Sri N. Narsing Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE::TENALI

PRESENT: SRI NANDIKONDA NARSING RAO,

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TENALI.

Wednesday, the 26 th day of December, 2018.

S.C.No.510/2017

Between: State : Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Circle. (Cr.No.95/2017 of Cherukupalli P.S.,) …Complainant

And

Evuri @ Evoori Koteswararao, S/o. Adinarayana, 37 years,

R/o. Anaganivaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal.... Accused

This case is coming on 17-12-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of

Sri T. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Circle filed charge sheet against the sole Accused for the offences under Section 302 and 498-A of

IPC relating to Crime No.95/2017 of CherukupalliP.S.

02. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased Evuri Radha and P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased. The deceased is the wife of the accused and in the month of August, 2009 P.Ws.1 and 2 performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused in the presence of elders as per

Hindu Customs and rites. At the time of marriage the deceased’s parents gave one lakh rupees to the accused for the sake of conjugal life of the deceased. During their conjugal life they were blessed with two male children, who were aged about 7 years and 5 years. The accused previously worked as agricultural coolie, for some time he used to run an auto. After marriage the accused addicted to bad vice and neglected the deceased and 2 his family and spent money for his bad vices and started harassing the deceased both mentally and physically and also demanded her to bring more money from her parental home and he also informed the same to the parents of the deceased, for which P.Ws.1 and 2 gave another one lakh rupees to the deceased. But the deceased was not satisfied and again started harassing the deceased both mentally and physically with a demand for registration of the agriculture land on her name from the parents of the deceased.

(ii)The deceased put the matter before the elders i.e., L.Ws.

8 to 10 viz., Uppala Nagabhusanam, Gogineni Vijaya Lakshmi and Gogineni

Vasundara @ Vasudha, and L.Ws.15 and 16 viz., Khaja Sarojani and

Bellamkonda Venakateswararao, and they pacified the matter and requested the accused not to harass the deceased, but the accused did not change his attitude. The parents of the deceased brought an auto and gave the same to the accused, but he did not run the auto and harassed the deceased for money for his bad vices.

(iii) The deceased who worked as Anganwadi teacher since five years. The accused spent her salary for his bad vices, and on 16.08.2017 at about 6.00 PM, when the deceased was busy in her house hold works at kitchen room, the accused came to house in a drunken state and demanded the deceased to give money. On that the deceased replied that she is suffering from fever and also told that she doesn’t have money, on that the accused quarreled with the deceased, then the deceased told him that if he further continued his harassment she would die, then the accused with an intention to kill the deceased, took kerosene and poured on the deceased and lit fire with scissors lighter, flames surrounded to the deceased and the accused escaped from there. On hearing the screams of the deceased, the neighbours went to the deceased and informed the same to the parents of the deceased and shifted the deceased to Ganesh 3

Hospital, Cherukupalli and later on she shifted to GGH, Guntur for treatment and she succumbed to the burnt injuries on 22.08.2017 at about 10.45 AM.

(iv)On 17.08.2017 at about 12.45 PM, on receipt of AD intimation of the deceased, L.W.25 i.e., HC – 616 of GGH OP PS visited casualty ward, GGH, Guntur and recorded the statement of the deceased and subsequently, she/ Head Constable-616 transferred and L.W.26 – SI of police, Cherukupalli PS registered the same as a case in Cr.No.95/2017 u/s.307, 498-A IPC. During the course of investigation L.W.26 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, photographed the scene, drafted observation report, forwarded the material objects to FSL and also examined the witnesses and after completion of the investigation and after apprehension of the accused, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

03.The learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Repalle has taken cognizance of offences under Section 302, 498-A of Indian penal Code against the accused vide P.R.C.No:39/2017 and after the appearance of accused and on complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., since, the offence under Section 302 of Indian penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the

Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Guntur vide committal order dated 07- 12-2017. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Guntur was pleased to receive it on file in S.C. No. 510 of 2017 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.After consideration, a charge under Section 302 IPC and 498-A

IPC are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 and M.Os. 1 to 5.

4

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses turned hostile.

06.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

07.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

08.Now the points for determination are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

Accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC and

498-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case ?

POINT No.1:-

09.It is the case of the prosecution that the Accused, who is the husband of the deceased, on 16.08.2017 at about 06.00 PM came to the house in a drunken state and picked up quarrel with the deceased for money, as the deceased refused to give money, the quarrel was accelerated, then the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire with a scissors lighter, due to which the deceased succumbed to the burnt injuries on 22.08.2018 at about 10.45 AM at GGH, Guntur.

10.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.9. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased, and P.W.4 is the learned

Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, P.W.5 is the

Village Revenue Officer, P.W.6 is the Sub-Inspector of police, Cherukupalli police station, P.W.7 is the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic

Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, P.W.8 is the Head constable, 616 5 of OP Police station, Government General Hospital, Guntur and P.W.9 is the

Inspector of Police, Repalle rural circle.

11.It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased, that the deceased is his daughter and the accused is his son-in-law. He performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused at about 10 years ago and they were blessed with two children. About 10 months ago his daughter was died with burn injuries, as her sarree was caught hold to fire.

The accused and the deceased lived amicably and he was not examined by the police.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased, that the accused is her son-in-law and they performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused in the year 2009 and they were blessed with two male children. The police was examined her and she stated the same to them.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.3, who is the brother of the deceased, that P.Ws.1 and 2 are his parents and the accused is his brother-in-law. The marriage of the deceased with the accused was performed in the year 2009 and they were blessed with two male children. The police did not examine him.

14. It is the evidence of P.W.4 V. Sri Rama, Spl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Prohibition & Excise), Guntur that, on 17.08.2017 at about 06.35

PM she received a requisition/Ex.X.1 from GGH, Guntur for recording the

Dying Declaration/Ex.X2 of the deceased viz., Epuri Radha, W/o Koteswara

Rao, who is working as Anganwadi teacher at Anganvadivaripalem Village of

Nadimpalli Panchayat. On receipt of such requisition, she reached GGH,

Guntur at about 6.45 PM and commenced the recording of the statement of the declarent at about 6.47 p.m., after identifying her with the help of CMO

Dr.C.Madhusudhana Rao, who shown the declarent in the casualty ward.

Except herself and the doctor, none were present by the side of the 6 declarent and PW.4 posed some preliminary questions to ascertain whether the declarent was fit, conscious and coherent state of mind and also by obtaining the confirmation from the CMO that the deceased was fit, conscious and coherent state, she recorded the statement in verbatim, where the deceased has stated the reasons for such occurrence of the incident.

15.Coming to the evidence of P.W.5, who is the Village Revenue

Officer, Nadimpalli village of Cherukupalli Mandal that on 18-08-2017,

Cherukupalli police have called him by phone to the police station and they went to Kanaganivaripalem village of Nadimpalli village to the house of one

Morla Nancharaiah along L.W.19 Maridu Siva Kumar, who is the VRA of

Nadimpalli village and then they were accompanied by the police and in their presence, the police have observed the scene of offence and seized half burnt blue and green red white colour silk saree and one Meckdowels

Brandi bottle along with lighter red colour i.e, M.Os. 1 to 4 and seized one green colour cloth piece which is marked as M.O.5. He also signed on the slips and the police observed crime place in his presence and in the presence of their VRA and the police prepared rough sketch and mediators’ report. Again on 23-08-2017 he was once again called by the police and he along with VRA and police went to the scene of offence, where P.W.9 observed the scene of offence and prepared mediators report i.e., Ex.P5.

On 23-08-2017, they all went to Government General Hospital, Guntur where the inquest was held by L.W.20/Gogineni Venkata Subbarao in their presence and in the presence of panchayatdars and relatives and it was resolved by the panchayatdars, the deceased died due to the burning injuries sustained in the hands of the accused who poured kerosene and lit her to fire and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P6.

16.Coming to the evidence of P.W.6, Sub-Inspector of police,

Cherukupalli police station, who spoke about the registering of the case as 7

Cr. No.95/17 basing on the statement recorded by the Head Constable in respect of the deceased Evuri Radha through P.W.8 HC 616 of OP Police station, Government General Hospital, Guntur which is marked as Ex.P7 and he registered the same as a case in Cr. No.95/2017, u/secs. 498-A and 307 of IPC and issued FIR Ex.P8 and he deputed one PC No.4231 for securing the scene of offence and proceeded to Government General

Hospital,Tenali, as the injured was in conscious and coherent, he examined the injured and recorded her statement and also examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and

L.W.17 Padamata Koteswaramma and L.W.11 Evuri Manikanta. He also deposed that on 18-08-2017, he along with the mediators P.W.5 and L.W.19

Mareedu Siva Kumar visited the scene of offence i.e., house of the deceased at Anaganivaripalem village, observed the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and observation report i.e.,Ex.P9 and Ex.P4 respectively. He also spoke about the seizure of 180 ml two country made lamps made up of the Brandy bottles and red colour lighter and blue green colour cloth pieces and also seized M.Os. 1 to 5 from the scene of offence.

He also examined L.Ws.7 to 11 and L.W.12 Morla Nancharaiah, L.W.13 Puli

Nageswaramma, L.W.14 Puli Nagaraju, L.W.15 Khaja Sarojini, L.W.16

Bellamkonda Venkateswararao and recorded their statements. On 21-08-17, basing on the credible information received about the accused, he along with his staff went to Ambedkar Statue, Island center, Cherukupalli and apprehended the accused and arrested him and sent him to judicial custody.

Subsequently on 22-08-2017, he received death intimation from Government

General Hospital, Guntur and basing on the said death intimation, he altered the section of law from U/sec.498-A and 307 of Indian Penal Code to 498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code under Ex.P10 and handed over the further investigation to their Inspector of police.

17.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.7 who is Associate Professor in the department of Forensic Medicine, Guntur Medical College, Guntur , 8 who spoke about the conducting of Post Mortem report over the body of the deceased by name Evuri Radha and he found the injuries on the deceased i.e., about 60% infected, ante-mortem, dermo-epidermal burns present over lower part of the face, all over the neck, both upper limbs, except Palmar aspect of both hands, all over the back of the trunk, front of the chest, front and upper half of the abdomen, upper and lateral part of right thigh, upper and back of right leg and upper part of both buttocks and pale yellow coloured foul smelling unhealthy granulation tissue present over the burns and he opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to

Septicemic shock as a result of infected burns and the approximate time of death is 22 to 28 hours prior to post Mortem examination and he issued

Ex.P12 Post Mortem examination.

18.Coming to the evidence of P.W.8 the then Head constable of

OP police station, Government General Hospital, Guntur, who spoke about the receiving MLC intimation from the causality ward Medical Officer on 17-08-2017 at about 12-45 p.m., visiting the causality ward and recording the statement of deceased victim and sending the same to station house officer, Cherukupalli Police station.

19.Coming to the evidence of P.W.9 who spoke about the continuing of further investigation in this case after altering FIR, visiting the scene of offence, securing the mediators, preparing rough sketch of the scene of offence and he also deposed that he prepared the observation report and he visited the Government General Hospital Mortury, secured mediators P.Ws. 1 to 3 and L.Ws. 4 to 8, recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators and sent the dead body for conducting autopsy to Medical

College, Guntur. On 25-08-2018, he visited Anaganivaripalem village, secured the mediators, recorded their statements, sent material objects to the Chemical examination to RFSL and later he filed charge sheet.

9

20.In the present case the parents of the deceased i.e.,

P.Ws.1 and 2 and the brother of the deceased i.e., P.W.3 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they categorically stated that the accused never committed any offence against the deceased.

21.On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 9, who are official witnesses and who spoke about the receipt of intimation of MLC, registering of the case and scene observation report by the investigating officer in the presence of mediators and also spoke about the visiting of the mortuary and conducting of inquest and also Panchanama and subsequently arresting of the accused and sending him to judicial custody and though all the witnesses have been cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused denying of the evidence which is stated by them that they are deposing false and further that the very seizure itself was false and only it is a created one.

22.In respect of the recording the statement of the deceased by

P.W.8 the then Head constable of OP Police station, Government General

Hospital, Guntur, the learned counsel for accused have contended that no certification has been taken by P.W.8 before proceeding with the recording of the statement of the victim to know that whether the victim was conscious and coherent before and after recording of the statement of the deceased. , but P.W.8 has stated that the doctor has endorsed the same on the statement. It is the case of the learned counsel for accused that the deceased suffered from burns more than 60%, as such, she cannot speak for much time, but the same was denied and as per P.W.8, the statement was commenced at 1-00 p.m., and concluded at 2-00 p.m. It is suggested that as the deceased has given a lengthy statement as given by normal person and as there is no endorsement obtained from the doctor, as such, the question of recording statement for more than one hour from a woman, who has sustained more than 60% of burn injuries is impossible and he 10 further contended that the very recording the statement is doubtful and it is a created one, but the same were denied by P.W.8.

23. On perusal of the cross examination of P.W.9, who is the investigating officer, the learned counsel for accused questioned about the various aspects about the investigation conducted by the investigating officer. Though it is pointed out that the statements who are scribed by one

Uday Kumar, who is a police constable and it is also pointed out that the hand writings in the statements recorded by SI of police and the statements recorded by P.W.9 are one and the same and the same were denied by

P.W.9. Though other suggestions have been made, which are denied by the investigating officer.

24. On perusal of the Dying Declaration which was recorded by

P.W.4, the deceased stated that her husband used to come in a drunken state and abused her in filthy language and yesterday also at about 6-00 p.m., her husband came in a drunken state, quarreled with her and abused her in filthy language and poured kerosene on her and lit her to fire with the lighter. She also stated that without any reason her husband used to beat her and her children and he used to abuse them and used to harass them and yesterday night also, he fought with her and when she stated that if he continuously harassing, she would die, on that her husband saying that that is so, now let her die and by stating so, he poured kerosene on her and lit her to fire. She also stated that her husband used to drink alcohol and used to beat her and her children by locking the doors inside the house and also used to beat them with legs and used to harass them. She further stated that her husband intentionally poured kerosene on her only with an intention to kill her and if any happenings to her, her children shall be handed over to her brother.

25. The declarant in her dying declaration has further stated before the Magistrate that yesterday evening, when her husband poured kerosene 11 and lighting the lighter, along with her husband, Morla Nancharaiah, who is the foster father of her husband was also present and on hearing her shouting, he came and diffused the fire and took her to hospital and got admitted into hospital and at the time of incident, Eevuri Mangamma was also present. She also stated that at the time of her marriage, gold ear rings (Buttalu), gold ring, ear rings, Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry and Rs.5,000/- towards Adapaduchu lanchanams were given and the amount which was given to her husband at the time of marriage was utilized by him. While she was doing job, her entire salary used to be spent for the household expenditure and her husband further used to harass her for getting more money. Yesterday night also, there was a big quarrel between them.

26.The declarant in her dying declaration further stated that at about two months back, when she went to her parental house due to the harassment of her husband and wanted to give divorce to her husband, at that time Nadimpalli teacher and Bogineni Subbarao acted as mediators and got convinced her and requested her to give one more chance to her husband to change his attitude and got sent her to her in-laws house, and subsequently one month before, her father and brother came and took her to their house and went to Lawyer Uday Prasad for obtaining divorce from her husband, then in the meantime, the said Nadimpalli teacher and president came and convinced her and took her to her in-laws place. She also stated that her husband used to torture her by coming in drunken state, as such, she also lodged a report at Cherukupalli police station against the accused and her foster parents also filed a case against the accused at

Cherukupalli police station. With an intention to kill her, her husband poured kerosene on her and lit fire and if any happenings to her, her both children shall be handed over to Yemineni Gopi who doesn't have any bad habits and the agricultural land which her husband and her mother-in-law is having shall be written in the name of her children, as her children will not be taken 12 care by anybody and as the accused utilized her amount and gold, As her husband's foster father has got registered the house in his name and she wanted the said house shall be registered in the name of her children.

27. Though the deceased has specifically stated in her statement in

Dying declaration that the accused with an intention to kill her, has poured the kerosene on her and lit her to fire and she also narrated about the giving of the dowry amount and the jewellery at the time of marriage and the same being utilized by the accused for himself and she also narrated about the harassment matted in the hands of the accused, and though the said Dying declaration can be made basis for the conviction, but unfortunately P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are the defacto complainant and the parents of the victim turned hostile and none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Except P.Ws. 1 to 3, the prosecution did not choose to examine any of the witnesses whom she has referred in her dying declaration.

28.As the parents of the deceased i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2, and the brother of the deceased i.e., P.W.3, did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses by declaring them as hostile and after obtaining permission the learned Addl.P.P cross-examined them, but nothing is elicited in their cross-examination in order to discredit their testimony and in order to support the version of the prosecution.

29.Thought he prosecution has examined P.Ws. 6 to 9, but in view of there being no corroborative evidence supporting the dying declaration without there being any corroboration, purely basing on the dying declaration and the statement of the deceased, no conviction can be held, as such,

I hold that the the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of

Accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC, and accordingly he is entitled to be acquittal for the said offences.

13

So, the point is answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.

POINT No.2 :-

30.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of SIX MONTHS as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 26 th day of December, 2018.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR

FAC: XI ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TENALI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

P.W.1 : Yemineni Panakalu.

P.W.2 : Yemineni Alivelu Mangamma.

P.W.3 : Yemineni Gopi.

P.W.4 : V. Sri Rama, Spl. Judicial I Class Magistrate (Proh., & Excise).

P.W.5 : K.Ramesh

P.W.6 : G.Rajeswararao

P.W.7: Dr. P.Chandra Sekhararao

P.W.8 : K.Sambasivarao, Head Constable

P.W.9 : P.V.Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police

For Defence : --None---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P1/: Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.1.

Ex.P2/: Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.2.

Ex.P3/: Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of P.W.3.

14

Ex.P4/: Mediators report, dt.18-08-2017

Ex.P5/: Mediators report, dt.23-08-2017

Ex.P6/: Column NO.15 in inquest reported

Ex.P7/: Statement of deceased recorded by Head Constable

Ex.P8/: Original FIR

Ex.P9/: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P10/: Death intimation of deceased

EX.P11/: Alteration Memo

Ex.P12/: Post Mortem Certificate

Ex.P13/: MLC intimation

Ex.P14/: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P15/: RFSL reported

Marked through P.W.4:

Ex.X.1: Requisition

Ex.X.2: Dying declaration of the deceased.

For Defence :

---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Meckdowels Brandi bottle lamps having cotton thread to the caps-2

M.O.2: Red colour scissor lighter

M.O.3: Blue, green, red, white and gold colours designed burnt silk saree pieces

M.O.4: Burnt blue colour blouse

M.O.5: Gree colour cloth piece

I AD & SJ, GNT

FAC: XI AD& SJ, Tenali.

15

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE::TENALI

1Number of the Sessions case :SC.No.510/2017 2Name of the committal CourtAddl. Judicial Magistrate of I : Class, Tenali 3Name & description of complainantState : Inspector of Police, Repalle :Rural Circle. (Cr.No.95/2017 of Cherukupalli P.S.,) 4Name & Description of Accused Evuri @ Evoori Koteswararao, S/o. Adinarayana,37years,R/o. : Anaganivaripalem Village, Cherukupalli Mandal. 5Date of offence:16.08.2017 6Date of committal :07-12-2017 7Date of apprehension of accused :21.08.2017 8Date of commencement of trial :18.06.2018 9Date of close of trial :09.11.2018 10Date of Judgment :26.12.2018

11. Nature of Offence : U/ Sec.302 IPC and 498-A IPC

12. Plea of accused : Not guilty

13. Finding of the court : Not guilty

14. Sentence or order : IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 302 IPC and 498-A IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of SIX MONTHS as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

15. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 07.12.2017 and the accused appeared before this Court on 29.01.2018 and he engaged Advocate on 08.02.2018 and after furnishing copies of documents and on hearing both the Addl.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused charges were framed on 22.02.2018 and as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial of this Case was commenced on 18.06.2018 and the same was closed on 09-11.2018 and the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was done on 15.11.2018 and arguments heard on 17.12.2018 and Judgment delivered on 26.12.2018. Hence, the delay.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUNTUR FAC: XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Tenali.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

CUM - XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TENALI.

Present : Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao

I Additional District Judge, Guntur.

FAC: XI Addl. District Judge, Tenali.

Friday, this the 21st day of December, 2018.

M.V.O.P.No. 30/2018

Between :

Ravipudi Siva Prasad, S/o Ramaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Insurance agent,R/o Plot No.504,

Sri Ganesh Towers, Jaya Prakash Nagar, Tenali ….. Petitioner

And

1. Myneni Sambasivarao, S/o Vallabharao, Hindu, 75 years, R/o D.No.6-2-918/2, Thummala Basti, Kairathabad, Hyderabad – 500004 (Owner of the Motor car bearing No.AP09 BG 8642)

2. Vahid Car Servicing center, represented by its proprietor, Shaik Abdul Vaheed, S/o Hameed, 42 years, Muslim, Jandachettu Bazar, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur Dt.

3. Shaik Baji, S/o Subhani, 30 years, Muslim, R/o Kumar Pumps colony, Islampet, Tenali Town (Driver of the motor car bearing No.AP09BG8642) …….Respondents

This petition is coming on 17-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Srinivasarao, Advocate for the Petitioner, and the respondents remained exparte and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This O.P. is filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P. MV Rules, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- including the amount under no fault liability and for subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization and for costs of the petition.

2]The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

(i)The 1st respondent is the owner of the motor car bearing

No.AP 09 BG 8642. The 3rd respondent is working in the 2nd respondent’s 2 servicing center.

On 07-02-2017 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP07BD 8666, when he reached in front of Vahid Car Servicing Center, near RTC Bus depot,

Tenali, he stopped his motor cycle on the road margin for attempting the phone call. Then the 3rd respondent drove in reverse at high speed in rash and negligent manner from the servicing center and without taking proper care, caution and without having proper out-look and he lost control on driving and hit the said motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner was dragged to some distance and received grievous injuries to his ribs, left leg and other injuries. His motor cycle is entirely damaged. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to

Health Hospitals, Tenali and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Help

Hospitals, Vijayawada for the better treatment where he underwent treatment as inpatient.

(iii)Basing on the complaint, a crime was registered by the Tenali

II Town Police as a case in Cr.No.25/2017, U/sec.338 of Indian Penal

Code.

(iv)The petitioner suffered pain and suffering due to the injuries and he claimed Rs.70,000/- as compensation for it. He received permanent and partial disability and he became disabled person. He lost amenities and enjoyment in his life due to the injuries and he claimed

Rs.6,00,000/- as the compensation for it. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent of the Motor car bearing No.AP09 BG 8642.

3

(v) The petitioner was aged about 48 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner was doing as insurance agent for the Life Insurance Corporation and used to earn Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner is an income tax assessee. Now he is unable to do his business as prior to the accident. Now the petitioner employed three employees and running his business. He is paying the salaries

Rs.15,000/- to them each. He lost his earnings and earning capacity due to the injuries and he claimed Rs.7,00,000/- as the compensation for it.

He spent more than RS.1,00,000/- for medicines, special diet and attendant charges. He spent Rs.20,000/- for his bike repair and

Rs.5,000/- for the transportation charges. He claimed total compensation of RS.15,00,000/-

(vi) The petitioner filed PLC No.280/2017 before the Mandal Legal

Services Committee,Tenali, but the respondents did not attend and the

Hon’ble Committee was pleased to close the said case on 07-10-2017.

Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition. All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same under the principle of Vicarious liability. Hence, the petition.

3]The respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte. Though the summons of the respondents were served, but none of the respondents appeared and did not contest the petition, as such, they were set exparte and posted the matter for petitioner's evidence. .

4]On behalf of the petitioner, to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2, Dr. K.V.Guruvandhan Kumar, who is the consultant

Orthopedic surgeon at Help Hospital, Vijayawada, through Advocate

Commissioner and exhibited Ex.A1/certified copy of the FIR, 4

Ex.A2/certified copy of the charge sheet, Ex.A3/certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.A4/certified copy of the petition and order thereon in

PLC280/2017, Ex.A5/News published in Eenadu daily newspaper, Ex.A6/ prescriptions (2) in number, Ex.A7/lab reports (9) in number,

Ex.A8/discharge summary, Ex.A9/Medical bills for an amount of

Rs.53,535.73Ps (31) in number, Ex.A10/Final bill for an amount of

Rs.11,905/-, Ex.A11/X-ray films, Ex.A12/income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15, Ex.A13/ income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16 and Ex.A14/ income tax returns for the assessment year 2016-17. Ex.X1 was marked through P.W.2.

5]On behalf of the Respondents, as there was no representation on behalf of the respondents, and as they were not participated in the proceedings, hence proceeded with, to decide the case basing on the evidence placed by the petitioner and as there is no respondents evidence, hence, heard the counsel for the petitioner.

6]Basing on the pleadings and the evidence placed by the petitioner, the following points arose for consideration?

1. Whether the accident occurred on 07-02-2017 is due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 09

BG 8642 of the 1st respondent driven by 3rd respondent?

2. Whether the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation payable to the petitioner?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation?

4. To what relief?

5

POINT NO.1:-

7. It is the case of the petitioner that on 07-02-2017 at about 10.00 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing

No.AP07BD 8666, when he reached in front of Vahid Car Servicing

Center, near RTC Bus depot, Tenali, he stopped his motor cycle on the road margin for attempting the phone call. Then the 3rd respondent drove in reverse at high speed in rash and negligent manner from the servicing center and without taking proper care, caution and without having proper out-look and he lost control on driving and hit the said motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner was dragged some distance and received grievous injuries to his ribs, left leg and other injuries and his motor cycle was entirely damaged.

8. To prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent

No.3, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 reiterating all the averments made in the petition by filing chief affidavit and also relied upon the report lodged before the police i.e., Ex.A1 FIR and it clearly shows that on the said date i.e., on 07-02-2017, the driver of the car bearing No.AP09BG8642 drove the car reversely in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner/P.W.1 herein, thereby he sustained grievous injuries to his legs and ribs of the chest. Basing on this complaint, the SI of police, Tenali II Town Police after examining L.Ws. 1 to 7 in the said crime has came to conclusion that accused noted above i.e., the respondent No.3 herein drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligence, the said accident occurred and the SI of police filed charge sheet for the offence under section 338 of IPC which is Ex.A2, making the 3rd respondent liable for the same. As per the wound certificate which was marked as Ex.A3, the petitioner sustained 6 injuries to ribs and legs. Subsequently a PLC was also made before

Mandal Legal Services Authority, Tenlai by the petitioner which is marked

Ex.A4, but as there is no representation on behalf of the respondents

before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, the petition was closed.

9. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with EXs.A1 to A4 would clearly show that there was an accident occurred due to the reverse driving of the car of the 1st respondent by the respondent No.3 from his car servicing center i.e., 2nd respondent and thereby causing accident to the petitioner herein and causing injuries to the petitioner.

10. Though P.W.1 was examined in chief, but respondents did not participate in the proceedings and nor opposed the said evidence, as such, I hold that the evidence placed by the petitioner by way of oral and documentary evidence is sufficient to come to the conclusion and the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly show that there was an accident occurred and it occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car. Hence, this Point is answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondents.

POINT NO.2:-

11. Coming to the aspect of the liability of the respondents 1 to 3, admittedly, the 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and respondent

No.3 is the driver, who is working in the Servicing center of respondent

No.2 and there is no dispute regarding the respondent No.2 running the servicing center and respondent No.1 handing over the said vehicle to respondent No.2 for servicing and respondent No.3, who is working under respondent No.2 drove the said vehicle by reversing the same from the servicing center would clearly show that respondents 1 to 3 have dealt 7 with the said vehicle which is owned by R1 and in view of the accident committed by R3 by the vehicle of R1, as the respondent No.1 appears to have handed over the said vehicle to R2, it is the duty and responsibility of R2 to see that due to the acts of his employee R3, no such accident or any third party who get affected through their actions and if any of the third party gets affected or injured due to the act of the employee of R2, R2 being the employer, he is vicariously liable for the acts done by his employee, as such, R2 is jointly and severally liable for the acts committed by R3 and and as the owner of the said vehicle R1 though said to have handed over the vehicle to R2 owner of servicing center, he is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence,

R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

POINT NO.3:-

12. Coming to the compensation, as per the contention of the petitioner, the petitioner is aged about 48 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner was doing as insurance agent for the Life Insurance Corporation and used to earn Rs.15,00,000/- per annum. The petitioner is an income tax assessee and after the accident, he is unable to do his business as prior to the accident and the petitioner employed three employees and running his business. He is paying the salaries Rs.15,000/- to them each. He lost his earnings and earning capacity due to the injuries and he claimed Rs.7,00,000/- as the compensation for it. He spent more than RS.1,00,000/- for medicines, special diet and attendant charges. He spent Rs.20,000/- for his bike repair and Rs.5,000/- for the transportation charges. He claimed total compensation of RS.15,00,000/-

13. Coming to the transportation charges claimed by the 8 petitioner, as it is seen that there are no bills placed by the petitioner to prove that the petitioner spent Rs.5,000/- for transportation charges, as such, the question of granting the same does not arise, but considering the ground realities that as the petitioner sustained injuries to his ribs and legs, as such for shifting the petitioner or visiting the hospital, he may require some transportation charges, as such, I hold that a sum of

Rs.2,000/- would be reasonable and appropriate for the same.

14. Coming to the medical expenditure, as per the petitioner, the petitioner said to have incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicines, special diet and attendant charges, whereas as per the bills submitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has actually incurred a total sum of Rs.53,535-70Ps towards purchase of medicines and other hospitalization charges under Ex.A9 and a bill under Ex.A10 would reveal that he has incurred a bill amount of Rs.11,905/- said to have been incurred towards medical expenses and in view of the evidence of P.W.2 who is doctor, who also confirmed about the incurring of the said medical expenditure would clearly show that the petitioner incurred the said expenditure. As per P.W.2, he stated that previously he worked as consultant in Help Hospital at Vijayawada and he also reiterated about

P.W.1 admitting in his hospital and he treated P.W.1 for the injuries fracture 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th ribs fracture right. With right tentumothorax and

P.W.1 was treated conservatively by Dr. Bhanu Prabhakar and P.W.2 and

P.W.1 was discharged on 15-02-2017 and he also stated that Ex.A9 issued by Help Pharmacy and the investigation reports issued by Help

Hospital under EX.A7 and wound certificate issued by Help Hospital under Ex.A3 and he issued case sheet under Ex.X1. On perusal of the same, it clearly shows that the bills which are said to have been 9 produced by the petitioner are pertaining to the treatment taken by the petitioner, as such, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the said sum of

Rs.65,441/- (Rs. 53,536/- + Rs.11,905/-) towards medical expenditure.

15.Coming to the special diet, the petitioner is also entitled for compensation towards special diet for a sum of Rs.20,000/- considering the ground realities that in such case, obviously, the petitioner might have obtain a special diet and get himself cured as early, as such, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of RS.20,000/- besides the actual medicines which he is incurred.

16. Coming to the aspect of pain and suffering, the petitioner claimed Rs.75,000/-, but as per the wound certificate, the petitioner has sustained injuries to ribs, left leg and other injuries which are said to be grievous in nature, as such, I hold that the Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

17. Coming to the aspect of motor cycle repair, the petitioner claimed Rs.20,000/- , but the petitioner has not placed any such bills to show that his vehicle was got repaired and he incurred such repairs. In the absence of any bills, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for the same.

18.Coming to the aspect of permanent disability, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the petitioner claimed Rs.6,00,000/- The petitioner though filed income tax returns to prove that he is earning a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- per anuum, but nowhere it is stated that he has sustained disability. In the absence of any disability certificate filed into court and also in the absence of any such disability mentioned by the doctor even in his evidence to come to conclusion that the petitioner has sustained any of such disability, as such I hold that the petition is not 10 entitled for any such compensation for permanent disability and amenities and enjoyment in life.

19.Coming to the aspect of the earnings and earning capacity, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- As per the income tax returns filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has got a net profit before tax as per profit and loss account is Rs.4,72,083/-, and income tax deduction is Rs.68,270/- as such, the annual income to the petitioner can be considered as Rs.4,03,813/- (Rs.4,72,083 - Rs.68,270/-) and the monthly income of the petitioner comes to Rs.33,651/-(Rs.4,03,813/12). As per the evidence of P.W.1, the accident occurred on 07-02-2017 and as per the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner admitted in Help hospital on 08-02-2017 and discharged on 15-02-17 and P.W.2 advised to P.W.1 for bed rest for two months and also advised P.W.1 for follow up treatment.

Hence, the period of bed rest and follow up treatment for petitioner can be considered as four months, as such, the petitioner is entitled for loss of earnings for four months i.e., Rs.1,34,604/-(Rs.33,651/- x 4). The total compensation of the petitioner is as follows:

Pain and suffering -Rs. 50,000-00

Loss of earnings for four months -Rs.1,34,604-00

Medical Expenses-Rs. 65,441-00

Special diet-Rs. 20,000-00

Transport charges-Rs. 2,000-00 -------------------

Rs.2,72,045-00 ------------------------- 11

In all the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,72,045/- towards compensation from the respondents 1 to 3. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

POINT NO.4:-

20. IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed with costs against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally, awarding compensation of Rs.2,72,045/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy two thousand and forty five only) to the petitioner with subsequent interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the said amount by the Respondents.

The respondents 1 to 3 shall deposit the same within a period of two months from the date of this order

On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to receive the entire amount.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Dictated to personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of December, 2018.

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL- CUM- I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

GUNTUR.

FAC XI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, TENALI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Petitioner : For Respondents :

P.W.1: R. Siva Prasad -None- P.W.2: Dr. K.V.Guruvardhan Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner : For Respondents

Ex.A1/certified copy of the FIR- Nil -

Ex.A2/certified copy of the charge sheet

Ex.A3/certified copy of wound certificate

Ex.A4/certified copy of the petition and order thereon in PLC280/2017

Ex.A5/News published in Eenadu daily newspaper

Ex.A6/ prescriptions (2) in number

Ex.A7/lab reports (9) in number 12

Ex.A8/discharge summary

Ex.A9/Medical bills for an amount of Rs.53,535/73Ps (31) in number

Ex.A10/Final bill for an amount of Rs.11,905/-

Ex.A11/X-ray films

Ex.A12/income tax returns for the assessment year 2014-15

Ex.A13/ income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16

Ex.A14/ income tax returns for the assessment year 2016-17.

CHAIRMAN

MACT - CUM - I ADJ,GNT.

FAC XI ADJ, TENALI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT- CUM-

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: GUNTUR

Present: Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Monday, this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

S.C.No. 125/2017

Between: State : Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P.S., (Cr.No.95/2015 of Tadepalli Police station) …Complainant

And

Urumu Sambasiva Rao S/o.Ramarao, 22 yrs., Kummari,

BC Colony, Chinapalakaluru village, Guntur Rural Mandal. ... Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of

Sri R.N.Vamsi Krishna, Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nallapadu PS., filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offences under Section 376 of Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and Sec.4 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred as “POCSO Act”) relating to

Crime No.114/2017 of Nallapadu Police station.

02. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

i)Pw.1 and PW.2 are the residents of BC colony,

Chinapalakaluru village, Guntur Rural Mandal, and PW.5, the victim girl is their elder daughter, who is studying 10th class in SSR ZP High School,

Perecherla village, Medikonduru Mandal, and in the month of November, 2016, the accused and Urumu Gopi have constructed toilet and have arranged flooring in the house of PW.1, and at that time the accused developed acquaintance with PW.5 by inducing her that he likes her and loves her, and when she is not speaking her, he threatened that he would do 2 away his life by taking poison. Further prior to 22.1.2017 accused threatened to kill her and has assaulted her. Due to fear PW.5 started speaking with the accused. PW.6 used to deliver love letters of the accused to PW.5. While so, on 22.1.20127 at 4 p.m., the accused visited the house of PW.5 when she is alone, assaulted PW.5 and has committed penetrative sexual assault by using criminal force, and due to fear PW.5 did not informed about the same even to her parents and after 10 days PW.5 informed the same to her parents PW.1 and 2. PW.3, 4 and 7 and LW.5/Chatarasupalli Komali have learned about the offence. From then onwards they are taking care of PW.5.

Prior to 12.3.2017 accused met PW.1 and 2 and demanded them to perform the marriage of PW.5 with him, otherwise he will do away with his life. PW.1 has convinced the accused that he would speak with the elders and would furnish his decision. Later some of the relatives of the accused met PW.1 and tried to convince him to perform the marriage of PW.5 with the accused, but PW.1 refused to perform the marriage with accused as the victim girl is minor, and later he gave report to Nallapadu PS.

ii)On 12.3.2017 PW.11 registered the report of PW.1 as a case in Cr.No.114/2017 of Nallapadu PS., under Sec. 376(2) IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act and PW.12 took up investigation. In retaliation to this case, a case in Cr.No.99/2017 under Sec.342, 323, 307, 506 r/w.34 IPC of

Nallapadu PS was registered and in that case the accused herein is the victim while PWs.1,PW.3, PW.4 and others were figured as accused.

iii)During investigation PW.12 visited the scene of offence under the cover of observation, seized black colour Punjabi pant and snuff colour Punjabi top with flower design embroidery work prepared rough sketch of the same. PW.12 examined PW.1 to 4, PW.7 and LW.5/

Chatarasupalli Komali, and recorded their details statements. PW.12 sent the victim girl to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for medical examination along with proper escort. PW.9 examined PW.5/ victim girl and 3 preserved necessary MOs for chemical Analysis, and on 14.6.2017 accused was arrested and basing on the RFSL report, PW.9 opined that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, and during the course of investigation

PW.12 obtained concerned certificates and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

03.This court took cognizance of the offences against the accused which are punishable under Section 376(2) IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act and registered the same as S.C.No.125 of 2017.

04.After appearance of the accused before this Court, he furnished with copies of documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of the provisions u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

05.After consideration, charges under Section 376(2) of IPC and

Section 4 of POCSO Act are framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.20, and MOs. 1 and 2 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses turned hostile.

07.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now the points for determination are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 376(2) of IPC and

Sec.4 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case ? POINT No.1:- 4

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused induced the victim girl, aged 15 years, in the name of love and marriage and threatened her to love him and also committed rape against the victim girl which is punishable under sections 376(2) and Sec.4 of POCSO Act.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.12. P.W.5 is the victim girl, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the victim girl and P.W.3 and 4 are the paternal uncles of the victim girl, and PW.7 is student, and PW.6 is the SI of Police, PW.8 is the

VRO, PW.9 is Assistant Professor, PW.10 is the Asst., Professor, PW.11 is the SI of police, and PW.12 is the CI of police, who is the investigating officer.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, that he got married 18 years ago and he has three children, victim girl is the elder daughter, and she is aged about 17 years, and he deposed that he does not know the accused and further deposed that about one and half year ago to the incident, they have constructed a bathroom and he does not know the name of the said person, and presently, the victim girl was studying intermediate at GVR college, and he did not give any report before the police, and he stated that Nallapadu police have obtained his signature/

Ex.P.1 on a white paper, and he does not know the contents of the report and police have not examined him and he did not state anything to the police and police have not examined him or his family members and police have not taken the victim to the hospital.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the mother of the victim girl, that PW.1 is the husband and that her daughter is aged about 16 or 18 years and she is presently studying intermediate second year at GVR college, and earlier the victim girl studied 10th class at Government school, and she does not know anything about this case and does not know the accused and she has not lodged any report before the police and police did not examine her 5 and she did not state anything to police.

14.It is the evidence of PW.3, who is the paternal uncle of victim girl, that he does not know the accused and does not know anything about the case and police have not examined him in this case.

15.It is the evidence of PW.4, who is the paternal uncle of the victim girl, that he does not know that accused and does not know anything about this case and that PW.1 has lodged a report before the police and police have not examined him in this case and he has not stated anything to the police.

16.It is the evidence of PW.5, who is the victim girl, that she is aged about 17 years and studying intermediate second year. She does not know the accused and she studied her 10th Class at Government school in the year 2016 at Perecherla, and that she initially stated that police have not obtained her signature and when her signature was confronted to her, she admitted her signature on the statement recorded by the woman police, and she did not remember when she signed the same, and that the police have taken to hospital and she did not know whether doctors have examined her or not and she did not know what she has stated before the Magistrate when she was produced before the learned Magistrate and her signature is marked as Ex.P8.

17.It is the evidence of PW.7 that, accused is her younger paternal uncle and she identified the accused and further deposed that she was not examined by police and they did record her statement.

18.As the victim girl P.W.5 and the parents of the victim girl P.Ws.1 & 2 and other witness i.e., PW.3, 4 and 7 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses by declaring them as hostile and after obtaining permission, the learned Addl.P.P cross-examined them, but nothing is elicited in their cross- examination in order to discredit their testimony and in order to support the 6 version of the prosecution.

19.It is the evidence of PW.6, who is the SI of police, that on 13.3.2017 at about 7 p.m., she was deputed to record the statement of victim girl in Pregynic ward No.115 in Government General Hospital, Guntur, along with woman constable, and on identification of victim girl, she examined her and recorded her statement and handed over the same to SHO, Nallapadu PS.

20.It is the evidence of PW.8, who is the VRO, that on 12.3.2017 at the request of CI, he acted as mediator in a rape case, and they went to the house of PW.1 and observed the scene and the house is facing towards north side and the police have observed the crime scene. They also seized the dress of the victim girl worn by her at the time of offence i.e., MOs.1 and 2 i.e., black colour Panjabi pant and top is in snuf colour, under mediators report i.e.,

Ex.P.12.

21.It is the evidence of PW.9, who is the Assistant Professor, that on 12.3.2017 the victim girl, aged about 16 yrs., was produced before him through woman PC 3082 for examination, and he examined the victim girl with the consent of the victim girl and her mother and found no external injuries, and on clinical examination he found that old hymen tears at 6’O clock position and vaginal antrotus is admitting two fingers. He has preserved vulval swab, vaginal swab, vulval smear, vaginal smear, vaginal washings, pubic hair clippings were sending with same to RFSL and he issued wound certificate

Ex.P.13, and after receipt RFSL report Ex.A.14 and basing on records he issued

Ex.P.15 final opinion, opining that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.

22.It is the evidence of PW.10, who is the Asst.Professor, that on 29.6.2017, accused was produced before him for conducting potency test and conducted potency test after obtaining his consent and he referred the accused to Department of General medicine, neurology, psychiatry, Dermatology, 7 urology and basing on his personal history and physical examination of doctors, he gave potency certificate/ Ex.P.16 opining that there is nothing to suggest that accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse or act or coitus.

23.It is the evidence of PW.11, who is the SI of police, that on 12.3.2017 at 1 p.m., PW.1 presented Ex.P.17/ report and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.114/2017 for the offence punishable under Sec.376

IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, and he submitted the original FIR/ Ex.P.18 to the concerned and he took up investigation in this case.

24.It is the evidence of PW.12, CI of Police, who is the investigation officer, that on 12.3.2017 at 1 p.m., after knowing about registering of FIR in this case, he went to the police station and took up investigation and examined

PW.1 and PW.2 and recorded their detailed statements, and sent the victim girl for medical examination along with woman police constable to Government

General Hospital, Guntur, and visited the scene of offence and under the cover of Ex.P.12/ observation report and also prepared rough sketch under Ex.P.19, and he also seized the cloths of victim girl under MOs 1 and 2, and he also secured the presence of PW.3, PW.4, LW.5/ Komali and PW.7 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements at the scene of offence, and that he received the statement of victim girl which was recorded by PW.6, and he also recorded the statement of PW.6, and on 12.4.2017 he received wound certificate from PW.10 and sent material objects to RFLS and on credible information he arrested the accused on 14.6.2017 at 7.15 a.m. and that the accused was sent for judicial remand, and on his requisition the learned

Magistrate recorded the statement of victim girl under Sec.164 CrPC , and the

accused was sent for potency test. On 25.6.2017 he received RFSL report and sent the same for final report and obtained the final opinion of PW.9. He also obtained the Ex.P.20 study certificate of the victim girl and other concerned reports, and subsequently after completion of investigation he filed charge 8 sheet.

25.In the present case the victim girl and her parents and other witnesses i.e., PW.3, 4, and 7 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they categorically stated that the accused never committed any offence against the victim girl. In view of the said evidence, though the prosecution has examined P.W.6, PW.8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 i.e., official witnesses, their evidence is of no much avail to the case of prosecution.

26.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences under Section 376 (2) of IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, and accordingly he is entitled to be acquittal for the said offences. So, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT No.2 :-

27.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences underSection 376(2) of IPC and Sec.4 of POCSO Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of SIX

MONTHS as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The MOs 1 and 2 and the un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

(Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : P.W.1 : Ch.Rama Krishna. P.W.2 : Ch. Lakshmi. P.W.3 : Ch.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.4 : Ch.Sankara Rao. P.W.5 : Victim girl. P.W.6 : S.Naga Kumari, SI of police.

9

P.W.7 : Urumu Anusha. P.W.8 : Nutakki Naga Raju, VRO. P.W.9 : Dr.B.S.V.Sivaranjani, Assistant professor. P.W.10: Dr.V.Krishna Murthy, Asst. professor. P.W.11: K.Ameer, SI of police. P.W.12: K.Srinivasa Rao, CI of Police.

For Defence : --None---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : Ex.P1/: Signature of P.W.1 on report Ex.P2/: Marked portion in report. Ex.P3/: Marked portion in Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.1. Ex.P.4/: Marked portion in Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.2. Ex.P.5/: Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.3. Ex.P.6/: Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.4. Ex.P.7/: Signature of PW.5 on the statement recorded by woman police. Ex.P.8/: Signature of PW.5 on Sec.164 CrPC statement. Ex.P.9/: Marked portion in Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW.5. Ex.P.10/: Marked portion in Sec.164 CrPC statement of PW.5. Ex.P.11/ : Market portion of Sec.161 CrPC Statement. Ex.P.12/: Mediators report. Ex.P.13/: Wound certificate. Ex.P.14/: RFSL report. Ex.P.15/: Final opinion. Ex.P.16/: Potency certificate. Ex.P.17/: Written report. Ex.P.18/: Original FIR. Ex.P.19/: Rough sketch. Ex.P.20/: Study certificate.

For Defence : ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MOs 1 and 2 i.e., clothes of the victim girl.

(Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I AD & SJ, GNT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CUM

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; GUNTUR.

Present: Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Monday, this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

S.C.No. 162/2017

Between: [ State : Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Circle (Cr.No.132 of 16 of Repalle P.S.,) …Complainant

And

Ogirala Venkaiah Babu, S/o Sankar Rao, 32 years, Caste by Kapu, 14th ward, Repalle, Proprietor of Sriram Colour Stickering shop, Repalle Town,

N/o Lawyerpet, Ongole Town ... Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri T. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Repalle rural Circle filed charge sheet against the sole Accused for the offences under sections 354-D, 509, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and sec.12 of POCSO Act relating to Crime No.132/2016 of Repalle Police station.

02. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) The Accused is originally native of Lawyerpet, Ongole

Town and presently he is residing in Repalle Town and running a shop in the name and style of ‘Sairam Colour Stickering’ at 14th ward, Repalle Town.

During the year 2016, while P.W.2/victim girl was studying 10th class in

Rama Krishna Public School, Repalle town, she used to go to school and return home by walk through Garuvu road via Viswa college - Sriram Colour stickering shop of the accused. The accused, who watched the victim minor girl, who is aged about 15 years, daily going to school via his shop, developed evil lust over her and started following her and misbehaved with her inducing that he loves her and compelled her to accept his proposal.

Due to fear that her parents may discontinue her studies, the victim girl did not inform her parents about the harassment meted out from the hands of the accused and bearing the same. Taking the same as an advantage, daily 2 the accused used to follow her, compel her and even threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and thereby outraged her modesty.

Finally on 08-07-2016 morning while she was going to school, the accused followed her and gave a love letter to her and threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and on that the victim girl was scared and due to fear, she left the place weeping. The victim girl informed the same to her parents. L.Ws. 4 to 7 Chintalapudi Venkata Swamy, Thangellamudi

Venkata narayana, Gadavarthi Venkata Gopi Krishna and Paruchuri

Subbarao, who are the immediate neighbours to the scene of offence witnessed the same.

ii)P.W.1 gave report on 08-07-2016 at 12 noon, basing on which P.W.4/Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in Cr. No.132/2016,

U/secs. 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC of Repalle Police station, submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in this case.

iii) During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2, seized the love letter said to have been given by the accused to the victim girl when handed over by her, obtained the Study and conduct certificates of the victim girl from

L.W.8/Head Master,Rama Krishna English Medium High School, Repalle, wherein it is reported that the date of birth of the victim girl is 28-04-2000.

iv)L.W.10/V.Mallikharjunarao, Inspector of police, Repalle

Rural circle took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch of the same, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed memo before the court adding sec. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused approached the Hon’ble High Court and obtained bail and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the

Inspector of police arrested the accused on 05-12-2016 and released him on bail. After assuming the charge of Repalle PS, L.W.11 P.Penchala Reddy,

Inspector of Police, Repalle continued further investigation in this case and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03.This court took cognizance of the offence against the accused which is punishable under sections 354-D, 506, 509 of Indian penal Code and sec. 12 of POCSO Act, and registered the same as S.C.No.162/2017.

04.After appearance of the accused before this court, he is furnished with copies of documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of the provisions u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

3

05.After consideration, charges under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12 of POCSO Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.11. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses turned hostile.

07.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now the points for determination are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused for

the offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 509 IPC and sec. 12 of

POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case ?

POINT No.1:-

10.It is the case of the prosecution that during the year 2016, the

Accused used to follow the minor victim girl and misbehaved with her inducing that he loves her and compelled her to accept his proposal and even threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and thereby outraged her modesty.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.4. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the parents of the victim girl,

P.W.2 is the victim girl and P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, that the victim girl has informed him that while she was going to the school, some unknown boys were ragging her, then he informed the same to the police. Police obtained his signature on white paper stating that they take care of the issue. He further deposed that after lodging the report, he does not know about the case. He has identified his signature on the report which 4 was marked as Ex.P1. He further stated that he has not lodged any report against the accused.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the victim girl that on one day she informed her father that when she was going to school, some unknown persons were commenting her, on that her father has informed that he will take care of the issue. She does not know about the subsequent events.

She further stated that she never went to police station, nor lodged any report against the accused.

14.It is the evidence of P.W.3, who is mother of the victim girl, that she does not know anything in this case and police have not examined her and she did not state anything to the police.

15.As P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, who are the material witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses by declaring them as hostile and after obtaining permission the learned Addl.P.P cross-examined them, but nothing is elicited in their cross-examination in order to discredit their testimony and in order to support the version of the prosecution.

16.It is the evidence of P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle

Police station that on 08-07-2016, at 12-00noon, P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report which is marked as Ex.P6, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.132/2016 for the offences under sections 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC and he submitted the original FIR to the

Court which is marked as Ex.P7 and copies to the officials concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.

1 and 2, seized the love letter said to have been given by the accused to

P.W.2 which is marked as Ex.P8, obtained study and conduct certificate of

P.W.2 and subsequently he handed over the investigation to L.W.10 on 09- 07-2016 and he assisted L.W.10 in the investigation and on the same day,

L.W.10 Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P9, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and basing on the copy of Study Certificate which is marked as Ex.P10, he altered section of law by adding sec. 12 of

POCSO Act and the alteration memo is marked as Ex.P11. L.W.10 arrested the accused and released him on bail and subsequently after assuming charge, L.W.11 P.Penchala Reddy, Inspector of police continued further investigation and after completion of investigation, L.W.11 filed charge sheet.

5 17.In the present case the complainant, who is the father of the victim girl, P.W.2, the victim girl and P.W.3, the mother of the victim girl, who are the material witnesses, turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they categorically stated that they never lodged any report against the accused. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused followed the victim girl and compelled her to accept his love and threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love. In view of the said evidence, though the prosecution has examined the investigating officers, his evidence is of no much avail to the case of prosecution.

18.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of Accused for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of IPC and sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, and accordingly he is entitled to be acquittal for the said offence. So, the point is answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.

19. POINT No.2 :-

IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences underSections 354-D, 506 and 509 of IPC and sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of

SIX MONTHS as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un- marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 31 th day of December, 2018.

(Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : P.W.1 : K. Sita Ramaiah P.W.2 : K. Suhasini P.W.3 : K. Swapna. P.W.4 : R.Subrahmanyam, SI of Police.

For Defence : --None--- 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : Ex.P1/: Signature of P.W.1 on the Report given to police Ex.P2/: Marked Portion in report Ex.P3/: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.4/--: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.5/--: Marked Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.6/--: Written report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.7/--: Original FIR Ex.P.8/--: Love letter Ex.P.9/--: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.10/--: Copy of Study Certificate Ex.P.11/--: Alteration memo

For Defence : ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil- (Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I AD & SJ,GNT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE CONSTITUTED UNDER

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CUM

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; GUNTUR.

Present: Sri Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

Monday, this the 31 st day of December, 2018.

S.C.No. 162/2017

Between: [ State : Inspector of Police, Repalle Rural Circle (Cr.No.132 of 16 of Repalle P.S.,) …Complainant

And

Ogirala Venkaiah Babu, S/o Sankar Rao, 32 years, Caste by Kapu, 14th ward, Repalle, Proprietor of Sriram Colour Stickering shop, Repalle Town,

N/o Lawyerpet, Ongole Town ... Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri T. Durga Prasad, Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Repalle rural Circle filed charge sheet against the sole Accused for the offences under sections 354-D, 509, 506 of

Indian Penal Code and sec.12 of POCSO Act relating to Crime No.132/2016 of Repalle Police station.

02. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) The Accused is originally native of Lawyerpet, Ongole

Town and presently he is residing in Repalle Town and running a shop in the name and style of ‘Sairam Colour Stickering’ at 14th ward, Repalle Town.

During the year 2016, while P.W.2/victim girl was studying 10th class in

Rama Krishna Public School, Repalle town, she used to go to school and return home by walk through Garuvu road via Viswa college - Sriram Colour stickering shop of the accused. The accused, who watched the victim minor girl, who is aged about 15 years, daily going to school via his shop, developed evil lust over her and started following her and misbehaved with her inducing that he loves her and compelled her to accept his proposal.

Due to fear that her parents may discontinue her studies, the victim girl did not inform her parents about the harassment meted out from the hands of the accused and bearing the same. Taking the same as an advantage, daily 2 the accused used to follow her, compel her and even threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and thereby outraged her modesty.

Finally on 08-07-2016 morning while she was going to school, the accused followed her and gave a love letter to her and threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and on that the victim girl was scared and due to fear, she left the place weeping. The victim girl informed the same to her parents. L.Ws. 4 to 7 Chintalapudi Venkata Swamy, Thangellamudi

Venkata narayana, Gadavarthi Venkata Gopi Krishna and Paruchuri

Subbarao, who are the immediate neighbours to the scene of offence witnessed the same.

ii)P.W.1 gave report on 08-07-2016 at 12 noon, basing on which P.W.4/Sub-Inspector of police registered a case in Cr. No.132/2016,

U/secs. 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC of Repalle Police station, submitted copies of FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation in this case.

iii) During the course of investigation, P.W.4 examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2, seized the love letter said to have been given by the accused to the victim girl when handed over by her, obtained the Study and conduct certificates of the victim girl from

L.W.8/Head Master,Rama Krishna English Medium High School, Repalle, wherein it is reported that the date of birth of the victim girl is 28-04-2000.

iv)L.W.10/V.Mallikharjunarao, Inspector of police, Repalle

Rural circle took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch of the same, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed memo before the court adding sec. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused approached the Hon’ble High Court and obtained bail and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the

Inspector of police arrested the accused on 05-12-2016 and released him on bail. After assuming the charge of Repalle PS, L.W.11 P.Penchala Reddy,

Inspector of Police, Repalle continued further investigation in this case and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03.This court took cognizance of the offence against the accused which is punishable under sections 354-D, 506, 509 of Indian penal Code and sec. 12 of POCSO Act, and registered the same as S.C.No.162/2017.

04.After appearance of the accused before this court, he is furnished with copies of documents relied by the prosecution in compliance of the provisions u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

3

05.After consideration, charges under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and sec. 12 of POCSO Act were framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.11. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses turned hostile.

07.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now the points for determination are;

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of Accused for

the offences under Sections 354-D, 506, 509 IPC and sec. 12 of

POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2. Result of the case ?

POINT No.1:-

10.It is the case of the prosecution that during the year 2016, the

Accused used to follow the minor victim girl and misbehaved with her inducing that he loves her and compelled her to accept his proposal and even threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love and thereby outraged her modesty.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.4. P.Ws.1 and 3 are the parents of the victim girl,

P.W.2 is the victim girl and P.W.4 is the investigating officer.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the father of the victim girl, that the victim girl has informed him that while she was going to the school, some unknown boys were ragging her, then he informed the same to the police. Police obtained his signature on white paper stating that they take care of the issue. He further deposed that after lodging the report, he does not know about the case. He has identified his signature on the report which 4 was marked as Ex.P1. He further stated that he has not lodged any report against the accused.

13.It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is the victim girl that on one day she informed her father that when she was going to school, some unknown persons were commenting her, on that her father has informed that he will take care of the issue. She does not know about the subsequent events.

She further stated that she never went to police station, nor lodged any report against the accused.

14.It is the evidence of P.W.3, who is mother of the victim girl, that she does not know anything in this case and police have not examined her and she did not state anything to the police.

15.As P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, who are the material witnesses, did not support the case of prosecution, the learned Addl.P.P sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses by declaring them as hostile and after obtaining permission the learned Addl.P.P cross-examined them, but nothing is elicited in their cross-examination in order to discredit their testimony and in order to support the version of the prosecution.

16.It is the evidence of P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Police, Repalle

Police station that on 08-07-2016, at 12-00noon, P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report which is marked as Ex.P6, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.132/2016 for the offences under sections 354-D, 506, 509 of IPC and he submitted the original FIR to the

Court which is marked as Ex.P7 and copies to the officials concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.

1 and 2, seized the love letter said to have been given by the accused to

P.W.2 which is marked as Ex.P8, obtained study and conduct certificate of

P.W.2 and subsequently he handed over the investigation to L.W.10 on 09- 07-2016 and he assisted L.W.10 in the investigation and on the same day,

L.W.10 Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P9, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and basing on the copy of Study Certificate which is marked as Ex.P10, he altered section of law by adding sec. 12 of

POCSO Act and the alteration memo is marked as Ex.P11. L.W.10 arrested the accused and released him on bail and subsequently after assuming charge, L.W.11 P.Penchala Reddy, Inspector of police continued further investigation and after completion of investigation, L.W.11 filed charge sheet.

5 17.In the present case the complainant, who is the father of the victim girl, P.W.2, the victim girl and P.W.3, the mother of the victim girl, who are the material witnesses, turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution and they categorically stated that they never lodged any report against the accused. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the accused followed the victim girl and compelled her to accept his love and threatened her with dire consequences to accept his love. In view of the said evidence, though the prosecution has examined the investigating officers, his evidence is of no much avail to the case of prosecution.

18.So, considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of Accused for the offences under Sections 354-D, 506 and 509 of IPC and sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, and accordingly he is entitled to be acquittal for the said offence. So, the point is answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.

19. POINT No.2 :-

IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences underSections 354-D, 506 and 509 of IPC and sec. 12 of POCSO

Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of

SIX MONTHS as per the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un- marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 31 th day of December, 2018.

(Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GUNTUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : P.W.1 : K. Sita Ramaiah P.W.2 : K. Suhasini P.W.3 : K. Swapna. P.W.4 : R.Subrahmanyam, SI of Police.

For Defence : --None--- 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : Ex.P1/: Signature of P.W.1 on the Report given to police Ex.P2/: Marked Portion in report Ex.P3/: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.4/--: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.5/--: Marked Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.6/--: Written report given by P.W.1 Ex.P.7/--: Original FIR Ex.P.8/--: Love letter Ex.P.9/--: Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.10/--: Copy of Study Certificate Ex.P.11/--: Alteration memo

For Defence : ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil- (Sd/-) Nandikonda Narsing Rao,

I AD & SJ,GNT