IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: ADONI
PRESENT:- SRI P. THIRUMALA RAO, B.A.L.L.B.,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADONI.
FRIDAY, THE 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
SESSIONS CASE NO.337/2017
Name of the accused :
1.J.Raghavendra, 32 years, S/o Basava Raju, Ramachandra Nagar, Mantralayam (V) & (M).
2.K.Upendranatha Reddy, S/o Surya Prakash Reddy, Thurakapalli village, Gooty mandal, Anantapur (D), now at Devanagar Gate, Kurnool.
3.K.Amarnatha Reddy, 35 years, S/o Pandu Ranga Reddy, Neerukunta veedi, Old Town, Anantapur, now at Devanagar Gate, Kurnool.
4.Boya Bheemanna, 32 years, S/o Hanumanthu, Thurakaladona village, Raichur district.
Finding of the Judge : A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty
Sentence or Order : In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) and they are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1, A.2, A.4 shall be in force for a period of six months.
M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be returned to A.1, M.O.3 shall be returned to A.4, M.O.4 shall be returned to A.2. M.O.5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
A.3 is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or cases.
: MANTRALAYAM P.S.
Crime No. : Cr.No.92/2017
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12-4-2017 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri.T.L.V.S.Sarma, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Crime No.92/2017 for the offences 2 punishable U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and
Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013), alleging as follows.
2. That on 9-9-2017 at 1-30 am the Inspector of Police along with staff and mediators conducted raids in Guru International Lodge,
Mantralayam, wherein the police found A.1 to A.3. On seeing the police
A.1 to A.3 tried to fled away, but police apprehended A.1, A.3, but A.2 was ran away. A.1, A.3 were taken to the room No.202, where A.4 was found with the victim/AS in half naked condition and indulging prostitution. On interrogation A.1, A.3 confessed that A.2 arranged victim/AS for prostitution in the lodge of A.1 and A.1 also engaging woman and used his lodge for prostitution and A.1 to A.3 are living on the earnings of prostitution. Upon the confession of the accused, two cell phones are seized from the possession of A.1, A.4 and condoms were also seized under cover of confession-cum-seizure report. The accused and case property was brought to police station. Basing on the confession- cum-seizure report, the inspector of Police, Mantralayam registered a case in Cr.No.92/2017 for the offences U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral
Traffic Act and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) and submitted FIR to court .
3. It is further alleged that on 12-9-2017 at 10-00 am the Inspector of Police, Mantralayam arrested A.2 at MDO office turning in the presence of mediators. On interrogation A.2 confessed that he along with A.1, A.3 and A.4 engaging women for prostitution and living upon the earnings of the prostitution. Upon the confession of A.2, a cell phone has been seized from the possession of A.2 under cover of seizure report. The accused and case property was brought to police station and produced before the court. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.
3
4. This case was taken on file by the Judl. Magistrate of I Class,
Yemmiganur, for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet, and numbered as PRC No.21/2017, committed the same to court of Sessions
Kurnool, numbered as S.C.No.337/2017 and the same was made over to this court for trial.
5. After appearance of A.1 to A.4 before this court, on hearing prosecution and accused, charges for the offences U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of
Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal
Amendment Act, 2013), against A.1 to A.4 have been framed, read over and explained to A.1 to A.4 in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During course of trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.10, besides M.O.1 to M.O.5, out of which P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2, P.W.4 are said to be punch witnesses for seizure reports, dt.9-9-2017 and on 12-9-2017. Exs.P.1, P.2 are signatures of P.W.2 on seizure report. Exs.P.3, P.4 are signatures of P.W.4 on seizure reports.
P.W.3, P.W.5 are police constables, who assisted the inspector of Police.
Exs.P.5, P.6 are the signatures of P.W.5 on seizure reports. P.W.6 is the
Sub Inspector of Police, Mantralayam. Ex.P.7 is the seizure report, dt.9-9-2017. Ex.P.8 is seizure report, dt.12-9-2017. P.W.7 is the
Inspector of Police. Ex.P.9 is proceedings of S.D.P.O., Adoni, dt.8-9-2017.
Ex.P.10 is FIR. M.O.1 is cash of Rs.900/- seized from A.1. M.O.2 is cell phone seized from A.1. M.O.3 is cell phone seized from A.3. M.O.4 is cell phone seized from A.2. M.O.5 is used condom.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.4 are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.
4
8. Heard both sides.
9. Now the point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A.1 to A.4 for the charges U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and
Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) beyond all
reasonable doubts?
The case of the prosecution is that A.1 is the lessee of Guru
International Lodge, Mantralayam and he secured P.W.1 through A.2 and keeping brothel in his lodge and liable for the charge U/Sec.3(1) of
Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. It is also the case of the prosecution is that A.2, A.3 arranged the victim girl/P.W.1 to A.2 for prostitution and they are living upon the earnings of prostitution and liable for the charge U/Sec.4(1) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. It is also the case of the prosecution that A.1 to A.3 procured the victim/P.W.1 for the sake of prostitution and A.4 induced P.W.1 to carry on prostitution and liable for the charge U/Sec.5(1) of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956. It is also the case of the prosecution that A.1 to A.4 induced P.W.1 for prostitution and they are liable for the charge U/Sec.370-A (2) of IPC.
10. To prove the alleged charges, the prosecution examined the victim as P.W.1, she stated that about 1 ½ month ago A.2 made phone call and informed her to meet at Kurnool to earn more money than coolie work. She proceeded to Kurnool and A.2, A.3 taken her to Guru
International Lodge, Mantralayam and kept in room No.202. P.W.1 further testified that A.1 provided room No.202 and he received Rs.900/- from A.4 and sent her to room. P.W.1 further testified that while herself and A.4 were in intercourse, Mantralayam police came there and knocked the door, she opened the door and police observed the room and found condom pockets. Police taken A.1, A.2 and A.4 to police station.
5
11. P.W.2 is said to be one of the mediators for seizure report dt.9-9-2017 and he stated that on 9-10-2017 at 1-15 p.m. she went to
Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed A.1, A.2 and A.4 at ground floor and they went to second floor and knocked the door and noticed a female in the room. Police arrested A.1, A.2 and A.4 and took them to police station.
12. The other mediator examined as P.W.4 stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-30 am himself, Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector were proceeded to
Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam, they noticed three persons were sitting on the steps of the lodge and on seeing them tried to skulk away.
They caught hold two of them and another fled away. Police took them to room No.202 of the lodge and found P.W.1 and A.4. Police seized three cell phones of A.1, A.2 and A.4 and condoms under cover of seizure report
Ex.P.3. P.W.4 further testified that on 12-9-2017 at 8-30 am he was called to police station, where the Inspector of Police, Mantralayam instructed his staff to apprehend A.3 and A.3 was apprehended. On interrogation A.3 confessed that he committed offence along with A.1,
A.2, A.4. Police seized cell phone from A.3 under cover of seizure report, dt.12-9-2017 marked Ex.P.4.
13. P.W.3 and P.W.5 are said to be police constables, who assisted the Inspector of Police. P.W.3 stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-30 pm herself, Inspector of Police, Mantralayam and Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed three persons tried to skulk away. They caught hold two persons and another fled away. On interrogation A.1, A.3 confessed that they are keeping brothel in room No.202. They went there and found P.W.1 and A.4 in the 6 room. Inspector of Police seized used condom and took the accused and case property to the police station.
14. P.W.5 is said to be another constable and he stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-15 am himself, Inspector of Police proceeded to Guru
International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed three persons tried to ran away, but he arrested A.1, A.3. On interrogation A.1, A.3 confessed that they brought P.W.1 and entrusted A.4 for prostitution. They proceeded to room No.202 and found A.4 and P.W.1 in half naked condition. Inspector of Police seized cash of Rs.900/- from A.4 and also seized used condom and unused condom and cell phone of A.1, A.4 under cover of seizure report. He signed therein. His signature marked Ex.P.5. He further testified that on 12-9-2017 at morning hours himself and along with other staff proceeded to MDO office turning, Mantralayam and noticed A.2. On interrogation A.2 confessed that he involved in commission of offence along with other accused and upon his confession seized one cell phone.
He signed on seizure report marked Ex.P.6.
15. P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Mantralayam and he stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-30 am the Inspector of Police and staff along with mediators proceeded to Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed three persons tried to skulk away. They caught hold A.1, A.3, on interrogation they confessed that they are indulging prostitution in room
No.202. They took them to room No.202 and opened the doors and found
P.W.1 and A.4 in the room. They noticed used condone and unused condom in the room. They seized all the phones of A.1, A.2 and A.4 and cash of Rs.900/- and condoms under cover of seizure report. He signed on the report marked Ex.P.7. P.W.6 further testified that on 12-9-2017 at 8-45 am himself along with Inspector of Police and staff reached to MDO 7 office turning, Mantralayam, they caught hold A.2. On interrogation he confessed the commission of offence and upon his confession he seized
Samsung cell phone from his possession. He too also signed on the report. His signature marked as Ex.P.8.
16. P.W.7 is the Inspector of Police, Mantralayam and he stated that on 8-9-2017 at 8-15 pm he received credible information about the prostitution was going on in Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam. He obtained search proceedings from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni, dt.8-9-2017 marked Ex.P.9. He along with his staff and mediators proceeded to Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam at 1-30 am on 9-9-2017 and noticed three persons. On seeing the police, they tried to ran away, they caught hold A.1, A.3. On interrogation A.1 confessed that he got lease of Guru International Lodge, secured woman from A.2 and running prostitution. A.3 also confessed that he is supplying women at the request of A.2 for prostitution. Upon their confession, they were taken to room No.202, where they noticed P.W.1 and A.4 in the room. On interrogation A.4 confessed that A.1 arranged P.W.1 for prostitution.
Upon the confession of accused, he seized cash of Rs.900/- marked
M.O.1, cell phone of A.1 marked M.O.2, cell phone of A.4 marked M.O.3,
Cell phone of A.2 marked M.O.4 and condoms marked M.O.5.
17. P.W.7 further testified that they brought the accused and case property to the police station, basing on the allegations made in the seizure report he registered a case in Cr.No.92/2017 for the offences
U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) and submitted FIR to court marked
Ex.P.10. P.W.7 further testified that on 12-9-2017 at 10-00 am he arrested A.2 at MDO office turning, Mantralayam. On interrogation A.2 8 confessed the commission of offence. Upon his confession, he seized cell phone from A.2 under cover of seizure report. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.
18. On the other hand, the defence of accused is total denial of alleged offence and claimed false implication. The learned counsel for the defence cross examined the prosecution witnesses by put forthing the defence of the accused.
19. It is elicited from P.W.1 that she got acquaintance with accused
No.1 on the date of incident only and police came to lodge at 10-30 am and police prepared reports at police station. It is also elicited from P.W.2 that police obtained his signatures on seizure report. It is also elicited from P.W.3 that she do not know how her superiors received information.
It is also elicited from P.W.4 that by the time of his arrival to police station on 12-9-2017 he noticed all the accused in the police station and after taking custody of accused, the police recorded confession of A.3 at police station. It is also elicited from P.W.5 that they used to call P.W.2 and
P.W.4 as mediators to police. He could not say the cell phones, which belongs to whom. It is also elicited from P.W.6 that they reached to Guru
International Lodge separately. Himself, one woman PC and other staff boarded in his jeep. It is also elicited from P.W.7 that as per the first information report submitted to the court, they received information on 9-9-2017 at 3-00 am. It is also elicited from P.W.7 that he reached to scene at 1-15 am. In his jeep, himself, P.W.5, P.W.2, P.W.4 and another constable were boarded, and he did not secure any respectable woman.
It is also elicited from P.W.7 that A.1 opened the door of room No.202 and the seizure reports not contain the signatures of P.W.2. It is also elicited from P.W.7 that there are number of lodges in Mantralayam and there was 9 competition among the lodge owners. P.W.7 denied the suggestions of false implication of the accused at the instance of rivals of A.1.
20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of victim is found consistent, cogent and there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence. He further submits that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.7 in all material aspects and the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged charges and he prays to convict the accused.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence submits that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is inconsistent on all material aspects and on material facts suffered with material discrepancies. He further submits that police planted P.W.1 for the sake of false case and the punch witness examined as P.W.2 and 4 not stated the involvement of accused for the alleged offence. He further submits that P.W.3, P.W.5 to P.W.7 are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted and he prays to acquit the accused.
22. As seen from the material on record, the case of the prosecution is based on confession-cum-seizure report, dt.9-9-2017 marked Ex.P.3.
To prove the alleged confession of accused No.1, 3 and 4 and consequent seizure of M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.4, the prosecution examined one of the punch witness as P.W.2. He stated that on 9-10-2017 at 1-15 pm he went to Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed A.1, A.2, A.4 and police took them to second floor and A.1 opened the door, found
P.W.1 and A.4 in the room. Police arrested A.1, A.2 and A.4, took them to police station. The evidence of P.W.2 is inconsistent to prosecution case on material aspects. As per the prosecution case, the alleged raid was conducted on 9-9-2017 at 1-35 am, whereas, P.W.2 stated that the date 10 of offence is 9-10-2017 at 1-30 pm. As such, there is a material discrepancy as to time of offence. P.W.2 also stated that they went to
Guru International Lodge, they noticed A.1, A.2, A.4 and police arrested them. But, as per prosecution case, A.2 was absconded at first instance
A.1, A.3 were arrested and and A.4 was arrested at room No.202.
Whereas, P.W.2 stated that police arrested A.1, A.2, A.4 at ground floor, but the same is inconsistent to the prosecution case. P.W.2 also stated that he noticed A.1, A.2, A.4 and another and police arrested them. But, no arrest was made for A.2 on 9-9-2017. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 that he was present at the time of alleged arrest of A.1, A.2. A.4 on 9-9-2017 at 1-35 am is found not reliable. The evidence of P.W.2 is not helpful to prosecution to prove the alleged confession of A.1, A.3, A.4 and seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3, M.O.5.
23. The other punch witness for prosecution examined as P.W.4 and he stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-30 am himself, Inspector of Police,
Sub Inspector proceeded to Guru International Lodge, Mantralayam and noticed three persons and on seeing them one person fled away, police caught hold A.1, A.3. P.W.4 also testified that police took him to room
No.202 and found P.W.1 and A.4 and police seized three cell phones of
A.1, A.2, A.4 under cover of seizure report Ex.P.3. But, as per prosecution case, A.2 was absconded from the scene and only two cell phones were seized from A.1 and A.4. The evidence of P.W.4 as to the arrest of A.2 and seizure of three cell phones is found not reliable.
Furthermore, P.W.4 also not stated the alleged confession of A.1 and that he is keeping brothel. P.W.4 also not stated the alleged confession of A.3 that he is living upon the earnings of prostitution. As such, the evidence of P.W.4 is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged confession 11 of A.1, A.3, A.4 on consequent seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.3, M.O.5 from A.1, A.4.
24. To prove the alleged confession of A.1, A.3, A.4 and seizure of
M.O.1 to M.O.3 and M.O.5 under cover of Ex.P.3, the prosecution also examined one of the woman constables as P.W.3 and she stated that on interrogation A.1, A.3 confessed that prostitution was going on in room
No.202. They opened the door and found P.W.1, A.4 and seized used condoms and cell phones of A.1, A.2. But, the evidence of P.W.3 is found not reliable, on the ground that A.2 was absconded from the scene, he was not arrested on 9-9-2017. Furthermore, P.W.7 testified that he had not taken the signature of P.W.3 on seizure report. Furthermore, P.W.3 also not stated about the alleged confession of A.1, A.3, A.4 as to A.1 keeping brothel and A.2, A.3 supplied P.W.1 to A.1 and A.4 induced P.W.1 for prostitution. As such, the evidence of P.W.3 is found not reliable.
25. The other witness for prosecution is examined as P.W.5, he stated that on 9-9-2017 at 1-15 am, Inspector of Police along with his staff arrested A.1, A.2, A.3 and took them to room No.202, they noticed
A.4 and P.W.1 in the room in half naked condition. P.W.7 seized cash of
Rs.900/- from A.4 and seized used condom and another unused condom, cell phones of A.1, A.4 under cover of seizure report. The evidence of
P.W.5 is also not inspires any confidence on the ground that he admitted in cross examination that he could not say which cell phone belongs to whom. P.W.6 also admitted that they do not know, in which case he accompanied to P.W.7 to reach the scene and he has not received any information. P.W.7 also admitted that as per entries in first information report Ex.P.9, they received information on 9-9-2017 at 3-00 am and 12 whereas, they reached to scene at 1-15 am and he did not secure any respective woman in the said vicinity.
26. As seen from the material on record, the evidence of punch witnesses examined as P.W.2 and P.W.4 not inspires any confidence as to the alleged confession of A.1, A.3, A.4 and consequent seizure of M.O.1,
M.O.2, M.O.4 and M.O.5 under Ex.P.3. The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 to
P.W.7 is also inconsistent on material aspects and does not inspire any confidences to the alleged confession of accused in commission of the alleged offence. As such, the arrest of A.1, A.3 and A.4 and consequent seizure of M.O.1 to M.O.5 is found not reliable. The prosecution is failed to prove the alleged confession of A.1, A.3, A.4 and seizure of M.O.1
M.O.3 and M.O.5 from the possession of A.1, A.3 and A.4.
27. The other allegation of the prosecution is that on 12-9-2017 at 8-45 am P.W.7 arrested A.2 and on interrogation he confessed that he involved in commission of offence along with A.1, A.3 and A.4, but the punch witness examined as P.W.2 not stated any confession of A.2 and seizure of M.O.4 from A.2. The other punch witness examined as P.W.4 has stated about the confession of A.3 and seizure of cell phone from the possession of A.3 on 12-4-2017 under Ex.P.4. But, P.W.4 in the first part of his evidence has stated that police seized three cell phones on 9-9-2017 itself. Whereas, as per the prosecution case police seized two cell phones on 9-9-2017 itself. As such, the evidence of P.W.4 that A.2 confessed his guilt and upon his confession police seized M.O.4 is found not reliable. The evidence of P.W.3, P.W.5 to P.W.7 as to the alleged confession of A.2 and seizure of M.O.4 from the possession of A.2 on 12-9-2017 is also found not reliable.
13
28. The prosecution also examined the victim as P.W.1 and she stated that on the date of involvement, A.2, A.3 took her to Guru
International Lodge, Mantralayam and A.1 provided room No.202. P.W.1 also stated that A.1 received Rs.900/- from A.4 and sent to her room and while they were in intercourse, police came and arrested A.1, A.2, A.4.
However, during cross examination P.W.1 has stated that police came to lodge at 10-30 am the police prepared report at police station and she got acquaintance of A.1 on the date of incident. Whereas, the alleged raid was conducted on the lodge at 1-35 am on 9-9-2017. P.W.1 has not specifically stated that A.1 keeping brothel and A.2, A.3 transported her to
A.1 for the purpose of prostitution. The evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of other independent witnesses. Hence, it is not safe to relay on the testimony of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 not inspires any confidence. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A.1 to
A.4 for the alleged charges U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic
Act and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013).
29. In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the charges
U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and
Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) and they are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1, A.2, A.4 shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be returned to
A.1, M.O.3 shall be returned to A.4, M.O.4 shall be returned to A.2. M.O.5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
A.3 is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or cases.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2017.
Asst. Sessions Judge, Adoni.
14
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1: Akula Swathi @ Parvathi -None- P.W.2: T.Narasaiah P.W.3: K.Madhavi P.W.4: K.Janardhana Rao P.W.5: M.Purandhar P.W.6: K.Srinivasa Naik P.W.7: D.Ramu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.2 on the -Nil- arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.9-9-2017
Ex.P.2: Signature of P.W.2 on the arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.12-9-2017
Ex.P.3: Arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.9-9-2017
Ex.P.4: Seizure report, dt.12-9-2017
Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.5 on the arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.9-9-2017
Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.5 on the arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.12-9-2017
Ex.P.7: Signature of P.W.6 on the arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.9-9-2017
Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.6 on the arrest-cum-seizure report, dt.12-9-2017
Ex.P.9: Proceedings of S.D.P.O., Adoni, dt.8-9-2017
Ex.P.10: F.I.R.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
M.O.1: Cash of Rs.900/- - Nil –
M.O.2: Vivo cell phone
M.O.3: Oppo cell phone
M.O.4: Samsung cell phone
M.O.5: Two ozomen condom pockets
A.S.J., ADONI.
15
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: ADONI
PRESENT:- SRI P. THIRUMALA RAO, B.A.L.L.B.,
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ADONI.
FRIDAY, THE 13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
SESSIONS CASE NO.337/2017
TABULAR STATEMENT APPENDED TO THE JUDGMENT
Name of the Police Station : Mantralayam P.S Crime No. : 92/2017
Sessions Case No. : 337/2017
Name of the accused : 1.J.Raghavendra, 32 years, S/o Basava Raju, Ramachandra Nagar, Mantralayam (V) & (M). 2.K.Upendranatha Reddy, S/o Surya Prakash Reddy, Thurakapalli village, Gooty mandal, Anantapur (D), now at Devanagar Gate, Kurnool. 3.K.Amarnatha Reddy, 35 years, S/o Pandu Ranga Reddy, Neerukunta veedi, Old Town, Anantapur, now at Devanagar Gate, Kurnool. 4.Boya Bheemanna, 32 years, S/o Hanumanthu, Thurakaladona village, Raichur district.
Date of Offence : 09-09-2017 Date of Complaint : 09-09-2017 Date of apprehension (A1,A3,A4) : 09-09-2017 Date of apprehension (A2) : 12-09-2017 Date of Release on bail : 22-09-2017 Date of Committal : 17-11-2017 Date of Commencement of trial : 03-04-2018 Date of Close of trial : 10-04-2018 Date of Sentence or Order : 13-04-2018 Explanation for delay if any : Vide diary extract of the committal court
In the Court of Sessions: - On appearance of A.1 to A.4 charges framed
on 9-3-2018. The Prosecution evidence commenced on 3-4-2018 and closed on 10-4-2018. Sec.313 Cr.P.C. examination is conducted on 11-4-2018. In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the charges U/Sec.3, 4, 5 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956 and Sec.370-A (2) IPC (Criminal Amendment Act, 2013) and they are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1, A.2, A.4 shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be returned to A.1, M.O.3 shall be returned to A.4, M.O.4 shall be returned to A.2. M.O.5 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. A.3 is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case or cases.
Assistant Sessions Judge, Adoni. Copy submitted to:- The Registrar (Judl) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The Director of Prosecution, A.P., Hyderabad. The District Judge, Kurnool. Copy to the District Collector, Kurnool. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool. Copy to the J.M.F.C. Yemmiganur.