P Devi Manasa

CC. No.232 of 2016 1 Dt: 23-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Present: Smt P. Devi Manasa, III A.J.M.F.C, Kothagudem. FAC II A.J.M.F.C, Kothagudem.

Monday, this the 23rd day of December, 2019.

C.C. No: 232 OF 2016.

[Cr.No.147/2016 of P.S.Palvoncha Town ]

Between:

The State, Through S.H.O, P.S. Palvoncha Town. . . . Complainant.

And

A1] Duppati Ravi Kumar @ Ravi @ Siddu, S/o: Veeraiah, Age:26 years, Occ: Painter, R/o: Lakkavaram, H/o: Godlagudem village, chinturu Mandal, Andhra Pradesh State. N/o: Conductors colony, Sarapaka village of Burgampahad mandal.

A2] Challa Sandeep @ Chiranjeevi, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ:Coolie, R/o: Veerapur, H/o: Beerelly village of Tadvai mandal, Warangal District. . . . Accused.

- o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and Sri L.V.Durga Rao Learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Kum N. Prathiba, Learned Legal-Aid-Counsel for Accused No.2, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1] The accused are indicted for offence under Section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short hereinafter referred as IPC) by

Sub Inspector of Police P.S. Palvoncha Town in crime No.147/2016 with the following allegations.

2]On 21.04.2016 at 1900 hours the complainant namely

Boppana Mangasri lodged report to police stating that she along with

CC. No.232 of 2016 2 Dt: 23-12-2019

her family members went to Khammam and returned in the morning hours on 20.04.2016 in the early morning hours found that the back doors were broke open and he found the doors of Almirah was opened and on verification it is found that a gold necklace, one bracelet, thalibottu, and pusthelu and silver bowls were stolen by some unknown offenders.

3] Basing on the said report, PW.5/Sri P. Satyanarayana

Reddy Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Palvoncha Town registered a case in Cr.No. 147/2016, Under Section 457, 380 of IPC. The police examined the complainant, LW.2 and LW.3 and visited scene of offence and prepared CDF panchanama. During the course of investigation on 25-05-2016 at 1630 hours the police Pasra PS, Warangal District apprehended the accused No.2 in Cr.No.47/2016 of PS Parsa, and interrogation conducted in the presence of two mediators namely

Thummala Bhadadwaja and Mannem Venu i.e., LW.8 and LW.9 and on 26-05-2016 at 1800 hours the police Yellandu PS apprehended the accused No.1 in Cr.No.91/2016 at Current Office Area, Yellandu and interrogation conducted in the presence of two mediators namely

Chinta Narasimha Rao and Bhukya Ramsingh i.e., LW.6 and PW.3. The accused No.1 and No.2 confessed about commission of several offences in the limits of various police stations at Khammam district as well as the present offence in the limits of P.S.Palvoncha Town. The

Police Parsa PS and Police Yellandu PS recorded the confession statements of accused and recovered stolen articles from their possession in the presence of above mediators and recorded confession-cum-seizure panchanama. On the intimation from Police

Palvoncha Town, obtained the Prisoner Transfer warrant from this court and produced the accused No.1 and No.2 before this court.

A confession-cum- seizure panchanamas were held. Later police produced the seized property before this court and filed charge sheet on completion of investigation.

CC. No.232 of 2016 3 Dt: 23-12-2019

4] Based on the report of the police, took this cognizance of the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC and issued summons to the accused. Accused No.1 on being produced from Central Prison

Warangal and Accused No.2 produced from District Jail Khammam, copies furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and since accused No.2 reported no means to defend his case, a legal aid counsel was appointed to defend on his behalf. Later accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C by explaining the charges levelled against them and upon hearing on both sides, charges were framed under section 457, 380 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused for which accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5]In order to prove the prosecution allegations, prosecution examined PW.s.1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1.

6]After prosecution reported its evidence as closed, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances that appeared against them in the prosecution evidence. The accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

7]Heard the learned Sr. A.P.P and the Learned counsel for accused. Perused the record.

8] Now, the points that arises for determination are:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 457, 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9]Point : To make out its case for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5. PW.1 is the complainant and PW.2 is the panch for crime detail form, PW.3 is panch for confession-cum recovery panchanama PW.4 and PW.5 are the investigating officers.

CC. No.232 of 2016 4 Dt: 23-12-2019

10] PW.1 stated that on 20.04.2016 he along with his family members went to Khammam and returned in the morning hours and found that the back doors were broke open and also the doors of

Almirah was opened and on verification it is found that a gold necklace, one bracelet, thalibottu and pusthelu and silver bowls were stolen by some unknown offenders. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 and MO1. The cross examination is reported as nil by learned counsels.

11]PW.2 is the panch for Crime Detail Form. He supported the case of prosecution. Through this witness the prosecution got marked

Ex.P2. The cross examination is reported as nil by counsels.

12]PW.3 is panch for confession-cum-recovery panchanama in crime relating to police station P.S. Yellandu. He stated that on 26.05.2016 at about 6-00 p.m. when he was present at Yellandu

Electricity office, he along with LW.6 was asked by police to enquire the said person as to the commission of offence. On enquiry the said person revealed his name as accused No.1 and confessed that he committed theft of various offencse pertaining to various jurisdictions.

He further deposed that accused No.1 confessed to have commit the offences along with accused No.2. He stated that the case property pertaining to this crime was recovered from the possession of the accused No.1. Further he stated that police recovered case properties of other crimes from the possession of accused No.2. In the cross examination, he denied formal suggestions that no proceedings were conducted in his presence and accused did not confess guilt in his presence.

15] PW.4 & 5 are the investigating officers. PW.4 deposed that he conducted confession cum recovery panchanama and recovered

MO1 from the possession of accused No.1 under the cover of Ex.P3.

He deposed that accused confessed that he along with accused No.2 committed the offence and recovered the case properties pertaining

CC. No.232 of 2016 5 Dt: 23-12-2019

to the Cr.No.91/2016 from the possession of accused No.2. PW.5 deposed that he received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and issued FIR and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama. He deposed that he received arrest intimation of accused No.1 and 2 from P.S. Pasra and P.S Yellandu. On 03.06.2016 he produced accused No.1 and 2 on PT warrant before this court. He testified that he has filed the charge sheet after completion of investigation. In the cross examination of these witnesses, they denied the suggestions that accused were falsely implicated in the present case and the investigation is conducted at the police station.

16]On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that PW.1 stated about theft of ornaments in house by some unknown persons by break opening the back door of the house and he did not identify the accused as the culprit. He is not direct or eye witness to the incident. There is no material in his evidence against the accused connecting them with the theft of stolen property. Though PW.2 supported the prosecution case about recording of scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.2. His evidence is of no use to the part of conducting CDF as there is no recital in that document to connect the accused with the scene of offence or the crime. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 or the testimony of Ex.P.2 cannot be used against the accused.

17]To prove the charge under Section 457, 380 IPC, accused trespassed into the house of PW.1 and the removal of the property by the accused from the possession of owner is to be directly established.

There is no direct or eye witness to prove the ingredients for the said offence. The prosecution relied upon the confession of accused to connect them with the evidence of lurking into house of PW.1 and commission of theft. However, the confession of accused under Ex.P3 cannot be based to upheld the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of police and thus it is hit under Section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. Therefore, this court hold that the

CC. No.232 of 2016 6 Dt: 23-12-2019

prosecution could not make out the ingredients for the offence under

Section 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused.

18]As per the provision of Section 222 Cr.P.C when the offence proved forms the part of the offence charged the accused is liable to be convicted for said proved charge. The offence under Section 411

IPC is an integral part of the offence under Section 380 IPC. Here it is case of prosecution that accused No.1 was apprehended by PW.4 while he was in possession of stolen property. PW.3 mediators clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. PW3, clearly stated that police arrested the accused

No.1 and recorded his confession and seized the stolen property from him under panchanama. The evidence of PW.3, corroborates the evidence of PW.4 i.e., investigating officer who stated that he has arrested the accused No.1 and seized the stolen property from his possession. The evidence of PW.3 and seizure part of panchanama fully supports the version of PW.4 and though the PW.3 cross examined no material could be elicited to discredit his version. Thus, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 inspires confidence in prosecution case as to the seizure of stolen property from the possession of the accused

No.1 However there is no recovery of case property pertaining to this crime from the possession of accused No.2 as such the charge is not proved against the accused No.2.

19]As the PW.3 clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused No.1, this court holds prosecution could establish the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 and also contents of seizure part of panchanama under Ex.P3 is clearly proving that police arrested the accused No.1 while in possession of the stolen property. The properties from whom the possession of accused No.1 was recovered, failed to furnish the account having possession of the accused No.1 as the accused No.1 could not furnish the Account for the property found in his possession, this court holds that

CC. No.232 of 2016 7 Dt: 23-12-2019

presumption is to be draw under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence

Act that the property recovered from the accused No.1 is the stolen property. Therefore, this court found that there is cogent evidence on record to prove that the stolen ornaments were seized by the police from the possession of the accused no.1 for which he could not furnish the account. Thus, the prosecution though could not make out the case under Section 457 and 380 IPC but successfully proves the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC. However, the prosecution failed to prove the seizure from the possession of accused

No.2 as such the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against the accused No. 2. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 and the content of

Ex.P3, this court holds that prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and he is liable to be convicted accordingly.

20] In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. and accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under

Ection 248(1)of Cr.P. C.

The jail authorities are directed to release the accused No.2 if he is not required in any other cases or crime.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2019.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

Plea of accused No.1 on quantum of sentence:

Accused is questioned as to the quantum of sentence being imposed on him and pleaded that he is coolie and having burden to

CC. No.232 of 2016 8 Dt: 23-12-2019

maintain his family. He submitted that he is languished in jail for more than eights months and thus sought to take lenient view in imposing sentence upon him.

Heard the counsel for accused No.1. In support of quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused in the above discussion he was found that accused was found in possession of stolen property and he could not furnish any account for the same. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under section 3 and 4 of P.O Act to the accused. Further considering the worth of property involved and age of the accused and his plea as to the family background, this court holds that accused is liable to punished which shall equate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of (08)

Eight months. Since the accused already in jail from the date of remand i.e., 03-06-2016 to 23-06-2016, 17-04-2018 to 15-11-2018 and 01-11-2019 to 05-12-2019, therefore the remand period shall be set off for offence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The case property MO.1

Necklace, Bracelet, Gold chain, Silver Bowls given to PW.1 for interim custody vide Crl.MP.No.552/2016, dated 24-11-2016 and the same shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court. Office is directed to provide free copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of December, 2019.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

FAC II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I class,

Kothagudem.

CC. No.232 of 2016 9 Dt: 23-12-2019

Appendix of Evidence

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1/LW.1Boppana MangasriDefacto complainant

PW.2/LW.4Guguloth MuraliPanch for Crime Detail Form

PW.3/LW.7 Bhukya RamsinghPanch for confession & Recovery Panchanama

PW.4/LW.10 Syed IbrahimApprehended the A1

PW.5/LW.12 P. Satyanarayana Reddy Investigating Officer

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report.

Ex.P2Crime Detail Form

Ex.P3Admissible portion in confession cum recovery Panchanama

Ex.P4First Information Report

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

Material objects marked:

MO.1: Necklace, Bracelet, Gold chain, Silver Bowls.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

KOTHAGUDEM,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

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

KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Smt P. Devi Manasa, III Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem. 

Dated, this the 24th day of July, 2018.

C.C.No. 296/2016

Between:

The State through S.I of Police. P.S. II Town Kothagudem,(Cr.No.17/2012) …Complainant.

And

A1. Bandari Yesu Raju, S/o: Punna Rao @ Punnaiah, age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie, A2. Bandari Venkatamma, W/o: Punna Rao @ Punnaiah, age: 55 years, Occ:House­wife, A3. Bandari Punna Rao @ Punnaiah, S/o: Veera Swamy, age: 60 years, Occ:Coolie, A4. Bandari Naga Raju, S/o: Punna Rao, @ Punnaiah, age: 24 years, Occ:Coolie, All R/o: Rachannagudem, Jellugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District. 

