Smt P. Lakshmi Devi

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

COURT- CUM – JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: 1) Smt.P.Lakshmi Sarada, B.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Principal Magistrate), Vijayawada.

2) Dr.(Smt.) Shaik Haseena Begum, Member,

3) Dr.T.S.Rao, Member, Juvenile Justice Board.

Monday, this the 16th day of April, 2012.

J.C.C.No.23/2011

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Crime P.S.,

Vijayawada....Complainant

And

1Shaik Imran, s/o Munna, )16 years, Muslim, New Raja Rajeswaripet, Vijayawada.

2Shaik Mabu Subhani, s/o Babji, ) 16 years, Dudekula, Mastan street, Mahantipuram, Vijayawada. (Case against J2 is split up and numbered as JCC 75/12) 3Syed Dastagiri, s/o Mastan, )17 years, Muslim, Canal bund, Mosque lane, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.… Juveniles

This case is coming before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 13.4.2012 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and of Sri G.Ramesh, Advocate for J1 & J3, and this Court made the following:-

FINAL ORDER

The State has launched a criminal case against the juveniles for committing theft of Appache motor cycle, DVD player and VCD player, punishable u/s 379 and 380 or 411 IPC, as a result of investigation and reports (charge sheet) filed by the then Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., in pursuance of the report given by the defacto complainants.

2.The case of the State briefly stated is as follows :

LW1, Gorla Purna Krishna Reddy, filed a report stating that he is resident of Singhnagar and doing surgical business in

Narasimhanaidu street, Suryaraopet, that on 24.4.2010 at 23.00 hours, he parked his red colour Appache motor cycle, bearing No.AP 16 BA 5718, near Railway West booking and went into the station and returned within 15 minutes, and found missing of his motor cycle and the Sub-

Inspector received the report and registered it as FIR, in Crime

No.221/2010 u/s 379 IPC, took up investigation, visited the place of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LW1 and two other witnesses and recorded their statements.

LW4, Shaik Ahmed Hussain @ Saleem, filed a report stating that he is resident of Mahantipuram, and running VCD and DVD mechanic shop at Punja centre, that on 29.4.2010 at about 13.30 hours, when he went to his house to take lunch, keeping the doors half opened, some unknown offenders committed theft of his Takai DVD player and

Sony VCD player, from his shop, and the report was registered as a case in Crime No.229/2010 u/s 380 IPC and took up investigation, visited the place of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LW4 and two other witnesses and recorded their statements.

During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, II Town Police, apprehended the juveniles at Yerrakatta bridge down, on 4.5.2010 at 18.00 hours, in the presence of mediators, while they were coming on two motor cycles from Nizamgate centre and seized Appache motor cycle, AP 16 BA 5718 concerned to

Cr.No.221/2010, Takai DVD player and Sony VCD player, in

Cr.No.229/2010, along with another motor cycle of Bajaj Pulsor motor cycle bearing No.MH 31 BE 387 and one gas cylinder, concerned to

Cr.No.227/2010 of Krishnalanka P.S. and Cr.No.224/2010 of II Town

Crime P.S. respectively. The juveniles voluntarily confessed the offences and they were produce before the Board. Hence, the case.

3.The case was taken on file u/s 379 & 380 or 411 IPC and after appearance of the juveniles, copies of all the documents were furnished to them as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4.On examination under Rule 13(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, the juveniles denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty of the offence u/s 379, 380 & 411 IPC when put to them in Telugu, and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the State, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.

6. After completion of evidence for the State, as J2 is not appearing before this Board since long, case against him is split up and numbered as JCC 75/2011, and J1 & J3 were examined u/s 13(4) of

Juvenile Justice Rules, to answer the incriminating evidence available on record and while denying the same specifically they reported no defence evidence. Evidence is closed accordingly.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The point for determination is whether J1 & J3 committed theft of motor cycle of PW1 and DVD player and VCD player of PW2. If so, whether the State proved the guilt of J1 & J3 for the offence alleged against them?

9.The case of the State is that PWs.1 & 2 are the defacto complainants and the motor cycle of PW1, and VCD player and DVD player of PW2 were stolen by some unknown persons and they gave reports to police. PW4 registered the report of PW2 and investigated the matter. PW5 registered the report of PW1 and investigated the subject matter. PW6 the Sub-Inspector of Police, during investigation, and on reliable information, along with mediators, he apprehended the juveniles and recovered several properties including the stolen properties in this case and seized them and produced the juveniles before the Board.

