Ms.N.Tejaswini

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

Present :Smt.K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 03rd day of January, 2019.

C.C.No.158 of 2016.

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S. … Complainant

Vs.

Polu Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, 39 years, cultivation, Reddivaripalli, H/o Peddiveedu Village, Veeraballi Mandal, caste by Kapu. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following ;-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Veeraballi P.S against the accused for the offences u/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as per contents of the charge sheet, is that about 16 years back the parents of the first informant/PW.1 performed her marriage with the accused in the presence of elders of both sides as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, PW.1 parents presented sufficient dowry of 10 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.60,000/-. After the marriage the couple led 2 happy marital life and blessed with 4 children. At present the parents of PW.1 are no more. Since two years, the accused addicted to bad wises and started to harass and humiliate PW.1 physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and when PW.1 was unable to bare the harassment of the accused, she returned to her parents house. Later, P.Ws.2, 3 and LW.3/G.Nagulamma held panchayath and sent PW.1 to the house of the accused, but there was no change in the attitude of the accused and continued his harassment on PW.1. The accused also had illegal contact with another woman and suffering with AIDS disease. While so on 29.01.2016, the accused beat and necked out PW.1 from his house to put a condition that he did not allow PW.1 to his house until PW.1 brings additional dowry. Hence, she approached the S.P., Kadapa and lodged a petition. Basing on the endorsement, it was referred to the complainant SHO, registered the crime and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for the same offences registered in F.I.R.

3.Cognizance was taken on file against the accused for the offences u/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/Section 207 Cr.P.C. When the accused was examined u/sec.239 of Cr.P.C, framed charges for the offences u/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, read over and explained the same to the accused in Telugu, to which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.During the trial, the State has examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6.

6.After completion of the evidence from the side of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the every incriminating evidence made against him from the evidence of

State in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

7.Heard arguments from both sides and perused the entire material brought on record.

8.Now the points for determination are ;-

1. Whether PW.1 is the legally wedded wife of the accused ?

2. Whether the accused subjected PW.1 to cruelty by demanding additional dowry and by having illegal contact with another woman ?

3. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the offence leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? and

4. To what relief ?

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, learned A.P.P., has chosen to examine 6 witnesses out 8 cited in charge sheet. PW.1 said to be victim/first informant. P.Ws.2 to 5 are the witnesses to speak about the harassment caused by PW.1 in the hands of the accused, etc., facts. PW.6 S.I of Police, who registered the crime and investigated the case.

4

10.Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution the following documents are got marked. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by

PW.1. Ex.P.2 is the some part of 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.3 is the 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.4 is the 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.5 is the 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.6 is the F.I.R in Cr.No.16/2016 of Veeraballi P.S.

11.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, learned A.P.P. submitted that basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, the case of the prosecution is to be believed that the accused has committed the offence and sought to pass an appropriate order.

12.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused strong argued that since PW.1 herself left the company of the accused by leaving her children with the accused to look after her parents and to go to Kuwait without any reason and filed divorce case against the accused, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed. The further arguments of the defence counsel is that, the accused never harassed

PW.1 on the name of additional dowry or by having illegal intimacy with other women and since PW.1 failed to explain the nature of the harassment caused on her in the hands of the accused, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. The next arguments of the defence counsel is that, since P.Ws.2 to 5 did not support the evidence of PW.1, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be held as credible and trustworthy. With these submissions the defence counsel finally sought to acquit the accused.

5

13.Point No.1 :-

There is no dispute from the side of the prosecution and defence about the marriage performed between PW.1 and accused about 16 years ago prior to the date of filing the case. The another undisputed fact is during the wedlock the couple Pw.1 and the accsued blessed with 3 sons and a daughter. Thus, undoubtedly, PW.1 is the legally wedded wife of the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the defence.

14.Points Nos.2 & 3 ;- Since the points No.2 and 3 are interrelated they are taken up together for the sake of convenience and discussion.

To prove these two ingredients, learned APP on behalf of the prosecution, is mainly relying upon the evidence of Pw.1. Now is required to look into the evidence of Pw.1 before testifying the evidence of Pws.2 to 6.

15.As per the specific evidence of PW.1, at the time of marriage, her parents presented 10 tulas of gold and Rs.60,000/- cash towards dowry, after the marriage, they lead happy marital life for about 15 years and blessed 3 sons and a daughter. Since six years, the accused has been harassing her physically and mentally by maintaining illegal relationship with another woman by name Nirmala and also demanding additional dowry from her mother. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that, the gold presented at the time of marriage was also sold by the accused and the accused necked her out from the 6 matrimonial house by beating. Hence, she came to her parents house but her 3 sons are with the accused whereas her daughter is with her.

Then she approached the S.P., of Kadapa and preferred Ex.P.1 report.

16.Though PW.1 claimed before the court during the evidence that at the time of her marriage her parents presented 10 tulas of gold and

Rs.60,000/- cash towards dowry, there is no whisper in the evidence of

PW.1 to whom the said gold and cash were given and whether the said gold and cash were presented to the accused on the demand of the accused or voluntarily the parents of PW.1 presented the same.

Therefore, the presentation of gold and Rs.60,000/- cash at the time of marriage of Pw.1 cannot be considered as dowry presented to the accused on the demand of the accused alone.

17.Further, though PW.1 stated that she was harassed by the accused physically and mentally, PW.1 failed to describe the physical and mental harassment which she faced in the hands of the accused.

Furthermore, PW.1 did not explain/state the nature/quantum of the

additional dowry demanded by the accused from the mother of PW.1.

On perusal of the entire evidence of PW.1 deposed before the court, it is noticed that the couple lived happily for a period of 16 years and thereafter misunderstandings arose between the couple. It is also noticed from the evidence of Pw.1 that all the children have been staying with the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination of

the defence PW.1 categorically admitted that she went to her

parents house to look after her mother as she was suffering

from ill health. Therefore, through the said crucial admission made 7 by PW.1, it is established that PW.1 herself left the matrimonial house of the accused to look after her ill health mother. Further, in the cross examination of the defence, PW.1 categorically admitted that, the accused purchased a land of Ac.3.24 ½ cents worth of Rs.2,65,000/- at

Peddaveedu Village on 23.10.2013 in her favour. PW.1 further admitted that she did not state to police in her report and also during her 161 Cr.P.C statement about the name of Nirmala with whom allegedly the accused had illegal intimacy.

18.PW.1 further categorically admitted that she filed divorce petition

before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Rayachoty against the

accused prior to filing the present case and she did not state in her divorce petition about the presentation of dowry and gold to the accused at the time of the marriage and also not stated about the accused has been demanding to get additional dowry. It is not the version of PW.1 that due to the illegal intimacy with one Nirmala, the accused in order to give divorce to PW.1, filed divorce petition and necked her out from his house.

19.As stated supra, as per the specific admission of PW.1, she left the matrimonial house and went to her parents house to look after her ill health mother. Further, it was suggested to PW.1 on behalf of the defence that though accused wants to live with her, she intentionally avoided him as he is suffering from ill health to get rid off him and is filing false cases against the accused. However, PW.1 denied the same. On examining the entire evidence of PW.1, it is noticed that there are no specific allegations to attract and to prove the essential 8 ingredients for the offences u/Secs.498-A of IPC, 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

20.More so, the own children of PW.1 who are examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 that is one son and daughter, they did not support the version of

PW.1 in respect the allegations made against the accused and turned hostile in toto to the case of the prosecution. Further, P.Ws.2 and 3, who said to have participated in the panchayats held between PW.1 and the accused, categorically deposed that there were disputes and altercations between PW.1 and the accused and on that panchayat was held and in that panchayath P.Ws.2 and 3 have participated. It is the further specific evidence of Pws.2 and 3 that except that they did not know anything about the case facts.

21. Though P.Ws.2 and 3 stated that they held panchayath between

PW.1 and the accused, there is no whisper about the same in the evidence of PW.1. Further, as per the specific evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, some altercations and disputes arose between PW.1 and the accused but the nature of such altercations/disputes are not revealed in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. Thus, without disclosing the nature of the altercations, without making specific overt acts against the accused about the harassment caused on PW.1 and without support from the independent witnesses, the allegations leveled against the accused from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P1 cannot be held as credible and trustworthy.

22.Now coming to the evidence of P.W6/I.O, who narrated his part of role done in this case as mentioned in the charge sheet.

9

23.Thus, in view of the foregoing reasons it is held that the evidence let in before the court on behalf of the prosecution through P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P.1 to P.6 cannot be held as sufficient and substantive to establish the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is a fit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, the points are answered against the State and in favour of the defence.

24.POINT No.4:- To What relief ?

In view of the findings recorded to the points No.1 to 3, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Dictated to Typist transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court this, the 03rd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa,

FAC/ Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

Pw.1: P.Vijaya Kumari, Pw.2: T.Basi Reddi, Pw.3: D.Adilakshumma, 10

Pw.4: P.Santhosh Reddi, Pw.5: P.Mahitha, Pw.6: M.Bakthavastalam, S.I of Police.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Complaint give by PW.1, Ex.P2: Some portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P6k: F.I.R in Cr.No.16/2016 of Veeraballi P.S.

Witness examined on behalf of the accused

– Nil -

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked

- N i l -

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. J.F.C.M., Kadap, FAC/Addl.J.F.C.M., Rct.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

DATE OF

Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close of Judg- sion of on bail ment of trial ment 29.01.16 01.02.16 10.02.16 10.02.16 07.03.17 03.01.19 03.01.19 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.158/2016 on the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

COMPLAINANT:Sub Inspector of Police, Veeraballi PS. in Cr.No.16/2016.

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

Polu Lakshmi Reddy, S/o Nagi Reddy, Reddivaripalli, H/o Peddiveedu Village, Veeraballi Mandal, caste by Kapu, occupation: cultivation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence :Under Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Sec.498-A of IPC, Secs.3 and 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Kadapa,

FAC/ Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

Present :Smt. K. Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,

FAC/Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of January, 2019.

C.C.No.122 of 2014.

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnamandem PS. … Complainant

Vs.

1.Mundla Rami Reddi, S/o Chenna Reddi, 55 years, (A1).

2. Mundla Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, 20 years (A2).

3. Mundla Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy 23 years (A3).

4. Kudumula Ramanjula Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, 30 years (A4).

5.Mundla Narayana Reddi, S/o Chenna Reddi, 60 years (A5).

6. Mundla Chenna Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, 20 years (A6).

7.Mundla Prameelamma, W/o Rami Reddi, 50 years (A7).

8.Mundla Rajeswaramma, W/o Narayana Reddi, 48 years (A8).

9.Mundla Narayanamma, W/o Subba Reddi, 50 years,

All the accused are resident of Mundlavaripalli, H/o Diguva Gottiveedu village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A9) (case against the accused No.8 is abated as died) … Accused 2

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

K.Nagireddy, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 to 9 and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnamandem PS against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC, alleging that on 9.10.2013 morning Pw.2/Patnam Ramesh went to village outskirts for grazing the cows and on the evening he returned to house and informed to Pw.1/

Patnam Akkaiah that at about 4.00 pm, while Pw.2 grazing cows at barren fields of village, the accused No.6 came and asked Pw.2 not to graze cows in his fields, then an altercation took place between Pw.2 and the accused No.6. Later Pw.1 informed the occurrence to Lw.4/

Patnam Narayana who is the father of Pw.2. While so, on 10.10.2013 about 6.30 am, while Lw.4/Patnam Narayana was proceeding towards

Milk Center, Jangampalli village for dispense milk to Milk Center, on the way when the accused No.6 came ahead and altercation took place between Lw.4 Patnam Narayana and the accused No.6 about the previous issue and later Lw.4 Patnam Narayana returned to house and informed about the issue of Pw.1. Thereafter Lw.4 Patnam Narayana went to Galiveedu for his personal work. At about 8.00 am Pw.1 was attending house works and Pw.2 was present in the house, the accused Nos.1 to 9 went to the house of Pw.1 and abused Pws.1, 2 and

Lw.4 Patnam Narayana in filthy language. Then, Pw.2 came out from the house and asked about the acts of the accused, in the meantime

Pw.3/Patnam Eswaraiah came there and when chastised the accused, 3 then the accused No.1 thrown Pw.1 aside, as a result Pw.1 fell down on steps and when Pw.2 objected, the accused No.2 caught hold both hands of Pw.2 and thrown forcibly on ground and the accused No.7 caught hold his hairs and slapped on his cheek. When Pw.3 objected, the accused Nos.4 and 5 caught hold both hands of Pw.3, on that the accused No.6 kicked Pw.3 on his chest. Resulting Pw.3 fell down on ground and when Pw.1 tried to rescue Pws.2 and 3, the accused No.8 caught hold her tuft and dragged, as a result Pw.1 fell down on ground, then the accused No.9 kicked Pw.1 on her left abdomen. When Lws.5 and 6/Gundluri Kondamma, Patnam Ramanjulamma rushed to the spot, on that the accused Nos.1 to 9 left that place. Later Pws.1 to 3 came to the PS and Pw.1 lodged a report against the accused.

2.Hence, basing on the report of Pw.1, the investigating officer registered the case and investigated into. Basing on the evidence of eye witnesses that is Lws.5 and 6 Gundluri Kondamma, Patnam

Ramanjulamma, available documents and witness of Lw.7 B.Ram

Mohan, Depot Secretary, Employees Union, APSRTC, Rayachoty Depot there was no involvement of the accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 in the commission of offences and they were not present at scene at the time of offence, Lw.10/P.Yogendra, S.I. of Police, Chinnamandem PS deleted the names of accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 from the accused list.

The medical officer who treated Pws.1 to 3, issued wound certificates opining that the injuries sustained by Pws.1 and 2 are simple in nature and the injury on Pw.3 is grievous in nature. Hence, after the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 before the court.

4

3.Later, the court issued notice to the first informant and recorded the sworn statement of the first informant. Basing on the same, cognizance was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused Nos.1 to 9. Case against the accused No.8 was abated as he reported died.

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 8 & 9, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C. When the accused Nos.1 to 8 & 9 were examined u/sec.239

Cr.P.C. and framed charges for the offences u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of

IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During inquiry, the State has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

6.Since no incriminating material was elicited from the evidence of the State against the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9, the examination of the accused u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Arguments heard from both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the State has established the offences

u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 8

and 9 beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

In order to prove the case of the State, learned A.P.P. has chosen to examine three witnesses out of ten cited in the charge sheet.

Though, Pws.1 to 3 are said to be the injured and direct eye wintessses for the occurrence and crucial witnesses to the case of the prosecution, there is no support from them against the accused and they turned hostile in toto.

9.As per the specific evidence of Pws.1 to 3, on 9.10.2013 at 4.00 pm, while Pw.2 was grazing the cows there was an altercation with others and on that he returned to the house and informed the same to

Pw.1, who in turn informed the same to Lw.4 Patnam Narayana, later

Lw.4 Patnam Narayana informed to their village elders during mediation, their village elders obtained the signature of Pw.1 on written paper but they do not know the contents of said paper and police did not examine them.

10.On perusal of the entire evidence of Pws.1 to 3, it is clear that as they did not make any incrimination against the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9, the prosecution through APP with the permission of the court examined Pws.1 to 3 in the nature of cross examination by declaring them as hostile, but nothing is elicited against the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9. So there is no support and corroboration from the evidence of

Pws.1 to 3 to the contents of report on which the present case is existed.

11.As stated supra, there is no corroboration and consistency elicited among the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and contents of the report 6 on which Ex.P1 signature of Pw.1 was obtained as to the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 at the time of incident and attack of Pws.

1 to 3. However, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State has given up the evidence of remaining cited witnesses including eye and official circumstantial witnesses thinking that both parties might have compromised the matter outside the court and hence even if they examine no useful purpose would be served.

12.Thus, without any hesitation the court reached to a safe conclusion that there is no iota of evidence placed before the court by the State against the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 to prove the offences leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the accused

Nos.1 to 8 and 9 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

13.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 are found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 3rd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

7

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

Pw.1: P.Akkaiah, Pw.2: P.Ramesh, Pw.3: P.Eswaraiah.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw.1 in the report, Ex.P2: 161 statement of Pw.1, Ex.P3: 161 statement of Pw.2, Ex.P4: 161 statement of Pw.3,

Witness examined on behalf of the accused:

--Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked

- N i l -

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. J.F.C.M., Rayachoty.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

DATE OF

Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close of Judg- sion of on bail ment of trial ment 10.10.13 15.10.13 17.01.18 17.01.18 03.01.19 03.01.19 03.01.19 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.122/2014 on the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

COMPLAINANT:Sub Inspector of Police, Chinnamandem PS. in Cr.No.105/2013

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name 1.Mundla Rami Reddi, S/o Chenna Reddi, 55 years, (A1).

2. Mundla Praveen Kumar Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, 20 years (A2).

3. Mundla Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy 23 years (A3).

4. Kudumula Ramanjula Reddy, S/o Subba Reddy, 30 years (A4).

5.Mundla Narayana Reddi, S/o Chenna Reddi, 60 years (A5).

6. Mundla Chenna Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, 20 years (A6).

7.Mundla Prameelamma, W/o Rami Reddi, 50 years (A7).

8.Mundla Rajeswaramma, W/o Narayana Reddi, 48 years (A8).

9.Mundla Narayanamma, W/o Subba Reddi, 50 years,

All the accused are resident of Mundlavaripalli, H/o Diguva Gottiveedu village, Chinnamandem Mandal. (A9) (case against the accused No.8 is abated as died) 9

Offence : Under Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 are found not guilty

Sentence : In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 are found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

Present :Smt.K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,

FAC. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of January, 2019.

C.C.No.224 of 2013.

State Represented by Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G PS. … Complainant

Vs.

Shaik Sadik, aged 24 years, S/o Darbarsha Valli @ Gora Basha, Masapeta, Rayachoty Town, Rayachoty town. (owner of Kuwait Travel Agency). … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

G.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following ;-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G Police Station, against the accused for the offences u/Secs.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as per contents of the charge sheet, is that on 4.3.2011 at 10.00 am, at Kuwait Travels, situated opposite to Sydia Complex, Rayachoty town in which the investigating officer along with his staff, conducted raid on fake Travel Agencies and arrested the accused, owner of Kuwait Travel Agency, Rayachoty town who was sending the persons to gulf by booking tickets, getting visas 2 and working as agency without valid permission from the concerned authorities and seized (1) 17 passports (2) passport applications (3) visa and employment contact file (4) Oman Medical xerox copies (5) file containing Visa Employment contact and marriage affidavit and date of birth affidavit (6) Kuwait Travel Bio data files in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. Basing on upon the panchanama, Pw.5 registered the crime and investigated into. Hence, after completion of the investigation, the accused was charge sheeted.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken on file against the accused for the offences u/Secs.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983 and issued summons to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

When the accused was examined u/sec.239 of Cr.P.C, framed charges for the offences u/Secs.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983, framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, to which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the Trial, the State has examined Pw.1 to Pw.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

6.After completion of the evidence from the side of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the every incriminating evidence made against him from 3 the evidence of State in Telugu to which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire material brought on record.

8.Now the points for determination are w hether the

prosecution is able to prove the offences leveled against the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, learned APP has chosen to examine five witnesses out of eight cited in the charge sheet. Pws.1 and 2 are said to be the mediators for the seizure mahazar. Pw.3 is the ASI who registered the crime and partly investigated the case. Pw.4 is the Inspector of Police, who further investigated the case. Pw.5 is the Sub Inspector of Police who conducted raid, arrested the accused, seized the documents under cover of panchanama and handed over the documents along with the accused.

10.Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the following documents are got marked. Ex.P1 is the signature of Pw.1 in the panchanama dt:4.3.2012, Ex.P2 is the signature of Pw.2 in the panchanama dt:4.3.2012, Ex.P3 is the F.I.R., Ex.P4 is the relevant portion relating to seizure of property, Ex.P5 is 16 passports, passport application, bio data forms, visa and contact files and Kuwait Travels bio data files.

4

11.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution learned APP submitted that though Pws.1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the evidence of Pws.3 to 5, the case of the prosecution is to be believed and pass an appropriate order.

12.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused strongly submitted that since there is no report from the public against the accused about cheating and since Pws.1 and 2 did not support the contents of the seizure mahazar and the evidence of Pw.5, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed and sought to acquit the accused.

13.Point:-

As could be seen from the entire evidence let in before the court on behalf of the prosecution, it is noticed that Pws.1 and 2 who said to be the independent mediators for the seizure mahazar did not support the contents of the mahazars and turned hostile in toto. As per the specific evidence of Pws.1 and 2, police did not seize any incriminating material from the possession of the accused and no one was arrested in their presence, but when they were nearer to the police station, the police obtained their signatures in the seizure mahazar without knowing the contents. Though, Pws.1 and 2 were subjected to the cross examination on behalf of the State with the permission of the court, nothing is elicited in support of the evidence of Pw.5 against the accused. Therefore, there is no use and support from the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2/independent mediators.

5

14.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.3 who spoken that Pw.5 handed over the accused, seized documents and basing on the same he registered the crime, produced the accused before the court along with seized documents. In the cross examination of the defence, Pw.3 categorically admitted that he did not receive any report from the public about the issuance of fake passports and so also Pw.5 did not hand over the report of anyone complaining against the accused. The another investigating officer/Pw.4 claimed that he simply verified the investigation of Pw.5.

15.Now the evidence of Pw.5 is alone remaining with the prosecution to prove the offences leveled against the accused. As per the specific evidence of Pw.5, on 4.3.2012 at about 9.30 am, he along with his staff reached opposite to Sydiyaya Cinema hall complex where he noticed a Kuwait Traveling Agency in the opposite building and on seeing the police the accused tried to escape, but they caught him and on enquiry he seized 16 passports, Bio-data forms, application forms and Visas, totally 22 items were seized under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. But, there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.5 that where he secured the mediators whether he secured the mediators at the place of seizure itself or he secured the mediators to the police station and carried them along with them to the place of seizure. So also there is no report received by Pw.5 against the accused for alleged description from public. So also there is no documentary evidence showing that the accused is running a

Kuwait Traveling Agency in the scene of offence building by the date of seizure.

6

16.Further, as per the specific evidence of Pw.5, basing on the confession made by the accused that he used to send the persons to

Kuwait by arranging travel ticket who approaches him, and as there is no license for Emigration Department, he seized Ex.P5 documents. No record is collected from the Rayachoty Municipality to show that the accused is the owner of the scene of offence shop and he is running a

Traveling Agency. Moreover, Pws.4 and 5 have categorically admitted that they have not obtained sanction orders from the Central

Government to prosecute the accused under the Emigration Act 1983.

Thus, the seizure of Ex.P5 by Pw.5 from the possession of the accused under cover of mahazar is doubtful.

17.Hence, in view of the foregoing reasons and clear discussion, the evidence let in by the prosecution cannot be held as sufficient and substantive to believe the offences leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the defence.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The passports shall be returned to the concerned persons on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

7

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 3rd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution Pw.1: K.Ramaraju, Pw.2: P.Ramachandra Prasad, Pw.3: S.Moulana, ASI-799, Pw.4: K.Prakash Babu, Inspector of Police, Pw.5: S.M.Basha, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw.1 in the panchanama dt:4.3.2012, Ex.P2: Signature of Pw.2 in the panchanama dt:4.3.2012, Ex.P3: F.I.R., Ex.P4: Relevant portion relating to seizure of property, Ex.P5: 16 passports, passport application, bio data forms, visa and contact files and Kuwait Travels bio data files.

Witness examined on behalf of the accused

--Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked on behalf of prosecution

- Nil -

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. J.F.C.M., Rayachoty.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

DATE OF

Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close of Judg- sion of on bail ment of trial ment 04.03.12 04.03.12 04.03.12 09.03.12 02.11.15 03.01.19 03.01.19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.224/2013 on the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

COMPLAINANT: Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G PS. in Cr.No.47/2012

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name

Shaik Sadik, aged 24 years, S/o Darbarsha Valli @ Gora Basha, Masapeta, Rayachoty Town, Rayachoty town. (owner of Kuwait Travel Agency). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences :under Sec.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983.

Finding :Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.420 of IPC and 24 (1) (2) of the Emigration Act, 1983 and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The passports shall be returned to the concerned persons on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt:

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

Present :Smt.K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,

FAC. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 20th day of December, 2018.

C.C.No.132 of 2018.

State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Veeraballi PS. … Complainant

Vs.

1.Thangella Sahadeva, S/o Nagulaiah, 50 years, Rachapalli, H/o Sanipaya of Veeraballi Mandal.

2.Chinthakunta Venkata Subbareddy, aged 46 years, S/o Subbareddy, resident of D.No.51-91- F, Nehru street, Kothapeta, Rayachoty town. Owner of Jalsa Wines, Sundupalli Road, near Ravi Cinema Hall, Rayachoty Town. … Accused

This case came on 13.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

P.Reddy Basha, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 and 2 and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following ;-

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Sub

Inspector of Police, Veeraballi Police Station, against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences u/Sec.34-A and 36 (1) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as per contents of the charge sheet, is that on 14.11.2017 at 4.00 pm, on receipt of credible information about running belt shop by the accused at Ravi Cinema

Hall, Rayachoty town, Pw.3 left PS, along with his staff and Pw.2 in a 2 police jeep and reached in front of the house of the accused No.1 at 4.30 pm, and noticed some persons were standing there. On seeing the arrival of the police, the accused No.1 tried to escape from that place, but immediately Pw.3 along with his staff, caught hold the accused No.1 and questioned about his identity particulars, the accused No.1 himself revealed his identity particulars and also stated that he went to Jalsa Wines Shop and purchased 25 numbers OT company quarter bottles, 25 numbers 999 company quarter bottles, brought them to his house and selling the same, each bottle with an excess amount of Rs.20/- than MRP rate. During the interrogation, the accused No.1 confessed the commission of offence. Hence, Pw.3 arrested the accused No.1 and seized 20 numbers 180 ml liquor bottles after taking one quarter bottle from each company for chemical analysis under cover of police proceedings as none were come forward to act as mediators. Hence, basing on the police proceedings, Pw.3 registered the crime and investigated into. The sample was sent to chemical analyst for analysis. On 20.12.2017 the accused No.2 was arrested and released him on bail. The Govt.

Chemical examiner who analyzed the sample issued report opining that the samples are substandard Indian liquor. Hence, after completion of the investigation, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were charge sheeted.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken on file against the accused

Nos.1 and 2 for the offence u/Secs.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and issued summons to the accused.

3

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined u/sec.239 of

Cr.P.C, a charge for the offence u/Sec.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, was framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, the State has examined Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 and 2.

6.After completion of the evidence from the side of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the every incriminating evidence made against them from the evidence of State in Telugu to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire material brought on record.

8.Now the point for determination is w hether the

prosecution is able to prove the offence leveled against the

accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

9.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined three witnesses out of five cited in the charge sheet. Pw.1 is the PC who assisted Pw.3 in seizure of the contraband and arrested the accused.

Pw.2 is the independent witness to speak about the offence. Pw.3 is the S.I. of Police who arrested the accused, seized the property, registered the crime and investigated the case. Learned APP has given up the remaining cited witnesses.

10. Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution the following documents and material objects are got marked. Ex.P1 is the 161 statements of Pw.2, Ex.P2 is the police proceedings, Ex.P3 is the

F.I.R., Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. M.Os.1 and 2 are the sample bottles.

11.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the State learned

APP submitted that though Pw.2 did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the evidence of Pws.1 and 3, the case of the

State is to be believed and sought to convict the accused.

12.On the other hand, learned defence counsel strongly submitted that since Pw.2 did not support the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and since

Pw.3 seized the alleged property under cover of police proceedings even without securing the independent respectables though the scene of offence is situated in the busy locality, the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 cannot be believed. With these submissions the defence counsel sought to acquit the accused Nos.1 and 2.

13.Point:- 5

As could be seen from the entire evidence let in before the court through Pws.1 to 3 apart from the documents and material objects it is noticed that the alleged contraband was seized under cover of police proceedings by Pw.3 from the possession of the accused No.1. As per the admitted evidence of Pws.1 and 3, the alleged contraband was seized on 14.10.2017 at 5.30 pm. The further admitted evidence of

Pws.1 and 3 is that the scene of offence is situated in the busy locality that is in front of the house of the accused No.1 at Rachapalli.

14.Further, as per the evidence of Pw.1, they have not secured the independent witnesses as the mediators to observe the seizure. There is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.3 whether he attempted to secure the local respectables to observe the seizure and when they failed to come forward, he prepared the police proceedings and seized the property. It is the simple evidence of Pw.3 that he arrested the accused and seized the property while the accused was standing in front of his house. No explanation is offered from Pw.3 for non securing the local respectables as per procedure contemplated u/Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

Pws.1 and 3 are the police officials and admittedly Pw.1 is the staff of

Pw.3. Further, no record is collected to show that the alleged contraband was supplied by the accused No.2 to the accused No.1.

15.Moreover, though Pw.2 is examined as independent eye witness for the occurrence, Pw.2 did not support the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 and he turned hostile in toto. If really Pw.2 witnessed the occurrence and his 161 statement was recorded by Pw.3, what prevented to Pw.3 6 for non obtaining the signature of Pw.2 in the police proceedings.

16.More so, as per the Judgment of our Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab on 16.8.2018 in

Crl.A.No.1880/2011, held that

“The police officer who registered the crime cannot be the investigating officer and if so on this ground alone the accused is entitled for acquittal.”

17.In view of the foregoing reasons and clear discussion the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 cannot be held as credible and trustworthy to believe the seizure of the alleged contraband made from the possession of the accused No.1. So, the prosecution is failed to prove the offence leveled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. So, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the defence.

18. In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 20th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Rayachoty.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

Pw.1: M.Kumar Naik, PC.723, Pw.2: P.Prakash Reddy, Pw.3: V.L.Prasad Reddy, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: 161 statements of Pw.2, Ex.P2: Police proceedings, Ex.P3: F.I.R., Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

Witness examined on behalf of the accused

--Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l -

Material objects marked on behalf of prosecution

M.O.1: Sample bottle, M.O.2: Sample bottle.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. J.F.C.M., Rayachoty.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

DATE OF

Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close of Judg- sion of on bail ment of trial ment 14.11.17 14.11.17 15.11.17 15.11.17 09.04.18 13.12.18 20.12.18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.132/2018 on the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

COMPLAINANT: Sub Inspector of Police, Veeraballi PS. in Cr.No.282/20147

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name 1.Thangella Sahadeva, S/o Nagulaiah, 50 years, Rachapalli, H/o Sanipaya of Veeraballi Mandal.

2.Chinthakunta Venkata Subbareddy, aged 46 years, S/o Subbareddy, resident of D.No.51-91-F, Nehru street, Kothapeta, Rayachoty town. Owner of Jalsa Wines, Sundupalli Road, near Ravi Cinema Hall, Rayachoty Town. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offences :under Sec.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

Finding :Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.34-A of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be remained in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. Dis.No. dt:

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAYACHOTY.

Present :Smt.K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,

FAC. Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

Thursday, this the 3rd day of January, 2019.

C.C.No.390 of 2014.

Between ;

State Represented by Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G PS. … Complainant And ; 1.Polu Venkata Subba Reddi, S/o Yerram Reddi, 39 years, Boyapalli, H/o Yandapalli village, Rayachoty Mandal.

2.Bodireddi Ram Prasad Reddy @ Anumpalli Ram Prasad Reddi, S/o Narasimha Reddi, 45 years, Anumpalli, H/o Sibyala village, Rayachoty Mandal.

3.Chennuru Anwar Basha, S/o Ramthumiya, 51 years, D.No.31/148-A, Alimabad street, Rayachoty town.

4.Mogal Mahaboob Baig, S/o Hussain Baig, 52 years, D.No.18/26, near Noorulla Mosque, Kothapalli, Rayachoty Town.

5.Shaik Nissar Ahammad, S/o Rasool Saheb, 25 years, D.No.15/61, Kothapalli, Rayachoty Town.

(The case against accused No.4 is abated as died) … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

B.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Court delivered the following ;-

J U D G M E N T

2

This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Inspector of

Police, Rayachoty U/G Police Station, against the accused for the offences u/Secs.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.In brief, the case of the prosecution as per contents of the charge sheet, is that Pw.1 R.Vijaya Kumar working as HG-687, Rayachoty U/G

PS. On 21.1.2012 morning at 8.00 am, he was deputed for traffic duty at Umesh Chandra Circle, Bus Stand Road, Rayachoty Town and while he was performing his duties, at about 11.30 am, the accused Nos.1 to 5 and some others of Rayachoty Town came into mob and held Dharna on the main road, Umesh Chandra Circle, then Pw.1 informed the accused Nos.1 to 5 about the force of 30 police Act and without permission from the concerned authorities did not hold dharna on the main roads, but the accused Nos.1 to 5 did not heed the words of Pw.1 and burnt the scarecrow of the Chief Minister Nara Chandra Babu

Naidu and wrongfully restrained the public and also caused inconvenience to the vehicular with their acts. After holding dharna the accused Nos.1 to 5 left the place. Hence, basing on the special report of Pw.1, Pw.3 registered the Crime and investigated into. During the investigation, Pw.3 examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 24.3.2012 Pw.3 arrested the accused Nos.1 to 5 and released them on bail. Hence, after completion of the investigation, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were charge sheeted for the same offences registered under the F.I.R.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken on file against the accused

Nos.1 to 5 for the offences u/Secs.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.

3

4.On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5, copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. When the accused were examined u/sec.251 of

Cr.P.C for the substance of accusation for the offences u/Sec.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC leveled against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, the State has examined Pw.1 to Pw.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

6.After completion of the evidence from the side of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 were examined u/Sec.313

Cr.P.C, by explaining the every incriminating evidence made against them from the evidence of State in Telugu to which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence side evidence was closed.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the entire material brought on record.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is

able to prove the offences leveled against the accused Nos.1

to 3 and 5 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, learned APP has 4 chosen to examine three witnesses out of five cited in the charge sheet. Pw.1 is said to be the Home Guard who issued special report against the accused. Pw.2 is the independent witness who siad to have witnessed the occurrence. Pw.3 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and investigated the case.

10. Apart from the oral evidence on behalf of the prosecution the following documents are got marked. Ex.P1 is the special report of

Pw.1, Ex.P2 is the 161 statement of Pw.2, Ex.P3 is the F.I.R., Ex.P4 is the rough sketch.

11.While advancing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution, learned A.P.P. submitted that basing on the evidence of Pws.1 and 3 the case of the prosecution is to be believed and sought to pass an appropriate order.

12.On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused strongly submitted that since the first informant/Pw.1 himself did not identify the accused and since Pw.2 did not make any incrimination against the accused, the evidence of Pw.3 cannot be believed and sought to acquit the accused.

13.POINT :-

As could be seen from the entire evidence let in by the prosecution and cross examination made on behalf of the defence it is noticed that the present case is existed basing on the special report given by Pw.1. As per the evidence of Pw.1 on 21.1.2012 he was deputed to attend traffic duty at RTC Bus stand from 8.00 am and 5 while he was performing the duty at about 11.30 am, some persons formed themselves into a mob of 50 to 60 members and they burnt the effigy of the present Chief Minister in support of Y.S.R.C.P. party and they raised slogans as ‘down’. Then she informed the same to

Pw.3 and given Ex.P1 special report to Pw.3. In the cross examination of the defence Pw.1 categorically admitted that the scene of offence is situated in the busy locality and at the RTC bus stand where there were more than 100 persons. Pw.1 further categorically admitted that he cannot identify the accused.

14.So, on examining the entire evidence of Pw.1, it is clear that there is no incrimination including identification of the accused made from the evidence of Pw.1 before the court. Now coming to the evidence of Pw.2/independent eye witness who turned hostile in toto inspite of facing the cross examination on behalf of the defence.

15.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.3 which is alone remaining with the prosecution to prove the case leveled against the accused. It is the specific evidence of Pw.3 that basing on the special report received from Pw.1, he visited the scene of offence, arrested the accused and released him on bail. In the cross examination of the defence Pw.3 categorically admitted that he visited the scene of offence on the second day but nobody was present at that time. So

Pw.3 is the circumstantial official witness who acted and conducted the investigation basing on the special report given by Pw.1. Pws.1 and 2 are said to be the direct eye witnesses for occurrence, but there is no incrimination including identity of the accused made in the evidence of 6

Pw.2. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence placed against the accused before the court on behalf of the prosecution to prove the offences leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the defence.

16. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court this, the 3rd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

KADAPA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

Pw.1: R.Vijaya Kumar, HG-687, Pw.2: D.Dasu, Pw.3: B.R.Naik, S.I. of Police.

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P1: Special report of Pw.1, Ex.P2: 161 statement of Pw.2, Ex.P3: F.I.R., Ex.P4: Rough sketch.

Witness examined on behalf of the accused:

--Nil-

Exhibits marked for Defence

- N i l - 7

Material objects marked on behalf of prosecution

- Nil -

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. J.F.C.M., KADAPA.

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar and Judgment tried by the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Rayachoty.

DATE OF

Offence Report Apprehen- Release Commence- Close of Judg- sion of on bail ment of trial ment 21.01.12 22.01.12 24.3.12 24.03.12 05.12.17 03.01.19 03.01.19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.390/2014 on the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty.

COMPLAINANT: Inspector of Police, Rayachoty U/G PS in Cr.No.13/2012

Name of the accused Age Calling Religion Residence With father’s name 1.Polu Venkata Subba Reddi, S/o Yerram Reddi, 39 years, Boyapalli, H/o Yandapalli village, Rayachoty Mandal. (A1) 2.Bodireddi Ram Prasad Reddy @ Anumpalli Ram Prasad Reddi, S/o Narasimha Reddi, 45 years, Anumpalli, H/o Sibyala village, Rayachoty Mandal. (A2) 3.Chennuru Anwar Basha, S/o Ramthumiya, 51 years, D.No.31/148-A, Alimabad street, Rayachoty town. (A3) 4.Mogal Mahaboob Baig, S/o Hussain Baig, 52 years, D.No.18/26, near Noorulla Mosque, Kothapalli, Rayachoty Town. (A4) 5.Shaik Nissar Ahammad, S/o Rasool Saheb, 25 years, D.No.15/61, Kothapalli, Rayachoty Town. (A5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offences :under Secs.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding :Accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are found not guilty

Sentence :In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are found not guilty for the offences u/Secs.341, 188 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property, since no property is deposited before the court.

Sd/- K.Prathusha Kumari,

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

Dis.No. dt: