Sri N. Rajasekhar

1

CC No.408 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Sri N.Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Thursday, this the 31st day of March, 2022

Calendar Case No.408/2016

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station.…Complainant.

Vs.,

1. Karrivula Srinivasulu, (A1) S/o Subba naidu, 37 years

2. Karriavula Ramanamma, (A2) W/o Subbanaidu, 65 years

A1 and A2 are kamma by caste, H.No.25-2-98, Kesavula Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore City. N/o Venkateswaranagar Village, Podalakur Mandal.

3. Karriavula Surendra, (A3) S/o Subbanaidu, 39 years

4. Karriavula Srilakshmi, W/o Surendra, 36 years

A3 and A4 are Kamma by caste, 101, AVR Nivas, 4th street, Tyagaraju nagar, Vedayapalem,

Nellore City. ...Accused 1 to 4.

This case is coming before me on 15-3-2022 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri S.Rama Krishna Prasad, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station laid charge sheet in Crime

No.291/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused/A1 to A4.

2

CC No.408 of 2016

2.The prosecution case, in nutshell:

One Lingamgunta Pedda Yanadaiah/LW2 is resident of Thikkavarappadu of

Venkatachalam Mandal and has a daughter by name K.Ramya/LW1. LW1 was given in marriage to A1. The marriage of A1 and LW1 was solemnized on 6.6.2010 as per

Hindu Rites and Customs at Kasturikala kshetram, Nellore at the instance of elders of both parties. At the time of marriage, LW2 gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs, 70 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A1 and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A2 to A4 as dowry.

The said dowry provided to accused persons in the presence of Ch.Krishnaiah/LW3,

P.Chinna Venkateswarlu/LW4. Further, LW2 spent Rs.80,000/- for performing marriage. After marriage A1 put up family at Chandramouli Nagar, Vedayapalem and A2 to A4 also lived along with A1 and LW1 under one roof. A1 was doing construction business. After marriage A1 and LW1 lived happily for about 1 ½ years.

Subsequently, A1 to A4 demanded LW1 to bring additional dowry and thereby subjected her to cruelty both physical and mental. Further, A1 to A4 unlawfully demanded LW1 to go to her parents house and bring additional dowry i.e., cash of

Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of immovable property. Accordingly, A1 to A4 necked LW1 out of their house in the month of November, 2011. No other go, LW1 joined at her parents house. Later in the month of January, 2013 LW2 conducted mediation with accused persons in the presence of LW4/P.Chinna Venkateswarlu, one K.Venkata

Ramanaiah and the said mediation gave fruitful results as LW1 rejoined her in-laws house. But, A1 to A4 did not change in their attitude and started to demand LW1 to go and bring one acre of immovable property as additional dowry. In the meantime,

LW1 became pregnant as her parents came and took her to their house for delivery ( in the month of October, 2013) and later in the month of October, 2013 LW1 blessed with a female child. A1 to A4 did not visit to see female child despite of giving information and moreover, they demanded to provide cash of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of land as additional dowry and on fulfilling such condition only, A1 will take her back to her matrimonial house. Thus, no other go LW1 made report to police on 8.10.2016.

Based on the report of LW1/K.Ramya, LW8/D.Venkateswara Rao, SI of Police,

V.Satram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.291/2016 under Sections 498-A

IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up investigation into the 3

CC No.408 of 2016

matter and secured the presence of L.Ws.1 to 5 and also one G.Yanadaiah/LW6 and

M.Chalama Naidu/LW7 and recorded their respective statements and found a prima- facie case against A1 to A4 and thus served notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C and dispensed with their arrest. Later, LW8 completed investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken under section 498-A IPC and sec.3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.On appearance of the accused/A1 to A4, case copies furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined A1 to A4 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied substance of accusation. Hence, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the relevant material on record, charges under Section 498-A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act were framed, explained, and read over its contents to A1 to A4 in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove their case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/Ch.Krishnaiah and

LW6/G.Yanadaiah. Accordingly prosecution evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C (1) (b) Cr.P.C for the incriminating material lying in P.Ws evidence for which they stated everything as false and incorrect and reported that they have no defence evidence on their side, however, they got marked Ex.D1, during the cross-examination of PW1. Ex.D1 is part of section 161

Cr.P.C statement of PW1. . Hence, the defence evidence was also closed.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for A1 to A4.

9.Now, the point for consideration is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

4

CC No.408 of 2016

Admitted Facts:

10.Admittedly PW1 and A1 is wife and husband. A2 to A4 are the blood relations to A1. The marriage of PW1 and A1 is still in subsistence and they got blessed with a female child and paternity of laid child is also undisputed. At present PW1 is staying at her parents house at Thikkavarappadu.

POINT:

11. It is the case of prosecution that prior to 8.10.2016, A1 being the husband and A2 to A4 being the close relations of A1, subjected PW1 to cruelty both physical and mental with an harassment to provide cash of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of landed property; and further at the time of marriage, on demand A1 to A4 was given cash of

Rs.5 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold and 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A2 to

A4 as dowry; and subsequent to marriage, A1 to A4 unlawfully demanded PW1 and

PW2 to provide additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of land and which acts of

A1 to A4 punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act respectively.

12.To bring home the guilt of A1 to A4, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6. PW1 is defacto complainant/victim. PW2 is the hearsay witness (father of victim). PW3 and PW4 are the mediators conducted mediation and sent back PW1 to her matrimonial house. PW5 is the Investigating Officer and PW6 is an independent witness.

13. This court keenly perused the oral evidence of PW1/victim, who set criminal law into motion deposed that her marriage with A1 was solemnized on 6.6.2010 and at that time her parents gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold (to her) and 10 sovereigns of gold to A1 and her father promised her to give one acre of land. PW1 further deposed that as on the date of marriage, A1 was doing construction business and A1 along with his family members are living under one roof as joint family and she lived with A1 happily for about 1 ½ year. PW1 further- 5

CC No.408 of 2016

more deposed that in the year, 2011 disputes started between A1 and herself as A2 to A4 instigated her husband. PW1 further stated that A4 even not provided food to her and she was the person managed the entire family and at her instigation only A1 to A3 harassed her. PW1 further deposed that A1 even not allowed her to wear clothes at her choice and he took away all her gold and did not give it back to her.

PW1 further deposed that in the month of 2011, A1 to A4 beat her and necked her out from their house as she joined at her parents house and later, in the month of

January, 2013, elders Pws.3 and 4 conducted mediation along with her parents as A1 to A4 took her back to their house and gave assurance that they will lookafter her well. But, they did not change in their attitude and started to demand her to provide one acre of land as earlier promised and also to give cash of Rs.2 lakhs (as

additional dowry). PW1 further deposed that her father unable to provide and fulfill

such demands. PW1 further stated in the meantime she conceived again as her parents came and took her to their house for delivery and later, she gave birth to a female child on 21.10.2013 and her father (PW2) informed such good news to A1 to

A4, but, they did not come and see the child. Moreover, they demanded to give cash of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of land. PW1 further-more deposed that in the year, 2015, she got notice as A1 filed a petition before Family Court, Nellore calling her to join him to lead happy marital life. In turn she appeared before concerned court and expressed her willingness to join with A1, but later, A1 did not stand on his words and take her back and at last the said petition was dismissed (Family Court, Nellore).

Pw1 further stated that since accused/A1 to A4 did not change in their attitude she lodged Ex.P1 report before V.Satram Police Station.

14. Whereas PW2, who is the father of PW1 deposed that at the time of marriage, he gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 10 sovereigns of gold to A1 and 70 sovereigns of gold to PW1 and later, PW1 joined with A1 at Chandramouli nagar, Nellore. A2 to A4 also lived with them under one roof. PW2 deposed that PW1 and A1 lived happily for about 1 ½ year and later, A1 to A4 started to demand PW1 to provide additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of land and on that PW1 came back to his house and informed, hence, he sent mediators namely Chinna Venkateswarlu and

K.Venkata Ramanaiah (P.Ws.3 and 4) along with PW1 to the house of accused as 6

CC No.408 of 2016

PW1 joined the company of A1 again and lived with A1 and in the meantime, she got pregnant as he visited the house of A1 and took PW1 to his house for delivery. But, later A1 to A4 did not come to see either PW1 or her child, hence, PW1 lodged report.

15. P.Ws.3 and 4, who said to be the mediators held talks between PW1 on one side and A1 to A4 on other side, deposed one and the same lines that at the time of marriage of PW1 with A1, PW2 gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold to accused and thereafter, A1 and PW1 lived happily for about 1 ½ years. P.Ws.3 and 4 further deposed that accused persons demanded to provide additional dowry viz., landed property, which were promised to give to A1 previously. PW3 further deposed that later PW1 blessed with a child and then, his wife and others took PW1 to the house of accused and left her there as PW1 lived with A1 for sometime and later came back to her parents house due to disputes. PW4 further deposed that since accused persons demanded additional dowry PW1 came to her parents house and stayed at her parents house since about 1 ½ year and later he, along with others took PW1 to the house of accused and left PW1 there and in the meantime, PW1 got conceived. PW4 further stated that accused persons subjected PW1 to harassment demanding additional dowry and they even did not come to see the child when PW1 gave delivery and at last PW1 lodged report.

16. Thus on careful perusal of oral evidence of Pws.1 to 4 on record, prima-facie it appears that A1 to A4 subjected PW1 to cruelty as harassing her to provide

additional dowry viz., cash of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of landed property. Be that as

it may. PW1 in her entire evidence no where specifically stated that A1 to A4 subjected her to harassment physically. She simply stated that A1 to A4 demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents. PW1 during her evidence stated that her parents gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold to her and 10 sovereigns of gold to A1 at the time of marriage. Which statement made by PW1 is contrary to her previous statement made to police. PW1 stated to police that cash of

Rs.5 lakhs and 70 sovereigns of gold given to her husband/A1 and 10 sovereigns of gold given to A2 to A4. Further she omitted to depose that her parents spent 7

CC No.408 of 2016

Rs.80,000/- towards performing the marriage. PW2, who said to be the father also contrarily stated that he gave cash of Rs.5 lakhs and 10 sovereigns of gold to A1 and gave 70 sovereigns of gold to PW1 at the time of marriage. This statement also contrary to the statement of PW1. Thus, P.Ws.1 and 2 who said to be material witnesses for prosecution case, did not stand on one line. PW1, who set criminal law into motion is of specific and clear about the property provided to A1 to A4 at the time of marriage. Moreover, P.Ws.1 and 2 nowhere specifically stated in their evidence that such amount or gold ornaments given to A1 or A2 to A4 as dowry.

17. Further, PW1 in her evidence stated that his father/PW2 promised A1 to give one acre of land at the time of marriage. But, PW1 did not whisper such statement either in Ex.P1 report or in her statement to police. PW1 contrarily stated in Ex.P1 and her statement before police that such landed property demanded by A1 to A4 as additional dowry, that too, after their marriage. Thus, this statement made by

PW1 is very inconsistent and PW1 appears to be in confusion and dilemma regarding the case set up by her. Whereas PW2 did not whisper in his chief-examination that he made such promise to A1 at the time of marriage and later, A1 demanded from directly to provide such property.

18. P.Ws.3 and 4 in their respective chief-examinations stated such amount and gold ornaments said to be given to accused at the time of marriage. But, their chief- examination itself did not disclose specifically that they were attended the marriage ceremony of PW1 and A1. Further, P.Ws.3 and 4 nowhere stated specifically such amount provided to accused persons as dowry. Ex.P1 report of PW1 discloses such alleged cash and gold ornaments provided to accused persons as dowry and gifts, if, it is so, it is the burden of prosecution witnesses to state specifically what properties were given as gifts and what properties were given as dowry. Thus, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 on record regarding the dowry provided at the time of marriage to A1 to

A4 is very inconsistent, vague and uncertain. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are not specific and clear regarding the dowry provided to accused persons at the time of marriage.

8

CC No.408 of 2016

19. Further PW1 in her evidence stated that at the instigation of A2 to A4 misunderstandings arose between A1 and herself and A4 used to manage entire family. PW1 further stated that A1 used to not allow her to wear clothes at her choice and took 70 sovereigns of gold and not give it back to her. Such statement made by PW1 neither whispered by her in Ex.P1 report nor before police. Further,

PW1 improved her version that she was not provided food at the instance of A4.

Such statement also not whispered by PW1 either in Ex.P1 or to police. P.Ws.2 to 4 did not whisper any such acts of A2 to A4 about instigation of A1 in turn A1 subjecting PW1 to any such harassment at any point of time. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution by way of P.Ws.1 to 4 is very inconsistent and uncertain.

Such evidence adduced by prosecution would noway give an inference that PW1 was subjected to any such cruelty either physical or mental at any point of time. The learned counsel for accused cross-examined PW1 and elicited the improvements made by PW1 (discussed supra). Further, PW1 deposed that her husband gave notice demanding her to join his company to lead happy marital life by filing with a petition before Family Court, Nellore. PW1 further stated such petition got filed by A1 eventually dismissed. PW5/Investigating Officer did not collect any material to establish such case being filed by A1 and the same was dismissed. Be that as it may.

A1 appeared to have tried to bring back his wife for living happy marital life. This incident would give an inference that PW1 was the party committed wrong.

20. PW2 in his evidence no where deposed specifically that he sent mediators

P.Ws.3 and 4 and others to A1 to A4 for mediation and such mediation became fruitful and thereby he sent his daughter to the house of A1. Moreover, P.Ws.3 and 4, who said to be conducted such mediation did not whisper about such conducting of mediation at any place or at any point of time. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 on record is utter contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding mediation conducted. Thus, this court is of the view P.Ws.1 and 2 set up a false plea of mediation and sent back PW1 to the house of A1 at relevant time. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 on record did not inspire the confidence of the court to arrive at a just decision that A1 to A4 subjected PW1 to any cruelty either physical or mental at any point of time and that they took dowry at the time of marriage and later demanded 9

CC No.408 of 2016

Pws.1 and 2 to provide such additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and one acre of land.

When, PW2 himself gave assurance to give such land to A1 at the time of marriage questioning of demanding additional dowry or unlawful demand would not arise at all. Thus, this court is of considered view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Ex.P1 would no way establish the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence charged.

Further, this court keenly perused the evidence of PW6, who said to be resident of

Chandramouli Nagar and lived at the locality of A1, but he did not support the case of prosecution at any stretch of imagination and turned hostile. All though the learned APP cross-examined, PW6 but no incriminating material elicited against A1 to A4. Thus, the evidence of PW6 is no way helpful to the prosecution.

21. At last, this court perused the oral evidence of PW5/Investigating Officer, who deposed about his investigation aspects viz., registration of case based on Ex.P1 report, examining and recording the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and other witnesses, visiting the scene of offence. But, he did not collect any piece of documents like photos, C.Ds which depicts provision of dowry to accused persons at the time of marriage etc. Moreover, the PW5 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not examine any neighbours at Chandramouli Nagar and did not collect any proof to show that alleged dowry provided to the accused persons. Although the learned defence counsel did not question PW5 and contradict the improvements made by

PW1. But, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 on record is very inconsistent and not believable. P.Ws.1 to 4 have taken different and divergent versions regarding the alleged incident. P.Ws.1 to 4 not supported the prosecution story. Thus, this court is of the considered view that prosecution failed to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, extending benefit of doubt in favour of A1 to A4 just and proper.

22. In view of the foregoing discussions and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses, this court is of view that the prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences charged. Therefore, A1 to A4 are entitled to be acquitted.

10

CC No.408 of 2016

23. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 if any on record shall remain in force for the period of six months as per section 437-A

Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced. Hence, no property order passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer-G-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 31st day of March, 2022.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar,

Fair Copy: Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: K.Ramya P.W.2: L.Pedda Yanadaiah PW.3: P.Chinna Venkateswarlu PW.4: K.Venkata Subbaiah PW.5: D.Venkateswara Rao, SI of Police, V.Satram PS. PW.6: M.Chalama Naidu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1

Ex.P2: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Ex.D1: A portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

Id/- N.R., Spl.JMFC for Excise,

(FAC) IV AJMFC,

NELLORE.

// True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

1

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Sri N.Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022

Calendar Case No.1716/2020

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station.…Complainant.

Vs.,

Shaik Allabakshu, S/o babu, 31 years, Muslim, Venkateswarapuram, Janardhanreddy colony, Nellore Rural Mandal, Convict Prisoner No.2140, Central Prison, Chemudugunta,

Nellore. ...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 22-4-2022 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri M.Sekhar, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused, upon hearing and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram Police Station laid charge sheet in Crime

No.246/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC against the accused.

2.The prosecution case, in nutshell:

One S.Sunitha/LW1 and S.Suresh Reddy/LW2 are wife and husband and they are doing job as warders at Central Prison, Nellore. Accused is a life convict vide convict No.2140 undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Nellore. On 19-6-2020 at around 10-30am., LW2 was discharging his duties at prison hospital, while so, food served to the prisoners and at that time accused also took his food and went to his cell and made noise with glass by beating it firmly. On hearing such noise, LW2 rushed to the cell of accused and questioned him about making noise with glass, as accused reported that food served to him not hygienic and abused LW2 in vulgar 2

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 language and thrown the plate (containing food ) away. Then, LW2 took the said plate containing food to the Doctor at hospital by name C.Niranjan/LW4, who in turn, examined the food and found it hygienic. Then, LW2 reported the matter to the

Deputy Jailer/S.Ramakrishna/LW5 as LW5 ordered to bring accused before him as such LW2 produced accused before LW5 and then, while LW5 enquiring into the matter, accused grew wild against LW2 and gave a blow on the left jaw of LW2 with his right hand elbow, which resulted lose of one tooth and LW2 fell down on the ground and felt heavy pain. In the meantime, the staff of prison informed the incident happened to LW1, in turn, LW1 rushed to the scene and shifted injured/LW2 with the help of other staff to KIMS hospital, Nellore for treatment. The incident happened witnessed by one N.Jagadeeshwara Rap, Head Warder/LW3,

S.Ramakrishna/LW5, P.Varaprasada Rao/LW6, P.Chandrasekhar, LW7. On hospital intimation, Head Constable/V.Srinivasulu, LW9 rushed to the hospital, secured the presence of LW2 and recorded her statement and sent it to SHO, Dargamitta on the point of jurisdiction.

Based on the statement of LW2, LW10/Sk.Kareemulla, SI of Police,

V.Satram Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.246/2020 under Section 325 IPC and took up investigation into the matter, visited the hospital, secured the presence of LW1, LW2 and also visited the scene at Central Prison, Nellore, drew rough sketch and also secured the presence of witnesses L.Ws.3 to 7 and recorded their respective statements and found prima-facie case against the accused. Pending investigation on 6.10.2020, LW10 got obtained P.T warrant against the accused and executed the same and produced him before this court and sent him to judicial custody. The Dr.T.Narasimha Rao, CMO, KIMs hospital/LW8, who treated LW2, issued wound certificate opining that the injury casued to LW2 is of grevious in nature.

Thus, LW10 completed investigation and laid charge sheet.

3.Cognizance of offence was taken under section 325 of IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020

5. When examined accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., he denied substance of accusation. Hence, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the relevant material, a charge under Section 325 IPC was framed, explained, and read over its contents to accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove their case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/N.Jagadeeshwar Rao and

LW9/V.Srinivasulu, HC 856, Dargamitta Police Station, Nellore. Accordingly prosecution evidence was closed.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C (1) (b) Cr.P.C for the incriminating material lying in P.Ws evidence for which he stated everything as false and incorrect and reported he has no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was also closed.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP and learned legal aid counsel.

9.The learned APP for state argued that the evidence adduced by prosecution both oral and documentary categorically proved that the accused was the person caused such grievous injury to PW2 at relevant time without any provocation and all the material witnesses/ocular witnesses pointed out accused was the person committed such offence and the doctor also found such injury on the body part of

PW2 and thus, prosecution prove beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, prayed to convict accused for the offence charged.

10.Per contra, the learned legal aid counsel appearing for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit alleged offence and all the prosecution witnesses are partisan witnesses and their evidence cannot be looked into and no inmates or the prisoners was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the version of PW2 and that I.O/PW8 did not collect any piece of evidence to show that injured PW2 and his wife PW1 and other witnesses were on duty at central prison, Nellore on the date of alleged incident and that accused was foisted into this case without any basis and the evidence adduced by prosecution 4

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 regarding injury inflicted on PW2 not believable and trustworthy as no x-ray of injured got filed. Hence, prosecution case cannot be believable and cannot be stated that proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused from the offence charged.

Admitted Facts:

P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and husband doing employment as warders at Central

Prison, Nellore. Accused is life convict undergoing sentence at Central Prison,

Nellore.

11. Now, the point for consideration is that : "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

12. It is the case of prosecution that on 19.6.2020 at around 11-30am., accused voluntarily without any provocation, caused grievous hurt by beating PW2 with his right elbow, which resulted lose of tooth and which act of accused punishable under section 325 of IPC.

13.To bring home the guilt of Accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8. PW1 is defacto complainant and hearsay witness. PW2 is injured. PW3 is hearsay witness/doctor at Central Prison, Nellore. Pws.4 to 6 are ocular witnesses. PW7 is the Medical Officer, who treated injured/PW2. PW8 is the

Investigating Officer.

14. This court keenly perused the oral evidence of PW1, who set criminal law into motion deposed that on 19.6.2020 at around 11-30am., while she has been discharging her duties as warder at female barrack at Central Prison, Nellore, she got a phone call via inter-cum from main gate of the prison staff, who informed her that her husband/PW2 was beaten by accused as PW2 sustained bleeding injury from his mouth. PW1 further deposed that on such information, she rushed to the scene and found her husband with bleeding injury as she shifted him to KIMS hospital, Nellore for treatment. PW1 further deposed that on enquiry with PW4, she 5

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 came to know that accused took galata at hospital block complaining food served to him not good as PW2 questioned him and then, the said food was examined by jail doctor and then, PW2 took accused to main gate and while complaining the matter to Deputy Jailer/PW4 accused grew wild and gave a blow on the left law, which resulted broken of tooth. PW1 further more deposed that police came to hospital and recorded her statement under Ex.P1. This court perused Ex.P1, which is statement/report of PW1, which is also on the same lines of oral evidence of PW1.

PW2, who said to be injured deposed that on 19.6.2020 at about 10-30am., while he was discharging his duties at hospital ward and distributing food to prisoners, while so accused complained that food served to him not hygienic and thrown it away abusing in vulgar language. PW2 further deposed that he took accused along with served food (to accused) and produced it before to jail doctor/PW3, in turn, PW3 inspected and found food is good in condition, but, accused took altercation with

PW3 too. PW2 further deposed that he gave report to Deputy Jailer/PW4 at main gate and later, he produced accused before PW4 and while explaining the incident happened to PW4, accused grew wild and gave a blow with his fist on his left jaw, which resulted lose of one tooth and he fell unconscious. PW2 further stated on information, PW1 came to scene and then, PW1 along with jail staff shifted him to

KIMS hospital for treatment.

Further PW3, who said to be hearsay witness corroborated the version of PW2 that on 19.6.2020 at around 10-30am., while he present at OP room, central prison, heard noises and later, PW2 brought accused and reported that accused complaining that food served not hygienic and asked him to check it. PW3 further deposed that he inspected the food served upon accused and found it is good in condition and later, accused was taken towards main gate of central prison. PW4, who said to be the Deputy Jailer and main ocular witness to the incident happened deposed that on 19.6.2020 at 10-30 am., while he present at the main gate of central prison, PW2 informed him over walky-talky that accused took dispute with him in respect of food served upon him as he asked PW2 to produce accused before him and later, PW2 produced accused before him and while complaining the matter, accused grew wild and gave a blow on the left law of PW2 with his fist, it resulted lose of tooth and later, PW2 shifted to KIMS hospital for treatment. P.Ws.5 and 6, 6

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 who said to be Jail Head Warders and warder respectively corroborated the incident happened and specifically stated while PW2 produced accused before PW4 and reporting the matter accused grew wild and fisted on the left jaw of PW2, which resulted lose of tooth.

15. Thus, on careful scrutiny of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, it is crystal clear that PW2 lost his tooth on the left side jaw at relevant time. Further the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 6 made it clear but accused was the person fisted on the left jaw of PW2, which caused lose of tooth. This court further perused the oral evidence of medical officer/PW7 coupled with wound certificate/Ex.P2, issued by him and found that PW7 treated PW2 at 12-30pm., on 19.6.2020 and he found deformity of lower jaw of PW2 and as he referred PW2 to Radiologist and got x-ray report and found “fracture mandible” and such injury is of grievous in nature and to that effect issued wound certificate, Ex.P2. On careful scrutiny, the doctor treated PW2 at earliest point of time after the alleged incident. Thus, the doctor evidence on record corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 to 6 with respect to the injury inflicted upon PW2 and also the exact body part on which such injury inflicted. Admittedly the prosecution could not file x-ray report of PW2 and such x-ray report was also not submitted to police concerned. PW8/IO admittedly did not collect such x-ray report. Although such x-ray report not produced by the prosecution, which certainly necessary but the evidence of ocular witnesses on record categorically and clinchingly proved a fact that PW2 lost a tooth in left jaw. As per section 320(7) of IPC “fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth is a grievous hurt”. When the evidence of ocular witnesses categorically proved the injury inflicted upon PW2 and loss caused to PW2, insisting for production of x-ray report not just and proper. Moreover, non-collection of such evidence by IO/PW8, cannot be a ground to give doubt or benefit to accused. The investigation defects on the part of IO/PW8 is not a ground to doubt the version of oracular witnesses. Thus, this court of the view the prosecution able to establish the grievous injury inflicted upon PW2 at relevant time.

16. P.Ws.1 to 6 categorically deposed that the accused was the person inflicted such grievous hurt against P.W2. Admittedly, the ocular witnesses, Pws.4 to 6 and 7

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 hear say witnesses P.Ws.1 and 3 are all working at Central Prison, Nellore and the alleged incident was happened within the premises of Central Prison, Nellore, if it is so, the jail staff only are the immediate and available witnesses. No 3rd party can enter into central prison and got opportunity to see the incident if anything happened. Further-more, this court keenly scrutinized Ex.P4 rough sketch drew by

IO/PW8 and found the alleged incident said to be happened at Deputy Jailer room, which is situated far away from the barracks where prisoners generally detained.

Thus, prisoners also cannot be able to see what happened at the Deputy Jailers room. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 categorically discloses that the incident happened at Deputy Jailer’s room situated very near to main gate of central prison,

Nellore. If it is so, the question put forth by the learned defence counsel to IO/PW8, about the non-examination of prisoners? And eliciting the same as correct, not relevant and vital. Further, admittedly IO/PW8 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not get permission to examine witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 from the

Superintendent of Prison and no record collected from jail authorities to show that such alleged incident happened and no documentary proof collected to show such witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 were on duty on the alleged date of incident. Further, PW8 admitted he could not examine one Surendar, whose name depicted on wound certificate as the person shifted PW2 to hospital forthwith after the alleged incident.

But, such admissions and on the part of IO admittedly investigational defects and loop holes which would no way disprove and create any doubt about the versions made by PW2, 4 to 6 regarding incident happened. Moreover, the hear-say witnesses P.Ws.1 and 3 were also present in the premises and precincts of Central

Prison, Nellore on the date of alleged incident. Such witnesses deposed that accused was the person inflicted such an injury to PW2 at relevant time. The

Doctor/PW3 corroborated that he tested and inspected the food served upon accused such fact was not denied by accused in Cross examination. Although PW3 is also competent person to testify food, but he is the doctor and is the only person to testify the quality of food prepared in Central Prison, Nellore. The defence counsel did not elicit any doubtful material about the incident happened by cross- examining the material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6.

8

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020

16. At last, this court perused the oral evidence of IO/PW8, who deposed about his investigational aspects viz., registration of case based on the statement of

PW1/Ex.P1, visiting hospital and scene of offence, recording the statements of material witnesses (discussed supra), preparing rough sketch, collection of wound certificate, arrest of accused on executing P.T warrant and eventually filing of charge sheet. Thus, the IO evidence also reliable as he registered case without any delay on receipt of report/statement of PW1 and examination of witnesses at earliest point of time. But, the slight discrepancies and inconsistencies in the investigation on the part of IO (discussed supra) cannot be a good ground to give benefit of doubt to accused. Moreover, the evidence of PW2, P.Ws.4 to 6 categorically pointed out that accused fisted left side jaw of PW2, while PW2 is complaining the incident happened to PW4 jailer. If it is so, the act of accused is voluntary and PW2 did not provoke accused in any manner. Thus, the evidence adduced by prosecution both oral and documentary is cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The defence did not create any doubt by cross-examining material witnesses. Therefore, this court is of the view the prosecution adduced necessary and cogent oral and documentary evidence which establishes that accused was the person voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW2 at relevant time and thus, charge levelled proved against accused beyond all reasonable doubts and he is liable to be convicted.

17. In the result, this court found accused guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 325 IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under section 248 (2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-G-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 20th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar,

Fair Copy: Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Quantum of sentence:

18.When questioned regarding quantum of sentence, accused submitted that he did not commit alleged offence and that has been undergoing life imprisonment as he found guilty in another case as prayed this court to take lenient view in imposing sentence. Hence, this court considered the submissions made by the accused.

9

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020 Accused is not entitled for any benefit under Provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or sec.360 Cr.P.C. More over, the mental condition of accused appears to be extreme. Hence, this court is of the view that sentence of 2 years Rigorous

Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- is just and proper.

19. Accordingly, accused is convicted under section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 325 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The accused informed his right of appeal to court of sessions within 30 days and a copy of judgment is provided free of cost.

Further, accused is entitled for set off under section 428 Cr.P.C for the period he has gone imprisonment as UT Prisoner commencing period from 6-10-2020 to till date i.e., 20-4-2022. A copy of judgment be forwarded to DLSA, Nellore for providing free legal aid, if any needed by accused.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer-G-II, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 20th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar,

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: S.Sunitha P.W.2: S.Suresh Reddy PW.3: Ch.Niranjan PW.4: S.Ramakrishna PW.5: P.Varaprasada Rao PW.6: P.Chandra Sekhar PW.7: Dr.T.Narasimha Rao, Casulty Medical Officer, KIMS Hospital, Nellore. PW.8: Sk.Kareemulla, SI of Police, V.Satram Police Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- FOR DEFENCE: - N I L.

10

CC No. 1716 of 2020,

dt.20.4.2020

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1.

Ex.P2: Wound certificate of PW2

Ex.P3: First Information Report in Cr.No.246/2020 of V.Satram Police Station.

Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil.

Id/- N.R., Spl.JMFC for Excise,

(FAC) IV AJMFC,

NELLORE.

// True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

11

CC No. 1716 of 2020

12

CC No. 1716 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Sri N.Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022

Calendar Case No.1716/2020

Accused Name: Shaik Allabakshu, S/o babu,

31 years, Muslim, Venkateswarapuram, Janardhanreddy colony, Nellore Rural Mandal, Convict Prisoner No.2140, Central Prison, Chemudugunta, Nellore.

Quantum of Sentence:

Q.No. You is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s.325 of IPC and is convicted

under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C and for which a maximum punishment provided

u/s.325 IPC extends up to 7 years and also with fine. What do you say regarding the

quantum of sentence?

Ans:

1

CC No. 163 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NELLORE.

Present: Sri N.Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of February, 2022

Calendar Case No.163/2017

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, SPSR Nellore District.…Complainant.

Vs.,

1.Manubolu Ramamohan @ Ramu, (A1) S/o Padmanabha Reddy, 40 years,

2.Badvel Bhaskar Reddy, (A2) S/o Malla Reddy, 52 years

3.Badvel Neeraja @ Neerajamma (A3) W/o Bhaskar Reddy, 55 years

4.Badvel Aravind Kumar Reddy (A4) S/o Bhaskar Reddy, 28 years

All are Reddy by caste, Peddacherukuru village,

Nellore Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming before me on 6-1-2022 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P.Umamaheswar, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station laid charge sheet in

Crime No.481/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323, 324 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused/A1 to A4.

2.The prosecution case, in nutshell:

One Vabbareddy Suresh Reddy/LW1 and Vabbareddy Bhavani/LW2 are husband and wife living at Varigonda village of TP Gudur Mandal and they have given their daughter by name Badvel Sumija/LW3 is marriage to one Badvel Aravind

Kumar Reddy/A4 of Peddacherukuru village. The marriage of B.Aravind Kumar

Reddy/A4 and Sumija/LW3 took place in the year 2012. After their marriage, disputes arose between them, as such L.Ws.1 and 2 pacified the matter and sent 2

CC No. 163 of 2017

their daughter to the house of A4. Despite of that, A4 and his parents A2 and A3, subjected LW3 to harassment and even not provided food to her. A2 to A4 used to lock doors of their house and went outside. On coming to know such acts of A2 to

A4, L.Ws.1 and 2 used to visit the house of LW3 (house of A4) and provided food to her. While things thus stand, on 1.12.2016 at about 7-00pm., L.Ws.1 and 2 visited the house of LW3 (house of A4) at Pedda Cherukuru village and provided necessary food to her and stayed at her house. While so around at about 9-30pm., A1 to A4 came there and asked L.Ws.1 and 2 to leave the place and then took an altercation and also abused L.Ws.1 and 2 in a vulgar language and in the meantime, A1 armed with stick gave a blow on the back of LW1. Whereas A2 and A3 beaten LW1 with their hands and kicked with their legs. When LW3 came to rescue her father, A2 highhandedly pulled mobile phone from her hands and broke it by throwing on ground. Due to galata of LW1 sustained bleeding injuries on his upper lip and by the side of his right eye. LW2 also sustained swelling injuries on her hands. In the meantime, neighbours namely Sesha Reddy/LW4 and LW5/N.Ravindra Reddy came to scene and rescued Lws.1 and 2 from the clutches of A1 to A4 and later shifted

L.Ws.1 and 2 to GGH, Nellore for treatment. On hospital intimation, OPPS Head

Constable Y.Ramanaiah/LW7 visited hospital and recorded the statement of LW1 and sent it to SHO, Nellore Rural Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.

Based on the statement of LW1/V.Suresh Reddy, LW8/K.Balakotaiah, ASI,

Nellore Rural Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.481/2016 under Sections 290, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and took up investigation to the matter, visited the hospital, examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4, visited the scene of offence situated at Peddacherukuru village, drew rough sketch. Pending investigation on 3.12.2016, A1 to A4 surrendered before LW8 as LW8 complied section 41-A Cr.P.C notices and dispensed with the arrest of A1 to A4. Later, SI of Police K.Sekhar

Babu/LW9, collected wound certificate of LW1 from Medical Officer

Dr.Sk.Noorulla/LW6, who opined that LW1 sustained simple injuries and thus, LW9 completed investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4.

3

CC No. 163 of 2017

3.Cognizance of offence was taken under sections 290, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused/A1 to A4, case copies furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined A1 to A4 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., they denied substance of accusation. Hence, upon hearing both sides and on perusing the relevant material, a charge under Sections 290, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC were framed, explained, and read over its contents to A1 to A4 in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6.To prove their case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4/M.Sesha Reddy and

Y.Ramanaiah/LW7. Accordingly prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C (1) (b) Cr.P.C for the incriminating material lying in P.Ws evidence for which they stated everything as false and incorrect and reported they have no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence was also closed.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP and learned defence counsel.

9.The learned APP for state argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the evidence of Medical Officer/PW5 and wound certificate, (Ex.P3) made it clear that PW1 sustained simple injury upon upper lip and below right eye and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 categorically and clinchingly establishes that A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention caused such injury with the stick and investigating officers’ evidence on record also corroborated the version of material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution establishes the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences charged. Hence, prayed to convict

A1 to A4 for the offences charged.

10.Per contra, the learned advocate who appearing for A1 to A4 vehemently argued that A1 to A4 were innocents and they did not commit alleged offence and they were falsely implicated into this case with an intention to black mail them to 4

CC No. 163 of 2017

withdraw the counter case lodged by them against P.Ws.1 to 3 in Cr.No.485/2016 and that prosecution did not adduce any reliable evidence to show that the PW3 was staying at the house of A4 as on the date of alleged incident and that no alleged incident at all happened and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 not clear and consistent regarding the presence of other witnesses and the injuries also not corroborated on par with the medical evidence on record and investigating officer did a false investigation and filed charge sheet to satisfy P.Ws.1 to 3 and thus, prosecution not proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed to acquit A1 to A4 for the offences charged.

11. Now, the point for consideration is: "Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

12. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.12.2016 at around 9-30pm., A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention, committed nuisance at Peddacherukuru village, and also A1 has beaten PW1 with the stick and caused simple injuries over his upper lip and infra orbital area; and A2 to A4 beat PW1 and PW2 with their hands and legs and caused simple injuries and such acts of A1 to A4 punishable under sections 290, 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

13.To bring home the guilt of A1 to A4, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7. PW1 is defacto complainant/injured. Pws.2, 3 and 4 are ocular witnesses. PW5 is Medical Officer, who treated PW1. PW6 is the Investigating

Officer, who conducted material portion of investigation and PW7 also Investigating

Officer who laid charge sheet.

14. This court keenly perused the oral evidence of PW1, who set criminal law into motion deposed that on 1.12.2016 he along with his wife/PW2 visited the house of their son-in-law A4 and there provided food to their daughter/PW3 and at that time, except PW3 none others present. PW1 further deposed that later at around 9-00pm., A1 to A4 came there and abused them and asked them to leave their 5

CC No. 163 of 2017

house for which they refused as they took photos and beaten him. While so PW3 came to rescue but, they took cellphone of her and damaged it. PW1 further deposed that he sustained injury on his right eye and upper lip and later, P.Ws.2 and 3 shifted him to GGH, Nellore for treatment.

15. PW2, who said to be the wife of PW1 deposed that on 1.12.2016 she along with

PW1 went to the house of A4 since their daughter informed them that A2 to A4 not provided any food to her. PW2 further deposed that she along with PW1 gave food to PW3 at around 7-00pm., and at that time A2 to A4 not present at their house. But, later at around 8-00pm., A1 to A4 came there and abused them and also asked them to leave the place for which they denied as they took photos and beaten PW1 with the hands and legs and also with stick. PW2 furthermore deposed that at that time PW3 intervened to rescue PW1, but they took cellphone of PW3 and damaged it. PW2 further deposed that she was also beaten by A1 to A4 as she sustained injuries on right hand whereas PW1 sustained injuries over his right eye and upper lip and later, her husband was shifted GGH, Nellore by them.

16. PW3, who said to be the daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2, also deposed on the same lines of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 1.12.2016 at about 7-00pm., P.Ws.1 and 2 came to her house and gave meals to her and at that time nobody present in the house, but later at around 9-30pm., A1 to A4 came there and abused them and also asked them to leave the house for which they refused as A1 to A4 took photos and beaten PW1 with their hands and legs. PW3 further deposed that when she intervened, they snatched her cell phone and damaged it. PW3 furthermore deposed that her mother

PW2 sustained injury over right hand whereas her father PW1 sustained injuries on his right eye and upper lip and later they were shifted to GGH, Nellore for treatment.

17. Further, this court keenly perused the evidence of Medical Officer/PW5, who deposed that he examined PW1 on 2.12.2016 at early hours and found swelling over right supra orbital region, right infra orbital region and left infra orbital region and found no fracture and those injuries caused to PW1 are of simple in nature and to that effect, he issued Ex.P3 wound certificate. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 discloses that PW1 sustained injury over his right eye and upper lip. Whereas the medical 6

CC No. 163 of 2017

evidence including Ex.P3 wound certificate contra disclosed swelling injury in and around right and left eye of PW1. The Medical Officer/PW5 did not find any injury or wound upon the upper lip portion of PW1. Further the medical officer did not opine with which object or weapon such injuries inflicted on PW1. Further the defence counsel elicited from the mouth of medical officer that no age of injuries got mentioned in Ex.P3. Further admittedly PW2 not referred to hospital as per her own statement. Except the self-serving statements of P.Ws.1 to 3, there is no other evidence on record to show that PW2 sustained in a simple injury. Be that as it may.

The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the medical evidence on record establishes that PW1 sustained simple injury in and around his right eye at relevant time. But, the doctor did not opine such injury upon PW1 inflicted due to contact of stick. Further P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that such injury was inflicted by A1 to A4 conjointly. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on record discloses that A1 to A4 beaten PW1 at a time but they were not specific and clear that which accused has beaten PW1 with the stick. Further-more, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not whisper that PW1 sustained any injuries on his back portion due to contact of stick. Ex.P1, which is the statement of

PW1 made at earliest point of time to police and which made it clear that A1 was the person beaten PW1 with the stick but, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on record did not disclose specifically that A1 was the person beaten PW1 with stick. Further as per the Ex.P1 and Ex.P4 FIR the alleged incident said to have taken place at around 9-30pm on 1.12.2016, but the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are utter contrary. PW1 stated the alleged incident happened at 9-00pm., PW2 stated the alleged incident happened at 8-00pm., whereas PW3 stated the alleged incident happened at 9-30pm. Further more, P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that A1 to A4 came to the scene of offence at once. But per contra, Ex.P1 disclosed that when P.Ws.1 and 2 visited the house of A4 at around 7-00pm., A2 to A4 not present and later at about 9-30pm., A2 to A4 brought A1 to their house. But, the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 to police disclosed inconsistently that P.Ws.1 and 2 accompanied to the house of their daughter along with their son also. But none of them (P.Ws.1 to 3) stated that their son accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2.

7

CC No. 163 of 2017

18. Be that as it may. The material eyewitness PW4 did not support the story of prosecution or the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 in any manner and turned hostile. The learned APP although cross-examined PW4, but no incriminating material elicited against the A1 to A4. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are interrelated and close relationship to one another not corroborated and supported by the independent witnesses on record. Whereas the other independent witness on record was not examined by the prosecution. Thus, this court is of the view the non- examination of other eyewitness much fatal to the prosecution case.

19. Furthermore to arrive at a just decision in this case, this court keenly scrutinized the statement of ocular witnesses PW4 and LW5/N.Ravindra Reddy and found that both parties took altercation and later, such altercation converted into an affray, if it is so, the prosecution ought to have examined the other eye witness to elicit true facts. Admittedly, there appears a counter case said to have been lodged and pending. If it is so, prosecution ought to have stated which party gave provocation and committed wrong. There is no evidence on record to arrive at a just decision which party gave provocation and became the reason for the alleged incident. When there are case and counter case between parties, implication of A1 to A4 into this case cannot be brushed aside.

20. Thus, this court is of the view that basing on the sole testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, one cannot arrive at just decision that A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention caused such injuries to PW1 with dangerous weapon. Moreover,

Investigating Officer/PW6, who did material portion of investigation did not collect the stick with which the A1 beat PW1. Moreover, ocular witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state the nature, height, length, width of such stick. Unless and until prosecution produced such stick, arriving at a just decision that such injuries caused with such weapon cannot be inferred. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution both oral and documentary evidence through P.Ws.1 to 4 not believable and trust-worthy to arrive at just decision. Further Ex.D1 got filed establishes a fact, that PW3 was staying in her parents house at Varigonda village since two years (even before occurrence of the alleged incident) for the reason that the marital relationship of 8

CC No. 163 of 2017

PW3 and A4 was strained. If Ex.D1 is taken into account, presence of PW3 at the house of A4 cannot be assumed and presumed.

21. At last, this court perused the oral evidence of investigating officer/PW6, who deposed about his investigation aspects viz., registration of case based on Ex.P1, examining and recording the statement of Pws.1 to 4, visiting the scene, preparing rough sketch and further investigation by PW7 to the effect of filing charge sheet.

The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 are relevant and trust worthy regarding their investigation aspects, but PW6 who did material portion did not collect the stick with which A1 has beaten PW1 and even he was not given any explanation regarding the such stick. Thus, believing the evidence of Pws.6 and 7 not just and proper. As a whole, the evidence adduced by the prosecution not inspiring the confidence of this court to arrive at just decision with A1 to A4 in furtherance of their common intention committed nuisance at public place at relevant time and also beat PW1 with dangerous weapon and caused such injury and also beaten PW2 and caused such simple injuries. Hence, extending benefit of doubt in favour of A1 to A4 just and proper.

22. In view of the foregoing discussions and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses, this court is of view that the prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences charged. Therefore, A1 to A4 are entitled to be acquitted.

23. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 290, 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused/A1 to A4 if any on record shall remain in force for the period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. In this case no property was produced. Hence, no property was ordered.

Dictated to the Stenographer-G-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 23rd day of February, 2022.

Sd/- N.Rajasekhar,

Fair Copy: Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of

Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

9

CC No. 163 of 2017

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: -- FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE. PW.1: V.Suresh Reddy P.W.2: V.Bhavani PW.3: B.Sumija PW.4: N.Ravindra Reddy PW.5: Dr.Sk.Noorulla, CAS PW.6: K.Balakoitaiah, ASI, Nellore Rural Police Station. PW.7: K.Sekhar Babu, S.I of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-- FOR DEFENCE: - N I L. Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1. Ex.D1: complaint marked.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW1

Ex.P4: First Information Report.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch,

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil.

Id/- N.R., Spl.JMFC for Excise,

(FAC) IV AJMFC,

NELLORE.

// True Copy //

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

1 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS:NELLORE.

Tuesday, this the thirtieth(30th) day of November, 2021

Present: Sri N. Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

C. C. No. 359/2016

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

….. Complainant.

Nellore Rural Police Station, Nellore.

Vs.

Kodi Sudheer, S/o Rama Subbaiah, aged … Accused 22 years, SC-Mala by caste, South Amuluru Village, T.P.Guduru Mandal, Rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP26 AM 0174.

This case coming on 23.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri Galla Venu, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, laid charge sheet in crime No.256/2016 under Section 304-A of IPC, Section 181 r/w 3 and

Section 196 r/w 146 of Motor Vehicles Act against accused.

2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell:-

(i)Maruboyina Ashok/L.w.1 is resident of Narukuru centre and living by doing cultivation. One Marruboyina Venkataramanaiah/D-2 and Vijayamma are the parents of L.w.1. D-2 has been working as Lineman at A.P.S.P.D.C.L,.

Podalakuru Division since 24 years. On 19.06.2016 at about 8.30 p.m, D-2 and one Pakam Ramachandraiah/D-1 left to Gudipallipadu centre and later

D-2 being the rider and D-1 being the pillion rider of motor cycle bearing 2 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021

Registered No.AP26 L 3335 returning towards Narukuru and on the way, when they reached near N.T.R.Statue at Gudipallipadu centre, accused being the rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP26 AM 0174 came from opposite direction in a rash manner with high speed and collided/dashed the bike of D-2, as a result, both D-1 and D-2 and accused fell down from their respective bikes and went unconscious. D-1 and D-2 sustained bleeding injuries over their head.

One Sk.Shahul, S/o Nazeer/L.W.2 who present at Gudipallipadu centre witnessed the accident occurred. On telephonic message of L.W.2, L.w.1 and his family members rushed to the scene of offence and found D-1 and D-2 with head injuries and then shifted D-1 and D-2 to Simhapuri hospital, Nellore for treatment, but Doctors reported D-2 was brought dead. Where as the condition of D-2 was also very serious as he shifted to government general hospital,

Nellore, but while undergoing treatment, D-1 also succumbed to injuries on 20.06.2016.

(ii)Based on the report of L.W.1/Maruboyina Ashok, L.W.18/J.Subba

Raju, Sub-Inspector of police, Nellore Rural police station registered a case in

Cr.No.256/2016 under Section 304-A, 337 of IPC and took up investigation into the matter, visited the scene of offence, drew Scene Observation report, rough sketch and then secured the presence of L.W.1/M.Ashok,

L.w.2/Sk.Shahul, family members of deceased Nos.1 and 2 i.e., L.Ws.4 to 9 namely Mandarapu Vinod, Maruboyina Dayakar, Pakam Lalithamma, Pakam

Srinivasulu, Pakam Saikrishna, Pakam Venkaiah and examined and recorded their respective statements and secured the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 and conducted inquest and sent the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 for autopsy. The

Doctor/L.W.16/B.Venkateswarlu who conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 namely Pakam Ramachandraiah and

Maruboyina Venkataramanaiah opined that they have died due to head injuries. Where as L.W.17/B.Rama Krishna Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector 3 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021 who examined the crime vehicle bearing No.AP26 AM 0174 opined that ‘the accident was occurred not due any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle’.

Pending investigation, on 05.08.2016 accused himself voluntarily surrendered

before L.W.18 as L.W.18 complied Section.41-A Cr.P.C and arrest of the

accused dispensed with, but released him on bail by taking solvencies. Thus,

L.W.18 found that accused rode the motor cycle/crime vehicle without having any valid driving licence and being not insured the same, drove it in a rash manner and thereby completed investigation and laid charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 304-A of IPC and under Section 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under Section.251 of Cr.P.C, for the offences punishable under Section.304-A of IPC and under Section.181 and 196 of

Motor Vehicles Act, stated substance of accusation, explained and read over its contents to accused in telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited

Exs.P-1 to P-9. The evidence of L.Ws.3 to 9 and L.Ws.11 to 15 namely

G.Srinivasulu M. Vinod, M.Dayakar, P.Lalithamma, Pakam Srinivasulu, Pakam

Saikrishna and Pakam Venkaiah, Annam Surendra babu, Kaniyampati

Gangadhar, Medagiri chiranjeevi, Gandavaram Anil Kumar and Alapaka

Venkata Rathnaiah were given-up by the prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

7. After closure of the evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313(1)

(b) Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material lying in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he stated everything as false and incorrect and reported 4 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021 no defence evidence on his behalf. Ex.D-1 was marked during cross- examination of P.W.2. Accordingly, defence side evidence was also closed.

8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as learned Counsel for the accused.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State argued that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and Investigating Officer/P.W.6 discloses that the death of D-1 and D-2 occurred due to a fatal road accident. Where as the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with P.W.2 on record discloses that accused being the rider of motor cycle, drove it in a rash manner and dashed the motor cycle of D-2 and became the reason for death of D-1 and D-2 and thus prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, prayed to convict the accused for the offences charged.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel who appeared for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and that he was falsely implicated into this case with a view to insurance claim to the family members of D-1 and D-2 and that there are no direct witnesses for the accident occurred and the evidence of P.W.2 is very inconsistent regarding his presence and thus there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, hence, prayed to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused from the offence charged.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sec.304-A of IPC and under Section 181 r/w 3 and under Section 196 r/w 146 of Motor Vehicles Act beyond all reasonable doubt?” 12. Point:- It is the case of prosecution that on 19.06.2016 at around 9.00 p.m, at Gudipallipadu centre, accused being the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP26 AM 0174, drove it in rash manner and collided the motor 5 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021 cycle of D-2, as a result, D-1 and D-2 fell down and sustained head injuries and consequently succumbed to injuries. Further, the accused drove the said motor cycle without having any valid license and not being the insured the said vehicle and thus, accused is punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and

Section 181 r/w 3 and section.196 r/w 146 of Motor Vehicles Act.

13. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witness/P.Ws.1 to 6. PW-1 is son of D-2/hear-say witness, P.W.2 is ocular witness for the accident/incident occurred. P.W.3 is inquest mediator(for inquests of D-1,D-2) and also Scene Observation mediator. P.W.4 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of

D-1 and D-2. P.W.5 is Motor Vehicles Inspector and P.W.6 is Investigating

Officer.

14.This Court keenly perused the oral evidence of P.W.1(who set criminal law into motion) deposed that D-2 is his father and he knew the deceased No.1. P.W.1 deposed that on 19.06.2016, while he present at his house at around 8.45 p.m, got telephonic message from P.W.2/Sk.Shahul who informed that D-2 met with an accident near N.T.R.Statue at Gudipallipadu centre as he rushed to the scene of offence and found his father/D-2 and also

D-1 who are under unconscious condition in a pool of blood. P.W.1 further deposed that he found the motor bike of his father bearing No.AP26 L 3335 and also another motor bike bearing No.AP26 AM 0174 . P.W.1 further more deposed that on enquiry with P.W.2, he came to know that accused being the rider of another motor cycle over took an auto rickshaw and dashed the bike of

D-2 with a high speed. P.W.1 further deposed that later he shifted D-1 and D-2 to Simhapuri hospital, but the Doctors informed that D-2 was brought dead, where as D-1 shifted to Government hospital, Nellore for treatment, but he too died on the next day as he gave report(Ex.P-1).

6 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021

15.P.W.2 who said to be the ocular witness deposed that on 19.06.2016 while he is proceeding on his motor bike from Narukur to Nellore and when he reached near N.T.R. statue at Gudipallipadu centre at around 8.00 or 9.00 p.m., while so the motor cyclist over took his bike and also one auto rickshaw and dashed the motor bike of P.W.1’s father who is coming on opposite direction as they all fell down and went unconscious due to bleeding injuries as he informed the accident occurred to P.W.1 over telephone and on that intimation, P.W.1 came to spot and then shifted D-1 and D-2 to

Simhapuri hospital, Nellore, but they succumbed to injuries.

16.P.W.4 is Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of

D-1 and D-2 deposed that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 and thereby issued Exs.P-4 and P-5 postmortem certificates.

17.P.W.6 who said to be the Investigating Officer deposed that he registered a case in Cr.No.256/2016 under Sections.304-A and 337 of IPC under Ex.P-7 first information report.

18.Regarding the accident occurred and about death of D-1 and D-2 and also cause of death of D-1,D-2, neither denied nor challenged nor rebutted by defence in any manner. Further more, the inquest reports of D-1 and D-2 coupled with postmortem certificates of D-1 and D-2 made it clear that the death of D-1 and D-2 occurred due to a fatal road accident and also due to head injuries. Such medical evidence on record also neither denied nor challenged by defence in any manner. Thus, prosecution is able to establish the fact that the death of deceased Nos.1 and 2 occurred due to a fatal road accident at relevant time. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on record coupled with Ex.P-1 report(of P.W.1) made it clear that D-1 and D-2 lost their lives due to collision of motor bikes. Such fact also not denied by the defence in any manner.

7 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021

19.It is the case of the prosecution that accused being the rider of crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP26 AM 0174 drove it in a rash manner and committed the said accident. To establish the such fact, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 said to be the ocular witness. P.W.2 deposed that on 19.06.2016 at about 8.00 or 9.00 p.m, while he is proceeding towards Nellore from Narukur on his motor bike and on the way, when he reached near N.T.R statue at Gudipallipadu centre, one motor cyclist over took him and then while trying to overtake an auto rickshaw, dashed the bike of D-2 as they all fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. Where as P.W.2 contra in his statement to police stated that while he was present at Gudipallipadu centre noticed one motor cyclist came with high speed and in reckless manner dashed the bike of D-2 as they fell down and lost their conscious. But either the evidence of P.W.2 or his statement to police did not specifically disclose what were the circumstances made him to present at the scene of offence at the time of accident. During cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that P.W.1 is his close friend. Further P.W.2 did not state to police specifically that accused was the person drove the alleged motor cycle bearing No.AP26 AM 0174 .

Further he did not state specifically that accused being the rider of motor cycle has over taken his motor bike and then while overtaking an auto rickshaw and dashed the motor cycle of D-2. Such a statement uttered by P.W.2 before this

Court at first instance.

20.Admittedly, there are no other ocular witnesses except P.W.2.

More over P.W.2 no where in his evidence specifically stated that he has seen the complexion of accused either at the time while accused was overtaking his motor bike or after the accident when accused lying down on ground with injuries. Further more P.W.2 in his evidence no where stated specifically at which body part, D-1 and D-2 sustained injuries. P.W.2 simply stated that there is pool of blood at the scene of accident. If P.W.2 really present at the scene and witnessed the accident occurred, he ought to have stated specifically 8 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021 about the injuries caused to D-1 and D-2. More over, the accident occurred at night hours. The rough sketch drawn by Investigating Officer/P.W.6 did not disclose about any electricity pole at the scene of offence to arrive at a just decision that P.W.2 has got an opportunity to see the complexion of accused at the scene of offence.

21.Further the Scene observation report under Ex.P-2 is also very inconsistent since it did not disclose on which side accused is coming and

D-1 and D-2 are coming so also the rough sketch. There are no any curve road near the scene if it is so collision of vehicles cannot be inferred.

22.P.W.2 further in his evidence stated at first instance that accused was in drunken condition, but he could not whisper such fact to the police.

Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 made it clear that he improved his version during course of trial with an oblique motive to fix the guilt on the part of the accused.

23.More over, the Investigating Officer/P.W.6 also did not state that what are the factors made him to fix the guilt on the part of the accused, except the evidence of P.W.2. When the Scene observation report and rough sketch coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 is very inconsistent and ambiguous, believing such evidence is not just and proper. The Investigating Officer/P.W.6 ought to have collected the trustworthy evidence to fix the guilt of the accused.

Further P.W.6 could not collect any material to show that accused has no driving license and his vehicle being not insured as on the date of alleged incident. Further, there is no evidence to show that accused voluntarily surrendered before P.W.6 on relevant date. No confession statement of accused recorded by P.W.6 to justify that accused surrendered before him. Although, the prosecution adduced relevant evidence to prove the fact of death of D-1 and

D-2 due to fatal road accident, but there is no sufficient and trustworthy evidence on record to hold that accused being the rider of crime vehicle, drove it in a rash and reckless manner and collided the motor bike of D-2 at relevant 9 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021 time. Therefore, extending benefit of doubt in favour of accused is just and proper.

24.In view of foregoing discussion and inconsistent evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 on one side and P.W.2 on other side, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

25.In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Section.304-A of IPC and under Section 181 r/w 3 and section.196 r/w 146 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six(6) months as per Section.437-A Cr.P.C. In this case, no property was produced, hence no property order passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of November, 2021.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Maruboyina Ashok - None -

P.W.2: Sk. Shahul

P.W.3: Nasina Usha Kiran

P.W.4: Dr B.Venkateswarlu, the then Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, ACSR Government General hospital, Nellore. P.W.5: B.Rama Krishna Reddy, the then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nellore.

P.W.6: J. Subba Raju, the then Head Constable, Nellore Rural Police station.

10 C.C.No.359/2016 dt.30.11.2021

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report given by P.W.1 dt.20.06.2016

Ex.P-2: Scene Observation report dt.20.06.2016.

Ex.P-3: Inquest report.

Ex.P-4: Postmortem certificate of D-2 issued by P.W.4 dt.20.06.2016

Ex.P-5: Postmortem Certificate of D-1 issued by P.W.4 dt.21.06.2016

Ex.P-6: Motor Vehicle Inspector report issued by P.W.5.

Ex.P-7: First information report in Cr.No.256/2016 of Nellore Rural police station dt.20.06.2016

Ex.P-8: Rough sketch of scene of offence dt.20.06.2016

Ex.P-9: Scene observation report dt.20.06.2016.

N.B: Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-9 are one and the same documents.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D-1: Relevant Portion of Section.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 dt.20.06.2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

1 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:

NELLORE

Friday, the third(3rd) day of December, 2021

Present: Sri N. Rajasekhar, Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

C. C. No. 321/2016.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

….. Complainant.

V.Satram police station.

Vs.

Gampa Subramanyam, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, aged 34 years, SC-Mala by caste, Harijanawada, Kantepalli Village, Venkatachalam mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 23.11.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri M.Jitendra Kumar, Advocate for the Accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, V.Satram police station laid charge sheet in crime No.261/2016 under Sections.448,354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC against accused.

2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell:-

(i)Bandi Bhavani/L.W.1 and Bandi Venkata Seshaiah/L.W.2 are wife and husband, residents of Harijanawada of Kantepalli village,

Venkatachalam Mandal. L.Ws.1 and 2 has a daughter and son. L.W.2 used to go to coolie works. One Bandi Ragamma/L.W.3 is the mother-in-law of L.W.1.

Accused is living on the back side of L.W.1’s house. Whenever L.W.2 goes to coolie works, L.W.1 and her in-laws stays in the house. Accused has an evil eye 2 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021 upon L.W.1. While things thus stand, on 27.08.2016 at 4.00 p.m when L.W.1 alone present at her house, accused trespassed into her house and demanded her to fulfill his lust or else he will propagate in the village that she is having an extra marital relationship with him. Further accused used to demand her to fulfill his lust whenever L.W.1 goes for attending calls of nature and also used to commit stalking of L.W.1, demanding her to fulfill his lust. At last, L.W.1 reported the acts of accused to her mother-in-law Bandi Ragamma, who in turn admonished accused, but he did not change in his attitude. Later L.W.1 informed the acts of accused to her husband as L.Ws.1 and 2 visited V.Satram police station on 29.08.2016 and lodged a report.

(ii)Based on the report of L.W.1, L.W.7/D.Venkateswara Rao, Sub-

Inspector of police, V.Satram police station registered a case in

Cr.No.261/2016 under Sections.448, 354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC and took up investigation and examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3, visited the scene of offence and drew rough sketch and also secured one Namu

Subramanyam and Kanuparthi Narasaiah(L.Ws.5 and 6) and recorded their statements and found prima-facie case against accused. Hence L.W.7 arrested the accused on 31.08.2016 and later released him on bail by taking solvencies.

Thus L.W.7 completed investigation and laid charge sheet.

3. Cognizance of the offence was taken under Sections.448,354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC.

4. On appearance of accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., accused denied the substance of accusation. Hence, upon hearing both parties and on perusing relevant material, a charge under Sections 448,354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC framed, 3 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021 explained and read over its contents to accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and exhibited

Exs.P-1 to P-5. The evidence of L.W.6/Kanuparthi Narasaiah was closed by this Court. Accordingly, prosecution side evidence was closed.

7. After closure of the evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313(i)

(b) Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material lying in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, for which, he stated everything as false and incorrect and reported no evidence on his behalf. Accordingly, defence side evidence was also closed.

8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused respectively.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 made out the case of prosecution that accused demanded P.W.1 to fulfill his lust and also committed stalking for that purpose. Where as P.W.6/Investigating officer evidence also corroborated in material particulars regarding charges framed. Hence, prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, prayed to convict the accused for the offences charged.

10. Per contra, the learned defence counsel who appeared for accused vehemently argued that accused was innocent and he did not commit the alleged offence and that he was falsely implicated into this case at the instance of P.W.2 as previously P.W.2 involved in a similar case as he harassed one

Rebakamma and that independent witnesses P.W.4 and 5 on record not supported the version of prosecution and thus the prosecution case is utterly false and even P.W.1 herself is very inconsistent regarding the overt acts of accused, hence, prayed to extend benefit of doubt and acquit the accused from the offence charged.

4 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021

11. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448,354(A)(i) and 354(D) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?” 12. Point:- It is the case of prosecution that on 27.08.2016 at about 4.00 p.m, accused committed criminal trespass into the house of P.W.1 and demanded her to satisfy his lust by threatening her and also committed the offence of stalking against P.W.1 since long and which acts of the accused punishable Under Sections.448,354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC respectively.

13. To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined as many as six(6) witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant/victim. P.Ws.2 and 3 are hear-say witnesses. P.Ws.4 and 5 are also hear-say witnesses and P.W.6 is Investigating Officer.

14.Admittedly P.Ws.1 to 5 and accused are residents of Kantepalli village of Venkatachalam mandal, as such, identification of accused by P.Ws.1 to 5 is not disputed. Further, P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and husband and P.W.3 is none other than the mother-in-law of P.W.1.

15.This Court keenly perused the oral evidence of P.W.1(who set criminal law into motion) deposed that she along with her husband/P.W.2 and her in-laws are living together under one roof and her husband used to go for coolie works. P.W.1 further deposed that two years ago, on one day, when her family members have gone outside and when she alone present at her house, accused came in front of her house and asked her to fulfill his desire or else he will propagate in village that she is an illegal affair with one Gampa

Subramanyam/L.W.4. P.W.1 further deposed that accused harassed her by demanding to fulfill his desire for two long years and unable to bear such harassment, she informed the acts of accused to her mother-in-law/P.W.3, 5 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021 who in turn reported the acts of the accused to his family members, but accused did not change in his attitude as she gave report to police under Ex.P- 1.

16.P.W.2 who said to be the husband (of P.w.1) deposed that two years ago, when P.W.1 alone present at his house, accused came in front of their house and asked P.W.1 to fulfill his desire and such acts of accused was informed to him and P.W.3 by P.W.1. P.W.2 further deposed that he kept quite for the reason that disputes will arise between the families, but accused did not change in his attitude as P.W.1 lodged report.

17.P.W.3 who said to be the mother-in-law (of P.W.1) corroborated the version of P.ws.1 and 2 that two years ago, on one day, in the absence of

P.W.2 and herself in the house, accused came in front of their house and asked

P.W.1 to fulfill his desire. P.W.3 further-more deposed that accused used to follow her whenever she attends calls of nature and demanded her to fulfill his lust. P.W.3 further deposed that one one occasion, she followed P.W.1 to support her. P.W.3 deposed that accused threatened P.W.1 in several ways and harassed her as she informed such acts of accused to his family members as accused kept quite for few days and later stated again such acts against

P.W.1, but did not change in his attitude, hence, no other go, P.W.1 lodged report.

18.Further this court keenly perused Ex.P-1 report (of P.W.1) which is also on the same lines of P.W.1’s oral evidence that accused committed trespass into the house of P.W.1 while she was alone and demanded her to fulfill his lust or else he will propagate in the village that she had an affair with one Gampa Mani and like-wise accused subjected P.W.1 to harassment and also stalking her with an intention to satisfy his lust.

6 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021

19.On careful perusal of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex.P-1 report, it is manifest that accused appeared to have committed sexual harassment of P.W.1 and also committed stalking. However, P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the family members of P.W.1 and they are hear-say and partisan witnesses. In general, the alleged kind of offences took place in aloof or in secluded places. Be that as it may. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 revealed that accused demanded P.W.1 to satisfy his lust by visiting at her house. But none of them specifically stated that accused committed either criminal trespass or house trespass entering inside of P.W.1’s house. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on record goes to show that accused visited in front of P.W.1’s house. Where as the report of P.W.1 discloses that accused committed such act by committing criminal trespass. Thus, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is contra to Ex.P-1 report contents regarding the trespass.

20.The rough sketch filed by P.W.6/Investigating officer did not disclose specifically the house of accused situated on the back side of P.W.1’s house. The rough sketch even did not depict the house of accused at all.

Ex.P-1 contents coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.3 revealed the house of accused situated on the back side of P.W.1’s house. But the oral evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 did not disclose and they omitted to depose the house of the accused situated on the back side of P.W.1’s house. The independent witnesses

P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the version of either P.Ws.1 to 3 or Ex.P-1 report or the evidence of Investigating Officer/P.W.6 in any manner. If it is so, there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence to establish the fact that the accused committed criminal trespass into the house of P.W.1 at relevant time.

21.Further P.W.1 in her evidence omitted to depose specifically that accused used to commit stalking whenever she goes for attending calls of 7 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021 nature. Further P.W.1 omitted to depose that accused used to wander in front of her house (at Bazar) and like that committed stalking with an intention to satisfy his lust against her. P.W.2 who is husband of P.W.1 also omitted to depose such crucial facts in his evidence. In Ex.P-1 contents also, there is no specific recital that accused committed stalking of P.W.1 either at Bazaar by wandering in front of P.W.1’s house or at that time when P.w.1 attends calls of nature. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 simply discloses that accused committed sexual harassment by demanding her to fulfill his lust.

22.Further P.W.1 stated in her evidence that accused threatened her that she had an extra marital relationship with one Gampa

Subramanyam/L.W.4 of his village, but such fact was not uttered or whispered either by P.W.2 or P.W.3 in their evidence. Where as P.Ws.4 and 5 nothing whispered and stated anything against accused and they turned hostile.

Although, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor cross-examined P.Ws.4 and 5, but no incriminating material against accused to prove that accused committed either stalking of P.W.1 or sexual harassment, demanding to fulfill his lust. Further more, none of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 stated that P.Ws.4 and 5 knew such facts.

23.The Investigating Officer/P.W.6 also did not state why he got examined P.Ws.4 and 5 as witnesses when P.Ws.1 to 3 themselves nothing stated that P.Ws.4 and 5 knew such alleged facts. If it is so, one can easily assume and presume that the Investigating Officer might have planted P.Ws.4 and 5 witnesses. More over, P.Ws.4 and 5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution at any stretch of imagination. Thus, the evidence adduced by prosecution on record is very insufficient. The sole testimony of

P.W.1 that she was subjected to such sexual harassment or stalking at relevant time at the instance of accused cannot be believable. The Investigating 8 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021

Officer also appeared to have not done investigation on proper lines as he even not depicted the house of accused behind the house of P.W.1 in rough sketch.

Further as per evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 alleged incident happened at about two years ago. But none of them specifically whispered when such alleged incident happened. P.W.6 stated that P.W.1 gave report on 29.08.2016. But in cross- examination, P.W.6 stated that P.W.1 stated to him the alleged incident happened on 27.08.2016. First Information Report/Ex.P-4 disclosed that the alleged incident happened prior to 29.08.2016. As per prosecution, the alleged trespass took place on 29.08.2016 at 4.00 p.m but which is contra to the evidence of P.W.1. As per the statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 to police, the alleged trespass took place on 27.08.2016. More over, P.W.6 being Investigating Officer could not assign any specific reason at column No.8 of first information report what made P.W.1 to lodge delayed report. Further P.W.6 kept blank of column

No.3(a) of first information report without mentioning the actual date fo alleged trespass. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Investigating Officer/P.W.6 did shadow investigation. Thus, this court is of considered view that the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by prosecution on record is not sufficient to arrive at just decision that accused committed such sexual advances or involved, in unwelcome, conduct and alleged stalking. Therefore, extending benefit of doubt in favour of accused is just and proper.

24.In view of foregoing discussion and inconsistent evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 on one side and P.Ws.4 and 5 on other side, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences charged. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted.

25.In the result, this Court found accused not guilty for the offences punishable under Section.448, 354(A)(i), 354(D) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, 9 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021 shall remain in force for a period of six(6) months as per Section.437-A Cr.P.C.

In this case, no property was produced, hence no property order passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 3rd day of December, 2021.

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Bandi Bhavani - None -

P.W.2: Bandi Venkata Seshaiah

P.W.3: Bandi Ragamma

P.W.4: Gampa Subramanyam

P.W.5: Namu Subramanyam

P.W.6: D.Venkateswara Rao, the then S.I of police, V.Satram police station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report given by P.W.1 dt.

Ex.P-2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4

Ex.P-3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P-4: First Information report in Cr.No.261/2016 of V.Satram police station

Ex.P-5: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil –

Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for trial of Proh. & Excise Offences, Nellore (FAC) IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

10 C.C.No.321/2016 dt. 03.12.2021