Sri.p.ramana Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE)-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: ELURU

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition &Excise Act -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Friday, the 6th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.98 of 2020

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station Crime No.203 of 2018 …Complainant

And

Ghantasala Yedukondalu, s/o Subbarao, 40 years, Vaddilu, r/o Rallapallivaripalem village, Vaddigudem panchayat, Pedapadu Mandal, Driver cum owner of truck Auto No.AP37TG 3906. …Accused

This case is coming on 05.05.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and of Sri.P.Naresh Kumar, advocate for accused; and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.203/2018 alleging that the accused has committed the offences punishable U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC’).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.10.2018 at 7.00 AM, on receipt of information, PW.4 along with his staff conducting vehicle checking in the presence of PW.1 and LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA near irrigation canal at Vaddigudem village and found truck auto bearing No.AP37TG 3906 belongs to accused by transporting the chicken waste material to his fish tanks. During the course of special drive to eradicate the culture of the chicken waste material with the assistance of police force, stopped the above said vehicle in the presence of mediators and interrogated the person who was present in the said auto. To that 2 effect, a mediator report was got drafted through one of the mediator and seized the chicken waste material along with auto. The said chicken waste material spread culture of Noxious food and same is also harmful to the health of the public and thereby caused atmosphere pollution. Basing on the mediator report, PW.4 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.203/18 U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW.4 visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses. Thereafter, he also destroyed the entire chicken waste material basing on the orders issued by Tahsildar, Eluru in the presence of mediators. He also served notice to the accused U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Thereafter,

PW.4 laid charge sheet against the accused.

3. On 25.08.2020, this Court took cognizance of the offences U/Secs.269, 270, 273 and 278 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case papers as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.

5. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

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

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited the documents under Exs.P1 to P7. PW.1 is the VRO. PWs.2 3 and 3 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. PW.4 is investigating officer in this case.

9. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and counsel

for the accused.

a) The learned APP argued that the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.4 clinchingly establishes the seizure and destruction of entire chicken waste material. During the course of cross examination, nothing was elicited by the counsel for accused to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused successfully managed PWs.2 and 3 who are direct eyewitness to the scene of offence and same cannot be taken into consideration.

Hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences levelled against him.

b) Per contra, the counsel for the accused argued that, this case was falsely foisted against the accused without committing any offence from his side.

There is no medical evidence before the Court that the alleged seized waste material was spreading viral infections in that locality and it also spoiled the atmosphere, except the confessional statement of the accused. There is no corroboration between the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to the visit of scene of offence and interception of auto of the accused. All the above referred discrepancies clearly goes to show that PW.1 was not visited the scene of offence along with the investigating officer and other police personnel as stated by him.

Moreover, the other independent witnesses i.e. PWs.2 and 3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution who are the alleged eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. At the same time, PW.1 did not obtain any permission from the officials of pollution control board as mandated. As such, the prosecution failed to establish any case against the accused. There is no evidence before the Court that they seized waste material, hazardous to the human health and no complaint was received by the police from any of the inhabitants in that locality. The police 4 miserably failed to establish the seizer of material from the possession of the accused. As such, he is entitled for acquittal.

10. After hearing both side arguments and considering the entire material available on record, now the points for determination before the Court is:

1) Whether there is any material to show that the accused owned a fish tank?

2) Whether the accused transporting the chicken waste material in his own auto?

3) Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273 and 278

r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT NOs.1 to 3: In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 4 and exhibited the documents Exs.P1 to P7. Ex.P1 is mediator report dt.14.10.2018 at 7.00 AM. Ex.P2 is mediator report dt.14.10.2018 at 11.00 AM.

Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P5 is printed FIR in Crime No.203/2018. Ex.P6 is rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P7 is the destruction proceedings.

12. PW.1 who is VRO deposed that “on 14.10.2018 at about 6.00 AM, the MRO telephoned and directed him to go to the police station. Then himself and

LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA rushed to the police station. Thereafter, the police led them to the fish tanks situated at Budameru canal. By that time they noticed truck auto bearing No.AP37TG 3706 coming from Koniki village. On suspicion, the police stopped the said vehicle and checked the same, as bad smell emanating from the said vehicle. During the course of interrogation, the said person voluntarily confessed his identity particulars as the accused in this case. He further disclosed that he was also owner of the said truck auto and he brought the said chicken waste material from Kudaravalleru for his fish tanks. Then the police seized vehicle along with chicken waste material under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report.

He himself drafted Ex.P1. Thereafter he was also present at the time of destruction of seized chicken waste material under Ex.P2. Himself, 5

LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA and other police personnel signed on Exs.P1 and P2.” While cross examination he stated that “he rushed to the police station at 6.00 AM and thereafter to the scene of offence at 6.45 AM. The police examined the neigbhouring fish tank owners in his presence. The police also took samples from the seized chicken waste material. Two other constables accompanied the SI of police, but they did not signed on Ex.P1. He could not say the quantity of chicken waste material and number of bags seized under Ex.P1. MRO did not issue any written proceedings. The police did not obtain the signatures of driver of JCB and the coolies engaged by them. Photographs were also taken by that time. The name of scribe of Exs.P1 and P2 were not appeared on them.”

13. PWs.2 and 3, who are alleged eyewitnesses to the scene of offence, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and their statements were marked as Exs.P3 and P4.

14. PW.4 the SI of Police deposed in his evidence that “on 14.10.2018 at about 7.00 AM, on credible information, he secured the presence of PW.1 and

LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA and proceeded to the pantakavula situated in Vaddigudem village. In the course of vehicle checking, on suspicion, they stopped the truck auto bearing No.AP37TG 3906, which was coming from Kudaravalli village. They all found a bad smell emanating from the said vehicle. Then he searched the said truck auto and found chicken waste material in it. On interrogation, the driver of the said truck auto voluntarily confessed by disclosing his identity particulars as accused in this case and he is also owner of the said vehicle. Then he arrested the accused by disclosing the reasons for his arrest and got prepared a mediator report under Ex.P1 through PW.1. Later, the seized chicken waste material along with van taken to the police station. Basing on the strength of Ex.P1 mediator report, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.203/2018 U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273, 278/ r/w 34 of PC and forwarded the original FIR to this Court and copies to all concerned. During the course of investigation again, he visited the scene of 6 offence, observed the same and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he secured the presence of PWs.2 and 3 and recorded their statements.

He made requisition before LW.5/G.J.S.Kumar-Tahsildar for the purpose of destruction proceedings of seized chicken waste material. Basing on the Ex.P7 proceedings issued by LW.5/G.J.S.Kumar-Tahsildar, he destroyed the entire chicken waste material in the presence of mediators under the cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. He served notice to the accused U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. After completion of further investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.”

While cross examination, he stated that “he did not collect any sample from the seized chicken waste material for the purpose of chemical analysis. He did not obtain the signature of his staff who accompanied him to the scene of offence.

Ex.P1 did not contain the quantity and number of bags in the said vehicle. He did not examine any of the coolies at the time of destroying the entire chicken waste material under Ex.P2. Exs.P1 and P2 did not contain the name of the scribe. He did not receive any complaint from any of the inhabitant in that locality.”

15. On summing up the entire evidence and documents available on record, the very case of the prosecution is that the accused was transporting the chicken waste material in his own auto to his fish tanks situated at Budameru canal. The said material was emanating foul smell and polluted the atmosphere in that locality, thereby, spreading the viral infections. The said foul smell polluted the fresh air. The said material was used for the purpose of feeding the fish in the fish tanks. As such, the investigating officer seized the said vehicle, basing on the confession made by the accused under a cover of Ex.P1 mediator report and proceeded further and filed charge sheet against the accused.

16. As per the version of PW.4 immediately after seizure of the waste material from the possession of accused, a requisition was made before the Tahsildar to issue destruction proceedings. Basing on the requisition, the then Tahsildar issued

Ex.P7 proceedings for destruction of the said waste material. But the Tahsildar did 7 not insist the police for production of any photographs or any evidence to show with regard to the seizure of the said waste material. Basing on the sole requisition filed by the police, he simply issued Ex.P7 proceedings without conducting proper enquiry. It clearly shows that the Tahsildar was not properly discharged his official duties. At the same time, the requisition made before the Tahsildar was not exhibited before the Court during the course of evidence. After receiving the proceedings, the said waste material was destroyed by PW.1 in the presence of police under a cover of Ex.P2 mediator report. But, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of any coolies or the driver of proclainer who buried the same by digging a pit. PW.1 and LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA are only signed on the said mediator report. It also creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the preparation of Ex.P2 at the scene of offence. There is every possibility to prepare the said report in the police station and PW.1 and other witness might have signed on it to honour the request of police. At the same time, while giving evidence PW.4 categorically deposed that he made requisition before veterinary doctor to issue report with regard to seizure of chicken waste material. But as seen from Ex.P1, no sample was collected from the seized chicken waste material. At the same time, PWs.1 and 4 did not speak about the drawing of any sample for the purpose of analysis. As such, the evidence of PW.4 with regard to receipt of opinion of the veterinary doctor is not correct. Though Exs.P1 and P2 taken into consideration, the prosecution must establish the seizure of said material from the possession of the accused by placing cogent evidence before the Court.

17. In order to prove the seizure from the possession of the accused, the only evidence available before the Court is, the confessional statement of the accused and the evidence of PWs.1 and 4. There is no other independent evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 4. PWs.2 and 3 who are alleged eyewitnesses to the scene of offence turned hostile and did not speak anything about this case. As such, the Court has to rely upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 4.

8

It is an admitted fact that the confession made before the police is not valid

U/Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. But, the confession leads to recovery is valid

U/Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act. As such, the prosecution bound to establish the seizure of waste material from the possession of the accused.

18. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, on credible information PW.4 secured the presence of PW.1, LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA and two other constables and reached the scene of offence. As per Ex.P1 mediator report that it was prepared at 7.00 AM at the scene of offence. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, there are several inconsistent versions with regard to the alleged incidents happened there. As per the evidence of PW.1, himself,

LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA, SI of Police went to the scene of offence. He did not speak about the accompanying of any other police personnel with them. Whereas PW.4 did not speak about the securing of any mediators i.e. PW.1 and LW.2/M.Suresh-

VRA as stated by PW.1. Further, PW.4 deposed that two other police personnel also accompanied him to the scene of offence. But it was not spoken by PW.1 who is one of the mediator in this case. As seen from Ex.P1, the accused is collected the chicken waste material from Kudaravalleru and transporting the same to his fish tanks in his own truck auto. As per the evidence of PW.1, that the police intercepted the accused along with chicken waste material. The said evidence is quite contra to the averments mentioned in Ex.P1 mediator report and the evidence given by the investigating officer i.e. PW.4. It is not possible for PW.1 and LW.2/M.Suresh-VRA to visit the scene of offence in the early hours after receiving the telephone call from the police. Further, PW.1 deposed that the MRO telephoned and directed him to visit the police station. But the investigating officer did not examine the MRO whether he gave permission to PW.1 to visit the police station, thereafter to the scene of offence. Except the oral testimony of PW.1, there is no iota of proof to show that the MRO telephoned and informed him to go to the police station. The inconsistent versions from the mouth of PWs.1 and 4 9 also create a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to their actual visit to the scene of offence and preparation of Ex.P1.

19. As per the case of prosecution, the seized waste material was transporting to the fish tanks of accused in his own truck auto. Admittedly, there is no iota of evidence before the Court, to show that the accused is the owner of the fish tanks in question as stated by PW.4. During the course of investigation, PW.4 did not make any attempt to secure the ownership particulars of the fish tanks of the accused. Even he did not choose to examine any of the revenue officials to know about the particulars of fish tanks situated in that locality. Without securing any document, it cannot be said that the said waste material was ment for the fish tanks of the accused. There is a clear discrepancy in the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to the owner of the fish tanks. PW.1 deposed in his evidence that

PW.4 examined the neighbouring land owners at the time of preparation of Ex.P1.

PW.4 also took the photographs of the seized chicken waste material. But the said photographs were not produced before this Court. All the above referred circumstances clearly goes to show that the police failed to establish the ownership particulars of the accused to punish him for the offences leveled against him.

20. The other important aspect to be considered in this case is, that the very cause of seizure of said waste material by the police, as it was emanating bad smell and also injurious to the human health. The foul smell emanating from the said waste material also spoiled the health of inhabitants in that locality. That it will be also polluted the atmosphere and created environmental problems. Except the above said bold allegations in Ex.P1 mediator report, there is no iota of evidence

before the Court to show that the said material causes the above referred

damages. The investigating officer failed to draw any sample from the entire waste material in order to send the same for Analysis. Even as per the evidence of PW.1, he did not receive any complaint from the nearby inhabitants in that locality by 10 complaining about the bad smell emanating from the waste material. The investigating officer did not secure any document from the Environmental

Authorities to know about the damage going to be caused by the waste material.

Without any document showing the future consequences of the seized waste material, it cannot be said that it was injurious to the human health and it will spread viral infections. Further, the investigating officer failed to follow the guidelines issued by the Government in GOMS.No.56 dated 04.11.2016.

Admittedly, the investigating officer did not receive any information from the

Motorcycle Vehicle Inspector or any authorities of Fisheries Department. As per the above said GO, immediately after seizure of any chicken waste material the investigating officer has to conduct panchanama in the presence of members of the committee, as referred in the GO. But in this case, the investigating officer did not follow the rules and regulations as contemplated in the above said GO. He did not inform the seizure of waste material to all the stakeholders, as referred in the above said GO. As such, it can safely conclude that the alleged seizure from the possession of accused was contrary to the rules and regulations referred in the above said GO. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the said material from the possession of accused, in order to tag them for the offences leveled against them. During the course of evidence, PW.4 categorically admitted that he did not receive any complaint from any of the inhabitants in that locality with regard to storing of any chicken waste material for the purpose of feeding the fish. Hence I am not believe the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 with regard to seizure of chicken waste material from the possession of the accused and destroy the same basing on the proceedings issued by Tahsildar. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the point Nos.1 to 3 are answered.

11

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273 and 278 r/w 34 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P..C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e. Truck auto bearing No.AP37TG 3906 shall be returned to the accused, which was in the custody of police, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 6th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G. Dt.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Shaik Baba Saheb-VRO None PW.2: G.Venkatesh PW.3: Mungara Radhayya PW.4: K.Ramakrishna-SI

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Mediator report dt.14.10.2018 at 7.00 AM. Ex.P2: Mediator report dt.14.10.2018 at 11.00 AM. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P5: Printed FIR in Crime No.203/2018. Ex.P6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P7: Destruction proceedings.

Material Objects Marked

Nil.

Id/- PRR

SJMFC(E)-CUM-IV AJCJ

ELURU.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C. C. No.98/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE

SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE)-CUM-IV

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

DATE OF

Offence ComplainApprehensioRelease Taken CommenceClose of Order of t or n of accused on bail on file -ment of trial sentence report trial 14.10.18 14.10.18 41-A Cr.P.C. -- 25.8.20 27.12.2021 02.05.22 06.05.2022

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place. Complainant : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedapadu Police Station. Crime No.203 of 2018

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused Ghantasala Yedukondalu, s/o Subbarao, 40 years, Vaddilu, Male r/o Rallapallivaripalem village, Vaddigudem panchayat, Pedapadu Mandal, Driver cum owner of truck Auto No.AP37TG 3906.

Offence: U/Sec.269, 270, 271 273 and 278 r/w 34 of IPC.

Crime No.203 of 2018 Finding: Found Not guilty.

RESULT: Accused is found not guilty of the offences U/Secs.269, 270, 271, 273 and 278 r/w 34 of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P..C.

The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property i.e. Truck auto bearing No.AP37TG 3906 shall be returned to the accused, which was in the custody of police, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G. Dt.

Seal:

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

//1//

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS (EXCISE)-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday the 9th day of May, 2022

C.C.No.417 of 2019

Between:-

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station Crime No.159/2019 …Complainant

And

1) Garapati Venkateswara Rao, s/o Krishna Murthy, 55 years,

2) Garapati Sri Krishna, s/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, A1 and A2 are Kamma by caste and r/o Kovvali, Denduluru Mandal. …Accused

This case is coming before me on 05.05.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.B.John Son, Counsel for A1 and A2, upon hearing both sides and matter have stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub Inspector of police, Eluru Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.159/2019 for the offences U/Secs.324 and 506 r/w of IPC against A1 and A2.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW.1 and accused are belongs to the same village and both are relatives. A2 is son of A1. The lands of PW.1 and the accused are situated side by side at Palagudem village. Some boundary disputes are pending between them since long time and both parties are used to altercate with each other in view of the said disputes. While the matter stood thus, on 25.05.2019 at about 5.30

PM, while PW.1 was digging the cart track which was situated by the side of his field, the accused came there and questioned about the same. On that some quarrel ensured between them, in the said quarrel, //2//

A1 and A2 bet PW.1 with iron rod. They also beat PW.1 with their hands and legs and caused injuries on his head and all over the body. They also threatened him with dire consequences. Later PW.1 was shifted to

Government General Hospital, Eluru for treatment. Police came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P1 statement from PW.1. Basing on the strength of Ex.P1 statement, PW.6 registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.159/2019 U/Secs.324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, PW.6 visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch and also examined all the charge sheeted witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, PW.7 verified the investigation done by PW.6 and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notice on the accused. After receipt of wound certificate, he laid charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences U/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. When A1 and A2 appeared before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to them U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5. A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges

U/Secs.324 r/w 34 and 506 of IPC were framed against A1 and charges

U/Secs.324 and 506 of IPC were framed against A2 and the contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP given up the evidence of

LW.3/M.Siva, LW.6/K.Mohan Krishna and LW.7/P.Ravi.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material //3// appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defense evidence. A1 and A2 did not choose to file any written statement.

8. In order to prove the guilt of A1 and A2, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and exhibited the documents under Exs.P1 to P5.

PW.1 is the defacto complainant cum injured. PWs.2 to 4 are the alleged eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. PW.5 is the doctor.

PWs.6 and 7 are the investigating officers.

9. Heard the learned APP and the counsel for A1 and A2.

a) The learned APP argued that the prosecution examined all the charge sheeted witnesses to establish its case against A1 and A2.

As per the evidence of prosecution, A1 and A2 attacked PW.1 and caused injury on his person keeping the previous disputes in mind. The evidence of PW.1 corroborated the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. They also threatened PW.1 with dire consequences. As such, A1 and A2 are liable for punishment for the offences U/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

b) Per contra the counsel for A1 and A2 argued that the injury on the person of PW.1 is a self inflicted injury. Basing on the said injury, this case was falsely foisted against A1 and A2 keeping the previous boundary disputes in mind. Admittedly, A1 and PW.1 are own brothers.

Some disputes are pending between them since their forefathers in respect of the boundary between their respective lands. As per Ex.P1, the persons by name Mamillapalli Siva Gopala Chowdary, Inagalla

Srinivasa Rao, who are the neighbouring ryots came to the scene of offence and rescued PW.1 from the clutches of accused. But they were not examined by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to him. Further PWs.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence as per case of prosecution. But they deposed before the Court //4// as if they are eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. During the course of cross examination, the investigating officer categorically admitted that

PWs.2 to 4 did not state before him as stated in their evidence. Further,

PWs.2 to 4 are close associates of PW.1. For that reason only, they deposed in such a manner at the instance of PW.1 and their evidence is quite contra to the statement given before the police. As such, no credence will be given to the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 to base conviction on the accused. Due to existing disputes between PW.1 and accused, this false case was foisted against the accused by influencing the police and taking advantage of the injury on his head. Hence he requested this

Court to acquit A1 and A2.

10. After hearing the arguments of both APP and counsel for A1 and

A2 and considering the entire material on record, now the point for determination before the Court is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 for

the offences U/Secs.324 r/w 34 and 506 of IPC and A2 for the

offences U/Sec.324 and 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT::

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and exhibited the documents Exs.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is statement given by

PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2 is wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P3 is hospital intimation. Ex.P4 is FIR in Cr.No.159/2019. Ex.P5 is rough sketch.

12. PW.1 who is the defacto complainant deposed in his evidence that “on 25.05.2019 at about 5.30 PM, while he was doing agricultural operations in his land, both the accused came there and attacked him with iron rod. Out of them A1 pushed him on to the irrigation bode and

A2 bet with iron rod on his head, resulting bleeding injury. Both the accused also pressed on his neck with their legs. PWs.2 to 4,

LW.3/M.Siva, LW.6/K.Mohan Krishna and LW.7/P.Ravi witnessed the //5// occurrence. Later, he was shifted to Government General Hospital,

Eluru for treatment. Police came to the hospital and recorded Ex.P1 statement from him. The motive for the offence is due to existing previous disputes between them.” While cross examination he stated that “the disputes were inexistence from the time of his grandfather. Till today, he did not initiate any civil proceedings to resolve the disputes among them. For the last twenty years, they were no talking terms between his family and family of accused. They are his cousin brothers.

There is no crop in the field at the time of incident in this case. On the date of incident, he was residing at Santhinagar, Eluru. The distance between his house and the scene of offence is 10 to 12 kilometers. On the date of incident, he was present since morning to evening in his field. He used to go to his fields on his two wheeler motorcycle. Three other coolies were also present on the date of incident. The name of coolies are Yenagalla Srinivasa Rao and Mamillapalli Siva Gopala Rao.

The above two referred persons came to his field to do coolie works.”

13. PW.2 who alleged eyewitness to the scene of offence deposed in his evidence that “on 25.05.2019 at 5.30 PM, while he was present in his field, some altercation going on between PW.1 and the accused.

Then he rushed there, in the meantime, A2 bet PW.1 with iron rod on his head, resulting bleeding injury. When he reached there, PWs.3, 4,

LW.3/M.Siva, LW.6/K.Mohan Krishna and LW.7/P.Ravi were also present there and rescued from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter, he shifted PW.1 to Government General Hospital, Eluru.” While cross examination he stated that “the neighbouring land owners were also pass through the land of PW.1 to reach their lands. Some disputes are pending between PW.1 and the accused since long time.” //6//

14. PWs.3 and 4 who are other alleged eyewitnesses to the occurrence deposed in their evidence that “on 25.05.2019 at 5.30 PM, while they were proceeding on their respective motorcycles, they witnessed the altercation between PW.1 and the accused. Then they rushed to the scene of offence. By that time, both the accused fell down

PW.1 on bode and bet with their legs and hands and thereafter, A2 bet

PW.1 with iron on his head, resulting bleeding injury. Later PW.1 was shifted to Government General Hospital for treatment.” While cross examination they deposed that “they did not possess any lands near to the lands of PW.1.”

15. PW.5 the medical officer deposed that “on 25.05.2019 at about 6.05 PM, she examined PW.1 and found a laceration on head 3 x 0.5 cm. The said injury is simple in nature might have caused due to a blunt object. To that effect he issued Ex.P2 wound certificate.” While cross examination she stated that “the injury mentioned in Ex.P2 might be possible if any person suddenly fallen from two wheeler vehicle”

16. PW.6 the investigating officer deposed in his evidence that “on 25.05.2019 at about 9.00 PM, on receipt of hospital intimation along with statement of PW.1, he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.159/2019

U/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and forwarded the original FIR to this

Court and copies to all concerned. During the course of investigation, on 26.05.2019 he visited GGH, Eluru and there he secured the presence of

PW.1 and recorded his statement. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch. At the scene of offence, he secured the presence of PWs.2 to 4,

LW.3/M.Siva, LW.6/K.Mohan Krishna and LW.7/P.Ravi and recorded their statements.” While cross examination he stated that “the way shown in the rough sketch is only way to reach the fields of accused.

PW.1 did not state before him some coolies were also worked along //7// with him. PW.1 did not state before him that PWs.2 to 4, LW.3/M.Siva,

LW.6/K.Mohan Krishna and LW.7/P.Ravi were present at the time of alleged incident in this case. He did not examine the persons by name

Mamillapalli Srinivasa Rao and Mammillapalli Siva Gopala Chowdary who alleged to have shifted PW.1 to the GGH, Eluru. PW.2 did not state

before him that he shifted PW.1 to the hospital. PWs.3 and 4 did not

state before him while they were returning from their respective fields on their motorcycles, they witnessed the occurrence. He did not observe any blood stains at the scene of offence.”

17. PW.7 the another investigating officer deposed in his evidence that he received the entire case file from PW.6 and verified the same and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused. After receipt of wound certificate, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

18. On summing of the entire prosecution evidence and the other material available on record, the main case of the prosecution is that keeping the earlier disputes in mind, both the accused attacked PW.1 in his land and caused bleeding injury with iron rod on his head. The said incident was witnessed by PWs.2 to 4. The injury on the person of PW.1 was also tallied with the injury mentioned in the wound certificate. As such, A1 and A2 are liable for punishment U/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

Whereas the main case of A1 and A2 is that keeping the previous disputes in mind, this false case was foisted against them by influence the police and taking advantage of the self inflicted injury on his head.

PWs.2 to 4 are the close associates of PW.1. For that reason, they gave evidence before the Court quite contra to the statement given before the police. During the course of evidence the investigating officer categorically admitted with regard to the statements given by PWs.2 to 4 //8// during the course of investigation. As such, no credence will be given to the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 to base conviction on A1 and A2.

19. On scrutiny of entire evidence it is clear that PW.1 sustained injury on his head in the hands of accused. A close scrutiny of averments mentioned in Ex.P1, the allegations mentioned in charge sheet are quite contra to the evidence let in by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.1 on the date of alleged incident while he was present in his field, the accused came there and attacked him and caused injuries on his head. The said incident was witnessed by PWs.2 to 4. But as seen from the averments in Ex.P1, PWs.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. Ex.P1 is silent with regard to the witnessing of entire incident by PWs.2 to 4 as stated by them during the course of evidence. The said aspect was correctly pointed out by the counsel for the accused during the course of arguments. As per Ex.P1, one Inagalla Srinivasa Rao and Mamillapalli Siva Gopala Chowdary witnessed the incident who were neighbouring land owners and shifted

PW.1 to the hospital for treatment. But the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 is contra to the averments mentioned in Ex.P1. At the same time, the investigating officer failed to examine the persons mentioned in Ex.P1 statement. During the course of evidence, the investigating officer categorically admitted with regard to non examination of the persons mentioned in Ex.P1 statement. The non examination of the said persons is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, as per the case of prosecution PWs.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. But they vehemently deposed in their evidence as if they are the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. The contradicting versions from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clearly go to show that PWs.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. Moreover, they did not possess any land near to the land of PW.1. There is no possibility for //9// them to present at the alleged scene of offence as stated by them.

Moreover, they gave evidence quite contra to the statements given

before the police. During the course of cross examination the

investigating officer categorically admitted that PWs.2 to 4 did not state

before him as stated before the Court. As such, the evidence of PWs.2

to 4 has no evidentiary value to treat them as eyewitnesses in this case.

Moreover, as per the averments in Ex.P1, PW.2 was not shifted the injured PW.1 to the hospital. But during the course of evidence, PW.2 categorically deposed that he himself shifted PW.1 to the hospital for treatment. That itself clearly goes to show that PW.2 gave false evidence before the Court keeping the relationship between him and

PW.1. In the above referred circumstances, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of PWs.2 to 4, as the said evidence is not trustworthy.

20. The very contention of accused is that there were some disputes between them and PW.1 with regard to boundary between their lands.

During the course of evidence, all the witnesses categorically admitted with regard to the disputes between PW.1 and the accused. The investigating officer also admitted with regard to the existence of cart track in between the lands of PW.1 and the accused. But the said aspect was bluntly denied by PW.1 during the course of cross examination. That itself clearly goes to show that there is a civil dispute between PW.1 and the accused. It is an admitted fact that till today

PW.1 did not file any civil suit to resolve the dispute between them.

Moreover, as per the admission of PW.1, the three coolies were also present in the field along with him. The names of the said coolies were also mentioned in Ex.P1. But as seen from the contents of Ex.P1 the names mentioned in Ex.P1 are neighbouring land owners. At the same time, the investigating officer did not examine the persons mentioned in //10//

Ex.P1 statement. Further, PW.1 categorically admitted in his evidence that there is no crop in his field as on the date of alleged incident in this case. The distance between the house of PW.1 and scene of offence is 12 kilometers. Further he went to the fields on his two wheeler motorcycle. When there is no crop in the said field what is the necessity for PW.1 to stay in his field from the morning to evening as stated by him. At the same time there is no necessity to engage any coolies as stated by him. As such, the presence of PW.1 at the scene of offence itself is not believable. For the sake of filing the case only, the said scene of offence was set by PW.1. The investigation is also silent with regard to the two wheeler of PW.1 which was parked at his field. As per the evidence of PW.6 on the very next day he went to the alleged scene of offence and observed the same and prepared the rough sketch under

Ex.P5. But he did not seize any incriminating material from the scene of offence. There is no whisper with regard to the two wheeler of PW.1. As such, the contention of PW.1 with regard to visit of fields on his two wheeler motorcycle is not believable. For the sake of convenience only, he deposed in such a manner and same cannot be taken into consideration. There is no positive evidence on record that PW.1 sustained injury on his head in the hands of A2. As per the case of prosecution, PWs.2 to 4 are not the eyewitnesses to the scene of offence. Some disputes are pending with regard to the boundary between PW.1 and the accused. By keeping the said disputes in mind, there is every possibility to file this case against the accused basing on the injury on the person of PW.1. As such, I find force in the contention of accused with regard to the injury on the person of PW.1. PW.1 might have received the said injury by way of other means. In the aforesaid mentioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to believe the evidence of

PW.1 though the injury is tallied with the injury mentioned in Ex.P4 wound certificate. There is no cogent evidence before the Court to //11// constitute the offence U/Sec.506 of IPC. None of the prosecution witnesses spoke about the threat made by the accused. Viewed from any angle, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of A1 and

A2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt certainly goes in favour of A1 and A2. Accordingly, point is answered.

21. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.324 r/w 34 and 506 of IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.324 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9th day of May, 2022.

Sd/- P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for trial of cases

under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt.,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence PW.1: Garapati Sridhara Chakravarthi None PW.2: Garapati Upendra PW.3: Guttikonda Satyanarayana Chowdary PW.4: Gurrala Ramakrishna PW.5: Dr.D.Sai Deepthi PW.6: Ch.P.Sekhar Rao-ASI PW.7: P.Vasu-SI of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution :- For Defence:- Nil

Ex.P1: Statement given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2: Wound certificate of PW.1. Ex.P3: Hospital intimation. Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No.159/2019. Ex.P5: Rough sketch.

Material Objects Marked

Nil Id/- PRR

SJMFC(E)-CUM-

IV AJCJ, ELURU

//12//

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.417/2019 ON THE FILE OF

THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, (EXCISE)-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

DATE OF

Offence Complaint Apprehension Release Taken CommenceClose of Order of or report of accused on bail on file -ment of trial sentence trial 25.05.19 25.05.2019 Sec.41-A -- 24.09.19 06.12.21 13.04.22 09.05.2022 Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place. Complainant : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural Police Station, Crime No.159/2019

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused

1) Garapati Venkateswara Rao, s/o Krishna Murthy, 55 years, Male,

2) Garapati Sri Krishna, s/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, Male, A1 and A2 are Kamma by caste and r/o Kovvali, Denduluru Mandal.

Offence: u/Secs.324 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC Crime No.159/2019 of Eluru Rural Police Station. Finding: Found not guilty.

RESULT: A1 is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.324 r/w 34 and 506 of IPC and A2 is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.324 and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for trial of cases

under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt., Seal:

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.

//1/

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM–

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru FAC/ II Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – II Addl. Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Eluru. Thursday, the 16th day Of February, 2023.

C.C. No. 457 of 2020

Between: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police Station. Crime No.438 of 2019 …Complainant

And

1. Gottapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kurmayya, 56 years, Sai Mukteswara Nilayam Apartment, Eluru.

2. Adusumilli Rajendra Prasad, S/o. JanardhanaRao 47 years, R/o. John Street, Eluru.

3. Ethakota Srinviasa Rao, S/o. Bhimeswara Rao, 53 years, Shankara Matam Street, Eluru.

4. Paladugu Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, 57 years, John Street, Eluru.

5. Dasari Suresh Kumar, S/o. KOndala Rao, 52 years, Thathavari Street, Eluru.

6. Dasari Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Kali Vara Prasad, Southern Street, Eluru.

7. Thota Gopinadh, S/o. Nagadara Murthy, 31 years, Opp. To District Cooperative Bank, Eluru.…Accused

This case is coming on 16.02.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and Sri V.L.Narayana,

Advocate for Accused 1 to 7;and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Police station filed this case in Cr.

No.438/2019 of Eluru II Town PS alleging that Accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act, 1974.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, that on 1-12-2019, at night, while A-1 was conducting gambling along with A-2 to A-7 in his rented flat by playing gambling with them, in the absence of his family members, on receipt of the credible information, after getting search proceedings from superior officers, P.W. 5 conducted raid on the //2/ said rented flat along with his staff and the mediators i.e. P.W. 4 and L.W. 7 and taken

A-1 to A-7 into his custody on 1-12-2019 at about 8.00 PM on the charges of playing

Kotha Banthi by betting with money. Thereafter a mediator report was prepared through the mediators by incorporating all the events happened in his presence under

Ex.P-3 and seized M.Os 1 to 4 from their possession. On the strength of Ex. P3 report,

PW 5 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.418/2019 U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming

Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, again he visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch and examined all the charge sheeted witnesses and recorded their statements and served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the Accused. After completion of further investigation, he laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act against Accused 1 to 7.

4. On appearance of Accused 1 to 7, copies of case papers as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5. Accused 1 to 7 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act was framed against them and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP has given up the evidences of LW.1 /

V.Seetha Devayya ,PC 1435, Eluru II Town PS, LW.3 / G.Surendra Babu, PC 788,

Eluru II Town PS, LW.7 / Neelisetti Eswar.

7. A-1 to A-7 are examined U/Sec.313 CrPC by putting the incriminating evidence appeared against them U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Heard the learned APP and counsel for the Accused.

//3/

The counsel for the accused argued that nothing was happened at flat No.109 as alleged by the prosecution. The inconsistent versions from the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that no incident taken place in the above said flat No.109. Except the evidence of the police, there is no other independent evidence on record to corroborate their evidence with regard to the alleged raid conducted by PW5 with the prior permission of his higher officials. The cross examination of PW 4 who is one of the mediator has taken away the entire case of prosecution on wrong lines. As per his evidence the entire proceeding were prepared in the police station. The said admission itself sufficient to disbelieve the entire evidence of prosecution. During the course of cross examination, PW 5 categorically admitted that prior to registering the FIR he had arrested all the accused and taken them to the police station which is a procedural irregularity. MO1 was seized from the possession of the accused highhandedly on the behest of ruling party people by the police and foisted this false case by planting MOs 2 to 4. One of the accused was running a business in opposite to the II Town PS. On the date of alleged offence in this case, all the accused assembled in the above said shop and discussing about the various problems, the police went there and seized MO 1 from their possession highhandedly without disclosing the reasons for their arrest. Even the prosecution witnesses are not in a position to speak about the exact amount seized from the possession of the accused. It clearly shows that the said seizure was not effected

before anybody as conducted by the prosecution. Hence, the counsel for the accused

requested the Hon’ble Court to acquit the accused and return the amount seized from their possession highhandedly by the police.

9. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the accused and considering the entire material on record now the point for consideration before the Court is :

1. Whether the Flat No.109 taken by A-1 on rent and converted it as common gaming house to attract the offence U/Sec. 3 of AP Gaming Act ?

2. Whether A-2 to A-7 playing Kothabanthi in the rented premises of A- 1 to attract the offence U/Sec. 4 of AP Gaming act.

//4/

3. Whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for

the offences U/Sec. 3 and 4 of Ap Gaming Act all the reasonable doubt ?

10. Before going into the merits of the prosecution case it is pertinent to mention the ingredients of Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act to base conviction on the accused for the offences leveled against them:

Sec. 3 of AP Gaming Act :

Penalty for opening, etc., a common gaming house – (1) Any person who opens, keeps, operates, uses or permits to be used any common gaming house or online gaming or conducts or assists in conducting the business of any common gaming house or advances or furnishes money for gaming therein, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- for the first offence. Thereafter every subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to 2 years and with fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-.

Sec. 4 of AP Gaming Act :

Penalty for being found gaming in a common gaming house – whoever is found gaming or present for the purpose of gaming in a common gaming house shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six (6) months or with fine which may extend to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) or with both.

Section 2 (1) (i) defines the meaning of the common gaming house i.e. any house, room, tent, enclosure, vehicle, vessels, or any place whatsoever in which the gaming takes place or in which the horses or other instruments of gaming, are used for such gaming.

11. The above referred sections clearly shows that in order to fasten the criminal liability U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming act against the accused, the prosecution has to establish that flat No.102 in Sai Mukteswara Apartment, Mangennavari Street, used as a common gaming house and A-1 has been organizing the gambling in the said apartment by procuring the punters to gain unlawfully.

POINT No. 1 :

12. In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and exhibited the documents Exs.P1 to P3. As seen from the entire evidence //5/ adduced on behalf of the prosecution, on credible information, PW 5 raided on flat

No.109 in the presence of his staff members and the mediators. Thereafter a mediator report was prepared by incorporating all the events happened in his presence through the mediators under Ex. P3. As per Ex. P3, A-1 was residing in the said flat along with his family on rental basis. On the date of alleged offence, A-1 sent his family members outside and conducting gambling with A-2 to A-7. Except by mentioning the above said aspects in Ex.P3, there is no piece of evidence before the Court that A-1 took the said flat on lease. It is an admitted fact that PW 5 did not examine the owner of the said apartment to accept that it was leased out to A-1 by his land lord. Without collecting any such evidence, it cannot be said that A-1 took the said flat on rent. At the same time PW 5 did not examine any of the revenue officials to know about the ownership particulars of flat No.109. During the course of examination, all the prosecution witnesses categorically admitted that flat No.109 was surrounded by other flats. But

PW5 did not move his little finger to examine any of the neighbouring flat owners to know about the ownership particulars of flat No.109.

13. As per the evidence of PW5 during course of investigation he also visited the above said apartment subsequent to registration of Ex.P-3 mediator report. By that time, he also examined the watchman of the said apartment. But the said watchman did not support the version of prosecution with regard to the raid conducted by PW 5 on that day. Except the evidence of PW5, there is no other evidence on record to show that he raided on the said flat along with his staff and mediators. Further as seen from

Ex.P-4 search proceedings that it was obtained from the higher officials on the date of raid itself. But it was not served on any of the accused to establish the raid of PW 5 as contended by him. If really Ex. P-4 was obtained prior to the above said alleged raid, there is every possibility to obtain the signature of any of the accused on it. As such the non-obtaining of any acknowledgment on Ex.P-4 also creates a doubt with regard to the visit of PW 5 to the above said place. At the same time, there is no document

before the Court that flat No.109 was used as a common gaming house. As such, the

//6/ offence U/Sec. 3 of AP Gaming Act would not attract against A-1. Accordingly point

No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2 :

14. In order to establish the search and seizure, the prosecution must follow the provisions as contemplated U/Sec. 100 (4) of CrPC at the scene of offence. The evidence available before the Court is PW 1, 4 and 5 to establish the seizure of MOs 1 to 4 from the possession of the accused. The Court has to assess the evidence of

PW1, 4 and 5 with regard to the seizure of MOs 1 to 4 to come to a proper conclusion and to convict the accused for the offences leveled against them. As seen from the evidence of PW, 4 and 5 on credible information PW5 secured the presence of the mediators and the police and raided flat No.109 and seized MOs 1 to 4 from the possession of the accused under a cover of Ex.P-3 report. The inconsistent versions from the mouth of PW 1, 4 and 5 crates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to their actual visit of the said place. Even PW1 and PW 4 are not in a position to speak about the quantum of amount and the number of playing cards seized from the possession of the accused. That itself creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to their visit to the above said place. Admittedly either PW1 or the other police personal who accompanied PW 5 to the above said place did not attest Ex.P-3. The said aspect was clearly admitted by him during the course of evidence. If really the contention of PW1 is true and correct, there is every possibility to obtain his signature on Ex. P-3. Further during the course of cross examination, PW 4 one of the mediator categorically admitted that Ex. P-3 was prepared in the police station. As such it is clear that no raid was conducted by PW 5 as contended by him. At the same time

PW4 was not drafted Ex. P-3. As per his evidence, one of the constable drafted Ex. P- 3 mediator report. The name of the said constable was not reflected from Ex. P-3. The non mentioning of the name of scribe on Ex. P-3 clearly goes to show that PW 5 put his signature on it subsequently at the request of police. As such the evidence of PW 1 //7/ and 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of MOs 1 to 4 from the possession of the accused.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW5 it is an admitted fact that he did not serve

Ex.P4 search proceedings on any of the accused. Further he categorically admitted that prior to registering of FIR he arrested all the accused and taken them to police station without following proper procedure. At the same time he did not seize any tables and chairs in flat No.109 which alleged to be used by the accused. He did not prepare any rough sketch at the time of observing the scene to know about the particulars of the neighnouing flat owners. At the same time he did not examine any of the neighbouring flat owners to know about the ownership particulars of flat No.109.

The identity slips affixed on the seized property are not reflected on MOs 1 to 4. More over as per Ex.P3 the entire property was packed in a gunny bag. But the said gunny bag was not produced before the Court. All the referred circumstances clearly goes to show that the PW 5 failed to follow the provisions as contemplated U/Sec. 100 (4) of

CrPC at the time of seizure of MOs 1 to 4. As such the alleged seizure is not believable.

16. Coming to the case of the accused nothing was happened as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. As per the case of the accused A-4 was running a finance company in the name and style of Mounica Finance Company opposite to the II Town

Police Station. Admittedly all the accused are belongs to Telugudesam party. On the date of alleged offence, in morning time, all the accused convened a meeting in the said finance company to discuss about their business. By that time, the police went there with an apprehension that they are filing petitions against the local MLA and the

Government and highhandedly took the amounts from their pockets. The above said act was done by the police with the active support of ruling party people. By that time an amount of Rs.1,46,000/- from A-1 and remaining amount from the remaining accused was taken by the police and foisted this false case by planting MOs 2 to 4. It //8/ is an admitted fact that MOs 2 to 4 are readily available in the market. In the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence from the side of prosecution, I find force in the contention of the accused with regard to seizure of MO1 from the possession of accused in the circumstances narrated by them. There is every possibility to file this case against the accused by planting MOs 2 to 4 to honour the request of ruling party people. As such MO1 was not seized from the possession of them in the circumstances stated by the prosecution witnesses to base conviction on the accused.

In order to support the contention of accused the counsel relied upon a decision report in 2003 (1) ALD Criminal 411 AP between A Bhaskar and Vs. State of A.P., I have gone through the referred decision. Our Lordships categorically discussed with regard to the return of seized amount when the accused are acquitted for the offence under the Gaming Act. The facts and circumstances in the above referred case and the facts and circumstance in the present case on the hand are one and same. As such the above referred decision is squarely applicable to this case. As the prosecution failed to established the seizure of MO1 from the possession of Accused in the circumstances stated the accused are entitled for return of the said amount. In view of the aforesaid reasons the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such the accused are entitled for acquittal.

17. In the result, the Accused 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 an amount of Rs.1,75,345/- shall be returned to the Accused i.e. (an amount of

Rs.1,46,000/- to A-1 and the balance amount to the remaining accused), MO 2 is to be confiscated to State and MOs 3 and 4 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt.,

FAC : II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru.

//9/

Appendix of Evidencemn

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: B.T.AS. Manikyala Rao None PW.2: Ch. Gangadhara Rao, P.W.3 : B. Prakash, P.W.4 : K. Ramu, P.W.5 : K. Nagendra Prasad.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P3: 161 Mediator Report. Ex.P4: Search Proceedings of SDPO. Ex.P4: FIR.

Material Objects Marked

M.O. No.1 – Cash of Rs.1,75,345-00 MO No. 2 – 10 cell phones, M.O. No. 3 – 104 playing cards (2 boxes), M.O. No. 4 – 32 plastic coins.

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

SJMFC(E)-CUM-IV AJCJ, ELURU

FAC : II AJCJ cum II AJFCM, Eluru.

