Sri. P. Shyam Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAREDDY.

Present : Sri.P.Shyamprasad, B.A.,LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy Dated this the 21st day of March,2016.

C.C.No. 294 of 2013

Between The State Police through, SHO P.S. Lingampet.

....Complainant.

And

A1-KarrollaMaisaiah s/o Lasmaiah, aged 27 years, caste: Mudiraj, occup: Agril, r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet mandal.

A2-Karrolla Lasmaiah s/o Parvaiah, aged 55 years, caste: Mudiraj, occup: Agril r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet mandal.

….Accused. This case is coming on this 21st day of March, 2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri. G.Gopal Rao, advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following.

:: JUDGEMENT ::

The S. I. of Police, Gandhari has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 IPC.

1-The brief facts of the prosecution case are that earlier the Al and A2 requested the LW2

Hanmaiah who is grand father of LW1 to advance loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- or purchase their land as the accused are in need of money, but the Lw2 refused to do so. Since then the accused developed grudge against the Lws 1 and 2. On 21.11.2013 at about 0700 hours both the accused beat the Lw1 and his grand father LW2 with sticks, axe and caused injuries and abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences. On receipt of a complaint from LW1, the LW11 registered a case in Cr.No. 161/2013 U/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC and recorded statement of Lws 1 and 2, secured the eyewitnesses Lws 3 to 7 and recorded their statements in detail and proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lws 8 and 9. On 29.11.2013

LW11 arrested the accused and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the

LW11 filed charge sheet against the Al and A2 for the offence punishable U/s 324,506,290 r/w 34.

2-This court has taken on file the charge sheet for the offence u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC.

On appearance of the accused copies of the prosecution documents furnished to them u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused are examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC, and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.

3-The prosecution examined Pws 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-12. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused are examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating appearing against them and they denied evidence of prosecution witnesses.

4-Heard.

5-Now the point for determination whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

6- Pw-1 K. Parvaiah deposed that about 6 months back he was coming from his cattle shed at 7 a.m. at that time the A1 came from his direction and Lw6 also accompanied him. When they reached

LW7 Kistaiah house, the A1 caught hold his collar while A1 tried to beat with axe and he pushed him down on the ground and beat him with hands and kicked him with legs. The incident witnessed by Lws 3 to 7, he came to know the Al and A2 also beat his grandfather. He filed complaint before the Police.

Police referred him to the hospital. Ex.P1 is his complaint.

7- Pw-2 K. Hanmaiah deposed that about 6 months back he was coming from his cattle shed at 7

AM to his house, the A1 and A2 caught hold him and beat him with axe, A2 tried to beat him with stick and the accused twisted his body. Peddolla Papaiah, LW7 Kistaiah and LW5 Mallesh witnessed the incident. The Pws 3 to 7 categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case and did not witness any incident. The Pws 8 and 9 are panch witnesses they deposed that police Lingampet obtained their signature on white paper and no panchanama was prepared. The Pw10 is the medical officer deposed that he treated the Pws 1 and 2 and issued MCs Ex.P9 and P10. The Pw11 is the investigation officer .

8-The case of prosecution is that on 21.11.2013 at about 0700 hours the accused No.1 and 2 beat the pw1 and Pw2 with sticks and axe and caused simple injuries, abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.

9-The Pw1 deposed against A1 only and he did not deposed that on which part of his body he received injuries. As per Ex.P1 ,Pw1 mentioned that both accused beat him with sticks where as in chief examined he deposed that Al beat him with hands and also mentioned in Ex.P1 that accused tried to stab the Pw2 with a broken toddy bottle but did not depose in his evidence. Pw2 deposed that Al and

A2 tried to beat him with an axe stick and they twisted his body, he did not depose that on which part of his body he sustained injuries and he did not depose that the accused tried to stab him with a broken toddy bottle on his stomach. Pws 3 to 7 are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident but they categorically deposed that they did not witness any incident and do not know the facts of the case and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Pws 8 and 9 panch for scene of offence and they turned hostile. The Pw10 medical officer deposed about the injuries sustained by the Pws 1 and 2 as mentioned in Ex.P8 and P9.

Pw11 Investigation Officer he deposed about the investigation done by him and further deposed that he has not seized the crime weapon with which the accused beat the Pws 1 and 2. According to the Ex.P1, the offence took place on 21.11.2013 at 7 a.m. and FIR issued on 24.11.2013 at 19.00 hours and there is delay of three days in reporting the matter to the police by Pw1. Neither the Pw1 nor the Pw11

Investigation officer have explained the reasons for lodging complaint with the delay of more than three days. The evidence of Pws l,2 and Pw10 not corroborated with each other with regard to injuries.

In the above circumstances the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused with regard to occurrence of offence. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 324, 506,290 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

IN THE RESULT: The A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 324, 506,290 r/w 34

IPC accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 21st day of March, 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

APPENDIXE OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1: K. Prvaiah.

Pw2: K. Hanmaiah.

Pw3: B. Sailu.

Pw4: Y. Sudhakar.

Pw5: G. Mallesh.Nil

Pw6: M. Poul.

Pw7: B. Kistaiah.

Pw8: P. Sailu.

Pw9: P. Rajaiah.

Pw10: Dr. K.Sadanamdam.

Pw11: B. Srikanth Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Complaint.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw5

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw6.NIL

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw7.

Ex.P7: Signature of Pw8 on Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P8: Signature of Pw9 on Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P9: MC of Pw1.

Ex.P10: MC of Pw2.

Ex.P11: FIR.

Ex.P12: Crime detail form

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy. Dated this the 21st day of March,2016.

C.C.No. 294 of 2013

Between The State Police through, SHO P.S. Lingampet.

....Complainant.

And

A1-KarrollaMaisaiah s/o Lasmaiah, aged 27 years, caste: Mudiraj, occup: Agril, r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet mandal.

A2-Karrolla Lasmaiah s/o Parvaiah, aged 55 years, caste: Mudiraj, occup: Agril r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet mandal.

….Accused.

Nature of Offence::u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding::This Court found the accused are not guilty for the offence u/s 324,506,290 r/w 34 of IPC. and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Sentence ::-- Date of Occurrence::21/11/2013 Date of Complaint::24/11/2013 Date of apprehension / surrender ::29/11/2013 of the accused. Date of Release on bail::29/11/2013 Date of Commencement of trail::02/04/13 Date of Close of trial::15/02/2016 Date of Sentence or Order::21/03/2016 Result.::The A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 324, 506,290 r/w 34 IPC accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. To The Hon’ble Ist Addl.District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class

CC.No. 273 of 2013

Dated: This the 21th day of March, 2016.

Between:

The State Police, through SHO. P.S.Yellareddy.

..Complainant.

And

A1. Naikoti Narsimulu s/o parvaiah, Age:37yrs, Occ:Agril, r/o Jangamaipalli village of Yellareddy Mandal. (died) A2. Bestha Sayavva w/o. Narayana, Age:39yrs, Occ:Agril, r/o Matoor village of Nagireddypet Mandal. A3. Chinnappa Narsavva w/o.Sailoo, Age:42 yrs, Occ:Agril r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet Mandal. ….Accused.

This case coming on this the 21th day of March, 2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and Mohd Naveez Parvez advocate for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellareddy has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

1- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.11.2013 at 1030 hours Lw-1 is the legally wedded wife of A1. A2 &A3 are sisters of A1. The marriage of the Lw-1 with A1 has been taken place according to their customs prevailing in their community about 13 years back at Jangamaipally village of Yellareddy Mandal. The marriage is settled by elders of the community. During the wed lock the Lw-1 begotten two sons. At the time of marriage her parents presented one tula gold gundlu, clothes, utensils, and also spent marriage expenses.

Till the birth of second son she lead happy marital life with her husband.

There after her husband at the instance of A2 & A3 harassed her 2 physically and mentally to bring addl.dowry of Rs.20,000/- from her parents. but she refused to bring dowry. A1 frequently picked up quarrels with her while she staying in his accompany at Jangamaipalli village for not getting the addl. Dowry. Sometimes A1 poured kerosene oil on Lw-1 and her two minor sons with an intension to do away them and with an intention to marry with his concubine namely Kurma

Bumavva. About 6 months back A1 again demanded addl.dowry for

Rs.20,000/- from her parents and abused her in filthy language beat her with hands and threatened her with dire consequences and at the instance of A2 and A3 and drove away her and her both minor sons from the house. Since about last 6 months the Lw1 along with her both minor sons are living with her parents and in a miserable condition. Lw-1 father conducted several panchayats in the presence of elders but A1 did not hear the advise of the elders and continued his harassment at the instance of A2 and A3. On receipt of complaint from Lw1, Lw-6 investigation officer registered a case in Cr.No.243/2013, u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. and Lw-6 examined and recorded statement of the Lws 1 to 5. On 29.11.2013 the

A1 to A3 surrendered themselves in the P.S and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation Lw-6 filed charge sheet against the accused.

2- The court has taken cognizance for the offence u/s 290,323,498-

A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused copies of prosecution documents furnished to the accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. and he is examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C and charges framed u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 3- In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pw-1 to

Pw4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4. As there is no incriminating material evidence against the accused the examination of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

4- Heard.

5- Now the point for the determination whether the prosecution able to prove its case against the accused for the offence u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

6- Pw-1 Naikoti Padma, Complainanthas deposed that the A1 deceased Narsimlu is her husaband and he died about two years back.

Her marriage took place with A1 about 15 years back. At the time of marriage, her parents presented gold 1 thula to deceased A1. The A2 and

A3 are sisters of A1. A1, A2 and A3 never harassed her at any point of time and never demanded her for additional dowry. She did not lodged any complaint in the police station.

7- PW2 Tantri Venkaiah Father of Complainant, has deposed that The

A1 is husaband of Pw1 and A2,A3 are sisters of A1. A1 husband of Pw1 never harassed her at any point of time and never demanded for

additional dowry . Pw-3 Tantri Pochavva Mother of Complainant, has

deposed the same lines of Pw2.

4 8- Pw-4 Nanigalla Balaiah witnesshas deposed that he do not know facts of the case and he did not witness any incident.

9- The case of the prosecution is that on 25.11.2013 at 1030 hours Pw-1 is the legally wedded wife of A1. A2 &A3 are sisters of A1.

The marriage of the Pw-1 with A1 has been taken place according to their customs prevailing in their community about 13 years back at

Jangamaipally village of Yellareddy Mandal. The marriage is settled by elders of the community. During the wed lock the Pw-1 begotten two sons. At the time of marriage her parents presented one tula gold gundlu, clothes, utensils, and also spent marriage expenses. Till the birth of second son she lead happy marital life with her husband. There after her husband at the instance of A2 & A3 harassed her to bring addl.dowry of Rs.20,000/- from her parents and abused her filthy language and beat her with hands and threatened her with dire consequences and drove her away from the house along with two sons.

The evidence of Pws 4 who is neighbour deposed that he do not know facts of the case. He did not witness any incident. The Pws 1 to 3 are material witnesses to the case of prosecution and deposed that A1 to A3 never demanded Pw-1 for addl.dowry. And they never harassed her and they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. As the

Pws 1 to 4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution, as such the prosecution has given up the evidence of Lws 5 and 6. In view of above evidence the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

IN THE RESULT: The A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act, accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21th day of March 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION. FOR DEFENCE.

Pw-1:- Naikoti Padma Nil.

Pw-2:- Tantri Venkaiah

Pw-3:- Tantri Pochavva

Pw-4:- Nanigalla Balaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION. FOR DEFENCE.

Ex.P-1:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1. Nil. Ex.P-2:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2.

Ex.P-3:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3.

Ex.P-4:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4.

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy.

6

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

CC.No. 273 of 2013

Dated: This the 21th day of March, 2016. Between:

The State Police, through SHO. P.S.Yellareddy.

..Complainant.

And

A1. Naikoti Narsimulu s/o Parvaiah, Age:37yrs, Occ:Agril, r/o Jangamaipalli village of Yellareddy Mandal. (Died) A2. Bestha Sayavva w/o. Narayana, Age:39yrs, Occ:Agril, r/o Matoor village of Nagireddypet Mandal. A3. Chinnappa Narsavva w/o.Sailoo, Age:42 yrs, Occ:Agril r/o Sajjanpalli village of Lingampet Mandal. ….Accused. Nature of Offence :: u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act Finding :: This Court found the accused are not guilty for the offence under Section u/s 290,323,498- A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act. and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Sentence :: --

Date of Occurrence :: 10.05.2013

Date of Complaint :: 25.11.2013

Date of apprehension / :: 29.11.2013 surrender of the accused. Date of Release on bail :: 29.11.2013

Date of Commencement of :: 16.03.2016 trail

Date of Close of trial :: 21.03.2016

Date of Sentence or Order :: 21.03.2016

Result. :: The A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 290,323,498-A,506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec 4 of D.P.Act, accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. To The Hon’ble Ist Addl.District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present : Sri.P.Shyamprasad, B.A.,LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016.

C.C.No. 146 of 2015.

Between

The State Police through Proh & Excise, SHO Yellareddy.

....Complainant.

And

Banoth Hari, S/o Banoth Pul Singh, age: 37 yrs., Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labout, R/o H.No. 3-69/1, Balaji Nagar Thanda, Yellareddy Mandal.

….Accused

This case is coming on this 21st day of March, 2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri.

Md. Naveed Parvez, advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following.

:: JUDGEMENT ::

The Proh & Excise, SHO Yellareddy has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act.

1- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 05-02-2015 at 11-00 a.m. on receipt on information regarding illegal possession of ID liquor at the house of accused. Then the Lw-3 and their staff secured the mediators Lws 1 and 2 and conducted raid. On seeing them one person carrying one white color plastic can in his hand and escaped from the said house. Then the Lw-3 recorded search memo and pasted to the door of the accused, and they entered into the said house, during the search they found one white colour plastic can which is 6 liters capacity containing ID Liquor. Lw-3 enquired with the neighbours of the said house and they disclosed name of the accused. Then the Lw-3 in the presence of Lws 1 and 2 drawn two samples of ID liquor each 180ml and seized the remaining contraband under cover of panchanama. On return

Lw-3 registered case in cr.No.591/2014-15 u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act. Later Lw-3 deposited sample bottles before the court to sent the bottles for chemical examination and the remaining contraband was deposited before the Dy.Commissioner of Proh. Excise,

Nizamabad for confiscation. After receipt of CE report, Lw-3 filed charge sheet against accused.

2- This court has taken on file the charge sheet for the offence u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act. On appearance of the accused copies of the prosecution documents furnished to him u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge framed u/s 7 (A) r/w 8

(e) of A.P. Proh. Act., and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.

3- The prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 to

P6 and Mo-1. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. And he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

4- Heard.

5- Now the point for determination whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.

Proh. Act., beyond all reasonable doubt?

6- Pw-1 R.Venkati Panch witness, has deposed that about 1 year back, on one day the Excise Police visited their village and obtained his signature on two written papers. He do not know why they obtained his signatures.

7- Pw- 2 R. Srujana P&ESI, has deposed that on 05.02.2015 at 11:00 AM on receipt of information about sale of ID Liquor in the house of accused. Then she along with Pw1 and Lw2 were proceeded to Balaji nagar thanda and reached the house of accused. On seeing them the accused ran away. She recorded search memo and pasted it to the door of house of accused. Then she entered into the house, duing search she found one can containing 6 liters of ID Liquor. She drawn two samples and seized remaining contraband under seizure panchanama. She registered a case in COR No. 591/2014-15 u/s 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Proh

Act. and sent sample bottles to CE. On 10.02.2015 she arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. After receipt of CE report She filed charge sheet.

8- The case of the prosecution is that on 05.02.2015 at 11:00 A.M

Pw-2 along with her staff duly secured Pw1 and Lw2 were proceeded to raid the house of accused as they received information about illegal possession and sale of ID liquor. At the time they reached the house of accused was present and on seeing them the accused escaped from there. Pw-2 entered in to the house of accused and they found 6 liters of I.D. liquor in one can and she drawn two sample of I.D. liquor of 180 ml., and seized the remaining contraband under cover of panchanama in the presence of Pw-1 and Lw-2. But the evidence of Pw-1 is that about one year back on one day the Ex. Police came their village and they obtained his signatures on two written papers and he do not know the facts of the case and he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of Pw-01 independent panch witness is not corroborated with the evidence of Pw-2 investigation officer. And the Prosecution has got several adjournments, but they failed to produce the Lw-2. The non- corroboration evidence of independent panch witnesses to the evidence of

Pw-2 Investigation officer is not sufficient to convict the accused.

Hence, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The MO-01 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of March 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

APPENDIXE OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw-1:- R. Venkati Nil Pw-2:- R.Srujana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P-1:- Signature of Pw-1 on search memo.

Ex.P-2:- Signature of Pw-1 on seizure Panchanama.

Ex.P-3:- Search Memo. NIL. Ex.P-4:- Panchanama

Ex.P-5:- C.O.R.

Ex.P-6:- C.E Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Mo-1 Sample bottle

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy. Dated this the 21st day of March, 2016.

C.C.No. 146 of 2015.

Between

The State Police through Proh & Excise, SHO Yellareddy.

....Complainant.

And

Banoth Hari, S/o Banoth Pul Singh, age: 37 yrs., Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Labout, R/o H.No. 3-69/1, Balaji Nagar Thanda, Yellareddy Mandal.

….Accused Nature of Offence :u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act. : Finding :This Court found the accused not guilty for : the offence under Section u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Proh. Act. and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Sentence :-- : Date of Occurrence :05-02-2015 : Date of Complaint :-- : Date of apprehension / :10-02-2015 : surrender of the accused. Date of Release on bail :10-02-2015 : Date of Commencement of :15-12-2015 trail : Date of Close of trial :17-03-2016 : Date of Sentence or Order :21-03-2016 : Result. :The accused is found not guilty for the offence : u/s 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Proh. Act, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The MO-01 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. To The Hon’ble Ist Addl.District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAREDDY.

Present : Sri.P.Shyamprasad, B.A.,LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy Dated this the 29th day of March,2016.

C.C.No. 154 of 2015

Between The State Police through, SHO P.S. Yellareddy.

....Complainant.

And

A1-Shankari Sangameshwar s/o Poshabhoi, aged 25 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Kalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A2-Shankari Poshavva w/o Pochaboi, aged 55 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Kalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A3-Shankari Pochaboi s/o Mogulaboi, aged 60 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Kalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A5-Nakka Savithri w/o Kashiram, aged 24 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Thimmapur village, Banswada Mandal. A6-Nakka Kashiram s/o Kashaiah, aged 26 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Thimmapur village, Banswada Mandal. ….Accused. This case is coming on this 29th day of March, 2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the state and of Sri. P. Pandari, advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following.

:: JUDGEMENT ::

The S.I. of Police, Yellareddy has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 498- A IPC.

1-The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Lw1 is legally wedded wife of the A1.

About 1 and 1/2 years back the marriage of Lw1 was performed with the A1 and the A1 was given sufficient dowry. After the marriage the accused No.1 lead happy marital life with the Lw1 for 2 or 3 months and thereafter the A1 to A6 started harassing the Lw1 mentally and physically demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When Lw1 could not get the additional dowry, the accused blamed the Lw1 and defamed her character. Due to continuous harassment of the accused, she left to her parents house and disclosed about the harassment to her parents and a caste panchayath was held but none of the accused tried to take back the Lw1. On receipt of a complaint from LW1, the LW7 registered a case in Cr.No.104/2015 U/s 498-A IPC and recorded statements of Lws l to 6. On 15.07.2015 the A1 and on 22.07.2015 the A2 to A6 surrendered before the Lw7, and Lw7 effected arrest of the accused and released them on bail. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s 498-A IPC.

2-This court has taken on file the charge sheet for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC. On appearance of the accused copies of the prosecution documents furnished to them u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused are examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC, and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3-The prosecution examined Pws 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 and P2. As there is no incriminating appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused U/s 313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

4-Heard.

5-Now the point for determination whether the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

6- Pw-1 Shankar Anandi, complainant has deposed that about 2 years back her marriage was performed with A1 and thereafter some disputes arose between Pw1 and A1 due to family affairs.

7- Pw-2 R.Lacha boi, father of the Pw1 deposed that about 2 years back he performed marriage of

Pw1 with the A1 and thereafter some disputes arose between Pw1 and the accused No.1 with regard to their family affairs and the accused never harassed the Pw1 and due to domestic problems his daughter came to his house.

8-The prosecution case are that the A1 is the husband of the Pw1 and after the marriage the Pw1 lead happy marital life for a period of 2 to 3 months and thereafter all the accused started harassing the

Pw1 mentally and physically for bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Pw1 is the complainant and victim and the Pw2 is the father of Pw2 and they categorically deposed that the accused did not harass the Pw1 at any point of time demanding her to bring additional dowry and they did not whisper anything against the accused. As the material witnesses Pws 1 and 2 turned hostile, the APP has given up evidence of Lws 2, 4 to 8. Obviously there is no evidence against the accused persons and the Pws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. In view of above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 498-A

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

IN THE RESULT: The A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of

IPC accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the of 29th day of March, 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

APPENDIXE OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Pw1: Shankari Anandi @ Siddavva.NIL Pw2: R. Lachaboi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1.NIL Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy. Dated this the 29th day of March,2016.

C.C.No. 154 of 2015

Between The State Police through, SHO P.S. Yellareddy.

....Complainant.

And

A1-Shankari Sangameshwar s/o Poshabhoi, aged 25 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/oKalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A2-Shankari Poshavva w/o Pochaboi, aged 55 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/oKalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A3-Shankari Pochaboi s/o Mogulaboi, aged 60 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/oKalluri village, kotgir Mandal, A5-Nakka Savithri w/o Kashiram, aged 24 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Thimmapur village, Banswada Mandal. A6-Nakka Kashiram s/o Kashaiah, aged 26 years, caste: Bestha, occup; Agril, r/o Thimmapur village, Banswada Mandal. ….Accused. Nature of Offence::u/s 498-A of IPC. Finding::This Court found the accused are not guilty for the offence u/s 498-A of IPC. and they are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Sentence ::-- Date of Occurrence::Since one year Date of Complaint::25/06/15 Date of apprehension / surrender ::A1 15/07/2015, A2 to A6 22/07/2015 of the accused. Date of Release on bail::A1 15/07/2015, A2 to A6 22/07/2015 Date of Commencement of trail::23/11/2015 Date of Close of trial::29/03/16 Date of Sentence or Order::29/03/16 Result.::The A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC accordingly the accused are acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. To The Hon’ble Ist Addl.District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class

CC.No. 54 of 2015

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016.

Between:

The State Police, through SHO. P.S. Gandhari.

..Complainant.

And

Katariya Santosh, S/o Sathiya, age: 45 yrs., Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agril., R/o Karnam Gadda Thanda, GP Pothangal Kalan of Gandhari Mandal.

….Accused.

This case coming on this the 17th day of March, 2016 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and P. Pandari advocate for the accused and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhari has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 324 of IPC.

1- The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Lw-1 (complainant by name Katiraya Jamuna) have four sons and one daughter. The elder son and accused (second son of the Lw-1) are married and they are divided as separate family near about 3 months back, but the accused (second of Lw-1) with his family staying with Lw-1.

On 02-01-2015 at about 4-30 PM the Lw-1 requesting the accused to leave her house and live in another house by constructing, due to the present house was not inconvenient to live to Lw-1. Suddenly the accused on angrily came the Lw-1 and beat the Lw-1 with stick on her head, for which Lw-1 received blood injuries. On complaint of Lw-1, Lw- 9 (1st Investigation Officer) registered a case in Cr. No. 01 of 2015, u/s 324 of IPC. Lw-10 (2nd Investigation Officer) recorded the statement of

Lws 1 to 5 and visited the scene of offence there he secured the 2 mediators Lws 6 & 7, in their presence he conducted the scene of offence in Crime Detail Form. On 09-01-2015 the Lw-10 arrested the accused.

Later the Lw-10 received MC of Lw-1 from Lw-8 (Medical Officer), Lw-10 filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 324 of IPC.

2- The court has taken cognizance for the offence u/s 324 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused copies of prosecution documents furnished to the accused u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. and he is examined u/s 239 of Cr.P.C and charges framed u/s 324 of IPC.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3- In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 & 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 & P-2. As there is no incriminating material evidence against the accused the examination of accused u/s 313 of

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

4- Heard.

5- Now the point for the determination whether the prosecution able to prove its case against the accused for the offence u/s 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

6- Pw-1 K. Jamuna, complainant mother of the accused and injured has deposed that the accused never beat her and she did not lodged any complaint before the Police. Pw-2 K. Sathliya, witness and husband of Pw-1, has deposed the same lines of Pw-1 and they turned hostile.

7- The case of the prosecution is that Pws-1 & 2 are the

Mother and Father of accused. The accused is staying with Pw-1 in the house of Pw-1. On 02-01-2015 at 4-30 PM Pw-1 requesting the accused that leave her house and live in another by constructing new one. For which the accused angrily came to the Pw-1 and beat her with stick, due 3 to which Pw-1 received injuries on her head. The prosecution examined only Pws 1 & 2. The prosecution has failed to produce the Lws 3 to 9 and hence, their evidence is closed. The evidence of Pw-1 she did not deposed against the accused and she categorically deposed that the accused is her son and the accused never beat her and she did not lodged any complaint against the accused and she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Pw-2 also deposed the same lines of Pw-1 and he also turned hostile. The evidence of Pws 1 & 2 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. The prosecution not established it’s case against the accused for the offence u/s 324 of IPC.

IN THE RESULT: The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 324 of IPC, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed my dictation and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of March 2016.

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION. FOR DEFENCE.

Pw-1:- K. Jamuna. Nil. Pw-2:- K. Sathliya.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR PROSECUTION. FOR DEFENCE.

Ex.P-1:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-1. Nil. Ex.P-2:- 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-2.

Material Objects Marked

Nil

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy.

4

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

YELLAREDDY.

Present: Sri. P. Shyamprasad, B.A., LL.B., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellareddy.

CC.No. 54 of 2015

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016.

Between:

The State Police, through SHO. P.S. Gandhari.

..Complainant.

And

Katariya Santosh, S/o Sathiya, age: 45 yrs., Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agril., R/o Karnam Gadda Thanda, GP Pothangal Kalan of Gandhari Mandal.

….Accused.

Nature of Offence :: u/s 324 of IPC

Finding :: This Court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section u/s 324 of IPC. and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

Sentence :: --

Date of Occurrence :: 02-01-2015

Date of Complaint :: 03-01-2015

Date of apprehension / :: 09-01-2015 surrender of the accused. Date of Release on bail :: 09-01-2015

Date of Commencement of :: 18-03-2016 trail

Date of Close of trial :: 17-03-2016

Date of Sentence or Order :: 17-03-2016

Result. :: The accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 324 of IPC, accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellareddy. To The Hon’ble Ist Addl.District &

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.