Sri S.Chinababu

Pg 1 of 8 in C.C.381/12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Sri. S.Chinababu, M.A., LL.M.,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Monday, 22 nd day of April, 2013.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 381/12

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police J.R.Puram Police Station, Srikakulam.

.....Complainant.

And: Dunga Guru Murthy S/o lt. Chitteyya, 46 years SC (mala) by caste, Pedda mala veedhi, Rajam town, Srikakulam Dt.

..........Accused.

This case coming on 17-4-13 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant-State and of Sri. B. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, J.R.Puram Police Station,

Srikakulam, in his station Crime Number 204/11 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as the I.P.C., for brevity).

2.The material averments of the prosecution case are that on 27-12-11 at about 7.30 am one Yenda Paparao was waiting for a bus at the side of national highway-16 road leading from Srikakulam side towards

Visakhapatnam side at Dannapeta village. At that time the accused driven a car bearing no. AP 37 AV 216 coming from Srikakulam side towards

Visakhapatnam side rashly and negligently and thereby dashed the said

Paparao. Due to that said Paparao sustained grievous injuries on his right leg, head and fore head. Later he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam in 108 ambulance where he was treated by a doctor. The defecto-complainant being cousin of the injured Paparao lodged a report in J.R.Puram Police Station, basing on the same the Head Constable Mr. S. Thata Rao-779 registered the case for the offence u/s 304-A I.P.C. in Cr. No.204/11 and investigated the

Pg 2 of 8 in C.C.381/12 matter. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same and examined the witnesses. The injured was shifted to K.G.H., Visakhapatnam for better treatment and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to his injuries in

K.G.H., Visakhapatnam at about 9.40pm on 27-12-11. On the next day morning the defecto-complainant presented another report by informing about the death of the injured. Basing on that report the Head Constable prepared altered F.I.R and sent the same to Court. Dr. V. Chandra Sekhar of Andhra

Medical College, Visakhapatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and found the deceased succumbed to his multiple injuries. The

Assistant Motor Vehicle's Inspector Mr. T. Hari Prasada Rao inspected the crime car and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any of its mechanical defects. On 30-12-11 one Routhu Ramachandra Rao produced the accused in the police station before the Head Constable -779 and then the accused was arrested. After completion of investigation the Sub Inspector of

Police Mr. N. Srinivasarao filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s 304-A

I.P.C. against accused.

4.When the accused attended before the Court copies of case documents were furnished to him for offence u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/s 304-A I.P.C. The allegations were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case against accused, prosecution examined 10 witnesses i.e. P.W.s 1 to 10 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P11. The defence got marked Ex.D1 which is 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating material was explained to him for which he denied and did not chose to adduce his evidence.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the accused driven the car bearing no. A.P.37 AV 216 rashly or negligently and caused for the death of deceased Yenda Paparao?

Pg 3 of 8 in C.C.381/12

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 304-A I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that

P.W.2/Korlapu Rangal and P.W.4/Karimajji Bhaskararao being direct witnesses to accident deposed about rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and also testified about the identity of accused and their evidence was corroborated by the defecto-complainant and others. He further submitted that all the official witnesses also supported the prosecution version and the material placed on record can be relied upon to hold that the accused had committed the offence.

11.The learned counsel for accused submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.4 did not witness the accident but they were falsely implicated in this case and their evidence clearly shows that they are not direct witness to accident. He further submitted that the other witnesses do not connect with the accident directly and further the identity of accused was also not proved. The learned counsel finally contended that the evidence placed on record is with material discrepancies and contradictions and hence it cannot be relied upon to hold that the accused committed the alleged offence.

12.Considering the submissions and contentions of both sides, perusal of the entire material on record, including the testimony of P.W.s 1 to 10 coupled with Ex.s P1 to P11 and Ex.D1 the Court observed that the defecto-complainant being a cousin of the deceased Paparao presented his

Ex.P1 and P2 reports to the Investigating Officer by contending that while his cousin Yenda Paparao was waiting for bus to go to Visakhapatnam for coolie works meanwhile a car bearing no. A.P. 37 AV 216 was driven in high speed manner, negligently and dashed against Paparao and thereby said Paparao sustained injuries on his right knee, head and fore head and later succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment.

13.Identity of Accused: Either in Ex.P1 or Ex.P2 report the name or physical features of the driver of the crime car was not mentioned. It is not the case of prosecution that any of its witnesses have prior acquaintance with accused. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that the driver of the car went away by stopping his car after the accident. It is his further evidence that he witnessed

Pg 4 of 8 in C.C.381/12 the accident from a distance about 150 mts. When P.W.4 witnessed the accident from said distance and the driver of crime vehicle escaped soon after the accident it is very difficult to P.W.4 to identify the said driver in the place of accident. But he identified the accused in open Court as the driver of the crime vehicle. He did not assign any reasons as to how he able to identify the accused.

14.P.W.2/Korlapu Rangal was also examined as another direct witness. He also identified the accused in open Court. But he did not depose as to how he able to identify the accused. He also did not have prior acquaintance with him. Even though P.W.1/ Yenda Tavudu also identified the accused, he admitted that the police told him about the identity of the accused.

15.The Head Constable/P.W.10/S. Thata Rao simply testified that the accused surrendered in the police station as he was produced by P.W.6. But

P.W.6 did not support the prosecution case. The Investigating officer also not produced any document to connect the accused with the crime vehicle and accused was also not arrested soon after the accident.

16.Upon considering all these circumstances the evidence of

P.W.s1,2 and P.W.4 cannot be relied upon to believe the identity of the accused.

17.Rash or negligent act: Admittedly the defecto-complainant/P.W.1 is not a direct witness to accident. Hence his evidence that the crime vehicle was driven in high speed manner and without blowing horn cannot be considered as he is a hearsay witness. P.W.1 also not deposed as how he came to know about the manner of occurrence of accident. P.W.3/Yenda Asiramma is the wife of deceased/Paparao. She is also a hearsay witness. She came to know about the accident and rushed to hospital. Hence her evidence is also not helpful to prosecution case to determining the issue.

18.P.W.2/Korlapu Rangal is examined as one of the direct witnesses.

He deposed that while he was present in his pan shop the deceased/Paparao came to his shop for purchasing something and then crossing the highway road to go to other road and meanwhile the accident occurred. But either in

Ex.P1 or Ex.P2 any reference was not made about the pan shop or about

P.W.2. In the rough sketch of scene of offence and scene observation report

Pg 5 of 8 in C.C.381/12 also any such pan shop was not located nearby the place of accident. The I.O.

also admitted that fact. More over, P.W.2 also not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement that while the deceased was returning from his shop to go to other road of the highway the accident occurred.

19.The prosecution case is that when the deceased/Paparao was standing on the side of the road waiting for bus to go to Visakhapatnam he was meat with accident. But the testimony of P.W.2 is that while the deceased was crossing the road to go to other road of the national highway he meat with accident. To that extent he contradicting with his statement given to police and it is marked as Ex.D1. In the statement it is mentioned that while the deceased was waiting for bus and trying to stop the same the accident occurred. But in his evidence he materially changed his version and categorically deposed that while the deceased was crossing the road the accident occurred. This is a material discrepancy from his original statement and from the prosecution version. P.W.2 further testified that when the crime car dashed the deceased he fell on the other road over the divider. But the said fact was not deposed by any other witnesses including the defecto- complainant and PW.4. In the 161 Cr.P.C Statement also it was not mentioned. Thus the presence of P.W.2 at the time of accident is became doubtful. Moreover, his evidence about the circumstances of the accident is contradicting with the prosecution case. Hence his evidence cannot be relied upon.

20.P.W.4/Karimajji Bhaskararao deposed that while he was coming in his auto he witnessed the deceased Paparao was standing on the high way road leading from Srikakulam side towards Visakhapatnam side and then the crime car dashed him. He had not deposed that while the deceased was crossing the road the accident occurred. P.W.2 testified that after the accident he made phone call to P.W.4 and another Ramana and then they rushed to spot and taken the injured to hospital but P.W.4 deposed as he witnessed the accident. This is a material discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.2 and

P.W.4.

21.P.W.4 further deposed that he witnessed the accident from a distance about 15 meters. But he is unable to say as to at what distance from

Pg 6 of 8 in C.C.381/12 the divider the deceased was hit by the car. This evidence shows that P.W.4 did not observe the accident as he was at considerable distance from the accident spot. However, P.W.4 did not depose about manner of driving of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, his evidence became useless to the prosecution version. Further more, the material on record raises a reasonable doubt whether P.W.4 is a direct witness or hearsay witness.

22.The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are not directly concerned with the manner of occurrence of accident. The testimony of I.O is appears to be based on the statement given by witnesses. The main contention of the prosecution is that the crime car was driven in high speed manner and negligently and caused for accident. But the evidence placed on record, as discussed above, is unable to substantiate its contention.

23.At this juncture it is pertinent to go through the observations of

Hon'ble Supreme Court. In State of Karnataka Vs. Satish; 1998 SCC(crl.)

1508 = (1998)8 SCC 493 Hon'ble APEX Courtobserved that

Merely because the truck was being driven at a “high speed” does not bespeak of either “negligence” or “rashness” by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by “high speed”. “High speed” is a relative term. It was for prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by “high speed” in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed subject of course to some stationary exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on record, no presumption of “rashness” or “negligence” could be drawn by invoking the maxim “ res ipsa loquitur”. There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. (Para-4)

24.In K. Naga Raju Vs. State of A.P. 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 298. The

Pg 7 of 8 in C.C.381/12

Hon'ble High Court observed about the quantum of negligence as follows:

Before conviction can be sustained u/s 304-A I.P.C. a

very high degree of negligence must be proved. Negligence which amount to recklessness and utter indifference to the consequences and to the rules of the road must be established. Mere driving at high speed or some sort of negligence, which is not criminal rashness or negligence may not prove the ingredients of Sec. 304-A I.P.C. Simple lack of care may result in civil liability but by itself may not constitute criminal negligence punishable u/s 304-A I.P.C.(Para 12)

25.Upon considering the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances of the case the Court observed that the evidence placed on record is unable to substantiate the identity of the accused and more over the evidence of contended direct witness became reasonable doubt about their presence at the time of accident. The material on record is with important discrepancies and contradictions. The observations of Hon'ble Courts, mentioned supra are also related to the facts and circumstances of the case on record. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the evidence placed on record to hold that the accused himself caused for the accident and committed the offence. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

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

punishable u/s 304-A I.P.C. Hence he is acquitted as per the provisions of

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of April, 2013.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam. Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Yenda Tavudu P.W.2: Korlapu Rangal P.W.3: Yenda Asiramma P.W.4: Karimajji Bhaskararao P.W.5: Dannana Sominaidu P.W.6: Routhu Ramachndrarao

Pg 8 of 8 in C.C.381/12

P.W.7: Sinka Apparao P.W.8 : T. Hari Prasadarao P.W.9: Dr. V. Chandra Sekhar P.W.10 : S.Tatarao

For Defence: Nil.

Exhibits Marked:

Ex.P1: Report given to police by P.W.1 Ex.P2: Report dt. 28-12-11 Ex.P3: Scene observation Report. Ex.P4: U/s 161 Cr.P C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P5: Inquest Report Ex.P6: M V I Report Ex.P7: Postmortem Certificate Ex.P8: Original F.I.R Ex P9: Rough sketch Ex P10: 3 Photographs Ex. P11: Alterd F.I.R. For Defence: Ex.D1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Pg 1 of 7 in C.C.367/12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Sri. S.Chinababu, M.A., LL.M.,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Wednesday, 24 th day of April, 2013.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 367/12

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police J.R.Puram Police Station, Srikakulam.

.....Complainant.

And: Kallepalli Rambabu S/o lt. Jagannadham, 29 years SC Mala by caste, S.M.Puram village, Etcherla Md, Srikakulam District.

..........Accused.

This case coming on 22-4-13 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant-State and of Sri. M.M.Hussian, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, J.R.Puram Police Station,

Srikakulam, in his station Crime Number 84/11 filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/ss 509 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as the I.P.C., for brevity).

2.The material averments of the prosecution case are that the defecto-complainant Netala Vijaya is resident of Garikapalem village. While she was working in A.P. Mahila Samatha society, the accused Kallapalli

Rambabu got friendship and moved with her closely and also had sexual intercourse with her by promising her to marry but later he cheated her.

Upon that she filed a complaint against accused and it was tried for the charges of rape and others and was convicted and sentenced by trial court.

The said Judgment was later set aside by the appellate Court. While the things were like that the defecto-complainant was prosecuting her B.Ed.

Course in Srikakulam by coming from her village in bus. The accused got her mobile phone number and started to harass her by demanding her to come with him and also abused her in filthy language. Further, he demanded her to deposit an amount of Rs.1,000/- in his account number 302309613 of

Pg 2 of 7 in C.C.367/12

State Bank of India and threatened her that in case of failure to deposit the said amount he would make bad propaganda against her about their previous affairs with him. Due to the fear of threat the defecto-complainant deposited the said amount to the account of accused on 25-11-10. When she was going to college by got down from the bus a women informed her that if she does not talk to accused he will kill her and her family members. In view of the said harassment the defecto-complainant lodged a report before Sub Inspector of Police, J.R.Puram Police Station Mr. N. Venugopalarao who registered the case and investigated the matter. He examined the witnesses, addressed a letter to Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam for call details of the accused.

He also sent a correspondence to the chief Manager, S.B.I seeking account details of the accused. Subsequently his successor Mr. Ch. Surinaidu receive the correspondence from the chief Manager of S.B.I and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.On 30-11-11 cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/ss 509 and 506 I.P.C. against accused.

4.On 9-1-12 accused attended before the Court and copies of case documents were furnished to him as per the provisions u/s 207Cr.P.C.

5.On 16-2-12 the accused examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/ss 509 and 506 I.P.C. The allegations were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offences and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case against accused prosecution examined 5 witnesses i.e. P.W.s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P5.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 28-3-13 incriminating material was explained to him for which he denied and did not chose to adduce his evidence.

8.The learned A.P.P. submitted that the defecto-complainant deposed about the threatenings against her made by accused and her evidence clearly shows that her modesty was insulted by accused. He further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the circumstantial witnesses that is P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the documents produced before the

Court proved that the P.W.1 deposited the amount in the account of accused.

He finally submitted that the material placed on record proved that the

Pg 3 of 7 in C.C.367/12 accused committed the alleged offences.

7.The learned counsel for accused contended that the testimony of the defecto-complainant is vague and he is unable to substantiate the date, time or at least the period of alleged threatening or insult and further the Sim card or C.D. of the alleged conversation was not produced before the Court even though it is testified that they were handed over to police. She further contended that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are none other than the relatives of P.W.1 and further their evidence is hearsay in nature and their testimony shows that they are not reliable witnesses. She finally contended that the defecto- complainant filed false case by keeping the grudge that the sentence passed against accused was set aside by appellate Court and the Investigating

Officers did not investigate the case properly and filed false case under the pressure of said complainant. Thus she prayed the Court to acquit the accused.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the accused threatened the defecto-complainant/Netala Vijaya and thereby criminally intimidated her ?

2. Whether the accused insulted the modesty of defecto-complainant ?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/ss 509 and 506(1) I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?

10.Considering the submissions and contentions of both sides and on perusal of the entire material on record including the testimony of P.W.s 1 to 5 coupled with Ex.s P1 to P5 the Court observed that the defecto-complainant filed her Ex.P1 report by contending that the accused cheated her and thereby she filed a criminal case against him and the conviction Judgment of the trial

Court in the said matter was set aside by the appellate Court and later when she was carrying her B.Ed. course the accused secured her mobile phone number and used to call her by asking her to move with him. It is further mentioned in Ex.P1 that accused demanded her to deposit an amount of

Rs.1000/- in his account and threatened her to make bad propaganda against her at her college in case of her failure to deposit the same and out of the fear she deposited the said amount on 25-11-10. She further mentioned that when she was going to college one lady told her that accused asked her to talk with him in cell phone and otherwise he will make a galata and also kill

Pg 4 of 7 in C.C.367/12

P.W.1. P.W.1 specifically mentioned in her report that she is having possession of the messages sent by accused to her cell phone and also having recorded talking of the accused in her cell phone.

10.The defecto-complainant/P.W.1 testified that while she was doing her B.Ed. Course the accused used to make her phone call by asking her to move with him and also threatened her on phone. But she did not depose as to in what lines accused threatened her. P.W.1 further deposed that once accused demanded her to deposit Rs.1,000/- in his account number and also threatened her that he will make bad propaganda against her in her college if the demanded amount was not deposited and hence she deposited the said amount on 27-11-10. In support of her contention the prosecution got marked Ex.P2 which is a receipt counterfoil dated 27-11-10 issued by

S.B.I., Srikakulam branch. It bears the account number of the accused.

Therefore her evidence is supported by receipt/ Ex.P2 and shows that P.W.1 deposited Rs. 1,000/- in the account of accused.

11.Now the prosecution has to prove that only due to the threatening of accused she deposited the said amount in his account. On this aspect P.W.2 and PW.3 are hearsay witnesses. As per evidence of P.W.1 she was demanded for the said amount and she was threatened like that through her mobile phone. P.W.1 categorically deposed that she recorded the said conversation of accused in her cell phone and handed over her SIM card and a C.D to police. But the police did not produce the said SIM Card or relevant

C.D. The prosecution also had not taken any steps to produce the same

before the Court. In spite of opportunities given the said items containing

the phone conversations were not brought on record. Thus, the evidence of

P.W.1 is not supported by a reliable and substantial evidence.

12.P.W.1 deposed that neither P.W.2 nor P.W.3 are friends or relatives. But P.W.2 clearly admitted in her cross examination that P.W.1 is her niece and P.W.3 is the paternal aunt of P.W.1. Thus P.W.2 and P.W.3 are found to be relatives of P.W.1 but P.W.1 deposed otherwise that they are not her friends or relatives. It raises a suspicion that P.W.1 is trying to conceal the material aspects concerned to this case.

13.P.W.2/ Tale Padma deposed that accused used to threat P.W.1 and once they heard through the cell phone when the accused was

Pg 5 of 7 in C.C.367/12 threatening P.W.1 to kill her if she did not deposit the amount of Rs.1,000/- in his bank account. When the contents of Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1 says that the accused threatened her to make bad propaganda against her in case of her failure to deposit the amount whereas P.W.2 says that accused threatened P.W.1 to kill her if she did not deposit the amount. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is quite contradicting about the nature of threat allegedly given by accused against P.W.1

14.P.W.3/Tale Adamma testified that once she heard the threatening of accused through cell phone by demanding to deposit Rs.1,000/- in his account. But she did not say as to the nature of threatening made by him. In the cross examination she deposed that she does not know about the conversation heard from the cell phone of P.W.1. She admitted that she does not know as to who made the conversation which she heard through the phone. Thus her evidence clearly says that she does not know who made the conversation and also not known about the nature of conversation heard by her. Therefore her evidence deposed in the cross examination made her entire evidence deposed in her examination in chief is doubtful and unreliable.

15.More over when P.W.2 and P.W.3 saying that they heard the conversation through the cell phone of P.W.1 the prosecution ought to produce the concerned SIM Card or phone before the Court as it is a substantial evidence to prove the alleged conversation of the accused. But it failed to do so for the reasons not known to the Court. However, the evidence of P.W.2 is with material discrepancy with that of the P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.3 made it clear that she is not reliable witness.

16.The Investigating Officer/P.W.4 deposed that during the course of investigation the cell phone data relating to the conversation of accused was collected from the concerned service provider but the same is not filed

before the Court. If the said data was collected and it really shown that the

accused made such conversation the data would have been produced before the Court. But it was not produced, more over any explanation was also not offered as to why it was not produced for perusal of the Court. The evidence of P.W.1shows that she deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- in the account of accused. However mere depositing the said amount by itself would not amount to offence unless the prosecution proved that the accused threatened

Pg 6 of 7 in C.C.367/12

P.W.1 to deposit the same. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for accused anybody can deposit the amount will others accounts if they will know the account numbers of such other persons.

17.Another allegation made against accused is that he insulted the modesty of P.W.1. On this aspect the evidence of P.W.1 is that accused used to make phone calls to her and used to ask her to move with him by forgetting the past incidents. In Ex.P1 also the similar averments were laid down. As per prosecution case itself the accused asked P.W.1 like that keeping in view of his previous intimacy with P.W.1. In view of the said intimacy between the m mere asking P.W.1 to move with him by forgetting the past incidents by itself may not amount to insult her modesty. Apart from that the prosecution has to elicit the evidence has to the words, gestures or signs etc. used by accused against P.W.1 to cause insult to her modesty.

P.W.1 deposed that accused used to talk her vulgarly and in obscene manner.

But she did not depose the said words used by accused. Unless and until the said words were brought on record it cannot be decided whether they are vulgar or obscene. Even in the Ex.P1 report the said words were not mentioned. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are also not deposed the same.

18.Upon considering the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances of the case the Court observed that the evidence of defecto- complainant is vague and not confirming the charges levelled against accused. Even though P.W.2 and P.W.3 are relatives of P.W.1 their evidence is with material discrepancies to the testimony of P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. More over when the P.W.1 deposited the amount on 25-11-10 she lodged the report on 15-6-11 i.e. after about 6 months of the deposited the same. P.W.1 did not depose the date, time or at least the period in which a woman allegedly told P.W.1 about the demand and threatening of accused. Furthermore, the said woman was also not examined as witness. In these circumstances the evidence placed on record became doubtful and non production of the said SIM Card or C.D. containing the conversations is fatal to prosecution case. The unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. had also effected the prosecution case adversely. Admittedly there is previous enmity between P.W.1 and accused in view of the criminal case pending against accused. In the background of previous enmity it is not safe to

Pg 7 of 7 in C.C.367/12 rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of defecto-complainant. The benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. Hence I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences u/ss

506(1) and 509 I.P.C. Hence he is acquitted as per the provisions u/s 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry

of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, to her typing, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court this the 24th day of April, 2013.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Nethala Vijaya P.W.2: Tale Padma P.W.3: Tale Ademma P.W.4 : N. Venugopalarao P.W.5 : Ch. Surinaidu For Defence: Nil.

Exhibits Marked:

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 dt. 15-6-11 Ex.P2: Receipt counterfoil dt. 25-11-10 Ex.P3: Original F.I.R. Ex.P4: Letter isued by P.W.4 to the Branch Manager, SBI Maharanipeta. Ex.P5: Letter dt. 17-10-11 issued by Chief Manager, SBI, Maharanipeta For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

Nil.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Pg 1 of 8 in C.C.425/12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Sri. S.Chinababu, M.A., LL.M.,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Tuesday, 23 rd day of April, 2013.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 425/12

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police J.R.Puram Police Station, Srikakulam.

.....Complainant.

And:

1. Matcha Srinivasarao S/o Trinadharao, 22 years SC Mala by caste, H.No.16-10-102, Mutchivanipeta P.N. Colony down, 10th line, Srikakulam.

2. Budichetla Ramu S/o lt. Apparao, 22 years, Rajaka by caste, Santhinagar, near Arts college, Srikakulam

3. Shaik Ikbal @ Venkat S/o Hussain, 21 years, Muslim by caste, Pedarelli veedhi, Srikakulam

4. Akula Suresh S/o Chitti, 22 years, Relli by caste, near Lakshmi theater, Srikakulam.

5. Potnuru Naveen Kumar S/o Bhaskararao, 28 years vysya by caste, Balijepalli vari street, Udaya residency, Srikakulam.

..........Accused.

This case coming on 18-04-13 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant-State and of Sri. Ch. Sankar Narayana and Sri. G.S.K. Prasad, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, J.R.Puram Police Station,

Srikakulam, in his station Crime Numbers 39/11 filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable u/ss 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as the I.P.C. for brevity).

2.The case of prosecution is that during intervening night of 20/21-3-11 A1 to A4 went into B.S.N.L Cell Phone Tower situated at Kosta village and committed theft of V.R.L.A Batteries of Microtex company 18 in number total worth of Rs.36,000/-. On the next day morning they sold away 9 stolen batteries to one scrap shop owner Potnuru Navin Kumar/A5 (A6 as per

Pg 2 of 8 in C.C.425/12 charge sheet). A5 purchased the stolen batteries by knowing well that they are stolen. On 21-3-11 the Jr. Telecom officer, B.S.N.L. Ranasthalam Mr. Janapala

Damodararao lodged a report about the theft. The Head Constable no. 304 Mr.

V. Srinivasarao of J.R.Puram P.S registered the case, observed the scene of offence and investigated the matter. While so, on 31-3-11 the Sub Inspector of

Police of Donbai police station i/c Kothuru P.S Mr. M. Laxmanarao arrested

A1/Matcha Srinivasarao at Matchavanipeta village of Srikakulam town under cover of confession report. On the same day at about 9.45pm said S.I of Police arrested A2 to A4 at Santhinagar colony under confessional statement. At about 11.00 am of the same day the S.I of Police arrested Potnuru Navin

Kumar/A5 under cover of his confession statement and recovered 9 batteries out of 18 stolen batteries and sent the accused for remand. On 8-4-11 the Head

Constable obtained the stolen property of the Cr. No.39/11 from the Station

House Officer, Kothuru Police Station. On 26-4-11 the said Head Constable obtained the police custody of accused, interrogated them and also got identifying the stolen recovered property through A1 to A5 in the presence of mediators. Later the S.I of Police, J.R.Puram P.S. Mr. M. Avatharam verified the investigation and filed charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/s 379 or 411

I.P.C. against accused/A1 to A5.

5.When the accused A1 to A5 attended before the Court, copies of case documents were furnished to them for provisions u/s 207

Cr.P.C.

6.The accused A1 to A5 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed against accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable U/s 379 I.P.C and charge framed u/s 411 I.P.C. against A5. The allegations were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the offences and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove the case against accused, prosecution examined 8 witnesses i.e. P.W.s 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P10 and M.O.s 1 to 9.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence accused A1 to A5 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating material was explained to them for which they denied and did not chose to adduce their evidence.

Pg 3 of 8 in C.C.425/12

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for accused.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the accused A1 to A4 committed theft of V.R.L.A. Batteries of Microtex company 18 in number from the possession of the defecto- complainant?

2. Whether the stolen property was recovered from the voluntary possession of A5?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence U/s 379 I.P.C and for offence u/s 411 I.P.C. Against A5 beyond reasonable doubt?

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the defecto-complainant having the original possession of the stolen property identified them after they were recovered by the police from the possession of accused and thereby the identity of case property is proved. He further submitted that the independent witness for confession of the accused and recovery of stolen property has also corroborated the prosecution version and the evidence was also supported by the concerned S.I of Police. He finally submitted that the material placed on record is sufficient and can be relied upon to believe the prosecution case.

12.The learned counsels for accused contended that the material witnesses including the mediators for alleged confession of accused did not support the prosecution case and further their evidence is with material discrepancies and contradictions with the prosecution version. He further contended that the alleged recovered property is not proved as the stolen property concerned to this crime and hence the case against accused can be discarded. The learned counsels finally contended that the alleged confession made by accused before the police or in their immediate presence cannot be admissible as evidence unless such confession lead to recovery of case property. The counsels for accused finally submitted that the evidence on record cannot be believed and hence the accused may be acquitted.

13.Considering the submissions and contentions of both sides, perusal of the entire material on record, including the testimony of P.W.s 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P10 and M.O.s 1 to 9 the Court observed that the defecto-complainant/P.W.1 presented his Ex.P1 report to police by contending

Pg 4 of 8 in C.C.425/12 that at early hours of 21-3-11 some unknown culprits committed theft of

V.R.L.A. Microtex batteries bearing numbers 2 to 16 and 21 to 23.

14.The testimony of defecto-complainant/P.W.1 is limited to the fact that he came to know about the theft of batteries 18 in number from the

B.S.N.L tower. He deposed that the serial numbers of said batteries are 2 to 16 and 21 to 23. The witness identified the said 9 batteries as that of a part of 18 stolen batteries and hence they were marked as M.O.s 1 to 9. But he is not a direct witness to the incident of theft or for recovery of stolen property.

P.W.2/Vandrangi Satya Prasad is also not a direct witness to the theft of property or for recovery of the same. He simply deposed about the observation of the scene of offence and hence it is marked as Ex.P3.

15.P.W.3/Bonam Gurumurthy and P.W.4/Mylapalli Kamaraju are examined as mediators for the interrogation of accused made by Head

Constable 304 of J.R.Puram P.S in the police station. But they did not support the prosecution case. They have not deposed anything about the confession of accused and identification of case property. Even though the Head Constable 304/P.W.7 deposed about interrogation of accused and recording their confession, admittedly he did not discover any case property out of the alleged confession of accused. The alleged case property M.O.s 1 to 9 was already recovered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kotturu Police Station while advance to the date of said interrogation of accused by the Head Constable.

Hence any such confession of accused allegedly given before the Head

Constable is inadmissible as it was made in the immediate presence of the police officer.

16.As per the prosecution case A1 was arrested in Matchavanipeta of

Srikakulam any of the case property concerning to the present Cr. No.39/11 was not seized from his possession. The case property was not seized even from the possession of A2 to A4 those were allegedly arrested at Santhinagar colony under their confession. But the case property was said to had been recovered from the possession of A5 from his scrap shop on 31-3-11 at about 11.00am. When the prosecution case is like this P.W.5 who was examined as mediator for the confession of accused and recovery of case property deposed that A1 admitted and confessed the offence of theft of batteries.

Pg 5 of 8 in C.C.425/12

17.P.W.5 further deposed that police arrested 5 persons in their presence and recorded the confession that the accused committed batteries and sold 10 of them to A5/ Navin Kumar. But as per the prosecution case only 9 of the total 18 stolen batteries were sold to A5. The evidence of P.W.5 says that 10 batteries were sold to A5. This is a discrepancy. Further more P.W.5 says that the police seized 13 batteries from the said culprits. But as per the prosecution case any of them are not concerned to the present crime. His further evidence is that police recovered 10 batteries from the possession of

A5/ Navin Kumar. But he did not specify as to whether the said batteries are concerned to the present crime or relating to any other crimes.

18.In the cross examination P.W.5 categorically deposed that he cannot say the numbers of the batteries which were recovered from the possession of accused and he cannot say about the identity of the batteries as to from which accused they were seized. It is the specific contention of the accused that the alleged recovery of accused are not concerned to the present crime. The testimony of P.W.5 gives support when the contention of accused as he is unable to depose about their identity. On this aspect another important witness is the Sub Inspector of Police, Donbai i/c Kotturu Police

Station/P.W.5. He deposed that on 31-3-11 he arrested A1 at Matchivanipeta and recovered 9 batteries concerned to the present crime that is Cr. No.39/11 of J.R.Puram Police Station and under cover of confession statement. He further testified that from any of other accused including A5 he did not take over present case property. His evidence says that M.O.s 1 to 9 were recovered from the possession of A1 in Matchavanipeta where as the evidence of Investigating Officer and prosecution case is that they were recovered from the possession of A5 from his scrap shop situated near Srikakulam town. Thus the evidence of Investigating Officer and mediator is totally contradicting about the recovery of case property. The S.I of Police admitted that the name of the company, capacity of batteries and other description of the recovered batteries was not mentioned in the confession statements recorded by him. If it is so he has to explain as to on what basis he concluded that M.O.s 1 to 9 are the stolen property concerned to this crime.

20.The Head Constable 304 of J.R.Puram Police station also not

Pg 6 of 8 in C.C.425/12 explained as to on what basis he concluded that M.O.s 1 to 9 are the stolen property concerned to this crime. In Ex.P1 report serial numbers 2 to 16 and 21 to 23 were mentioned as the numbers on stolen batteries. But any of the witnesses including mediator/P.W.5 and Investigating Officer/P.W.6 not deposed the said serial numbers and also the bearing numbers of the said batteries. In the relevant portion of alleged confession statement/Ex.P8 it was not specifically mentioned that any of the recovered batteries belongs to

B.S.N.L. Cellphone tower of Kosta village. More over the said serial numbers were also not mentioned in the Ex.P5. The M.O.s 1 to 9 batteries do not bear the any of the serial numbers 2 to 16 or 21 to 23.

21.Upon considering all these evidence the Court observed that the testimony of Investigating Officer/P.W.6 is totally failed to substantiate the identity of the case property and further the testimony of mediator/P.W.5 and

Investigating Officer is totally contradicting about from whose possession they were recovered. Therefore, there is a reasonable doubt about the recovery of stolen property. It is well established fact that any confession made before or in the presence of police officials is inadmissible unless such confession lead to recovery of material objects. In the present case there is a reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the case property.

22.Upon considering all these evidence, facts and circumstances of the case the Court observed that the evidence placed on record is with material discrepancies and contradictions as afore mentioned. As rightly pointed out by learned counsels for accused the Court observed that the material placed on record raises a reasonable doubt to say whether the alleged recovered property is the stolen property or not. More over, any of the witnesses did not depose that A1 to A4 themselves committed theft of the property. The alleged recovery of case property from the possession of A5 is also became doubtful.

In these circumstances it cannot be held that the accused committed the charged offences. The benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. Hence I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

23.In the result A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence

punishable u/s 379 I.P.C. and A5 is also found not guilty for the offence u/s

Pg 7 of 8 in C.C.425/12

411 I.P.C. Hence they are acquitted as per the provisions of Sec. 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The M.O.s 1 to 9 which are V.R.L.A. Batteries belongs to B.S.N.L.

Cell tower of Kosta village and were given to the interim custody of the

J.T.O. Mr. Janapala Damodara Rao/P.W.1 shall holds good after expiry of

appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after

expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 23rd day of April, 2013.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Janapala Damodhararao P.W.2: Vandrangi Satya Prasad P.W.3: Bonam Gurumurthy P.W.4: Mylapalli Kamaraju P.W.5: Karakavalasa Sangameswararao P.W.6: M. Laxmanarao P.W.7: V. Srinivasarao P.W.8: N. Venugopalarao For Defence: Nil.

Exhibits Marked:

Ex.P1: Report given to police by P.W.1 Ex.P2: Inquest Report Ex.P3: Scene observation report Ex.P4: Signature of P.W.3 on confession report Ex.P5: Signature of P.W.5 on property identification report Ex.P6 : Signature of P.W.4 on the confession report Ex.P7: Signature of P.W.4 on Identification report ExP8: Relevnt portion of confession statement of A6 Ex.P9:Original F.I.R Ex.P10: Rough sketch For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O.1: V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 78132 M.O.2: V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 45809 M.O.3:V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 16517/17 M.O.4:V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 67835 M.O.5:V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 96118 M.O.6V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 71846

Pg 8 of 8 in C.C.425/12

M.O.7:V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 82413 M.O.8:V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 84123 M.O.9: V.R.L.A. Battery bearing no. 92328

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Pg 1 of 6 in C.C.213/12

THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, IN

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Sri. S.Chinababu, M.A., LL.M.,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this Thursday, 25 th day of April, 2013.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 213/12

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Women Police Station, Srikakulam.

.....Complainant.

And: Kari Laxmanarao S/o Ramulu, 25 years, Vadabalija by caste, Dammala veedhi, Srikakulam.

..........Accused.

This case coming on 23-4-13 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant-State and of Sri. S. Vasudeva Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station,

Srikakulam, in her station Crime Number 12/12 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as the I.P.C., for brevity).

2.The material averments of the prosecution case are that Kari

Indu and accused Kari Laxmanarao belong to Dammala Veedhi,

Srikakulam town. They loved each other and married in the presence of elders on 14-6-09. After the marriage she joined the accused for matrimonial life in his house and she was looked after well up to 4 months of their marriage. Later the accused started to harass her by beating and scolding by suspecting her character and by attributing illegal contacts to her with others. Later the matter was raised before elders but it was not settled. When the defecto-complainant complained the mater in Women

Police Station, the accused promised to look after well but he continued his harassment against her. Hence the defecto-complainant came to her

Pg 2 of 6 in C.C.213/12 parents house and the accused used to go to the said house in drunken state and used to abuse and beat her. In these circumstances the defecto- complainant lodged a report in Women Police Station, Srikakulam. The

Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station registered the case and investigated the matter and examined the witnesses. The Woman Head

Constable 785 of Women Police Station arrested the accused on 23-2-12 and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation the S.I of

Police filed charge sheet against accused.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 498-A

I.P.C. against accused.

4.When accused attended before the Court copies of case documents were furnished to him as per the provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed against him for the offence punishable U/s 498-A I.P.C. The allegations were read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the case against accused, prosecution examined 6 witnesses i.e. P.W.s 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.s P1 and P2. D.W.1 and

D.W.2 are examined on behalf of defence and relevant portion of 161

Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 is marked as Ex.D1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material was explained to him for which he denied and chosen to adduce his evidence and D.W.1 and D.W.2 are examined.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for accused.

9.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the accused subjected the defecto-complainant Kari Indu for cruelty as defined by Sec. 498-A I.P.C.?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/s 498-A I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the defecto-complainant testified about the harassment made against her by the

Pg 3 of 6 in C.C.213/12 accused by suspecting her character and her evidence was supported by her mother and sister. He further submitted that the independent witness/P.W.4 also corroborated the prosecution case about the harassment of accused against defecto-complainant and hence the evidence placed on record by the prosecution can be relied upon to hold the accused committed the charged offences.

11.The learned counsel for accused contended that the defecto- complainant herself deserted the accused as she would not have interest to lead marital life with him and in fact the said complainant stayed with accused only for few days and in that short period harassment against defecto-complainant for the continuous period is not possible. He further contended that the evidence placed on record failed to prove the ingredients of the charged offences. The learned counsel further contended that the neighbours of defecto-complainant or the accused were not examined and on the other hand the elders to the dispute was examined as

D.W.2 who categorically deposed that the defecto-complainant herself deserted the accused and in fact there is no harassment against her. Finally he contended that prosecution failed to substantiate its case and hence the accused may be acquitted.

12.Considering the submissions and contentions of both sides, perusal of the material on record including the testimony of P.W.s 1 to 6,

D.W.s 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.s P1 and P2 and Ex.D1 the Court observed that the defecto-complainant/P.W.1 presented her Ex.P1 report by contending that up to 4 months of her marriage with A1 she was looked after well in the matrimonial house and later accused started to suspect her character and used to harass her by beating and scolding and also used to attribute legal contacts to her with others. It is further mentioned in Ex.P1 that when their dispute was raised before elders they did not settle the matter when the matter was complained in the Women P.S. and conducted counselling the accused did not change his attitude. It is finally mentioned that the accused used to go to parents house of defecto-complainant in drunken state, abused and beat her daily.

13.It is not the case of prosecution that P.W.1 was harassed with a

Pg 4 of 6 in C.C.213/12 view to meet any unlawful demand for dowry, property or valuable security or in view of failure to meet any such demand. Any of the witnesses examined including P.W.1 did not depose that harassment is with a view to get any dowry , property or valuable security.

14.To attract the provisions under clause(b) of Sec.498-A I.P.C harassment should be with a view to meet any unlawful demand for dowry, property or valuable security or on account of failure to meet said demands. Mere harassment would not amount to cruelty as contemplated under clause(b) of Sec.498-A I.P.C.

15.P.W.1/Kari Indu is defecto-complainant. P.w.2/Vadapalli

Lakshmi is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.3/Nara Kamala is the sister of P.W.1.

They deposed that the accused used to suspect the character of P.W.1 and harassed to beat and scold her in view of his suspicion It is not her evidence that she is also one of the elders of the dispute between P.W.1 and accused. She further testified that one Rambabu and another Tari

Ramanamma had acted as elders to the marriage and matrimonial dispute of P.W.1 and A1. But the prosecution would not examine any of the said elders to the dispute. P.W.1 herself admitted that one Mylapalli Narasimha

Murthy is the elder for their matrimonial dispute. He is not examined by the prosecution. In fact he was examined as D.W.2 on behalf of the accused. His evidence clearly says that P.W.1 herself deserted the family life with her husband and the dispute was also raised before Vadabalija seva sangham for which he is the president. He further testified that the parents of defecto-complainant themselves requested him to arrange the dispute has their brought up P.W.1 is not willing to join the matrimonial life and hence the settlement was effected by way of execution of deed of divorce in the presence of parents of other elders of both sides. His evidence was not shaken through out his cross examination conducted by the learned A.P.P.. On the other hand P.W.1 herself admitted that P.W.2 is the elder to their matrimonial dispute. P.W.s 1 to 4 further deposed that even though the elders of the matrimonial dispute had advised the accused, he did not change his attitude. But any of such elders were not examined by the prosecution. The only elder/D.W.2 examined before the Court had

Pg 5 of 6 in C.C.213/12 not given evidence in support of the prosecution case. In fact he corroborated the version of the defence.

16.To attract the ingredients of clause(a) of Sec.498-A I.P.C the prosecution has to establish that any wilful conduct of accused shall be in such a manner to drive the victim/defecto-complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical). In the present case the evidence of witness is that the accused used to harass P.W.1 by beating and scolding by suspecting her character.

Any of the witnesses including P.W.1 had not deposed about any consequences of alleged harassment of accused against P.W.1.

17.There is no material on record to show that the defecto- complainant had attempted to commit suicide in view of conduct of the accused. It is further not placed any record that such conduct of accused is in such a manner to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of

P.W.1. The evidence does not say anything that the health of P.W.1 was deteriorated due to conduct or harassment of accused. It is well known that the provisions under clause(a) of Sec. 498-A I.P.C are consequences oriented. Where as that of clause(b) are intention oriented. The evidence on record failed to prove any such consequences of alleged conduct of accused to attract the provisions of clause(a) of Sec.498-A I.P.C.

18.Upon considering the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances of the case the Court observed that the neighbours of house of defecto-complainant were not examined and further that the elder of the dispute supported the version of the accused. More over the evidence produced by prosecution is unable to substantiate the ingredients of clause(a) or clause(b) of Sec. 498-A I.P.C. Further more, the prosecution not elicited the date or time or at least the period of alleged harassment of accused against P.W.1. In these circumstances the Court is of the considered view that the evidence on record is vague and not confirming to the ingredients of the charged offences. It leaves material doubt against the prosecution version. The benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. Hence

I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Pg 6 of 6 in C.C.213/12

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

punishable u/s 498-A I.P.C. Hence he is acquitted as per the provisions

of Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any shall be

destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 24th day of April, 2013.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution: P.W.1: Kari Indu P.W.2: Vadapalli Laxmi P.W.3: Nara Kamala P.W.4: Allipalli Radha P.W.5: D. Renuka P.W.6: M. Tirupathirao For Defence: D.W.1: Kari Laxmanarao D.W.2: Mylapalli Narasimhamurthy

Exhibits Marked:

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1 given to police. Ex.P2: Original F.I.R. For Defence: Ex.D1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SRIKAKULAM.

Present: Sri. S.Chinababu, M.A., LL.M.,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Dated this the Tuesday, 23 rd day of April, 2013.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 387/12

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Women Police Station, Srikakulam.

.....Complainant.

And:

1. Gudla Rajasekhar S/o lt. Rangarao, 25 years, Vysya

2. Gudla Ramaratnam W/o lt. Rangarao, 41 years, Vysya

3. Gudla Bhanuchandra S/o lt. Rangarao, 23 years,Vysya

4. Seerapu Swathi W/o Kumar, 21 years, Reddika

5. Seerapu Kumar, S/o lt. Narasimharao, 28 yers, Reddika All are residents of H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam.

..........Accused.

This case coming on 22-4-13 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant-State and of Sri. K. Shrirama Murthy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Srikakulam, in her station Crime Number 3/12filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/s 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.The material averments of the prosecution case are that the marriage of defecto-complainant Gudla Rupavathi is performed with

A1/Rajaswkhar on 20-6-11 at TTD Kalyana Mandapam as per their caste customs and Hindu rites. At the time of marriage the parents of complainant presented dowry of Rs.2,50,000/-, 6 ½ tulas of gold ornaments and sarisamans worth of Rs.30,000/-. After the marriage they lived happily for some time. In the eve of Aashadam the defecto-complainant went to her parents house situated at Adivarampeta in Srikakulam town and she get back to her in laws house situated at Visakhapatnam. Since then accused harassed her mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-, but she expressed her inability to meet his unlawful demand. Due to that all the 2 accused beat her and kicked with legs indiscriminately and necked her out from their house by taking her gold ornaments forcibly. Finally as there is no other go she reported the matter to police in the Women P.S. Hence the charge.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/ss 498-A

I.P.C. and Sec.s 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against A1 to A5. After the accused A1 to

A5 attended before the court copies of case documents were furnished to them u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed against A1 to A5 for the offences U/ss 498-A I.P.C. and Sec. 3 and 4 of

D.P.Act read over the allegations to the accused for which, they denied the offences and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.s P1 to P3. Basing on the nature of evidence the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses including that of the Investigating Officer. After closure of the prosecution evidence the

Court observed that no incriminating evidence was adduced against the accused. Hence the examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispenses with.

6.Heard both learned Assistant Public prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused. Both of them submitted that there is no incriminating material against accused as the material witnesses compromised in this case.

7.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.?

8. Considering the submissions of both sides, perusal of the material on record including the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.s

P1 to P3 the Court observed that P.W.1/Gudla Rupavathi being defecto- complainant testified that she does not know the facts of the case and she was never harassed by any of the accused. Hence the signature of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P1 and her 161 Cr.P.C. statement is makred as Ex.P2.

9.P.W.2/ Baratam Nagabushanam is the father of defecto- complainant. He deposed in similar lines of the evidence of P.W.1 that he 3 does not know anything about the facts of the case. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of P.W.2.

10. Considering the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, the court observed that the interested witnesses did not support the prosecution version. At least they had not corroborated the contents of the report said to had been presented by them. It shows that the interested witnesses are compromised with the accused and hence they resiled from their original version. Even though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined all of them got declaring as hostile, any incriminating material against accused was not elicited. However, there is no single piece of evidence against the accused. Hence I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused in any manner.

12.In the result accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for

the offences U/ss 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Hence they are acquitted as per the provisions of section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The

unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 23rd day of April, 2013.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

For Prosecution:

P.W.1: Gudla Rupavathi P.W.2: Baratam Nagabushanam For Defence: Nil. Nil.

Exhibits Marked:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on report given to the police Ex.P2: U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2 For Defence: Nil.

Material Objects:

Nil.

Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Special Mobile Court, Srikakulam.