Milind Kamble, M.A., LL.B.,

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of May, 2017. Present: Sri Milind Kamble

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

C.C No.133 of 2012

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police,Wanaparthy Town P.S. Cr.No.7/2012 U/S.3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

...Complainant

And

1.N.Narendhar Chowdary S/o N.Sambasiva Rao age 29 yrs, Occ Proprietor of Manju Hotel & lodge, Wanaparthy. 2.Rathlavath Ravi S/o Lachiram age 27 yrs, Occ: Business R/o Nagavaram thanda of Wanaparthy Mandal. 3.Madduru Venkatramulu @ Venkatramulu S/o Chinnanna age 36 yrs, Occ; Proprietor Sampoorna lodge, old bus stand, Wanaparthy.

..Accused

Offence :: U/s.3,4 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956 Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :: Accused are found not guilty of the offences U/Ss.3,4 and 7 of Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and are acquitted of the same under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 2.5.2017 in the presence of Sr. A.P.P for the State and of Sri R.Hemavardan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- -:: JUDGMENT::-

1. The Sub-inspector of police, Wanaparthy town filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that accused NO.1 who is the son of Pw3 was maintaining Manju lodge and the accused No.3 who has taken

Sampurna lodge on lease by paying Rs.8000/- per month from accused

No.1 and 3 were indulging in prostitution wherein the accused No.1 offered Aruna (Lw1) into his lodge and permitted her to indulge the accused No.2 and accused No.3 permitted Pathlavath Shanthamma into

Sampoorna lodge permitted to get indulge in prostitution with new customer and during that time on the instructions of Sub-divisional Police

Officer, Wanaparthy Pw8 raided both the lodges and A1and A2 were apprehended from Manju lodge and A3 was apprehended from

Sampoorna lodge and Lw1 Aruna and Lw2 Pathlavath Shantamma were rescued from the clutches of the accused and thereby accused No.1 to3 committed the offences of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

3. This Court taken cognizance of the offence under sections 3,4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 against A1 to A3.

4 On appearance of accused the copies of case record were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusations leveled against them in the charge sheet for which they denied the offence. Hence charges under sections 3,4 and 7 of

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 In order to prove it's case prosecution examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P8. P.W.1 and 2 are the eye witness, Pw3 and 4 are circumstantial witnesses, Pw5 is panch for scene of offence, Pw6 is panch for scene, Pw7 and 8 are investigating officers. Ex.p1,P2 are 161

Cr.P.c statements of Pws 3 and 4, Ex.P3 is signature of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is signature of Pw5 on confession and recovery panchanama, Ex.P5 is FIR, Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P7 is two receipts, Ex.P8 is lodge receipt.

7 After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining them the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the evidence as false and reported no defence.

8 Now the sole point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences leveled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

9 In this case Pw1 is the police constable who assisted Pw7 during the course of investigation, so also Pw2. The investigating officer deposed that on 27.1.2012 at 4.P.M on the instructions of SDPO,

Wanaparth he along with staff Pw1, pw2 and one police constable (LW4)

Anthaiah all proceeded to Manju lodge situated at old bus stand,

Wanaparthy ton and conducted raid and there he found accused No.1 and accused No.2 along with victim (Lw1) Aruna in the lodge. During the course of interrogation the said three persons confessed about they getting indulging in prostitution business and accused No.1 was providing lodge to them. According to Pw7 the accused No.2 is a pimp. Thereafter they all went to Sampoorna lodge and there they found ccused NO.3 indulging prostitution business with the help of Pathlavath Shanthamma (Lw2) who is the victim. Pw1 and Pw2 also supported the prosecution case by deposing in the same manner as that of Pw7. Pw1 identified the accused No.1 to 3 as the persons who were indulged in the prostitution.

Pw 2 identified accused NO.1 and 2 as the persons who were indulged in the prostitution. These three people belongs to one police station and Pws 1 and 2 are the supporters of Pw7 during the relevant period of the case.

Under such circumstances their evidence has to be scrutinized minutely to establish the offence against the accused.

10. The prosecution has cited one circumstantial witness who is the father of accused No.1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Pw4 is none other than the building owner of

Sampoorna lodge, he also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The panch witnesses for the scene of offence are examined as Pw5 and Pw6. They also turned hostile by deposing that they do not know anything about this case and at the request of police they have signed on a paper. Pw5 identified his signature on panchanama and the same is marked as Ex.P3. Pw6 identified his signature on panchanama and the same is marked as Ex.P4.

11. If the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses is perused no victim is examined by the prosecution and the victims were cited as Lw1

Aruna and Lw2 Pathavath Shanthamma were given up by the learned APP based on police report stating that where-abouts of the victims are not known. In the absence of these two victims it cannot be concluded that

A1 to A3 were indulging prostitution. Apart from this the main purpose of indulging such an act would be only for the monitory benefit purpose.

But no money is seized by the police in this case to establish that A1 to

A3 were indulging such kind of act. The most crucial point in this case is alleged scene of offence. The scene of offence panchanama is marked as

Ex.P6 and the same marked through Pw8. If Ex.P6 is perused there is no any kind of rough sketchy to establish that the offence took place at alleged two different places i.e. one at Manju lodge and one is at

Sampoorna lodge. It is born in mind that the first investigating officer

Pw8 deposed that the incident took place at one room and the room were at both the lodges. In generic manner every room has room number in the lodge. But the investigating officer Pw8 did not investigate on that aspect. Apart from that in the rough sketch both the alleged places are shown at the same place, but the evidence of Pw8 disclosed that both the alleged places are situated at two different places. According to Pw8 he has collected Ex.P8 from Pw4 to establish that the Sampoorna lodge was being run by the accused No.3 and he also got collected two receipts

EX.P7 from Pw3 to show that accused No.1 was running business. But wherein the investigating officer collected Exs.P7 and P8 shows that there is a lacuna in the investigation conducted by Pw8 . Without following the procedure contemplated under section 91 of Cr.P.C both the documents were received by Pw8 which clearly goes to show that the investigation conducted by Pw8 suffers with lacuna. When the police themselves have filed report in respect of non service of summons on Lw1 Aruna an Lw2

Pathlavath shanthamma which clearly goes to show that the witnesses

Lws 1 and 2 did not exist as they did not have any proper address and the investigating officers neither collected any proper address of the said victims Lws 1 and 2. In the absence of proper addresses of Lws 1 and 2, the way in Ex.P6 was conducted by Pw8 and no money being recovered from the accused clearly goes to establish that this is a false case foisted against A1 to A3. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

13 In the result the accused are found not guilty of the offences

U/Ss.3,4 and 7 of Immoral traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and are acquitted of the same under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

::Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: Nil P.W.1: D.Chandraiah, eye witness Pw2 K.Laxmi, eye witness Pw3 N.Sambhasiva Rao, cir.witness

Pw4 K.Raman Goud, cir.witenss Pw5 Kommula Srinivasulu, panch for scene Pw6 B.Eswar Goud, panch for scene Pw7 E.Jangaiah, IO Pw8 G.Venkateshwarlu, Second IO.

:: Exhibits marked for:: Prosecution: Deence:Nil.

Ex.P.1:161 cr.P.C statement of Pw3

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4

Ex.P3 is signature of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4 is signature of pw6 on scene of offence panchanama

EX.P5 FIR

Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7 is Two receipts

Ex.P8 is two receipts.

:: Material objects marked for:: NI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017. Present: Sri Milind Kamble

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

STC.No.54 of 2014

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy rural P.S.

...Complainant

And

1.Nakka Gopi W/o Nakka Narayana age 35 yrs, Occ: Mason. 2.Uppari Anji S/o Uppariu Chinnaiah age 43 yrs, Occ: Business Both R/o Rajanaragaram village of Wanaparthy Mandal.

..Accused

Offence :: U/s.323, 504 of Indian Penal Code Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty. Sentence or Order :: Accused are found not guilty of the offences Under sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

*** This case coming up before me for final hearing on 1.5.2017 in the presence of A.P.P for the State and of Sri K.RamuluYadav, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

Judgment

1. This case arises out of the Petty case charge-sheet filed by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanaparthy rural P.S for the offences under

Sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C against the accused.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

That on 22.10.2013 at 1000hours the complainant by name Nakka

Chandraiah lodged a complaint before police stating that on 20.10.2013 at night about 1000 hours while he was coming from his agriculture land when reached at Single window society both the accused picked up quarrel and abused him in filthy language as ‘emira Lanjakoduka Urlo

Needi Yekkuvaindi Yemanukuntunnavura etc’ and caught hold his shirt and beat him with hands and legs. Basing on the above said complaint 2 the S.I of police made General diary entry forwarded the complaint to court for permission and after obtaining permission from the Hon’ble investigated the matter and after completion of all due formalities filed petty case charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.

2. This Court took cognizance of the offences under sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents relied on by prosecution were furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. regarding the allegations contained in the charge-sheet, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked EXs.P1 to P4. Pw1 and 2 are the eye witnesses, Pw3 is complainant, Pw4 is investigating officer, Ex.P1 and P2 are 161 Cr.P.c statements of Pws 1 and 2, Ex.P3 is complaint, EX.P4 permission granted by court.

7 After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining them the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the evidence as false and reported no defence.

8. NOW THE SOLE POINT THAT FALLS FOR CONSIDERATION IS

WHETHER THE PROSECUTION COULD PROVE THE ALLEGATION BEYOND

ALL REASONABLE DOUBTS OR NOT?

9. In this case the allegations against the accused is that the accused

NO.1 and 2 at around 10.P.M near Single window office of his village have abused Pw3 and beat him with hands. To establish the same the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Pws 1 to 4. Among them

Pw4 is the investigating officer, Pw2 is the victim-cum-eye witness, Pw1 is eye witness. According to Pw3 the accused has come across to him 3 and started abusing him in filthy language as ‘Lanjakoduka Needhi

Chalaindi” and beat him with hands on his face and accused No.1 attacked with his both hands. As such Pws 1 and 2 interfered and rescued Pw3 from the clutches of A1. Then he lodged complaint Ex.P3.

According to Pw3 in his cross examination that on the day when he has lodged the complaint police not examined him and nor recorded his statement. But contra to it the investigating officer Pw4 deposed that he has received complaint from Pw3 on 22.10.2013 and on receiving the permission of this court on 22.10.2013 he has examined Pw3. According to Pw4 he has summoned Pw3 on 29.1.2014 and examined him and recorded his statement. According to Pw3 in his cross examination he deposed that he was referred to hospital by the police as he sustained injuries in the alleged incident. But Pw4 did not speak anything about he referring Pw3 to hospital for treatment nor any such document is filed on record to substantiate the same. But Pw3 the accused has abused him in filthy language ‘Lanjakoduka Needi chalaindi’. But the complaint Ex.P3 does not disclose the same. All the above factors show that there is an inconsistency in the evidence of Pw3. To believe the version of Pw3 the right persons are Pws 1 and 2 who are cited as eye witnesses in this case.

Even the eye witnesses are independent witnesses and these two witnesses are independent witnesses and these two witnesses during the course of their evidence deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 belong to their village, as such they know them. Both Pws 1 and 2 deposed that they do not know anything about the accused, police neither examined them nor recorded their statements. No doubt Pw3 has supported the prosecution case , but there is lot of inconsistency in his evidence and the eye witnesses Pws 1 an 2 did not support the case of the prosecution.

4

Under such circumstances it is held that benefit of doubt lies infavour of the accused.

10. In the result, the accused are found not guilty of the offences under sections 323 and 504 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section 255(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: None

P.W.1: H.G.Ramulu, eye witness Pw2 Harijan Guddeti Ramulu eye witness PW3 Nakka Chandraiah, complainant Pw4 V.Shekar, HC. Investigating officer. ::Exhibits marked for: Prosecution: Defence:Nil Ex.P.1 is 162 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1 Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P C statement of Pw2 Ex.P3 is complaint Ex.P4 is permission Defence:Nil.

::Material objects marked for:: Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

WANAPARTHY.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of May, 2017. Present: Sri Milind Kamble

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

C.C No.141 of 2016

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Wanparthy town P.S. Cr.No.. 193/2015 U/S.498-A r/w.34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

...Complainant

And

1.Keshireddy Vinay Kumar Reddy S/o Keshireddy Raghava Reddy age 32 yrs, Occ: Private job R/o Gummadam village of Pebbair Mandal.

2. Keshireddy Raghava Reddy S/o Veera Reddy age 60 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Gummadam village of Pebbair Mandal. 3.Smt Alivelamma W/o Keshi Reddy Raghava REddyt age 54 yrs, Occ: House wife R/o Gummdam village of Pebbair Mandal.

..Accused

Offence :: U/s 498-Aof Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of accused :: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order :: Accused are found not guilty of the offence under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. and acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sr. A.P.P for the State and of Sri D.Venkatesh, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:- -:: JUDGMENT::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Wanaparthy town P.S. against the accused for the offence under sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

That the marriage of J.Deepa was performed with A1 on 20.2.2011 and at the time of marriage the parents of J.Deepa given net cash of

Rs.3,00,000/-, 18 tulas of gold ornaments and additionally given

Rs.50,000/- net cash as sister’s dowry of A1. A1 and J.Deepa lived happily for a period of five months later they went to Hyderabad for livelihood and after that Deepa blessed with female child and also got

Government job. Thereafter A1 and his parents i.e. A2 and A3 harassed Deepa mentally and physically by demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Basing on the above said complaint a case in

Cr.No.193/2015 U/S.498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P Act against the accused. The S.I of police arrested the accused and send them to court for judicial custody an after completion of all due formalities filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the above said offences.

3. This Court taken cognizance of the offence under sections 498-A

IP and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4 On appearance of accused 1 to3 the copies of case record were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the accusations leveled against them in the charge sheet for which they denied the offence. Hence charges under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6 In order to prove it's case prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked exhibit Ex.P1. PW1 is the victim, Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.c statement of Pw1.

7 On conclusion of prosecution evidence since there is no incriminating material available on record, their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8 Now the sole point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences under sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

9 The prosecution got examined L.W2 as P.W.1 who is the wife of

A1. In her evidence P.W.1 clearly stated that A1 is her husband, A2 and

A3 are her parents in laws and that on 20.2.201 her married was solemnized with A1, herself and A1 lived happily till 2015, in the year 2015 there were minor disputes between her and accused she informed the same to her parents and then her parents lodged complaint. She further deposed that accused never harassed her by demanding any dowry or additional dowry and police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. Since she did not depose anything against the accused, she was treated as hostile by the APP and was cross examined. But nothing could be elicited by APP in the cross examination of Pw1 except marking her 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P1. Since the material witness i.e. Pw 1 did not support the prosecution case, the prosecution has rightly given up the remaining witnesses i.e. (Lw1) Smt Jammula Indiramma, (Lw3) Modala Venkataswami, (Lw4) K.Kurmanna, (LW5) N.Narsimha, (LW6) C.Jangi Reddy, (LW7) Buchi Reddy, (LW8) B.Gandhi Naik.

Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against them.

10. In the result, accused are found not guilty of the offences under

Sections 498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under section248(1Cr.P.C

The bail bonds accused shall stand cancelled.

Type to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.

::Appendix of evidence:: Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence: Nil

P.W.1: Smt Jammula Deepa, victim :: Exhibits marked for::

Ex.P.1:is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 :: Material objects marked for:: NI

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Wanaparthy.