… Accused. 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Sr.A.P.P for complainant and Sri G.V.Hari Prasad and Sri N.V. Rajesh, advocates

for accused, upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the

arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a case of subjecting a married woman to cruelty by demanding

additional dowry.

2.The brief facts of the case are that LW.1/Bandari Chandrakala was wife of accused No.1 and their marriage was performed in the year 2003, at

Rachanagnagudem village. At the time of marriage the parents of LW.1 (PW.1) had given Rs.1,00,000/­ cash, gold and other house hold articles to accused. They lead happy marital life for some period later accused No.1 and LW.1 were blessed with 2 two female children. After birth of female child, A1 to A4 started harassing

PW.1(LW.1) mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry to bring from her parents house. When LW.1 and her family members expressed their inability,

A1 to A4 necked out the LW.1(PW.1) from the house. Later they reported the matter to village elders, the village elders conducted several panchayats and admonished the A1 to A4 and sent the LW.1 for conjugal life. But A1 to A4 did not change their attitude and started threatening the LW.1. Later LW.1(PW.1) came to

PS and lodged a complainant.

3. Basing on report LW.14/SI of police registered a case in Cr.No.17/2012, U/sec.

498­A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. During the course of investigation, investigating Officer/PW.12 recorded the statements of LW.s1 to 3. Later he visited the scene of offence, and secured the presence of LW.s 4 and 5, examined and recorded their statements, drawn the rough sketch and incorporated in the crime

Detail Form. Later LW.13 (PW.11) recorded the statements of LW.s. 6 to 10. On 14­02­2012 the accused No.1 to No.4 came to PS and surrendered before the

Investigating Officer/PW12 and voluntarily confessed their guilt. Immediately he effected the arrest of accused and sent them to judicial remand. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 498­A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act was taken against the accused. On appearance of the accused, and after furnishing copies of documents, the accused were examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. for the substance of allegations. Then charge u/ss 498­A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused. On the question of plea, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.To prove the case of the prosecution PW.s1 to PW.13 were examined as witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked as documents on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating material appeared against them to which they denied and reported no defence on their behalf.

7.Heard the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Accused and perused the record. The counsel for accused relied on several decisions.

1.  AP Natari Parvathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003(2) ALD Criminal 731

2. Atluri Ravindra Vs State of AP and another reported in 2006(3) ALT criminal 82 AP, 

3. M. Madhusudhan Rao Vs state of rep., by W.P.C., C.I.D., PS Hyderabad reported in 2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 301 (A.P)

8.Now the point for determination is that whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.498­A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt?

9. In support of case, the prosecution examined complainant as PW.1, and her brother was examined as PW.2, eye witnesses are examined as PW.4 and PW.5, panchayath elders are examined as PW.3, PW.6, PW.7. PW.8, and PW.11, Panch witness for Crime Detail Form was examined as PW.9 and PW.10, the person who recorded the 161 Cr.P.C., statements of LW.s 6 to 10 is examined as PW.11 and the Investigation Officer is examined as PW.12.

10. PW.1 in her evidence testified that her marriage was solemnized with A.1 at

Rachanagudem. At the time of marriage their marriage Rs.1 Lakh cash and one gold ring was given to the accused, they are blessed with two daughters. Later for 4 giving birth of two female children, all the accused started harassing for want of

additional dowry. She also deposed that the accused necked her out from the

house. The village elders of Rachhanagudem by names Sunnam Varalaxmi,

Pullarao and Laxminarayana and two elders of Penagadapa village by names

Manne Venkateswarlu and Acha Nagaraju conducted panchayat at Penagadapa village. In the cross examination she admitted that she deposed in DVC that her mother is doing coolie works and they have no properties, and also she admitted that her mother was allotted Indiramma house as she has no house at all. In the cross examination she admitted that she did not give any document or photos to the police to show that, the accused married another woman. Further she denied all formal suggestions put to her by Learned Counsel.

11. PW.2 is brother of PW.1 deposed in similar version of PW.1. In cross examination he testified that, report was lodged with police after PW.1 reached to his parents house. The cross examination is with regard to financial capacity of their mother and to his mother not having no capacity to pay Rs.1 lakh cash, gold ring and house hold articles worth of Rs. 30,000/­, and about her mother living in

Indiramma house which was allotted by government to her and proceedings of

PW.1, DVC case which was filed against accused. He further denied formal suggestions put to him.

12. Eyewitnesses who speaks about the facts of the case is examined as PW.4 and

PW.5 they deposed that, they know the accused persons and they are neighours of to the family of LW.2 in Penagadapa village. They deposed about harassment meted out by PW.1 in the hands of A1 and conducting panchayath continuing of harassment by accused.. On that PW.1 again came to the house of LW.2 and made complaint to them, that A1 was beating her indiscriminately.

5

13. In the cross examination they stated that, they have not attended the marriage of PW.1. further deposed that A1 along with village elders came to the house of parents of PW.1 in Penagadapa village and conducted a panchayath.

Further they testified that, after conducting panchayath PW.1 has joined with A1 and after some period again came back to her parents house and later again panchayats were conducted. They further denied all the suggestions put to them by the learned counsel.

14. The panchayath elders are examined as PW.3, PW.6, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.13.

Except PW.3 other panchayath elders are i.e., PW.6, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.13 deposed that they do not know about PWs.1 to 5 and LW.9/Pulla Rao and so also accused. They do not know the facts of the case and never acted as panchayath elders between PW.1 and accused. In the cross examination nothing could be elicited from them except marking their 161 Cr.P.C., statements as in Ex.P2 to P4 and P7. Whereas PW.3 has testified about the marriage of PW.1 and accused No.1 and he deposed that, he attended their marriage. After some time disputes arose between PW.1 and A1 and they conducted panchayath. In that panchayath accused stated that they have two daughters as such they require additional dowry. After that the accused took PW.1 to his village. Some days they lived happily and again PW.1 informed him that the accused started harassing her again for want of additional dowry. After that he advised PW.1 to approach the police.

15. The panch witnesses for Crime Detail Form are examined as PW.9 and

PW.10 and stated that Police II Town Kothagudem obtained their signatures on some written papers, but they did not know its contents. They identified their signatures marked as Ex.P5 and PW.6. In the cross examination by the learned

APP nothing could be elicited in favour of prosecution.

6

16. The prosecution got examined PW.11, who recorded the statements LW.6

PW.3, PW.7, PW.8. He further stated that on the same day accused No.1 to 4 came to the police station and surrender before him by admitting their guilt.

Accordingly he arrested them and got produced before the Hon’ble court for judicial custody. Later he handed over the CD file to LW.14. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion that, the PW.6 to PW8 did not state as that of Ex.P2 to

Ex.P4. Investigation Officer is examined as PW.12 he deposed that, he registered the case, issued FIR, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

In the cross examination he admitted that, PW.2 did not state that A2 and A3 performed the second marriage with A1. He further admitted that alleged offence occurred at Rachannagudem of West Godavari District and also Penagadapa village.

17.The allegation of prosecution stand on ground that accused demanded

additional dowry, as such case of prosecution fall within ambit of (b) of Section

498­A IPC. The prosecution alleges that accused received dowry in cash and kind as such Section 3 of D.P.Act attract to present case. Admittedly the marriage of

PW.1 and accused was performed on 16.05.2003 and present report is lodged on 11.02.2012. Therefore charge under section of D.P.Act could not be maintained for want of limitation as stipulated under rules of Dowry Prohibition Act. As per the allegations in the report A.2 to A.4 instigated A.1 for demand of additional dowry, however PW.1 failed to depose any incriminating material against A.2 to A.4, therefore, lack of supporting evidence coming from victims mouth. The allegations against A.2 to A.4 under Section 498­A IPC could not be proved by prosecution.

18.The Learned counsel for accused relied on decision between Alturi

Ravindra v. State of A.P. and another reported in 2006(3) ALT(Crl.) 82 (A.P.),

7 held that where there is no specific instances of demand for additional dowry against accused. The case under Section 498­A IPC could not stand, therefore the observation in decision would be applicable as against A.2 to A.4. It is contention of prosecution that accused No.1 demanded additional dowry after birth of the female children. The evidence of victim support the stand of prosecution and state that accused No.1 demanded additional dowry for which panchayath was held

before the elders. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with evidence of his

brother who is examined as PW.2, the village elder examined as PW.3, PW.5. In the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, there is no specific mention of additional dowry amount, time, date of demand made by A.1.

19.The Learned counsel for accused relied on decision between Natari Parvati

V.State of A.P. reported in 2003(2) ALD Criminal 731 AP. In order to contend that in absence of specific dowry demand mentioned with particulars of point of such demand, the case of prosecution could not stand under Section 498­A IPC. It is true that in the evidence of PW.1 to 5 there is no specific mention made of specific additional dowry amount along with particulars of point of time of demand.

Therefore prosecution case could not sustain for proving charge under Section 498­A IPC as per ratio of decision referred above. Adding to that in cross examination of PW.3 to PW.5 motive is attracted to witness for deposing in favour of PW.1 being their villagers. It is required to be observed the other villagers PW.6 to PW.8 did not support case of prosecution and corroborate the evidence of PW.1 to 5. Therefore, these facts go against the case of prosecution. In order to state that prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the Learned counsel has also relied on decision between M. Madhusudhan Rao Vs W.P.C., C.I.D., PS

Hyderabad reported in 2006(2) ALT (Crl.) 301 (A.P.), in order to submit that in absence of corroboration stating presence of persons before whom accused demanded dowry, the case of prosecution cannot be believed. Thus ratio also apply 8 to present set of facts adding to discussion as made above creating reasonable doubt in case of prosecution. 

20. IN THE RESULT: the accused A­1 to A­4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 498­A of I.P.C., and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled subject to 437­A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of July, 2018. 

FAC II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

 Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW1: Bandari Chandrakala Complainant/victim ­None­ PW2: S. Sateesh brother of PW.1 PW3: A. Naga Raju Panchayath elder PW4: A. Savithramma Eyewitness PW5: P. Ramana @ Bujji Eyewitness PW6: S. Vara Laxmi Panchayath elder PW7: V. Pulla Rao Panchayath elder PW8: S. Laxmi Narayana Panchayath elder PW9: T. Narsimha Rao Panch for Crime Detail Form PW10: V. Rama Krishna Panch for Crime Detail Form PW11: B. John 1st Investigation Officer PW12: M.L.Muthilingaiah Investigating Officer PW13: M. Venkateswarlu Panchayath elder 

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P.1: Report ­NIL­ Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.6 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.6 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.8 Ex.P.5: First Information Report Ex.P.6: Crime Detail Form Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.13

Material Objects Marked

­Nil­

FAC II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Present: Smt.P.Devi Manasa, III A.J.M.F.C, Kothagudem. Kothagudem.

Friday, this the 3rd day of July, 2020

C.C.No: 1622 OF 2019

[Cr. No.74 of 2016, P.S I Town Kothagudem.]

Between:

The State, Through S.H.O,

P.S. I Town Kothagudem. ... Complainant.

And

Maloth Rooplal @ Lalu, S/o. Bikkulal, Age.24 years, Lambada, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Lingya Thanda, Balapala village, Kuravi Mandal of Warangal District. … Accused. -o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Sr. A.P.P for the state and Sri G. Maheshwar Rao, legal Aid counsel for the accused, upon hearing on both sides through video mode, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arise out of the charge sheet filed by the P.S.

Chunchupally against the accused for the offence under Section 337 IPC, u/S.181, 186 of MV Act.

2.Briefly stated the charge sheet allegations is to the following effect.

Smt B. Shravani is the complainant in the present case. She lodged a report with the police on 10.03.2016 stating that her husband is working as RTC contract driver and on 09.03.2016 after completion of his duty at night hours while returning to the home on his motor cycle bearing No. AP20-AD-8307, when he reached near Balu Naik Thanda the accused drove the motor cycle bearing

No.AP20-AK-5628 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her husband 2 motor cycle due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and accused left the crime vehicle at the spot and fled away.

