Sri.Mohammad Yousuf

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRL.MAGISTRATE

FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, CYBERABAD

Present: Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, B.Sc., LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 5 th day of November, 2015

CC. No. 1929 /2013

Between :

The State through

PS Meerpet …..Complainant

And

A1) Ch. Krishna Goud, S/o Shankariah, Age : 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o : H.No.2-132, Nadergul (V), Saroornagar (M), R. R. District.

A2) Y. Purushotham Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Age : 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o : H.No.4-68, Yamjal (V), Hayathnagar (M), R.R. District. ….Accused 1 & 2

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. D. Ram Reddy, Advocate for the accused 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.

No. 406 /2013 against Accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Sections 452, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that, on 3/7/2013 at 6-00 PM the Sub Inspector of police received complaint from P. Jagmohan Reddy /PW1 in which he divulged that, on the same day at 5-00 PM when he was in fast sleep in his bed room, the accused persons 1 and 2 with an evil intention entered into his house with deadly weapon and near to his bed room and beat with knuckle punch on his face and other parts of the body, when his wife tried to rescue him from their clutches, the accused persons 1 and 2 necked out her due to which she fell down and they used vulgar language against his family members, some land disputes arose between the 2 family members of the accused persons 1 and 2 and his family. This incident was witnessed by one Srinivas Goud and Narender who came to rescue them, hence requested to take necessary action against the accused 1 and 2.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW-8 / P. Sreedhar Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.406 / 2013 under Sections 452, 324 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW9 / PW6. During his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the Lws 1 to 4 / Pws 1 and 2, 4 and 5 , as per their statements the accused persons 1 and 2 hatched a plan to beat the PW1 / P.

Jagmohan Reddy came in a four wheeler vehicle with deadly weapons -knuckle punch.

He secured two mediators Lws 5 &6 (PW5 and Y. Bal Reddy) drawn the rough sketch and conducted the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and made efforts to nab down the accused persons. On 16/7/2013 the accused persons 1 and 2 were surrendered before the Hon'ble Court vide Crl.MP.No.1869 / 2013 and remanded for judicial custody. LW7 / Dr. Siddu Ramulu issued certificate that PW1 received simple injuries in nature. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons 1 and 2.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons 1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Sections 452, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused persons 1 and 2 , they were examined Under Sec.

239 Cr.P.C . On consideration, charge Under Section 452, 324 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 6 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons 1 and 2 denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

3

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused persons 1 and

2 for the offence punishable Under Sections 452 & 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and Ex. P1 to P5 stands for scrutiny.

11. PW-1 is the complainant and victim , PW-2 to 4 are eye witnesses, PW-5 is panch witness for scene of offence cum rough sketch and PW-6 is investigating officer and filed charge sheet .

12. PW-1 (P. Jagan Mohan Reddy) deposed in his chief examination that, he knew the accused person. On 3/7/2013 at 5-00 PM when he was sleeping on his bed, the accused persons 1 and 2 barged into his bedroom and beat him with a nickel punch on his face and caused bleeding injuries on his face. By hearing the sound of PW1, his wife /Lavanya tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed her and abused in filthy language. He attested the document as a witness. On hearing the cries of his wife, LW3/ Srinivas Goud and LW4 / Narendar came to rescue from the hands of the accused persons. Then he lodged a complaint U/Ex.P1 in the police station and the police referred him to the S. V. hospital at Balapur X road. Police examined him.

13. During his cross examination he deposed that, he do not know the profession of

Srinvas Goud and Narendar and he has no prior acquaintance and do not know even their names. His house consist of three rooms and he slept in the middle room at the time of the incident. He cannot say the over-tacts of the accused. His wife was on the top of the building at the time of the incident. One constable accompanied him to the hospital. He alone went to the police station for lodging Ex.P1-complaint. He raised cries. There are previous enmities between himself and the accused /A1 regarding land disputes as the land which he purchased which is subsequently purchased by the

Accused /A1. He admitted that a civil suit was pending between himself and the accused / A1 with regard to the land. He spent two hours in the hospital, his statement was recorded at about 9-00 PM on the same day and also took the patrolling jeep to his 4 house. After beating the accused 1 and 2 went away in a Scorpio vehicle. His wife sustained injuries on her left arm. No neighbors were present at the time of the incident. Lws 3 and 4 never visited his house at any point of time. He denied to the suggestion that, the accused persons 1 and 2 never trespassed into his house and never caused any injuries on him and he foisted a false case against the accused due to the land dispute -a civil suit and he is deposing false and also that, the accused never came in Scorpio vehicle and never came to his house and caused injuries on him and he is deposing false. He denied to the suggestion that, no police accompanied to the hospital.

14.PW-2 (P. Lavanya) deposed in her chief examination that, she is resident of

Nadergul. She knew the accused persons 1 and 2. PW1 is her husband. On 03.07.2013 at about 5.00PM she went on the roof of the house to collect the dried cloths and when she returned she found the accused persons 1 and 2 were beating

PW1. A1 beat PW1 with iron rod on his face and all over his body then she went to rescue PW1 then she was pushed by the accused persons 1 and 2 and she fell down.

Then PW1 lodged Ex.p1 complaint to the police. Police examined her. The incident occurred due to rivalry in business of her husband -PW1 and the accused person.

15. During her cross examination, she deposed that, within five minutes of hearing commotion, she came down into her house from the roof. There are four rooms in her house, her husband /PW1 was in second room. On the next day morning police recorded her statement at her house. She accompanied PW1 to the police station and hospital. She stated before the police that the accused persons beat her husband with iron rod. She also sustained injuries on her left arm and treated in the hospital. She admitted that, there are land disputes and cases between PW1 and the accused person. No neighbors witnessed the incident. At first, they went to police station thereafter to hospital . She handed over her treatment details to the police. The accused persons went in a Scorpio bearing No. 2399 and she witnessed the same.

She denied to the suggestion that, as there are land disputes between PW1 and the accused, they foisted a false case against the accused persons and deposing falsely.

5

She has not handed over the Iron rod which is used by the accused in the commission of offence. She also denied to the suggestion that, she is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

16. PW-3 (P. Narender) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of

Nadergul. He do not know accused persons 1 and 2 and also do not know PWs 1 and

2. On 03.07.2013 at about 5-00 or 5.30 PM he went to Nadergul along with LW3

Srinivas Goud to see the house for purchase, then he heard the cries of one women saying Champutunnaru, Champutunnnaru……………. Then they proceeded to the said house and found two persons beating. One among them beat the said person with nickel punch and they observed bleeding injuries on the face of said person , A1 is one of the person who beat. The accused are the same persons who caused injuries to

PW1 on the date of the incident. A1 caused injuries to PW1 with nickel punch.

17. During his cross examination he deposed that, he studied upto 10 th class and doing Real Estate Business and do not know whether PW1 is also doing Real Estate

Business. He never went to the house of PW1 except on the date of the incident. At the time of incident PW1 was in his bed room besides hall and PW2 was at the gate and raising alarm. He has not stated before the police that, he went to the house of

PW1 on hearing sounds as CHAMPUTUNNARU, CHAMPUTUNNARU.................., himself and his friend -Srinivas brought the accused outside the house of the PW1 and the accused went away in a Scorpio in their presence. Thereafter, no incident occurred and they went away. On the second day of incident police examined him.

He has not accompanied PW1 either to police station or to the hospital. Several people gathered at the time of incident. He denied to the suggestion that, himself and

PW1 dealing with Real Estate Business and PW1 having disputes with the accused and he is deposing false at the instance of PW1 even though he did not witness anything.

He also denied to the suggestion that, he did not witness the accused going in Scorpio.

None of them handed over the nickel punch and that, himself and LW3 /Srinivas Goud never witnessed the incident never went to the house of PW1 and he is deposing false and also identified the accused at the instance of PW1.

6

18. PW-4 (Srinivas Goud) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of

Santhosh Nagar. He Knew PW3. About 1 ½ year back at about 5.00 or 5.30PM PW3 informed him on phone that some galata took place then he went to police station. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks permission to declare the witness hostile.

19. During the cross examination by the learned APP, he denied to the suggestion that, he has stated before the police as in Ex.P2 that the accused voluntarily caused injuries to PW1 by entering into their house and he witnessed the same and now he is deposing falsehood to help the accused.

20. PW-5 (Narsimha) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of

Jilleguda . In the year 2013, he attend function at his in-law house at Nadergul. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence at Nadergul and obtained his signature on panchananma. Ex.P3 is the said panchanama.

21. During his cross examination he deposed that, he do not remember the vehicle number which was seized under Ex.P3 by the police. The panchanama was conducted by SI Madhusudhan Reddy. He do not remember how many signatures were obtained by the police. He do not know the contents of Ex.P3. The date of the panchanama was written in Ex.P3 with time. He do not know Pw1 and he do not know the name of other panch witness. He denied to the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted by the police under Ex.P3 and no vehicle was seized in my presence and he is deposing false at the instance of Pw1.

22. PW-6 (M. Madhusudhan) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of

Vanasthalipuram. Previously he worked as SI of police at P.S. Meerpet from 09.02.2013 to 27.09.2014. On 03.07.2013 on the complaint of PW1 , LW-8- P.

Sreedhar Reddy Inspector registered a case in Cr. No. 406/2013 U/s. 452,324 r/w 34 of

IPC, issued Ex.P4 FIR, and entrusted investigation to him. During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, thereafter he visited to the scene of offence and examined ad recorded the statements of Pws 2 to 4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch and recovered stone 7 in the presence of Pw-5 and LW6 Bal Reddy. On 16.07.2013 A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered before the court and were released on bail. After collecting the medical certificates from LW7 Dr. Siddiramulu and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P5 is the medical certificate.

23. During his cross examination he deposed that, the actual time of receiving

FIR from LW8 is at 6.30PM on 03.07.2013. At that time PW1 was also present in the police station. He referred PW1 to hospital orally. He visited the scene of offence on 03.07.2013 at 8.00PM. He admitted that, he has not mentioned any date or time in crime detail form and also that in Column No. 4 (4) in CDF is kept blank and no vehicle number is mentioned. He admitted that, in column No. 4 (8) he has not mentioned the house number where the incident occurred and also that, in column No.5 of CDF also kept in blank. He admitted that, the witnesses deposed before him during their recording of 161 statements that the accused fled away in the same vehicle after the incident. He denied to the suggestion that the accused never went to the scene of offence in the vehicle and never fled away on the said vehicle and for which reason he has kept blank in all the relevant columns in CDF and he has not mentioned the distance of the vehicle where it is station. He has deposited the crime vehicle in the court on 24.08.2013. He admitted that, in column No. 5 of list of property he has not mentioned the date and place of seizure. He could not able to deposit the crime vehicle promptly in the court due to rush of work. He denied to the suggestion that, he has not deposited the vehicle in the court on 24.08.2013 and he could only able to deposited the vehicle on 21.09.2013. He has not enquired about the civil dispute between PW1 and the accused during the course of my investigation and also that, no crime vehicle is seized by him and for which reason he could not able to produce the vehicle in the court till 21.09.2013 and he is deposing false at the instance of PW1. He denied to the suggestion that, he has obtained the signatures of Panch witness on CDF on empty form of CDF and also that the accused are no way connected to this case and no vehicle is involved in this case and foisted a false case against the accused at the instance of PW1. He denied to the suggestion that he never referred PW1 to the 8 hospital and LW7 -Dr. Siddiramulu never treated the injured and he obtained false certificate from the doctor for the purpose of the case and foisted a false case against the accused at the instance of PW1.

POINT:-

24.As could be seen from the evidence of Pws 1 to 6 , PW1 is the defacto complainant / injured , PW2 is the wife of PW1, Pws 3 and 4 are the alleged eye witnesses. PW5 is the punch witness for the scene of offence and PW6 is the

Investigating Officer. As per the evidence of PW1 , on 3/7/2013 at about 5-00 PM, while he was sleeping in his house, A1 and A2 barged into his bedroom and beat him with a nickel punch , he sustained bleeding injuries. PW further stated that, on hearing sounds, his wife / PW2 came to his rescue , then the accused pushed her and abused her in filthy language. He stated that the accused beat him as he attested the document as a witness. He stated on hearing cries of his wife, Pws 3 and 4 came and separated him from the hands of the accused. During his cross examination, he stated that, his house consisting of three rooms and he slept in the middle room. He categorically stated that, he cannot say the over-tacts of the accused. He admitted that, there are previous enmities between himself and A1 regarding land which he purchased as A1 also purchased the same land and subsequently a Civil suit is also pending in that regard. He stated that, after beating him, A1 and A2 went away in a Scorpio vehicle and his wife also sustained injury on her left arm.

25.The wife of PW1 who is examined as PW2 stated that, on 3/7/2013 at about 5-00

PM, she went on the roof of the house to collect dried clothes and when she returned , she found A1 and A2 beating PW1. She stated that, A1 beat PW1 with Iron rod on his face and all over the body, then she went to rescue . During her cross examination,

PW2 stated that, within five minutes of hearing commotion, she came down from the roof . There are four rooms in her house and her husband was in the second room.

She also admitted that, there are land disputes and a case between PW1 and the accused. She stated that, the accused went in a Scorpio vehicle bearing No.2399.

9

26.As could be seen from the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 , here are contradictions between the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 , PW1 stated that, he cannot say over-tacts of the accused and the accused beat him with nickel punch while he was in the middle room of three rooms of his house. But PW2 stated that, A1 beat PW1 with Iron rod on his face.

PW2 stated that, there are four rooms in her house and her husband was in the second room at the time of the incident.

27.PW3 is the independent eye witness to the incident, he stated that, on 3/7/2013 at about 5-00 or 5-30 PM, he went to the Nadargul along with PW4 to see the house for purchase, then, he heard the cries of one woman saying

CHAMPUTHUNARU..............CHAMPUTHUNARU................., then they proceeded to the said house and found two persons beating PW1 with nickel punch. During his cross examination, PW3 stated that, he has not stated before the police that he went to the houseofPW3onhearingsoundsas

Champuthunaru..............Champuthunaru.................... and himself and PW4 brought the acused outside of the house of PW1 and the accused went away in a Scorpio in their presence.

28.PW4 is another alleged eye witness to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. During his cross examination by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor , he denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P2 that,

the accused voluntarily caused injuries to PW1 by entering into their house and he witnessed the same.

29.PW5 is panch witness for scene of offence , he stated that, police conduced scene of offence panchanama in his present. During his cross examination , he stated that, he do not remember the vehicle Number which was seized by the police.

30.PW6 is the Investigating Officer who stated about his investigation done in this case. During his cross examination , PW6 admitted that he has not mentioned any date, time in Crime Detailed Form. He also admitted that, column No.4(4) in Crime

Detailed Form, it is kept blank and no vehicle number mentioned. He also admitted 10 that, in column No.4(8) , he has not mentioned the house Number where the incident occurred. He also admitted that, the column No.5 of the Crime Detailed Form also kept blank. He admitted that the witnesses stated before him during their 161 Cr.P.C., statements that the accused fled away in the same vehicle after the incident. He stated that he has deposited crime vehicle into the Court on 24/8/2013. He also admitted that, in column No.5 of the list of properties, he has not mentioned the date and place of the seizure. He stated that, he could not able to deposit crime vehicle into the Court due to rush of work. He denied to the suggestion that, he has deposited the vehicle on 21/9/2013 , he categorically stated that he has not enquired about the Civil dispute between PW1 and the accused during the course of his investigation. He denied to the suggestion that, he has not seized ay crime vehicle in this case and for which reason he could not be able to produce the vehicle into the Court till 21/9/2013 by obtaining the signatures of the panch witnesses on empty form of Crime Detailed Form.

31.As could be seen from the evidence of Pws 1 to 6 , there are material contradictions between the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and the evidence of Pws 2 and 3 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW1 and not corroborating on the aspect of the weapon used by the accused in commission of the offence whether it is nickel punch or

Iron rod?. Though it is alleged that, the accused came in a Scorpio vehicle and after beating the PW1, went away in the same vehicle and the said vehicle was recovered on 3/7/2013 itself under Ex.P3, the relevant columns in Ex.P3 are kept blank and PW1 has not satisfactorily explained the proper reasons for keeping the said relevant columns as blank during the course of cross examination by the defence. PW6 has also not assigned proper reason for depositing of the crime vehicle into the Court promptly.

Though he seized the vehicle on 3/7/2013, he could not only able to produce before the

Court on 21/11/2013.

32.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the accused and after scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record , it is the considered view of this Court that there are major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Pws 1 to 6 and are not corroborating with each other on material aspects. The Investigating Officer has failed to seize either nickel punch or Iron rod used by the accused in the commission of 11 offence. Admittedly, there are land disputes between A1 and PW1 and a Civil case are also pending between them. Under those circumstances, the uncorroborated testimonies of Pws 1 to 6 cannot rely upon to convict the accused. I am of the view that, in the circumstances of the case, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt which arouse from the contradictions and omissions of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly on the aspect of weapon used by the accused in the commission of offence, absence of over-tacts of the accused and doubtful of seizure of the Scorpio vehicle used by the accused in the commission of offence.

RESULT:-

33.In the result, the accused / 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 452, 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted u/s. 248 (1)

Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her , corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 5 th day of November, 2015.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 – P. Jagmohan Reddy - Nil - PW 2 - Smt. P. Lavanya PW 3 - P. Narender PW 4 - S. Srinivas Goud PW 5 - R. Narsimha PW 6 - M. Madhusudhan

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 - statement of PW4 u/s. 161 Cr.p.c., Ex.P3 – Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 – FIR Ex.P5 – Medical certificate

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRL.MAGISTRATE

FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, CYBERABAD

Present: Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, B.Sc., LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 9 th day of November, 2015

CC. No. 596 /2014

Between :

The State through

PS L. B. Nagar …..Complainant

And

A1) Banavath Sali @ Bujji, W/o Mathriya Naik, Age : 28 years, Occ: Paper Picker,

A2) Ramavath Kyedi, W/o Boddu Naik, Age : 30 years, Occ: paper picker,

A3) Islavath Kamli, W/o Somla Naik, Age : 36 years, Occ: Paper picker (All R/o : Hut at Singareni colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. N/o : Ganapuramthanda (V), Achampet (M), Mahaboobnagar District. ) ….Accused 1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. M. Durgaiah, Advocate

for the accused 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this

day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, L. B. Nagar Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.

No. 97 / 2014 against Accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable Under Sections 457 , 380 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 30/1/2014 at 11-30 AM the Sub Inspector of police received complaint from Nyalapatla Srinivas Reddy /PW1 stating that on 29/1/2014 at 5-30 PM he closed the company and went to his house and on the next day morning at 9-15 AM he came to the company for opening and found that the window grills are cut with blade and the rooftop asbestos sheets weere removed. You accused entered into his Anu's Jute Handicrafts company by removing the rooftop 2 asbestos sheets and committed theft of Printing Press machinery's motors, drilling machine and grinding machine etc., hence requested to take necessary legal action against the accused.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW-7 / E. Srinivas Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.97/ 2014 under Sections 457, 380 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW9 / PW4. During his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the Lws 1 and 2 / Pw1 and Nyalaptla Venkateshwar reddy , visited the scene of offence situated at Anu's Jute Handicrafts company, Pindi Venkat Reddy colony, L. B. Nagar and bserved the scene minutely and all observations were brought on record by conducting scene of offence panchanama in presence of two panchayathadars (Lws 3 and 4/ K. Chandrashekar and B. Krishna Kumar) and also drafted the rough sketch of the scene. On 31/1/2014 at 5-30 PM the crime staff Smt.

Sureka, WPC No. 5703 and Shiva PC No. 3641 of PS L B Nagar apprehended the accused persons 1 to 3 at Sagar Ring Road and on interrogation they voluntarily admitted their guilt of the offence, as such he secured the presence of mediators / Lws 5 and 6 (Pws 2 and 3) . Further they confessed that from the stolen property they sold out one drilling machine, one grinding machine and some iron scrap parts to an unknown scrap cyclist for Rs.1200/- and shared the sale proceeds equally and spent their personal needs and the remaining motors were kept with them for later disposal.

LW8 / PW5 had recovered the stolen property -five numbers of Printing Press machinery motors from the possession of A1 at the instance of accused A2 and A3 in presence of mediators / Lws 5 and 6 (Pws 2 and 3) under cover of panchanama.

After completion of confession cum seizure panchanamas the accused persons 1 to 3 effected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memo at 22-00 hours on 31/1/2014 after explaining the grounds of arrest to them and their arrest intimation was gien to their kith and kin duly serving a notice u/s. 50 Cr.P.C., After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons 1 to 3.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons 1 to 3 for the offences punishable Under Sections 457, 380 of IPC.

3

5. On appearance of accused persons 1 to 3 , they were examined Under Sec.

239 Cr.P.C . On consideration, charge Under Section 457, 380 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons 1 to 3 denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused persons 1 to 3

for the offences punishable Under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and Exs. P1 to P5 stands for scrutiny.

11. PW-1 is the complainant and owner of stolen property, PW-2 and 3 are panch witnesses , PW-4 is second investigation officer and filed charge sheet PW-5 is first investigation officer and arrested the accused .

12. PW-1 (N. Srinivas Reddy) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of Madhava Nagar colony. He do not know the accused. He is running Anoos Jute

Handicrafts at Pindi Venkat Reddy Colony, Sagar Enclave Behind K.K. Garden at L.B.

nagar. On 29.01.2014 in the evening at about 5.30PM he locked the premises of Anoos

Jute Handicrafts and went to my house. On the next day morning at about 9.30AM he went to Anoos Jute Handicrafts and found the rods of the windows were cut away then he opened the shutter and entered into the premises and found the asbestos sheets were removed from the roof and also found the printing machinery and motors and grinding machine, drilling machines were missing. Then he lodged Ex.P1 complaint to the police. After 15 days police recovered some of the machinery items and he obtained 4 the same from the court towards my interim custody. MO1 is the 5 Nos. Printing Press

Machine Motors.

13. PW-2 (Sangeetha) deposed in her chief examination that, she is resident of

Karmanghat. On 31.01.2014 she went to police station as police called her . In the police station she found A1 to A3 present and police asked her to enquire A1 to A3 then

A1 to A3 revealed before her that on 29.01.2014 during night hours A1 to A3 gained entry into the Karkhana of PW1 situated besides K.K. Garden by removing the roof sheets and committed theft Motors, cutting machine, brass pots, and in pursuance of confession of A1 to A3 police recovered two motors from the possession of the accused in her presence under a panchanama and she attested it. Ex.P2 is the confession and recovery panchanama.

14.During her cross examination she admitted that she is working in the company of

PW1. She do not know the designation of the police officer who called her. At the time of panchanama she has seen the motors in dismantled condition besides the police station in a room. She denied to the suggestion that A1 to A3 never confessed before her about anything and nothing was recovered from the possession of A1 to A3 in her presence and now she is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

15. PW-3 (M. Shanker) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of L.B.

Nagar. During January 2014 Police called him to police station. along with PW2 at about 10.00 or 11.00 AM and shown them the accused and on their enquiry at the request of police A1 to A3 confessed before them that they collecting waste papers and during the course of collecting waste Papers the company of PW1 was locked condition and gained entry into the Karkahana of PW1 by removing roof sheets and committed theft of motors, drilling machines, fans, bearing etc., and in pursuance of confession of

A1 to A3 police recovered three motors from the possession of the accused under a panchanama in their presence. He attested Ex.P2 panchanama along with PW2.

16. During his cross examination he deposed that, he is working as Driver in the company of PW1. One constable called him to police station over phone on 31.01.2014.

5

At the time of panchanama he has seen the motors in dismantled condition besides the police station in a room. He denied to the suggestion that A1 to A3 never confessed

before him about anything and nothing was recovered from the possession of A1 to A3

in his presence and now he is deposing false at the instance of PW1. He do not know who drafted the contents of Ex.P2 panchanama. He further stated that he worked as driver in the company of PW1 for three years. Now he was not working in the company of PW1, he used to work in the company also. He denied to the suggestion that, no theft took place in the company and he is deposing false at the instance of PW1.

17. PW-4 (K. Praveen Kumar) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of L.B. Nagar. He has been working as SI of police, Police Station L.B. Nagar since

September, 2013. On 30.01.2014 PW1 came to police station and lodged a complaint as in Ex.P1 and on the basis of which LW-7 E. Sreenivas Reddy, registered a case in

Cr. No. 97/2014 U/s. 457,380 of IPC, issued Ex.P3 FIR, and entrusted investigation to him. During the course of my investigation he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1, LW-2 N. Venaktehswar Reddy, visited the scene of offence, caused enquiries and conduced scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW3

Chandra Shekar, LW4 Krishna Kumar, Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama, he has also drawn rough sketch, Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. As he went on leave for some period the investigation of this case was taken over by LW8 D. Nanu Naik SI of police (LW-8) who arrested the accused and recovered the stolen property under a panchanama in the presence of mediators and he handed over the CD file to him.

Thereafter, he verified the file and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

18. During his cross examination deposed that he denied to the suggestion that the accused are no way connected to this case and a false case is foisted against them for statistical purpose and also that the accused never confessed about anything and nothing was recovered from their possession and a false case is foisted by sitting in the police station for statistical purpose.

6

19. PW-5 (D. Nalu Naik) deposed in his chief examination that he is resident of LB

Nagar. Previously he worked as SI of Police LB Nagar from August 2012 to Sept 2014.

he has taken over the investigation of this case from PW4. On 31-1-2014 at about 5.30 pm their crime party apprehended A1 to A3 while they were moving under suspicious circumstances possessing printing press machinery motors and produced before him then he secured the presence of Pws2 and 3 and in their presence the accused A1 to

A3 confessed that they have committed theft of Printing press machinery motors of

PW1 and they also further confessed that they have sold out one drilling machine, 1 grinding machine and Iron scrap parts to some un-known scrap cyclist for Rs. 1200/- and shared the sale proceeds among themselves. In pursuance of confession of A1 and A3, he recovered five numbers of Printing Press Machinery motors from the possession of A1 under a panchanama in the presence of PW2 and 3. Ex.P2 is the said confession and recovery panchanama. Thereafter he arrested the accused and produced them before the court for judicial custody and handed over the CD file to PW4 to file charge sheet.

20. During his cross examination he denied to the suggestion that the accused are no way connected to this case and a false case is foisted against them for statistical purpose and also that the accused never confessed about anything and nothing was recovered from their possession and false case is foisted by sitting in the police station for statistical purpose.

POINT:-

21. As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 , some unknown offenders gained entry into his “ANOO’S JUTE HANDICRAFTS” situated at L. B. Nagar by cutting the rods of the windows and by removing Asbestos sheets of the roof and committed theft of Printing machinery motors, grinding machine and drilling machines and Mo1 to 5 are

Printing machine and motors.

22.PW2 and 3 are the panch witnesses for the confession of the A1 to A3 and recovery of Mos 1 to 5 from the possession of A1 to A3 pursuant to confession. They stated that, the police called them to police station on 31/10/2014 and shown A1 to A3 7 and requested them to enquire them the, A1 to A3 revealed before them that, on 29/1/14. During night hours, A1 to A3 have gained entry into the Karkhana of PW1 by removing the roof sheets and committed theft of motors, cutting machine, brass pots and in pursuance of confession, police recovered two motors from the possession of accused in their presence under a panchanama and they attested it. During their cross examination , PW2 admitted that , he is working in the company of PW1 and PW3 stated that, he is driver of PW1. As per PWs 2 and 3 , at the time of panchanama, they have seen the motors in dismantled condition besides the police station in a room.

23.As could be seen from the evidence of PW4 – first Investigating Officer, he stated that, he received Ex.P1-complaint from PW1, registered the case, examined the witnesses , conducted the scene of offence panchanama and handed over the investigation to PW5. PW5 –the second Investigating Officer stated that, on 31/1/2014 at about 5-30 PM, his crime party apprehended A1 to A3 while they were moving under the suspicious circumstances passing Printing machinery motors and produced them

before him. Then, he interrogated A1 to A3 in the presence of PWs 2 and 3 and he

recovered five numbers, of Printing Press machinery motors from the possession of A1 under a panchanama in the presence of PWs 2 and 3, then he arrested the accused and produced them before the Court for judicial custody and handed over the Crime

Detailed File to PW4 who filed charge sheet.

24.As could be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, PW5 stated that, he recovered five Printing Press machinery motors from the possession of A1 pursuant to confession under a panchanama in the presence PWs 2 and 3. But PWs 2 and 3 stated that, police recovered two or three Printing Press machinery motors from the possession of A1 to A3. During the cross examination of PWs 2 and 3 clearly stated that they are working under PW1 and also stated that, they have not seen the motors in dismantled condition. Thus, there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW5 and the panch witnesses / PWs 2 and 3. Apart from that, this confession in the presence of police persons in the police station not admissible u/s. 25 of Indian

Evidence Act.

8

25.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after careful scrutiny of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, it is the considered view of this Court that, the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/ss. 457, 380 IPC.

RESULT:-

26.In the result, the accused/ 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 457, 380 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled. The Mos 1 to 5 which were already returned to

PW1 shall be his absolute property after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her , corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 9 th day of November, 2015.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 – N. Srinivas Reddy - Nil - PW 2 - Smt. G. Sangeetha PW 3 - M. Shanker PW 4 - K. Praveen Kumar PW 5 - D. Nanu Naik

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 - Confessin and recovery panchanama Ex.P3 – FIR Ex.P4 – Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 – Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : 5 numbers printing press machine motors

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRL.MAGISTRATE

FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, CYBERABAD

Present: Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, B.Sc., LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 9 th day of November, 2015

CC. No. 940 /2010

Between :

The State through

PS L. B. Nagar …..Complainant

And

A1) Kalamanchi Gnaneshwar @ Ganesh, S/o Yadaiah, Age : 30 years, Occ: Hamali at fruit market, Kothapet,

A2) Kalamanchi Anil Kumar, S/o Yadaiah Age : 19 years, Occ: Student,

A3) Kalamanchi Yadaiah, S/o late Maisaiah, Age : 61 years, Occ: Hamali at fruit market, Kothapet (All R/o : Sai Nagar Colony Huts, Road No.4, L. B. Nagar. ) ….Accused 1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. P. Venkat Ramulu , Advocate for the accused 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, L. B. Nagar Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.

No. 712 / 2010 against Accused 1 to 3 for the offences punishable Under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11/6/2010 at 20-30 AM from Smt. A.

Muthamma /PW1 stating that on 11/6/2010 at 1-00 PM while cooking in their hut located at Sai Nagar, the neighbour hut dwellers Lalitha, Anil, Bheemu, Yadaiah,

Ganesh are came with stick and beat her son / Ravi and Raju on head and received bleeding injuries severely and also beat her daughter Sandhya with hands. They 2 attacked on them keeping grudges about the earlier happened issue. Hence requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW-9 / M. Sridhar Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.712/ 2010 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW10 / PW8. During his investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the Lws 1 to 6 / Pw1, Smt. Manipadu Jyothi, PW2, A. Venkat, PW3, PW4,

PW5) and visited the scene of offence. As per the version of eye witness / LW2 and enquires caused at the scene the involvement of Lalitha, Bheemu, whose names are mentioned as accused in FIR, has not established. As such their names are deleted from the case. On 2/7/2010 at 9-00 hours the accused persons were taken into custody at Sai Nagar Colony and brought them to PS at 9-30 hours and produced

before the LW10/ PW8. PW8 effected the arrest of accused persons by issuing arrest

memos after informing the grounds of their arrest and complied with Section 50 Cr.P.C., when questioned the accused , they admitted their guilt and the accursed are forwarded to the Court for Judicial remand. After collecting the wound certificates of injured, case will be finalized. The LW7 / PW5 is medical officer who treated the injured Lws 4 and 6 (Pws 3 and 5) and opined that the injuries sustained by the injured LW4 are in

GREVIOUS and another injured LW6 sustained with simple injuries. The LW8 /PW6 is the medical officer of Gandhi hospital who treated another injured /LW5 and opined that the injuries sustained by the injured are GREVIOUS in nature. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons 1 to 3.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons 1 to 3 for the offences punishable Under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused persons 1 to 3 , they were examined Under Sec.

239 Cr.P.C . On consideration, charge Under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons 1 to 3 denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused persons 1 to 3

for the offences punishable Under Sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and Exs. P1 to P5 stands for scrutiny. PW-1 is the complainant and eye witness, PW-2 eye witness , PW-3 to PW-5 are injured persons,

PW-6 treated injured Pws 3 and 5, PW-7 treated the injured PW4, PW-8 investigation officer and filed charge sheet.

11. PW1 (Smt. A. Muthamma) deposed in her chief examination that she is resident of Sainagar. LW3 is her daughter, LW2 is independent witness, LW4 is her neighbour,

LW5 is her son. About two years back while she was at house in the after noon at 1-00

PM the accused 1 to 3 went to her house and beat LW5 with sticks and fell unconscious causing bleeding injury on his head who is her son. Then she went to police station and gave report under Ex.P1. Police examined her. The A1 beat LW5 with stick.

The motive for the disputes is due to previous pretty disputes. The incident is witnessed by the neighbours.

13. During her cross examination that the counsel for accused did not attend to the

Court as such the court has asked the accused to cross the witness after narrating the evidence adduced by the witness. The accused did not cross examine the witness, hence cross examination treated nil.

The witness is recalled on 27/7/2015 for cross examination and she deposed that, when the galata took place she was cooking food in her house, she rushed to the scene of offence ie., in front of her house on hearing sounds. She has not seen who 4 caused injuries on LW5. There are previous grudges between LW5 and the accused.

She denied to the suggestion that the accused never caused any injuries on the injured and false case is filed against the accused due to previous enmity and she is deposing false.

14. PW2 (Sandhya) deposed in her chief examination that, she is resident of

Sainagar. PW1 is her mother, LW5 is younger brother. About two years back while they are at house in the afternoon at 1-00 PM , the accused 1 to 3 went to their house and abused in filthy language and when she asked you not to abuse and the accused beat her and also beat LW5 and that they are in drunken state. The accused 1 and 2 beat LW5 with sticks, A2 beat her in stomach and others also beat them and that they went to police station and gave report and they are shifted to hospital for treatment.

Police examined her. Police accompanied them to the hospital. The motive for the disputes is due to previous pretty disputes, this incident is witnessed by the neighbours.

15.During her cross examination that the counsel for accused did not attend to the

Court as such the court has asked the accused to cross the witness after narrating the evidence adduced by the witness. The accused did not cross examine the witness, hence cross examination treated nil.

The witness is recalled on 5/11/2015 and she denied to the suggestion that she has not stated before the police as in her chief examination and also that she has previous enmity with the accused and the accused never beat her and she is deposing false.

16.PW3 (A. Venkat) deposed in his chief examination that he is resident of

Sainagar Colony, he knew Pws 1 and 2 and also the accused persons 1 to 3. In the year 2010 he returned from Tirupathi and slept in his house and his mother woke him up for lunch and he went to photo studio for photos and his sister called him up stating that, LW5 was being beaten and that he immediately went back and when he question the accused 1 to 3 to that the accused beat him with stick causing injury on his left 5 hand index finger and LW5 received bleeding injury on his head and that they went to police station and gave report . Police examined him.

17. The witness is recalled on 23/9/2015 for cross examiantion and he admitted that he went to the spot after the incident is over and when he went there several people gathered and some body in mob caused injuries on PW3 left hand index finger. He denied to the suggestion that the specific overtacts of the accused and also that they foisted a false case against the accused and deposing false.

18. PW4 (A. Raju) deposed in his chief examination that he is resident of Sainagar colony. He knew Pws 1 to 3 and the accused 1 to 3. In the year 2010 he returned from coolie work and having lunch in his house and the accused A1 to A3 are beating his sister, parents brother and when he intervened to that you beat him on his head with stick and PW3 and the accused went in drunken state and that they went to police station and gave report. Police examined him.

19. The witness is recalled on 23/9/2015 for cross examination and he admitted that he went to the spot after the incident is over and when he went there several people gathered and some body in mob caused injuries on PW3 left hand index finger. He denied to the suggestion that the specific over-tacts of the accused and also that they foisted a false case against the accused and deposing false.

20. PW5 (Ravi) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of Nagole and on 11.06.2010 when he went to the house at 1-00 pm all the persons standing in the dock came and beat him, PW 3 & 4 and PW 4 received bleeding injury on head and also he received bleeding injury and that PW 1 who is his mother went to PS and given report. He do not know the specific reason for galata though they have previous disputes. Police examined me.

21. During his cross examination the Court has called for the counsel for accused and made witness to wait till 5 PM but the counsel for accused did not attend to the court as such the Court has asked the accused to cross the witness after narrating the 6 evidence adduced by the witness. The accused did not cross examine the witness, hence cross examination treated nil.

22. PW6 (A. Srinivas Goud) deposed in his chief examination that he is resident of

Nagole and presently working as Orthopedic Surgeon at Pavan Sai Hospital Nagole.

On 11/6/2010 at 2-15 PM, he examined PW3 and found the following injuries: -

Soft issue injury simple in nature and he issued medical certificates

On the same day he also examined PW5 and found head injury, simple in nature and issued medical certificate. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are medical certificates. The injuries under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are possible with a stick.

23. During his cross examination he deposed that the injuries are possible if he falls on the hard surface.

24. PW7 (Dr. Pratap Kumar ) deposed in his chief examination that, he is resident of

Uppal. He has been working as Neuro Surgeon at Gandhi hospital since 2006. On 12/6/2010 at 1-30AM , he examined PW4-Raju and found following injuries:

Head injury and they have done C.T.Scan of Brain which shows acute extradural aemotoma along with right partial lobe which is grievous in nature and he issued Ex.P4 -medical certificate.

25. During his cross examination he deposed that the injuries are possible if he falls on the hard surface.

26. PW8 (R. Ravinder) deposed in his chief examination that earlier he worked as

Sub Inspector of Police at L. B. Nagar. On 11/6/2010 on the complaint of PW1, LW9-

Sridhar Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.712 / 2010 u/s. 324 r/w 34

IPC and issued FIR -Ex.P5 and entrusted investigation to him. During his investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW5 and LW2 -M.

Jyothi. By the date of complaint the injured were already treated in Gandhi hospital and Pavan Sai Hospital. On 2/7/2010 on reliable information he arrested the accused 1 to 3 and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. Basing on the Medical 7 certificate he altered the section of law from 324 to 326, 3234 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 by deleting the names of Lalitha and Bheem since no offence is established against them.

19. During his cross examination he denied to the suggestion that his investigation is table made investigation and he has not properly investigated and falsely foisted against the accused and also that the accused are no where connected with this case and he foisted false case against the accused at the instance of Pws 1 to 5. He admitted that during his investigation he came to know that there are old grudges between Pws 1 to 5 family and accused family regarding fetching drinking water. Prior to this incident Pws 1 to 5 quarreled with the accused with regard to fetching of drinking water.

POINT:-

20.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 who is complainant, PW1 stated that, when the galata took place she was cooking food in the house and rushed to the scene of offence infront of her house on hearing sounds. PW1 stated that, she has not seen who caused injuries on PW4. She stated that, there are previous grudges between PW4 and accused. The injured persons also during their cross examination admitted that , they went to the spot after the incident is over and by that time, there are several people gathered and some body in MOB caused injury on them. They categorically admitted that, they cannot say the specific over tact’s of the accused.

21.It seems that, this motor was compromised between the parties outside the Court and for that reason, the complainant and injured persons who are not speaking against accused and speaking different from their chief examinations. In the said circumstances, this Court is the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

8

RESULT:-

22.In the result, the accused / 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her , corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 9 th day of November, 2015.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 – A. Muthamma - Nil - PW 2 - A. Sandhya PW 3 - A. Venkat PW 4 - A. Raju PW 5 - A. Ravi PW6 – A. Srinivas Goud PW7 – Dr. Prathap Kumar PW8 – R. Ravinder

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 – Medical certificates Ex.P5 – FIR

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRL.MAGISTRATE

FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, CYBERABAD

Present: Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, B.Sc., LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 6 th day of November, 2015

CC. No. 1868 /2014

Between :

The State through

PS Meerpet …..Complainant

And

Narsing Rajshekar Goud, S/o Narsing Satyam Goud, Age : 22 years, Occ: Driver, R/o : H.No.10-209, Prashanthi Nagar, Balapur X Road, Saroornagar , R.R. District. ….Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Y. Venkat Rami Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Meerpet Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr. No.

396 / 2014 against Accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 452, 354 D, 506 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 03/7/2014 at 9-30 AM a Telugu written complaint was lodged by Smt. Ramya / PW1 stating that when she worked as Nurse at

R K. Hospital, Jillelaguda , the accused also worked in R. K. Medical shop and last few days, the accused is harassing the PW1 to marry him, then she resigned the job, even though the accused followed her and on 2/7/2014 at 6-00 PM the accused entered into her huse and threatened PW1 showing the knife with dire consequence to kill her and her family members with a demand to love him and perform marriage. Hence requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW-6 / P. Sreedhar Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.396 / 2014 under Sections 452, 354 D, 506 IPC and entrusted the investigation to LW7 / PW3. During his investigation, he collected 2 evidence of Lws 1 to 3 (PW1, George, PW2) , visited the scene of offence situated at

H.No.2-97, Jillelguda, Adarsh Enclave beside Silver Drop School, Saroornagar (M),

R.R. District and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lws 4 and 5 (Sadula Kumar and Beema Raju) . After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused .

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable Under

Sections 452, 354 D , 506 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused , he was examined Under Sec. 239 Cr.P.C . On consideration, charge Under Sections 452, 354 D, 506 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in mother tongue to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs. P1 to P5 were marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating substance found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused for the

offences punishable Under Section 452, 354 D, 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs. P1 to P5 stands for scrutiny. PW-1 is the complainant and eye witness, PW-2 is eye witness and mother of PW1, PW-3 is investigation officer and arrested the accused.

11. PW1 (Smt. Ramya) deposed in her chief examination that, she is resident of

Jillelaguda and knew the accused. Herself and accused worked at R.K. Hospital at L.

B. Nagar and there was a pety dispute arose between them for which she gave 3 complaint against him u/Ex.P1. After lodging the case both are compromised the case, as such she do not want to proceed this case. Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare the witness hostile and cross examined by him. She denied to the suggestion that, she has not stated before the police as in Ex.P2 that the accused harassed her and followed her regularly and threatened her with knife to kill if she do not marry him and now she is deposing false to help the accused out of compromise.

During cross examination by the accused, she deposed that she do not know the contents of her complaint / Ex.P1.

13. PW2 (Manohara) deposed in her chief examination that he is resident of

Jillelaguda and PW1 is her daughter and she do not know anything about the case.

Police did not examined her and did not record her statement.

14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare the witness hostile and cross examined by him. She denied to the suggestion that, she has not stated before the police as in Ex.P3 that the accused harassed PW1 and followed PW1 regularly and threatened PW1 with knife to kill if she do not marry him and now she is deposing false to help the accused out of compromise.

15. PW3 (Srikanth) deposed in his chief examination that previously previously he worked as SI of police at Meerpet from 2/1/2014 to 14/11/2014. On 3/7/2014 on the complaint of PW1, LW6 / P. Sreedhar Reddy, Inspector of police registered a case in

Cr.No.396 / 2014 u/s. 452, 354 D, 506 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P4 and entrusted investigation to him. During the course of his investigation, he recorded the statements of Pws 1 and 2 LW2/George. He also visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P5 in the presence of LW4 / Sadula Kumar and LW5 / Bheema Raju Bhikshapathi. On 3/7/2014 he arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial custody. Thereafter he handed over the CD file to LW8 / Md. Abdul Hameed Sub Inspector of Police to file charge sheet.

4

16. During his cross examination he denied to the suggestion that the accused never trespassed into the house PW1 and never followed her and never harassed her to marry and a false case is foisted against the accused by preparing a papers by sitting in the police station and he is deposing false.

POINT :-

17.As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 , she stated that herself and accused worked at R.K. Hospital at L. B. Nagar and there was a petty dispute arouse between them. Then, she approached to the police . On the instructions of the police, she lodged Ex.P1-complaint and after lodging the case, they both compromised the case and she do not want to proceed against accused. PW2 – independent witness to the prosecution case, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

PW3 is the Investigating Officer who stated that, he received the complaint from PW1, registered the case, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused on 3/7/2014 and handed over the Crime Detailed File to LW8 / Md. Abdul Hameed, Sub Inspector of

Police who filed charge sheet.

18.As could be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, PWs 1and 2 have not stated anything against the accused and turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It seems that, the matter has been compromised between the PW1 and the accused and in that view of the matter , PWs 1 and 2 are not speaking against accused. Under those circumstances, this Court is of the considered view, prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 452, 354

D(2) and 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

RESULT:-

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 452, 354 D (2) and 506 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s. 248(1) Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me, in the

open court on this the 6 th day of November, 2015.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 – Smt. Ramya - Nil - PW 2 - Smt. Manohara PW 3 - K. Srikanth

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 - Statement of PW1 u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P3 – Statement of PW2 u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P4 – FIR Ex.P5 – Scene of offence panchanama

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-PRL.MAGISTRATE

FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, CYBERABAD

Present: Sri. Mohd. Yousuf, B.Sc., LL.M., II Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad At L. B. Nagar

Dated this the 19 th day of November, 2015

CC. No. 1136 /2013

Between :

The State through

PS L. B. Nagar …..Complainant

And

A1) Pindiya, S/o late Chinna Poti, Age : 40 years, Occ: Business,

A2) Girija, W/o Pindya, Age: 38 years, Occ: Flower business, (Both R/o : Advasi Colony Huts, Mansoorabad, Bandlaguda, L. B. Nagar ) ….Accused 1 and 2

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Ananth Kumar, Advocate for the accused 1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, L. B. Nagar Police Station laid charge sheet in Cr.

No. 307 / 2013 against Accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable Under Section 324 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 13/02/2013 at 23-30 hours one Smt.

Goura /LW1 filed a complaint stating that on 13/3/2013 at 7-00 PM while her son /

Lakhraj aged two years was witnessing TV in the house of the accused , he beat her son with hands saying that he has no work, when she questioned the accused , he also picked up quarel with her and beat her with stick on her head, meanwhile her husband /

Jagadish came there and asked the accused as to why he is beating his wife and son, then the accused quarreled and beat him with sticks on his legs and hands and he also received blunt injuries and she received head injury. Hence requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons.

2

3. Basing on the above complaint, LW-12 / PW2 Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.307 / 2013 under Section 324 IPC and took up the investigation.

During his investigation, he sent PW12 to Medicare hospital, L. B. Nagar for treatment and her husband/ Jagadish for treatment and medical certificate. He also examined and recorded the statement of the Lws 1 to 7 / Smt. Goura, Jagadish, Smt. Sandhya,

Yogesh, Smt. M. Bhai, Smt. Mithuna, Kumari Aishwarya) and also secured the presence of mediators Lws 8 & 9 ( Godinpoor, Bukya Baskar) and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch of the scene and seized one stick with which the accused beat Lws 1 and 2 (Smt. Goura and Jagadish) under cover of panchanama and affixed panch chits to it and thus collected evidence in this case. On 14/3/2013 at 10-30 AM the accused was brought to police station and produced before him by I/d party and woman PC 5703-Surekha. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. LW10/ PW1 treated Lw1/ Smt.

Goura and opined that the nature of injuries were 'simple in nature'. LW11/ Dr. K.

Shankar treated LW2 / Jagadish and opined that the nature of injuries were 'simple in nature'. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused persons 1 and 2.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused persons 1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Section 324 of IPC.

5. On appearance of accused persons 1 and 2 , they were examined Under Sec.

239 Cr.P.C . On consideration, charge Under Section 324 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in mother tongue to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to

P4 were marked.

3

7. After closure of the prosecution when examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons 1 and 2 denied the incriminating substance found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8. The Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused persons 1 and

2 for the offences punishable Under Sections 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9. Heard both sides.

10. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exs. P1 to P4 stands for scrutiny. PW-1 treated the LW1/Smt. Goura and PW2 is investigation officer and filed charge sheet.

11. PW1 (Dr. M. Venkateshwar Reddy) deposed in his chief examination that he is running Medicare Hospital at L.B.Nagar since 20 years. On 13.3.2013 at 10.30 P.M.

he has examined L.W.1- Smt Goura and found the following injuries.

1) Laceration of 5 cm over the fore head 2) Tenderness over the back

All the injures are fresh and simple in nature. He issued Ex.P1- Medical Certificate.

During his cross examination he deposed that t he injuries in Ex.P1 are possible 12.

if a speed auto touches the person.

PW2 (K. Sudhakar) deposed in her chief examination that, p reviously he worked 13.

as Sub Inspector of Police L.B.Nagar from 06.05.2012 to 23.06.2015. On 13.02.2013 on the compliant of L.W.1- Smt. Goura he registered a case in Cr. No.

307/2013 U/s. 324 of IPC and issued Ex.P2 F.I.R and took up the investigation,

During the course of his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

L.W.8- Godinpur and L.W.9-B. Bhasker and seized stick from the scene of offence i.e. Adivasi Colony, L.B.Nagar. He also referred the injured i.e. L.W.1-Goura to P.W.1 4 and L.W.2- Jagadish to Osmania General Hospital. On 14.3.2013 he arrested the accused and produced them before the court for judicial custody. After collecting the medical Certificates and after completion of his investigation he filed the charge sheet. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 is the Medical

Certificate issued by Casualty Medical Officer of Osmania Hospital. MO.1 is the stick.

During his cross examination he denied to the suggestion that the accused are 14.

no way connected to the present case and they never caused any injuries on L.W.1 and 2 and a false case is foisted by him by sitting in the police station at the instance of L.W.1-Goura.

15. As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 he examined LW1/ Smt. Goura and issued Ex.P1 – medical certificate.

16. As could be seen from the evidence of PW2, he has spoken about the investigation done by him in this case. This is a case identified for disposal till

December, 2015. But the prosecution instead of giving sufficient opportunities and time, failed to produce all the material witnesses in this case such as complainant / injured and eye witness etc., The evidence of Lws 1 to 3 was closed on 4/8/2015 , the evidence of Lws 4 to 6 was closed on 18/8/2015, on the report of the police stating that the whereabouts of Lws 1 to 6 are not known. Thus I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt against accused for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC.

5

RESULT:-

17. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s. 248 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled . The Mo1-stick shall be destroyed after expiry of Appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 19 th day of November, 2015.

Sd/-

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:-

PW 1 – Dr. Venkateshwar Reddy - Nil - PW 2 - K. Sudhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Medical Certificate Ex.P2 - FIR Ex.P3 – Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 – Medical certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 – STICK

Sd/-

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AT L.B. NAGAR, R.R. DIST.

// true copy//