P.Sai ram

IV AJMFC, Kakinada1 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

cum

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KAKINADA

Present: Sri. Sai Ram Potharlanka IV AJMFC cum IV AJCJ Friday, the First day of November, Two Thousand Nineteen [01.11.2019]

Calendar Case Number 1154 of 2019

Between:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thimmapuram Police Station.

State: represented by Asst. Public Prosecutor....COMPLAINANT

AND

Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 43 years,

S.C. Colony, Penumarthi Village, Kakinada Rural. ...ACCUSED

This case came before me for hearing on 29.10.2019 in the presence of Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri. T.Srinivasa Murthy for the state and in the presence of Legal Aid Counsel Sri. K.Srinivasa Rao, for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration and on that this court has delivered the following:

::J U D G E M E N T::

This is a case in Cr.No.133 of 2019 of Thimmapuram Police Station, registered u/s. 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [herein after for brevity called IPC] against the accused.

1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

a. The offence in this case took place at Penumarthi Village within the limits of Thimmapuram police station and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

b. One Kaldhari Gowri [P.W.1] is the victim/informant in this case. The accused and P.W.1 are wife and husband and they got married way back in the year 2005. The accused used to run tent house business in the village. In the recent days the accused addicted to consuming liquor and started to beat his wife P.W.1 and children indiscriminately. The accused was selling tent house articles and consuming liquor out of sale proceeds.

Two years ago the accused attacked his wife with a knife and caused bleeding injury. Even his relatives and villagers admonished him, the accused did not change his attitude.

c. On 23.07.2019 at about 6.00 p.m. the accused came to house by consuming liquor and attacked on the P.W.1 with an iron axe and caused

IV AJMFC, Kakinada2 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- severe bleeding injury by hacking on her right leg. The relatives and others shifted the P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for treatment.

d. On the statement of the P.W.1 the investigation officer registered a case in crime number 133 of 2019 under section 326 of IPC on 24.07.2019 at 8:10 a.m. Later, the investigation officer examined the P.W.1 and visited the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch and examined the witness and recorded their statements. The material object was seized in the presence of mediators. Later the accused was arrested on 26.07.2019 and sent for remand. After completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offence under section 324 of IPC.

2. This court took cognizance of the offence u/s. 324 of IPC against the accused.

On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of case documents u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

3. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charge framed u/s. 324 of

IPC and read over to the accused. For which the accused denied and claims to be tried.

4. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 out of eleven witnesses and got marked Exhibits P.1 to P.9 and M.O.1 Axe. The evidence of other witness was given up by the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor.

5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the accused and the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

6. Arguments:

a. The learned A.P.P. during his argument submitted that the evidence of

P.Ws. more particularly the evidence of victim have clearly proved the guilt of the accused person and further the doctor has also proved that the injured (P.W.1) sustained simple injury. Further, the father (P.W.2) of the accused himself deposed that accused caused injury to P.W.1. Further, both P.W.1 and 2 stated that the sustained injury inflicted by accused by an axe which is a dangerous weapon used for cutting, stabbing, etc. It is further submitted that though there is some contradiction in the evidence of

P.Ws. but those contradiction are not major. It is also submitted that minor contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. is very much natural in a criminal case and hence for minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. the

IV AJMFC, Kakinada3 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- accused person cannot be spared or cannot be let him scot free from the charges brought against him for the offences committed or crime committed by him because in a criminal case, it is very natural that the evidence of witnesses may differs on some point(s) from the evidence of other/another and for this the whole case of prosecution cannot be thrown away. It is, thus, submitted that the accused person is liable to be convicted under the charge brought against him.

b. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel during his argument submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge u/s 324 of I.P.C. as there is contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. It is further pointed out that there is no independent eye witness of the case to support the case of prosecution. It is further argued that the alleged seizure of axe in question was not seized in accordance with procedure. Hence, it is submitted that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused for which the accused is entitled to get acquittal in the case at least on benefit of doubt from the charge u/s 324 of I.P.C.

7. Now the Point for determination of this court is: Whether the accused person at

the aforesaid relevant time and place voluntarily caused hurt to said P.W.1

by sharp weapon, as alleged, and thereby liable to be punished u/s 324 of

I.P.C.?

8. P o i n t:

a. Now, for better appreciation, let us go to see the requirements of law.

Charge u/s 324 of I.P.C. : Ingredients of offence :- The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 324 of I.P.C. are as follows :

i. Accused voluntarily caused hurt; ii. Hurt was caused by a dangerous weapon or means; iii. That such a case was not covered under Section 334 I.P.C.” iv. To bring home an offence under section 324 IPC, the prosecution has to prove (a) the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infirmity; (b) that the accused caused the aforesaid bodily pain etc; with the instrument or object; (c) that the accused did so intentionally or with knowledge that in the process hurt would be caused. Even if a simple injury has been caused, a simple injury does lead to the causing of hurt as defined in Section 319 IPC.

IV AJMFC, Kakinada4 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. The P.W.1/victim/informant deposed in her examination in chief that accused is her husband and their marriage was performed in the year 2005. They were blessed with two children. The accused used to maintain a tent house. The accused addicted to alcohol and he used to beat her very often after consuming liquor. On the date of offence, the accused came to house in a drunken state at about 4.00 p.m. and the accused demanded her to give money for which she replied that she did not have money with her. On that the accused raised a dispute. The accused necked her out of house and asked her to leave the house. On that she refused to leave and she was waiting outside the house. While waiting, the accused beat her by throwing the axe against her by saying that why she stayed there without leaving the house. She sustained injury on her right foot due to the blow given by the accused with axe. The P.W.2 who is father of the accused was present in the house at the time of incident and neighbors witnessed the incident. The villagers shifted her to hospital for treatment. The police recorded her statement. The M.O.1 Axe which was used by the accused to cause injury.

c. The P.W.2 who is father of accused and father in law of P.W.1 corroborated in his chief examination with the evidence of P.W.1.

d. The P.W.3 who is mother of P.W.1 deposed that she came to know about the incident and went to government hospital where she found the P.W.1 with injury and she was informed about the incident by P.W.1.

e. The P.W.4 to 6 who are cited as eye witness to the incident did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. With permission of the court the learned assistant public prosecutor did cross examination of witnesses and elicited no iota of evidence to support the prosecution case except got marked the statements to police under section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ex.P.2 to

P.4 respectively.

f.The P.W.7 mediator to scene observation and seizure deposed in examination in chief that he was called by the Thimmapuram police along with another mediator, on 24.07.2019 at about 8.00 a.m. The police observed the scene of offence place in his presence and prepared a

Ex.P.5 scene observation report. The Police seized M.O.1 in his presence.

g. The P.W.8 doctor who examined the P.W.1 deposed in his examination in chief that on 23.07.2019 at 7.02 p.m. he examined P.W.1 and found the injury “a lacerated injury over right foot measuring about 5x3 cms x muscle deep, red in color. Patient is referred to Radiology and the x-ray report

IV AJMFC, Kakinada5 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- shows nil significance”. He issued Ex.P.6 wound certificate. He opined that injury is simple in nature and might have been caused by a hard and sharp edged object within six hours prior to his examination.

h. The P.W.9 who is investigation officer deposed in his examination in chief in the lines of charge sheet and got marked Ex.P.7 to P.9.

i.In the cross examination of P.W.1 categorically admitted that there is no previous cases in between them and the accused used to look after well prior to the present incident. The learned counsel for accused suggested that the injury caused herself and giving color of accused caused the same. The defence of the accused is that the P.W.1 is trying to grab the tent house business with the support of the P.W.2. Further the P.W.1 is giving money to her parents and when the same was questioned the present case was reported. To that extent the P.W.1 admitted that in absence of accused she used to look after the tent house business. But nothing was elicited to disprove the case of prosecution, except bare suggestions. In the cross examination of P.W.2 nothing was elicited to disprove the case of prosecution, except bare suggestions.

j.The injury stated by the P.W.1 was duly corroborated by the medical officer P.W.8 who examined the P.W.1. The version of the accused is that the P.W.1 herself inflicted injury to give a false report. The injury is “a lacerated injury over right foot measuring about 5x3 cms x muscle deep, red in color. Patient is referred to Radiology and the x-ray report shows nil significance. No one cause self injury to implicate the rivals and more particularly the husband when there are no previous disputes.

k. With regard to recovery of M.O.1, the police secured the mediator i.e.,

P.W.7, admitted in his cross examination that he was not served with written summons and the police did not request any local inhabitant to act as mediator at the time of scene observation and seizure of M.O.1. The

P.W.7 and 9 categorically admitted the seizure report was not prepared, the particulars of the M.O.1 were not incorporated in scene observation report and the scene of offence place was not photographed. Now it is to be seen whether, the M.O. 1 is seized from the scene of offence place as spoken by the P.W.7 and 9 or not. The evidence of P.W.7 mediator and

PW.9 Investigating Officer is that on 24.07.2019 police seized M.O.1 from the scene of offence place. But, admittedly P.W.7 and another mediator does not belong to place of offence. Further, it is admitted fact the alleged place of seizure is busy locality and residential area. The P.W.7 mediator admitted the fact. But, for the reason best known to Investigating Officer no

IV AJMFC, Kakinada6 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- person in that locality was examined nor even secured to act as a mediator. Here, it is altogether different aspect if no one has available at that particular day. As admitted fact is it is a busy locality and he could have easily secured someone to act as mediator. Moreover he secured the presence of witnesses and record their statements. But, he has not taken any steps nor he has not issued any summons to anybody in that locality and again it throws a suspicion on the seizure of M.O.1. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C. contemplates that search should, as far as practicable be made in the presence of two independent and respectable witnesses of the locality and if the designated officer fails to do so the onus would be on the prosecution to establish that the association of such witness was not possible on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The stringent minimum punishment prescribed by the Act clearly renders such a course imperative. Thus, the statutory desirability in the matter of search and seizure is that there should be two or more independent and respectable witnesses. The search before an independent witness would impart much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the search and seizure proceedings. It would also verily strengthen the prosecution case. The said safeguard is also intended to avoid criticism of arbitrary and highhanded action against authorized officers. In other words, the Legislature in its wisdom considered it necessary to provide such a statutory safeguard to lend credibility to the procedure relating to search and seizure keeping in view the severe punishment prescribed in the Act. That being so, the authorized officer must follow the reasonable, fair and just procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and the failure to do so must be viewed with suspicion. The legitimacy of judicial process may come under cloud if the Court is seen to condone acts of violation of statutory safeguards committed by the authorized officer during search and seizure operations and may also undermine respect of law. That cannot be permitted. Hence, it is doubtful whether seizure took place in the manner as spoken by them and as such this court holds the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of M.O.1. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of M.O.1 from the place of offence.

l.Simultaneously it is worth relevant to note that the ingredients of section 320 of IPC which deals with grievous hurt is found not attracted in the case because the nature of injuries of both the victims are different from the injuries or nature defined in section 320 of IPC. Hence, it is vividly clear that the charge u/s 324 of IPC is found not attracted in the instant case.

Now I would further say that the doctor (P.W.8) in his evidence clearly

IV AJMFC, Kakinada7 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- stated that the injury sustained by victim/P.W.1 may be caused by blunt and sharp object which is simple in nature. So, I have gone through the injury report of victim/P.W.1 which was given by first attending doctor

P.W.8 which is found available on record. So I have taken judicial notice upon the said report in which the doctor opined that the injury is lacerated and the nature of weapon is blunt and sharp (M.O.1). If it be so then it attracts section 323 of IPC. Now it is worth relevant to note that in this case charge was framed u/s 324 of IPC against the accused. But from the above discussion, it is found proved that the accused is found guilty u/s 323 of IPC. Be it also mentioned that section 323 of IPC is lesser section than that of section 324 of IPC. Now, in this regard, m. I would like to highlight section 222 of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced as under:

i. Section 222 (1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitute a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars of are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

ii. Section 222 (2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.

iii. Section 222 (3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.

iv. Section 222 (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a conviction of any minor offence where the convictions requisite for the initiation of a proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

n. Now from the above position of law and in view of the fact that though the victims sustained injury but those injury is not grievous in nature. So though section 324 of IPC do not attract but section 323 of IPC is satisfactorily found proved which is a minor offence in comparison to those penal section 324. Now so far contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws is concerned, I would say that I have found a ring of truth and a complete chain in the evidence of P.Ws. to the effect that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to her which is supported by medical evidence. It is settled law that in a criminal case minor discrepancies and contradictions in the

IV AJMFC, Kakinada8 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- evidence of P.Ws. is natural but that can not damage the prosecution case which has a ring of truth. In this regard, I would like to high light the case law which is reported in 2005 (2) GLT 295 (Captain Tanti –vs- State of

Assam) wherein it was held that – “the allegation that all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other and thus interested witnesses having relationship with the victim, by itself is not sufficient for disbelieving their testimony unless any motive is alleged and proved against them.” So mere interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding or rejecting the sworn testimony and nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction. Now so far the evidence of witness is concerned, I also do not agree with the learned defence counsel because section 134 of Evidence Act speaks that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact. Further, it has been laid down in Binay –vs- State ( 1997) 1

SCC 283 that –“ Evidence has to be weighed and not counted.” In view of what have been discussed herein-above coupled with my reasons and upon full appraisal of evidence on record, I am constrained to hold that prosecution has successfully proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused person at the relevant time of occurrence voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1. Hence, I convict the accused person namely, Kaldari Bhanu

Prakash under section 323 of I.P.C.

9. Result: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence u/s. 323 of IPC.

Accordinglythe accused is convicted u/s. 248 (2) Cr.P.C. The office is directed to destroy the M.O.1 after lapse of appeal time. The accused is required to be questioned on quantum of sentence. Hence, the case is passed over to question the convicted person.

Judgment is typed by me on my personal computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 1st Day of November, Two Thousand Nineteen. [01.11.2019]

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge

KAKINADA.

Sentence Order:

10.I heard the convicted person on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The convicted person submitted that “I am aged about 45 years and having wife and children. If I am sentenced to imprisonment, my family will lose my support” Hence he prayed to show mercy and to give one opportunity.” The convicted person did not state any specific circumstances except the general.

IV AJMFC, Kakinada9 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the case where the accused caused injury against PW.1 i.e., his wife.

Hence, I am not inclined as it is not a fit case, to extend the benefit of Probations of Offenders Act to convicted person.

11.In the result, I convict the accused U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 323 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period of the Accused from 26.07.2019 to till date is set off. The convicted person is explained about his right of appeal to the Hon'ble Sessions

Court and free Legal Aid through District Legal Services Authority, East Godavari

District if he has no means to engage an Advocate. Office is directed to serve the free copy of this judgment to the convicted person forth with. The office is directed to destroy the M.O.1 after lapse of appeal time. The Office is further directed to prepare the conviction warrant accordingly.

Judgment is typed by me on my personal computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 1st Day of November, Two Thousand Nineteen. [01.11.2019]

Sd/-Sai Ram Potharlanka

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1/dt.24.09.2019:Kaldari Gowri

P.W.2/dt.24.09.2019:Kaldari Suryanarayana

P.W.3/dt.24.09.2019:Renu Mariyamma

P.W.4/dt.09.10.2019:Kolla Bhaskar

P.W.5/dt.11.10.2019:Kaldari Apparao

P.W.6/dt.11.10.2019:Kongu Lingarao

P.W.7/dt.11.10.2019:Pithani Satyanarayana

P.W.8/dt.15.10.2019:Dr.P.Srihari Babu

P.W.9/dt.25.10.2019:J.Vijaya Babu

IV AJMFC, Kakinada10 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Exhibits Marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1/P.W.1 :Statement of P.W.1, dt.23.07.2019.

Ex.P.2/P.W.4:Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.3/P.W.5:Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.4/P.W.6:Statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.5/P.W.7:Scene observation report.

Ex.P.6/P.W.8:Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.7/P.W.9:Hospital intimation.

Ex.P.8/P.W.9:Original FIR.

Ex.P.9/P.W.9:Rough Sketch.

Material Objects for Prosecution:

M.O.1/P.W.1:Iron Axe.

No witness is examined and no exhibit is marked for defence side.

No material objects were marked on behalf of Defence.

Sd/-Sai Ram Potharlanka

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge

KAKINADA.

IV AJMFC, Kakinada11 of 11 (including calendar)CC 1154 of 2019 dt.01.11.2019 The State vs. Kaldhari Bhanu Prakash -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: KAKINADA.

C.C.No.1154/2019

Crime No.133/2019 of Thimmapuram Police Station.

1. Date of Offence23.07.2019

2. Date of Complaint 24.07.2019

3. Apprehension of Accused 26.07.2019

4. Released on Bail Under Trail Prisoner

5. Commencement of Trial 24.09.2019

6. Close of Trial25.10.2019

7. Date of order 01.11.2019

8. Complainant State:- Rep.by its Sub- Inspector of Police, Thimmapuram Police Station.

9. AccusedKaldhari Bhanu Prakash S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged about 43 years, S.C. Colony, Penumarthi Village, Kakinada Rural.

10. Offence U/sec. 324 of IPC

11. Finding The accused found guilty for the offence U/sec. 323 of IPC 12.Order/Sentence In the result, I convict the accused U/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s. 323 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period of the Accused from 26.07.2019 to till date is set off. The convicted person is explained about his right of appeal to the Hon'ble Sessions Court and free Legal Aid through District Legal Services Authority, East Godavari District if he has no means to engage an Advocate. Office is directed to serve the free copy of this judgment to the convicted person forth with. The office is directed to destroy the M.O.1 after lapse of appeal time. The Office is further directed to prepare the conviction warrant accordingly.

13. Explanation of delay and Remarks Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. No witness is required to attend this court beyond three times.

Sd/-Sai Ram Potharlanka

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge

KAKINADA.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate,cum Principal Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

1 of 5 PRC44/2019, Dt.01.11.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

cum

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KAKINADA

Present: Sri. Sai Ram Potharlanka IV AJMFC cum IV AJCJ Friday, First Day, November, Two Thousand Nineteen [01.11.2019]

P.R.C.NO.44 OF 2019

(Crime No.59/2019 of Thimmapuram Police Station)

BETWEEN: State: Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural P.S., ….COMPLAINANT

AND 1.Balla Sai Kiran, S/o. Prasad, Age: 20 years, Caste:SC-Mala, Vetlapalem Village, Samalkota Mandal.

2.Balla Rani, W/o. Prasad, Age: 38 Years, Caste:SC-Mala, D.No.5-69, SC.Peta, Vetlapalem Village, Samalkota Mandal.

3.Balla Rajamani, W/o. Sathibabu, Age: 37 Years, Caste: SC-Mala, D.No.5-60, S.C.Peta, Vetlapalem Village, Samalkota Mandal.

4.Balla Jyothi, W/o.Late.Sayebu, Age: 58 Years, Caste: SC-Mala, D.No.5-61, S.C.peta, Vetlapalem Village, Samalkota Mandal. ….Accused 1 to 4

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri D.Rama Rao, advocate for the accused A1 to 4 upon perusing the first information report, charge sheet and other material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

The Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural P.S., filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 59/2019 for the offence punishable under sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n), 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The averments of the charge sheet, in brief, in the month of January-2018 the parents of L.W.1/Thota Naveena went to Jaherabad, Sangareddy District,

Telanga for coolie work (brick work) and at that time, the Victim/L.W.1/Thota

Naveena also went along with her parents and at the time A1/Balla Sai Kiran 2 of 5 PRC44/2019, Dt.01.11.2019 resident of Vetalapalem village, Samalkota Mandal also went for the same coolie work to Zaheerabad and where A1 with an evil eye to trap the Victim/L.W.1/Thota

Naveena to fulfill his lust, developed well acquaintance with the

Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena on the pretext that they all belongs to one area and used to move around the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena to trap her and after passing some time, A1 expressed his love towards the Victim/L.W.1/Thota

Naveena by promissing that he would marry her and when she rejected his proposals and A1 created fear in the mind of the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena by disclosing that he will die, if she will not accept his love. Due to the unbearable pressure given by A1 the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveen accepted his love by believing his false representations. During the month of June-2018, the

Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena along with her parents returned back to Gonchela village, Samalktoa Mandal after completion of their works and the accused 1 developed close intimacy with the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena by visiting her house in the absence of her parents frequently, keeping the Victim/L.W.1/Thota

Naveena under lawful marriage, enjoyed her sexually at her house at Gonchela village in the absence of her parents against her will and consent forcibly by false representations and A1 enjoyed her sexually in several times at the house of his maternal aunt at Vetlapalem village and other places and continued his sexual relation with her and as a result of which, the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena conceived 2nd month pregnancy and on that she pressurized A1 to marry her, but he refused to marry her on the plea that his mother and other kith and kin did not agree to perform his marriage with the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena and then the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena placed the matter before the parents who in turn approached A2 to A4 to Vetlapalem along with their kit and kin and when they asked the mother and other relatives i.e. A2 to A4 to perform marriage of the

Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena with A1 and they all denied, disputed with them, threatened the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena with dire consequences warned her to get aborted her pregnancy otherwise they will kill her and did not accept to perform her marriage with A1 and later the parents of the Victim/L.W.1/Thota 3 of 5 PRC44/2019, Dt.01.11.2019 Naveena placed the issued before L.W.11/B.Sathibabu Ex.ZPTC of Vetlapalem village requesting to call A1 and his mother and other relatives and see that the marriage of the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena is performed with A1 and accordingly the L.W.11/B.Sathibabu called A1 and his family members and when questioned A1 about his love affair with the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena and he admitted his love with the victim, but he declined to marry her and on that the elder admonished A1, his mother and other relatives and advised the victim and her family members to approach the police and complained against the accused and the Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena attended Thimmapuram police station and presented a written report for taking necessary action. On the strength of report given by Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena, a case in Cr.No.59/19 U/sec.417, 420, 376 (2) (n), 506 r/w 34 of IPC of Thimmapuram PS., has been registered by

L.W.19/N.Sanyasi Naidu, SI of police and the investigation has been taken up by

L.W.20/P.Eswarudu, Inspector of police, Kakinada Rural Circle and he took up investigation in to this case. During the course of investigation, L.W.20/Inspector of police, Kakinada Rural Circle, visited the scene of offence at the house of

Victim/L.W.1/Thota Naveena at Gochela village, examined in the presence of mediators and got drafted the observation report and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and he secured the 13 witnesses and examined and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements and forwarded the Victim/L.W.1/Thota

Naveena to the Superintendent, Govt. General Hospital, Kakinada for medical examinations and later, L.W.20/Inspector of police, Kakinada Circle arrested the

A1 on 24.03.2019 at 07.45 PM at Atchampeta Junction, Kakinada Rural and sent him for judicial custody for remand. A2 to A4 obtained Anticipatory bail from the

Hon'ble IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada vide in Crl.M.P.No.413/2019,

dt.29.04.2019 as per the directions of the Hon'ble Judge, A2 to A4 surrendered

before the Hon'ble court IV AJFCM, Kakinada on 06.05.2019 and enlarged them

on bail vide in Crl.M.P.No.816/2019. L.W.20/Inspector of Police, Kakinada Rural

Circle PS., after completion of investigation and filed charge sheet.

4 of 5 PRC44/2019, Dt.01.11.2019

3. On careful perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the police this case was taken on file under sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n), 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused 1 to 4.

4.After appearance of the accused, all the documents are furnished as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.Upon perusal of the charge sheet and other material on record, prima-facie case is made out against the A1 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 376 (2)

(n), 506 r/w 34 of IPC and against the accused 2 to 4 for the offence punishable

U/sec.420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The above said offence is exclusively triable by Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry as per section 209 (a) Criminal

Procedure Code.

6.The accused on bail order to be continued with the same terms and conditions during and until conclusion of trial by Hon’ble Sessions Judge, East Godavari,

Rajahmundry under section 209 (b) Criminal Procedure Code.

7.This court Submitting the case record and documents and material objects to the

Hon’ble Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmahendravaram, as required under

section 209 (c) Criminal Procedure Code.

8.Notify the Public Prosecutor, Rajahmahendravaram about the committal of the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, East Godavari , Rajahmahendravaram as per

Section 209 (d) Criminal Procedure Code.

9.When questioned accused about the means to defend the case, they submitted that they got means to engage an Advocate in Hon’ble Sessions Court, East Godavari,

Rajahmahendravaram

10.In the result, I find prima facie case is made out against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 376 (2) (n), 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, I am committing the case to the Court of Sessions, E.G. District at Rajahmahendravaram as per Section 209(a) Criminal Procedure Code. The Public Prosecutor, E.G. District at 5 of 5 PRC44/2019, Dt.01.11.2019 Rajahmahendravaram is notified to the commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209(d) Criminal Procedure Code. The Office is hereby directed to submit the entire record to the Hon’ble District Court, East Godavari, Rajahmahendravaram, after duly indexed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 01st day of November, 2019.

Sd/-Sai Ram Potharlanka

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge

KAKINADA.

1

CC 839/2018, dt.23.11.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM 

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA, 

Present : Sri Potharlanka Sai Ram, IV Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, 

cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 

Friday, the 23rd day of November, 2018

C.C.No.839/2018

Between: State : Sub­ Inspector of Police, Karapa P.S., 

 ....Complainant. 

AND

Bula Satyanarayana, S/o. Surayya, 46 years, C/SC Mala, D.No.3­236, Harijanapeta, Sampara village of Pedapudi Mandal. …. Accused. 

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the accused admitted the offence, this day, this court delivered the following::

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by Station house officer, Karapa PS., filed charge sheet against the above noted accused for the offence U/sec.286 of Indian Penal Code 1860(herein after referred as I.P.C for the sake of brevity) and Sec. 9­B(2) of Explosive Act 1884 in 

Cr.No.203/2017 of Karapa Police Station. 

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:­

a) That on 10.10.2017 noon L.W.6 M. Janaki Ram, sub-inspector of police, left from P.S., along with is staff L.Ws. 3 Medisetti Sathi babu and L.W.4 N. Venkata Ramana by securing the mediators L.W. 1 Palivela Yesubabu and L.W.2 Savarapu Chinna Paparao conducted raid on the explosive manufacturing shop of the accused situated in survey No:

77/2, Koripella road, Karapa village, where he noticed the excess stock of explosive substance material i.e., 25 KGs of sulphur and 5 Kgs of nitrate of potash (Surekaram) in the store room. Then L.W.6 arrested the accused of you as he violated the explosive ct and by exhibiting negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance in the presence of mediators , seized explosive substance material i.e., 25-KGs of Sulphur and 5 Kgs of nitrate of Potash (Surekaram) in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report drafted by the mediators on 10.10.2017 from 3.45 PM to 4.30 P.M, packed the seized explosive material separately and affixed identity slips duly signed by the mediators and the

I.O. L.W.6.

2

CC 839/2018, dt.23.11.2018

b)In this connection, L.W.6 registered the original mediators report as FIR in

Cr.No.203/2017 U/sec. 286 IPC and Sec. 9-B(2) of the Explosives Act, 1884 of Karapa P.S., on 10.10.2017 at 4.45 PM., During the course of investigation, L.W.6 examined L.Ws. 3 to 5, recorded their statements inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, served notice U/sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C., to the accused and when he produced sufficient sureties, the accused was enlarged on bail after having executing bail bond.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 286 of IPC and Sec. 9-B (2) of the

Explosives Act, 1884. against the accused. On appearance of the accused, Copies of documents were furnished to accused as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence alleged against them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded guilty .

4.At this stage, the accused stating that he voluntarily admitted he guilt and also stated that he has old aged parents and the entire family depending on him and having responsibility to look after them. The accused stated that he would never commit any offence in future and this is a first offence. Considering the submissions made by the accused, this court feels that their admission of guilt is voluntary and without any coercion.

5.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 286 of IPC and

Sec. 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884 on his own admission and accordingly the accused is convicted under section 252 Cr.P.C. The accused is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Hence the case is passed over for the examination of the accused.

6.Quantum of sentence on the admission of the accused :

a) The accused when asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he pleaded mercy of the court and stated that he is having old aged parents and the entire family depended upon him, he further stated that if he put behind the bars, his family members will suffer immensely and his career will be jeopardized.

b) However considering the mercy pleaded by the accused and submissions put forward by him, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently. 

7.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 286 of

IPC and Sec. 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and accordingly he is convicted under section 252 Cr.P.C., Accused is sentenced till raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 

1000/­ in default of payment of fine suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable U/sec.286 IPC .,Accused is further sentenced till raising of the 

Court and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence punishable U/S. 9­B(2) of the Explosives 

Act, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of FIFTEEN DAYS in addition to the actual sentence imposed. The office is directed to 3

CC 839/2018, dt.23.11.2018

destroy the unmarked property after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months.

Typed to my d ictation on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23 rd day of November, 2018

IV ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE CUM 

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution

IV ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE CUM 

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KAKINADA.

4

CC 839/2018, dt.23.11.2018

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District: East Godavari.

Calendar of Cases tried by the IV Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate Court cum IV Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court, Kakinada.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Report Apprehension Release Commence- Closure sentence Offence or of on ment of of or Complaint Accused Bail Trial. Trial Order ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-10-17 10-10-17 --- – -- --- 23-11-18 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation of delay : -- and Remarks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judgment in Calendar Case No 839/2018 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kakinada.

Complainant: Sub­ Inspector of Police, Karapa P.S., ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father’s / Husband’s Name Age Residence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bula Satyanarayana, S/o. Surayya, 46 years, C/SC Mala, D.No.3­236, Harijanapeta, Sampara village of Pedapudi Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: U/Sec. 286 of IPC and Sec. 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

Finding: The Accused found guilty for the offence U/sec.286 IPC and and Sec. 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

Sentence:In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 286 of IPC and Sec. 9-B (2) of the Explosives Act, 1884 and accordingly he is convicted under section 252 Cr.P.C., Accused is sentenced till raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 

1000/­ in default of payment of fine suffer simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence punishable U/sec.286 IPC .,Accused is further sentenced till raising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/­ for the offence punishable U/S. 9­B(2) of the Explosives Act, in default of payment of fine amount, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of FIFTEEN DAYS in addition to the actual sentence imposed. The office is directed to destroy the unmarked property after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after lapse of six months.

IV ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE CUM

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

KAKINADA.

1

CC 1417/2018, dt.15.11.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE KAKINADA,

Present : SAI RAM POTHARLANKA, IV Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada (FAC) III Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum-III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Thursday, the 15 th day of November, 2018

C.C.No. 1417/2018

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of police, I Town CCS P.S., Kakinada

....Complainant.

AND

Gollapalli Satya Durga Prasad @ Parimala S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged 22 years, C/ Kapu, D.No.4-110, Sundhar Nagar Comioliu, Gaigolupadu, Ramanaiahpeta Panchayat, Kakinada Rural …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the accused admitted the offence, this day, this court delivered the following::

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, I Town CCS Police station,

Kakinada filed charge sheet against the above noted accused for the offence

U/sec.379 or alternatively 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (herein after referred as

I.P.C for the sake of brevity) in Cr.No.75/2018 of I Town CCS Police Station.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:-

a) The complainant State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town CCS

Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused alleged that on 13.09.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. L.W.1 : Devupalli Achari parked his bicycle at outside hard ware shop and wentin to the hardware shop and later 11.30 A.m.

L.W.1 came back from shop and found missing of his cycle at the parked place, then L.W.1 searched surrounding areas did not traced his cycle till the day. Basing on the report of L.W.1 Revu Lovaraju L.W.6 A.S.I. of police registered a case in 2

CC 1417/2018, dt.15.11.2018

Crime No.75/2018 U/s 379 IPC of I town CCS P.S. Kakinada against you and during investigation.

b) L.W.7 visited the scene of offence viz., situated at D.No.23-1-46, Prezerpeta area, Warf Road, Behind GGH Kakinada on 18.9.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. at

D.No.23-1-46, Prezerpeta area, Warf Road, Behind GGH Kakinada and seized stolen property from the accused.

c) L.W.7 forwarded the arrested accused to the judicial remand on the same day to this court and then L.W.7 has filed charge sheet against the arrested accused after completion of investigation in this case.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.379 or 411 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, Copies of documents were furnished to accused as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.239

Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence alleged against him. Charge under Sec. 379 or alternatively 411 of IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded guilty.

4. At this stage, the accused stating that he voluntarily admitted his guilt and also stated that he has old aged parents and the entire family depending on him and having responsibility to look after them. The accused stated that he would never commit any offence in future and this is a first offence. Considering the submissions made by the accused, this court feels that his admission of guilt is voluntary and without any coercion.

5. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC, on his own admission and accordingly the accused is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Hence the case is passed over for the examination of the accused.

3

CC 1417/2018, dt.15.11.2018

6. Quantum of sentence on the admission of the accused :

a) The accused when asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he pleaded mercy of the court and stated that he is having old aged parents and the entire family depended upon him, he further stated that if he put behind the bars, his family members will suffer immensely and his career will be jeopardized.

b) However considering the mercy pleaded by the accused and submissions put forward by him, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently.

7. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC. The remand period of the accused from 18.09.2018 to 15.11.2018 till today shall set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused has been convicted in the case C.C. 1416/2018 and already sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence, it is directed that the sentence in the present case shall run concurrently along with the sentence in C.C. 1416/2018. The concerned SHO is directed to handover the case property to the defacto complainant on proper identification and acknowledgment and file the receipt before this court within 15 days.

Typed to my dictation on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of November, 2018

IVADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

4

CC 1417/2018, dt.15.11.2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution

IVADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

5

CC 1417/2018, dt.15.11.2018

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS KAKINADA

C.C.No.1417/2018

Date of Offence : 13-09-2018

Date of Report or Complaint : 13-09-2018

Date of Apprehension of accused : 18-09-2018

Date of release of accused : ----

Date of commencement of trial : ----

Date of Closure of trial : ----

Date of Sentence of Order : 15.11.2018

Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, 1 Town CCS Police Station, Kakinada.

And

Gollapalli Satya Durga Prasad @ Parimala, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged 22 years, C/ Kapu, D.No.4-110, Sundhar Nagar Comioliu, Gaigolupadu, Ramanaiahpeta Panchayat, Kakinada Rural

Offence : Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC

Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty.

Finding : Found guilty for the offence U/s 411 IPC.

Sentence :

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC. The remand period of the accused from 18.09.2018 to 15.11.2018 till today shall set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused has been convicted in the case C.C. 1416/2018 and already sentenced to undergo imprisonment. Hence, it is directed that the sentence in the present case shall run concurrently along with the sentence in C.C. 1416/2018. The concerned SHO is directed to handover the case property to the defacto complainant on proper identification and acknowledgment and file the receipt before this court within 15 days.

IV ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

Copy to theHon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior civil Judge,

Rajamahendravara.

1

CC 1416/2018, dt.15.11.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE KAKINADA,

Present : SAI RAM POTHARLANKA, IV Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada (FAC) III Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate-cum-III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Thursday, the 15 th day of November, 2018

C.C.No. 1416/2018

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of police, I Town CCS P.S., Kakinada

....Complainant.

AND

Gollapalli Satya Durga Prasad @ Parimala S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged 22 years, C/ Kapu, D.No.4-110, Sundhar Nagar Comioliu, Gaigolupadu, Ramanaiahpeta Panchayat, Kakinada Rural …. Accused.

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the accused admitted the offence, this day, this court delivered the following::

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, I Town CCS Police station,

Kakinada filed charge sheet against the above noted accused for the offence

U/sec.379 or alternatively 411 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (herein after referred as

I.P.C for the sake of brevity) in Cr.No.73/2018 of I Town CCS Police Station.

2.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows:-

a) The complainant State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town CCS

Police Station, Kakinada filed charge-sheet against the accused alleged that on 13.09.2018 at about 1.00 a.m. L.W.1 : Kodamanchili Nagamani went for sleep by keeing her Samsung Galaxy Mobile phone and cash of Rs.850/- at her wallet and later at around 3.30 A.M. L.W.1 wake up when found her mobile phone and cash was missing and L.W.1 searched in surrounding area but not found. Basing on the report of L.W.1 Revu Lovaraju L.W.6 S.I. of police registered a case in Crime 2

CC 1416/2018, dt.15.11.2018

No.73/2018 U/s 379 IPC of I town CCS P.S. Kakinada and taken up investigation in this case.

b) L.W.6 visited the scene of offence viz., situated at D.No.23-1-46, Prezerpeta area, Warf Road, Behind GGH Kakinada on 18.9.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. at

D.No.23-1-46, Prezerpeta area, Warf Road, Behind GGH Kakinada and seized stolen property from the accused.

c) L.W.6 forwarded the arrested accused to the judicial remand on the same day to this court and then L.W.6 has filed charge sheet against the arrested accused after completion of investigation in this case.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/sec.379 or 411 IPC against the accused On appearance of the accused, Copies of documents were furnished to accused as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.239

Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence alleged against him. Charge under Sec. 379 or alternatively 411 of IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded guilty.

4. At this stage, the accused stating that he voluntarily admitted his guilt and also stated that he has old aged parents and the entire family depending on him and having responsibility to look after them. The accused stated that he would never commit any offence in future and this is a first offence. Considering the submissions made by the accused, this court feels that his admission of guilt is voluntary and without any coercion.

5. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC, on his own admission and accordingly the accused is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Hence the case is passed over for the examination of the accused.

3

CC 1416/2018, dt.15.11.2018

6. Quantum of sentence on the admission of the accused :

a) The accused when asked about the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he pleaded mercy of the court and stated that he is having old aged parents and the entire family depended upon him, he further stated that if he put behind the bars, his family members will suffer immensely and his career will be jeopardized.

b) However considering the mercy pleaded by the accused and submissions put forward by him, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently.

7. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC. The remand period of the accused from 18.09.2018 to 15.11.2018 till today shall set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The concerned

SHO is directed to handover the case property to the defacto complainant on proper identification and acknowledgment and file the receipt before this court within 15 days.

Typed to my dictation on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of November, 2018

IVADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution

IVADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

4

CC 1416/2018, dt.15.11.2018

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

THE FIRST CLASS KAKINADA

C.C.No.1416/2018

Date of Offence : 13-09-2018

Date of Report or Complaint : 13-09-2018

Date of Apprehension of accused : 18-09-2018

Date of release of accused : ----

Date of commencement of trial : ----

Date of Closure of trial : ----

Date of Sentence of Order : 15.11.2018

Explanation of delay and remarks : No delay

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, 1 Town CCS Police Station, Kakinada.

And

Gollapalli Satya Durga Prasad @ Parimala, S/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged 22 years, C/ Kapu, D.No.4-110, Sundhar Nagar Comioliu, Gaigolupadu, Ramanaiahpeta Panchayat, Kakinada Rural

Offence : Under Sections 379 or 411 IPC

Plea of accused : Pleaded guilty.

Finding : Found guilty for the offence U/s 379 IPC.

Sentence :

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted under section 241 Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/sec. 379 IPC. The remand period of the accused from 18.09.2018 to 15.11.2018 till today shall set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. The concerned SHO is directed to handover the case property to the defacto complainant on proper identification and acknowledgment and file the receipt before this court within 15 days.

IV ADDL.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

(FAC) III ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE-CUM-

III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

KAKINADA.

Copy to theHon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Principal Senior civil Judge, Rajamahendravara.