Sri Ratna Prasad Kondamudi

1

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

FAC/I ADDL., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-I ADDL., JUDICIAL MAGISTARTE OF I

CLASS, ELURU

Present: Sri K. RATNA PRASAD, Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Eluru

TUESDAY, THIS THE 17th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

C.C.No.1054 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

The State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedavegi Police Station.

... Complainant

A N D

Vemula Nageswara Rao, S/o. Veera Swami, Age 60 years, C/Vaddera, R/o. Prakash Nagar, Janampeta Village of Pedavegi Mandal, Ph.7995533522.

… Accused

This case is coming on this day i.e., 10.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and of Sri P.V.N.Muneswara Rao Counsel for accused, and upon hearing arguments, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arose out of Crime No.304/2022 filed by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Pedavegi P.S. registered against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 186 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is that on 04.09.2022 at about 09.45

A.M when complainant/K.Satyavathi while taking children to Anganvadi Centre in the middle of way the accused obstructed Defacto complainant while discharging her legitimate duties and also abused her in filthy language by insulting her modesty and as such Defacto complaint reported the same before police. Basing on report of defacto complainant L.W.7/Y.V.V.Satyanarayana, S.I of Police registered the same 2

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru as a case in Cr.No.304/2022 under Sec.186 and 509 of IPC, visited the scene of offence area, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence, examined witnesses and later hand over entire record to L.W.8/Sri.M.Lakshman, SI of Police who served

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and accused complied the same and after completion of investigation L.W.8 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file by one of my learned predecessors in the office for the offence under

Sections 186 and 509 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused.

4.On appearance of accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. and examined under Sec. 251 of

Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, substance leveled against accused read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused nobody was examined and no documents were marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material evidence against him and his plea was total denial and reported no defence evidence and no evidence was marked on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 186 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.?

3

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

P O I N T :

9.In order to answer this point it is necessary to evaluate the evidence on record. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 to prove its case. L.W.1/K.Satyavathi is examined as P.W.1 and in her chief examination evidence, she deposed that since nine years she has been working as helper in

Anganvadi in Janampeta and at about 5 or 6 months back at about 09.00 A.M while she was taking children to the Anganvadi centre in the middle way accuse obstructed her and threatened her by saying that he will see her end and abused her in filthy language. P.W.1 further deposed that accused obstructed her while discharging her legitimate duties and as such she reported the same under Ex.P.1 to police.

10.L.W.2/K.Srinivasa Rao who is husband of P.W.1, who was working as

Journalist is examined as P.W.2. In his chief examination evidence P.W.2 deposed that at about four months back at about 09.00 A.M, he brought P.W.1 to Anganvadi

Centre situated at Janampeta and while he was returning to his house, he heard some cries and meanwhile P.W.1 called him through phone stating that accused obstructed and abused her in filthy language and then he gave advise to P.W.1 to give complaint to police.

11.P.W.3/V.Khadaramma, P.W.4/V.Kiran, P.W.5/G.Venkateswara Rao, and

P.W.6/D.Nagendra Babu are projected as eye witnesses to the prosecution case.

L.W.7/Y.V.V.Satyanarayana investigation officer is examined as P.W.7. He deposed in his chief examination evidence that P.W.1 and her husband presented Ex.P.1 report and he registered the same as a case in Cr.NO.304/2022 under Sec.186 and 509 of IPC and issued Ex.P.6 FIR, examined and recorded statement of P.Ws.1 and 4

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru 2 visited the scene of offence area and recorded the statement of P.Ws.3 to 6 and there he prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch of scene of offence and later he hand over entire record to L.W.8 who issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused and then filed charge sheet after completion of investigation.

12.Coming to the appreciation of the evidence on record, P.W.1 in her chief examination evidence deposed that about five or six months ago while she was taking children to Anganvadi Center at Janampeta, accused obstructed her while discharging her legitimate duty. Although, it is the case of prosecution that accused obstructed P.W.1 while discharging her legitimate duty, the elicitation in the cross examination evidence of P.W.7/Investigation Officer state that he did not examine the employer of P.W.1 and did not collect any record from Anganvadi Centre of

Prakash Nagar. Thus, there is no documentary evidence before this Court to show that whether P.W.1 has been working as an employee in Anganvadi Centre of

Prakash Nagar and if so on the alleged date of incident whether P.W.1 was in duty or not. The chief examination evidence of P.W.1 further state that accused threatened her by stating that he will see her end and also abused her in filthy language. The chief examination evidence of P.W.2 who is husband of P.W.1 go to show that P.W.1 informed him that accused obstructed P.W.1 and also abused her in filthy language. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.1, it is noted that except the allegation that accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language, no specific abusive words were mentioned in Ex.P.1. The elicitation in the cross examination evidence of

P.W.7/Investigation Officer also state that P.W.1 did not mention the abusive words in specific language. Therefore there is no word, gesture or act allegedly used by accused with an intention to insult the modesty of P.W.1 was mentioned in Ex.P.1 contents. The chief examination evidence of P.W.2 go to show that he brought

P.W.1, to Anganvadi Centre which is situated at Prakash Nagar, Janampeta for duty 5

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru and while he was returning to his house, P.W.1 called him through phone and informed the incident. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 is hearsay evidence The elicitation in the cross examination evidence of P.W.2 clearly state that the distance between scene of offence area and Anganvadi Centre is ½ Kilometer. If that be so,.

it is noted that when P.W.2 brought P.W.1 to Anganvadi Centre, as to how P.W.1 immediately came to scene of offence area was not explained.

13.Further, it is the cross examination evidence of P.W.1 that she mentioned in

Ex.P.1 about the presence of eye witnesses at the time of occurrence. But on perusal of Ex.P.1 contents, it is noted that no names of eye witnesses were mentioned. On this aspect, the cross examination evidence of P.W.7 go to show that

P.W.1 did not state as to who are eye witnesses to the incident. P.Ws.3 to 5 were projected as eye witnesses to the prosecution case. P.Ws.3 to 5 during their chief examination evidence deposed that they did not know anything about this case and police not examined them. Although Learned APP cross examined P.Ws.3 to 6 and marked their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively, nothing much came in favour of prosecution case. Therefore, prosecution was left with no option except to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 supported by evidence of investigation officer. The evidence of P.W.7 state that the alleged offence took place on 01.09.2022 and Ex.P.6 FIR was registered on 04.09.2022. The evidence of P.W.7 disclose that P.W.1 did not assign any reason for delay in submitting Ex.P.1 report. It is relevant here to recap the observation made by Hon’ble Court in the following citation1wherein the Hon’ble Court held that the delay in lodging FIR for 20 hours after occurrence of incident though the Police Station was at a distance of 3 K.Ms from the scene of offence, no explanation was offered for the said delay. Further, the Hon’ble Court opined that on account of 1 Gogu Narasamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2007(2) ALT Crl.553(DB) 6

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru delay, report not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and hence it is unsafe to base conviction. In the following citation2 wherein the Hon’ble

Court observed that when the occurrence is not reported for more than twenty hours after the occurrence even though the Police Station is only two miles away from the place of occurrence, it is unsafe to base conviction upon the evidence. In the present case on hand also the alleged occurrence was took place on 01.09.2022, but Ex.P.6 FIR was registered on 04.09.2022 i.e., more than twenty hours and there was no reason assigned for the said delay.

14.The evidence of P.W.7 disclose that as P.W.1 did not state specific place of offence, column No.5 of Ex.P.6 was not mentioned. It is observed that P.W.7 did not prepare scene observation report. Although evidence of

P.W.7 state that the statement of P.W.1 was recorded on the date of registration of FIR, the elicitation in the cross examination evidence of

P.W.1 state that after Ex.P.1, no police examined and recorded her statement. P.W.2 evidence also state that in his presence police did not record Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Thus, examination and recording of statement of P.W.1 is doubtful. Another relevant elicitation in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that P.W.2 submitted report to police against accused previously about one year ago alleging that accused came to their house, threatened their family members and abused them in filthy language. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 state that he submitted report to Pedavegi Police Station against Church of Prakash Nagar with 2 Thulia Kali Appellant Vs. State of Tamilnadu, Respondent AIR 1973 SC 501 7

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru respect to sound pollution and accused is resident in the locality of church. Therefore, admittedly previous disputes exists between accused and P.W.2 and in the view of the previous disputes between accused and

P.W.2, there are chances to foist false case against accused and the suggestion put to P.W.2 that the false case was foisted against accused through P.W.1 cannot be ruled out outrightly.

15.P.W.1 denied suggestion that due to disputes in between her husband and Church members, she foisted false case against accused with the instigation of her husband. In view of the previous lodging of

Criminal case by P.W.2 against accused, the reliability of P.Ws.1 and 2 evidence goes down with the admission in the evidence of P.W.2 that one year ago he gave report against accused and the said case was pending

before Court. Therefore, the contention of P.Ws.1 and 2 and contents of

Ex.P.1 ought have been supported by eye witnesses evidence to inspire confidence. But, except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no eye witness corroboration in the present case on hand.

16.In the light of material contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is not safe to rely on the evidence on record. The evidence of

P.W.7/Investigation Officer was also not in a possession to help the prosecution as he stated that P.W.1 did not state about specific place of offence and that P.W.1 did not assign any reasons for delay in submitting

Ex.P.1. Further, P.W.7 did not collect any record from Anganvadi Centre,

Prakash Nagar to show whether P.W.1 was employee in Anganvadi Centre or not. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as there was no corroboration to 8

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused. In the circumstances, this Court has no alternative except to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under 186 and 509 of IPC .

Point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

17.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 186 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of October, 2023.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

FAC/I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS, ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Satyavathi -- NONE -- P.W.2:K.Srinivasa Rao P.W.3: V.Khadaramma P.W.4: V.Kiran P.W.5: G.Venkateswara Rao P.W.6: D.Nagendra Babu P.W.7: Y.V.V.Satyanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report -- NIL – Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P4: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P5: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P6: F.I.R Ex.P7: Rough sketch

M.O’s MARKED:

9

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru -- NIL –

PJCJ-cum-JFCM, Eluru FAC/I AJFCM., Eluru 10

CC.No.1054/2022 Prl. Junior Civil Judge –cum-

Dt.17.10.2023 Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaintApprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01-09-2022 04-09-2022 sec.41-A Cr.P.C sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice notice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.01.2023 03-10-2023 17-10-2023 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.1054/2022 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Cr.No.304 /2022 of Pedavegi Police Station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N D

Vemula Nageswara Rao, S/o. Veera Swami, Age 60 years, C/Vaddera, R/o. Prakash Nagar, Janampeta Village of Pedavegi Mandal, Ph.7995533522. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under Sections 186, 509 of IPC

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 186 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, and he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec.

437-A of Cr.P.C.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ELURU / T FAC/I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF I CLASS, ELURU

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

Present: Sri K. RATNA PRASAD,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Eluru

TUESDAY, THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

C.C.No.16 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

The State Rep. by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru ... Complainant

A N D

1. Koyya Satya Narayana @ Satish, S/o. Subba Reddy, 24 years, Reddika, Business, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal - 8179291604

2. Koyya Subba Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Rao, 50 years, Reddika, Labor Contractor, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal – 9440402070

3. Koyya Prabhavathi, W/o. Subba Reddy, 45 years, Reddika, Business, Kirana Shop, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

4. Atchi Goyamma, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 65 years, Reddika, Coolie, High School Road, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal – 8186811857 … Accused

This case is coming on this day i.e., 10.11.2023 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri

S.Ajay Kumar Counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and upon hearing arguments, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arose out of Crime No.217/2022 filed by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Disha Women P.S. registered against the Accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2

2.The brief case of prosecution is that the marriage of L.W.1 was performed with Accused No.1 on 12.05.2022 as per Hindu Customs at

Lakkavaram that at the time of marriage on demand of A1 to A4 L.W.2 presented Rs.10,00,000/- cash, 5 Sovgns of gold towards dowry and then

L.W.1 joined with A1 to lead conjugal life at Lakkavaram, that A1 devel- oped illegal intimacy with other women and started neglecting L.W.1, that

A1 to A4 used to demand to bring additional dowry as such, L.W.1 came back to her parents house in the month of August, 2022 and elders held panchayat, but in vain as such, L.W.1 reported the matter lodged report

before police.

3.Basing on the report of L.W1, L.W.12-S.I of police registered the same as a case in crime No.217 of 2022 and issued FIR, commenced in- vestigation. During investigation, police recorded statements of wit- nesses, visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and L.W.12 issued section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused Nos.1 to 4 and after completion of investigation, he filed final report against accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Pe- nal Code and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

4.On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file for the offence under Section 498-A,506 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the Accused Nos.1 to 4. Hence, the charge.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C., on hearing both sides, charges under

Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of 3

Dowry Prohibition Act has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. On behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 4 nobody was examined and no documents were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination u/Sec.

313 Cr.P.C,. was dispensed with, as there was no incriminating evidence against accused Nos.1 to 4.

8.Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act? P O I N T :

10.In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined LWs.1 and 2 as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. L.W.1-K.Mutyala

Aruna is examined as P.W.1. In her chief examination evidence, P.W1 deposed that they compromised this matter with the accused Nos.1 to 4, that Accused Nos.1 to 4 never harassed her for additional dowry and

Accused NO.1 never developed illicit relationship with another women.

When, P.W1 was confronted with report appended to FIR, P.W1 stated that she does not know the contents of report appended to FIR. Since, P.W1 only identified her signature, the same was marked as Ex.P1. The learned

A.P.P. with the permission of this Court cross-examined P.W.1 and marked her section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement as Ex.P2, but nothing much came in favour of prosecution case.

4

11.Prosecution examined L.W.2-T.Subba Lakshmi, who is Mother of P.W1 as P.W.2. In her chief examination evidence, P.W.2 deposed that

Accused No.1 never harassed P.W1 for additional dowry and he never developed illicit relationship with another women and they compromised this matter with the accused. The learned A.P.P. with the permission of this

Court cross-examined P.W.2 and marked his section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement as Ex.P3, but nothing much came in favour of prosecution case.

12.Since the prime witness who set the criminal Law into motion and the mother of defacto complainant turned hostile to the prosecution case, the Learned A.P.P given up LWs.3 to 13 and reported closure of prosecution evidence. Since there is no incriminating evidence against

Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Therefore, any discussion on the evidence of prosecution witnesses would be a futile exercise.

Hence, I hold that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused.

13.Prosecution upon whom the burden lies to make the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt failed in the present case to prove anything much less the guilt of accused for the offences under

Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

14.In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/Sec.

5 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- K.Ratna Prasad

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Mutyala Aruna -- NONE -- P.W.2: T.Subba Lakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W1. -- NIL – Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

M.O’s MARKED:

-- NIL –

Id/- K.R.P. PJCJ-cum-JFCM, Eluru 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaintApprehension of AccusedRelease on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to 13.12.2022 13-12-2022 sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10.11.2023 10.11.2023 14-11-2023 Due to non-production of witnesses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.16/2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Cr.No.217/2022 of Eluru Disha Women Police Station. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N D

1. Koyya Satya Narayana @ Satish, S/o. Subba Reddy, 24 years, Reddika, Business, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal - 8179291604

2. Koyya Subba Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Rao, 50 years, Reddika, Labor Contractor, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal – 9440402070

3. Koyya Prabhavathi, W/o. Subba Reddy, 45 years, Reddika, Business, Kirana Shop, Reddy Veedhi, Near Patha Gowramma Temple, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal

4. Atchi Goyamma, W/o. Anjaneyulu, 65 years, Reddika, Coolie, High School Road, Lakkavaram Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal – 8186811857 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P Act . Finding:Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty.

7

Sentence: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/Sec.

248(1) of Cr.P.C. . Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K.Ratna Prasad

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

// True Copy //

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru

1

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – cum- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: ELURU: FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum – I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present:- Sri K. Ratna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Tuesday, this the 4th day of September, 2023.

O.S.No.204/2023

BETWEEN:-

Perumalla Janardhana Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, Hindu, Male, aged 61 years, Business, D.No.9-141, Sriram Nagar, 3rd road, Eluru.

…Plaintif

Vs.

1. Pandu Jayaraju, S/o. Yesu, Indian, Male, aged 54 year, Business, D.No.11-5- 1/1, Pullaramaswamy Veedhi, Navabpet, Eluru

2. Pandu Surya Prakashrao, s/o. Yesu, Indian, Male, aged 48 years, Business, D.No.2-101/1, Rallapallivaripalem, Pedapadu Mandal.

… Defendants

This suit is coming on 28-08-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for plaintif and defendant was called absent and set exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintif/Sri P.Janardhana Rao against the defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of an amount of

R s .18,00,017 / -based on promissory note dated 22.08.2020.

2.The averments of the plaint state that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from plaintifand de- fendants 1 and 2 jointly executed suit promissory note dated 22.08.2020 in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with in- terest at 24% per annum, yearly rests. It is further averred that the 1st defendant issued cheque bearing No.452144 dated 11.04.2023 2

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

towards part satisfaction of promissory note debt and the said cheque was dishonoured when presented the same, as such plaintif got issued legal notice dated 20.04.2023 and the defendants re- ceived the said notice and did not give any reply. Hence, the suit.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendants did not choose to contest the matter and file written statement and they are set exparte as per docket order dated 26.06.2023.

4.The plaintif filed his chief examination affidavit and exam- ined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintif and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit promissory note debt as prayed for?”

Point:

In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the plaintif/P.Janardhana Rao himself is examined as P.W.1. Through

PW.1, promissory note dated 22.08.2020, office copy of legal notice

dated 20.04.2023 and postal acknowledgments are marked as

Exs.A.1 to A.4. The chief-examination evidence of PW.1 is clearly supporting the averments of the plaint that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.08.2020 and executed

Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, yearly rests. The chief-examination evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that on repeated demands, defendant issued cheque bearing No.452144

dated 11.04.2023 towards part satisfaction of promissory note debt

and the said cheque was dishonoured when presented the same, as 3

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

such he got issued Ex.P.2 legal notice dated 20.04.2023 and the defendants 1 and 2 received the said notice and did not give any reply, hence, he filed the present suit.

08. On placing of sufficient evidence by the plaintif and marking Ex.A.1 ie., suit promissory note dated 22.08.2020 P.W.1 stated that defendants hadreceived the consideration amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- and then the defendants jointly executed Ex.A.1 on 22.08.2020. Therefore, the burden shifts on the defendants to disprove the case of plaintif but, the defendants called absent, no representation and remained exparte. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.4 are remained unchallenged. Hence, this court felt that it is a fit case to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of plaintif. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendants.

09. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.18,00,017/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per an- num from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4 th day of September, 2023.

Sd/-K.Ratna Prasad

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES

EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:

Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W1: P.Janardhana Rao -Exparte-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff: Ex.A1:Promissory note dated.22.08.2020 Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal notice dated.20.04.2023 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment 4

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

Ex.A4: Postal acknowledgment

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant:- Ni l

Id/-K.R.P

P.J.C.J, ELURU.

FAC/I AJCJ., ELURU 5

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

Plaint present on : 11.05.2023 Plaint filed on : 11.05.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – cum- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: ELURU: FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum – I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present:- Sri K. Ratna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Monday, this the 4th day of September, 2023.

O.S.No.204/2023

BETWEEN:-

Perumalla Janardhana Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, Hindu, Male, aged 61 years, Business, D.No.9-141, Sriram Nagar, 3rd road, Eluru.

…Plaintif

Vs.

1. Pandu Jayaraju, S/o. Yesu, Indian, Male, aged 54 years, Business, D.No.11- 5-1/1, Pullaramaswamy Veedhi, Navabpet, Eluru

2. Pandu Surya Prakashrao, S/o. Yesu, Indian, Male, aged 48 years, Business, D.No.2-101/1, Rallapallivaripalem, Pedapadu Mandal.

… Defendants

Plaintif filed this suit for recovery of Rs.18,00,017/- based on promissory notes dated 22.08.2020 respectively executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif for Rs.10,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24 % per annum yearly rests and also for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit Rs.18,00,017/- on which a court fee of Rs.20,526/- is paid U/sec.20, Schedule I and Article I of B&C of AP Court Fee and Suit

Valuation Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on 28-08-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Jagan Mohan Rao, Advocate for plaintif and defendants were called absent and set exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree is as follows:

6

OS.No.204/2023

Dt.04.09.2023.

D E C R E E

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii. that the defendants be and are hereby directed to pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.18,00,017/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Seventeen only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of suit to till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization; iii. that the defendants do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs. 20,528/- towards institutional cost of suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 4th day of

September, 2023.

Sd/-K.Ratna Prasad

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

FAC/I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Plaintiff Defendant Rs.Rs. (Institutional Costs)

Plaint Fees 20,526-00Exparte

Vakalath2-00--

Total: Rs.20,528-00--

Id/-K.R.P

P.J.C.J, ELURU.

FAC/I AJCJ., ELURU

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – cum- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: ELURU: FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum – I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present:- Sri K. Ratna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Tuesday, this the 10th day of October, 2023.

O.S.No.308/2023

BETWEEN:-

Pallem Raju, S/o. (Late) Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Male, Aged 63 years, Business, R/o. D.No.2-73, Pydichintapadu Village, Eluru Mandal …Plaintif

Vs.

Pallem Sudharsana Rao @ Sudharsan, S/o. Late Premanandam, Hindu, Male, Aged 48 years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.1-97, Pydichintapadu Village, Eluru Mandal.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on 05-10-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.Murali Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant was called absent and set exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff/Pallem Raju against the de- fendant for recovery of an amount of R s .1,78,385/ -based on prom- issory note dated 23.08.2020.

2.The averments of the plaint state that the defendant bor- rowed a sum of Rs.95,000/- for his family expenses and discharge sundry debtsanddefendant executed suit promissory note dated 23.08.2020 in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with in- terest at the rate of 2.00 per hundred per month with yearly com- pound rests. It is further averred that plaintiff demanded the defen- 2 dant to clear promissory note debt, but defendant did not choose to pay the same and as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 08.07.2023 and the defendant received the said notice on 17.07.2023 and kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendant did not choose to contest the matter and file written statement and he is set exparte as per docket order dated 11.09.2023.

4.The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and exam- ined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit promissory note debt as prayed for?”

Point:

In order to establish the facts mentioned in the plaint, the plaintiff/P.Raju himself is examined as P.W.1. Through PW.1, promissory note dated 23.08.2020, office copy of legal notice dt.

28.07.2023 and postal consignment are marked as Exs.A.1 to A3.

The chief-examination evidence of PW.1 is clearly supporting the averments of the plaint that the defendant had borrowed a sum of

Rs.95,000/- on 23.08.2020 and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 2.00 per hundred per month with yearly compound rests. The chief-examination evidence of P.W.1 further goes to show that in spite of repeated demands made by him, defendant did not choose to clear the promissory note debt and as such he issued Ex.A.2 legal 3 notice and the defendant received the said notice and kept quiet and as such he filed present suit.

8.On placing of sufficient evidence by the plaintiff and marking Ex.A.1 ie., suit promissory note dated 23.08.2020, P.W.1 stated that defendant has received the consideration amount of

Rs.95,000/- and then the defendant executed Ex.A.1 on 23.08.2020.

Therefore, the burden shifts on the defendant to disprove the case of plaintiff but, the defendant called absent, no representation and remained exparte. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to A3 is remained unchallenged. Hence, this court felt that it is a fit case to pass Judgment and Decree in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.1,78,385/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.95,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10 th day of October, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

FAC/I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES

EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W1:Pallem Raju -Exparte-

Exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Promissory note dated.23.08.2020. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated.28.07.2023 Ex.A3: Postal consignment 4

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant:- Ni l

P.J.C.J, ELURU.

FAC/I AJCJ., ELURU 5

Plaint present on : 25.07.2023 Plaint filed on : 10.08.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – cum- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: ELURU: FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum – I ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ELURU.

Present:- Sri K. Ratna Prasad,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru.

FAC/I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru

Tuesday, this the 10th day of October, 2023.

O.S.No.308/2023

BETWEEN:-

Pallem Raju, S/o. (Late) Venkata Ratnam, Hindu, Male, Aged 63 years, Business, R/o. D.No.2-73, Pydichintapadu Village, Eluru Mandal …Plaintif

Vs.

Pallem Sudharsana Rao @ Sudharsan, S/o. Late Premanandam, Hindu, Male, Aged 48 years, Cultivation, R/o. D.No.1-97, Pydichintapadu Village, Eluru Mandal.

… Defendant

Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,78,385/- based on promissory notes dated 23.08.2020 respectively executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.95,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per hundred per month with yearly compound rests and also for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit Rs.1,78,385/- on which a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid

U/sec.20, Article I, Schedule I of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming on 05.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vemu Murali Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant was called absent and set exparte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree is as follows:

D E C R E E

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,78,385 /- (Rupees One lakh Seventy eight thousand three 6 hundred and eighty five only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.95,000/- from the date of suit to till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization; iii. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,228/- towards institutional cost of suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10th day of

October, 2023.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU.

FAC/I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ELURU

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Plaintiff Defendant Rs.Rs. (Institutional Costs) Plaint Fees 4,226-00Exparte

Vakalath2-00-- Total: Rs.4,228/---

P.J.C.J, ELURU.

FAC/I AJCJ., ELURU

Note:- The parties shall apply as soon as possible for return of all the documents which they may wish to preserve, as the records will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date;

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

Present: Sri K. RATNA PRASAD,

Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Eluru

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

C.C.No.383 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Eluru.

... Complainant

A N D

1. Vemula Mahesh, S/o. Koteswara Rao (Late), 32 years, Vaddera, Chiranjeevi Bus Stand Center, Ponangi Road, Eluru.

2. Vemula Durga Bhavani @ Bhavani, W/o. Mahesh, 26 years, Vaddera, Chiranjeevi Bus Stand Center, Ponangi Road, Eluru. … Accused

This case is coming on this day i.e., 03.11.2023 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Learned A.P.P. for Prosecution, and accused

inperson, and upon hearing arguments, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arose out of Crime No.85/2023 filed by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Eluru I Town P.S. registered against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 448 r/w.34 of

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief case of prosecution is that complainant, accused and his brother V.Mahesh were staying along with their family in a different portions, that the wife of accused No.1 used to scold his wife and the wife of complainant left the house and as complainant came to house in a drunken state and sleeping, both accused came to his room and Accused

No.1 beat complainant with rod and caused bleeding injury and Accused

Nos.1 and 2 beat complainant with hands and legs and thereby complainant was shifted to hospital for treatment .

2

3.Basing on the statement of LW.1, L.W.7 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.85/2023 U/Sec.448, 324, 323 r/w.34 of IPC, visited scene of offence area prepared rough sketch, examined and recorded statements of witnesses and issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused Nos.1 and 2 and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, it is the case of prosecution that Accused

Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the offences punishable under Sections 448,323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC.

4.On perusal of material available on record, this case was taken on file against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Sec. 448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the charge.

5.On appearance of accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. and examined under

Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, charges u/Sec448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2, the details of which are mentioned under appendix of evidence.

3

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, examination u/Sec. 313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is -

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/Sec. 448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC ?

P O I N T :

10.Prosecution/A.P.P filed memo along with death certificate of

L.W.1 stating that L.W.1 died on 28.08.2023. Hence, this Court recorded the memo filed by APP. Prosecution examined L.W.2/V.Ramanamma who is mother of L.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 and P.2. In this case, it is noted that the prosecution witness who was examined as P.W.1 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.1 is mother of L.W.1 and

P.W.1 criminal proceedings was laid against the accused Nos.1 and 2, based report of L.W.1 denied the contents of report except identifying the signature of L.W.1 and further deposed that she did not know the contents of the same and she compromised this matter with the accused Nos.1 and

2. Hence, the signature of L.W.1 was marked as Ex.P1. The learned A.P.P cross-examined P.W.1 with the permission of this Court and marked Ex.P2 in order to contradict the version of P.W.1 which was stated before police in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, but nothing much came in favour of prosecution.

4

11.The learned A.P.P., in view of prime and material witness who is examined as P.W.1 and who is mother of L.W.1 turned hostile, she thought fit to close the L.Ws.3 to 7 including doctor who treated P.W.1 and

Investigating Officer. The above discussion leads me to conclude that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the of- fence with which Accused Nos.1 and 2 are charged. Point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

12. In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on system by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- K.Ratna Prasad

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: V.Ramanamma -- NONE --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W1. -- NIL – Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

M.O’s MARKED:

-- NIL –

Id/- K.R.P. PJCJ-cum-JFCM, Eluru 5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: ELURU , W.G.DISTRICT, A.P.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaintApprehension of AccusedRelease on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15-04-2023 16-04-2023 sec.41-A Cr.P.C sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice notice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 07.11.2023 07-11-2023 08-11-2023 Due to non-production of witnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.383/2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Eluru. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Cr.No.85/2023 of Eluru I Town Police Station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N D

1. Vemula Mahesh, S/o. Koteswara Rao (Late), 32 years, Vaddera, Chiranjeevi Bus Stand Center, Ponangi Road, Eluru.

2. Vemula Durga Bhavani @ Bhavani, W/o. Mahesh, 26 years, Vaddera, Chiranjeevi Bus Stand Center, Ponangi Road, Eluru.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under Sections 448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of IPC

Finding:Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence: In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 448, 323, 324 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months u/Sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- K.Ratna Prasad

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ELURU

/ True Copy // Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru