Sri. R.Thirupathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON,

WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present:- SRI R. THIRUPATHI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Saturday, the 16th day of May, 2015.

S.C.NO.335 OF 2014 01.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana

Complainant through the Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S.Bachannapet 02.Name and description of the :

Accused 1.Gudikandula Anjaiah s/o Siddaiah, 60 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

2.Gudikandula Nagulu s/o Anjaiah, 24 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

3.Gudikandula Siddulu s/o Anjaiah, 25 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

4.Gudikandula Yadagiri s/o Somaiah, 50 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

5.Gudikandula Karunakar s/o Yadagiri, 20 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

6.Gudikandula Nagaraju s/o Narsaiah, 25 yrs. Caste: Kummari,

Occu: Agril. r/o Chinnamancherla (v), Bachannapet (M).

03. Offence Charged : Under Sections: 354 , 324 r/w 34

IPC.

2 04.Cr.No.& Name of the : Cr.No.22 of 2014 of

Police Station P.S.Bachannapet

05. P.R.C.No.: P.R.C.No.10/2014 06.Case committed by : Smt. C.M.Rajya Laxmi ,

Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 08.Finding of the court : Found not guilty 09.Sentence or order

The accused are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the

offence punishable under Section

354 IPC against A2 and A6 and

under section 324 r/w 34 IPC

against A1, A3 to A6 and their

bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked property i.e.,stone

shall be destroyed after the expiry

of appeal time.

10.Prosecution is conducted by :Sri B. Manohar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.Accused are defended by : Sri.B.Kishan and N. Siddulu

Advocates.

This case is coming before me on 11.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Manohar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.B.Kishan & N.Siddulu, Advocates for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence available on record and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police,Bachannapet has filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.22/2014 against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under section 354 and 324 read with 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts, leading to the prosecution of the accused, can be summarised as follows:-

i) PW1(Gudikandula Vinoda) is the wife of PW2 (Gudikandula Ramasway and PW3 (Gudikandula Srinivas) is the brother of PW2. The accused are agnates and belong to the same village. There is a land dispute between the accused and PWs 1 and 2. A panchayat was convened between the and it was decided to measure the land and fix the boundaries.

ii) On 14.02.20124 at 10.00a.m.,while PW2 was attending to the agricultural work at his agricultural field to bring Maize lawn on his cart and when PW1 took food to him, the accused went there and tried to take away the electric starter and fuse and obstructed them from ploughing the land. When PW1 obstructed to remove the starter of the motor, A2 and

A6 has assaulted and used criminal force upon PW1 and unrobed her saree with an intention to outrage her modesty. They beat her with sticks.

When PW2 intervened to rescue her, A1, A3 to A5 beat PW2 with sticks and hands, causing bleeding injuries on his hands and legs. PW3 was also beaten by the accused with hands. As both the parties quarrelled and beat with each other and both the parties received injuries, a case in Cr.No.

21/20145 was also registered against PWs 1 and 2 alleging that they beat the accused with sticks.

iii) On a complaint given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.21/2014 was registered and investigated. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, injured was sent to the hospital for treatment, where PW7 examined them 4 and issued the medical certificates. The scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW5 ( Gudikandula Somulu )and PW6 (Garaboina Satyanarayana) and the Crime Details form was prepared then.

The accused were arrested on 25.02.2014 at 11.00a.m., and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after collection of documents, the charge sheet was laid before the Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Jangaon..

3.The Learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jangaon took the case on file as P.R.C.No.10/2014 for the offence under section 324 IPC against

A1 , A3 to A5 and Section 354 IPC against A2 and A6.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, beside other offences, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C., for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as

S.C.No.335 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard and charges under

Section 354 IPC against A2 and A6 and Under section 324 read with 34

IPC against A1, A3 to A5 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1(Gudikandula

Vinoda), defacto complainant and the victim, PW2 (Gudikandula Ramaswamy) her husband, PW3( Gudikandula Srinivas) brother of the PW2, PW4 ( Gurrala

Malla Reddy ) one of the eye witness, PW5 ( Gudikandula Somulu ) and PW6 5 ( Garaboina Somulu), mediator for the scene of offence, PW7(Dr. S. Mahesh

Kumar) , Medical officer, who treated the inured,PW9 (P.Ravindernath ) and

PW9 ( Mohd. Shadulla Baba), Investigating officers.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of PWS 1 to 9. The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

Perused the records.

11. The points for consideration is:-

1.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused Nos. 2

and 6 had assaulted and used

criminal force upon PW1 intending

to outrage her modesty punishable

under section 354 IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

2.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused Nos. 1,3

to 5 have voluntarily caused hurt

to PWs 1 to 3 by deadly weapons

punishable under section 324 IPC

r/w 34IPC , beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

12.POINTS 1 and 2:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused have assaulted and used criminal force upon PW1 intending to outrage her modesty and they have also voluntarily caused hurt to PWs 1 to 3 by sticks. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and false implication, as can be seen from the tenor of the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses and also as projected by them in the 313 Cr.P.C. PW1 gave the complaint ,Ex.P1 and set the criminal law in motion. The said complaint under Ex.P1 was given at 12.00 6 noon on 14.02.2014, in which, she has stated that on 14.02.2014 at 10.00a.m., while her husband was ploughing the land and when she went there to supply food to her husband, the accused, who are her agnates tried o take away the starter of their electric motor due to previous enmity and when she intervened and obstructed, the accused dragged her saree and removed the same and tried to outrage her modesty. She has also stated that when her husband tried to intervene and rescue her, the accused also beat him with sticks, causing bleeding injuries to his left leg and right hand. Thus, according to her, there is previous enmity between PWs 1 to 3 and the accused. Now it the court, PW1 had testified on oath that about one year back at 10.00a.m., while her husband was ploughing the lands at their agricultural well for sowing Jawar and when she went there to give lunch, at that time, the accused went there and tried to take away the electric starter and she asked them not to take away the starter, then the accused dragged her to some distance. She further deposed that she fell upon the legs of A2 ( Nagulu ) asking him not to beat him, then A6 dragged her saree by catching hold of it and she had bitten his hand and got herself released from his clutches. She also deposed about accused catching hold of her hair, while dragging her and due to the said acts, she felt insult and humiliated. She further deposed that the accused also beat her husband with sticks causing injuries to his left leg and on his back . She admits in her cross-examination that she is facing trial in CC.No.59/2014 arising out of the Cr.No.21/2014of P.S.Bachannapet, which was registered on the complaint given by PW1 and her husband and also PW3. Some material omissions are elicited from her in the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. She is supposed to have stated to the police about herself going to the fields to give lunch box to her husband.

