Sri R.raj Kumar

Page 1 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019

N THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT THORRUR

Present: R.Raj Kumar,

Junior Civil Judge cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

THORRUR.

Thursday, the 18 th day of August, 2022

CC. No. 247 of 2019

Between :

The State of Telangana rep., by Station House Officer, PeddaVangara

... Complainant

AND

A1 Dunnapothula Veera Laxamana Raju S/o Somaiah, Age: 36 years, Madiga, RMP R/o Nagaram (V&M), Suryapet (D) A2 Dunnapothula Lingamma W/o Somaiah, Age: 50 years, Madiga, Coolie, R/o Nagaram (V&M), Suryapet (D) A3 Dunnapothula Vijaya Rama Raju S/o Somaiah, Age: 34 years, Madiga, home guard, R/o Nagaram (V&M), Suryapet (D) A4 Dunnapothula Madhavi W/o Vijaya Rama Raju, Age: 28 years, Madiga, Housewife, R/o Nagaram (V&M), Suryapet (D) A5 Kandem Chandrakala W/o Mallaiah, Age: 40 years, Madiga, Coolie, R/o Uppal (V&M), Medchal (D) A6 Ganta Manjula W/o Ramesh, Age: 38 years, Madiga, Govt. Teacher, R/o Vyra (V&M), Khammam District. … A1 to A6

This case is coming up before me on 17.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. G. Ram Krishna Advocate, counsel for accused and being stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Peddavangara has laid charge sheet

Page 2 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019 against A1 to A6 alleging them of committing offences under Sec. 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC, Sec 3,4 of DP Act in Cr.No. 55 of 2017 of PS. Pedda

Vangara.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that :

On 07.10.2017 at 14:00 hours PW1 came to Police Station Pedda

Vangara and lodged a report stating that her marriage was performed with

Accused no.1/Dunnapothula Veera Laxamana Raju on 08.2.2015 and since 15 days his mother-in-law/ Dunnapothula Lingamma /A2, brother-in-law/A3/

Dunnapothula Vijaya Rama Raju, Co-sister/A4/ Dunnapothula Madhavi, sister in laws/A5/ Kandem Chandrakala and A6/ Ganta Manjula altogether tortured her mentally and physically for additional dowry and in this regard several times Panchayath was conducted in the presence of elders and elders passed resolution, where her husband promised that he will not suffer anyone. But there was no change in the attitude of the accused persons, A1 continued his harassment on her for additional dowry. On 05.06.2017 at 10:00 hours her husband, brother in law and co sister wrongfully confined her and harassed and beat indiscriminately with kitchen knife in reverse, due to unbearable beating by them he opened door and ran outside. But they caught hold her and brought back to the room and laid down on the ground and beat her with stout stick on her body in black and blue and asked her study certificates. Later PW1 went to her parents house along with her father and since then she stayed at her parents house on the hope that her husband/A1 might change his attitude and take back her. But Accused no.1 has not responded. As such, she lodged a report. Basing on the report,

LW11/L. Pavan Kumar registered a case in Cr.No.55/2017 for the offences

U/secs 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued First Information Report and took up the investigation of the case.

Page 3 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019 During the course of his investigation, LW11/L. Pavan Kumar visited the scene of offences and observed the scene of offence and prepared Crime

Details Form in the presence of LW7/Y. Praveen Kumar, LW8/J. Yakaiah and examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses in this case. On 08.10.2017 LW11 visited second scene of offence at Nagaram Village and observed scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of LW9/P. Mallaiah, LW10/Ch. Saidulu and also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 25.10.2017 LW11 served notice U/sec 41-A of Cr.P.C to the accused persons. LW11 took up further investigation in this case and during the course of his investigation on 06.01.2019 A2 to A6 came to Police Station and surrendered and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed their guilt in this case and a notice

U/sec 41A Cr.P.C was served to them. After collection of all relevant documents and completion of investigation LW12/B. Ram Charan filed charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file by my predecessor on 16.03.2019 for the offences punishable U/sec. 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A6.

4.Upon appearance of A1 to A6, copies of case documents were furnished to them and they were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C and charge was framed under section 240 of Cr.P.C against A1 to A6 for the offences u/s. 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and was read over and explained to them in vernacular language, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution cited twelve witnesses, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of LW4/Jalagam Ventakaiah, LW5/Ch.

Page 4 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019 Somakka, LW6/Ch. Yellamma, LW7/Y. Praven Kumar, LW8/J. Yakaiah,

LW9/P. Mallaiah, LW10/Ch. Saidulu, LW11/L. Pavan Kumar SI of Police,

LW12/B. Ram Charan SI of Police and other listed witnesses examined as

PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 to prove its case.

6.On closure of evidence of prosecution, as there was no incriminating material appearing against A1 to A6 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of A1 to A6 u/s. 313 CrPC was dispensed with.

7.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution successfully proved the guilt of accused for the offences charged against them and thus prayed to convict accused. Whereas the learned counsel for accused submitted that they are no way concerned with this case and that accused are innocent and he further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offences charged against accused in this case.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences punishable 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.PW1 who is defacto complainant in this case deposed in her evidence that few years ago when petty disputes arouse between her and her husband. At that time at the instance of her parents she has put her signatures on the paper and she does not know contents of it and what was

Page 5 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019 written in it subsequently. She also deposed that she did not lodge any report in this case and she does not know any facts of this case, she turned hostile. When PW1 was examined in the nature of cross examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor by declaring her as hostile after seeking the permission of the court, she deposed that she has compromised the matter with the accused persons in this case.

11.PW2,3 who are parents of PW1 in this case deposed in their evidence that they do not know about facts of this case and that Police did not examine and did not record their statements in this case, they turned hostile.

12.A careful perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record discloses that PW1 being defacto complainant in this case categorically deposed in her evidence that she did not lodge any report in this case and she has compromised the case with the accused persons in this case and PW2,3 who are parents of PW1 also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and nothing was elicited in the support of prosecution when they were examined in the nature of cross examination by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor after declaring them as hostile after seeking the permission of the court. In these circumstances, it appears that in view of the compromise of the accused persons, PW1 to PW3 have not deposed anything against accused persons in this case and there is no incriminating material appearing against accused persons in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the ingredients of the offences charged against accused persons are not established and not proved by the prosecution.

16.From the foregoing discussion, this court is of opinion that the

Page 6 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019 prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 to A6 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the case of the prosecution.

17.IN THE RESULT, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Accordingly, A1 to A6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A6 if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 18th day of August, 2022.

Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence :

PW1 (LW1) – D. Renuka – Defacto Complainant NIL PW2 (LW2) – Y. Somaiah – Father of PW1 PW3 (LW3) – Y. Papamma – Mother of PW1

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Ex.P1 – Signature on Report NONE Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Material Objects Marked : NIL

Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur

Page 7 of 8 CC No. 247 of 2019

:: CALENDER EXTRACT ::

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

THORRUR.

CALENDER CASE NO. 247 of 2019

01.Name of the Police Station:: Pedda Vangara

02.Crime Number:: 55/2017

03.Offence:: 498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

04. Name of the accused :: A1 D. Veera Laxamana RajuA4 D. Madhavi A2 D. LingammaA5 K. Chandrakala A3 D. Vijaya Rama Raju A6 G. Manjula

05.a) Date of offence:: 05-06-2017

b)Date of Complaint:: 07-10-2017

c)Date of Arrest/surrender:: ---

d)Date of Release:: ---

e)Commencement of trial:: 17-08-2022

f)Close of trial:: 17-08-2022

g)Date of Judgment:: 18-08-2022

06.RESULT : A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.498-A, 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, A1 to A6 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A6 if any shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No case property.

07.Explanation for delay::No delay.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur. Dis. No. Dt. - -2022.

To The Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: THORRUR.

PRESENT: Sri R.Rajkumar, Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

On Wednesday, the 17th day of August, 2022

P.R.C. No. 38 of 2020

Between:- The State through Sub -Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsimhulapet. …Complainant AND

Jatothu Sumi @ Sunitha W/o Srinu, 20 years, Lambada, Coolie, R/o Chary thanda, H/o Padamatigudem village … Accused

This case coming up before this Court for hearing and committal, in the presence of A.P.P. for the State and Sri Raghu Ram Reddy Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, this Court delivered the following:

COMMITTAL ORDER

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsimhulapet has laid the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC in

Cr.No.16/2020 of P.S. Narsimhulapet .

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

It is the case of prosecution that on 20.03.2020 at 12:00 hours LW1/J.

Mangya came to PS Narsimhulapet and lodged a report stating that he has two sons and a daughter, where his son/J.Santhosh/deceased has stopped his studies and started assisting his father in agricultural works. The accused had illicit relationship with his son/deceased and now the accused left him, when the 2 deceased tried to question her, she abated him to commit suicide. Having got vexed over his life, on 16.03.2020 around 07:00 hours the deceased went to the house of his neighbour J.Balu and committed suicide by consuming pesticide.

On knowing the same LW1 shifted him to Sai Multi Specialty hospital, Thorrur.

On 20.03.2020 morning 07:00 hours he died in Mahabubabad Area Hospital, while undergoing treatment.

3.On 23.12.2020 cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Sections 306 IPC against Accused.

4.LW14/Sk.Riyaz Pasha SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.16/2020 for the offence U/s 306 IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1. Later he visited Mortuary, Government Hospital, Khammam and examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW7 and later held inquest over the body of deceased in the presence of LW8/G.Suresh, LW9/J.

Balu and later visited scene of offence drafted crime details form in the presence of LW10/J. Sunitha, LW11/J. Sunitha w/o Naresh. On 21.03.2020 LW14 arrested accused at her house and on interrogation she voluntarily confessed the commissin of offence and remanded her to judicial custody. After collection of all relevant documents and completion of investigation charge sheet filed against

Accused.

5.On appearance of accused, the copies of all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely were furnished to her as required under

Sec.208 of Cr.P.C.

6.Heard. Perused the material on record. On perusal of the entire record, it appears that Accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 306 IPC. The offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

3

7.Accordingly this case is committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions at

Mahabubabad under section 209(a) of the Cr.P.C.

8.Accused who are on bail shall continue to be on bail till conclusion of trial subject to the provisions of the code relating to bail under sec. 209 (b) of

Cr.P.C.

9.The entire case records and case properties shall be transmitted to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions as per Section 209(c) Cr.P.C.

10.The Public Prosecutor shall be notified about the committal of the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Mahabubabad, as per Sec.209(d) Cr.P.C.

11.When Accused was heard, she stated that she is having sufficient means to engage Counsel to defend them during the trial in the Court of Sessions.

12.This case is committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions at Mahabuababd and accordingly, accused directed to appear before Hon’ble Court of Sessions after receipt of summons.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judl. Magistrate of First Class Thorrur.

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge

AT THORRUR

(Presided Over by SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR)

CC/364/2019

PS. Nellikudur Through Police Station Officer Nellikudur P.S 173 , PS. Nellikudur

THORRUR WARANGAL

VERSUS : Itha Yakanna Age: 30 Occupation : R/o. Munigalaveedu village.

2:Itha Mahesh Age: 0 Occupation :

3:Elthuri Naresh Age: 0 Occupation :

4:Nakirakanti Krishna Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Sri. APPO, Thorrur, Advocate for appearing for Itha Yakanna Advocate , -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

In view of memo filed, this case is referred to Lok Adalath for settlement. They filed joint memo to permit them to compromise the matter before Lok Adalath. On enquiry, complainant and victim/LW1 stated that he voluntarily intend to compromise the matter with accused No.1 to 3 without any threat or coercion, their compromise appears to be voluntary. The petition filed under section 216 of Cr.P.C. by the learned APP to the section for the offence u/sec. 324 to 334 r/w 34 of IPC is permitted by the court in the interest of justice. The offence under section 323 and 334 r/w 34 of IPC are compoundable. The compromise is recorded. This case is settled in Lok Adalath vide separate award. Accused No.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence under section 323 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC under section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4, if any shall be stand cancelled. No property.

Date : 17-08-2022 (SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR)

Junior Civil Judge

THORRUR , MAHABUBABAD

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge

AT THORRUR

(Presided Over by SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR)

CC/516/2017

PS Thorrur Through Police Station Officer Thorrur P.S 197 , PS Thorrur

THORRUR WARANGAL

VERSUS : Kinnera Yakaiah Age: 30 Occupation : R/o. Ammapupram ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Sri. APP, Advocate for appearing for Kinnera Yakaiah Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

De-facto complainant/LW1 is present. Accused is present. After expiry of 90 days observation period and on enquiry on De-facto complainant/LW1 reported no objection to close the proceedings in this case and prayed court to close the proceedings in this case. Hence in these circumstances this case is settled before Lok adalath and accused is acquitted under sec. 320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence sec. 498-A of IPC, and bail bonds of accused if any they shall stand canceled. Accused is acquitted under sec.320 (8) of Cr.P.C. for the offence sec. 498-A of IPC, and bail bonds of accused, if any he shall stand canceled.

Date : 16-08-2022 (SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR)

Junior Civil Judge

THORRUR, MAHABUBABAD

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF

Junior Civil Judge AT THORRUR Presided Over by SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR

OS/51/2019

Nukala Sujatha Age: 82 Occupation : Address: R/o.Chillamcherla village of Maripeda mandal, Mahabubabad district.

VERSUS : Bollu Lingaiah Age: 45 Address: R/o. Chillamcherla village of Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad district. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for Bollu Lingaiah: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. plaintiff has not led evidence inspite of giving several opportunities, hence it appears that plaintiff is no more interested in prosecuting this matter further, hence in these circumstances, suit is dismissed for default and the proceedings are accordingly closed.

Date : 17-08-2022 (SRI. R. RAJ KUMAR)

Junior Civil Judge

THORRUR , MAHABUBABAD

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS