Smt. M. Satya Kumari, B.Sc.,LLM.,

1

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDIVADA

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari,

Addl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudivada

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

M.C.No.52 of 2015

Between:

1.Smt.Thota Deepthi Kiran, W/o.Thota Nagaraju, Hindu, Household wife, aged 21 yrs., D/o.Karra Yohan, r/o.Mandapadu, Presently residing in the care of his father at Gudivada town, Krishna Dist. 2.Thota Rohit, S/o.Nagaraju, Hindu, aged 2 yrs.(mother’s care) r/o.Mandapadu, Gudivada town, Krishna Dist. (2nd Petitioner being minor represented by his mother and natural guardian 1st Petitioner)

.. Petitioner

And

Sri Thota Nagaraju, S/o.Subba Rao, aged 25 yrs, r/o.Nehru Nagar, Gudlavalleru, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District. .. Respondent.

This case has come up on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.R.Bangaraiah, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri.B.Satyanarayana, Advocate for respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration, upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. praying to grant maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each per month from the date of filing of this petition and to direct the respondent to pay the said amount by 1st week of every succeeding month and for costs of this petition.

2

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada

2.1st Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and 2nd petitioner is their son. Marriage of 1st petitioner and respondent was performed on 29/08/2013 at the house of respondent in Gudlavalleru according to Hindu rights and customs. At the time of marriage, parents of petitioner gave

Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner towards Sthreedhana and handed over the same to respondent to develop the same.

They also presented half sovereign gold ring and saree saman worth Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2000/- Adapaduchu

Lanchanams. Immediately after the marriage, 1st petitioner joined the respondent at his house in Gudlavalleru. During wedlock, they were blessed with a son on 29/08/2014 i.e., 2nd petitioner. 1st Petitioner and respondent lived along with his mother and brothers family under one roof. After the marriage, they lived happily for four months. Later, the respondent addicted to bad vices and he along with his mother, brother, brother’s wife and sister used to demand the 1st petitioner to get additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- from her parents. The respondent neglected the petitioner and ill- treated her along with his family members and hatched plans to eliminate her and used to raise disputes without any justifiable cause. The respondent used to come to house during late nights in a drunken state, abuse her in filthy language and beat her. She also came to know about his love affair and illegal contacts prior to their marriage. His 3

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada family members used to support the respondent. When the 1st petitioner was 4th month pregnant, on 31/03/2014 mother and sister-in-law of petitioner came to the house of respondent and mother of respondent picked up a dispute, abused them in filthy language and demanded them for

additional dowry of Rs.40,000/- and asked the parents of 1st

petitioner to take away the 1st petitioner or to pay the

additional dowry. The respondent beat the petitioner and

warned her with dire consequences and thrown her from his house in the presence of her parents. As there is no other go, she went to her parents house at Mandapadu. On 07/04/2014 family members of respondent came to the petitioner along with elders and demanded the petitioner to come along with additional dowry, otherwise to give divorce to the respondent. They abused her and beat her and her parents. When neighbors gathered there, they left the scene. From 31/03/2014 on wards, the respondent is not maintaining the 1st petitioner. On 29/08/2014 she delivered 2nd petitioner and informed the same to the respondent and his family members, but they did not turn up to see them and did not come for 21st day celebration also. Petitioners are in need of Rs.5,000/- each per month towards their maintenance. Father of 1st petitioner is a Riksha puller and he is unable to maintain the petitioners. The respondent by doing painting works earning Rs.15,000/- per month, apart 4

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada from that, he is cultivating agricultural land of Ac.5.00 on lease and getting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. He has own house in Gudlavalleru. Even though the respondent is having ample capacity to maintain the petitioners, he neglected them and not paying any maintenance. Hence, the present petition with the above prayer.

3.The Respondent filed counter denying all the material averments made by the petitioner and contended that 1st petitioner is his legally wedded wife and their marriage was solemnized on 29/08/2013 according to Hindu religious customs. He further submitted that after joining with the respondent, the 1st petitioner lead happy marital life with him only for two months. Later, the 1st petitioner used to go to her parents house. Whenever the respondent questioned her about her attitude, she states that she is not willing to reside with the respondent and his family members, as her parents performed her marriage against her will and she had love affair with a boy of her village. He further submitted that 1st petitioner went to her parents house in November, 2013 without the knowledge of respondent. After one week, the respondent and elders went to the house of petitioner and requested her parents to send her back, but they did not agree and put a condition to shift their family to Mandapadu.

One month thereafter, the 1st petitioner voluntarily joined the respondent. In September, 2013, parents of petitioner 5

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada came to the house of respondent and taken away the 1st petitioner in his absence, and when he called the 1st petitioner, she promised that she will return back and accordingly, she returned back after one month 15 days. On 31/03/2014, mother of petitioner and three others came to the house of respondent, quarreled with the respondent and his mother without any reason and taken away the 1st petitioner along with them. Two months thereafter, 1st petitioner informed the respondent over phone that her pregnancy was confirmed. Then the respondent went to her house, but her parents did not allow him and threatened him stating that she did not conceive through him. Subsequently, the respondent made efforts through elders by name

B.Pothu Raju and mother of respondent Bujji and others to take back 1st petitioner, but in vain. In November, 2014, 1st petitioner informed that she gave birth to a male child. Then the respondent and his mother went to Mandapadu and asked the parents of 1st petitioner to send to the petitioners.

Parents of the 1st petitioner agreed to send the petitioners after 3 months, but later, they lodged false report against him under Section 498-A IPC. Police made a counseling, but the petitioner and her parents did not agree for compromise and demanded for maintenance by expressing consent to give divorce. 1st petitioner used to state to the respondent that her parents performed her marriage by borrowing 6

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada amounts and the respondent has to discharge them. 1st petitioner used to insult the respondent and his brother stating that they are impotents. The respondent further submitted that he is an agricultural labourer and earning

Rs.150/- per day whenever there is work and he has to maintain his mother. The petitioner is a tailor and getting

Rs.2,000/- per month, which is sufficient for the maintenance of herself and 2nd petitioner. There is no negligence or refusal on his part and the petitioner herself left the company of respondent, as such, she is not entitled for maintenance. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

4.During the course of trial, 1st petitioner herself is examined as PW1 and examined her mother as PW2.

Respondent himself is examined as RW1 and his relative is examined as RW2.

5.On perusal of the material available on record, the following point arise for consideration:

1. Whether there is any negligence or refusal on the part of respondent to maintain the petitioners, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance as claimed by them.

6.POINT No.1 to 3:

It is the case of petitioner that she lived along with respondent, his mother and brothers family under one roof.

When she was pregnant of 4th month respondent and his 7

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada family members necked her out demanded additional dowry of Rs.40,000/-. Later, she was blessed with 2nd petitioner.

The same was informed to respondent, but he did not turn up. Subsequently, respondent and his family members came to their house and picked up a dispute, as such, she lodged a report against them under Section 498 A IPC.

The 1st petitioner while examining herself as PW1 reiterated the averments made in her petition. Her mother

PW2 supported the version of PW1.

7.It is the case of respondent that petitioner is an arrogant lady and she herself left him. He made conciliatory efforts to bring her back, but the same are in vain. Finally, when he tried to bring her back, though the petitioner and her parents agreed to send her, later, they lodged a report under Section 498-A IPC.

The respondent himself is examined as RW1 and his relative as RW2. Respondent reiterated the contents of his counter while examining himself as RW1.

In support of his case that he tried to bring back the petitioner, he examined RW2 on his behalf.

RW2 deposed that at about two years back he along with 5 or 6 others went to the house of the petitioner to bring her back. Then her mother and sister picked up a dispute with them and they did not send the petitioner, as such they returned. However, during cross-examination, he 8

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada stated that he do no know about the disputes between the petitioner and respondent. RW2 deposed that respondent is the younger brother of his son-in-law.

In view of the said relationship, the evidence of RW2 is not reliable. Except RW2, respondent did not adduce in evidence to show that he made an effort to bring back the petitioners.

8.It is not the case of respondent that he filed in OP for restitution of conjugal rights are issued any notice to the 1st petitioner requesting her to come and join him. Moreover, there is a case pending under Section 498-A IPC against respondent. From the above, it can be inferred that respondent necked out the petitioner demanding additional dowry and did not choose to bring her back and neglected them.

9.Coming to the means, it is the case of petitioner that her father is a riksha puller and he is unable to maintain them. The respondent is earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing painting works. Apart from that, he is also cultivating agricultural lands on lease and getting Rs.1,00,000/- p.a. He has own house in Gudlavalleru.

It is the case of respondent that he is doing painting works and coolie works and getting Rs.100/- or Rs.150/- per day whenever there is work. The petitioner is doing tailoring work and get Rs.2,000/- per month. In the cross- 9

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada examination of PW1, it is suggested that PW1 is earning

Rs.5,000/- per month by working as a sales girl, but the same was denied by the petitioner.

Both parties did not adduce any documentary evidence to show their income. However, being able bodied man, the respondent is under an obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife and children. Even by taking into consideration that the respondent is doing coolie works only, he will get a minimum amount of Rs.500/- per day. Hence, awarding an amount of Rs.2,000/- each to the petitioner 1 and 2 is just and that would meet the ends of justice. The point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month each to the petitioners 1 and 2 towards their maintenance. The said amount shall be payable by the respondent to the petitioners on or before 10th of every succeeding month. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of April, 2017.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDIVADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined

For Petitioner:

PW1: Thota Deepthi Kiran 10

M.C.No.52 of 2015

AJFCM, Gudivada

PW2: K.Venkateswaramma

For Respondent :

RW1 : Deepthi Kiran RW2 : B.Pothu Raju Documents marked Nil

AJFCM, GDV.

AJFCM, GDV.

C.C.No.658 of 2015 1AJFCM, Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: GUDIVADA

Present:- Smt.M.Satya Kumari

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.658 of 2015

State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada II town Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

1.Chaparala Naga Siva, S/o.Subbarao, D.No.14-127, Near M.P.D.O. office, Main Road Pedana, Krishna District.

2. Kuchipudi Nagaraju, S/o Vijaya Lakshmi, D.No. 17/108, Mandapadu, Gudivada, Krishna District. .. Ac- cused

This case has come up on 26/04/2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P for the state and Sri M.Rajesh, Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of Police, Gudivada II town police station, registered a case in Cr.No.132 of 2015 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 324, r/w 34 of IPC.

2. PW1 is defacto complainant. PW2 is his cousin. On 20/08/2015, at 10.p.m., PW1 along with PW2 went to railway track to attend nature calls and while they were returning they reached Mandapadu park. A1,

A2 and two others stopped them, and questioned them as to where they have gone during that time, abused them and beat them with stones at about 10.30 PM. PWs.1and 2 were beaten by them with their hands and legs. PW2 sustained injuries on his left eyebrow, back and right wrist. PW2 sustained bleeding injury on his nose. Later, they

C.C.No.658 of 2015 2AJFCM, Gudivada went to their brother Rajesh and informed the incident. Said Rajesh shifted them to Area Hospital, Gudivada, for treatment. PW7 Sub-

Inspector of Police, Gudivada II town police station, received statement of PW1 as a case in crime No.132 of 2015 under section 324 read with 34 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P6.

3.During the course of investigation, PW7 visited Area Hospital,

Gudivada, examined PWs.1,2 and 5 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW7 visited the scene of offence situated at

Mandapadu, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch under

Ex.P7. There, PW7 examined PWs.3 and 4 and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 22/08/2015, PW7 served 41 A

Cr.P.C. notice on accused. After obtaining wound certificate and after completion of investigation, PW7 filed charge sheet against accused.

4. On 10/09/2015, this court took cognizance of the offence under section 324, r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and issued summonses to them.

5.When the accused put in appearance before the court, they were supplied with the copies of documents as contemplated u/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6.On 10/03/2016, accused were examined under sec.239 Cr.P.C with regard to offence alleged against them, charge was framed under section 324, r/w 34 IPC and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7.

C.C.No.658 of 2015 3AJFCM, Gudivada

8.On 10/04/2017, A1 to A3 were examined under sec.313 (1) (a)

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied and reported evidence to be adduced on their behalf. Later, they reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 324, r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. P O I N T:

In order to establish the guilt of accused, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 7. PW1 is defacto complainant. PW2 is his cousin. PWs.3 and 4 are eye witnesses. PW5 is the person who shifted PWs.1 and 2 to hospital. PW6 is the doctor, who treated PWs.1 and 2. PW7 is the investigating officer.

12.PW1 deposed that on 20/08/2015 at about 10.30.p.m, he along with PW2 went to attend nature calls at railway track and while they were returning they reached Mandapadu park. A1 and A2 stopped them and questioned them from where they were coming and beat them in drunken state.

But it is not the case of PW1 as scene from Ex.P1 that A1 and A2 alone stopped them and beat them in drunken state.

PW1 further deposed that A1 and A2 beat him with stones on his left eyebrow, left hand and back, but according to Ex.P1 he sustained injuries on his left eyebrow, back and right wrist.

He further deposed that A1 and A2 beat PW2 also with stones and he sustained injuries on his nose.

C.C.No.658 of 2015 4AJFCM, Gudivada

As seen from Ex.P1, it was mentioned that A1, A2 and two other persons beat them. But for the first time, PW1 stated before the court that A1 and A2 alone beat them.

PW1 further deposed that they went to their neighbour PW5 and

PW5 shifted them to Area Hospital, Gudivada. During cross- examination, PW1 stated that PW5 is relative of accused, but not of him. But according to Ex.P1, PW5 is the brother of PW1.

13.It is the case of accused that PW1 falsely implicated the accused in the present case at the instance of PW5 since the accused questioned PWs.1, 2 and 5 as they used to take the money while playing cards by threatening as police are coming.

14.PW2 deposed that PW5 is the relative of accused. On 28/08/2015 at 10.p.m., when he along with PW1 were returning from attending nature calls and when they reached a park, A1 and A2 in a drunken state questioned them from where they were coming. When they answered them, they beat him and PW1 with stones and he sustained injury on his nose. He further deposed that they escaped from the scene and went to one Rajesh.

During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident nobody was there except the accused. But he stated to the police that another two persons were there with accused. Since it is the cases of accused that there were ill feelings between PWs.1 and 2 and accused and there is inconsistency in the version of PWs.1 and 2 from the contents of Ex.P1, their evidence needs corroboration.

15.PW3 who is an eye witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not depose any incriminating material against accused.

16.PW4 deposed that on 20/08/2015 at 9.30 or 10.p.m., he heard some hue and cry of PW1 and accused. Then he came out and found

C.C.No.658 of 2015 5AJFCM, Gudivada

PW1 and accused were beating each other with stones. He went inside and came to know that PW1 and another person sustained injuries. By stating so, he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

17.PW5 deposed that on 20/08/2015 at 10.p.m., when he was returning to his house, reached Mandapadu Park, and found PWs.1 and 2 with injuries and they informed him that A1 and A2 beat them. He further deposed that he shifted them to Area Hospital, Gudivada, for treatment.

During cross-examination, it is elicited that A-2 is his brother-in- law. During cross-examination he denied a suggestion that there were disputes between him and accused and he falsely implicated them in the present case through PWs.1 and 2. Since it is the case of accused that P.W.5 himself implicated them in the present case and he is not an eye witness to the incident, his evidence is not reliable.

18.PW6, the doctor, examined PWs.1 and 2 on 21/08/2015 at 1.45 a.m. He examined PW2 and found the following injuries:

1. injury to nose with abrasion 1X1 cm

2. bleeding noted.

He examined PW1 and found following injuries:

1. abrasion on left wrist 1 cm x 1cm

2. abrasion on left eyebrow less than half centimeter.

He opined that the above injuries are caused by blunt object.

However, there is no corresponding injury in the wound certificate on the right wrist of PW1 as stated by him in Ex.P1. The injuries sustained

PWs.1 and 2 are very minor in nature. According to Ex.P1, no specific overt act is attributed against any of the accused, and moreover, they stated that they were beaten by accused and two other persons. There is not clarity from Ex.P1 as to who beat PWs.1 and 2. In view of the defence taken by the accused and since there is no eye witness

C.C.No.658 of 2015 6AJFCM, Gudivada supporting the case of prosecution, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is beyond probabilities and which cannot be relied on without there being any supporting independent evidence. Hence, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

19.In the result, A-1 to A-2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

(Sd.Smt.M.Satya Kumari),

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Gudivada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1:K.Prasanth Kumar None PW2:K.Premchand PW3:N.Eswara Rao PW4:J.Hari Babu PW5:M.Rajesh PW6:Dr.K.V.S.Satyanarayana PW7:G.Sri.Hari Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 Ex.P2: Statement of PW3 Under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P4: Wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P5: Hospital intimation Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Rough sketch

C.C.No.658 of 2015 7AJFCM, Gudivada

Defence:

Nil

A.J.F.C.M., Gudivada.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.658/15 Date of Offence ComplaiApprehensioReleased CommencClose of Sentence nt n of on bailement of trial or order accused trial 21.8.1520.8.15Served notice ----4.7.201626.4.17….27.4.17 under section 41 A Cr.P.C

Between:

State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudivada II town Police Station. … Complainant

Vs

1.Chaparala Naga Siva, S/o.Subbarao, D.No.14-127, Near M.P.D.O. office, Main Road Pedana, Krishna District.

2. Kuchipudi Nagaraju, S/o Vijaya Lakshmi, D.No. 17/108, Mandapadu, Gudivada, Krishna District. .. Ac- cused

Offence: U/s 324, r/w 34 of IPC.

C.C.No.658 of 2015 8AJFCM, Gudivada

Finding : ‘Not Guilty’

Sentence: In the result, A-1 to A-2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after six months.

Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 10/09/2015. On appearance of accused, they were furnished with the copies of documents as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 10/03/2016 accused were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 324, r/w 34 IPC against accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried. P.W.1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P1 to P7 marked. On 10.4.17 accused were examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C, they denied and reported no defence evidence. On 26.4.17 heard and on 27.4.2017 judgment is

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Addl. Judl. First Class

Magistrate,

Gudivada. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

True copy,

AJFCM, GDV

1C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS, GUDIVADA

Present: Smt.M.Satya Kumari,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.198 of 2015

Between

State, rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudlavalleru Police Station … Complainant.

And

Abdul Parvin W/o Abdul Basha, age 33 years, Caste: Muslim 1st ward Kowtavaram village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, Aadhar.No.409245354516.(A2 as per FIR) … Accused.

This case has come up on 17/04/2017 for hearing before me, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.G.Rambabu, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The conspectus of case of prosecution is that--

PW1 is defacto complainant. On 10/01/2015 at 7.15 P.M., when she went to ration shop, one Abdul Allah Bakshu, Parvin, Basha, Choti abused her in filthy language due to previous disputes. When PW1 questioned them, Abdul Allah Bakshu caught hold the tuft of her hair, dragged her and hit her to a wall. The remaining persons beat her with their hands and legs. L.W.6-G.Ajay and PW5 along with neighbours admonished the accused. As PW1 sustained bleeding injuries, her son-in-law PW2 shifted her to Area hospital, Gudivada, in an Auto. She sustained bleeding injury on the back of her head and scratches on her left elbow and she sustained invisible injuries on right ribs and back. PW8-S.I of Police,

Gudlavalleru Police Station, received hospital intimation on 13/01/2015 at 2C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada 10 A.M. along with statement of PW1. PW8 registered the same as a case in Crime No.9/15 under Section 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR under

Ex.P8.

During the course of investigation, PW8 proceeded to the house of

PW1 and recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He visited the scene of offence situated at 1st ward, Kowthavaram, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch under Ex.P9. There, he examined

P.Ws.2 to 6 and LW6-G.Ajai and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After obtaining permission, PW8 deleted A1, A3 and A4 as they have no role according to the statements of PWs.2 to 6 and LW6-

G.Ajay. On 13/01/2015, PW8 served 41 A Cr.P.C. notice on A-2. After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet against A-2 under Section 324 IPC.

3.On 11/03/2015, this case was taken on file under section 324 IPC and against the accused.

4.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. On 10/04/2017, accused was examined under sec.239 Cr.P.C with regard to offence alleged against her, charge was framed under section 324 IPC and read over and explained to her in

Telugu for which she denied to have committed the offence and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P-1 to P-9.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu.

After having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating 3C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada evidence and stated that the said evidence is false. Accused reported no evidence in defence.

7.Heard arguments from both sides.

8.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.P O I N T:

In support of its case, to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8. PW1 is defacto complainant. PW2 is her son-in- law. P.Ws.3 to 6 are independent witness. PW7 is the Doctor, who treated PW1. PW8 is the investigating officer.

10.PW1 deposed that on 10/01/2015 at 7.15 P.M., she went to ration shop and the accused, who was there along with Basha, Allabakshu, and

Choti abused her in filthy language. When she questioned them,

Allabakshu caught hold her head, pushed her head to a wall and she sustained head injury. Remaining three persons kicked her and beat her with their hands and legs. She sustained injuries on her left ribs and back. She was shifted to Area hospital, Gudivada, by PW2. LW6-Ajay and

PW5 admonished the accused and the remaining three persons.

Allabakshu is brother of accused, Choti is sister of accused and Basha is husband of accused.

11.PW2 deposed that on 10/01/2015 at 7.30 P.M., when he was in the centre of the village, he came to know that there was a dispute at ration shop. He went there and found Allabakshu, Basha, accused and Choti were present and found PW1 with bleeding head injury. When he enquired PW1, she informed that Allabakshu hit her head to a wall and 4C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada remaining persons beat her with hands and legs. Then he shifted her to hospital in an auto for treatment.

During cross-examination, he admitted that by the time of his visit to the scene, there was no dispute and the same was completed. Hence,

PW2 is not an eye-witness. Eye witnesses PWs.3 to 6 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and did not depose any incriminating material against accused.

12.According to the case of prosecution, PW1 sustained injury on the back side of her head and injuries on ribs and back.

PW7, the Doctor, who treated PW1 on 10/01/2015 at 8.15 P.M., found lacerated wound over the scalp and issued Ex.P6 wound certificate of PW1.

According to PW1, one Allabkshu hit her head to a wall and caused bleeding injury. The remaining three persons beat her with their hands and legs. As such, the injury mentioned in Ex.P6 is not relating to the specific overt act attributed to the accused. Hence, except the evidence of PW1, prosecution could not examine any of the witness to support its case to bring home the guilt of accused. But since injury mentioned in the wound certificate is not relating to the accused and there are no other injuries corresponding to the overt acts attributed against accused, prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC. The point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

5C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2017.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

GUDIVADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : G.Annapurna None P.W.2 : G.Venkateswara Rao P.W.3 : A.Suresh P.W.4 : G.Venkata Rao P.W.5 :D.Manohara Rao P.W.6 :M.Naga Muneendra P.W.7 : Dr.J.Mabu P.W.8 : A.Ganesh Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1 : Report by PW1Nil Ex.P2 : Statement of 161 Cr.P.C by PW3 Ex.P3 : Statement of 161 Cr.P.C by PW4 Ex.P4 : Statement of 161 Cr.P.C by PW7 Ex.P5 : Statement of 161 Cr.P.C by PW6 Ex.P6 : Wound certificate Ex.P7 : Hospital intimation Ex.P8 : FIR Ex.P9 : Rough sketch

AJFCM, GDV.

Calendar and judgment

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.198/15 Date of Offence ComplaApprehensiReleaseCommenClose Sentence int onof don cement of trial or order accused bailof trial 10.1.1510.1.15Served --10.4.1710.4.1724.4.2017 notices under section 41 A Cr.P.C on you

Between: State, rep.by Sub-Inspector of Police, 6C.C.No.198 of 2015 AJFCM Court, Gudivada

Gudlavalleru Police Station … Complainant.

And

Abdul Parvin W/o Abdul Basha, age 33 years, Caste: Muslim 1st ward Kowtavaram village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District, Aadhar.No.409245354516.(A2 as per FIR) … Accused.

Offence: U/s 324 IPC

Finding : “ NOT GUILTY”

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 11.03.15. On her appearance copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 14.3.16 accused was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and the accusation was read over and explained to her in Telugu for which she denied the same and claimed to be tried. P.W.1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P1 to P9. On 11.4.17 accused was examined U/s 313 of Cr..P.C, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On 17.4.17 heard and on 24.4.17, Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Addl. Judl. First Class

Magistrate,

Gudivada. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GUDIVADA

Present: Smt. M.Satya Kumari Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.299 of 2016

Between:

State: rep. by the S.I of Police, Gudivada I Town P.S .. Complainant

And

1.Velagala Babu Prasad S/o Apparao, 38 years, C/K.Velama, Balla Road, Gudivada. 2.Therli Satyavathi W/o Srinu, 40 years, C/K Velama, Pippara, Tadepalligudem. 3.Velagala Raja @ Rajababu, S/o Apparao, 42 years, C/K.Velama, Vijayawada.

.. Accused

This case has come up before me on this day for hearing in the presence of APP and of Sri S.N.D.A.V.Prasad, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing having stood over to this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of police, Gudivada Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.17/16 for the offence under section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the complainant was given in marriage with A1 and their marriage was performed on 15/03/2006 at Balla Road, Gudivada. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry and other presentations as demanded by the accused. For some time, both of them lead happy conjugal life and they were blessed with one daughter and one son. Thereafter, accused harassed her necked out her with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents. Basing on the statement of PW1, police registered FIR and visited the scene of offence, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements and served 41 a Cr.P.C notice on the accused. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/s section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act was taken against accused.

4. After appearance of accused before the court, copies of all documents were furnished to them U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C. On consideration of entire material on record, charges were framed under section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and

Exs.P1 to P-3 are marked.

7.During the course of evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that accused never harassed P.W.1.

8.Basing on the hostile testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor very rightly given up L.Ws.3 to 7 as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Consequently, the prosecution evidence is closed. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused. Hence, the examination U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The defence counsel reported no evidence. Consequently, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 498 A of IPC and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against accused.

9.In the result, Accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/sec 248 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by personal assistant, pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017. (Sd.Smt.M.Satya Kumari),

ADDL. JUDL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE,

GUDIVADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution For defence: None PW1: V.Parvathi Devi PW2 : N.Venkata Rao

Documents marked for prosecutionFor defence : Nil Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2 : U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P-3 : U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 (Sd.Smt.M.Satya Kumari),

AJFCM, GDV.

True copy

AJFCM, GDV.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.299/16 Date of

Offence ComplaiApprehenReleased CommencClose of Sentenc nt sion of on bailement of trial e or accused trial order Prior to 21.1.16Served --3.2.173.2.1727.4.17 notices under 21.1.16 section 41 A . Cr.P.C Between: State: rep. by the S.I of Police, Gudivada I Town P.S .. Complainant

And

1.Velagala Babu Prasad S/o Apparao, 38 years, C/K.Velama, Balla Road, Gudivada. 2.Therli Satyavathi W/o Srinu, 40 years, C/K Velama, Pippara, Tadepalligudem. 3.Velagala Raja @ Rajababu, S/o Apparao, 42 years, C/K.Velama, Vijayawada.

.. Accused

Offence: U/s 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

Finding : “NOT GUILTY”

Sentence: In the result, Accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 26.04.16. On their appearance copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 3.2.17 accused are examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried. PW 1 & 2 are examined and Ex.P1 to P3 are marked, prosecution side evidence was closed, examination U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 27.4.17, heard both sides and Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

(Sd.Smt.M.Satya Kumari), Addl. Judl. First Class

Magistrate,

Gudivada. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

True copy

AJFCM, GDV.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

GUDIVADA

Present:Smt.M.Satya Kumari Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

C.C.No.350 of 2015

Between:

State: rep. by the S.I of Police, Pamarru P.S .. Complainant

And

Gumpa Gangadhara rao, @ Gangaian S/o Rama Krishna, 26 yrs, Veeranjaneya Colony, Pamarru village and Mandal.

.. Accused

This case has come up before me on this day for trial in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri.S.N.D.A.V.Prasad, Advocate, for accused and upon hearing and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court, delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of police, Pamarru Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.69/15 for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the complainant and his southern side neighbor Arepalli Dhanamma, younger sister of the accused, having boundary disputes since long time, picked up a quarrel with each other. On 25/04/15 at about 11.30 hrs, accused visited her sister house and abused the complainant in filthy language, when the complainant asked about his misbehaviour, some wordy altercation took place in between the complainant and the accused. For which, the accused grew wild and beat the complainant with iron chair on his head and caused bleeding and he was fell on the ground due to his head injury. Later, LW2-G.Ramesh, came to know about the incident and came there and shifted the injured to Govt. Hospital, Pamarru, in 108 ambulance. After getting first aid, he was shifted to Govt. hospital,

Gudivada, for better treatment. Basing on the statement of PW1, police registered FIR and visited the scene of offence, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements and served 41 a Cr.P.C notice on the accused. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. Cognizance of the offence U/s section 324 was taken against accused.

4. After appearance of accused before the court, copies of all documents were furnished to him U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On consideration of entire material on record, charge was framed under section 324 IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 and Exs.P1 and P2 are marked.

7.During the course of evidence, P.W.1 deposed that accused never beat them.

8.Basing on the hostile testimony of PW1, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor very rightly given up L.Ws.2 to 8 as no useful purpose will be served by examining them. Consequently, the prosecution evidence was closed, as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused. Hence, the examination U/sec 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The defence counsel reported no evidence.

Consequently, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec 324 IPC and against accused.

9.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 324 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by personal assistant, pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

ADDL. JUDL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE,

GUDIVADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Prosecution For defence: None PW1: G.Yerraiah

Documents marked for prosecutionFor defence : Nil Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2 : U/s 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

AJFCM, GDV.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, GUDIVADA

C.C.No.350/15 Date of

Offence ComplaiApprehenReleased CommencClose of Sentenc nt sion of on bailement of trial e or accused trial order Prior to 26.04.1Served --27.4.1727.4.1727.4.17 notices under 26.04.16 section 41 A 5 Cr.P.C Between: State: rep. by the S.I of Police,

Pamarru P.S .. Complainant

And

Gumpa Gangadhara rao, @ Gangaian S/o Rama Krishna, 26 yrs, Veeranjaneya Colony, Pamarru village and Mandal.

.. Accused

Offence: U/s 324 of IPC

Finding : “NOT GUILTY”

Sentence: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec 324 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence U/sec 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 19.05.15. On their appearance copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. On 22.1.16 accused is examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 324 IPC and explained to him in Telugu for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried. PW1 is examined and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked, prosecution side evidence was closed, examination U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with. On 27.4.17, heard both sides and Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Addl. Judl. First Class

Magistrate,

Gudivada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.