P. Venkateswarlu(fac)

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

COURT :: RAMPACHODAVARAM:: C.C.No.13/2019. Cr.No.73/2018 of Rampachodavaram Police Station. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence:07.09.2018.

Date of Complaint:07.09.2018.

Apprehension of accused:Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. notice.

Released on bail:---

Commencement of Trial:10.05.2019.

Closure of trial:14.06.2019.

Sentence or Order:25.06.2019.

Complainant:The State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram P.S.

Accused :1) Bolagonda Ramana Maharshi @ Babji, S/o Jaggarao, A/48 Years, C/Kapu, Krishnunipalem, Gokavaram village and Mandal.

2)Gutha Tejesh Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/48 Years, Kamma, F.NO.F1, Ram Residency, D.No.60-27-3/4, Siddhartha Nagar, Near SBI Colony, Polyclinic road, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

3)Muppala Jaya Prakash, S/o Dhamarao, A/58 Yrs, Kamma, D.No.40- 12- 3/5, S-1, 2nd floor, Aswini Apartments, padamatalanka, Vijayawada.

4)Vemulapalli Venkata Subbarao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/55 Years, Kamma, Anjali Apartments, F.No.F/2, Seetharamnagar, Padamatalanka, Vijayawada.

5)Surredi Satya Chandra Jagan, S/o Vishnu Vardhanarao, A/49 Years, Kamma, D.No.6-109, 6th ward, K.peta, manikonda village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

6)Motukuri Narasimha Rao, S/o Ramarao, A/49 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-3- 11, F.No.F/2, Teja Apartments, G.R.R. Road, Labbipeta, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada.

7)Kasaraneni Sambasivarao, S/o Subbarao, A/60 Years, Kamma, D.No.28-4- 26/3, 2nd road, Santhinagar, Eluru.

8)Boppana Mohana Prasad, S/o Venkateswararao, A/67 Years, Kamma, D.No.32-13-8, Boyapati Madhavarao street, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

9)Makkina Srinivasarao, S/o Chandra Mouli, A/40 Years, Kamma, R/o D.No.1-43, Poranki, Vijayawada, N/o Veerannapalem village, Paruchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

10)Rayala Surya Vara Prasada Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/61 Years, Kamma, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

2

11)Bandi @ Anne Sambasiva Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, A/59 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-2-28, Raghurama Street, Thagur Towers, F.No.2, Mogalrajapuram, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

12)Arikipudi Srinivas, S/o Apparao, A/48 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-2-28, Raghurama Street, Satyakala towers, F.No.5, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

13)Mummaneni Surya Prakasarao, S/o Veera Raghavaiah, A/61 Years, Kamma, D.No.60-4-10, 2nd line, Radha Residency, Siddhartha Nagar, Near Siddhartha Pharmacy college, R/o Kanuru village, Krishna District.

14)Annapureddi Prabhakara Reddy, S/o Sivareddy, A/53 Years, Reddi, D.No.54-19-22/4/1, 2, F.No.403, 3rd floor, Primarks elite heights, film colony, near HP Gas godown, LIC colony, Gunadala, R/o Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

15)Nallamala Nageswara Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, A/68 Years, Kamma, D.No.14-23, Road.No.4, Water tank road, Tulasinagar, Kanuru village, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

16)Potla Suresh Babu, S/o Venkata Ramarao, A/50 Years, Kamma, D.No.74-31-19, Raghu Gardens road, Revenue colony, patamata, Vijayawada.

17)Bobba Gopalakrishna, S/o Dharmarao, A/49 years, Kamma, D.No.3- 91, Ramalayam street, Venukuru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada.

18)Syed Maqbul, S/o Mustafa, A/70 Years, Muslim, D.No.39-2-53, F.No.2b, ENR towers, Y.V.Rao Hospital street, Labbipeta, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

19)Puvvada Sudhakararao, S/o Nageswararao, A/42 Years, Kamma, D.No.6-56, Thulluru village, Gunturu Dt, R/o Benz Circle, Vijayawada.

20)Konijeti Rajeswararao, S/o narayana, A/60 Years, Kamma, D.No.41- 1/9- 22, Gowthami Nagar, 4th line, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

21)Yarlagadda Venkateswararao, S/o Venkataramaiah, A/67 Years, Kamma, D.No.3-131, Vanukuru village, R/o Near Siris Company, Vijayawada.

22)Konijeti Rambabu, S/o Mohan Narasimharao, A/50 Years, Kamma, D.NO.40-25-4, Jastivari street, Near Ashramam, patamatalanka, Vijayawada.

23)Pyla Swapna, W/o Suryanarayana, A/36 Years, Velama, D.NO.8-26, Thimmannapalem, Ramachandrapuram, Chodavaram Mandal, R/o D.No.30-313/2, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

24)Kasireddi Adilakshmi, W/o Chiranjeevi, A/29 Years, Kapu, D.No.94- 271/18/1, Kancharapalem, R/o kailasapuram Chavalachettu, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

3

25)Surisetti Suvarna, W/o Lakshminarayana, A/32 Years, Gavara, D.No.12-5- 5, Seetharamnagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

26)Katapalli madhuri, W/o Gowri, A/27 Yrs, SC Mala, D.No.6-17, Near Church, Santhinagar, China Musidiwada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam.

27)Setti Nandini, D/o Satyanarayana, A/29 Years, Vadabalija, D.No.6-12- 6, Drivers colony, Near Ramalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

28)Peetha Devi, D/o Pydamma, W/o Ramana, A/23 Years, Settibalija, D.No.32-17-20, Atchiyammapeta, Allipuram,kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam.

29)Panduri Meghana @ Asapu Niharika @ Nandini, W/o Satishkumar, A/25 years, Viswa Brahmin, D.No.1-306/2, Teachers colony, Road 2, Near CTC Church, Rayudupalem, Kakinada.

30)Gudiwada nagamani, W/o late Venugopal, A/27 Years, kapu, D.No.71- 31-914, Chinthalalova, Near Church, Peda Gantyada, Sindhia colony, Visakhapatnam.

Finding:Found not Guilty.

Sentence : In the result, A1 to A30 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section- 437-A Cr.P.C.. The M.O.1 cash of Rs.94,260/- shall be returned to A2 of

Rs.3,500/-, A3 of Rs.1610/-, A5 of Rs.4,800/-, A7 of Rs.1,050/-, A9 of

Rs.11,650/-, A10 of Rs.10,450/-, A11 of Rs.2,900/-, A14 of Rs.25,500/-, A15 of

Rs.1,400/-, A16 of Rs.11,500/-, A20 of Rs.5,900/-, A23 of Rs.10,000/-, A25 of

Rs.4,000/- as per occurrence report/Ex.P1 after expiry of appeal time. The M.O.2 shall be destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Remarks:Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

(FAC) Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rampachodavaram.

Copy submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram 4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, RAMPACHODAVARAM.

Tuesday, the 25th day of June, 2019.

C.C.No.13/2019.

BETWEEN:

The State: rep. by the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram circle.

....Complainant

AND

1)Bolagonda Ramana Maharshi @ Babji, S/o Jaggarao, A/48 Years, C/Kapu, Krishnunipalem, Gokavaram village and Mandal.

2)Gutha Tejesh Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/48 Years, Kamma, F.NO.F1, Ram Residency, D.No.60-27-3/4, Siddhartha Nagar, Near SBI Colony, Polyclinic road, Gunadala, Vijayawada.

3)Muppala Jaya Prakash, S/o Dhamarao, A/58 Yrs, Kamma, D.No.40- 12-3/5, S-1, 2nd floor, Aswini Apartments, padamatalanka, Vijayawada.

4)Vemulapalli Venkata Subbarao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/55 Years, Kamma, Anjali Apartments, F.No.F/2, Seetharamnagar, Padamatalanka, Vijayawada.

5)Surredi Satya Chandra Jagan, S/o Vishnu Vardhanarao, A/49 Years, Kamma, D.No.6-109, 6th ward, K.peta, manikonda village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District.

6)Motukuri Narasimha Rao, S/o Ramarao, A/49 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-3-11, F.No.F/2, Teja Apartments, G.R.R. Road, Labbipeta, Krishna Nagar, Vijayawada.

7)Kasaraneni Sambasivarao, S/o Subbarao, A/60 Years, Kamma, D.No.28-4-26/3, 2nd road, Santhinagar, Eluru.

8)Boppana Mohana Prasad, S/o Venkateswararao, A/67 Years, Kamma, D.No.32-13-8, Boyapati Madhavarao street, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

9)Makkina Srinivasarao, S/o Chandra Mouli, A/40 Years, Kamma, R/o D.No.1-43, Poranki, Vijayawada, N/o Veerannapalem village, Paruchuru Mandal, Prakasam District.

10)Rayala Surya Vara Prasada Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, A/61 Years, Kamma, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

5

11)Bandi @ Anne Sambasiva Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, A/59 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-2-28, Raghurama Street, Thagur Towers, F.No.2, Mogalrajapuram, R/o Prasadampadu, Vijayawada.

12)Arikipudi Srinivas, S/o Apparao, A/48 Years, Kamma, D.No.40-2-28, Raghurama Street, Satyakala towers, F.No.5, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

13)Mummaneni Surya Prakasarao, S/o Veera Raghavaiah, A/61 Years, Kamma, D.No.60-4-10, 2nd line, Radha Residency, Siddhartha Nagar, Near Siddhartha Pharmacy college, R/o Kanuru village, Krishna District.

14)Annapureddi Prabhakara Reddy, S/o Sivareddy, A/53 Years, Reddi, D.No.54-19-22/4/1, 2, F.No.403, 3rd floor, Primarks elite heights, film colony, near HP Gas godown, LIC colony, Gunadala, R/o Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

15)Nallamala Nageswara Rao, S/o Koteswara Rao, A/68 Years, Kamma, D.No.14-23, Road.No.4, Water tank road, Tulasinagar, Kanuru village, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

16)Potla Suresh Babu, S/o Venkata Ramarao, A/50 Years, Kamma, D.No.74-31-19, Raghu Gardens road, Revenue colony, patamata, Vijayawada.

17)Bobba Gopalakrishna, S/o Dharmarao, A/49 years, Kamma, D.No.3- 91, Ramalayam street, Venukuru village, Penamaluru Mandal, Vijayawada.

18)Syed Maqbul, S/o Mustafa, A/70 Years, Muslim, D.No.39-2-53, F.No.2b, ENR towers, Y.V.Rao Hospital street, Labbipeta, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada.

19)Puvvada Sudhakararao, S/o Nageswararao, A/42 Years, Kamma, D.No.6-56, Thulluru village, Gunturu Dt, R/o Benz Circle, Vijayawada.

20)Konijeti Rajeswararao, S/o narayana, A/60 Years, Kamma, D.No.41- 1/9-22, Gowthami Nagar, 4th line, Krishnalanka, Vijayawada.

21)Yarlagadda Venkateswararao, S/o Venkataramaiah, A/67 Years, Kamma, D.No.3-131, Vanukuru village, R/o Near Siris Company, Vijayawada.

22)Konijeti Rambabu, S/o Mohan Narasimharao, A/50 Years, Kamma, D.NO.40-25-4, Jastivari street, Near Ashramam, patamatalanka, Vijayawada.

23)Pyla Swapna, W/o Suryanarayana, A/36 Years, Velama, D.NO.8-26, Thimmannapalem, Ramachandrapuram, Chodavaram Mandal, R/o D.No.30-313/2, Vadlapudi, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

6

24)Kasireddi Adilakshmi, W/o Chiranjeevi, A/29 Years, Kapu, D.No.94- 271/18/1, Kancharapalem, R/o kailasapuram Chavalachettu, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

25)Surisetti Suvarna, W/o Lakshminarayana, A/32 Years, Gavara, D.No.12-5-5, Seetharamnagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

26)Katapalli madhuri, W/o Gowri, A/27 Yrs, SC Mala, D.No.6-17, Near Church, Santhinagar, China Musidiwada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam.

27)Setti Nandini, D/o Satyanarayana, A/29 Years, Vadabalija, D.No.6-12- 6, Drivers colony, Near Ramalayam, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

28)Peetha Devi, D/o Pydamma, W/o Ramana, A/23 Years, Settibalija, D.No.32-17-20, Atchiyammapeta, Allipuram, kobbarithota, Visakhapatnam.

29)Panduri Meghana @ Asapu Niharika @ Nandini, W/o Satishkumar, A/25 years, Viswa Brahmin, D.No.1-306/2, Teachers colony, Road 2, Near CTC Church, Rayudupalem, Kakinada.

30)Gudiwada nagamani, W/o late Venugopal, A/27 Years, kapu, D.No.71- 31-914, Chinthalalova, Near Church, Peda Gantyada, Sindhia colony, Visakhapatnam.

...ACCUSED

This case coming up before me on 21.06.2018, for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the complainant and of Sri M.V.R.Prakash, learned advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Rampachodavaram

Circle filed charge sheet in Cr.No.73/2018 against the accused for the offence under 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and

Sec.290, 294 of I.P.C..

2. The case of the prosecution is a nut shell is as follows:

Accused No.1 is running a brothel house. The Accused Nos.23 to 30 who are prostitutes and debauchers are caught hold of during the raid. On 07.09.2018 at about 11:00 P.M., the L.W.14 received credible information from his sources that obscene acts are being done in A1 resorts

Devarathigudem, popularly known as 'Rave party'. L.W.14 tried to secure 7 mediators but, L.W.14 could not secure any mediators as it is odd time.

Then, L.W.14 and other police staff including the women police constables and home guard proceeded (L.Ws.1 to 10) to A1 resorts in the police jeep and reached there by 11:30 A.M. and they noticed large gathering of men and women dancing in an obscene manner. On noticing the arrival of the police, the said gathering tried to escape. However, L.W.14 prevented them from absconding. L.W.14 asked the women who are found semi-nude to change their dresses and come before L.W.14. Then, L.W.14 counted them and found 21 males and 8 females. There is one more person who has absconded.

They informed that the male members belong to Vijayawada and surrounding areas, and they have come here to celebrate Rave party. They contacted A1 the owner of A1 resorts and he said that one swapna from Visakhapatnam is arranging women for celebrating the party. He also said that he has no objection for such a party conducted in his resorts. Then, at the request of the male persons A1 made a phone call to Swapna and arranged eight women on the condition of Rs.6,000/- per head. The men and women gathered there.

A1 arranged drinks and dinner to them, later all of them engaged in singing obscene songs and dancing to the tunes in an obscene manner. L.W.14 interrogated each of men and women and all of them stated that they have come from Vijayawada to enjoy the party. They produced Rs.94,260/-.

L.W.14 have also interrogated the women and all of them said that they belong to Visakhapatnam and surrounding areas and that all of them are doing prostitution to make out a living. They have also produced cash of

Rs.14,000/-. In all L.W.14 seized Rs.94,260/- and 34 moods brand condoms.

L.W.14 has also seized moods brand condoms found at the resorts. An occurrence report has been drafted for the above incident.

8

L.W.14 served Sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. notice to the A2 to A30 and seized cash of Rs.94,260/- and 34 moods brand condoms. Basing on the occurrence report the case was registered in Cr.No.73/2018, U/Sec.290 and 294 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. and Sec.3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. L.W.14 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators i.e. L.Ws.12 and 13 and got drafted an observation report. On 11.09.2018 the A1 has surrendered before L.W.14 and he was interrogated in the presence of mediators and he made confessional statement on his own accord, regarding the commission of offence. The mediators drafted a report for his surrender.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Sec.290, 294 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. and Sec.3(1), 4(1) and 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against the accused.

4.When the accused appeared before the court, copies of all the documents on which the prosecution relied were supplied to them under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., by putting the substance of the accusations levelled against them, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 6. Exs.P1 to

P6 and Mos.1 and 2 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating material appearing against 9 them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides, and the learned counsel for accused filed written arguments.

9.Now the point for determination in this case is 'Whether the prosecution proved that the guilt of the accused beyond beyond all reasonable doubt'?

10.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has citied as many as fourteen/14 witnesses in the charge sheet. During the course of trial it has managed to examined only six of them as P.Ws.1 to 6.

Among these witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 are the police witnesses and P.W.4 who is the owner of land which is leased to A1 for running A1 resorts. In her evidence, she has stated she do not know anything about the facts of the case.

As witness has not supported the case of prosecution, the learned APP sought permission from this court and cross-examined her, even during the cross- examination nothing was elicited from mouth of the witness. The other important witnesses for the prosecution are the mediators who are cited as

L.W.12 and L.W.13. Their names have been stated as Dora Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana and Madigonta Anandeeswararao. Among these mediators

Dora Veera venkata satyanarayana examined as P.W.5, he deposed that he works as a V.R.O. at Rampachodavaram panchayathi that on 08.09.2018 at about 08:00 A.M., he was called as a mediator by Rampachodavaram police and accordingly along with staff of Rampachodavaram police proceeded to

A1 resorts in Devarathigudem village. He further deposed that there the police has inspected the scene of offence area in his presence and the 10

Inspector of Police got taken the photographs of scene and got prepared scene observation report. At request of police he drafted the scene observation report. Later, he and L.W.13 who is the another mediator were subscribed their signatures on scene observation/Ex.P4 report. He further deposed that on 11.09.2018 at about 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon on the instructions of

Tahsildar he proceeded to Rampachodavaram police station. There, the police informed him that one person was present whose name is Maharshi.

He further deposed that in his presence the police has interrogated the said

Maharshi who is the A1 and A1 voluntarily confessed that he was running a resorts in Devarathigudem in the name and style as A1 resorts. He further deposed that the A1 further confessed that on 08.09.2018 some male and female persons were doing Rave party in the said premises of A1 and the

Rampachodavaram police have conducted raid in the said resorts in that connection he escaped from that place. He further deposed that the A1 further confessed that he obtained land from P.W.4 on lease to do business of resorts. He further deposed that in the pursuance of confession of A1 the

Inspector of Police got drafted a confessional mediator report. Later, he and

L.W.13 have put their signatures on mediator's report/Ex.P5. The witness identified the accused as A1. During the course of cross-examination he admitted that the police have interrogated A1 in his presence at police station.

He further admitted that the police have not seized any property in the pursuance of confession of A1 under cover of Ex.P5 mediator's report. He denied the suggestions that he never visited the police station and the A1 never confessed at any point of time in his presence and he is deposing false.

11

11.The other independent witness by name Madigonta Anandeswara

Rao/L.W.13 was not examined by the prosecution.

12.The other four witnesses i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.6 who are the police officials have deposed more or less in the same less similar that of the facts stated in the charge sheet.

13.In the above evidence adduced by the prosecution the evidence of

P.W.5, is a great importance because the P.W.4 who is the land owner of the property which leased to A1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Similarly, L.W.13 who is also another mediator in this case was not examined by the prosecution. So, except P.W.5 there is no independent corroborative evidence for the prosecution. In view of the scenario, the evidence of P.W.5 has to be examined carefully and to be seen whether it inspires the confidence of this court or not. A careful examination of P.W.5 says that he was drafted the Ex.P4 scene observation report but, the said facts no way to be found in the mediator's report.

14.The P.W.6 who is the investigation officer in this case clearly admitted that the scene of offence is a not a public place and he further admitted that when he proceeded to the scene of offence he noticed that all the accused were doing dance. He further admitted that he did not obtain any search warrant from his higher officials. He further admitted that he did not secure any mediator before going to scene of offence. He further admitted that the occurrence report was drafted by him and he did not obtain the signatures of accused and his staff on the Ex.P1 occurrence report. He further admitted that A23 to A30 never confessed that they brought to scene of offence to conduct prostitution or brothel. He further admitted that Ex.P5 mediators report drafted by him at police station.

12

15.As seen from the above evidence the investigation officer did not follow the procedure as contemplated U/Sec.15 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act which is a mandatory provision and has been violated by the

P.W.6 before conduct a raid. Though search warrant was not obtained in view of the fact that the accused persons require to be apprehend immediately, the P.W.6 ought to have recorded in writing the reason for not obtaining a prior search warrant. The most of the provision of this act are intend to punish the brothel-keepers, those who live on the earnings of prostitution of another person and those who are involved in the trafficking of persons for the purpose of prostitution. But, in this case no such allegations was not deposed as the prosecution witnesses. The Investigation

Officer/P.W.6 categorically admitted that the accused were doing dance and

A23 to A30 never confessed that they brought to scene of offence to conduct prostitution or brothel as drafted by him the Ex.P5 mediators report. He further admitted that he did not secure independent mediators before going to raid. In this regard the police officer under this Act before making a search or raid he shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants (at least one of whom shall be a woman) of the locality in which the place is to be searched is situated, but the P.W.6 failed to secure the independent witnesses at the time of raiding. The P.W.6 has interrogated the A1 in the police custody and got drafted the Ex.P5 mediators report but, no property was seized from the possession of A1. So, the Ex.P5 is hit by Sec.27 of Indian Evidence Act. The

P.W.6 deposed that he seized the amount of Rs.94,260/- from accused which was marked as M.O.1. The P.W.6 also seized the condom packets in total 34 which is marked as M.O.2 in the rooms available in the A1 resorts. But, he failed to follow the procedure as contemplated U/Sec.100 of Cr.P.C. at the 13 time of seizure of M.O.1 and M.O.2. There is no explanation by the investigation officer either in Ex.P1 occurrence report or in his evidence regarding the seizure of cash from the accused. Except the oral testimony of

P.W.6 there is no any incriminating evidence to prove the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 are meant for the alleged offence. Even, the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are not attracted to the Penal Provisions of I.T.P. Act levelled against the accused and even the same is accepted by the Investigation officer/P.W.6 in his cross-examination. Therefore, the accused cannot be guilty for the penal provisions U/Sec.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of I.T.P. Act.

16.Therefore, the prosecution has not made out the case against A1 to

A30. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, A1 to A30 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(a) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section-437-A

Cr.P.C.. The M.O.1 cash of Rs.94,260/- shall be returned to A2 of Rs.3,500/-,

A3 of Rs.1610/-, A5 of Rs.4,800/-, A7 of Rs.1,050/-, A9 of Rs.11,650/-, A10 of Rs.10,450/-, A11 of Rs.2,900/-, A14 of Rs.25,500/-, A15 of Rs.1,400/-,

A16 of Rs.11,500/-, A20 of Rs.5,900/-, A23 of Rs.10,000/-, A25 of

Rs.4,000/- as per occurrence report/Ex.P1 after expiry of appeal time. The

M.O.2 shall be destroy after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 25th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMPCHODAVARAM.

14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : J. Vijaya Babu, S.I. of Police.

P.W.2 : Md. Shaik.

P.W.3 : A. Pandamma.

P.W.4 : M. Nagamani.

P.W.5 : D. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana.

P.W.6 : Bh. Venkateswarlu, Inspector of Police.

FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Occurrence report.

Ex.P2 : First Information Report.

Ex.P3 : Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P4 : Scene observation report.

Ex.P5 : Confessional mediators report.

Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Cash of Rs.94,260/-. M.O.2 : Condom packets in number 34.

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

(FAC) J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMPCHODAVARAM.

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAMPACHODAVARAM.

C.C.No.36/2016. Cr.No.35/2015 of Yetapaka Police Station. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date of Offence: 11.05.2015.

Date of Complaint: 12.05.2015.

Apprehension of accused: 26.05.2015.

Released on bail: 29.05.2015.

Commencement of Trial: 07.10.2016.

Closure of trial: 07.06.2018.

Sentence or Order: 31.05.2019.

Complainant: State Rep. By S.I. of Police, Yetapaka P.S.

Accused: A1)Yanamalagandla Sambhayya @ Sambha, S/o Bhemayya, A/22 Years, D.No.8-2/24, Gollabazar, Near Old Market, Bhadrachalam.

A2)MandaJagadish@Jaggu,S/o venkataramayya @ Venkataramana, A/22 Years, Gundala Colony, 1st street, Gundala village.

A3)Nadipinti Naresh, S/o Tirupathaiah, A/28 Years, Gundala Colony, H/o Gundalavillage, Nellipaka Mandal.

A4)Thotamalla Suresh Babu, Yedullabayyaram, Khammam District, Telangana state, N/o Gikunepalli village, Mudugonda Mandal.

Finding: Found not Guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds and sureties of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C..

Remarks:Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/-P. Venkateswarlu.

(FAC)Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Rampachodavaram. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, E.G.District, Rajamahendravaram. // True Copy// (FAC)Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

RAMPACHODAVARAM.

PRESENT : SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, RAMPACHODAVARAM.

Friday, the 31st day of May, 2019.

C.C.No.36/2016.

BETWEEN:

The State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Yetapaka P.S.

...Complainant

And

A1)Yanamalagandla Sambhayya @ Sambha, S/o Bhemayya, A/22 Years, D.No.8-2/24, Gollabazar, Near Old Market, Bhadrachalam.

A2)Manda Jagadish @ Jaggu, S/o venkataramayya @ Venkataramana, A/22 Years, Gundala Colony, 1st street, Gundala village.

A3)Nadipinti Naresh, S/o Tirupathaiah, A/28 Years, Gundala Colony, H/o Gundala village, Nellipaka Mandal.

A4)Thotamalla Suresh Babu, Yedullabayyaram, Khammam District, Telangana state, N/o Gikunepalli village, Mudugonda Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming up before me on 03.05.2019, for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Sri M.V.R. Prakash, Advocate for accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yetapaka Police

Station filed a charge sheet against accused in Cr. No.35/2015, U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C..

2.The brief facts of the prosecution in this case are that the L.W.1 Bhukya

Kishan is the de-facto complainant and injured in this case and he is working as

Forest Section Officer in B.L. Kunavaram of Kunavaram Range, Chinturu

Forest Division from 17.12.2013. On 11.05.2015 at about 11:00 P.M. the L.W.1 has received credible information about the transporting of the Teak Beams on 2 3 motor cycles by A1 to A4 from L.W.5, when L.W.1 and his staff L.W.2

Perumalla Shiva, L.W.4 Kursam Srinu and L.W.3 Bhukya Chandra together tried to stop the motor cycle of A1 who coming on Red Pulsar Motor cycle with a Pillion rider of A4 having a teak beam between them, but he did not stopped his motor cycle and escaped, then after the L.W.1 and his staff tried to chased the said motor cycle by that time another Red coloured TVS Centra motor cycle bearing No.AP 20 N 1221 is coming on its behind, when they tried to stop the

TVS Centra motor cycle when the motor cyclist (A2) and his pillion (A3) thrown away a teak beam on them, which was hit to the motor cycle of the

L.W.1, due to which the L.W.1 and his pillion rider (L.W.2) fell on the road along with their motor cycle, resulting the L.W.1 sustained abrasions below his left hand elbow, Left hand, right hand, Right elbow, Chin, left leg knee, and on his person, and his pillion rider Perumalla Shiva sustained injuries on his right cheek, fore head, left cheek, right hand, left hand and on his person and there by caused obstruction to their legitimate duty in pursuance of their common intention. On receipt of written report from L.W.1 the case was registered as a case in Cr.No.35/2015, U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C.. During the course of investigation L.W.9 examined and recorded the detailed statements of L.Ws.1 and 2 at Yetapaka police station and sent both the injured to the Medical Officer,

C.H.C., Kunavaram for treatment. The L.W.9 visited the scene of ofence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined L.Ws.3 to 5. On 26.05.2015 at about 03:00 P.M. the A1 and A3 were arrested in the presence of

L.Ws.6 and 8 at Gundala Center and got drafted confessional statements of A1 to A3 and they admitted the guilt of offence in this case. Later the accused were sent to judicial remand. The L.W.8 Dr. G.S.R. Krishna Prasad, Medical Officer, 4 C.H.C., Kunavaram treated the injured L.Ws.1 and 2 and issued wound certificates of L.Ws.1 and 2. After completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed against above accused.

3.Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C..

5.The accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. and denied the offence.

Charge U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C. has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried the case.

6.During the course of trial the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and M.O.1.

7.After closure of prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating material available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same. They reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now point for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10.In Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that he along with his striking force staff namely

P.W.2, L.W.4 Kurasam Srinu, L.W.3 Bhukya Chandra Rao went near to the

Mutyalamma Temple in Venkata Reddy Peta of Nellipaka Mandal for night petroling duty and while they were performing duty P.W.3 who was the

Assistant Beat Officer of Narakonda Beat, informed him over phone at about 11:00 p.m. on 11.05.2015 that A1 and another person on a red pulser bike and 5 two other persons on red TVS centra have been taking teak logs and did not stop the vehicles at the check post. So, they have stopped that accused No.1 who was driving the red pulsor bike and coming in the opposite direction,but A1 did not stop the bike and so they have followed A1 at the time two other persons who are coming on red TVS Centra bike bearign No.AP20N1221 have thrown a teak log on them and that teak log hit to thebike and so they fell down and sustained injuries. His, staff P.W.2 sustained severe injuries and by attacking so their officient duties were obstructed.

11.P.W.1 who was the Forest Section Officer who earlier worked in

Kunavaram striking force deposed that he knows one A1 and he does not know the remaining accused. He stated that on 11.05.2015 himself and P.W.2, P.W.3,

L.W.3 and L.W.4 were on petroling duty and by that time himself P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.W.4 wereat Mutyalamma Temple in Venkata Reddy Peta in Nellipaka mandal. At about 11:00 P.M. P.W.3 informed him over telephone that four persosn crossed his check post Katukapalli with teak logs and were moving towards Mutyallamma temple were he was on duty. They stopped A1 who was coming along with teak logs on his bike but, he moved towards Bhadrachalam side without stopping the bike. He along wth P.W.2 follwoed A1 on his bike.

L.W.3 and L.W.4 proceeded on another bike when they moved to a distance of 1/4 kilo meter, the other accused who were following them on another bike left the teak log and bike on the road and escaped from the scene. On the first bike

A1 and another person left the scene of offence. The other accused who are following them have hurrled teak logs on them and so they fell down from the bike and so they lost control over the bike and fell down and he sustained injuries on his left and right hands. P.W.2 was riding the bike and he was a 6 pillion rider. P.w.2 also fell down and sustaine injuries on his face and chin.

Later, himself and P.W.2 went to Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam for treatment. He was given treatment as inpatient. On the next day he was lodged Ex.P1 report after informing the matter his superiors. The vehicle used by the accused is red colour TVS centra bearing No.AP20N1221. He cannot say the number of the another bike on which A1 and another accusd moved.

12.In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that the alleged offence took place at 11:30 P.M. and their was dark at Mutyalamma Temple and he could not identify the name of A1 but P.W.3 informed him the name of A1. He stated that no test identifiation parade was conducted for identification of the accused. He stated that after lodged Ex.P1 he visited the Hospital at Kunavaram. He stated that the Hospital authorites at Bhadrachalam did not record his statement. He stated that there is a delay more than 12 hours in lodging Ex.P1 as he went to the hospital to take treatment.

13.P.W.2 almost corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and including the identification of A1 and non identification of remaining accused. He stated that himself and P.W.1 wereshifted to Area Hosital, Bhadrachalam. On the next day

P.W.1 lodged a report and police referred them to Govt. Hospital, Kunavaram.

In his cross-examination he stated that he cannot identifythe accused except A1 as the alleged offence occurred during night hours and there was no light.

14.P.W.3, upon whom P.W.1 relied to know the name of A1, deposed that on 11.05.2015 at about 10:00 P.M. while he was perfofming his duty at Katukapalli check post along with one Kamesh, they have noticed two motor cycles were coming from Chinturu area and also noticed two persons on each motor cycle are having teak logs and though he tried to stop the motor cycles they left the 7 place. Later, he came to know that P.W.1 caught hold of them and gave report.

He cannot state the registration numbers of the motor cycles but he identify the person who have not stopped the motor cycles and went away. The evidence of

P.W.3 was recorded on 09.06.2017. On the date of his evidence A3 and A4 present in the court and A1 and A2 were absent. However, P.W.3 stated that the accused persons are not present in the court hall. So, it is clear that though he stated that he can identify all the accused persons who went away without stopping the motor cycles, he did not identify A3 and A4 who were present in the court.

15.P.W.4 stated that on 26.05.2015at about 03:00 P.M. police constable from

Yetapaka Police station called him and L.W.6 and they alongwith police constbale went to Venkata Reddypeta village and thre they found two persons and the police constable interrogated those two persons in his presence and drafted a report in connection with transportation of teakwood and on the said report he signed as mediator. He identified A1 and A2 as the two persons. He also stated that A1 and A2 to police station. Ex.P2 is his signature on the meditors report, Dt.26.05.2015. P.W.4 was declared hostile and during his cross-examination by the prosecution he stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police came alogn with them to the said place i.e. Venkata Reddy Peta and there they found three persons and the police have apprehended them and interrogated those persons and at the time he came to know the names of A1 and A2. He also admitted about the confession of A1 to A3 that they were transporting teak wood from Edurupalli village after cutting the same. In his cross-examination by the accused he admitted that the police have not seized any material from the 8 possession of A1 to A3 in his presence and A1 to A3 were in the custody of police by that time the mediators report was drafted.

16.P.W.5 is the medical officer from Community Health Center, Kunavaram deposed that on 12.05.2015 P.W.1 was brought by P.C.1858 and on examination of P.W.1 he found three abrasions on right hand at elbow, chin and left elbow.

Ex.P3 is the wound certificate issued by him for P.W.1. He stated that on the same day he examiend P.W.2 who was also brought by P.C.1858 of Kunavaram

Police Station and found abrasions on right cheek, forehead, left cheek and right hand. Ex.P4 is the wound certifiate issued by him for the P.W.2. In his cross- examination he stated that he did not mention in the wound certificates that

P.C.1858 of Kunavaram police station accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2. But, he statd that the said information was entered in their medico legal register in the hospital and however he did to produce the said register. According to him the injuries sustained by P.W.1 and P.W.2 are caused due to road traffic accident and he did not mention the same in the wound certificates. He admitted that both injured came to him after getting treatment from another hospital. He admitted that the date and time of examination colum was kept blank in Ex.P4.

17.P.W.6 is the village revenue officer. He deposed that on 25.06.2015 in between 02:00 P.M. and 02:30 P.M. the Sub-Inspector of Police called him to the police station through a police constable and then he went to the police station from there himself, P.W.4 and Police ahve proceeded to Gundala village and when reached the colony three persons tried to escape on saying the police.

Then, the police have apprehended three persosn and on interrogatin they revealed their identity as A1 to A4 and also confessed that they have committed theft of teak logs in forest area and the same was cut in to pieces and when they 9 were taking the same on their motor cycles, the forest officials tried to catch them at Venkata Reddy peta. A1 also confessed that he escaped with a teak logs and the same was sold away for Rs.5,000/-. In that connection police have prepared Ex.P5 mediators report, Dt.26.05.2015 and he subscribed his signature thereon. In his cross-examination he stated that the three police constables accompanied them have also signed on Ex.P5 and the police did not try to seize the teak logs which was sold away by A1 and no motor cycle was seized by police in his presence.

18.P.W.7 who is the investigation officer deposed about the investigation conducted by him in this case and produced the documents concerned thereto.

Ex.P6 is F.I.R.. Ex.P7 is rough sketch. M.O.1 is photographs three in number which shows the motor cycle bearign No.AP20N1221 and the teak log handed over by P.W.1 at the time of Ex.P1.

19.In his cross-examination P.W.7 admitted tht P.W.1 did not mention in

Ex.P1 about handing over of M.O.1 to him and that as per Ex.P1 report the allegatin against A1 is taking teak log on motor cycle but not making assault against P.W.1. He admitted that ExP1 does not disclose the identification of persons except mentioning that two persons were taking logs in motor cylces.

He admitted that P.W.1 did not explain the reason for the delay from the time of offence i.e. night time on 11.05.2015 to 12.05.2015 at 06:00 P.M.. He admitted that in colum number 8 of Ex.P6 the reason for delay was mentioned as 'for getting instructions of superior officers'. He stated that P.W.1 did not furnish any information regardign registration of a case againt the accused for theft of forest produce. He admitted that he did not seize any material from the posesssion of accused under Ex.P5. He stated that four staff members i.e.

10 P.C.2502, PC1724, PC1775 and PC3509 have accompanied with him at the time of arrest of A1 to A3 buthe did not obtain their signatures on Ex.P5 and he also did not record their statements and did not cite them as witnesses. He admitted that A1 to A3 were in his custody at the time of drafting of Ex.P5 in the presence of mediators. He stated that he did not conduct identification parade for identification of A1 thorugh P.W.1, P.W.2 and other witnesses. He also did not conduct test identification parade for A4. He stated that he also did not secure any documents to show that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were discharging official duties at the time of offence. He admitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 appraocehd him after getting first aid.

20.From the above evidence of witnesses, it is clear that first of all there is no case registered against any of the accused in respect of cutting and taking away the teak logs which were termed as forest produce by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3.

Further, no document has been produced to show that by the time of alleged incident P.Ws.1 to 3 were on official duties and discharging duty at that place of offence. Further, no document has been filed to show the treatment taken by

P.W.1 and P.W.2 at Bhadrachalam hospital. Further, P.W.6 stated that the Ex.P5 contains the signatures of three police constables whereas no such signatures appear on Ex.P5. Further, the police have failed to seize the second motor cycle and the teak logs. Further it is not revealed as to how P.W.1 came to know the name of A1 as P.W.3 did not support his case that he came to know the name of

A1 through P.W.3. Further, no test identification parade was donducted to identify the accused persons by the witnesses. It is not known as to why and how the name of A4 is impleaded and no confession statement of A4 is placed 11 on record. In view of the aforesaid lapses the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of all the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

21.In the result, the A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.332 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds and sureties of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C..

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st Day of May, 2019.

Sd/-P. Venkateswarlu.

(FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Bhukya Kishan. P.W.2 : Perumalla Shiva. P.W.3 : Ajmeera Ravi. P.W.4 : Pyda Raja Rao. P.W.5 : Dr. G.S.R. Krishna Prasad. P.W.6 : Jetti Rama Krishna. P.W.7 : B. Yadagiri, S.I. of Police. FOR DEFENCE: ...NONE...

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1. Ex.P2 : Signature of P.W.4 on mediator report. Ex.P3 : Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P4 : Wound certificate of P.W.2. Ex.P5 : Mediator report. Ex.P6 : First Information Report. Ex.P7 : Rough Sketch. FOR DEFENCE: ..Nil..

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

M.O.1 : Photos three in number.

Sd/-P.Venkateswarlu.

(FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. // True Copy// (FAC)Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT :: RAMPACHODAVARAM::

C.C.No.311/2017

Cr.No.112/2017 of Yetapaka Police Station. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence : 29.08.2017

Date of Complaint : 03.09.2017

Apprehension of accused : Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Released on bail : ---

Commencement of Trial : 11.04.2018

Closure of trial : 28.02.2020

Sentence or Order : 20.03.2020

Complainant : State being represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yetapaka Police Station.

Accused :

1.Vuike Baburao, S/o Bhadraiah, Age 45 years, ST Koya, Bojjuguppa village, Yetapaka Mandal.

2.Vuike Bujjamma, W/o Baburao, Age 30 years, ST Koya, House Wife, Bojjuguppa Village, Yetapaka Mandal.

3.Vuike Sirisha, D/o Baburao, Age 20 years, ST Koya, Bojjupuppa Village, Yetapaka Mandal, House Wife, Nandigama Village, Yetapaka Mandal.

Finding : Found Guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code., and accordingly they are convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 being the main perpetrator of the incident, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused/A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. A2 and A3 being participants and according to the facts and circumstances, their role is having common intention with A1 and hence, a lenient view can be taken against them and accordingly, accused/A2 and A3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, the accused/A2 and A3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Further, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The remand period if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Remarks : Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

RAMPACHODAVARAM

Present : P.Venkateswarlu, VI Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram. FAC Judl.First Class Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.311/2017

Between:- State being represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yetapaka Police Station. …Complainant

And

1.Vuike Baburao, S/o Bhadraiah, Age 45 years, ST Koya, Bojjuguppa village, Yetapaka Mandal.

2.Vuike Bujjamma, W/o Baburao, Age 30 years, ST Koya, House Wife, Bojjuguppa Village, Yetapaka Mandal.

3.Vuike Sirisha, D/o Baburao, Age 20 years, ST Koya, Bojjupuppa Village, Yetapaka Mandal, House Wife, Nandigama Village, Yetapaka Mandal.

...Accused

This case coming on 10.01.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant-State and in the presence of Sri A.Neveen Kumar, Advocate for A1 to A3 and upon perusing the material on record and upon stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Yetapaka Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C., in Cr.No.311/2017 on its file.

2. The allegations in brief are as follows:

The house of PW1 and accused are situated side by side at Bojjuguppa Village.

There is a boundary dispute existing between PW1 and accused family. In pursuance of the previous disputes, on 29-08-2017 evening at about 6.30 p.m., when PW1

Murram Rama Kotaiah was present at his house, A1 to A3 attacked PW1 and beat him with sticks and caused bleeding injuries to PW1 and the same was also witnessed by Pws 2 to 5. After making efforts for settlement before elders, PW1 lodged a written complaint at Yetapaka Police Station on 3-9-2017. On receipt of the report, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered as case in Cr.No.112/2017 for the offence under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3. Basing on the material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 324,506 r/w 34 I.P.C., against A1 to A3.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., and charge under Section 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C was framed, read over 3 and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where all the incriminating material available against accused Nos. 1 to 3 read over and explained to them in Telugu and they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

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

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for

the offence punishable Under Sections 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. PW1 deposed that in the month of August, 2017, at about 5-30 to 6-00 P.M., while he and his wife PW2 were present in his house, by that time, A1 to A3 came to their house armed with sticks by abusing them in filthy language and beat him with sticks. A1 beat her with a stick on his head and on his shoulder. A2 caught hold his collar and torned his shirt. Then A3 beat him with a stick on his forehead. As a result, he sustained with bleeding injuries on his forehead, contusion injuries on his shoulder and all over his body. At that time, PW2 tried to rescue him, but accused also beat

PW2 with hands by pushing her back. PW2 also sustained contusion injuries and suffered with pains for two days. Though the learned counsel for the accused cross examined PW1, nothing was elicited by him. PW2 who is the wife of PW1, also deposed in the same lines as that of PW1. She denied the suggestion that PW1 gave false report against A1 to A3 in view of the previous disputes. PW3 who is the neighbour and relative of the PWs.1 and 2 deposed that at about one year ago, at about 06:00 p.m., he has noticed A1 to A3 beat PW1 with stick, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries.

10. The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW1 filed this false case due to previous boundary disputes between PW1 and accused persons. There are contradictory statements made by the PWs.1 and 2 before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements made before the court. PWs.1 and 2 stated in their 4 Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements that A1 beat him with stick, A2 caught hold his collar and torned his shirt and A3 beat him with stick on his forehead and they threatened him to kill. But both PWs.1 and 2 did not depose in their statements before the court about the criminal intimidation made by the accused persons. On perusal of the both statements, there is major contradiction with regard to the criminal intimidation.

11. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that PW2 is an interested witness as she is the wife of PW1 and there are contradictory statements in her earlier statement as well as the evidence before this court. On perusal of the earlier statement of PW2 and the evidence of PW2 before the court, PW2 deposed in the same lines in both the statements and there are no major contradictions.

12. PW7 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 03.09.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., he received Ex.P.1 report, basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.

No.112/2017 under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P5.

Later, he sent PW1 to Primary Health Centre, Nellipaka for medical treatment. On the same day, he proceeded to the scene of offence and inspected the scene and prepared rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. He served section 41-A Cr.P.C notices against the accused persons and on 26.10.2017, he received wound certificate.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. He did not take any staff with him to the scene of offence. He admitted in his cross-examination that the offence in this case was a result of civil dispute.

13. The learned counsel for the accused contended that PWs.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and hence their evidence need not be considered and hence the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Coming to the evidence of PW1 who deposed before this court clearly corroborating his earlier statement and also Ex.P1. Admittedly,

PW2 is his wife. PW3 is the neighbour and relative of PW1. Except placing this evidence, the defence could not explain under what circumstances, the witnesses are interested in convicting the accused. Interestedness does not mean motive or intention of the witnesses. Interestedness shall include that the witnesses shall have an interest over the accused to convict them. But such extent of interestedness is absent and the defense could not place any rebuttal evidence. PW3 is also corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are 3rd party and clearly deposed that overt acts of

Accused Nos.1 to 3 against PW1. This is a criminal case in which one could not acquire any benefit or right for merely come to the court and supported the version of 5 the victim. Even the victim also could not get any benefit as in a civil case.

Therefore, such a contention is not at all tenable.

14. On perusal of Ex.P5/Wound certificate in which clearly discloses that PW1 received bleeding skin cut injury on head which is simple in nature. Learned counsel

for the accused contended that the injury on the head of PW1 is a mere laceration and

when really the accused got intention to assault PW1, who might have received a grievous injury. He further contends that when the accused beat PW1, with a stick on his head, the injured ought to have received a grievous injury. Receiving of injury is based on force used by the accused, weapon used and size of the weapon. In the present case on hand, the prosecution relied that Accused Nos.1 to 3 beat PW1 with a stick and the PW1 received the bleeding injury. But the defence could not rely on any rebuttable evidence by posing any relevant questions to the necessary witnesses. The medical witness supported by documentary witness corroborated the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3. The prosecution placed the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 in which PWs 1 to 5 are the private witnesses, however Pws 4 and 5 did not support the case of prosecution, PW6 is the medical witness and PW7 is the Investigating Officer clearly and clinchingly supports the documentary evidence of Ex.P.1 report. Ex.P.5 First

Information Report and the Investigation done by the PW7. Mere having civil disputes between the parties shall not be thrown out the entire case and under what circumstances the injured are interested to convict the accused has to be explained.

Therefore, the prosecution proved its case for the offence under section 324 r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent evidence by way of oral and documentary evidence before this court. Therefore, the accused persons are held liable for the acts as alleged by the prosecution for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and are liable to be convicted.

15 The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by placing evidence that Accused Nos.1 and 3 beat PW1 with stick and caused bleeding injury and Accused No.3 caught hold the collar and torned the shirt of the PW1. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are having common intention to cause injury to PW1. Therefore, the Accused Nos.1 and A2 are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 Indian Penal Code and

Accused No.2 is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code for the acts done by Accused Nos.1 and 3 in furtherance 6 of their common intention and Accused No.2 is liable for the act done by Accused

Nos.1 and 3. Since, the offence under section 506 of Indian Penal Code criminal intimidation was not proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused persons are liable for acquittal for the offence under section 506 Indian Penal Code under benefit of doubt.

16. In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code., and accordingly they are convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Further, accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

17. The Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are present and questioned in respect of quantum of sentence and A1 submits that he is suffering from TB disease and he has to maintain his family and A2 submitted that she underwent operation. A3 submitted that she is studying GNM at Maruthi Nursing College, Bhadrachalam.

In view of nature of offence, this court feels that they are not entitled for the benefit of Provisions of 3 and 4 of P.O. Act. Taking into consideration of above facts and circumstances of this case, and also considering the nature of articles, this Court is of the opinion that this Court feels that sentencing the accused as under would meet ends of justice:

18. In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code., and accordingly they are convicted under Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 being the main perpetrator of the incident, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the accused/A1 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. A2 and A3 being participants and according to the facts and circumstances, their role is having common intention with A1 and hence, a lenient view can be taken against them and accordingly, accused/A2 and A3 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees

One Thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, the accused/A2 and A3 7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Further, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 506 IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The remand period if any, shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

19. The accused persons explained their right of Appeal against the above conviction and sentence before Hon’ble Sessions Court, East Godavari at

Rajahmundry. They can seek legal aid in preferring appeal as per the provision of

Legal Services Authority Act. Office is directed to give a copy of judgment on free of costs forthwith and obtain acknowledgement.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : M. Ramakotayya. PW2 : M. Lakshmi. PW3 : M. Veerabhadram. PW4 : Sunnam Rama Krishna. PW5 : M. Bhadramma. PW6 : Dr. T.V. Seshi Reddy. PW7 : H. Nagaraju. FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 given to Police. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P4 : Wound certificate of PW1. Ex.P5 : First Information Report. Ex.P6 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence. FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-Nil-

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram (FAC) J.F.C.Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

RAMPACHODAVARAM.

PRESENT: P.VENKATESWARLU

VI Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram

FAC-J.F.C. Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

Friday, the 13 th of March, 2020

C.C.No.129/2017

(Crime No.58/2012 of Yetapaka Police Station)

BETWEEN: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station …COMPLAINANT AND (1) Kode Kantha Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Aged 50 years, ST-Koya, Agril. (2) Kode Venkannababu, S/o.Kantha Rao, Aged 25 years, ST-Koya, unemployed (3) Kode Savithri, W/o.Kantha Rao, Aged 45 years, ST-Koya, Housewife (All are residents of Rajepta, Bhadrachalam) ….Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case is coming on 06.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the accused, and upon hearing 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Badrachalam Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.58/2012 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, as follows.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that, the complainant Nanamadri

Satyanarayana and the accused are residents of Rajupeta Colony of

Bhadrachalam. On 12.08.2004 the accused No.1 sold away 82 ½ cents of dry land situated in S.No.86/2 of Rajupeta Colony, Bhadrachalam, to one Punem

Veerabhadram for a sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- and the said

Veerabhadram in turn sold away 10 cents of land out the said 82 ½ cents of land to the complainant on 20.04.2006 for Rs.60,000/- under a sale deed. The complainant had decided to construct a house in his land and obtained permission from Tahsildar of Bhadrachalam and obtained electrical meter from the Electricity Department and started construction of the house. While the house was under construction, on 19.03.2012 and 20.03.2012 the accused 1 to 3 have 2 trespassed into the house site of the complainant and obstructed the construction of the house and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences and demanded money claiming the houses site. Earlier also the accused persons obstructed for construction of the house by the complainant on 09.02.2012 also.

On receipt of the written report from the complainant, the Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No.58/2012 under sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the

ASI of Police visited the scene of offence, got drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators and also examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Bhadrachalam Town Police Station, took up the further investigation, and he arrested the accused persons on 19.11.2012 and sent them for judicial custody, and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 448, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C putting forth the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence under sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of

Gummadi Pullaiah (LW3) and this court closed the evidence of

P.Narasimharao/A.S.I/LW7 on 24.01.2020 as prosecution filed a memo stating that LW7 is not in a position move and travel to give evidence before the Court.

Prosecution side evidence was closed. The accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but the accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence.

3

6. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge leveled against them under sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code?

POINT:

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that on 12.08.2004 the accused No.1 sold away 82 ½ cents of dry land situated in S.No.86/2 of Rajupeta

Colony, Bhadrachalam, to one Punem Veerabhadram (PW4) for a sale consideration of Rs.1,65,000/- from the accused No.1 and the said

Veerabhadram (PW4) in turn sold away 10 cents of land out the said 82 ½ cents of land to the complainant (PW1) on 20.04.2006 for Rs.60,000/- under a sale deed. But as the price of the lands are hiked very high, with an ulterior motive, on 09.02.2012 at about 11 AM accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the son and wife of accused No.1 came to the house site of PW1 and obstructed for construction of the house and stated that PW4 has not paid total consideration to them at the time of his purchasing the site from them and demanded the PW1 to pay the balance sale consideration else they will stop the construction work. Again, on 19.03.2012 at about 11:30 AM, while the PW1 was present at the construction all the accused persons came there and obstructed the construction work and threated him with dire consequences. Having no other go, on 20.03.2012 PW1 came to the police station and reported the matter against the accused persons.

9. The above said version of the prosecution was reproduced by the PW1 in his chief examination and the same was corroborated by the PW2 who stated that while he was present at the house of PW1 on 02.02.2012, accused Nos.1 to 3 wrongfully trespassed into the house of PW1 and obstructed the construction of the house and again on 19.03.2012 at about 12 Noon, while he was got constructing the house works, accused Nos.1 to 3 came there and obstructed them from constructing the house and they have also threatened them with dire consequences.

10. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 vehemently argued that there is no proof to show that PW1 purchased the disputed property from PW4 4 and in fact PW1 not purchased any land from PW4 and the said land still stands in the name of accused No.1, as such, there is no scope for the PW1 stating that accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the house property of the PW1.

11. PW4 who said to be sold away 10 cents of the disputed site to PW1 deposed in his chief examination that in the year 2004, PW1 purchased 10 cents of house site from him, which he has purchased from accused No.1. PW4 further deposed that himself and PW1 entered into a written agreement for sale of the said site by him to PW1 and in the said house site PW1 started making construction of a house and by that time Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to visit the said site and used to cause obstruction to PW1 and his men and also directed PW1 to stop the construction work demanding additional amount as there is real-estate boom. On that PW1 gave report to the police. PW3 is said to be present at the time of police observing the scene of offence, as one of the mediators, but he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. PW5 is said to be present at the time of police visiting the scene of offence and prepared crime detail from vide Ex.P3 and he signed on Ex.P3. No incriminating material found in the evidence of PW5 against the accused persons. PW6 is the Investigation Officer in this case who verified the investigation done by his ASI of Police and took up further investigation.

12. PW1 who is the defacto complainant in this case categorically admitted in his cross examination at first line itself that as per the Revenue Record the land in an extent of Ac.00.10 cents in Survey No.86/2 stands in the name of accused

No.1 and the name of PW4 is mutated in the Revenue Records. PW1 also categorically admitted in his cross examination at 17th line that even till today the property is stands in the name of Accused No.1.

13. In view of the above categorical admissions of the defacto complainant as

PW1 in his cross examination, it is crystal clear that the disputed land still stands in the name of accused No.1. PW1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he was not applied for permission from Revenue Authorities with a view to purchase the land from PW4 (agency land). In that view of the matter, the accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassing into the land of the PW1 does not arises, as admittedly still the said disputed land stands in the name of accused No.1.

5

14. Further PW4 who said to be purchased the disputed land from accused

No.1 and he in turn sold the same to the PW1, categorically admitted in his cross-examination at third line that the area in which the disputed house is situated in a Tribal area and as per Act 01/1970, the land in Tribal area cannot be sold or purchased and there is no registration from accused No.1 to him for the disputed property. PW4 further admitted in his cross-examination at seventh line that he cannot get any official rights over the said disputed house site from accused No.1 and that he have not obtained any permission either from the

District Magistrate concern or the Project Officer concerned etc. for purchase or sale of the said house site.

15. As per the version of the PW1 in his cross-examination even till today the disputed property stands in the name of accused No.1 i.e., in S.No.86/2 of

Rajupeta Colony of Bhadrachalam and as per the admitted version of PW4 in his cross-examination he cannot get any official rights over the disputed property, when such is the case, Accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the house site property of PW1 is not believable and far from truth. Be that as it may, when there is no trespassing into the house property of PW1, threatening the PW1 by the accused persons is nothing but it is also far from truth. When coming to the investigation done by the investigating officers, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3 no rough sketch of scene of offence was drafted either by

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (LW7) or by the PW6 who are investigating officers in this case and the same fact was admitted by PW6 in his cross- examination and no rough sketch found place in the record except some drawing on the back side of Ex.P3 Crime Detail Form which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

16. In view of my foregoing reasons and discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code, and ultimately the accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal of the same.

17. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the 6 accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a further period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- P. VENKATESWARLU.

VI A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, FAC-J.F.C. Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: N.Satyanarayana -None- PW2: K.Ramesh PW3: S.Veerayya PW4: P.Veerabhadram PW5: N.Venkateswarlu PW6: M.Venkateswarlu

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1: Report given to the police by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P3: Crime Detail Form Material Objects -Nil-

Sd/- P. VENKATESWARLU.

VI A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, FAC-J.F.C. Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

RAMPACHODAVARAM.

C.C.No.129/2017

(Crime No.58/2012 of Yetapaka Police Station)

DATE OF:-

Offence : 20.03.2012

Complaint : 20.03.2012

Apprehension of accused : 19.11.2012

Release on bail : 19.11.2012

Commencement of trial : 13.07.2018

Close of trial : 28.02.2020

Sentence or order : 13.03.2020

Explanation for delay : Nil

Name of the Complainant : S.I.of Police, Yetapaka P.S

Name of the accused : 1.Kode Kantha Rao, S/o.Subbaiah, Aged 50 years, ST-Koya, Agril. 2.Kode Venkannababu, S/o.Kantha Rao, Aged 25 years, ST-Koya, unemployed 3.Kode Savithri, W/o.Kantha Rao, Aged 45 years, ST-Koya, Housewife (All are residents of Rajepta, Bhadrachalam)

Offence : U/Secs.448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding : Not Guilty.

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall be in force for a further period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P. VENKATESWARLU.

VI A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, FAC-J.F.C. Magistrate, Rampachodavaram. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram for favour of information.

1

CALENDAR

SUBMITTED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

COURT :: RAMPACHODAVARAM::

C.C.No.37/2017.

Cr.No.40/2016 of Mothugudem Police Station - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date of Offence : 06.11.2016

Date of Complaint : 06.11.2016

Apprehension of accused : 11.11.2016

Released on bail : 12.11.2016

Commencement of Trial : 02.06.2017

Closure of trial : 13.03.2020

Sentence or Order : 20.03.2020

Complainant : State being represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem police station.

Accused : Pandi Kondalarao, S/o Babu, A/26 Years, C/SC, Near Navabarath area, Palvancha, Khammam District, driver of lorry (Ashok Leyland tipper) bearing No.TS04UB1159.

Finding : Found not Guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the accused if any shall be in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Remarks : Delay caused due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram

FAC JFC Magistrate, Rampachodavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE ::

RAMPACHODAVARAM.

PRESENT: SRI P. VENKATESWARLU,

VI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

(FAC) J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, RAMPACHODAVARAM.

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020.

C.C. No.37/2017

BETWEEN:

State being represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem police station.

....Complainant

And

Pandi Kondalarao, S/o Babu, A/26 Years, C/SC, Near Navabarath area, Palvancha, Khammam District, driver of lorry (Ashok Leyland tipper) bearing No.TS04UB1159.

...Accused

This case coming up before me on 13.03.2020.2020, for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and of Sri M.V.R. Prakash, counsel for accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mothugudem Police

Station had filed the charge sheet against the above accused in Cr.No.40/2016 for the offence under Sec.304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is a nut shell is as follows:

LW1 Yellapu Sreenu is the cousin and direct witness to the accident and de facto complainant in this case. On 06.11.2016 at about 08:00 AM, deceased by name Adari Venkataswamy along with his son LW9/Sathish left their house by their TVS xl moped bearing No.AP31CX8328 for bring Kirana and other household provisions and after completion of that work, while they were in return journey to their home around 11:30 AM, when they reached near to

Durgamma Temple, Mothugudem the accused being driver of lorry bearing

No.TS04UB1159 drove his lorry in rash and negligent manner of driving while proceeding towards Mothugudem from Donakrai side and dashed opposite coming TVS xl moped of deceased in result deceased and his son fell on road with moped and sustained grievous injuries on their persons and in the meantime while going on that way by their auto the LWs.1 and 7 witnessed the accident and called the ambulance and shifted them to Government Hospital,

Mothugudem by AP Genco ambulance, where duty Doctor declared that injured 3 herein deceased Adari Venkataswamy brought dead and Doctor referred the injured Sathish to Bhadrachalam for better treatment. Basing on the written complaint of LW1, the case was registered against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offence under section 304-A and 337 of

Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code.

The substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 337 of Indian

Penal Code was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P2.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up rest of the witnesses i.e., Lws.2, 4 to 9, 10 to 14. After completion of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C puttingforth the incriminating material available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same.

The accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard the arguments.

8. Now the point for determination in this case is, 'Whether the

prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt' ?

9. POINT:

As already stated, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3. PW1 who was stated to be an eye witness to the incident deposed that he is a resident of

Donkarai village, Y.Ramavaram Mandal and he is an auto driver. He knows the deceased Adari Venkata Swamy. He further deposed that about 2 years ago on one day at about 11:30 A.M, the deceased Venkataswamy and his son Satish were starting from Mothugudem to go to Donkarayi on their XL motor cycle.

By that time the deceased was rider of the motor cycle and his son Satish is a pillion rider. At that time he has also started from Mothugudem in his auto to go to Donkarayi village along with passengers. The deceased and his son Satish 4 started at first instance and later he had followed them. While he was reaching nearby Durgamma Temple he has noticed a lorry which was coming from

Donkarayi side towards Chintoor side in a rash manner. Thereafter, when he reached to Durgamma Temple he has noticed the deceased and his son are fallen down on the road. He has also noticed both of them sustained with bleeding injuries and they have also not in conscious. When he sprinkled the water on face of Satish, he become conscious. By that time one villager of Mothugudem telephoned to Ambulance and then the deceased and the injured were shifted to

Hospital in Mothugudem for treatment. Later, both of them were shifted to

Government General Hospital, Chintoor for better treatment. On the same day he gave Ex.P1 report to the police. He further stated that he did not notice the registration number of crime vehicle lorry and did not notice its driver.

10. Basing on the evidence of PW2, she is the wife of the deceased. On 06.11.2016 at about 11:00 AM, while she was present at her house, PW1 telephoned her and informed her that her husband herein deceased sustained injuries when he fell down from the moving vehicle at a Durga Temple in

Mothugudem village and she was also informed that her husband has taken to

Government Hospital, Chinturu. After that she has proceeded to the

Government Hospital, CHinturu. There, she noticed that her husband was died.

11. PW3 Adari Satish who was stated to be pillion rider of deceased vehicle, deposed that in the year 2016 on one day while he along with his deceased father were coming on their motor cycle from Donkarai to go to his house and after reaching near to the Durgamma Temple. All of sudden some buffaloes attacked against their motor cycle. As a result, he and his father fell down on the road and his father sustained with severe head injury. He has also sustained with injuries. Later, on hearing their cries, the neighbours gathered there and shifted them to Government Hospital, Chinturu for treatment. Later, his father died due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. He further stated except more he does not know anything about this case. At this juncture, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor declared his as hostile witness and he got permission from court to cross-examine him. Despite the cross-examination to

PW3, he did not state any piece of incriminating material against the accused and he denied the suggestions put on him by learned Assistant Public 5 Prosecutor. Moreover, the learned APP given up the rest of the witnesses as no purpose would be serve even to examine them.

12. As seen from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he was following

PW3's XL motor cycle in his auto and when he was reaching nearby Durgamma

Temple he noticed a lorry which was coming from Donakrayi side towards

Chintoor side in a rash manner and thereafter, when he reached to Durgamma

Temple he has noticed the deceased and his son are fallen down on the road. He is only stated about the noticing the accident but he did not state regarding to the accident that how the incident was occurred. Basing on the evidence of PW2, she is only hearsay witness in this case. On the other hand the main crucial witness i.e., PW3 who accompanied with the deceased as a pillion rider of his motor cycle stated while they were going on motor cycle near to the Durgamma

Temple, some buffaloes attacked against their motor cycle. As a result, they fell down on the road. As a result the incident was occurred. Basing on section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW3, he stated contradictory evidence.

13. To prove the offence under section 304-A Indian Penal Code, there are three essential ingredients are to be established by the prosecution. One is death of the person and the other two are identification of the accused with rash and negligent manner of the accident. Even though there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased. The court might be proceed against the accused, if the prosecution successfully finding the guilt of accused. But, as discussed supra, there is no eye witness to the accident and no one identified the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged incident. The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the rash and negligent manner of the accident and identification of accused. The PW3 has also did not support to this case.

14. The prosecution failed to establish the offence against the accused.

Hence, the point to determine stands short and it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds and sureties of the 6 accused if any shall be in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 20thday of March, 2020.

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, FAC JFC Magistrate, Rampachodavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : Y. Srinu. PW2 : A. Parvathi. PW3 : A. Satish. FOR DEFENCE: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report of PW1. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

-Nil-

Sd/- P. Venkateswarlu.

VI AJFC Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, FAC JFC Magistrate, Rampachodavaram