7

She is also supposed to have stated that she has not specifically stated to the police about her husband ploughing the land. She is also supposed to have stated to the police about herself falling on the legs of A2 asking him not to beat him . She is also supposed to have stated to the police about the accused dragging her to some distance. She is also supposed to have stated to the police about herself biting the hand of A6 and herself releasing. She is also supposed to have stated to the police about the accused dragging her, by catching hold of her hair and herself feeling insult and humiliation. She is also supposed to have stated to the police about A6 dragging her saree. These omissions elicited from PW1 through

Investigating officer, PW8. The said omissions are material omissions, amounting to contradictions and if they are kept apart without consideration, nothing remains in her evidence to incriminate against the accused. Her evidence is quite inconsistent and contradictory to her earlier version in her complaint, Ex.P1 as well as in her statement before the police.

13. PW2 who is the husband of PW1 and he testified on oath about the accused coming to their agricultural well to take away the electric starter fitted to the electric motor, fixed to the well and when his wife objected, the accused were beating her. When he went there and intervened to rescue his wife, the accused also beat him with sticks on his left shoulder, hip of left leg and on both the legs and the little finger of his right leg was cut in the said injury. His brother Srinivas came and rescued him from the further beatings of the accused. He deposed that the accused assaulted his wife and beat her. A6 caught hold the saree of his wife and dragged her. His wife fell upon the feet of A2 requesting them not to assault her and beat her.

A1 beat his wife with stick on her thighs. The accused went to the police 8 station,on their bikes and later, they went to the police station and his wife gave the complaint to the police.

i) It is elicited from him in his cross-examination that they are having agricultural lands which is their ancestral properties and the same were not finally partitioned by metes and bounds and that they have objected

for the accused obtaining pattedar pass books and in that connection,

disputes arose between them. Thus, there is animosity prevailing between the accused and PWs 1 to 3 . From him also, material omissions are also elicited by the learned counsel for the defence.

ii) PW2 is supposed to have stated to the police about his wife falling upon the feet of A2 and A1 beating PW1 with stick on her left shoulder, hip and both the legs and about cutting the little finger of his left leg.

He is also supposed to have stated to the police about himself ploughing the land for sowing Jawar. These omissions , in my opinion are kept out of record, nothing remains in his evidence to implicate the accused. His evidence is also inconsistent and contradictory with the evidence of PW1 regarding the individual overt acts of the accused as well as the injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 2.

14. PW3 is no other than the brother of PW2. He testified on oath that on 14.02.2014 at 10.00a.m. , while he was retuning to his house and when he reached the land of PWs 1 and 2, he found the accused trying to remove the electric starter and when PW1 questioned the accused for removing the starter, A2 and A6 were dragging PW1 by catching hold of her and in that process, her saree was removed. The other accused beat PW2 with sticks, causing injuries on his right hand and his left leg. He intervened and rescued PW2 from the clutches of the accused.

9

i) From him also, some omissions are elicited in his cross- examination.

He is supposed to have not specifically stated that PW2 is his brother and

PW1 is his sister-in-law and about himself returning to his house from his agricultural land and about the accused dragging PW1 and in that process, her saree was removed and about the other accused beating PW2 with sticks. These omissions are also material omissions which would amount to contradictions. Admittedly a criminal case is pending against him in CC No.

59/20214 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

He also admits that he did not state before the police about the accused separating the accused and PW2 and rescuing him. His presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. If really, he was present and witnessed the incident, nothing prevented him to state before the police about himself rescuing

PW2, by separating PW2 and the accused.

15. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are close relatives and interested witnesses is quite inconsistent and contradictory and uncorroborated with each other. The material omissions are elicited from them in their cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, which would amount to contradiction, effecting the credibility of their testimonies.

16. The evidence of PW4 does not help the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the accused, as he deposed to have found a gathering at that place and PW1 coming to her wearing a Langa without saree. His evidence is to the effect of PW1 informing that the accused beat her and admittedly he has not seen the incident. So, the evidence of PW4 does not help the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused.

17. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 does not get medical corroboration of PW7.

According to PW7, he did not depose that she sustained any injuries, when 10 the accused beat her. She simply deposed that the accused beat and dragged her. Whereas PW7, doctor who examined PW1 found two contusions over the right thigh and left hip. PW1 did not depose about any of the accused beating her on the right thigh and left hip. Even , PW2 also did not depose about the accused beating PW1 on her left thigh and left hip, as found by PW7. Similarly, PW1 deposed that her husband, PW2 sustaining injuries on his left leg and back. Whereas, PW2 deposed that he sustained injuries on his left shoulder, hip and left leg and also on both the legs and little finger of right leg, which was cut. Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2, regarding the injuries sustained by PW2 in the incident.

18. PW7 deposed that he found two contusions over the right arm and left ankle and two abrasions on the left leg and right toe of PW2. Though,

PW1 deposed that PW2 sustained injuries on his back, PW7 Medical officer did not find any injuries on his back. PW2 deposed that he sustained injuries on his left shoulder, hip of left leg and both the legs and his little finger of right leg was cut. PW7, Medical officer did find any injury on the hip of the left leg and the left shoulder and also his little finger of his right leg was cut. Thus, there is no consistency, even with regard to the injuries sustained by the PW2 between the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the medical evidence, PW7 and the medical certificates Exs.P1 and P6. Thus, the medical evidence of PW7 and the medical certificates Exs. P1 and P6 does not corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 to 3.

19. Admittedly, there is animosity between the accused and PWs 1 to 3, due to the land disputes and a criminal case in CC.No.59/2014 arising out of Cr.No. 21/2014, which was registered on the complaint of the accused was pending against PW3. The crime number of the present case is 22/2014, whereas the crime number of CC.No.59/2014 is 21/2014 of the same 11 police station, Bachannapet. It is pre-supposed that the accused gave the complaint in the first instance, followed by PWs 1 and 2 and it is categorically admitted by PWs 1 and 2 that the accused went to the police station on their bikes in the first instance, later they went to the police station. It is suggested to PWs 1 and 2 that this case is foisted, implicating the accused as counter blast to the criminal case filed by them in CC.No.59/2014.

20. Ex.D1, certified copy of the First Information Report in Cr.No.21/2014 which is proved through PW8, Investigating officer shows that the accused herein alleged that on 14.02.2014 at about 10.00a.m., while the defacto complainant and his son and other persons who are related distantly as brothers and sons by courtesy, objected for ploughing the land of PWs 1and 2.

PWs 1 to 3 beat them with sticks causing head injury and fracture to his head to the defacto complainant, Gudikandula Yadagiri (A4) and PW2 beat him with sticks and bite Gudikandula Nagaraju (A6). This incident in the instant case as well as in the said Cr.No. 21/2014 as revealed under Ex.D1 has occurred at the one and the same place and time and in the course of the same transaction and both the case and counter case, they have to tried and disposed off simultaneously by leading evidence. But unfortunately, the prosecution has failed to take steps to get the said CC. No.59/2014 transferred to this court from the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Jangaon. No evidence is let in, by the prosecution to reveal the facts and the circumstances of the case in Cr.No.21/2014 in CC.No.59/2014. Some of the accused herein are injured in the said case in CC.No.59/2014 but the prosecution witness have suppressed the factum of the accused (A4 ad A6) sustaining injuries by PWs 1 to 3 in the said crime. Suppressing all material facts, regarding the sustaining injuries by the accused during the course of the same incident, creates a doubt in the mind of the court, as to whether 12 the incident projected by the prosecution has really occurred and such benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. There is no independent evidence let in, by the prosecution to sustain the charges levelled against the accused.

21. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 does not inspire confidence of the court, for placing reliance on them, in view of the material infirmities, omissions, amounting to contradictions. Suppression of part of incident in which the some of the accused sustained injuries by the prosecution, the accused have prejudice in their defence. The State is expected to take the role of a

Prosecutor to see that the guilty person is punished and innocent person is exonerated. PWs 1 to 3 being the interested witnesses, they being the close relatives and in view of the infirmities and discrepancies in their testimonies and in view of the suppression of facts by the prosecution and

PWs 1 to 3, regarding some accused persons sustaining injuries in the very same incident, creates a doubt in the mind of the court. Those witnesses cannot be held to be reliable and trustworthy. Their evidence also does not get corroboration from the medical evidence, PWs 5 and 6 as discussed supra. In these circumstances, it is a fit case to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused and it can be safely concluded without any hesitation that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. A2 and A6 also cannot be attributed to be having mensrea or intention to outrage the modesty of PW1, who are no other than their agnates. In a grabbling between both the parties, the saree of PW1 might have removed incidentally, but it cannot be held that A2 and A6 are having an intention to outrage the modesty of PW1 . The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 does not inspire confidence to place reliance upon their testimonies, as their evidence is 13 contradictory, un-corroborative and suffers from several infirmities and material discrepancies. I, therefore, extend the benefit of doubt to the accused and find the accused not guilty for the offences, for which they stood charged. The points are answered accordingly against the prosecution.

23. In the result, the accused are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable Under Section 354 IPC against A2 and A6 and under section 324 read with 34 IPC against A1 , A3 to A5. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16th day of May 2015.)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Gudikandula Vinoda

PW2: Gudikandula Ramaswamy

PW3: Gudikandula Srinivas 14

PW4: Gurrala Malla Reddy

PW5: Gudikandula Somulu

PW6:Garaboina Satyanarayana

PW7:Dr. S. Mahesh Kumar

PW8: P.Ravindranath

PW9 Mohd. Shadulla Baba

FOR DEFENCE:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 :Complaint lodged by PW1 dated:14.02.2014

Ex.P-2 :Statement of PW1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 14.02.2014

Ex.P-3 :Signature of PW5 on the Crime Details form dated: 14.02.2014

Ex.P-4 : Signature of PW6 on the Crime Details form dated14.02.2014

Ex.P-5 :Medical certificate of PW2 issued by PW7 dated14.02.2014

Ex.P6: Medical certificate of PW1 issued by PW7 dated: 14.02.2014

Ex.P7-First Information Report dated: 14.02.2014

Ex.P8: Crime Details form dated: 14.02.2014

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr. No. 21/2014 dated: 14.02.2014

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

15

JANGAON.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON,

WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present:- SRI R. THIRUPATHI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2015.

S.C.NO.187 OF 2014 01.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana

Complainant through the Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S.Jangaon.

02.Name and description of the :

Accused

1.Md. Hussain Raza s/o Hassan Raza Razvi, 22yrs.,

Muslim, r/o H. No. 1-10-142/3-4, Cheetakodur road, Jangaon.

2.Md. Shakeel s/o Abdul Rauf , 24yrs. Muslim, N/o Khiro Post,

Raibarelli District , Uttar Pradesh, now at H.No.1-10-142/3-4, Cheetakodur road, Jangaon.

3.Md. Kalik s/o Munir Ahmed, 35 yrs. Muslim, N/o Khiro Post,

Raibarelli District , Uttar Pradesh, now at H.No.1-10-142/3-4, Cheetakodur road, Jangaon.

03. Offence Charged : Under Sections: 376(g),354, 324

r/w 34 IPC.

04.Cr.No.& Name of the : Cr.No.3 of 2014 of

Police Station P.S.Jangaon .

05. P.R.C.No.: P.R.C.No.21 /2014 06.Case committed by : Sri. T. Narsi Reddy ,

Principal Judicial First Class

2

Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 08.Finding of the court : Found not guilty 09.Sentence or order

The accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 376(g), 354 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

10.Prosecution is conducted by :Sri B. Manohar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.Accused are defended by : Sri.S.Srinivas,

Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 11.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Manohar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.S.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence available on record and having been heard and 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, Jangaon has filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.3/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 376(g), 354 and 324 read with 34IPC.

2.The brief allegations of facts, leading to the prosecution of the accused, as called out from the charge sheet are as follows:-

i) PW1 (Guguloth Kamala ) is the wife of PW2 ( Guguloth Eshwar) who are residents of Weavers colony, Jangaon. The accused are also residents of

Cheetakodur, Jangaon Town. A2 and A3 are the workers, working in the

Bakery owned by the father of A1 which is located beside the house of PW1

Guguloth Kamala and PW2 (Guguloth Eshwar).

3 ii) On the intervening night of 6th/7th January, 2014 at about 1.00a.m.,while PW1 was sleeping in her house along with her children, she heard a sound of knocking the doors and when she opened the door, under the impression that PW2 might have come, the accused caught hold of the hand of PW1 and dragged her demanding her to sleep with them and thereby, outraged her modesty. When PW3 who was passing on the road, came and tried to rescue PW1, the accused beat him with hands, causing injuries on his left hand. This incident was witnessed by PW1.

iii) On a complaint given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.3/2014 was registered and investigated. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, scene of offence panchanama was conducted, injured was sent to the hospital for treatment and the accused were arrested on 21.012014 and later they were sent for judicial custody.

iv) After completion of investigation and after collection of documents, the charge sheet was filed before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Jangaon.

3.The Learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jangaon took the case on file as P.R.C.No.10/2014.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions

Division, Warangal, under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C., for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as

S.C.No.187 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4

6. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard and charges

under Sections 354 and 324 read with 34 IPC, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the pendency of the case for trial and when PW1 was examined in chief in part and having regard to the evidence of PW1, revealing offence of Sections 376 IPC prima-facie in the chief examination and at the request of the learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor, the evidence of PW1 was deferred.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has filed Crl. MP No.68/2014

Under section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure requesting the court to frame charge under section 376(D) IPC. The said application was disposed of on merits by Orders dated 10.09.2014, allowing the application and ordered for framing additional charge under section 376 (g) IPC.

Accordingly, an additional charge under section 376 (g) IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

9.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1( Guguloth

Kamala), defacto complainant and the victim, PW2 ( Guguloth Eshwar), her husband, PW3 ( Amgothu Ramu) , injured and eye witness, PW5 (Guguloth

Hari ), another eye witness, PW4 ( Amgothu Laxmi) circumstantial witness,

PW6( Sambaraju Prashanth ) and PW7 ( Guguloth Srinivas), mediators for the scene of offence and PW9 ( Dr. M.Shashitha ) who examined and PW8 ( N.Prabhakar Reddy) and PW10 (R. Narender) the Investigating officers.

10.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined Under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating 5 circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PWs 1 to 10.

The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and did not propose to examine any defence witnesses.

11. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

Perused the records.

12. The point for consideration are:-

1.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused have

assaulted or used criminal force upon

PW1 intending to outrage the modesty

of PW1 (Guguloth Kamala) punishable

U/S. 354 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

2. “Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused have

committed rape upon PW1 (Guguloth

Kamala) punishable U/S. 376 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

3.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused have

voluntarily caused hurt to PW3

(Amgoth Ramu) punishable U/S. 324

read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

13.POINTs 1to 3:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the accused went to the house of

PW1 on the intervening night of6th/7th January, 2014 at 1.00 a.m., and knocked the doors and when she opened the door, under the impression that her husband has come, the accused caught hold her, dragged her intending to outrage her modesty and also committed rape upon her. PW3 intervened to rescue PW1, then the accused also beat him, causing hurt to him. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and false implication.

14. To sustain the said charges, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 10.

PW1 is the victim and the defacto complainant, PW2 is her husband, PW3 6 is the injured and eye witness, while PW5 is projected to be the eye witness to the incident and PW4 is projected to be the circumstantial witness.

15. At the very outset, I may state here that PW2-husband of the victim, did not support the prosecution case, regarding the incident proper and he pleaded ignorance of the case. He testified on oath that a petty quarrel took place between him and A1 with regard to a monetary dispute, when A1 demanded him to repay the amount borrowed by him from him and in that connection, he went to the police station, where police obtained the signature of his wife on a white paper. He has positively deposed that the accused did not assault or commit rape on PW1 and no such incident of the accused trespassing into the house and assaulting his wife and dragging her by catching hold of her and asking her to sleep with them.

When PW3 intervened, the accused beat him also. According to PWs 1 and 2, some miscreants pelted stones on PW3 causing injuries to his left eye.

16. PWs 3, 4 and 5, who are projected to be injured and eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses to the occurrence also, did not support the prosecution case. PWs 3 and 4 deposed that he did not observe the culprits and they did not identify them, PW5 one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence pleaded ignorance about the incident. He too denied about the occurrence of the incident. PWs 3 to 5 denied to have stated to the police as in Exs. P3 to P5 about the accused assaulting PW1 and asking her to come with them and when their neighbour Amgoth Ramu tried to apprehend the accused, the accused fled away,pushing him aside and causing bleeding injury to his left eye.

17. Thus, all the material witnesses PWs 2 to 5 did not support the prosecution case. It is only PW1, who has supported the prosecution case, to some extent. She deposed in her chief-examination that about eight 7 months back at 1.00a.m., while she was sleeping in her house, the accused came there, knocked the door, A1 caught hold of the hand of PW1 and that A2 and A3 caught hold of her and fallen her down and A1 removed her saree while A2 and A3 caught hold of her. A2 committed rape upon her, in the first instance followed by A2 and A3, who also committed rape upon her forcibly and when she raised cries loudly, PW3 came and questioned the accused. Then the accused beat him indiscriminately and pelted stones on him causing injury. The chief-examination of the witness commenced on 20.08.2014 and her further evidence was deferred by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to frame an additional charge under section 376 IPC and once again, the accused were recalled and resworn in on 23.03.2015. At that time, PW1, in her further chief-exanimation, has resiled from her earlier version and deposed in the court that none of the accused committed rape upon her and no such incident occurred. She deposed that only at the instance of elders, she deposed in her chief- examination and signed on the complaint, without knowing its contents. She has positively deposed that the accused did not assault or commit rape upon her and no such incident occurred and due to fear of the elders, she gave evidence against the accused. Thus, she resiled from her previous testimony in her cross- examination. She did not depose about the accused ravishing and committing rape upon her forcibly one after another as deposed in her chief-examination. Her evidence is inconsistent and contradictory with the versions made in the complaint as well in her statement to the police. Conviction cannot be based on such inconsistent and contradictory and prevaricating versions of PW1, particularly in view of the hostility of the material witnesses, including her husband, who is examined as PW2, who disowned the occurrence of such incident.

8

18. If really PW1 was subjected to sexual assault or intercourse by the accused, consecutively one after another and forcibly, she could have mentioned the said fact in the complaint- Ex.P1 or before the police during the course of investigation. There is no whisper attempy such forcible sexual intercourse against her by the accused. She was also not subjected to medical examination and thus there is no medical evidence to corroborate her testimony regarding the sexual assault on her by the accused.

19. According to the complaint, Ex.P1, the incident is alleged assault to have occurred on 6th/7th January, 2014 at about 1.00a.m, and she gave the complaint according to PWs 8 and 10, Investigating officers at about 7.30 p.m., on 07.01.2014. Thus, there is delay of about nineteen hours in reporting the incident to the police. There is also inordinate and unexplained delay dispatching the First Information Report to the court. According to the

Investigating officer, PW10, the said complaint along with the First Information

Report was dispatched to the court on the same day through a constable. But surprisingly, the said complaint and the First Information Report was received in the court of the Magistrate on 13.01.2014 at 10.30 a.m., through

Head Constable No.1623 of P.S.Jangaon. Thus,there is inordinate and unexplained delay in dispatching the First Information Report also to the court.

This inordinate and unexplained delay in giving the complaint by PW1 to the police and also dispatching the First Information Report to the court, casts a cloud of suspicion in the veracity of the prosecution story and creates a doubt in the mind of the court, as to whether any such incident has really occurred. Thus, the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the hostility of PWs 2 to 5 and also in view of the prevaricating and inconsistent versions’ of PW1, the victim herself. There is no corroboration to 9 the testimony of PW1. It is highly unsafe to place reliance upon the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 to base conviction of the accused, particularly more so, in view of the above infirmities and in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police.

I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and find the accused not guilty of the offences with which they stood charged. The points are answered accordingly against the prosecution.

15. In the result, the accused are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable Under Sections 376(g), 354 and 324 read with 34 IPC. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13th day of May 2015.)

Sd/-Sri R.Thirupathi,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Guguloth Kamala

PW2: Guguloth Eshwar

PW3:Amgothu Ramu

PW4: Amgothu Laxmi

PW5:Guguloth Hari

PW6: Sambaraju Prashanth

PW7 : Guguloth Srinivas

PW8: N. Prabhakar Reddy

PW9: Dr. M.Shashitha 10

PW10: R.Narender

FOR DEFENCE:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 :Signature of PW1 on the complaint dated: 07.01.2014

Ex.P-2 :Statement of PW2 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C. dated: 07.01.2014

Ex.P-3 :Statement of PW3 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C dated: 08.01.2014

Ex.P-4 :Statement of PW4 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C dated: 08.01.2014

Ex.P-5 :Statement of PW5 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C dated: 08.01.2014

Ex.P-6 : Signature of PW6 on the Crime Details Form dated: 07.01.2014

Ex.P-7 : Signature of PW7 on the Crime Details Form dated:07.01.2014

Ex.P-8 : First Information Report dated:07.01.2014 issued by PW10.

Ex.P-9 : Crime Details Form dated:07.01.2014 prepared by PW8.

Ex.P-10 : Medical certificate of PW3 issued by PW9 dated:07.01.2014

FOR DEFENCE:

-None

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

Sd/-Sri R.Thirupathi,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

R/

C/ //True Copy// 11

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON,

WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present:- SRI R. THIRUPATHI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Saturday, the 16th day of May, 2015.

S.C.NO.410 OF 2014 01.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana

Complainant through the Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S. Devaruppula 02.Name and description of the :

Accused

Angoth Harikrishan s/o Chandru , 30 yrs. Lambada, r/o Peddathanda of Devarppula (M) of Warangal District

03. Offence Charged : Under Sections: 354 & 306 IPC.

04.Cr.No.& Name of the : Cr.No.243 of 2013 of

Police Station P.S.Devarauppula

05. P.R.C.No.: P.R.C.No.15/2014 06.Case committed by : Smt. C.M.Rajya Laxmi ,

Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 08.Finding of the court : Found not guilty 09.Sentence or order 2

The accused are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the

offence punishable under Section

354 and 306 IPC and his bail

bonds shall stand cancelled

10.Prosecution is conducted by :Sri B. Manohar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.Accused are defended by : Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy

Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 12.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Manohar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence available on record and having been heard and 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, Devaruppula has filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.243/2013 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under section 354 and 306 IPC.

2.The brief facts, leading to the prosecution of the accused, can be summarised as follows:-

i) PW1 is the wife of the deceased, Angothu Mohan and the deceased is the son of PW2 Angoth Bhadru and PW3 Angoth Shanthi and brother of

PW4,Angoth Mallesham. The accused is a resident of Pedda thanda village to which place the PWs 1 to 4 also belong. On 06.12.2013, when PW1 was returning to her house from her agricultural field at about 8.00p.m., the accused way laid her, caught hold her and dragged and demoded her to satisfy his sexual lust and thus outraged her modesty. When the deceased,

Mohan came there, the accused caught hold and questioned the accused by catching hold his collar, regarding his attitude towards his wife, PW1, the 3 accused escaped from the hands of the deceased, Mohan. The deceased felt insult and humiliation due to the above acts of the accused in outraging the modesty of his wife, set fire to himself at about 1p.00p.m., on 06.12.2013 and died while undergoing treatment at Government hospital, Secunderbad, on 01.01.2014, at 2.10p.m.

iii) On the complaint given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.243/2013 was registered and investigated. After the death of the deceased, Mohan, section of law was altered by adding section 306IPC. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, inquest panchanama on the dead body was held and the said dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The accused was arrested on 07.01.20124 and sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after collection of documents, the charge sheet was laid

before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon..

3.The Learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jangaon took the case on file as P.R.C.No.15/2014 for the offences under sections 354 and 306 IPC against the accused.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 306 I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, beside other offences, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, under Section 209(a)

Cr.P.C., for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as

S.C.No.410 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard and charges under 4

Section 354 and 306 IPC against the accused were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1( Amgothu

Mounika) , defacto complainant, PW2( Angoth Bhadu ), PW3 ( Angoth

Shanthi) and PW4 (Angoth Mallesham), parents and brother of the deceased ,

Mohan, PW6( Angoth Ramulu ) PW5 ( Guguloth Bhaskar), auto driver and

PW6(Angoth Ramulu and PW7 ( Angoth Bichya ), mediator for the scene of offence, PW8 ( Gugutloth Kokya Naik) and PW9 ( Guguloth Balakrishna ), mediator for the inquest panchanama, PW12 (Dr. Laxman Rao), Medical officer and Assistant professor, who conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, Mohan and PW10(N. Venkatamallu ) and

PW11 ( A.Venkateshwar Rao), Investigating officers.

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of PWS 1 to 12. The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

Perused the records.

11. The points for consideration is:-

1.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused has

assaulted or used criminal force

upon PW1 intending to outrage her

modesty punishable under section

354 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

2.“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish that the accused has

abetted the deceased to commit

suicide punishable under section

5

306 IPC, beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

12.POINT No. 1 -

The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section 354 IPC alleging that he has assaulted and used criminal force upon

PW1 intending to outrage her modesty on 06.12.2013 at about 8.00p.m. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and false implication.

13. To sustain the said charge, the prosecution has examined PW1, victim and the defacto complainant and PWs2 and 3, parents–in–law of PW1 and

PW4 , brother –in-law of PW1 and PW5 alleged eye witness.

14. PW5 did not support the prosecution case. He did not whisper anything about the assault on PW1 by the accused to outrage her modesty. She simply deposed to have shifted the deceased, Mohan to the hospital in his auto about one year back. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the victim herself, who is alleged to have assaulted and solicited for sexual intercourse by the accused. She did not support the prosecution case. She denied to have stated to the police about the accused assaulting her and using criminal force intending to outrage her modesty. She denied to have given the complaint to the police, under Ex.P1 and stated to the police as in Ex.P3 .

Thus, the victim herself did not support the prosecution case. PWs 2 to 4 are parents- in-law and brother-in-law of PW1. Though, PW3 deposed that about one and half years back, the accused assaulted PW1 to outrage her modesty and to commit rape upon her, having kept illicit intimacy with

PW1,as complained to him by the deceased,Mohan, in the cross- examination, he has positively deposed that he has not personally seen the accused visiting the house of PW1 and the deceased, Mohan trying to apprehend him. An omission is elicited from him about himself stating before the police that the accused visiting the house of PW1 on two occasions and the deceased, 6

Mohan trying to apprehend him and himself advising the Mohan to wait and observe. These material omissions amounting to contradictions which is duly proved from the Investigating officer.

15. PW4 deposed in his chief-examination that PW1 kept illicit intimacy with the accused and moving with him closely and that the deceased complained of the same to the elders, who admonished the accused and advised her to severe the illicit intimacy with the accused, but there was no change in her attitude he did not depose that the accused has assaulted by using criminal force against PW1, intending to outrage her modesty. In his cross- examination, he has categorically admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the illicit intimacy of PW1 with the accused . Even from him also, material omission is elicited about himself stating to the police about

PW1 having illicit intimacy with the accused and PW1 complaining the same

before the elders and the elders and himself admonishing him to severe her

relationship with the accused and there was no change in her attitude. This is also material omission and if the material omissions are kept aside there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the crime, intending to outrage her modesty. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is inconsistent, contradictory and un-corroborative. There is no corroboration to the testimony of PW2 about the accused assaulting PW1 to outrage her modesty as the victim herself disowned the occurrence of the incident.

ii) In these circumstances, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the inconsistent and contradictory versions of PWs 1 to 4, particularly in view of the material omissions, amounting to contradictions elicited in their evidence,

I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged. Consequently, I find the accused not guilty 7 of the offence punishable under section 354 IPC. The pout is answered against the prosecution.

15. Point No. 2:

The accused is next charged for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC alleging that he abetted the deceased, Amgothu Mohan to commit suicide. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the victim and wife of the deceased, Amgothu Mohan. She deposed that a petty quarrel took place between her and her husband, who is a drunkard and she went to attend to her labour work. When she returned back in the evening at about one and half year back, her husband poured kerosene upon himself and set fire to himself. She deposed that she does not know the reasons for the commission of suicide by him. He has positively deposed that the accused is not responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased.

16. PWs 2 to 4 are the parents and brother of the deceased, Mohan.

According to them, the deceased, Mohan complained of the accused having illicit intimacy with PW2 and that despite of mediation by the elders, there was no change in her attitude and PW1 continued to have illicit intimacy and feeling insult and humiliation, the deceased committed suicide by setting fire to himself. None of them have deposed to the occurrence of any incident immediately preceding the alleged commission of suicide. Material omissions are elicited from PWs 2 to 4 in their cross-examination about the said illicit intimacy of PW1 with the accused ad that there was no change in the attitude of PW1 . PWs 2 and 4 have categorically deposed that they have not personally seen the accused visiting the house of PW1 or having illicit intimacy with PW2. They have also deposed the incident of setting fire by the deceased. If the material omissions elicited from PWs 2 to 4 are kept apart, noting remains in the evidence on record against the accused implicating them, 8 even in the offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable under section 306 IPC.

17. There is no positive and direct evidence adduced by the prosecution about the occurrence of any incidents before the commission of suicide by the deceased. No incident of aiding, instigation or felicitation by the accused, driving the deceased, Mohan to commit suicide. Even, there is also no satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused and PW1 conspired and such conspiracy led the commission of suicide by the deceased. There is no direct and positive evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the act of abetment, which is the direct and proximate cause of commission of suicide.

The acts of the accused must be direct and proximate cause to drive a person of ordinary prudence to commit suicide. The element of mensrea certainly to be present with the accused. To sustain the charge under section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove (1)Instigation (2) conspiracy and (3) intentional aiding.

i) A person must be instigated by another person to a thing . Thus, there is no cogent, convincing and satisfactory evidence let in by the prosecution to prove that the accused has intentionally instigated, aided or felicitated the deceased, Amgothu Mohan to commit suicide by wilful acts of omission or commission. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused had assaulted or used criminal force upon PW1, which is alleged to have provoked the deceased to commit suicide, as the victim herself did not support the prosecution to that extent. Even PWs 2 to 4 are not witnesses to the alleged assault on PW1. They have positively deposed that that they did not seen the assault on PW2 or alleged intimacy of accused with PW2, which is projected to be the direct and proximate cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove 9 the ingredients of Section 306 IPC., as discussed supra. The point is answered against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable Under Sections 354 and 306 IPC and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16th day of May 2015.)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Amgothu Mounika

PW2: Angoth Bhadru

PW3: Angoth Shanthi

PW4: Angoth Mallesham

PW5:Guguloth Bhaskar

PW6:Angoth Ramulu

PW7:Angoth Bichya

PW8: Guguloth Kokya Naik

PW9 :Guguloth Balakrishna

PW10: N.Venkatamallu

PW11 :A.Venkateshwar Rao

PW12 : Dr.Ch.Laxman Rao 10

FOR DEFENCE:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 :Signature of PW1 on the Complaint dated:09.12.2013

Ex.P-2 :Complaint lodged by PW1 dated: 09.12.2013

Ex.P-3:Statement of PW1 recorded by the police U/S.161 Cr.P.C.

dated: 09.12.2013

Ex.P-4 : Statement of PW5 recorded U/S. 161 Cr.P.C.dated: 09.12.2013

Ex.P-5 :Signature of PW6 on the Crime Details Form dated: 09.12.2013

Ex.P-6: Signature of PW7 on the Crime Details Form dated09.12.2013

Ex.P-7- Signature of PW8 on the Inquest panchanama dated02.01.2014

Ex.P-8: Signature of PW9 on the Inquest panchanama dated02.01.2014

Ex.P-9: First Information Report dated: 09.12.2013

Ex.P-10: Crime Details Report dated:09.12.2013

Ex.P-11: Inquest report dated : 02.01.2014

Ex.P-12: Postmortem report : 02.01.2014

FOR DEFENCE:

- NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON, WARANGAL

DISTRICT.

Present:- SRI R. THIRUPATHI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2015.

S.C.NO.21 OF 2014

01.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana Complainant through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Lingala Ghanpur 02.Name and description of the : Accused Seetha Yakaiah s/o Buchaiah, 231years, Madiga r/o Siripuram 03.Offence Charged :Under Section 366-A IPC.

04.Cr.No., & Name of the : Cr.No.90 of 2014 of Police Station P.S.Lingala Ghanpur . 05.P.R.C.No. : P.R.C.No.90 /14

06. Case committed by : Sri. T. Narsi Reddy , Prl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 08.Finding of the court : Found not guilty 09.Sentence or order

The accused is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section

366-A IPC and his bail bonds shall stand

cancelled.

10.Prosecution is conducted by :Sri G.Naga Rajeshwar Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.Accused are defended by Sri. P.Maheedhar Rao , Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 11.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Manohar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.P.Maheedhar Rao, Advocate for the accused , upon perusing the material evidence available on record and having been heard and 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, Jangaon has filed a charge sheet in

Cr.No.90/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 366-A IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarised as follows:-

i)On 15.05.2014 the accused has induced the victim girl Renuka who is under the age of 18 years and kidnapped her from the lawful custody of her parents with an intention to perform her marriage without their knowledge and consent ii).On the complaint given by PW1, a case in Cr. No.90/2014 was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined The birth certificate was obtained from PW5 and the scene of offence was inspected and the crime details form was prepared at that place and they appeared before the police and at that time, statement of

PW3 was recorded and the accused was arrested and sent for Judicial custody. After completion of investigation and after collection of documents, the charge sheet was laid.

3. The Learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon took the case on file as P.R.C.No.30/2014.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of the documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 366-A I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division,

Warangal, under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C., for trial.

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as S.C.No.21 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard and charge under

Section 366-A I.P.C., was framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1(Durgi Iylaiah ),

PW2 ( Durtgi Pulamma ) parents, PW4( Durgi Babu), brother of the victim girl , PW3 ( ( Durgi Yelandra ) , PW5 (Daravath Naghender) , Headmaster , who issued the birth certificate, PW6( (Baswagani Vittal) mediator for the scene of offence and PW7 ( B. Rajesh ) , Investigating Officer.

8. Aftger the closure of the prosecution , the accused weas examied under section 313 Cr.P.C. With regerence to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of Pws 1 t o 7. The accused denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not choose to examine any defence witness.

10.Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

Perused the records.

11.The point for consideration is:- “ Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused has kidnapped PW3 ( Durgi

Yelandra0 by taking her away from the lawful custody of her parents without t heir knowledge and consent from the lawful guardianship punishable U/S 366-A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt? ”

12.POINT :-

The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under section366-A

IPC alleging that he has induced the victim girl under the pretext of love ad promise to marry yher and with sucyh an inducment and promise , he has taken awayu PW3 from her house, without the knowledge and consent of her parents, Pws 1 and 2, who are lawful guardina. The plea of the accused as can be seen from tenor of the cross-examination of Pws 1 to 7 and also examiation of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. , is one of total denial and false implication , due to previous disputes.

To sustain the said charge, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 7 . Pws .13 1 and 2 are the parents , wyhle PW4 is the son of Pws 1 and 2 and brother of the victim. According to Pws 1, 2 and 4, the victim was asked to go to her sister's house at Kolur to hand over cash of Rs. 5000/- who is celebrating f estival and according to them in their absence from the house, w3hen they went to attend their respectrive works, the victim left the house and they learnt that the victim did not reach the house of their elder daughter ,

Renuka at Koluru, when they contacheted her in the evening time , when they returned from their works and after searching for her in their neighbour, in the houses of reltatives and friends, they could not trace out. Pws 1 and 2 approached thepolice and they gave the complaint to the police and thus set the criinal law in otion. Thus, Pws 1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the actual incident of kidnap by the accused. Even they did not depose that the a ccused has induced and promised PW3 to marry her undeer the pretext of love and with such promise and inducement , he took away PW3, victim. Their evidence with regtard t o the inide3nt of kidnap is hear say. They are not direct eye witness for the accused taking away PW3 from their house./ They have categorically admitted in their cross- examination that only on suspicion against the accused that he was also missing from the house, they lodged the complaint against him. Thus, Pws 1, 2 and 4 had only suspicion upon the accused and on such suspicion only, they have implicated the accused in this .case

14. It is well settled law that suspicion, however strong, it may be , cannot take okace of poorf. The prosecution must establish the charge by cogent and convincing, direct or circumstantial evidence arising out the actual icident.

Meree suspicioun or surmmises cannot concluisvely establish the charge levelled against the accused. Though, it was deposed by PW1 in the chiefr- examination that now and then the accussed used to accost with his daughtger but in the cross- examination , an ommissiom is elicted from him with regard to the sdaid fact. He is suipposed to have stated to the police that the accused visiting their house and accost their daughter. PW2 did not dpose about the accused visiting their house and accosting PW3. So also PW4.

Pws 1, 2 and 4 do not conlcusivly and directly e4stablish the complicityh of the accused in the incident of kidnap of pW3.

15. PW3 is the victim herself . According to her, she has testified on oath that as her parents have been trying to perform her marragge against her wish during her minor and without her conseent and forvibly, she voluntyarily left to

Hyderabad and started residing in the house of a Vysya person near Uppal depot, Hyuderabad . She has positively deposed that the accused did not induce or did not kidnap her and no such incident has occurred. She gave her age as 20 year in her affidabit. So, the evidence of PW3 who is the vbictim herself and a material witness did not support the prosecution case regarding the accused kidnapping her against her wish.

16. Nodoubt, the evidence of PW5 and the certificate, Ex.P3 issued by him would discose that PW3 was born on 05.08.1987 and on the date of the alleged incident, she was aged 16years , 9 months and thus she is below the age of 18 years. But there is no cogent and satisfactyory evidence to proe that the accused has induced PW3 and kidnapped her for such inducement from lawlful guardiaship of her parents , as the victim herself does not support the prosecution case.

17. PW7 mediatyor for the scne of offence, while PW7, Investigating officer . Their evidence is proceedural investigation and could not directly connect the accused with the crime. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact remains that there is no legal and acceptable evidence connecting the accused with the crime. I, therefore ,hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt . The point is therefore answered accordingly against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused are acquitted Under section 235(1) Code of

Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 366-A IPC and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13th day of May 2015.)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1: Durgi Iylaiah PW2: Durgi Pulamma PW3:Durgi Yelandra PW4: Durgi Babu PW5: Baswagani Vittal PW6: Nimmala Karunakar PW7 : B.Rajesh

FOR DEFENCE:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1 :Complaint lodged by PW1 dated: Ex.P.2: Statement of PW3recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C.dated: Ex/P3:Bonafide certifice issued by PW5 datyed: Ex.P-4 :Crime Details form dated : Ex.P.5: First Information Report dated FOR DEFENCE: -None

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, JANGAON.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JANGAON,

WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present:- SRI R. THIRUPATHI,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2015.

S.C.NO.374 OF 2014 01.Name and description of the : The State of Telangana

Complainant through the Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S.Jangaon 02.Name and description of the :

Accused 1.Mudrakola Vasu s/o Narshimulu, 27yrs., Caste: Poosala, business 2.Mudrakola Narshimulu s/o Mallaiah 50 yrs., Caste: Poosala, business 3.Mudrakola Susheela w/o Narshimulu, 27yrs., Caste: Poosala, business 4.Mudrakola Radhika w/o Vasu , 27yrs., Caste: Poosala, business 5.Mudrakola Srilatha d/o Narshimulu, 27yrs., Caste: Poosala, business 6.Mudrakola Sathish s/o Narshimulu, 27yrs., Caste: Poosala, business ( All are R/o H. No. 2-4-5, Shivalayam Street, Jangaon)

03. Offence Charged : Under Sections: 147,307, 324 r/w

149 IPC.

04.Cr.No.& Name of the : Cr.No.186 of 2014 of

Police Station P.S.Jangaon

05. P.R.C.No.: P.R.C.No.26/2014 06.Case committed by : Sri. T. Narsi Reddy , 2

Prl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Jangaon.

07.Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty 08.Finding of the court : Found not guilty 09.Sentence or order

The accused are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against A1 and Under Sections 147 and 324 r/w 149 IPC against A2 to A6 and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property i.e.,stone shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

10.Prosecution is conducted by :Sri B. Manohar,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11.Accused are defended by : Sri.M.Jan Reddy,

Advocate.

This case is coming before me on 12.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.Manohar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.M.Jan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence available on record and having been heard and 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, has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.186/2014 against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC against

A1 and A2 to A6 for the offence under sections 147, 324 read with 149

IPC.

2.The brief facts, leading to the prosecution of the accused, can be summarised as follows:- 3

i)PW1 ( Mudrakola Sreedevi ) is the wife of PW2( Mudrakola Sheshaiah) and A2 are brothers. A1 is the son, A3 is the wife of A2, A4 is the wife of

A2 , while A5 and A6 are the daughter and son of A2 and A3. There were quarrels and disputes between the accused and PW2 for the last seven months preceding the incident.

ii) On 22.06.2014 at about 6.00p.m., A1 abused PWs 1 and 2 in filthy language referring as “Arey Lanjakoduka Eerojuninnu Elagaina

Champuthanura“ by showing a stone. PWs 1 and 2 questioned him for abusing them, A1 to A6 abused PWs 1 and 2 in filthy language and A2 beat PW2 with a stone on his head causing bleeding injuries to him. While A2 to A6 beat PW1 with hands. This incident was witnessed by PWs3 to 5.

The injured was shifted to the hospital.

iii) On a complaint given by PW1, a case in Cr.No.186/2014 was registered and investigated. During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, scene of offence panchanama was conducted, accused were arrested.

Pursuant to the statement of A1, the stone was seized under the cover of panchanama at the instanced of A1. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Jangaon..

3.The Learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Jangaon took the case on file as P.R.C.No.26/2014.

4. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents to the accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., which is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, beside other offences, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Sessions Division, Warangal, under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C., for trial.

4

5. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Warangal, took the case on file as

S.C.No.374 of 2014 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard and charges under

Sections 147 and 324 read with 149 IPC against A2 to A6 and Under section 307 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in

Telugu, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1(Mudrakola

Sridevi ), defacto complainant and PW2 ( Mudrakola Sheshaiah), victim, who are wife and husband, PW3 ( Iytha Ashok ), PW4 ( Iytha Srinu ) and PW5 (Kanchi Shiva ) are alleged eye witnesses to the incident, PW6 (Ponaganti

Balakrishna ) and PW7 (Guguloth Narshimha) are the mediators for the alleged statement of confessional panchanama.

8. Having regard to the evidence of PWs 1 to 7, who did not support the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as no useful purpose would be served in examining them and reported closure of the prosecution evidence. Thus, the prosecution evidence was closed.

9.As there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of PWs 1 to 7, the examination of the accused Under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with and the accused are not called upon to enter upon their defence.

10. Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the Defence counsel.

Perused the records.

11. The point for consideration is:-

“Whether the prosecution is able to

establish the guilt of the accused for

5

the offences charged, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:-

The accused stood charged for the offence punishable under sections 147, 324 read with 149 IPC against A2 to A6 and under section 307 IPC against A1. The plea of the accused is one of total denial and false implication due to previous disputes.

13. To sustain the said charges, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to

7. PWs 1 and 2 are the defacto complainant and the victim who are wife and husband respectively. According to them, one of the accused beat them and attempted to kill them and no such incident occurred. PW1 denied to have given the complaint, Ex.P1 to the police. They denied to have stated to the police as in Exs. P3 and P4.

i) PW2 no doubt deposed that they gave complaint due to previous disputes between them and the accused, he too deposed that none of the accused beat him and his wife at any time and none attempted to kill them, PWs 3 to 5 are projected to be the eye witnesses to the incident. They pleaded complete ignorance and they denied to have witnessed the incident and that they have stated to the police as in Exs.P3 to P7.

ii) PWs 6 and 7 are the mediators for the seizure panchanama, while admitting their signatures on the confessional statement and seizure panchanama and admitted A1 being present in the custody of the police, but they deposed that A1 did not gave any statement in their presence and the police did not seize any stone from the accused in their presence.

They were declared hostile by the prosecution but nothing substantial connecting the complicity of the accused with the crime could be established.

Thus, there is absolutely no legal and acceptable evidence on record, regarding the complicity of the accused with the crime alleged against them.

6

Hence, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable Under Section 307 IPC against A1 and under sections 147 and 324 read with 149 IPC against A2 to A6. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property i.e., stone shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time..

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 12th day of May 2015.)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Mudraola Sridevi

PW2:Mudrakola Sheshiah

PW3:Iytha Ashok

PW4:Iytha Srinu

PW5:Kanchi Shiva

PW6:Ponaganti Balakrishna

PW7:Guguloth Narshimha 7

FOR DEFENCE:

-None –

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 :Signature of PW1 on the complaint dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-2 :Complaint lodged by PW1 dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-3 :Statement of PW1 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-4 :Statement of PW2 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-5 :Statement of PW3 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-6 :Statement of PW4 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-7 :Statement of PW5 recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., dated: 23.06.2014

Ex.P-8 :Signature of PW6 on the confessional statements –cum- seizure panchanama dated: 30.06.2014

Ex.P-9: Signature of PW7 on the confessional statements –cum- seizure panchanama dated: 30.06.2014

FOR DEFENCE:

-None

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JANGAON.