Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik

1 C.C.No.369 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

JAMMALAMADUGU

Present:- Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu

Dated: Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

C.C.No. 369 of 2014

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Police Station. ….Complainant Vs.

1. Koduru Chandra Obula Reddy, S/o Chinna Obula Reddy, 42 years,

2. Chintha Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Jankirami Reddy, 34 years,

Both are residents of Pottipadu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. District. ….Accused

This case coming on 18.04.2017 for disposal before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Y.Bhaskar Reddy 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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram police station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein in Cr.No.91/2014 alleging that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to L.W.1 – R.Narasimhulu and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one year prior to this offence, an altercation was occurred in between L.W.1 – R.Narasimhulu and

A1 over the grazing of buffaloes of A1 in the fields of L.W.1. Since then A1 and his family members used to abuse L.W.1 whenever he found to them and also used to threatened him with dire consequences. While so, on 11.10.2014 noon, L.W.1 went to Kondapuram to get provisions to his Kirana shop and while returning to his village from Kondapuram at 2.40 pm. When L.W.1 came 2 C.C.No.369 of 2014 near Railway Bridge on Kondapuram – Simhadripuram road, A1 and A2 who present there found L.W.1, abused him in filthy words keeping previous ill feelings in mind and so abusing A1 bet L.W.1 with stick and caused swelling injury on his left hand wrist while A2 bet him with chappal. Later L.W.1 informed the same to L.Ws.2 and 3 and came to the Police Station at 4.00 pm., and gave a complaint to that effect before L.W.5., L.W.5 the S.I of

Police, received the complaint L.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.91/2014, u/sec 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined all the material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch and on 15.10.2014, he arrested the accused

Nos. 1 and 2 on their surrendered and released on station bail after receiving of all the incriminating material, he laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4. After the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 the copies of the documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 is marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them.

They have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard on both sides.

3 C.C.No.369 of 2014

9. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the alleged offence?”

POINT:-

10. In the present case on hand, PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, PW.4 is the Medical Officer and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of this case.

11. P.W.1 R.Narasimhulu, who is the defacto complainant cum injured before this Court has deposed that the L.W.2 is his wife and he know

L.W.3 – V.Venkatesh. In the year 2013 there was a galata in between PW1 and one Rama Chandra Reddy regarding to cattle grazing in his agricultural land. Since then the accused more grudge towards PW1. On 11-10-2014 at 12.30 PM., when the P.W.1 went to Kondapuram to fetch the provisions and while returning and when he reached near railway bridge at about 2.40 PM.,

Then the A1 and A2 has been waiting and that A2 bet PW1 with Cheppal and

A1 bet with stick on his left hand due to which he received swell injury, left hand wrist and that the accused left the place and went away. Later he went to the house and then on the same day at 4.00 PM., he went to the police station lodged complaint. Police referred him to the Tadipatri Govt. Hospital for the treatment. In the cross examination the P.W.1 deposed that the distance in between his Village to Kondapuram is about 11 KM. On the date of incident from his Village to Thimmapuram he went on his Motorcycle and

Thimmapuram to Kondapuram he went in a Auto. It is true that Kondapuram is Mandal Head quarter. It will take time 15 minutes to reach Kondapuram from Thimmapuram. He purchased provisions for Rs.1000/-. In the return journey from Kondapuram to Thimmapuram he boarded in a Motorcycle of

Viswanatha Reddy. The A1 and A2 dragged him from the motorcycle and his provisions were also scatters. The Viswanatha Reddy was not fell down. It is 4 C.C.No.369 of 2014 true that the Thimmapuram to Kondapuram road is busy road. The distance in between scene of offence to Kondapuram is about 2 KM. After the incident he reached to Thimmapuram in a new Auto. It is true that there is a faction in the village of P.W.1 in between Chinta Rama Chandra Reddy and Janaki Ram

Reddy. It is true that the Janaki Ram Reddy is the leader of T.D.P party and

Rama Chandra Reddy is the leader of Congress party. It is true that the accused are relatives of Janaki Ram Reddy. In the year 2013 he lodged complaint against the accused and the C.I of Kondapuram compromised the same. It is true that he never stated in his complaint or in his statement about mediation of C.I, Kondapuram. He never sated the before the police the mode of travel on the date incident as the police never asked him. In view of the above admissions made by the P.W.1 if, the accused Nos.1 and 2 bet to the P.W.1 definitely the 3rd parties would have witnessed the incident as per evidence of P.W.1 the scene of offence road is very busy road. Further in this case the Investigation Officer not sited as witness where the P.W.1 boarded the motorcycle on the date of incident, so it is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

12. The P.W.2 R. Gangamma wife of P.W.1 hearsay witness stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 bet to P.W.1 with chappal and on the date of incident the P.W.1 proceeded to Thimmapuram but in the evidence of P.W.1 he, stated that he came to his house by walk. If the P.W.1 went on a motorcycle on the date of incident. What is the necessity to came on the motorcycle of 3rd party.

13. The P.W.3 who is the hearsay witnesses he deposed that he do know anything about this case and police never examined him and never recorded his statement. At this stage the learned A.P.P declared witness as hostile.

5 C.C.No.369 of 2014

14. P.W.4 Dr. B.R.Deepthi, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

Hospital, Tadipatri has deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 07.15 p.m., he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries,1) Multiple abrasions to the left leg ¼ X ¼ size. 2) A contusion to the left side of the face below the eye size ½ X ¼ cms. 3) A contusion to the left hand below the elbow size 4X2 cms. In the cross examination she deposed that the injuries received by the

P.W.1 are may be possible if any person false and rough surface. As per evidence of P.W.1 there was a previous enmity in between P.W.1 family and accused family, it source that with more grudge the P.W.1 might have foisted this false case against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Except the evidence of P.W.1 no other independent witness or related witness to the occurrence and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborating in each other and their evidence not trust worthy.

15. P.W.5 Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police, Kondapuram P.S., has deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 4.00 pm., he received complaint basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.91/2014 U/s.324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. under Ex.P.4.

During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch under Ex.P.5 and on 15.10.2014, he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and released on station bail and also seized M.O.1 and after completion of entire investigation, he laid charge sheet. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence place.

16. Adverting to the Ex.P.1, it clearly shows that on 11.10.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the P.W.1 went to the Kondapuram to fetch the provisions and after that at about 2.00 pm., while he was coming from Kondapuram to his village at about 2.40 pm., near railway bridge the accused Nos.1 and 2 made galata and bet with sticks and chappals. The P.W.5 the Investigation

Officer seized the M.O.1 after the 4 days of the incident from the house of the 6 C.C.No.369 of 2014 accused. Generally the M.O.1 is available everywhere as the P.W.5 never seized M.O.1 and chappals at the scene of offence place when he visited at the time of Ex.P5. The P.Ws.2 and 3 never stated about the incident happened at the scene of offence place and came to know the same through the P.W.1.

So, the prosecution witnesses themselves never deposed against the accused as they never witnessed alleged incident. The P.W.1 in a chief examination stated that he received injury on the left hand where as the P.W.4 the Doctor noted the injury a multiple abrasions to the left leg and injury stated by the

P.W.1 not tallied with the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 and in the cross examination of P.W.4 she stated that the injury Nos.1 to 3 can be caused when the person false on rough surface.

17. The Investigating Officer failed to seize the incriminating material at the scene of offence and blood stained apparel of P.W.1 is fatal to the case of prosecution. No doubt, the sole evidence of the injured is sufficient to believe the incident proved, but the same is trustworthy. But in this case on hand, when P.W.1 admits to have given Ex.P.1 statement to the police which consists of contradictory version to the version of P.W.1 given in Court pertaining to manner of incident and the manner of coming into contact with the accused, P.W.1’s evidence cannot be straight away believed. The solitary testimony of P.W.1 without the evidence of any independent witness regarding the incident is insufficient for deciding the culpability of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the variant versions on record, I have hesitation to convict the accused basing on the evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

7 C.C.No.369 of 2014

19. In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 324, r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time along with M.O.1.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

PW.1: R.Narasimhulu.

PW.2: R.Gangamma.

PW.3: V.Venkatesh.

PW.4: Dr.B.R.Deepthi.

PW.5: P.Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint of P.W.1, dated 11.10.2014.

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

Ex.P3: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.91/2014 of Kondapuram Police Station.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P6: Police Proceedings.

Exhibits marked for Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked:-

M.O.1: Stick. Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik, J.F.C.M.

J.madugu.

8 C.C.No.369 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu. Date of _____________________________________________________ Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial _______________ 11.10.2014 11.10.2014 15.10.2014 15.10.2014 15.04.2015 18.04.2017 21.04.2017

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.369/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Police Station in Cr.No.91/2014. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence with Father’s name

1. Koduru Chandra Obula Reddy, S/o Chinna Obula Reddy, 42 years,

2. Chintha Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Jankirami Reddy, 34 years,

Both are residents of Pottipadu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. District.

Offence: U/s. 324, r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: The accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.

324, r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non- valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time along with

M.O.1.

Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jammalamadugu. To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.

Dis No.

Dated:

1 C.C.No.369 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

JAMMALAMADUGU

Present:- Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu

Dated: Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

C.C.No. 369 of 2014

State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Police Station. ….Complainant Vs.

1. Koduru Chandra Obula Reddy, S/o Chinna Obula Reddy, 42 years,

2. Chintha Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Jankirami Reddy, 34 years,

Both are residents of Pottipadu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. District. ….Accused

This case coming on 18.04.2017 for disposal before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Y.Bhaskar Reddy 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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram police station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 herein in Cr.No.91/2014 alleging that the accused voluntarily caused simple hurt to L.W.1 – R.Narasimhulu and thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one year prior to this offence, an altercation was occurred in between L.W.1 – R.Narasimhulu and

A1 over the grazing of buffaloes of A1 in the fields of L.W.1. Since then A1 and his family members used to abuse L.W.1 whenever he found to them and also used to threatened him with dire consequences. While so, on 11.10.2014 noon, L.W.1 went to Kondapuram to get provisions to his Kirana shop and while returning to his village from Kondapuram at 2.40 pm. When L.W.1 came 2 C.C.No.369 of 2014 near Railway Bridge on Kondapuram – Simhadripuram road, A1 and A2 who present there found L.W.1, abused him in filthy words keeping previous ill feelings in mind and so abusing A1 bet L.W.1 with stick and caused swelling injury on his left hand wrist while A2 bet him with chappal. Later L.W.1 informed the same to L.Ws.2 and 3 and came to the Police Station at 4.00 pm., and gave a complaint to that effect before L.W.5., L.W.5 the S.I of

Police, received the complaint L.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.91/2014, u/sec 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined all the material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch and on 15.10.2014, he arrested the accused

Nos. 1 and 2 on their surrendered and released on station bail after receiving of all the incriminating material, he laid charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4. After the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 the copies of the documents as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to them.

5. The accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 is marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them.

They have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard on both sides.

3 C.C.No.369 of 2014

9. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the alleged offence?”

POINT:-

10. In the present case on hand, PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, P.Ws.2 and 3 are the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, PW.4 is the Medical Officer and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of this case.

11. P.W.1 R.Narasimhulu, who is the defacto complainant cum injured before this Court has deposed that the L.W.2 is his wife and he know

L.W.3 – V.Venkatesh. In the year 2013 there was a galata in between PW1 and one Rama Chandra Reddy regarding to cattle grazing in his agricultural land. Since then the accused more grudge towards PW1. On 11-10-2014 at 12.30 PM., when the P.W.1 went to Kondapuram to fetch the provisions and while returning and when he reached near railway bridge at about 2.40 PM.,

Then the A1 and A2 has been waiting and that A2 bet PW1 with Cheppal and

A1 bet with stick on his left hand due to which he received swell injury, left hand wrist and that the accused left the place and went away. Later he went to the house and then on the same day at 4.00 PM., he went to the police station lodged complaint. Police referred him to the Tadipatri Govt. Hospital for the treatment. In the cross examination the P.W.1 deposed that the distance in between his Village to Kondapuram is about 11 KM. On the date of incident from his Village to Thimmapuram he went on his Motorcycle and

Thimmapuram to Kondapuram he went in a Auto. It is true that Kondapuram is Mandal Head quarter. It will take time 15 minutes to reach Kondapuram from Thimmapuram. He purchased provisions for Rs.1000/-. In the return journey from Kondapuram to Thimmapuram he boarded in a Motorcycle of

Viswanatha Reddy. The A1 and A2 dragged him from the motorcycle and his provisions were also scatters. The Viswanatha Reddy was not fell down. It is 4 C.C.No.369 of 2014 true that the Thimmapuram to Kondapuram road is busy road. The distance in between scene of offence to Kondapuram is about 2 KM. After the incident he reached to Thimmapuram in a new Auto. It is true that there is a faction in the village of P.W.1 in between Chinta Rama Chandra Reddy and Janaki Ram

Reddy. It is true that the Janaki Ram Reddy is the leader of T.D.P party and

Rama Chandra Reddy is the leader of Congress party. It is true that the accused are relatives of Janaki Ram Reddy. In the year 2013 he lodged complaint against the accused and the C.I of Kondapuram compromised the same. It is true that he never stated in his complaint or in his statement about mediation of C.I, Kondapuram. He never sated the before the police the mode of travel on the date incident as the police never asked him. In view of the above admissions made by the P.W.1 if, the accused Nos.1 and 2 bet to the P.W.1 definitely the 3rd parties would have witnessed the incident as per evidence of P.W.1 the scene of offence road is very busy road. Further in this case the Investigation Officer not sited as witness where the P.W.1 boarded the motorcycle on the date of incident, so it is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

12. The P.W.2 R. Gangamma wife of P.W.1 hearsay witness stated that the accused Nos.1 and 2 bet to P.W.1 with chappal and on the date of incident the P.W.1 proceeded to Thimmapuram but in the evidence of P.W.1 he, stated that he came to his house by walk. If the P.W.1 went on a motorcycle on the date of incident. What is the necessity to came on the motorcycle of 3rd party.

13. The P.W.3 who is the hearsay witnesses he deposed that he do know anything about this case and police never examined him and never recorded his statement. At this stage the learned A.P.P declared witness as hostile.

5 C.C.No.369 of 2014

14. P.W.4 Dr. B.R.Deepthi, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

Hospital, Tadipatri has deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 07.15 p.m., he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries,1) Multiple abrasions to the left leg ¼ X ¼ size. 2) A contusion to the left side of the face below the eye size ½ X ¼ cms. 3) A contusion to the left hand below the elbow size 4X2 cms. In the cross examination she deposed that the injuries received by the

P.W.1 are may be possible if any person false and rough surface. As per evidence of P.W.1 there was a previous enmity in between P.W.1 family and accused family, it source that with more grudge the P.W.1 might have foisted this false case against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Except the evidence of P.W.1 no other independent witness or related witness to the occurrence and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not corroborating in each other and their evidence not trust worthy.

15. P.W.5 Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police, Kondapuram P.S., has deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 4.00 pm., he received complaint basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.91/2014 U/s.324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. under Ex.P.4.

During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch under Ex.P.5 and on 15.10.2014, he arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and released on station bail and also seized M.O.1 and after completion of entire investigation, he laid charge sheet. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he has not seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence place.

16. Adverting to the Ex.P.1, it clearly shows that on 11.10.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the P.W.1 went to the Kondapuram to fetch the provisions and after that at about 2.00 pm., while he was coming from Kondapuram to his village at about 2.40 pm., near railway bridge the accused Nos.1 and 2 made galata and bet with sticks and chappals. The P.W.5 the Investigation

Officer seized the M.O.1 after the 4 days of the incident from the house of the 6 C.C.No.369 of 2014 accused. Generally the M.O.1 is available everywhere as the P.W.5 never seized M.O.1 and chappals at the scene of offence place when he visited at the time of Ex.P5. The P.Ws.2 and 3 never stated about the incident happened at the scene of offence place and came to know the same through the P.W.1.

So, the prosecution witnesses themselves never deposed against the accused as they never witnessed alleged incident. The P.W.1 in a chief examination stated that he received injury on the left hand where as the P.W.4 the Doctor noted the injury a multiple abrasions to the left leg and injury stated by the

P.W.1 not tallied with the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 and in the cross examination of P.W.4 she stated that the injury Nos.1 to 3 can be caused when the person false on rough surface.

17. The Investigating Officer failed to seize the incriminating material at the scene of offence and blood stained apparel of P.W.1 is fatal to the case of prosecution. No doubt, the sole evidence of the injured is sufficient to believe the incident proved, but the same is trustworthy. But in this case on hand, when P.W.1 admits to have given Ex.P.1 statement to the police which consists of contradictory version to the version of P.W.1 given in Court pertaining to manner of incident and the manner of coming into contact with the accused, P.W.1’s evidence cannot be straight away believed. The solitary testimony of P.W.1 without the evidence of any independent witness regarding the incident is insufficient for deciding the culpability of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the variant versions on record, I have hesitation to convict the accused basing on the evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

7 C.C.No.369 of 2014

19. In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 324, r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time along with M.O.1.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution: For Defence:Nil

PW.1: R.Narasimhulu.

PW.2: R.Gangamma.

PW.3: V.Venkatesh.

PW.4: Dr.B.R.Deepthi.

PW.5: P.Ravi Kumar, S.I of Police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint of P.W.1, dated 11.10.2014.

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

Ex.P3: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.91/2014 of Kondapuram Police Station.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P6: Police Proceedings.

Exhibits marked for Defence: Nil

Material Objects Marked:-

M.O.1: Stick. Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik, J.F.C.M.

J.madugu.

8 C.C.No.369 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu. Date of _____________________________________________________ Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial _______________ 11.10.2014 11.10.2014 15.10.2014 15.10.2014 15.04.2015 18.04.2017 21.04.2017

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.369/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Kondapuram Police Station in Cr.No.91/2014. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence with Father’s name

1. Koduru Chandra Obula Reddy, S/o Chinna Obula Reddy, 42 years,

2. Chintha Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Jankirami Reddy, 34 years,

Both are residents of Pottipadu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Y.S.R. District.

Offence: U/s. 324, r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: The accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.

324, r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non- valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time along with

M.O.1.

Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jammalamadugu. To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.

Dis No.

Dated:

1 C.C.No.251 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

JAMMALAMADUGU

Present:- Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu

Dated: Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No.251 of 2014

State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Talamanchipatnam Police Station. ….Complainant Vs.

1. Myla Siva Krishnaiah @ Siva Krishna, 21 years, Yadav, Student, S/o Mallaiah, Vaddirala Village, Mylavaram Mandal.

2. Myla Hari Krishnaiah @ Hari Krishna, 20 years, Yadav, Student, S/o Mallaiah, Vaddirala Village, Mylavaram Mandal.

….Accused

This case coming on 17.04.2017 for disposal before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri Y.Bhaskar Reddy and Y.S.Peddiraju, Advocates 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

The Sub Inspector of Police, Talamanchipatnam police station has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Cr.No.79/2014 alleging that the accused caused mischief by killing buffalo and thereby the accused are liable for the offence punishable u/Sec.429,r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.06.2014 L.W.1-

Myla Lakshmi Narayana left his buffalo in to the village from his house for grazing purpose. On the same day afternoon he along with L.Ws.2 and 3 namely Shatkari Guru Gopal and Narla Chandra were proceeding towards main road by walk. When they reached near the hayrick yard of the accused which located in the hayrick yard of Vemplaku Laxumaiah of Vaddirala Village at about 2.00 pm., they noticed that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are beating the 2 C.C.No.251 of 2014 buffalo with Iron rods. When the buffalo are ran away and on seeing the arrival of L.Ws.1 to 3 the accused left the scene of offence place, when the

L.W.1 questioned to accused Nos.1 and 2 about beating they gave reply that the buffalo entered in to their hayrick yard. The L.W.1 providing treatment continuously to his injured buffalo. In spite of it the buffalo unable to survive and on 06.07.2014 the same was died. Due to which loss to an amount of

Rs.25000/- caused. On 07.07.2014 at 2.00 pm., L.W.1 preferred a complaint

before the S.H.O of Talamanchipatnam basing on it he registered a case in

Cr.No.79/2014, u/sec 429 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined all the material witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch and on 19.08.2014 at 6.30 am., the

L.W.5 arrested the accused Nos.1 and 2 and sent them for remand before this

Court and after receiving all the incriminating material, he laid charge sheet.

Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.429 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

against the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

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

5. The accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence U/s. 429 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. No material objects are marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them. They have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3 C.C.No.251 of 2014

8. Heard on both sides.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the

prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the alleged offence?”

POINT:-

10. In the present case on hand, PW.1 is the defacto complainant and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, P.W.4 is the

Medical Officer and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer of this case.

11. P.W.1 M. Lakshmi Narayana, who is the defacto complainant

before this Court has deposed that P.W.1 know the L.Ws.2 and 3 namely S.

Guru gopal and N. Chandra respectively, they are the villagers of P.W.1. He know the accused Nos. 1 and 2 they are also the villagers of P.W.1. On 27.06.2014 at morning hours buffalo of P.W.1 went for grazing in the barren lands. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 bet to buffalo alleging that buffalo of P.W.1 went in the hayrick yard of the accused. Due to which the accused Nos.1 and 2 bet to the buffalo with Iron rods due to which buffalo received injuries on the back side and due to the said injury buffalo was died on 06.07.2014 thereby P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged complaint, himself and

L.Ws.2 and 3 observed the incident while proceeding from their village to bus- stand. In the cross examination, he deposed that the distance in between his house to his hayrick yard is about 1 ½ KM. The father of accused laid hayrick in the site of V.Lakshumaiah which is situated after four hayrick yards from the main road. The distance in between main road to hayrick yard of accused is about 100 feet. The said four hayrick yards are laid by the its owners. There are no hayrick yards around the his hayrick yard. He himself scribed Ex.P1.

It is true that he lodged Ex.P1 on 06.08.2014. It is true that he has follower of congress party and accused follower of T.D.P party. The father of the accused is shepherd. There are no talking terms in between his family and 4 C.C.No.251 of 2014 accused family after this incident. It is true that the A1 is studying

Polytechnic at Hyderabad and A2 is studying at Guntoor.

12. The P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses they deposed in voice that about one year back on one day he himself and P.W.1 and L.W.3 while proceeding from the village to bus-stop they found that the accused

Nos.1 and 2 are bet with iron rods to the buffalo belongs to the P.W.1 and caused injury. On 06.07.2014 the said buffalo was died. During the cross examination both the witnesses admitted that they are the followers of

Congress party and accused are the followers of T.D.P party and there are enmity in between accused family and P.W.1 family.

13. P.W.4 Dr. G. Jhon Sudhakar Babu deposed that on 07.07.2014 he conducted P.M.E over the dead body of buffalo and opined that the said buffalo was died due to traumatic shock. In the cross examination, he deposed that at the time of treatment he found only swelling injury over the buffalo.

14. P.W.5 A. Vidyasagar, S.I of Police, I Town Police Station,

Proddatur, has deposed that on 06.08.2014 he received complaint from the

P.W.1 basing on it he, registered a case in Cr.No.79/2014 U/s. 429 r/w 34 of

I.P.C and on the same day he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence place and prepared rough sketch.

In the cross examination he deposed that the case was registered on 06.08.2014 the death of buffalo occurred on 07.07.2014. It shows that after one month of alleged death of buffalo the P.W.1 approached the police station and lodged complaint. Further the P.W.1 in the chief examination stated that the incident was occurred on 27.06.2014 but, the P.W.1 never lodged any complaint against the accused on 27.06.2014 it is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The P.W.5 who is the veterinary Doctor in his evidence never stated the age of injury received by the buffalo. After one month of the said 5 C.C.No.251 of 2014 death the P.W.5 registered this case on 06.08.2014 and the said delay was not explained by the P.W.5 either in the charge sheet nor in the F.I.R. even the cross examination he never explained for delay registering F.I.R. It is also fatal to the case of prosecution. The P.W.1 admitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are studying B-Tech. If the incident really was happened on 27.06.2014 the P.W.1 definitely he would have filed a complaint immediately after the incident. When he has not filed any complaint immediately after the incident it is a presumption that no incident was happened on 27.06.2014.

The P.W.5 was though he visited the scene of offence place for the preparation of Ex.P5 he never seized any incriminating material at the scene of offence place. It is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

15. The Investigating Officer failed to seize the incriminating material at the scene of offence is fatal to the case of prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the alleged eye witnesses not supporting the prosecution case. The

P.Ws.2 and 3 are the followers of P.W.1 and there was a village politics, the

P.Ws.1 to 3 are the followers of Congress party and accused are the followers of T.D.P party due to village politics the P.W.1 might have foisted this false case after lapse of so many days of the incident against the accused.

16. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the variant versions on record, I have hesitation to convict the accused basing on the evidence on record. Any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted u/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

17. In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 429 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for 6 C.C.No.251 of 2014 a period of six months. The unmarked non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for prosecution:For Defence:Nil

PW.1: M.Lakshmi Narayana.

PW.2: S.Guru Gopal.

PW.3: N.Chandra.

PW.4: Dr.G.Jhon Sudhakar Babu.

PW.5: A.Vidya Sagar, S.I of Police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1, dated 06.08.2014.

Ex.P2: Requisition of Doctor, dated 07.07.2014.

Ex.P3: P.M.E certificate of Buffalo, dated 07.07.2014.

Ex.P4: F.I.R. in Cr.No.79/2014 of Talamanchipatnam P.S.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Material Objects Marked:-Nil.

Sd/- M. Srinivasulu Naik

J.F.C.M. Jammalamadugu.

7 C.C.No.251 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu. Date of _____________________________________________________ Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close Judgment Sion of on bail ment of of accused trial trial ________________ 27.06.2014 06.08.2014 19.08.2014 19.08.2014 02.12.2015 17.04.2017 20.04.2017

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.251/2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

Name of the Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Talamanchipatnam Police Station in Cr.No.79/2014.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence with Father’s name

1.Myla Siva Krishnaiah @ Siva Krishna, 21 years, Yadav, Student, S/o Mallaiah, Vaddirala Village, Mylavaram Mandal.

2. Myla Hari Krishnaiah @ Hari Krishna, 20 years, Yadav, Student, S/o Mallaiah, Vaddirala Village, Mylavaram Mandal.

Offence: U/s. 429 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

Finding: The accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.

429 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non- valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jammalamadugu. To The Hon’ble I Additional District Judge. Kadapa.

Dis No. Dated:

Page 1 Of 6

APKD000025172026

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER SC/ST

(POA) ACT CASES- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SESSIONS ::

KADAPA.

Present:- Sri M.Srinivasulu Naik, VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. FAC.IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P.176 Of 2026.

in Crime No.07 Of 2026 of Pulivendula U/G P.S.

1.Manne Saritha, wife of M.Kumar Babu,aged 44 yrs, H.No.26-505-A.1, Vijayapuri colony, Near LIC office, R.S.Road, Nandyal.(A.2).

2.Pochimireddy Dasaratha Ramireddy,S/o P.Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 48 yrs,Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad.(A.3)

3.Pochimireddy Sarala, W/o Pochimireddy Dasaratha Rami Reddy, aged 48 yrs, Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad. (A.4).

4.Pochimireddy Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o Late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged 52 yrs, resident of Bonala village, Lingala mandal, Pulivendula mandal, Kadapa district. (A.5)

5.Yammanuru Prakash Reddy, S/o Venkataramana Reddy, aged 39 yrs, resident of Bonala village, Lingala mandal, Pulivendula, Kadapa district. (A.6) 6.Gajjala Siva Kumar Reddy, S/o G.Prabhakar Reddy, aged 54 yrs, Flat No.G.2, Maruthi residency, near Gayathri Gardens, Balaji Hills colony, Nizampet, Hyderabad. (A.7)

7.Damerakula Vijaya Rekha, W/o Sundaraiah, aged 42 yrs, H.No.26-505-A.1, Vijayapuri colony, near LIC Office, R.S road, Nandyal (A.8).

8.Manne Gnana Bharanamu, S/o Yakobu, aged about 70 yrs, D.No.4-93, A.Kodur village, Bandi Atmakur mandal, Nandyal district. (A.9).

.. Petitioners/A.2 to A.9 ..

-Versus-

State: Represented by the Station House Office, Pulivendula U/G P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant ..

Page 2 Of 6

This petition is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Prathap Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners / A.2 to

A.9 and Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of Respondent / Complainant and upon perusing the material papers available on record and after hearing both sides, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the Petitioners / A.2 to

A.9 Under Sec.482 Of BNSS-2023, prays to grant anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.07/2026 of Pulivendula U/G Police Station for the alleged offences Under Section.316 (5), 140 (1), 127 (8), 308 (6), 318 (4) r/w 3 (5) of BNS.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that this is a case of ‘Cheating criminal breach of trust extraction kidnapping, wrongful confinement with common intention’, occurred on 06.01.2026 at Mythri layout, Pulivendula town alleging that the complainant Akkulagari Maruthireddy and his partner

M.Harshavardhana reddy, opened construction in the name of west land EPC company jointly, due to inconvenience the complainant gave G.P to A.1 for entire money transactions of the above construction company that he used to above G.P and withdraw the money which was deposited by the government for clear the construction contractor works bills in APGB bank Nandyal branch from 2021 to 2024 for an amount of Rs.2 crores 30 lakhs, A.1 cheated the company failed to use E.P.C company expenditures and A.1 involved in

Criminal breach of trust and the above amount sent to A.2 to A.4 and A.6 to

A.9 regularly. Later A.1 to A.9 have also forcefully taken the Duster car belongs to complainant, TATA Xenon pick, motor cycles, Laptops and printers along with office furniture, Centering materials, plumbing materials more than 10 lakhs, bar bending and wood cutting machinery. Later the complainant lodged written report, based on which a case in Crime No.07/2026 for the above said offences.

Page 3 Of 6

3. The brief grounds sought for grant of bail are that petitioners / A.2 to A.9 are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the accused vide C.No.7601/C-23/CID/2025 dt.25.09.2025 to DGP, A.P.Managalagiri and have conducted a detailed preliminary enquiry, recorded the statement of both parties, hotel staff at

Austin rain tree, hotel Patan cheruvu and concerned police officers, the CID conclusively held that the entire issue is purely civil and financial dispute over sharing of contract amounts, the GPA was voluntarily executed by the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant misusing criminal process to settle civil financial disputes. The defacto complainant lodged this present false and malafide FIR in the year January, 2026 with sweeping, vague and omnibus allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, kidnapping and wrongful confinement against the petitioners without attributing any specific overt acts to them. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint against Nandyal police stating that they apprehension of his friend Harshavardhan by Nandyal police and complaint withdrawn stating that a resolution has reached in thismatter through a compromise between the concerned police. The petitioner No.8 is aged about 70 years suffering from old aged problems. The petitioners are no way concerned about the transactions and other allegations. There is no specific date and time on which date they were attacked the defacto complainant and his friend. The petitioners are law abiding citizen, having permanent residence and having old aged parents, small children and there is no possibility of absconding or tampering with prosecution witnesses. The petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigating and abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. The petitioners have no previous criminal antecedents. So, requested the court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / A.2 to A.9.

4. Notice given to the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, who opposed the bail application on the ground that investigation is pending.

Page 4 Of 6

5. Heard on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is that:- “Whether the Petitioners / A.2 to A.9 are entitled to grant anticipatory bail as prayed for”?

POINT:-

7.On perusal of material available on record including the C.D file submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is found that this is a case of ‘Cheating criminal breach of trust extraction kidnapping, wrongful confinement with common intention’, occurred on 06.01.2026 at Mythri layout,

Pulivendula town.

8. The First Information Report (FIR) explicitly stated that the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 were involved in the present crime and reveals prima-facie case against the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 as alleged by the investigating officer. The investigation is pending for examination of some more witnesses and for collecting documentary evidence. Regarding the prosecution’s case, the investigation remains incomplete. The anticipatory bail for the petitioners / A.2 to A.9 may adversely impact the ongoing investigation. There is every possibility of threats to the witnesses and a prima-facie case involving the petitioners in a severe case exists, the nature of the accusations is grave. The investigation agency has not been able to interrogate the petitioners, custodial investigate is deemed necessary to extract all material information about the offence, thus the established legal principle is that anticipatory bail is not granted as a matter of rule, it should only be granted when the Court is

Page 5 Of 6 convinced that exceptional circumstances warrant such an extraordinary remedy.

9. In view of the principles laid down in ‘Siddaram Satlingappa Mhetre Vs

State of Maharastra (2011)1 SCC 694 ’ to grant Anticipatory bail, the factors and parameters have to be taken into consideration that ‘T he Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully and the role of accused ’.

10.On perusal of the record shows that there is prima-facie case against the petitioners / A.2 to A.9. Further the prosecution alleges that the investigation is pending for apprehension of petitioners since long time. If the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail there would be harm to the witnesses in the case and may tamper the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

In view of allegations on the petitioners / A.2 to A.9, I do not find any merits in the petition to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / A.2 to A.9, as such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered.

11. In the result, this anticipatory bail petition isdismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M.Srinivasulu Naik,

VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa.FAC.IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Page 6 Of 6

1 M.C.No.09 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

JAMMALAMADUGU

Present:- Sri M. Srinivasulu Naik,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

Dated: Wednesday, this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

M.C.No. 09 of 2016

Akumalla Supraja, W/o Doorla Vijaya Kumar, Christian, aged about 18 years, residing at D.No.4/164, Nehru Nagar, Jammalamadugu of Jammalamadugu Mandal, Y.S.R. District.

….Petitioner Vs.

Doorla Vijaya Kumar, S/o Satyaraju, Christian, aged about 23, Employee, residing at Peddakomerla village of Mylavaram, Mandal, Y.S.R. District. ….Respondent

This petition coming on 19.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of the respondent remained set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

The present M.C. petition is filed by the petitioner against her husband seeking maintenance in a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.

1. The brief averments of the petition are that the marriage of petitioner held with the respondent on 11.06.2015 at C.S.I. Church

S.P.G. Quarters, Jammalamadugu town, as per customs and traditions of Christian Community and at that time, the parents of the petitioner presented gold ornaments such as ear studs, gold rings and one chain and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent. Subsequently after joining the petitioner with the respondent, to lead the marital life and as the petitioner was doing diploma course, she is residing at

Jammalamadugu and the respondent also used to reside along with the petitioner in the house of the parents of the petitioner. The petitioner try to put up a separate family but could not do the same 2 M.C.No.09 of 2016 due to unwillingness of the respondent. The petitioner lead the marital life happily for about one month only. The petitioner submits that she is the only daughter to her parents and the respondent took her to his village Peddakomerla to lead the marital life. The respondent's mother and the other relatives did not like the petitioner and started abusing from the very 1st day of the joining of the petitioner in their house. The mother of the respondent used to say that her son will be provided with a dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- and used to abuse the petitioner and her parents for not getting much dowry. Further the respondent used to demanding the parents of the petitioner much amount every day and used to harass and bet them on some ground or other, for which the petitioner refused the same and thereby the respondent bore grudge against the petitioner and used to bet her without any reason.

The respondent driven out the petitioner on 30.01.2016 by beating her and threatening her to give divorce and so that he will marry again.

Though mediations were held, but the same were become futile. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and the parents of the petitioner are also not in a position to maintain the petitioner. The respondent is working as a village Co-Ordinator at Mylavaram and used to get Rs.10,000/- per month and also having cash and land with him at Peddakommerla. Hence, it is sought for maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- per month as she is unable to maintain herself.

2. The respondent having received the notice remained absent and was set exparte.

3. During the enquiry, the petitioner got herself examined as

PW.1 and no documents are exhibited.

4. Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

3 M.C.No.09 of 2016

5. Now the point of determination is whether the petitioner is entitled for maintenance from the respondent and if so, what is the quantum?

6. PW.1 deposed before this Court that about her marriage with respondent and in view of bad vices, the respondent was beating and harassing and the respondent's mother was demanding for additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent bet her and necked out her from his house. Since then she is residing with her parents. Though mediations were held, the respondent did not allow her to lead marital life with the respondent. Her parents are no capacity to maintain her.

According to her, her husband working as village co ordinator to get

Rs.10,000/- per month. She has no capacity to maintain her and hence she prayed to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/-.

7. Sec.125 Cr.P.C. deals, for granting maintenance to wife, minor children and parents. The PW.1 is clearly and categorically deposed about their marriage and also desertion of petitioner by the respondent. There is no cross examination to PW.1. The respondent remained exparte in the main petition. Though there is no documentary evidence, the oral evidence of PW.1 can be believed.

The P.W.1 clearly stated that the respondent used to harass her every day and also demanding for want of additional dowry. Apprehension of harm and persistent demands of dowry are reasonable justifications for the refusal of the wife to live with her husband. So, there are sufficient reasons for the separate residence of the petitioner with the respondent. Hence, the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent.Therespondent getting

Rs.10,000/- per month and he is having capacity to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner claims that she is depending on her parents.

4 M.C.No.09 of 2016

Her version goes to show that she is not in a position to maintain herself. Being the husband, the respondent is under legal and moral obligation to maintain his wife. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance. It has to be presumed that the respondent is able bodied person and therefore, either by begging or borrowed, he has to maintain the petitioner. Considering the present day cost of living and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance. This point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the maintenance amount is granted at Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner, with effect from the date of the petition payable by the respondent. The maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) shall be remitted in the bank account of the petitioner to be furnished by the petitioner in the Court and the maintenance amount has to be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month. Further the office is directed to give one free copy of the Order to the petitioner as per

Sec.128 of Cr.P.C. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of April,

2017.

Sd/- M. Srinivasulu Naik

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu.

MEMO OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for Petitioner:

PW.1: Akumalla Supraja.

Witnesses examined for Respondent: N I L. Exhibits marked for Petitioners: N I L Exhibits marked for Respondent: N I L. Material Objects Marked: N I L.

Sd/- M. Srinivasulu Naik

J.F.C.M., J.Madugu.