Neelima Muddasani

CC.No. 550 of 2014 1 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 23rd day of May, 2 0 2 2.

Present: M. Neelima, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class- cum-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 550 Of 2014

Between:

G. Shiva Kumar, S/o Mondaiah, Age: 34 years, Occu: Lab Technician, R/o H.No.5-4-96/1, Gandhinagar, Nava Bharath, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Khammam District.

... Complainant

And

Byreddy Veera Vasantha Kumar, S/o: Janakiramaiah, age: 57 years, Occ: Junior Lab Assistant in (Chemical) in NMDC Limited, R/o: H.No.5-4-96/1, Gandhinagar, Nava Bharath Center, Palvoncha Town and Mandal, Khammam District.

... Accused

@@@

This case is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri K. Pullaiah, Learned Counsels for complainant and of Sri M.S.R.Ravi Chandra, Learned Counsel for accused upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Complaint fled under section 200 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure seeking to punish the accused for the ofence

U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act).

2.The averments in the complaint in brief are : the complainant is the tenant of the accused and out of such acquaintance the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for his family necessities on 30.09.2013 and executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant at the residence of complainant in the presence of witnesses with a promise to repay the same @ 24% p.a., in the

CC.No. 550 of 2014 2 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

presence of witnesses. But, inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the complainant, the accused did not choose to repay the same and fnally on 25.09.2014 the accused has issued a cheque for

Rs.8,00,000/- vide cheque No.074197 drawn on State Bank of

Hyderabad, SILL Branch, Paloncha towards part satisfaction of the legally enforceable debt.

3.The complainant has presented the said cheque for collection in his account. i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, SILL Branch, Paloncha for realization, but the said cheque was dishonoured and it was returned as unpaid along with a memo dated 01.10.2014. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 07.10.2014 calling upon the accused to pay the said cheque amount. But, the accused being aware of the contents of the legal notice got managed the postal authorities and returned the said notice to avoid the cheque amount. As such the complainant fled this complaint against the accused under section 138 of N.I Act.

4. The court took cognizance of the ofence U/sec.138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act and issued process to the accused. In response to the process issued, the accused made his appearance

before the court. When he was examined under section 251 of Criminal

Procedure Code with regard to the allegations made in the complaint he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The complainant himself is examined as P.W.1, and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and got examined one Venkata Ramana as

PW.2, who is attestor to Ex.P.1 promissory note.

CC.No. 550 of 2014 3 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

6.After closure of complainant side evidence the accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2, but he denied the same and reported defence evidence.

The accused himself got examined as DW.1, but no exhibits were marked.

7.After the evidence of both sides was closed, both the learned counsels were heard. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:

I) 2010 (2) ALD (Crl.) 734 (SC) ii) 2019 Crl.L.J 2400 (SC) iii) 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 59 (AP) iv) 1999 CRI. L.J 4606 (SC) and the learned counsel for the accused also relied upon the following decisions.

I) 2015 (1) ALT (crl) 179 (SC) ii) 2017 (4) ALT 488 iii) 2017 (1) ALT (crl) 259 (AP) iv) 2017 (1) ALT (crl) 320 (AP)

v) 2012 (1) ALT (crl) 293 (AP) vi) Criminal Appeal 636/2019.

Basing on the record the following point arise for determination.

(i) Whether the complainant is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) To what fnding ?

CC.No. 550 of 2014 4 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

P O I N T No.i):

8. PW.1/complainant deposed that he used to reside as tenant in the house of the accused and out of such acquaintance the accused approached him for lending an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for his family necessities. The request made by the accused was accepted by the complainant and he lent an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and the accused executed promissory note in favour of the complainant, which is marked as Ex.P.1. Later, on the repeated demands of the complainant, the accused issued cheque for discharge of his debt on 25.09.2014, which was marked as Ex.P.2 the cheque under Ex.P.2 was dishonored for want of sufcient funds in the account maintained by the accused. The memo issued by the accused banker is marked as Ex.P.3. The complainant got issued legal notice on 07.10.2014 as in Ex.P.4 demanding the accused to repay the cheque amount. It is the contention and evidence of PW.1 that the accused intentionally refused to receive the legal notice having knowledge of the contents of the legal notice and refused postal cover is marked as Ex.P.5.

9.The complainant in his chief examination evidence afdavit reiterated the contents of the complaint. The defence of the accused as appearing from the cross examination of PW.1 are that the complainant is being working as lab Technician and as such is not having fnancial capacity to lend such a huge amount to the accused and further it is also the defence of the accused that the legal notice under Ex.P.5 was not served upon him and as such one of the necessary ingredient to attract the Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not complied with and as such the complaint is not maintainable.

CC.No. 550 of 2014 5 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

10.The complainant in order to prove the monetary transaction as documented under Ex.P.1, examined one of the attesting witness to the promissory note as PW.2. It is the evidence of PW.2 that he acted as attesting witness to the promissory note and Ex.P.1 was scribed by P.

Manjunath and that the accused obtained hand loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant on 13.09.2013 in his presence.

11.PW.2 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused, however, nothing could be elicited in order to suspect the evidence as appearing in his chief examination. However, a suggestion was put to PW.2 that no transaction took place in his presence as under

Ex.P.1 for which PW.2 denied the suggestions of the accused counsel.

12.The accused reported defence evidence and examined himself as DW.1 and no document was fled on his behalf. In the chief examination, accused deposed that the complainant does not have fnancial capacity to lend such a huge amount and he is defaulter of rents and also denied transaction under Ex.P.1 and denied Ex.P.2 cheque being issued in discharge of debt under Ex.P.1. He also deposed that he did not receive any legal notice under Ex.P.5.

13.From the evidence as discussed above the defence of the accused appears to be that he did not borrow an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant and did not execute promissory note under Ex.P.1 and not issued Ex.P.2 for discharge of debt covered under Ex.P.1. further, it is the defence of the accused he did not receive any legal notice under Ex.P.5. The accused is not denying the signatures on Exs.P.1 and P.2 documents and he is not denying that the cheque in question does not pertain to his account. In the cross examination DW.1 admitted that he is resident of house No.5-4-96/1

CC.No. 550 of 2014 6 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

Gandhinagar of Navabharath since 15 years and he also admitted that he has bank Account in State Bank of Hyderabad, SILL branch and having cheque book for that account. DW.1 denied the suggestions that he refused to take the legal notice and he is deposing false to evade the legally enforceable debt.

14.The accused is not denying the fact that the Ex.P.2 cheque does not belong to him and he also did not deny the signatures on the Exs.P.1 and P.2. It is for the accused to explain as to how the cheque in question went into the hands of the complainant. Mere denial will not substitute the place of proof.

15.Another defence of the accused is that PW.1 does not have fnancial capacity to lend such a huge amount to him. But, the evidence of PW.1 in his chief examination is that his father used to work in SCCL and after retirement his father gave some amount to him and also his father sold out agricultural lands and from that amount he has lent Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused. Further, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that he is an income tax assessee. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the father of PW.1 retired in the year 2004 and this transaction took place after 9 years and hence the version put forth by PW.1 that he lent the amounts received from his father towards his share to the accused is not believable. But it is elicited in the cross examination that PW.1 invested the amount given by his father on the agricultural lands and he sustained loss and as such he sold out 2.5 acers of land at Uppal village of Karimnagar District in the year 2012 and that amount was given to the accused and further it is elicited it the cross examination that PW.1 is the income tax payee. It is further elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 that he is a lab

CC.No. 550 of 2014 7 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

technician and earning Rs.1,000/- per day. So from this evidence it can be gathered that it is not beyond the reach of avocation of PW.1 to lend

Rs.8,00,000/- to the accused.

16.The oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs.P.1 to P.5 goes to show that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant and issued cheque in favour of PW.1. Since the complainant proved his case, it is

for the accused to demolish the case of the complainant by rebuttal

evidence, but except giving suggestions to PW.1 that accused did not borrow Rs.8,00,000/- from PW.1 and did not issue the cheque in question nothing substantial was brought on record to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

17.It is the contention of the accused that the legal notice was not served upon him. But it is elicited by the complainant in the cross examination of the accused as DW.1 that the accused is residing in the address stated on the legal notice as well as summons which were sent to the correct address and that he is residing in the same house since 15 years. It is would be relevant to quote the judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in CC Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Mohammed. Wherein, it is held that even if it is the case of the accused that he did not receive the legal notice sent by the complainant then the accused can pay the amount to the complainant within 15 days of the receiving of the summons from the court. If the accused was bonafde in nature he would have paid the cheque amount to the complainant and settled the case but such is not the case. Therefore, the accused would not get advantage of the contention that the legal notice was not served upon

CC.No. 550 of 2014 8 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

him, in view of the judgment as referred above.

18.From the above discussion it is made out that the evidence of complainant is un-rebutted and not shaken and that the complainant is able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused are not applicable to the present facts of this case and hence with due respect those judgments are not taken into consideration.

P O I N T No.ii)

19.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and accordingly, he is convicted for the said ofence U/sec.255(2) of the code of criminal procedure.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

20.When the accused is questioned with regard to the sentence to be imposed against him, he submitted that he is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and his wife is sufering from old age aliments and there is no one to see her welfare and prayed to take a lenient view.

21.Keeping in view of the nature of the case and the ofence involved, this court is not inclined to invoke the beneft under Probation of Ofenders Act, but however the court is inclined to take a lenient

CC.No. 550 of 2014 9 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

view while awarding the sentence. The accused is explained of his right to prefer appeal against the Judgment of this court.

22.In the result: The accused is convicted for the ofence

U/sec.138 of the Negotiable instrument Act 1881, U/sec.255(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of Six (6) Months for the said ofence. The accused shall also pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, U/sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, within two months from today, failing which he shall under go simple imprisonment for a further period of Three (3) months.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of May, 2022.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM.

CC.No. 550 of 2014 10 of 10 Dt: 23-05-2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1 G. Shiva KumarComplainant

PW.2 Veeragoni Venkata Ramana attestor

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

DW.1Bireddy Veera Vasantha Accused Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 Original Pronote executed by the accused in favour of complainant date: 30.09.2013 for Rs.8,00,000/-

Ex.P2 Original cheque bearing No.074197 drawn on SBH, SIIL Branch, Paloncha issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.8,00,000/-, dated 25.09.2014.

Ex.P3 Memo issued by the SBH, SIIL Branch, Paloncha, Dt.01.10.2014

Ex.P4 Ofce copy of Legal Notice dated:07.10.2014

Ex.P5 Refused postal cover, dt.10.10.2014.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

II ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 1 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

(CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS)

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2023.

Present: M.Neelima,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadrachalam.

C.C.No.433 of 2013

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dummugudem. ……Complainant

And

A1. Bondili Chaithanya, S/o.Rambabu, Age:27 years, R/o.Narsapuram, of Dummugudem Mandal. A2. Thota Kalyani, W/o.Chaithanya, Age:23 years, R/o.Venkatapuram.

…… Accused * * *

This case is coming before me on 28.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Asst.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri D.Ramu, Learned counsel for A1 and A2 upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The accused are indicted for the offence Under Sec.498-A, 494 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short herein after referred to as I.P.C) by Sub-

Inspector of Police, Dummugudem in Cr.No.74/2012.

2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell is:- The complainant and

Accused No.1 marriage is a love marriage and they lead happy marital life for a period of (04) years at Venkatapuram. Six months prior to lodging of the report Accused No.1 started harassing the complainant as he had an illicit

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 2 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023 relationship with Accused No.2. The Complainant further submitted that the

Accused No.1 harassed her mentally and physically and abused her and beat her as he had illicit intimacy with Accused No.2 and lodged report seeking action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report of LW.1/B.Bhavani, LW.12/B.Satyanarayana has registered a case in Cr.No.74/2012, Under Sec.494, 498-A I.P.C. During the course of investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted C.D.F panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 12.04.2013 LW.10 affected arrest of accused and after completion of the investigation LW.12 has filed charge sheet.

4.Based on the report of the police this court has taken cognizance of the offence Under Sec.494, 498-A I.PC and issued summons to the accused.

On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to them as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C explaining the charges leveled against them and upon hearing on bothsides, charges were framed U/Sec.494, 498-A I.P.C., which was read over and explained to the accused for which they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. To prove its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

5.After prosecution reported its evidence has closed, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against hem in the prosecution evidence.

Accused denied prosecution evidence has being false and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard the Learned A.P.P and Learned Counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 3 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023

7.Now the point for determination are:

"Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/sec.498-A, 494 I.P.C beyond reasonable doubt?.

8.P O I N T :

The defacto-complainant is examined as PW.1, it is her evidence that her marriage with Accused No.1 was performed at Temple in Palwancha as per their caste customs and at the time of their marriage Rs.80,000/- were presented to Accused No.1 as dowry. They lived happily for a period of 11/2 year and later Accused No.1 started harassing her by developing illicit intimacy with Accused No.2 and used to beat her and abused her by touching her caste name. Further, on one day Accused No.1 eloped with Accused No.2 to Nellore and as such she returned back to her parental home and lodged

Ex.P.1 report.

PW.2 is the sister of PW.1 deposed in similar lines as to that of PW.1 and she further stated that Accused No.1 and 2 are blessed with 2 children and

Accused No.1 harassed PW.1, when PW.1 questioned about the illicit intimacy between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2.

PW.3 is the brother of Accused No.1 and he testified that the marriage of Accused No.1 and PW.1 is a love marriage and he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The Learned APP though cross-examined at length but nothing could be elicited in his favour except got marking Ex.P.2.

PW.4 and PW.5 are the panchas for the scene of offence and they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

PW.6 is the close relative of PW.1 who testified that Accused No.1 harassed PW.1 as he had a illicit relationship with Accused No.2.

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 4 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023

PW.7 is the Investigating Officer who testified as to the line of investigation.

9.Coming to the appreciation of evidence the case of the prosecution is that Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are maintaining illicit relationship and

Accused No.1 neglected PW.1 and harassed her mentally and physically and beat her and abused in the caste name. It is not the case of dowry demand by

Accused No.1, but in her chief-examination PW.1 brought a different story by stating that at the time of marriage Rs.80,000/- were presented to Accused

No.1 as dowry and Accused No.1 eloped with Accused No.2. It is not her evidence that Accused No.1 demanded and harassed her for want of

additional dowry. This case does not fall under explanation-B of 498-A I.P.C.,

since none of the witnesses spoke about dowry demand but the prosecution version is that the case falls Under Sec.498-A I.P.C. The accused is liable for punishment under Explanation-A of 498-A I.P.C. which reads as follows:-

"Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to

drive the women to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or

danger to life, limb or health (Whether mental or physical) of the

women."

10.The cruelty meted-out in the hands of the Accused No.1 by PW.1 must be likely to drive PW.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. On perusing the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that

Accused No.1 harassed her, abused her and beat her as he had illicit intimacy with Accused No.2, expect this statement there is nothing to show that

Accused No.1 has caused grave injury or danger, to life, limb or health of

PW.1. Further PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 deposed that the defacto-complainant has married one Raipudi Ramu and leading happy marital life. It is the defence of

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 5 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023 the Learned Counsel for the Accused that PW.1 had performed second marriage during the subsistence of her marriage with Accused No.1 and it is

PW.1 who had harassed Accused No.1. Further, it is elicited in the cross- examination of the Investigating Officer that he did not examine any of the neighboring witnesses at the scene of offence i.e., Venkatapuram to prove the harassment of Accused No.1. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that he did not collect any documentary evidence that Accused No.1 had married Accused No.2. Except the oral evidence the witnesses that the Accused No.1 beat PW.1 nothing brought on record to support the version of the prosecution and no neighboring witnesses to the scene of offence were examined to prove that PW.1 was subjected to harassment and beaten up cruelly by accused no.1. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the offence U/Sec.498-A I.P.C.

11.Now coming to the charge U/Sec.494 I.P.C there must be performance of marriage by either spouse during the substance of marriage. Where as in the case on hand the prosecution failed to prove that Accused No.1 had married Accused No.2. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that Accused

No.1 had married Accused No.2 but they stated that Accused No.1 had illicit intimacy with Accused No.2. Moreover the Investigating Officer failed to collect any document to show that there was a marriage between Accused

No.1 and Accused No.2 and they are residing together under one roof as husband and wife. It is settled law that in order to sustain a charge under

Sec.494 I.P.C, the prosecution must prove the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt but, no Iota of evidence is placed before this court with respect to charge Under Sec.494 I.P.C. Therefore this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the fact that accused no.1 had married

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 6 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023

Accused No.2 during the subsistence of marriage between Accused No.1 and

PW.1 and hence this court is of considered opinion that Accused No.1 and

Accused No.2 are liable to be acquitted for the offence U/Sec.494 of I.P.C, there must be sufficient ingredients to constitute harassment by Accused

No.1 to PW.1, where as in the case on hand the prosecution failed to prove that PW.1 Subjected to harassment in the hands of Accused No.1. Therefore, in view of above discussion, since the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused, point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

IN THE RESULT,Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.498-A, 494 of I.P.C and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.494 R/w.109 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (06) months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2023.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined. For prosecution PW.1. Bondili Bhavani PW.2. Boppana Buvanishwari PW.3. Dabakatla Venkataramana PW.4. Akarapu Srinivasa Chary PW.5. Poojari Suryachandra Rao PW.6. Degala Bhasker Rao PW.7. G.V.R Bhadram

C.C.433 of 2013 Page 7 of 7 Dt:28.04.2023

For defence: -None- Exhibits Marked For prosecution Ex.P1. Report Ex.P2. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3. Ex.P3. First Information Report. Ex.P4. Crime Detail Form.

For defence:

-Nil- Material Objects Marked -Nil-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BHADRACHALAM.

Corrections carried out by me:

Pg.No. 1 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 21st day of September, 2022.

Present: M.Neelima, III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas) Kothagudem.

C.C.No.11 of 2017

(Crime No.170 of 2016)

Between: The State, Through Sub Inspector of Police. P.S. II Town Kothagudem.

... Complainant

And

Jimidi Shatrath Chandra @ Sharath, S/o Sambashiva Rao, Age: 22 years, Occu: Mason worker, R/o Q.No.Da-1414, Punjabgadda, Ramavaram of Kothagudem.

... Accused

@@@

This case is coming on 21.09.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.S. Santosh, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides 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 P.S. II Town Kothagudem laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.170/2016 for the ofence punishable u/Sec.354-C of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on The defacto complainant/Devunuri Priya resident of Kothuri Rajam Basthi,

Ramavaram. Whereas the accused belongs to Punjabgadda, Ramavaram

Pg.No. 2 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

Area. On 20.12.2017 at about 11:00 hours, while the complainant was taking bath in their bath room, at that time, the accused had peeped in to the bath room by climbing the wall which is situated besides their bath room. On seeing the accused the complainant made hues and cries and upon hearing the same Kolapuri Venui Gopal (LW.2), Kolapuri Manasa (LW.3) and Namilla Laxmi Kantha (LW.4) went there and on seeing them the accused fed away from the scene by jumping the wall and fnally she lodged a report for taking necessary action.

3.On report, LW.7/K. Sreenu,Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothagudem

II Town, P.S registered a case in Cr.No.170/2016, U/Sec.354-C of IPC.

Later, he visited scene of ofence, drafted rough sketch in the presence of mediators, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and on 17.01.2017 he efected the arrest of the accused and issued 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion of investigation he fled charge sheet.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused by this court for the ofence punishable Under Section 354-C of IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were supplied to accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. A charge under

Section 354-C of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Pg.No. 3 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and Ex.P1 to P5 are got marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, when accused is examined U/sec.313 of the Code of criminal procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. However, he did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of accused for the ofence

punishable U/sec.354-C IPC, beyond

reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.In order to substantiate it’s case the prosecution got examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The complainant is examined as PW.1. She deposed that on 20.12.2016 at about 11:00 A.M, while she was taking bath in the bathroom at her house at Ramavaram, the accused watched her by climbing on a compound wall, which is besides the bathroom. She observed that the accused was peeping into the bathroom from the top portion of the door of the bathroom as the height of the door of bathroom is less. By seeing the accused, she raised

Pg.No. 4 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022 hues and cries. On hearing her hues and cries her sister Manasa and her husband rushed near the bathroom and on watching them the accused tried to leave the place but he accidentally slipped from the wall and escaped from there. Through this witness the prosecution got marked

Ex.P.1 report.

10.Pws.2 and 3, who are sister of PW.1 and her husband deposed in similar lines as to that of PW.1. They stated that PW.1 while bathing in the bath room, the accused peeped into the bath room by climbing on a compound wall. On seeing the accused, PW.1 raised hues and cries and on hearing hues of PW.1, they rushed to the bath room and caught hold the accused and handed over to the police concerned.

11.PW.4, who is stated to be eye witness to the incident testifed that on 20.12.2016 at about 11:00 hours, PW.1 went to washroom for taking bath. She heard some hues and cries from the washroom and she along Pws.2 and 3 rushed to the bathroom and found that the accused jumped from the compound wall. She further stated that they catched the accused and took him to the police station.

12.Pws.5 and 6 are the panchas for the Crime Details Form, who deposed that the police have drawn the rough sketch in their presence and through this witnesses the prosecution got marked Exs.P.2 and P.3 of their signatures on the CDF.

Pg.No. 5 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

13.PW.7 who is the investigating ofcer, deposed as to the line of the investigation from receiving of report to till the fling of charge sheet.

14In the cross examination of PW.1 by the learned counsel for the accused, she deposed that she do not know the accused and the accused never peeped into her bath room and she do not know anything about the facts of this case. Further, she stated that at the instance of elders she signed on some papers, but she do not know it’s contents. As seen from the cross examinations of Pws.2 to 4, they also stated in the similar lines as to that of PW.1 and they further stated that they did not witness any incident and they did not caught-hold the accused and they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

15. As seen from the evidence on record, it appears that Pws.1 to 4 have entered into compromise with the accused. The evidence of the investigating ofcer is procedural in nature since the victim herself did not depose anything against the accused, there is nothing more on record to connect the accued with the crime and nothing more is left to discuss except holding that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 354-C of IPC with which he is charged and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of

Pg.No. 6 of 6 C.C.No.11 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022 the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2022.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: D. Priya -NIL- PW.2: K. Venugopal PW.3: K. Manasa PW.4:N. Laxmikantha PW.5:K. Chukkaiah PW.6:K. Mallaiah PW.7:K. Srinu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Signature of PW.5 on the CDF Ex.P3: Signature of PW.6 on the CDF Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Crime Details Form

For Defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem.

Pg.No. 1 of 5 C.C.No.528 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (CRIMINAL COURT FOR AGENCY AREAS) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Wednesday, this the 21st day of September, 2022.

Present: M.Neelima, III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas) Kothagudem.

C.C.No.528 of 2017

(Crime No.22 of 2016)

Between: The State, Through Sub Inspector of Police. P.S. Laxmidevipalli.

... Complainant

And

Malakam Yerraiah, S/o Gangaiah, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Chintapentagudem, Bangaruchilaka Village of Lakshmidevipalli Mandal.

... Accused

@@@

This case is coming on 21.09.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt.L.V. Durga Rao, Learned Counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides 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 P.S. Laxmidevipalli laid charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.70/2017 for the ofence punishable u/Sec.324, 294 (b) of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/injured by name Pothuraju Kattamallu is resident of

Bangaruchilaka village of Lakshmidevipalli mandal and the accused is also

Pg.No. 2 of 5 C.C.No.528 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022 belongs to the same village. The complainant eking out his livelihood by grazing goats. As usually on 04.03.2017 at morning hours, the complainant took his goats to “Padamata Gutta’ for grazing. On the same day at about 15:00 hours, the complainant stood under the tree, the accused approached him by carrying a teak log and laid before the complainant and asked why he was cut the teak log and picked up quarrel and abused him in flthy language and beat him with axe stick on his legs, thigh and hands forcibly and caused bleeding injuries and fnally he lodged a report for taking necessary action.

3.On report, LW.10/G. Sridhar, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kothagudem III Town, P.S registered a case in Cr.No.70/2017, U/Sec.324, 294-b of IPC. He referred the injured to the Government Area Hospital,

Kothagudem for treatment. Later, he visited scene of ofence, drafted rough sketch in the presence of mediators, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and on 20.03.2017 he arrested the accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand and after collecting the wound certifcate and completion of entire investigation he fled charge sheet.

4. Cognizance was taken against the accused by this court for the ofence punishable Under Section 324, 294 (b) of IPC against accused.

Pg.No. 3 of 5 C.C.No.528 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

5.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were supplied to accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Charges under

Sections 324 and 294 (b) of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and Ex.P1 and P2 are got marked. The learned

A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining listed witnesses of Lws.2, 3, 5 to 10.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, since there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused.

8.Heard Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of accused for the ofences

punishable U/secs.324 and 294-b IPC,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. PW.1 is the defacto- complainant/injured deposed in his chief examination that there were some petty issues in between the accused

Pg.No. 4 of 5 C.C.No.528 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022 and himself as such on the instructions of elders, he afxed his thumb impression on the paper, but he do not know it’s contents. Further, he deposed that the accused did not abuse and did not beat him at any point of time.

11.PW.2 who is wife of PW.1 deposed in similar lines as to that of

PW.1 stating that there were some petty issues in between PW.1 and accused. She further deposed that accused never abused and never beat

PW.1 at any point of time.

12. As seen from the evidence on record, it appears that Pws.1 and 2 have entered into compromise with the accused and did not support the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

In the result Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under Sections 324, and 294-b of IPC with which he is charged and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of September, 2022.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem.

Pg.No. 5 of 5 C.C.No.528 of 2017, Dt:21.09.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: P. Kattamallu -NIL- PW.2: P. Kamalama

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.1 Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.2

For Defence: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Criminal Court for Agency Areas), Kothagudem.

TSBK020012122020

Presented on : 05-09-2020 Registered on : 25-09-2020 Decided on : 15-09-2022 Duration : 2 years, 0 months, 10 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

(Presided Over by K Sai Sri)

CC/829/2020

STATE OF TELANGANA, PS ANNAPUREDDYPALLI

VERSUS

Challa Dhasharatha raju ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Challa Dhasharatha raju Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 379 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Accused is produced before me and he made a reporesentation that, he intended to plead guilty and requested the court to take up the matter today itself. The accused is examined under section 239 Cr.PC Charge framed for the offence under section 379 of IPC read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which he pleaded guilty and stated him to rethink. But accused is pleaded guilty even after giving sufficient time. Satisfied that accused admitted his tguilt voluntarily. Accordingly he is convicted under section 241 Cr.PC for the offence under section 379 of IPC. With regard to quantum of sentence accused submitted that, his family members are deppendant on him and he is in judicial custody since 19.9.2019 to 18.03.2020( i.e., 181 days). Further, he is in judicial custody since 01.9.2022 to till date i.e., 14.09.2022 ( i.e., 14 days) totaling to a period of 195 days and pleaded mercy in sentencing him. In view of the admission made by accused and considering the value of the property and submissions made by accused, this court is inclined to take lenient view. while imposing sentence in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, accused is sentence to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 195 days. Remad period i.e., 19.9.2022 to 18.3.2020 and 01.09.2022 to til date i.e., 195 days shall be set-off under section 428 of Cr.PC. The case property involved in this case ie.. Motorcycle which isin the custody of the police shall be handed over its owner on his claim on proper identification and acknowledgment. The jail authorities are hereby directed to set at liberty after the prescribed period of sentence is not required in any other case or crime.

Date : 15-09-2022

(K Sai Sri)

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.