1
IN THE COURT OF VII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM -
II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM
Present: Smt.M.Sudha Rani,
VII Metropolitan Magistrate – Cum –
II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam.
C.C.No.85/201 6
( Cr.No. 26/2016 of P.M.Palem Police Station)
Tuesday, this the 4th day of April, 2017
Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police station, Visakhapatnam City … Complainant
And
Gudala Sairam, S/o. Ganapathi, aged 19 years, resident of D.No. 34-10- 3/2, Dayas street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam.
…Accused
This case came up on 30-3-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Ramanamma, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri
K.Satyanarayana and Sri G.Ganeswara Rao, counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides, upon the material available on record 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, P.M.Palem Police station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 26/2016 for the offence under section 354D(ii) of IPC.
2. Brief contents of the charge sheet are that PW1 is studying II CSE,
B.Tech in BABA Institute of Technology and Science, by staying in college hostel, and accused is studying in the same college and that in the 1st year first semester examinations, the accused proposed love to PW,1 and PW1 rejected him and her friends forced her to talk with him as a friend. Thus, she used to talk with the accused in friendly manner, and stated that don't take it as an advantage, but the accused behaved in commanding manner, then she stopped the messages to him and calling him, but the accused sent very vulgar messages to her contact number 9603375935, from his cell number 9100471908, then she complained the same to
PW3 and 4 and that they called parents of the accused and counseled him not to 2 repeat, and parents of the accused also told to accused not to repeat. On 26-1- 2016, when PW1 saw her messages at 5.45 p.m., she noticed vulgar messages from the cell phone of accused bearing No. 9502780036 like “(1) Nuvvu nenu niku propose chesinapudu accept chesthe intha problem undedi kadhu kani ippudu kuda oka chance undhi, adhi nuvvu natho oka night padukunte ninnu inkeppudu disturb cheyanu, (2) 1000 isthany oka night spend chey, (3) 2000 isthanu, (4) 3000 alochinchu neneviritho cheppanu okasari alochinchu, nuvvu complaint itchina neeke problem, nannu jail lo pettina neeke problem, alochinchu 10,000 isthanu”, and accused created fake conversation that PW1, as she tempted him with her own interest, but PW1 never sent such messages and the accused posted those created conversation in face book to his friends, and the accused is blaming her and warning her, that he will play with her future and spoil her career. Due to which she is not able to concentrate on her studies. The accused also warned that he will commit suicide by write a note that PW1 is responsible for his death. Hence, she filed Ex.P1 report to police. Report of PW1 is registered by PW6, Sub-Inspector of
Police as case in Cr.No. 26/2016 for the offence under section 354D(ii) of IPC, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, recorded the statements of witnesses, and served 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and filed charge sheet, after completion of investigation. Hence, charge.
2. The Court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 354D (ii) of
IPC against the accused.
3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
4. Accused was examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable
U/sec. 354D (ii) of IPC and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of defence.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses out 3 of seven listed witness i.e. LW1 Kanakala Kalyani, LW4 Kanakala Krishnaveni, Lw2
Buvanagiri Karuna, LW3 Viyyapu Srinivasa Rao, LW6 K.Srinviasa Rao, Sub-
Inspector of Police, LW7 Ch.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police are examined as P.w1 to PW6 respectively, and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. i.e. Ex.P1 is report of Pw1,
Ex.P2 is copy of messages and C.c., Ex.P3 is call data (6 pages) and Ex.P4 is First
Information Report. Evidence of LW5 Kanakala Kanaka Raju was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as PW2 stated facts of the case.
7.E.Anil Kumar is examined as D.w.1 and got marked Ex.D1 i.e. 161
Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 on behalf of defence.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined
U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused. Perused the material on record.
10.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 354D (ii) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
11.Point:
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. According to prosecution, the FIR is registered on the report given by PW1. PW1 K.Kalyani, deposed that she is studying B.Tech in Baba
Institute in P.M.Palem and accused is her classmate, and in the month of January 2015, the accused came to her and expressed his love, and she refused for it, and that with a view to not disturb him in the exams, she used to talk with him, and after 7 days, he sent messages like “get lost”, then she informed to the accused that she had no necessity to talk with him, and at the advice of all of her friends, she is taking with the accused in friendly manner, and asked the accused not to send messages to her, but the accused continued the messages, then PW1 warned the 4 accused that she will give complaint to the department authorities. Still accused continuing messages vulgarly, and PW1 gave complaint in their college and then
Head of the department called parents of the accused, and informed the same to them, and that mother of the accused gave assurance, that the accused will not send any messages to PW1, and for about two months, the accused stopped sending messages to PW1. On 26-1-2016 at 5.30 p.m., the accused sent 20 to 25 messages from his cell phone No. 9502780036, demanding PW1 to spend with him for one night and he will pay RS.1,000/-, 2,000/-, 3,000/- and 10,000/-. Accused also threatened PW1 by way of messages that he will spread rumors about PW1 as if Pw1 sent messages to the accused and accused also spread rumors against
PW1 to his friends, by way of face book that PW1 had tempted conversation with the accused, and he also sent messages from his cell number 9100471908, and that PW1 informed about messages to their warden PW3 Karuna, and shown all the messages. On 27-1-2016 PW1 took mobile from their warden, on that when she went to college, her friends asked her that she made vulgar conversation with the accused, andthat on 27-1-2016 holiday was declared to their college due to bundh, and then she went to Chief Warden Anil. On 27-1-2016 accused posted suicide note in face book that PW1 was responsible for his decision, on the same day she gave complaint to Pw3 Karuna and on the same day night, they went to police station along with PW3 and gave Ex.P1 report.
During her cross examination, she admitted that accused is their class leader in B.TEch first year, and she admitted that Reddy Prasad made rule that a late comer shall present a pen to class leader. She denied the suggestion that
Reddy Prasad sir beat the accused as he came to the college late and did not present the pen to class leader. She admitted that accused gave complaint to
Kameswari madam that Reddy Prasad sir beat the accused. She denied the suggestion that Reddy Prasad sir, Murthy sir, and Prem Sagar bore grudge against the accused and they black mail to her, that they will give TC to her ,and got filed this report through her, against the accused. She admitted that Murthy made counseling to the parents of accused, as Sita Kameswari was not came to the 5 college on that day. She denied the suggestion that lectures warned PW1 not to talk with accused. She further stated that she do not know whether Prem Sagar picked up the cell phone of the accused, and handed over the same after some days. She further stated that on 26-1-2016, she observed all 23 messages. She denied the suggestion that she gave complaint to PW3 hostel warden, as she is favourable with her. She denied the suggestion that she gave complaint to her lectures. and on which Reddy Prasad, Murthy, Anil Kumar and Prem Sagar went to the house of accused and searched his house and that on 27-1-2016, one of the friend of the accused brought him to ATM, Madhurawada, and where Prem Sagar caught hold the accused, dragged his cell phone and handed over him to police.
She further stated that on 28-1-2016, at about 12.30 noon they went to the police station, S.I. Of police, took report from them, and after giving Ex.P1 their college
principal came there as she gave complaint to them. She got marked Ex.P2 copies
of messages in 3 pages along with CD .
11.PW2 K.Krishna Veni, mother of Pw1 deposed that they are residing in
Hyderabad ,and on 27-1-2016 Pw1 made a phone call to her that she received abused and obscene messages from one Sairam, and she observed the same on 26-1-2016, when she received a phone from the warden and informed the same to
Pw2. Then PW2 made a phone call to Pw3 Karuna hostel warden. She reported later to the college incharge Srinviasa Rao. Later Pw1, Lw2 Karuna, LW3
Srinivasa Rao gave complaint to the police and PW2 came to the Visakhapatnam and went to the police station and police examined her.
During her cross examination, she admitted that she did not state before police as in Ex.D1. She stated that in the year 2015, Pw1 informed to her that accused proposed love to her, and she refused it, and PW1 informed her college authorities, and called mother of accused and made a counseling to him
12.PW3 B.Karuna, hostel warden of BABA Institution of college deposed that on 26-1-2016 Pw1 came to her at about 7.00 p.m., and shown some messages that she received vulgar messages from cell phone No. 9502780036 as offering
Rs.1,000/-, 2,000/-, 3,000/- up to 10,000/- asking PW1 to spent with him, for one 6 night, and they are 23 messages, and then she made a phone call to PW5
Srinivasa Rao and informed the same, and on 27-1-2016 Pw5 asked her to come to police station along with PW1, then they went to police station and gave report to police.
During her cross examination, she stated that generally students afraid to report directly to the principal. She stated that she know Murthy, Prema Sagar and
Anil, lecturers of their college, and that herself and PW5 went to the police station.
13.P.W.4 V.Srinviasa Rao, hostel in-charge of Baba Engineering College, deposed that on 26-1-2016 at about 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., Pw3 made a phone call and informed that PW1 is weeping that some one is sending vulgar messages and threatened messages to PW1, then he went to the hostel and observed the messages from cell phone number of 9502780036, that said person is interesting with Pw1, and if Pw1 refused to love him, he threaten that he will send messages to all persons by fixing rate to her, and he also sent vulgar messages by offering.
Rs.1,000/- to RS.10000/- to Pw1 to spend with him. He also sent threatened messages that he will not allow PW1 to live, if she gave police report and that he will see her end. Pw3 made a phone call to parents of PW1 and requested PW3 to give complaint and on 27-1-2016, he sent information to the parents of the accused, but they did not turn up and on 21-7-2016, Pw1, 3 and 4 went to the police station and gave report.
During his cross examination, he stated that being hostel in charge, he is staying near hostel to attend the hostel at any time, if required. He further stated that S.I. Of Police called PW1, 3 and enquired them. He further stated that he know
Prem Sagar, Anil lectures of their college. He further stated that they made counseling to the accused.
14.PW5K.Sreenivasa Rao, S.I. Of Police deposed that on 12-2-016, he received requisition from P.M.Palem police, to record call details of cell number 9603375935, 9502780036 and 9100471908 and that on 13-2-2016, he received call data from network operators of Uninor and Airtel, and sent the same to P.M.Palem
Police station through mail. He further stated that he verified phone contact 7 between 9603375935 and 9502780036 by way of messages and there are several messages on 26-1-2016 between those two numbers. Ex.P3 is call data of phone number 9502780036.
During his cross examination, he stated that he did not receive the contents of messages, so also voice recorder. He further stated that there are several numbers, received phone calls from 9502780036.
15..PW6 Ch.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of police deposed regarding registration of
FIR, recording the statements of witnesses and served 41(a) notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he secured call data of accused, filing of the charge sheet, after completion of investigation.
During his cross examination, he stated that he did not inquire the time and date when the accused proposed love to PW1. He admitted that PW1 stated to him that accused used to call her on phone, and used to send messages as a friend and he sent vulgar messages offering amount from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.10,000/- to spend with accused for one day. He further stated that he did not mention the date that prior to that PW1 gave complaint to PW3 and 4 against the accused. He did not mention the date when PW3 and 4 called the parents of accused for counseling prior to Ex.P1 report. He further stated that on 27-1-2016 at 6.44 p.m., the accused sent a suicide note message to Pw1. He denied the suggestion that Prem Sagar handed over the accused to him at 9.00 a.m., on 27-1-2016. He stated that
Premsagar handed over the accused to him on 28-1-2016. He further stated that he do not know whether Prem Sagar, Murthy, Anil Kumar lectures of the college made inquiries at the house of the accused. He denied the suggestion that they beat accused and recorded his confession, and call for the police on 27-1-2016 , and that on 27-1-2016, they got deleted the message sent to Pw1, and for that reason, they did not record other messages, after 26-1-2016, from the accused. He admitted that mother of PW1 stated that accused and Pw1 moved together as friends. He denied the suggestion that Prem Sagar made a phone call to PW1 from the cell phone of accused, and at his instance, he filed false case against the accused.
8
16.DW1 K.Anil Kumar, neighbour of the accused deposed that on 26-1-2016 at about 8.30 a.m., while he was drawing water from Municipal tap, four persons came there and entered into the house of accused and alter he heard some cries from the house of the accused, then he went into the house of accused and found those persons searching in the house of accused and one of said person, enquired about the accused, and mother of the accused informed that the accused is not in house for the last two days, and one of those person picked up cell phone from the table , when mother of the accused asked him, he replied that he will hand over mobile to Sai Ram, and those persons left the house of the accused. Mother of the accused informed that those persons came from the college of the accused and person, who picked up mobile as Prem Sagar.
During his cross examination, he stated that mother of the accused asked him to come to court and give evidence and that he had acquaintance with the accused for the last two years. He further stated that on that day only, he had seen that persons and he denied the suggestion that he is deposing false to help the accused at the instance of his mother.
17.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that by examining the Pws 1 to 6, prosecution proved guilt of the accused and evidence of PW1 to 5, is corroborating with the each other and by cross examined them nothing elicited to support, the contention of defence counsel. As per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, it shows that how the accused harassed by sending vulgar messages to PW1 and caused mental agony to her. She further argued that though defendants examined Dw1 that one
Prem Sagar send messages through cell phone of the accused, they did not examine, mother of the accused, who said to be present when Prem Sagar took away cell phone of the accused. She further argued that defence counsel not denying the messages sent from the cell phone of the accused. So, burden shifts to the accused, to prove that those messages were not sent by the accused, and sent by Prem Sagar. But defence counsel did not assign any reason why they did not give any complaint, when those persons came and took away cell phone of the accused. She further argued that the accused by sending vulgar messages, 9 caused mental agony to PW1 and the accused is liable for conviction.
18.The counsel for the accused filed written arguments that PW1 seen the messages on 26-1-2016 at 5.45 p.m., but PW1 gave complaint to the police, after 24 hours i.e. on 27-1-2016, and as per law, complaint shall be given within 24 hours.
To support his contention, he relied on decision reported in 2005 0 Crl.J.
1347 Supreme Court (Rajastan) 612wherein the parties are “
O.P.Bishnoi.Moolasing Versus State of Rajastan” wherein it is held that “ FIR
is submitted that delay of submission that mere 15 days, prosecution story
has no grain of truth for it.
19.He further argued that PW1's mother and father gave statements to the police and that PW2 and 5 gave statements to the police, Pw3 is hostel warden and Pw2 is mother of Pw1 and there are no independent witnesses and evidence of
PW2 and 3 is not valid.
To support his contention, he relied on decision reported in 2014 Criminal 299 wherein the parties are “ Rajastan High Court Versus State of Rajastan” wherein it is held that “ no independent witness has been produced and from
this point, prosecution case comes under the shadow of doubt if the delay of
13 days is kept in mind”.
20.He further argued that PW1 to 6, deposed that the accused sent messages to PW1 on 26-1-2016, and that Prem Sagar lecturer handed over the accused along with cell phone to the S.I. Of police PW6. DW1 gave evidence that
Prem Sagar took cell phone from the house of accused on 26-1-2016 morning at 8.30 a.m., Hence Premsagar send messages to the cell phone of the accused and accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.
To support his contention, he relied on decision reported in 2005(1) OLD
SC 482 wherein the parties are “ Panduranga Sitaram Bhagwat Vs. State f
Maharastra” wherein it is held that “ as per circumstances of the case, accused is acquitted under benefit of doubt”.
21.He further argued that Pw1 stated in her cross examination, that cell 10 phone with the warden, from the morning on 8.30 to next day 4.30 p.m., after recall
Pw1 stated that cell phone is along with her in holidays, and that PW6 filed false case against the accused. He further argued that PW6 Investigating Officer stated that on 8-1-2016 at 10.00 a.m., he enquired about the accused in the college. But they informed that accused did not come to the college, but PW6 admitted that
Prem Sagar handed over the accused to him at ATM Madhurawada, and he released the accused, and he did not state the time of messages. He further argued that PW5 deposed that messages are on 23-1-2016, 24-1-2016, 25-1-2016, 26-1-2016, 27-1-2016, but PW1 to 3 did not state the time of messages, and there is no voice recording. He further argued that as per the evidence of S.I. Of Police,
Prem Sagar handed over the accused to him, as per DW1 Prem Sagar given all messages to the Pw1. Pw1 to 6 colluded together and filed this false case against the accused.
22. On perusal of Ex.P1, accused send vulgar messages to PW1 on 26-1- 2016, and that prior to that the accused proposed love to PW1, and she refused for it, and later PW1 continued to speak with him as friendly manner, but taking advantage of it, the accused used to command her and he continued sending messages and he also sent vulgar messages and later she gave complaint to the faculty, who called parents of accused and they assured that messages will not repeated and later on 26-1-2016, PW1 again received vulgar messages from the accused and she informed the same to PW3, later she gave report to police.
23.During the evidence of PW1 before the court, Pw1 deposed corroborating with the contents of Ex.P1 report. During her lengthy cross examination also, she deposed on the same lines, and her cross-examination strengthen her case, and did not even tilt the case. Pw2 mother of Pw1, also deposed on the same lines and she stated that she asked PW3 to give report as PW3 is residing in Hyderabad.
Evidence of PW3, is also corroborating with the evidence of PW2, so also PW1.
PW4 hostel in-charge, categorically stated that PW3 made phone call to him on 26- 1-2016 at 7.30 p.m., then he informed the Pws1 and 3 to come to the police station and that on 27-1-2016 at 8.00 p.m., they went to the police station. As per the 11 evidence of Pw1, C.I. Of Police is in Bandobust duty by that time, and that after 12.00 p.m. Only, report of PW1 is registered. Hence, date of Ex.P1, is recorded on 28-1-2016. Hence, the delay is properly explained, since immediately after observing vulgar messages, PW1 informed the same to PW3, and in turn PW3 informed the same to Pw4 and that on 27-1-2016 when PW1 went to the college, her classmates asked about her tempting conversation with the accused, which is created by the accused. Later PW1, 3 and 4, went to police station and gave report.
As per the section 354D(ii) of Indian Penal Code:-
Stalking:- “ Monitors the use by a woman of the Internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking”.
Providing that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that:-
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
24.Here, we have to see, whether the accused commits the offence of stalking by sending vulgar and threatening messages to cell phone of PW1. By giving much regard to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I opined that, all the decisions cited by the defence counsel, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the circumstances are different. It is contention of defence counsel, that one Prem 12
Sagar sent said vulgar messages to PW1, through cell phone of accused. It shows that defence counsel, is not denying the fact that vulgar messages are sent to PW1 through cell phone of accused. Hence, it is admitted fact that some vulgar messages sent to Pw1 through cell phone of accused, even according to defence counsel. So, as rightly contended by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that burden of proof shifted from the prosecution to the defence side, to prove that one
Prem Sagar sent those messages to the accused.
25.As per the suggestion put by the defence counsel, one Prem Sagar handed over the accused to the police on 27.1.2016 along with cell phone, for which PW6 denied the same, but admitted that Prem Sagar handed over the accused only, but not cell phone on 28-1-2016, but not on 27-1-2016. It is the contention of defence counsel, that Prem Sagar handed over the accused and cell phone to PW6. So, even though Prem Sagar handed over the accused to PW6, it is not fatal to the case of prosecution, as it is on 28.1.2016, but not on 26-1-2016 i.e. after the receipt of vulgar and threatening messages by PW1, from the cell phone of accused.
26.DW1, neighbour of the accused deposed that on 26-1-2016 at 8.30 a.m., four persons came to the house of accused and took away the cell phone of the accused, and that mother of the accused informed to DW1, said person who took cell phone of the accused is Prem Sagar. As rightly contended by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, mother of the accused is not examined and that defence counsel did not assign any reason, how the mother of the accused had acquaintance with Prem Sagar who is faculty of the accused. Even in her cross- examination also, PW1 stated that one Murthy Sir made counseling to the parents of Accused, but not Prem Sagar.
27.If really four persons came to the house of accused and picked up cell phone of the accused and enquired about the accused, why parents of accused did not give any police complaint against those persons, as they trespassed into the house of the accused and took away the cell phone of the accused. Defence counsel took plea that one Prem Sagar send messages through the cell phone of 13 the accused to PW1, but they did not choose to take any steps to obtain any information about location of cell phone on 26-1-2016 i.e. by the time of sending cell phone messages, even after filing of report by PW1. So though the defence counsel took plea that one Prem Sagar sent the vulgar messages to the Pw1, they failed to establish that said Prem Sagar sent messages through cell phone of the accused.
Defence counsel did not deny the messages. Proof of messages as per Sec.65B of
Indian Evidence Act is not required in view of admission by the defence counsel, that messages through the cell phone of the accused, to the cell phone of PW1.
Evidence of DW1 is not fatal to the case of prosecution, it does not shake the roots of the case.
28.Even as per the defence counsel, Reddy Prasad sir made a rule that a late comer shall present a pen to class leader, and that the accused gave complaint to
Kameswari Madam that Reddy Prasad sir, beat him, as the accused did not present a pen to the class leader, though he is late comer. One Murthy Sir made counseling to the parents of accused. But the defence counsel could not elicit any reason for grudge between Premsagar and accused.
29.Another contention of defence counsel is there is no voice recording by prosecution. Since, the case is regarding sending vulgar messages, but not about making phone calls. Hence, recording of voice does not arise.
30The defence counsel took a plea that no independent witnesses are examined and evidence of PW2 to 5 is not valid, as they are interesting witnesses.
But, except PW2 mother of PW1, all the remaining witnesses are independent witnesses. PW3 is hostel warden, PW4 is hostel in-charge to both the girls hostel and boys hostel, and that there is no enemity to them against the accused. The defence counsel could not establish any reason, to give false evidence by Pws 3 to 5 against the accused. Hence, I opined that the evidence of Pws 1 to6 is more convincing, and I could not see, any reason to discard the evidence of PW2, 3&4.
Though, there are minor lacunas in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they are not fatal to the case of prosecution.
31.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, once on complaint of PW1, 14 the college authorities called for the parents of accused and made counseling, in which the mother of accused also gave assurance that the accused will not send messages again. But, for about two months only, the accused stopped sending messages. Again he started sending obscene messages to cell phone of PW1. It shows that once an opportunity is given by the college authorities, to accused to mend his attitude. But he did not mend his attitude and continued sending threatening messages to PW1, as per Ex.P2, like” Call girl kinda, nee number pedathanu”, “Social media lo pedathanu”, “ledha, nee photo call girl ke esthanu, you will be famous”, “Last & final, when I will die I will write your name , I will die to day is my end of my life”. The accused also sent messages to PW1, offering amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- to spend with him for one night etc., Certainly it will cause severe mental agony to PW1 and it will impact on her health, studies and future.
32.In view of the above said discussions, I opined that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 354D (ii) of IPC and he is liable for conviction.
33. In the result, the accused is found guilty and he is convicted U/s.248 (2) of
Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable U/s. 354D(ii) of IPC. Bail bonds of Accused are cancelled. The accused is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day April, 2017.
VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.
34.I heard the accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Accused submitted that he is eldest son of his family and he is studying BBA 1st year and and prays to take lenient view.
During the questioning, accused had not stated any special reasons except the general reasons.
15
35. However, considering the age of the accused i.e. He is student, considering the family back ground of the accused and submissions made by the accused, I feel the following sentence would serve the justice.
36. In the result, accused is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable U/s. 354D(ii) of IPC and he is directed to under go simple imprisonment for one year and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused already undergone remand period, if any, shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is explained about his right of appeal to the Hon’ble Sessions Court and free Legal Aid through legal service authority, if he have no means. Accused is stated that he is having means to engage the counsel.
37. Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment and calendar on accused forthwith. Office is further directed to prepare conviction warrants accordingly.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 4th day April, 2017.
VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence P.W.1: Kanakala Kalyani D.W.1 E.Anil Kumar P.w.2: Kanakala Krishnaveni P.w3:Buvanagiri Karuna P.W4:Viyyapu Srinivasa Rao P.W5:K.Srinviasa Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police P.W6:Ch.Rajesh, Sub-Inspector of Police
Exhibits marked For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Report of Pw1
Ex.P2: Copy of messages and C.D
Ex.P3: Call data (6 pages)
Ex.P4: First Information Report.
16
For Defence :
Ex.D1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2
MATERIAL OBJECTS
- NIL -
VII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bheemunipatnam.
17
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF VII MEMTROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: BHEEMUNIPATNAM
C.C.No.85/201 6
( Cr.No. 26/2016 of P.M.Palem Police Station)
Date of offence 26-1-2016 Date of complaint/report28-1-2016
Date of apprehension of accused29-1-2016
Date of release on bail29-1-2016
Date of commencement of trial8-11-2016
Date of close of trial22-2-2017
Date of Judgment4-4-2017
Explanation for delay & remarksNo delay occurred in this court. No witness detained beyond three days. Name of the complainant:
State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.M.Palem Police station, Visakhapatnam City
Name of the Accused:
Gudala Sairam, S/o. Ganapathi, aged 19 years, resident of D.No. 34-10- 3/2, Dayas street, Gnanapuram, Visakhapatnam.
Offence:354D(ii) of IPC
Findings Guilty
Result:
Accused is found guilty and accused is convicted U/s.248 (2) of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable U/s. 354D(ii) of IPC and he is directed to under go simple imprisonment for one year and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) in default of payment of fine, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused already undergone remand period, if any, shall be set off under section 428
Cr.P.C. The accused is explained about his right of appeal to the Hon’ble
Sessions Court and free Legal Aid through legal service authority, if he have no
means. Accused is stated that he is having means to engage the counsel.
Office is directed to serve the copy of this judgment and calendar on accused forthwith. Office is further directed to prepare conviction warrants accordingly.
VII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bheemunipatnam.
18
Copy submitted to Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
// True Copy //
VII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bheemunipatnam