S.Aruna Sri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

P RESENT : S MT . S. ARUNA SRI. 

IV A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR .

FAC : J UDL . M AGISTRATE OF I C LASS FOR R AILWAYS , G UNTUR .

Monday, this the 22nd day of April, 2019.

C.C. No. 36 of 2018

Between:­ State: Sub­Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P. S. . . . Complainant.

And

1. Kambampati Siva Nageswara Rao S/o Suryanarayana, age 25 years, C/Kamma, R/o Kopporapalem Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Dammu Nagendra Babu S/o Venkateswara Rao, age 22 years, C/Mala, R/o Ayani Gudipadu Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

. . . Accused

This case is coming on 18.04.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. R. N. Vamsi Krishna, Advocate, counsel for the accused/A.1 & A.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P. S. has filed charge accused against the accused in Crime No.295 of 2016 for the offences punishable U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:  On 28.06.2016 LW.1­Nelapati Dhanamma set out for college in RTC bus, attended the classes, afternoon at about 12.00 noon, LW.1 came out from the college to go to Guntur to buy books and came to the college arch and waiting for bus. In the meanwhile LW.2­Rayapudi Arun Kumar and his brother in law came to hotel to give money, having seen LW.1, they came to her and asked her for waiting there. Then LW.1 informed LW.2 that she was going to Guntur to buy books. On that LW.2 got LW.1 on his passion motor cycle, while LW.1 along with LW.2 were going to Guntur on the way at about 12.45 pm., when they reached Naidupet village, as it was raining they went underneath to the tree. As usual on 28.06.2016 while A.1 & A.2 both were moving in the Naidupet service road, they noticed Lws.1 and 2 [Nelapati Dhanamma & Rayapudi Arun Kumar] found standing under a tree. Deciding to collect money from them as usual, A.1 and A.2 proceed to them on the FZ black colour motor cycle AP 27 BA 7964 of A.1, asked LW.s1 and 2 for standing under the tree by posing themselves as ID party police and asked Lws.1 and 2 to come to police station. A.1 got LW.1 on his motor cycle and A.2 sat on the motor cycle of LW.2 and set out towards Guntur. As A.1 likes LW.1, he informed that he would take LW.1 to outside and when A.1 asked A.2 to take LW2 to Guntur. Then A.2 took LW.2 to Guntur and left him at Market center and went to room in an auto.

2

A.1 took LW.1 towards Rail Vihar trees, Nallapadu through Vengalayapalem village, stopped the vehicle, hugged LW.1, talked with her indecently and photographed her through his cell phone by kissing her. Later A.1 touched LW.1 on her body and asked her to spend five minutes wit him. Then LW.1 informed A.1 that she would come tomorrow as it was raining. Then A.1 asked that what is the guarantee for coming tomorrow and asked her to give her ear studs and silver anklets, he would give the same tomorrow when she comes. Then LW.1 refused to give the same, as her mother would ill treat her. Then A.1 asked her ID card and extorted the same from her. A.1 threatened LW.1 that he would implicate her in brothel case, if she would not come tomorrow. A.1 informed LW.1 that they cached many couples, but he don't like anybody, but he likes her. A.1 talked with LW.1 indiscriminately informing her that he likes her, touched her private parts, threatened her and gave his Apollo card to her. A.1 threatened LW.1 that he would kill her by coming to her college, if she would not come tomorrow. A.1 got LW.1 on his motor cycle and dropped her at Housing Board Colony bus stop and went to his room. Basing on the report of Lw.1­Nelapati Dhanamma, Lw.6 K. V. Koteswara Rao, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No.295 of 2016 for the offence U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he examined Lws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene, on 03.02.2017 he served notices U/s.41­A of Cr.P.C. to the accused/A.1 & A.2. After completing the investigation, LW.7­K.Ameer, SI of Police, Nallapadu PS filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. This court has taken cognizance for the offences U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of case copies were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. 

5.The accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and the charges were framed U/Secs.354, 506 and 170 of IPC against Accused No.1 and charge framed under section 170 r/w.34 of IPC against A.1 and A.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.To prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P6 were got marked. Ex.P1­ Signature of PW.1 on report. Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1, Ex.P3 is the report. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. Ex.P.5 is the rough sketch and Ex.P.6 is the rough sketch. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor given­up the evidence of LWs.2 to 6 [Rayapudi Arun Kumar, Tumati Jeremaiah, Tadisetty Rajaratnam and K.V.Koteswara Rao] 

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C. incriminating material were read­over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they stated as false and reported no defence evidence. 

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable  U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

10.P O I N T :­ Pw.1, who is the defacto­complainant, deposed that, she know the accused/A.1 & A.2 and they never abused her and never misbehaved with her. Police obtained her signatures on some papers and she do not know its contents. She further deposed that, police did not examined her and also did not support the prosecution case and also completely turned hostile. The learned Asst. Public 3

Prosecutor cross­examined them U/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and U/s.162 Proviso of Cr.P.C, at length, but, nothing worthy is elicited to disprove her evidence in her chief­examination. 

11.Pw.2, who is the Investigating Officer, who deposed the chronological order of events of the investigation. After collecting the required documents and after completion of the entire investigation and he filed charge sheet.

12.Since the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP has given­up the evidence of remaining witnesses including, as no purpose will be served even if they are examined. In the above facts and circumstances and on considering the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC, as there is no iota of evidence available against the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution. 

13.In the result, accused/A.1 & A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stand cancelled after Six months as contemplated U/s.437­A of Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is collected in this case. Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, this the 22nd day of April, 2019.

 IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC : JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1/15.04.2019 : N.Dhanamma ­None­ Pw.2/18.04.2019 : K.Ameer. S.I. of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on report. Nil. Ex.P2 : Section 161 Statement of Pw.1. Ex.P3 : Report of Pw.1. Ex.P4 : FIR. Ex.P5 : Rough sketch­I. Ex.P.6 : Rough sketch­II.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC : JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

C.C. No. 36 of 2018

Offence Filing Appre­ Release Com men­ Closure of Sentence or hension on bail cement of the trial order. trial

28.06.16 12.04.17 Sec.41­A of 03.02.17 15.04.19 18.04.19 22.04.2019

Cr.P.C.

Explanation for the delay: NIL

Between:­ State: Sub­Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P. S. . . . Complainant.

And

1. Kambampati Siva Nageswara Rao S/o Suryanarayana, age 25 years, C/Kamma, R/o Kopporapalem Village, Ballikuruva Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Dammu Nagendra Babu S/o Venkateswara Rao, age 22 years, C/Mala, R/o Ayani Gudipadu Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal, Prakasam District. . . . Accused

Offence : U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC

Finding : Not Guilty.

Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused/A.1 & A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.354 (A), 354 (C), 506, 170 r/w. 34 of IPC and they are accordingly acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stand cancelled after Six months as contemplated U/s.437­A of Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is collected in this case. 

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC : JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to :  The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

P RESENT : S MT . S. ARUNA SRI. 

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC JUDL. MAGISTRATEOF I CLASSFOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Thursday, this the 02nd of May, 2019

C.C. No.205 of 2018

Between :­ State : Sub Inspector of Police, Govt. Railway Police Station.

Guntur....Complainant.

And 

Kaja Nijamuddin @ Mahammod Ameer S/o Khaja Gousioddin, age 20 years, C/Muslim, R/o D. No.10­2­389/1, Asif Nagar, Mehiddipatnam, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 

... Accused.

This case is coming on this day before the court for final hearing in the presence of learned A. P. P. for the State and of Sri. I.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record, this court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a case filed by the State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Government Railway Police Stanton, Guntur, against accused for the offence U/Sec.354 (A) (I) of IPC alleging that, on 22.10.2017 LW.1­Chandra Bharathi Chantimi Reddy was travelling in the train No. 02760 (Special) S.4 coach berth No.5 accused behavior was irregular towards th victim women and he wait for chance to commit physical harassment. During the journey at about 04.00 am when the train reached near Guntur railway station the accused fell on the complainant and tried to kiss her but she refused and pushed him, immediately she informed to the co­passengers who is travelled in the same coach. Then he came to her and rescued her from the accused. She also informed to 1098. later the train reached to Guntur the police were attended the said coach and handed over the accused.

Basing on the report of the LW.1­Chandra Bharathi Chantimi Reddy, LW.5­

P.Srinivasa Rao, SI of Police, was registered a case in Crime No.166 of 2017 for the offence under section 354 (A)(I) of IPC and investigated into and after completion of the entire investigation, LW.6­N.Prakasa Rao, SI of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused. 

3. After perusing the charge sheet and the connected material, this court took cognizance of the offence against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.354(A)(I) of IPC issued summons to the accused.

2

4. On appearance of the accused, the necessary copies of relevant case records were furnished to the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were questioned under section 239 of Cr.P.C., by reading over accusation on him in telugu for which he denied. Accordingly, charge framed under section 354 (A)(I) IPC of Indian Penal Code against them read over explained to him in telugu in which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 & P.2 on its behalf.

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

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments heard from both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established for the offence under 

sec.354 (A)(I) of IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? 

P O I N T

10.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined the Investigating 

Officer as PW.1. The evidence of Lws.1 and 2 [Chandra Bharathi Chantimi Reddy] was closed on 08.04.2019 as police filed a memo stating that the summons on Lws.1 and 2 was not served and whereabouts not known and on perusal of the case record and hear for the learned APP, the evidence of Lws.1 and 2 was closed. The Learned Addl. Public 

Prosecutor was gave up the evidence of Lws.3, 4 and 6 [K.V.V.Satyanarayana, 

A.Anjaneyulu and N.Prakasa Rao] witnesses.

11. Now, coming to the evidence of Pw.1, who is the Investigating Officer in this case, who stated the chronological order of events occurred during his Investigation and all the suggestions put by defence he denied the same.

3

12. Thus, there is no iota of evidence placed against accused on behalf of the 

State to prove the offence leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. So, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the State and in favour of the defence.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable 

U/Sec.354(A)(I) of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after expiry of Six months as per U/s.437­A Cr.P.C. 

No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is collected in this case.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 02 nd day of May, 2019.

Sd /- A. Aruna Sri.

 IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

PW.1 – 30.04.2019 : P.Srinivasa Rao. Sub­Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:None 

Ex.P1 : report given by PW.1. Ex.P2 : FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

 ­­Nil­­

Sd /- A. Aruna Sri.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

C.C. No.205 of 2018

DATE OF :­  Offence: 22.10.2017 Filing: 22.01.2018 Apprehension of accused : ­ ­ Released on bail: ­ ­ Commencement of trial: 30.04.2019 Close of trial: 01.05.2019 Sentence or order: 02.05.2019

Explanation for delay: NO Delay

Between :­ State : Sub Inspector of Police, Govt. Railway Police Station.

Guntur......Complainant.

And 

Kaja Nijamuddin @ Mahammod Ameer S/o Khaja Gousioddin, age 20 years, C/Muslim, R/o D. No.10­2­389/1, Asif Nagar, Mehiddipatnam, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 

... Accused.

Nature of Offence :­ U/Secs.354(A)(I) of IPC Plea of accused :­ Not committed Finding :­ Not committed the offence.

Sentence or Order  : 

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.354(A)(I) of IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after expiry of Six months as per U/s.437­A Cr.P.C. No order needs to be passed as to the property since no property is collected in this case.

Sd /- A. Aruna Sri.

 IV ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS, GUNTUR.

Copy submitted :­

The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR RAILWAYS :: GUNTUR.

Present: Smt. A.Aruna Sri.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

FAC : Judl. Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 05th day of May, 2019

C.C. No.93 of 2018

Between:

State: Station House Officer, Chebrolu Police Station, Chebrolu.

... Complainant.

- And - Gaddam Naresh S/o Venkateswarlu, age 23 years, C/Madiga, R/o D. No.8-3-1862/A/87, Sanjeeva Nagar, Yessufguda, Hyderagbad-048. Driver of TATA Indica Car bearing No. TS 09UB 0939 Ph. 8099996233. …Accused. This case is coming on this day, for hearing before me on 02.05.2019 in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and upon perusing the material on record, this court makes the following:

O R D E R

The Station House Officer, Chebrolu Police Station, Chebrolu has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 338 of

IPC in Crime No.13 of 2017 of Chebrolu Police Station;

2. Allegation that on 19.01.2017 at about 04.00 pm., while LW.1 -S.Venkayamma is crossing the road at Selapadu Village accused of you [Gaddam Naresh] being the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Car bearing No. TS 09UB 0939 was coming from Tenali towards Guntur drove the same at high speed, rash and negligent manner endangering to human lives, came in wrong route and dashed LW.1-S.Venkayamma; resulting which LW.1 fell down on the road and sustained injuries; the said accident witnessed by Lws.2 and 3 [B.Sriranganayakulu and A.,Seetharamakrishna] and shifted the injured/LW.1 to the District Hospital, Tenali on 108 ambulance for treatment

Basing on the receipt of the hospital admission LW.6-R.Hari

Prasad, HC 1800 of Tenali III town PS, recorded the statement of LW.1 –

Sagepu Venkayamma and send the same to Chebrolu PS on point of jurisdiction. That on 21.01.2017 atabout 10.00 am., LW.7AD Koteswara Rao,

ASI, Chebrolu PS registered the same as a case in Crime No.13 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 338 of IPC and visited the scene of offence drawn rough sketch, served 41-A Cr.P.C., notice and dispensed the arrest of the accused. Upon completion of the investigation conducted by

LW.7, LW.8-T.Raja Kumar, SI of Police verified the same and found correct and filed charge sheet in this case.

3. This case was taken cognizance under Section 338 IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents are furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C. When he examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the alleged offence under section 338 IPC in telugu for which he admitted his guilt voluntarily and he is informed about he prescribed sentence for the said offence inspite he admitted his guilt without any force, coercion or threat hence, the same is considered as voluntarily and taken in to consideration further he pleaded mercy of the court in sentencing informing that he is poor and his family depend on him. Hence, on considering his plea, nature of admitted offence.

4. Accused is convicted under section 252 cr.p.c., and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence under section 338 IPC in default to suffer three months simple imprisonment.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 02th day of May, 2019. .

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC : Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

-NIL-

IV AJCJ, GNT.

FAC :JMFC/RLYS, GNT.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

Present:-Smt. S Aruna Sri.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC : Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

MONDAY, THIS IS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019

C.C. No.290 of 2018

[U/Sec.138 of NI ACT]

Between: Bommaraju Panduranga Rao S/o Venkata Ratnam, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Business, R/o F3, Sai Teja Apartments, 6/15, Brodiepet, Guntur – 522 002. .…Complainant.

-Versus -

Adapa Balaji S/o A. Venkaiah, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Business, R/o H. No.25-4-4, Adapavari street, R. Agraharam, Guntur – 522 003. …Accused.

O R D E R

Both parties called present. Learned Counsel for the complainant filed a petition under section 257 Cr.P.C., to accord permission to withdraw the complaint against the accused and the same is allowed. The complaint is dismissed as withdrawn. Accused is acquitted.

1. Date of Offence : 18.11.2016.

2. Date of Complaint: 05.01.2017.

3. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2019.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. FAC : JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS :: GUNTUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS,

GUNTUR.

Present:-SMT. S. ARUNA SRI.

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. FAC : Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Railways, Guntur.

MONDAY, THIS IS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

C.C. No.13 of 2019

[U/Sec.3(a) OF RP (UP) Act]

Between: State : Asst. Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Nandyal. . . . Complainant.

-Versus -

Smt. Karne Rama W/o Karne Chinna, age 24 years, R/o Budagajangala Street, Saddam Colony, Near New Bus Stand, Allagadda Post & Mandal, Kurnool District. Andhra Pradesh. . . . Accused.

O R D E R

Death certificate of accused filed. Case against the accused abated.

1. Date of Offence : 16.01.2019.

2. Date of Complaint: 15.02.2019.

3. Date of Hearing : 29.04.2019.

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

FAC : JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR RAILWAYS :: GUNTUR.