3. On receipt of the above report, LW.10 has registered a case in

Cr.No.74 /2016 and issued FIR. Subsequently LW.11 took up further investigation and conducted scene of offence panchanama, recorded the statements of witnesses and collected medical certificate of LW.2. On 14.06.2016 the accused was arrested by LW.9 in Cr.No.158/2016 of P.S. Kothagudem I Town. During the interrogation, he confessed to committed theft of motor cycle bearing No.AP20

AK 5628 of Cr.No.69/2016 of Wyra P.S. and further confessed that while he was coming towards Kothagudem on the same night he has dashed the injured motor cycle and caused injuries to the LW.2 and left the above stolen motor cycle at the spot and fled away. The confession was recorded in the presence of mediators

LW.7 and LW.8. Later LW.11 obtained PT warrant and produced the accused

before the court for judicial custody.

4. Based on the report of the police, the Hon’ble I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem has taken cognizance of the offence under

Section 337 IPC and Sec.181, 196 of MV Act and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, accused was furnished with copies as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. At the stage of examination, the case was transferred to this court vide proceedings Dis.No.2255/ADM/DCK, DATED 07.04.2017 of the Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Khammam. Later accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. Accusation for the offence U/Sec. 337

IPC, Sec.181, 196 of MV Act, was explained to the accused and he denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.4 documents. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material that appeared against him in prosecution evidence, accused denied prosecution evidence as being false and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard Learned APPO and the Learned legal-aid-counsel for accused through Video Mode . Perused the record.

3

7. Now, the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused

for the offence U/Sec.337 IPC, Sec. 181, 196 of MV Act

beyond reasonable doubt?”

Point:

8.In order to prove the allegation against the accused for the offence under Section 337 of IPC the prosecution must prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and drove the crime vehicle in rash or negligent manner resulting in injuries to the injured. To prove the above, the prosecution adduced the following evidence. PW.1 is the complainant and the wife of injured. She deposed that her husband is working as RTC driver and about two years back while her husband was returning to home on his bike meantime when he reached the Balu Naik Thanda, one person came in drunken state from opposite direction on his bike and dashed her husbands motor cycle due to which he received injuries. She further deposed that her husband was shifted to hospital and was informed about the accident over the phone. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P.1 report. The legal aid counsel for the accused reported cross examination as nil.

9.The injured is examined as PW.2. He deposed that on 09.03.2016 after completion of his work at midnight while he was returning to his home on motor cycle bearing No. bearing No. AP20-AD-8307 and when he reached Balu

Naik Thanda one person came from opposite direction on his bike and dashed to the motor cycle due to which he received injuries. He deposed that due to rash and negligent driving of the alleged person the accident was occurred. He identified the person in the court hall who has dashed his motor cycle.

10.In the cross examination the legal aid counsel for the accused could not elicit any fact in favour of the accused and the suggestions put by the legal aid counsel for the accused are denied promptly by this witness.

4

11.The panch for CDF is examined as PW.3. He deposed in the lines of scene of offence panchanama.Through this witness the prosecution got marked

Ex.P2. He denied the formal suggestion given by the legal aid counsel.

12.The doctor who treated the injured is examined as PW.4. He deposed in the lines of report issued by him. Through this witness medical certificate of PW.2 is marked as Ex.P3. The legal aid counsel for the accused reported cross examination as nil.

13.The circumstantial witness is examined as PW.5. He deposed in the similar lines of PW.1 and PW.2. The legal aid counsel for the accused reported cross examination as nil.

14.The investigating officer is examined as PW.6. His testimony is only in the nature of legal formality of receiving the CD file from LW.10 verifying the investigation done by LW.10, arresting the accused and recovering the case properties pertaining to other crimes under the cover of panchanama and collecting medical certificate and filing of charge sheet. In cross examination, all the suggestions were put by the legal aid counsel for the accused are denied by this witness promptly.

15.The 1st investigating officer is examined as PW.7. He deposed that he received a complaint from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.74/2016 u/Sec.337 IPC and issued FIR. He deposed that he has conducted the scene of offence panchanama and prepared CDF. He further deposed that he handed over the CD file to PW.6. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P.4. In cross examination he denied the suggestion given by the legal aid counsel.

16.The evidence as referred to above in brief, it is observed that the prosecution is primarily able to prove that on the midnight of 09.03.2016 an accident took place near Balu Naik Thanda, in the above said accident the motor vehicle of PW.2 and the stolen motor vehicle of accused are involved. The vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident and injuries being sustained by PW.2. The report lodged by PW.1 is marked as Ex.P1 which 5 states that because of the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the accused the accident was occurred.

17.The evidence of the injured who also happened to be the eye witness is examined as PW.2 deposed the details of the accident stating that because of the rash and negligent driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP20-AK-5628 he sustained injuries and deposed that the motor cycle bearing No. AP20-AK-5628 was driven by the accused.Through this witness the prosecution got marked

Ex.P2.

18.In the cross examination, nothing could be elicited from the mouth of

PW.2 contrary to his evidence in chief examination. All the suggestions given to the witness was denied by him.

19.The investigating officers are examined as PW.6 and PW.7. They deposed about the investigation process like recording of statement of witnesses, registration of FIR, drawing of rough sketch and collecting medical certificate of

PW.2, arresting of the accused and filing of the charge sheet. The evidence of injured / eye witness who is examined as PW.2 is sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. The sole testimony of PW.2 in categoric terms speaks of accident details showing the involvement of accused being the driver of crime vehicle which is motor cycle resulting in injuries which are simple in nature being sustained by PW.2. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused. There remains no doubt in the case of prosecution for believing its case with the evidence produced by it.A cumulative reading of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 in conjunction with Exs.P1 to P4 gives a connotation that the accused being the driver of the motor cycle , drove it, in a rash and negligent manner and caused simple injuries to the injured.

20.The accused is also charged with section 181 of MV Act as the accused hold no valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident.

The fact whether the accused has valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident will be within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. So, the accused can produce his driving license even at the course of the trial. But, he did not do so. Hence, it can be presumed that the accused has no valid and 6 effective driving license at the time of the accident. The accused is also charged with section 196 of MV Act, on reading of provision of section 196 r/w section 146 of MV act, it is applicable to owner of uninsured vehicle whereas this section is not applicable to present set of facts. Hence, the accused is only liable for punishments under sections 337 of IPC and section 181 of MV Act. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of prosecution.

21. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section Sec.196 of M.V. Act, and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.255(1) of

Cr.P.C, however Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and Sec.181 of M.V. Act and accordingly he is convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court through video mode, on this the 3 rd day of July, 2020.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Plea of accused on quantum of sentence:

22.Accused is produced through video mode and questioned as to the quantum of sentence being imposed on him and pleaded that he is coolie and having burden to maintain his family. He submitted that he is languished in jail for more than six months and thus sought to take lenient view in imposing sentence upon him.

23.Heard the Legal-aid-counsel for accused and learned Senior

Assistant Public prosecutor through video mode. In support of quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused in the above discussion it is found that accused caused simple injuries to PW.2. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under section 3 and 4 of P.O Act to the accused. Further considering the injuries sustained by PW.2 and age of the accused and his plea as to the family background, this court holds that accused is liable to be punished which shall equate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

7

24.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 337 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months.

Further for the offence under Section 181 M.V. Act the accused shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Since the accused already in jail from the date of remand i.e., 18.12.2019 to 03.07.2020, the remand period shall be set off for offence under

Section 428 Cr.P.C. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court. Office is directed to provide true copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

25.As Accused is in judicial custody, jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court through video mode, on this the 3 rd day of July, 2020.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1: B. Shravani -None- P.W.2: B. Srinu P.W.3: B. Murali P.W.4: Dr. Sathyajith Naik P.W.5: K. Krishna P.W.6: R. Srinivas P.W.7: K. Shiva Prasad

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P.1: Report. -Nil- Ex.P.2: Crime Detail Form Ex.P.3: Medical certificate of PW.2. Ex.P.4: First Information Report.

8

Material objects marked:

-Nil-

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I class,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Present: Smt P. Devi Manasa, III A.J.M.F.C, Kothagudem.

Friday, this the 3rd day of July, 2020.

C.C. No: 1621 OF 2019.

[Cr. No.162 of 2016 of P.S. I Town Kothagudem]

Between:

The State, Through S.H.O, P.S.I Town Kothagudem. . . . Complainant.

And

Maloth Rooplal @ Lalu, S/o. Bikkulal, Age.24 years, Lambada, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Lingya Thanda, Balapala village, Kuravi Mandal of Warangal District. . . . Accused.

- o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and Sri G. Maheswar Rao, Learned Legal-aid-Counsel for the accused, upon hearing on both sides through Video Mode, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused faces charges under Section 457, 380 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.06.2016 the complainant came to PS and lodged a report stating that on 11.06.2016 he along with his family members went to village. On 12.06.2016 he returned to his house and found the house doors were broke open. On further observing he found gold chain worth Rs.42,000/- was missing. Hence 2 he made a complaint against unknown offenders for gaining entry into his house by breaking the doors and for commiting theft of gold chain worth Rs.42,000/- from his house.

2.Basing on the above complaint, LW.6 has registered the case against the accused in Cr.No.162/2016, Under Section 457, 380

IPC and investigated into. During investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted CDF and drawn rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators. On 14.06.2016 LW.7 effected the arrest of accused and conducted recovery panchanama in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation, LW.7 has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC.

3.On report of police, the Hon’ble I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Kothagudem has taken cognizance against the accused for

the offence U/sec. 457, 380 IPC and issued summons to accused. On appearance of accused, he was furnished with copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. At the stage of examination, the case was transferred to this court vide proceedings

Dis.No.2255/ADM/DCK, DATED 07.04.2017 of the Hon’ble Prl. District

Court, Khammam. Later accused was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C by explaining the charges levelled against him and upon hearing on both sides, charges was framed under section 457, 380 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused for which accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

3

4.The prosecution to prove its case, examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P4 and MO.1. After prosecution reported its evidence as closed the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him for which the accused pleaded guilty and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard the arguments on both sides through Video Mode.

Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the offence under Section

457, 380 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”

Point:

6.The prosecution in order to prove the offences under

Section 457, 380 IPC, examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P4 and MO1. The complainant is examined as PW.1, deposed that on 11.06.2016 he along with his family members went to Gouthampur by locking his house and on the next day morning at about 10-00 a.m. he returned to his house and observed the doors of the house were broke open and found missing of gold chain. He deposed that some unknown offenders has committed theft of his property. Through this witness the report is marked as Ex.P1 and MO.1 I.e( Gold chain) is also marked. He deposed that he took the MO.1 as interim custody. The learned counsel for accused reported cross examination as nil.

7.The panch for confession-cum-recovery panchanama is examined as PW.2. He deposed that on 14.06.2016 police conducted 4 confession-cum-recovery panchanama at by-pass road Kothagudem.

On enquiry with the accused he said to have confessed about commission of offences and police recovered the case property of this crime i.e., gold chain worth Rs.42,000/- along with properties pertaining to other crimes. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P2 admissible portion of confession-cum-recovery panchanama. In the cross examination, nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. He denied all the formal suggestion put to him by legal aid counsel for accused.

8.The panch for scene of offence is examined as PW.3.

Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P.3 which is crime detail form. In the cross examination, he denied the formal suggestion put to him by legal aid counsel for accused.

9.PW.4 is the investigating officer who arrested the accused on 14.06.2016 at by-pass road Kothagudem. He testified that On interrogation accused confessed the commission of this offence along with other offences and recovered the case property pertaining to this case i.e MO.1 and other cases under the cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and other case properties in the presence of mediators under the cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. In the cross examination, he denied all formal suggestions put to him by learned legal-aid counsel for accused.

5

10.Now coming to the appreciation of evidence, the case of prosecution is well spoken by PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 corroborating with

PW.4 evidence. In cross examination of PW.1 to PW.4, except giving formal suggestions to above witnesses nothing could be elicited in favour of accused.

11.On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that PW.1 stated about theft of gold chain, He is not direct or eye witness to the incident. There is no material in his evidence against the accused connecting him with the theft of stolen property. Though PW.3 supported the prosecution case about recording of scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.3. His evidence to the part of conducting CDF is of no use, as there is no recital in that document to connect the accused with the scene of offence or the crime. Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 or the testimony of Ex.P.3 cannot be used against the accused.

12.The evidence of PW.2 who are the panch for confession- cum-seizure panchanama clearly establishes the case of prosecution.

Though PW.1 to PW.4 were cross examined by the legal aid counsel, there is no material to discredit their version. However it is clear from the evidence of PW.1 that he is not the direct or eye witness to the theft in the house of PW.1.

13.To prove the charge under Section 457, 380 IPC, that accused committed theft of gold chain in the house of PW.1 and the 6 removal of the property by the accused from the possession of owner is to be directly established. There is no direct or eye witness to prove the ingredients for the said offence. The prosecution relied upon the confession of accused to connect him with the evidence of commission of theft. However, the confession of accused under Ex.P2 cannot be based to upheld the prosecution case as it was recorded in the immediate presence of police and thus it is hit under Section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. Therefore, this court hold that the prosecution could not make out the ingredients for the offence under

Section 457, 380 of IPC against the accused.

14.As per the provision of Section 222 Cr.p.C when the offence proved forms the part of the offence charged the accused is liable to be convicted for the proved charge. The offence under Section 411

IPC is an integral part of the offence under Section 380 IPC. Here it is case of prosecution that accused was apprehended by PW.4 while he was in possession of stolen property. PW.2, mediator clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused. PW2 clearly stated that police arrested the accused and recorded his confession and seized the stolen property from him under panchanama. The evidence of PW.2 corroborate the evidence of PW.4 i.e., investigating officer who stated that he arrested the accused and seized the stolen property from his possession. The evidence of PW.2 and seizure part of panchanama fully supports the version of PW.4 and though the PW.2 and PW.4 are cross examined no material could be elicited to discredit their version. Thus, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 7 inspires confidence in prosecution case as to the seizure of stolen property from the possession of the accused and moreover all the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of prosecution.

15.As the PW.2, PW.4 clearly stated about the recovery of stolen property from the possession of the accused, this court holds prosecution could establish the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 and also contents of seizure part of panchanama under Ex.P2 is clearly proving that police arrested the accused while in possession of the stolen property. The property from whom the possession of accused were recovered, failed to furnish the account for having possession of the same as the accused could not furnish the account for the property found in his possession, this court holds that presumption is to be drawn under Section 114(a) of Indian Evidence Act that the property recovered from the accused is the stolen property. Therefore, this court found that there is cogent evidence on record to prove that the stolen property was seized by the police from the possession of the accused for which he could not furnish the account. Thus, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 411 IPC. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and considering the evidence of PW.1 to PW4 and the content of Ex.P2 this court holds that prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and he is liable to be convicted accordingly.

8

16.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court through video mode, on this the 3 rd day of July, 2020.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Plea of accused on quantum of sentence:

17.Accused is produced through video mode and questioned as to the quantum of sentence being imposed on him and pleaded that he is coolie and having burden to maintain his family. He submitted that he is languished in jail for more than six months and thus sought to take lenient view in imposing sentence upon him.

18.Heard the Legal-aid-counsel for accused and learned Senior

Assistant Public prosecutor through video mode. In support of quantum of sentence to be imposed on the accused in the above discussion it is found that accused was found in possession of stolen property. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to extend the benefit under section 3 and 4 of P.O Act to the accused. Further considering the worth of property involved and age of the accused and his plea as to the family background, this court holds that accused is liable to be punished which shall equate and commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

9

19.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six (06) months. Since the accused already in jail from the date of remand i.e., 18.12.2019 to 03.07.2020, the remand period shall be set off for offence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The case property MO.1 given to

PW.1 for interim custody, and the same shall made absolute after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court. Office is directed to provide true copy of judgment to the accused forthwith.

20.As Accused is in judicial custody, jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case or crime.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court through video mode, on this the 3 rd day of July, 2020.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: Bhukya Valya -None- P.W.2: Bhukya Kumar P.W.3: Maloth Mahesh P.W.4: R. Srinivas

Documents marked:

For prosecution:- Ex.P.1 : Report of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 : Relevant portion of attested copy of Confession-cum- seizure panchanama 10

Ex.P.3 : Crime Detail Form. Ex.P.4 : First Information Report

For defence: -Nil- Material objects marked:

For prosecution:- MO.1 : Gold Chain worth Rs.42,000/-.

For defence: -Nil-

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Present: Smt P. Devi Manasa, III A.J.M.F.C, Kothagudem.

Friday, this the 20th day of December, 2019.

C.C. No: 397 OF 2018

[Cr. No. 67 of 2018 of P.S.III Town Kothagudem]

Between:

The State, Through S.H.O, P.S.III Town Kothagudem. . . . Complainant.

And

Mondem Srinivas @ Nalla Sreenu, S/o. Bhushanam, Age.40 yrs,Occ. Private Electrician,R/o. Writer Basthi, Gollagudem, Kothagudem. . . . Accused.

- o0o-

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and Sri R. Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is indicted for the offence under section 324 IPC of Cr.No.67/2018 of P.S. III Town Kothagudem Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: On14.04.2018 the complainant came to PS and lodged a report stating that on 13.04.2018 at 21.30 hours the accused and LW.3 were quarreling with each other at the house of LW.5, meantime LW.2/injured interfered and tried to pacify the issue, immediately the accused beat him with iron rod due to which LW.2 received injury and he was shifted to Government hospital, Kothagudem for treatment.

2

3.Basing on the report, LW.10 registered a case in cr.No.67/2018 u/Sec.324 IPC. During investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, drawn rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators. Later on 23.04.2018 effected the arrest of accused and produced before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.On the report of the police, this took cognizance of the offence under Section 324 IPC against accused and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents was furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Later the Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. and on hearing both sides, charge under Section 324 IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined 313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard Learned APPO and the Learned counsel for accused.

Perused the record.

3

7.Now, the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec. 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :

8.To prove the case under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.14. PW.1 is complainant, PW.2 is injured, PW.3 to PW.5 are eye witnesses to the incident, PW.6 is doctor who treated injured, PW.7 is Investigating officer, PW.8 and PW.9 are panch for CDF.

9. The complainant is examined as PW.1. She deposed that she know accused and LW.2 to 6. LW.2 is her husband. She deposed that about 1 ½ year back at 9-30 p.m while she was talking with her husband at the house of LW.5, they heard a galata which took place between accused and LW.3, wherein the LW.2 interfered in the quarrel and immediately the accused beat him on head with iron rod, due to which he sustained injury. She further deposed that he was shifted to hospital in 108 Ambulance. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P1.

10. In cross examination, she denied a suggestion that accused and her husband are close friends. She stated that there is electricity light at the scene of offence. She denied a suggestion that LW.2 is a alcoholic, fell on his own and sustained injuries. She denied formal suggestion put to her by the learned counsel for defence.

4

11. The injured is examined as PW.2. He deposed in the similar lines of PW.1. He testified that he received injury on his head since accused beat him with iron rod. He stated that he was shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance. In the cross examination, he stated that he is a social drinker. He denied the suggestion that accused was his friend. He denied a suggestion that he is a alcoholic and fell on his own and received injuries. He further denied formal suggestion put to him learned counsel for accused.

12.The eye witness is examined as PW.3. He deposed in the similar lines of PW.1 and PW.2. He testified that accused came to him and picked up a quarrel, meanwhile PW.2 interfered and tried to pacify, immediately the accused beat the PW.2 on his head with iron rod, due to which he sustained injuries. In the cross examination is similar to that of PW.1 and PW.2.

13.The other eye witness is examined as PW.4 and PW.5. they deposed in the similar lines of PW.1 to PW.3. Even the cross examination is similar to that of PW.1.

14.The panch for CDF is examined as PW.8. He supported the case of prosecution in his chief examination. In the cross examination, surprisingly, he stated that police obtained his signature on scene of offence panchanama.

15.The doctor who treated the injured is examined as PW.6. He deposed in the lines of report filed by him. Through this witness the prosecution got marked Ex.P2. In the cross examination he denied a 5 suggestion that he did not examine the injured person.

16.The investigating officer is examined as PW.7. He testified about receiving of complaint to till filing of charge sheet.

17.Now coming to the appreciation of above evidence, the PW.1 to PW.5 deposed in one voice that, PW.1 and PW.2 are present at the house of PW.5 on hearing the quarrel between accused and PW.3,

PW.2 interfered and tried to pacify the matter, immediately accused beat the PW.2 with an iron rod on his head, due to which he received injuries. The defence taken by the learned counsel for accused is the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of material object i.e., iron rod, hence primary ingredients u/s 324 IPC does not attract to case of prosecution. The second defence taken is that the panch for CDF did not support the case of prosecution hence there is lack of corroboration. The third defence taken up is that prosecution failed to examine scribe of the Ex.P1.

18.Now answering to first defence, with respect to the non- seizure of weapon a reference can be made to the Judgment of

Honorable High Court of A.P in Palvai Devaiah Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2013(1) ALD (Crl.) 99 A.P., wherein it was held that “ if a weapon used in the commission of offence was not seized it is not fatal to the case of prosecution, when the direct injured categorically stated about the factum of the accused inflicting injuries to the injured with the stick”. Hence in view of dictum laid by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Palvais’ case this court is of considered opinion that the non seizure of weapon used in the 6 commission of offence is not fatal to the case of prosecution, in the present case, the injured who is examined as PW.2 deposed that accused beat him with iron rod itself is sufficient to attract the ingredient under Section 324 IPC. His evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5, coupled with Ex.P2 to prove the case of prosecution. Except giving the formal suggestions nothing material could be elicited to discredit the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.

19. In order to answer the contention raised by the accused with regard to the non examination of the person who scribed Ex.P1. In this aspect, a reference can be made with the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in between Ashokray Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014(2) ALD. (Crl.) 596 SC. In this judgment at Para 14 the Hon’ble supreme court held that non examination of the person who scribed Ex.P1 at the dictation of PW1 is not a fatal to the case of prosecution. The dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashokray’s case rules out the contention of the defence in this case.

20.Though the panch for CDF did not support the case of prosecution, in several dictum's laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it held that “when the panch witness did not support the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution need not be thrown away”. Therefore, hostility of PW.8 does not touch the core case of prosecution. The testimony's of PW.1 to PW.5 need not be discard due to hostility of panch witness for CDF i.e, PW.8. In the light of the above, as the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 is completely in consonance 7 with each other and as the evidence of Medical Officer examined as

Pw6 and wound certificate as in Ex.P2 are clearly showing about the injuries suffered by PW.1 on 13.04.2018,court hold that there is nothing to discredit the evidence of PWs.1 to 7. Thus considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 in whole, in the view of aforesaid discussion this court is of opinion that prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Sec.324 IPC. Point is answered against accused and in favour of prosecution.

21.IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for the offence under

Section 324 IPC and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of December, 2019.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Plea of accused on quantum of sentence:

22.The accused is questioned on quantum of sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. He pleaded mercy stating that he is aged 40 years and submitted that he is in jail for more than 50 days as such pleaded mercy of this court in imposing punishment.

23. Considering the mitigating circumstances put forth by the accused, this court is of considered opinion that ends of justice would 8 be met if a lenient view is taken while imposing punishment. At the same time it is not a fit case to invoke the beneficial provision under the Probation of Offenders Act. In the result, Accused is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of

(06) Six months for the offence punishable under Section 324

IPC. The accused is in judicial remand from 31.10.2019 to 20.12.2019 the same shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment and sentence passed by this court. Office is directed to provide true copy of judgment to the accused.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20 th day of December, 2019.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence:

P.W.1: B. Swaroopa -None- P.W.2: B. Naresh P.W.3: B. Laxman P.W.4: B. Ranjith P.W.5: B. Sunitha P.W.6: Dr.Roobi Jackson P.W.7: B. Srinivasa Rao P.W.8: P. Rama Rao P.W.9: B. Veeresh Documents marked: For prosecution:-

Ex.P.1 : Report Ex.P.2 : Medical certificate of injured 9

Ex.P.3 : First Information Report Ex.P.4 : Crime Detail Form

For defence:

-Nil- Material objects marked: -Nil-

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Kothagudem.