Smt.s.c.kamala, L.l.b.,

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Prl District Court Ongole · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B.,, III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE, is posted at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 307 court orders on record since 2012. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

307

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/177/2009 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police vs Rachakonda Vasudevarao

25 Apr 2013

1C.C.177/09

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :- Smt S.C. Kamala, L.LB., III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2013

CC.No.177/2009

(Cr.No. 325/09 of Ongole Taluk P.S.)

Between

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS.,

..... Complainant

And

1. Rachakonda Vasudeva Rao, s/o Hanumantha Rao, 26 years, Rajaka, working as pump boy in Malakondaiah Petrol Bunk, Addanki bus stand centre, Ongole, r/o Rachavaripalem village, Tallur mandal. (A.1)

2. Rachakonda Hanumantha Rao, s/o Yellamanda, 60 years, Rajaka by caste, r/o Rachavaripalem village, Tallur mandal. (A.2)

..... Accused

This case is coming on before me for hearing on 24.4.13 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri P.Vengaiah, Advocate for Accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused/A.1 and A.2 in Cr.No.325/09 for the offence punishable u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.5.07 the marriage of

Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi was performed with A.1 at Tirumala as per caste customs. The parents of Lw.1 gave cash of Rs.1 laksh and 15 sovereigns of gold to the accused as presentation at the time of marriage towards dowry. Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi joined with A.1 at

Chimakurthy and they lead marital life happily. Later A.1 along with his parents A.2 and A.3 (A.3 was deleted from charge sheet) shifted their family to Ongole and resided at Srinivasa colony, Ongole. As the accused are suffering from financial crises A.4 allowed the accused to reside in his house 2C.C.177/09 at Srinivasa colony, Ongole without any rent. After passing six months A.1 with the instigation of A.2 started harassing Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha

Lakshmi to get more dowry of cash of one lakh. A.1 used to abuse Lw.1

Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi on the plea that since her arrival to his house there was no progress in their family. A.1 addicted to alcohol. A.1 with the instigation of A.2 subjected Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi to cruelty both physically and mentally. A.1 with the instigation of A.2 demanded to get cash of one lakh rupees as additional dowry otherwise to make purchase a house plot in Ongole town on their name. But the parents of Lw.1

Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi expressed their inability. The accused assaulted Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi both physically and mentally without any morals even she was carrying pregnancy. One day A.1 kicked

Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi on her abdomen, due to that impact she got severe bleeding. Having came to know the same the parents of Lw.1

Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi came to Ongole and took her to BL

Narayana hospital and got abortion her pregnancy as per the advice of doctor. The accused did not come to the hospital. Later the mediators went to the house of accused to set right the family life of Lw.1 Rachakonda

Anantha Lakshmi but A.1 and A.2 stated that they would allow Lw.1

Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi to their house if she get additional dowry or one lakh cash otherwise they will perform another marriage to A.1. After that

A.1 with the instigation of A.2 sent a notice to Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha

Lakshmi to lead conjugal life. On 29.7.09 when Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha

Lakshmi along with her parents came to the house of accused, they did not allow her into the house and stated that according to the procedure they have sent such notice and they never allow her to their home to lead conjugal life.

3C.C.177/09

3.On 2.8.09 Lw.1 Rachakonda Anantha Lakshmi along with her parents gave report to Lw.7 SI of Police, and the same was registered as case in

Cr.No. 325/09 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation

Lw.7 SI of Police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence at Ongole and prepared rough sketch, and on enquiry he came to know that the accused were shifted to their native village of Rachavaripalem of Maddipadu mandal. The prima facie case is made out against A.1 and A.2 only and no prima facie case is made out against A.3 and A.4. Hence, A.3 and A.4 were deleted from this case. On 17.8.09 Lw.7

SI of Police arrested A.1 and A.2 and sent them for remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence u/secs. 498-A IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused/A.1 and A.2.

5.On appearance of accused/A.1 and A.2, copies of documents were furnished to the accused/A.1 and A.2 as required under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused/A.1 and A.2 were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. The charges were framed for the offence u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of

DP Act against the accused/A.1 and A.2, and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to

P.3 were marked.

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused/A.1 and A.2 were examined under section-313 Cr.P.C. by 4C.C.177/09 explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is - “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A.1 and

A.2 for the offence punishable u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

11.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.1 to 5 is cogent and convincing to connect the accused/A.1 and A.2 with this case and hence the accused/A.1 and A.2 is liable for punishment for the offence u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

12.The learned counsel for the accused/A.1 and A.2 argued that a false case is foisted against the accused/A.1 and A.2 and they never committed any offence. Hence prays to acquit the accused/A.1 and A.2.

13.Point :

Pw.1 in his evidence stated that on 10.5.07 her marriage was performed with A.1 at TTD, Thirumala as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of her marriage her parents gave a cash of Rs.1 lakh, 15 sovereigns of gold and some silver articles as dowry to the accused. After marriage she joined A.1 at Chimakurhty and from there they shifted their family to

Srinivasa Nagar, Ongole and lived happily for a period of 6 months.

Thereafter, A.1, A.2 and maternal uncle of A.1 demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh or purchase pot of one lakh and registered the same in their name. Further they used following utter words like “ ninnu chesukunna 5C.C.177/09 tharuvatha maku daridram pattindi, vere ammaini chesukunte maku yakkuva katnam vachedi “ and used to harass her mentally and physically. A.1 also addicted the bad vices and used to beat her even when she became pregnant. Their in-laws did not rescue her while seeing the incident. Due to beating of A.1 she has to suffer over bleeding and thereafter she was necked out from the house after taking of her gold ornaments. She further deposed that the accused also torned the marriage photos. Then she informed the same to her brother, who joined her in BVL Narayana Hospital,

Ongole and there she took treatment for 3 days as inpatient which resulted in her abortion. She further deposed that inspite of her parents and brother requested the accused to come to the hospital but they never visited the hospital to see her and after one or two months she received notice from the accused under restitution of conjugal rights. After receiving the notice when she went to the accused house the accused stated that“ chatta paramga vidakulu thisukodanike notice pampinchamu ninnu rammannamu lekapothe vere pelli chestamu “ and not allowed her to enter into their house even though she waited there for a long time in order to see any change in the attitude of A.1. Later she lodged report against A.1 to A.4 but police deleted

A.3 and A.4 in the charge sheet.

14.Pw.2 father, Pw.3 brother of Pw.1 supported corroborated with the evidence of Pw.1 in all aspects including the mode of harassment made by the accused towards Pw.1.

15.Pw.4 in his evidence stated that he acted as elder for the marriage of

A.1 and Pw.1. At the time of marriage the parents of Pw.1 gave dowry Rs.1 lakh and 15 sovereigns of gold and also house hold articles to the accused.

After their marriage they lead marital life for some time. Later A.1 used to 6C.C.177/09 demand Pw.1 to bring additional amount at the instance of A.2 and he came to know that due to beating Pw.1 the pregnancy of Pw.1 was aborted. When he along with some others to take back Pw.1 to the house of A.1 in order to settle the matter for which the accused stated that 'laksha rupayalu thisukuvasthe thisukurandi lekapothe ledu'. As the parents of Pw.1 unable to bear the same Pw.1 is staying with her parents.

16.Pw.5 investigating officer in his evidence stated that on 2.8.09 at about 12.30 a.m. while he was at P.S. Pw.1 along with Pws.2 and 3 came to

P.S. and gave a report to him and the same was registered as case in

Cr.NO. 325/09 and submitted FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation he secured Pw.1, Pw.2 and Lw.3 P.Anjamma and recorded their statements. Then he visited the complainant's house and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.3. On credible information on 17.8.09 he caught hold A.1 and A.2 at North byepass junction and brought to the P.S. and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.As can be seen from the record, Pws.1 to 4 during their cross examination they stated that they deposed in their chief at the instance of police and the matter was also compromised in between Pw.1 and A.1 and further they stated that accused never harassed Pw.1. As Pws.1 to 4 could not stand in the cross examination as the evidence deposed by them in chief examination is not believed to be trustworthy. Pw.5 the investigating officer spoken about the lines of investigation done by him. Even though Pw.5 deposed about the accused, basing on the sole testimony without any corroboration from any other witnesses his evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused punishable u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act.

7C.C.177/09

18.On considering the above facts and circumstances, I came to the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused/A.1 and A.2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/secs. 498-

A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and hence they are entitled to benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

19.In the result, the accused/A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence u/secs. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and are acquitted u/sec. 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused/A.1 and A.2 are set at liberty in the present case and the bail bonds of the accused/A.1 and A.2 shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

Sd/- S.C.Kamala

III Addl. Judl. I Clas Magistrate Ongole

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

Pw.1 : R.Anantha Lakshmi- None - Pw.2 : P. Anjaiah Pw.3 : P. Venkateswara Rao Pw.4 : K. Chandraiah Pw.5 : M. Laxman, SI of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1 : Statement given to police by Pw.1. Ex.P.2 : First Information Report Ex.P.3 : Rough sketch for the scene of offence. For Defence : –Nil -

Material Objects marked

–Nil -

Sd/- xxx

III AJFCM

True Copy

III Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate

Ongole

CC/526/2008 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police vs Chunduri Ravi Babu

25 Apr 2013

1C.C.526/08

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :- Smt S.C. Kamala, L.LB., III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2013

CC.No.526/2008

(Cr.No. 198/08 of Ongole Taluk P.S.)

Between

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S.,

..... Complainant

And

1. Chunduri Ravi Babu, s/o Venkateswarlu, 38 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Satyanarayanapuram, 1st lane, Ongole.

2. Kasukurthi Adenna, s/o Polaiah, 57 years, SC mala, r/o Brundavan Nagar, Ongole.

3. Konthri Gunta Venkaiah, s/o Kotaiah, 49 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Yerraguidpadu village, Chimakurthy mandal

4. Damaraju Srinivasa Kranthi Kumar, s/o Narasimham, 42 years, Brahmana by caste, r/o near old PVT high school, Ongole.

5. Bommineni Muralikrishna, s/o Krishna Rao, 33 years, Yadava by caste, r/o Ramalayam street, Gopala nagaram, Ongole.

6. Shaik Habeeb, s/o Mahamad Saheb, 34 years, Muslim byi caste, r/o Islampet, Ongole.

7. Chunchu Adi Narayana, s/o Rangaiah, 58 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Ulichi village, Ongole mandal.

8. Yaramneni Narasimha Rao, s/o Adiseshaiah, 50 years, Kamma by caste, Ongole.

9. Mupparaju Tirupathi Swamy, s/o Seshaiah, 60 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Sujatha Nagar, 2nd lane, Ongole. 10.Nagaboina Ranga Rao, s/o Ramdasu, 53 years, Kamma, r/o Sujatha nagar, 3rd lane, Ongole. 11.Kanagala Venkata Varaprasad, s/o Veera Ramaiah, 49 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Addanki. 12.Polavarapu Seetha Ramaiah, s/o Raghava Swamy, 61 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Karavadi village, Ongole mandal. 13.Paritala Koteswara Rao, s/o Lingaiah, 34 years, Kamma, r/o Ponduru village. 14.Pulugu Chenna Reddy, s/o Venkateswara Reddy, 49 years, r/o Kanaparthi village, N.G.Padu mandal. 15.Upputuri Prakasa Rao, s/o Kotaiah, 58 years, Kamma by caste, r/o Mallaiah, Lingaiah bhavan, Anjaiah road, Ongole. 16.Tella Aruna, w/o Balakrishna, 52 years, Kamma, r/o Ramnagar, 3rd lane, Ongole. 17.Telukutla Anamtamma, w/o Papaiah, 52 years, Yadava, Venkateswara nagar, Ongole. 18.Sirigari Lalitha, d/o Raghupathi, c/o PDSU mess, 28 years, opp. To Ongole I town P.S. 19.Arla Venkata Ratnam, w/o Audinarayana, 42 years, Kamma by caste, Market Centre, Ongole 2C.C.526/08 20.Lingamguntla Thirumala Bhavani, w/o Srihari Rao, 36 years, Mala by caste, Devudu Cheruvu, Ongole. 21.Uppalapati Nagendram, w/o Nageswara Rao, 45 years, Kamma by caste, Konanki, Martur mandal. 22.Rayapati Varamma, w/o Ananda Rao, 50 years, Madiga by caste, backside of Sarma college, Ongole.

..... Accused/A.1 to A.22

This case is coming on before me for hearing on 24.4.13 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri P.L.Govindaiah, Advocate for A.13 and A.18; and of Smt S.Sarala, Advocate for remaining accused; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.198/08 for the offence punishable u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused A.1 to A.22 noted in the margin formed into an unlawful assembly being possessing their party flags assembled at the north byepass road junction, Ongole near

Mangamma college on NH.5 on 19.6.08 at 11 a.m. with a common intention and organised Rastha Roko restraining the vehicular traffic on either sides on NH.5 as part of their agitation and thereby caused wrongful restrainment, criminal intimidation to the general public in support of their demands etc., against the government. Lws.1 to 4 i.e., Malaga Venkata Narasimha Rao,

Papisetty Balaji, Kulagala Bikshalu, Ponnam Ramudu witnessed the occurance and they asked A.1 to A.22 as to why they are restrained from going ahead on a public way the accused A.1 to A.22 threatened Lws.1 to 4 i.e., Malaga Venkata Narasimha Rao, Papisetty Balaji, Kulagala Bikshalu,

Ponnam Ramudu with dire consequences. Lw.1 Venkata Narasimha Rao went to Ongole taluk P.S. and presented a report to Lw.6 SI of Police on 19.6.08 and the same was registered as case in Cr.No. 198/08 and submitted FIR to all concerned.

3C.C.526/08

3.During the course of investigation Lw.6 SI of Polie examined Lws.1 to 5 i.e., Malaga Venkata Narasimha Rao, Papisetty Balaji, Kulagala Bikshalu,

Ponnam Ramudu and Pallekaru Krishna Reddy and recorded their statements and then he visited the scene of offence and found A.1 to A.22 while committing the offence and that he arrested A.1 to A.22 and release them on bail. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheeet.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the accused/A.1 to A.22.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused/A.1 to A.22 were examined under section-251 Cr.P.C.

The substance of accusation for the offence u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149

IPC were read over and explain to the accused/A.1 to A.22 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to

P.5 were marked.

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused/A.1 to A.22 were examined under section-313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

4C.C.526/08

10. Now the point for determination is - “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A.1 to

A.22 for the offence punishable u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

11.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.3 to 5 is cogent and convincing to connect the accused with this case and hence the accused is liable for punishment for the offences u/secs.

143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that a false case is foisted against the accused/A.1 to A.22 and they never committed any offence. Hence prays to acquit the accused/A.1 to A.22.

13.Point :

Pw.1 in his evidence stated that at about 2 years back one day in the after noon on observing the mob obstructing the traffic on N.H.5 road by doing 'DARNA' police obtained his signature on some draft papers. He further deposed that he does not know about the contents of it. As he did not support the case of the prosecution the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined him and during his cross examination nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of Ex.P.2.

14.Pw.2 in his evidence stated that he does not know anything about the facts of this case. As he did not support the case of the prosecution the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor cross examined him and during his cross examination nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution except marking of Ex.P.3.

5C.C.526/08

15.Pw.3 & Pw.4 driver and conductor of the RTC bus bearing registration

No. AP 10 Z 8153 in their evidence stated that on 19.6.07 at about 11 a.m.

by the time they reached near bye-pass some of the persons carrying yellow and red flags were doing 'DARNA' obstructing the traffic and after half an hour police reached and clear the traffic.

16.Pw.5 SI of Police in his evidence deposed that on 19.6.08 at about 11.30 a.m. while he was at P.S. Pw.1 came to P.S. and presented a report and the same was registered as case in Cr.No. 198/08, and then he sent original FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation he secured

Pw.1 M.Venkata Narasimha Rao and recorded his statement at P.S. Then he along with his staff rushed to bye-pass junction and found nearly 25 persons including women were gathered at NH5 and stopped the vehicles. Then he arrested A.1 to A.22 at the spot and released them on self bail. He also further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.As can be seen from the record Pws.1 and 2 eye witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and hence their evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution.

18.Pws.3 and 4 deposed that some unknown persons were doing 'DARNA' on N.H.5 road resulting traffic obstruction. But they did not identify the accused as the persons who were doing DHARNA by causing obstruction of traffic. None of the persons identified the accused as the persons who obstructed the traffic near bye-pass causing public nuisance. In view of the above, the evidence of Pws.3 and 4 is also not useful to the case of the prosecution due to lack of any corroboration from any other witnesses.

6C.C.526/08

19.On considering the above facts and circumstances, I came to the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused/A.1 to A.22 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC and hence they are entitled to benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

20.In the result, the accused/A.1 to A.22 are found not guilty for the offence u/secs. 143, 341, 506 r/w 149 IPC and are acquitted u/sec. 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. The accused/A.1 to A.22 are set at liberty in the present case and the bail bonds of the accused/A.1 to A.22 shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2013.

Sd/- S.C.Kamala

III Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate Ongole

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence : Pw.1 : Malaga Venkata Narasimha Rao - None - Pw.2 : P. Krishna Reddy Pw.3 : P.Balaji Pw.4 : K.Bikshalu Pw.5 : M.Lakshman, SI of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P.1 : Signature in report. Ex.P.2 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2 Ex.P.4 : FIR Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch for the scene of offence. For Defence : –Nil -

Material Objects marked

- Nil -

Sd/- xxx

III AJFCM

True Copy

III Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate

Ongole

CC/330/2008 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police vs Thonda Pothuraju

25 Apr 2013

1C.C.330/08

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :- Smt S.C. Kamala, L.L.B., III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2013

CC.No.330/08

(Cr.No. 82/08 of Ongole Taluk P.S.)

(case against A.2 and A.4 only)

(Case split up against A.1 and A.3)

Between

State : Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS.,

..... Complainant

And

1. Thonda Pothuraju, s/o Sathi Raju, 23 years, Yerukula by caste, Mangali Peta, Nandyala town, Kurnool Dist., (A.1)

2. Mekala Raja Babu, s/o Hanumanthu, 34 years, Yerukula, Aakaveedu village of West Godavari Dist., (A.2)

3. Pasupuleti Prasad, s/o Raju, 19 years, Yerukula by caste, Mangali Peta, Nandyala, Kurnool District (A.3)

4. Hamsabargala Govindu, s/o Chalamaiah, aged 36 years, Yerukula, Aakaveedu village of West Godavari District (A.4)

..... Accused

This case is coming on before me for hearing on 23.4.2013 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for State; and of Sri P.Lakshmaiah,

Advocate for Accused/A.2 and A.4; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S. filed a charge sheet against the accused/A.2 and A.4 in Cr.No. 82/08 for the offence punishable u/sec.379 or 411 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.3.08 at 18.00 hours

A.1 to A.5 committed theft of a purse which contains Rs.5000/- from the basket of Lw.1 Ganta Yamuna by sprinkling a itch causing powder on her to divert her attention while she was waiting for a bus at Sagar Centre, Ongole.

Later Lw.1 Ganta Yamuna went to Ongole taluk P.S. and submitted her 2C.C.330/08 report to Lw.8 SI of Police on 16.3.08 and the same was registered as case in Cr.No. 82/08 and submitted the original FIR to all concerned and recorded the statements of witnesses and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch for the scene of offence.

3.During the course of investigation Lw.8 SI of Police on credible information arrested A.1 on 17.3.08 and seized Rs.900/- from the possession of A.1 under cover of mediatornama. As per the confession of

A.1 Lw.8 SI of Police arrested A.2 to A.5 and seized amounts of Rs.920/-,

Rs.900/-, Rs.910/- and Rs.950/- respectively from A.2 to A.5 under cover of mediatornama, and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

4.This case was taken on file for the offence u/sec.379 or 411 IPC against the accused/A.2 and A.4.

5.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused/A.2 and A.4 as required under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused was examined under section-239 Cr.P.C. The charge was framed u/sec.379 or 411 IPC against accused/A.2 and A.4 and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to

P.7 were marked.

8.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused/A.2 and A.4 were examined under section-313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence 3C.C.330/08 of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is - “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused/A.2 and

A.4 for the offence punishable u/secs. 379 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

Pws.1 to 4 is cogent and convincing to connect the accused/A.2 and A.4 with this case and hence the accused/A.2 and A.4 are liable for punishment for the offence u/secs.379 or 411 IPC.

12.The learned counsel for the accused/A.2 and A.4 argued that a false case is foisted against the accused/A.2 and A.4 and they never committed any offence. Hence prays to acquit the accused/A.2 and A.4.

13.Point :

Pw.1 in her evidence stated that on 15.3.08 at about 4 p.m. when she went to bus stand in order to go to boarded bus along with Lw.2 Ganta

Govinda Kumar to go to Chinnaganjam, due to itching of her hand she kept her purse in the basket, and after two minutes when she observed her purse she found that the purse was missed. She further deposed that the said purse containing an amount of Rs.5000/- and then she searched in the near by places but in vain then she lodged a report Ex.P.1 to police. Later her husband received a phone call from police that they traced her purse. But she does not know whether her husband received cash from the police or not.

4C.C.330/08

14. Pw.2 who is the husband of Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that on 15.3.2008 at about 4 p.m. in order to go chinnaganjam they waited at bus stand. Pw.1 kept her purse in the basket. After two minutes they observed that purse was missed. The said purse containing Rs.5000/-. Though they searched for it near by places but it was in vain. On the next day they lodged a report before police. He further deposed that after two months police called him stated that they traced the amount of Rs.3600/-. Police examined him and recorded his statement

15.Pw.3 in his evidence stated that at about 4 of 5 years back at the request of police he signed on some drafted papers. He does not know the contents of it. He identified his signature in the arrest, seizure mahazar vide

Ex.P.2 and P.3.

16.Pw.4 in his evidence stated that on 16.3.08 while he was in P.S. Pw.1 gave a complaint about missing of her purse and the same was registered as case in Cr.No. 82/08 and submitted FIR to all concerned and that he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch Ex.P.5, and on 17.3.08 on credible information he found one person running towards west side then he caught hold of him and interrogated him and seized Rs.900/- cash and also itching powder from him and there he drafted mediatornama duly attested by the mediators vide Ex.P.6. On his confession statement he reached Ongole bus station and caught hold A.2 to A.5 and seized from A.2 an amount of Rs.92/-, from A.3 an amount of Rs.900/-, from A.4 an amount of Rs.910/- and from A.5 an amount of Rs.950/- in the presence of mediators. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 and filed separate charge sheet against A.5 u/sec.379 or 411 IPC.

5C.C.330/08

17.As can be seen from the record the evidence of Pw. 2 shows that some unknown persons theft purse containing cash of Rs.5000/- from Pw.1.

Pw.3 arrest and seizure mahazar witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Pw.4 the investigating officer deposed about the lines of investigation done by him. The evidence on record shows that some unknown persons theft of purse containing cash of Rs.5000/-. But the prosecution failed to mark the purse and cash which was committed theft from Pw.1 to the best reasons known to them. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the cash along with the purse was seized from the possession of the accused. Even though Pw.4 investigating officer spoken about the lines of investigation done by him including the seizure of purse along with the cash but his evidence need not be looked into due to lack of corroboration from any other witnesses. In view of the above, the evidence of Pw.4 is not useful to the case of the prosecution. Considering the above facts and circumstances stated, I came to the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused/A.2 and A.4 beyond all reasonable and probable doubt.

18.In the result, the accused/A.2 and A.4 are found not guilty for the offence u/secs.379 or 411 IPC and they are acquitted u/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

Accused/A.2 and A.4 are at liberty in the present case and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled forthwith. The orders on unmarked property will be

pronounced at the time of the judgment in the split up case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 25th day of April, 2013

Sd/- S.C.Kamala

III Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate Ongole 6C.C.330/08

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence :

Pw.1 : Ganta Yamuna- None -

Pw.2 : Ganta Govinda Kumar

Pw.3 : Shaik Bhasheer

Pw.4 : M.Lakshman, SI of Police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P.1 : Report given to police by Pw.1.

Ex.P.2 : Signature of Pw.3 on arrest mahazar

Ex.P.3 : Signature of Pw.3 on seizure mahazar

Ex.P.4 : Original FIR

Ex.P.5 : Rough sketch for the scene of offence.

Ex.P.6 : Mediatornama

Ex.P.7 : Mediatornama

For Defence :

–Nil -

Material Objected marked

- Nil -

Sd/- xxx

III AJFCM

True Copy

III Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate

Ongole

Order Record 302 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/51/2012	Varanasi Rama Mohan vs Munnagi Punna Reddy	01 May 2013	Judgement	—
OS/352/2008	Gorantla Seshaiah vs Gorantla Tayamma	26 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/177/2009	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Rachakonda Vasudevarao	25 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/330/2008	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Thonda Pothuraju	25 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/526/2008	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Chunduri Ravi Babu	25 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
OS/451/2012	Mannam Sesha Rao vs Ayanampudi Ananda Rao	24 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/201/2012	State Inspector of Police vs Avvari Venkataramana	24 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/22/2011	Inspector of Police vs Pulluru Narasimha	23 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/158/2011	Inspector of Police vs Chennuri Chinna Malla Reddy	23 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/21/2009	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Mandava Venkatadri	22 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/153/2012	SHO Taluka PS vs Kamatham Murali	22 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/188/2012	SHO Taluka PS vs Thummala vishnuvardhan reddy	22 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/188/2012	SHO Taluka PS vs Thummala vishnuvardhan reddy	22 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/400239/2012	Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk P.S. vs Rompicherla Saidulu	22 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/205/2012	SHO Taluka PS Ongole vs Kommula Baji	17 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/129/2010	Sub Inspector of Police vs Vasana Srinivasa Rao	16 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/18/2013	Canara Bank Ongole vs Garikapati Nageswara Rao	15 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/727/2010	Andhra Bank vs Yaddanapudi Pitchaiah	15 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/172/2011	Godugu Adisesdhamma vs Godugu Ramanamma	10 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/63/2012	Sub Inspector of Police vs Golla David	10 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/86/2012	Sub Inspector of Police vs Kolliboina Suresh Babu	10 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/230/2012	Inspector of Police Ongole Taluka PS vs Nimmala Mohana Rao	10 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/343/2012	Pulagam Sreenu vs Marpudi Musalaiah	08 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/413/2008	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Kathi Tirupathamma	08 Apr 2013	Order	—
OS/410/2010	Andhra Bank Credit Card Division vs Nama Kalyana Ranga	04 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/569/2009	Shaik Chand Basha vs Shaik Mastan	04 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/94/2010	Gogineni Hanumantha Rao vs Pothula Padmavathi	03 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
OS/238/2010	Nallapareddy Jayamma vs The District Collector	03 Apr 2013	Judgement	—
CC/80/2011	Inspector of Police vs Jangam Gopi	02 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/29/2012	Inspector of Police vs Jajula Venkata Prasad	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/47/2012	Inspector of Police vs Thummalagunta Sudhakara Rao	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/134/2011	Inspector of Police vs Lalam Prabhavathi	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/54/2013	Pittala Lakshmaiah vs Maddali Venkata Ramesh Babu	30 Mar 2013	Order	—
CC/112/2012	Inspector of police vs Kopanati Lakshmana Rao	30 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/236/2011	Inspector of Police vs Chennamsetty Jalaiah	30 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/374/2011	Rayapati Gopi vs Rayapati Ananda Rao	28 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/552/2012	Gunturu Purnachandra Rao vs Shaik Ramu	28 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/154/2011	Inspector of Police vs Mindala Pitchi babu	28 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/167/2011	Messers Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Syamala Rosaiah	28 Mar 2013	Order	—
CC/34/2011	Inspector of Police vs Shaik Masthan Vali	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/68/2012	Inspector of Police vs Kaila Yesu	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/80/2012	Inspector of Police vs Syed Jeelani	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/85/2012	Sub Inspector of Police vs A1-Yarajani Srinivasa Rao	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/187/2012	State Inspector of Police vs Thummala Vishnuvardhan Reddy	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/195/2012	State Inspector of Police vs Divi Srinivasulu	26 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/392/2009	Vijaya Bank rep by its Branch Manager vs Damavarapu Koteswara Rao	25 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/425/2012	Naginani Srinivasulu vs Anapureddy Lakshmi	25 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/107/2011	Inspector of Police vs Pakanati Mahananda Reddy	25 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/176/2011	Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS., vs Sudanagunta alias Kayala Venkateswarlu	22 Mar 2013	Order	—
CC/705/2006	Ms Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Shaik Mastan Basha	22 Mar 2013	Order	—
CC/82/2012	Inspector of Police vs Neeli Naresh	21 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/88/2012	Inspector of Police vs A1- Kilari Nageswara Rao	20 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/213/2012	State Inspector of Police vs Neppala Srinivasa Rao	20 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/57/2013	Nuvvala Ramaiah vs Bokka Yesurathnam	19 Mar 2013	Order	—
CC/53/2011	Inspector of Police vs Talakuntapati Anjaneyulu	19 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/256/2009	Mavuluri Kondaiah vs Mavuluri Adam	18 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/399/2012	Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs Pilli Lincoln Raju	18 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/63/2011	Inspector of Police vs Syed Hussain	18 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/127/2010	Sub Inspector of Police vs Chevuri Thangella Rao	18 Mar 2013	Order	—
OS/106/2011	Rapuri Venkateswarlu vs Akula Subbamma	15 Mar 2013	Order	—
OS/414/2012	Darmavarapu Brahmaiah vs Gunji venkateswarlu	15 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/100/2012	Inspector of Police vs Shaik Khalesha	15 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/101/2012	Inspector of Police vs Thanneru Srinu	15 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/149/2011	Inspector of Police vs Mohammada Khan Patan	15 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
CC/93/2012	Inspector of Police vs A-1 Madala Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/16/2012	Emani Mohana Rao vs Daggupati Venkaiah	13 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/458/2009	Andhra Bank vs Palukuri Sudhakar Sadhu	13 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/39/2013	SRI RAM CHITS PVT.LTD vs Ballikura Venkata Rao	12 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/434/2009	Andhra Bank Rep by its Manager vs YV Ravindrudu	12 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/870/2008	Kunchala Anjaiah vs Chaluvadi Srinivasa Rao	12 Mar 2013	Judgement	—
OS/545/2008	Kadiyala Rajendra Prasad vs Mohammad Fayaz	28 Feb 2013	Order	—
OS/90/2012	Appala Venkateswarlu vs Mandal Revenue Tahsildar	27 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/89/2011	Inspector of Police vs Syed Firoz	27 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/162/2010	Pallapolu Mallikarjuna Reddy vs Lingisetty Venkata Rao	27 Feb 2013	Order	—
CC/500/2005	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Kurugoti Chandrasekhar-A2	27 Feb 2013	Order	—
CC/187/2011	Inspector of Police vs Chilaka Veeraiah	26 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/189/2012	SHO TALUK PS vs Thummala Vishnuvardhan reddy	26 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/245/2011	Inspector of Police vs Thalluri Ramanaiah	26 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/333/2007	Shaik Meera Saheb vs Shaik Mastan Vali	25 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/415/2012	Amara Sekhara Babu vs G.Bharathi	22 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/70/2011	Sub Inspector of Police vs Rayani Nagarjuna	22 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/260/2010	Sub Inspector of Police vs Rayani Nagarjuna	22 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/183/2007	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Pammi Krishna Reddy	21 Feb 2013	Order	—
CC/184/2011	Inspector of Police vs Persim Venkata Suresh	21 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/886/2005	Elika Chalapathi Rao vs Chivakula Vijaya Lakshmi	20 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/75/2012	Inspector of Police vs Jangili Vivekananda	20 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/391/2012	Mallineni Venkata Ramaiah @ Venkatarao vs Medarametla Venkateswara Rao	19 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/547/2012	Jangala Sobha Rani vs Zadda Somu Prakash	19 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/825/2006	Thotakura Samrajyam vs Upputuri Lakshman Rao	18 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/65/2012	Rayavarapu Kondla Rao vs U.V.Properties Private Limited	18 Feb 2013	Order	—
OS/16/2012	Emani Mohana Rao vs Daggupati Venkaiah	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/359/2011	Paluri Narayanamma vs Mula Srinivasulu	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/450/2007	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs Tellabati Srinivasa Rao	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/454/2012	Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited vs Chamarthi Srinivasa Rao	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/486/2012	Kodiganti Santha Kumari vs Jangala Devid Raju	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/626/2008	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Yadala Nagaiah	13 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
OS/343/2007	Ms Chalapati Chit Fund Pvt Ltd vs Chandragiri Venkata Seshu	12 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/2/2012	Inspector of Police vs Shaik Fazulla	12 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/120/2012	Inspector of Police vs Cheru alias seru Ramanaiah	12 Feb 2013	Judgement	—
CC/121/2012	Inspector of Police vs Singothu Mavayya	12 Feb 2013	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 302 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2013		1
Apr 2013		31
Mar 2013		38
Feb 2013		40
Jan 2013		34
Nov 2012		16
Oct 2012		33
Sep 2012		32
Aug 2012		31
Jul 2012		11
Jun 2012		27
May 2012		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., handled?

SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., has handled 307 court orders since 2012 at Prl District Court Ongole. The average disposal rate is 25 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., hear?

Based on available records, SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Prl District Court Ongole.

Where is SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., currently posted?

SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., is posted as III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., available online?

Yes. 3 judgments by SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., dispose cases?

SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., disposes approximately 25 cases per month, based on 307 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Court Ongole.

Since when is SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., serving?

SMT.S.C.KAMALA, L.L.B., has been serving at Prl District Court Ongole since 2012.

Case Types

CC 64%

OS 33%

PRC 2%

MC 1%

STC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2012 — May 2013

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 307 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE

10 orders

Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

4,159 orders

Smt. Pandiri Laltiha

II Additional District and Sessiosns Judge-cum-Spe...

474 orders

Smt. A.Purnima

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

409 orders

Sri K.Syam Babu

VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

12 orders

Smt G.Deena

JUDGE,FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,ONGOLE

0 orders

Smt V.Pallavi

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

0 orders

Sri Ch.V.Rama Krishna

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

710 orders

Smt S.Komalavalli

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

0 orders

Ms Y Shalini Reddy

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

505 orders

Ms. Shaik Roshan

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

325 orders

Ms. V.Navyashri

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

831 orders

Smt J.Krishna Priya

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

0 orders

Sri Vatram Venkateswara Rao

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE

983 orders

Miss K. Sailaja

Spl. Judge for speedy trial of offences under the...

293 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Court Ongole