Sri S. Mahendra Phani Kumar

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Friday, this the 21 st day of December, 2012

CC No.995/2008

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka. …Complainant A n d:

Aadari Kanna Rao @ Kannababu, S/o Nookanna, age 38 years, Gavara by Caste, Nookambika Panshop, Main Road, Near Sivalayam, Munagapaka Village. …Accused

This case coming on 29-11-2012 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri V. Rajasekhar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.2/2007 against the sole accused for the alleged offences u/sec. 34 (a) (h) of A.P.E.Act and Secs. 353 and 506 IPC.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

The Defacto Complainant by name Sunkara Venkata Apparao is the Excise

Sub Inspector of Excise Station, Anakapalle and he is a public servant within the ambit of Sc.21 IPC. On 16-01-2007 at 8pm the Defacto

Complainant was conducting patrolling along with his staff and while going on the road at Munagapaka leading from Anakapalle towards

Atchuthapuram, he observed some public gathering at Panshopof the accused which was styled as ‘Nookambica Panshop’ . On suspicion the

Defacto Complainant went to the shop of accused and observed that the accused was selling IML liquor without having license and permit.

Immediately the Defacto Complainant secured two mediators and seized the contraband in the presence of mediators and tried to arrest the accused. At that time the accused abused the Defacto Complainant in filthy language and also assaulted and threatened with dire consequences.

Therefore the accused has threatened and obstructed the Defacto

Complainant from discharging his duties as public servant. Therefore the

Defacto Complainant arrested the accused with the help of his staff and brought to the Munagapaka Police Station and handed over the accused, contraband and presented a written report. Basing on the report given by the Defacto Complainant a case was registered by the Munagapaka Police and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation the

Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Investigating Officer also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. The Investigating Officer also forwarded the samples which were collected from the contraband to the Chemical Examiner for analysis.

Subsequently the Investigating Officer received the report from Chemical

Examiner stating that some are samples are Indian Made liquor and some of the substandard IML liquor. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file against the sole accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) (h) of A.P.E Act.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05 The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence under Section 34(a) (h) of A.P.E Act and Sec.353 and 506 IPC were framed and read over to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6. The Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of

L.W1 as died. Later the prosecution evidence was closed. The defence counsel got marked part of 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.D1 through P.W1.

07After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating evidence placed against him. He reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: -

10.“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs.34(a) (h) of A.P.E Act and Secs.353 and 506 IPC or not”?

11.POINT:

In this case the Defacto Complainant is also victim i.e., (L.W1) by name Sunkara Venkata Apparao (died). Therefore the staff of the

Defacto Complainant who are the Excise Constables are the only eye witnesses to the incident and they are examined as P.Ws 1 to 3 in this case. P.W1 deposed in his evidence stating that he worked as Excise constable of Anakapalle Excise Station and on 16-01-2007 he along with the Sub Inspector of Police by name Venkata Apparao and other staff while conducting patrolling around 8.00 p.m. when they went near Nookambika

Pan Shop, they observed some gathering at that place. There they found somebody consuming liquor and on suspicion they verified the shop of accused and found 13 American Royal Choice bottles, 9 American Deluxe bottles, Royal Choice, Gold Ribbon whisky, one Sharif Fine whisky, gold

Ribbon whisky and some steel glasses. The accused was in possession of the said liquor bottles. Later the accused assaulted the Excise Sub

Inspector of Excise i.e., Venkata Apparao as a protest for his arrest. Then the S.I arrested the accused and seized the contraband in the presence of mediators. Meanwhile the Munagapaka Police came there and Excise Sub

Inspector of police gave report to the Sub Inspector, Munagapaka P.S on the spot. During the cross examination he stated that he along with two excise Constables accompanied with the Excise Sub Inspector went to the scene of offence. He further admitted that he did not state to the police about the description of the contraband seized from the accused. He further admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and there are residential houses. He further admitted that he did not sign on the Mediators report and also does not know the contents. He further admitted that the incident happened about 5 years back and he cannot identify the accused. He further admitted that he stated before police as in Ex.D1. A suggestion was given to the witness stating that the police case has been lodged against the accused because of political influence and he is deposing false to favour his department and no incident took place but the same was denied by the witness.

12.P.W2 is another Excise Constable who accompanied the Excise

Sub Inspector on the date of incident. He also deposed in similar lines like that of P.W1. However, contrary to the evidence of P.W1, P.W2 stated that the Excise Sub Inspector of Police drafted a report and submitted the same to the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka in the station and Ex.P1 is the report given by the Excise S.I. During the cross examination P.W2 admitted that around 30 people gathered near the scene of offence at the time of incident. He further stated that he did not observe whether

Nookambica Pan shop is part and parcel of the residential house or not.

He further stated that he signed on the mediators report. He further admitted that the mediators already accompanied with them from the station to the scene of offence, as such they did not secure the mediators at the scene of offence. He further admitted that he cannot say whether the accused is one among the persons who attacked on the deceased

Excise Sub Inspector, (L.W1) or not. A suggestion was given to the witness that no incident took place and he is deposing false to help the prosecution case and the same was denied by the witness. Similarly P.W3 who is also another Excise Constable who accompanied Excise Sub Inspector on the date of incident deposed in similar lines like that of P.Ws 1 and 2. During the cross examination P.W3 admitted the he did not stated to police that the accused was selling alcohol in loose. He further admitted the he did not signed in the mediators report. He did not even sign on the labels affixed to the sample bottles. He further stated that he does not know how the Excise S.I secured the mediators at the scene of offence. P.W4 is the

Chemical Examiner who examined the samples seized from the contraband and issued report. She deposed in her evidence stating that she received 8 IML sample bottles from the S.I of Police, Munagapaka on 27-01-2007 and examined the said sample bottles and issued report on 31- 03-2007. According to her report the liquor bottles with S.No.1760 to 1761 are substandard Indian Made Liquor and whereas the sample bottles with

Sr.No.1769 is standard Indian made liquor. Ex.P2 is the analysis report issued by her. During the cross examination, P.W4 admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P2 report as to when she received the sample bottles for analysis and also did not mention the date when the report was dispatched to the police.

13.P.W5 is the mediator in whose presence the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and the samples were drawn.

P.W5 deposed in his evidence stating that the police never seized any liquor bottles from the accused and he never acted as a mediator. He is not even a signatory. He was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

Similarly P.W6 is also a mediator in whose presence the contraband was seized from the possession of accused and samples were drawn from the contraband. He also deposed that about 5 years back while he was going in his village, police stopped him and obtained signature on a written paper but he does not know the contents of written report. Ex.P3 is his signature. He was also declared as hostile. P.W7 is the Investigating

Officer in this case. He deposed in his evidence stating that on 16-01-2007 the Defacto Complainant (Sunkara Venkata Apparao) Excise Sub Inspector came to the police station along with his staff and accused and gave a report. Basing on the report, he registered a case and issued F.I.R. Ex.P4 is the F.I.R. Ex.P5 is the mediators report. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. On the next day he took up further investigation and visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

Ex.P6 is the rough sketch. Later he also forwarded the seized sample bottles for the Chemical analysis. Subsequently he received report from the Chemical Examiner and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During cross examination the Investigating Officer admitted that P.W3 did not stated before him that the accused was selling IML in loose. The investigating Officer also admitted that the mediators report does not contain the signature of the accused and also the name of the accused. The Investigating Officer also admitted that the scene of offence is a very busy locality. A suggestion was given to the witness stating that a false case has been registered against the accused on the false report given by the Defacto Complainant (L.W1) and the same was denied by the witness.

14.Heard the Learned A.P.P and Defence Counsel.

15.The main defence of the accused in this case is that the accused belong to Telugu Desam Party. Prior to the incident a drama was played at Anakapalle Town wherein the accused played a role of Congress

Party M.L.A, as such the local Congress Party M.L.A bore grudge and lodged this false case through the Excise Sub Inspector to take revenge.

When the case was lodged by the police, an agitation was done by the

Telugu Desam Party leaders and a publication was also made to that effect in all the news papers. The accused also produced the publications made in the daily news papers. During his 313 Cr.P.C examination the accused stated that a publication was made immediately after the incident which categorically establish that the case lodged by the police is false and the case has been registered under the influence of congress party leaders.

Coming to the evidence on record, the Defacto-Complainant who is the victim in this case is no more. Therefore the entire case depends upon the evidence of Excise Constables who accompanied the Defacto Complainant at the time of incident and they are examined as P.Ws 1 to 3. P.W1 though stated that the accused is the person involved in the incident, but during cross examination stated that the incident has happened 5 years back, as such he cannot say whether the accused is the person involved in the incident or not. Moreover P.W1 categorically stated that the Munagapaka

Police came to the scene of offence at the time of incident and at the place itself the Excise Sub Inspector presented a report. On the other hand P.Ws 2 and 3 stated that after the incident, the Excise Sub Inspector along with them went to the Munagapaka Police station and presented a report.

Therefore the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is contradictory and inconsistent.

16.Moreover P.W1 stated that the Excise S.I secured the mediators at the scene of offence but P.Ws 2 and 3 categorically stated that they carried the mediators form the station along with them to the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is also contradictory in this regard. Moreover P.W2 also categorically stated that they cannot identify whether accused is the person who attacked the

Defacto Complainant or not. Therefore, P.Ws 1 and 2 categorically stated the he cannot identify the accused whether he is the person involved in the incident or not. Therefore, in the light of evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, the case of the prosecution cannot sustain. Coming to the seizure of contraband and drawing samples is concerned, prosecution failed to establish the seizure of contraband and drawing of samples. The prosecution failed to produce unspent sample bottles in this case.

Generally the samples will be collected from the contraband and the same will be sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. During analysis some quantity will be used and the remaining unspent samples will be returned back to the Investigating Officer. In the present case, the prosecution failed to produce the unspent sample bottles during evidence to prove that the report given by the Expert is relating to the samples drawn in this case.

17. The main case of the prosecution is that the seizure of the contraband and drawing of samples was done in the presence of P.Ws 5 and 6 who are the mediators. Surprisingly P.Ws 5 and 6 categorically stated that they do not know the facts of the case and the police never seized any contraband from the possession of accused. They also categorically stated that they does not know the contents of the mediators report. Therefore, in the light of evidence of mediators, the seizure of contraband and drawing of samples was not proved by the prosecution.

Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that the contraband was seized from the possession of accused and the sample bottles which were sent to the Chemical Examiner were drawn from the same contraband seized from the possession of accused. Moreover the sample bottles were not produced before the court to prove the signatures of accused, mediators and the Investigating Officer on the labels affixed to the sample bottles. There is no evidence on record to show that the report given by the Chemical Examiner is relating to the sample bottles pertaining to this case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused and drawing of samples.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 34(a) (h) of A.P.E Act. So far as Sec.353 and 506 IPC are concerned, P.Ws 1 and 2 categorically stated that they cannot identify the accused as to whether he is the person involved in the incident or not.

Therefore, P.Ws 1 and 2 are unable to identify the accused in this case as such the benefit shall go in favour of the accused. Moreover, when the scene of offence is a busy locality, Investigating Officer is expected to secure mediators from the neighbouring locality. In the present case though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the Excise S.I carried mediators from his station to the scene of offence and no explanation was offered by the Excise Officials in this regard and it also throws doubt on the case of the prosecution. Moreover the evidence of P.Ws1 to 3 is in consistent and contradictory to each other. P.W1 stated that the

Munagapaka police came to the scene of offence and registered a case and whereas P.Ws 2 and 3 stated that after incident they went to the police station and presented a report in the police station and thereafter, a case was registered. Considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the witnesses is not corroborative and trustworthy. On the other hand, the plea of the accused is that he belongs to Telugu Desam Party and as such a false case was registered against him by the police at the instance of local congress M.L.A. To support the plea of the accused, he has produced a paper publication during his 313 Cr.P.C examination which was published about 5 years back at the time of incident. The paper publications also lending support to the version of the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of the witnesses and the plea of the accused, I am of the opinion that the accused shall be given benefit of doubt in this case. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/sec.34(a)(h) of A.P.E Act and Sec.353, 506 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 34(a) (h) of A.P.E.Act and Sec.353 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of December,

2012.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: M. Sanyasi Raju None P.W.2: M. Gurunaidu P.W.3: L. Venkata Ramana P.W.4: P. Mangamani P.W.5 : P. Adisiva P.W.6: V. A. Kasibabu PW.7: K. Ramana Babu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Report given by P.W2. Ex.P.2:Analysis Report Ex.P.3:Signature of P.W6 on the Mediators report Ex.P4 : F.I.R Ex.p5 : Mediators report. Ex.P6 : Rough Sketch. Ex.P7 :161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1.

For Accused:.

Ex.D1 : Part of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1.

Material Objects Marked

Nil.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 16-01-2007 Date of report or complaint: : 16-01-2007 Date of apprehension of accused: 16-01-2007 Date release on bail, if any: 18-01-2007 Date of commencement of trial: 02-05-2012 Close of trial: 28-09-2012 Date of sentence or other order: 21-12-2012

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.995/2008 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name Aadari Kanna Rao @ Kannababu, S/o Nookanna, age 38 years, Gavara by Caste, Nookambika Panshop, Main Road, Near Sivalayam, Munagapaka Village. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:U/sec.34(a) (h) of A.P.E Act and sec.353 and 506 IPC.

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 34(a) (h) fo A.P.E.Act and Sec.353 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Friday, this the 21 th day of December, 2012

CC No.160/2012

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station, Sabbavaram …Complainant A n d:

Devarakonda Pedda, S/o Late Apparao, 38 years, Rajaka, Rickshaw Puller, R/o Bheemunigummam Street, Anakpalle Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam. …Accused

This case coming on 20-12-2012 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri G. Paradesi, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.4/12 against the sole accused for the alleged offences u/sec. 454 and 380 IPC.

2.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 06-01-2012 at 9am the Defacto Complainant by name Sabbavarapu

Krishna Veni left her house by locking the doors to attend her office duty and the family members of the Defacto Complainant also left the house to attend coolie work. At that time some unknown offenders gained entry into house of Defacto Complainant and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments and also pattadar pass books. On receiving information the

Defacto Complainant and his family members visited their house and observed that some un known offenders committed theft in their house and they found that one gold pustelatadu, one gold necklace, one gold 2 chain and three gold rings and two pairs of silver ancklets were stolen from the almyrah which worth Rs 49,000/-. Basing on the repot given by the

Defacto Complainant a case was registered by Sabbavaram Police and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation the

Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The Investigating Officer also visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene. On 31-08-2012 the Investigating Officer arrested the accused who is moving on suspicious circumstances and on interrogation he revealed his identity and the commission of offence in this case. The police seized one gold chain and 3 gold rings worth of

Rs.18,000/- from the possession of the accused under a mediators report in the presence of two mediators. Later the police conducted property identification parode in the presence of mediators wherein the Defacto

Complainant (L.W1) identified her property and later the police arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file against sole accused for the offences under Section 454 and 380 IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5 The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and a charge for the offences under Section 454 and 380 IPC and alternatively 411 IPC were framed for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The accused stated that he has no sufficient means to engage a counsel to defend his case. On request of accused Legal Aid Counsel is appointed to defend the case of accused and the accused is in jail through out the period of trial.

3

7.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P5 and M.Os 1 to 4. The Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6.

8.After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating evidence placed against him. He denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

9Heard arguments on both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is: -

11. “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs. 454 and 380 alternatively 411 IPC or not”?

12.P.W1 is the Defacto Complainant and owner of the stolen property. She deposed in her evidence stating that on 06-01-2012 at 9.30am she locked her house and went to her office and her parents also left their house to attend agricultural operations. On the same day she received a phone call from the neighbours stating that some body committed theft in her house. Immediately she returned to her house and observed that some body gained entry into the house and opened the almyrah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments. Later she gave report to police. Ex.P1 is the said report. After 8 months police informed her that some part of the stolen property was recovered. Later she received the stolen property from the court as interim custody. P.W1 also brought ornaments to the court which were received as interim custody and the property was marked as M.Os 1 to 4. M.O1 is a gold chain. M.O2 is gold ring with two white stones. M.O3 is another gold ring with multiple white stones. M.O4 is another gold fancy ring. During the cross 4 examination she stated that she has handed over the receipts showing her ownership over the stolen property to the police. A suggestion was given to the witness that no theft was committed in her house and the same was denied by the witness.

13.P.W2 is a mediator for the seizure of the stolen property from the possession of accused. He deposed in his evidence stating that on 31-08-2012 Sabbavaram Police called him during night time and took him near petrol bunk at Chinnayyapalem. At that place police arrested the accused and seized a small bag from the accused. The police verified the bag in his presence and it contained 3 gold rings and one gold chain. The accused also confessed that he committed the offence in Aaripaka village.

At that place police prepared mediators report for the seizure of the stolen property from the possession of accused. He signed on the mediators report. Ex.P2 is the mediators report. During the cross examination P.W2 stated that he does not know the recitals of Ex.P2 report. He further admitted that police called him as a mediator in other cases also. A suggestion was given to the witness stating that he is deposing false to favour police and the same was denied by the witness.

14.P.W3 is the Investigation Officer in this case. He stated that on 06-01-2012 P.W1 came to the police station and presented a report and the same was registered as F.I.R. Ex.P3 is the F.I.R. The Sub Inspector of

Police visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. Ex.P4 is the

Rough Sketch of the scene. On 31-08-2012 he conducted vehicle checking at 7pm near Chinnayyapelem Petrol Bunk. At that time he observed the accused in suspicious circumstances and he tried to escape from that place. Later he took the accused into his custody and secured two mediators i.e., P.W2 and L.W5. In the presence of mediators he seized three gold rings and one gold chain from the possession of accused which are marked as M.Os 1 to 4 in this case. The accused also confessed about 5 the commission of offence in this case in the presence of mediators and a report was also drafted for the recovery of stolen property from the accused. He further deposed that he conducted property identification parade in the presence of mediators wherein P.W1 identified the property recovered from the accused as the property belongs to her and a separate report was also drafted for the property identification and the same was marked as Ex.P5. Later he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination the

Investigating Officer admitted that he has not signed on the property identification report and he also admitted that he did not obtain the signature of the accused on the property identification report. A suggestion was given to the witness stating that a false case was registered against the accused and the same was denied by the witness.

15.Heard the Learned APP and the Defence Counsel.

16.The case of the prosecution is that the accused gained entry into the house of P.W1 and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

There are no direct eye witnesses in this case to say that the accused has entered into the house of P.W1 and committed theft of gold ornaments.

P.W1 also categorically stated that she does not know who committed theft in her house. She also deposed that some unknown offenders committed theft in the house of P.W1 in her absence. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to say that the accused has committed theft by gaining entry into the house of P.W1. The only evidence available on record is the confession of the accused. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused confessed about the commission of theft in the house of P.W1 in this case in the presence of mediators. It is well settled law that the confession made by the accused in the presence of police while in custody is in admissible in evidence. Therefore, the confession of the accused that he committed theft in the house of P.W1 cannot be taken into 6 consideration. If the confession of the accused is ignored, there is no material on record to establish that the accused has gained entry into the house of P.W1 and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/sec. 454 and 380 IPC.

17.Coming to Sec.411 IPC is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that the police seized the stolen property in this case from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators. P.W2 is a mediator in whose presence the stolen property was seized from the accused. He categorically deposed in his evidence stating that police called him on 31-08-2012 during night time and took him near the petrol bunk in Chinnayyapalem. At that place they found the accused in suspicious circumstances and police arrested the accused and seized one small bag which contained 3 gold rings and one gold chain. He further deposed that the police seized four gold items from the possession of accused under a mediators report in which he put his signature. The said mediators report was marked as Ex.P2. The evidence of P.W2 is also corroborative in all material aspects and supported by the Investigating

Officer. The Investigating Officer also categorically stated that he arrested the accused at Chinnayyapalem village and seized the gold ornaments which are marked as M.Os 1 to 4 in this case in the presence of mediators.

He further deposed that after the seizure of stolen property from the possession of accused, a property identification parade was conducted wherein P.W1 (Owner of the stolen property) identified the stolen property as the property belongs to her. The police also prepared a separate panchanama for the identification of the stolen property. Ex.P5 is the said report.

18.Therefore, the mediator (P.W2) and the Investigating Officer (P.W3) categorically deposed that the stolen property in this case was 7 seized from the possession of accused and the same was identified by

P.W1 as the property belongs to her. Exs.P2 and P5 which are the mediators report for seizure of stolen property and for identification of property also lending support to the case of the prosecution. Considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is able to establish that the accused was in dishonest possession of stolen property which was committed theft in the house of P.W1. Therefore, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/sec.411 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered.

19.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 411 IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

20.Hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence. Accused stated that he is having wife and children and also mother who are dependent upon him. He further stated that he is a rickshaw puller and all his family members are dependent upon him and he is detained in jail since 4 months and prayed the court to show mercy.

Considering the circumstances a lenient view is taken while imposing sentence. I am not inclined to invoke the benefit of probation of offenders

Act in view of the gravity of the offence. Hence the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months for the offence u/sec. 411

IPC. The remand period shall be given set off u/sec.428 Cr.P.C. M.Os 1 to 4 which are returned to P.W1 as interim custody shall holds good after the appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21 st day of December,

2012.

8

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: Sabbavarapu Krishna Veni None P.W.2: T. Sekhar P.W.3: B. V. Ramana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Police Report given by P.W1 Ex.P.2:Mediators Report Ex.P.3 : Original F.I.R Ex.P.4 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.5 : Property Identification report.

For Accused:Nil.

Material Objects Marked

M.O1 : Gold Chain M.O2: Gold ring with two white stones M.O3: Gold Ring with Multiple white stones M.O4 : Gold Fancy Ring

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP 9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 06-01-2012 Date of report or complaint: : 06-01-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 31-08-2012 Date release on bail, if any: - Date of commencement of trial: 30-11-2012 Close of trial: 13-12-2012 Date of sentence or other order: 21-12-2012

Explanation of delay and remarks: There is no delay __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.160/2012 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sabbavaram Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name Devarakonda Pedda, S/o Late Apparao, 38 years, Rajaka, Rickshaw Puller, R/o Bheemunigummam Street, Anakpalle Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:454, 380 or 411 IPC

Finding: found guilty

Sentence: The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.

411 IPC and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP 10

AMM/AKP 11 // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL.METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Monday, this the 24 th day of December, 2012

CC No.298/2009

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka …Complainant A n d:

1.Malla Krishna, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, 37 years, Gavara, Munagapaka Village and Mandal.

2. Vegi Krishna Suri Apparao, S/o Demudunaidu, 30 years, Gavara, Munagapaka Village and Mandal. i. …Accused

This case coming on 20-12-2012 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri V.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.108/2009 against A1 and A2 for the alleged offences u/sec. 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 30-09-2009 at 5 P.M a meeting was held in the Panchayat Office of

Munagapaka Village. The Defacto Complainant by name Adari Kasibabdu is the 8th ward member of the Panchayat. Similarly the accused 1 and 2 are also ward members of Munagapaka Panachayat. A ward members meeting was held in the Panchayat Office and in that meeting a discussion was held with regard to the selection of 9 sweepers for the year 2009-10 and the same has to be recorded in the minutes book, but the particulars of sweepers were noted as 6 persons instead of 9, as such the Defacto

Complainant raised objection and on that the accused became angry and attacked Defacto Complainant and beat him with hands and threatened him with dire consequences and also restrained him wrongfully at that place. Basing on the report given by the Defacto Complainant, the

Munagapaka Police registered the case and investigated into the matter.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The Investigating Officer also visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. The Investigating

Officer also send the Defacto Complainant to the hospital for medical observation and treatment. The accused were arrested and released on anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

Hence the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file against A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

04. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05 The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6. The Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of

L.W7.

07After closure of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating evidence placed against them. They denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

08Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is: -

10.“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs. 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34

IPC or not”?

11.P.W1 is the victim and Defacto Complainant in this case. He deposed in his evidence stating that the offence took place in the month of

August, 2009 at 4.30PM in the Panchayat Office. At that time a meeting was held in the Panchayat Office and he questioned the Surpanch about the appointment of sweepers, and on that some body came and beat him.

He cannot identify the person who beat him. Later he went to the Police

Station and gave report. Ex.P1 is the said report. He was declared as hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C Statement was marked as Ex.P2. P.W2 is an eye witness to the incident. He deposed in his evidence stating that in the month of August 2009 a meeting was held in the Panchayat Office. In the said meeting there was a quarrel but he did not witness as to who beat whom. He was also declared as hostile and his 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P3. P.W3 is also an eye witness and the then Panchayat

Secretary of Munagapaka Village. He deposed in his evidence stating that he has acquaintance with P.W1 and A1, A2. On 30-09-2009 there was a

Panchayat Meeting in their village. In the said meeting there was a dispute in between P.W1 and A1 with regard to contract labour. In the dispute

P.W1 and A1 pushed against each other. No body sustained any injuries in the incident.

12.P.W4 is also an eye witness to the incident. He deposed in his evidence that about 3 years back there was a board meeting in the

Panchayat Office. In the said meeting there was a dispute in between

P.W1 and the accused with regard to Panchayat works. In the said disputes there was only quarrel in between P.W1 and the accused. P.W5 is also an eye witness to the incident. She deposed in her evidence stating that P.W1 and accused are the ward members of Munagapaka panchayat

Office. About 3 years back there was a meeting in the Panchayat Office.

In the said meeting there was a quarrel in between the accused and P.W1.

In the incident no body sustained any injuries. She further stated during cross examination that the dispute took place among the ward members of rival political parties. P.W6 is also an eye witness to the incident. She deposed in her evidence stating that about 2 and ½ years back there was a meeting held in the Panchayat Office. She was invited as a chief guest to the said meeting. In the meeting a resolution was passed with regard to contract labour and at that time a discussion took place in between two rival political groups.

13.P.W7 is the Investigating Officer in this case. He deposed in his evidence stating that on 30-09-2009 P.W1 came to the police station and presented a report and the same was registered as F.I.R. Ex.P4 is the

F.I.R. Later he examined P.W1 and recorded his statement and referred him to the hospital for treatment. On the next day he visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. At the scene of offence he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws 2 to 6. Later he received wound certificate from the

Doctor who stated that there are no injuries found over the body of P.W1.

Ex.P6 is the wound certificate. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. A suggestion was given to the witness stating that the present case has been lodged falsely as the accused belong to Telugu

Desam Party and the same was denied by the witness.

14.The accused 1 and 2 and P.W1 are the ward members of the

Munagapaka Panchayat and the incident happened during the meeting which was held in the Panchayat Office. Therefore, the question of accused trespassing into the house with an intention to assault somebody does not arise. Moreover there are no ingredients to attract sec.452 IPC.

Therefore the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 452 IPC. In the present case all the witnesses i.e., P.Ws 1 to 6 are eye witnesses but they did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused. No witness had stated anything that the accused had wrongfully confined P.W1. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 342 IPC. The witnesses also did not speak about any injuries in the incident. Even the

P.W1 who is the injured and Defacto Complainant categorically stated that he has not received any injuries in the incident. P.W1 categorically stated that some body beat him but he cannot identify the person who beat him.

Therefore the injured and victim in this case did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused. The other eye witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws 2 to 6 only stated that there was only quarrel in between P.W1 and accused. The accused did not beat P.W1. Moreover the certificate issued by the Medical Officer which was marked as Ex.P6 also reveal that there are no injuries over the body of P.W1. Therefore, the prosecution also failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 323 IPC.

P.Ws 1 to 6 only stated that a meeting was held in the Panchayat Office and there was a discussion in between two rival political parties with regard to engaging contract labour. The witnesses also admitted that it is common in Panchayat board meetings that the ward members of different political groups make allegations against each other loudly. No witness had said anything with regard to threatening P.W1 with dire consequences.

Considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that except a wordy altercation in between P.W1 and accused nothing has happened in the incident. More over the main defence of the accused is that they belong to Telugu Desam Party and whereas P.W1 belongs to Congress

Party as such a false case has been lodged against the accused by influencing the police. Considering the material on record and the evidence of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/sec.452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered.

15.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24 th day of December,

2012.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution For Accused:

P.W.1: A. Kasibabu None P.W.2: P. Satyanarayana P.W.3: A. Abraham P.W.4: Malla Rama Jagannadham P.W.5: T. Satyavathi P.W.6: Surisetty Sudharani P.W.7: G. Srinivas

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Police Report given by P.W1 Ex.P.2:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W1 Ex.P.3:161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W2 Ex.P4 : Original F.I.R Ex.p5 : Rough Sketch Ex.P6 : wound Certificate.

For Accused:Nil.

Material Objects Marked

Nil.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 30-09-2009 Date of report or complaint: : 30-09-2009 Date of apprehension of accused: 20-10-2009 Date release on bail, if any: 20-10-2009 Date of commencement of trial: 08-01-2010 Close of trial: 07-12-2012 Date of sentence or other order: 24-12-2012

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.298/2009 on the file of the Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

1. Malla Krishna, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, 37 years, Gavara, Munagapaka Village and Mandal.

2. Vegi Krishna Suri Apparao, S/o Demudunaidu, 30 years, Gavara, Munagapaka Village and Mandal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs. 452, 342, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam.

//True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

AMM/AKP // True copy//

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,

Anakapalle.

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

THURSDAY, this the 20 th day of December, 2012

C.C. No.112/2010

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station.

…Complainant

A n d:

1.Chadaram Parameswararao @ Parameswara Apparao, S/o Pedakondayya, 25 years, Gavara, Coolie, Ganaparthi village.

2.Kandregula Raman, S/o Late Appalanaidu, 42 years, Gavara, Cultivation, Ganaparthi village.

3.Chadaram Pedakondayya, S/o Krishnamma, 59 years, Gavara, Coolie, Ganaparthi.

…Accused This case coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri C. Sivaiah and G.Paradesi, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Station House Officer, Munagapaka Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.46/2010 against A1 to A3 for the offences u/sec.

326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

On 16-04-2010 at 3pm an altercation took place in between the Defacto Complainant by name Ch. Sattibabu and A1 to A3 with regard to the sharing of lands. During the said dispute A2 beat Defacto

Complainant with a stick on the face and caused bleeding injuries. The accused also beat the Defacto Complainant on the nose and also beat the wife of the Defacto Complainant by name Ch. Dhanalaxmi and caused bleeding injuries. The neighbours intervened and separated them. Later the injured were admitted in the Government Hospital for treatment. On receiving medical intimation the Munagapaka Police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of Defacto Complainant and registered the case. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The

Investigation Officer also visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch and also arrested the accused and sent them for judicial custody.

After completion of investigation and after receiving medical certificates charge sheet was filed. Hence the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file against A1 to A3 for the offences under Section 326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

04. Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and a

Charge for the offences Under section 326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC were framed and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.3. As the material witnesses turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P felt that the examination of other witnesses is of no use and hence, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of other remaining witnesses i.e., L.Ws.3 to 8 and later the prosecution evidence was closed.

06.As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments on both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC or not”?

09.POINT :

P.W.1 is the Defacto Complainant and injured in this case.

He deposed in his evidence that in the year 2010 there were disputes in between him and the accused with regard to the landed property. The dispute took place at his house. In the said dispute somebody beat him as such he fell on the ground and sustained injury to his nose. He cannot identify the person who beat him. He further deposed that he undergone treatment for 10 days. Police recorded his statement and registered the case. Ex.P1 is the statement. P.W2 is also injured and wife of P.W1. She deposed in her evidence stating that about 2 years back there was a dispute in between the accused and P.W1 because of some landed property. In the dispute P.W1 fell on the ground and sustained injury.

She did not sustain any injuries. Later she took her husband to the hospital for treatment and the police examined her and she was declared as hostile and her 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P3.

10.As the material witnesses turned hostile, the Learned A.P.P felt that the examination of other witnesses is of no use. Hence, the A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.Ws.3 to 8. P.W1 who is the injured and eye witness to the incident categorically stated that he cannot identify the person who beat him. P.W1 also did not speak any incriminating evidence against the accused. Similarly P.W2 also stated that she does not know the persons who are involved in the dispute. Moreover P.W2 stated that her husband (P.W1) fell on the ground and sustained injury.

Therefore P.Ws 1 and 2 who are the direct eye witnesses and injured persons did not speak about the involvement of the accused in this case.

As the material witnesses turned hostile, there is no necessity to examine the other witnesses as it is of no consequence. Considering the materialon record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/sec.326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly the point is answered.

11.In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20 th day of December, 2012.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1: Chadaram Sattibabu P.W.2: Chadaram Dhanalaxmi

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Signature of P.W1 on police report.3 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2.

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

// True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND

JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 16-04-2010 Date of report or complaint: : 16-04-2010 Date of apprehension of accused: 21-04-2010 Date release on bail, if any: 21-04-2010 Date of commencement of trial: 13-12-2012 Close of trial: 13-12-2012 Date of sentence or other order: 20-12-2012

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.112/2010 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

1.Chadaram Parameswararao @ Parameswara Apparao, S/o Pedakondayya, 25 years, Gavara, Coolie, Ganaparthi village.

2.Kandregula Raman, S/o Late Appalanaidu, 42 years, Gavara, Cultivation, Ganaparthi village.

3.Chadaram Pedakondayya, S/o Krishnamma, 59 years, Gavara, Coolie, Ganaparthi.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: A1 to A3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

IN THECOURT OF THE ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:

ANAKAPALLE

Present: Sri S.M.Phani Kumar, B.Sc., B.L., Prl. Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

THURSDAY, this the 13 th day of December, 2012

C.C. No.1279/2008

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station.

…Complainant

A n d:

Koyilada Ramu, S/o Apparao, age 38years, Gavara caste, Patipalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal.

…Accused This case coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II, for Complainant – State and of Sri Ch.S.S.Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Station House Officer, Munagapaka Police station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.41/2008 against the sole accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

02.The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: -

The marriage of the Defacto Complainant by name Koilada

Satyavathi was performed with the accused about 9 years back. They are blessed with a male child who is aged about 4 years. At the time of marriage the parents of Defacto Complainant gave dowry of Rs.25,000/- and gold ornaments to the accused. Even then the accused used to demand additional dowry from his in laws and the accused used to harass the Defacto Complainant mentally and physically and also used to beat her. Even though the matter was placed before elders, there is no change in the attitude of the accused. On 20-06-2008 the accused beat the Defacto Complainant indiscriminately and as such unable to bear the harassment she lodged a report in the Munagapaka Police Station. On receiving report the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka P.S registered a case and investigation into the matter. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

Hence the charge sheet.

03.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under Section 498- A IPC, 3 and 4 of D.P Act. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

04. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., and a

Charge for the offences Under section 498-A IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act were framed and substance of the charge sheet was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.To prove the guilt, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P.1. As the material witnesses turned hostile and compromised the matter, the Learned A.P.P felt that the examination of other witnesses is of no use and hence, the Learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of other remaining witnesses i.e., L.Ws.3 to 8 and later the prosecution evidence was closed.

06.As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

07.Heard arguments of both sides.

08.Now the point for consideration is: - “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 498-

A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act or not”?

09.POINT :

P.W.1 is the Defacto Complainant and wife of the accused.

She categorically deposed in her evidence stating that the accused is her husband. Her marriage was performed about 13 years back. After marriage there are some petty disputes in between them as such she lodged the present case. At present the matter is settled before the elders and they are living together and she has no objection to acquit the accused. The prosecution also examined P.W2 who is the own brother of

P.W1 and he also categorically stated that the matter is compromised in between the accused and P.W1 and they are living together. He further stated that he has no objection to acquit the accused.

10.The alleged offences in this case u/sec. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act are matrimonial offences. At present the accused and his wife (P.W1) are living together happily and the matter is compromised. Considering the compromise, the Learned APP felt that the examination of other witnesses is of no use. Hence, the A.P.P has given up the evidence of L.Ws.3 to 8. Therefore there is no incriminating material on record against the accused. Considering the circumstances I am of the opinion that the present case should not become hurdle to the matrimonial life of accused and P.W1. Considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that there is no sufficient incriminating material placed by the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him. Accordingly the point is answered.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 3 of D.P.Act. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of December, 2012.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

P.W.1: Koilada Satyavathi P.W.2: Thadi Rama Apparao

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of :

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1:Thumb impression of P.W1 on police report.

For Accused:

Nil.

No. of Material Objects Marked Nil.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, (FAC) Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

// True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate at

Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District.

__________________________________________________________________ Date of Offence: 20-06-2008 Date of report or complaint: : 06-08-2008 Date of apprehension of accused: 11-08-2008 Date release on bail, if any: 12-08-2008 Date of commencement of trial: 30-11-2012 Close of trial: 06-12-2012 Date of sentence or other order: 13-12-2012

Explanation of delay and remarks: The case underwent several adjournments, as the Prosecution did not produce its witnesses __________________________________________________________________________ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.1279/2008 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Complainant : State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Munagapaka Police Station, Munagapaka. _________________________________________________________________________ Name of the accused Age Father’s name

Koyilada Ramu, S/o Apparao, age 38years, Gavara caste, Patipalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence:498-A IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of D.P Act.

Finding: Not guilty

Sentence: Accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

Sd/- S.M. Phani Kumar

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, FAC/Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Copy to: The Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam //True copy//

PJCJ (FAC) AMM / AKP