P. Rahul Ambedkar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Rahul Ambedkar,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 28 th Day of June, 2019.

C.C.222 of 2015

Between:

State:Rep.by Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural P.S. Complainant

and

1.Seshadri Bhaskara Rao son of Kotaiah, aged 50 years, C/telaga, D.No.19-6-43, Lanchester road, Sangadigunta, Guntur. 2.Meka Victoria @ Victoriamma wife of Bhaskaxra Rao, aged 49 years, c/Hindu-Mala (SC) D.No.19-6-43, Lanchester road, Sangadigunta, Guntur. 3.Meka Ashok Babu son of Peraiah, aged 40 years, C/Hindu-Mala (SC) resident of D.No.3-29-7/32-D, Shaik Saidavali, Excise-Constable, Krishna Nagar, 1st lane, Opp.Electricity Sub Station, Guntur. 4.Pendem Koti Ratnam wife of Late Pitchaiah, aged 61 years, C/Hindu- Mala (SC), resident of 16/1th Lane, Nallacheruvu. 5.Vemula Syamala Devi wife of Nageswara Rao, aged 40 years, C/Hindu- Mala (SC), resident of 19/1 Lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur. 6.Parakandla Suresh son of Sivaiah, aged 21 years, C/Telaga, Koppuravuru village, Pedakakani Mandal. Accused

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri P.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 452,323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as to 'IPC' for sake of brevity).

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:-

Lws2 and 8 who belongs to different caste and married with each other on 14-08-2013 against the wishes of LW8's parents. Later, LW8 was taken away by A3 for attending a relative marriage and she was not sent back to LW2 and then, the matter was placed before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural and it was settled before the elders and LW8 was sent to their house. While so, on 20-10-2013 at about 3-00 a.m., some unknown persons scaled over the compound wall and attempted to break open the doors, on that, she woke up and open the doors and at that time, four male persons and three female persons trespassed into their house and attempted to attack her son who was sleeping. On witnessing the same, she went in rescue of her son, the accused forcibly taken away LW8 and when Lws1 and 2 objected them, they were beaten indiscriminately and were abused in the name of their caste and threatened them with dire 2 consequences. On hearing that, the surrounding persons tried to object them. But, they were threatened them with dire consequences and the accused persons taken away LW8 towards Tenali road in an auto. On 20-10-2013 at 10-00p.m. Lw1 went to the police station and gave a report to LW12 who registered it as a case in Crime No.253 of 2013 under Sections 452, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Thereafter, LW13 took up investigation and deleted Sections 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, as per the instructions of IGP South Coastal Range vide C.No.3685/C1/2014 dated 25-02-2015 and sent them for remand and after completion of investigation, Lw15 filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.One of my Learned Predecessors in office, took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections452,323 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 4.After appearance of A1 to A6, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C, for sake of brevity).

5.A1 to A6 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and the contents in the charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.22 on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the A1 to A6 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the testimonies of Pws1 to 8 were explained and read over to them, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Both the learned APP for the State and counsel for the accused submitted their arguments may be treated as heard.

9. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 452,323 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? Point:

10. To prove the above point, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws1 to 6. PW1 is the de facto complainant in this case. On perusal of her evidence, she categorically deposed that on 20-10-2013 at 3-00a.m., when LW2, 8 and herself were sleeping in their house, A3 and A6 came there and knocked on the door and she opened it and then, A1, A2, A4 and A5 also came into their house. She further deposed that A1 and A6 went into the room, in which, Lw2 was sleeping and all of them started beating him with their hands and legs and when she intervened A1 and A3 hit her in the stomach and A1 to A6 abused them in filthy language. She further deposed that A1 to A6 forcibly taken away Lw8 and Lws3 to 7 came to her house on hearing her screams and witnessed the incident. She further deposed that A1 to A6 beat them because Lw2 married LW8 against their wishes.

11.PW2 is one of the victim and eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that, he got married to LW8 on 13-08-2013 in a Church at Bilanapalli village and soon after the marriage, LW8 and himself lived in his grandfather's house in Kopalle village for a period of '8' days and thereafter A3 came to the house and took LW8 on the pretext that she has to attend the marriage one 3

Adinarayana and after that they never sent LW8 to him and in this connection, he met Superintendent of Police, Guntur along with one Dandamudi Rambabu and the matter was referred to Tenali Taluk police station and in the said mediation in the police station, A1 to A3 promised to send LW8 to him after completion of her studies and accordingly, they went their separate ways.

12.He further deposed that a month later, Lw8 informed him over phone that A1 and A2 threatened to kill themselves and further she did not come to him. He further deposed that, LW8 came to the bus stand and from there, he took her to his house in Atmakuru village. Four days later, he met with an accident in Guntur and he took treatment in NRI hospital for four days and after that, he went to his house.

13.On keen perusal of the evidence of PW1, the above facts deposed by Pw2 were nowhere deposed by her in her evidence.

14.PW2 further deposed in his evidence that on 20-10-2013 between 2- 30 to 3-00a.m., Pw1 knocked on his door and LW8 woke up and Pw1 asked her to open the door and when LW8 came out of the room, A1 and A3 were sdtanding in the room and he also came out of the room and saw them, then, he took LW8 into the room. Then, A1 to A6 came into the room and then A1, A3 and A6 pushed him onto the bed and caught hold of his upper body and A2 and A4 caught hold of his legs and removed his lungi, then, A1 and A6 beat him with hands on hisupper body, A2 kicked him in his tesdticles, then, he pushed all of them away and at that time, A2 and A4 tried to take away LW8 and when PW1 resisted them, A1 and A3 went there and pushed PW1 away, when Pw1 was trying to get up, A3 kicked Pw1 in her stomach. The above version of Pw2 is totally different to the version deposed by Pw1 with respect to the alleged incident and the specific overtacts of A1 to A6 in her evidence.

15.PW2 further deposed in his evidence that he tried to pacify the situation. But, A1 abused him by saying that “Neeku Maa Ammai Kavalsi Vachinda ra, Takkuva Na Kodaka”. The said fact was no where deposed by PW1 in her evidence and stated by her in Ex.P.1. PW2 further deposed that A1 to A6 were beating him in his bed room when Lws3 to 6 came there. This is totally different to the version of Pw1 in her chief examination and cross examination as she clearly deposed that Lws3 and 6 came to the scene of offence when LW8 was dragged out of the house by the accused persons.

16.PW2 further deposed that after A1 abused him, LWs3 and 6 asked him not to abuse and not to beat him and advised to sit to talk it out. A2 and A5 dragged LW8 out of the house when the neighbours intervened, they asked them not to interfere in their family matters when Pw1 intervened, A2 kicked him and A2 and A5 dragged LW8 for around 150 meters till Z.P.high school where they had arranged an auto and took her away. The said facts are nowhere deposed by Pw1. Even in her evidence or stated by her in Ex.P.1, it appears to be a material improvement made by Pw1 in his evidence.

17.PW2 further deposed that he called the police and handed over A3 and A6 to the police along with their bikes. But, the said fact no where deposed by Pw1 in her evidence or stated by her in Ex.P.1. There is a lot of inconsistent in between the evidence of Pws1 and 2 with respect of alleged incident and the specific overtacts attributed against A1 to A6.

4

18.Pw3 is an eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that in the year 2013, on the 20th Day of a month at 3-00a.m., he heard some loud noises from the house of Pws1 and 2 and saw three men and three women banging on the door of Pw1's house and abusing Pws1 and 2 in filthy language. He further deposed that PW2 opened the door when he asked him and then all the six persons barged into the room and three women kicked Pw2 on his testicles and all the said six persons abused Pws1 and 2 in filthy language. This is totally different to the version deposed by Pws1 and 2 as Pw1 deposed in his evidence that, she opened the door and A1 to A6 forcibly entered into their house and went into the room and Lws2 and 8 and Pw2 deposed that LW8 opened the door when Pw1 asked her . PW3 further deposed in his evidence that they handed over the wife of PW2 to A1 to A6 and she was taken away. This is totally contrary. Pws1 and 2 who clearly deposed that LW8 who is the wife of Pw2 forcibly taken away from their house. There is totally inconsistency between the evidence of Pws1 to 3 with respect of the alleged incident.

19.Pw5 is the wife of Pw1 and eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of her evidence, she clearly deposed that on 20-10-2013 at around 2-30a.m., Pw1 knocked out on their door and she open it and saw A1 and A3 holding the hands of Pw1 and then A3 hit Pw1 and she fell on the ground and Pw2 woke up on hearing the screams of Pw1. This is totally different to the version deposed by Pw1 in her evidence. She further deposed that immediately pulled her towards him onto the bed and hugged him tightly. Then, A1 to A6 came into the room and A3 caught hold of the neck of Pw1 and A1 started punching PW2 on his head and A5 and a6 caught hold of Pw2's legs and A2 came onto the bed and pulled the towel of Pw2 and kicked him on his testicles and A5 also kicked PW2 on his testicles. Then, she requested A1 to A6 not to hit Pw2 and told them that she will come along with them, A2, A4 and A5 caught hold of her tuft and dragged her out of the room and when Pw1 tried to obstruct, A1 and A2 kicked her again. A2, A4 and A5 dragged her out of the house and when Pw2 obstructed them, A2 and A5 kicked Pw2 on his chest. This is totally different to the version of Pw2 in his evidence. Wherein, he clearly deposed that Lws3 to 6 obstructed the accused and A2 and A5 dragged Pw5 out of the house. Further, PW2 no where deposed in his evidence that A2 and A5 kicked him on his chest when he obstructed them.

20.Pw5 further deposed that A2, A4 and A5 took her to their home in an auto and the husband of A5 was also present in the auto. But the said fact was nowhere deposed by Pw1 in her evidence.

21.PW5 further deposed that she was taken to the police station by A2, a4 and A5 at 11-00a.m., after Pws1 and 2 gave report against A1 to A6 at the police station. The said fact was nowhere deposed in their evidence.

22.On keen perusal of the evidence of Pw5 there is lot of inconsistency between her evidence and the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 with respect to the alleged incident and the specific overtact attributed against A1 to A6.

23.PW6 is another eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that on 20-10-2013 at 3-00a.m., he woke up to feed the cattle and at that time, he heard some screams from the house of Pw2. He ran there and saw the mother and father of Pw5 along with five others. He further deposed that, the father and mother of PW5 along with five others beat Pw2 and PW5's parents forcibly took her 5 from the house.

24.It is pertinent to note that PW6 did not deposed the name of even one of the accused person in his evidence. Pw6 did not depose about the events that were narrated by Pws1 to 3 at the scene of offence. Also, there is inconsistency between the evidence of Pw3 and Pw6 as Pw6 clearly deposed in his evidence that, Pw5 was forcibly taken from the house by her parents whereas PW3 deposed in his evidence thact they handed over PW5 to her parents. Pw6 deposed in his cross examination that he has stopped the persons who were beating PW2. PW2 nowhere deposed in his evidence that PW6 stopped the persons who were beating him. PW6 further deposed in his cross examination that PW3 and himself were intervened and tried to stop the dispute but the remaining people did not come forward to help. The said fact was nowhere deposed by Pws1 to 3 in their evidence.

25.PW4 is the doctor who examined PWs.1 and 2. This Court is unable to understand as to why Pw4 examined in this case as Pws1and2 nowhere deposed in their evidence about the injuries sustained by them at the time of the alleged incident. On perusal of the evidence of Pw4, he categorically deposed that he examined Pws1 and 2 on 24-10-2013 and their wound certificates under Exs.P.2 and P.3.

26.It is pertinent to note that Pws1 and 2 were examined by Pw4 four days after the alleged incident. If at all Pws1 and 2 had really sustained injuries, the police would have definitely sent them to the hostile when they went to the police station to give the report under Ex.P.1. But the fact remains on record they did not do so.

27.As stated earlier, Pws1 and 2 nowhere deposed in their evidence about the injuries sustained by them in the hands of A1 to A6. PW4 deposed in his evidence that the injuries sustained by Pw2 is mentioned in Ex.P.3 are simple in nature caused by nail and blunt object. Pw2 nowhere deposed in his evidence that he was beaten with a blunt object. Pw2 nowhere deposed in his evidence that he was beaten with a blunt object and pricked with nails.

28.In view of the above, it appears that, the ocular evidence of Pws1 and 2 is not at all corroborated with the medical evidence.

29.After excluding the evidence of Pws1 to 6, we are left with the evidence of Pws7 and 8 who are the investigating officers in this case. Pw7 is SDPO, North Division, Guntur. On perusal of his evidence, he deposed about receiving the report under Ex.P.1 and issued Ex.P.4 FIR. He further deposed that on 23-10-2013 at 9-00p.m., he received the proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Guntur and he took up investigation in this case and prepared Ex.P.5 rough sketch, Ex.P.6 scene observation report and examined and recorded the statement of Pws1 to 3,6 and Lws5 to 7. He further deposed that he obtained the caste certificate of A1 to A6 and Pws1 and 2 and obtained a legal opinion from the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and took permission from the Inspector of Police to delete the Section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and accordingly permission was granted under Ex.P.7.

30.On keen perusal of the cross examination of Pw7, he clearly admitted that none of the witnesses deposed in their 161 Cr.P.C.statement about the said specific overtacts of A1 to A6.

31.In view of the said admission, the facts deposed by Pws1, 2 and 5 in 6 their evidence with respect to specific overtacts of A1 to A6 appears to be material improvements made by them in their evidence.

32.Pw8 is another investigating officer who arrested A1 to A6 and filed charge sheet. The evidence of Pw8 is only relevant to the extent of his arrest of A1 to A6 and filing of charge sheet.

33.On keen perusal of evidence of Pws7 and 8, no incriminating material is found against A1 to A6 for the offence alleged against them.

34.As stated earlier, there is lot of inconsistency between the evidence of Pws1 to 3, 5 and 6 and with respect of the alleged incident and the specific overtacts attributed against A1 to A6. Therefore, their evidence does not inspire the confidence of the Court.

35.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence .

36.In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to theStenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th Day of June, 2019.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For complainant :

PW1 Dandamudi Merirojamma PW2 M.Ashok Prabhakar PW3 Nemalikanti Panaiah PW4 Dr.G.Vijaya Bharathi PW5 Seshadri Srinikitha PW6 Yerramala Kumar Babu PW7 M.Madhusudhanarao PW8 B.Ankamma Rao For Defence: None

Documents marked

For prosecution : Ex.P.1 Report given by Pw1 to Police. Ex.P.2 Wound certificate Ex.P3 Wound certificate of M.Ashok Kumar 7

Ex.P4 FIR Ex.P5 Rough sketch Ex.P6 Scene observation report. Ex.P7 SDPO proceedings. Ex.P8 Proceedings of SP, Guntur Urban dt.20-10-2013 appointing Pw7 as the investigating officer in the present case. Ex.P9 Caste certificate of PW1 Ex.P10 Caste certificate of PW2 Ex.P11 Caste certificate of A1 Ex.P12 Caste Certificate of A2 Ex.P13 Caste Certificate of A3 Ex.P.14 Caste Certificate of A4 Ex.P.15 Caste Certificate of A5 Ex.P16 Caste Certificate of A6 Ex.P17 Letter addressed to Addl.PP IV ADJ cum Spl.Court for SC&STcases Ex.P18 Legal opinion of Spl.P.P. Ex.P19 Letter dt.12.11.2013 addressed by PW8 to SP,Guntur Urban for deletion of Sections under SC & ST (POA) Act in this case. Ex.P20 Proceedings of Inspector General of Police, South Coastal Zone, Guntur Range, Guntur dt.25.2.2015 according permission to delete Section 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act in the present case. Ex.P21 Proceedings of SP, Guntur Urban Ex.P22 Original notice served to Pw1 informing her about the deletion of Sections 3(i)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act in the present case. For Defence: Nil MOs. Marked Nil.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

8

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Judgment in Calendar Case No.222 of 2015 Nature of Offence:under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of IPC

Date of Judgment 28-06-2019

Com menc Report of Apprehe Date of Release e Closure of Sentence or Offence complaina nsion of remand on bail ment trial order nt accused of trial

20-10-13 20-10-13 28-4-15 28-4-15 28-4-15 6-2-18 18-04-2019 28-06-2019

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused for some time and also the delay is due to non production of the witnesses by the prosecution for some time.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.222 of 2015

On the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural Police Station. Name of Age Father’s Religion Calling Residence Mandal accusedname 1.Seshadri Bhaskara Rao son of Kotaiah, aged 50 years, C/telaga, D.No.19-6-43, Lanchester road, Sangadigunta, Guntur. 2.Meka Victoria @ Victoriamma wife of Bhaskaxra Rao, aged 49 years, c/Hindu- Mala (SC) D.No.19-6-43, Lanchester road, Sangadigunta, Guntur. 3.Meka Ashok Babu son of Peraiah, aged 40 years, C/Hindu-Mala (SC) resident of D.No.3-29-7/32-D, Shaik Saidavali, Excise-Constable, Krishna Nagar, 1st lane, Opp.Electricity Sub Station, Guntur. 4.Pendem Koti Ratnam wife of Late Pitchaiah, aged 61 years, C/Hindu-Mala (SC), resident of 16/1th Lane, Nallacheruvu. 5.Vemula Syamala Devi wife of Nageswara Rao, aged 40 years, C/Hindu-Mala (SC), resident of 19/1 Lane, Nallacheruvu, Guntur. 6.Parakandla Suresh son of Sivaiah, aged 21 years, C/Telaga, Koppuravuru village, Pedakakani Mandal. Finding: Not guilty Sentence: In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

9

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri. P. Rahul Ambedkar,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of November, 2017.

C.C.No. 34 of 2014

Between :

State :Sub-Inspector of police,

Mangalagiri Rural P.S. ...Complainant.

And

1. Thadiboina Satyanarayana, S/o Chandrayya, Age 50 years, Yadava, Kuragallu.

2. Thadiboina Gopiraju @ Gopi, S/o Satyanarayana,

Age 25 years, Yadava, Kuragallu. ...Accused.

*****

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri. Namburi Yobu, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of police, Mangalagiri Rural police station, filed a charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 in Cr. No.224 of 2013 for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as 'IPC' for sake of brevity).

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 05-09-2013, P.W1-Venigalla Sankararao went to Bethapudi and collected outstanding balances from the villagers and after finishing the same, he left Bethapudi and was going towards Neerukonda road.

When he reached near the fields of Manyam Narayana at about 11:45 A.M,

A1 and A2 went to him and picked up a quarrel with him. Then, A1 beat

2

P.W1 with a stick on the left tibia and on the scalp and A2 beat P.W1 with a stick on the left fibula, right eye and left ear. P.W2 witnessed the incident.

Later, P.W1 was admitted to NRI hospital and from there he was taken to

Peoples hospital, Vijayawada. P.W6 recorded the statement of P.W1 and sent it to Mangalagiri Rural P.S where L.W8-Santhakumar, Head Constable registered it as a case in Cr. No. 224/13 U/secs. 326, 324 IPC. On 23-10- 2013 at 1:00 P.M, P.W7 arrested A1 and A2 at Kuragallu and sent them for remand. After completion of investigation P.W7 filed the charge sheet.

Hence the charge.

03. One of my learned Predecessors in office took cognizance against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/sec. 326, 324 IPC.

04. After their appearance before this court, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

05. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges under sections 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them by one of my Predecessors in office in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appearing against them from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 7 was explained to them for which they denied the same and reported no defence.

08. The learned APP for state argued that A1 and A2 beat P.W1 and caused grievous and simple injuries to him at the scene of offence. He further argued that P.W5 is the doctor who treated P.W1 and issued wound certificate. He further submitted that the ocular evidence of P.W1 is

3

corroborated with the medical evidence given by P.W5 and the wounds mentioned by P.W1 in his evidence are matching with the wound certificate under Ex.P3. As per Ex.P3, the injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injuries No.3 to 5 are simple in nature. He further submitted that P.W6 is the constable who recorded the statement of P.W1 at the hospital and

P.W7 is the investigating officer who did the entire investigation in this case. P.W7 conducted prompt investigation and was successful in establishing the charges levelled against A1 and A2. Therefore, the learned

APP for state prayed the Honourable court to convict the accused No.1 and 2 by considering the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 to 7.

09.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that P.W2 who is an eye witness in this case has turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that they are hearsay witnesses and therefore their evidence cannot be relied upon to prove the case of the prosecution. He further argued that there is a delay in lodging the FIR which was not properly explained by the prosecution. He further argued that P.W1 deposed in his chief-examination that he was beaten by rod and cut with a knife on his leg but he did not state the same in Ex.P1 and he admitted the same in his cross-examination. P.W1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state in Ex.P1 that some person had called his daughter over phone from scene of offence. He further argued that P.W5 admitted in his cross-examination about the corrections in Ex.P4 which is the hospital intimation. He further contended that there is no consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He finally argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt by placing convincing evidence.

4

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the accused No.1 and 2 attacked P.W1 with sticks and caused grievous and simple injuries with common intention and thereby they are liable to be punished for the charges U/secs. 326, 324 r/w 34 IPC?

11.To prove the above point, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W1 is the injured and the defacto-complainant in this case who deposed that on 05.09.2013, he went to Bethapudi village from

Mangalagiri in an auto and got down from the auto on the outskirts of

Bethapudi and he was proceeding towards Bethapudi by foot and when he reached near aayakattu at 11:45 A.M, A1 and A2 came from behind and hit him with a rod on the left side of his head due to which he fell on the ground and then they beat him with sticks on his left leg due to which he sustained fracture and they also attacked him with knife due to which he sustained cut injury on his left foot. He further deposed that after the incident A1 and A2 fled away from that place and an auto driver who was passing by saw him lying on the ground with injuries and called his daughter through his phone and shifted him to NRI hospital from where he was again shifted to Praja Vaidyasala, Besent road, Vijayawada. While he was undergoing treatment at the hospital police recorded the statement under Ex.P1.

12.According to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.2 to 4 are the material witnesses. Out of these, P.W2 totally turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and as such the learned APP for state declared him as hostile and cross-examined him by putforthing the contents in his 161 Cr.P.C statement which he clearly denied.

13.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, as contended by the learned counsel for the accused they are hearsay witnesses since they came to the scene of offence and hospital after the incident had occurred.

5

P.W3 deposed in his evidence that he was informed about the incident over phone and immediately he rushed to the scene of offence and saw P.W1 lying on the ground and shifted him to the hospital with the help of L.W3-

Punna Sankararao and there he came to know that A1 and A2 beat P.W1 and caused those injuries. Similarly, P.W4 deposed that he came to know about the incident over phone through his elder sister and rushed to NRI hospital where he was informed by P.W1 that A1 and A2 beat P.W1 and caused injuries.

14. Though the prosecution examined P.Ws.3 and 4 as eye witnesses for the alleged incident, their evidence do not disclose that they are eye witnesses. Therefore, the sole testimony of P.W1 is available to consider the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 beat P.W1 with sticks and caused grievous and simple injuries.

15. As seen from the cross-examination of P.W1, it is the defence of A1 and A2 that P.W1 foisted false case against them due to political rivalry but there is no further cross-examination establishing the said political rivalry.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for accused that P.W1 admitted in his cross-examination that there are corrections in 8th, 9th line and his signature in Ex.P1 and he also admitted that he has not given any report to the police on the date of the incident. The learned counsel for accused argued that the evidence of P.W1 is not reliable and trustworthy in view of the above admissions pointed out by him the cross-examination of P.W1. It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W1 went to the police station and gave a statement on the date of the incident. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W1 was admitted in the hospital by P.W3 and L.W3 from the scene of ffence. If that be so, it is not reasonable to expect P.W1 to report the incident to the police when he was admitted in the hospital with injuries.

6

16. The corrections made in Ex.P1 which are admitted by P.W1 are not made by P.W1 as he only narrated the contents of P.W1 to P.W7 who reduced it into writing. The corrections in Ex.P1 were confronted with P.W7 who actually scribed it.

17.The learned counsel for accused further argued that P.W1 admitted in his cross-examination that he neither mentioned in Ex.P1 nor stated

before P.W7 that A1 and A2 beat him with a rod and cut him with a knife

on his left leg but he deposed the same in his chief-examination which is nothing but material improvement and therefore his evidence cannot be considered about the alleged attack by A1 and A2 on P.W1. As contended by the learned counsel for accused, on perusal of Ex.P1 and Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1, P.W1 did not state the above improvements before the investigating officer. However, there is no suggestion put to P.W1 in his cross-examination that A1 and A2 did not beat P.W1 from behind with sticks at the scene of offence. The presence of A1 and A2 at the scene of offence was not disputed even by way of suggestions. So, in the absence of such suggestion, it can be adversely inferred that they were present at the scene of offence at the time of the incident.

18. A careful persual of the evidence of P.W1 reveals that his evidence is in no way discredited. Therefore, it can be said that the evidence of

P.W1 is credible, reliable and trustworthy with respect to the fact that A1 and A2 attacked him with sticks and caused injuries.

19. Now it has to be seen whether the ocular evidence of P.W1 is duly corroborated with the medical evidence or not. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W5. P.W5 is working as surgeon in Peoples Polyclinic, Vijayawada and he deposed that on 05.09.2013 at 6:30 P.M, he examined P.W1 and found the following injuries i.e., (1) Fractured left tibia, (2) fractured left fibula, (3) Laceration over right scalp, (4) contusion over right eye and (5) Cut laceration over left ear. He

7

further deposed that injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injuries

No.3 to 5 are simple in nature and issued Ex.P3 to that effect. On perusal of Ex.P3, it appears that there is no delay in treatment of P.W1 by P.W5.

There is no material cross-examination of P.W5 regarding the injuries sustained by P.W1 except putting formal suggestions that the above injuries can be sustained by a fall from higher ground. In fact, if any person falls on the ground from a height, he would not sustain the injuries as mentioned in Ex.P3.

20. Therefore, this court did not find any reasons to discredit the evidence of P.W5 and also the contention that the ocular evidence of P.W1 is not corroborated with the medical evidence. Even as per the evidence of

P.W1, he clearly deposed about the fracture to his left leg which is corroborated with injuries No.1 and 2 in Ex.P3. As observed earlier, P.W5 clearly opined that injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. So far as injuries No.3 to 5 are concerned, though P.W1 did not depose about them in his evidence, Ex.P1 clearly discloses the specific overtacts of A1 and A2 in respect of above injuries.

21. Viewed from any angle, the evidence of P.W1 is duly supported and corroborated with medical evidence. P.W6 is the constable of Governerpet,

P.S who deposed that after receiving the hospital intimation from Peoples polyclinic, Vijayawada on 06.09.2013, he rushed there and recorded the statement of P.W1 under Ex.P1 and sent the same to Mangalagiri Rural police station on point of jurisdiction.

22. As seen from Ex.P4 which is the hospital intimation received by

P.W6, there is a delay of one day. The delay is not due to P.W1 but it was because of the doctors who treated P.W1 at NRI hospital. It is the duty of the medical officers to inform the police and treat as a medico legal case when any person is admitted in their hospital with injuries sustained due to attack from known/unknown persons.

8

23. P.W7 being the investigating officer deposed that on 14.09.2013 at 10:00 A.M, he received Ex.P4 along with Ex.P1 and basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr. No. 124/13 U/secs. 324 r/w 34 IPC and issued

Ex.P5 FIR and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and prepared

Ex.P6 rough sketch and examined the witnesses and later, on reliable information, he arrested A1 and A2 on 24.10.2013 and sent them for remand. After receiving Ex.P3, he added section 326 IPC since the injuries

No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. The learned counsel for accused argued that there is a delay of nine days in registering Ex.P5 and there is no proper explanation from the investigating officer as to why he registered the crime with delay of nine days. He further contended that the investigating officer admitted such delay in his cross-examination.

24. As seen from the entire material on record, there is absolutely no delay on the part of P.W1 in giving the report under Ex.P1 and there is also no delay by P.W5 in treating P.W1. The delay of nine days is caused due to the latches on the part of the investigating agency which is not a ground to discredit and impeach the creditworthiness of P.W1 when his evidence is supported and corroborated with the medical evidence. It is settled position of law that when the ocular evidence of P.W1 is corroborated with the medical evidence, even non-examination of investigating officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In the present case on hand, there is only a delay in registering the FIR which is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution when the ocular evidence of P.W1 is duly corroborated with the medical evidence of P.W5.

25. On perusal of Sec 313 Cr.P.C examination of A1 and A2 though they took a plea that they were falsely implicated in this case due to political rivarly, they did not state the said aspect in their Sec 313 Cr.P.C examination.

9

26. On an overview of the evidence of P.W1, P.Ws.5 to 7 coupled with

Exs.P1, P3 to P7, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution is able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence that A1 and A2 beat P.W1 with sticks and caused grievous and simple injuries.

27. In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

the 21st day of November, 2017.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

When questioned about the quantum of sentence, A1 submitted that his family members are dependent on him and if he is detained in prison they would starve and suffer. A2 submitted that he has a wife and two young children who are dependent on him for their livelihood and if he is detained in prison they would starve. Having considered the submissions of

A1 and A2 apart from the facts and circumstances of the case, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/sec. 326 r/w 34 IPC for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/sec 324 r/w 34 IPC for a period of six months and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the fine amount paid by A1 and A2, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be given to P.W1 towards compensation U/sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the

21st day of November, 2017.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :For Accused :

P.W.1 : Venigalla Sankararao. None.

P.W.2 : Vasa Ramu.

P.W.3 : Damerla Rambabu.

P.W.4 : Venigalla Raja Raidu.

P.W.5 : Dr. Makineni Kiran.

P.W.6 : R. Ramu.

P.W.7 : Y. Satyanarayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused :

Ex.P1 : Statement given to the police by P.W1. Nil.

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of P.W1.

Ex.P4 : Hospital Intimation.

Ex.P5 : FIR.

Ex.P6 : Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

//True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MANGALAGIRI

CALENDAR IN C.C.34/2014

Date of Offence : 05-09-2013

Date of filing : 07-02-2014

Date of apprehension of Accused : 27-03-2014

Date of commencement of Trial : 06-03-2017

Date of close of Trial : 10-05-2017

Date of sentence or order : 21-11-2017

Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.224/13 of Mangalagiri Rural P.S.

Name of the Complainant : State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural P.S.

Description of Accused:1. Thadiboina Satyanarayana, S/o Chandrayya, Age 50 years, Yadava, Kuragallu.

2. Thadiboina Gopiraju @ Gopi, S/o Satyanarayana, Age 25 years, Yadava, Kuragallu.

Section of Law : U/Sections 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of Court : Found guilty

Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

When questioned about the quantum of sentence, A1 submitted that his family members are dependent on him and if he is detained in prison they would starve and suffer. A2 submitted that he has a wife and two young children who are dependent on him for their livelihood and if he is detained in prison they would starve. Having considered the submissions of A1 and A2 apart from the facts and circumstances of the case, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/sec. 326 r/w 34 IPC for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/sec 324 r/w 34 IPC for a period of six months and both the sentences shall run concurrently. Out of the fine

12

amount paid by A1 and A2, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be given to P.W1 towards compensation U/sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay :

After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C on 27-03-2014. On 19-04-2016, A1 and A2 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/sec.326, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. On 06-03-2017 P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P1 and P2 were marked. On 14-03-2017 P.Ws.3 and 4 were examined. On 02-05-2017 P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined and Exs.P3 and P4 were marked. On 10-05-2017 P.W7 was examined and Exs.P4 to P6 were marked and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 15-05-2017 the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. On 22-06-2017 heard arguments on both sides. On 27-06-2017 the matter is reopened for hearing the arguments. On 17.11.2017 heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 21-11-2017. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI

Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR JUDGE, MANGALAGIRI.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Rahul Ambedkar,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, the 28 th Day of June, 2019.

C.C.396 of 2015

Between:

State:rep. by the Inspector of Police, Thullur police station. Complainant

and

1.Thinnavalli Gopala Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 59 years, Sathani by caste, H.No.6-85, BC colony, Gottimukkala, Krishna District. 2.Thinnavalli Venkata Narasaiah son of Venkateswarlu, aged 53 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 3.Thinnavalli Srinivasa Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 43 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 4.Thinnavalli Venkata Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 39 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 5.Thinnavalli Bhagyalakshmi c/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 47 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and of Sri V.Bapireddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Thullur police station filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as to 'IPC' for sake of brevity).

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:-

LW1 is resident of Yerragunta village of Khammam District and he has 0-14 cents of land in Vaddamanu village vide D.No.88/A and he sold away 0-07cents out of 0-14 cents about ten years back and he is in possession of the remaining 0-07cents of land. Lw1 came to know that the accused are trying to occupy the vacant site and on receipt of said information, Lws1 to 4 rushed to Vaddmanu village and found that A1 to A5 had trespassed into their land and trying to construct a shed with asbestos cement sheets. When Lws1 to 4 questioned the accused about their illegal acts, the accused tried to beat them and threatened them with dire consequences. Due to fear, Lws1 to 4 fled away and informed the same to elders for justice but accused paid deaf ear to the advise of elders. LWs 5 to 7 who are the neighbours witnessed the incident on 22-01-2015 at 10- 2 00a.m. LW.1 went to the police station and gave a report which was registered as a case in Crime No.39 of 2015 under Sections 447, 506 read with 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, LW9 served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A5 and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

3.One of my Learned Predecessors in office took cognizance against the accused for the offences under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 4.After appearance of A1 to A5, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C, for sake of brevity).

5.A1 to A6 were examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C and the contents in the charge sheet were read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 on its behalf.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence appearing against them from the testimonies of Pws1 to 8 were explained and read over to them, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Both the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for A1 to A5 were submitted their arguments may be treated as heard.

9. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 read with 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? Point:

10. To prove the above point, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs1 to 8. PW1 is the de facto complainant in this case. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that he has 7 cents of agricultural land in D.No.88/A of Vaddamanu village. On 05-01-2015 at about 4-00pm, LWs 5 and 7 informed him over phone that A1 to A5 have trespassed into his land and shifting small pillars into the land. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence along with Lws2 to 4 and questioned A1 to A5 and then they came onto him and tried to push him and also abused him and Lws2 to 4 in filthy language. LWs5 to 7 witnessed the incident and the matter was placed before the elders but A1 to A5 did not listen to them. Ex.P.1 is a crucial document to the case of prosecution.

11. On perusal of recitals of Ex.P1, Pw1 stated that he came to know that some of the villagers of Vaddamanu village are trying to occupy their 7 cents of land in D.No.88/A of Vaddamanu village on 05-01-2015 at 4- 00p.m. He went to the scene of offence along with Lws2 to 4 and saw A1 to A5 had trespassed into their land and trying to build a shed.PW1 deposed totally contrary to the said version in his evidence by stating that LWs5 to 7 have informed him over phone that A1 to A5 have trespassed into his land and shifting small pillars into his land. There is a clear inconsistency between the evidence of Pw1 and the recitals in Ex.P.1 with respect to the alleged incident that occurred at the scene of offence.

3

13.Pw2 is the brother of Pw1 and an eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that on 05-01-2015 at 12-00p.m., Lws.5 to 7 informed PW1 over phone that A1 to A5 are trying to plant poles in their '7' cents of land in Vadlamanu village. He further deposed that he went to the scene of offence along with PW1 and Lws3 to 4 at 4-00p.m., and objected the acts of A1 to A5.

14.It is pertinent to note that Pw1 has deposed in his evidence that he received the information from Lws. 5 to 7 on 5.1.2015 at 4-00p.m., whereas, Pw2 deposed that PW1 received the said information at 12-00pm. P.W.2 deposed that he went to the scene of offence along with PW.1 and Lws.3 and 4 at 4-00p.m. Whereas, as per the evidence of PW.1, he received the information at 4-00p.m. PW.2 further deposed that A1 to A5 pushed them away and abused them.

15.On perusal of the evidence of Pw1, he clearly deposed that A1 to A5 came onto him and tried to push him. This is totally inconsistent with the version of PW2. Pw2 further deposed that they placed the matter before the elders but they could not solve even for '15' days and thereafter, Lws.3, 4 and himself accompanied PW1 to the police station where he gave report under Ex.P.1. The said fact was nowhere deposed by PW.1 in his evidence.

16. PW.3 is the elder brother of PW.1 and an eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that on 5.1.2015 at 4-00p.m., he along with PW.1, PW2 and LW.4 went to their '7' cents of land situated in D.No.88/A of Vaddamanu village on receiving the information that A1 to A5 are trying to plant poles in the said land. It is pertinent to note that PW.3 did not state about the source of information. Whereas, PWs.1 and 2 deposed that LWs. 5 to 7 gave them the said information. He further deposed that he went to the scene of offence and A1 to A5 were digging the land for planting poles and when they objected, they pushed them away and abused them in filthy language. The said fact was nowhere deposed by PW.1 in his evidence and stated by him in Ex.P.1. It is totally contrary to the version of PWs.1 and 2 as neither of them deposed in evidence that A1 to A5 were digging the land for planting poles when they went to the scene of offence. PW.2 deposed in his evidence that PW.3, LW.4 and himself accompanied PW1 to the police station. Whereas, PW.3 deposed in his evidence that PW.1 alone went to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 report.

17. P.W.4 is the uncle of PWs.1 to 3 and eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of his evidence, he categorically deposed that on 05-01-2015 at 1-00p.m., L.W.5 to 7 informed them over phone that A1 to A5 are trying to plant poles in their land and he along with P.Ws.1 to 3 reached the scene of offence at 4-00p.m. and objected A1 to A5 and they pushed them away and abused them. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that he received the information from L.W.5 to 7 on 05-01-2015 at 4-00p.m., whereas P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that they received the information from them at 1-00p.m., P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that L.Ws.5 to 7 informed him that A1 to A5 are shifting small pillars into their land. Whereas, P.W.4 deposed that L.Ws.5 to 7 informed them that A1 to A5 are trying to plant poles in their land.

18.P.W.4 further deposed that P.W.2 and himself accompanied P.W.1 to the police station where they gave report under Ex.P.1. But P.W.1 nowhere deposed in his evidence that P.W.2 and P.W.4 accompanied him to the police station.

4

19.P.Ws.5 to 7 are crucial witness to the case of prosecution as they are the persons who gave the information about A1 to A5 allegedly trespassing into the land of P.W.1 to them.

20.On perusal of the evidence of P.W.5, he categorically deposed that on 5.1.2015 at 4-00p.m., A1 to A5 were planting poles and he informed the same to P.W.1 over phone. P.Ws.2 and 4 gave a different version in their evidence by stating that they received the information from P.Ws.5 to 7 at 12-00p.m., and 1-00p.m., respectively. P.W.5 further deposed that P.Ws.1 to 4 came to the scene of offence and questioned A1 to A5 about the planting of poles and a quarrel took place between them and they shouted at each other. P.W.5 nowhere deposed in his evidence that A1 to A5 tried to attack P.Ws.1 to 3 and abused them in filthy language.

21.On keen perusal of cross examination of P.W.5, he clearly deposed that he called P.W.1 over phone at 2-00p.m., whereas he deposed in his evidence that he informed P.W.1 over phone at 4-00p.m. This is totally contrary to his version in chief examination. P.W.5 further admitted in his cross examination that a criminal case was registered against him and his son on the report given by A5 in the year 2017. So, naturally P.W.5 would depose against A1 to A5 and supported P.W.1.

22.P.W.6 is another eye witness to the case of prosecution. On perusal of her evidence that on 05-01-2015 at 4-00p.m., A1 to A5 and P.Ws.1 to 3 were quarrelling and shouting with each other in the scene of offence and he went there at that time, as his house is near by scene of offence. He further deposed that P.Ws.1 to 3 have 14 cents of land out of which, they sold away 7 cents and they are in possession of 7 cents of land in which they were raising some crop. P.W.6 further deposed that A1 to A5 tried to attack P.Ws.1 to 3 due to which they went away from the scene of offence land. This is totally different to the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 in their chief examination about the alleged incident. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed in their evidence that A1 to A5 abused them in filthy language, whereas, P.W.6 who is an eye witness to the case of prosecution, no where deposed that A1 to a5 abused P.Ws.1 to 5 in filthy language. P.W.6 deposed in his cross examination that he called P.W.1 over phone between 8-30 a.m., to 9- 00a.m., in the morning. Whereas, on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, he clearly deposed that he received the information from L.Ws.5 to 7 at 4-00 am. in the morning. The evidence of P.W.6 is totally inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.

23.After excluding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, we are left the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 who are the investigating officers who did not investigation in this case. P.W.7 the then head constable of Thullur police station. On perusal of his evidence, he deposed about receiving the report under Ex.P.1 and registering the crime on the basis of Ex.P.1 FIR and preparing Ex.P.3 rough sketch and examining and recording the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4.

24.On perusal of the cross examination of P.W.7, he clearly admitted that P.W.1 did not submit any documents to him pertaining to the scene of offence land. If that be so, this Court is unable to understand as to how the prosecution came to conclusion that P.W.1 is in possession of scene of offence land. P.W.7 deposed in his cross examination that P.W.1 came to the police station alone. Whereas, P.Ws.2 and 4 deposed in their evidence 5 that they accompanied P.W.1 to the police station.

24.P.W.8 is another investigating officer in this case who examined and recording the statements of P.Ws.5, 6 and L.W.6 and served Section 41-A Cr.P.C.notice to A1 to A5 and filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

25. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A5 trespassed into the scene of offence land which belongs to P.W.1. In order to prove the offence under Section 447 of IPC, P.W.1 must establish that he is in possession of the scene of offence land. But the fact remains on record that P.W.1 did not submit any documents pertaining to the scene of offence land to the investigating officers as admitted P.W.7 in his cross examination. Even P.W.8 admitted in his cross examination that P.W.1 did not state the survey report to him. In the absence of such a proof, the fact that P.W.1 is in possession of the scene of offence land is not established. Therefore, the offence under Section 447 of IPC is not attracted.

26.As stated earlier, P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed in their evidence that A1 to A5 abused them in filthy language but they did not state the specific words used by A1 to A5 towards P.Ws.1 to 3. If at all they were really abused by A1 to A5, they would have definitely deposed about the exact words used by A1 to A5 to abuse them. But, the fact remains on record that they did not do so. Even, the eye witness i.e., P.Ws.5 to 7 nowhere deposed in their evidence that A1 to A5 abused P.Ws.1 to 3 in filthy language. Therefore, the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not attracted.

27.As observed earlier, there is a lot of inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 with respect to the alleged incident that took place at the scene of offence. Even the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 who are the investigating officers in this case, does not reveal any incriminating material against A1 to A5.

28.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and convincing evidence .

29.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to theStenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th Day of June, 2019.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : PW1 R.Hanumantha Rao

PW2 R.China Ramarao

PW3 R.Venkateswara Rao 6

PW4 R.Peda Rama Rao

PW5 G.Marapa Reddy

PW6 K.Sambasiva Rao

For Defence: None

Documents marked

For prosecution : Ex.P.1 The report given by P.W.1

Ex.P.2 FIR

Ex.P.3 Rough sketch prepared by P.W.7 at the scene of offence.

For Defence: Nil MOs. Marked Nil.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

7

FORM No.72

Calendar and Judgment

District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Judgment in Calendar Case No.396 of 2015 Nature of Offence:under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC

Date of Judgment 28-06-2019

Com Apprehen mence Report of Date of Release on Sentence or Offence sion of ment Closure of trial

complainant remand bail order

accused of trial

05-1-15 22-1-15 22-1-15 22-1-15 22-1-15 15-05-19 17-6-19 28-06-2019

Explanation for the delay: The delay is due to non-appearance of the accused for some time and also the delay is due to non production of the witnesses by the prosecution for some time.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.396 of 2015

On the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Thullur Police Station. Name of Age Father’s Religion Calling Residence Mandal accusedname 1.Thinnavalli Gopala Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 59 years, Sathani by caste, H.No.6-85, BC colony, Gottimukkala, Krishna District. 2.Thinnavalli Venkata Narasaiah son of Venkateswarlu, aged 53 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 3.Thinnavalli Srinivasa Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 43 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 4.Thinnavalli Venkata Rao son of Venkateswarlu, aged 39 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. 5.Thinnavalli Bhagyalakshmi c/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 47 years, Sathani by caste, Vaddamanu village, Thullur mandal. Finding: Not guilty Sentence: In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri. P. Rahul Ambedkar,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, this the 14 th day of July, 2017.

C.C.No.125 of 2017.

Between :

State : Prohibition & Excise Inspector,

Mangalagiri. ...Complainant.

And

Vuyyala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Surya Narayana, Age 39 years, Yerukala, R/o D. No.1-146, 1st ward,

Market centre, Tadepalli. ...Accused.

*****

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of

Sri. V. Ramagopa Goud, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri police station, filed a charge sheet against accused in PR. No. 192/2016-2017 for the offence punishable under section U/sec 8 (c ) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows:

On 17.12.2016, L.Ws.3 to 6 along with other staff went to

Tadepalli to conduct patrolling for prohibition and excise and NDPS offence based on credible information. They reached MRO office and secured the presence of mediators L.Ws.1 and 2 by name Jetti Nagabhushanam and

Isukapalli Nageswara Rao. From there L.Ws.1 to 6 reached the place of offence at 8:00 A.M and saw the accused there holding white and orange colour cloth bag in his right hand and on seeing them, he tried to run away.

L.W6 detained him and enquired him in the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 and accused admitted possession of ganja in the said bag. L.W6 searched the contents of the bag and found ganja consisting of dry stems, leaves, seeds, 2 flowers and buds which were emitting pungent odour. On enquiry the accused confessed other particulars and the said ganja was weighed in the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 with the help of weighing machine and it was found to be one kg. Further, the accused confessed that he purchased the said ganja from an unknown person and he is selling it for profit. Thereafter,

L.W6 separated 25 grams each into separate packets from the said ganja for sending it for chemical analysis and tied the same and sealed the remaining ganja in the bag and affixed identity slips on the same. A mediatornama was drafted in the presence of L.Ws.1 and 2 and the same was scribed by L.W3 and attested by L.Ws.1 to 6. Thereafter, L.W6 brought the accused along with case property to P & E station, Mangalagiri. On 17- 12-2016 L.W7 registered a case in PR No. 192/2016-17 U/s. 8 ( c ) (iii) (A) of

NDPS Act based on the mediators report and sent the accused for remand.

After receipt of analysis report and after completion of investigation, L.W7 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/sec.

8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985. .

04.After appearance of accused, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge under section U/s. 8 ( c ) (iii) (A) of NDPS Act was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to accused in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 and MOs.1 to 3. P.W1 is the VRO. P.W2 is a Constable.

P.W3 is an Inspector of police and P.W4 is an Inspector of police who filed charge sheet in this case.

3

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of

P.Ws.1 to 4 was read over and explained to him for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

08. Heard the learned APP for state and the learned counsel for accused.

09. The learned APP for State argued that P.Ws.2 and 3 caught the accused at the scene of offence with ganja and seized the same in the presence of P.W1 and L.W2 under the cover of mediator report i.e. Ex.P1. He further argued that taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the accused is liable for punishment for the charges levelled against him.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that the present case was registered only for statistical purpose and there is a discrepancy in the prosecution evidence with regard to the time of the offence. He further argued that there is no corroboration between the prosecution witnesses and therefore the prosecution failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. He further contended that no independent witnesses at the scene of offence were examined by the police. Therefore, he prayed the court to acquit the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the case against him.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. To prove its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 only. P.W1 is the VRO. P.W2 is a Constable. P.W3 is an Inspector of police and P.W4 is the Inspector of police who filed charge sheet in this case.

13. P.W1 categorically deposed that he has been working as VRO in

Tadepalli since 12.08.2016. On 17.12.2016 at 8:45 A.M, he got a phone call from Sub-Inspector of police, Excise police station that they caught ganja at

Ambedkar statue, Tadepalli and asked him to go there immediately. He went to the scene of offence and saw the accused and enquired him about his 4 name and particulars. He further deposed that the Inspector of police found 1kg ganja which was in the possession of the accused and 50 gms was taken from the said ganja and it was packed into 25 grams sample packets for the purpose of sending it for examination. He further deposed that the mediator report was prepared in his presence under Ex.P1.

14. P.W2 deposed that on 17.12.2016 at 8:00 A.M, L.W6 got information about the sale of ganja in Tadepalli village. Thereafter, L.W6 obtained permission from Sri. Avulaiah, AES and proceeded to Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar statue near market center along with him, L.Ws.4, 5 and two head constables and one constable. He further deposed that he secured

P.W1 and L.W2 on the way and reached the scene of offence. There, they saw the accused standing with a white and orange cloth bag in his right hand and when L.W6 asked the accused about the contents of the bag and he replied that he is carrying ganja in it. Thereafter, L.W6 opened the bag in the presence of P.W1 and L.W2 and found ganja consisting of dry stems, leaves, seeds, flowers and buds which were emitting pungent odour. He further deposed that the accused confessed that he purchased ganja from an unknown person and selling it for higher prices. L.W6 weighed the ganja with weighing machine and it is weighed at one kilogram. Thereafter, two 25 grams packets were taken out from the said ganja for sending them to chemical examination and the mediator report was drafted by him on

L.W6's narration under Ex.P1.

15.P.W3 deposed in a similar manner to P.W2 about the events that took place at the scene of offence. P.W4 the Inspector of Police, P & E station, Mangalagiri who deposed that he registered PR No. 192/2016- 17 on the strength of Ex.P1 and issued Ex.P2 and sent MOs.1 and 2 for chemical examination. He further deposed that he sent the accused for remand. On 02.01.17, he received the analysis report under Ex.P3 and he filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

5

16.On keen perusal of the cross-examination of P.W1, he deposed that the scene of offence is a busy locality and that the seized ganja was not weighed in his presence. He further admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know who prepared Ex.P1 and he also categorically admitted that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1.

17. As per the case of the prosecution, P.W1 is the mediator in this case in whose presence the said ganja was seized under the cover of mediator report i.e. Ex.P1. P.Ws.2 and 3 also deposed the same. But P.W1 admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know who prepared Ex.P1 and that he also does not know the contents of Ex.P1. In view of this admission, the fact that P.Ws.2 and 3 seized the said ganja from the posession of accused in the presence of P.W1 appears unbelievable. As stated supra, the admissions of P.W1 in his cross-examination casts a shadow of doubt on the correctness of his evidence.

18. On keen perusal of the cross-examination of P.W2, he deposed that they reached MRO office between 7:30 A.M to 7:45 A.M whereas the working hours of the said office are from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. P.W3 also stated in his cross-examination that the working hours of MRO office are from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. This court is unable to understand as to how

P.W1 was present at the MRO office on the date of the offence even before the office hours. The above said fact clearly raises a suspicion about the manner in which the presence of P.W1 and L.W2 was secured on the date of the incident.

19. Apart from P.W1, no other independent witnesses were examined in this case to support the case of the prosecution. It is clearly apparent that

P.Ws.2 to 4 are official witnesses. As stated supra, the evidence of P.W1 cannot be relied on to base conviction against the accused in view of his admissions in the cross-examination. In the absence of the evidence of independent witnesses, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of official witnesses to believe the case of the prosecution that the accused has 6 committed the said offence. The evidence of P.W4 is only relevant to the extent of registering the case on the basis of Ex.P1 and sending MOs.1 and 2 for chemical examination and filing of charge sheet. P.W1, 2 and 3 clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they do not know as to from where the accused bought the said ganja which clearly shows that the investigation in this case was not properly done.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C and his bail bond shall continue till expiry of appeal time.

The case property i.e., MO.1 to 3 in C.P.R.No.227 of 2016 are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 14 th day of July, 2017.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :For Accused : P.W.1 : J. Nagabhushanam None. P.W.2 : P. Dasu (Constable) P.W.3 : G. Veeranjaneyulu (Inspector of police). P.W.4 : D. Balaiah (Inspector of police).

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Accused : Ex.P1 : Mediator Report. Nil. Ex.P2 : FIR. Ex.P3 : Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Mo.1 : Sample of Ganja (25 grams) 7

Mo.2 : Sample of Ganja 25 grams. Mo.3 : Sample of 950 grams of Ganja.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

//True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.125/2017

Date of Offence : 17-12-2016 Date of filing charge sheet : 13-02-2017 Date of Appearance: 28-03-2017 Date of arrest of Accused : 17-12-2016 Date of Release of accused on bail : 17-12-2016 Date of commencement of Trial : 14-06-2017 Date of close of Trial : 06-07-2017 Date of sentence or order : 14-07-2017 Crime No. and Name of P.S. : PR No. 192/16-17 of P & E, Mangalagiri.

Name of the Complainant : State : Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri.

8

Description of Accused : Vuyyala Venkateswara Rao, S/o Surya Narayana, Age 39 years, Yerukala, R/o D. No.1-146, 1st ward, Market centre, Tadepalli.

Section of Law : 8 © r/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8 ( c ) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C and his bail bond shall continue till expiry of appeal time. The case property i.e., MO.1 to 3 in C.P.R.No.227 of 2016 are ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : Copies furnished to the accused on 28-03-2017 and the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., on 06-06-2017. On 14-06-2017 P.W1 was examined and Ex.P1 and Mos.1 to 3 were marked. On 28-06-2017 P.W2 was examined. On 05-07-2017 P.W3 was exdamined. On 06-07-2017 P.W4 was examined and Exs.P2 and P3 were marked and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 07-07-2017 the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. On 12-07-2017 heard arguments on both sides. Judgement

pronounced on 14-07-2017. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P. Rahul Ambedkar,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

//True copy//

AJCJ, Mangalagiri

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

MANGALAGIRI

PRESENT: Sri. P. Rahul Ambedkar,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

Friday, this the 5TH Day of July, 2019.

C.C.No. 165 of 2019

Between : State : Prohibition & Excise Inspector,

Mangalagiri. ...Complainant.

And

Chadala Jyothi wife of Pandu Ranga Rao, aged about 28 years, c/Yerukala, resident of Opposite to Boat Yard, Seethanagaram, Tadepalli mandal,

Guntur District. ...Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri P.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood upon for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

01.The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri police station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.72 of 2018 for the offence punishable under section U/sec 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985.

02. In brief, the case of the prosecution as unfolded in the charge sheet is stated as follows: On 27-08-2018, L.Ws.3 to 6 by name G.Ravi Kumar, K.Nancharaiah , G.Venkateswarlu along with other staff were conducting patrolling for prohibition and excise offences and reached the scene of offence at 4-00p.m., and noticed the accused standing there by holding a white plastic bag in her right hand. On suspicion, L.W6 detained the accused with the help of other staff and on enquiry, the accused admitted possession of Ganja in her bag. Then L.W6 sent L.W3 to secure mediators and after some time L.W3 returned along with Lws1 and 2 mediators. LW6 informed about the matter and requested them to act as mediators, for which, they obliged and in then presence of mediators, on verification of the bag which was in possession of the accused, he found one paper packet, on opening the said packet found flowers, stems, leaves, seeds of ganja. LW6 informed about the right of accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act and asked her whether she requires any other Gazetted Officer presence for personal search, by issuing a notice in Telugu, for which, the axccused revealed that there is no need of any other officer and gave consent to search by LW6. In the presence of mediators, on enquiry, she confessed that she purchased the said ganja from an unknown person at Singhnagar of Vijayawada and eking out her livelihood by selling the same, but did not reveal the names of the said persons, who sold ganja to her. On weighing the ganja, with the aid of weighing equipment, which was brought along them, and found that the ganja was 500 grams. L.W6 took 50 grams of ganja separately into a paper packet and kept the remaining 450 grams of ganja in the same packet, kept the same in the said polythene bag, tied the same, sealed and affixed identity slips to the sample packet and case was booked against the accused and arrested her and prepared mediator report, scribed by LW3 and the same was attested by mediators and a copy of it was served to the accused under her

2

acknowledgement. The said proceedings commenced at 5:00 P.M. and concluded at 5-30p.m., Thereafter, L.W6 returned to the police station and registered a case in Cr.No.72 of 2018 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)

(ii)(A), 1985 and submitted the original FIR to the Court and copies of FIR to all concerned authorities. L.W6 sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and he received the analysis report dt.10-10-2018 which opined that the sample is ganja. Thereafter, L.W6 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge. 03.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence U/sec. 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985.

04.After appearance of accused, case copies and relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred as to Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., and a charge under section 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985 was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 and Mos.1 and 2. P.W1 is the VRO, P.W2 is the Head Constable and P.W.3 is the Inspector of police, Prohibition & Excise police station, who did entire investigation in this case.

07. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3 were read over and explained to her, for which, she denied the same and reported no defence evidence. 08. Heard the learned APP for State and the learned counsel for accused.

09. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt? 10. Heard the learned APP for State and he read over the contents of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as his arguments. The learned counsel for accused submitted that his arguments may be treated as heard.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W1 is the VRO of Yerrabalem village deposed that on 27-08-2018 at 3-30 when he was present in his office, LW3 came and asked him to act as mediators and that he accompanied LWs 3, 4 and 5 to Rajeevgandhi Arch in Srinagar colony, Yerrabalem village, there they saw the accused was holding a white polythene cover. He further deposed that PWs.2 and 3 stopped the accused and asked her about the contents of the cover and PW3 opened the said bag and found 500 grams of ganja flowers, stems, leaves and seeds. On enquiry, the accused told them that she bought the ganja from unknown person in Vijayawada. He further deposed that they have taken out 50 grams of ganga in a sample packet and seized the remaining 450 grams under the cover of mediator report and the same is Ex.P.1. MO1 is 50 grams sample packet of ganga and MO2 is white polythene bag containing 450 grams of ganja and he signed on it and MOs 1 and 2. Later, the police have arrested the accused and took her to the police station.

12.Pw2 is the Head constable deposed that on 27-08-2018 at 4-00p.m., himself along with Lws4 to 6 went Near Rajeevgandhi Marg Arch in Srinagar colony, Yerrabalem village, there they saw the accused were standing with a white polythene bag in her hand, PW3 stopped the accused and enquired about the contents of the bag for which she did not give proper reply, then, he sent him to secure mediators and he secured Pw1 and Lw2. Then, PW3 opened the said bag in the presence of Pw1 and Lw2

3

and found a paper packet containing flowers, stems, leaves and seeds of ganja, then, PW3 enquired the accused about any other possessions on her person for which she replied in negative, then, PW3 informed the accused about her right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer and served notice on her for which the accused gave consent to Pw3 to search her, she confessed that she bought the ganja from unknown persons in Vijayawada, then they weighed the ganja in the presence of PW1 and LW2 and found 500 grams of ganja and they have taken out 50 grams out of the said 500 grams into a paper packet for the purpose of sending it for chemical examination and seized the remaining 450 grams under the cover of Ex.P.1 mediator report in the presence of Pw1 and Lw2 and also seized MOs 1 and 2. Thereafter they arrested the accused and took her to the police station.

13.PW3 is the Inspector of Police, P&E station, Mangalagiri also deposed in exactly the same manner as P.W2 about the events that took place at the scene of offence apart from fact that he registered the case as Cr. No. 72 of 2018 under Section 8(c)read with 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act on the strength of Ex.P1 and sent Mo.1 for chemical examination and received the analysis report under Ex.P4 and he prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence under Ex.P.2.

14.On keen perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1, he clearly admitted that his name was not mentioned in Ex.P.1. He further admitted that they did not mention the nature of the weighing apparatus in Ex.P.1. He further admitted that, he did not observe the weighing stones used by the police for weighing MOs 1 and 2 and that authoritatively say that Mos 1 and 2 contains ganja. He further admitted that he did not mentioned the nature of the sample packet in Ex.P.1. He further admitted that they did not mention the nature of sample packet in Ex.P.1. In view of the above admissions of Pw1 in his evidence, the fact that, police have seized Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of the accused in the presence of Pw1 is doubtful. If at all Pw1 was really present at the scene of offence at the time of seizure of the said Ganja from the possession of the accused under cover of Ex.P.1, Pw1's name would have mentioned in the said report, he would have deposed about the weighing apparatus and observed the weighing since used by the police by weighing MOs 1 and 2. if at all Pw1 had really present at the scene of offence and MOs 1 and 2 were seized, he would not depose in his cross-examination that he cannot authoritatively says that MOs 1 and 2 contains Ganja.

15.PW2 also admitted in his cross examination that they did not mention the nature of the weighing equipment used by them to weigh the ganja.

16.PW3 admitted in his cross examination that they have not mentioned the nature of the paper used by them for taking sample under MO1. If at all MO1 sample packet was packed at the scene of offence. Pws1 to 3 would have definitely mentioned the nature of the paper used by them for taking sample under MO1. But the fact remains on record, they did not do so.

17.It is the case of the prosecution that Pws2 and 3 seized Ganja from the possession of the accused in the presence of Pw1 at the scene of offence under cover of Ex.P.1 mediator's report. As stated earlier, the evidence of PW1 who is the mediator in whose presence, the Ganja was allegedly seized from the possession of the accused, does not inspire the confidence of the Court and the admissions made by Pws2 and 3 in their evidence also throws a shadow of doubt on the fact that MOs 1 and 2 were seized from the possession of the accused at the scene of offence under cover of Ex.P.1 in the presence of PW1.

4

18.In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(c)20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Acct, 1985 by placing cogent and convincing evidence.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(c)20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Acct, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C and her bail bonds shall continue till expiry of appeal time. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th Day of July, 2019.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : Pw1 P.Anand Rao PW2 G.Ravi Kishore PW3 D.Balaiah

For Defence:None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : Ex.P.1 Mediator Report Ex.P.2 Rough sketch Ex.P.3 FIR Ex.P.4 Analysis report

For Defence:NIL

Material Objects Marked

MO1 50 grams of Ganja MO2 450 grams of Ganja

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

MANGALAGIRI

Calendar in C.C.165 of 2019

Date of Offence : 27-08-2018 Date of arrest of Accused : 27-08-2018 Date of Release of accused on bail : 31-08-2018 Date of commencement of Trial : 04-06-2019 Date of close of Trial : 19-06-2019 Date of sentence or order : 05-07-2019 Crime No. and Name of P.S. : Cr.No.72 of 2018 of P & E, Mangalagiri.

Name of the Complainant : State : Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri.

Description of Accused : Chadala Jyothi wife of Pandu Ranga Rao, aged about 28 years, c/Yerukala, resident of Opposite to Boat Yard, Seethanagaram, Tadepalli mandal, Guntur District.

Section of Law : U/Section 8(c)r/w.20(b)(ii)(A)of NDPS Act, 1985. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty Finding of Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b)read with 30(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and she is acquitted of the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C and her bail bonds shall continue till expiry of appeal time. The case property i.e., Mos.1 and 2 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : The delay is due to non-production of the accused for some time and also the delay is due to non-appearance of the accused for some time.

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANGALAGIRI.