Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SALUR

Present:- Sri.P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum- Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Salur.

Friday, the 28th day of December 2018

Calendar Case No. 132/2015. Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Makkuva Police Station. …Complainant. And:

A1)Allu Satyanarayana, S/o.late Appalaswamy, aged 38 years, K.Velama by caste, S.Peddavalasa village, Makkuva mandal. A2)Pudi Satyanarayana, S/o.Krishnamurthy, aged 36 years, K.Velama by caste, S.Peddavalasa village, Makkuva mandal.

...Accused.

This case coming on 21.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri M.Mohan Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for A1 and Sri M.V.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for A2; and upon hearing both sides and 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, Makkuva Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 and 2 in Crime No. 39/2013 for the offences under sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that the Defacto complainant/Vemala

Lakshmi kantham working as teacher, she is having a land to an extent of 7 acre 80 cents vide S.No.374/1 Ac.1.40 cents, 374/1A Ac.1.20 cents, S.No.374/2, 1 acre, S.No.399/1A, 1.40 cents, S.No.374/1, 0.40 cents, S.No.374/1, 2 acres, S.No.374/4 0.40 cents and the same were in her possession. On 27.8.2013 at 8-00 a.m. A-1 and A-2 without having any right and possession trespassed into the land of Vemala Lakshmi Kantham illegally and damaged paddy crop worth Rs.20,000/-. LW-9 witnessed the same and informed to LW- 1-Kantham. On that LWs 1 and 2 questioned about the illegal activity of accused, the accused threatened her and her husband with dire consequences. Later she planted paddy crop, again A-1 and A-2 tried to trespass into the land. Basing on the report, PW-5- SI of 2

Police, Makkuva registered a case in Cr.No.39/2013 under sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. Hence charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 447, 427 and 506 (1) r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2.

4.On producing the accused, on the first appearance, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. On the next hearing, the accused was examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and upon hearing, a charge has been framed against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence under sections 447, 427 and 506 (1) r/w 34 IPC read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In the course of prosecution side evidence, PW1 to PW6 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P7 and Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.

7.After the closure of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., and when the incriminating evidence was put to them, the accused denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record on hand.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 (1) r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.The defacto-complainant who filed report is no more. The evidence of PW-1 is that LW-1Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2-Vemala Bhaskara Rao are no more. He deposed that LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham has agricultural land to an extent of 10 cents. He deposed that his land is situated adjacent to the land of PW-1. He deposed that about 4 years ago while he was doing agricultural work in his land, he saw A-1 and A-2 3 damaging the crop of LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and he informed the same to LW- 1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2 Vemala Bhaskar Rao. On that he questioned the accused and both the accused replied that the land belongs to them and they can do anything. During the course of cross examination he deposed that he does not know the survey number of disputed land. Further he deposed that he did not state before police that A-2 was present on the bund at that time, but he did not damage the crop.

11.The evidence of PW-2 is that about 4 years ago, while he was going to fields by the side of fields of LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-Vemala Bhaskar Rao, LW-1

Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2 Vemala Bhaskar Rao were present in their fields and there were disputes and he noticed the same and he went there. He deposed that LW-

Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2-Vemala Bhaskar asked both the accused that they damaged the crop, on that accused replied that to say anyone and further threatened that they will kill them. During the course of cross examination PW-1 categorically deposed that he did not state before police that A-2 was present at the bund but he did not commit any mistake. The evidence of PW-3 is that LW-9 informed LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi

Kantham LW-2 Bhaskar Rao that A-1 and A-2 damaged the crop. He deposed that LW1

Vemala Lakshmi Kantham LW2 Bhaskar Rao went to the fields but the accused threatened to do anything. During the course of cross examination PW-3 deposed that he was not present on the date of incident. The evidence of PW-4 is that on 27.8.2013 LW-9 came to LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham’s house and informed A-1 and A-2 damaged the crop. He deposed that LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW2 Bhaskar Rao went to the fields both the accused stated that they can do anything and also threatened to say anyone. During the course of cross examination PW-4 deposed that adjacent to 8-00 of land father of A-2 is having land. He deposed that A-1 has no land near the scene of offence. The evidence of PW-5 is relevant to the extent of registering FIR, examination of witnesses, visiting scene of offence and drawing rough sketch. The evidence of PW-6 is that he examined PW-3, PW-4 and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Through PW-6 Ex.P-4 Opinion of Tahsildar along 4 with letter and statement were marked. During the course of cross examination of PW-6, he deposed that the disputed land is situated in S.Nos.374/1, 374/2. 374/4. 374/7 and 399/1. He deposed that as per Ex.P-4 the enjoyer of the land is Pudi Krishna Murthy and

Allu Satyanarayana. He deposed that he did not verify certified copies of sale deed. He deposed that in the letter Ex.P-4 it is mentioned that the property was acquired by LW-1

Vemala Lakshmi Kantham as per sale deed but nowhere it is mentioned that the disputed land is in the possession of LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham.

12.The essential ingredients of the offence u/sec.447 are as follows: `

1) The complainant was in possession of property;

2) The accused entered into or upon the property unlawfully or having entered into or upon such property lawfully remains there with an intention to;

a) commit an offence;

b) intimidate;

c) insult;

d) annoy any person in possession of property.

In the present case the defacto-complainant was not examined and she was no more. On evaluating the evidence of PW-1 he deposed that while he was going to agricultural work he saw A-1 and A-2 damaging the crop of LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham. It is the contention of the learned counsel of A-2 that PW-1 as per Ex.D-1 stated that A-2 was present near bund but he did not cause any damage to the crop. On evaluating the evidence of PW-1 it is contradicting in nature. Whereas PW-1 as per Ex.D-1stated that A- 2 was present near the bund and did not damage any crop but PW-2 in his evidence deposed that both A-1 and A-2 damaged the crop. On evaluating the evidence of PW-2, as per Ex.D-2 he too stated that A-2 was present at the bund but he did not cause any damage to the crop. Whereas PW-2 deposed that A-1 and A-2 damaged the crop. The evidence of PW-2 is contradicting in nature. With the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is clear that the case against accused No.2 is not made out. Further PW-3 during the course of cross examination admitted that father of A-2 is having land adjacent to Ac.8-00 of land.

PW-4 also deposed during the course of cross examination that father of A-2 is having land adjacent to Ac.8-00 of land. Is the contention of the learned counsel for A-2 that mere presence of A-2 at the time of incident does not show his intention to commit 5 criminal trespass, criminal intimidation and damage of crop. The prosecution also did not examine LW-9 Vemala Manmadha Rao who is the eye witness. With the evidence of PW- 3 and PW-4 it is clear that father of A-2 is having land near the disputed land and this fact goes to show that A-2 was merely present at the time of alleged incident.

13.The prosecution also failed to elicit how much crop was damaged due to the act of the accused. The prosecution did not seize any crop. Hence the above discussion leads to conclude that no offence was committed by the accused 1 and 2 for the offence u/sec.427

IPC. However, the evidence on hand establishes the fact that A-1 entered into the land of

LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham with an intent to annoy, intimidate or insult LW-1

Vemala Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2 Bhaskar Rao. Further Ex.P-4 states that during enquiry Smt.Allu Appalanarasamma sold the dry lands in S.No.374/1, 2, 4 measuring

Ac.3.60, 1.00, 0.40, 1.40 respectively and S.No.399/1 measuring Ac.1.40 cents have not been registered and sold away to LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham. This fact reveals that

LW-1 Vemala Lakshmi Kantham has got rights over the above said lands covered by

S.Nos.374/1, 2, 4 and S.No.399/1. The evidence of prosecution also establish that accused No.1 has intention being to cause alarm to the complainant LW-1 Vemala

Lakshmi Kantham and LW-2 Bhaskar Rao which attracts offence punishable under section 506 (1) of IPC. Above discussion leads to the Court to hold that prosecution prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec.447, 506(1) of IPC against A-1 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/sec.427, 447, 506(1) r/w 34 IPC against A-2. The prosecution also failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec.427 IPC against A-1.

14.In the result, A-1 is found guilty for the offence u/sec. 447 and 506 (1) IPC and accordingly he is convicted u/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. A-1 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.427 IPC. A-2 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.427, 447 and 506(1) r/w 34

IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

A-1 is heard on the quantum of sentence. He stated that lenient view may taken.

6

In the result, A-1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence u/sec.447 IPC and A-1 is also sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence u/sec.506 (1) IPC. The imprisonment shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, if any, as per section 427 Cr.P.C. A-2 is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by Steno, Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 28th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-Judl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili

FAC: Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1: Vemala Manmadharao None PW2: Porapu Yerrayya PW3: Vemala Laxmanarao PW4: Badi Venkatarao PW5: P.Vara Prasad, SI of Police, Gajapathinagaram PW6: B.Ravindra Raju, SI of police, Bobbili. Exhibits Marked For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:3.9.2013Report of PW1 given to the police. Ex.P2:3.9.2013Original FIR marked by PW.1 Ex.P3:4.9.2013Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P4:6.3.2018Opinion or Tahasildar Ex.P521.07.2014CC of calender and judgment in CC.4/2014 Ex.P621.07.2014CC of calender and judgment in CC.135/2012 Ex.P77.6.2015.CC of decree in OS.5/2009 For Defence: Ex.D14.9.2013Marked portion of PW.1 161 Cr.P.C., statement Ex.D24.9.2013Marked portion of PW.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement

Sd/- P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge -Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

BOBBILI.

FAC/Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST

CLASS, SALUR.

Present : Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Principal Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili

FAC: Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 18th day of January, 2019

C.C.NO.396 OF 2016

Between: State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station. …Complainant.

And: Sheik Kareem @ Srinu, S/o Ali Saheb, Aged 27 years, Muslim, China Bheemavaram village, Badangi Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 09.1.2019 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.M.Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.110/2016 against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 or 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 22.08.2016 morning PW­2 went to coolie work and PW­1 was at his house due to fever and at about 10­00 a.m. he went to road for collecting goat kid by closing the doors and when he returned to his house, he found iron almyrah locks were broken open and cash of Rs.3000/­ and silver anklets worth

Rs.2,000/­ were committed theft by unknown culprits. Basing on the report of PW­1 the Sub­Inspector of Police, Ramabhadrapuram police station registered a case in Cr.No.110/2016 u/sec.454, 380 or 411 IPC 2 and investigated into. On 1.9.2016 the Inspector of Police, Salur Circle arrested the accused at Venkateswara Delux, Salur in the presence of PW­ 4 and LW­7 Patnayukuni Krishna Murthy in respect of his crime No.89/16 of Pachipenta Police station and recorded confessional statement of the accused and seized stolen property i.e., sliver anklets pair and cash of

Rs.2000/­ in this crime and other cases from the possession of the accused. On 12.9.2016 PW­7 produced the accused before this Court on

P.T. Warrant and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 454, 380 or 411 of the IPC against the accused.

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., Accused was examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence. Charge under

Section 454, 380 or 411 of IPC was framed against Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and Ex.P.1 to P­5 and M.Os 1 and 2 are marked. 

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

3

8. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence u/sec.454, 380 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of any witness must be trustworthy, cogent and reliable.

10.The evidence of PW­1 is that he noticed the doors of his house open.

He noticed 9 tulas of silver anklets and an amount of Rs.2000/­ were stolen away and later he gave report to police. During the course of cross examination he deposed that he cannot say the date when the offence was committed. He also deposed that he did not mention about the model, design with regard to property.

11.The evidence of PW­2 is that she came back to her house and verified her house and found amount which was kept in the box was stolen away. She deposed that silver anklets were also stolen. During the course of cross examination she deposed that she does not know when the offence took place.

12.The evidence of PW­3 is relevant to the extent of going to the house of PW­1 and observing the scene of offence. PW­3 deposed that he noticed almyrah was opened and house was in pell­mell condition.

13.The evidence of PW­4 is that on 1.9.2016 the Ramabhadrapuram police called him to act as mediator at about 4 or 12.30 p.m. and on that he was taken by the police to M.R.O. Office and taken him to C.I. office junction. He deposed that one person by name Kareem was found in 4 suspicious state and one constable caught hold the said Kareem and took him to the police station. He deposed that the constable checked the accused and found one packet consisting silver anklets and cash of

Rs.2000/­. He deposed that police seized the property and further testifies that mediators report was prepared at police station. He deposed that apart from police station he did not go to any other place. During the course of cross examination of PW­4 he categorically deposed that the place where the accused was caught is a busy locality and there are number of wine shops.

14.The evidence of PW­5 is relevant to the extent of registering FIR, visiting scene of offence and examining witnesses. The evidence of PW­6 is that on 1.9.2016 while he was investigating the case in Cr.No.89/16 u/sec.457 and 380 IPC on credible information, he secured the presence of

PW­4 and LW­7 Patnayukuni Krishna Murthy and proceeded to Sri

Venkateswara Delux, Salur. he deposed that on seeing them accused ran away and they apprehended him and identified him. PW­6 deposed that accused confessed about the offence in Cr.No.110/2016 u/sec.454, 380

IPC along with other offences. During the course of cross examination PW­ 6 deposed that the place where the accused was arrested is busy locality.

The evidence of PW­7 is relevant only to the extent of filing charge sheet. 

15.PW­1 is the defacto­complainant who set to criminal law into motion.

He spoke about theft of 9 tulas silver anklets worth of Rs.3000/­. It is true that during the course of cross examination he stated that he cannot say the date when offence was committed. Memory of a person differs from one person to another. Hence the evidence of PW-1 cannot be shaken with mere fact that he failed to depose the date of offence. PW­2 also spoke that 5 amount and silver anklets were stolen. With evidence of PW­1 and 2 the prosecution establishes commission of theft of M.Os 1 and 2. The evidence of PW­3 is relevant only to the extent of observing the scene of offence. 

16.The prosecution placed heavy reliance upon the evidence of PW­4 to prove the guilt of the accused. On evaluating the evidence of PW­4 he deposed that he was taken by the police at MRO office to C.I. office junction and one person by name Kareem was found in suspicious state and they took him to the police station and enquired him and he confessed about the crime. He deposed that the constable checked the accused and found one packet consisting silver anklets and cash of Rs.2000/­. During the course of cross examination he categorically admitted that place where the accused was caught is busy locality and there are number of wine shops. 

17.It is the contention of the counsel for accused that prosecution failed to secure respectable independent witnesses in this case as such the case against accused is falsely set up. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. enumerates that

before making a search an officer or other person about make it shall call

upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or any other locality if no such inhabitants of said locality is available or willing to be a witness to the search, to attend a witness the search may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Admittedly theplace where the accused was caught is a busy locality. Further PW­4 categorically deposed that the place where the accused was caught there are number of wine shops. He deposed that police did not ask owner of the wine shops to act as 6 mediators in this case. The evidence of any witness must be reliable, trustworthy and cogent. Further on evaluating the evidence of PW­4 he did not testify that accused was caught at Venkateswara Delux, Salur.

Whereas PW­6 testified that he proceeded to Venkateswara Delux, Salur.

This categorically casts a doubt in the mind of the court with regard to presence of PW­4 at the time where the accused was caught at

Venkateswara Delux, Salur. Moreover PW­4 during his cross examination categorically deposed that apart from police station he did not go to any other place. Hence the evidence of PW­4 is inconsistent and casts a serious doubt in the mind of the court.

18.The evidence of PW­5 is relevant to the extent of registering FIR, visiting scene of offence and examining the witnesses. Upon evaluating the evidence of Pw­6 he deposed that he secured the presence of PW­4 and

LW­7 and proceeded to Venkateswara Delux, Salur where they apprehended the accused and identified him basing on the finger prints available at the scene of crime in Cr.No.89/16. The prosecution did not produce any finger prints material of the accused before the court. It is settled law that confession before police officials is inadmissible under law.

Finally the evidence of PW­7 is relevant only to the extent of filing charge sheet. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec.454, 380 IPC. The prosecution also failed to establish that the accused has dishonest intention to receive or retain any stolen property u/sec.411 of IPC.

Accordingly the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution. 

7

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 454, 380 or 411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other crime. The accused is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. M.Os 1 and 2 were already given to PW­1 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on computer by the Personal Assistant, corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2019.

Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, BOBBILI

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For ProsecutionFor Defence

PW.1: Dasari Sri Ram None PW.2: Dasari Ganga PW.3: Padala Appala Naidu PW.4: Penki Srinivasa Rao PW.5: B.V.Ramana, HC 1142 PW.6: G.Ramakrishna, Inspector of Police PW.7: D.Demudu Babu, S.I. of Police.

Documents Marked

For ProsecutionFor Defence

Ex.P.1: Report of PW­1 given to police ­Nil­ dt.22.8.2016 Ex.P­2: Scene observation report dt.22.8.2016 Ex.P­3: Certified copy of Confessional statement dt.1.9.2016 Ex.P­4: Certified copy of Mediators report, dt.1.9.2016. Ex.P­5: Original FIR in Cr.No.110/2016. Ex.P­6: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P­7: Three photographs along with CD 8

Material Objects Marked

M.O­1: Cash of Rs.2000/­. M.O­2: Pair of silver anklets

Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS, BOBBILI

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR. 

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

PARVATHIPURAM.

Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.

Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Bobbilli.

FAC/ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of September, 2018

C.C.No. 173/2018

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parvathipuram Town Police Station.

......Complainant

And

Sodesu Balu @ Paramesu, S/o Nagaraju, Aged 26 years, Sondi Dr. No. 22-265, Babuji Nagar Cheruvu Gattu Veedhi, Gandhi Choultry Area, Parvathipuram.

....... Accused

This case coming on 04-09-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst., P.P., Grade-II for complainant and of Sri S. Uma Maheswara

Rao, legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of police, Parvathipuram Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused person in Crime number 504/2017 for the offence under 380 of I.P.C. and in Crime number 444/2017 under Section 457, 380 of IPC.

02.The brief facts of the case are follows: That on 25-11-2017 at about 09:30 hours the Pilli Venkataravanamma , Attender (L.W.1) of M.P.D.O.

Office, Parvathipuram, while she was attending her duties, she kept her hand purse (mini bag) on the bench at her Office and went outside the veranda for signature in bio-metric and after completion of bio-metric she found her hand purse containing of Rs.15,000/- and two cell phones worth of Rs.5,000/- was missing. While, she was searching for in and around, she could not trace the 2 same and came to know that some unknown culprits might have committed theft and escape with booty. Basing, on the report of L.W.1, the SI of Police,

Parvathipuram Town PS., registered a case in Cr.No.504/2017 u/s 380 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence observed the same and prepared rough sketch.

On 26-09-2017 some unknown culprits gained entrance into the temple of Sri Sairam Temple, Chakali Belagam, Parvathipuram, and committed theft of two hundies containing worth of Rs.3,000/- and decamped with booty. That basing on the report of Doddi Vijaya Krishna (L.W.5), the G.

Muralidhararao, HC-1198, Parvathipuram Town PS., (L.W.13) registered a case in Cr.No.444/2017 u/s 457, 380 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence observed the same in the presence of Gorli Ven kataramana (L.W.9) and Sarivisetti Srinivasu Rao (L.W.10) and prepared rough sketch. On 16-02-2018 on reliable information, SI of Police, Parvathipuram Town PS., arrested the accused at

RTC Complex, Parvathipuram and recovered the stolen property viz.,

Rs.3,000/- and two mobile phones on the confession statement in the presence of Bankuru Suribabu (L.W.11) and Varanasi Venkataramana (L.W.12) and send him to judicial remand.

03.On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken on file against accused for the offence under section 457, 380 or 411 of I.P.C.

04.On appearance of the accused copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’ for the sake of brevity).

05.The accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation. After perusing the entire material on record and hearing both sides, charges had been framed against the accused under sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

3

06.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to 9 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.9 and M.O.s 1 to 3 on its behalf the details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

07.On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused u/s 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point that would arise for determination is –

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 or 411 of IPC ?

10. To bring home the guilt the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 and M.Os1 to 3.

11. Point :- The cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence system is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On evaluating the evidence of prosecution on hand P.W.1 deposed the bag was found missing and bag consists of Rs.15,000/- cash and two cell phones. P.W.1 did not identify the culprit. The evidence of P.W.1 is only with regard to noticing the commission of offence by some unknown person. The evidence of P.W.2 is that theft of two hundies was committed.

12. On evaluating the evidence of P.W.2, who is the mediator, testified that the Town Police called him on 16-02-2018 to RTC Complex,

Parvathipuram, he and L.w.12 went to RTC Complex, Parvathipuram and the police caught the accused. P.W.3 deposed that the person confessed that he committed two hundies in Sai baba Temple, at Chakali Belagam,

Parvathipruam. During the course of cross-examination he categorically 4 admitted that in two or three theft cases he deposed evidence. He further stated that Police have their phone numbers available with them. He categorically admitted that in view of acquaintance with the police he signed on the scene observation report and confession statement and testified that the police did not seize anything in his presence. Hence, on evaluating the evidence of P.W.3 it shows that evidence deposed by him is unreliable and untrustworthy. P.W.4 turned hostile. P.W.5 deposed that the police after observing the scene of offence for one hour drafted a report. He testified that the Police did not show the accused or the stolen items. P.W.6 deposed that he did not acted as a mediator in the present case and the police did not draft or seize or anything in his presence and he did not know the details of the case. The evidence of P.W.7 is relevant to the extent of registering the

FIR No. 504/2017. The evidence of P.W.8 is relevant to the extent of registering the case in Cr.No.444/2017, examining the witnesses, observing the scene of offence and preparing the rough sketch of the scene of offence.

On evaluating the evidence of P.W.9, he categorically deposed during his cross-examination that mediators in the confession statement are the mediators in two or three cases in their Police Station. He also deposed that he did not conduct any test identification of the parade of the accused in respect of two crimes. Under Indian Law confession made before the Police

Officer is in an admissible in nature. On evaluating the evidence of the mediators since they have appeared in two or three cases it is seriously casts a serious doubt with regard to genunity of the confession statement. The evidence of the mediators is not reliable and cogent. So, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the light of above discussion the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable under sections 457, 380 or 411 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C., The accused shall be released 5 forthwith, if he is not required in any case or crime. The accused shall execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is filed. The

M.O.1 (Cash of Rs.3,000/-); M.O.2 (Cell phone black in colour) and M.O.3 (Cell phone (Samsung) blue in colour) which are already given to P.W.1 for interim custody as per the orders in Cr.M.P.No.1334/2018 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the ‘typist’, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of September, 2018.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.

Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Bobbilli.

FAC/ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1 : Pilli Venkataramanamma -None - P.W.2 : Dddi Vijayakrishna P.W.3 : Bankuru Sirubabu P.W.4 : Sarivisetti Srinivasa Rao P.W.5 : Gorli Venkataramana P.W.6 : Varanasi Venkataramana P.W.7 : G. Muralidhararao, HC-1198, Parvathipuram Town PS., P.W.8 : J.V. Ramana, SI of Police-2, Parvathipuram Town PS., P.W.9 : M. Rajesh, Parvathipuram Town PS.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Defence

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to police dated 29-11-2017 - Nil- Ex.P.2: Report of P.W.1 given to police dated 27-09-2017. Ex.P.3: Scene observation report dated 27-09-2017 Ex.P.4: underline portion in the confession statement 16-02-2018. Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.6 on the confession statement dated 16-02-2018. Ex.P.6: Original FIR in Cr.No.504/2017 of Parvathipuram Town PS., Ex.P.7: Original FIR in Cr.No.444/2014 of Parvathipuram Town PS., Ex.P.8: Scene observation report dated 27-09-2018. Ex.P.9: Rough sketch in Cr.No.444/2017.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Cash of Rs.3,000/-. M.O.2 : Cell phone black in colour. M.O.3 : Cell phone (Samsung) blue in colour.

Sd/- P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.

Magistrate of I Class Magistrate, Bobbilli.

6

FAC/ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of the First Class, Parvathipuram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE

FIRST CLASS­CUM­JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SALUR.

Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja, Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili FAC: Judicial Magistrate of the First Class­cum­Junior Civil judge, Salur.

Friday, this the 12th day of October, 2018.

C.C.NO.227 OF 2013

Between: State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Salur Rural Police Station. …Complainant. And:

1) Pandika Pakeeru, S/o Appalaswamy, Aged 28 years, Panasaguddi village, Sunki Panchayat, Pottangi Mandal, Odisha State.

2) Pandika Appala Swamy. S/o late Jogulu, aged 70 years, ST­ Kondadora, Panasaguddi village, Sunki Panchayat, Pottangi Mandal, Odisha State (died)

3) Pandika Veeramma, W/o Appala Swamy, aged 60 years, ST­ Kondadora, Panasaguddi village, Sunki Panchayat, Pottangi Mandal, Odisha State.

4) Janni Seethamma, W/o Polayya, aged 40 years, Panasaguddi village, Sunki Panchayat, Pottangi Mandal, Odisha State. …Accused

This case is coming on for final hearing before me on 05.10.2018 in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Muralidhar padhi, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Salur Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.106/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 498­A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused 1 to 4.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that A­1 is husband, A­2 and A­3 parents­in­law of and A­4 is sister­in­law of 2

PW­1. The marriage of PW­1 was performed with A­1 about 8 years back without dowry. During the conjugal life PW­1 begot two male children. After 3 years of marriage, A­1 started harassing PW­1 both physically and mentally by demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/­.

Further A­2 to A­4 instigated A­1 for causing harassment over

PW­1. Due to harassment, PW­1 approached S.H.O., Sunki Police station where counselling was made between PW­1 and Accused and pacify the matter between them. But accused did not change their attitude over PW­1 and again started harassment over PW­1 and finally necked out PW­1 from their house. PW­1 went to her parents house at Buttiganivalasa village, Salur Mandal. A­1 came to Buttiganivalasa village and harassed PW­1 for demanding dowry for which parents of PW­1 expressed the inability but the accused did not heed their words and took the children of PW­1 to his village stating that PW­1 should bring Rs.50,000/­ as dowry.

Basing on the report of PW­1, the Head Constable, Salur Rural P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.106/2013 u/sec.498­A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the Head Constable visited the scene of offence i.e., Buttiganivalasa village, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused. 

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 498­A

IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A­1 to A­4.

3

4.After furnishing the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., the Accused were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and they denied the offence. Charges under Sections 498­A of the IPC and Sec.4 of

D.P.Act was framed and read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

5.Subsequently, A­2 died and Death certificate of A­2 was filed and the case against A­2 was abated on 10.08.2018.

6.During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked.

7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the Accused 1, 3 and 4 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution as envisaged under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

None were examined and no documents marked on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 498­A IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4

POINT:

10.PW­1 is defacto­complainant who set criminal law into motion. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence system is to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused under section 498­A IPC must prove that accused harassed PW­1 mentally or physically by demanding additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/­ from her parents. On evaluating the evidence of PW­1 during her chief examination she testified that accused used to demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.50,000/­. She also testified A­1 to A­4 used to beat and abuse her in filthy language.

During course of cross examination PW­1 deposed that accused took care of her after marriage. PW­1 categorically deposed that none of the accused or his family members did not beat her or harassed her and also did not demand her to bring additional dowry. On careful evaluation of evidence of PW­1, there is inconsistency in the version of PW­1. The evidence of any witness must be reliable, cogent and trustworthy. On perusal of evidence of PW­1 during her cross examination deposed that none of the accused harassed her and demanded her to bring additional dowry. PW­2 deposed that he did not know anything about this case and police did not examine him. During cross examination by the learned APP nothing was elicited from the mouth of PW­2 except marking document. There is no iota of evidence with regard to Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 

5

12.In the light of above circumstances and discussion, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused 1, 3 and 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/sec.498­A IPC and

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 

13.In the result, A­1, A­3 and A­4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498­A IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The accused are directed to execute bonds for a sum of Rs.5,000/­ (Rupees five thousand only) each which shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437­A of the Cr.P.C. in order to appear before the appellate Court if an appeal is preferred. Case against A­2 is abated.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1: Pandika Sri DeviNone

PW.2: Mosuru Parvathi

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution For Defence Ex.P­1: Report of PW­1 Dt.25.9.2013 given to police. NIL Ex.P­2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW­2. 

Material Objects Marked

Nil. Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOBBILI

FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR.

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SALUR.

Present: Sri P.S.V.B.Krishna Sai Teja Prl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bobbili FAC: Junior Civil Judge­cum­Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 12th day of October, 2018.

O.S.NO.81 OF 2018

Between: Bokam Venkata Lakshmi, W/o late Sivasankararao, Aged 45 years, R/oD.No.117/E,Sector­XI,DesapatrunivaniPalem, Ukkunagaram, Greater Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

...Plaintiff

And:

1) Vegisa Vijaya Kumar, S/o Singaraju, Aged 45 years, Director, Kujrari Eco Friendly Estates, Black & White Hotel, Opp: to Novatel Hotel, R.K.Beach Road, Visakhapatnam.

2) Kujarari Eco Friendly Estates, represented by its Director, Vegisa Vijaya Kumar, rest­do­ …Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 05.10.2018 in the presence of Sri G.A.Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants are called absent, no representation and they are set ex parte and after perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants 1 and 2 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of plaint “B” schedule property and for costs of the suit. 

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are that, the husband of the plaintiff by name Bokam Siva Sankararao purchased lands covered by S.Nos.149/1, 148/2, 180/4, 180/1180/2, 180/3 and 149/8 having total extent of Ac.7.98 2 cents under a registered Sale deed dated 01.03.2002 and since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of the said land.

The said Sivasankararao died on 4.4.2014 leaving behind him his wife i.e., plaintiff and a daughter and a son who succeeded the entire estate of the said Sivasankararao, including the lands referred above, situated at Konda Kenguva revenue village of

Ramabhadrapuram Mandal. After death of husband of plaintiff, the plaintiff has been looking after the entire proeprties of her husband on behalf of her and on behalf of her children, by enjoying the properties with absolute rights. The plaint “A” schedule mentioned property relates to the entire land purcahsed by Bokam Sivasankararao under registered sale deed dt.

01.03.2002. One of ther Items of the said Sale deed, is covered by

S.No.149/8 of Kondakenguva village, having an extent of Ac.1­02 cents. Out of the said Ac.1­02 cents the eastern side middle portion having an extent of Ac.0.50 cents alone shown as “B” schedule which is subject matter of the suit. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the “B” schedule property, the 1st defendant in his capacity, as well in his capacity as the

Director of the 2nd defendant company, has been proclaiming that he would trespass into the “B” schedule property without any right over the same. The plaintiff’s name has been mutated in the revenue records as a successor and she was issued pattadar pass book and her name has been recorded in the village 1 (B) account and also adangal. The plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute rights. The 3 plaintiff has raised Neelagiri plantation in the “B” schedule mentioned property. If the defendants put their evil idea into action, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensation by way of pecuniary damages. Hence the suit. 

3.Even though summons were served to the defendants on 31.08.2018, the defendants were called absent on 28.9.2018 and they were set exparte. 

4. On behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to

A­4 were marked.

5. Heard.

6.The point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief as prayed for?

POINT:

7.According to the plaintiff she is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the same was succeeded to her from her husband and her name was mutated in all revenue records and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property with absolute rights. The defendants without having any manner of right, title and interest, trying trespass into the plaint “B” schedule property. 

8.The plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1 and she reiterated the averments of the plaint in her chief affidavit and also got marked Ex.A­1 to A­4 in her favour. Ex.A­1 is certified copy of

Regd. Sale deed dated 01.03.2002 executed in favour of husband of plaintiff. Ex.A­2 is the original pattadar pass book issued in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A­3 is the copy of I­B register issued by mee­ 4 seva in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A­4 is the copy of Adangal issued by mee­seva in the name of plaintiff. 

9.The version of PW1 is not challenged by the defendants.

Though summons were served to the defendants, they did not choose to appear or did not prefer to file any written statement.

On the other hand PW.1 categorically deposed that her husband purchased the schedule property under Ex.A.1. The sale deed

Ex.A.1 shows that the husband of plaintiff purchased the schedule property and he had been in lawful possession of the schedule property till his death and after his death the plaintiff has been succeeded the property and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Ex.A­2 to

Ex.A­4 shows the name of the plaintiff that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendants did not choose to adduce any sort of evidence that they are in possession of property. Even they did not prefer to file any written statement. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants are threatening that they would interfere into the “B” schedule property. Therefore, the unchallenged version of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A­4 the plaintiff is in possession of schedule property and there is a threat from the defendants. If injunction is not granted the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. In the light of the above, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs by granting permanent 5 injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint “B” schedule mentioned property. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2018.

Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BOBBILI

FAC:JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: 

PW.1:Bokam Venkata LakshmiNone

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A­1: Certified copy of Regd. Sale deed dated 01.03.2002 executed in favour of husband of plaintiff. Ex.A­2: Original pattadar pass book issued in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A­3: Copy of I­B register issued by mee­seva in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A­4: Copy of Adangal issued by mee­seva in the name of plaintiff. 

For DefendantsNil

Sd/­ P.S.V.B.K.Sai Teja

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BOBBILI

FAC:JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JUDL. 

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SALUR.