obtained through mee seva i.e.,

Aadhar card and property tax and electricity bill.

16. P.W.5 P.Lakshmi Reddy deposed that he is residing at Tirupati and working as driver. He know all the accused. He purchased a house site to the extent of 50 ankanams in Sy.No.11/2B2A from one Sita, W/o.

A.Sathyanarayana Murthy in the year 2005 by registered sale deed since then he had possession over the said land and constructed a shed in the said site. He do not remember the door number. He regularly paying house tax and electricity bill for the said shed. On 19.02.2011

P.W.3 informed him over phone that 10 to 15 persons came to site and demolishing the shed and the compound wall. They also demolished 10 to 15 sheds. In total there are 40 sheds were present. At the time of incident A.1 to A.4, A.6 to A.8 were present in said site. On the next day they all went to the police station and P.W.1 gave complaint in the police station.

17. P.W.6 P.C.V.Subba Reddy deposed that he is working as

Inspector of Police, C.I.D., Tirupati. Previously he worked as S.I. of

Police, Alipiri Police Station from 11.01.2010 to 26.02.2011. On the intervening night of 20.02.2011 at about 2.00 a.m., while he was present at the police station P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1 and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.43/2011 for the offences under Sec.147, 148, 427, 324, 506, 452 r/w 149 IPC. Ex.P.7 9 is the FIR. He sent the original FIR along with the records to the concerned court. Then he immediately recorded the statement of P.W.1 examined and recorded his statement. On the same day at about 3.30 p.m., he proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated at

Sy.No.11/2B2A, Srinagar Colony, observed and prepared the rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P.8 is the rough sketch of scene of offence. At the scene of offence he examined P.W.2, P.W.3, L.W.4 Bujji, P.W.4 and

P.W.5 recorded their statements. He obtained the photos of scene of offence and also seized broken pieces of bricks. On 24.02.2011 at 12.30 p.m., at Thimminaidupalem cross roads, he arrested A.6 to A.10 and sent for judicial remand. Further investigation was conducted by

Inspector of Police.

18. P.W.7 P.Sathya Babu deposed that he is working as Inspector of Police, V.R.Anantapur. Previously worked as CI of Police, Alipiri PS from 09.08.2010 to 04.08.2011. On 21.03.2011 he took up further investigation in this case. During the course of further investigation, he verified the investigation done by P.W.6 and found to be on correct lines. On 15.03.2011 while he was present in the police station A.1 to

A.5 by Hon'ble III ADJ's Court, Tirupati vide Crl.M.P.Nos.343/2011, 344/2011, 345/2011 and after completion of investigation L.W.9

Katamaraju filed charge sheet against the accused.

19. There is no dispute with regard to the pending of Civil suits between the complainant and the accused since long time and the evidence of P.W.1 is that at the time of chief examination he stated that he purchased a house site in an extent of 35 ankanams in Sy.No.11/2-

B/2 in the year 2010 from one Gajendra through registered sale deed at the time of purchasing that site there is one shed in compound wall to 10 that site after that he is residing in that shed. Further deposed that on 19.02.2011 in the early hours at about 3.30 a.m., 30 to 40 persons came to his house and destroyed compound wall and his shed and he cannot identified the persons who destroyed the shed and also at the time of cross examination by the counsel for A.2, A.3 to A.8 and A.10 he admitted that he is residing at D.No.6-8-1125, NGO's Colony, Tirupati for 10 years, it creates doubt that whether P.W.1 is residing at the scene of offence and also he witnessed the incident. Further P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.5 at the time of chief examination he stated that he purchased house site to the extent of 50 ankanams in Sy.No.11/2B/2A under the registered sale deed and constructed a shed and produced

Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 i.e., electricity consumption bill and property tax receipt which were obtained through Mee-seva. In his cross examination he admitted that he sell away the 25 cents to one

K.Lakshmi and executed a registered sale deed and further admitted that there is Civil cases are pending pertaining to this house site and he is attending in that case. Further admitted that he do not obtain permission from TUDA for construction and also he admitted that he did not conduct survey of the said land. In the absence of corroborative evidence of the direct witnesses to the incident i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 who are claimed to be owners of the said land and also they did not file any valid documents to prove that they are lawful owners and having valid documents. In the absence of the documentary evidence to support the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 is not considered to prove the fact they are having possession over the scene of offence and accused trespassed into that land.

Hence, from the evidence of the direct witnesses i.e., P.W.2 and P.W.3 11 who witnessed the incident to speak about the presence of the accused at the scene of offence did not support the case of prosecution and their 161 Cr.P.C., statements were marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3.

20. From the above discussion, I came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused A.1 to A.8 and

A.10 for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC under benefit of doubt.

21. In the result, the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

The material object M.O.1 i.e., bricks shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of December, 2015.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution:Defence: PW1:K.Nagaraja Naidu PW2:N.Seshamma-- None -- PW3:N.Babu PW4:K.Lakshmaiah PW5:P.Lakshmi Reddy PW6:P.C.Subba Reddy PW7:P.Satya Babu 12

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution:

Ex.P1Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

Ex.P4Gas bill

Ex.P5Electricity consumption bill

Ex.P6Property tax receipts

Ex.P7FIR in Crime No.43/2011, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati.

Ex.P8Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Defence:

Ex.D1Register sale deed Ex.D2Red marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4

Ex.D3Red marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5

Ex.D4Registered document dated 19.09.2006

Ex.D5FIR in Crime No.37/2010 of Alipiri Police Station.

Ex.D6Charge in Crime No.37/2010 in C.C.No.521/2012 of Alipiri Police station

Material objects:

M.O.1: Bricks Id/- M.S.R.

IV AJCJ

Tirupati.

//True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

13

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Monday, the Seventh (7th) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 253 of 2012

Old C.C.No. 437 of 2011 on the file of

III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

Date of offence :19/20.02.2011 Date of report :20.02.2011 Date of taken on file :10/10/11 Date of apprehension (appearance) :26.03.2013 Date of commencement of trial :03/02/14 Date of close of trial :02/12/15 Date of Judgment :07/12/15 Complainant :The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati in Cr.No.43/2011

Name of the Father's nameAge Calling ReligionResidenceMandal accused B.Gurava ReddyLate Lakshmana 73 Retired HinduChandragiri Chandra ReddyyearsEmployeegiri B.Jagadeeswara Raghunadha 67 Retired HinduTirupatiTirupati ReddyReddyyearsEmployee B.Ravi Sankar B.Ramakrishna 51 SoftwareHinduHyderabadHyderab ReddyReddyyearsEngineerad G.Rajendra NaiduG.M.Mahadeva 70 EmployeeHinduChittoorChittoor Naiduyears G.Ramamurthy K.Errayya Naidu71 Vice HinduRamasamuPuttur Naidu @ yearsChancellordram K.Ramamurthy Naidu M.Srinivasulu @ Late M.Balaraju60 CoolieHinduTirupatiTirupati Seenuyears B.ManiB.Lakshmaiah48 CoolieHinduTirupatiTirupati years K.BabuK.Desaiah38 CoolieHinduTirupatiTirupati years S.BabuS.JayaramaiahThe case against A.9 was abated as per docket order dated 16.08.2012. M.ChengalrayuluM.Bathaiah45 CoolieHinduTirupatiTirupati years

Nature of offence Under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Finding Found not guilty 14

Sentence or In the result, the accused A.1 to A.8 and A.10 order: are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.148, 452, 427, 323, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

The material object M.O.1 i.e., bricks shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

//True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI

Present:: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Tirupati

Monday, the third (3rd) day of April, two thousand seventeen.

C.C.No. 265 of 2012

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its, the Sub-Inspector of Police, M.R. Palli Police Station, Tirupati (Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R.Palli Police Station)

.. Complainant

-Versus-

1. G. Bhanuprakash, age 35 yrs., S/o G.Ramakrishna Reddy, D.No.60-11, Kadi Colony, Tirupati, BJVM State Present, Kapu by caste.

2. Smanchi Sreenivas, age 34 yrs., S/o O.V.Swamy, D.No.21, Peddakapu Street, Tirupati, Balija by caste, BJP town president.

3. N.Ramesh Naidu, age 24 yrs., S/o N.Subbaiah, D.No.10-50/10A, Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

4. B.S. Balakrishna, age 25 yrs., S/o S.Rathanaiah, D.No.10-50/10A, Maruthinager, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

5. N.Sreeramulu, age 32 yrs., S/o Sreenivasulu, D.No.19-5-50, Gandhipuram, Tirupati, SC by caste.

6. K.Devarajulu Naidu, age 34 yrs., S/o Ramachandra Naidu, D.No.249/D, Abbanna Colony, Tirupati, Kamma by caste.

7. Ratakonda Viswanath age 24 yrs., S/o R.Ramanaiah Naidu, D.No.18-5-91, Sapthagiri Nagar, K.T Road, Tirupati, BJVM district leader, Kamma by caste.

8. J.K. Parasuram, age 38 yrs., S/o Thikamanjal Purohit, D.No.338, Nethaji Road, Tirupati, caste by purohit.

9. T.D.Varaprasad, age 29 yrs., S/o T.Muneiah, D.No.11-6-640, Indira Nagar, Tirupati, BJYM town president, balija by caste.

10 E.Amar, age 23 yrs., S/o Rajagopal Naidu, D.No.10-50/A, New Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

11 C.Naveen Kumar, age 22 yrs., S/o C.Raghupathi Naidu, D.No.20-2-540, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati town, Kamma by caste.

12 N.Radhakrishna, age 46 yrs., S/o N.Subbaramaiah, D.No.1-23, M.R. Palli, 2

Opposite to Z.P High School, Tirupati Rural, Balija by caste 13 N.Harash Vardhan Chowdari, age 22 yrs., S/o N.Janardhan, D.No.50, New Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati, Cowdari by caste.

14 Y.M.Sekhar, age 24 yrs., S/o Y.M.Sundarama Naidu, N.R. Kammapalli, R.C. Puram Mandal, Kamma by caste.

15 K.Balavenkateswar, age 24 yrs., S/o Siddaiah, D.No.8-3-23, N.T Road, Tirupati.

16 V.Divakar age 22 yrs., S/o V.Venkataraju, D.No.19-4-305, STV Nagar, Tirupati, balija by caste.

17 T. Gangadaram, age 26 yrs., S/o T.Sudhakar, D.No.16-72, Balaji Colony, Nellore, Now at Tirupati, Agnikulakshathriya by caste.

18 K. Pratap Reddy, age 24 yrs., S/o Munaswamy Reddy, D.No.8-10/A, Rayal Nagar, R.C. Nagar, Tirupati, Pallireddy by caste.

19 C.Penchula Reddy @ C.P. Reddy, age 27 yrs., S/o Subbaiah, D.No.27, Bairagipatteda, near Arch, Tirupati, Kapu Reddy by caste.

20 G.Sivanadha Reddy, age 25 yrs., S/o G.Chennakesava Reddy, A.B.V.P office, M.R.Palli, Tirupati Rural Kapu Reddy by caste.

The case against A8, A15 and A18 is split up and numbered as

C.C.40/2015.

The case against A12 is abetted as he is died … Accused

This case is coming on 30.03.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, M.R. Palli P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R.Palli P.S for the offence punished

U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 509, 298 of IPC and Sec.3 of the Prevention of

Damages to the Public Property Act, 1984 r/w 149 of IPC.

2. In nut shell the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet is that on 14.03.2007 at about 10.30 am, A1 to A20 noted above being the party workers of BJP and BJYM have congregated infront of the main entrance gate of Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam, Tirupati and started raising slogans against the authorities of Sri Padmavathi Mahala Viswa

Vidyalayam in protest against the suicidal death of A.Uma Maheswari, M.Sc., 1st 3 year Applied Mathematics student of the said Viswa Vidyalayam on 12.03.2007.

Suddenly at about 10:40 am., A1 to A20 noted above formed themselves as members of un-lawfull assembly, forcibly opened the main entrance gates, criminally treas passed into the premises of the said Mahila University,

Manhandled the security guards i.e., LWs.2 to 4 by pushing them, damaged the

Accent Car AP-03-N-9456 belongs to Vice Chancellor by throwing the flower pots, also damaged flower pots, uttered insulting words against woman Vice

Chancellor and shouted slogans disaffecting the religious feelings and also abused in filthy language. This was witnessed by LWs1 to 6. LW9

Sri Y.Syamsundaram, S.I of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.31/2007 on the report of LW1 Sri C.Rangappa and during the course of investigation recorded the statements of LWs1 to 6 and also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized mirror glass pieces, red light glass pieces and flower pots pieces under the cover of mahazar on 14.03.2007 and attested by LWs8 and 9 and also arrested A1 to A20 on 14.03.207. Hence the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken by this court against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of IPC Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of

Damages to the Public Property Act.

4. After receiving the summons, the accused were present before this court and they were furnished with copies and the accused were examined under

Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charge under U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of IPC Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act, has been framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9, M.O.1 to M.O.4.

Ex.P1 is Signature in the report, Ex.P.2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1, Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2, Ex.P4 is the Report, Ex.P5 is the First

Information Report in Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R. Palli P.S., Ex.P6 is the Rough sketch in Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R. Palli P.S., Ex.P7 is the Mahazarnama, Ex.P8 is

Photos and corresponding C.Ds. M.O.1 is Gajumukkalu, M.O.2 is Car Red

Rangu Kalingina Light, M.O.3 is Pagilina Poola Kundilu, M.O.4 is Car right 4 door glass pieces.

6. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C, and they denied the evidence on prosecution side and reported no evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

8.Now the issue that arisen for consideration is:Whether the

prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges levelled against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :-

9. In order to prove its case, the State has examined nine witnesses who said to be the first informant and employees in said Mahila Viswa

Vidyalayam respectively. But Pws.1 and 2 have deviated from their previous version stated during investigation and before the court in the evidence, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile in toto. As per the evidence of PW.1 as per the evidence of PW1 he worked as a Registrar at

Mahila Viswa Vidyalayam at about 10 years back on one day one student died by name Maheswari died by committing suicide at girls hostel the same was informed to him then he went to the girls hostel at that time some students made agitation against him about the ill treatment towards the minority students, he further stated that he came to know through watchmen that somebody is conducting darna infront of the college, he is not willing to give evidence against the accused since he was not present at the time of the incident. Pws.2 is also one of eye witness and driver official car of Vice Chancellor of deposed that he do not know about the cases facts and police did not examine them. Since, PWs.1 to 2 failed to make any incrimination against the accused by supporting the case of the prosecution, PW3 who registered the crime and conducted investigation in this case deposed as per the contents of his charge sheet. Further during his cross examination he admitted that he do not enquired about the official vehicle of the

Vice Chancellor as the prime allegation against the accused is that they got damaged the official vehicle of Vice Chancellor and red bulb of said . Further the prosecution did not examined the crucial witnesses i.e., the Vice Chancellor of the Padmavathi Mahila University who is discharging official duties and the accused formed unlawful assembly and made protest and got damaged the 5

Accent car. Furthermore, the security guards who tried to protect the Vice

Chancellor and sustained injuries was not examined by the prosecution. in the absence of the evidence of the above direct witnesses the evidence of investigation officer is not considered and whatever the allegations leveled against the accused are not proved and they are false. Moreover, the prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Since there is no incriminating evidence made against the accused from the evidence of PWs.1 to 2 and since no other evidence is placed before the court , the State is failed to prove the offences leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the

State and in favour of the defence.

10.In the result, accused/A1 to A7, A9 to A11, A13 to 14, A16 & 17,

A19 & A20 are fund not guilty for the offence u/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of

IPC and Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. Hence they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 3th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Sandhya Rani

III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Accused

PW1: C. Rangappa-Nil- PW2: J. Munirathnam PW3: Y. Syamsundaram

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature in the report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: Report Ex.P5: First Information Report in Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R. Palli P.S. Ex.P6: Rough sketch in Cr.No.31/2007 of M.R. Palli P.S.

6

Ex.P7: Mahazarnama Ex.P8: Photos and corresponding C.Ds.

Accused:

-Nil -

Material Objects:

M.O.1: Gajumukkalu M.O.2: Car Red Rangu Kalingina Light M.O.3: Pagilina Poola Kundilu M.O.4: Car right door glass pieces.

// true copy //

Sd/-M.Sandhya Rani

III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, III AJCJ Tirupati Tirupati 7

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDIT IONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.265 OF 2012

Date of Offence: 14.03.2007 Date of Complaint: 14.03.2007 Date of Taken on file: 18.03.2017 Date of apprehension: 14.03.2007 Date of Commencement of trial: 21.03.2017 Date of Close of trial: 30.03.2017 Date of Judgment: 03.04.2017 Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, M.R.Palli P.S, Tirupati Cr.No.31/2007.

1. G. Bhanuprakash, age 35 yrs., S/o G.Ramakrishna Reddy, D.No.60-11, Kadi Colony, Tirupati, BJVM State Present, Kapu by caste.

2. Smanchi Sreenivas, age 34 yrs., S/o O.V.Swamy, D.No.21, Peddakapu Street, Tirupati, Balija by caste, BJP town president.

3. N.Ramesh Naidu, age 24 yrs., S/o N.Subbaiah, D.No.10-50/10A, Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

4. B.S. Balakrishna, age 25 yrs., S/o S.Rathanaiah, D.No.10-50/10A, Maruthinager, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

5. N.Sreeramulu, age 32 yrs., S/o Sreenivasulu, D.No.19-5-50, Gandhipuram, Tirupati, SC by caste.

6. K.Devarajulu Naidu, age 34 yrs., S/o Ramachandra Naidu, D.No.249/D, Abbanna Colony, Tirupati, Kamma by caste.

7. Ratakonda Viswanath age 24 yrs., S/o R.Ramanaiah Naidu, D.No.18-5-91, Sapthagiri Nagar, K.T Road, Tirupati, BJVM district leader, Kamma by caste.

8. J.K. Parasuram, age 38 yrs., S/o Thikamanjal Purohit, D.No.338, Nethaji Road, Tirupati, caste by purohit.

9. T.D.Varaprasad, age 29 yrs., S/o T.Muneiah, D.No.11-6-640, Indira Nagar, Tirupati, BJYM town president, balija by caste.

10 E.Amar, age 23 yrs., S/o Rajagopal Naidu, D.No.10-50/A, New Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati Rural, Kamma by caste.

11 C.Naveen Kumar, age 22 yrs., S/o C.Raghupathi Naidu, D.No.20-2-540, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupati town, Kamma by caste.

12 N.Radhakrishna, age 46 yrs., S/o N.Subbaramaiah, D.No.1-23, M.R. Palli, Opposite to Z.P High School, Tirupati Rural, Balija by caste 13 N.Harash Vardhan Chowdari, age 22 yrs., S/o N.Janardhan, D.No.50, New Maruthi Nagar, M.R. Palli, Tirupati, Cowdari by caste.

14 Y.M.Sekhar, age 24 yrs., S/o Y.M.Sundarama Naidu, N.R. Kammapalli, R.C.

8

Puram Mandal, Kamma by caste.

15 K.Balavenkateswar, age 24 yrs., S/o Siddaiah, D.No.8-3-23, N.T Road, Tirupati.

16 V.Divakar age 22 yrs., S/o V.Venkataraju, D.No.19-4-305, STV Nagar, Tirupati, balija by caste.

17 T. Gangadaram, age 26 yrs., S/o T.Sudhakar, D.No.16-72, Balaji Colony, Nellore, Now at Tirupati, Agnikulakshathriya by caste.

18 K. Pratap Reddy, age 24 yrs., S/o Munaswamy Reddy, D.No.8-10/A, Rayal Nagar, R.C. Nagar, Tirupati, Pallireddy by caste.

19 C.Penchula Reddy @ C.P. Reddy, age 27 yrs., S/o Subbaiah, D.No.27, Bairagipatteda, near Arch, Tirupati, Kapu Reddy by caste.

20 G.Sivanadha Reddy, age 25 yrs., S/o G.Chennakesava Reddy, A.B.V.P office, M.R.Palli, Tirupati Rural Kapu Reddy by caste.

The case against A8, A15 and A18 is split up and numbered as

C.C.40/2015

The case against A12 is abetted as he is died

Section of Law: U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of IPC Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of Damages to the Public Property Act

Finding of the Court: A1 to A7, A9 to A11, A13 to 14, A16 & 17, A19 & A20 are not found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused/A1 to A7, A9 to A11, A13 to 14, A16 & 17, A19 & A20 are fund not guilty for the offence u/Sec.143, 447, 323, 427, 298 of IPC and Sec.3 r/w 34 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act. Hence they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani.

III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati. To, The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Chittoor.// true copy // Dis.No................./2017. III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

Present:- Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, the Second (2nd) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 313 of 2013

Between:

The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Chandragiri P.S. in (Cr.No.82/2013)

... Complainant

And:

Nagili Raja, aged 42 years, S/o. Late N.Dharmaiah, D.No.7-82, Lakshmipuram, Perumallapalli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 01.12.2015 for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P., for the State and of Sri C.Venkatrami Reddy, Advocate

for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for

consideration this court delivered the following:

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

The Inspector of Police, Chandragiri Police Station filed charge sheet for the offence under Sec.25(1-b) (a) of Arms Act against the accused in Cr.No.82/2013.

2. The facts of the prosecution case as arrayed in the charge sheet in brief are as follows: On 03.05.2013 at 6.30 p.m., near Railway gate on

Srinivasamangapuram – Srivarimettu road, Chandragiri Mandal, L.W.9

M.Naga Bhushanam noticed accused was carrying SBML gun keeping it on his shoulders. On seeing the police jeep accused attempted to run away 2 from that place, immediately L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam has caught hold of him with assistance of his staff i.e., L.W.3 P.Uday Kumar to L.W.6 T.Babu.

Later L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam interrogated the accused in the presence of

L.W.1 J.Jaya Chandra and L.W.2 A.Raghuramaiah. On interrogation he revealed his name and address and confessed about the possession. Then

L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam seized the above arm from the possession of the accused and arrested him after informing the grounds of arrest to him in the presence of L.W.1 J.Jaya Chandra and L.W.2 A.Raghuramaiah under cover of

Mahazarnama and brought to Police Station of Chandragiri PS for taking further action. On the strength of the above Mahazarnama a case in

Cr.No.82/2013 under Sec.25(1-b)(a) of Arms Act of Chandragiri PS was registered by L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam against the accused and took up investigation of the case. After observation of all legal arresting formalities

L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam sent the accused to the Hon'ble Court for remand. The seized countrymade SBML gun was properly sealed and labeled forwarded to APFSL, Hyderabad for examination and report. After examination the above arms L.W.7 Assistant Director of FSL, Hyderabad has sent his report in file No.BAL/51/2013 dated 09.07.2013 and opined that item No.1 is a countrymade SBML gun, is in working order and comes under the purview of Arms act and sent FSL report accordingly. After receipt of

FSL report L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam has submitted all the records along with case file to the Hon'ble District Collector, Chittoor through the

Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Tirupati for seeking prosecution orders to the accused for the offence under Sec.25(1-b)(a) of

Arms act. After perusal of the all records the Hon'ble District Magistrate and

Collector, Chittoor has issued proceedings No.C4/6547/2013 and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence under Sec.25(1-b) (a) pf

Arms act. L.W.8 Mahamood Iqbal who is the clerk of Collector office has 3 sent the copy of sanction order issued by District Collector, Chittoor to L.W.8

Mahamood Iqbal for taking necessary action. Thus the accused is liable for punishment Under Sec.25 (1-b)(a) of Arms Act. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken by this court for the offence punishable under section 25 (1-B)(A) of Arms Act against the accused.

4. After receiving the summons, the accused was present before the court and he was furnished with copies of documents U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and charges have been framed for the offences 25(1-B)(a) of Indian Arms Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused got examined

PW.1 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1. Ex.P.1 is signature of

P.W.1 on mahazar dated 03.05.2013, Ex.P.2 is Mahazarnama dated 03.05.2013, Ex.P.3 is FIR in Crime No.82/2013 dated 03.05.2013 of

Chandragiri Police Station, Ex.P.4 is FSL Report along with letter of advice and Ex.P.5 is sanction orders issued by the Collector. M.O.1 is SBML countrymade Gun. The evidence of L.W.3 P.Uday Kumar, L.W.4 T.Gopal,

L.W.6 T.Babu, L.W.7 Dr.V.Venkateswarlu (Assistant Director, FSL) and L.W.8

Mahamood Iqbal was given up by the A.P.P.

6. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence made out against him.

7. Heard both sides.

4

8. The learned APP argued that prosecution examined all the material witnesses and marked the relevant documents and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he is liable to be punished under Sec.25(1-B)(A) Arms Act.

9. The defence counsel argued that the prosecution exmained P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and M.O.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the independent witnesses and P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the official witnesses.

P.W.1 did not support the case of prosecution and there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 as P.W.4 stated that he collected the mediators i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 at Srinivasamangapuram P.W.3 admitted that after caught holding the accused at the scene of offence they secure the mediators from Narasingapuram, it creates doubt about the presence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of seizer of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused under cover of mahazarnama. Further argued that P.W.2 at the time of chief examination he supported the case of prosecution and identified the accused and at the time of cross examination he admitted that he do not know the accused and he put his signature on Ex.P.3 i.e., mahazarnama in the police station and it clearly shows the presence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the scene of offence. Further argued that the accused is the native of Lakshmipuram Village and living by grazing goats in the forest.

P.W.4 instructed him to give information about the Red Sandal Smugglers in that forest area but the accused did not know about the Red Sander

Smugglers. Hence, P.W.4 foisted false case against the accused. The independent witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution. Hence the prosecution did not established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.25(1-B)(A) of

Arms Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

10. Now the point that arisen for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the offence

U/s.25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

11. P.W.1 J.Jayachandra deposed that he is residing at

Srinivasamangapuram and doing cultivation. He know L.W.2 Raghuramaiah.

On 03.05.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., he went to the police station on his personal work. There police obtained his signature on some written papers.

He do not know the contents on the written papers. Ex.P.1 is signature on written papers, dated 03.05.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. Except this he do not know anything about this case. Since P.W.1 resiled from his earlier version he was declaring as hostile and he was cross examined by learned APP with the permission of the court.

12. P.W.2 A.Raghuramaiah deposed that he is residing at

Srinivasamangapuram and running tiffin shop. He know P.W.1. On 03.05.2013 at about 6.30 p.m., while he was present in his shop, the police asked her to act as mediators. Himself and P.W.1 proceeded with the police. The police noticed one person carrying countrymade gun in his hands near to the railway track. Then the inspector of police questioned about the possession of countrymade gun and also confessed that he purchased the countrymade gun at Tirupati to hunt the cruel animals in the forest. The said person also revealed his name and identity particulars to the police. Then police seized the countrymade gun under the cover of mahazarnama. Ex.P.2 is mahazarnama.

13.P.W.3 P.Nagaraja deposed that he is working as Head Constable,

Thottembedu. Previously he worked as Head Constable, Chandragiri Police

Station, from 2012 to July, 2015. On 03.05.2013 at about 6.00 p.m., L.W.9

M.Naga Bhushanam received credible information about the smuggling of 6

Red Sander Wood at Srivarimettu. As per instructions of L.W.9 M.Naga

Bhushanam, himself, L.W.3 Udaya Kumar, L.W.4 Gopal, L.W.6 T.Babu accompanied with L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam . Meanwhile L.W.9 M.Naga

Bhushanam secured P.W.1 and P.W.2 at Narasingapuram Village and proceeded towards Srivarimettu, there L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam noticed one person at Srivarimettu with countrymade gun. Then L.W.9 M.Naga

Bhushanam questioned about the possession of countrymade gun, then the said person revealed his name as Raja and he purchased countrymade gun at Chittoor for Rs.3,000/-. Due to fear from forest officials he intended to kept that countrymade in the forest. Further the person confessed that he is not having any licence and he is using the countrymade gun for hunting forest animals as his livelihood. Then L.W.9 M.Naga Bhushanam seized the said weapon in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P.3.

14. P.W.4 M.Nagabhushanam deposed that he is working as Inspector of Police, Mydukur Rural at Kadapa District. Previously he worked as

Inspector of Police, Chandragiri PS from March, 2011 to January, 2014. On 03.05.2013 at 6.30 p.m., while he was moving in police jeep along with his staff at Srivarimettu on Srinivasamangapuram road in view credible information about the cutting of red sander logs. When they reached near railway gate at Srinivasamangapuram at that time they found the accused carrying gun on his right shoulder. On seeing the police jeep the accused tried to ran away. Immediately he and his staff surrounded and caught hold him. Then he collected panchayatdars i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.2 at

Srinivasamangapuram Village through his staff. In the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 he enquired the accused about his name and address particulars.

Then he revealed his name as Nagali Raja, aged 42 years, S/o.

N.Dharmaiah, D.No.7-82, Lakshmipuram, Perumalapalle Village of Tirupati

Rural Mandal and he did not shown the valid licence for possession of the 7 said gun. Then he took the measurements of the SBML gun and seized the same in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the same was seized under the cover of mahazarnama and also arrested the accused. Then he brought the accused along with seized weapon to police station at about 8.00 p.m.

Basing on the panchanama he registered a case in Cr.No.82/2013 for the offence punishable under Sec.25(1-b) (a) of Arms Act. Ex.P.3 is FIR. Then he sent the accused to this court for judicial remand. On 07.05.2013 he sent the weapon to FSL, Hyderabad along with letter of advice from the

Hon'ble Court. Then he received copy of FSL report. Ex.P.4 is the FSL report

along with letter. Then he submitted proposals to District Collector, Chittoor for sanction of Prosecution Orders through Superintendent of Police,

Tirupati. Accordingly he received sanction of prosecution orders from

District Collector, Chittoor. Ex.P.5 is sanction orders, dated 02.11.2013.

M.O.1 is SBML countrymade gun. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. From the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 and as per Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 it appears that P.W.4 seized the M.O.1 i.e., SBML countrymade gun from the possession of the accused. The independent witnesses i.e.,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on the sole testimony evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 as they are police officials, no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. Therefore it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence punishable under Sec.25(1-B)(A) of

Arms Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is liable to be acquittal under benefit of doubt.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.25(1-B) (A) of Arms Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

8

17. M.O.1 i.e., SBML countrymade Gun is ordered to be confiscate to the state and the same may be ordered to be sent to the District Armoury,

Chittoor after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd day of December, 2015.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution:Defence: PW1:J.JayachandraNIL PW2:A.Raghuramaiah PW3:P.Nagaraja PW4:M.Nagabhushanam

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Prosecution:Defence:

Ex.P1Signature of P.W.1 on mahazar dated NIL 03.05.2013

Ex.P2Mahazarnama dated 03.05.2013 Ex.P3FIR in Crime No.82/2013 dated 03.05.2013 of Chandragiri Police Station Ex.P4 FSL report along with letter of advice Ex.P5Sanction orders issued by the Collector.

Material objects marked:

M.O.1 : SBML countrymade Gun. Id/- M.S.R.,

IV A.J.C.J.,

TPT. //True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

9

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TIRUPATI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Present:- Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Wednesday, the Second (2nd) day of December, 2015.

C.C. No. 313 of 2013

Date of offence :03.05.2013 Date of report :03.05.2013 Date of taken on file :16.11.2013 Date of apprehension (appearance) :02.05.2014 Date of commencement of trial :05.08.2015 Date of close of trial :01.12.2015 Date of Judgment :02.12.2015 Complainant :The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Chandragiri P.S. in (Cr.No.82/2013)

Name of accused Father's nameAge Calling Religion ResidenceMandal

Nagili RajaLate N.Dharmaiah45 yearsCoolieHinduLakshmipuram Tirupati

Nature of offenceUnder Sec.25(1-B) (A) of Arms Act.

FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.25(1-B) (A) of

Arms Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 i.e., SBML countrymade Gun is ordered to be confiscate to the state and the same may be ordered to be sent to the District Armoury, Chittoor after appeal time is over.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

//True Copy//

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

TIRUPATI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI

Present:: Smt. M.Sandhya Rani, III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Tirupati

Wednesday, the tenth (10th) day of May, two thousand seventeen.

C.C.No. 98 of 2015

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its, the Inspector of Police, West Police Station, Tirupati (Cr.Nos.84/2014 & 196/2014 of West Police Station)

 .. Complainant

­Versus­

1. Rangampet Ravi, age 24 yrs., S/o R.Murugesh, Durgasamudram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Caste by SC (A1)

2. Shaik Soukath Ali, age 21 yrs., S/o Chand Basha, D.No.4­4­11, Bommagunta, Tirupati Caste by Musleem, Auto driver. (A2) … Accused

This case is coming on 08.05.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri G. Madhusudhan, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

­:: J U D G M E N T ::­

The Inspector of Police, West P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.Nos.84/2014 & 196/2014 of West P.S for the offence punished u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

2. In nut shell the case of the prosecution as per the contents of the charge sheet is that on the intervening night of 27/28­03­2014 between 8:30 pm., and 6:00 am., at Giripuram, Tirupati wherein some unknown offenders committed theft of Auto battery worth of Rs.2500/­ belongs to the LW1 K.Hemadri when LW1 parked his Auto by the side of 2 passage running north to South on the west side to Komalamma

Sathram, SD Road, Tirupati and went to his house. LW9 on the receipt of the complaint registered a case in Cr.No.84/2014 of west p.s and took up investigation.

Similarly on the intervening night of 26/27­08­2014 between 9:00 pm., to 6:00 am., at infront of D.No.10­1­78/A, Akuthota Street,

Tirupati, wherein some unknown offenders committed theft of two auto tyres worth Rs.5000/­ belongs to the LW4 P.Subramanyam Reddy when the LW4 parked his auto in front of his house and went to his house.

LW10 on the receipt of the complaint registered a case in

Cr.No.196/2014 of west p.s and took up investigation. During the course of investigation on 28.08.2014 at 1.30 pm., A1 and A2 were arrested by LW10 in the presence of the Lws.7 & 8 and recorded their confessional statement and seized the two auto tyres, worth Rs.5,000/­ concerned case property in Cr.No.196/2014 of west p.s and new Exide battery concerned in Cr.No.84/2014 from their possession. In this effect a detailed mahazar was drafted before the Lws7 & 8, they also duly attested in the mahazar. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken by this court against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

4. After receiving the summons, the accused were present

before this court and they were furnished with copies and the accused

were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charge under u/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC, has been framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P­1 to P­9.

Ex.P1 is Report, Ex.P.2 is Report, Ex.P3 is Signature on arrest cum seizure mahazar dt.28.08.2014, Ex.P4 is First Information Report in

Cr.No.196/2014 of West P.S., Ex.P5 is Rough sketch in

Cr.No.196/2014 of West P.S, Ex.P6 is Mahazarnama dt.28.10.2014 at about 1:30 pm., at Old Maternity Junction, Tirupati, Ex.P7 is First 3

Information Report in Cr.No.84/2014 of West P.S., Ex.P8 is Rough sketch in Cr.No.84/2014 of West P.S., Ex.P9 is Signature on arrest cum seizure mahazar dt.28.08.2014.

 6. After completing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C, and they denied the evidence on prosecution side and reported no evidence. 

 7. Heard both sides.

8.Now the issue that arisen for consideration is: Whether

the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges levelled

against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :­

9. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined totally eight witnesses as P.Ws 1 to 6. I have gone through the evidence.

10. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant in Cr.No.58/2015

S.R.Puram P.S she deposed as per contents of his report. she did not identify the accused and the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 is on similar lines of P.W.1.

11. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the mediator to the Mahazarnama they did not support the case of the prosecution. And admitted the signatures on Mahazarnamas alone and denied the contents on it. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared this witness as hostile and cross examined the witness with the permission of the court, but failed to elicit any useful information in favour of the prosecution.

12. As seen from the evidence, the prosecution clearly established that P.W.1 is the owner of 1. Battery, 2. two tyres. P.W.1 was in possession of their respective properties before the theft. There is no dispute from the other side that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the owner of their respective property respectively. Non production of the purchase bills relating to is no way effect the case of the prosecution. In fact, it is not 4 the case of the defence that belongs to the accused and there is also no claim from the accused side. There is no direct evidence to prove that the juvenile along with A1 committed theft i.e., M.O.1 and M.O.2.

13. As seen from the evidence, none of the witness deposed that the accused is the person who committed the offence of theft of one

1. Battery, 2. two tyres from the possession of the P.W.1 and P.W.2.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not identify the accused in this case. Apart from that the evidence of P.W.1, other evidence shows that they are not the eye witnesses to the offence. It is settled law that confession to the extent of commission of offence from the accused cannot be acted upon in as much as such confessions are hit by Section 25 and 26 of the

Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove the nexus between accused. So, the admission of the juvenile is not binding on the accused.

14. On perusal of the entire evidence, the prosecution failed to establish that it was the accused who committed theft of 1. Battery, 2.

two tyres from P.W.1. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 379 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. As far as the section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned to prove the detention of the accused and seizure of the properties 1. Battery, 2. two tyres from the possession of the accused the prosecution has examined the mediators as P.W.3 and P.W.4. On coming to the evidence of P.W.3 he did not depose any incriminating material against the accused and turned hostile. He admitted his signatures alone and denied the contents in it. The prosecution examined another mediator as P.W.4 he did not depose any incriminating material against the accused and turned hostile. He admitted his signatures alone and denied the contents in it. After giving ample opportunity to prosecution to examine the investigation officers who conducted investigation in this case, but prosecution failed to 5 examine the witnesses. Further more, the independent witnesses who acted as a mediators at the time of detention of the accused and seizure of the stolen properties under cover of mahazarnama turned hostile in toto and prosecution failed to elicit about the recovery in their favour, in such circumstances, this court feels that the non examination of the investigation officer is very much fatal to the case of prosecution.

Further, as seen from the evidence, the place where the alleged detention and seizure of the properties took place under Mahazarnama is busy localities and there is every possibility to secure the local inhabitants of that area as mediators. In spite of possibility the inspector of police failed to secure them as mediators. On this aspect, there is no explanation. Which creates reasonable doubt with regard to the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances the detention of the accused and seizure of the properties under cover of Mahazarnama

Ex.P3 creates a doubt in the mind of the court.

16. Apart from confession, there is no other evidence to prove that the accused was found with stolen properties. So, the presumption as contemplated under section 114(a) of the Indian evidence Act cannot be drawn. Hence, this board is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 of Indian Penal Code also, beyond all reasonable doubt.

17. On conglomeration of the above evidence, this board is of the opinion that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not corroborating with each other and with regard to the material particulars of the case. There are reasonable doubts in the case of the prosecution which are unexplained. Basing on this type of evidence this court cannot come to conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 379 of Indian

Penal Code or alternatively under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.

18.In the result, accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the 6 offence u/Sec.411 of IPC. Hence they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 which was already returned to PW1 towards interim custody as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.157/2015 dt13.01.2015 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time and M.O.2 which was already return to PW2 towards interim custody as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.4537/2014 dt.19.09.2014 are made absolute after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of May, 2017.

Sd/­M.Sandhya Rani III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution For Accused

PW1: Hemadri­Nil­ PW2: P. Subramanyam PW3: Ramesh PW4: Venkateswarulu PW5:Vinod Kumar PW6: A.Sreenivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Report Ex.P3: Signature on arrest cum seizure mahazar dt.28.08.2014 Ex.P4: First Information Report in Cr.No.196/2014 of West P.S. Ex.P5: Rough sketch in Cr.No.196/2014 of West P.S Ex.P6: Mahazarnama dt.28.10.2014 at about 1:30 pm., at Old Maternity Junction, Tirupati Ex.P7: First Information Report in Cr.No.84/2014 of West P.S. Ex.P8: Rough sketch in Cr.No.84/2014 of West P.S. Ex.P9: Signature on arrest cum seizure mahazar dt.28.08.2014.

Accused:

­Nil ­

Material Objects:

M.O.1: Battery M.O.2: Two tyres 7 // true copy // Sd/­M.Sandhya Rani III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class, III AJCJ Tirupati Tirupati 8

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDIT IONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.98 OF 2015

Date of Offence: 27.03.2014, 26.08.2014 Date of Complaint: 29.03.2014, 27.08.2014 Date of Taken on file: 29.04.2015 Date of apprehension: 28.08.2014 Date of Commencement of trial: 19.04.2017 Date of Close of trial: 08.05.2017 Date of Judgment: 10.05.2017 Complainant: The Inspector of Police, West P.S, Tirupati Cr.Nos.84/2014 & 196/2014.

1. Rangampet Ravi, age 24 yrs., S/o R.Murugesh, Durgasamudram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Caste by SC (A1)

2. Shaik Soukath Ali, age 21 yrs., S/o Chand Basha, D.No.4­4­11, Bommagunta, Tirupati Caste by Musleem, Auto driver. (A2)

Section of Law: u/Sec.411 of IPC

Finding of the Court: A1 & A2 are not found guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused/A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.411 of IPC. Hence they are acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 which was already returned to PW1 towards interim custody as per orders in Crl.M.P.No.157/2015 dt13.01.2015 is made absolute after expiry of appeal time and M.O.2 which was already return to PW2 towards interim custody as per orders in

Crl.M.P.No.4537/2014 dt.19.09.2014 are

made absolute after expiry of appeal time. Sd/­ M.Sandhya Rani. III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati. To, The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Chittoor.// true copy // Dis.No................./2017. III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class Tirupati.