//10/

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C. C. No.457/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM II ADDL. JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE , ELURU.

DATE OF

OffenceComplainApprehensioRelease Taken CommenceClose of Order of t or n of accusedon bailon file-ment of trialsentence reporttrial 1-12-1-12-Sec.41-A --12-11-7-2-202314-2-16-2-2023 20192019Cr.P.C.20202023

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru II Town Station. Crime No.438/2019

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused

1. Gottapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Kurmayya, 56 years, Sai Mukteswara Nilayam Apartment, Eluru.

2. Adusumilli Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Janardhana Rao, 47 years, R/o. John Street, Eluru.

3. Ethakota Srinviasa Rao, S/o. Bhimeswara Rao, 53 years, Shankara Matam Street, Eluru.

4. Paladugu Rajendra Prasad, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, 57 years, John Street, Eluru.

5. Dasari Suresh Kumar, S/o. KOndala Rao, 52 years, Thathavari Street, Eluru.

6. Dasari Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Kali Vara Prasad, Southern Street, Eluru.

7. Thota Gopinadh, S/o. Nagadara Murthy, 31 years, Opp. To District Cooperative Bank, Eluru.

Offence: U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act. Crime No.438/2019 of Eluru II Town PS, Eluru. Finding: Found not guilty.

RESULT: the Accused 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.3 and 4 of AP

Gaming Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 an amount of Rs.1,75,345/- shall be returned to the Accused i.e. (an amount of Rs.1,46,000/- to

A-1 and the balance amount to the remaining accused), MO 2 is to be confiscated to

State and MOs 3 and 4 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time is over

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt.,

FAC : II Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate, Eluru. Seal: Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru. West Godavari District, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL I

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: BHIMADOLE

PRESENT: Sri.P.Ramana Reddy, Spl.Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise)-cum- IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. FAC/ Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimadole.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S.No.75/2018

Between :

Motaparthy Usha Rani, W/o Veerayya, Chowdary, Hindu, Female, Aged 55 years, R/o D.No. 3-175, Co-operative Bank Road, Denduluru Village and Mandal. :: Plaintiff. And:

Surisetty Suryanarayana, S/o late Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged 49 years, R/o D.No.3-15, Opp: to Indravanam, Denduluru Village and Mandal. :: Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 18.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. E.Srinivasa Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.K.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.5,15,800/- being the principal and interest due on pronote, dt.10.12.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint as follows:

2.It is submitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.12.2015 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Despite several demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount to the plaintiff and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Then the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 30.07.2018 to the defendant. But the 2 defendant refused to receive the said notice and kept quite. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared

before this Court through his counsel and filed written statement. The brief

averments stemming out from the written statement of the defendant as follows:

The defendant denied all the averments mentioned in the plaint in verbatim. He further submitted that no consideration was passed under

Ex.A1. The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff by executing promissory note as alleged by her. The plaintiff might have created and fabricated the said promissory note and filed the same to gain wrongfully. The defendant is ready and willing to send the alleged promissory note to the handwriting expert. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendant. Hence, the defendant requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the averments in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.10.12.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of promissory note amount?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 and 3 and exhibited the documents Exs.A1 to A3. The evidence of PW.2 was eschewed as he failed to appear before the Court to undergone cross examination who was the scribe on Ex.A1. The defendant filed his chief affidavit, but failed to attend before the Court to undergone cross examination even after granting sufficient time and also imposing of costs.

As such, this Court eschewed the evidence of DW.1 and posted the matter for arguments.

3

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff and defendant.

The counsel for the plaintiff argued that to prove the execution of

Ex.A1, the plaintiff got examined PWs.1 and 3 and exhibited the documents Exs.A1 to A3. By examining PWs.1 and 3 and by marking

Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff successfully established the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under it to the defendant. The defendant set up a false plea in his written statement in order to postpone the payment of amount due under Ex.A1 without any basis. After lapse of five years also, the defendant did not initiate any proceedings to take the promissory note to the handwriting expert as alleged in the written statement. As such, for the sake of defence only, the said aspect was mentioned in the written statement without any basis. As such, the counsel for the plaintiff requested this Court to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the amount mentioned in the plaint.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

7.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff filed her chief affidavit by reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint and same is treated as chief examination of PW.1. She also exhibited the documents under Exs.A1 to A3. They are Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.10.12.2015, Ex.A2 is the

Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant through her counsel, dt.30.07.2018, Ex.A3 is returned notice, dt.31.07.2018. In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration under it, she also examined PWs.2 and 3 who are the scribe and 1st attester of

Ex.A1. But PW.2 failed to attend before the Court to undergone cross examination and as such, this Court eschewed the said evidence. PW.3 categorically deposed in his evidence with regard to the execution of

Ex.A1 and passing of consideration to the defendant in his presence.

4

While cross-examination of PWs.1 and 3 nothing was elicited with regard to execution of promissory note except some denials.

8.In order to prove the allegations in the written statement, the defendant filed his chief affidavit and failed to turn up before the Court to undergone cross examination. After affording several opportunities, this

Court eschewed the evidence of DW.1. Even after eschewing the evidence, either the defendant or his counsel did not make any effort to appear before the Court to restore the proceedings on behalf of the defendant. It clearly shows that the defendant has no interest to appear

before the Court and to continue the proceedings against the plaintiff.

9.In order to prove the execution of Ex.A1, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and exhibited the documents Exs.A1 to A3. She also examined PWs.2 and 3 who are the scribe and 1st attester on Ex.A1. But

PW.2 failed to attend before the Court to undergone cross examination and as such, this Court eschewed the said evidence. PW.3 categorically deposed with regard to the presence of all the stake holders at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and passing of entire consideration to the defendant.

By examining PWs.1 and 3 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff discharged her burden with regard to the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.The counsel for defendant cross examined PWs.1 and 3 at length. But nothing was elicited to disprove the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant except some denials. The plaintiff discharged her burden by examining PWs.1 and 3 and by marking Exs.A1 to A3 with regard to the passing of consideration and execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. Now the burden shifts on to the shoulder of defendant to establish the allegations mentioned in the written statement to deny the relief to the plaintiff.

5

10.The core contention of the defendant is that no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 in the presence of attesters and scribe. The suit promissory note is a created and fabricated document. For which there is no positive evidence before the Court to accept the contention of the defendant. Even he did not turn up before the Court to undergone cross examination after filing his chief affidavit. It clearly shows that the defendant has no interest to proceed further and all the allegations mentioned in the written statement are invented for the purpose of this case. As could be seen from the contents in the written statement Ex.A1 promissory note is a created and forged document. The present suit filed in the year 2018 by the plaintiff. Till today, the defendant did not initiate any proceedings to establish his defence taken in the written statement. At the same time, written statement is silent under what circumstances the plaintiff created Ex.A1 by forging the signature of the defendant. In the absence of such information in the written statement it can clearly understood that for the sake of defence only, the aspect of fabrication was brought into existence without any basis. If really, there is any truth in the contention of defendant, he might have initiate necessary steps at relevant point of time to fish out the actual truth before this Court. In the absence of any proceedings from the side of defendant, I do not see any merits in his contention. As such, this Court is not inclined to believe the contention of the defendant with regard to the contents mentioned in the written statement. On the other hand, the plaintiff proved her case by examining

PWs.1 and 3 and by exhibiting the documents under Exs.A1 to A3 with regard to passing of consideration to the defendant in the presence of all the stake holders. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, the issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

6

Issue No.3:

11.In view of answer to issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit shall be decreed.

12.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.5,15,800/- with subsequent interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on

principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-P.Ramana Reddy/-

Spl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class(Excise)-cum- IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. FAC/ Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate I Class,

Bhimadole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: PW.1/Motaparthy Usha Rani PW.2/K. Dharma Prasad (Eschewed) PW.3/Boyapati Srinivas For Defendant: DW.1/Surisetty Suryanarayana (Eschewed)

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: NIL

Ex.A1/10.12.2015: Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2/30.07.2018:Office copy of legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant through her counsel. Ex.A3/31.07.2018:Returned Notice

Sd/-P.R.R/-

SJMFC(E)-CUM-IV AJCJ, ELURU.

FAC/JCJ-CUM-JMFC,BDL.

//1//

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM–

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

Present: Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act -cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru FAC/ II Addl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum – II Addl. Judl. Magistrate Of I Class, Eluru.

Thursday, the 16th day of February, 2023

C.C. No. 318 of 2020

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station Crime No.1 of 2020 …Complainant

And

1). Konakalla Vayu Nandana Kumar, Venkateswara Rao, aged 33 years, Engineer, R/o. D.No. 4-14-12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru. Now at North Carolina, Carry, USA.

2) Konakalla Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 4-14-12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru.

3) Konakalla Sandyarani, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 54 years, R/o. D.No. 4-14-12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru.

4) Mittapalli Pavitra, W/o. Aditya, 36 years, R/o. Flat No. 19, Anjali Gardens, Near Zee Mountlitera School, Puppala Guda, Manikonda, Hyderabad. …A-2 to A-4 (NBW pending against the Accused No.1, hence the case against A1 is split up from this case and re-numbered as

CC.No.81/2023 against A1 on 7.2.2023)

This case is coming on 16.2.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for complainant and Sri B.V. Appa Rao, Advocate for A2 to A-4;and upon perusing the material on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following___

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station filed this case in

Crime No.1 of 2020 alleging that A2 to A4 have committed the offence punishable //2//

U/Sec.498-A, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (for short, ‘D.P. Act’).

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, that on 14-6-2017 the marriage of PW1 was performed with A-1. At the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 gave

Rs.10.00 lakhs of cash, 30 sovereigns of gold, 2 Kgs of silver and landed property worth of Rs.12 lakhs and also paid Rs.2.50 lakhs towards adabaduchu lanchanams. Immediately after marriage, PW1 joined A-1 at North Carolina of

USA to lead marital life. Soon after marriage all the accused subjected her to cruelty demanding for additional dowry and to dispose of her landed property given by her parents, after her great struggle with the accused on 22-11-2017 she went and joined A-1 in USA, where A-1 tortured, harassed and humiliated her by all means, demanding for additional dowry, on the instigation of co-accused A-2 to

A-4, she endured ill treatment of the accused in USA anticipating change in the attitude of A-1 but of no use, with the help of known persons she appraised her grievances to her parents and on 7-3-2018 she came back to her in laws home, on her return to Eluru the A-2 to A-4 further accelerated their ill treatment towards her by all means demanded for additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and to dispose off her handed property to fulfil their dowry demand and subjected her for cruelty. Due to unbearable torture of the accused A-1 to A-4, she gave a complaint to the District

Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru in Spandana Programme against the accused and the same was registered as Cr.No.1/2020 U/Sec.498-A, 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (for short, ‘D.P. Act’).

During the course of investigation, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and also examined all the charge sheeted witnesses and recorded their statements. He also issued notices to A2 to A4 U/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C by praying the Hon’ble Court to issue NBW against A-1 who is residing in

USA. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused

before the Court.

//3//

3. On 29.9.2020, this Court took cognizance of the offences U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of DP Act against A-2 to A-4 and issued NBW against A-1.

4. A-2 to A-4 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and a charge U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act was framed against them and the contents of the charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW.3 /

Manepalli Sudharani, LW.4 / Jallipalli Baburao, LW.5 / Padarthi Subrahmanyam,

LW.6 / Manda Ramesh, LW.7 / Sunkara Swarajya Laksxhmi, LW.8 / Dharmendra

Gupta, LW.9 / Lakamsetti Subba Rao, LW.10 / Ballapragada Janaki Ram, L.W. 11 / GVS Pydeswara Rao, DSP, SHO, Disha Women PS, Eluru.

6. As seen from the prosecution evidence, there is no incriminating evidence appeared against A2 to A4. Hence, the examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The defence reported no evidence.

7. Heard the learned APP and counsel for A2 to A4.

8. Now the points for determination before the court is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A2 to A4 beyond

all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

9. In order to establish the guilt of A2 to A4, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and exhibited the documents Exs.P1 to P4. On considering the entire material on record and evidence of PWs.1 and 2, PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support their version as stated before the police. PW.1 deposed in her evidence that after her marriage, some petty disputes arose between her and her //4// husband in the year 2019, in that context, her parents taken her to police station and got filed a report through her, but she did not know the contents on it and she has no objection to acquit the accused 2 to 4 as her husband A-1 lost breath during pendency of the case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs.1 and 2. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses stating that no useful purpose will be served on examining the remaining witnesses as the prime witness turned hostile and didn’t support the version of prosecution. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 the learned APP correctly given up the remaining witnesses. There is no positive evidence from the side of prosecution to convict A2 to A4 for the offence leveled against them. Hence, A2 to A4 are entitled for acquittal.

10. In the result, A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 to A4, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of CrPC. The case is separated against A-1 as

C.C. No. 81/2023.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt., FAC : II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate cum II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: K. Sindhuri, None PW.2: M.V. Narayana Kumar //5//

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report Ex.P2: Typed Report. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

SJMFC(E)-CUM-IV AJCJ, Eluru FAC: II AJFCM cum II AJCJ, Eluru.

//6//

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C. C. No.318/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM– II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU.

DATE OF

Date of ComplainApprehensioRelease Taken CommenceClose of Order of Offencet or n of accusedon bailon file-ment of trialsentence reporttrial Prior to 6-1-20Sec.41-A --29-9-14-2-202314-2-202316.2.2023 6-1-20Cr.P.C.2020

Explanation for delay: No avoidable delay took place.

Complainant : State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Women Police Station. Crime No.1/2020

S.No. Name of the Father’s name Age Religion Sex Calling Village Mandal Accused 1). Konakalla Vayu Nandana Kumar, Venkateswara Rao, aged 33 years, Engineer, R/o. D.No. 4-14-12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru. Now at North Carolina, Carry, USA.

2) Konakalla Venkateswara Rao, 60 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 4-14-12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru.

3) Konakalla Sandyarani, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, 54 years, R/o. D.No. 4-14- 12/2, Near Batchpan School, Kanakadurga Temple Street, Agraharam, Eluru.

4) Mittapalli Pavitra, W/o. Aditya, 36 years, R/o. Flat No. 19, Anjali Gardens, Near Zee Mountlitera School, Puppala Guda, Manikonda, Hyderabad.

(NBW pending against the Accused No.1, hence the case against A1 is split up from this case and re-numbered as CC.No.81/2023 against A1 on 7.2.2023)

Offence: U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Crime No.1/2020 of Women Police Station, Eluru Finding: Found not guilty.

RESULT: A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.498-A, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2 to A4, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months U/Sec.437-A of CrPC. The case is separated against A-1 as C.C. No.

81/2023.

Sd/- Sri P.Ramana Reddy

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition & Excise Act at Eluru-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, W.G.Dt., FAC : II Addl. Judicial I Class Magistrate cum II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. Seal: Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru.