Smt. P Shirisha

CC.No.225/2014 1 Dt:30-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM 

Present: Smt P. Sirisha, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. 

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2019.

C.C.No.225/ 2014

Between:

The State through S.I of Police. P.S. Kothagudem II Town (Cr.No.105 of 2014).

 . . .. Complainant.

And

A1] Alli Veerabhadram, S/o Seetharamulu, Age:52 years, Occu:Agriculture, R/o. Penagadapa village of Kothagudem (contested candidates for Penagadapa MPTC of TDP) (abated) A2] Kalloji Srinivas, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 37 years, Occu: Reporter, R/o.H.No.1­60, Hemachandrapuram Village of Karukonda Ramavaram of Kothagudem (Contested candidate for ZPTC, Kothagudem of TDP)

 ….. Accused. 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P

for complainant and Sri V. Venkateswar Rao, for accused, upon perusal of material

papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

: J U D G M E N T :

This is the case in Cr.No.105/2014 of P.S Kothagudem II Town registered against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 188 IPC, Sec. 228 of

Panchayath Raj Act, sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Prevention of Disfugerement of open places and prohibition of obscene and objectionable posters and advertisement Act.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

The facts of the case are that: On 03­04­2014 at 0830 hours while PW.8 along with PW.9 PC 2547 and LW.3 D. Krishnaiah, PC­1834 were on petrolling duty, when they reached at Ambedkar Nagar colony, Penagadapa, they noticed wall posters of Telugu Desham party with the photos of accused No.1 and No.2 who are contested candidates for Penagadapa MPTC and ZPTC Kothagudem respectively and photos of TDP leaders to the houses of PW.1 Inaganti Venkati, PW.2 Thagaram

CC.No.225/2014 2 Dt:30-10-2019

Nagulu and PW.3 Thagaram Veeraiah. Immediately PW.8 secured the presence of two mediators PW.4 and PW.5 and prepared a observation report and also photographed the posters. Therefore, the accused No.1 and No.2 violated the election code of conduct by pasting their wall posters without taking prior permission from the house owners. After that, PW.8 lodged a report.

3. On receipt of the report from PW.8, Inspector of Police PW.10 N.Venkataswamy registered the case in Cr.No.105/2014 for the offence U/sec. 188 IPC, Sec.228 of AP

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Sec.3 and 4 of AP Prevention of Disfigurement of Open

Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable posters and advertisement and took up investigation. During the course of Investigation examined and recorded the statement of PW.8. PW.9 and LW.3 D. Krishnaiah, PC­1834, visited scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 to PW.3, drafted crime detail form and sketch of the scene in the presence of PW.6 and PW.7.

4. This Court has taken cognizance for offence under Section 188 IPC, Sec. 228 of Panchayath Raj Act, 

5. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C, accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., Charged under Section 188 IPC, Sec. 228 of Panchayath Raj Act.

6. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs. P1 to P13 are got marked on behalf of prosecution, the details of which are mentioned in the appendix of evidence. The evidence of LW.3 and LW.11 was closed by the court.

7.The accused No.2 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied its contents and reported no defence evidence. 

8. P.W.8 is the ASI, defacto complainant he along with police constables P.W.9 and L.W.3 were petrolling at Penagadapa Village. They noticed some wall posters containing photographs of accused contesting for ZPTC and MPTC selections on

CC.No.225/2014 3 Dt:30-10-2019

behalf of Telugu Desam Party, by violating election code. Immediately, photographs were taken and he prepared observation panchanama in the presence of P.W.4 and 5 and removed wall posters and asked the owners of the houses P.W.1 to 3 stated that, the accused pasted the wall posters on the previous day on their houses.

Basing on panchanama and on his report P.W.10 Venkata Swamy, registered this case and issued FIR. 

9.During the course of cross examination he stated that, the house owners did not give any written complaint to them and they did not issue notice to accused and did not inform to election officer.

10.P.W. 9 another police constables who accompanied P.W.8 also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.8.

11.P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the house owners and eye witnesses, P.W.4 and 5 panch witnesses for observation panchanama, P.W.6 and 7 mediators for CDF completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. 

12. P.W.10 is the investigating officer, deposed that, after receiving complaint and panchanama from P.W.1 he registered this case on 03.04.2014 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses visited scene of offence and drafted its rough sketch. He also collected the list of contesting candidates of ZPTC and MPTC

Election from returning officer L.W.11 M. Srinivasa Rao. A.1 and A.2 surrendered

before him and they were released on furnishing sureties. After completion of

investigation he filed charge sheet.

13.During the course of cross examination he deposed that, in order to register an offence under section 188 IPC Order has to be served to the particular person and if he disobeys a private complaint has to be filed before the Court, and also permission of a returning officer is to be required to register the cases for election offences. 

CC.No.225/2014 4 Dt:30-10-2019

14.Perused the evidence on record, As per Sec.195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance U/sec.188 of IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned. Therefore, a complaint ought to have filed in the court, instead of filing charge sheet, under section 188 IPC.

15. Except the evidence of police officers P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W. 10 there is no other independent evidence available against the accused. There is no proof on record to show that, accused violated the election code of conduct and committed election offence by pasting their wall posters without the permission of house owners. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to accused. 

15. In the result Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec. 188 IPC and Sec. 228 of AP Panchayath Raj Act, and accordingly accused No.2 is acquitted

U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. (Accused No.1 died, hence case abated against him)

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th the day of October, 2019.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM.

Appendix of Evidence

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PW.1/LW.4Inaganti VenkatiEyewitness PW.2 /LW.5Thagaram NaguluEyewitness PW.3/LW.3 Thagaram VeeraiahEyewitness PW.4/LW.7Pothuraju MysaiahPanch for Observation Panchanama PW.5/LW.8 Md. HussainPanch for Observation Panchanama PW.6/LW.9 Inganti SrinuPanch for Crime Detail Form PW.7/LW.10D. SudhakarPanch for Crime Detail Form PW.8 /LW.1 S. Hanumantha RaoComplainant PW.9 /LW.2V. VenkatanarayanaAssisted to PW.8 PW.10/LW.12N. Venkata SwamyInspector of Police 

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Nil

CC.No.225/2014 5 Dt:30-10-2019

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1161 Cr.P.C,. statement of PW.1 Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C,. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C,. statement of PW.1 Ex.P4Signature of PW.4 on Observation Panchanama, Dt:03­04­2014 Ex.P5Signature of PW.5 on Observation Panchanama, Dt:03­04­2014 Ex.P6Signature of PW.6 on Crime Detail Form, Dt: 03­04­2014 

Ex.P7Signature of PW.7 on Crime Detail Form, Dt: 03­04­2014 Ex.P8Observation Panchanama, Dt: 03­04­2014 Ex.P9Report Ex.P10Eight Photographs along with CD Ex.P11First Information Report Ex.P12Crime Detail Form Ex.P13Notification along with annexure

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

 Nil

 II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Present: Smt P. Shirisha, II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

Dated, this the 26th of April, 2018.

C.C. No. 199 / 2016

{Cr.No.150 of 2016 of P.S Palvoncha Town} Between:

The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Palvoncha Town

….....Complainant.

And

A1] Mandali Sharath Kumar @ Nani, S/o: Vijay Kumar, age: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o: Sub­Station area, Palvoncha.

A2] Dubba Sudhakar, S/o: Venkateswar Rao, age: 22 years, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o: Kommugudem, Mulakalapally Mandal. ….… Accused.

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned Sr.A.P.P for the State and Sri M. Kiran Kumar, Learned counsel for Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Palvoncha Town has filed charge sheet for the offence U/sec. 447, 379 IPC and Sec 3 of PDPP Act in Cr.No: 150/2016 with a prayer to punish the accused for the alleged offence. 

[2.] The case of the prosecution is that: On 22­04­2016 at 1700 hours, PW.6 along with PW.1 and LW.1/PC337 (B. Shankar) on reliable 2 information, went to Srinivasa Colony, there the accused No.1 and No.2 loaded the sand in a tractor bearing No. AP 20 TC 2926 and trolley bearing No. AP TC 2927 while transporting the sand illegally, on seeing the police party the accused No.1 and No.2 escaped from there, by leaving the sand loaded tractor. Immediately PW.6 secured the of PW.2 and PW.5 conducted seizure panchanama and seized the sand loaded tractor and brought it to the police station. 

[3]Basing on the panchanama PW­6/HC1202 registered the case in Cr. No. 150/2016, U/sec. 447, 379 of IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act, and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/PC337 and PW.1, visited the scene of offence, drawn the rough sketch of scene of offene and prepared the Crime Detail

Form in the presence of PW.2 and PW.5. On 05­05­2016 the accused were arrested and confession panchanama was prepared in presence of

PW.3 and PW.4. Later the accused No.1 and No.2 got produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation

LW.8/SI of Police (P. Satyanarayana Reddy) filed charge sheet against the accused. 

[4] This case was taken on file for the offence punishable Under

Section 447, 379 IPC and Sec 3 of PDPP Act against A1 and A2.

[5.] After furnishing copies, accused were examined under

Sections 240 of Cr.P.C, the charges framed for the offence 447, 379 IPC and Sec 3 of PDPP Act and read over and explained to accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 [6.] In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.

[7.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused were examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the available incriminating material found against them, for which they denied the same. And reported no defence.

[8.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[9.] Now, the point that arises for consideration is:­

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused?

[10] Complainant examined as PW.6, he deposed that, on 22­04­2016, he along with PW.1 and LW.1/Shankar, on reliable information rushed to Srinivasa Colony, they found the Tractor bearing

No. AP 20 TC 2926 and Trolley bearing No. AP 20 TC 2927 with load of sand while transporting the sand illegally from Murreduvagu by the accused No.1 and No.2. He further stated that, then they stopped the tractor, but the accused escaped from there. Immediately in the presence of PW.2 and PW.5, he conducted the seizure panchanama and seized the tractor with load of sand. He further deposed that, he return to police

Station on the strength of panchanama, he registered the case and issued FIR, examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and LW.1, visited the scene of offence, prepared the Crime detail Form in the presence of same panchas. After completion of investigation he handed 4 over the CD file to LW.8/P. Stayanarayana Reddy (SI of Police), who verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines and filed charge sheet. 

[11] PW.1 is the police constable, who Assisted to PW.6, he deposed in the same lines, as that of PW.6.

[12] PW.2 and PW.5 who are the panch witnesses for Crime Detail

Form and seizure panchanama, and PW.3 and PW.4 are the panch witnesses for Confession panchanama, completely turned hostile. And did not support the version of prosecution.

[13] On perusal of evidence of witnesses it is evident that, the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The PW.1 and PW.6 are the police personnel whose evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused as guilty. Hence, it is not safe to convict the accused basing on the only evidence of police officers in the absence of other independent corroborating evidence. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of all charges against them.

[15] IN THE RESULT  Accused No.1 and No.2 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 447, 379 IPC and Sec. 3 of P.D.P.P Act.

Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of

Accused and their sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry six months.

The un­marked case property i.e., Tractor bearing No. AP 20 TC 2926 and trolley bearing No. AP TC 2927, which is already given to its owner 5 by name Mandali Sharath Kumar/A1, vide Crl.M.P.No.237/2016, Dt:20­ 05­2016 shall be holds good and final after appeal time is over. 

Dictated to steno­typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in this in the open court, today, this the 26th day of

April, 2018. 

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined 

For prosecution: For defence:

PW.1: G. Ravi Kumar Eyewitness/Assisted to PW.6 ­ None ­  PW.2: Battu Shankar Panch for CDF and Seizure Panchanama PW.3: T. Mahesh Panch for Confession Panchanama PW.4: K. Ravi Teja Panch for Confession Panchanama PW.5: B. Ramdas Panch for CDF and Seizure Panchanama PW.6: M.A.Majid Investigating Officer 

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For defence:

ExP1: PW2signature on Seizure Panchanama ­NIL­

ExP2: PW2 signature on Crime Detail Form

ExP3: PW3 signature on Confession Panchanama

ExP4: PW4 signature on Confession panchanama

ExP5: PW5 signature on Seizure Panchanama 

ExP6: PW5 signature on Crime Detail Form

ExP7: Seizure Panchanama 

ExP8: First Information Report

ExP9: Crime Detail Form

ExP10: Confession Panchanama

Material objects marked:

NIL

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

1

CC 557/2017 dt: 10.01.2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT KOTHAGUDEM

(Friday, the 10th day of January, Two Thousand and Nineteen)

PRESENT: Smt. P.Sirisha II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem, FAC-I Addl.Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem

CALENDER CASE. No. 557 of 2017

BETWEEN: The state through the S.H.O Prohibition and Excise., Kothagudem … Prosecution AND

Bhukya Kanthi, W/o Bhojya, Age: 43 Yrs, Occ: Coolie R/o Boring thanda, Kothagudem mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 09-01-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Raja Rao, learned I/c Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri. B.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E NT

1. The Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Excise Station,

Kothagudem filed a charge sheet under C.O.R No. 304/2015-16 against the above noted Accused for the offence punishable under Section 7(A)

R/w 8(e) of APP Act .

2. The simple case of the prosecution is that, on 27-07-2015, on receipt of reliable information about illegal possession, manufacture and selling of I.D liquor at Rajiv gruhakalpa apartment, Medarabasthi,

Kothagudem, LW3- L.Jayasree, S.I, Proh & Excise, Kothagudem proceeded to the said spot along with her staff by securing two panch witnesses namely L.W.1-Guguloth Surya and L.W.2-Kanneboina Kalyan.

At the spot they found one person in suspicious manner by holding a plastic can. On seeing the raid party, the said person tried to fled away, but the raid party caught hold her. On enquiry the said person revealed 2

CC 557/2017 dt: 10.01.2020

her particulars and on search the raid party found (1) bag containing 20 plastic covers, each cover containing (01) litres of I.D liquor, total 20 litres of I.D LIquor. Later L.W.3-L.Jayasree, seized the I.D liquor, drawn the samples under the cover of a panchanama in the presence of mediators. Later, L.W.3 brought seized property along with panchanama to the Excise Station, Kothagudem and registered a case in COR No.

304/2015-16 U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and deposited the samples. The Accused was arrested and sent to judicial remand and filed charge sheet on receipt of analysis report.

3. On perusal of record, this court took cognizance for the offence

U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to her.

4. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 was framed and the same is read over and explained to Accused in

Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2. Police filed report on 27-06-2019 stating that whereabouts of L.W.1-Guguloth Surya and L.W.2-Kanneboina

Kalyan was not known. Accordingly, the evidence of L.W.1-Guguloth

Surya and L.W.2-Kanneboina Kalyan was closed on 27-06-2019

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating circumstances appeared against her in the evidence, and she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is:

3

CC 557/2017 dt: 10.01.2020

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:-

9.The simple case of the prosecution is that accused indulged in illegal possession and sale of 20 litres of I.D liquor at Medara basthi,

Kothagudem. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the Investigation Officer as P.W.1. Through P.W.1/Investigating officer,

Ex. P.1 panchanama and Ex.P2 Crime and Occurrence Report were marked.

10. This Court carefully scrutinized the evidence on record. P.W1 the

Investigating Officer testified the fact of her raid and noticing of (20) litres of I.D liquor which was in the possession of the Accused. Later she drawn two samples by destroying the remaining contraband under cover of panchanama- Ex.P1 in the presence of L.W.1-Guguloth Surya and L.W.2-Kanneboina Kalyan. However, the said panch witnesses were not produced by the police before this court stating the reason that whereabouts of said witnesses was not known. Therefore, the prosecution in order to prove the illegal possession and sales of I.D

Liquor, by the accused, relied on the sole testimony of P.W.1

Investigating Officer. When there is no evidence of panch witnesses, this

Court is of the opinion that it is unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of

PW-1 Investigating Officer.

In view of aforesaid discussion, for the lack of corroborative evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish that accused was in possession and selling I.D liquor at Medara basthi,

Kothagudem. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

11. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section U/Sec.7(A) R/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, she is acquitted for the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused stands canceled subject to Section 437-A 4

CC 557/2017 dt: 10.01.2020

Cr.P.C. As no property was produced before the Court, there is no order as to property.

(Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of January, 2020)

II Addl. Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem, FAC-I Addl. Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1L.JayasreeInvestigation officer

WITNESS EXAMINED OF BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Seizure panchanamaDT:27-07-2015 Ex.P.2Crime and Occurrence ReportDT:27-07-2015

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

II Addl. Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem, FAC-I Addl. Judl .Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Smt P. Shirisha, L.L.M., II Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem

Dated, this the 27th day of April, 2018.

C.C.No.270/2015

Between:

The State through S.I of Police. P.S. II Town Kothagudem, (Cr.No.118/2015)

 . . .. Complainant.

And

A1. Oruganti Vijay Kumar, S/o: Kumara Swamy, age: 29 years, Occ:Volva Driver at MIPL, GKOC Kothagudem, R/o: Q.No.C­436, Market Area of Rudrampur of Kothagudem.

A2. Chevula Bharath Kumar, S/o: Shankaraiah, age: 32 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o: Q.No.D­319, Nal Area Rudrampur of Kothagudem.

A3. Pindi Ramesh, S/o: Nancharaiah, age: 25 years, Occ: Badili worker at VK7 shaft, R/o: Q.No.D­220, Club Area, Rudrampur, Kothagudem.

….. Accused 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Sr.A.P.P for complainant and Sri K. Pullaiah and Sri N. Rama Krishna Rao, advocate for accused upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. II Town Kothagudem registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.118/2015 for the offence under Sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC. 

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29­07­2015 at 2030 hours, PW.2 went to Rudrampur for having tiffin, when PW.2 reached at S.C.C.L Park at

Rudrampur the accused No.1 to 3 caught hold the PW.2 and beat with sticks and kicked him indiscriminately by saying that why PW.2 was moving there 2 while the ladies are bathing and pushed him in drainage, there by PW.2 received bleeding injuries. After that PW.1 lodged Ex.P1/report, before the

Police for taking necessary action.

3. On receipt of the report from PW.1, LW.8/SI of Police (N. Raj Kumar) registered the case in Cr.No. 118/2015, U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation LW.8 examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 and PW.2, referred the PW.2 to Govt., area Hospital,

Kothagudem for treatment, later visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of PW.3 and LW.4(Boda Laxmi), drawn rough sketch of

Crime Detail Form in the presence of LW.5(Komaram Ashok) and

LW.6(Gundipally Venkateswarlu). On 03­08­2015 at 1000 hours, the accused

No.1 to 3 came to PS and surrendered before the LW.8, admitted their guilt voluntarily. Later LW.8 served a notice to the accused U/sec. 41 Cr.P.C., with instructions to appear before the Hon’ble Court, after receiving summons.

LW.7 the medical officer who treated the injured/PW.2 and issued Medical

Certificate, Opined that, the injured/PW.2 received simple and grievous injuries. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet.

4.On perusal of the material available on record this Court took cognizance of the offence U/sec. 326 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

5.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused were examined under Sec. 240 Cr.P.C and charges were framed U/sec.

326 r/w 34 0f IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW.3 and got marked

Ex. P1 to P4.

3

7. As there is no incriminating material available against accused, the

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination has been dispensed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the

guilt of accused U/sec. 326 r/w 34 IPC?

10. The Defacto­Complainant is examined as PW.1, he deposed that, he does not know the accused and do not know any facts of the case, in the year 2015 on one day PW.2 came to him and informed him that, while PW.2 was returning to house at SCCL park one unknown person pushed him, due to which PW.2 fell down and received injuries. Later they went to Police Station and informed the same to the police, there the police obtained his signature on written papers, but he does not know its contents.

11. PW.2 is the injured, he deposed that, he does not know the accused, on 29­07­2015 during night hours, he went to have Tiffin when he reached at Rudrampur park one unknown person pushed him from his back side, due to which he fell down and received injuries. He went to his house and informed the same to PW.1. Police did not examine him.

12.PW.3 is the eyewitness to the incident he deposed that, he do not know the accused, do not know any facts of the case and did not witness any incident.

13. In this case PW.1 who is the complainant completely turned hostile.

PW.2 is the injured and PW.3 is the eye witness also turned hostile. It is clear from the cross examination of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 that, they have 4 compromised the matter with accused. And the evidence of other witnesses was given up by the prosecution. Hence, there is no single piece of evidence available against the accused. Therefore, the accused are acquitted of all charges against them. 

14.In the result the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for offence under Section 326 r/w 34. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The Bail bonds of Accused and their sureties shall stand canceled after expiry of six months. As no case property was seized, there is no order as to property.

Dictated to steno­typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the 27th day of April, 2018. 

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

 Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For defence:

PW1: B. Ramdas Defacto complainant ­None­

PW2: B. Sasikanth Injured

PW3: D. Ramesh Eyewitness

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P.1: PW.1 signature on Report ­NIL­

Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2

Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3

 Material Objects Marked

­Nil­

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM.

CC.No.35 of 2015 1 Dt:30-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KOTHAGUDEM 

Present: Smt P. Sirisha, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem. 

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2019.

C.C.No. 35/ 2015

Between:

The State through S.I of Police. P.S. Palvoncha Town (Cr.No.227 of 2013)

 . . .. Complainant.

And

Mora Ravi, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 33 years, Occu: Painter, R/o. Mangalagudem of Khammam Rural Mandal.

 ….. Accused. 

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P

for complainant and Sri P. Rama Rao, Counsel for accused, upon perusal of material

papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

: J U D G M E N T :

This is the case in Cr.No.227/2013 of P.S Palvoncha Town registered against the Accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 384, 506 r/w. 511 IPC.

2.This is a case of putting a person in fear in order to commit extortion. 

The facts of the case are that: On 18­06­2013 at 2200 hours the complainant

Mattaparthi Srinivas PW.1 came to PS and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, he is occupant of Teachers colony and running Sri Sai Ram Matching Centre at

High School Road, Palvoncha. On 04.06.2013 at night 0900 hours he received calls to his phone Nos. 9550995622, 9346702075 and 9032225271 from 95505855361 stating that they belongs to “Naxal Dalam of Praja Prathigatana'. They threatened and demanded the money of Rs.1,00,000/­ as their party fund, other wise they will kidnap and cut off his hands and legs. On 07.06.2013 he also tried to extort money from L.W.3 Vangam Narasimha Rao, in the same manner. On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, L.W.9 registered a case and issued FIR. During the course of

CC.No.35 of 2015 2 Dt:30-10-2019

investigation he examined P.W.1 and L.Ws. 2 to 4. Later, visited scene of offence and drafted its rough sketch in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.6. After receiving CD file from L.W.9, P.W.4 Sub Inspector arrested the accused at RTC Bus Stand,

Palvoncha recorded his confessional statement in the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 and served notice to accused under section 41­A Cr.P.C. and filed charge sheet. 

3. This Court has taken cognizance for offence under Section 384, 506 r/w.

511 IPC.

4. After furnishing copies of relevant documents as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C, accused were examined under Section 240 Cr.P.C., Charges framed under

Section 384, 506 r/w. 511 IPC.

5. PWs 1 to 5 were examined, and Exs. P1 to P4 got marked on behalf of prosecution, the evidence of L.W.2 was given up by the prosecution. The remaining evidence L.W.3, L.W.4, L.W.6, L.W.9 was closed by the court as prosecution failed to produce them even after granting sufficient time. The Accused is examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., denied its contents and reported no defence on his behalf. 

6. Heard,

7.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution is able to prove

the guilt of accused?

8.P.W.1 is the defacto complainant deposed that, on 04.06.2013 he received phone call from unknown person, he threatened that, he belongs to Praja

Pratigatana Dalam member and demanded Rs.1,00,000/­ from him or else he would kill him and also asked him to leave Palvoncha and after 2 days he lodged Ex. P.1 report.

9.P.W.2 is the mediator for crime detail form and P.W.3 and P.W.5 are the mediators for confession panchanama of accused turned hostile and stated that, accused never confessed his guilt in their presence.

CC.No.35 of 2015 3 Dt:30-10-2019

10. P.W. 4 is the second investigating officer, Sub Inspector deposed that, after receiving CD file from L.W.9 Ismail he apprehended the accused and regarded his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement and filed charge sheet.

11. As seen from the evidence, there is no proof on record, to show that, accused committed the offence of extortion. The alleged incident took place on 04.06.2013 and the FIR was lodged on 18.06.2013 and the delay was not properly explained by the prosecution and mentioned as, no delay in the corresponding row of charge sheet. Except the evidence of P.W.4, there is no independent evidence available against accused to hold him as guilty. There is also no proof that, the mobile number through which P.W.1 received phone calls belongs to accused and no call data record was filed before the Court. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to accused. 

12.In the result Accused is not found guilty for the offence U/Sec. 384, 506, r/w.

511 IPC. Accordingly he is acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. and the bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. 

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th the day of October, 2019.

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM.

Appendix of Evidence

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

PW.1/LW. 1M. SrinivasComplainant PW.2 /LW. 5S. Murali KrishnaPanch for Crime Detail Form PW.3/LW.8 M.A.KareemPanch for Confession Panchanama PW.4/LW.10 R. Shanmukha CharyInvestigating Officer PW.5/LW.7 Jetti VenkateswarluPanch for confession Panchanama

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Nil

CC.No.35 of 2015 4 Dt:30-10-2019

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Signature of PW.2 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P3Signature of PW.3 on Confession panchanama, Dt: 31­05­2015 Ex.P4Signature of PW.5 on Confession panchanama, Dt:31­01­2015

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

 Nil

 II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM.