Sri P.bhaskara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT:- SRI P.BHASKARA RAO IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge.

MONDAY, this the 4t h day of MAY, 2015

CC.No. 311 of 2012

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapet P.S., Guntur Urban … Complainant

And

1. Challa Ganesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram, Guntur

2. Battula Sreenu,S/o. Sivaji , 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Nehru Nagar, Motilal Nagar, Guntur.

3. Battula Bhulakshmi , W/o. Sreenu , 35 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Motilal Nagar, Guntur . …Accused

This case is coming on 30-04-2015 before me for hearing in the presence ofLearnedA.P.P.Grade-IfortheStateandof Sri Komma Ramesh , Advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapet P.S., Guntur Urban., filed final report in Cr.No.109 / 2012 for the offences, U/Sec. 341,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows : - Accused no.1 is resident of 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram , Guntur and A2 & A3 are the residents of

Motilal Nagar, Guntur. One Sivarathri Venkateswara Rao is the only son of the defacto complainant Sivartathri Ramalakshmamma . One Nagaraju is working as mason worker along with A1 and A2. Earlier Nagaraju approached the

Venkateswarlu and asked to allow him to work under another mason and

Venkateswara Rao promised to appoint him at another mason mastry. The accused heard the same and developed grudge against Venkatesweara Rao. On 09-03-2012 during day time, A2 , Srinu met Venkateswara Rao and picked up quarrel with Venkateswar Rao regarding appointment of Nagaraju at another mason mastry. On the same day at about 12.30 p.m., while the defato complainant is going to provisions shop to purchase tobaco , accused wrongfully 2 restrained and A2 & A3 manhandled the defacto complainant indiscriminately on the legs and on thighs and A3 caught hold tuft and made her fell down in the

Drainage Canal , in which she sustained invisible injuries. The accused threatened her with dire consequences and her son, Venkateswar Rao and others rescued the defacto complainanat from the clutches of the accused. They have shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur in an auto. She gave report to the police and police registered as a case in Cr.No. 109/12, U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sksetch. He arrested the acacused and sent them to the court for remand.

The doctor treated the injured and issued wound certificate and the doctor opined that the injuries found on her are simple in nature. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused and issued summons for their appearance.

4. After made appearance of the accused, necessary copies supplied to them

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC, denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW's.1 to 5 were examined and Ex's.P1 to P5 got marked.

7. The accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of APP and defence counsel

9. POINT:

1. Whether the accused wrongfully restrained the defcto complainant to attract the ingredients of Sec. 341 IPC ?

2. Whether the accused manhandled and caused injury to the defacto complainant ?

3. Whether the accused threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences ?

4. Whether the prosecution proved ingredients of Sec.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3

10. The defacto complainant by name S. Ramalakshamma examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1, Report , Ex.P2, Three colour photos along with CD. S.

Ramana , The daughter -in-law of PW.1 examined as PW.2 . PW.3 , Ratna

Kumari examined . Dr. K. Hanuma Naik ,CMO, GGH, Guntur examined as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P3 wound certificate issued by Dr. V. Pratap. The then Sub

Inspector of Police, Kothpet P.S examined as PW.6 and got marked original FIR as

Ex.P4 and rough sketch as Ex.P5. The entire prosecution case had relied upon the

PW's. 1 to 5 evidence and Exs. P1 to P5 to bring home the guilt of the accused.

11.The defence counsel submitted that the investigaiton officer has failed to shown the scene of offence correctly in the rough sketch. The Investigation Officer further failed to examine the immediate neighbouring house owners of the scene of offence. The prosecution witnesses closely related to the defacto complainant.

The Investigation Officer further failed to seize the material objects at the scene of offnece. There is no corroboration in between the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.PW.1 S. Ramalakshamma categorically deposed that one Nagaraju is working under A2. A2 requested her son to provide work. The son of the PW.1 introduced the A2 to another mastry to provide work. Nagaraju accepted to work under another mastry . The accused no.2 qustioned her son why Nagaraju introduced to another mastry and also attacked her son and also threateaned to kill her son. The incident was happened on 09-03-2012 in the morning time and on the same day, she went to the shop and while returning at about 12.30 p.m., accused no.2 obstructed and questioned her why her son introduced the

Nagraju to another mastry. All the accused beat her and she sustained injury on her left eye and also accused kicked her and beat her over her body. PW.1 further deposed that she sustained injury on her right eye but , not left eye as she deposed in earlier. A2 and A3 dragged by caught hold her legs and her clothes are torned. Somebody handed over the PW.1 to Lw's. 2 & 3 Sanamngula

Sailaja and Sivarathir Koteswaramma and they went to the police station and police instructed her to go to the hospital. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW.1.

Ex.P2 are the 3 colour photos along with CD.

13.PW.2 S. Ramana categorically deposed that PW.1 is her mother -in-law.

One Nagaraju working under A2. Nagaraju came to her husband to provide work and her husband gave assurance to provide work to him. A2 questioned her 4 husband and abused him in fillthy language stating that why he joined the

Nagaraju in some other work. PW.1 went to the shop to purchase tobaco , while she was taking lunch the neighbouring girl came and informed her stating that somebody beat her mother- in- law, And she found her mother in law with bleeding injuries. She found the accused in standing position . She shifted her mother- in- law to the police station and police referred the PW.1 to the hospital for treatment.

14.As per the evidence of PW.1 , somebody are witnessed the incident. PW.2 categorically deposed that the neighbouring girl informed about the incident and she rushed to the spot and she found A1 to A3 in standing position at the scene of offence. PW.1 categoricallly deposed that somebody handed over the PW.1 to

LW.2 & 3 Sanangula Sailaja and Sivarathri Ramanamma and they went to the police station . There is no corroboation in between PW's.1 & 2 with regard to knowledge of PW.1 about the incident. PW.1 categorically deposed that they have approached the police staiton and police instructed them to go to the hospital.

PW.2 categorically deposed that police referred the PW.1 to the hospital .

15.As per the hospital intimation, it discloses the hospital intimation does not contain police refered the injured to the hospital. The hospitall intimation does not contain, who admitted the PW.1 into the hospital. As per the Ex.P1, report the incident was happened at about 12.30 p.m., on 09-03-2012. The hospital intimation clearly discloses PW.1 was admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., on 09-03-2012. It appears , how the PW.1 admitted in the hospital prior to the exact time of accident. It appears , hospital intimation containing endorsement of the police , the hospital intimation reached to the police station on 09-03-2012 at about 6.15 p.m. As per the FIR, the information received to the police station on 09-03-2012 at about 9.30 p.m. Ex.P1, report specifically containing , the hospital intimation received from GGH, Guntur at about 6.30 p.m. On 09-03-2012. Police rushed to the GGH, Guntur and recorded the statement of PW.1. The SHO , registered the FIR with delay of 3 hours. The hospital intimation discloses she admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., and hospital intimation reached to the police station at about 6.30 p.m., It appears , there was a delay of 6 hours to reach the hospital intimation to the police station from the hospital. There was a delay of 3 hours to register the case after reaching of hospital intimation to the police station. The hospital intimation clearly discloses as per the information furnished by the injured , one person belongs to her relative assaulted her.

5

16.Ex.P1 report lodged against A1 to A3. The name of the accused not specificlaly mentioned in the hospital intimation. Ex.P1, report does not specifically contain on which date , A2 threatened the son of PW.1. There is no evidence , who witnesed at the time of A2 threatened the son of PW.1 for providing work to the Nagaraju with another mastry. Ex.P1 specifically contains on 09-03-2012, at about 12.30 p.m., while she was proceeding to the shop of

Koteswaramma to purchase tobaco and all the accused wrongfully restrained the

PW.1 to proceed further and obstructed the said words are inserted in Ex.P1.

Ex.P1 Specifically containing , Srinu kicked on her legs and thighs with hands. It appears , it is improbable if any person will kicked anotther person with legs , but not with hands., resulting withich PW.1 fell down in the drainage canal. Ganesh and Bathulakshmi (A1 & A3) dragged her and the Ganesh fisted on her mouth and upper part of the fore head. Bhulakshmi caught hold the tuft of hair and dragged her. At that time, one Challa saimma, Kottu Koteswaramma are witnessed the incident. As per the Ex.P1 , report, Ch. Saimma and Kottu Koteswaramma are not examined as a prosecution witnesses to prove the incident. Prosecution further failed to examine the son of PW.1 , Venkateswara Rao as a witness to know the earlier dispute.

17.As per the prosecution case, the main dispute is the son of PW.1 provide employment to Nagaraju at some other mastry and thereupon accused developed grudge and obstructed the PW.1, while he was proceeding to the shop and beat her indiscriminately and also A2 and A3 dragged her on the ground and she made her fell down in a Drainage canal and she sustained injuries. Venkateswara Rao is the son of PW.1 , who is the material witness to prove the earlier incident. There is no explanation for non examination of the eye witness, Ch. Saimma and K.

Koteswaramma.

18. PW.1 categorically admitted in the cross examination that she gave report to te police at about 6 p.m. PW.1 further admitted that at the time of initial dispute,

A1 was not present. PW.1 is residing in 1st lane, NehruNagar and A1 is a resident of 3rd lane Seetaram Nagar and the distnace between both the places is about 1 Kilo meter . The defence counsel submitted that the investigation officer has failed to show the correct scene of offence either Nehru Nagar or the Seeta

Nagar. PW.1 categorically admited that property disputes are pending between A1 & A2 and A1 is her brothers son. The defence counsel suggested that due to porperty disputes , the case is foisted against the accused and PW.1 denied 6 the same. The defence counsel suggested the PW.1 stating that she was fell down on the ground and sustained fracture injury at her house. Ex.P2 , 3 colour photos along with CD marked at the stage of further chief examinatin of PW.1 The investigation Officer did not seize photographs during the investigation stage.

There is no expalnation , who taken the photographs of PW.1 and in which time they have taken the photographs. Ex.P2, photographs were nowhere mentioned in the charge sheet or deposed in the PW.1 evidnece , who taken the photographs.

PW.1 categorically admitted that the disputes are pending between her son and

A2. At about 8.30 a.m., A2 abused her son . The time of offence not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 statement. PW.1 categorically admitted that at the time of A2 abused her son she was not present. PW.1 is not the direct witness to prove A2 abused her son in the morning time. PW.1 catgorically admitted that she did not attend daily work in Mirch Yard due to ill health. She does not know whether A2 attended the work on the date of incident or not. The place of offence is situated nearly ¼ Km. Distance from her house. PW.1 categorically admitted that the incident was happened while she was returning from the shop to the house.

Ex.P1, report does not contain specifically while she was returning from the shop ,

Ex.P1 contains While she was proceding to the shop , all the accused obstructed her to proceed further. There is no corroboration in between the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 in which time the accused obstructed her either she proceeding to the shop or returning from the shop . PW.1 categorically admitted that one Sai , Ratna

Kumari , Koteswaramma who are witnessed the incident and he did not observe , who are the remaining persons witnessed the incident. The investigation officer failed to examine the eye witnesss to prove the case. PW.1 categoricallyl admitted tha Lw's.2 & 3 Sanangula Sailja and Sivathri Ramanamma are not witnessed the incident. PW.1 catgegorically admitted that she received multiple injuries on her face, chest and on her knees. Initially, she went to the police station and later went to the hospital She reached the police station in between `1 p.m., to 2 p.m., As per the hospital intimation , she was admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., It appears , the admission of PW.1 and the hospital intimation about

PW.1 was admitted in the hospital is not corroborating with time.

19.PW.2 categoriclly admitted in the corss examination that it is true, A1 house situated at Seeta Ram Nagar and it is a distance place to her house . A1 used to go to work in the early morning and return back to the house at about 5 or 5.30 p.m.usually. PW.2 cataegorically admitted that she cannot say the names of the persons , who gathered at the scene fo offence. PW.2 admission is made it clear , 7 she does not know personally who witnessed the incident to know who are present at the scene of offence. PW.2 categorically admitted that she was not presnet at the time of A2 abused her husband. PW.2 is not the direct witness about earlier incident at the time of A2 abused her husband . PW.2 categorically admitted that

PW.1 became unconscious and regain conscious in the evening time . As per the evidence of PW.2 , PW.1 is un conscious till the evening . PW.1 evidnece cannot be believable stating that she went to the police station in between 1 to 2 p.m.

20.PW.3 R. Ratna Kumari categorically deposed that she personally witnessed the A1 beating the PW.1 with hands and she found A2 & A3 by the side of A1.

She tried to rescue the PW. 1 and the family membes of PW.1 shifted her to the hospital.

21.PW.3 categorically admitted that she is the DWACRA group member.

PW.3 categorically admitted that she did not state before the police where the

Sundry shop of the Koteswaramma situated and the accused beat the PW.1 indiscriminately. PW.3 did not state, the material aspects before the police. If she really witnessed the incident , she ought to have mentioned before the police or her 161 Cr.P.C statement. The material ommissions it amounts to contradiction.

PW.3 categorically admitted that she does not know the presence of Ratna Kumari at the scene of offence and she cannot say the date of offence including month and year. PW.3 categorically admitted that she did not state before the police about beating of PW.1 at different places on the body.

22.PW.4, Dr. K. Hanuma Naik categoriacally deposed that who is working

Casuality Medical Officer in GGH, Guntur. He categorically deposed that Dr. D.V.

Pratap Reddy examined the PW .1 and issued the wound certificate on 06-04-2012 which is marked as Ex.P3. PW.4 categorically deposed that Dr. D.V. Pratap

Reddy is not working in GGH, Guntur. PW.4 catgorically deposed the injuries found on the person of PW.1 are

1. Laceration 2 x 2 cm. on right wrist .

2. Swelling and pan on left cheek

3. X- ray no bone injury.

The doctor opined that the injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P3.

PW.4 categorically admitted that the above injuries may be possible if any aged person fallen on the ground . The doctor mentioned the age of injuriy is 5 to 6 hours prior to his examination. As per the hospital intimation, she was admitted in the 8 hospital at about 12.30 p.m. The incident was happened at about 12.30 p.m., and there is no possibility to mention PW.1 received injuries 6 hours prior to the accident. Due to non examinatin of Dr. V. Pratap Reddy , who issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3 through PW.4 and accused have no opportunity to cross exmine the Dr.D V. Pratap Reddy , who examined the patient and issued wound certificate. There is no proper satisfactory explanation given by the prosecution for non examination of Dr. V. Pratap Reddy and they have not filed any documentary proof .

23.PW.5 Abdul Rasool categorically deposed that previously , he worked as Sub

Inspector of Police in Kothapet P.S., from 20-11-2012 to 31-01-2014. On 09-03-2012, at about 9.30 p.m., , he received the statement of PW.1 ,which was recorded in Government General Hospital Outpost. He registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 109/12, U/SEc. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The original FIR is marked as Ex.P4. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P5. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 13-03-2012, at about 11 a.m., he arrested the A1 to A3 and sent them to the court for remand. After recipt of the wound certificfate and after completion of investigatin , filed final report.

24.PW.5 categorically admitted in the cross examinatinn that the list of witnesss cited in the charge sheet are not the residents of nearby the scene of offence. The persons cited in the charge sheet are not shown in the rough sketch.

PW.5 admissin is made it clear, he did nto chose to exmine the nearby the persons at the scene of offence. PW.5 catgegorically admitted that the list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet are closely related to the PW.1. PW.5 categorically admitted that he did not seize any material objects at the scene of offence. PW.1 categorically deposed that A2 and A3 are dragged her and her saree was torned.

PW.5 did not try to handover the torned saree or the investigation officer also faield to seize the torned saree. P.w5 categorically admitted , the injured voluntarily went to GGH, Guntur for treateemnt. PW.2 categorically deposed that PW.1 became unconscious and she shifted her to the hospital. The investigation officer evidence is not corroborating with the PW.1 and 2 whether she voluntarily went to the hospital for treatment or not. PW.5 categoriclaly deposed that the Head Constable recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecution have not chosen to examine the Head constable who recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecultion have not chosen to examine the material witness, Lw.4, N. Koteswaramma , LW.5 , Challa Sayamma .

9

There is no specific reason for non examination of the mataerial witness. The learrned APP given up the material witness without showing any suffcient reason.

Atleast prosecution has not chosen to examine , the LW.9, HC148, M. Lingaiah who recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecution did not file any documentary proof for non availability of LW.8 Dr. V. Pratap Reddy , who treated the PW.1. The investigation officer did not chose to examine the son of PW.1 to prove the incident.

25.As per the ingredients of Sec. 339 IPC.,Wrongfully restraint - Whoever

voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from

proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed is

said wrongfully to restrain that person.

PW.1 categorically admittted that while she was return from Koteswaramma shop , the accused obstructed her and pushed her . Ex.P1 specifically contain while he was proceeding to Koteswaramma shop , the accused obstructed her.

There is no evidnce on record that accused obstructed the PW.1 to proceed further.

Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 341 IPC against the accused.

26. As per the ingredients of Sec. Sec. 323 IPC “ Voluntarily causing hurt

to the PW.1 - Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt

to any person.

PW.1 evidnce is in consisting who actually beat the PW.1 and PW.1 did not state whether she sustained injury . Whether she sustained injury either on right eye or left eye. X - ray report also not marked through the Radiologist . The wound certificate speaks there is no bone injury. Ex.P3 , wound certificate contains she sustained injury on (1) Laceration 2 x 2 cm. On right wrist ; (2)

Swelling and pan on left cheeks. (3) X ray no bone injury.

Ex.P1 report and PW.1 & 2 oral evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence. The defence counsel submitted that PW.1 is the old aged woman and she sustained injury due to fallen on the ground. PW.4 categorically admitted that the above injuries may possible if any aged person fallen on the ground.

27. As per the ingredients of Sec. 506 IPC “ Criminal Intimidation by

threatening the PW.1 with dire consequences not proved satisfactorily

against the accused.

10

There is no evidence on record to prove that the Sec. 506 IPC sagainst the accused. Prosecution further failed to prove Sec. 34 IPC “ All the accused with common intention to obstruct the PW.1 threatened the PW.1 and also beat her indiscriminately with dire consequences not proved satisfactorily against the accused.

28. On careful scrutiny of PW's .1 to 5 evidence coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex's.P1 to P5 , prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of

Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

29. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

30.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated by me, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open

court, on this the 4t2h day of Masy, 2015 .

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : S. Ramalakshamma - None - PW.2 : S. Ramana PW.3 : R. Ratna Kumari PW.4 : Dr. Hanuma Naik , the then CMO, GGH, Guntur. . PW.5 : Abdul Rasool , the then SI of Lalapet P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 to the police - Nil - Ex.P2 : 3 Colour photos along with CD Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR.C.C.NO. 311 OF 2012 DATE OF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence on bail of trial trial or Order.

09-03-12 31-05-12 13-03-12 13-03-12 04-09-14 19-03-15 04-05-15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 31-05-2012 and on 19-11-2013 copies furnished to the accused. On 27-08-2014 accused were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. On 04-09-2014 PW.1 was examined.

On 24-09-2014 PW.2 was examined. On 29-10-2014 PW.3 was examined.

On 04-03-2015 PW.4 was examined. On 19-03-2015 PW.5 was examined.

and closed the prosecution evidence on the same day. On 25-03-2015 accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 30-04-2015 heard arguments.

On 04-05-2015 judgment pronounced.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant : Sub - Inspector of Police, Kothapet P.S.,

Cr.No. 109 /2012. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Accused:

1. Challa Ganesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram, Guntur

2. Battula Sreenu,S/o. Sivaji , 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Nehru Nagar, Motilal Nagar, Guntur.

3. Battula Bhulakshmi , W/o. Sreenu , 35 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Motilal Nagar, Guntur . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence : U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused : Not Guilty.

Finding :- : Found Not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER: - In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT:- SRI P.BHASKARA RAO IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge.

MONDAY, this the 4t h day of MAY, 2015

CC.No. 311 of 2012

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapet P.S., Guntur Urban … Complainant

And

1. Challa Ganesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram, Guntur

2. Battula Sreenu,S/o. Sivaji , 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Nehru Nagar, Motilal Nagar, Guntur.

3. Battula Bhulakshmi , W/o. Sreenu , 35 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Motilal Nagar, Guntur . …Accused

This case is coming on 30-04-2015 before me for hearing in the presence ofLearnedA.P.P.Grade-IfortheStateandof Sri Komma Ramesh , Advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Kothapet P.S., Guntur Urban., filed final report in Cr.No.109 / 2012 for the offences, U/Sec. 341,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows : - Accused no.1 is resident of 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram , Guntur and A2 & A3 are the residents of

Motilal Nagar, Guntur. One Sivarathri Venkateswara Rao is the only son of the defacto complainant Sivartathri Ramalakshmamma . One Nagaraju is working as mason worker along with A1 and A2. Earlier Nagaraju approached the

Venkateswarlu and asked to allow him to work under another mason and

Venkateswara Rao promised to appoint him at another mason mastry. The accused heard the same and developed grudge against Venkatesweara Rao. On 09-03-2012 during day time, A2 , Srinu met Venkateswara Rao and picked up quarrel with Venkateswar Rao regarding appointment of Nagaraju at another mason mastry. On the same day at about 12.30 p.m., while the defato complainant is going to provisions shop to purchase tobaco , accused wrongfully 2 restrained and A2 & A3 manhandled the defacto complainant indiscriminately on the legs and on thighs and A3 caught hold tuft and made her fell down in the

Drainage Canal , in which she sustained invisible injuries. The accused threatened her with dire consequences and her son, Venkateswar Rao and others rescued the defacto complainanat from the clutches of the accused. They have shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur in an auto. She gave report to the police and police registered as a case in Cr.No. 109/12, U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sksetch. He arrested the acacused and sent them to the court for remand.

The doctor treated the injured and issued wound certificate and the doctor opined that the injuries found on her are simple in nature. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused and issued summons for their appearance.

4. After made appearance of the accused, necessary copies supplied to them

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC, denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW's.1 to 5 were examined and Ex's.P1 to P5 got marked.

7. The accused were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of APP and defence counsel

9. POINT:

1. Whether the accused wrongfully restrained the defcto complainant to attract the ingredients of Sec. 341 IPC ?

2. Whether the accused manhandled and caused injury to the defacto complainant ?

3. Whether the accused threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences ?

4. Whether the prosecution proved ingredients of Sec.341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3

10. The defacto complainant by name S. Ramalakshamma examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1, Report , Ex.P2, Three colour photos along with CD. S.

Ramana , The daughter -in-law of PW.1 examined as PW.2 . PW.3 , Ratna

Kumari examined . Dr. K. Hanuma Naik ,CMO, GGH, Guntur examined as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P3 wound certificate issued by Dr. V. Pratap. The then Sub

Inspector of Police, Kothpet P.S examined as PW.6 and got marked original FIR as

Ex.P4 and rough sketch as Ex.P5. The entire prosecution case had relied upon the

PW's. 1 to 5 evidence and Exs. P1 to P5 to bring home the guilt of the accused.

11.The defence counsel submitted that the investigaiton officer has failed to shown the scene of offence correctly in the rough sketch. The Investigation Officer further failed to examine the immediate neighbouring house owners of the scene of offence. The prosecution witnesses closely related to the defacto complainant.

The Investigation Officer further failed to seize the material objects at the scene of offnece. There is no corroboration in between the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.PW.1 S. Ramalakshamma categorically deposed that one Nagaraju is working under A2. A2 requested her son to provide work. The son of the PW.1 introduced the A2 to another mastry to provide work. Nagaraju accepted to work under another mastry . The accused no.2 qustioned her son why Nagaraju introduced to another mastry and also attacked her son and also threateaned to kill her son. The incident was happened on 09-03-2012 in the morning time and on the same day, she went to the shop and while returning at about 12.30 p.m., accused no.2 obstructed and questioned her why her son introduced the

Nagraju to another mastry. All the accused beat her and she sustained injury on her left eye and also accused kicked her and beat her over her body. PW.1 further deposed that she sustained injury on her right eye but , not left eye as she deposed in earlier. A2 and A3 dragged by caught hold her legs and her clothes are torned. Somebody handed over the PW.1 to Lw's. 2 & 3 Sanamngula

Sailaja and Sivarathir Koteswaramma and they went to the police station and police instructed her to go to the hospital. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW.1.

Ex.P2 are the 3 colour photos along with CD.

13.PW.2 S. Ramana categorically deposed that PW.1 is her mother -in-law.

One Nagaraju working under A2. Nagaraju came to her husband to provide work and her husband gave assurance to provide work to him. A2 questioned her 4 husband and abused him in fillthy language stating that why he joined the

Nagaraju in some other work. PW.1 went to the shop to purchase tobaco , while she was taking lunch the neighbouring girl came and informed her stating that somebody beat her mother- in- law, And she found her mother in law with bleeding injuries. She found the accused in standing position . She shifted her mother- in- law to the police station and police referred the PW.1 to the hospital for treatment.

14.As per the evidence of PW.1 , somebody are witnessed the incident. PW.2 categorically deposed that the neighbouring girl informed about the incident and she rushed to the spot and she found A1 to A3 in standing position at the scene of offence. PW.1 categoricallly deposed that somebody handed over the PW.1 to

LW.2 & 3 Sanangula Sailaja and Sivarathri Ramanamma and they went to the police station . There is no corroboation in between PW's.1 & 2 with regard to knowledge of PW.1 about the incident. PW.1 categorically deposed that they have approached the police staiton and police instructed them to go to the hospital.

PW.2 categorically deposed that police referred the PW.1 to the hospital .

15.As per the hospital intimation, it discloses the hospital intimation does not contain police refered the injured to the hospital. The hospitall intimation does not contain, who admitted the PW.1 into the hospital. As per the Ex.P1, report the incident was happened at about 12.30 p.m., on 09-03-2012. The hospital intimation clearly discloses PW.1 was admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., on 09-03-2012. It appears , how the PW.1 admitted in the hospital prior to the exact time of accident. It appears , hospital intimation containing endorsement of the police , the hospital intimation reached to the police station on 09-03-2012 at about 6.15 p.m. As per the FIR, the information received to the police station on 09-03-2012 at about 9.30 p.m. Ex.P1, report specifically containing , the hospital intimation received from GGH, Guntur at about 6.30 p.m. On 09-03-2012. Police rushed to the GGH, Guntur and recorded the statement of PW.1. The SHO , registered the FIR with delay of 3 hours. The hospital intimation discloses she admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., and hospital intimation reached to the police station at about 6.30 p.m., It appears , there was a delay of 6 hours to reach the hospital intimation to the police station from the hospital. There was a delay of 3 hours to register the case after reaching of hospital intimation to the police station. The hospital intimation clearly discloses as per the information furnished by the injured , one person belongs to her relative assaulted her.

5

16.Ex.P1 report lodged against A1 to A3. The name of the accused not specificlaly mentioned in the hospital intimation. Ex.P1, report does not specifically contain on which date , A2 threatened the son of PW.1. There is no evidence , who witnesed at the time of A2 threatened the son of PW.1 for providing work to the Nagaraju with another mastry. Ex.P1 specifically contains on 09-03-2012, at about 12.30 p.m., while she was proceeding to the shop of

Koteswaramma to purchase tobaco and all the accused wrongfully restrained the

PW.1 to proceed further and obstructed the said words are inserted in Ex.P1.

Ex.P1 Specifically containing , Srinu kicked on her legs and thighs with hands. It appears , it is improbable if any person will kicked anotther person with legs , but not with hands., resulting withich PW.1 fell down in the drainage canal. Ganesh and Bathulakshmi (A1 & A3) dragged her and the Ganesh fisted on her mouth and upper part of the fore head. Bhulakshmi caught hold the tuft of hair and dragged her. At that time, one Challa saimma, Kottu Koteswaramma are witnessed the incident. As per the Ex.P1 , report, Ch. Saimma and Kottu Koteswaramma are not examined as a prosecution witnesses to prove the incident. Prosecution further failed to examine the son of PW.1 , Venkateswara Rao as a witness to know the earlier dispute.

17.As per the prosecution case, the main dispute is the son of PW.1 provide employment to Nagaraju at some other mastry and thereupon accused developed grudge and obstructed the PW.1, while he was proceeding to the shop and beat her indiscriminately and also A2 and A3 dragged her on the ground and she made her fell down in a Drainage canal and she sustained injuries. Venkateswara Rao is the son of PW.1 , who is the material witness to prove the earlier incident. There is no explanation for non examination of the eye witness, Ch. Saimma and K.

Koteswaramma.

18. PW.1 categorically admitted in the cross examination that she gave report to te police at about 6 p.m. PW.1 further admitted that at the time of initial dispute,

A1 was not present. PW.1 is residing in 1st lane, NehruNagar and A1 is a resident of 3rd lane Seetaram Nagar and the distnace between both the places is about 1 Kilo meter . The defence counsel submitted that the investigation officer has failed to show the correct scene of offence either Nehru Nagar or the Seeta

Nagar. PW.1 categorically admited that property disputes are pending between A1 & A2 and A1 is her brothers son. The defence counsel suggested that due to porperty disputes , the case is foisted against the accused and PW.1 denied 6 the same. The defence counsel suggested the PW.1 stating that she was fell down on the ground and sustained fracture injury at her house. Ex.P2 , 3 colour photos along with CD marked at the stage of further chief examinatin of PW.1 The investigation Officer did not seize photographs during the investigation stage.

There is no expalnation , who taken the photographs of PW.1 and in which time they have taken the photographs. Ex.P2, photographs were nowhere mentioned in the charge sheet or deposed in the PW.1 evidnece , who taken the photographs.

PW.1 categorically admitted that the disputes are pending between her son and

A2. At about 8.30 a.m., A2 abused her son . The time of offence not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 statement. PW.1 categorically admitted that at the time of A2 abused her son she was not present. PW.1 is not the direct witness to prove A2 abused her son in the morning time. PW.1 catgorically admitted that she did not attend daily work in Mirch Yard due to ill health. She does not know whether A2 attended the work on the date of incident or not. The place of offence is situated nearly ¼ Km. Distance from her house. PW.1 categorically admitted that the incident was happened while she was returning from the shop to the house.

Ex.P1, report does not contain specifically while she was returning from the shop ,

Ex.P1 contains While she was proceding to the shop , all the accused obstructed her to proceed further. There is no corroboration in between the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P1 in which time the accused obstructed her either she proceeding to the shop or returning from the shop . PW.1 categorically admitted that one Sai , Ratna

Kumari , Koteswaramma who are witnessed the incident and he did not observe , who are the remaining persons witnessed the incident. The investigation officer failed to examine the eye witnesss to prove the case. PW.1 categoricallyl admitted tha Lw's.2 & 3 Sanangula Sailja and Sivathri Ramanamma are not witnessed the incident. PW.1 catgegorically admitted that she received multiple injuries on her face, chest and on her knees. Initially, she went to the police station and later went to the hospital She reached the police station in between `1 p.m., to 2 p.m., As per the hospital intimation , she was admitted in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m., It appears , the admission of PW.1 and the hospital intimation about

PW.1 was admitted in the hospital is not corroborating with time.

19.PW.2 categoriclly admitted in the corss examination that it is true, A1 house situated at Seeta Ram Nagar and it is a distance place to her house . A1 used to go to work in the early morning and return back to the house at about 5 or 5.30 p.m.usually. PW.2 cataegorically admitted that she cannot say the names of the persons , who gathered at the scene fo offence. PW.2 admission is made it clear , 7 she does not know personally who witnessed the incident to know who are present at the scene of offence. PW.2 categorically admitted that she was not presnet at the time of A2 abused her husband. PW.2 is not the direct witness about earlier incident at the time of A2 abused her husband . PW.2 categorically admitted that

PW.1 became unconscious and regain conscious in the evening time . As per the evidence of PW.2 , PW.1 is un conscious till the evening . PW.1 evidnece cannot be believable stating that she went to the police station in between 1 to 2 p.m.

