Smt.M.Sandhya Rani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

Present:- Smt. M. Sandhya Rani, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,Nellore.

Tuesday, the 25th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No.52/2014 .

State : Station House Officer, V town Police Station, Nellore. . . . Complainant

Vs.

1. Dara Gangaiah, s/o. Nagaiah, 26 years. . . . Accused.

2. Sk. Sammad, s/o. Subhani, 22 years.

3. Syed Abdul Meera Mohiddin, s/o. Gouse Basha, 22 years. All are residents of Nellore.

This case is coming on 24.3.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri N. Seenaiah, Advocate for the accused. Having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, V town Police Station ©, Nellore filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 in his station Cr.Nos.428/2013, 430/2013 and 431/2013 for the offence punishable u/s.379 or 411 of I.P.C alleging that on 24.10.2013, 22.10.2013 and 5.10.2013 some unknown offenders committed theft of three motor cycles belonging to

Chenduluru Venu, Thota China Chinnaiah and Arava Muniraj (Lws.1,3 and 5) respectively when they were parked at Vedayapalem Reailway Station, Padmavathi center and infront of Rajarajeswari temple, Nellore and decamped with the booty. Later on their reports, cases were registered and during the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police, V town Police Station, Nellore (LW11) arrested the accused on 31.10.2013 t 9.00 P.M. at

Padarupalli outskirts, Nellore and seized the stolen motor cycles concerned

Cr.Nos.428/2013 and 431/2013 of his station from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under a cover of mahazarnama, and thereafter basing on the confession made by the accused, one more motor cycle was seized from the house of A4 at

Tailors colony, Nellore at 11.00 P.M. on the same day in the presence of mediators under a 2 cover of mahazarnama. After completion of investigation the accused is charge sheeted for the above said offence. Hence, the charge.

2. The case was taken on file u/s.379 or 411 of IPC against the accused and proceeded with the case.

3. On production of the accused 1 to 3 before this court from the Central

Prison, Nellore copies of all relevant documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207

Cr.P.C. When the accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations in the charge sheet. A charge u/s.411 I.P.C was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution ha examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked the documents under Exs.P1 to P11 and Mos.1 and 2.

5. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating material appeared against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further they reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.411

I.P.C.?

9. The persons who alleged to have spoken about the commission of theft of their respective motor cycles are examined as PWs.1 and 2. The person who alleged to have present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of property from the possession of the accused is examined as PW3. The Head Constable who alleged to have registered the case in Cr.No.430/2013 is examined as PW4. The Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police who 3 alleged to have registered the cases in Cr.Nos.280/2013 and 431/201 is examined as PW5.

The Inspector of Police who alleged to have arrested the accused and seized the property in the presence of mediators under a cover of mahazar and who filed charge sheet after completion of investigation is examined as PW6.

10. The charge leveled against the accused 1 to 3 is u/s.411 IPC. To prove the said charge against the accused, the evidence available on record is that Pws.1 to 6.

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are defacto complainants only speaks about commission of theft their respective motor cycles on different dates and giving of reports. Pws.1 and 2 did not speak anything against the accused much particularly they were present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of stolen property belonging to him. So, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is no way helpful to the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused for the charge u/s.411 IPC.

11. After excluding the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the remaining evidence available on record is that of Pws.3 to 6 to prove the charge u/s.411 of IPC against the accused. Among them, PW3 is an independent witness for the arrest of the accused and seizure of stolen property from their possession. The evidence of PW3 clearly speaks that on 31.11.2013he was not present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of property from them by V town police at Padarupalli Outskirts and he signed in the mahazar at the instance of police. The evidence of PW3 further speaks that he is not aware of the contents of mahazar. Since PW3 failed to support the prosecution case, the learned A.P.P. treated this witness as hostile and cross-examined. During the cross-examination PW3 specifically denied that he acted as mediator. Thus the testimony of PW.3 is no way helpful to fix the criminal liability on the accused for the offence u/s.411 IPC.

13. The evidence of PW6, who is Investigating Officer clearly speaks that on 31.10.2013 at 9.00 P.M. he arrested the accused 1 to 3 at the outskirts of Padarupalli village and seized two motor cycles from the possession of the accused in the presence of 4 mediators under a cover of mahazar and thereafter basing on the confession made by the accused, he seized one more motor cycle from the House of A3 situated at Tailors colony,

Nellore in the presence of mediators under a cover of mahazar. But, the evidence of PW6 is not corroborated by the only independent witness examined as PW3. The prosecution failed to examine the another independent mediator, namely Veparal Nataj (LW7) for the reasons best known to it. Non-examination of the said Nataj is very much fatal to the prosecution case. So, the evidence of PW6 cannot be taken into consideration to warrant conviction against the accused in the absence of independent evidence. Similarly, the evidence of Pws.4 and 5, who are Head Constable and Ass. Sub-Inspector of Police is also no way helpful to prove the charge u/s.411 IPC against the accused since they only deposed about registration of cases basing on the reports of Pws.1 and 2. Under these circumstances, this court has come to conclusion that PW6 has not arrested the accused nor seized any stolen property from their possession as rightly argued by the defence counsel.

14. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.411 I.P.C and accordingly they are entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge u/s. 411 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. A1 and A3 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required to be detained in any other case. The interim custody of Mos.1 and 2 which are already given to Pws.1 and 2 during the course of trial and the unmarked case property in Cr. No.430/2013 which is given to Thota China Chinnaiah (LW3) is hereby made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court this the 25th day of March, 2014.

V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

1. PW1: Ch. Venu. None.

2. PW2: A. Muniraja.

3. PW3: E.V. Ramana.

4. PW4: Ch. Lakshmi Narayana, H.C.

5. PW5: RA Lincoln, A.S.I. of Police. 6.PW6: S.V. Rajasekhara Reddy, Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: NIL.

1. Ex.P1/25.10.2013: Report given by PW1 to police.

2. Ex.P1/26.10.2013: Report given by PW2 to police.

3. Ex.P3: Signature of PW3 in the arrest and seizure mahazar, dt.31.10.2013.

4. Ex.P4: Signature of PW3 in the arrest and seizure mahazar, dt.31.10.2013.

5. Ex.P5: F.I.R in Cr.No.430/13 of V town P.S. Nellore.

6. Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

7. Ex.P7: F.I.R in Cr.No.428/13 of V town P.S. Nellore.

8. Ex.P8: Rough sketch

9. Ex.P9: F.I.R in Cr.No.431/13 of V town P.S. Nellore.

10. Ex.P10: Arrest and seizure mahazar, dt.31.10.2013 at 9.00 P.M.

11. Ex.P11: Arrest and seizure mahazar, dt.31.10.2013 at 11.00 P.M.

M.Os.Marked

1. MO1: Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP 26 J 1054.

1. MO1: Hero Honda Splendor plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 26 P 5085.

V A.J.M.F.C.,

Nellore.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE

Present:- Smt. M. Sandhya Rani, V Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class,Nellore.

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No.236/2010.

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore. . . . Complainant

Vs.

Obulapuram Praveen Kumar, s/o. Anand, 21 years, Driver, resident of Ramnagar, A.C. Nagar, Nellore. . . . Accused.

This case coming on 24.6.2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the Complainant and of Sri V. Venkatesh, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balajinagar Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet against the sole accused in his station Cr.No.07/2010 for the offence punishable u/s.324 of I.P.C alleging that on 10.1.2010 at about 9.00 A.M. the defacto complainant Rasamsetty Leelamohan (LW1) left his house to go to Rajupalem on his motor cycle and when he reached near NTR Nagar, Nellore the tyre of the got punctured and after keeping his motor cycle near the shop of Shaik Shajahan (LW2) the defacto complainant went to the nearby place to attend calls of nature and when he was going infront of the accused, the accused who is driver of auto bearing No.AP 26 U 6508 asked the defacto complainant as 'do you want auto for hire' for which the defacto complainant replied that not necessary. On that the accused abused the defacto complainant in a filthy language and picked up a stick from the auto and beat on the back side of his head and caused bleeding injuries and when the neighbours on witnessing the incident raised alarm, the accused went away. Thus, a case was registered basing on the report of the defacto complainant and investigated into. The Medical Officer who treated the injured is of the 2 opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge sheeted for the above said offence. Hence, the charge.

2. The case was taken on file u/s.324 of IPC against the accused and proceeded with the case.

3. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of all relevant documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. When the accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations in the charge sheet. A charge u/s.324 of I.P.C is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked the documents under Exs.P1 to P5.

5. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, when the accused is examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further he reported that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.324

I.P.C.?

8. The person who alleged to have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and who gave report to police is examined as PW1. The persons who alleged to have witnessed the incident are examined as Pws.2 and 4. The Sub-Inspector of Police who alleged to have verified the investigation done by his Asst. Sub-Inspectopr of Police and 3 who laid charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation is examined as

PW4. The Medical Officer who treated the injured is examined as PW5.

9. According to the case of prosecution, on 10.1.2010 at 1.00 P.M. when

PW1 was passing infront of the accused who was sitting there by keeping his auto, the accused asked PW1 as 'do you want auto for hire' and when PW1 replied that not necessary and on that the accused abused PW1 in a filthy language and picked up a stick from his auto and beat PW1 on his back side of the head and caused bleeding injuries and when the neighbours on witnessing the incident raised alarm, the accused went away. To prove the same, the evidence available on record is that of Pws.1 to 3. PW1 is defacto complainant- cum-injured. Pws.2 and 3 are independent eye witnesses to the occurrence.

10. The evidence of PW1 is the same as that of the contents of charge sheet stating that on 10.1.2010 at about 11.00 A.M. while he was attending calls of nature, the accused asked his auto for hire and when he replied that he does not want any auto, on that the accuse abused him in a filthy language and beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injuries and then he gave report to police, which is marked as Ex.P1 and police referred him to hospital for treatment. The evidence of PW1 is very clear and consistent with regard to the injuries caused to him by the accused in a spur of moment. The evidence of PW1 is also supported by the evidence of PW5, who is Medical Officer who deposed that he examined PW1 on 10.1.2010 at 3.00 P.M. and found two simple injuries and to that effect he issued wound certificate marked as Ex.P5. PW5 further deposed that the injuries of PW1 can be caused due to blunt object. As per the evidence of PW1, the accused beat

PW1him with a stick which is blunt object.

11. Though, Pws.2 and 3 who are eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, but their evidence cannot be taken into consideration in view of the cogent evidence of Pws.1 and 5. The evidence of PW1 is also 4 supported by PW4, who is Sub-Inspector of Police in all material aspects with regard to registration of FIR, conducting of investigation and arresting of accused by his Asst. Sub-

Inspector of Police Sd. Manjanbasha (LW6) in his absence and after verifying the investigation done by his Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, he filed charge sheet against the accused. The explanation offered by the prosecution for non-examination of the said Sd.

Manjan Basha as he was attacked with brain paralysis is quite satisfactory and to that effect a statement was also filed and more over, PW4 categorically deposed that he acquainted with the signature of the said Manjan Basha. Though, Pws.1, 4 and 5 are cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disprove the case of prosecution. Further, PW1 being unknown person to the scene of offence has no necessity to foist a false case against the accused. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.324 of IPC and accordingly he is liable for conviction for causing hurt to PW1.

12. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s.324 of I.P.C and accordingly he is convicted of the same u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in the open court this the 26th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani,

V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

13. When questioned the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon him, he pleaded mercy of the court stating that he is very poor, working as auto driver, sole bread winner of his family and if he is sentenced to jail, his family members will be on the roads and prays to take a lenient view while imposing punishment.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the plea of the accused, I feel that it is a fit case to take a lenient view against the accused while awarding punishment.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a 5 period of one month. The accused is informed about his right to appeal against this

Judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 26th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- M.Sandhya Rani,

V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

1. PW1: Rasamsetty Venkata Leelamohan.None.

2. PW2: Sk. Sjajahan.

3. PW3: A. Yesuratnam.

4. PW4: Sk. Jeelani, S.I. of Police.

5. PW5: Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

1. Ex.P1/10.1.2010: Report given by PW1 to police.NIL.

2. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2.

3. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3.

4. Ex.P4: F.I.R in Cr.No.7/2010 of Balajinagar P.S., Nellore.

5. Ex.P5: Wound certificate.

M.Os.Marked

NIL M.S.R.

V A.J.M.F.C.,

Nellore.

//True Copy//

V A.J.M.F.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE.

Present:- Sri M. Sandhya Rani, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, the 1st day of April, 2014.

C.C.No.452/2012.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, V town Police Station, Nellore. . . . Complainant.

Vs.

1. Pulagam Nagaraju, s/o. Venkaiah, 35 years, r/o. Vedayapalem, Nellore.

2. Patan Khaja Rasool @ Khaja Mohiddin, s/o. Mahaboob Khan,25 years, r/o. Pragathi Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore. . . . Accused.

This case is coming on 28.3.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri N. Rupakumar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V town Police Station,

Nellore against the accused 1 and 2 in his station Cr. No.34/2012 for the offence punishable u/s.326 r/w.34 of I.P.C. alleging that the defacto complainant Nalubolu Malyadri (LW1) as well as the accused are doing auto finance business and that there are disputes between the defacto complainant Nalubolu Malyadri (LW1) and the accused with regard to the debt paid by A1 during auto finance business and in this connection A1 is waiting for an opportunity to wreck vengeance against the defacto complainant. On 2.2.2012 the defacto complainant met A1 and A2 near Venkataramana Kalyana Mandapam where A1 beat the defacto complainant with an iron rod over his mouth and due to which the right side two upper teeth were broken and A2 beat the defacto complainant over the lower jaw portion, due to which two lower teeth were broken and the remaining teeth are dislocated and thereafter on intervention of neighbours, the accused left the place and the defacto complainant was admitted in Headquarters hospital, Nellore for treatment. Thus, a case was registered basing on the statement of the defacto complainant Nalubolu Malyadri (LW1) and investigated into. The Medical Officer who has examined the injured is of the opinion that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. As such, the accused are charge sheeted.

2

2. The case was taken on file u/s.326 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused 1 and 2 and on appearance of both the accused before this court, all the relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and when they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations in the charge sheet. A charge u/s.326 of IPC is framed against both the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked the documents under Exs.P1 to P4.

4. After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the accused 1 and 2 are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and further they stated that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf.

5. Heard.

6. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under section 326 of I.P.C.?

7. The person who alleged to have sustained injuries at the hands of the accused and who gave statement to police is examined as PW1. The Investigating Officer who arrested the accused and laid charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation is examined as PW2.

8. The charge framed against the accused 1 and 2 is u/s.326 of IPC and to prove the same, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 alone remains on record. According to the case of prosecution, PW1 who is defacto complainant is the victim at the hands of the accused. Though, PW1 during his chief-examination held on 9.1.2014 supported the case of prosecution case stating that A1 and A2 beat him with iron rods and due to which he lost teeth, but during his further chief-examination held on 11.3.2014 he admitted that he 3 sustained injuries while he was in drunken state and the accused are not responsible for the injuries sustained by him. Thus, it appears that PW1 did not attribute anything against the accused as he admitted that the accused are not responsible for the injuries sustained by him. The evidence of PW2, who is Investigating Officer only speaks that during the course of investigation, he arrested the accused and later after receiving Wound Certificate and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet. Further, the prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses in view of the evidence of PW1. So, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 cannot be taken into consideration to warrant conviction against the accused.

9. In this case, since PW1 who is a material witness failed to support the prosecution case, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served by examining them. When such is the circumstance on record, it can be said that there is no iota of evidence on record to fix the criminal liability on the accused. As such the accused are entitled for clean acquittal.

10. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

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

by me in the open court this the 1st day of April, 2014.

, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

1. PW1: N. Malyadri. None

2. PW2: B. Srinivasa Reddy, S.I. of Police.

Documents marked

1. Ex.P1: Statement of PW1. NIL.

2. Ex.P2: FIR in Cr.No.34/2012 of V town P.S., Nellore.

3. Ex.P3: Wound certificate.

4. Ex.P4: Rough sketch. .

V A. J.M.F.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE.

Present:- Sri M. Sandhya Rani, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Friday, the 28th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No.30/2010.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, V town Police Station (L&O), Nellore. . . . Complainant.

Vs.

Goni Yadukondalu, s/o. Venkata Ramanaiah, 23 years, Nakkalagunta, Kondayapalem, Nellore. . . . Accused.

This case is coming on 24.3.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri M. Sundaraiah Yadav, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, V town Police Station (L&O), Nellore against the sole accused in his station Cr. No.210/2009 for the offence punishable u/s.326 of I.P.C. alleging that on 31.l0.2009 at 10.30 hrs. there is a free fight between the accused and the defacto complainant Goni Venkata Ramanaiah (LW1), who is father of the accused in a drunken state regarding expenditure incurred at the time of marriage of brother of accused, namely Goni Vasu which took place on 29.10.2009 and the accused took a knife which is used for cutting vegetables and stabbed his father, ie., defacto complainant and thereafter the defacto complainant was admitted in Headquarters hospital,

Nellore for treatment. Thus, a case was registered basing on the statement of the defacto complainant Goni Venkataramanaiah and investigated into. The Medical Officer who has examined the injured is of the opinion that the injury sustained by him is simple in nature.

As such, the accused is charge sheeted.

2. The case was taken on file u/s.326 of IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused before this court, all the relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and when he was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., hy denied the allegations in the charge sheet. A charge u/s.326 of IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked the documents under Exs.P1 to P6.

4. After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and further he stated that he has no defence witnesses to be examined on his behalf.

5. Heard.

6. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under section 326 of I.P.C.?

7. The persons who alleged to be the eye witnesses to the incident are examined as Pws.1 and 2, who are son and neighbour of defacto complainant. The

Investigating Officer who registered the case, conducted investigation, arrested the accused and who laid charge sheet against the accused after completion of investigation is examined as PW3.

8. The charge framed against the accused is u/s.326 of IPC and to prove the same, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 alone remains on record. According to the case of prosecution, Pws.1 and 2 are eye witnesses to the incident. It is the clear version of Pws.1 and 2 that they do not know the facts of the case and they were not present at the time of incident. Thus, it appears that Pws.1 and 2 did not attribute anything against the accused.

The evidence of PW3 who is Investigating Officer speaks that basing on the statement of defacto complainant, he has registered a case and proceeded with the investigation and later after receiving Wound Certificate and after completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet. Further, the prosecution failed to examine the defacto complainant Goni

Venkata Ramanaiah for the reasons best known to it and non-examination of this witness is fatal to the prosecution case.

3

9. In this case, PW1, who is son of defacto complainant and PW2 who is eye witness themselves turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the case of prosecution. Since Pws.1 and 2 failed to support the prosecution case, their evidence is no way helpful to prove the case against the accused. When such is the circumstance on record, it can be said that there is no iota of evidence on record to fix the criminal liability on the accused. In the absence of any direct evidence, the evidence of PW3 is also no way helpful to the case of prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused. As such the accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

10. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of I.P.C. and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

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

by me in the open court this the 28th day of March, 2014.

, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

1. PW1: Goni Vasu. None

2. PW2: Nagireddy Siva.

3. PW3: P. Srinivasa Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Documents marked

1. Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. NIL

2. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

3. Ex.P3: Statement of PW1, dt.31.10.2009.

4. Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No.210/2009 of V town P.S., Nellore.

5. Ex.P5: Rough sketch.

6. Ex.P6: Wound certificate.

.

V A. J.M.F.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NELLORE.

Present :- Smt. M. Sandhya Rani, V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Thursday, the 27th day of March, 2014.

C.C.No.472/2012.

State: Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Nellore. . . . Complainant.

Vs.

1. Shaik Khajavalli, s/o. Late Kamal Saheb, 37 years.

2. Shaik Momalajohn, w/o. Late Kamal Saheb, 55 years.

3. Shaik Sjanawaj, w/o. Babu, 33 years.

4. Shaik Babu, s/o. Sulthan Saheb, 40 years. . . . Accused. All are residents of Indukurpet, Nellore district.

This case coming on 26.3.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri N. Sreedhar, Advocate for the accused. Having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, women Police Station, Nellore filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 in Cr.No.26/2012 of Women Police Station, Nellore for the offences punishable u/ss.498-A r/w.34 of I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that all the accused are residents of Indukurpet village and A2 is mother, A3 is younger sister and A4 is brother-in-law of A1. The marriage between A1 and the defacto complainant Shaik Karishma Sulthana (LW.1) was performed on 24.4.2006 by presenting cash of Rs.40,000/- to A2 in the presence of A1 and 15 sovns. of gold to the defacto complainant besides house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/- and after the marriage A3 and

A4 beat the defacto complainant when she raised objection to keep the electric wires, motors etc. under her cot and at times A4 asked her to share bed along with him to fulfil his lust and A1 to A3 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally for the sake of

additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- to start new iron scrap. The mediation held by the

mediators went invain. Thus, a case was registered basing on the report of the defacto complainant Karishma Sulthana, investigated into and after completion of investigation, the accused are charge sheeted. Hence the charge.

2. The case was taken on file u/ss.498-A of IPC and u/ss.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused 1 to 4 and proceeded with the case.

3. On appearance of all the accused before this court, copies of all relevant documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. When questioned the accused u/s.239 Cr.P.C., they denied the allegations in the charge sheet. Charges u/ss.498-A of IPC and u/ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents under Exs.P1 to P3.

5. On closure of the Prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused u/s.313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6. Heard both sides:

7. Now, the point for consideration is: “Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/ss.498-

A of IPC and u/ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act?

8. The defacto complainant who is wife of A1 is examined as PW1. The father of PW1 is examined as PW2.

9. PWs.1 and 2 who are daughter and father and who are material witnesses in this case turned hostile and did not to support the case of prosecution. Though the learned A.P.P. cross-examined them with the permission of the court, nothing is elicited.

From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is elicited that the accused never harassed PW1. It is never stated by Pws.1 and 2 that PW1 was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused.

It is also voluntary statements of Pws.1 and 2 that due to some misunderstandings, PW1 gave report to the police against the accused. The evidence of PW1 also speaks that she is not aware of the contents of report and now she is living with her husband, ie., A1. From the evidence of PW2, PW2 did not make any whisper that PW1 was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the accused. Thus, from the mouths of PWs.1 and 2, it is clear that PW1 never sustained any harassment at the hands of the accused at any point of time. As such, this court has no hesitation to say that there is no iota of evidence on record to fix the criminal liability on the accused with regard to the charges framed against them. Therefore, the accused are given acquittal.

10. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences u/ss.498-A of

IPC and u/ss.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

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

by me in the open court this the 27th day of March, 2014..

V Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

1. PW1: Sk. Karishma Sulthana. None

2. PW2: Sk. Khader Basha.

Documents marked.

1. Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in the report. NIL

2. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement PW1.

3. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement PW2.

V A.J.M.F.C.