Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel

C.C. No. 131/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this 30th day of January, 2015

C.C.No. 131/2011

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. …Complainant

A n d

1.Rangala Ramana, S/o Apparao @ Peda Apparao, Aged 24 years, Settibalija, Lorry Cleaner, Batajangalapalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal.

2.Rangala Ramu, S/o Apparao @ Peda Apparao, Aged 23 years, Settibalija, Lorry Cleaner, Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal.

…Accused

This case is coming on 28-01-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and Sri M. Jayaram, Advocate counsel for accused and after having perused the evidence adduce on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 68/2011 against accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable u/sec.326, 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

02.The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows: -

The families of complainant and all accused were having disputes with regard to Brinjal tope. On 26-04-2011 at about 17.00 hrs., while P.W.1/Rangala Annapurna was cleaning rice outside of her house, both accused A.1 and A.2 in furtherance of their common intention came and caught hold of tuft of her hair and dragged her. They beat her with hands. When P.W.2/Rangala Polipalli tried to rescue her, accused A.2 beat him with knife and caused bleeding injury. Accused A.1 also beat him with stick on his left hand and caused grievous injury. Basing upon complaint report of P.W.1/Annapurna, P.W.6/Ch. Ramesh, Asst. Sub

Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.68/2011 for the offence u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch of scene. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.

On 02-05-2011, he arrested both accused and sent them for judicial custody. Basing upon wound certificate of P.W.2/Polipalli, that shows injury on forearm as grievous in nature, Sec.326 IPC was added. The original F.I.R contained the names of other accused but as per investigation and after obtaining permission from Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Anakapalle, their names were deleted. Upon completion of investigation, P.W.7/Y. Murali Rao, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.The case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence under section 326 and 324 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

04.The accused A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. Upon hearing, charge framed u/sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.326 and 324 IPC was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined witnesses

P.W.1 to P.W.7 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.6 as indicated in appendix of evidence.

06.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A.1 and A.2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidences against them and reported no defence.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence u/sec.326, 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” POINT :

09.P.W.1 and P.W.2 are injured witnesses. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.5 is the Doctor who examined P.W.2 and issued wound certificate. P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer who registered the crime and investigated into it. P.W.7 is the Investigating

Officer who registered altered F.I.R basing on wound certificate.

10.P.W.1 [Rongala Annapurna] deposes that accused A.1 and

A.2 are her relatives and P.W.2 is her brother-in-law. On 26-04-2011 at about 5.00 p.m., while she was separating stones from rice outside her house, both accused A.1 and A.2 came along with others and caught hold tuft of her hair. Accused A.2 beat her with stick on her forehead and she sustained bleeding injury. P.W.2 came to her rescue and accused A.2 beat him with stick on his left hand. Due to that he sustained fracture injury. Other persons present viz., Appalakonda, Tatarao, Demudamma and Apparao also beat her. Then her brother by name Koti shifted her and P.W.2 to Sabbavaram hospital. She then gave complaint report to police, which is exhibited as P.1. She further deposes that accused beat her due to previous grudges with regard to land. L.W.3/R. Demudu who is her husband was also present at the time of incident but he is no more today as he died in the year 2012.

11.In cross examination, P.W.1 deposes that accused family has filed criminal case against her family members. She admitted that she has not stated to police that her brother Koti shifted her to Sabbavaram hospital after 6.00 p.m., on the day of incident.

12.P.W.2 [Rongala Polipalli] who is also injured witness corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars. He further deposes that accused A.1 beat him with knife on his head and he sustained bleeding injury. Other accused too beat him with sticks on his back.

13.In cross examination, P.W.2 denied suggestion that he has not stated to police that he sustained only contused injury on his left hand. The excerpt from his sec.161 Cr.P.C statement to that affect it is exhibited as D.2. He further deposes that at the time of incident all persons in neighborhood were present but no one came forward.

14.P.W.3 [A. Appalanarsa] corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars. In cross examination, she denied exhibit D.3 i.e., excerpt from her sec.161 Cr.P.C statement which reads that she came to know about the incident and not witnessed it.

15.P.W.4 [T. Mahalaxmi] who is presented as witness to the incident did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Her

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement to police is exhibited as P.2, which she denied.

16.P.W.5 [Dr. D. Laxmi Tulasi] deposes that on 26-04-2011 at about 9.53 p.m., she examined P.W.2 and found the following injuries.

1.A laceration of 3 cm x 1 cm over parietal region of the head.

2. Pain, swelling and tenderness over the left forehand.

The case was referred to K.G. Hospital for expert opinion. She verified the X-ray opinion given by Radiologist on 25-05-2011, which shows the following injuries.

1. Fracture Terminal Phalanx of V digit.

2. Fracture left ulna seen through POP casting.

She opined above injuries as per X-ray as grievous in nature whereas laceration of 3cm x 1cm as simple in nature. She issued wound certificate accordingly which is exhibited as P.3.

17. P.W.6 [Ch. Ramesh, the then Asst. Sub Inspector of Police] deposes that on 26-04-2011 at about 21.00 hrs., basing upon complaint report of P.W.1, he registered the case as in Cr.No.68/2011 for the offences u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC. Original F.I.R is exhibited as P.4.

He examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. He then sent P.W.2 to

Government hospital for treatment. On next day, he visited Government hospital and examined P.W.2 and recorded his statement. He then visited the scene of offence situated at Batajangalapalem village in

Sabbavaram Mandal, examined scene and prepared rough sketch which is exhibited as P.5. He also examined other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 02-05-2011, accused A.1 and A.2 surrendered before him in police station and was sent for judicial custody. He has taken permission from D.S.P, Anakapalle to delete names of other accused shown in F.I.R i.e., R. Demudu, Peda Apparao and R. Apparao. After receipt of wound certificate, he forwarded the case file to P.W.7/Y. Murali

Rao, Sub Inspector of Police.

18.In cross examination, he deposes that he has not examined residents of houses surrounding the scene of offence. He further deposes that he has not recovered any material objects from the scene of offence.

19.P.W.7 [Y. Murali Rao, the then Sub Inspector of Police] deposes that on 04-06-2011, he received wound certificate and altered offence in F.I.R to sec.326 IPC. Altered F.I.R is exhibited as P.6. On same day, he verified investigation done by P.W.6 and filed charge sheet against accused A.1 and A.2.

20.Upon perusal of depositions, exhibits and material available on record, I found the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are injured witnesses to be cogent, reliable and trust worthy. The defence counsel argued that there are discrepancies in the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

He contended that as per Ex.D.1 i.e., excerpt from sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1, she did not state to police that she visited hospital

before going to police station. Further as per Ex.D.2 i.e., excerpt from

sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2, P.W.2 did not state to police that he sustained contused injury on his left hand. Whether such minor discrepancies in the evidence of injured witnesses are material?

21.To answer this, I take guidance from observation made by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhain Hirjibhai Vs. State of

Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 wherein it is held that the

discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and do not

shake the basic version of the witnesses cannot be annexed with

undue importance. In the case on hand, I am of view that though there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses but such discrepancies do not shake the basic version of the witnesses anddoes not cast doubt on the incident as alleged.

21.The defence counsel further argued that no independent witness was examined from the scene and P.W.4 who was projected as eye-witness turned hostile. He contended that in absence of any independent witness, evidence of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. To answer this I take guidance of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State

of U.P vs Anil Singh decided on 26 August, 1988 reported in AIR

1988 SC 1998 wherein His Lordship observed that the public are

generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is,

therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the

ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined.

Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by

independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and

acceptable”. Hence in view of above observation, I found that in absence of any independent witness examined from the scene of offence, the evidence of injured witnesses cannot be rejected when it is found to be cogent and trustworthy.

22.The defence counsel extended his arguments by confronting to the deposition of P.W.1 where she stated that she has sustained bleeding injury on her head but no wound certificate is placed on file. He also argued that as P.W.1 has added embellishments to the case her evidence cannot be relied upon. Once again to answer this, I take guidance from the observation made by the Privy counsel in “Bankim

Chander Vs. Matangini reported in 24 C.W.N 626 PC, where the Privy

Counsel had this to say (at 628) “That in Indian litigation it is not

safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in

support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, since there

is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a

good case by false or exaggerated evidence.” Hence, evidence of P.W.1 cannot be rejected in toto even if she has added embellishments to her case.

23.Now coming to the offence to be proved by prosecution, the original F.I.R was registered for the offences u/sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and basing upon altered F.I.R sec.326 IPC was added. As per the case of prosecution both families of complainant and accused are having disputes over the land. On the day of incident both accused and beat

P.W.1 and P.W.2. To prove offence u/sec.326 IPC the essential ingredients are : (1) Voluntarily causing hurt, (2) Hurt must be a grievous hurt and (3) Hurt must be caused by dangerous weapon.

24.From the evidence of witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is clear that accused A.1 voluntary beat P.W.2 with stick on his left hand. Hence the first ingredient is answered.Coming to the second ingredient i.e., causing grievous hurt, P.W.5/Dr. Laxmi Tulasi examined P.W.2 and referred for radiologist opinion. From x-ray report, she found fracture terminal phalanx of V digit and fracture left ulna. But such X-ray report and opinion of radiologist were not filed in this case record. Non production of X-ray report and non examination of radiologist who took

X-ray are sufficient to deduce that criminal liability u/sec.326 IPC is not established. This flaw is a stronger one shaking the case of prosecution.

However, from injury No.2 in wound certificate i.e., pain, swelling and tenderness over the left forehand, it can be made out that a simple hurt is caused with stick as weapon. Hence the offence u/sec.324 IPC is made out against accused A.2 for causing simple injury to P.W.2 with stick.

26.So far Sec.324 IPC is concerned i.e., causing simple injury to

P.W.2 with knife by A.1. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that accused A.1 beat him with knife on his head causing bleeding injury. The same is corroborated by complaint report. On perusal of wound certificate, I found injury No.1 is laceration of 3cm x 1cm over parietal region of the head. The evidence of P.W.2 is also corroborated by wound certificate.

Nevertheless, in absence of recovery of knife, it cannot be said that such knife was not a dangerous weapon when injured witness has described it.

Hence, the case is made out for offence u/sec.324 IPC against accused

A.1 for voluntarily causing simple hurt to P.W.2.

27.So far as causing hurt to P.W.1 with stick is concerned which is an offence punishable u/sec 324 IPC, no wound certificate is filed

before this court. It is the evidence of injured witnesses that P.W.1 was

not examined by doctor. However, the evidences of all three witnesses

P.W.1 to P.W.3 are corroborated with each other with regard to accused dragging her by tuft of her hair and thereby voluntarily causing simple hurt. Though there is no wound certificate of P.W.1 on record, I found that the incident started with dragging the P.W.1 on ground. Hence both accused are found guilty for the offence u/sec.323 IPC.

28.Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I found that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused A.1 and A.2 for the offence u/sec.326 IPC. However, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused A.1 and A.2 for the offences u/secs.324, 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

29.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 IPC and they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. However, accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for offence u/sec 326 IPC and are acquitted u/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C.

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

me in open Court on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

30.Heard the accused A.1 and A.2 on the quantum of sentence that has to be imposed for the offence under section 324, 323 IPC vide separate sheet.

31.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that dispute in this case took place due to previous grudges among complainant and accused, I consider it is not a fit case to release the accused A.1 and A.2 under probation of offenders act or invoke the provisions u/sec.360 of Cr.P.C. However, having gone through the record once again, considering the circumstances, injuries and age of accused, I feel it is a fit case to take lenient view in imposing punishment and I am of view that imposing fine amount to accused A.1 and A.2 will meet the ends of justice.

32.In the result, considering injuries, nature of offence and other circumstances above, the accused A.1 and A.2 are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C for offence under section 324, 323 IPC. Both A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each for offence u/sec 324

IPC, in default of payment, they should suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further both A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for offence u/sec 323 IPC, in default of payment, they should suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The bail bonds of accused A.1 and

A.2 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The accused A.1 and A.2 are informed about their right to appeal and free Legal Aid before appellate court. Since, no material object is produced before court, no order for it's disposal.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 30th of January 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution

P.W.1: Rangala Annapurna P.W.2: Rangala Polipalli P.W.3: A. Appalanarsamma P.W.4: T. Mahalaxmi P.W.5: Dr. D. Lakshmi Tulasi P.W.6: Ch. Ramesh, the then Asst. Sub Inspector of Police P.W.7: Y. Murali Rao, Sub Inspector of Police.

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.5 Ex.P.3 : Wound certificate Ex.P.4 : Original F.I.R. Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.6 : Altered F.I.R.

Accused: Ex.D.1: 19th line of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.1. Ex.D.2 : 12th line of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.2 Ex.D.3 : 9th line of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of L.W.4

No. of Material Objects Marked

-Nil-

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

ANAKAPALLE

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 26-04-2011 Date of report or complaint: : 26-04-2011 Date of apprehension of accused: 02-05-2011 Date release on bail, if any: 03-05-2011 Date of commencement of trial: 02-05-2014 Close of trial: 10-11-2014 Date of sentence or other order: 30-01-2015 Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, due to delay in serving of summons to accused. ______________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.131/2011 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station, Sabbavaram ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

1. Rangala Ramana, S/o Apparao @ Peda Apparao, 24 years, Settibalija, Lorry Cleaner, Batajangalapalem village, Sabbavaram Mandal.

2. Rangala Ramu, S/o Apparao @ Peda Apparao, 23 years, Settibalija, Lorry Cleaner, Batajangalapalem Village, Sabbavaram Mandal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: 326, 324 IPC

Finding: Not Guilty for the offence u/sec.326 IPC Guilty for the offences u/sec.324, 323 IPC

Sentence: In the result, accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for offence u/sec 326 IPC and are acquitted u/sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. However, accused A.1 and A.2 are found guilty for offence u/sec 324, 323 IPC and are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C. Considering injuries, nature of offence and other circumstances above, the accused A.1 and A.2 are convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C for offence under section 324, 323 IPC. Both A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each for offence u/sec 324 IPC, in default of payment, they should suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months. Further both A.1 and A.2 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for offence u/sec 323 IPC, in default of payment, they should suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The bail bonds of accused A.1 and A.2 shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The accused A.1 and A.2 are informed about their right to appeal and free Legal Aid before appellate court. Since, no material object is produced before court, no order for it's disposal.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

ANAKAPALLE

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP

C.C. No. 357/2010

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this 30th day of January, 2015

C.C. No.357/2010

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station. …Complainant

A n d:

1. Dibbadi Satya Hari Shankar Bahanu @ Bhanu @ Siva Sankar Bhanu, S/o Atchibabu @ Atchinaidu, 42 years, Kapu by caste, LIC Agent, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

2. Pandiri Kondala Rao, S/o Apparao, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Lorry driver, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

3. Madaka Satya Rao, S/o Tatalu, 31 years, Kapu by caste, Mason, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

4. Doppa Eswara Rao, S/o Nookaraju, 32 years, Kapu by caste, Coolie, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

5. Karri Raju, S/o Parawada, 20 years, Yadava by caste, Coolie, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 30-01-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri D.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the accused and after having peruse the evidence adduce on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.219/2010 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as

IPC).

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 12-02-2010 at about 07.30 hrs., accused A.1 to A.5 in furtherance of their common intention armed with crow bars came into the land of P.W.1/Gonthina Narasayyamma and damaged foundations. They also beat her with hands and assaulted her modesty. Accused is also threatened her

Page 1

C.C. No. 357/2010 daughter P.W.2/Gonthina Varalaxmi with dire consequences. Basing upon complaint report of P.W.1/Narsayyamma, L.W.9/Y. Appa Rao, Asst. Sub

Inspector of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.219/2010 for the offence u/sec.427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 13-02-2010, accused A.1 to A.5 were arrested by him and were sent for judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, L.W.10/K. Rama

Rao, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.5.

03.The case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused

A.1 to A.5 for the offence under Section 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

04. The accused A.1 to A.5 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing, charge framed u/sec.240 Cr.P.C against accused A.1 to A.5 for the offences u/sec.427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC was read over and explained to accused A.1 to A.5 in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.3 as indicated in the appendix of evidence. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence their evidences were closed.

06.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether prosecution was successful in proving guilt of accused A.1 to A.5 for the offences punishable u/sec.427,

323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

Page 2

C.C. No. 357/2010

09. POINT :

In this case, P.W.1 is the Defacto complainant. In chief examination,

P.W.1 did not support her pleadings as contained in her complaint report though she put her thumb impression on it, which is exhibited as P.1. She even denies her S.161 Cr.P.C statement to police, which is exhibited as P.2.

She simply deposes that she knows accused A.1 to A.5 and they belong to same village. She further deposes that accused A.1 to A.5 did not damage her foundation or beat her. She also deposes that accused did not insulted her modesty or threatened her or her daughter in law P.W.2.

10.P.W.2 who is daughter in law of P.W.1 reiterated the version of

P.W.1. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P as in cross examination under the provision of S.154 of Indian Evidence Act read with S.162 Cr.P.C proviso, it appears that both parties have settled the matter in order to maintain their cordial relationship.

11. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused in proving the ingredients of sec. 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Page 3

C.C. No. 357/2010

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : Gonthina Narsayamma

P.W.2 : Gonthina Varalaxmi

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Thumb impression of P.W.1 on Complaint report.

Ex.P.2 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle

Page 4

C.C. No. 357/2010

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Anakapalle,

Visakhapatnam District.

______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 12-12-2010 Date of report or complaint: : 12-12-2010 Date of apprehension of accused: 18-12-2010 Date release on bail, if any: 18-12-2010 Date of commencement of trial: 30-01-2015 Close of trial: 30-01-2015 Date of sentence or other order: 30-01-2015 Explanation of delay and remarks : Delay due to serving summons to accused ______________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.357/2010 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasimkota Police Station, Kasimkota ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name. 1.Dibbadi Satya Hari Shankar Bahanu @ Bhanu @ Siva Sankar Bhanu, S/o Atchibabu @ Atchinaidu, 42 years, Kapu by caste, LIC Agent, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

2. Pandiri Kondala Rao, S/o Apparao, 24 years, Kapu by caste, Lorry driver, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

3. Madaka Satya Rao, S/o Tatalu, 31 years, Kapu by caste, Mason, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

4. Doppa Eswara Rao, S/o Nookaraju, 32 years, Kapu by caste, Coolie, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal.

5. Karri Raju, S/o Parawada, 20 years, Yadava by caste, Coolie, Parawadapalem village, Kasimkota Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 427, 323, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

Page 5

C.C. No. 357/2010

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP

Page 6

C.C. No. 498/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this 30th day of January, 2015

C.C. No.498/2014

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station. …Complainant

A n d:

1. Boddeda Bhanubabu, S/o Govinda, aged 21 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dr.No.14-28-26, Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.

2. Konathala Ramesh, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 21 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.

3. Konathala Durga Prasad, S/o Trinadh, aged 23 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dr.No.14-26-36, Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.

…Accused

This case coming on 30-01-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri M. Jaya Ram, Advocate for the accused and after having peruse the evidence adduce on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.84/2012 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as

IPC).

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 22-04-2012 at about 17.00 hrs., while P.W.1/Jada Padmavathi and her family members were returning from Dharshan of Nookalamma Temple they stopped at a pan shop near Jagannadh Theatre. At that time accused A.1 to A.3 uttered in foul language at her. On questioning by P.W.3/Jada Apparao, all accused beat him with hands. They also beat P.W.2/Jada Rambabu and

P.W.4/Jada Ramachandra Rao with hands. Basing upon complaint report of

P.W.1/Padmavathi, L.W.8/Ch. Malleswara Rao, Sub Inspector of Police

Page 1

C.C. No. 498/2014 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.84/2012 for the offence u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26-04-2012, accused A.1 to A.3 were arrested by him and were sent for judicial custody.

Upon completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.3.

03.The case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused

A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as

Cr.P.C).

04. The accused A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.

The substance of accusation for the offences u/sec.323, 509 r/w 34 IPC was explained to accused A.1 to A.3 in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to

P.W.4 and exhibited documents P.1 to P.5 as indicated in the appendix of evidence. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence their evidences were closed.

06.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether prosecution was successful in proving guilt of accused A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable u/sec.323,

509 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

09. POINT :

Page 2

C.C. No. 498/2014

In this case, P.W.1 is the Defacto complainant. In chief examination, P.W.1 did not support her pleadings as contained in her complaint report though she put her signature on it, which is exhibited as P.1. She even denies her S.161 Cr.P.C statement to police, which is exhibited as P.2. She simply deposes that she does not know accused A.1 to A.3. She further deposes that accused A.1 to A.3 are not those offenders who uttered foul language at her and beat her family members.

10.P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are her family members of P.W.1 also did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. They all reiterated the version of P.W.1. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P as in cross examination under the provision of S.154 of Indian Evidence Act read with S.162 Cr.P.C proviso, nothing could be elicited from the mouths of P.W.1 to P.W.5 in favour of prosecution other than exhibiting their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are exhibited as P.2 to P.5 respectively, which they denied.

11. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused in proving the ingredients of sec. 323, 509 r/w 34

IPC. Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Page 3

C.C. No. 498/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : Jada Padmavathi.

P.W.2 : Jada Rambabu

P.W.3 : Jada Apparao

P.W.4 : Jada Rama chandra Rao

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint report.

Ex.P.2 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle

Page 4

C.C. No. 498/2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Anakapalle,

Visakhapatnam District.

______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 22-04-2012 Date of report or complaint: : 23-04-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 26-04-2012 Date release on bail, if any: 26-04-2012 Date of commencement of trial: 30-01-2015 Close of trial: 30-01-2015 Date of sentence or other order: 30-01-2015 Explanation of delay and remarks : Delay due to serving summons to accused ______________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.498/2014 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Town Police Station, Anakapalle ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name. 1.Boddeda Bhanubabu, S/o Govinda, aged 21 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dr.No.14- 28-26, Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle.

2. Konathala Ramesh, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 21 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. 2.3. Konathala Durga Prasad, S/o Trinadh, aged 23 years, Gavara by caste, R/o Dr.No.14-26-36, Dibbaveedhi, Gavarapalem, Anakapalle. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 323, 509 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

Page 5

C.C. No. 498/2014

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP

Page 6

C.C. No. 9/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

FRIDAY, this 30th day of January, 2015

C.C. No.9/2013

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station. …Complainant

A n d:

1. Allavarapu Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Ramunaidu, 38 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal.

2. Kari Atchiyya Naidu, S/o Late Gajappa Naidu, 45 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal.

3. Karri Eswara Rao, S/o Late Gajjappa Naidu, 26 years, Farma City Company worker, Kapu, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 30-01-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri M. Jaya Ram, Advocate for the accused and after having peruse the evidence adduce on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.59/2012 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 26-09-2014 during afternoon Government Officers conducted

Pragathipadam meeting at Pallapu Anandapuram village in Munagapaka

Mandal. P.W.1/Karri Chinnayya Naidu attended the meeting with others.

Accused A.1 to A.3 too attended the meeting. During the meeting, an altercation took place between P.W.1/Chinnayyanaidu and accused. During which accused A.1 threatened him with dire consequences and also caused injury with blade. Other accused A.2 and A.3 assaulted him with criminal force and beat him with hands. Basing upon complaint report of P.W.1/Chinnayya

Page 1

C.C. No. 9/2013

Naidu, L.W.8/J. Dharmanna, Head Constable of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.59/2012 for the offence u/sec.352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 17-10-2012, accused A.1 to A.3 were arrested by L.W.9/K. Perraju and were sent for judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, L.W.10/N. Jogarajo, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.3.

03.The case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused

A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

04. The accused A.1 to A.3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing, Charge framed u/sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offences u/sec.352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined witness P.W.1 and and exhibited documents P.1 and P.2 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

As the material witness turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence their evidences were closed.

06.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether prosecution was successful in proving guilt of accused A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable u/sec.352,

324, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

09. POINT :

Page 2

C.C. No. 9/2013

WITNESSEXHIBITS MARKED

P.W.1: Karri Chinnayya P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint report Naidu P.2: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

In this case P.W1 is the Defacto complainant. In chief examination,

P.W.1 did not support his pleadings as contained in his complaint report though he put his signature on it, which is exhibited as P.1. He even denies his

S.161 Cr.P.C statement to police, which is exhibited as P.2. He simply deposes that he knows accused A.1 to A.3 and they belong to same village. He further deposes that no dispute took place between them and accused did not beat him or threatened him. He also deposes that during the meeting he fell down by himself and sustained injuries.

10. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P as in cross examination under the provision of S.154 of Indian Evidence Act read with S.162 Cr.P.C proviso, it appears that both parties have settled the matter in order to maintain their cordial relationship.

12. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused in proving the ingredients of sec. 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 30th day of January, 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Page 3

C.C. No. 9/2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : Karri Chinnayya Naidu

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint report.

Ex.P.2 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle

Page 4

C.C. No. 9/2013

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Anakapalle,

Visakhapatnam District.

______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 26-09-2012 Date of report or complaint: : 26-09-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 17-10-2012 Date release on bail, if any: 17-10-2012 Date of commencement of trial: 30-01-2015 Close of trial: 30-01-2015 Date of sentence or other order: 30-01-2015 Explanation of delay and remarks : Delay due to serving summons to accused ______________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.9/2013 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name. 1.Allavarapu Venkata Ramana, S/o Late Ramunaidu, 38 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal.

2. Kari Atchiyya Naidu, S/o Late Gajappa Naidu, 45 years, Kapu, Cultivation, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal.

3. Karri Eswara Rao, S/o Late Gajjappa Naidu, 26 years, Farma City Company worker, Kapu, Pallapu Anandapuram village, Munagapaka Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 352, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

Page 5

C.C. No. 9/2013

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP

Page 6

C.C. No. 88/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Jaleel,

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

THURSDAY, this 29th day of January, 2015

C.C. No.88/2011

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station. …Complainant

A n d:

1. Penuballi Nooku Reddy @ Nookunaidu, S/o Somaraju, aged 55 years, Reddy, Cultivation, Cherlopalem village, Munagapaka Mandal.

2. Penuballi Ramakrishna, S/o Nookureddy @ Nookunaidu, aged 25 years, Reddy, Cultivation, Cherlopalem village, Munagapaka Mandal.

…Accused

This case coming on 29-01-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II for the prosecution and of Sri V. Rajasekhar, Advocate for the accused and after having peruse the evidence adduce on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.22/2011 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC).

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 17-03-2011 P.W.1/G. Konda Babu went to the belt liquor shop of A.1 to clear his debt which he took on 12-03-2011. An altercation took place between P.W.1/G. Kondababu and accused A.1. During altercation A.1 and A.2 grew wild against P.W.1/Kondababu and beat him with stick and hands. They cause head injury and internal injury to P.W.1/Kondababu. Basing on the report of P.W.1/Konda Babu, L.W.8/K. Suryanarayana, Head Constable of police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.22/2011 for the offence u/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into it. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch. He

Page 1

C.C. No. 88/2011 also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 25-03-2011

L.W.7/Marutheswara Rao, Head Constable of Police arrested A.1 and A.2 and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, L.W.10/

L. Ramana Babu, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2.

03.The case was taken on file by my predecessor against the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

04. The accused A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing, Charge framed u/sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offence u/sec.324 IPC was read over and explained to accused in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the trial.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined witness P.W.1 and and exhibited documents P.1 and P.2 as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

As the material witness turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence their evidences were closed.

06.Since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether on 17-3-2011, Accused A.1 and A.2 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1/G. Konda babu by beating him with stick and hands ?”

09. POINT :

WITNESSEXHIBITS MARKED

P.W.1: G. Kondababu P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on complaint report P.2: S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

In this case P.W1 is the Defacto complainant. In chief examination,

P.W.1 did not support his pleadings as contained in his complaint report though he put his signature on it, which is exhibited as P.1. He even denies his

Page 2

C.C. No. 88/2011

S.161 Cr.P.C statement to police, which is exhibited as P.2. He simply deposes that he knows accused and they belong to same village. He further deposes that no dispute took place between them and accused did not beat him. He further deposes that during Goddess festival, he slipped on ground and sustained injuries and he does not know the contents of complaint report.

10. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P as in cross examination under the provision of S.154 of Indian Evidence Act read with S.162 Cr.P.C proviso, it appears that both parties have settled the matter in order to maintain their cordial relationship.

12. For the foregoing reasons, absolutely there is no incriminating material against the accused A.1 and A.2 in proving the ingredients of sec. 324

IPC. Therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 29th day of January, 2015.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Page 3

C.C. No. 88/2011

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1 : Ganugula Konda Babu

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on Complaint report.

Ex.P.2 : S.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle

Page 4

C.C. No. 88/2011

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at Anakapalle,

Visakhapatnam District.

______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 17-03-2011 Date of report or complaint: : 17-03-2011 Date of apprehension of accused: 25-03-2011 Date release on bail, if any: 25-03-2011 Date of commencement of trial: 29-01-2015 Close of trial: 29-01-2015 Date of sentence or other order: 29-01-2015 Explanation of delay and remarks : Due to delay in serving summons to accused.

______________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 88/2011 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka ______________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name. 1.Penuballi Nooku Reddy @ Nookunaidu, S/o Somaraju, 55 years, Reddy, Cultivation, Cherlopalem village, Munagapaka Mandal.

2. Penuballi Ramakrishna, S/o Nookureddy @ Nookunaidu, 25 years, Reddy, Cultivation, Cherlopalem village, Munagapaka Mandal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: 324 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

Page 5

C.C. No. 88/2011

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

AMM / AKP

Page 6