20.PW.3 R. Ratna Kumari categorically deposed that she personally witnessed the A1 beating the PW.1 with hands and she found A2 & A3 by the side of A1.

She tried to rescue the PW. 1 and the family membes of PW.1 shifted her to the hospital.

21.PW.3 categorically admitted that she is the DWACRA group member.

PW.3 categorically admitted that she did not state before the police where the

Sundry shop of the Koteswaramma situated and the accused beat the PW.1 indiscriminately. PW.3 did not state, the material aspects before the police. If she really witnessed the incident , she ought to have mentioned before the police or her 161 Cr.P.C statement. The material ommissions it amounts to contradiction.

PW.3 categorically admitted that she does not know the presence of Ratna Kumari at the scene of offence and she cannot say the date of offence including month and year. PW.3 categorically admitted that she did not state before the police about beating of PW.1 at different places on the body.

22.PW.4, Dr. K. Hanuma Naik categoriacally deposed that who is working

Casuality Medical Officer in GGH, Guntur. He categorically deposed that Dr. D.V.

Pratap Reddy examined the PW .1 and issued the wound certificate on 06-04-2012 which is marked as Ex.P3. PW.4 categorically deposed that Dr. D.V. Pratap

Reddy is not working in GGH, Guntur. PW.4 catgorically deposed the injuries found on the person of PW.1 are

1. Laceration 2 x 2 cm. on right wrist .

2. Swelling and pan on left cheek

3. X- ray no bone injury.

The doctor opined that the injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P3.

PW.4 categorically admitted that the above injuries may be possible if any aged person fallen on the ground . The doctor mentioned the age of injuriy is 5 to 6 hours prior to his examination. As per the hospital intimation, she was admitted in the 8 hospital at about 12.30 p.m. The incident was happened at about 12.30 p.m., and there is no possibility to mention PW.1 received injuries 6 hours prior to the accident. Due to non examinatin of Dr. V. Pratap Reddy , who issued wound certificate which is marked as Ex.P3 through PW.4 and accused have no opportunity to cross exmine the Dr.D V. Pratap Reddy , who examined the patient and issued wound certificate. There is no proper satisfactory explanation given by the prosecution for non examination of Dr. V. Pratap Reddy and they have not filed any documentary proof .

23.PW.5 Abdul Rasool categorically deposed that previously , he worked as Sub

Inspector of Police in Kothapet P.S., from 20-11-2012 to 31-01-2014. On 09-03-2012, at about 9.30 p.m., , he received the statement of PW.1 ,which was recorded in Government General Hospital Outpost. He registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 109/12, U/SEc. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The original FIR is marked as Ex.P4. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch which is marked as Ex.P5. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 13-03-2012, at about 11 a.m., he arrested the A1 to A3 and sent them to the court for remand. After recipt of the wound certificfate and after completion of investigatin , filed final report.

24.PW.5 categorically admitted in the cross examinatinn that the list of witnesss cited in the charge sheet are not the residents of nearby the scene of offence. The persons cited in the charge sheet are not shown in the rough sketch.

PW.5 admissin is made it clear, he did nto chose to exmine the nearby the persons at the scene of offence. PW.5 catgegorically admitted that the list of witnesses cited in the charge sheet are closely related to the PW.1. PW.5 categorically admitted that he did not seize any material objects at the scene of offence. PW.1 categorically deposed that A2 and A3 are dragged her and her saree was torned.

PW.5 did not try to handover the torned saree or the investigation officer also faield to seize the torned saree. P.w5 categorically admitted , the injured voluntarily went to GGH, Guntur for treateemnt. PW.2 categorically deposed that PW.1 became unconscious and she shifted her to the hospital. The investigation officer evidence is not corroborating with the PW.1 and 2 whether she voluntarily went to the hospital for treatment or not. PW.5 categoriclaly deposed that the Head Constable recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecution have not chosen to examine the Head constable who recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecultion have not chosen to examine the material witness, Lw.4, N. Koteswaramma , LW.5 , Challa Sayamma .

9

There is no specific reason for non examination of the mataerial witness. The learrned APP given up the material witness without showing any suffcient reason.

Atleast prosecution has not chosen to examine , the LW.9, HC148, M. Lingaiah who recorded the statement of PW.1. Prosecution did not file any documentary proof for non availability of LW.8 Dr. V. Pratap Reddy , who treated the PW.1. The investigation officer did not chose to examine the son of PW.1 to prove the incident.

25.As per the ingredients of Sec. 339 IPC.,Wrongfully restraint - Whoever

voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from

proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed is

said wrongfully to restrain that person.

PW.1 categorically admittted that while she was return from Koteswaramma shop , the accused obstructed her and pushed her . Ex.P1 specifically contain while he was proceeding to Koteswaramma shop , the accused obstructed her.

There is no evidnce on record that accused obstructed the PW.1 to proceed further.

Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 341 IPC against the accused.

26. As per the ingredients of Sec. Sec. 323 IPC “ Voluntarily causing hurt

to the PW.1 - Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt

to any person.

PW.1 evidnce is in consisting who actually beat the PW.1 and PW.1 did not state whether she sustained injury . Whether she sustained injury either on right eye or left eye. X - ray report also not marked through the Radiologist . The wound certificate speaks there is no bone injury. Ex.P3 , wound certificate contains she sustained injury on (1) Laceration 2 x 2 cm. On right wrist ; (2)

Swelling and pan on left cheeks. (3) X ray no bone injury.

Ex.P1 report and PW.1 & 2 oral evidence is not corroborating with the medical evidence. The defence counsel submitted that PW.1 is the old aged woman and she sustained injury due to fallen on the ground. PW.4 categorically admitted that the above injuries may possible if any aged person fallen on the ground.

27. As per the ingredients of Sec. 506 IPC “ Criminal Intimidation by

threatening the PW.1 with dire consequences not proved satisfactorily

against the accused.

10

There is no evidence on record to prove that the Sec. 506 IPC sagainst the accused. Prosecution further failed to prove Sec. 34 IPC “ All the accused with common intention to obstruct the PW.1 threatened the PW.1 and also beat her indiscriminately with dire consequences not proved satisfactorily against the accused.

28. On careful scrutiny of PW's .1 to 5 evidence coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex's.P1 to P5 , prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of

Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

29. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

30.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated by me, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open

court, on this the 4t2h day of Masy, 2015 .

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : S. Ramalakshamma - None - PW.2 : S. Ramana PW.3 : R. Ratna Kumari PW.4 : Dr. Hanuma Naik , the then CMO, GGH, Guntur. . PW.5 : Abdul Rasool , the then SI of Lalapet P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 to the police - Nil - Ex.P2 : 3 Colour photos along with CD Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR.C.C.NO. 311 OF 2012 DATE OF -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence on bail of trial trial or Order.

09-03-12 31-05-12 13-03-12 13-03-12 04-09-14 19-03-15 04-05-15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 31-05-2012 and on 19-11-2013 copies furnished to the accused. On 27-08-2014 accused were examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. On 04-09-2014 PW.1 was examined.

On 24-09-2014 PW.2 was examined. On 29-10-2014 PW.3 was examined.

On 04-03-2015 PW.4 was examined. On 19-03-2015 PW.5 was examined.

and closed the prosecution evidence on the same day. On 25-03-2015 accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 30-04-2015 heard arguments.

On 04-05-2015 judgment pronounced.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant : Sub - Inspector of Police, Kothapet P.S.,

Cr.No. 109 /2012. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of the Accused:

1. Challa Ganesh, S/o. Venkatarao, 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Seeta Nagaram, Guntur

2. Battula Sreenu,S/o. Sivaji , 40 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Nehru Nagar, Motilal Nagar, Guntur.

3. Battula Bhulakshmi , W/o. Sreenu , 35 yrs, Vaddera, 1st lane, Motilal Nagar, Guntur . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence : U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused : Not Guilty.

Finding :- : Found Not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER: - In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: REPALLE

Present : Sri P.BHASKARA RAO,

Senior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

Insolvency Petition No. 1 of 2018

Between:

Manikala Yesudasu… Petitioner

AND

1. Tati Kishore

2. Pittu Siva Reddy

3. Pittu Srinivasa Reddy

4. Mathi Venkata Lakshmi

5. Manikala Vykunta Vasu

6. Manikala Bangaru Babu

7. Pamula Nagendram

8. Mathi Dwaraka… Respondents

This petition is coming on 06.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.S.Nagaraju, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri Manukonda Sudhakara Rao, Sri K.V.Surya Rao, Advocates for Respondents 1 to 3, and of Sri Anagani Srinivasa Murthy, Sri N.Pothuraju, Advocates for Respondents 4, 7 & 8, and respondents 5 & 6 remained exparte, and upon perusing the material and having considered the matter till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This Insolvency petition is filed by the petitioner/debtor under

Sec.7 & 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, to adjudicate the petitioner as insolvent and direct his properties to be vested in the Official Receiver and for such other reliefs.

2

02.The brief averments of the petition are that,

(i)The petitioner is resident of Gullapalli village of Cherukupalli mandal. All the respondents are resident of Gullapalli and

Nadimpalli villages.

(ii)The petitioner did wholesale balloons business. For the development of his business, another person by name Manikala

Kotilingam joined as partner with the petitioner in his business and both of them borrowed amounts from the respondents with higher rate of interest for the purpose of purchasing balloons.

(iii)The petitioner alone executed promissory notes in favour of the respondents. Some of the respondents obtained blank promissory notes from the petitioner. The petitioner spent the amounts as capital to his business.

(iv)Thereafter, the petitioner sustained heavy loss as the partner cheated him and showed loss in the business. The said partner did not pay single pie to the petitioner. The petitioner incurred heavy loss and he is unable to discharge the debts to respondents.

(v)The 1st respondent filed a suit against the petitioner in

O.S.84/2017 on the file of this court for recovery of money.

The petitioner is unable to pay the schedule debts and his liabilities are exceeded of his capacity.

(vi)The petitioner has no movable or immovable properties except

D-schedule properties. The petitioner has not alienated any movable or immovable properties within three months before the filing of this petition. The abstract of the assets and liabilities is shown in the B-schedule. Hence, this petition.

3

03.1st respondent filed counter, which was adopted by respondents 2 & 3 by filing adoption memo. Respondents 4, 7 & 8 reported no counter.

Respondents 5 & 6 remained exparte.

04.1st respondent filed counter and denied the petition averments.

The 1st respondent contended that,

(i)The petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from him on 05.05.2016 for his family expenses and discharge of debts and petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of respondent in the presence of Jonnadhula Chandra Sekhar, Darsi Siva

Nageswara Rao and Chandavolu Raju.

(ii)Subsequently inspite of repeated demands made by the respondent, the petitioner did not pay any amount to the respondent and this respondent filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.84/2017 for Rs.5,31,200/- on the file of this court.

(iii)The respondent also filed a petition in I.A.412/2017 under

Order-38 Rule-5 of CPC for attachment of the petitioner’s house property before judgment in the month of September, 2017 in the said suit.

(iv)The petitioner borrowed the amount from this respondent for his family expenses and discharge of his debts. It is false to state that the petitioner incurred heavy loss and has no properties in his name.

(v)The petitioner has got RCC daba house in his name and the same is purchased from Ullamgunta Ramakotaiah, Ullamgunta

Venkateswara Rao and Ullamgunta Siva Prasad in the year 2000 vide Doc.No.123/2000 of SRO, Cherukupalli and ever since the petitioner has been enjoying the said property in his own right.

4

(vi)The petitioner handed over the said registered sale deed to this respondent at the time of borrowing the amount.

(vii)The petitioner filed vakalat in O.S.84/2017 on the file of this court and filed his written statement to contest the suit. After filing of vakalat in the said suit, the petitioner filed this false insolvency petition with false allegations.

(viii) It is false to state that the petitioner has no movable and immovable properties in his name. The E.C shown that the petitioner got immovable properties in his possession. The 1st respondent prays the petition is liable to be dismissed.

05.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and got marked Ex.P1. (One Mediboina Venkateswaramma filed chief affidavit as P.W.2. As per the docket orders dt.28.02.2020, the evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed due to absence of the witness).

06.On behalf of respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.R1.

07.Heard the counsel petitioner and counsel for respondents.

08.Now the points arise for determination are :

1. Whether the petitioner has no assets to discharge the debts shown in the petition schedules to declare him as insolvent as prayed for ?

2. Whether the petitioner has shown the respondents 2 to 8 as parties without any debtor and creditor

relationship as contended by the 1 st respondent ?

5

09. Point Nos.1 & 2 :

The petitioner namely Manikala Yesudasu, filed affidavit and reiterated the petition averments in his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.P1 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.20.10.2016. One Mediboina

Venkateswaramma filed chief affidavit, but failed to attend for cross examination and her evidence is eschewed as per the docket orders dt.28.02.2020.

10.The 1st respondent namely Tati Kishore filed affidavit and reiterated the counter allegations in his chief affidavit and got marked Ex.R1 registered sale deed dt.28.12.1999. The 2nd respondent namely Pittu

Sivareddy, was examined as R.W.2. One Jonnadhula Chandra Sekhara

Rao, was examined as R.W.3 to support the case of contesting respondents.

11.The counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner and another person Manikala Kotilingam did joint wholesale balloons business at

Gullapalli village and they borrowed amounts from the respondents with higher rate of interest for the purpose of purchasing balloons. The petitioner alone executed promissory note in favour of respondents and some of the respondents obtained blank promissory notes from the petitioner. The petitioner sustained heavy loss in the said business and the partner cheated him and shown the loss in the business. The petitioner is unable to discharge the debts as shown in the petition A-schedule. Therefore, the 6 petitioner is entitled to declare him as insolvent under Sec.7 & 10 of the

Provincial Insolvency Act.

12.The counsel for 1st respondent submits that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent on 05.05.2016 basing on the promissory note. The 1st respondent filed a suit against the petitioner in O.S.84/2017 on the file of this court for recovery of money. The 1st respondent also filed I.A.412/2017 under Order-38 Rule-5 of CPC for attachment of immovable property before judgment. The petitioner never borrowed the amounts from the other respondents. The petitioner never incurred loss in the balloons business as stated in the petition. The petitioner is having RCC daba house and the same was purchased from

Ullamgunta Ramakotaiah, Ullamgunta Venkateswara Rao, Ullamgunta Siva

Prasad in the year 2000. The copy of the sale deed handed over to the 1st respondent at the time of borrowing amount. After filing of the suit in

O.S.84/2017, the petitioner engaged the counsel and filed vakalat in the said

suit. Immediately he filed the present petition to declare him as insolvent by suppressing the real facts. The counsel for 1st respondent further submits that the petitioner has fails to prove the ingredients under Sec.7 & 10 of

Provincial Insolvency Act and also did not approach the court with clean hands to declare him as insolvent. Therefore, the 1st respondent prays the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7

13.It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent has filed a suit in

O.S.84/2017 on the file of this court for recovery of money against the

petitioner. The 1st respondent also filed I.A.412/2017 in the said suit under

Order-38 Rule-5 of CPC for attachment of the immovable property before judgment. It is also not in dispute that the respondents 5 & 6 remained exparte in the petition. R4, R7 & R8 reported no counter as per the docket orders dt.04.07.2019. R5 remained exparte as per the docket orders dt.12.04.2018 and R6 remained exparte as per the docket orders dt.13.06.2019. As per the docket orders dt.28.12.2021, R4, R7, R8 not adduced evidence and accordingly their evidence is closed. On the face of the record, it is made it clear that the 1st respondent is alone contesting in this matter. R2 & R3 filed memo adopting the counter of R1. R3 did not choose to adduce evidence on his behalf.

14.The petitioner contended that he did joint balloons business along with Manikala Kotilingam and borrowed the amounts from the respondents for the purpose of investment in the business. The petitioner did not choose to file any document to show that he did joint business along with Kotilingam. Atleast the petitioner did not choose to examine said

Kotilingam as a witness on his behalf. One Manikala Venkatewaramma filed chief affidavit as P.W.2, but did not turn up for cross examination without any sufficient reason and her evidence is eschewed. The petitioner relied upon

P.W.1 oral evidence and got marked Ex.P1. As per Ex.P1 certified copy of sale deed dt.20.10.2016 executed by Manikala Yesudasu in favour of 8

Yaragalla Amareswari and Nangu Sivanagulu for a valid sale consideration of Rs.6,81,000/-.

15. P.W.1 – Manikala Yesudasu, clearly admitted in the cross examination that he did not mention in his additional chief affidavit stating that he sold away properties and there are no other properties in his name.

P.W.1 further admitted that he did not mention in his previous chief affidavit stating that he sold away entire properties. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not mention in the petition stating that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from others towards litigation expenses to file the present petition and the said person was not shown as the respondent in this petition. Atleast the petitioner did not choose to examine as a witness on his behalf to prove that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the said person for the purpose of litigation expenses. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not file any single document to prove that he did joint business along with Kotilingam. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not file any criminal case against Kotilingam as alleged in the petition that the said Kotilingam cheated him in the joint business.

Petitioner did not furnish the details of joint business and period of the commencement of the business and other particulars.

16.The 1st respondent mainly contended that petitioner filed the present petition after filing of the suit in O.S.84/2017 for recovery of money.

P.W.1 clearly admitted that he filed present insolvency petition subsequent after filing of the said suit. The 1st respondent further contended that 9 respondents 2 to 8 are not the creditors of the petitioner and they are kith and kin of the petitioner. P.W.1 further admitted that except 1st respondent, the other respondents has shown in the petition have not issued any legal notice to the petitioner demanding him to discharge the alleged debts shown in the petition A-schedule. P.W.1 further admitted that the respondents 2 to 8 have not filed any suits against the petitioner for recovery of the alleged amounts. P.W.1 further admitted that he handed over Ex.R1 registered sale deed dt.28.12.1999 to the 1st respondent which was executed by the Ullamgunta Ramakotaiah, Ullamgunta Venkateswara Rao and Ullamgunta Siva Prasad. P.W.1 admission is made it clear that he handed over Ex.R1 to the 1st respondent as security at the time of borrowing the amount. P.W.1 further admitted that the suit in O.S.84/2017 was decreed in favour of 1st respondent. P.W.1 further admitted that he did not choose to prefer any appeal against the decree and judgment in

O.S.84/2017.

17.P.W.1 further admitted that he purchased Ex.R1 property with his self earnings. P.W.1 admission is made it clear that he possessed Ex.R1 property as on the date of borrowing amount from the 1st respondent and subsequently filed the present insolvency petition. The petition averments does not contain the details of borrowing amounts along with interest from the respondents 2 to 8. The petitioner averments does not contain the details of joint business including the amount and how much amount sustained loss. P.W.1 further admitted that the respondents are not the 10 resident of Nadimpalli village. P.W.1 further admitted that as on the date of filing of the petition he was resident of Gullapalli village and thereafter he shifted to Hyderabad from Gullapalli. As seen from the cause title of the petition, the petitioner is resident of Gullapalli village.

18.The counsel for 1st respondent further contended that petitioner is having movable and immovable properties. P.W.1 further agreed that he spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses for filing of the present petition and he bear the expenses. P.W.1 admission is made it clear that he is having capacity to bear the litigation expenses and also to engage the counsel. P.W.1 further admitted that he possessed the immovable property covered under Ex.R1 and same handed over to the 1st respondent as security. The petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands by furnishing the details of the joint business along with Kotilingam as alleged in the petition. The petition does not contain how much amount invested in the business and how much amount sustained loss in the business. It appears the respondents 2 to 8 have not chosen to issue any legal notice or file suits against the petitioner to prove the alleged debts subsisting between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 8. The 2nd respondent alone examined as R.W.2.

19.R.W.1 – Tati Kishore deposed that the petitioner never borrowed the amounts shown in the petition A-schedule from the respondents 2 to 8.

R.W.1 further contended that the present petition is filed soon after filing of 11 the money suit against the petitioner. Ex.R1 handed over to the 1st respondent as security and he is having capacity to discharge the debts to the 1st respondent. The petitioner counsel suggested to R.W.1 that petitioner never purchased property covered under Ex.R1 from Ullamgunta Sivaprasad and same was denied. The petitioner counsel further suggested to R.W.1 that petitioner and Kotilingam did joint business and they sustained loss and same was denied.

20.R.W.2 – Pittu Siva Reddy, deposed that petitioner is doing business in the village and petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent. R.W.2 further deposed that petitioner sustained loss in the business and the petitioner has shown his relatives as other respondents in the petition. The petitioner has got movable and immovable properties in his name. R.W.2 deposed in the cross examination that petitioner is doing steel vessels business. R.W.2 further deposed that he was present at the time of borrowing amount by the petitioner from the 1st respondent.

21R.W.3 – Jonnadhula Chandra Sekhara Rao, deposed that petitioner never sustained loss in the business. R.W.3 further deposed that petitioner is residing nearby his house. R.W.3 further deposed that petitioner is doing business by selling stainless steel articles and supply the material to the shops. R.W.3 further deposed int eh cross examination that third parties are residing in the house belongs to petitioner.

12

22.The petitioner has fails to prove the contents of the petition averments by adducing satisfactory evidence on record. P.W.1 clearly admitted that Ex.R1 property stands in his name and original sale deed handed over to the 1st respondent as security at the time of the borrowing the amount. P.W.1 further admitted that he filed the insolvency petition against the 1st respondent soon after filing of the money suit by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has fails to file any document to prove that he borrowed the amounts from the respondents 2 to 8 for the purpose of balloons business investment. The petitioner has fails to furnish the details of the business transactions along with Kotilingam.

The petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands to adjudicate him as insolvent. Except P.W.1 oral evidence and Ex.P1, there is no other material on record to declare him as insolvent. The petitioner did not elicit anything in the cross examination of R.Ws.1 to 3 to support his contention.

23.Sections – 7 & 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 as follows:

7. Petition and adjudication :Subject to the conditions specified in this Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented either by a creditor or by the debtor, and the Court may on such petition make an order (hereinafter called an order of adjudication) adjudging him an insolvent.

Explanation :The presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be deemed an act of insolvency within the meaning of this section, and on such petition the Court may make an order of adjudication.

13

10. Conditions on which debtor may petition :

(1) A debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts and ––

(a) his debts amount to [five hundred rupees’; [or]

(b) he is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money ; or

(c) an order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been made, and subsisting, against his property.

(2) A debtor in respect of whom an order of adjudication [whether made under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (Act, 3 of 1909), or under this Act] has been annulled, owing to his failure to apply, or to prosecute an application for his discharge, shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition without the leave of the Court by which the order of adjudication was annulled. Such Court shall not grant leave unless it is satisfied either that the debtor was prevented by any reasonable cause from presenting or prosecuting his application, as the case may be, or that the petition is founded on facts substantially different from those contained in the petition on which the order of adjudication was made.

The petitioner has fails to prove the ingredients under

Sec.7 & 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudicate him as insolvent.

24.The counsel for 1st respondent relied upon a judgment dt.20.10.1995 decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court delivered in between “Kumarathal Vs. Balasubramania Gounder” wherein it was held in Para

No.12 that the details of the promissory notes are not given. The date on

which the liabilities were incurred are not stated, and whether, infact,

those liabilities are subsisting is also not clear. In the petition, there is

also no statement or declaration as enjoined under Sec.13(1)(e) that the

14 first respondent is surrendering his properties.It was further observed that there must be some evidence to show that the first respondent herein is a debtor to the second respondent.In para No.17 it was further observed that first respondent has not proved his eligibility to present petition, and

there is total lack of evidence to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that he

is entitled to be adjudicated as insolvent.

The above principle of law is clearly applicable to the present petition facts on hand. The petitioner has fails to furnish the details of borrowing the amounts along with interest from the respondents 2 to 8 as shown in the petition A-schedule. In the absence of material evidence on record, it is not safe to rely upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 to declare him as insolvent. As per Ex.R1, the property stands in the name of petitioner. The petitioner has fails to prove the debtor and creditor relationship between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 8. The petitioner has further fails to prove that he did joint business with Kotilingam and borrowed the amounts from the respondents. There is no single document filed into the court to prove that petitioner sustained loss in the balloons business. The peitioner has clearly admitted in the cross examination that he filed the present petition soon after filing of the money suit by the 1st respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner further fails to prove that he has no assets to discharge the debts to the 1st respondent. There are no reasonable grounds to allow this petition by declaring the petitioner as insolvent as prayed in the petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to declare him 15 as insolvent. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the 1st respondent and against the petitioner .

25.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer (Gr.II), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- P.Bhaskara Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Repalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner :

P.W.1 : Manikala Yesudasu.

P.W.2 : Medikonda Venkateswaramma (eschewed).

For respondents :

R.W.1 : Tati Kishore.

R.W.2 : Pittu Siva Reddy.

R.W.3 : Jonnadhula Chandrasekhara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner :

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of sale deed dt.20.10.2016 executed by petitioner.

For respondent :

Ex.R1 : Registered sale deed dt.28.12.1999 stands in the name of petitioner.

Sd/- P.Bhaskara Rao

S.C.J., Rpl.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE BOARD-cum- IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT,

GUNTUR. PRESENT : SRI P.BHASKARA RAO

Principal Magistrate, Guntur.

Sk. Mumtaz, Member Sri M. Srinivasa Rao Member.

TUESDAY, this the 5th day of MAY, 2015.

J.C.C.NO. 91 OF 2014

Between :-

State : Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S. .....Complainant

And

Vemula Baji Praveen Kumar, S/o Ramanaiah, 18 yrs,

Waddera, back side of Seetharamanjaneyapet ,

Mangalagiri Town. ... Juvenile in Conflict with Law

This case is coming on 04-05-2015 before me for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri B. V. Ramana are the advocates for the juvenile, and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following :

O R D E R

1.The Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S., filed information in Cr.No.38, 40, 41 /2014, U/Sec. 379 IPC against the Juvenile Conflict with Law .

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows : JCL is resident of

Seetharamanjaneyapet, Manglagiri. The defacto complainant in Cr.No. 38/2014 is working as a clerk in Lakshmi Padmavathi Yatra Special tours and travels.

On 13-02-2014 at 5 p.m., the defacto complainant in Cr.No. 38/2014 , N.

Shanmukha Rao came to the police station and presented the report. He owned

Splendor Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 AL 0596 . On 05-02-2014 night , he parked his motor cycle infront of his house and subsequently, he found missing of the vehicle . He searched in and around, but in vain. He gave report to the police and the police registered as a case in Cr.No. 38/2014, U/Sec . 379 IPC.

On 14-02-2014, at about 10 a.m., LW.4 N. Venkateswara Rao came to the police station and presented the report. He stated that he is running hotel infront of NRI hospital. He owned Passion Plus Blue colour motor cycle bearing no. AP 28 AP 7824. He parked his vehicle infront of his house and some unknown persons have committed theft of the same. He gave report to the police and the police registered as a case in Cr.No. 40/14, U/Sec. 379 IPC.

2

On 14-02-2014, LW.7, Bommineni Sri Hari came to the Police Station and presented a report. On 14-02-2014 LW.7, Bommineni Sri Hari along with his friend Venkata Rao came to Mangalagiri to Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple on his bike AP 17 AH 0283 and parked infront of the temple and went into the temple. After return back , he found missing of Hero Honda Passion Pro blue colour motor Cycle. Later, he gave report to the police and the police registered as a case in Cr.No. 41/2014, U/Sec. 379 IPC.

On 17-02-2014 , the JCL was taken into custody and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and recovered the stolen property relates to all the 3 crimes. He made confession that he committed theft of several offences . Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 379 or 411 IPC against the juvenile Conflict with Law.

4.After made appearance of the juvenile , necessary copies were supplied to the Juvenile, Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The juvenile Conflict with Law was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec. 411 IPC and denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of enquiry on behalf of prosecution, PW's . 1 to 7 were examined, Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O's.1 to 3 got marked.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Juvenile Conflict with Law were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.POINT for determination is :

(1) Whether the investigation officer seized the M.O's.1 to 3 from the possession of juvenile in the presence of mediators ?

(2) Whether the Prosecution had satisfactorily proved the ingredients of

Sec. 411 IPC against the JCL beyond reasonable doubt ?

3

10. The defacto complainant by name , N. Shanmukh Rao in Cr.No. 38/14, examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 , report and M.O.1, Two wheeler. The defacto complainant by name , B. Srihari in Cr.No. 41/14, examined as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P2 , report and M.O.2, Two wheeler . The defacto complainant by name , N. Venkateswara Rao in Cr.No. 40/14, examined as PW.3 and got marked

Ex.P3 , report and M.O.3, Two wheeler . The mediator by name J. Edukondalu examined as PW.4 and got marked his signature portion on two mediatorsnamas as Ex's .P4 & P5. Another mediator , by name B. Srinu examined as PW.5 and got marked the mediatorsnamas as Exs. P6 & P7. The ASI , Mangalagiri Town P.S examined as PW.6 and got marked FIR in Cr.No. 38/14 as Ex.P8 and Rough sketch as Ex.P9. The then Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S., examined as

PW.7 and got marked FIR in Cr.No.40/2014 as Ex.P10 and Rough Sketch as

Ex.P11 and FIR in Cr.No. 41/2014 as Ex.P12 and Rough Sketch as Ex.P13. The entire prosecution case had relied upon PW's.1 to 7 evidence and Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O's . 1 to 3 bring home the guilt of the juvenile U/Sec. 411 IPC.

11.The defence Counsel submitted that the JCL has not committed any offence. The investigation officer never apprehended the juvenile and seized the

M.O's.1 to 3 property from the possession of the juvenile in the presence of mediators. Juvenile is nothing to do about recovery of M.O's.1 to 3 . The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 411 IPC against the JCL. Hence, the juvenile Conflict with law is entitled for acquittal.

12.PW.1 N. Shanmukh Rao categorically deposed that who is working as

Manager in Lakshmi Yatra Special Tourist Bus Services , Mangalagiri . The offence took place on 02-05-2014 at about 4 a.m. The unknown persons have committed theft of Splendor Plus AP 16 AL 0596. He gave report to the police which is marked as Ex.P1. The police recovered the stolen property, Splendor

Plus AP 16 AL 0596 which is marked M.O.1.

13.PW.2 B. Srihari categorically deposed that about 7 or 8 months ago , he came to Mangalagiri to Lord Narasimhaswamy temple and parked the two wheeler infront of the temple. The unknown person have committed theft of Hero Honda

Passion Pro bearing no. AP 27 AH 0283. Ex.P2 is the report. MO.2 is the Hero

Honda Passion Pro bearing no. AP 27 AH 0283.

14.PW.3 N. Venkateswara Rao categorically deposed that in the month of

February, 2014 he parked his bike infront of his house subsequently, he found missing of his bike , Passion plus bike bearing no. AP 28 AP 7824 .

4

15.PW's. 1 to 3 have not stated anything against the juveniles. Ex.P1 , Report does not contain any suspected person name. M.O's. 1 to 3 does not contain affixation of identification slips which containing the signatures of juvenile and mediators. PW's.1 to 3 evidence is no way help to fix up the liability on the juvenile for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC. PW.1 lodged the report with delay.

16.PW.4 J. Edukondalu categorically deposed that he does not know anything about the case. He put his signature on the mediatorsnama ,dt. 17-02-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., which is marked as Ex.P4 and the signature portion on mediatorsnama dt. 17-02-214 at about 7 a.m., as Ex.P5. The learned APP cross examined PW.4 and did not elicit anything except putting suggestion.

17.PW.5 B. Srinu categorically deposed that on 17-02-2014 at about 7 a.m., he went to Foot Court along with police and on seeing the police , the person ran away. Police caught hold the boy namely, Baji Praveen whlie he was possession of motor bike bearing no. 0283 . Another mediator also put his signature on the mediatorsnama. Basing on the statement of juvenile , police recovered the 3 motor cycles which were parked at his house. He put the signature on both the mediatorsnamas, dt. 17 -02-2014 at about 7 a.m., marked ExP6 and another mediatorsnama, dt. 17 -02-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., marked ExP7 .

18.As per the evidence of PW.5 , both the mediators have accompanied with the police to the foot court. Police caught hold the juvenile.

19.PW.5 categorically admitted that he is an uneducated person but signatory.

PW.5 categorically admitted that by the time of he reached the police station another mediator also available in the police station.

20.PW.6 A. Srinivasa Rao categorically deposed that who is working as

Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S. On 13-02-2014 at about 5 p.m., PW.1 came to the police station and presented the report. Basing on it, he registered as a case in Cr.No. 38/ 14 , U/Sec. 379 IPC. PW.6 evidence is no way helpful to prove the recovery of stolen property from the possession of juvenile.

21.PW.7 R. Suresh Babu categorically deposed that previously, he worked as

Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S. On 17-02-2014, he received credible information about juvenile apprehended the juvenile at Palas Foot Court at 5

Mangalagiri and seized the motor cycles from the possession of juvenile under the cover of mediatorsnama. He sent the juvneile to the juvenile Board for safe custody.

N. Venkateswara Rao lodged the report and basing on it, he registered as a case in Cr.No. 40/2014, U/Sec. 379 IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P10 and rough sketch is marked as Ex.P11. He further deposed that basing on the another report lodged by B. Srihari, a case in Cr.No. 41/2014, U/Sec.379 IPC was registered . FIR is marked as Ex.P12 and Rough sketch is marked as Ex.P13.

He recovered the case property in all the 3 crimes. After completion of investigation , filed final report.

22.The defence counsel submiltted that all the 3 crimes said to have committed offences on the same day and time and there is no possibility to one person.

Committed the offences at the same time. The defence counsel submitted that police never apprehended the juvenile at Palas Foot court. The investigation officer did not try to obtain the signature of the any person at foot court .

23.On perusal of mediatoarsnama , dt. 17-02-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., drafted in the presence of B. Srinu and T. Yedukondalu . The mediatorsnama dt.17-02-2014 at about 7 a.m., drafted in the presence of same mediators. As per the FIR in

Cr.No. 38/14, the offence took place on 06-02-2014 and the FIR registered on 13-02-2014. There was delay of 7 days in presentation of the report. Ex.P1, report containing the reasons for delay explaining by inserting 2 lines .

The Cr.No. 40/14, the offence took place on 13-02-2014 and the FIR registered on 14-02-2014. Ex.P3, report discloses the date and time of the parking of the two wheeler was altered the date and inserted the time.

FIR in Cr.No. 41/14 , the offence took place on 14-02-2014 and on the same day, the FIR was registered. Ex.P2, report does not contain any suspected person name. The entire prosecution case relied upon PW.5 evidence.

24.PW.5 categorically deposed that another mediator also available in the police station at the time of he reached the police station. PW.4 categorically deposed that he put the signature in the police station and he never accompanied with the police. Police never apprehended the juvenile and seized the motor cycle. One mediator did not support the case of prosecution and it is not safe to rely upon PW.5 evidence to prove the recovery of the stolen property.

6

25.PW.5 evidence no way helpful to prove the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. The entire case relied upon the investigation officer evidence only. In the absence of corroborative piece of evidence it does not safe to rely upon the investigation officer evidence. The investigation officer did not follow the mandatory provision U/Sec. 100(4) Cr.P.C. M.O's .1 & 2 did not contain the affixation of identification slips which containing the signature of the juvenile and other mediators.

26.As per the ingredients of Sec. 411 IPC “ Dishonestly receiving of stolen property knowing it to be stolen “ not proved strictly against the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt.. There is no evidence on record to prove the ingredients of Sec . 411 IPC against the juvenile .

27.On careful scrutiny of PW's.1 to 7 evidence coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O's.1 to 3 , the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the juveniles for the offence punishable U/Sec. 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

28.Accordingly, the point no.1 & 2 are answered against the prosecution.

29.In the result, This Board is satisfied that Juvenile Conflict with Law has not committed any offence and the Juvenile is set at liberty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 411 IPC and the case is not made out against the Juvenile Conflict with

Law and accordingly, he is acquitted U/S.255(1) Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 property, Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 16 AL 0596 covered under JCPR.No. 15/14 was already given to PW. 1 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal.

M.O.2 property, Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing no. AP 27 AH 0283 covered under JCPR.No. 16/14 was already given to PW. 2 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal.

M.O.3 property, Passion Plus motor cycle bearing no. AP 28 AP 7824 covered under JCPR.No. 22/14 was already given to PW. 3 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal.

Dictated by me, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open

court, on this the 20th day of March , 2015.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE,

GUNTUR.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 : N. Shanmukh Rao - None -

PW.2 : B. Srihari

PW.3 : N. Venkateswara Rao

PW.4 : J. Edukondalu

PW.5 : B. Srinu

PW.6 : A. Srinivasa Rao

PW.7 : R. Suresh Babu, The then CI of police, Mangalagiri Town P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 in Cr.No. 38/14. -- Nil –

Ex.P2 : Report given by PW.2 in Cr.No. 41/14

Ex.P3 : Report given by PW.3 in Cr.No. 40/14

Ex.P4 : Signature portion of PW.4 containing on the

Ex. P7, mediatorsnama

Ex.P5 : Signature portion of PW.4 containing on the

Ex.P6, mediatorsnama

Ex.P6 : Mediatorsnama dt. 17-02-2014 at about 7 a.m.

Ex.P7 : Seizurenama dt. 17-02-2014 at about 8.45 a.m.

Ex.P8 : FIR in Cr.No. 38/14

Ex.P9 : Rough Sketch in Cr.No. 38/14

Ex.P10 : FIR in Cr.No.40/14

Ex.P11 : Rough Sketch in Cr.No.40/14

Ex.P12 : FIR in Cr.No.41/14

Ex.P13 : Rough Sketch in Cr.No.41/14

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Splendor motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 AL 0596

M.O.2 : Hero Honda Passion Pro motor cycle , bearing no. AP 27 AH 0283

M.O.3 : Passion Plus motor cycle bearing no. AP 28 AP 7824

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE ,

GUNTUR.

BEFORE THE JUVENILE BOARD-cum- IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT,

GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR.J.C.C.NO. 91/ 2014 DATE OF ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or Order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 06-02-14 (Cr.No.38/14) 13-02-14 05-07-14 17-02-14 25-02-14 24-10-14 10-04-15 05-05-15 (Cr.No.40/14) 14-02-14 (Cr.No.41/14) Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 05-07-2014 . On 22-08-2014 Copies furnished to the juvenile . On 05-09-2014 juvenile was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec. 411 IPC. On 24-10-2014 PW.1 was examined. On 31-10-2014 PW.2 was examined . On 28-11-2014 PW.3 was examined . On 19-12-2014 PW.4 was examined. On 13-02-2015 PW.5 was examined . On 10-04-2015 PW's. 6 & 7 were examined and prosecution evidence was closed on the same day . On 17-04-2015 juvenile was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C and on 04-05-2015 heard arguments. On 05-05-2015 Order pronounced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Complainant :- Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Town P.S. Crime Nos . 38, 40, 41/ 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of the juvenile : Vemula Baji Praveen Kumar, S/o Ramanaiah, 18 yrs, Waddera, back side of Seetharamanjaneyapet , Mangalagiri Town. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- U/Sec. 411 IPC Plea of Juvenile :- Not committed Finding :- Not Committed the offence SENTENCE OR ORDER:- In the result, This Board is satisfied that Juvenile Conflict with Law has not committed any offence and the Juvenile is set at liberty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 411 IPC and the case is not made out against the Juvenile Conflict with Law and accordingly, he is acquitted U/S.255(1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 property, Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 16 AL 0596 covered under JCPR.No. 15/14 was already given to PW. 1 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal ; M.O.2 property, Hero Honda Passion Pro bearing no. AP 27 AH 0283 covered under JCPR.No. 16/14 was already given to PW. 2 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal ; M.O.3 property, Passion Plus motor cycle bearing no. AP 28 AP 7824 covered under JCPR.No. 22/14 was already given to PW. 3 as interim custody was confirmed subject to appeal.

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE ,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

PRESENT:- SRI P.BHASKARA RAO IV Addl.Junior Civil Judge.

WEDNESDAY, this the 6th day of MAY, 2015

CC.No. 209 of 2013

Between:-

State: Inspector of police, Lalapet P.S., Guntur Urban … Complainant.

Vs.

Upputala Nagaraju, S/o. Venkataiah, 21 yrs, Vaddera, 3rd lane, Vadderagudem, Sangadigunta, Guntur. …Accused

This case is coming on 04-05-2015 before me for hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P. Grade -I for the State and of Smt.

M.Srivani , Advocate for the accused, and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of police, Kothapet P.S., field Final Report, in

Cr.No.166/2013, for the offences U/Sec. 342, 506 , 509 IPC against the sole accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :-

The accused is resident of Vadderagudem, Sangadigunta, Guntur. The defacto complainant , Mallela Bhaghya Lakshmi is studying 9th class in

Vision Public School situated at Lanchester Road , Sangadigunta,

Guntur. The accused is following and compelling her to marry him as he loved her and talked indecently towards her. She infomed the same to her mother and to her parents. They chastised the accused .

While so on 19-03-2013 at about 12.30 p.m., the defacto complainant is going to her house for taking lunch and reached infront of the house of LW.7, Thamisetty Koteswari , the accused came and obstructed her with an auto and forcibly taken her into the house of Koteswaramma (LW,7) and confined her in the said house, threatened her , if she 2 informed to any body and Locked the house. They have searached for the complainant and noticed and found the defcto comlainant inside of the house . They have breakopen the lock of the house and rescued her. She gave report to the police and police registered as a case in

Cr.No. 166/2013, U/Sec. 342, 506, 509 IPC. The investigation officer visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He arrested the accused and sent him to the court for remand. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Secs.342, 506 , 509 IPC against the accused.

4. After made of the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Secs.342 , 506, 509 IPC against the accused, for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW's. 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 got marked .

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C. for which, he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments of APP and the defence counsel.

9. POINT :-

1. Whether the accused wrongufully confined the defacto complainant in his relatives house ?

2. Whether the accused threatened and outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant ?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Secs.

342, 506, 509 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3

10.The defacto complainant by name M. Bhahya Lakshmi examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 , Report. The father of PW.1 examined as PW.2 . Paternal aunt of PW.1 examined as PW.3 . Battula Bujji

Ramana examined as PW.4. The then Asst. Sub Inspector of Police,

Kothapet P.S., examined as PW.5 and got marked Ex.P2 as FIR and

Ex.P3 ,Rough sketch. The prosecution has relied upon PW's. 1 to 5 evidence and Exs.P1 to P3 to bring home the guilt of the accused.

11.The defence counsel submitted that prosecution witnesses are closely related to the PW.1. The investigation officer has failed to examine any independent witnesses. Prosecultion witnesses are not the direct eye witnesses to prove that accused wrongfully confined the

PW.1 into the house of Thamisetty Kotewari(LW.7). Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Secs. 342, 506, 509 IPC .

Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

12.PW.1 M. Bhaghya Lakshmi categorically deposed that she was studying 9th class. On 19-03-2013 at about 12 noon while she was returning from school , accused stopped the auto infront of her and prevented her to proceed further and also put clothes in to her mouth and he taken her to the maternal aunt of the acused. The accused threatened to kill her and forced her to marry him. She wrongfully confined in the house and locked the doors. Her mother came to the house and noticed the PW.1 was wrongfully confined in the house and breakopen the locks of the door and rescued her. She went to the police station along with her parents and presented the report. Ex.P1 is the report.

13.PW.2 Mallela Koteswara Rao categorically deposed that PW.1 is his daughter. About 3 months prior to lodging the report, accused threatened the PW.1 and demanding her to love him and also to accept to marry him. PW.1 informed to the PW.2 about behaviour of the accaused and he chastised the accused. On 19-03-2013, PW.1 did not return back to the house from the school and parents of the PW.1 4 searched and found the PW.1 in weeping condition. PW.2 is not the direct eye witness to prove that accused obstructed the PW.1 to proceed further and also wrongfully detained in the house. PW.2 categorically admitted about the incident through her daughter. He does not know pesonally about the accused following the PW.1. The defence counsel submitted that PW.2 proposed to perform the marriage of PW.1 with the accused and the accused refused to accept the marriage with PW.1 and PW.1 foisted the case against the accused.

14.PW.1 categorically admitted in the cross examinatin that Ex.P1, report prepared in the police station and police drafted the report.

PW.1 categorically deposed that accused maternals aunt's house situated opposite to her house. PW.1 categorically admitted that she cannot say the auto number of the accused. It is true, the accused family is resident of Gurazala and accused oftenly came to his maternal aunts house. PW.1 categorically admitted that she did not lodge any complaint against the accused while accused following her. PW's.1 & 2 categorically admitted that they have not chosen to lodge the report

before the police prior to Ex.P1 at the time of accused following the

PW.1. There is no direct evidence to prove that accused following the

PW.1 in earlier occasion. The defence counsel submitted that accused is residnet of Gurazala and he never followed the PW.1 in earlier occasion.

15.PW.3 Battula Adi Lakshmi categorically deposed that PW.1 is her brothers daughter and PW.2 is her brother. On 19-03-2013 while PW.1 return from the house at about 12.30 p.m., accused forcibly taken the

PW.1 and wrongfully confined her in his relatives house ,i.e.,

Koteswaramma. They heard the cries of PW.1 and rushed into the house and rescued her. One Bhagya Lakshmi informed about the incident stating that accused forcibly taken her and confined her in the said house and demanding her to marry him.

16.PW.3 categorically admitted in the cross examination that PW's.2 & 3 have together went to the house of Koteswaramma. PW.2 categorically deposed that he found the PW.1 in weeping condition.

PW.2 further deposed that LW's. 4 to 6 have brought the PW.1 from the 5 house of Kotesaramma. As per the prosecution evidence, the parents of

PW.1 rescued the PW.1 while she was wrongfully confined. PW.3 categorically deposed that both PW's.2 & 3 went to the house of

Koteswaramma . There is no corroboration in between PW's2 & 3 who actually rescued the PW.1 by breakopen the door lock of the

Koteswaramma. PW.3 categorically admitted that he did not pesonally witnessed at the time of accused forcibly taken the Bhagyalakshmi and put the clothes into the mouth. PW.3 is not the direct eye witnes to the occurrence. PW.3 evideence is hearsay evidence. PW.3 categorically deposed that he stated before the police stating that he came to know about incident through Bhagyalakshmi. He does not know about proposal of marriage between Bhagyalakshmi and accused and the accused family refused to perform the marriage of the accused with PW.1.

17.PW.4 Battula Bujji Ramana categorically deposed that about 2 years ago while PW.1 was returning to the hosue from school and the accused wrongdfully confined the PW.1 in a house by locking the door .

The mother of PW.1 searched for her daughter . PW.4 also present at that time. They found the accused along with keys and suspected the accused locked the doors . PW.1 narrated the incident to the PW.1 and others. The accused ran away from the house. As per the evidence of PW.4 , accused was present infront of the house and locked the doors. PW's.1 to 3 have not stated anything about the presence of accused at the time of noticing the PW.1 inside of the hosue and he forcibly entered into the house. PW.4 categorically admitted that he did not state before the police stataing that he saw the accused holding the keys infront of the house. The material ommissions amounts to contradiction.

18.PW.4 categorically admitted in the cross examination that she came to know about the incident through PW.1 only. PW.4 is not the direct eye witness to prove that accused wrongfully confined in his relatives house. PW.4 categorically admitted the suggestion put by the defence cousel stating that there was a proposal of marriage in between

PW.1 and accused and accused voluntarily refused to marry the PW.1.

6

19.PW.5 K. Venkateswara Rao categorically deposed that previously, he worked as Head Constable in Lalapet P.S., from 05-07-2010 to 14-09-2013. On 19-03-2013 at about 6 p.m., PW.1 came to the police station and presentd the report . Basing on the report, he registered as a case in Cr.No. 166/13, U/SEc. 342, 506, 509 IPC. He submitted the FIR to the court which is marked as Ex.P4. He examined the witnesses and recroded their stataements. He proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch which is marked as

Ex.P3. He arrested the accused and sent him to the court for remand.

The further investigation took up by the Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet.

20.PW.5 categorically admitted in the cross examinatin that it is true, he has shown the residential house by the side of scene of offence in the rough sketch. PW.5 failed to examine the neighbouring house owners of the scene of offence. It is true, the prosecution witneses are closely related to the PW.1. PW.5 categorically admitted in the cross examination that he does not know whether the accused family related to the PW.1's family. PW.5 categorically admitted that during his investigaiton it does not reveal that there was a proposal of marriage between PW.1 and accused and accused voluntarily refused to perform the marriage with PW.1. PW.5 categorically admitted that PW.4 did not state before him stating that he saw the accused while holding the keys. PW.5 categorically admitted that PW.4 is not the direct eye witness to the incident. PW.5 categorically admitted that he did not chose to examine the Thamisetty Gopaiah and Kunchala Adilakshmi .

PW.5 categorically admitted that he did not seize the auto . As per the prosecuton case, accused stopped the auto an obstructed her to proceed further . The investigation officer has failed to seize the material objects , I.e ., auto to prove the incident.

21.As per the Ex.P1, report, 3 months prior to lodging the report, accused following the PW.1 and demanding her to love him. PW's.1 & 2 have not chosen to lodging the report before the police or raised the dispute before the elders . As per the Ex.P1, report, while PW.1 was returning from the school to the house and she reached the 7 house of Koteswaramma and accused stopped the auto infront of PW.1 and obstructed her . Koteswaramma is the material witness to prove accused prevented the PW.1 to proceed further. The accused frequently confined the PW.1 in the houe of Koteswaramma. Accused threatened the PW.1 if she informed the same to anybody and blackmailing her. PW.1's mother and maternal aunts, Makkela

Ramana, Battula Adi Lakshmi and Battula Bujji Ramana searched and found the PW.1 inside of the houe. They have noticed the PW.1 inside of the house through window and they breakopen the lock and rescued the PW.1. Ex.P1, Report does not contain about the presence of accused infront of the house. The case of the complainant is infront of the house along with keys. PW.1 categorically admitted in the cross examination that police have drafted the Ex.P1, report. PW.1 admission is made it clear Ex.P1 report is drafted by the lpolice and Ex.P1 report deoes not contain the contents of the report readover to the PW.1 and

Ex.P1, report does not contain specifically PW.1 got drafted through the police. Ex.P1 report and PW's.1 to 3 evidence is not corroborating with the material aspects about the presence of accused along with keys,who actually noticed the PW.1 inside of the house and breakopen the locks of the doors. The investigation officer has failed to examine the neighbouring house owners of the Koteswaramma. The investigation officer further failed to examine the remaining .witnesses.

The investigation officer have failed to examine the independent witnesses . PW's.1 to 4 who are closely relataed to each other .

22.The main plea of the accused is that PW.1 filed false report against the accused because accused refused to marry the PW.1.

23.As per the ingredients of Sec. 342 IPC “ Accused

wrongfully confined the PW.1 in his relatives house and As per

the ingredients of Sec. 509 IPC “ Uttering any Word or making

any gesture or act intending to insult the modesty of PW.1 and

abused her in filthy language and also Sec. 506 IPC Prosecution

further failed to prove that accused threatened the PW.1 with

dire consequences not proved strictly against the accused.

8

Prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of sec. 342,

509 & 506 IPC are not proved satisfactorily against the accused.

24.On careful scrutiny of oral evidences of PW's.1 to 5 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs. P1 to P3 , clinchingly shows, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25.Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

26.In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 342, 506, 509 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/S.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any , shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated by me, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me, in

the open court, on this the 6th day of May , 2015.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1 : M. Bhagya lakshmi -None-

PW.2 : M. Koteswara Rao

PW.3 : B. Adilakshmi

PW.4 : B. Bujji Ramana

PW.5 : K. Venkateswra Rao , the then HC of Lalapet P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW.1 to the police - Nil -

Ex.P2 : FIR

Ex.P3 : Rough Sketch

IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : GUNTUR. CC.NO. 209/ 2013 DATE OF ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or Order 19-03-13 20-04-13 21-03-13 21-03-13 22-12-14 15-04-15 06-05-15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 20-04-2013.

On 08-05-2013 copies furnished to the accused , on 11-11-2014 accused was examined u/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. On 22-12-2014 PW.1 was examined. On 19-02-2015 PW.2 was examined. On 09-03-2015

PW.3 was examined. On 06-04-2015 PW.4 was examined. On 09-04-2015 PW.5 was examined and on 15-04-2015 Prosecution evidence was closed . On 20-04-2015 accused was examined U/S.

313 Cr.P.C. On 04-05-2015 heard arguments. On 06-05-2015 judgment pronounced.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: Inspector of police, Lalapet P.S., Guntur Urban Cr.No. 166/ 2013 . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of the accused :

Upputala Nagaraju, S/o. Venkataiah, 21 yrs, Vaddera, 3rd lane, Vadderagudem, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- U/Secs. 342, 506, 509 IPC

Plea of accused :- Not guilty.

Finding :- Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ODER:- In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 342, 506, 509 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/S.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any , shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.