R.V.V.S.Murali Krishna

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: PITHAPURAM

SESSIONS CASE.NO.257 of 2014

(P.R.C.No.13/2014 J.F.C. Magistrate’s Court, Pithapuram connected with Cr.No.120/2013 of Gollaprolu Police station)

DATE OF

Offence : 15.08.2013 Complaint : 16.08.2013 Apprehension of accused: 22.08.2013 Release on Bail: 26.11.2013 Commencement of Trial : 24.03.2015 Closure of Trial : 06.05.2015 Sentence of Order : 11.05.2015

Explanation for delay:The record was received from the

Hon’ble District Court, Rajahmundry on 24.9.2014 and summons were issued

to the accused on 25.9.2014. After apprehension of accused charges were framed on 11.12.2014 and schedule given on 27.2.2015 and trial commenced on 24.3.2015 and the accused examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2015 and Judgment pronounced on 11.5.2015. Hence, there is no delay.

Name of the Complainant:State: Sub Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu P.S. Name of the Accused:

1. Makka Babji, S/o Musili, 35 years, C/Sc Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

2. Makka Nagaratnam @ Papa W/o Musili, 55 years, C/SC-Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

3. Makka Musili, S/o Appiyya, 60 years, C/SC Mala, SC colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

Offence:U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Assistant Sessions Judge Pithapuram.

2

Copies submitted to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry by way of C.D.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry.

3. The Superintendent of Police, E.G.Dt., Kakinada.

4. The Director of Prosecution. O/o. DGP & IGP, Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pithapuram.

6. The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.MURALI KRISHNA, Assistant Sessions Judge

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No.257 of 2014

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Gollaprolu Police Station. ...Complainant.

AND

1. Makka Babji, S/o Musili, 35 years, C/Sc Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

2. Makka Nagaratnam @ Papa W/o Musili, 55 years, C/SC-Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

3. Makka Musili, S/o Appiyya, 60 years, C/SC Mala, SC colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

... Accused.

This case coming on 6.5.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The story of the prosecution which leads to file the charge sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

2.One Makka Varalakshmi, W/o Babji is hereinafter called as the deceased for the sake of brevity. The deceased is wife of A-1 and A-2, A-3 are her in- laws. The marriage between the deceased and A-1 took place about 12½ years ago as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage, the deceased parents presented Rs.10,000/- towards dowry and one sovereign of gold to the accused. A-1 and deceased lead conjugal life happily for some time and during their wedlock, they blessed with 3 male children and out of them, one son died due to ill-health. Subsequently, A-1 started harassment and ill- treatment towards the deceased by demanding additional dowry every day and used to send the deceased to her parents’ house to bring money. The deceased stayed in her parents’ house and the parents of the deceased placed the issue before the elders and sent her with money for leading conjugal life.

But there is no change in the attitude of A-1 and continued his harassment towards the deceased both physically and mentally at the active instigation of 4 his parents to bring money. One month prior to 15.8.2013 A-1 at the active instigation of A-2 and A-3 beat the deceased severely and sent to her parents’ house to bring money. Since then, she was staying in her parents’ house along with her 2 children. Later, A-2 came to the deceased and brought her to their house at Gollaprolu with a promise that they will look after the deceased well without any harassment. As assured by A-2, the deceased was sent to her house to lead conjugal life. On 15.8.2013 night at 11.00 p.m. again A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused her in filthy language for not fulfilling their demand. In view of the ill-treatment and harassment of the accused, the deceased vexed with her life and decided to commit suicide and fell into the well nearby her house. On 16.8.2013 morning the same was intimated to LW1 G.Gopi by phone. Accordingly, on the same day at 11.00 a.m. LW1 G.Gopi gave report to the police and the police registered the case in Cr.No.120/2013 for the offence U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34

IPC. During the course of investigation the police arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram and registered as P.R.C.13/2014. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused and the case was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions

Court, Rajahmundry U/s 209 Cr.P.C and the Hon'ble Sessions Court got it registered as S.C.No.257/2014 and made over the case to this court for disposal in accordance with Law.

4.After appearance of accused, they were examined before this Court and after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, charges

U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, then the matter was posted for trial.

5. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 25 witnesses and examined 13 witnesses as PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 and closed the evidence.

5

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC & 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.POINT:

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased Varalakshmi is wife of A-1 and daughter-in-law of A-2 and A-3. Soon after marriage, A-1 addicted to bad vices and harassed the deceased Varalakshmi by demanding

additional amounts and used to neck out her and the parents of deceased

Varalakshmi used to give petty amounts through the elders and sent the deceased Varalakshmi to the society of A-1. One month prior to incident, A-1 severaly beat the deceased Varalakshmi and sent to her parents house and subsequently A-2 assured that they will lookafter the deceased Varalakshmi properly and took her back to their house. On the day of incident also, on the instigation of A-2 and A-3, A-1 harassed the deceased with sadistic words, consequently the deceased disgusted with her life and fell into Well and committed suicide and basing on the report given by her brother, police registered the case in Cr.No.498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.

10.Now coming into the evidence, the brother of deceased Varalakshmi examined as PW-1, his evidence reveals that the marriage between deceased and A-1 took place about 10 years ago. He does not know the amount presented at the time of marriage. Subsequent to marriage, A-1 addicted to bad vices and used to harass his deceased sister Varalakshmi and A-1 used to spend his earnings in gamblings. A-1 used to demand additional dowry and accordingly, his parents used to give additional amounts to his sister through elders. One year ago at 9.00 a.m. A-1 brother telephoned to him and enquired about his sister, then he stated that his sister not came and again he telephoned and informed him that the deceased committed suicide. Then he rushed to the house of A-1 and noticed the dead body of deceased and on 6 enquiry, he came to know that on the previous night when the deceased brought A-1 from the house of his kept mistress, on the way A-1 hit the head of deceased to a Wall and thrown her into Well and accordingly, he gave report to police and admitted the contents in Ex.P-1. But as seen from Ex.P-1, the fact that A-1 hit the deceased head to a Wall and thrown into the Well did not reveal in Ex.P-1 report. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that police obtained his thumb mark while handing over dead body after post mortem. A-1 not killed his deceased sister and his sister died due to stomach paid and he has not given report to police.

11.PW-1 deposed 3 versions in his evidence, his first version is A-1 harassed the deceased Varalakshmi by demanding money and again deposed that A-1 hit the deceased head to a Wall and thrown into the Well and his 3rd version is his sister died due to stomach pain. One way PW-1 deposed that he gave report to police as in Ex.P-1 and another way he deposed that the police obtained his thumb marks while handing over dead body and PW-1 not given any report to police.

12.The mother of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-2, she also deposed that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.10,000/- dowry and subsequent to the marriage, A-1 was addicted to bad vices and used to harass the deceased Varalakshmi and used to send her by demanding additional dowry, then she used to give petty amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-. About one year ago, A-1 brother telephoned and informed that the deceased fell into

Well, then they rushed there and noticed the dead body of deceased before A- 1’s house and on enquiry, she came to know that the accused beat the deceased and thrown into Well.

13.So also, the sister of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-3, she also deposed that A-1 used to send the deceased by beating and again A-2 used to take her back by assuring that they will look after her properly. About one year ago, A-1 beat the deceased and thrown into Well and her relatives informed the said fact by phone, then they rushed to the house of deceased and found the dead body of deceased lying in front of accused house.

7

14.The evidence of PWs-2 and 3 reveals that A-1 used to send deceased

Varalakshmi to her parents’ house by demanding money and A-1 beat deceased and throw into Well. PW-2 deposed in her cross examination that she has not given any dowry to the accused. The deceased used to come to her house frequently due to stomach pain and after getting treatment, she used to send her back and A-1 never harassed the deceased and deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain. So also, PW-3 deposed in her cross examination that she does not know how the deceased lived with her husband and deceased is suffering with stomach pain.

15.The evidence of PWs-2 and 3 is self-contradictory. One way PW-2 deposed that she gave dowry and A-1 harassed the deceased by demanding money and in other way, she deposed that deceased used to come to her house due to stomach pain and after getting treatment, she used to send her back and she has not given any dowry and deceased died due to stomach pain. So also PW-3 deposed that she does not know how A-1 and deceased lived and deceased is suffering with stomach pain.

16.Another sister of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-4, she deposed that A-1 used to look after the deceased properly and deceased died about one year ago due to stomach pain. The evidence of PW-5 reveals that he is resident of Gollaprolu. A-1 and deceased lived together happily. He does not know the reason for the death of deceased. The evidence of PW-6 reveals that to his knowledge A-1 and deceased lived together happily. So also, the evidence of PWs-7 and 8 reveals that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

17.The evidence of PWs-5 to 8 did not reveal anything about the harassment of accused towards deceased Varalakshmi. All the PWs-5 to 8 deposed that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

18.On perusal of evidence of PWs-1 to 8, though PWs-1 to 3 deposed in their chief examination that A-1 harassed deceased Varalakshmi and used to send her to her parents’ house, PWs-1 to 3 deposed in their cross examination that deceased was suffering with stomach pain. PWs-1 and 2 deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain and PW-3 deposed that she does not know how deceased and A-1 lived together. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs,

PWs-5 to 8 categorically deposed that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

8

So also the evidence of PW-4 reveals that A-1 used to look after the deceased properly and deceased died due to stomach pain. PWs-1 to 4 are no other than close relatives of deceased Varalakshmi, PW-1 is brother, PW-2 is mother and PWs-3 and 4 are sisters of deceased and they deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain.

19.PW-9 is photographer and PW-10 is the then V.R.O, who said to be accompanied with police at the time of scene observation report and attended to inquest and PW-11 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted post mortem examination and their evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20.PW-12 the then, S.I of Police deposed in his evidence that on 21.10.2013 at 9.30 p.m. while he was in station charge, PWs-1,2 and LW3 came to police station and PW-1 given written report and also handed over the accused along with MOs-1 and 2. Then, he registered Ex.P-2 report as case in Cr.No.142/2013 and he examined PWs-1,2 and LW3 in police station and recorded their statements. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LWs-4 to 6 and recorded their statements and sent the accused to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

21.PW-13 deposed that on receipt of post mortem report, he filed charge sheet.

22.The evidence of PWs-12 and 13 is with regarding to recording of statement and visiting scene of offence and their evidence is formal in nature and in the absence of any direct evidence, the evidence of PWs-12 and 13, who are investigating officers is not much helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

23.It is needless to say that since it is criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the material witness PW-2 one way deposed that she gave dowry and another way she deposed that she has not given any dowry. Though

PWs-1 and 2 deposed in their chief examination with regarding to harassment, the version of PW-1 is not consistent with the prosecution case. PW-1 deposed 9 that A-1 himself thrown the deceased into Well, but in his cross examination he denied the overt acts attributed against the accused and categorically deposed that he has not given any report and the police obtained his thumb marks while handing over the dead body of deceased. Since the material witness PW-1 deposed 2 versions, which are contrary to each other, it is doubtful which version shall be taken into consideration. So also the evidence of PWs-2 to 4 is not supported the prosecution case and they deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain. PWs-5 to 8 categorically deposed that A-1 and deceased lived happily and none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything about the overt acts attributed against A-2 and A-3. On perusal of entire evidence on record, there is no evidence on the record that on the instance of A-2 and A-3, A-1 harassed the deceased Varalakshmi, which leads the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

24.In the result, I find A-1 to A-3 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1Geddam Gopi. None. PW-2Geddam Ratnam. PW-3Injarapu Appalaraju. PW-4Geddam Sita. PW-5Injarapu Yesu. PW-6Mudadha Srinu. PW-7Makka Sathibabu. PW-8Makka Mariya. PW-9Yenugudati Peda Sathiraju. PW-10Dadala Apparao. PW-11Dr.B.Chandra Sekhar. PW-12N.Sanyasi Naidu, S.I. PW-13P.Bujjibabu, S.I.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-116.8.13Report given to police by PW-1. Ex.P-216.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5. Ex.P-316.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6. Ex.P-416.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7. Ex.P-516.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8. Exs.P6 to P11 ---Six photographs Ex.P-12---C.D. Ex.P-1316.8.13Scene observation report. Ex.P-1416.8.13Mediators report at 12.40 p.m.. Ex.P-1516.8.13Inquest report. Ex.P-164.9.13Post mortem certificate. Ex.P-176.12.13Analysis report issued by RFSL, Vijayawada. Ex.P-1817.9.13Final opinion. Ex.P-1916.8.13F.I.R in Cr.No.120/2013 of Gollaprolu P.S. Ex.P-2016.8.13Rough sketch

For Defence: Nil.

A.S.J.

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

S.C.257/2014 DT.11.5.2015

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: PITHAPURAM

SESSIONS CASE.NO.257 of 2014

(P.R.C.No.13/2014 J.F.C. Magistrate’s Court, Pithapuram connected with Cr.No.120/2013 of Gollaprolu Police station)

DATE OF

Offence : 15.08.2013 Complaint : 16.08.2013 Apprehension of accused: 22.08.2013 Release on Bail: 26.11.2013 Commencement of Trial : 24.03.2015 Closure of Trial : 06.05.2015 Sentence of Order : 11.05.2015

Explanation for delay:The record was received from the

Hon’ble District Court, Rajahmundry on 24.9.2014 and summons were issued

to the accused on 25.9.2014. After apprehension of accused charges were framed on 11.12.2014 and schedule given on 27.2.2015 and trial commenced on 24.3.2015 and the accused examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 5.5.2015 and Judgment pronounced on 11.5.2015. Hence, there is no delay.

Name of the Complainant:State: Sub Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu P.S. Name of the Accused:

1. Makka Babji, S/o Musili, 35 years, C/Sc Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

2. Makka Nagaratnam @ Papa W/o Musili, 55 years, C/SC-Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

3. Makka Musili, S/o Appiyya, 60 years, C/SC Mala, SC colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

Offence:U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Assistant Sessions Judge Pithapuram.

2

Copies submitted to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry by way of C.D.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry.

3. The Superintendent of Police, E.G.Dt., Kakinada.

4. The Director of Prosecution. O/o. DGP & IGP, Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pithapuram.

6. The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.MURALI KRISHNA, Assistant Sessions Judge

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No.257 of 2014

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Gollaprolu Police Station. ...Complainant.

AND

1. Makka Babji, S/o Musili, 35 years, C/Sc Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

2. Makka Nagaratnam @ Papa W/o Musili, 55 years, C/SC-Mala, SC Colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

3. Makka Musili, S/o Appiyya, 60 years, C/SC Mala, SC colony, near Rangappa Water Tank, Gollaprolu Village.

... Accused.

This case coming on 6.5.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The story of the prosecution which leads to file the charge sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

2.One Makka Varalakshmi, W/o Babji is hereinafter called as the deceased for the sake of brevity. The deceased is wife of A-1 and A-2, A-3 are her in- laws. The marriage between the deceased and A-1 took place about 12½ years ago as per their caste customs. At the time of marriage, the deceased parents presented Rs.10,000/- towards dowry and one sovereign of gold to the accused. A-1 and deceased lead conjugal life happily for some time and during their wedlock, they blessed with 3 male children and out of them, one son died due to ill-health. Subsequently, A-1 started harassment and ill- treatment towards the deceased by demanding additional dowry every day and used to send the deceased to her parents’ house to bring money. The deceased stayed in her parents’ house and the parents of the deceased placed the issue before the elders and sent her with money for leading conjugal life.

But there is no change in the attitude of A-1 and continued his harassment towards the deceased both physically and mentally at the active instigation of 4 his parents to bring money. One month prior to 15.8.2013 A-1 at the active instigation of A-2 and A-3 beat the deceased severely and sent to her parents’ house to bring money. Since then, she was staying in her parents’ house along with her 2 children. Later, A-2 came to the deceased and brought her to their house at Gollaprolu with a promise that they will look after the deceased well without any harassment. As assured by A-2, the deceased was sent to her house to lead conjugal life. On 15.8.2013 night at 11.00 p.m. again A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3 picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused her in filthy language for not fulfilling their demand. In view of the ill-treatment and harassment of the accused, the deceased vexed with her life and decided to commit suicide and fell into the well nearby her house. On 16.8.2013 morning the same was intimated to LW1 G.Gopi by phone. Accordingly, on the same day at 11.00 a.m. LW1 G.Gopi gave report to the police and the police registered the case in Cr.No.120/2013 for the offence U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34

IPC. During the course of investigation the police arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram and registered as P.R.C.13/2014. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused and the case was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions

Court, Rajahmundry U/s 209 Cr.P.C and the Hon'ble Sessions Court got it registered as S.C.No.257/2014 and made over the case to this court for disposal in accordance with Law.

4.After appearance of accused, they were examined before this Court and after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, charges

U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, then the matter was posted for trial.

5. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 25 witnesses and examined 13 witnesses as PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-20 and closed the evidence.

5

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC & 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.POINT:

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased Varalakshmi is wife of A-1 and daughter-in-law of A-2 and A-3. Soon after marriage, A-1 addicted to bad vices and harassed the deceased Varalakshmi by demanding

additional amounts and used to neck out her and the parents of deceased

Varalakshmi used to give petty amounts through the elders and sent the deceased Varalakshmi to the society of A-1. One month prior to incident, A-1 severaly beat the deceased Varalakshmi and sent to her parents house and subsequently A-2 assured that they will lookafter the deceased Varalakshmi properly and took her back to their house. On the day of incident also, on the instigation of A-2 and A-3, A-1 harassed the deceased with sadistic words, consequently the deceased disgusted with her life and fell into Well and committed suicide and basing on the report given by her brother, police registered the case in Cr.No.498-A, 306 r/w 34 IPC.

10.Now coming into the evidence, the brother of deceased Varalakshmi examined as PW-1, his evidence reveals that the marriage between deceased and A-1 took place about 10 years ago. He does not know the amount presented at the time of marriage. Subsequent to marriage, A-1 addicted to bad vices and used to harass his deceased sister Varalakshmi and A-1 used to spend his earnings in gamblings. A-1 used to demand additional dowry and accordingly, his parents used to give additional amounts to his sister through elders. One year ago at 9.00 a.m. A-1 brother telephoned to him and enquired about his sister, then he stated that his sister not came and again he telephoned and informed him that the deceased committed suicide. Then he rushed to the house of A-1 and noticed the dead body of deceased and on 6 enquiry, he came to know that on the previous night when the deceased brought A-1 from the house of his kept mistress, on the way A-1 hit the head of deceased to a Wall and thrown her into Well and accordingly, he gave report to police and admitted the contents in Ex.P-1. But as seen from Ex.P-1, the fact that A-1 hit the deceased head to a Wall and thrown into the Well did not reveal in Ex.P-1 report. In the cross examination, PW1 deposed that police obtained his thumb mark while handing over dead body after post mortem. A-1 not killed his deceased sister and his sister died due to stomach paid and he has not given report to police.

11.PW-1 deposed 3 versions in his evidence, his first version is A-1 harassed the deceased Varalakshmi by demanding money and again deposed that A-1 hit the deceased head to a Wall and thrown into the Well and his 3rd version is his sister died due to stomach pain. One way PW-1 deposed that he gave report to police as in Ex.P-1 and another way he deposed that the police obtained his thumb marks while handing over dead body and PW-1 not given any report to police.

12.The mother of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-2, she also deposed that at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.10,000/- dowry and subsequent to the marriage, A-1 was addicted to bad vices and used to harass the deceased Varalakshmi and used to send her by demanding additional dowry, then she used to give petty amounts of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/-. About one year ago, A-1 brother telephoned and informed that the deceased fell into

Well, then they rushed there and noticed the dead body of deceased before A- 1’s house and on enquiry, she came to know that the accused beat the deceased and thrown into Well.

13.So also, the sister of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-3, she also deposed that A-1 used to send the deceased by beating and again A-2 used to take her back by assuring that they will look after her properly. About one year ago, A-1 beat the deceased and thrown into Well and her relatives informed the said fact by phone, then they rushed to the house of deceased and found the dead body of deceased lying in front of accused house.

7

14.The evidence of PWs-2 and 3 reveals that A-1 used to send deceased

Varalakshmi to her parents’ house by demanding money and A-1 beat deceased and throw into Well. PW-2 deposed in her cross examination that she has not given any dowry to the accused. The deceased used to come to her house frequently due to stomach pain and after getting treatment, she used to send her back and A-1 never harassed the deceased and deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain. So also, PW-3 deposed in her cross examination that she does not know how the deceased lived with her husband and deceased is suffering with stomach pain.

15.The evidence of PWs-2 and 3 is self-contradictory. One way PW-2 deposed that she gave dowry and A-1 harassed the deceased by demanding money and in other way, she deposed that deceased used to come to her house due to stomach pain and after getting treatment, she used to send her back and she has not given any dowry and deceased died due to stomach pain. So also PW-3 deposed that she does not know how A-1 and deceased lived and deceased is suffering with stomach pain.

16.Another sister of deceased Varalakshmi is examined as PW-4, she deposed that A-1 used to look after the deceased properly and deceased died about one year ago due to stomach pain. The evidence of PW-5 reveals that he is resident of Gollaprolu. A-1 and deceased lived together happily. He does not know the reason for the death of deceased. The evidence of PW-6 reveals that to his knowledge A-1 and deceased lived together happily. So also, the evidence of PWs-7 and 8 reveals that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

17.The evidence of PWs-5 to 8 did not reveal anything about the harassment of accused towards deceased Varalakshmi. All the PWs-5 to 8 deposed that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

18.On perusal of evidence of PWs-1 to 8, though PWs-1 to 3 deposed in their chief examination that A-1 harassed deceased Varalakshmi and used to send her to her parents’ house, PWs-1 to 3 deposed in their cross examination that deceased was suffering with stomach pain. PWs-1 and 2 deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain and PW-3 deposed that she does not know how deceased and A-1 lived together. As discussed in the earlier paragraphs,

PWs-5 to 8 categorically deposed that A-1 and deceased lived together happily.

8

So also the evidence of PW-4 reveals that A-1 used to look after the deceased properly and deceased died due to stomach pain. PWs-1 to 4 are no other than close relatives of deceased Varalakshmi, PW-1 is brother, PW-2 is mother and PWs-3 and 4 are sisters of deceased and they deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain.

19.PW-9 is photographer and PW-10 is the then V.R.O, who said to be accompanied with police at the time of scene observation report and attended to inquest and PW-11 is the Civil Asst. Surgeon, who conducted post mortem examination and their evidence is not much helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20.PW-12 the then, S.I of Police deposed in his evidence that on 21.10.2013 at 9.30 p.m. while he was in station charge, PWs-1,2 and LW3 came to police station and PW-1 given written report and also handed over the accused along with MOs-1 and 2. Then, he registered Ex.P-2 report as case in Cr.No.142/2013 and he examined PWs-1,2 and LW3 in police station and recorded their statements. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined LWs-4 to 6 and recorded their statements and sent the accused to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

21.PW-13 deposed that on receipt of post mortem report, he filed charge sheet.

22.The evidence of PWs-12 and 13 is with regarding to recording of statement and visiting scene of offence and their evidence is formal in nature and in the absence of any direct evidence, the evidence of PWs-12 and 13, who are investigating officers is not much helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

23.It is needless to say that since it is criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the material witness PW-2 one way deposed that she gave dowry and another way she deposed that she has not given any dowry. Though

PWs-1 and 2 deposed in their chief examination with regarding to harassment, the version of PW-1 is not consistent with the prosecution case. PW-1 deposed 9 that A-1 himself thrown the deceased into Well, but in his cross examination he denied the overt acts attributed against the accused and categorically deposed that he has not given any report and the police obtained his thumb marks while handing over the dead body of deceased. Since the material witness PW-1 deposed 2 versions, which are contrary to each other, it is doubtful which version shall be taken into consideration. So also the evidence of PWs-2 to 4 is not supported the prosecution case and they deposed that deceased died due to stomach pain. PWs-5 to 8 categorically deposed that A-1 and deceased lived happily and none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything about the overt acts attributed against A-2 and A-3. On perusal of entire evidence on record, there is no evidence on the record that on the instance of A-2 and A-3, A-1 harassed the deceased Varalakshmi, which leads the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

24.In the result, I find A-1 to A-3 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC and 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court this the 11 th day of May, 2015.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1Geddam Gopi. None. PW-2Geddam Ratnam. PW-3Injarapu Appalaraju. PW-4Geddam Sita. PW-5Injarapu Yesu. PW-6Mudadha Srinu. PW-7Makka Sathibabu. PW-8Makka Mariya. PW-9Yenugudati Peda Sathiraju. PW-10Dadala Apparao. PW-11Dr.B.Chandra Sekhar. PW-12N.Sanyasi Naidu, S.I. PW-13P.Bujjibabu, S.I.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-116.8.13Report given to police by PW-1. Ex.P-216.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5. Ex.P-316.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6. Ex.P-416.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7. Ex.P-516.8.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8. Exs.P6 to P11 ---Six photographs Ex.P-12---C.D. Ex.P-1316.8.13Scene observation report. Ex.P-1416.8.13Mediators report at 12.40 p.m.. Ex.P-1516.8.13Inquest report. Ex.P-164.9.13Post mortem certificate. Ex.P-176.12.13Analysis report issued by RFSL, Vijayawada. Ex.P-1817.9.13Final opinion. Ex.P-1916.8.13F.I.R in Cr.No.120/2013 of Gollaprolu P.S. Ex.P-2016.8.13Rough sketch

For Defence: Nil.

A.S.J.

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

S.C.257/2014 DT.11.5.2015

PITHAPURAM

Sessions Ca ONS JUDGE.

4se No. 17/2013

(ER.C.29/12_on the file of l.E.C.Magistrate

Tate, Tuni connected with Cr.No.7/12

of S.H.O.Tuni Mandal

DATES OE

Offence 17.6.2012.

:17.06.2012

Complaint

18.06.2012 Apprehension of accused 20.12.2012

Released on Bail

:03.12.2013 Commencement of trial

:4.12.2013

Closure of trial

:5.12.2013 Sentence of Order

Explanation for delay: No delay.

State rep. by

Name of the complainant

Sub-Inspector of Police.

Tuni P.S.

Name of the accused Polavarapu Rambabu S/o Apparao, 32 years,

Kankipatiarigaruvu, Tuni Mandal.

Offence :U/Secs.452 & 307 IPC.

Finding Not Guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER

The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs. 452

& 307 I.P.C., and he is acquitted of the same under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail

bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The case property M.O.1. to 6 shall be

destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd// R.v.V.S.MURALIKRISHNA //

ASST. SESsIÖNS JUDGE.

PITHAPURAM.

Copies submitted to:

. The Registrar (Judical), Iligh C'ourt of Andhr Pradesh.

Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge. 1E.G.

District., Rajahmundry.

2. The District and Sessions Judge. E.G. D., Rajahmundry.

3. The Superintendent of Police. E.G. Dt. akin�da.

4. The Director of Prosecution. O/o. DGP & IGp Complex.

Saifabad. Hyderabad-500004.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pithapurin.

6. The Judicial First Class Magistrate. Tunli

66

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT

T

PRESENT: Sri R.V.VSSIONS JUDGE PITHAPURAN

N.S.

Asst. Sesslons Judge. Murali Krishna

Thursday, the 5th day

Sessions Case No. 17/2013. December, 2013.

Between:

State rep. by

Sub-Inspector of Police, Tun1 Police Station. ....Complainant.

And

Polavarapu Rambabu S./o Apparao, 32 years,

Settibalija. Kankipativarigaruvu, Tuni ..Accused.

This case is coming on this day belore me tor final hearing in the presence

of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Kumar, Additional Publie Prosecutor for complainant and of

Sri K.Manikyala Rao. Advocatefor accused and having stood over for

consideration. this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police. Tuni Police Station filed the charge sheet in

C.No.7 2012 against the accused, which is numbered as PRC 29/2012 on the file

of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni for the offence punishable U/Secs. 452 and 307 IPC that the same was submitted before the Hon'ble District and Sessions

Judge. Rajahmundry and numbered as S.C.17/2013 on the file of this court.

The story of the prosecution which leads to file the charge sheet is briefly as

follows:

The accused and the defacto complanant are the residents of Ammajipeta,

Tuni. The defacto complainant and her husband used to do mason work in the team of the accused, the defacto complainant diseontinued to work due to her back ache. ince the, the accused frequently visitng the house ot 1.WT Piradhi

Malleswari and asked her to attend work but 1.W.T MalleswarI relused for the same. 5ut the accUscd used to visit frequentlv. On that some suspicion in the mind ol L W.I's husband, on that L. W. I Malleswari informed to the accusednot to cOmc to her house but the accused did not stop his attitude. L.W.I's husband also pliaced the dispute betore the clders and the elders admonished the accused Dut vacated titude of the dccused. Then L. W.I M a l l e s w a r i there is no change in the at

house Tuni.

near R.T.C. Complex, to the present the house and shifted days prior to the incident, the defacto that a0out 40 It is further alleged Went to Warangal to attend coolie workK. 3. S nusband Complainant L. W.I Malleswari came to the house of de tacto

P.M the accused

On 16.6.2012 at about 10 PM the "plainant questioned the accused about his then the defacto complainant and ome altercation took place and

this connection,

trequent arrival to her house. In t defacto complainant and her children went the accused left away from ne C

to slept.

It is further alleged that On tne early hours of 17.6.2012 at 3 A.M, the 4 accused trespassed into the nOuSc O vietim with an intention to kill her after due " CHAVU LANJA". Then L.W.1 preparation and poured acid upon ner by saying

The neighbours came there and on seeing them, the Malleswari raised cries. The victim sustained burn accused absconded from there along With acid tin.

injuries on her face, chest and hands and then she herself and her three children went to the house of L. W.2 Pikki Durga Rao who shifted her to the Govt. Hospital

On receipt of medical intimation, the then Head Constable recorded the Tuni.

statement of victim and registered the same as a case in Cr.No. 72/12 under Sec.

Later the S.l. of Police took up further 307 1.P.C. and conducted investigation.

investigation and arrested the accused and seized Material Objects and sent the

Same to the R.E.S.L and on receipt of reports and Wound Certificate, he filed the

Charge Sheet.

ne charge sheet was taken on file U/Secs. 452 & 307 IPC against the 5. on accuscd by the learned Judicial First Clss Magistrate Court. Tuni and registered as

PRC 29/2012 d later after appearance of accused the copies of documents were furnished to the accused and the case was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions 3

Court, U Sec.209 Cr.P.C. and the Hon'

ion'ble

Sessions court got it registered as

S.C.17/2013 and made over the case to thi. COurt for trial in accordance with law.

After appearance OI the aceused, he as examined belore this court and after 6.

hearing both sides and perusing the materia available on record, charges U/Secs.

452 & 307 IPC were tramed read over and evnlaaad to the accused, as the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thos the matter was posted for trial.

In order to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has Cited as many asT/wilnesses, out ot thenm four witnoceac uere examined and got marked

Fs.P-I to P-17 and M.O.I to M.O.6 and closed their evidence.

8. After closure ot the prosecution evidence. the accused examined USec.sl3

CrP.C. he denied the meriminating material against him and reported no defence.

9 Heard arguments from both sides.

10. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the acused

for the offences punishable U/Secs.452 & 307 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?

POINT

1Iis the case of prosecution that the accused had acquaintance with PW.I

Piradhi Malleswari as she used to do mason work in the team of accused tor some tume and subsequently she discontinued Even though the aceused visIting her house and requestng her to altend coolie work nd in thal conneetion a susicon aTose in the mind of PWI' husband and the nnatter placed betore the eldeIS.

Tso admonished the accuscd the day of ineident, in the absence o

n

husband, the accuscd cane to her house at 10 PM and threateed her that

early hours

dsA.M the accused trespassed into the

acid and on the he will pour

pon her with an int

nouse of PW.I and poured acid upon her ntention to kill her.

Now coming into the evidence of P.W.1 her evider reveals that she used 12 to do mason work in the team ol dc©use, subsequently she discontinued and d

attend coolie

the accused used to request net to attend cool On the day

work but she refused.

of incident, the accused came 1Ouse and when she asked him to go away.

used abused her as LANJA NINNU

on that CHACHEDAKA the

VADALANU" and beat her on C head and pushed her heads towards wall and

threatened that he will pour acluupo her and he will also commit suicide. By that

time her children also present uc 5y saying the above words, the accused left

that place and she closed the gate and slept in her house. At about 3 A.M she noticed some liquid on her chest which causing severe pain, then she raised cries accordingly her children also Woke up and took her to the house of P.W.2

PDurgaRao who shifted her to the hospital. She hand over M.O.I to M.O.3. saree.

blouse and petticoat to the Police. Though PW.1 deposed that the Police recorded

her statement when the contents were read over to the witness, she deposed that

she has not stated the contents in the statement read over to her. The leaned Addl.

Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile and during the course of eross

Cxamination, she denicd the statement given by her to the police on which basis

this case was rcgistered as well as 161 Cr.P.C. Statement recorded by the

Investigating Officer She further deposed that for the first time she deposed about the incident today and she do not know where Ex.P.I statement was prepared and

who gave that intormation

She has not gave report that the accused beat her on the day of incident at 10 PM and threatened her and she denied that the Police arrested her husband by suspecting that he poured acid. She further denied on the nstance ot her husband, she is givinp eyidence against te aceuscu 5

13. On close examination of the evidenca of p w 1, her evidence did not reveals that the accused trespassed into her hous nouse at 3 A.M and poured acid upon her.

Though P. W.I deposed that on the day ofin hcident at 10 P.M the accused came to her house and beat her and threatened that h L-:ll her. The Charge Sheet did

will

not reveal those tacts and P. W.I categoricaly denie

that she has stated the said

before the Police under 16l Cr.P.C., tatament and she also denying ulc

statement given to the police under 154 CtPCc on which basis this case was

registered.

The evidence of P.W.2 P.Durga Rao reveals that on the day of ineident at

14

3.30 A.M PW.I along with her children came to his house by Crying that

Then he shifted her to Tuni Govt. Hospital by his motor

somebody poured liquid.

cycle. Except that, his evidence also did not reveals anything about the overt acts

His evidence clearly reveals P.W.I erying that somebody

against the accused.

pour liquid. On clOse examination of evidence of P.Ws. 1. and 2, their evidence did not reveal anything about the overt acts attributed against the accused.

Though the prosecution cited the children of P.W.I as eye witnesses , the 15.

prosecution not examined them as well as the prosecution cited L.W.6. Giduthrui

Nookaratnam. L.W.7 Kakarapalli Druga, L.W.8 Chinni Pydithalli. L. W.9 Plradhi

Chantayya, L. W. 10 Pedakapu Ramana and L. W.IT Piradhi Kotababu who said to

be came to know abut the incident through P W.I, the prosecution also not

Cxamincd them. The material witncsses P.W.I and P. VW.2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case to any extent.

T6The evidence of PW 3UCh Raju, the then HeadConstable reveals that on

TCceipt oI medical intimation, he recorded the statement of P.W.I registered the dcdn COnductcd part of investigation and seized M.O.4. and 5. The evidence Ou w Rambabu reveals that he took up further investigation and arrested tc

Ccuscd and the accused confessed the offence and on leading ol accusca, nc 6 R.E.S.L. for house OT accused and sent to the from the seized M.0.6 acid bottle sufficient VIdence, the testimony of P.W.4 is not direct evi ce of analysis. In the absence the evidence of P.W.4 reveals that the

Though

T

S

accused. to prove the guilt of ss to say that the confession made before the Police accused confessed. it is need ugn the evidence of P.W.4 reveals that he Officer is inadmissible in evidence. P.W.I did not depose that the sed, the material witness seized acid tin from the aco prosecution witnesses deposed

ell as none of the

upon her as well accused pour acid w,I. There fore in the absence of such that the accused poured aciu evidence. the alleged seizure OI acid tin from the possession of accused is not sufticient to establish the guilt of accused the Initially the Investigating Onicer not collected any evidence where 17. accused secured the acid and the investigating Officer not collected any technical evidence like finger prints of the accused etc at the house of P.W.1 and there is no

The material witness the victim turned hostile direct evidence available on record. and did not support the case of prosecution as well as material witness P.w.2. who shifted P.W.I to the hospital also deposed that P.W.I raised cries that somebody

The defence contending that the husband of P.W.I has suspicion

poured acid.

against P.W.I and he himself might be poured acid and the police also arrested the husband of P.W.I on suspicion and to save him, PW.I deposed that her husband went to coolie work to Warangal 40 days prior to the incident. But the defenee not lcading any evidence to establish the defence, however the detence not adduced any evidence to establish the defence, Since it Is a erminal trial, it is the burden of the proseCcution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the material witnesses P W.I and 2 turned host1le and did not depOSe dnyting about the overt acts of the aceused attributed against the accused and the witness t0 prove the guit O prOSccuton not examined any other independent perusal of entire evideneee on record. there Is no acceptable eVIdence

D

u

to prove the guilt against the aceused beva Idall reasonable Therefore in doubt, my considered view. the prosecution failed. bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable under Sec, 452

and 307 I. P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. There fore I hold the aceused found O guilty for the said offences and they are acquitted for the same. The pomt is answe ered accordingly.

. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sees. 452 & 307 1.P.C.. and he IS acquitted of the same under Sec. 232

CPCand the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canelled. The case properiy

MO.1. to M.O.6 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transeribed by him and pronounced by ne

in the Open Court, on this the 5h day of December. 2013.

R.V.v.s.MURALIKRISHNA //

Sd //

ASST. SESsIONS JUDGE

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1- Piradhi Malleswari Nil.

PW2-Pikki Durga Rao

PW3-UCh. Raju.

HC. 1410. Tuni Town P.S.

PW 4 Y Rambabu. S.I of Police, Tuni Town P.S.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Signaturc ofLW.T on report.

P

161 Cr.P, statemet of PW.I

161 CrPC., statement of P W.2

Tospital intunatio

P4

O11gmal irst ntomaton Report

xP

P6 Scene observaton Ieport

IP7 1o P9 photos

P10

PII Rough skcteh

Statement for recovery of acid bottle

IPI2

IxPIR Medator's report

IP14 Memo for Addmg of Sec. 452 1PC

PIS RESTreport

Pl6 RESI report 8

Wound Certilicate

Ex.P.17:

-NIL

FOR DEFENCE:

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1

Maroon colour saree

M.O.2. Blouse.

M.O.3: Green colour petti coat.

M.0.4. Blue colour pillow.

M.O.5 Floor piece.

M.O.6; Acid bottle.

Sd // R.V.v.s.MURALIKRISHNA //

A.ST

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: PITHAPURAM

SESSIONS CASE.NO.105 of 2014

(P.R.C.No.3/2014 J.F.C. Magistrate’s Court, Pithapuram connected with Cr.No.142/2013 of GollaproluP.S)

DATE OF

Offence : 21.10.2013

Complaint : 21.10.2013

Apprehension of accused: 22.10.2013

Release on Bail: 30.11.2013

Commencement of Trial : 05.05.2015

Closure of Trial : 06.05.2015

Sentence of Order : 07.05.2015

Explanation for delay:The record was received from the

Hon’ble District Court, Rajahmundry on 28.4.2014 and summons were issued

to the accused on 1.5.2014. After apprehension of accused charges were framed on 9.7.2014 and schedule given on 20.4.2015 and trial commenced on 5.5.2015 and the accused examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 6.5.2015 and Judgment

pronounced on 7.5.2015. Hence, there is no delay.

Name of the Complainant:State: Sub Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu P.S.

Name of the Accused:

Kaneti Nookaraju, S/o Chanti, 23 years, c/SC Mala, Agraharam, Pithapuram, Driver of Auto No.AP05 TA 1921.

Offence:U/s 398 IPC.

Plea of Accused:Not Guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 398 IPC and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be returned to Morukurthi Saranya Kumari and MO-2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time .

Assistant Sessions Judge Pithapuram.

2

Copies submitted to:

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh through the District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry.

2. The District and Sessions Judge, E.G.Dt., Rajahmundry.

3. The Superintendent of Police, E.G.Dt., Kakinada.

4. The Director of Prosecution. O/o. DGP & IGP, Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pithapuram.

6. The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

Present: Sri R.V.V.S.MURALI KRISHNA, Assistant Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No.105 of 2014

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police,

GollaproluPolice Station. ...Complainant.

AND

Kaneti Nookaraju, S/o Chanti, 23 years, c/SC Mala, Agraharam, Pithapuram,

Driver of Auto No.AP05 TA 1921. ... Accused.

This case coming on 6.5.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K.V.Ramana, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The story of the prosecution which leads to file the charge sheet, in brief, is as follows:-

2.One Kurre Kanaka Nageswara Rao is resident of Gollaprolu village and he is working under cotton dealer Bassa Rajababu. On 21.10.2013 on the instructions of Bassa Rajababu, the defacto complainant proceeded to

Rangampeta for business purpose and after completion of business work, during the course of return journey, he reached Pithapuram at 8.00 p.m. and boarded Auto bearing No.AP 5 TA 1921 and when said auto reached near

Gorrikandi canal bund, the accused stopped the auto, brought one large knife and threatened Nageswararao to give his cash bag and tried to rob the cash bag fromthe hands of Nageswararao and out of fear, Nageswararao raised cries and ran towards NH-216 road and by that time LW2 D.Prasad and LW3

B.Ramana while going to Gollaprolu from Pithapuram on their motorbike, observed Nageswararao and stopped their motorcycle and enquired

Nageswararao and after ascertaining the incident, they chased and caught hold of accused and handed over the accused along with auto and knife to

Gollaprolu Police and defacto complainant gave report to police and the police registered the same as case in Cr.No.142/2013 for the offence U/s 398 IPC and investigated into. Hence, the charge.

4

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 398 IPC by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram and registered as

P.R.C.3/2014. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to accused and the case was committed to the Hon'ble Sessions

Court, Rajahmundry U/s 209 Cr.P.C and the Hon'ble Sessions Court got it registered as S.C.No.105/2014 and made over the case to this court for disposal in accordance with Law.

4.After appearance of accused, he was examined before this Court and after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record, charge

U/s 398 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, then the matter was posted for trial.

5. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has cited as many as 8 witnesses and examined 4 witnesses as PWs-1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and MOs-1 and 2 and closed the evidence.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating material against him and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 398 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.POINT:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.10.2013 PW-1 proceeded to

Rangampeta on his business work and after completion of his work, during the course of return journey, he reached Pithapuram and boarded MO-1 auto driven by the accused and when the auto reached scene of offence i.e.

Gorrikandi canal bund, the accused stopped the auto and threatened PW-1 with a knife and tried to take away his cash bag, then PW-1 escaped from the hands of accused and raised cries, then LWs-2 and 3 observed PW-1, 5 ascertained the incident, caught hold of accused and handed over to police.

Then PW-1 gave report to police, on which basis this case was regsitered.

10.Now coming into the evidence, the material witness PW-1, who is victim in this case deposed in his evidence that he is writing accounts in the shops.

As on the date of incident, he is working as accountant in Siva Wines. On 21.10.2013 at 8.30 p.m. while he was at the shop, the accused came and consumed loose liquor at his shop and made galata by breaking bottle. Then, he handed over the accused and auto to police station. He identified the auto as MO-1. He denied that he has given Ex.P-2 report. He deposed that police obtained his signature on blank paper.

11.On perusal of evidence of PW-1, he did not depose anything about the overt acts attributed against the accused as well as did not depose about the prosecution story and his evidence did not reveal that on the date of incident, he proceeded to Rangampeta and during the course of return journey, he boarded the accused auto at Pithapuram and the accused threatened him with a knife and tried to take away his cash bag.

12.As per the prosecution case, PW-2 and LW3 heard the cries of PW-1, ascertained the incident and chased the accused. Now coming into the evidence, PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution to any extent. He dpeosed that he does not know anything about this case and police not examined him. So also the evidence of PW-3, who is partner of Siva

Wines not reveals anything about the prosecution story. The evidence of PW-3 reveals that he came to know about the galata at the wines shop through PW- 1, except that his evidence did not support the prosecution case to any extent.

13.The investigating officer is examined as PW-4, he deposed that on 21.10.2013 at 9.30 p.m. while he was in station charge, PWs-1, 2 and LW3 came to police station and PW-1 given written report and also handed over

MOs-1 and 2 and he registered Ex.P-2 report as case in Cr.No.142/2013 and examined PWs-1, 2 and LW3 in police station and recorded their statements.

He arrested the accused in police station and sent him to judicial custody. On 6 the next day, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, he secured LWs-4 to 6 at scene of offence and recorded their statements. He returned to police station and seized MOs-1 and 2 and on the next day, he examined the owner of crime vehicle and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. The scene of offence is below 100 meters from the main road.

14.In the cross examination, he deposed that he has not examined Bassa

Rajababu and he has not examined any person at Rangampeta from where

PW-1 started. He has not verified any business record of Bassa Rajababu and he has not verified whether PW-1 has cash or not. He put the date on rough sketch as 21.10.2013, so also on Form No.66. The accused is in drunken state, but he has not sent him to hospital.

15.The oral evidence of PW-1 reveals that basing on the report given by

PW-1, he registered the case in Cr.No.142/2013 and arrested the accused and seized MOs-1 and 2 in police station. He further deposed mediators are not available. Initially, the evidence of PW-4 was not corroborated by any of the independent witnesses including the defacto complainant. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the prosecution story. With regarding to investigation, it appears that PW-4 not conducted the investigation in proper lines. It is the case of prosecution that PW-1 went to Rangampeta for the business purpose, but the investigation officer not collected any evidence to ascertain said fact that on the date of incident PW-1 went to Rangampeta and he collected some cash at Rangampeta. Though the prosecution case reveals that PW-1 boarded the accused auto at Pithapuram, but the investigating officer not collected any evidenc that accused is auto driver at Uppada bus stand and the investigating officer not even seized any driving licence from the accused to prove that he is auto driver. Though PW-4 deposed that PWs-1, 2 and LW3 handed over the accused along with MOs-1 and 2, he has not prepared seizurenama and he has not affixed identity slips containing signatures of PWs-1, 2 and LW3 on MOs-1 and 2. Though the investigating officer said to be visited the scene of offence on the next day and prepared 7

Ex.P-7 rough sketch, but Ex.P-7 contains date under the signature as 21.10.2013. Though PW-2 deposed that he seized MOs-1 and 2 on the next day of Ex.P-2 report, Form-66 also contains date as 21.10.2013. All the said things shows the mechanical attitude of investigating officer. The investigating officer also left material witness i.e. owner of PW-1 to ascertain whether he sent PW-1 to Rangampeta on the day of incident. The investigating officer not collected any positive evidence at the scene of offence. As seen from the evidence of PW-1 it appears that a galata took place at Wine shop, then the wine shop persons handed over the accused and auto to police station and on that, police registered serious case against the accused and planted MO-2. It is pertinent to note that PW-4 categorically deposed that the accused is in drunken state, but he has not sent the accused to hospital for ascertaining that fact. All the circumstances clinchingly reveals that the investigating officer mechanically conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, which deserves suitable action against the officer concerned.

16.On overall consideration of evidence placed before me, analysed and discussed in the earlier paragraphs, there is no material to prove the overt acts attributed against the accused. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 398 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 398 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

17.It is brought to the notice of this Court that as per the Orders of the

Hon'ble High Court in Crl.P.No.1968/2014 MO-1 auto was returned to

Morukurthi Saranya Kumari by the J.F.C. Magistrate, Pithapuram by way of official memo in Dis.No.533, dt.29.5.2014. Therefore, MO-1 is ordered to be returned to Morukurthi Saranya Kumari after expiry of appeal time.

18.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 398 IPC and he is acquitted U/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. MO-1 shall be returned to

Morukurthi Saranya Kumari and MO-2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

8

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court this the 7 th day of May, 2015.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1Kurre Kanaka Nageswara Rao.None. PW-2Dasam Prasad. PW-3Bassa Durga Prasad. PW-4N.Sanyasi Naidu, S.I.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1--Signature of PW-1 on the report given to police. Ex.P-221.10.13Report given to police by PW-1. Ex.P-321.10.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1. Ex.P-421.10.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2. Ex.P-521.10.13161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3. Ex.P-621.10.13F.I.R in Cr.No.142/2013 of Gollaprolu P.S. Ex.P-721.10.13Rough sketch.

For Defence:Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1Auto bearing No.AP05 TA 1921. MO-2Knife.

A.S.J.

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

S.C.105/2014 DT.7.5.2015

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PEDDAPURAM

Present:-Sri.S. Srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Wednesday, the 12th day of March, 2014

OS.No. 71/2013

Between:-

Malireddi Kasiviswanadham … Petitioner

And

Peddinti Lakshmi and 3 others Respondents

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.C.K.R.,,Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri D.K.J., advocate for defendant and this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This suit is filed under Or. 7 rule 1 CPC to pass a decree for Rs. 1,80,320/- against the assets of Late Peddinti Satyanarayana lying in the hands of defendants together costs and subsequent intreset at 24 % per annum on the principal amount ie., Rs. 1,20,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter j@ 6% per annum till realization in favour of the plaintiff.

F.S. memo filed F.S. recorded. Hence, suit dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of March ,

2014.

Sd/-S. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Peddapuram Appendix of Evidence - Nil -

Sd/-S. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Peddapuram