Smt. N.Hemalatha

CC No.: 605/20001 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD

Present: Smt. N. HEMALATHA,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Monday, this the 23rd day of April, 2018

CC.No. 605 of 2000 

Between:­ State through Inspector of Police, Police Station, Asifabad (Cr.No.33/1998) … Complainant

And

P.V. Babu Rao, S/o. Late Prakash Rao, age 62 years, Caste: Kapu, Occ: Reserve Inspector of Police, 8th Btn 'E' Coy, APSP, Kondapur.

… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18­4­2018 in the presence of Sri Dasari Ganesh Anand, APP for the prosecution and Sri T. Suresh, counsel for accused, having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a case of criminal breach of trust by misappropriation of public funds by public servant, where in the Sub Inspector of Police Asifabad filed charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence U/Sec. 409 of IPC to punish for the same.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that:­

On 16.5.1998 at 1900 hours the complainant K. Kranthi Kumar lodged a report stating that Sri. P.V. Babu Rao/accused has misappropriated the Government funds and

Coy. Personnnel amount for a sum of Rs. 96,265­25/­ from cash box of 'E' Coy during his tenur as OC 'E' Coy 8th Btn., APSP camp at District Jail Asifabad from 11.7.1997 to 30.10.1997. In this regard an enquiry has been conducted by M. Nagur Reddy, Asst.

Commandant 8th Bn., APSP Kondapur, further added that accused left from Coy Head quarters District Jail Asifabad on 30.10.1997 at 1300 hours by handing over the CD charge to ARSI 153 C. Bhaskar Rao with a plea to appear before the Tribunal court for

Departmental proceedings at Hyderabad in a pending cass and to Bn Head quarters for attending monthy conference and pay collection etc., but he did not reported neither at

CC No.: 605/20002 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018

Battaliam head quarters nor company head quarters Asifabad there by absconded.

During the enquiry by M. Nagur Reddy, it is found that accused has misappropriated

Government cash of Rs. 96,265­25/­.

3.On receipt of such report PW­11/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No. 33/1998

U/Sec. 409 of IPC and investigated. During the course of investigation PW­11 examined and recorded statements of witnesses, visited Battalian head quarters and 4th Bn APSP at

Kondapur. During investigation PW­11 secured the records i.e. PA cash book maintained from Page No.1 to 184, PFA cash book from Page No.1 to 137 and Pay and TA cash book from Page No.1 to 199 belongs to 8th Bn., 'E' Coy APSP, Kondapur which were maintained by accused. Later LW­17/SI of police took up investigation from PW­11 and found on proper lines. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 409 of IPC.

4.On perusal of material, cognizance was taken of the same. After furnishing relevant copies of documents u/s 207 Cr.P.C accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. and was charged for the offences u/s 409 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PW1 to 11 were examined and ExP1 to P3 were marked on behalf of prosecution. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence and circumstances against him in the prosecution evidence for which he denied as false and pleaded not guilty. Defense reported no evidence. Heard both sides. Perused the record available.

5.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 409 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

6. PW.1 stated that the Commandant 8th Battalion came to know that accused misappropriated Rs. 96,265­55 and accordingly he ordered LW.2/PW.8 to conduct enquiry and after enquiry he submitted his detailed report and on the instructions of 8th

CC No.: 605/20003 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018

Commandant he lodged Ex.P1. In his cross­examination he deposed that he did not verify the records. When he assumed the charge to his post at Asifabad, accused was absconded. Prior to assumption of his charge total enquiry was concluded by LW.2 and part of amount was paid by the wife of accused.

7.PW.2 deposed that their Commandant constituted one Committee containing 3 members to collect money from Smt. Nagarathanam wife of accused on oral instructions of their Commandant their Committee members collected Rs.30,000/­ from the wife of accused. Prior to concluding of enquiry by LW2/PW.8 he collected Rs30,000/­ from the wife of accused. He has not filed any written orders in respect of constitution of committee in the court. Except collecting of amount from Nagarathnam he doesn’t know anything about this case. After collecting Rs.30,000/­ from the wife of accused,

Battalion Welfare Officer issued receipt to that effect. Police, Asifabad did not examine him. PW.3 also stated in the same version as that of PW.2.

8.PW.4 stated that a Committee was constituted by the Commandant Sri.N.V.

Surendra Babu, IPS. Himself, PW.2, LW.5/Chakardhar Rao are the members of said committee to enquire into the matter in respect of misappropriation of funds by the accused. PW.2 is the Chairman of their Committee. The duty entrusted to them is to collect the misappropriated amount from the family members of accused. Accordingly she sent an amount of Rs. 30,000/­ through PW.3 for which Battalion Welfare officer issued receipt. PW.2 recorded his statement.

9.In his cross­examination he deposed that neither SI of police nor CI of Police,

Asifabad recorded his statement. Written instructions were given to the Committee to collect the misappropriated amount. It is denied by him that their committee members demanded the wife of accused to handover the keys of Almirah in their house and forcibly broke open the lock of Almirah and took away Rs.30,000/­

CC No.: 605/20004 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018

10.PW.5/victim stated that Previously he worked in APSP, Kondapur(e) company and deputed to work at Asifabad district jail. In the month of March, 1998 he did not receive his monthly salary, as such he asked the accused to pay his salary for the said month for which he stated that he has not received the salary amount from the head office. The salary for the said month was not paid even thereafter. From the month of

July,1998 accused not found without paying his salary. He gave written application to the SI of Police, Asifabad for non receipt of salary for the month of March, 1998.

11.PW.6 who is another victim stated that his salary for the months of 8/97, 9/97 not paid to him and he was on leave for the said months. After completion of his leave he asked the accused about two months salary but accused did not pay the same through there was sufficient amount. He demanded the accused for two to three times for the said two months salary but after 5 or 6 six days he absconded without paying his salary.

He gave written information to Ravinder, SI of Police, Asifabad. In his cross­examination he stated he did not state before the police that accused received his salary for the months of 8/97, 9/97 from head quarters. PW.7 who is one of the victims stated that accused did not pay his salary for two months.

12.PW.8 who is the Asst. Commandant in­charge F Company 8th Battalion stated that under the instruction of Commandant he visited the Asifabad E company head quarters on 11.11.97 and at that time the accused was incharge of the said E company. He verified the cash box in the presence of SI of Police, Asifabad, RI, Sudhakar and others and found Rs.4 and odd and found Rs.96,000/­ and odd deficit was noticed and reported to Commandant. Wife of accused paid Rs.30,000/­ to Bishoy, Ch.v.setty and Chakradhar and he recorded their statements. The said cash was relating to the pay and permanent advance and private funds advance, the said amount was utilized by the accused for his personal necessities as per his enquiry. In his cross­examination he stated that the undistributed pay should be kept in cash box by the concern inspector at the place of

CC No.: 605/20005 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018 company. The accounts will be audited once in two months. He did not verify the audit records prior to opening the cash box. He has not recorded the statements of victims who are entitled for the salary and not received any complaint from them.

13.He did not conduct any panchanama before opening cash box. On the instructions of his superior officers he opened the cash box. Accused was on duty from 10.7.97 to 30.10.97, during said period he was the superior officer of the accused. He did not receive any complaints from police constables, Reserve inspectors who are working under accused. At the time of his inspection of registers of accused, the registers were maintained up to date. The wife of accused did not pay any amount to him but one Bishoi, ASST. Commandant collected Rs. 30,000/­ from the wife of accused.

B­Superintendent and AO of their head office will pay the salaries and any amount to the accused under acknowledgment and maintain register and without seeing the audit report he cannot say how much case received by accused from B superintendent and AO.

They did not file the audit report of accused in this case. He doesn’t know on which account Bishoi collected amount from the wife of accused.

14.PW.9 deposed that his festival advance of Rs. 1000/­ pertaining to the month of 6/97 and increment of Rs. 109/­ was not paid to him by the accused. In his cross­ examination he stated that he did inform to anybody about the same.

15.PW.10 stated that about 7 years back PW.1 along with Committee opened the cash box kept in the office at Asifabad, Jail premises and found Rs. 4­70 in that box and further he denied that accused avoided his spl. Pay of Rs. 286/ pertaining to may/97 and turned hostile.

16.Finally PW.11 who is the investigation officer deposed as per charge sheet. In his cross­examination he stated that he did not examine PW.2 to 4, Chakradhar Rao and

Surendra Babu, who was the then Commandant of 8th Battalion. He did not verify the

CC No.: 605/20006 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018 departmental enquiry proceedings. He did not seize the cash box even it was opened in his presence. He received complaint after 6 months of verification of cash box by PW.8.

17.PW.1 stated that basing on the oral instructions of 8th Commandant, he filed the complaint against the accused but said 8th Commandant was not examined by the police.

18.PW.2 and 3 deposed that only to collect the amount from the wife of accused

Committee was constituted on the oral instructions of their Commandant, where as PW.4 stated that written instructions were given to the committee to collect the misappropriated amount from the accused. PW4 stated that he, PW.2 and LW.5 are the members of said Committee and PW.2 is the Chairman of their committee and said

Committee was constituted to inquire into the matter in respect of misappropriated amount by the accused whereas PW.2 being the Chairman of said Committee stated that except collecting of Rs.30,000/­ from the wife of accused he doesn’t know anything about the facts of this case. PW.2 and 3 categorically stated that they do not know why

Rs.30,000/­ collected from the wife of accused. PW.5 evidence is not corroborated by

PW.2 who is the Chairman of said Committee hence their evidence is not reliable.

19.Further victims i.e. PW.5, 6, 7, 9 deposed that the salary, festival advance, increment and other allowances not paid to them by the accused if it is true why they did not file any written complaint being the public servants before their superior officers hence their evidence is not trustworthy.

20.PW.8 deposed that they did not file any audit report before the court and without audit report he cannot say how much amount was misappropriated by the accused.

Further he stated that undistributed amount shall be available in the cash box and when he opened the cash box Rs. 4­70 balance it means remaining amount was disbursed to the persons entitled as such there was no complaint received by anybody for non­ payment of their salaries or benefits. PW.2, 3 and 8 categorically stated that they do

CC No.: 605/20007 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018 not know on which account they collected Rs. 30,000/­ from the wife of accused and issued receipt, but such receipt was not produced before the court.

21.In this case prosecution failed to examine the Commandant who instructed the

PW.1 to file complaint against the accused and there was no particular complaint from the victims and there was no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Hence the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences u/s 409 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused persons shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months to bind him to be present before the appellate Court if any appeal is preferred from this judgment. No property.

Typed to my dictation by steno on computer, and after correction pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of APril, 2018.

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution:

PW1: Kolli Kranthi Kumar PW2: hari Kishore Bishoy PW3: Y.L. Prasad Rao PW4: Ch. V. Setti PW5: G.D. Pasha PW6: G. Subrahmanyam PW7: P. Hanmanth Rao PW8: M. Nagor Reddy PW9: E. Sri Ramulu PW10: S. Bhaskar Rao PW11: P. Ravinder Reddy

For Defense : NIL

CC No.: 605/20008 / 8Jt. Dt.:23.4.2018

Exhibits marked 

For Prosecution:

ExP1: Complaint given by PW­1 ExP2: 161 CrPC statement of PW­10 ExP3: FIR

For Defense: NIL

Material Objects Marked: NIL

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

CC.255/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIRPUR

Present : Smt.N.Hemalatha Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:JFCM, Sirpur

Friday, this the 11th day of March, 2016

CC.No.255/2011

Between: The State of A.P. through The Inspector of Police, Kagaznagar -T. …. Complainant //AND//

Amith Dathrak, S/o.Satyanrayana Dathrak, Age:21 years, Caste:Vanjari, Occ:Labour work, R/o.H.No.1-1-172, Ambedkar Chowk, Main Market, Kaghaznagar

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP Sri G.Ganeshanand for the State and Sri V.Kishor kumar, Advocate for the accused, after hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Kagaznagar-T filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/S.448, 326, 324 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: On 03.07.2011 accused asked the motor cycle of LW.2/Arshith Kishore to attend his personal work, but LW.2/Arshith Kishore denied to give his motor cycle to the accused. Upon which accused criminally tress passed into the house along cricket wicket, picked up quarrel with LW.2/Arshith Kishore and beat him with cricket wicket over his left side neck and caused injury. When LW.1/Arshith Prakash intervened to rescue

LW.2/Arshith Kishore, accused also beat LW.1/Arshith Prakash with the same cricket wicket and caused simple and grievous injuries over his right side neck, left side cheek, left arm, right form and right hand.

Basing on the above report, LW.7/Asst.Sub Inspector of police, Kagaznagar-T registered a case in Cr.No.79/2011 for the offences punishable U/S.448, 324 IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 & 2 (Arshith

Prakash and Arshith Kishore), referred them to the Government hospital. He visited scene of offence where he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.3 to 5 ( Prashanth Sarkar, 2 CC.No.255 /2011

Naunoor Raju and Arshith Laxmi). Subsequently LW.8/Inspector of police, Kagaznagar-T took up further investigation from LW.7/Asst. Sub Inspector of police, Kagaznagar-T and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. During the course of his investigation he arrested the accused on 07.07.2011. During the course of interrogation he confessed to have committed the offence and released the accused on bail after furnishing the sufficient sureties at the police station. After obtaining medical certificates of LWs.1 & 2 (Arshith Prakash and

Arshith Kishore) from LW.6/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community hospital, Sirpur-T and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/S.448, 326, 324 IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/S.448, 326, 324 IPC against the accused. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after he examined U/S. 239 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/S.448, 326, 324 IPC. Charges framed for the said offences, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 6, Ex.P-1 to P-5 got marked in support of its case.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. for which he denied the incriminating material made against him in the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is that : Whether the prosecution prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offences U/S.448, 326 & 324 IPC?

8.POINT:

Complainant who examined as PW.1 deposed that on 04.07.2011 at about 10.30 PM the accused entered into their house and asked about key of motor cycle, when his brother

LW.2/Kishor refused to give the same then the accused beat his brother with a wicket on his neck. When he intervened to rescue his brother the accused beat him also on his arms and body.

The said incident was witnessed by LW.3/Prashanth. Later he went to police station and lodged

Ex.P1 report.

3 CC.No.255 /2011

9.PW.2 injured deposed that on 03.07.2011 at about 10-30 PM the accused asked him to give key of motor cycle, when he refused to give the same he beat him with cricket wicket on his neck. When PW.1 intervened, the accused also beat him.

10.Eye witness who examined as PW.3 deposed that on 03.07.2011 at about 10.30 PM when he was in his house he heard some sounds from the house of PWs.1 & 2, on that he went to their house and by that time accused beat PWs.1 & 2 with a cricket wicket and going away. He observed PWs.1 & 2 with injuries.

11.Another eye witness who examined as PW.4 deposed that on 03.07.2011 at about 10.30

PM the accused came to their house and asked PW.2 for motor cycle key, when he refused to give key the accused beat him with cricket wicket on neck of PW.2. When PW.1 intervened then the accused beat PW.1 on his hands and back.

12.Another eye witness who examined as PW.5 deposed that on 03.07.2011 at about 9.30 or 10-00 PM when he came out from his house after having dinner, he found PW.2 and accused are quarrelling. The accused beat PW.2 and PW.2 beat the accused. After sometime PW.2 went inside of his house while accused left from there. He do not know why they were quarreled.

This witness turned hostile.

13.Medical officer who examined as PW.6 stated that basing on the requisition by the

Station House Officer, Kagaznagar town he examined PW.2 on 04.07.2011 and found multiple abrasions 0.2 x 0.2 cms over left side of neck. The above injury is simple in nature caused by blunt object and the age of injury is 12 ½ hours prior to his examination. Accordingly he issued

Ex.P3 wound certificate.

On the same day he also examined PW.1 and found the following injuries.

1.Multiple pressure abrasion 0.2 x 0. 2 Cms over right side of neck

2. Abrasion 10x0.2 cm over left side of cheek extending to occipital region

3. Multiple abrasion 0.2x0.2 cm over left arm

4. Multiple abrasion 0.3x0.2 cm over right fore arm

5. Swelling and tenderness over right hand

He referred the injured to Orthopedic and he has taken treatment at Sri Satya Vijaya Ortho and maternity hospital, Mancherial. According to Orthopedic there is fracture at the base of right 4th 4 CC.No.255 /2011 & 5th metacarpal bones. He opined that all the above injuries caused by blunt object, age of the injuries are about 12 ½ hours prior to his examination. Injuries No.1 to 4 are simple in nature, whereas the injury No.5 is grievous in nature. Ex.P4 medical prescription of the Orthopaedician,

Ex.P5 is wound certificate issued by him.

14.PW.1 deposed that on 04.07.2011 at about 10.30 PM the accused entered into their house and asked about key of motor cycle, when his brother LW.2/Kishor refused to give the same then the accused beat his brother with a wicket on his neck. When he intervened to rescue his brother the accused beat him also on his arms and body. The said incident was witnessed by

LW.3/Prashanth. Later he went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

15.PW.2 also deposed the same on 03.07.2011 at about 10-30 PM the accused asked him to give key of motor cycle, when he refused to give the same he beat him with cricket wicket on his neck. When PW.1 intervened, the accused also beat him.

16.PW.3 deposed that on 03.07.2011 at about 10.30 PM when he was in his house he heard some sounds from the house of PWs.1 & 2, on that he went to their house and by that time accused beat PWs.1 & 2 with a cricket wicket and going away. He observed PWs.1 & 2 with injuries.

17.PW.4 also deposed the same on 03.07.2011 at about 10.30 PM the accused came to their house and asked PW.2 for motor cycle key, when he refused to give key the accused beat him with cricket wicket on neck of PW.2. When PW.1 intervened then the accused beat PW.1 on his hands and back.

18.PWs.1 to 4 evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.6 who is the medical officer, Singareni area. He also deposed that PW.2 received injuries on his neck. Later he referred PW.2 to Arthopaedician. PW.3 is independent witness. PWs.1,2 & 4 are belongs to same family. But their evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.6.

Prosecution successfully proves the case beyond reasonable doubt. To prove the offence U/s.326

IPC prosecution failed to examine the Radiologist. Hence offence U/S. 326 IPC is not attracted.

U/S.324 IPC is attracting. Section 324 IPC is lesser punishment than Section 326 IPC. Hence the accused is found guilty for the offences U/S.448, 24 IPC.

5 CC.No.255 /2011

19.IN THE RESULT, accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 324 IPC, accordingly accused is convicted U/S.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and after corrections pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 11th day of March, 2016.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC: JFCM, Sirpur.

20.On hearing the quantum of sentence accused stated that he would not repeat the same in future, he is having old aged parents, wife and children, he is only the bread winner of his family.

If the Hon’ble Court not taken mercy upon him, he would suffer a lot and his life will spoil.

Hence, he prayed the Hon’ble court to take mercy upon him and take into consideration.

21.Considering the facts put forth by the accused and facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that this is not a fit case to apply the provisions of a Probation of

Offenders Act. Accused is sentenced to pay Rs.500-00 (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence under Sec.448 IPC. In default of payment accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days. Further the accused is sentenced to pay Rs.500-00 (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence under Sec 324 IPC. In default of payment accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days. There is no remand period under gone by the accused.

Accused is informed about his right of appeal to the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Adilabad.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC: JFCM, Sirpur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution For Defence PW-1: Arshith Prakash (LW.1/complainant/injured) --NONE-- PW-2: Arshith Kihsore (LW.2/injured/eye witness) PW-3: Prashanth Sarkar(LW.3/eye witness) PW-4: Arshith Laxmi(LW.5/eye witness) PW-5: Naunoor Raju (LW.4/eye witness) PW-6: Dr.Ajay Babu (LW.6/M.O.)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW.1, Dt:04.07.2011 -NIL- Ex-P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Dt: 04.07.2011 Ex-P3: Medical certificate of PW.2, Dt: 04.07.2011 Ex-P4: Medical prescription, Dt: 04.07.2011 Ex-P5: Medical certificate of PW.1, Dt: 04.07.2011 M.O.s MARKED -NIL-

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

6 CC.No.255 /2011

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SIRPUR

C.C.NO.255/2011

1.Date of Offence03.07.2011

2.Date of report to PS/Court04.07.2011

3.Date of arrest of accused/Surrender in 07.07.2011 court

4.Date of release on bail07.07.2011

5.Date of commencement of trial30.07.2015

6.Date of Close of Trial14.09.2015

7.Date of Order/Judgment11.03.2016

8.Explanation of delay, if any--

The State of A.P. through Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S. Kagaznagar-T. // AND //

Amith Dathrak, S/o.Satyanrayana Dathrak, Age:21 years, Caste:Vanjari, Occ:Labour work, R/o.H.No.1-1-172, Ambedkar Chowk, Main Market, Kaghaznagar 09Plea of accusedNot Guilty.

10.Offence chargedU/S. 324 r/w.34 IPC

11.Finding of the courtfound guilty IN THE RESULT, accused found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 324 IPC, accordingly accused is convicted

12.Result of Order/JudgmentU/S.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Considering the facts put forth by the accused and facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that this is not a fit case to apply the provisions of a Probation of Offenders Act. Accused is sentenced to pay Rs.500-00 (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence under Sec.448 IPC. In default of payment accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days. Further the accused is sentenced to pay Rs.500-00 (Rupees five hundred only) for the offence under Sec 324 IPC. In default of payment accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days. There is no remand period under gone by the accused. Accused is informed about his right of appeal to the

Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Adilabad.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ASIFABAD

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

7 CC.No.255 /2011

CC.141/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIRPUR

Present : Smt.N.Hemalatha Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:JFCM, Sirpur

Friday, this the 19th day of February, 2016

CC.No.141/2011

Between: The State of A.P. through The Sub Inspector of Police, Kagaznagar-T. …. Complainant //AND//

1. A.1: Syed Irshad, s/o.Syed Hussain, Age:34 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Agriculture

2. A.2: Syed Riyaz, s/o.Syed Hussain, Age: 31 years, Caste:Musllim, Occ:Agriculture

3. A.3: Syed Sajid, S/o.Syed Hussain, Age:26 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Agriculture All are R/o.Penchikalpet (vg) of Bejjur mandal

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP Sri G.Ganeshanand for the State and Sri V.Kishor Kumar, Advocate for accused, after hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kagaznagar-T filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: On 16.03.2011 at about 0800 hours there is a petty matter was occurred in between complainant/Naseer khan and his wife, upon which wife of complainant informed the same to A.1 to A.3. At about 1430 hours A.1 to A.3 went to

Kagaznagar from Penchikalpet and picked up quarrel with LW.1/ Naseer khan armed with sticks instead of settlement of dispute between the LW.1/ Naseer khan and his wife and beat LW.1/

Naseer khan with sticks over his head and caused bleeding injury, on seeing this LWs.2 & 3 (Md.Abbaskhan and Md.Sher Ali)intervened to rescue him, A.1 to A.3 also beat LWs.2 & 3 (Md.Abbaskhan and Md.Sher Ali) with sticks on their heads and caused bleeding injuries.

Basing on the above report, LW.10/Sub Inspector of police, Kagaznagar-T registered a case in Cr.No.29/2011 for the offence punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3 (Naseer khan,

Md.Abbaskhan and Md.Sher Ali) and referred them to the government hospital, Sirpur-T for treatment, visited the scene of offence where he examined and recorded the statements of khan, 2 CC.No.141/2011

Md.Abbaskhan and Md.Sherali), visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of remaining witnesses, observed the scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama.

On 28.03.2011 he arrested A.1 to A.3. During the course of interrogation A.1 to A.3 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and stated that they thrown away the crime sticks.

After obtaining medical certificates of LWs.1 to 3 (Naseer khan, Md.Abbaskhan and Md.Sher

Ali) from LW.9/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community hospital, Sirpur-T and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable U/S.324 r/w.34

IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC against A.1 to A.3. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after they examined U/S. 239 Cr.P.C. charges for the offence U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 8, Ex.P-1 to P-7, Ex.D1 and

D.2 part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.3 examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material made against them in the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is that :Whether the prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC ?

8.POINT:

Complainant who examined as PW.1 deposed that on 16.03.2011 at about 2.30 PM an altercation took place at his house in between him and the accused, in which he received injury on his head with a stick. He do not remember out of thee accused who beat him. At first he went to the hospital and then to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

9.Eye witness who examined as PW.2 stated that in the year 2011during afternoon at 2-30 pm during altercation between PW.1 and his wife, his daughter-in-law i.e. wife of PW.1 called her brothers i.e. accused, after their arrival an altercation took place at his house in between 3 CC.No.141/2011

PW.1 and the accused. In which PW.1 received injury on his head. All accused beat PW.1. He also sustained injury on his left eye brow in the hands of accused when he intervened.

LW.3/Sher ali also sustained injury who was present at the time of incident.

10.Another eye witness who examined as PW.3 stated that on 16.03.2011 at 1-45 PM all the accused picked up quarrel with PW.1 at the house of PW.1, beat him with a stick. He cannot say who beat PW.1 among the accused with stick. The accused also beat PW.2. When he intervened then the accused also beat him with stick. Then they went to government hospital, Sirpur. Later went to police station and PW.1 lodged report.

11.Another eye witness who examined as PW.4 deposed that on 16.03.2011 at about 1.30

PM PW.1 and his wife quarreled, then wife of PW.1 called her brothers i.e. accused. When she questioned them, A.2 beat PWs.1 & 2 with stick whereas the other accused beat with hands and legs. PW.2 sustained injury on his right eye brow. PW.1 sustained injury on his head. PW.3 also sustained injury on his head. As A.2 was having stick he beat PWs.1 & 2. The sister of accused beat them with stones. Later she along with PWs.1 to 3 went to police station.

12.Another eye witness who examined as PW.5 stated that in the year 2011, March at about noon time an altercation took place in between PW.1 and his brother-in-laws i.e. accused. He do not know who beat PW.1. Accused beat with sticks. PW.3 sustained injury on his head. Later

PWs.1 & 2 went to the police station.

13.Another eye witness who examined as PW.6 stated that she do not know anything about the facts of the case. She did not witnessed the incident. This witness declared hostile by the learned APP.

14.Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama who examined as PW.7 stated that about 4 years back police conducted panchanama near the house of PW.1 in his presence and in the presence of LW.8/Ankulu. He did not remember whether police read over the contents of panchanama or not.

15.Investigating officer who examined as PW.8 stated that on 16.03.2011 on receipt of complaint from PW.1 her registered a case in Cr.No.29/2011 for the offence U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC, issued Ex.P4 FIR, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3, referred them to the 4 CC.No.141/2011 government hospital, Sirpur for treatment, visited the scene of offence where he examined and recorded the statements of PWs.4 to 6, prepared scene of offence panchanama and crime detail form in the presence of PW.7 and LW.8/Ankulu. On 28.03.2011 he arrested A.1 to A.3, produced them before the court and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

16. PW.1 who is the victim categorically deposed that he do not know out of three accused who beat him. He did not state specifically who beat him with a stick and also admitted the fact that out of the anger he went to the police station and lodged the complaint against the accused and he do not know who beat him. PW.2 stated that PW.1 received injury on his head with a stick. All the accused beat PW.1 with a stick on his heft eye brow. At that time Pradeep and

Padma were present.

17.PW.3 stated that on 16.03.2011 at about 1.45 PM he went to the house of PW.1, at that time all the accused came there and quarreled with PW.1 and they beat him with a stick and he categorically stated that he cannot say exactly who beat PW.1 among the accused with a stick.

PW.4 deposed a new version i.e. A.2 beat PW.1 with a stick. All the prosecution witnesses failed to state that who beat PW.1 except PW.4. There is contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses and there is no trust worthy evidence before the court to show that the accused beat PW.1.

18.PW.5 also deposed that he do not know who beat PW.1. PW.6 who is the independent witness turned hostile at the time of trial. The learned APP declared the witness as hostile and cross examined him at length. Nothing was elicited from him in favour of the prosecution.

19.PW.7 is panch witness stated that about 4 years back police called him to the house of

Abaskhan and conducted panchanama, but he did not remember whether police read over the contents of panchanama or not.

20.In the instant case there is a different version. There is no corroboration with regard to the incident and their evidence is not corroborated with any independent evidence and their evidence is not at all sufficient to convict the accused. Hence the accused are entitled to benefit doubt.

5 CC.No.141/2011

21.In the above circumstances I hold that the prosecution is miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22.IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC, accordingly A.1 to A.3 are acquitted U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and after corrections pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 19th day of February, 2016.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC: JFCM, Sirpur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution For Defence PW-1: Naseer Khan (LW.1/complainant) --NONE-- PW-2: Md.Abbaskhan (LW.2/injured/eye witness) PW-3: Md.Sher Ali (LW.3/injures/eye witness) PW-4: Wajidhanisa (LW.4/eye witness) PW-5: Velpula Pradeep (LW.5/eye witness) PW-6: Gadepeka Padma (LW.6/eye witness) PW-7: Jundi Shankar (LW.7/ Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama) PW-8: D.Gangareddy (LW.10/I.O.)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW.1, Dt:16.03.2011Ex.D1: Some relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4,

Dt:16.03.2011

Ex-P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Dt:16.03.2011 Ex.D2: Some relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4

Dt:16.03.2011

Ex-P3: CDF, Dt:16.03.2011 Ex-P4: FIR, Dt: Dt:21.04.2012 Ex-P5: Medical certificate of PW.1, Dt:16.03.2011 Ex-P6: Medical certificate of PW.2, Dt:16.03.2011 Ex-P7: Medical certificate of PW.3, Dt:16.03.2011 M.O.s MARKED -NIL-

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

6 CC.No.141/2011

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SIRPUR

C.C.NO.141/2011

1.Date of Offence16.03.2011

2.Date of report to PS/Court16.03.2011

3.Date of arrest of accused/Surrender in court28.03.2011

4.Date of release on bail28.03.2011

5.Date of commencement of trial08.01.2015

6.Date of Close of Trial15.10.2015

7.Date of Order/Judgment19.02.2016

8.Explanation of delay, if any--

The State of A.P. through Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S. Kagaznagar-T. // AND // //AND//

1. A.1: Syed Irshad, s/o.Syed Hussain, Age:34 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Agriculture

2. A.2: Syed Riyaz, s/o.Syed Hussain, Age: 31 years, Caste:Musllim, Occ:Agriculture

3. A.3: Syed Sajid, S/o.Syed Hussain, Age:26 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ:Agriculture All are R/o.Penchikalpet (vg) of Bejjur mandal 09Plea of accusedNot Guilty.

10.Offence chargedU/S. 324 r/w.34 IPC

11.Finding of the courtfound guilty IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC,

12.Result of Order/Judgmentaccordingly A.1 to A.3 are acquitted U/S.248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ASIFABAD

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

7 CC.No.141/2011

CC.453/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIRPUR

Present : Smt.N.Hemalatha Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Asifabad FAC:JFCM, Sirpur

Friday, this the 26th day of February, 2016

CC.No.453/2012

Between: The State of A.P. through The Sub Inspector of Police, Sirpur -T. …. Complainant //AND//

1. A.1: Neerati Shanta, W/o.Mondi, Age:50 years, Caste:Palle Reddy, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Sirpur-T

2. A.2: Neerati Mondi, S/o.Narayana, Age:55 years, Caste: Palle Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Sirpur-T

3. A.3: Neerati Suresh, S/o.Mondi, Age:25 years, Caste:Palle Reddy, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Sirpur-T

4. A.4: Neerati Ravi, S/o.Mondi, Age:22 years, Caste: Palle Reddy, Occ:Tractor Owner cum driver, R/o.Sirpur-T

5. A.5: Neerati Raja Babu, S/o.Mondi, Age:19 years, Caste:Pallereddy, Occ:Student, R/o.Sirpur-T

…..Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing on this day in the presence of APP Sri G.Ganeshanand for the State and Sri G.Pentanna, Advocate for the accused, after hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Sirpurr-T filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for the offence punishable U/S.326 r/w.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that: On 30.06.2012 A.1 to A.5 went to the house of LW.1/Thota Rajubai and A.3 beat LW.2/Thota Mondakka on her right shoulder and left hand wrist with a stick, when she was standing infront of their house and A.1 beat LW.1/Thota

Rajubai with a stick on her back side, A.4 & A.5 beat LW.3/Thota Satish with a stick on his left side stomach and left hand alleging that LW.1/Thota Rajubai developed illicit intimacy with A.1.

Basing on the above report, LW.10/Addl. Inspector of police, Sirpurr-T registered a case in Cr.No.41/2012 for the offence punishable U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3 (Thota Rajubai, Thota

Mondakka and Thota Satish), referred them to the Government hospital, Sirpur. He viisited 2 CC.No.453/2012 scene of offence where he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.4 to 6 ( Dongre

Dinakar, Ramtenki Ashok and Moulkar Narayana), prepared crime detail form in the presence of

LWs.7 & 8 Gajireddy Rajanna and Shaik Habeeb). Subsequently LW.11/ Sub Inspector of police, Sirpur-T took up further investigation from LW.10/Addl. Inspector of police, Sirpurr-T and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. During the course of his investigation he arrested A.1 to A.5 on 13.07.2012. During the course of interrogation they confessed to have committed the offence and stated that they thrown away crime weapon.

After obtaining medical certificates of from LW.13/Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community hospital, Sirpur and obtaining medical LW.9/Medical officer, Government hospital, Sirpur-T and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 for the offence punishable U/S.326 r/w.34 IPC.

3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/S.326 r/w.34 IPC against A.1 to A.5. On appearance of accused persons copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. and after they examined U/S. 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/S.326 r/w.34 IPC. Charge framed for the said offence, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 9, Ex.P-1 to P-6 got marked in support of its case.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating material made against them in the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is that : Whether the prosecution prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence U/S.326 r/w.34 IPC?

8.POINT:

PWs.1 to 3 stated that about 3 years back at about 10.30 PM all the accused went to their house and bet them with stick alleging that PW.1 is having illegal contact with Neerati

Satyanarayana who is the son of A.1 & A.2. As a result PW.1 received injury on her back, PW.2 3 CC.No.453/2012 received injury on her left hand and PW.3 received injury on her left side stomach. LWs.4 to 6 (Dinakar, Ashok and Narayana) witnessed the incident and rescued them. Later PW.1 lodged

Ex.P1 report.

9.Eye witnesses who examined as PWs.4 to 6 stated that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. These witnesses turned hostile.

10.Panch witness for scene of offence who examined as PW.7 stated that about 3 years back police conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared Ex.P5rough sketch which bears his signature.

11.1st investigating officer who examined as PW.8 stated that on 07.07.2012 at about 3.30

PM on receipt of complaint from PW.1 he registered a case in Cr.No.43/2012 for the offence

U/S.324 r/w.34 IPC and issued Ex.P6 FIR, examined PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements, referred them to the government hospital, Sirpur, visited the scene of offence situated near

Ambedkar statue in Siprur Town at the house of PW.1, prepared Ex.P5 crime detail form in the presence of PW.7 and LW.8//Habeeb, examined and recorded the statements of PWs.4 to 6.

Thereafter he handed over the CD file to their Sub Inspector for further investigation.

12.2nd investigating officer who examined as PW.9 stated that on 02.07.2012 he received CD file from PW.8, verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. During the course of his investigation on 13.07.2012 at 8.00 AM he apprehended all the accused at their house, brought them to the police station, after effecting their arrest, produced them before the court and after completion of investigation and after obtaining medical certificates he filed charge sheet.

13.PW.1 who is the victim and defacto complainant deposed that about 3 years back at about 10-30 PM all the accused raided her house and beat her with sticks stating that she is having illegal contact with Neerati Satyanarayana who is the son of A.1 & A.2. Due to that she sustained injury on her back. At that time her mother LW.2/Mondakka was present and the accused also beat her. Due to which she sustained fracture injury. At that time LW.4/Dinakar,

LW.5/Ashok and LW.6/Narayana witnessed the incident and rescued her.

4 CC.No.453/2012

14.PW.2 also stated the same thing that the accused beat PW.1 on the ground that she is having illegal contact with the son of A.1 & A.2. The accused beat her and she sustained fracture injury on her left hand.

15.PW.3 also deposed the same thing with regard to the incident occurred about 3 years back. PWs.4 to 6 turned hostile at the time of trial. Best reasons known to them. PWs.1 to 3 evidence is trust worthy and coherent and they also stood for cross examination. The learned counsel for the accused did not elicit anything in favour of the defence and PWs.2 to 3 evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Prosecution did not examine the Radiologist to prove the injuries on the bodies of prosecution witnesses and there is oral evidence that the accused beat

PW.1. Hence the accused are convicted U/S.324 IPC which is lesser punishment than 326 IPC.

16.In the above circumstances I hold that the prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

17.IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w.34

IPC, accordingly A.1 to A.5 are convicted U/S.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and after corrections pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 26th day of February, 2016.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC: JFCM, Sirpur.

18.On hearing the quantum of sentence accused stated that they would not repeat the same in future, A.1 & A.2 are old aged persons, A.3 to A.5 are having wife, children and parents, they are only the bread winner of their family. If the Hon’ble Court not taken mercy upon them, they would suffer a lot and their life will spoil. Hence, they prayed the Hon’ble court to take mercy upon them and take into consideration.

19.Considering the facts put forth by the accused and facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that this is not a fit case to apply the provisions of a Probation of

Offenders Act. A.1 to A.5 are sentenced to pay Rs.1000-00 (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC. In default of payment A.1 to A.5 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. There is no remand period under gone by A.1 to A.5.

5 CC.No.453/2012

A.1 to A.5 are informed about their right of appeal to the Hon’ble District and Sessions Court,

Adilabad.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC: JFCM, Sirpur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution For Defence PW-1: Thota Rajubai (LW.1/complainant/injured) --NONE-- PW-2: Thota Mondakka (LW.2/injured) PW-3: Thota Sateesh (LW.3/injured) PW-4: Dongre Dinakar (LW.4/eye witness) PW-5: Ramtenki Ashok (LW.5/eye witness) PW-6: Moulkar Narayana (LW.6/eye witness) PW-7: Gajireddy Rajanna (LW.7/ Panch witness for CDF) PW-8: M.Sudhakar (LW.10/1st I.O.) PW-9: P.Surender (LW.11/2nd I.O.)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1: Report given by PW.1, Dt:01.07.2012 -NIL- Ex-P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Dt: 01.07.2012 Ex-P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5, Dt: 01.07.2012 Ex-P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6, Dt: 01.07.2012 Ex-P5: CDF, Dt: 01.07.2012 Ex-P6: FIR, Dt: 01.07.2012 M.O.s MARKED -NIL-

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ASIFABAD,

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

6 CC.No.453/2012

CALANDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT SIRPUR

C.C.NO.453/2012

1.Date of Offence01.07.2012

2.Date of report to PS/Court01.07.2012

3.Date of arrest of accused/Surrender in court13.07.2012

4.Date of release on bail13.07.2012

5.Date of commencement of trial02.07.2015

6.Date of Close of Trial15.09.2015

7.Date of Order/Judgment26.02.2016

8.Explanation of delay, if any--

The State of A.P. through Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S. Sirpur-T. // AND //

1. A.1: Neerati Shanta, W/o.Mondi, Age:50 years, Caste:Palle Reddy, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Sirpur-T

2.A.2: Neerati Mondi, S/o.Narayana, Age:55 years, Caste: Palle Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Sirpur-T

3.A.3: Neerati Suresh, S/o.Mondi, Age:25 years, Caste:Palle Reddy, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Sirpur-T

4.A.4: Neerati Ravi, S/o.Mondi, Age:22 years, Caste: Palle Reddy, Occ:Tractor Owner cum driver, R/o.Sirpur-T

5.A.5: Neerati Raja Babu, S/o.Mondi, Age:19 years, Caste:Pallereddy, Occ:Student, R/o.Sirpur-T 09Plea of accusedNot Guilty.

10.Offence chargedU/S. 324 r/w.34 IPC

11.Finding of the courtfound guilty IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.5 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w.34 IPC, accordingly A.1 to A.5 are

12.Result of Order/Judgmentconvicted U/S.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Considering the facts put forth by the accused and facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that this is not a fit case to apply the provisions of a Probation of Offenders Act. A.1 to A.5 are sentenced to pay Rs.1000-00 (Rupees one thousand only) each for the offence under Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC. In default of payment A.1 to A.5 shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. There is no remand period under gone by A.1 to A.5. A.1 to A.5 are informed about their right of appeal to the Hon’ble District and

Sessions Court, Adilabad.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

ASIFABAD

FAC:JFCM, Sirpur.

7 CC.No.453/2012 8 CC.No.453/2012

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT 

 ASIFABAD

Present:­ Smt N. Hemalatha, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Saturday, this the 31st day of March, 2018

DVC. No. 11 of 2017

Between

Hivre Mamatha, W/o. Namdev, age 25 years, Occ: Nil, C/o. Kavalker Shankar, R/o. Babapur, Asifabad mandal, Kumram bheem district.

…Petitioner/aggrieved person 

And

1. Hivre Namdev, S/o. Arjuna, age 28 years, Occ: Agriculture. 

2. Hivre Laxmi bai, W/o. Arjuna, age 60 years, Occ: House wife. 

(All are R/o. Babapur, Asifabad mandal, Kumrambheem district.) … Respondents

This petition is coming before me on 29.3.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Suresh, counsel for the Petitioner/aggrieved person and respondents are set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec. 12 of PWDV Act, 2005 seeking protection Order, maintenance, return of Sridhana, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that :­

The Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is mother of respondent No.1. The marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with respondent about three years back as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community, at the time of marriage on the demand of respondent No.1 the parents of petitioner gave dowry of Rs.1,00,000/­ 2 ½ thula gold to respondents on their demand.

After the marriage the petitioner No.1 joined with respondents and used to reside in one house at Babapur village, after the marriage both petitioner and respondent lived happily

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 2 of 6 for a period of six months only, thereafter respondent No.1 started disliking and hatredness towards petitioner and started harassing her physically and mentally and beat the petitioner number of times by demanding additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh from her mother. She further submitted that respondent No.2 used to encourage the respondent

No.1 to harass the petitioner mentally and physically for sake of additional dowry. The petitioner tolerated all acts of respondents with hope that they would change their attitude but there is no change in the attitude of respondents and about 1 ½ year back the respondents driven out the petitioner with a warning that if she fails to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh they will not allow into her house.

3.The petitioner further submitted that about one year back a panchayath was held at the instance of parents of petitioner in the presence of elders i.e. Hivre Shankar and some others, all the elders found fault with respondent No.1 and advised him to take back the petitioner, but respondent No.1 bluntly refused to do so. Thereafter again two months back the parents of petitioner conducted panchayath where the elders strictly advised respondent No.1 to take back the petitioner, as per advise of elders respondent No.1 took the petitioner and hardly resided for 15 days, during said period also respondent No.1 was cruel towards her, beat the petitioner mercilessly many times and abused her in filthy language and tried to kill her, at lat about 1 ½ month back respondents beat the petitioner mercilessly and driven out her from their house and asked her not to enter into their house and respondent No.1 disclosed that he has no interest to lead marital life with petitioner and he want to take divorce from her.

4.The petitioner further submitted that prior to marriage of petitioner with respondent No.1, respondent No.1 married one Vimala and begotten a daughter through her and after getting divorce from her respondent No.1 married petitioner. The respondent No.1 used to say that if he marry again with another lady he will get amount as dowry and harassed the petitioner and caused domestic violence. The petitioner

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 3 of 6 further submitted that respondent No.1 is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 5­00 and patta stood on the name of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is earning an amount of Rs. 20,000/­ per month through agriculture and besides he is attending private works through which he is earning Rs.10,000/­. By contending the above contentions finally she requested the court to allow her petition.

5.After receipt of notices the respondents refused to receive summons, hence they are set exparte.

6.On behalf of the petitioner she herself examined as PW­1 and got marked Ex.P1 on her behalf, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on their behalf. 

7.After perusing the pleading, after going through the evidence of petitioner and after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, this court decided to frame the following points for consideration;

Points:

1. Whether the petitioner has satisfied the basic ingredients of the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of protection Order against the respondents?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any maintenance from Respondent? If yes, to what amount?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from respondent? If yes, to what amount?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for return of Sridhana property?

8.Point No.1:­ PW­1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of her evidence before the Court and was accepted. The evidence of PW1 was just reiteration of the petition contents and nothing more than that. Hence, needs no repetition. According to her evidence her marriage was performed with R1 about 3 years back at her parents house at Babapur village, after marriage she joined with respondents and led happy marital life for about six

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 4 of 6 months, later respondent No.1 on the instigation of respondent No.2 started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and beat her mercilessly. The evidence of PW­1 further reveals that despite of panchayaths respondent No.1 did not change his attitude and demanded additional dowry of Rs. 1 lakh and also demanded for divorce. Considering the unchallenged and un­rebutted evidence of PW­1 this court feels that domestic violence is caused to the petitioner, hence point

No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

9.Point No.2: As per the evidence of PW­1 all the allegations as to harassment and torture was occurred prior to 2017, and her evidence does not reveals that there is life threat to her in the hands of respondents, moreover after filing this case there are no complaints made by the petitioner against respondents about the threat. So in this circumstances this court feels that there is no need to grant protection order, therefore the court declined to grant protection order. Hence point No.2 is answered in favor of the respondents against the petitioner.

10.Point No.3: Petitioner No.1 herself examined as PW1. Admittedly the parties are not living together since 2017. There are contrasting circumstances stated by the petitioner for such separation. It is the responsibility of the respondent No.1 to look after the basic needs of the petitioner even during such separation. The petitioner contended that the respondent not providing any maintenance to her since 2017. and there is no evidence to show that the respondent No.1 put his best efforts to conciliate the matter and requested her for living together. That in the case on hand the fact that the petitioner is living separately from respondent No.1 for such a long time and PW­1 is made to knock the door of the Court of law for her maintenance and maintenance of children itself shows that the petitioner is neglected by the respondent No.1. It is the pious duty of husband to maintain his wife and children when they are unable to maintain themselves, as such this

Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for maintenance.

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 5 of 6

11.The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/­ per month towards her maintenance. According to evidence of PW­1 her husband doing agriculture and also attending private work and earning Rs.30,000/­ per month, but there is no documentary evidence to show the earnings of respondent, further the PW­1 did not examine any witness about the earnings of respondent No.1 and did not file an document to show that the respondent No.1 is having landed properties. However the respondent No.1 being husband of PW­1 is liable to maintain them, as such considering the present cost of living and present circumstances this court opines that an amount of Rs.4000/­per month to petitioner would be sufficient towards her maintenance. Accordingly, the point No.3 is answered partly in favor of the petitioner.

12. Point No.4­ Admittedly, the parties are living separately since 2017 and all the allegations as to harassment and domestic violence occurred prior to that and there is no evidence on record that the PW­1 is anticipating life thereat from the respondents. The petitioner No.1 claimed 2 lakhs as compensation for domestic violence caused by the respondents. But PW1 during her evidence mentioned no physical injuries. It is not stated by the petitioner No.1 how she calculated such huge amount as compensation. This is a beneficial legislation to protect the women from domestic violence; it does not mean that the petitioner No.1 is exempted from put forth sufficient evidence or basis for her claims. From the evidence available on record there appears no scientific basis to assess the torture or emotional distress alleged to be born by the petitioner No.1 in terms of compensation. When the compensation to be awarded can not be assessed formally for lack of sufficient material to show specific injuries or ill treatment, such relief can not be assessed on mere statements. As such, it can not be granted merely because the petitioner

No.1 claimed. Accordingly the point No.4 is answered in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner No.1.

13. Point No.5: The petitioner No.1 claimed the return of her stridhana. But the PW1

DVC.No.11/2017 Dt:31.03.2018 Page No. 6 of 6 did not mentioned the stridhana property which was allegedly given to respondent by her parents. No where the PWDV Act provide for such relief of return of dowry. When it was deposed to have been given as dowry, now it can not be termed as stridhana. Hence, I am not inclined to grant such relief in favor of the petitioner.

14. In view of discussion as to Points 1 to 5, the petition is allowed partly in favor of the petitioner and dismissed partly. Accordingly, the following relief is granted in favor of the petitioner.

15.A monetary relief u/s 20 (d) of the PWDV Act is granted hereby in favor of the petitioner whereby the respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.4000/­(Rupees four thousand only) to petitioner towards her maintenance, etc. Payable by the respondent

No.1 on or before 10th of every succeeding month from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant and after correction, pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of March, 2018.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Petitioner: For Respondent

P.W.1: Hivre Mamatha­None­

Exhibits marked 

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Marriage Card

Exhibits marked 

For Respondents: Nil

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad