Sri. M.Subba Rao

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (EXCISE):VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Sri M.Subba Rao, Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 29th day December, 2014.

C.C.No. 184/2014

Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellimarla Police Station. …Complainant. And: A.1 Majji Appalanaidu, S/o Late Appalaswamy, 45 years, T-Kapu by caste, R/o Ommi Village. A.2 Majji Bangaramm, W/o Appalanaidu, 40 years, rest do. A.3 Majji Ramana, S/o Appalanaidu, 22 years, rest do. A.4 Majji Kamesh, S/o Appalanaidu, 20 years, rest do. …Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of Complainant State represented by the police, and of, Sri G.Satyam and Sri Ch.Rajesh, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellimarla Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.

114/2013.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

The LW1 Pinninti Kanchamma is residing at Ommi village of Nellimarla mandal, A.2 and Lw4 Potnuru Narayanamma are sisters of LW1, there was a dispute regarding the house of the mother of LW1 wherein LW4 is residing presently, while so, on 22.08.2013 at about 8.00 p.m., as usually, the A.4 who is son of A.1 and A.2 came to the house of LW4 for sleeping, on seeing the same LW1 asked A.4 as to why he is staying in the house, A.4 informed the same to his parents who in turn rushed there along with their son A.3, A.1 to A.3 altercated with LW1 Kanchamma, LW2 Pinninti

Satyam and LW3 Pinninti Mahesh regarding the said house property, A.1 banged LW1 to the wall of the house of one Majji Ramunaidu, resulting which upper teeth of LW1 fell on the ground and another two teeth got loosed with bleeding injuries, LW5 Majji

Laxmu, LW6 Tumpalli Ramakrishna, Lw7 Majji Ramulu and LW8 Majji Appalanaidu rescued LWs 1 to 3 from the hands of the accused, A.1 to A.4 beat Lws2 and 3 with hands indiscriminately and kicked with legs.

Basing on the statement of LW1 Pinninti Kanchamma, LW12 S.Amminaidu, SI of Police registered a case in crime No. 114/2013 under Sections 325, 323 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW12 SI of Police visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined as many as eight witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused on 18.9.2013. LW11 Dr. A.Baba,

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram treated Lws 1 and 2, and issued wound certificates opined that the injuries of LW1 are grievous in nature and injuries of LW2 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation LW12

SI of Police filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

03.This case was taken on file U/Sec. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vizianagaram and numbered as C.C.No. 1075/2013.

04.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents have been furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, for the offences under Section U/Sec.326, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused and charges framed against the accused u/S. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC IPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.C.C.No. 1075/2013, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Court, Vizianagaram transferred this case as per the orders of the Honourable District

Judge, Vizianagaram in P.R.No. 3/2014-A dt.03-01-2014 to the Court of Spl.Judl.

Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram and renumbered as CC 184/2014.

07.During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P.2, Ext.P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 dated 23.8.2013 and

Ext.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 dated 23.8.2013.

08. To prove its case prosecution has examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked

Exs.P.1 and P.2, since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the prosecution evidence the examination U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

09.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Now, the points for determination is . Whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offences under Sections

U/Sec. 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.Point:-To prove the case of the prosecution the prosecution cited has been as 12 out of them only two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2.

12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 Pinninti Kanchamma stated that she know the A.2 is her sister, A.1 is his brother-in-law, A.3 and A.4 are their children, she do not know how the incident took place and she do not know any facts of this case.

She further stated that on one day about one year back, when she fell on the floor she received injury on her mouth, accused never beat her, she was never beaten by the accused, police never examined her and she never went to the police station and gave her report. Ex.P.1 is her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. She turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

13. PW2 Pinninti Satyam who is the husband of PW1 stated that A.1 to A.4 are his nearest relatives, PW1 is his wife, he do not know any facts of this case, he did not received injuries. He further stated that police never examined him, his wife never received injuries in the hand sof the accused but she sustained injuries when she fell on the floor. Ex.P.2 is his 161 Cr.P.C.statement. He turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

14. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs 1 and 2 but nothing was elicit from the PWs1 and 2 in favour to the case of the prosecution. On perusing the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, and due to the hostile nature of Pws.1 and 2, the prosecution has given up the rest of witnesses L.Ws. 3 to 12 as such, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, the A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused are directed to execute bond for Rs.5,000/- each U/Sec. 437-

A Cr.P.C. to appear before the appellate court if any is preferred.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of December, 2014.

Sd/- M.Subbarao,

Spl.Judl.I Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence: NIL

P.W.1: Pinninti Kanchamma.

P.W.2: Pinninti Satyam.

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil

Ext.P.1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 dated 23.8.2013

Ext.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 dated 23.8.2013.

M.O.s Marked

- NIL –

Sd/- M.Subbarao,

Spl.Judl.I Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram. //True copy//

Sd/- M.Subbarao,

Spl. Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise), Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri M.Subba Rao

Spl.Judl.I Class Magistrate (Excise Court) Vizianagaram

FAC: Addl. Judl First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, the 1st day of October, 2014

C.C.No.812/2014

Between: Staterepresented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram.…Complainant

And :

1. Dasamanthula Raju

2. Dasamanthula Sathibabu … Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me during the course of day i.e., 01.10.2014 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and accused in person and both parties compromised and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused nos 1 and 2 in Crime No.125/2014 for the offence under

Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos 1 and 2.

3. On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.A1 and A2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offence u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, having understood the same, they denied the offence. After hearing both sides, a Charge U/s. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC was framed against A1 and A2 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2

5.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and Ex.P.1 to P.4 got marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there is no incriminating material stood against them from the evidence of prosecution witness.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration in this case is, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence U/s. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

There are previous family ill-feelings between both the parties. On 23.05.2014 during Hanumaj Jayanthi festival celebrations an altercation took place between both the parties in which A-2 caught hold PW-2, A-1 beat PW-2 with nickel fist and caused injuries. A-2 beat PW-3 with cricket stump. A-1 beat PW-3 with hands and caused injuries. A-1 and A-2 beat PW-1 with cricket stump and caused injuries on back of the body Based on the statement of PW-1, this case was registered.

10. As already stated, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3.

11. PW-1 deposed that about 4 months back on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi a dispute took place between two groups and somebody pushed him from his back side and he fell down and received injuries and he cannot identify who pushed him.

12. PW-2 deposed that deposed that about 4 months back on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi a dispute took place between two groups and somebody pushed him from his back side and he fell down and received injuries and he cannot remember who pushed him.

13. PW-3 deposed that deposed that about 4 months back on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi a dispute took place between two groups and somebody pushed him from his back side and he fell down and received injuries and he cannot remember who pushed him.

14.The learned APP sought permission of the Court to declare Pws.1 to 3 as hostile and to put questions to them as in cross-examination. After obtaining permission, the 3 learned APP asked questions to Pws.1 to 3 as in cross-examination but they denied the suggestion of learned APP that they are deposing false to help the accused in view of compromise.

14. The learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses as the main witnesses attributed hostile attitude and no purpose will be served if the others are examined. As the main witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the point to determine stands short and it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-1 and A-2 and they are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under section-324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. A-1 and A-2 are directed to execute bonds for Rs.5000/- each u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of October, 2014.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise Court),

Vizianagaram

FAC: Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- P.W.1: Dasamunthala Srinivas -None- PW-2: Dasamunthala Jagannadham PW-3: Koduru Chiranjeevi

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:- Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on the statement given to police Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1. Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. For Defence:- - N I L –

M.Os.Marked

-NIL-

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise Court),

Vizianagaram

FAC: Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri M.Subba Rao

Spl.Judl.I Class Magistrate (Excise Court) Vizianagaram

FAC: Addl. Judl First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, the 1st day of October, 2014

C.C.No.813/2014

Between: Staterepresented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram.…Complainant

And :

1. Dasamanthula Jagannadham

2. Dasamanthula Srinu @ Srinvasa Rao

3. Dasamanthula Giri

4. Koduru Chiranjeevi

5. Koduru Srinu

6. Koduru Pydi Raju … Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me during the course of day i.e., 01.10.2014 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant-State and accused in person and both parties compromised and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against the accused nos 1 to 6 in Crime No.126/2014 for the offence under

Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

2.This case was taken on file for the offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos 1 to 6.

3. On appearance of A1 to A6, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of the charge sheet were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for offence u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC, having understood the same, they denied the offence. After hearing both sides, a Charge U/s. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC was framed against A1 to A6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2

5.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW 1 and Ex.P.1 and P.2 got marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there is no incriminating material stood against them from the evidence of prosecution witness.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration in this case is, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 to 6 for the offence U/s. 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

There are previous family ill-feelings between both the parties. On 23.05.2014 during Hanumaj Jayanthi festival celebrations an altercation took place between both the parties in which A-1 beat LW-3 Dasamanthula Bhavani, when other witnesses tried to rescue said Bhavani, all the accused beat Vykunta Raju with hands and A-2 beat

PW-1 Dasamanthula Sathibabu with nickel fist and caused injuries. Based on the statement of PW-1, this case was registered.

10. As already stated, the prosecution examined P.W.1.

11. PW-1 deposed that about 4 months back a dispute took place between two groups on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi and during that period some unknown persons beat him resulting he received injuries and he cannot identify who beat him.

12.The learned APP sought permission of the Court to declare Pw.1 as hostile and to put questions to him as in cross-examination. After obtaining permission, the learned

APP asked questions to Pw.1 as in cross-examination but he denied the suggestion of learned APP that he is deposing false to help the accused in view of compromise.

14. The learned APP has given up the evidence of other witnesses as the main witness attributed hostile attitude and no purpose will be served if the others are examined. As the main witness did not support the case of the prosecution, the point to determine stands short and it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A-1 to A-6 and they are entitled for acquittal.

3

15.In the result, A-1 to A-6 are found not guilty for the offence under section-324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. A-1 to A-6 are directed to execute bonds for Rs.5000/- each u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of October, 2014.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise Court),

Vizianagaram

FAC: Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:-For Defence:- P.W.1: Dasamanthula Sathibabu -None-

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:- Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on the statement given to police Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1.

For Defence:- - N I L –

M.Os.Marked

-NIL-

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Spl.Judl. First Class Magistrate (Excise Court),

Vizianagaram

FAC: Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri M.Subbaarao B.Sc. M.L.

Spl. JUdl. I class Magistrate (Excise)

FAC:Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Friday, the 26 th day of September, 2014

O.S.No.80/2014

Between: Smt. Guggills Sujatha W/o parvateesam alias Sai aged 39 years, Hindu, house wife and landlady r/o Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ….Plaintiff. A n d :

1. Althi Kanchanna Fathers name not know aged 70 years Hindu, cultivation r/o Satiwada Kallalu satiwad Village nellimarla mandal Vizianagaram District.

2. Althi Papayya S/o Kanchanna aged 50 years rest –do-

3. Althi Suryanarayana s/o Kanchanna aged 36 yearsr rest –do-

4. Althi Ramana S/o late Tammanna aged 40 years rest –do-

5. Althi Appalanaidu s/o late Tammanna aged 38 years rest –do-

6. Chandaka Narayana S/o late Pentayya aged 65 years rest –do-

7. Chandaka Trinadha S/o Narayana aged 35 years, rest –do-

8. Chandaka Ramana alias konda S/o Narayana aged 30 years rest –do-

9. Chandaka Lakshmu s/o late Pentayya aged 55 years rest –do- 10.Chandaka Siva S/o lakshmu aged 28 years, rest –do- 11.Chandaka Prasad S/o late Krishna ged 23 years rest –do- 12.Chankdaka Prasad S/o late Krishna aged 20 years rest –do- ….Defendant.

This suit is coming on 22-9-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Ramababu Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, service held sufficient and the defendant remained exparte and after hearing the plaintiff’s counsel, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is field by the plaintiff against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and servants and their assignees from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner costs of the suit.

2.The defendants have not appeared before the Court though they have received summons personally. Hence this Court made them set exparte.

3.The plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 Registered sale deed, dt.

17.10.2006 Ex.A.2 title deed respect of the paint schedule property Ex.A.3 Original pattadar pass book, Ex.A.4 is are the land revenue receipts, Ex.A.6 Oriignal electrical bill and Ex.A.7 four digital photo’s sh0owing plaint schedule property. .

4.Heard Perused the record. The contention of plaintiff is proved by her evidence affidavit as it is unchallenged by the defendants Hence this court is inclined to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, the suit is decreed with castes in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men agents, servants and representatives from ever interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and dispossess the plaintiff from any part of the plaint schedule property.

5.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2014.

FAC :Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of evidence No oral evidence is adduced.

For Plaintiff:For Defendant: None.

PW-1: Guggilla Sujatha ( by chief affidavit)

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: Nil.

Ex.A-1: Registered sale deed dt. 17.10.2006 Ex.A-2: Title deed respect of the plaint schedule property Ex.A-3: Original pattadar pass book Ex.A.4& 5 land revenue receipts Ex.A6 Original electrical bill Ex.A.7 Four digital phot’s showing plaint schedule property.

Sd/- M.Subbarao

Spl. Judl. Ist Class Magistrate (Excise) FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE:

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Sri M.Subba Rao, Spl.Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise Court) Vizianagaram FAC: Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

Wednesday, the 1st day of October, 2014

CALENDAR CASE No.662/2014

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station.…Complainant

A n d:

Koppala Dhanarjuna Rao, S/o Sankara Rao, 22 years, Tagarapuvalasa village, Bheemili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

....Accused

This case is coming on this day for hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for Complainant – State and accused present in person and since the accused admitted the offences voluntarily, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkada Police Station filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.34/2014 for the offences punishable U/s.338 IPC against the accused alleging that on 20.02.2014 at 10-30 p.m. while LW-1 Palavalasa Ramana and his brother in law were proceeding to Anandapuram village on their motor cycle and when they reached near Modavalasa village, the accused being the driver of TATA Ace bearing No. AP 35 V 2767 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in the same direction and dashed against the motor cycle of said Ramana, as a result, the said Ramana sustained fracture injury on his left knee. Hence, the charge.

2.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 338

I.P.C. against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207, Cr.P.C., 2

3. Accused was examined under section 251, Cr.P.C. He pleaded guilty voluntarily. On perusing the record, I found the accused guilty for the offence punishable U/s.338 IPC.

4.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/s.

U/s.338 IPC, hence he is convicted U/s 252 Cr.P.C.

5.When I questioned the accused about the quantum of sentence he stated that his family members are depending upon him, hence lenient view may be taken against him.

6.In the above circumstances, accused is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable U/s.338 IPC and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of October, 2014.

Spl.Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise Court) Vizianagaram FAC: Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Spl.Judl. I Class Magistrate (Excise Court) Vizianagaram FAC: Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.