Smt M. Sudha, B.A., LL.B.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Smt. M.Sudha,

II-ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.287 of 2016

Between:

State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station. … Complainant.

And

1. Putta Eswara Phani Kumar, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Age 20 years, Valandapalem, Machilipatnam.

2. Putta Srinivasa Rao, S/o Raghavaiah, Age 43 years, D.No.16/96, Valandapalem, Machilipatnam.

... Accused.

This case came upon this day for final hearing and for disposal before me in the presence of Senior APP for complainant and of Sri.Suresh Babu Perni, Advocate for the accused, upon considering the material on record, this Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 341, 506 r/w 34 IPC in

Cr.No.56 of 2016 of Chilakalapudi Police Station. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2)As per contents of charge sheet, LW.1/Miriyala Kantha Rao is the resident of Valandapalem, Machilipatnam. He is doing rold gold works. He has two female children. In the year 2008 he has taken an amount of Rs.25,000/- from A2 and executed five promissory notes to him. Oftenly he paid interest to the capital amount. He paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards interest to the said amount up to 7th month of 2013. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards capital amount. The remaining amount also paid and asked promissory notes, but the accused did not give his promissory notes and he filed a note in the

Hon’ble Court and the Court ordered attachment of the house of the

complainant. In this regards, the complainant filed a petition before District

Collector, Krishna and Meekosam. The matter stood thus on 2.5.2016 night at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant while proceeded towards his house, and he 2 reached near the market yard road, at that time the accused A2 and his son A1 stopped the complainant and quarreled with him due to amount, and they wrongfully restraining the complainant and used utter words and threatened with dire consequences that they will file remaining notes through others in the

Court. They also create bad propaganda regarding the complainant wrote in his report, A1 & A2 committed rape against his wife and daughter, due to which the complainant vexed his life due to wrongful restraining and threatened with dire consequences by the accused on 3.5.2016 at about 9.00 hours he swallowed the pesticide poison mixed in the water and try to attempt to commit suicide. On seeing the same his wife called 108 ambulance and shifted him to GGH, Bandar for medical treatment. On 3.5.2016 at 10.30 hours LW.7/ASI received hospital intimation and he rushed to the hospital and secured the presence of the complainant and recorded his statement from 11.00 hours to 11.30 hours.

LW.8/D.Chandra Sekhar registered a case in Cr.No.56/16 under sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW.8 secured as many as five witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements in detail in the case diary part-II, besides examination of the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 10.5.2016 LW.8/S.I served notice to the both accused under sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. LW.6/Dr.K.Sesharathnam treated the injured person and issued wound certificate in which he stated that he quantity of the poison consumed is not severe enough to cause death. After completion of investigation LW.8/D.Chandra Sekhar (S.I) filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3) The cognizance of case was taken on file for the offence under

Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 & A2.

4)After receipt of summons, A1 & A2 appeared before this Court, copies of all documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3

5) A1 & A2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences under sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC the substance of the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In support of the prosecution case P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 were marked on their behalf.

7)After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 & A2 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence found against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8) Heard arguments both sides.

9) Now the point for consideration in this case is….

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) The main case of the prosecution is that, on 2.5.2010 about 7.00 p.m.

while PW.1 was returned to his house from market while he reached near marketyard A1 and some other persons obstructed PW.1 and wrongfully confined him and also threatened him with dire consequences as he failed to repay the decreetal amount passed against him in connection with civil suit filed by A2 for recovery of amount. It is also further case of the prosecution that

PW.1 in fact borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/-from A2, at that time A2 obtained five blank promissory notes from PW.1, even PW.1 executed five promissory notes for each Rs.5,000/- and PW.1 also paid Rs.1,20,000/- towards interest amount and Rs.10,000/- towards capital amount, but the accused instead of return the blank promissory notes, he insisted to pay Rs.34,000/- decreetal amount, and even if he ready to pay decreetal amount, A2 did not return remaining four blank promissory notes and threatened him that he will file another cases basing on four blank promissory notes against PW.1 through other persons. Case of the accused is denial.

4

11) The case of the accused is not only they denied the allegations of prosecution but also argued that PW.1 in order to avoid to pay the decreetal amount passed against him in Civil Court and created a false story that he consumed pesticides poison due to threatening of accused as he failed to pay decreetal amount. Therefore, the specific case of the accused is PW.1 foisted false case against A1 who is innocent to spoil his career he happens to son of A2 and to avoid to pay decreetal amount to A2.

12) Whatever allegations attributed against each other, the fact remains that earlier to the alleged incident A2 filed civil suit against PWs.1 & 2 who are wife and husband for recovery amount of Rs.34,000/- on the basis of promissory note executed by PWs.1& 2. It is also undisputed fact that Court Ameena came to the house of PW.1 for execution of Civil Court order.

13) To prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. Out of which PW.1/Miriyala Kantharao is defacto complainant,

PW.2/Miriyala Venkata Durga Bhavani is wife of PW.1, PW.3/Miriyala VIjayalaxmi is sister-in-law of PW.1, PW.4/Puppala Satyanarayana is friend of PW.1,

PW.6/Chandana Satishkumar is brother of PW.2, PW.5/Dr.K.Sesharathnam is medical officer, PW.7/D.Chandra Sekhar is the then Sub Inspector of Police who investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Further prosecution also did not choose to examine independent witnesses surrounding to alleged scene of offene which allegedly took place on 2.5.2016.

14) In the present case even PWs.2 to 4 and 6 though examined, they did not witness the incident which occurred on 2.5.2016, but if circumstantial evidence coupled with PW.1 evidence, if inspires the Court to make believe their evidence, it is sufficient to believe the prosecution case. However, in the present case when I thoroughly scrutinized the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 in gist of manner, at first when I consider the evidence of PW.1 in chief it is testified in the year 2008 he is taken an amount of Rs.25,000/- from A2 and also executed five promissory notes in favour of A2 for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each promissory note, he also paid three months interest to the capital amount. Later A2 asked 5 him to pay interest yearly for one time, as such he paid total amount of

Rs.1,20,000/- interest to the accused periodically from 2008 to 2013. Later A2 approached Civil Court and filed civil case against him basing on one promissory note. Then he informed to A2 he will pay amount covered under promissory note which was filed before Civil Court if he return four remaining promissory notes which were executed by him in the year 2008 in favour of A2. He also deposed Court ordered attachment, Court Ameena came to his house for attachment, but they have no valuable items in their house, Court Ameena went away. Matter was stood thus on 2.5.2016 night at 7.00 p.m. while he proceeded towards his house after purchasing raw-material while he reached market yard, at that time A1 along with other persons stopped him , restrained him and asked due amount, on that he replied he will pay the amount if they return remaining four promissory notes. Then they quarreled with him, threatened him with dire consequences that they will file remaining four promissory notes through other persons before the Court. He also deposed then he escaped from the hands of accused, went to his house. A1 & A2 also made propaganda that A1 committed rape against his wife and his daughter, due to which he filed case against A1 &

A2, he vexed with the attitude of the accused, he taken pesticides powder mixing with water and attempt to commit suicide, on seeing the same his wife called 108 ambulance and shifted him to Government Hospital. While he was in

Government Hospital police recorded his statement, Ex.P.1 is his statement.

15) PW.1 cross examination is testified he admits that earlier on the suit filed by A2 against himself and his wife PW.2 for recovery of amounts on the basis of promissory note it was decreed and attachment petition also filed against his properties, thereupon he filed a petition against the accused before

District Collector. Therefore, it is clearly manifesto earlier to the alleged incident there are civil disputes occurred and decree was passed against PWs.1 & 2 for the suit filed by A2. If really the contention of the prosecution that the A1 and other persons wrongfully confined PW.1 at market yard area while he reached, the prosecution would have elicit any independent evidence, but he did not do so.

6

16) As I already discussed above, the prosecution witnesses who are

PWs.2 to 4 are inter related that to they are not shown as direct witnesses for the incident took place on 2.5.2016. When I consider the evidence of PW.7 investigation officer in his cross examination he admits that PW.1 stated before him A2 filed civil suit against him and same was decreed basing on the promissory note. Further admits PW.1 is not mentioned the names of other persons with regard to incident took place on 2.5.2016 at 7.00 p.m. Further

PW.1 did not state before him that he executed five promissory notes for

Rs.5,000/- each promissory note and also he did not state before him that A2 asked to give entire amount of promissory note but not interest. Further PW.2 did not state before him that herself and her husband executed five promissory notes in favour of A2. Further PWs.1 or 2 did not disclose that accused threatened them they will kill them. In view of the above, the prosecution case is, the accused wrongfully restrained PW.1, threatened him with dire consequences appears false one.

17) Further there is no nexus between the alleged threatening by the accused with the pesticide consumed by the PW.1. Even for arguments sake that PW.1 consumed pesticides as per the evidence of prosecution which is an offence committed by PW.1 i.e., police would have file case against PW.1 for the offence to commit suicide, but they did not do so. PW.1 cross examination also shows that on the suit filed by A2, decree was passed against him, but in the written statement filed by him before Civil Court he never stated that he paid cash of Rs.1,20,000/- to A2, it shows the story set up by the prosecution that A2 obtained five blank promissory notes is false. In the evidence of PW.1 also there is no whisper what actually uttering words used by A1 on 2.5.2016 at 7.00 p.m., as a result PW.1 attempt to commit suicide.

18) If at all the version of prosecution that PW.1 was shifted to hospital by

PWs.2,3 & 4, the evidence of PW.5 medical officer should be corroborated them, but there is no consistency in between PW.5 evidence and PW.2, 3 & 4 evidence.

But PW.5 who is medical officer categorically stated that at the time of PW.1 7 admitted in Government Hospital he alone came to hospital, whereas PWs.2, 3 & 4 stated that they shifted PW.1 in 108 ambulance which version is believable one. Therefore, PWs.2, 3 & 4 evidence is not corroborated PW.5 medical officer evidence.

19) Further when I testified the evidence of PW.2, though she speaks in the same lines as deposed by PW.1, but in her cross examination she admits that she does not know whether they mentioned in their written statement

before Civil Court that they borrowed cash of Rs.25,000/- from A2 in the year

2008 and also they paid capital amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards interest to the accused up to 2013, at that time A2 obtained five blank promissory notes containing her signatures and her husband signature. She further admits even though Civil Court decreed in favour of the accused they did not pay decreetal amount till today to A2. It shows that her evidence also appears in order to avoid to pay the decreetal amount to A2 they foisted this false case, as contended by the accused cannot be ruled out.

20) Coming to the evidence of PWs.3 & 4 which appears their evidence is hear say evidence, even though they speaks something against the accused, their evidence is not corroborated to PW.5. Coming to the evidence of PW.5 who is medical officer categorically deposed that on 3.5.2016 at about 9.55 a.m. he examined PW.1/M.Kantha Rao and opined that Quantity of poison consumed is not severe enough to cause death. He issued wound certificate of PW.1 under

Ex.P.2. But in her cross examination she clearly admits that no one accompanied with PW.1, therefore her evidence is not corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses.

21) PW.6/Ch.Satish Kumar who is brother of PW.2 and brother-in-law of

PW.1 though in chief he supported the prosecution case. In his cross examination he clearly admits that all the incidents are informed to him from his sister PW.2. Further admits what his sister informed him, the same stated by 8 him before this Court. Further he does not know the particulars of payments by

PW.1 to the accused. He also admits tat the time of PW.1 attempt to commit suicide civil suit was decreed in favour of A2, so also Court Ameena came to

PW.1 house and enquired about his properties and try to attach his immovable properties. Therefore, his evidence is only hear say evidence.

22) Coming to the evidence of PW.7/D.Chandra Sekhar who is investigation officer, categorically deposed that on 3.5.2016 at about 11.45 a.m.

he received Ex.P.1 report and hospital intimation from LW.7, Ex.P.3 is hospital intimation. Basing on the Ex.P.1 report he registered a case in Cr.No.56/15 under sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P.4 FIR. During the course of investigation he visited Government Hospital, there he examined PW.1, PW.2 and recorded their statements, from there he visited scene of offence, situated market yard, Machilipatnam, there he prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.5.

There he examined PWs.3 to 6 and recorded their statements. On 10.5.2016 he served sec.41(a) Cr.P.C. notices to A1 & A2. After receipt of wound certificate he filed charge sheet.

It is not the case of prosecution that he examined independent witnesses and he prepared scene observation report at alleged incident occurred at market yard on 2.5.2016. He also failed to file criminal case against PW.1 for attempt to commit suicide. All these shows that his investigation appears bias. Further this witness also clearly admits that there are civil disputes between PWs.2 & 2 on one hand and accused are on other hand. Therefore, his evidence also not helps the prosecution case.

23) From all the above discussion, prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the A1 & A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Consequently A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offences under sec.341, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

24) In the result, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under 9

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 & A2 and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-Addl. J.F.C.

Magistrate,

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

DEFENCE

PW.1: M.Kantha Rao - None – PW.2: M.Venkata Durga Bhavani PW.3: M.Vijaya Lakshmi PW.4: P.Satyanarayana PW.5: K.Sesharatnam PW.6: Ch.Satish Kumar PW.7: D.Chandra Sekhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Statement of PW.1 recorded by police. Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Hospital intimation. Ex.P.4: FIR. Ex.P.5: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

--Nil- - -

-MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil -

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate,

Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Smt. M.Sudha,

II-ADDLTIONAL JUDICIAL I-CLASS MAGISTRATE,

MACHILIPATNAM

SATURDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.412 of 2016

Between:

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

And

1. Sayyed Baji @ SK.Baji, S/o Kalesha, Age 22 years, Muslim, Near Jenda Chettu, Englishpalem, Machilipatnam.

2. Shaik Athib Umar, S/o Moulali, Age 21 years, Muslim, D.No.6/57, Javvarupet, Machilipatnam.

3. Kuppa Raghava, S/o Raghavulu, Age 29 years, Railpet, Machilipatnam.

….Accused.

This case came upon this day for final hearing and for disposal before me in the presence of Senior APP for complainant and Sri.M.Seetha Ram Advocate for Accused, upon considering the material on record, having stood over till this day and this Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Sec.324 r/w 34 IPC, in

Cr. No. 128 of 2016 of Inaguduru Police Station. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2)The case of the prosecution is that, LW.1/Abdul Rehaman is resident of Inaguduru, Machilipatnam and he is living by doing silver works.

There are previous grudges between A1 and LW.1 and LW.2/Abdul Khaleel. On 12.9.2016 LW.2 came to his house from Chennai in connection with Bakreed festival. On 13.9.2016 night at about 7.00 p.m. while LWs.1 to 3 are present at their house, A1 to A3 came near to their house and called out LWs.1 & 2 and when LWs.1 & 2 came on to the road, A1 beat LW.1 with iron rod on his face and caused bleeding injury at the end of left eye. A1 also beat LW.1 with iron rod on his left shoulder. A2 & A3 beat LW.2/Abdul Khaleel with sticks on his both hands and legs indiscriminately. They also fell down LW.2 on the ground 2 and dragged him as a result of which LW.2/Abdul Khaleel sustained abrasion on the right side of his face. LWs.3 to 7 witnesses the occurrence. Immediately the injured LW.1/Abudl Rehaman and LW.2/Abdul Khaleel turned up to

Inaguduru Police station and LW.1 presented a written report about the occurrence. LW.9/J.Srinivasu who received the same registered it as FIR in

Cr.No.128/16 under sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and investigation into.

During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence prepared rough sketch and examined the witnesses LWs.1 to 7 and recorded their detailed statements under sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. LW.8/Dr.Allada Srinivasa

Rao (CAS) examined the injured LWs.1 & 2 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. LW.9/H.C. served notices under sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. to A1 to A3 on 29.9.2016 and obtained their replies to the notices. After completion of investigation LW.9/J.Srinivasu (H.C) filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3)The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 324r/w 34 IPC against the accused A1 to A3.

4)When the accused appeared before this Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied on were, furnished to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge under

Section 324r/w 34 IPC has been framed against the accused and substance of the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In support of the prosecution case P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and

Ex.P.1 to P.8 were marked on their behalf.

7)After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence appearing against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8)Heard both sides.

3

9) Now the point for consideration in this case is………

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Section 324r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10)The main case of the prosecution is that, there are previous grudges between A1/Sayyed Baji and PW.1/Abdul Rehaman & PW.2/Abdul

Khaleel respectively. On 12.9.2016 PW.2 came from Chennai in connection with Bakreed festival. Basing on the previous grudges on 13.9.2016 night at about 7.00 p.m. while PWs.1 & 2 and LW.3/Abdul Habibunnisa are present at their house, A1 to A3 came near to their house and called out PWs.1 & 2 and

A1 beat PW.1 with iron rod on his face and caused bleeding injuries at the end of his left eye, A1 also beat PW.1 with iron rod on his left shoulder. A2 & A3 beat PW.2 with sticks on his both hands and legs indiscriminately. They also fell down PW.2 on the ground and dragged him as a result of which PW.2 sustained abrasion on the right side of his face. PWs.3 to 5 witnessed the incident. Immediately Pws.1 & 2 turned up to Inaguduru Police Station and presented Ex.P.1 report, from there they were sent to Government Hospital for treatment. Case of the accused is denial.

11) To bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution examined as many as 8 witness, out of which PW.1/Abdul Rehaman is defacto complainant and injured, PW.2/Abdul Khaleel is brother of PW.1 and also injured, PW.3/Abdul

Salam, PW.4/Mohammad Karimulla and PW.5/Md.Rehaman Basha are neighborers to the scene of offence and eye witnesses to the incident,

PW.7/Dr.Allada Srinivasa Rao is medical officer and PW.8/J.Srinivasu is head constable who registered a case, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Ex.P.1 to P.8 were marked on behalf of PWs.1 to 8.

12) At first when I consider the evidence of PW.1/Abdul Rehaman deposed that on one day at 7.00 p.m. incident took place near oggiespet, at

Jenda Center. At that time he was in his house his friend by name Khaleel telephoned him and informed him that A1 to A3 are beating PW.2, he received phone call in between 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., then himself and 4

LW.3/Habibunnisa came out from his house and proceed to Jenda Center, he found LW.2 (PW.2) with injuries, on seeing him, they also beat him with iron rods and stick on his above left eye. A3 also beat him on his right leg with iron rod, the incident took place about half an hour, at the time of incident public was not gathered, himself, his mother and his uncle Baji went to Inaguduru police station and he presented a report to police, Ex.P.1 is his report. Police referred him and his brother to Government Hospital. He also deposed prior to 5 months of this incident, there was quarreling took place between Khaleel and

Rizwan, Rizwan is brother of A1, in view of that incident A1 to A3 beat him and

LW.2/Abdul Khaleel.

13) When I consider the evidence of PW.2 who is brother of PW.1 also deposed he knew A1 to A3 on the day of Bakreed about three months back at about 7.00 p.m. the incident occurred at Jenda Center, by that time he was in his house, A1 came to him, asked him to come Jenda Center, accordingly he went to Jenda Center, there A1 to A3 were present at Jenda Center, one

Subhani beat him on his back side of head and his chin, so also on left leg with iron rod. A1 also beat him on his back side with a stick, another person other than accused beat him on his both legs. The incident took place about half an hour, at the time of incident no other persons present at Jenda Center, somebody took him to Government Hospital. While he was in the Government

Hospital, police examined him.

14) If really, the incident took place there should not be any contradictions between the evidence of PWs.1 & 2. As per PW.1 accused beat him with sticks and iron rods. A3 beat him on his right leg, with iron rod. As per medical evidence i.e., PW.7 medical officer deposed that on 13.9.2017 about 9.00 p.m. he examined PW.1 and found following injury. 1. Lacerated injury of 2x1 cm which is bleeding over left side of the left eye. 2. Contusion injury over the left shoulder. Above injuries are simple in nature and issued

Ex.P.5 wound certificate. PW.1 cross examination is testified, he admits that he did not state before police that his mother and uncle accompanied with him to 5 the police station. Further he does not know the names of A2 & A3, he also admits he did not state before police A1 to A3 beat him and detained him and also he did not mentioned nature of sticks which was allegedly used by the accused.

15) As per PW.1 he sustained injury at the time of incident and his shirt also wetted with blood and at the time of incident he received phone call, then he proceed to place of offence. As per PW.2 on date of incident A1 came to him and asked him to come Jenda Chettu center, accordingly he went to Jenda

Chettu center, there he found A1 to A3, but he deposed one Subhani beat him back side of head and chin i.e., other than the A1 to A3. Further PW.1 admits he does not remember the date of incident and date of Ex.P.1. As per PW.1 after the incident himself and his brother went to police station, later they went to Government Hospital. As per PW.2 immediately after the incident somebody took him to Government Hospital, it creates a doubt about the alleged incident.

Further PW.2 in his cross examination he speaks that A2 & A3 were present at the time of incident, A1 alone beat him along with some other persons. As per

PW.1, A1 to A3 present at the time of incident.

16) In support of evidence of PWs.1 & 2 prosecution examined PW.3 who is younger brother of PWs.1 & 2 deposed that he knew A1 and he does not know A2 & A3. In the year 2016 while he was in his chicken shop at about 7.00 p.m. one of his customer telephoned him and informed him that quarreling took place at his house, immediately he rushed to his house there he found

PWs.1 and 2 and LW.3/Habibunnisa his mother and also found PWs.1 & 2 sustained injuries. Then he enquired PWs.1 & 2 about the injuries they informed him that A1 and two other persons beat them, then he shifted PWs.1 & 2 to Government Hospital. From this evidence, he is hearsay evidence but not direct witness. In his cross chief he deposed that at the time of incident he was at his chicken shop, but in his cross examination he deposed that at the time of incident he was at the house of Shaik Silardada who is Ex-Municipal

Chairman and after incident he telephoned to police and police came to their 6 house, he deposed new version. The evidence of PW.3 also not corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 & 2.

17) PWs.4, 5 & 6 who are said to be independent witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident did not support the prosecution case, they completely go by to the prosecution. Even though they were cross examined by the learned APP, nothing was elicited from their cross examination except marking of their contradictory statements under Ex.P.2, P.3 and P.4 respectively.

18) PW.7/Dr.A.Srinivasa Rao who is medical officer who issued wound certificates to PWs.1 & 2 under Ex.P.5 & P.6 respectively, as per PW.7 on 13.9.2016 at about 9.00 p.m. he examined PW.1 and found following injuries.

1. Lacerated injury of 2x1 cm which is bleeding over left side of the left eye.

2. Contusion injury over the left shoulder. At about 9.00 p.m. he examined

PW.2 and found following injuries. 1. Contusion injury over the right wrist. But

PW.2 never speaks that accused beat him on his wrist. Hence, there is no corroboration of PW.2 evidence with medical evidence.

19) Coming to last witness i.e., PW.8/J.Srinivasu who is investigating officer categorically deposed that on 13.9.2016 at about 8.30 p.m. while he was available at police station PWs.1 & 2 came to police station with injuries and presented Ex.P.1 report, basing on the report he registered a case in

Cr.No.128/16 under sec.324 r/w 34 IPC, Ex.P.7 is FIR. He sent original FIR to

Court and he referred PWs.1 & 2 to Government Hospital for treatment. On the date of Ex.P.1 he examined Pws.1 & 2 and recorded their statements. On the next date he visited scene of offence situated at Oggiespet near the residential house of PW.1, there he prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.8. There he examined LW.3/Abdul Habibunnisa, PWs.3 to 6 and recorded their statements.

On 20.9.2016 he served 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A3. On 5.10.2016 after receipt of wound certificate of PWs.1 & 2 he filed charge sheet.

20) While PW.8 cross examination is testified, he did not seize any articles from the scene of offence. He also admits the persons who shown in rough sketch are not shown as witnesses. Further he could not say the time 7 when he examined the witnesses in this case. If really the incident took place what prevent him to seize alleged material objects as stated by PW.1 i.e., iron rods and sticks and he also failed to examine the persons who are shown in rough sketch as a witnesses. Moreover as per PW.2 he was beaten by other than accused i.e., A2 & A3, in such a case how he implicated a case against A2 & A3, PW.2 clearly stated that at the time of incident A2 & A3 were not present, it shows the investigation done by PW.8 is not in correct line.

21) From all the above, contradictory statements of PWs.1 & 2, unsupported testimony of independent witnesses PWs.4 to 6, non corroboration between PWs.1 & 2 evidence with medical evidence, in proper investigation doen by PW.8, prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sec.324 r/w 34 IPC.

22) In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. No case property was seized in this case, hence no order was passed.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

DEFENCE

PW.1: Abdul Rehaman - None – PW.2: Abdul Khaleel PW.3: Abdul Salam PW.4: Mohammad Karimullah PW.5: Md.Rehaman Basha PW.6: Mohammad Jilani PW.7: Dr.Allada Srinivasa Rao PW.8: J.Srinivasu.

8

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P.6: Wound certificate of PW.2. Ex.P.7: FIR. ExP.8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

--Nil- -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil -

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate,

Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Smt. M.Sudha,

II-ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.2 of 2016

Between:

State, represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam Police Station.… Complainant.

And

Borra Anandh Kumar @ Bujji, S/o Veera Swamy, Age 50 years,

D.No.13/116, Nizampet, Machilipatnam. ... Accused.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Senior APP for complainant and of Sri G.Vijaya Rao, Advocate for the accused and, considering the material on record, having stood over till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.435, 290 IPC in

Cr.No.118/15 of Machilipatnam Police Station. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

2)As per contents of charge sheet, LW.1/Yadavalli Venkata Satya Vara

Prasad is a resident of Godugupet, Machilipatnam. He used to give chocolates and biscuits to the shops. He has got a shop known as Peters Bekari & Cool

Drinks in the Aseervad Bhavan Complex, Opposite to Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam. He kept LW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao to work in the said shop.

There is a buddi shop in front of his shop and LW.2 is maintaining int. On 24.11.15 night at about 10.00 p.m. LW.2 closed his buddi shop, at that time the accused went near him and asked him for cigarettes. Then LW.2 informed him that he closed the shop, and could not give cigarettes. Then the accused abused LW.2 in filthy language saying that he will see how they will run the buddi shop here, if not give cigarettes and so abusing he went away. LWs.3 to 6 witnessed the same. As usual on 27.11.15 night at 10.00 p.m. LW.2 closed the buddi shop and went home, on the same day the accused went near the buddi 2 shop at about 23.30 hours and set fire to the buddi shop due go grudge as LW.2 did not give cigarettes to him on 24.11.2015 and went away. On 28.11.15 morning at about 7.00 hours LW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao came to buddi shop to open it and found the buddi shop was burnt. Immediately he telephoned to

LW.1/Y.V.S Vara Prasad and informed the same. LW.1 presented a report,

LW.9/AGSN Murthy who received the report and registered it as FIR in

Cr.No.118/2015 under sec.435, 290 IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation LW.9/S.I visited the scene of offence on 29.11.2015 at 9.00 hours and examined the same before the mediators

LW.7/B.Thamous Noble and LW.8/A.Lakshmoji Naidu and an observation report has got drafted by LWs.7 & 8 for the observations made at the scene of offence and seized burnt ash before the mediators under the cover of same observation report. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined

LWs.1 to 6 and recorded their statements under sec.161(3) Cr.P.C. On 29.11.15 at 11.00 hours LW.9/SI arrested the accused before the mediators LWs.7 & 8 at

Dimmala Center, Lakshmanaraopuram, Machilipatnam. The accused confessed about the commission of offence before the mediators and his confessional statement was incorporated in the mediators report drafted and attested by

LWs.7 & 8. LW.9/S.I served notice to the accused under sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. on 29.12.2015 and obtained his reply. After completion of investigation

LW.9/A.G.S.N.Murthy filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3) The case is taken on file for the offence under Section 435, 290 IPC against the accused.

4)When the accused produced before this Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied on, were furnished to him under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5)Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge under

Section 435, 290 IPC has been framed against the accused and substance of the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

3

6)In support of the prosecution case P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined,

Ex.P.1 to P.9 and MO.1 were marked on their behalf.

7)After closure of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8)Heard both sides.

9) Now the point for consideration in this case is……

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.435, 290 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10)The main case of the prosecution is that, on 27.11.2015 night at 10.00 p.m. as usual PW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao closed the buddy shop of PW.1 where PW.2 working as clerk and went to home, on the same day the accused went near buddy shop at 11.30 p.m. and set fire to the buddy shop due to grudge as PW.2 did not give cigarettes to him on 24.11.2015 and went away.

On 28.11.2015 morning about 7.00 a.m. PW.2 came to buddy shop, try to open it and found the buddy shop was burnt, immediately he telephoned to PW.1 and informed the about the occurrence, PW.1 presented a report. Case of the accused is denial.

11) To prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses, out of which PW.1/Y.Venkata Satya Vara Prasad is defacto complainant who is owner of said buddy shop, PW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao is clerk in the shop of PW.1, PW.3/M.Madhukar is neighborer to the scene of offence,

PW.4/B.Thamous Noble and PW.5/A.Lakshmoji Naidu are mediators and

PW.6/A.G.S.Narayana Murthy is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Machilipatnam

Police Station and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9 and Mo.1.

12) As I could seen from the record, the case is completely depending upon the circumstantial witnesses, in such a case to establish the case against accused the prosecution must establish the chain of evidence, then only it can 4 be acceptable one, otherwise if the chain is delinked it cannot be acceptable.

Moreover it is also not the case of prosecution that there is direct evidence who actually witnessed at the time of accused set fire the buddy shop of PW.1.

On seeing the entire evidence of prosecution there is no dispute with regard to burnt of PW.1 shop on 27.11.2015, but the main determination of prosecution case is that who is the responsible for the said incident.

13) As per prosecution evidence the motive for alleged offence is prior to four days of this incident i.e., on 24.11.2015 accused came to buddy shop of

PW.1 and asked PW.2 to give cigarettes, for which PW.2 informed him that he already closed his shop and no possibility to give cigarettes, on that quarreling took place both of them. In consequences of the same PW.1 suspected the accused that he might have set fire to h is shop. If really the said version is true and correct there should not be any inconsistent versions from the prosecution side. But on evaluating the prosecution evidence, at first PW.1 evidence is consider on 28.11.2015 at 7.00 a.m. while he was in his house

LW.2(PW.2)/K.Venkateswara Rao who is working as clerk in his shop telephoned him and informed him that his shop was burnt, immediately he rushed to his shop and found that his shop was burnt and caused loss nearly Rs.20,000/-.

Then he went to police station and presented Ex.P.1 report. Further deposed prior to three days of Ex.P.1 report accused came to his shop at 10.00 p.m. and asked him the cigarettes, at that time he already closed his shop and informed to the accused that the shop was already closed, it is not possible to give cigarettes, then the accused threatened him by saying how will he continued his business in the said premises. Due to the said incident he suspected the accused and presented Ex.P.1 report.

14) PW.2/K.Venkateswara Rao who is working as a clerk in PW.1 shop also deposed that on 24.11.2015 he closed the shop of PW.1 and came out from shop at 10.00 p.m., at that time accused came to him and asked the cigarettes, then he informed to the accused that he already closed the shop, then accused quarreled with him and threatened him by saying how he continued his business 5 in the said shop and abused him, threatened him in filthy language. Further deposed no other person present at the time of incident, but he is not taking seriously the words of accused. On 28.11.2015 at 7.00 a.m. he came to shop and try to open the shop, he found the shop was burnt, some of the items were burnt, then he informed the same to PW.1, he also found Rs.20,000/- items were burnt including cigarettes, chocolates and recharge cards. Immediately he informed to PW.1, PW.1 rushed there, himself and PW.1 went to police station and presented a report.

15) PWs.1 & 2 evidence is testified, there is blaring contradiction from

PWs.1 & 2 evidence, as per version of PW.1 when he was closed his shop accused came to him and asked cigarettes, then quarreling took place. Whereas

PW.2 says that when he alone closed the shop accused came and asked the cigarettes, it shows with whom the accused quarreled in respect of purchasing of cigarettes i.e., there is no consistency from PWs.1 & 2 whether accused asked

PW.1 or PW.2 about the cigarettes. Further PW.1 in his cross examination categorically admits that, so many customers used to come to his shop everyday. Whereas cross examination of PW.2 is testified he also admits that on the day accused quarreled with him, PW.1 did not come to his shop, after closing the shop he locked the shutter, came out from the shop and while on the road accused came to him and quarreled with him.

16) Coming to other evidence placed by the prosecution i.e.,

PW.3/M.Madhukar who is said to be neighborer to the shop of PW.1, who is running hotel behind to the shop of PW.1 completely go by to the prosecution case except stating that he found PW.1 shop was burnt. Though the learned APP cross examined him, nothing was elicited except marking his contradictory statement under Ex.P.2, thereby his evidence is no way helps the prosecution case.

17) PW.4/B.Thamous Noble who acted as a mediator both for the scene observation report and confession statement of accused deposed that about one year back police called him to Adarshbhavan to Buddy Shop situated at 6

Government Hospital, there they observed burnt of buddy shop, he also admits his presence at the time of Ex.P.3 scene observation report at scene of offence, he also signed on scene observation report. But he denied his presence at the time of arrest of accused and preparation of confession statement of accused in his presence, except admitting his signature on confession statement of accused under Ex.P.4. But he does not know the contents of Ex.P.9, police obtained his signature in police station.

18) PW.5/A.Lakshmoji Naidu who is said to be another mediator completely go by to the prosecution case, except admitting his signatures on scene observation report and mediators report. Coming to the evidence of

PW.6/A.G.S.N.Murthy deposed that on 28.11.2015 at about 6.00 p.m. PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P.1 report, basing on the report he registered a case in Cr.No.118/15 under sec.435 and 290 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P.6.

He examined PWs.1 & 2 and recorded their statements, on the next day on 29.11.2015 he visited the scene of offence along with the mediators situated at opposite to the Government Hospital buddy shop of PW.1, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators and seized MO.1 burnt ash, and also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.8. Further deposed then he secured the presence of PW.3, LW.3/N.Srinivasa Rao, LW.5/S.Nagamalleswara Rao and

LW.6/P.Venkateswara Rao and recorded their statements. On 29.11.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. he secured PWs.4 & 5 and proceed to Dimmala Center, there they found the accused and detained him, on enquiry he confessed that he committed the offence to set fire of the buddy shop of PW.1 due to the incident on 24.11.2015 between himself and PW.2, then he got drafted the mediator report under Ex.P.9. He brought the accused and served 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to him. After Completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

19) Though in chief PW.6 deposed, as per PW.1 Ex.P.1 report presented immediately after the incident, as per PW.6 Ex.P.1 report presented on 28.11.2015 at 6.00 p.m. i.e., there is delay of 11 hours, for which there is no satisfactory explanation for the said delay. Even for arguments sake the 7 confession of accused before police is not admissible, particularly in the absence of any corroborative evidence to the evidence of PW.6, i.e., the mediators who are said to be present at the time of preparation of scene observation report and also recording of confessional statement of accused they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, Ex.P.9 mediators report cannot be looked into.

20) From all the above, prosecution very much relied upon the circumstantial evidence, but prosecution failed to link up the chain of evidence particularly connect the accused with the offence that he set fire of PW.1 shop and caused loss of Rs.25,000/-.

21) In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.435, 290 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The case property MO.1 i.e., burnt ash shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-AJFCM,

MTM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1: P.Venkata Satya Vara Prasad -None- PW.2: K.Venkateswara Rao PW.3: M.Madhukar PW.4: B.David Thamas Noble PW.5: A.Lakshmoji Naidu PW.6: A.G.S.Narayana Murthy.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2: Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P3: Scene observation report. Ex.P.4: Signature of PW.4 on the mediators report. Ex.P.5: Signature of PW.5 on scene observation report. Ex.P.6: Signature of PW.5 on mediators report. Ex.P.7: FIR Ex.P.8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.9: Mediators report, 29.11.2015.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil- 8

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Burnt ash.

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-AJFCM,

MTM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Smt. M.Sudha,

II-ADDLTIONAL JUDICIAL I-CLASS MAGISTRATE,

MACHILIPATNAM

SATURDAY, THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.207 of 2014

Between:

Gummadi Bhagyalakshmi, W/o Raja Rao, Hindu, Aged about 45 years, House wife, R/o D.No.16/334-8, Pattabhipuram, Machilipatnam. . … Complainant.

And

1. Kandelli Usha Rani, W/o Anil, Hindu, Aged about 26 years, Working as Police Constable, R/o D.NO.16/334-9-1, Pattabhipuram, Machilipatnam.

2. Anil (H/o Usha Rani), S/o Nathaniel @ Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 25 years, D.No.16/334-9-1, Pattabhipuram, Machilipatnam.

3. Kandelli Venkateswaramma, Hindu, Aged about 46 years, House Wife, D.No.16/334-9-1, Pattabhipuram, Machilipatnam.

4. Kandelli Venkateswara Rao, S/o Chnnappala, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, D.No.16/334-9-1, Pattabhipuram, Machilipatnam.

... A1 to A4.

This case is came upon this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Md.Rizwanullah counsel for complainant and Sri V.Y.B.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, counsel for accused upon perusing of material on record this matter having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This is a complaint filed by the complainant under sec.190(1) Cr.P.C.

against A1 to A4 under sec.447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC praying the Court to punish the accused according to law. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

2)A1 is the daughter and A2 is the son-in-law of A3 & A4. All the accused formed into unlawful assembly and started abusing the complainant and her family members. On 5.10.11 at about 5.00 p.m. while abusing the complainant and her family members at about 6.00 p.m. all the accused armed with sticks, trespassed into the complainant’s house, A1 beat the complainant on her left wrist and left chest. A2 beat the complainant on her right leg. A3 beat her with stick and A1 caught hold of the tuft and pushed her on ground. All the 2 accused beat her all over the body indiscriminately. The husband of the complainant intervened, but he did not control all the accused who pushed him aside. Then neighbours namely Seetla Vardhana Rao and Puppala Srinivasa Rao were intervened and removed the complainant from the clutches of the accused.

All the accused abused the complainant and her husband and threatened with dire consequences. Then the husband of complainant shifted the complainant to hospital in 108 ambulance. On receipt of hospital intimation the Chilakalapudi

Police recorded the statement of complainant, and police went to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses. The complainant was an in- patient for six days and under took the treatment. After discharge from the hospital the complainant and her husband went to police station and police were told that after receipt of wound certificate FIR will be registered and thereafter postponed the registering of the case from time to time. A1 is a police constable under her influence the Chilakalapudi police referred the private complaint filed by the complainant as false and did not taken any action. Hence the complainant filed protest complaint.

3)After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sec. 447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused A1 to A4.

4)When the accused appeared before this Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied on were, supplied to them under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5) The accused A1 to A4 were examined under Sec.246 Cr.P.C and charge under sec.447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and substance of the same is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

6)In support of the complainant case P.W.1 to PW.5 were examined and

Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2 were marked on their behalf.

3

7)After completion of complainant evidence, A1 to A4 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the evidence of complainant witnesses, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8)Heard both sides.

9) Now the point for consideration in this case is

Whether the complainant could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) The main case of the complainant is that, on 5.10.11 at about 5.00 p.m. A1 to A4 formed into unlawful assembly and started abusing the complainant/G.Bhgya Lakshmi and while abusing at 6.00 p.m. all the accused armed with sticks, trespassed into the complainant’s house, A1 beat the complainant on her left wrist and left chest. A2 beat the complainant on her right leg. A3 beat the complainant with stick and A1 caught hold of the tuft and pushed her on ground. All the accused beat the complainant all over the body indiscriminately. The husband of the complainant intervened, but he did not control all the accused who pushed him aside. Then neighbours namely

PW.3/Seetla Vardhana Rao and PW.4/Puppala Srinivasa Rao were intervened and removed the complainant from the clutches of the accused. Then the husband of complainant PW.2/G.Raja Rao shifted the complainant to hospital in 108 ambulance. The complainant was an in-patient for six days in Government

Hospital. While she was in Government Hospital Police came to her and recorded her statement. But police did not register the case and referred as false case.

Hence, the complainant filed protest petition before this Court. Case of the accused is denial.

11) To prove the complainant case, the complainant herself examined as

PW.1, her husband examined as PW.2/G.Raja Rao. PW.3/S.Vijaya Vardhana Rao and PW.4/P.Srinivasa Rao who are neighbors were examined and

PW.5/Dr.P.Srihari is medical officer and got marked Ex.P.1 & P.2.

4

12) As I could seen from the record, it is admitted fact that prior to the incident A3 filed civil case against PWs.1 & 2 in O.S.No.251/11 on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam and in the said case injunction order was granted in favour of A3/K.Venkateswaramma and after receipt of summons from

Civil Court, this complaint was filed by the complainant and same was referred to the police station, and the same was treated as false case. Thereupon the complainant filed protest petition, after recording her statement this case has taken on file by this Court. It is also undisputed fact that on date of alleged offence police registered a petty case in S.T.C.No.552/11 against A3 & A4 and fine also imposed against them.

13) However, the complainant version is accused influenced the police, as such charge sheeted was not filed in this case and accused trespassed into their house, assaulted her, as a result she sustained injuries. Further case of accused is, basing on civil suit and also having not satisfied with the S.T.C. filed by the police, complaint was filed by the complainant and they did not commit any offence.

14) Whatever contentions coming from both sides, the fact remains that, there are civil disputes pending between both parties, small galata was took place between both parties on 5.10.2011 at 5.30 p.m. Here to prove the complainant case though complainant examined as many as five witnesses, i.e.,

PWs.1 to 5. It is also undisputed fact that as per the evidence of PWs.1 & 2,

PWs.3 & 4 witnessed the incident who are neighbors, but they completely go by to the case. So remaining evidence PWs.1 & 2 and PW.5 who are wife and husband and medical officer respectively.

15) At first PW.1/G.Bhagya Lakshmi evidence is testified, she deposed that on 5.10.2011 at about 5.00 p.m. while she was in her house A1 to A4 trespassed into her house, A1 beat her on her left hand and also on her wrist with a stick and on her left side of the chest with stick. A2 also beat her on her right side leg with stick, A1 & A2 beat her and thrown her on ground. A1 also caught hold her tuft, 5 pushed her on ground, all the accused beat her. PW.3/Seethala Vijayawardana

Rao, and PW.4/Kuppala Srinivasa Rao witnessed the incident. At the time of incident her husband was in bathroom, later her husband came to her and intervened and separated her from hands of accused. On that her husband telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted her to Government Hospital, she was six days in Government Hospital. While she was in hospital police recorded her statement, but police did not take any action, as such she filed present complaint

before this Court. Again she filed protest petition before this Court. Ex.P.1 is her

complaint.

16) PW.2/G.Raja Rao who is husband of PW.1 he also corroborated the evidence of PW.1 deposing that on 5.10.2011 at 5.30 p.m. while he was in bathroom he heard some galata, on hearing the same he came out from bath room and found A1 beat PW.1 with a stick on her wrist, left hand and left side of chest. A2 also beat PW.1 on her right leg with stick, A1 also beat PW.1 by holding her hair. On hearing the galata one PWs.3 & 4 came to their house and separated PW.1 from the hands of accused. Then he telephoned to 108 ambulance and shifted PW.1 to Government Hospital. While PW.1 was in

Government Hospital Chilakalapudi Police recorded her statement. Police informed them after receipt of wound certificate they will register the case, later police did not take any action, as such they presented a protest petition before this Court, since A1 is police constable, police did not register a case.

17) In cross examination of PWs.1 & 2 clearly admitted that injunction order was granted in favour of A3 in Civil Court, PW.2 also clearly admitted that after receiving summons from Civil Court they filed this case. It is also not the case of PW.1 at the time of alleged incident PW.2 witnessed the incident. On other hand he admits that at the time of alleged assault made by the accused

PW.1 was in bath room, if so PW.1 is only crucial evidence to say how the incident occurred. It is also not the case of complainant she disclosed the particulars of sticks used by the accused except saying all the accused beat her, if at all the incident occurred in her house that to accused were armed with sticks, how she 6 can identify who armed with sticks and beat her. She also admits in her cross examination A3/K.Venkateswaramma filed civil case against her and her husband in O.S.No.251/11 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam.

18) Further PW.1 admits in the civil suit A3 succeed in Prl. Junior Civil

Judge Court. She further admits in the said suit Court also granted injunction

order on 17.9.2011 and her husband received summons in injunction order, witness again says she does not know Court granted injunction order or not in favour of A3. PW.2 also admits in his cross examination O.S.No.251/11 was filed by A3 against him, in the said case decree was passed in favour of A3, for which

PW.3 preferred appeal against said order. He further admits after receiving summons in injunction order on 17.9.2011 he filed case against the accused. He also admits they are having compound wall to four sides of his house and they also having gate at her entrance of house. Further admits A3 & A4 house also having four sides compound wall and also gate.

19) It is admitted fact basing on the incident on 5.10.2011 police registered a petty case against A3 & A4 in S.T.C.No.552/11 under sec.290 IPC. But PWs.1 & 2 denied the same. Moreover PW.1 speaks that police came to the house of the accused and arrested A1 to A4.

20) PW.5/Dr.P.Sri Hari who is medical officer evidence is consider, he deposed that deposed that on 5.10.2011 at about 8.45 p.m. he examined

Gummadi Bhagya Lakshmi and found following injuries.

1. Swelling over right abdomen 2x6 cm.

2. Swelling 2x6 cm on left leg.

3. Chest pain

He referred the patient for ECG, ECG shows that abnormal, the injuries are caused by blunt object, the incident occurred 2 to 6 hours prior to his examination. Ex.P.2 is attested copy of case sheet of PW.1 containing four pages.

Ex.P.2 does not disclose his opinion. In his cross examination he clearly admits that the injuries might have caused any person fallen on ground. So the evidence of medical officer is not helps the complainant case that A1 to A4 beat with sticks 7 and caused injuries, i.e., there is no corroboration from medical evidence with injuries. If at all PW.1 sustained injuries from the hands of accused that to with sticks on various parts, they would have appear, but medical evidence is silent.

21) I already discussed above, in connection with the simple galata police filed S.T.C. against A3 & A4 and imposed fine, taken into consideration of civil disputes between both parties, and unsupported testimony of PWs.3 & 4 i.e.,

PWs.3 & 4 completely denied the case, interested testimony of PWs.1 & 2, non filing of charge sheet by the police and no filing of any criminal case by the police against the accused basing on the complaint of complainant, this Court opined that this is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Consequently A1 to

A4 are found not guilty for the offence under sec.447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

22 ) In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after a period of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-M.Sudha,

II-Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

DEFENCE

PW.1:G.Bhagya Lakshmi - None – PW.2: G.Raja Rao PW.3: S.Vijaya Vardhana Rao PW.4: P.Srinivasa Rao PW.5: Dr.P.Srihari.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1. Ex.P.2: Attested copy of case sheet of PW.1 (4 pages)

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

--Nil- -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil -

Sd/-M.Sudha,

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT; Smt. M.Sudha,

II-ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

SATURDAY, THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

C.C.No.375 of 2016

Between:

Midde Nancharaiah, S/o Somulu, D.No.19-424/5, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam.

.....COMPLAINA

NT.

And

Chithjallu Venkata Phaneendra, S/o Murali,

Aged about 27 years, Businees, R/o

D.No.16/372/22-A, Industrial Area road,

Zilla Parishad Center, Machilipatnam.

…..ACCUSED.

******

This case is coming on 29.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Y.Subrahmanyeswara Rao Counsel for the Complainant, considering the material on record, this case having stood over for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following :

JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF MEDIATION

1. The complainant filed this complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (herein after referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).

02. The allegations of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint are narrated in a nutshell, as follows:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant on 10.1.2015 for the purpose of his business purpose and the accused has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant, agreeing to repay the said sum together with interest at the rate of Rs.1.50/- paise per mansion yearly compound.

In spite of repeated demands made by the complainant the accused did not discharge his legally enforceable debt, the accued has issued a cheque in favour of the complainant on 28.3.2016 for Rs.80,000/- towards part payments of the debt under the above said promissory note bearing cheque

No.074028 drawn on IDBI Bank Siri Estate, Robertsonpet, Machilipatnam. On the same day the complainant presented the above said cheque to his banker IDBI

Bank, Siri Estate, Robertsonpet, Machilipatnam for collection whereat the complainant is having his S.B. Account. But surprisingly the said cheque was returned with endorsement “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT” and issued a cheque return memo dt.02.04.2016 by complainant bank.

3. After return of the said cheque the complainant got issued a registered notice to the accused on 6.04.2016 intimating about dishonor of the cheque and demanding the accused to pay the amount. The accused received the said registered notice on 09.4.2016 and kept quite without giving any reply or without payment of any amount. Hence, the accused having knowledge about the nonavailability of funds in his Bank account but given the cheque by making believe the complainant that there are funds in his bank account and gave cheque with a dishonest intention of cheating the complainant without funds in his account, hence the complainant constrained to file this complaint.

04. The cognizance of the case is taken on file for the offence under sec.138 of N.I Act against the accused.

05. On 6.2.2017 complainant and accused are present. On perusal of the material disclosed that there is an element of settlement in this matter, since the complainant and accused are also willing to go for amicable settlement of the matter. Matter is referred to Mediation Centre for mediation. The Director,

District Mediation Centre appointed Sri. L.Balaji, Advocate as Mediator to settle the matter. The parties herein appeared before the Mediator at Mediation Centre,

Machilipatnam on 6.02.2017. The Mediator conducted mediation between the parties and compromised the matter and submitted his report with the following terms and conditions of compromise. They are as follows:-

1.After mediation the matter is settled, the accused paid Rs.80,000/- to complainant directly as full and final settlement of the cheque. Hence, mediation is successful.

06 . IN THE RESULT, the complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted as compromise is affected before the Mediator in accordance with the terms and conditions settled down between the complainant and the accused

before the Mediator.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2017.

II-Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

-Nil -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence:

-Nil-

II-Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Machilipatnam.