10.PW3 is one of the mediators and he was called by the police and he went to Errakatta bridge and the police have apprehended the juveniles and recovered two motor cycles and two DVD players and gas cylinder from the juveniles.

11.As already discussed above, PWs.1 & 2 do not know as to who have committed theft of their property. PWs.4 & 5 have registered the cases and examined the witnesses.

12.PW3, is an independent witness and mediator and his house is near to the police station and he was called by the police. He has acted as mediator and another person has also signed on the mediators report. His evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW6, the investigating officer. The evidence of both the witnesses shows that the police have recovered two vehicles, and DVD player and one gas cylinder. The description of the properties was clearly mentioned in the mediators report under Ex.P3 and they are corroborating with the evidence of PWs.3 & 6.

13. As such, it categorically shows that PW6 has recovered the property from the possession of juveniles and the property proved to be the stolen property of PWs.1 & 2. Under such circumstances, the juveniles 1 & 3 were caught by the police while being in possession of stolen property. They failed to give any explanation for holding the said property in their possession.

14.As such, the juveniles 1 & 3 proved to have been in possession of stolen property, without proper explanation and found in conflict with law for the offence u/s 411 IPC. The State failed to prove that juveniles 1 & 3 are not conflict with law for the offences u/s 379 & 380 IPC. The social investigating reports of J1 and J3, show that the juveniles are staying with family members and due to moving with bad associates, they have caught bad habits. Under such circumstances, and since the juveniles have crossed the age of juveniles, though they were juveniles at the time of committing the crime, it is sufficient, if the juveniles are directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- for their future behaviour.

13.In the result, J1 and J3 are found in conflict with law for the offence punishable u/s 411 IPC and they are directed to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/ - for their good behaviour, in future, for a period of one year u/s 15(4) of Juvenile Justice Act.

M.Os.1 to 3 which were already returned to PWs.1 & 2, is kept pending till disposal of case against J2 in JCC No. 75/2012.

J1 & J3 aged about 19 years and plying auto for livelihood.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court dated this the 16th day of April, 2012.

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board-cum-II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1.

2.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

STATE : JUVENILE :

P.W.1 : G.Purna Krishna Reddy

P.W.2 : Shaik Ahmed Hussain @ Saleem

P.W.3 : P.Venkata Apparao

P.W.4 : R.Sankara Rao

P.W.5 : K.Sambasiva Rao

P.W.6 : T.Srinivasa Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1.Nil

Ex.P2 : Report of PW2.

Ex.P3 : Relevant portion for seizure of property in mediators report.

Ex.P4 : FIR in Crime No.229/2010 u/s 380 IPC.

Ex.P5 : FIR in Crime No.221/2010 u/s 379 IPC.

Ex.P6 : Rough sketch.

M.Os. MARKED

M.O.1 : Red colour Appache motor cycle bearing No.AP 16 BA 5718 of PW1.

M.O.2 : DVD player of PW2.

M.O.3 : VCD player of PW2.

Principal Magistrate,

JJB-cum-II ACMM, Vja.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Smt.P.Lakshmi Sarada, B.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No.278/2008

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, L&O I Town P.S., Sector-II, Vijayawada city.…Complainant.

And

Koti Venu Babu @ Venu, s/o Suryanarayana, 25 years, Naidu, D.No.10-14-19, Akulavari street, Mallikarjunapet, Vijayawada.

This case is coming before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 11.4.2012 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and of Sri P.Paul Raj, Advocate for accused, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a criminal prosecution launched by the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Sector-II, Vijayawada, as a result of investigation and report (charge sheet), in pursuance of the complaint given by the victim against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 509, 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts as narrated in charge sheet are as follows :

On 26.2.2008 at 19.30 hours, LW1, Gunupudi Deepthi

Soujanya, resident of Vidyadharapuram, Vijayawada, came to the police station and lodged a report stating that previously she studied 10th class in

Jai Kison School, Samarangam chowk; that the accused is resident of

Mallikarjunapet and he is senior to LW1 in the 10th class, and she moved closely with the accused treating as friend, taking advantage of the same, the accused asked her to love him for which, LW1 rejected. Later LW1 completed her studies in Jai Kison School and now she was studying MCA II year in NIMRA college, Ibrahmpatnam, that the accused used to visit the city bus stop, where LW1 boards the bus, followed her and teased her like “I love you, I will marry you”, for which LW1 denied his proposal, on which, the accused grew wild against her and began harassment and also threatened her with dire consequences, that about one year prior to this report, LW1 informed to her father and her father and another, admonished the accused, that the accused kept quiet for sometime and later, again continued his teasing and then, LW1 gave report to police.

The then Sub-Inspector of Police registered the report as FIR in

Crime No.108/2008, u/s 509, 506 IPC, took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and examined the material witnesses and arrested the accused on 27.2.2008 and remanded him to judicial custody. Hence, the charge.

3.This case has been taken cognizance for the offence u/s 509, 506 IPC against the accused and after appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On examination u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the commission of offence and stated that he has got means to engage

Advocate, and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, the father of the victim girl was examined as PW1, and the brother of PW1 was examined as PW2, and the investigating officer was examined as PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

6.After completion of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. to answer the incriminating evidence available on record and while denying the same specifically, he reported no defence evidence to be adduced on his behalf, but got marked

Exs.D1 & D2, photos.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused insulted the modesty of LW1, G.Deepthi

Soujanaya, and also threatened her with dire consequences, and whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence leveled against him u/s 509 & 506 IPC?

9.PW1 is the father of the defacto complainant, who is the victim, and the accused was junior to the victim during school days and that the accused was coming behind the victim and asking her to marry him, but the victim did not agree for the same, and she has informed to PW1, on which they gave report to police.

10.PW2 is the brother of PW1, who knew that the accused was causing inconvenience to the victim girl, when she was at bus stop, by talking with her.

11.PW3 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, and he has registered the case and investigated the matter.

12.The victim is reported to be in U.S.A., and there is no chance for her to come to India. Her father i.e., P.W.1 identified the report lodged by her under Ex.P1. The facts elicited during the evidence of PW1 are that he did not personally see any incident of teasing, and he has advised his daughter to lodge police report, and he does not know that his daughter and the accused loved each other, and he has admitted the photos shown to him, which contains his daughter and the accused.

13. The defacto complainants was not examined before the Court to prove about the teasing of the accused. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 does not show that the accused did any overt acts with the defacto complainant.

Moreover, Ex.D1 & D2, photos, show that the defacto complainant and the accused stood close to each other. Under such circumstances, there is no evidence before the Court that the accused gave threats to the defacto complainant at any time. The evidence of PW2 also show that, the accused was just talking to the defacto complainant at the bus stop, asking her address particulars. PW2 did not depose about any other acts of the accused.

14. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 509, 506 IPC.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s 509, 506 IPC, and he is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 13th day of April, 2012.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : G.Subramaneswara Rao None

P.W.2 : M.Narasimha Rao

P.W.3 : M.Naveen.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF FOR

Ex.P1 : Report of LW1, G.Deepthi SoujanyaEx.D1 : Photo

Ex.P2 : FIR in Crime No.1098/2008 Ex.D2 : Photo u/s 509, 506 IPC.

M.Os. MARKED -Nil –

II ACMM, Vja.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No.278/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of

Offence Report or Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence Complainant of accused on bail of trial trial or order (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Prior to 26.2.2008 26.2.2008 27.2.2008 27.2.2008 18.1.2012 4.4.2012 13.4.2012

Explanation for delay and remarks(8)

This case was taken on file on 25.6.2008. On 17.2.2009 copies of documents were furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2011. P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined on 18.1.2012. Prosecution side evidence was closed on 4.4.2012. The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 11.4.2012. Heard arguments on 13.4.2012. Judgment pronounced on 13.4.2012. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No: 278/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, L&O I Town P.S., Sector-II, Vijayawada city.…Complainant.

Koti Venu Babu @ Venu, s/o Suryanarayana, 25 years, Naidu, D.No.10-14-19, Akulavari street, Mallikarjunapet, Vijayawada

Offence : U/s 509 & 506 IPC.

Finding : Not guilty.

Result : Accused is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, for favour of information.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT- CUM

– JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, VIJAYAWADA.

Present : 1) Smt.P.Lakshmi Sarada, B.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Principal Magistrate), Vijayawada.

2) Sri T.S.Rao, Member, Juvenile Justice Board.

3) Dr.(Smt.) Shaik Haseena Begum, Member, Juvenile Justice Board.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of April, 2012.

J.C.C.No.126/2010

Between:

State : Station House Officer, Challapalli P.S., Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Challapalli Police Station. …Complainant.

And

Inturi Raju, s/o Maniah, 16 years, SC Madiga, Amudalanka (v), Challapalli (M)....Juvenile

This case is coming before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 16.4.2012 in the presence of Lr. APP for the complainant and of Sri G.Ch.Appa Rao, Advocate for juvenile, and this Board made the following:-

FINAL ORDER

The State has launched a criminal case against the juvenile for committing theft of cash, punishable u/s 379 IPC, as a result of investigation and report (charge sheet) filed by the then S.H.O., Challapalli P.S., in pursuance of the report given by the complainant.

2.The case of the State briefly stated is as follows :

LW1, Nandipamula Savithri, gave a complaint stating that on 23.1.2010 at about 17.00 hours, the juvenile being the close friend of her son, LW2, N.Kanshiram came to their house and committed theft of cash of

Rs.26,800/- which was kept in pant pocket of LW2, escaped and found absconding, that LW1 placed the matter before village elders and they called the parents of juvenile and hold panchayat and the parents of 2 juvenile admitted the offence of their son and promised to repay the amount within short period, but failed to repay the amount. LW1 after waiting for long time turned up to police station.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Challapalli P.S. received the report and registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.19/2010 u/s 379, 506, 109 r/w 34

IPC against juvenile and six others being the parents and relatives of juvenile, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined

LW1, LW2 and six other connected witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 18.8.2010, the juvenile was arrested and produced him before the

Board. Hence, the case.

3.The Board has taken cognizance of the offence u/s 379 IPC and after appearance of the juvenile, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4.On examination u/s 251 Cr.P.C., the juvenile denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty of the offence u/s 379 IPC and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the State, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

6. After completion of evidence for the State, the juvenile was examined under Rule 13(4) of Juvenile Justice Act to answer the incriminating evidence available on record and while denying the same specifically he reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The point for determination is, whether the juvenile committed the offence of theft, and whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the juvenile for the offence levelled against him u/s 379 IPC?

9.The case of the State as unfold by its witnesses is that, PW1 is the defacto complainant, and the juvenile is their neighbour and friend of her son, and that she has obtained loan of Rs.37,500/- under DWAKRA scheme on 7.1.2010 and she kept Rs.26,800/- with her son, and that on 3 23.1.2010, her son and the juvenile went out for sometime and after return, her son took bath and later enquired PW1, whether she has taken the amount from his pant pocket and after discussion, she went to the house of juvenile and on enquiry, the juvenile admitted that he has taken the amount and she placed the matter before elders, but the family members of the juvenile came and raised dispute that she was branding them as thieves and threatened her, and her amount was not returned and as such, she gave report to police.

10. PW2 is the son of PW1, and he kept the amount given by PW1 in his pant pocket and the juvenile came along with him and returned back and later, he found that the amount was missing, and that he came to know that the juvenile handed over the amount, to his neighbours, Devanandam, and Jayamma etc.

11. PWs.3 & 4 are the villagers and they know that PW1 complained that theft was committed by the juvenile.

12. PW7 is the SI who has registered the case and investigated the mater and arrested the juvenile. The juvenile informed him that he spent the entire amount. PWs 5 & 6 are mediators in whose presence, PW7 said to have enquired the juvenile. But PWs 5 & 6 does not know about any such enquiry.

13.The evidence as discussed above reveals that the juvenile is a known person to PW1 and has access to their house. PW2 kept the amount for some days with him and then informed that the amount was missing.

14.The state did not produce any evidence that PW1 has obtained any such loan and the quantum of the loan. PW1 did not give any explanation as to why she kept part of such amount with her son for days together. PW2 did not state why he was moving around, by keeping such huge amount in his pant pocket, without taking precautions.

15. PW1 did not observe the juvenile committing theft. PW2 also did not see who has committed theft of money. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2, 4 show that PW1 did not observe that the amount was with her son till he informed that it was missing. PW2 said to have wore the pant in which the amount was kept and went out and he did not depose that he has checked for the safe custody of the amount at that time.

16.No amount was recovered from the juvenile and Pws.5 & 6 categorically stated that no enquiry was conducted by PW7, the IO with the juvenile in their presence. The evidence of PWs.3 & 4 also shows that the juvenile denied the commission of theft during their enquiry.

17. Under such circumstances, the state did not produce any evidence to prove that the juvenile has committed the theft of any amount.

The State did not produce any evidence that the juvenile was seen spending any such amount. Under such circumstances, the presumption of innocence of the juvenile is not ruled out and the State failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the juvenile committed any theft.

18.In the result, juvenile is not in conflict with law of the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC, and he is acquitted u/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

The juvenile is aged 19 years and attending to work.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me before the Board, dated this the 17th day of April, 2012.

Principal Magistrate,

Juvenile Justice Board-cum- II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1.

2.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

STATE: JUVENILE:

P.W.1 : N.Savithri None

P.W.2 : N.Kanshiram 5 P.W.3 : A.Raju

P.W.4 : N.Bhaskara Rao

P.W.5 : P.Tandavakrishna

P.W.6 : R.Rajeswara Rao

P.W.7 : S.P.V.Goud

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.P1 : Report given by PW1. -Nil-

Ex.P2 : Mediators report.

Ex.P3 : Signature of PW6 on the mediators report.

Ex.P4 : FIR in Crime No.19/2010 u/s 379, 509, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Ex.P5 : Rough sketch of scene of offence.

M.Os. MARKED

N I L

II ACMM, Vja.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Smt.P.Lakshmi Sarada, B.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No.309/2008

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police , Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada....Complainant

And

Gurram Bhanu Srikanth, s/o Subash Chandra Bose, 33 years, r/o 301, D.No.7-1-63/2, Maithri Enclave, Sankaran road,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad....Accused

This case is coming before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 12.4.2012 in the presence of Lr. A.P.P. for the complainant and of Smt.M.Raja Kumari, Advocate for accused, and this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a criminal prosecution on a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant, Gurram Srividya, before the Court u/s 190 & 200

Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC.

This court referred the same u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram, with a direction to investigate and report and on receipt of the same, the S.I. of Police,

Machavaram P.S. registered the same as FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-

A IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2.The brief facts as narrated in charge sheet are as follows

LW1, Gurram Srividya’s marriage was performed with the accused on 30.3.2002 at Tirupathi and at the time of their marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,25,000/- to the accused towards dowry, that later, LW1 went to her mother-in-law’s house at Hyderabad and on 19th May, the accused left her at her mother-in-law’s house and went to Sydney for job, that since that time, the accused harassed her by phone call from Sydney for bringing more money from her mother’s house and on that LW2,

P.V.Dhana Lakshmi, the mother of LW1, wrote an agreement that she would separate her property after the marriage of LW1’s sister, that on 13.12.2002, LW1 also went to her husband at Sydney and joined in Coles company to fulfill the debts of her husband and the accused cleared all his debts with the earned money of LW1, that on 8.7.2006 she gave birth to a son and the Australian Government gave some benefits to her family, but the accused took all the benefits and used for his debts, that on 10.12.2006 the accused along with LW1 and their son, came to Hyderabad from Sydney and later disputes arose between the accused and LW1, due to which, LW1 returned to LW2’s house at Vijayawada, that later, she left her child at her mother at Vijayawada, and went to Sydney for earning money, that at that time, the accused came to the house of LW2 and took away his son, thereby LW2 lodged a report at Machavaram P.S. and a case in

Cr.No.491/2007 u/s 363 r/w 34 IPC, was registered against the accused, later, on 5.10.2007, LW1 returned to India and lodged this report.

The report was registered as FIR in Cr.No.613/2007 u/s 498-A, 506 IPC and 156(3) IPC and took up investigation, examined LWs.1 to 9 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and the accused surrendered on 4.1.2008 and was released on bail. Hence, the charge.

3.The case has been taken cognizance for the offence u/s 498-A

IPC against the accused and after the appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On examination u/s 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the commission of offence and stated that he has got means to engage

Advocate. A charge has been framed u/s 498-A IPC and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the investigating officer was examined as PW1, and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Rest of the witnesses were given up by the learned APP, as the whereabouts of the defacto complainant/LW1, and her mother/LW2 are not known, the examination of other witnesses would become futile.

6.After completion of the evidence for the prosecution, since there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution to be answered by the accused, the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused harassed the defacto complainant/LW1, physically and mentally, thus imposed cruelty upon her and whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him u/s 498-A IPC.

9.During the course of trial, PW1 stated that on 5.11.2007 at about 9.00 p.m. he received a complaint endorsed from Court, and he registered the same as FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-A, 506 IPC and

Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. and examined LW1 - Srividya, LW2 – P.V.Dhanalakshmi, and recorded their statements and LW1 produced marriage photo and wedding card, that on 2.1.2008 he visited Hyderabad, and secured LWs.3 to 6, Vijay, Vimalsen Jhansi, P.Lalitha and A.Lakshmi, that again on 10.2.2008 he visited Hyderabad and secured presence of LWs.7 to 9,

Ratnakar Rao, Hemalatha, Vuyyuru Dhanalakshmi at Vijayawada and recorded their statements, that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. He denied that he did not examine any witnesses and he has conducted table investigation.

10.The prosecution filed a report stating that the whereabouts of the defacto complainant/LW1 and her mother/LW2 are not known and the rest of the witnesses were given up. Hence, the prosecution could not elicit anything against the accused, to prove his guilt.

10.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 498-A IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 16th day of April, 2012.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : P.E.Pavan Kumar Reddy None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.P1 : Report given by LW1, Gurram SrividyaNil

Ex.P2 : FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-A IPC.

Ex.P3 : Marriage photo

Ex.P4 : Wedding card.

M.Os. MARKED -Nil -

II ACMM, Vja.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No:309/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Offence Report or Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence Complainant of accused on bail of trial trial or order (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Prior to 30.10.2007 30.10.2007 20.9.2008 --- 12.4.2012 12.4.2012 13.4.2012 Explanation for delay and remarks(8)

This case was taken on file on 5.7.2008. On 20.9.2008 copies of documents were furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.2011. P.W.1 was examined on 12.4.2012 and on the same day prosecution evidence was closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence to be answered by the accused, the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with. Heard both sides arguments on 12.4.2012. Judgment

pronounced on 13.4.2012. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No: 309/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

State : Sub-Inspector of Police , Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada....Complainant

Gurram Bhanu Srikanth, s/o Subash Chandra Bose, 33 years, r/o 301, D.No.7-1-63/2, Maithri Enclave, Sankaran road,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad....Accused

Offence : u/s 498-A IPC.

Finding : Not guilty.

Result : Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE – CUM –

MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT: Smt.P.Lakshmi Sarada, B.Com., LL.M., II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2012.

C.C.No.309/2008

Between :

State : Sub-Inspector of Police , Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada....Complainant

And

Gurram Bhanu Srikanth, s/o Subash Chandra Bose, 33 years, r/o 301, D.No.7-1-63/2, Maithri Enclave, Sankaran road,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad....Accused

This case is coming before me for consideration today after hearing both sides on 12.4.2012 in the presence of Lr. A.P.P. for the complainant and of Smt.M.Raja Kumari, Advocate for accused, and this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a criminal prosecution on a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant, Gurram Srividya, before the Court u/s 190 & 200

Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC.

This court referred the same u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., to the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram, with a direction to investigate and report and on receipt of the same, the S.I. of Police,

Machavaram P.S. registered the same as FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-

A IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2.The brief facts as narrated in charge sheet are as follows

LW1, Gurram Srividya’s marriage was performed with the accused on 30.3.2002 at Tirupathi and at the time of their marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,25,000/- to the accused towards dowry, that later, LW1 went to her mother-in-law’s house at Hyderabad and on 19th May, the accused left her at her mother-in-law’s house and went to Sydney for job, that since that time, the accused harassed her by phone call from Sydney for bringing more money from her mother’s house and on that LW2,

P.V.Dhana Lakshmi, the mother of LW1, wrote an agreement that she would separate her property after the marriage of LW1’s sister, that on 13.12.2002, LW1 also went to her husband at Sydney and joined in Coles company to fulfill the debts of her husband and the accused cleared all his debts with the earned money of LW1, that on 8.7.2006 she gave birth to a son and the Australian Government gave some benefits to her family, but the accused took all the benefits and used for his debts, that on 10.12.2006 the accused along with LW1 and their son, came to Hyderabad from Sydney and later disputes arose between the accused and LW1, due to which, LW1 returned to LW2’s house at Vijayawada, that later, she left her child at her mother at Vijayawada, and went to Sydney for earning money, that at that time, the accused came to the house of LW2 and took away his son, thereby LW2 lodged a report at Machavaram P.S. and a case in

Cr.No.491/2007 u/s 363 r/w 34 IPC, was registered against the accused, later, on 5.10.2007, LW1 returned to India and lodged this report.

The report was registered as FIR in Cr.No.613/2007 u/s 498-A, 506 IPC and 156(3) IPC and took up investigation, examined LWs.1 to 9 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements, and the accused surrendered on 4.1.2008 and was released on bail. Hence, the charge.

3.The case has been taken cognizance for the offence u/s 498-A

IPC against the accused and after the appearance of the accused, copies of all the documents were furnished to him as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. On examination u/s 239 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the commission of offence and stated that he has got means to engage

Advocate. A charge has been framed u/s 498-A IPC and read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the investigating officer was examined as PW1, and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Rest of the witnesses were given up by the learned APP, as the whereabouts of the defacto complainant/LW1, and her mother/LW2 are not known, the examination of other witnesses would become futile.

6.After completion of the evidence for the prosecution, since there were no incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution to be answered by the accused, the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused harassed the defacto complainant/LW1, physically and mentally, thus imposed cruelty upon her and whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him u/s 498-A IPC.

9.During the course of trial, PW1 stated that on 5.11.2007 at about 9.00 p.m. he received a complaint endorsed from Court, and he registered the same as FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-A, 506 IPC and

Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. and examined LW1 - Srividya, LW2 – P.V.Dhanalakshmi, and recorded their statements and LW1 produced marriage photo and wedding card, that on 2.1.2008 he visited Hyderabad, and secured LWs.3 to 6, Vijay, Vimalsen Jhansi, P.Lalitha and A.Lakshmi, that again on 10.2.2008 he visited Hyderabad and secured presence of LWs.7 to 9,

Ratnakar Rao, Hemalatha, Vuyyuru Dhanalakshmi at Vijayawada and recorded their statements, that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. He denied that he did not examine any witnesses and he has conducted table investigation.

10.The prosecution filed a report stating that the whereabouts of the defacto complainant/LW1 and her mother/LW2 are not known and the rest of the witnesses were given up. Hence, the prosecution could not elicit anything against the accused, to prove his guilt.

10.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 498-A IPC and he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 16th day of April, 2012.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION : ACCUSED:

P.W.1 : P.E.Pavan Kumar Reddy None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.P1 : Report given by LW1, Gurram SrividyaNil

Ex.P2 : FIR in Crime No.613/2007 u/s 498-A IPC.

Ex.P3 : Marriage photo

Ex.P4 : Wedding card.

M.Os. MARKED -Nil -

II ACMM, Vja.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Case No:309/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Offence Report or Apprehension Released Commencement Closure of Sentence Complainant of accused on bail of trial trial or order (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Prior to 30.10.2007 30.10.2007 20.9.2008 --- 12.4.2012 12.4.2012 13.4.2012 Explanation for delay and remarks(8)

This case was taken on file on 5.7.2008. On 20.9.2008 copies of documents were furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.2011. P.W.1 was examined on 12.4.2012 and on the same day prosecution evidence was closed. Since there is no incriminating evidence to be answered by the accused, the examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with. Heard both sides arguments on 12.4.2012. Judgment

pronounced on 13.4.2012. Hence, the delay.

Judgment in C.C.No: 309/2008 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada.

State : Sub-Inspector of Police , Gunadala Sector, L&O Machavaram P.S.,

Vijayawada....Complainant

Gurram Bhanu Srikanth, s/o Subash Chandra Bose, 33 years, r/o 301, D.No.7-1-63/2, Maithri Enclave, Sankaran road,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad....Accused

Offence : u/s 498-A IPC.

Finding : Not guilty.

Result : Accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds stand cancelled.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.