Smt P.Haneesha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: DHONE.

Present: - Smt.P.Haneesha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

Dated Tuesday, the 16 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.606/2018

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Krishnagiri Police Station in Crime No.50/2017... Complainant

- Versus –

1) Dommara Ramesh, aged 26 years S/O D.Govindurajulu,

2) Dommara Govindarajulu, aged 55 years S/O Late D.Venkataramudu,

Both are natives of Pandirlapalli Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District.

.. Accused

This case is coming to me on 11-04-2024, before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Nagabhushana Reddy and Office, Advocates for Accused and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station has filed Charge- sheet against the Accused in Crime No.50/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:-

The Defacto complainant/PW1 and the Accused No.2 are own brothers and are residents of Pandirlapalli Village, Krishnagiri Mandal and are having landed disputes. On 13-06-2017 at 07-00 hours, at the outskirts of Pandirlapalli Village, in the field of the Complainant, the Accused No.1 and 2 trespassed into his land, armed with deadly weapons, beat LW1 and caused bleeding injury to his little finger and leg and also on his back. By seeing the arrival of LW3 to 5 to the scene of offence, the Accused No.1 and 2 ran away from there, thinking that PW1 would die.

Basing on the written complaint of the Defacto complainant, PW6 registered a case in Cr.No.50/2017 for the offences punishable u/Sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into and after completing of investigation, PW6, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and issued summons.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.Accused No.1 and 2 are examined under section 239 of Criminal

Procedure Code. Charges were framed against them for the offences punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to them in Vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P5 got marked. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of the defense. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and reported defense evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard Arguments on both the sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the Points for determination are:- (1) “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 447 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?” (2) “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Point No.1:

(i) Section 441 of IPC defines Criminal trespass. Section 447 of IPC provides punishment for criminal trespass. The essential ingredients as necessary to constitute the offence of Criminal trespass are as follows:- 1.Entry into or upon property in the possession of another; 2.If this entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property; 3.Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent. 4.To Commit an offence; or 5.To intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property

(ii) In the instant case, Ex.P1 avers that there are issues between Accused

No.2 and PW1 regarding partition of Ac.7.80 cents in Sy.No.394, in which, he got

Ac.04.10 cents and Accused No.2 got Ac.03.70 cents only. When there is existence of disputes between Accused No.2 and PW1 regarding the field and also, as it is not the case of partition of Ac.7-80 cents into 2 equal parts, then the prosecution or

PW1 should file the necessary documents showing possession of PW1 over Ac.4-10 cents in Sy.No.394 but, failed to do so. In the absence of the same, this Court 3 cannot hold that the accused No.1 and 2 made an entry upon the field in the possession of PW1 only. Thus, there is no material on record to show that the possession of Ac.04-10 cents in Sy.No.394 was parted and was handed over to PW1.

Then, Charge under Section 447 of IPC against the accused, is said to be not proved by the prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

10. Point No.2

(i) Ex.P1 avers that on 13-06-2017 at 7 A.M, PW1 went to his field to work, then the Accused No.1 and 2 were ploughing his land illegally, then PW1 raised objection for the same, by that time, the Accused No.1 and 2 abused PW1 by saying that “ Emira Naakodaka, ninnu Champi Nee Polanni Purthiga Akraminchukuntamu” and they tried to kill PW1 with Axe and sickle brought along with them, then while

PW1 was running, accused No.1 tried to hack him with sickle, then PW1 kept his right hand, as a result of which, his right hand little finger got sustained injury. PW1 fell down, Accused No.1 hacked on his leg with sickle and Accused No.2 with backside of axe, beat on his back, then LW3 to 5 were running near to the scene of offence, then Accused No.1 and 2 thinking that PW1 would have been died, left the scene of offence. Quite contrary to Ex.P1 averments, PW1 in his chief-examination evidence deposed that Accused No.1 tried to hack him with sickle but when he raised his left hand, it caused bleeding injury on his little finger. And Accused No.1 hacked on his left leg when he fell down on the ground as a result of which, he got sustained bleeding injury and Accused No.2 beat him with axe on his back, as a result of which, he got sustained dumb injury. Thus, there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 as to the place of injury and PW1 exaggeratedly deposed before this Court that he got sustained bleeding injury, because of the alleged acts of the Accused.

(ii) As per Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, LW3 to 5 came to the scene of offence immediately after the incident and they shifted him to Police Station. So,

LW3 to 5 are material witnesses in the present case. However, the evidence of LW3 is closed by this Court in view of filing of death certificate of LW3. LW4 is examined as PW4. He deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of the present case and he did not witness anything and Police did not examine him. Due to 4 hostility of PW4, the learned A.P.P.cross-examined him and his 161 Cr.P.C

Statement is marked as Ex.P2. Hostility of PW4 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

(iii) LW5 is examined as PW3. He merely deposed that on 13-06-2017 at about 7 A.M, while he was working in his field, the Accused No.1 and 2 were beating

PW1 with axe and sickle and on hearing cries, he reached the fields of PW1 but,

Accused No.1 and 2 went away from the scene of offence by carrying axe and sickle, then he noticed injuries on little finger of left hand and left leg of PW1 and also dumb injuries on the back of PW1, at that time, LW3 and 4 were also present and so, he enquired PW1 about the incident, then PW1 told him that the Accused

No.1 and 2 beat him due to land disputes and later, PW1 went to Police Station and gave report. Thus, PW3 did not specifically depose and narrate as to which accused beat PW1 and on where specifically. As per Ex.P1, Accused No.2 beat PW1 with back part of axe only but, PW3 deposed that Accused No.1 and 2 beat PW1 with axe and sickle. PW3 simply deposed before this Court that the Accused No.1 and 2 beat

PW1. Further, contrary to Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, PW3 deposed that PW1 went to Police Station and gave report. So, the evidence of PW3 is not much reliable and tenable.

(iii) PW5 is Medical Officer. He deposed about examining of PW1 and finding out the injuries i.e., i) lacerated injury over little finger size ½ x ½ cm, ii) lacerated injury on middle 1/3rd of the left leg, measuring approximately 2 x 1 cm., iii)

Contusion injuries on the left side of abdomen and back and finally, opined that the said injuries are simple in nature and accordingly, got issued Ex.P3 Wound

Certificate. PW1 did not depose anything about sustaining of injury on abdomen.

But, as per Ex.P3, PW1 also sustained contusion injury on left side of abdomen. As per Ex.P1, PW1 got sustained injury on right hand little finger. But, Ex.P3 shows that

PW1 got sustained lacerated injury on left hand little finger. Ex.P1 is silent about on which leg, PW1 got sustained injury. However, Ex.P3 shows that PW1 got sustained lacerated injury on middle 1/3rd of the left leg. Further, during cross-examination,

PW5 categorically admitted that the said injuries would not have been caused, if

PW1 was beaten with middle part of sickle and would not have been caused because of beating with axe and the said injuries would not be simple in nature, if

PW1 was hacked with sickle. PW5 also admitted that Ex.P3 is silent about the age 5 of the injury, he did not mention PC Number in Ex.P3 and he cannot identify PW1.

Thus, after going through the evidence of PW1, Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW5, it can be held that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution as to the place of injuries, nature of injuries sustained by PW1 and the cross- examination evidence of PW5 clearly show that those injuries would not be caused with axe and sickle. That means, the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 are not well corroborated by the medical evidence on record ie., evidence of PW5 coupled with

Ex.P3.

(iv) PW6 is Investigating Officer. He deposed about registration of Ex.P4

F.I.R, preparation of Ex.P5 rough sketch, receiving of Wound Certificate and about filing of Charge Sheet in the present case. During cross-examination, PW6 categorically admitted that as per his investigation, PW1 got sustained injury on right hand only, which goes contrary to Ex.P3 and oral evidence of PW1 to 3. As per cross-examination evidence of PW6, PW1 did not sustain any bleeding injury, he did not seize any material object and he did not conclude his investigation as to who are the aggressors and who are aggrieved parties. Non-Seizure of material object in the present case and non-concluding of investigation as to who are aggressors and who are aggrieved parties, are the lapses on the part of the investigating agency and it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

(v) In view of detailed discussion held in above paras, it is clear that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for offences punishable under

Sections 324 of IPC, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. There are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution. Then, it can be held that the accused cannot be charged for the offence punishable u/section 324 of IPC also.

Accordingly, point No.2 is also answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. Result

As Points No.1 and 2 are answered against in favour of accused and against the prosecution, it can be held that the accused are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

6

In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required u/s 437 Cr.P.C.

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

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Dhone

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 :Dobbara Neelakanteshwaraiah None PW2 :Dommara Prudhviraj PW3 :Dobbara Madhan Mohan PW4 :Boya Sudhakar PW5 :Dr.T.Chandrakala PW6 :S.Somla Naik,

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate Ex.P4 : First Information Report Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch

For Defence :- Ex.D1 Photograph.

J.M.F.C., DHONE.

7

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::DHONE

Calendar Case No.606/2018

1Date of offence:13-06-2017

2.Date of report: 13-06-2017

3.Date of filing: --

4.Date of appearance of the Accused: --

5.Date of commencement of trial:29-11-2022

6.Date of completion of trial:29-01-2024

7.Date of Judgment:16-04-2024

8.Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, KrishnagiriU.P.S.(Crime No.50/2017) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Name of the Accused. Father’s Name. Age. Calling, Religion. Residence --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Dommara Ramesh, aged 26 years S/O D.Govindurajulu,

2) Dommara Govindarajulu, aged 55 years S/O Late D.Venkataramudu,

Both are natives of Pandirlapalli Village, Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences U/Sections: 447, 324 r/w 34 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding : Accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty.

O R D E R:

In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 447, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required u/s 437 Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class Dhone

Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

C.C.No.312 of 2016.

Date of offence15.12.2015

Date of Complaint- Date of - apprehension Date of release- Date of 15.02.2019 commencement of trial Date of close of 03.01.2022 trial Date of Judgment03.02.2022

ComplainantRokkam Pedda Seshi Reddy, aged about 45 years, S/o R. Pedda Nagi Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Sankalapuram Vilalge, Bethamcherla Village, Kurnool District.

Name of the 1) Nagaturu Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 55 Accusedyears, S/o Late N. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation.

2) N. Raja Sekar Reddy, aged about 32 years, S/o N.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation.

3) Y. Chandra Shekar, aged about 35 years, S/o Y. Thulasi Ramudu (Ex.Serpanch), Hindu, Cultivation. All are R/o Sankalapuram village, Bethamcherla village, Kurnool District. OffenceUnder Section 323, 452, 506 of IPC FindingsFound not guilty. SentenceIn the result, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323, 452, 506 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused A1 to A3 shall be inforce for six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P. Haneesha,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

Copy to Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

//True Copy//

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class., Dhone.

2

Present:- Smt.P.Haneesha., Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

Thursday, the 03rd day of February, 2022.

C.C.No.312/2016

Between:

Rokkam Pedda Seshi Reddy, aged about 45 years, S/o R. Pedda Nagi Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Sankalapuram Vilalge, Bethamcherla Village, Kurnool District.

... Complainant

A N D

1) Nagaturu Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 55 years, S/o Late N. Pedda Ranga Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation.

2) N. Raja Sekar Reddy, aged about 32 years, S/o N.Ramakrishna Reddy, Hindu, Cultivation.

3) Y, Chandra Shekar, aged about 35 years, S/o Y. Thulasi Ramudu (Ex.Serpanch), Hindu, Cultivation.

All are R/o Sankalapuram village, Bethamcherla village, Kurnool District.

… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Mr. N. Narayana, Smt. M.

Kumari, Advocates for accused, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The complainant filed the complaint against the accused under

Sec.200 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 323, 452, 506 of

IPC.

2. The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-

The de-facto complainant and his family members are residing in

H.No.7-142 since long back at SANKALAPURAM VILLAGE, BETHAMCHERLA

VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. On 15.12.2015 at about 10.00 AM, the complainant and his wife R. Lakshmidevi and one Miduturi Venkata

Rameshwara Reddy were present in the house. Then, all accused illegally trespassed into the complainant house having made preparation for causing hurt to the complainant. At that time, all accused were in a drunken condition, abused the complainant in filthy language stating that 3 “Lanjakodaka ma pai dhone court lo suit file chesthava, mammulanu evaru emi chesukoleru, nennu champety evaru neeku dikku. Further, all accused beat the complainant with hands and legs. As a result, the complainant got contusions over his body. At the same time, the complainant’s wife and one

Miduturi Venkata Rameshwara Reddy came and rescued the complainant from the hands of all accused. Later, all accused threatened the complainant with dire-consequences and commanded to withdraw the suit, which is pending in the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Dhone, otherwise they would kill the complainant. The accused No.2 is own son of A1 and accused No.3 is friend of A2. The complainant rushed to the Bethamcherla police station and gave a written complaint about the above said incident. But, the police did not take any action against the accused. So the present complaint is filed as all accused have committed an offence punishable under section 452, 323 and 506 of the IPC.

3. On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences under Sec.323, 452 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A3, basing on the complaint.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Here, it is to be stated that, subsequently the matter was posted for Sec.244 Cr.P.C en- quiry and on perusal of record, neither there was examination U/Sec.239 of

Cr.P.C & the charges stood un-framed against accused and further trial started. Hence forth, having found the same by this court at the time the matter was posted for judgment, in order to protect the accused from vitia- tion of case proceedings, the matter was posted for framing of charges & for 239 Cr.P.C examination. All accused are examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and on hearing, the charges under Sec.323, 452 and 506 r/w 34 of 4

IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P.3 are marked. The accused are examined under section 313

Cr.P.C putting forth all incriminating material that appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witness. The case of accused is one of denial.

No evidence either oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.

6.Both counsels filed joint memo reporting no objection to treat the evidence already recorded as the evidence recorded after examination u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. It is after recording their submissions, the matter was posted for arguments.

7.Heard the arguments of complainant counsel and defence counsel.

8.Now the points for determination are :

1) Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3)Whether the complainant is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.Points No.1 to 3:- 5

For better appreciation of evidence and for arriving at proper conclusion, all the points for determination are discussed and decided together:

Pw1/complainant stated that on 15.12.2015 at about 10.00AM, while he was present in his house, the accused Nio.1 to 3 together trespassed into the house in drunken condition and abused him in filthy language by stating that why he has filed civil suit and if they kill him, there is no one to rescue him and thereby beat him with hands and legs, then his wife and his son-in- law Rameswar Reddy rescued him and the accused left the place and later on, he went to Bethamcherla police station but, the police did not take any action against the accused. Ex.P1 to P3 are marked through this witness.

Ex.P1 is house tax receipt, Ex.P2 is O/c of the legal notice dt.02.09.2015 and

Ex.P3 is certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.544/2015. During cross examination, Pw1 admitted that he did not file the copy of his complaint which he gave to CI of Police Station soon after the incident and there are about 3 to 4 houses near to his house and 600 house holds in their village.

Pw1 further admitted that they purchased the land subsequent to the accused from the same vendor and in the civil suit filed by him, they did not get any interim injunction order in their favour.

9.Pw2 is wife of Pw1. Her evidence goes in the lines of chief examination evidence of Pw1. During cross examination, Pw2 admitted that the accused possessed right of way across agricultural land which is disputed rastha and that accused are using the said rastha even till today. Pw2 further admitted that there are houses infront of their house facing the other side lane. Pw2 stated that Pw1 reported in his complaint that she was present out side the house and feeding the cattle, then the accused went inside the house and later on hearing hue and cries of her husband, she went inside the house. As per Pw2, Pw1 got treatment in the local doctor of her village, but 6 she does not know whether the same is reported by Pw1 in his complaint and also she does not know whether her husband approached the higher officials when the SHO has not taken his report.

10.A perusal of evidence on record avers that no document is filed by complainant/Pw1 to show his injuries. As per Pw2, Pw1 is examined by local doctor of their village but, he was not examined on behalf of complainant. No iota of evidence on record to show injuries to Pw1 on 15.12.2015. In such facts and circumstances, this court cannot held that the accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.323 of IPC.

11.As per Pw1, on 15.12.2015 at 10.00 AM, while he was present in his house, the accused No.1 to 3 criminally trespassed into his house in drunken condition and abused him and beat him with hands and legs, then, his wife and his son-in-law Rameswar Reddy rescued him but the accused left the place. Where as, Pw2 stated in her cross examination that while she was present outside the house and feeding the cattle, the accused went inside the house and later, on hearing hue and cries of her husband/Pw1, she went inside the house. The same is not averred in the complaint filed by the

Pw1. Further, Venkata Rameswara Reddy who was also present at the time of alleged incident, is not examined by complainant.

12.As per testimony of Pw1 and Pw2, there are houses near by the house of Pw1 and Pw2, but complaint is silent about the presence of independent witnesses at the time of alleged incident. It is the version taken by complainant that all villagers got fear to depose evidence on behalf of complainant, which sounds not reasonable to the court and hence, such version is not taken into consideration by this court.

13.Except the complainant/Pw1 and his wife/Pw2, no independent witnesses including one Venkata Rameswara Reddy who is eye witness to 7 the incident are not examined by the complainant to prove the alleged acts of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. Summing up all that has been discussed above, the complainant failed to bring home the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences punishable under Section 323, 452 and 506 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, points

No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of accused and against the complainant.

15.In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323, 452, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to

A3 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

18.Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in throough Blue Jeans Video App, this the 03 rd day of

February, 2022.

Sd/- P. Haneesha,

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: R. Pedda Seshi Reddy

P.W.2: Laxmi Devi

FOR DEFENCE: -- NONE –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- Ex.P1 : House Tax receipt stands in the name of the complainant Pw1. Ex.P2: O/c. of the legal notice dt.02.09.2015.

8

Ex.P3: Certified copy of plaint along with plaint plan in OS.544/2015 filed by the complainant herein.

M.O’s MARKED: --NIL—

Sd/- P. Haneesha,

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

//True Copy//

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: DHONE.

Present: - Smt.P.Haneesha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

Dated Monday, the 15 th day of April, 2024.

CALENDER CASE No.888/2016

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Dhone Rural Police Station in Crime No.154/2016... Complainant

- Versus –

Eediga Rama Krishna, S/O E.Govindu, aged 38 years, Thaduru Village,

Dhone Mandal. .. Accused

This case is coming to me on 12-04-2024, before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Nagabhushana Reddy and Office, Advocates for Accused and after hearing on both the sides, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone Rural Police Station has filed Charge- sheet against the Accused in Crime No.154/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:-

The Defacto complainant/PW1 and the Accused are having disputes with regard to the rastha leading to the fields in Thaduru Village of Dhone Mandal.

On 26-07-2016 at about 09-00 hours, PW1 and LW2 were proceeding on a Double

Bullock cart and their rastha was obstructed by the Accused by putting stones on the road and when they questioned, the accused abused PW1 in filthy language and threw stone on LW2, which gave hit on the head of PW1, resulting bleeding injuries on her head, also sustained bleeding injury over her left wrist and on that, the neighbours LW3 and 4 came there and the accused left that place. Basing on the written complaint of the Defacto complainant, PW5 registered a case in

Cr.No.154/2016 for the offences punishable u/Sections 324, 509 of IPC and investigated into and after completing of investigation PW5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. My Learned Predecessor has taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 324, 509 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and issued summons.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.Accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Charges were framed against him for the offences punishable under sections 324, 509 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to him in Vernacular. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P5 got marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the prosecution evidence were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same and reported defense evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the defense, no witness is examined and no documents are marked.

7. Heard Arguments on both the sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Now the Points for determination are:- (1) “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 324 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?” (2) “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case against the Accused for the offences punishable under sections 509 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Points Nos.1 & 2:

(i) As per Ex.P1, on 26-02-2016 at 7 A.M., while PW1 along with her husband/LW2 were going on bullock cart, the accused kept stones not to pass through Rastha, then LW2 asked accused as to why he kept stones, then Accused told that he would not allow them to pass through rastha, abused them in filthy language and further threw stone on her husband/LW2, then she intervened, as a result of which, she got sustained bleeding injury on her head and on her left hand wrist, immediately, PW1 and LW2 went to Police Station and gave report. However,

PW1 took exaggerated and improved version before this Court and deposed that

LW2 asked accused as to why he kept stones and requested him to remove the said stones, then the accused became grew wild, abused them in filthy language, hurled stones on her, as a result of which, she got sustained bleeding injury on her head and left wrist, at that time, the accused beat LW2 with stones, but he got sustained 3 dumb injuries only, at that time LW4 came there and rescued them and later, they went to Police Station gave Ex.P1 report. Thus, PW1 exaggeratedly and contradictorily deposed that the accused hurled stones on her, as a result, she got sustained injury on her head, left wrist and the accused also beat her husband with stones who got sustained dumb injuries, at that time, LW4 came there and rescued.

Then, it arises doubt as to how exactly PW1 got sustained injuries and whether LW2 got sustained injuries or not and also as to presence of LW4 at the scene of offence.

(ii) PW1 herself in the cross-examination admitted that she does not know the contents of Ex.P1. Further, surprisingly, PW1 voluntarily stated that one Manjula who is daughter of Accused rescued LW2 but, the same was not mentioned either in

Ex.P1 or in her 161 Cr.P.C.Statement.

(iii) Ex.P1 or the evidence of PW1 is silent about the presence of PW2 and rescuing of PW1 and LW2 by PW2. However, PW2 deposed before this Court that the Accused stopped PW1 and LW2 not to enter into their lands through his field and further, hurled stones on LW2 but, PW1 went to rescue him, as a result, PW1 got sustained injuries on her head and the accused abused PW1 and LW2 in filthy language, then he and LW4 rescued them. Thus, PW2 did not depose about sustaining of injury on left hand wrist by PW1 and did not depose about sustaining of any injuries by LW2 in her chief-examination evidence. But, contrary to chief- examination evidence of PW1, PW2 in her cross-examination deposed that LW2 got sustained injury on his head, left hand, legs and on some other parts and immediately after incident, they went to Hospital and the daughter of accused was not present at the scene of offence. Thus, there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and 2 which weakens the case of prosecution.

(iv) Though Ex.P1 is silent about the presence of LW4 at the scene of offence, PW1 clearly deposed in her chief-examination that LW4 rescued her and

LW2. So, LW4 who is examined as PW3 is material witness in the present case.

However, PW3 merely deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of the present case, he did not witness anything and Police did not examine him. Due to hostility of PW3, the learned A.P.P cross-examined him, his 161 Cr.P.C Statement is marked as Ex.P2. Hostility of PW3 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

4

(v) During chief-examination, PW1 deposed that they went to Police station immediately after the incident. However, contrary to it, she deposed in her cross- examination that they went to the Hospital immediately after the incident, LW2 also got sustained injury on his backside, on his head and left hand, thus LW2 got sustained 2 to 3 bleeding injuries on his head and he was in Hospital for one month.

However, Ex.P1 and the case of prosecution is silent about the sustaining of injuries by LW2 and no document is filed before this Court to show the injuries sustained by

LW2 because of alleged acts of the accused. PW4 who is Medical Officer and who examined PW1 deposed that he examined PW1 on 26-07-2016 at 10-50 P.M. As per

PW1 and 2, they went to Hospital immediately after the incident. As per Ex.P1, the incident was occurred at 9 A.M and Ex.P4 F.I.R shows that it was registered at 6 P.M.

But, Ex.P3 shows that PW1 went to Hospital at 10-50 P.M. Thus, it arises doubt as to exact time of Medical examination of PW1 also. During cross-examination, PW4 clearly stated that the Material Object is not mentioned in Ex.P3 and the age of the injury was also not mentioned and the said injuries may also have sustained if PW1 falls from bullock cart. Then, it cannot be held that the said injuries were sustained by PW1 because of the alleged acts of the accused on 26-07-2016 only.

(vi) PW5 is Investigating Officer. He deposed about registration of Ex.P4

F.I.R, preparation of Ex.P5 rough sketch, receiving of Wound Certificate and about filing of Charge Sheet. During cross-examination, PW5 clearly admitted that the scene of offence is surrounded by many fields and many persons were available but, he did not examine any of the independent witnesses at the scene of offence and PW1 and accused are having disputes regarding Rastha and also admitted that he did not seize stained clothes or any other material objects. Non-examination of surrounding witnesses at the scene of offence and Non-seizure of Material Object by

PW5 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

(vii)In view of detailed discussion held in above paras, it can be held that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused for offences punishable under Sections 324, 509 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly

Points No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

11. Result 5

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sections 324, 509 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of 6 months as contemplated u/s 437 Cr.P.C.

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

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of April, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Dhone.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution For Defence

PW1 :Eediga Lakshmi Devi None PW2 :Ediga venkata Lakshmi PW3 :Kuruva Ranganatham PW4 :Dr.K.L.N.Raju, PW5 :K.Rama Subbaiah

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate Ex.P4 : First Information Report Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch

For Defence :- NIL.

J.M.F.C., DHONE.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::DHONE

Calendar Case No.888/2016

1Date of offence:26-07-2016

2.Date of report: 26-07-2016

3.Date of filing: --

4.Date of appearance of the Accused: --

5.Date of commencement of trial:19-07-2023

6.Date of completion of trial:15-02-2024

7.Date of Judgment:15-04-2024

8.Complainant: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Dhone Rural P.S. (Crime No.154/2016) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.No. Name of the Accused. Father’s Name. Age. Calling, Religion. Residence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eediga Rama Krishna, S/O E.Govindu, aged 38 years, Thaduru Village, Dhone Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offences U/Sections: 324, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

Finding : Accused found guilty.

O R D E R:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sections 324, 509 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be inforce for a period of 6 months as contemplated u/s 437 Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class Dhone

Copy submitted: To the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

C.C.No.871 of 2015.

Date of offence29-08-2015 Date of Complaint29-08-2015 Date of apprehension Date of release---. Date of 28-07-2017 commencement of trial Date of close of trial5-01-2022 Date of Judgment07.02.2022 ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy P.S.

1)Golla Gyriboini Krishnudu, S/o Chinna Naganna, age 48 years, Name of the Accused Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

2)Golla Gyriboini Ananthamma, W/o Krishnudu, age 38 years, Rathnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

3)Gyriboini Yella Swami, S/o Krishnudu, Age 21 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

4)Burujula Lakshmi Devi, W/o Ramudu, age 36 years,Kondapeta, Dhone Town, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

5)Medaboini Lakshmi Devi, W/o Venkata Ramudu, age 48 years, Krishnapuram Village, Veldurthy, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

6)Pasula Someswari, W/o Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, P.R.Palle, Peapully Mandal, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

7)Udala Maha Lakshmi, W/o Maddileti, age 26 years, Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mansal, Caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer. Offence447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC FindingsFound not guilty. SentenceIn the result, accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 7 shall be in force for six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

Copy to Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class., Dhone.

2

Present:- Smt.P.Haneesha., Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

Monday, the 07th day of February, 2022.

C.C.No.871/2015

Between:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

... Complainant

Veldurthy Police Station.

A N D

1)Golla Gyriboini Krishnudu, S/o Chinna Naganna, age 48 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

2)Golla Gyriboini Ananthamma, W/o Krishnudu, age 38 years, Rathnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

3)Gyriboini Yella Swami, S/o Krishnudu, Age 21 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

4)Burujula Lakshmi Devi, W/o Ramudu, age 36 years,Kondapeta, Dhone Town, Caste- Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

5)Medaboini Lakshmi Devi, W/o Venkata Ramudu, age 48 years, Krishnapuram Village, Veldurthy, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

6)Pasula Someswari, W/o Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, P.R.Palle, Peapully Mandal, Caste- Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

7)Udala Maha Lakshmi, W/o Maddileti, age 26 years, Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mansal, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arose out of Crime No.172/2015 of Veldurthy Police Station registered against accused A1 to A7 for the offences u/Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC..

The brief case of prosecution is as follows: 2.

The de-facto complainant/PW1 and A1 to A3 are residents of Rathnapalli village,

Veldurthy Mandal. A4 is resident of Kondapeta Dhone Town, A5 is resident of Krishnapuram

Village, Veldurthy Mandal, A6 is resident of P.R.Palle village, Peapully Mandal, A7 is Resident of 3

Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mandal, PW1 is having 10 acres of land and is living by cultivation. At about 04 years back, the de-facto complainant/Pw1 purchased Ac.1.80 in survey

No. 118/2, one acres of hayrick yard situated in survey Nos. 1035/2, 1035/3, 986/1 and 986/4 for Rs.10,50,000/- from valkuri Lakshmi Narayana @ Golla Narayana and his son Valkuri

Mallikarjuna, Rathnapalli and since then, they were enjoying the above said lands. But the four sisters of Lakshmi Narayana filed a case in Civil Kurnool, against the complainant/Pw1 and their brother Lakshminaryana and his son Mallikarjuna and the said case is pending in the court. This year, he dug bore well in survey No.118/2 in Ac.1.86 in which he raised onion crop. While so, on 29-08-2015 with a view to cut the onions, the de-facto complainant/Pw1 along with PW2 to 6 went to their field, then accused were already in their field and damaging the standing onion crop with tiller, by that time, they did not see the number of the tiller. Due to the act of the accused A1 to A7, the complainant/Pw1 was affected with loss of Rs.4.00 lakhs. At about 12.00 hours, the complainant/Pw1 along with his brother, younger father went to the accused A1, by that time, he was in his hayrick yard and asked him about their act, for which, the accused A1 to

A7 threatened the complainant/Pw1 with dire consequences.

Basing on report of PW-1, Pw6 registered a case in Cr.No.172/2015 U/Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC of Veldurthy P.S. Pw8 filed final report against the accused A1 to A7.

3. On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A7.

4. On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation is read over to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. After closure of prosecution evidence and the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C putting forth all incriminating material that appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witness. DW1 is examined on behalf of accused and Ex. D1 to D3 are marked.

6. Heard the arguments of defence counsel. APP reported that his arguments may be treated as heard.

Now the points for determination are : 7.

1) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 447 of IPC ?”

2) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 427 of IPC ?”

3) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 506 r/w 34 of IPC ?”

Points No.1 to 3 :

8. All points No.1 to 3 for determination are decided together for the purpose of convenience and to arrive at just conclusion:

9. Out of all prosecution witnesses except investigating officer, PW5 is only an independent eyewitness to the incident as per case of prosecution. So, his evidence plays a crucial role. However, PW5 stated in cross examination that by the time they reached the fields, the accused already damaged the crop, then they were at a distance of 40 feet from them and they cannot see them and that he does not know who was the driver of tractor and colour of tractor. PW 5 further stated that he was not able to identify the colour of the tractor due to his poor vision. Then, it arises doubt as to presence and involvement of accused in the alleged 5 incident. Moreover, as per testimony of PW1 and PW 5, PW 5 is coolie worker in agricultural land of PW1 and PW 2. So, there is every chance to depose evidence in favour of PW1 and PW 2.

10. Pw6 is another eye witness to the alleged incident. However, PW6 did not depose anything before court against the accused. PW6 merely stated that at about 4 years ago while he was going for agricultural work, he found one tractor was tresspassing into the field of PW1, except that he did not witness anything. Thus, PW6 did not depose about involvement of accused in the alleged incident. So, the evidence of PW6 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

11. As per cross examination evidence of PW2, by the time PW 1 to 6 went to agricultural field, the accused were escaping from the lands on the tractor. So, they did not witness the alleged act of tilting of onion crop by the accused. Further, PW 2 stated that he did not listen to the contents of Ex.P1 and the police did not read over the contents of Sec.161 crpc statement. Even PW 4 stated in cross examination that by the time they reached fields, accused were not present. Ex. P1 avers that the accused harvested onion crop in one acre of land. Quite contrary to it, PW 3 stated that the accused harvested crop in half acre of land.

12. As per PW 7, he drafted Ex P4 rough sketch at scene of offense. But PW1 stated that it was drafted in the police station. As per evidence of PW 7 and as per Exhibit P3, information was received by police at 4:00 PM on 29/8/2015. But contrary to it, PW1 stated that police came to agricultural land at 1:00 PM on the date of alleged incident. The tractor,with which the onion crop was alleged to have been harvested, was not seized by the 6 police. No prosecution witness deposed about its description and its owner. It further weekens the case of prosecution.

13. Pw7 did not examine any independent witnesses. Except Pw5, Pw1 to 4 and PW6 are relatives. PW5 is permanent labour to PW1. So, he is also interesting witness. After going through the evidence of PW2 to PW 7, Whether PW 7 examined PW2 to 6 or not is doubtful.

14. Summing up all that has been discussed above, there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution and latches on the part of investigation. There is a lack of collaboration in the prosecution evidence. Then, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.

Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, points no. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

15. In the result, accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused

No.1 to 7 shall be in force for six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me through Blue Jeans Video App, this the 07 th day of February, 2022.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Ananthaiah 7

P.W.2: Damodar P.W.3: Sarveshwari P.W.4: Lakshmi Devi P.W.5: Subbarayudu P.W.6: Chintakuntala Murali P.W.7: S. Nazeer Ahmed.

FOR DEFENCE:

D.W.1: B. Lakshmi Devi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : Mee Seva Copy of Adangal Pahani. Ex.P3 : Original FIR. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Statement of Pw2 33rd line. Ex.D2: Certified copy of Judgment in OS. 227/2012. Ex.D3: Certified copy of Decree in OS.227/2012.

M.O’s MARKED: -- NIL –

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

C.C.No.871 of 2015.

Date of offence29-08-2015 Date of Complaint29-08-2015 Date of apprehension Date of release---. Date of 28-07-2017 commencement of trial Date of close of trial5-01-2022 Date of Judgment07.02.2022 ComplainantSub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy P.S.

1)Golla Gyriboini Krishnudu, S/o Chinna Naganna, age 48 years, Name of the Accused Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

2)Golla Gyriboini Ananthamma, W/o Krishnudu, age 38 years, Rathnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

3)Gyriboini Yella Swami, S/o Krishnudu, Age 21 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

4)Burujula Lakshmi Devi, W/o Ramudu, age 36 years,Kondapeta, Dhone Town, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

5)Medaboini Lakshmi Devi, W/o Venkata Ramudu, age 48 years, Krishnapuram Village, Veldurthy, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

6)Pasula Someswari, W/o Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, P.R.Palle, Peapully Mandal, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

7)Udala Maha Lakshmi, W/o Maddileti, age 26 years, Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mansal, Caste-Golla, Religion- Hindu, Occu- Farmer. Offence447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC FindingsFound not guilty. SentenceIn the result, accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused No.1 to 7 shall be in force for six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.

Copy to Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class., Dhone.

2

Present:- Smt.P.Haneesha., Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.

Monday, the 07th day of February, 2022.

C.C.No.871/2015

Between:

The State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

... Complainant

Veldurthy Police Station.

A N D

1)Golla Gyriboini Krishnudu, S/o Chinna Naganna, age 48 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

2)Golla Gyriboini Ananthamma, W/o Krishnudu, age 38 years, Rathnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

3)Gyriboini Yella Swami, S/o Krishnudu, Age 21 years, Rathnapalli village, Veldurthy Mandal, caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

4)Burujula Lakshmi Devi, W/o Ramudu, age 36 years,Kondapeta, Dhone Town, Caste- Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

5)Medaboini Lakshmi Devi, W/o Venkata Ramudu, age 48 years, Krishnapuram Village, Veldurthy, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

6)Pasula Someswari, W/o Nageswara Rao, age 28 years, P.R.Palle, Peapully Mandal, Caste- Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

7)Udala Maha Lakshmi, W/o Maddileti, age 26 years, Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mansal, Caste-Golla, Religion-Hindu, Occu- Farmer.

… Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of learned

A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for accused, and upon hearing, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This case arose out of Crime No.172/2015 of Veldurthy Police Station registered against accused A1 to A7 for the offences u/Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC..

The brief case of prosecution is as follows: 2.

The de-facto complainant/PW1 and A1 to A3 are residents of Rathnapalli village,

Veldurthy Mandal. A4 is resident of Kondapeta Dhone Town, A5 is resident of Krishnapuram

Village, Veldurthy Mandal, A6 is resident of P.R.Palle village, Peapully Mandal, A7 is Resident of 3

Narasapuram village, Veldurthy Mandal, PW1 is having 10 acres of land and is living by cultivation. At about 04 years back, the de-facto complainant/Pw1 purchased Ac.1.80 in survey

No. 118/2, one acres of hayrick yard situated in survey Nos. 1035/2, 1035/3, 986/1 and 986/4 for Rs.10,50,000/- from valkuri Lakshmi Narayana @ Golla Narayana and his son Valkuri

Mallikarjuna, Rathnapalli and since then, they were enjoying the above said lands. But the four sisters of Lakshmi Narayana filed a case in Civil Kurnool, against the complainant/Pw1 and their brother Lakshminaryana and his son Mallikarjuna and the said case is pending in the court. This year, he dug bore well in survey No.118/2 in Ac.1.86 in which he raised onion crop. While so, on 29-08-2015 with a view to cut the onions, the de-facto complainant/Pw1 along with PW2 to 6 went to their field, then accused were already in their field and damaging the standing onion crop with tiller, by that time, they did not see the number of the tiller. Due to the act of the accused A1 to A7, the complainant/Pw1 was affected with loss of Rs.4.00 lakhs. At about 12.00 hours, the complainant/Pw1 along with his brother, younger father went to the accused A1, by that time, he was in his hayrick yard and asked him about their act, for which, the accused A1 to

A7 threatened the complainant/Pw1 with dire consequences.

Basing on report of PW-1, Pw6 registered a case in Cr.No.172/2015 U/Sec. 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC of Veldurthy P.S. Pw8 filed final report against the accused A1 to A7.

3. On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A7.

4. On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation is read over to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. After closure of prosecution evidence and the accused are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C putting forth all incriminating material that appears against them in the evidence of prosecution witness. DW1 is examined on behalf of accused and Ex. D1 to D3 are marked.

6. Heard the arguments of defence counsel. APP reported that his arguments may be treated as heard.

Now the points for determination are : 7.

1) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 447 of IPC ?”

2) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 427 of IPC ?”

3) “ Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Secs. 506 r/w 34 of IPC ?”

Points No.1 to 3 :

8. All points No.1 to 3 for determination are decided together for the purpose of convenience and to arrive at just conclusion:

9. Out of all prosecution witnesses except investigating officer, PW5 is only an independent eyewitness to the incident as per case of prosecution. So, his evidence plays a crucial role. However, PW5 stated in cross examination that by the time they reached the fields, the accused already damaged the crop, then they were at a distance of 40 feet from them and they cannot see them and that he does not know who was the driver of tractor and colour of tractor. PW 5 further stated that he was not able to identify the colour of the tractor due to his poor vision. Then, it arises doubt as to presence and involvement of accused in the alleged 5 incident. Moreover, as per testimony of PW1 and PW 5, PW 5 is coolie worker in agricultural land of PW1 and PW 2. So, there is every chance to depose evidence in favour of PW1 and PW 2.

10. Pw6 is another eye witness to the alleged incident. However, PW6 did not depose anything before court against the accused. PW6 merely stated that at about 4 years ago while he was going for agricultural work, he found one tractor was tresspassing into the field of PW1, except that he did not witness anything. Thus, PW6 did not depose about involvement of accused in the alleged incident. So, the evidence of PW6 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

11. As per cross examination evidence of PW2, by the time PW 1 to 6 went to agricultural field, the accused were escaping from the lands on the tractor. So, they did not witness the alleged act of tilting of onion crop by the accused. Further, PW 2 stated that he did not listen to the contents of Ex.P1 and the police did not read over the contents of Sec.161 crpc statement. Even PW 4 stated in cross examination that by the time they reached fields, accused were not present. Ex. P1 avers that the accused harvested onion crop in one acre of land. Quite contrary to it, PW 3 stated that the accused harvested crop in half acre of land.

12. As per PW 7, he drafted Ex P4 rough sketch at scene of offense. But PW1 stated that it was drafted in the police station. As per evidence of PW 7 and as per Exhibit P3, information was received by police at 4:00 PM on 29/8/2015. But contrary to it, PW1 stated that police came to agricultural land at 1:00 PM on the date of alleged incident. The tractor,with which the onion crop was alleged to have been harvested, was not seized by the 6 police. No prosecution witness deposed about its description and its owner. It further weekens the case of prosecution.

13. Pw7 did not examine any independent witnesses. Except Pw5, Pw1 to 4 and PW6 are relatives. PW5 is permanent labour to PW1. So, he is also interesting witness. After going through the evidence of PW2 to PW 7, Whether PW 7 examined PW2 to 6 or not is doubtful.

14. Summing up all that has been discussed above, there are several contradictions in the evidence of prosecution and latches on the part of investigation. There is a lack of collaboration in the prosecution evidence. Then, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.

Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, points no. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

15. In the result, accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offences under section 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused

No.1 to 7 shall be in force for six months under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me through Blue Jeans Video App, this the 07 th day of February, 2022.

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone..

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Ananthaiah 7

P.W.2: Damodar P.W.3: Sarveshwari P.W.4: Lakshmi Devi P.W.5: Subbarayudu P.W.6: Chintakuntala Murali P.W.7: S. Nazeer Ahmed.

FOR DEFENCE:

D.W.1: B. Lakshmi Devi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Report. Ex.P2 : Mee Seva Copy of Adangal Pahani. Ex.P3 : Original FIR. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Statement of Pw2 33rd line. Ex.D2: Certified copy of Judgment in OS. 227/2012. Ex.D3: Certified copy of Decree in OS.227/2012.

M.O’s MARKED: -- NIL –

Judl.Magistrate of Ist Class, Dhone.