Smt. N. Anitha Reddy

1 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020 Present: Smt. N. Anitha Reddy, Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Khammam.

J.C.C.No. 42/2019

(Cr.No. 133 of 2019 of P.S, Thallada)

Between: The State - Rep. through the Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S.Thallada .... Complainant

And

Inapanuri Sai, S/o Yesu, age: 15 years, Occ; Student, R/o Muddunuru village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District. ...... Juvenile in Conflict with Law. This case coming on this the 10.01.2020 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P for the state and in the presence of counsel for the Juvenile in conflict with law is I. Laxminarayana, Advocate and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: FINAL ORDER ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Thallada filed final report against the Juvenile in Conflict with Law U/sec.173 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.133/2019, for the offence U/Sec. 354(A), 294(b), 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 05.06.2019 at 05.00 Pm the PW1 came to the police station and lodged a Telugu

Report stating that, on 03.06.2019 at about 09.00 Pm while she was sitting on the cot in front of her house mean time one Inapanuri Sai i.e, Juvenile in conflict with law who is cousin brother came to her and sitting on the cot beside her and caught hold her hand and demand to fulfill his sexual desire. On that she thrown him and trying to beaten him with chappal, but the

Juvenile in conflict with law thrown her and fled away from the spot. On that on the next day on 04.06.2019 at about 11.00 am her mother asked and admonished him about behaviour of him with her on that the Juvenile in conflict with law went to house and took her mother

Inapanuri Jayamma and Inapanuri Ratna Babu they all came to her mother and abused her mother in filthy language and beat her indiscriminately due to that she caused injuries on that 2 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 they went to the village elders and informed the same but they did not held panchayat and on the advise of the elders she came to the police station and requested to take necessary action against him.

Basing on that PW9 registered a case in Cr.No. 133/2019, for the offence U/sec. 354(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2. Later on the next day he visited the scene of offence situated at 06.06.2019 secured the mediators PW8 and LW9/I. Rama Krishna and incorporated

CDF panchanama in their presence and also examined the PW2 to 7 and recorded their statements. Later, on 06.06.2019 he apprehended the accused A1 and A2 and released them on station bail on 10.07.2019. Later, on 16.07.2019 he apprehended the Juvenile in conflict with law and produced him before the JJB, Khammamn and also secured the study certificate of the

Juvenile in conflict with law and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before this board.

3. After filing the final report by the police before the Juvenile Justice Board, Khammam cognizance was taken for the offences U/sec. 354(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC against Juvenile in conflict with law and the case is numbered as JCC.No. 42/2019.

4.On appearance of the Juvenile in Conflict With Law the case copies furnished to the

Juvenile in Conflict With Law as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Juvenile in Conflict With Law was examined under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/sec. 354(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC and contents of the offences read over and explained to the Juvenile in Conflict With Law in his vernacular language, for which the

Juvenile in Conflict With Law pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To satisfy the Juvenile Justice board that the Juvenile in Conflict With Law was committed an offences punishable U/sec. 354(A), 294(b), 323 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, Juvenile in Conflict with Law was called 3 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 for examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. For explaining the incriminating material evidence in the evidence of Pws.1 to 9, having understood the same Juvenile in Conflict With Law denied the incriminating material evidence against him and Juvenile in Conflict With Law reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard and perused the entire material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Juvenile in conflict with law for the offence punishable under Sections 354 (A), 294(b) and 323 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

POINT:-

10. I have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence apart from giving my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that Pw.1 deposed by corroborating the evidence of eye witness Pw.2 and also village elders i.e., Pws.5 to 7 corroborated with the material particulars of complaint under Ex.P1. So, the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 5 to 7 and Exs.P1, P5 to P7 clearly establishes the case of prosecution and prays to convict the Juvenile in conflict with law as per the law.

12. The learned counsel for the Juvenile in conflict with law argues that the

Juvenile in conflict with law never entered into the house of Pw.2 and never caught hold the hand of Pw.1. Pw.1 foisted this false case against the Juvenile in conflict with law basing on the previous disputes between them. He further argues that the evidence of Pw.1 is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw.2. As per the evidence of Pws.5 to 7 they did not state about the Juvenile in conflict with law caught hold the hand of Pw.1 and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Moreover there is a delay in giving Ex.P1-Complaint and it is fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, prays to acquit the Juvenile in conflict with law.

13. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 is the defacto-complainant and victim, Pw.2 is the mother of Pw.1 and eye witness, Pws.3 4 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 and 4 are circumstantial witnesses, Pws.5 to 7 are village elders, Pw.8 is the mediator for CDF panchanama and Pw.9 is investigating officer.

14. Pw.1 being the complainant deposed that as on the date of occurrence the

Juvenile in conflict with law entered into her house and sat on the cot and also caught hold her hand. At that time she is sleeping, suddenly she woke up and abused him, on that he left that place. After sometime Pw.2 came into the house, on that she informed the same. As Pw.2 is wiling to go to the house of Juvenile in conflict with law, but Pw.1 stopped her. On the next day, when Pw.2 went to the house of Juvenile in conflict with law, but no one present there, on that Pw.1 went to the college.

Thereafter, Pw.2 informed her that Sujatha, Juvenile in conflict with law and Rathna

Babu beat her mother with their hands indiscriminately, on that Pws.3 and 4 intervened and rescued her. Subsequently, they placed the matter before village elders, on their advise she went to police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not stated before the police as stated in her chief-examination and she further admitted that she had not mentioned the name of scribe of Ex.P1. Thus, her evidence shows that she is not speaking true contents of

Ex.P1. Hence, her evidence cannot be believable.

15. Pw.2 who is mother of Pw.1 categorically deposed that on informing by Pw.1 about the arrival of Juvenile in conflict with law and caught hold of the hand of Pw.1, on that Pw.1 abused him, then he left that place. Thereafter, she intended to go to the house of Juvenile in conflict with law, but Pw.1 stopped her. On the next day morning, she went to the house of Juvenile in conflict with law, but there no one present, on that she returned to home, meanwhile her daughter informed that Juvenile in conflict with law proceeding on the road, on that she questioned him about the incident occurred on yesterday night, for which Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members caught hold her hair and beat her and his brother and Juvenile in conflict with law beat her with hands on her back side, meanwhile Pw.4 came there and rescued her. At the 5 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 same time, Pw.3 came to the scene of offence and saw the incident and tried to admonish her. She further deposed that on the same date at about 6.00 p.m while she was returning from the hospital, Juvenile in conflict with law and his brother beat her indiscriminately. But, Pw.1 in Ex.P1-Complaint, she never stated about the

Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat Pw.2. Pws.3 and 4 also never stated that they saw when the Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat Pw.2.

16. As per the case of prosecution, the alleged incident occurred at the house of

Pw.1 and CC road near to the Inapanuri China Rangaiah house. But, Pws.1 and 2 deposed contrary to the case of prosecution that the alleged occurrence was happened in their house and there is no facts deposed with regard to the another incident occurred. Further Pw.1 never deposed that the place where Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat Pw.2 indiscriminately. Moreover, Pw.1 never stated that she saw when Juvenile in conflict with law is on the road and informed the same to Pw.2. So, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 are contradictory to each other and the evidence of Pw.2 not inspired the confidence over the case of prosecution. At the same time, her evidence is subsequent development of her earlier statement.

17. Pws.3 and 4 who are circumstantial witnesses to whom Pw.2 approached and asked for admonish the Juvenile in conflict with law, but they did not support their case and turned hostile. As such, their evidence is not useful to the prosecution case.

[[

18. Pw.6 who is one of the village elder also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. So, his evidence is also not useful to the prosecution case.

19. Pws.5 and 6 who are another village elders deposed that Pw.2 approached them alleging that the Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat her indiscriminately, on that they gave advise her to approach police for lodging a 6 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 complaint. But, in their earlier statements they never stated that Pw.2 came to their respective houses and informed the incident. Thus, their evidence is creating a doubt about the Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat Pw.2 indiscriminately.

20. Pw.8 who is the mediator for CDF panchanama categorically deposed about the preparation of CDF panchanama at the scene of offence under Ex.P5. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that he is not aware of the boundaries and he could not able to tell the schedules of scene of offence.

21. Pw.9 who is the investigating officer categorically deposed about the registration of F.I.R under Ex.P6 and preparation of CDF panchanama under Ex.P5 in the presence of mediators and arrest of Juvenile in conflict with law. He further deposed that there is a delay of two (2) days in giving Ex.P1-Report to the police.

But, either Pw.1 or Pw.9 did not give any explanation about the delay of two (2) days in giving Ex.P1-Report to Pw.9. Further Pw.9 did not noticed any injuries on Pw.2.

As the distance between the occurrence of offence and police station is about 15 Kms, then 20 minutes time will be taken to reach police station on any vehicle. So, it is clear that when the prosecution failed to give explanation of two (2) days delay in giving

Ex.P1 to the police, certainly the said delay is fatal to the prosecution case.

22. Further Pws.1 and 2 never deposed that the Juvenile in conflict with law and his family members beat Pw.2 indiscriminately and caused injuries, but they never stated that the alleged incident was happened near to the house of one Rangaiah.

Moreover, there is no clarity in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that whether the alleged incident was occurred in the house of Pw.1 or southern side CC road near to the house of Inapanuri Rangaiah. So, there is so many doubts arose in the entire version of prosecution, certainly the doubts may be extended in favour of the accused.

23. Thus, in view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of Juvenile 7 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020 in conflict with law beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

U/Secs.354 (A), 294 (b) and 323 r/w 34 IPC and Juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to be acquitted of the said offences. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the

Juvenile in conflict with law and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 354 (A), 294(b) and 323 IPC, as such he is acquitted for the same

U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The parental bond and surety bonds of the Juvenile in conflict with law shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of January, 2020.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Prosecution For the Defence

Pw.1-Inapanuri Thirupathamma -None-

Pw.2-Inapanuri Jayamma

Pw.3-Inapanuri Jayapathi Rao

Pw.4-Inapanuri Mariyamma

Pw.5-Inapanuri Samuel

Pw.6-Inapanuri Bala Krishna

Pw.7-Inapanuri Seethaiah

Pw.8-Inapanuri Venkatesh

Pw.9-V.Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

For ProsecutionFor the defence

Ex.P1 is complaint -Nil-

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 8 JCC.No.42 of 2019, dated 17.01.2020

Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6

Ex.P5 is CDF panchanama

Ex.P6 is First Information Report

Ex.P7 is Study Certificate of Juvenile in Conflict with law

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,

KHAMMAM.

MEMBERS

1. Narendra Swaroop

2. Z.Kiran Ranjani

1 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

KHAMMAM

Monday, this the 6th day of January, 2020

Present:- Smt.N.Anitha Reddy I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, FAC: II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam.

STC. No.8 of 2017

Between:-

The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Khammam II Town Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Md.Gousia Begum W/o Basheer Ahmed, Age: 50 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o H.No.7-4-26, Medari Bazaar,

Khammam....Accused

-*-

This case came before me on 03.01.2020 for fnal hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and Accused appeared in person; upon hearing arguments on both sides; having been heard 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, Khammam II Town Police Station fled the Charge Sheet against the accused for the ofence u/Secs.294 (b) & 290

IPC.

2. The brief allegation of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2015 at 1.45PM, while Pw.1/K.Uttam Kumar was talking with the litigants and other

Advocates, in the varanda of Bar Association Room, meanwhile accused came there and abused him in flthy language and insulted him, which was witnessed by Pws.1 to 4. Basing on the complaint given by Pw.1, PW.5 2 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020 registered a petty case No.08/2017 for the ofence under Sec.294-b and 290 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on fle for the ofence u/Secs.294 (b) and 290 IPC against the accused as per Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of case documents were furnished to her in accordance with Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and accusation for the ofence under section 294-b and 290 IPC against her was leveled, read over and explained to her in her vernacular language in which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, prosecution has examined fve (5) witnesses i.e., Pw.1 is the defector-complainant, Pws.2 and 3 are eye witnesses and Pws.4 and 5 are investigating ofcers and Ex.P1 is the complaint.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against her in the prosecution evidence, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. Now the Point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved this case against the accused for the ofence u/Secs.294 (b) and 290 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10. I have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence apart from giving my anxious consideration to the rival contentions.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the evidence of

Pw.1 is supported by the eye witnesses Pws.2 and 3 proves the ofence 3 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prays to convict the accused as per the law.

12.On the other side, the accused in person argues that she is no way connected to this case. On questioning, Pw.1 commenting her case, he fled this case against her. Even though she made complaint against Pws.1 and 2, but police did not take any action against them and prayed to acquit her.

13. To prove the ofence, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 is the complainant, Pws.2 to 4 are eye witnesses and Pw.5 is investigating ofcer in this case.

14. According to Pw.1, he had categorically deposed that he had represented private complaint lodged by the accused before Hon’ble SC/ST

Court Judge, Khammam who is holding in charge of Family Court and taken adjournment on 27.07.2015, on that while he coming to Bar Association, there at the varanda accused abused him by using unparliamentary language and insulted him before all the advocates. Even though some of the senior Advocates by name Kranthi Kumar and Y.Srinivasa Rao were present, she did not stopped and continued to insult him. On that, he lodged

Ex.P1-Complaint. During his cross-examination, he stated that she abused him in flthy language and denied that she never abused him. Thus, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his version. Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P1.

15. Pw.2 who is Kranthi Kumar, Senior Advocate categorically deposed the same lines as that of Pw.1. He deposed about due to taking adjournment by Pw.1, she came to the Advocate’s Bar Varanda and abused him in flthy language. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his 4 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020 version. It is quiet natural about his presence at the scene of ofence being an advocate. Nothing was proved to show that his non-appearance at the

Bar Association.

16. Pw.3 who is another advocate and eye witness also deposed the same lines as that of Pws.1 and 2. His evidence is also believable and trustworthy.

17. Pw.4/D.Nageswara Rao categorically deposed that while he was attending call work before the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge’s Court and coming from the stairs of the District Court saw the accused abusing

Pw.1 in front of Bar Association room. He also deposed that accused abused

Pw.1 in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 at the scene of ofence. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his version.

18. Pw.5/Bandari Kumar categorically deposed that on 26-06-2015 at 01.45 PM while he was present at police station Pw.1 came to the police station and presented a report, basing on the report he registered a case in consecutive No.211/2015, u/Sec.294-B and 290 of IPC. Further he recorded the statement of the Pw.1 at police station and examined him under 161 of

Cr.P.C and on the same day he visited the scene of ofence situated at the premises of Hon’ble District Court, Khammam, there he secured the presence of Pw.2 to Pw.4 and recorded their statements under Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C. and after completion of the entire investigation he fled a charge sheet, for the ofence punishable u/Sec. 294-B and 290 of IPC. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his version.

19. From the above discussion, Pw.1 evidence is corroborated with the evidence of Pws.2 to 4. Nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their version.

5 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020

20. The defence taken by the accused is that on questioning Pw.1 for dismissal of case, he fled this case, but nothing was suggested to them and no material was placed before this court. Hence, her evidence is not taken into consideration.

21. From the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 proves the accused abused Pw.1 in the public place in unparliamentary language. Hence, the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the ofence punishable U/Secs.294 (b) and 290 IPC.

22. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the ofence u/Secs.294 (b) and 290 IPC. Accordingly, she is convicted of the same u/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6th day of January, 2020.

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

23.When the Accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence she reported that she is old aged and sufering with diferent ailments, hence, requested to take lenient view in imposing the sentence. As the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused, hence, the application of provision of the probation of ofenders Act, 1958 would not be proper in this case. Considering the nature of the ofence and plea made by the accused and under circumstance of this case, this court feels that sentencing the accused with to pay fne of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) for

the ofenne u/Sen.9Þ4-b IPC and Rs.900/-(Rupees Two Hundred only)

for the ofenne u/Sen.9Þ0 IPC, could be just and proper. Accordingly, 6 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020 accused is sentence to undergoto pay fne of Rs.1,900/-(Rupees One

Thousand and Two Hundred only)for the ofence punishable u/Secs.294-b and 290 IPC could be just and proper.

94. In the result: Accused isfound guilty for the ofence punishable u/Secs.294-b and 290 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is convicted u/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay fne of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One

Thousand only) for the ofence punishable u/Sec.294-b and Rs.900/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) for the ofence punishable u/Sec.290 IPC.

In default of payment of fne amount, accused is sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three(03) months.

The remand period of accused, if any shall be set of u/Sec.428 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

The certifed copy of this judgment shall be given to the accused on free of cost and the accused is appraised of her right of appeal against this judgment.

When accused is enquired about her means, she informed that she has means to engage counsel in preferring the appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of January,2020

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1K.Uttam Kumar, Advocate -None- PW.2K.Kranthi Kumar, Advocate PW.3Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate PW.4D.Nageswara Rao, Police Constable, PC No.2142 7 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020

PW.5Bandari Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police

Documents marked on behalf of:

Prosecution: Defence:

Ex.P1Report, dt.26.06.2015 -Nil-

Material Objects Marked: --NIL--

FAC: II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KHAMMAM.

8 STC No.08 of 2017 Dt.06-01-2020

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2020

Present: Smt. N. Anitha Reddy,

Principle Magistrate

Juvenile Justice Board, Khammam

J.C.C.No. 54/2019

(Cr.No. 07/2019 of P.S, II Town,Kothagudem) Between: The State - Rep. through the Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S.II Town,Kothagudem .... Complainant

And

Kori Siddhu, S/o Pavan Kumar, age: 16 years, Student, R/o 2 Incline, Sujathanagar Mandal, Kothagudem ...... Juvenile in Conflict with Law.

This case coming on this the 10.01.2020 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P for the state and in the presence of counsel for the Juvenile in conflict with law is Sri. Sk. Uddandu Saheb, advocate and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S., II Town, Kothagudemm filed final report against the Juvenile in Conflict with Law U/sec.173 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No. 07/2019,

U/sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2.The brief facts of case are as follows:

On 11.01.2019 at 10.00 PM the PW1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that, he is resident of Near Shivalayam, Ramavaram, his daughter aged about 10 years studying 4th class at Swarna Bharathi School, Ramavaram on 11.01.2019 at 06.15 PM, his daughter came to house by weeping and disclosed that while she was playing at Saibaba Temple their neighbour Kori Siddhu i.e, Juvenile 2 in conflict with law gagged by her mouth and dragged her into the temple to the back side of the temple pushed her on the ground and slept on her and forcibly committed rape on her due to pain she pushed him aside came to the house by weeping and at that time one Vamshi observed the same and scolded them upon which the Juvenile in conflict with law ran away from that place, so he lodged a report to the police.

Basing on that LW17/Ch. Srinivas registered a case in Cr.No. 07/2019, U/sec.

376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and issued FIR and he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, he send the PW2 victim girl to the Medical

Officer LW14/Dr. S.Sarala for examination. Later, he visited the scene of offence there he examined the PW2 to 5 and recorded their statements and he also prepared

CDF panchanama in the presence of mediators LW12/Gollapally Shankar and

LW13/Kori Jagadish. Later, on his requisition the LW7/K.Chandrakala examined the victim girl and same was videographed by the LW8/Vemula Anandh. Later, he secured the study certificates of the Juvenile in conflict with law through

LW10/Kotha Sailaja and victim girl through LW11/Gnadla Gopinath. Later on 13.02.2019 he apprehended the Juvenile in conflict with law and produced him

before the JJB. Later, on his requisition LW16 the Hon'ble learned Magistrate

recorded the statement of victim girl U/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. and he also secured the medical examination report through LW14/S.Sarala and Potency Test report of the

Juvenile in conflict with law through LW15/Dr.Ravi Babu. Later, LW18/T.Gopi 3 took up further investigation and after verified the same and after completion of the investigation he laid charge sheet before this board.

3. After filing the final report by the police before the Juvenile Justice Board,

Khammam cognizance was taken for the U/sec. 376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012 against Juvenile in conflict with law and the case is numbered as

JCC.No. 54/2019.

4.On appearance of the Juvenile in Conflict With Law the case copies furnished to the Juvenile in Conflict With Law as required under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The Juvenile in Conflict With Law was examined under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/sec. 376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and contents of the offences read over and explained to the Juvenile in Conflict With

Law in his vernacular language, for which the Juvenile in Conflict With Law pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To satisfy the Juvenile Justice board that the Juvenile in Conflict With Law was committed an offences punishable U/sec. 376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO

Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

7.After examining the defacto complainant/PW-1 father of the victim girl,

PW2 is victim girl and PW3 is mother of the victim girl and PW4 to 6 are circumstantial witness did not supported the prosecution version and the learned

APP given up the evidence of other witnesses, since the very defacto complainant 4 and victim girl PW-1, 2 and also other witness PW4 to 6 were did not support the case of prosecution, hence the examination of Juvenile in conflict with law under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence found against Juvenile in conflict with law.

Heard the arguments and perused the material on record. 8.

9. Now the Point for determination is

i)whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Juvenile in conflict with law beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012?

10. POINT :- Out of (18) listed witnesses, the prosecution has examined only six witnesses as PW-1 to 6. PW1 is father of the victim girl, PW2 is victim girl PW3 is mother of the victim girl, PW4 to 6 are circumstantial and eye witness.

11. In this case, PW1 is defacto complainant/ father of the victim girl stated that he do not know the case facts and also police taken his signatures on white papers and he also stated he compromised with the Juvenile in conflict with law out side the board. Ex.P.1 and P2 are marked through him. PW2 and 3 who is mother of the victim girl and victim girl are also did not supported the prosecution version.

Ex.P. 3 and P4 are marked through them. PW4 to 6 are circumstantial and eye witness also did not supported the prosecution version and Ex.P.5 to P7 are marked through them.

12.As P.W.1 i..e the complainant and father of the victim girl and PW2 is victim girl and also PW3 is who is mother of victim girl turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and eye witness also turned hostile and did not 5 support the case of prosecution, the evidence of other witnesses is given up by the

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Also, there is no incriminating material available against the Juvenile in conflict with law to establish his guilt. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the juvenile in conflict with law.

13.From the evidence available on record, it is evident that during the pendency of this case, the complainant and Juvenile in conflict with law seemed to have settled the matter out of the Juvenile Justice Board and that is the reason why the prosecution witnesses are not coming with true version of case before the Board.

In the circumstances, for paucity of evidence, this board is left with no other option but to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the juvenile in conflict with law for the offence punishable under section U/sec.376 of

IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the juvenile in conflict with law is entitled to be acquitted of the said offences.

14.In the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section U/sec. 376 of IPC and sec. 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and he is acquitted for the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Parental bond and surety bonds of the Juvenile in conflict with law shall stand canceled. No case property.

Typed to my dictation on a my laptop by typist corrected and pronounced by me in the open Juvenile Justice Board on this the 17th day of January, 2020.

Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Khammam.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Defence

PW-1/LW1 : Kori Rakesh Kumar None

PW-2/LW2 : Kori Swapnakshi

PW-3/LW3 : Kori Anju

PW-4/LW4 : Prathapuram Vamshi Krishnama Charyulu

PW-5/LW5 : Kori Narsingh

PW-6/LW6 : Prathapuram Sridhara Charyulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For defence

Ex.P-1: Signature of PW1 on report. --Nil--

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1

Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2

Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3

Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4

Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5

Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board, Khammam.

MEMBERS

7 1.Narendra Swaroop

2. Z. Kiran Ranjani

OS.No.813 of 2021,

Dt.23.06.2022. Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 23rd day of June, 2022

Present:- Smt.N.Anitha Reddy, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.813 of 2021

BETWEEN:- Mondru Sri Krishna, S/o.Mondru Souri, R/o.H.No.4-376, Occ: S.S.O. in HDB Financial Services, Peddagopathi village, Konijerla Mandal, presently R/o.Khammam Town and District.

...Plaintiff

And

Mohammad Afroze, S/o.Mahmood, Age: 25 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o.H.No.5-5-313/1, Sambani Nagar, Khammam Town and District. …Defendant

This suit came before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri.Syed Amjad Pasha, Advocate for Plaintiff; Defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under Order

VII, Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, for recovery of money of Rs.1,16,578/- (Rupees One lakh sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy eight only) with costs and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization, based on a suit promissory note.

OS.No.813 of 2021,

Dt.23.06.2022. Page 2 of 5

2. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:

That the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff on 10.12.2020 to meet his family necessities, by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day, with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Thereafter, the plaintiff made several oral demands to the Defendant for repayment of the amount due under the promissory note with accrued interest, but the Defendant is postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, vexed with the attitude of defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 07.07.2021 demanding him to pay the amount due under the promissory note, but the defendant did not choose to pay the same nor gave any reply. Hence, the suit filed for recovery of suit amount.

3.Defendant set exparte on 13.06.2022.

4.Plaintiff filed chief affidavit and examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents i.e., Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 10.12.2020, Ex.A2 is the

OS.No.813 of 2021,

Dt.23.06.2022. Page 3 of 5

Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.07.2021, Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt bearing No.RN062373501IN, dated 07.07.2021, Ex.A4 is the Postal acknowledgment, on his behalf.

5.Heard the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the

defendant as prayed for”?

7. Perused the plaint, chief affidavit of the plaintiff, documents filed and submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

8. It is the contention of plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff for his family necessities by promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and in token thereof, the defendant had executed a promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff, in the presence of attestors of promissory note. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay suit promissory note amount with interest accrued thereon, but he postponed the same on one pretext or the other and failed to repay the same. Thereafter, inspite of got issuing legal notice Ex.A2 to the

OS.No.813 of 2021,

Dt.23.06.2022. Page 4 of 5 defendant, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the promissory note nor gave any reply. In the above said circumstances, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

9.The evidence of PW.1 was unchallenged by the defendant.

I have gone through the chief affidavit of PW.1 coupled with the contents of

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dated 10.12.2020, Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice,

dated 07.07.2021, Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt bearing No.RN062373501IN,

dated 07.07.2021, Ex.A4 is the Postal acknowledgment. The suit claim is

proved and no adverse evidence placed against the evidence of PW.1 by the defendant. Though the defendant set exparte, no legal steps were taken by the defendant. Hence, the suit claim to the extent of the suit amount is proved.

10. So far, the future interest claimed by the plaintiff @ 24% per annum is exorbitant and this court inclined to award future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization, on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).

OS.No.813 of 2021,

Dt.23.06.2022. Page 5 of 5

11. In the light of the above discussion, I answered this point in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.

12. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a suit claim of Rs.1,16,578/- (Rupees One lakh sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy eight only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization, on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of June, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1: Mondru Sri Krishna -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAIN TIFF

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff,

dated 10.12.2020.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dated 07.07.2021. Ex.A3: Postal receipt bearing No.RN062373501IN, dated 07.07.2021. Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

1 of 2019,dated19.01.2021 (0S.No.748

JUNIORCIVIL

JUDGEAT KHAMMAM

IN THECOURTOF THE| ADDL.

day ofJanuary,

Tuesday,thisthe19"2021

Smt.N.AnithaReddy,

PRESENT:

Pri, JuniorCivil Judge,

Khammam,

JuniorCivil Judge,

FAC:| Addl. Khammam.

ORIGINALSUITNo.748of 2019

BETWEEN:

PadmavathiW/oBhaskarRao, Age:62years, Yalamaddi

R/o H.No.5-1/6,BarugudemVillage,

Occu:Household,

Grampanchayath,RuralMandal,

ArempulaKhammam

Khammam

3 soPlaintiff

And

GudimallaRajasekharS/oPitchaiah,Age:50years,

Officer,PH.C.,Kamepalli

‘Occu:MPHS(M),O/oMedical Mandal,Khammamdistrict,R/o H.No.4-2-151/66/3,

Villageand

SrinivasaNagar,Khammam, sDefendant thisdayforfinalhearingintheof Thissuitbeforepresence camemeon CounselforthePlaintiff;Defendantremained Sri,K.V.RamanaRao,learned

materialhearing;and

exparte;thepapersonrecord,upon uponperusing considerationtillthisday,thisCourtdeliveredthe havingstoodfor over

following;

JUDGMENT

is filedbytheplaintiff againstthedefendantunderOrderVII

1.Thissuit

ProcedureCodeforofof Rule1r/wSection26Civilrecoverymoney fortyfivethousandfourhundredand

Rs.1,45,424/-(Rupeeslakh

one andinterest@24%fromthedate twentyfouronly)withcostsperannum of filing of thetill realization,basedsuitpromissorynote. sultona briefmadein theplaintfollows:

2.Theavermentsareas knowntoeachotherandoutof theplaintifanddefendant Thatare 7 borrowedamountofRs.84,000/- suchacquaintance,thedefendantan fromtheplaintiff07.12.2016at (Rupeeseightyfivethousandonly)on

familynecessities,byexecuting

Villagemeethisa Barugudemto of plaintifi,promisetothe promissoryin favourwitharepaysame note

“0S.No.748

of 2019,

dated19.01.2021.

withinterest@24% perannumeithertotheplaintiff ortohisorder

demand.Thereafter,

‘ontheplaintiff madeseveraldemandsthe to

Defendantforof the repaymentsaidamountwith accruedinterest,buthe

Postponedthe

sameononepretextother.Finally21.11.2019, oron theplaintiffgotissuedlegal noticetothedefendant andthe samewas served26.11.2019,but onhedidnotchoose torepaytheamountdue underthepromissory note.Hence,thefor suitfiledofsuit recovery amount.

3.Eventhoughthe summonsservedondefendant,buthedid not appearedbeforethiscourtand norepresenation.Hence,defendantis set exparte27.02.2020. on 4,Plaintifffiledchiefaffidavit andexaminedhimself asPW.1andgot

markedEx.Al-Original Promissory

note,dated07.12.2016.

5.Heardthe arguments.

6. — Now,thepointfor consideration is:

“WhethertheplaintiffIs entitled

fora decree

againstthe

defendant

prayedfor”?

as

‘POINT:

7,Perusedthe plaint,chiefaffidavitof the

plaintiff,documentsfiled

and

submissionmadebythe learnedcounselforthe

plaintiff.

8.It Isthe contentionofplaintiffthat

07.12.2016,

onthedefendant borrowed anamountofRs.84,000/-(Rupees

eightyfourthousand

only)

fromtheplaintifffor

hisfamilyby promising

necessities torepaythe same _Withinterest@ 24% perannumandtokenthereof inthedefendant executedEx.A1suit

promissoryfavour

noteinoftheplaintiff, inthe

Presenceofattestorand

scribeofsaidpromissory

note.Thereafter,the

Plaintiff demanded

thedefendant

topaysuitpromissory noteamountwith interestaccrued thereon,buthe postponedthe sameononepretextthe or

“0S.No.748

of 2019,dated19.01.2021 theabovesaidcircumstances, andfailedtotheIn otherrepaysame.

plaintiffis constrainedtofilethesuit. the

unchallengedbythedefendant.

9.TheevidenceofPW.1was affidavitofPW.1coupledwiththecontents Ihavethroughthechief gone

evidenceplaced

provedthesuitclaimandadverse of Ex.A1document,no defendant.Thoughthedefendantwas againstevidenceof PW.1bythe the defendant.Hence,thesuit legalstepstakenbythe setexparte,nowere

is proved.

claimtotheextentof thesuitamount

So far,claimedbytheplaintiff@24%perannum

10.thefutureinterest awardfutureinterest@12%per exorbitantandthiscourtinclinedto is suittillthedateofdecreeand fromthedateoffilingofthe annum datetillrealization,the fromtheofdecreeon thereafter@6%perannum

principalamountof Rs.84,000/-.

| answeredthispointinfavourof Inthelightofabovediscussion, 11.

theplaintiff accordingly.

INTHERESULT,

of plaintiff andagainst

in favourthe suitis decreed 12.

Rs.1,45,424/-(Rupeeslakhfortyfive

defendantforsuitclaimofone

four only) withandfutureinterest

hundredandtwentycosts

thousandfour

ls awarded @12%of filing of thesuittill thedate fromthedate perannum fromthedateof decreetillthe ofdecreeandthereafter@6%perannum

of Rs.84,000/-(Rupeeseightyfour

of realization,principalamount

dateon

thousandonly).

andpronouncedbyin

dictationbytheTypist,correctedme ‘Typedto my

19" day of january,2021.

thecourt,thisthe openon

FAC: ADDL.Aeet

wyJUNIORCIVILJUBG

KHAMMAM.

4 0S.No.748of 2019,dated19.01.2021

APPENDIXOFEVIDENCE

WITNESSEXAMINEDONBEHALFOFA

x

PLAINTIEE.

DEFENDANT

PW.1:YalamaddiPadmavathi-Exparte-

2

POCUMENTMARKEDONBEHALFOFPLAINTIFF

Ex.A1-OriginalPromissory

note,dated07.12.2016 -

—A+tebeoe

| ADDL. JUNIORcivilJUDGE

FAC:

KHAMMAM.,