Sri N.Srinivasa Chary, B.Sc., M.L.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS DIVISION:: ANANTAPUR AT GOOTY.

(BEFORE THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: GOOTY) Present: Sri N. Sreenivasa Chary, Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

Monday, the 27th day of June, 2016

SESSIONS CASE No.32 of 2015

1.Name of the complainant : The State Reptd., by the Sub-Inspector Police, Tadipatri Rural P.S.

2.Name of the accused: Dudekula Pedda Dasthagiri, 45yrs, s/o Late D. Babaiah, Venkatareddypalli village, Tadipatri mandal.

3.Offences: u/s 376 r/w 511 IPC

4. Plea of accused: Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge: Not guilty

6. Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for SIX months from the date of Judgment u/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

7. Crime Number and Name: Cr.No.318/14, Tadipatri rural P.S of the Police Station

This case coming 15-6-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri G. Venkata Reddy, Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused and the matter 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, Tadipatri rural P.S., filed charge 2 sheet against the accused in Crime No.318/2014 for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Tadipatri.

2. The learned Magistrate of I Class, Tadipatri took the cognizance of the offences u/sec. 376 r/w 511 of IPC against the accused and assigned P.R.C.No.58/14 on the following procedure envisaged u/sec.209

Cr.P.C.

3. The case is committed to the Court of Sessions and submitted the entire case file to the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Sessions

Division at Anantapur by the learned Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tadipatri.

4. Having received the case file, the Hon’ble District and Sessions

Judge, Anantapur was pleased to assign S.C. No.32/15, made over the said

case to this court for disposal according to law in Dis. No.693 dated 3.02.15.

5. Having received the case bundle, summons were issued to the accused. On receipt of summons, the accused appeared before this Court along with their advocate.

6. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that the accused and the defacto-complainant B. Venkatalakshmamma are residents of

Venkatareddypalli village, Tadipatri Mandal. Raviteja Reddy is the son of the defacto-complainant aged about 6years. About 3 years back the husband of defacto-complainant B. Sivaranga Reddy died due to ill-health. On 25-11-14 morning the defacto-complainant left the house for cooly work to the garden of M. Ramakrishna Reddy and while she was proceeding near dry channel of

C. Narayana Reddy garden at about 8-30am the accused followed her and caught hold her hand, dragged her, pushed down her with intent to rape her, tried to lift her saree and on hearing the cries of defacto-complainant LW3

O.Sudarshan Reddy and LW4 Bedadala Pedda Kondappagari Ranga Reddy 3 who are nearby gardens came there and witnessed the incident and on seeing them the accused left the defacto-complainant and ran away and on information of defacto-complainant over phone about the incident LW2

Chavva Venkata Ranga Reddy came to her and both of them preferred the complaint.

On the complaint of the defacto-complainant, LW5 D.V.

Narayana Reddy, S.I of police registered the same as Cr.No.318/14 u/s 376 r/w 511 IPC and took up investigation into.

The said S.I of police arrested the accused on 26-11-14 at 12 noon at Sajjaladinne-Avulathippayapalli and sent him to judicial custody.

7. On hearing charges, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. and charge under section 376 r/w 511 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. dispensed with as there was no incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.

10. As PWs1 to 4 not supported the case of prosecution the evidence of LW5 D.V. Narayana Reddy, S.I of police given up by Additional

Public Prosecutor.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel.

12. Now, the point for determination is:

4

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

Accused for the charges u/sec. 376 r/w 511 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

13. Point: LW1 Bedadala Venkatalakshmamma was examined as

PW1 to testify about the occurrence, giving complaint and etc., LW2 Chavva

Venkata Ranga Reddy, LW3 O. Sudarshan Reddy, LW4 Bedadala Pedda

Kondappagari Ranga Reddy were examined as Pws2 to 4 to testify about their witnessing the occurrence and etc. Pws1 to 4 did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.According to the prosecution on 26-11-14 morning the defacto- complainant left the house for cooly work to the garden of M. Ramakrishna

Reddy and while she was proceeding near dry channel of C. Narayana Reddy garden at about 8-30am the accused followed her and caught hold her hand, dragged her, pushed down her with intent to rape her, tried to lift her saree.

Therefore, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.Now, it would be seen how far the evidence of Pws1 to 4 are helpful to the case of the prosecution. Pw1 is the victim, PW2 is the paternal uncle of PW1. PW1 stated that about one year back she put her thumb impression on white paper at the instance of her village elder, and the accused did not tried to rape her. PW2 stated that about one year back while he was in his shop one Krishna Reddy phoned to him and asked to go to police station and when he went to police station the accused was present in the police station, and that PW1 was not present in police station, and then he returned to his shop as PW1 was not found in police station. Pws1 and 2 did not attribute any specific overt acts to the accused. Therefore, the evidence of Pws1 and 2 are not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

16.Now, it would be seen how far the evidence of PW3 and 4 are helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW3 and 4 stated like a parrot manner 5 that they do not know anything about the case. Pws3 and 4 did not attribute any specific overt acts to the accused, hence the evidence of PWs3 and 4 are not helpful to the case of the prosecution. There is no other evidence on behalf of prosecution to convict the accused for the alleged charge. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for SIX months from the date of Judgment u/sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of June, 2016.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: B. VenkatalakshmammaNone P.W.2: C. Venkataranga Reddy P.W.3: O. Sudarshan Reddy P.W.4: B. Pedda Kondappagari Ranga Reddy

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P.2: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P.3: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P.3: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Exhibits marked for the defence: Nil

Material objects marked:

Asst.S.J.

6

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSIONS CASE NO.32/2015

1.Name of the complainantS.H.O. Tadipatri Rural P.S., Cr.No.318/2014 and Crime No.

2.Name of the accusedDudekula Pedda Dasthagiri, 45yrs, s/o Late D. Babaiah, Venkatareddypalli village, Tadipatri mandal.

3.Date of Offence25-11-14 7

4.Date of complaint25-11-14

5.Date of apprehension of26-11-14 accused

6.Date of release on bail19-11-14

7.Date of committal19-12-14

8.Date of commencement of11/03/16 trial

9.Date of close of trial8-6-2016

10.Date of sentence of order22-4-2016

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 12-11-14 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.58/2014on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadipatri on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished on 24-12-14 and this case was committed to the court of

Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 3-2-15 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted to 25-1-2016 for trial. On 11-3-16 trial was commenced and closed on 8-6-16, and after completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there was no incriminating material made against them. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 27-6-2016. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 376 r/w 511 IPC and accordingly, accused is acquitted u/sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for SIX months from the date of Judgment u/sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty.