Dr.S.Md.Fazululla

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Dr.S.Md.FAZULULLA, B.Sc., M.L, Ph.D.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Tuesday, the 24th day of December, 2013.

C.C.No. 168 of 2012

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari,

(Cr.No. 76/2012 of Nagari P.S.) .. .. Complainant

Versus

1.C.Lakshmaiah, age 57 years, S/o. C.Govinda Mandadi, Muneppa Naidu Kandriga village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, Caste by Yadava.

2.T.Dhananjayulu, age 60 years, S/o. T.Kannaiah Mandadi, Muneppa Naidu Kandriga village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, Caste by Yadava.

3.C.Bhaskar, age 33 years, S/o. Late C.Ram Moorthy, Muneppa Naidu Kandriga village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, Caste by Yadava.

4.C.Parthasarathi, age 30 years, S/o. Late Ram Moorthy, Muneppa Naidu Kandriga village, Nagari Mandal,

Chittoor District, Caste by Yadava. .. .. Accused

This case is presented before me on 20.12.2013 for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri T.Narahari, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari P.S. has filed Charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. alleging that on 5.4.2012 at 7.00 P.M. in the lands of one Suseelamma of Tadukupeta village, Nagari Mandal, the galata occurred in respect of which the matter reported to Police Station on 15.6.2012 through the endorsement of this Court vide complaint given by V.Basha alleging that due to land dispute in respect of which civil suit is pending vide

O.S.No.2/2012 on the file of Civil Court, Nagari, and that, the accused Nos.1

to 4 in this case have criminally trespassed into the lands of the complainant Basha, wrongfully restrained him, and that, the accused No.1 gave a fist blow on the face of the complainant as a result the complainant lost his eye 2 sight in the left eye, and that, accused Nos.2 to 4 beat the complainant with hands and kicked. Adverting to the above, basing the Court endorsement, a case in Cr.No. 76/2012 under Sections 447, 307, 326, 341, 323, 506 I.P.C. r/w. 34 I.P.C. of Nagari P.S. registered, and that, during course of investigation the complicity of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 341 and 506 I.P.C. not traced out thereby those Sections have been deleted, and that, finally Charge-sheet is filed accordingly.

2. The Court has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. against accused No.1 and under Section 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 to 4.

3. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished.

4. The accused examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby charges for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. against accused No.1 and for the offence under Section 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. against the accused Nos.2 to 4 framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They denied the charges.

5. The prosecution, in support of the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P5.

6. The accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They termed the evidence of prosecution as false. Not chosen to examine any witnesses, but Exs.D.1 to D.5 marked on their behalf. Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with.

7. Heard the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

8. The Defence counsel argued that though the alleged incident occurred on 5.4.2012, the complaint could be given only on 7.5.2012, and that, the said complaint transmitted to the police by this Court, thereby on 15.6.2012 only the case could be registered. The counsel argued that this itself shows the falsity of the case. He further contended that so far as the alleged grievous injury in the eye of complainant is concerned, there is neither medical record nor evidence from the competent doctor who found such injury, thereby he requested this Court to look down the case of prosecution thereto. The Defence counsel contended that the kith and kin of 3 the complainant himself not supported the case of prosecution when examined before this Court as P.W.2, that itself shows the falsity of the case, and that, the present case is foisted against the accused only basing the complaint given by the accused party against the complainant herein vide C.C.No. 103/2012, and that, only to come over from that case the present case is foisted. Finally he requested the Court to acquit the accused.

9. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ?

Analysis of evidence

10. This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

11. In this case, the complainant examined as P.W.1. In the examination-in-chief, he deposed inter alia that the accused No.1 fisted into his left eye, and that, the accused Nos.2 and 3 beat him with hands and thereby one Rafi Uddin and Mahaboob Basha rescue him from the hands of accused, and that, the incident is due to civil dispute. In the cross- examination he admitted that all the witnesses shown in this case are related to him, and that, the accused party herein have put case against him and his witnesses and this is the case in C.C.No.103/2012. He further admitted that he cannot give the exact dates of his admission into the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he has not at all received injury, and that, by making some self inflicted injury he approached the police and that the police rightly not registered the case.

12. The P.W.2 has not supported the case of prosecution, but he deposed that on 5.4.2012 in the evening hours there was galata, in which P.W.1 received injury in his eye. The P.W.3 espoused the cause of complainant through his evidence-in-chief, but in his cross-examination he came to know about the incident as how his aunt revealed, and that, P.W.1 is his uncle. The P.W.4 espoused the cause of complainant and deposed randomly, that, P.W.1 received injury in his eye, and that, the accused have caused the same. The P.W.5 also espoused the cause of complainant contending that in the galata between accused party and complainant party P.W.1 received injury in his eye. Same is the evidence through P.W.6.

4

13. The Medical Officer who treated the injured, examined as P.W.7 and he has pointed out simple and grievous injury on P.W.1, and, the Medical Officer has pointed out grievous injury basing the record maintained by SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, and also Sankara Nethralaya hospital. In the cross- examination, the Medical Officer deposed that when he has treated the injured, the injured has not disclosed who beat him. Further, the Medical Officer deposed that by the time he examined the injured, the injury Nos.1 and 2 simple injuries were found. The Medical Officer further deposed that though he has not treated the injured so far as injury No.3 is concerned, bu the injured placed the details thereby he pointed out the third injury. Again, the Medical Officer clarified that he has not appended the details of third injury, to his Wound Certificate.

14. The first investigating officer examined as P.W.8. Through him, the records of prosecution received in evidence. In the cross-examination, the first investigating officer deposed that as per rough sketch though he has shown the mango garden of one Abhiram Setty, the said Abhiram Setty not examined for this case. The second investigating officer, who filed charge- sheet, examined as P.W.9. In the cross-examination, the investigating officer admitted that on 5.4.2012 or 6.4.2012 the complainant in this case has not appeared before me in the Police Station, as such, not given complaint.

15. On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges clear is that the complainant has put case against four persons through his complaint, and that, the complaint presented before this Court on 7.5.2012 when the incident occurred on 5.4.2012, consequentially the complaint could be registered as case only on 15.6.2012. As per his original complaint, it is his claim that on the day of incident viz., 5.4.2012 itself he approached the Station House Officer, Nagari P.S., but the said S.H.O. Not evinced interest in registered the matter and thereby the complaint got filed before this Court for transmission to the Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Verily the complainant has not appended his complaint that was tendered before the S.H.O., Nagari P.S., to the present complaint. This is a blow to the case of prosecution. Especially when the investigating officer admitted that either on 5.4.2012 or 6.4.2012 the complainant has not at all appeared before him in the Police Station, thereby has not given any complaint. Thus, there is doubt in the case of prosecution in so far as preference of complaint at first instance at all.

5

16. The grave man of the charge against the accused No.1 is that he caused grievous injury on complainant whereby he alleged to have fisted into the left eye of the complainant thereby complainant lost vision in the said eye. For this, the complainant alone is standing aloft. Though complainant has edificed his case by mustering support of his kith and kin, who examined as P.Ws.2 to 6, the said witnesses have not clinched the case of prosecution. Altogether P.W.2 gave go bye to the case. P.W.3 found to be a circumstantial witness. P.W.4 has deposed that P.W.1 received injury in his eye, and that, all the accused have caused injury. Infact this is not the case of P.W.1 at all. P.W.4 also has not pointed out the complicity of either accused No.1 or accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence against the complainant. The P.W.5 simply deposed that in the incident P.W.1 received injury in his eye and that there was galata between accused party and complainant party. The lack luster evidence of P.W.6 that P.W.1 received injury in his eye in the hands of accused No.1 cannot be countenanced as how the P.W.1 received injury is not at all deposed by him. Added to this, occular testimony so far as the medical evidence is concerned, in respect of injury No.3 that found to be grievous, no record is appended to the Wound Certificate marked under Ex.P.3. Even otherwise, leave apart the records thereto, this Medical Officer who issued Wound Certificate, has not at all found this injury by the time he examined the injured. The Medical Officer has countenanced the fact that in case of any object suddenly come over the eye, automatically the eye lid will be closed. The Medical Officer further accepted that in case of any hit, especially to the eye, the individual will turn his face immediately. With this, it is clear that it is the natural instinct and impulse of a human being to turn his face if anything is striking his face. In this case, against the said natural praxis , this is the case of the complainant that he received injury in his eye due to fist blow. It is not the case of the complainant that he received injury by any rod, stick etc. The fist gives a blow of punch and it never causes a sharp injury that penetrates into the eye. With this, the Court is unable to countenance the case that the accused have caused injury into the eye of the complainant.

17. On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges clear is that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is filled with doubts, the doubts go to the root of the case of the prosecution. The contradictory versions given by the socalled injured witnesses devastated the case of prosecution, thereby the falsity projected in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for the offences punishable u/Sec. 325, 323 I.P.C.

6

18. Admittedly there are civil disputes between the accused party and complainant party. It is also a fact that there is a case and counter case between the parties vide C.C.No. 103/2012 and C.C.No.168/2012. Whenever the parties engulfed themselves in civil and criminal disputes, the Court shall evaluate the evidence in more circumspection. It is needless to say that the civil and criminal disputes breed contempt between the parties and this contempt will lead to foist of cases to wreak vengeance against each other though some small wraggle might have criss-crossed.

19. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences charged. Hence, the point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. and the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C., thereby acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24th day of December, 2013.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution:Defence:

P.W.1 : V.Basha -None-. P.W.2 : C.Rafi Uddin P.W.3 : V.Mahaboob Basha P.W.4 : S.K. Noushad P.W.5 : S.K.Izaz P.W.6 : G.K.Rasool Basha P.W.7 : Dr.P.L.Dayakar P.W.8 : B.G.Chandrasekhar P.W.9 : P.Jaganmohan Reddy 7

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Complaint of P.W.1, dated 7.5.2012. Ex.P2:161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 dated 15.6.2012. Ex.P3:Wound Certificate of P.W.1 dated 10.7.2012. Ex.P4:F.I.R. in Cr.No. 76/2012 of Nagari P.S. dated 15.6.2012. Ex.P5:Rough sketch dated 15.6.2012.

Defence:

Ex.D1:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 dated 15.6.2012. Ex.D2:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 dated 15.6.2012. Ex.D3:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 dated 15.6.2012. Ex.D4:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 dated 15.6.2012. Ex.D5:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 dated 15.6.2012.

Material Objects marked: -nil-.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

J.M.F.C., NAGARI.

// True copy //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NAGARI.

Calender in C.C.No. 168 of 2012

Date of offence: 05-04-2012 Date of complaint: 07-05-2012 Date of taken on file : 21-11-2012 Date of apprehension of accused: 27-07-2012 Date of commencement of trial: 19-11-2013 Date of close of trial : 18-12-2013 Date of sentence or order : 24-12-2013 Complainant : The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagari P.S. (Cr.No.76/2012 of Nagari P.S.)

Name of the accused Father’s name Age Village Mandal Reli- Calling

(years) gion

1.C.LakshmaiahC.Govinda 57Muneppa NagariHinduCultiva- MandadiNaidu tion Kandriga

2.T.DhananjayuluT.Kannaiah 60”””” Mandadi

3.C.BhaskarLateC.Ram 33”””” Moorthy

4.C.ParthasarathiLateRam 30”””” Moorthy

Nature of offence: 325 I.P.C. - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. - Voluntarily causing hurt in furtherance of common intention.

Section of law: 325, 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Finding of the Court: Accused are found not guilty for the above offences. Sentence or Order: In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. and the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 323 r/w. 34 I.P.C., thereby acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

9

NAGARI.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NAGARI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Dr.S.Md.FAZULULLA, B.Sc., M.L, Ph.D.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Monday, the 23rd day of December, 2013.

C.C.No. 79 of 2013

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram P.S.

(Cr.No. 10/2013 of Vijayapuram P.S.) .. .. Complainant

Versus

S.Vibhishanudu, age 53 years, S/o. S.Munaswami Naidu, 1-315, Lakshmi Nagar, K.N.Road, Puttur Town, Chittoor District, A.P.

Driver of APSRTC bus bearing Regn.No. AP 10 Z 7182... .. Accused

This case is presented before me on 18.12.2013 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri B.Vasudeva Raju, Sri P.Chiranjeevulu, Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram P.S. has filed Charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 338 I.P.C. alleging that on 12.3.2013 at 7.25 A.M. near Chivvada tank bund channel, K.V.Puram village, on Nagri to N.N.Kandriga Road, Vijayapuram Mandal, the accused being the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Regn.No. AP 10 Z 7182 while proceeding from Nagari to Mallareddy Kandriga village in a rash and negligent manner dashed against opposite TVS Sports motor cycle bearing Regn.No. TN 73 A 9012 as a result the rider of the motor cycle S.Jalandar, who is the brother of the defacto complainant S.Karthikeyan, fell down and sustained bleeding injuries, later he was removed to Govt. Area Hospital, Nagari, from where, to S.M.Hospital, Ranipet, Tamilnadu, for better treatment. Adverting to the above, basing the complaint, a case in Crime No.10/2013 under Section 338 I.P.C. of Vijayapuram P.S. registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

2. The Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec.338 I.P.C. against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents as required u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished to him.

2

4. The accused examined u/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. for the accusation levelled against him for the offence u/Sec. 338 I.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

5. The Prosecution, in support of the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Ex.P1.

6. The accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. He termed the evidence of prosecution as false. Not chosen to examine any witnesses, but marked Ex.D.1 and D2 on his behalf. Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. complied with.

7. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise.?”

Arguments

8. The Assistant Public Prosecutor requested the Court to proceed against the accused basing on the material available on record.

9. The Defence counsel argued that the alleged rashness or negligence not proved. The identity of the accused as that of the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time, also not proved. The Defence counsel read the settled propositions in respect of the identity aspects, test identification parade etc., to bring hilt to the point. He argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses not projecting the ingredients of the offences alleged and finally requested the Court to acquit the accused.

Analysis of evidence and marshalling of the facts:

10. This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

11. In this case, the complainant is the brother of the injured witness, but not an eye witness. Through complainant, Ex.P.1 received in evidence. The injured, examined as P.W.2, though deposed that the APSRTC bus bearing Regn.No. AP 10 Z 7182 hit him and that because of the fault of the 3 accused herein in driving the bus the accident occurred, has not chosen to divulge the alleged negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further seen that the injured was also going by bike on the relevant day. The P.W.3, an eye witness, found injured fell down and came to know that the injured was hit by APSRTC bus bearing Regn.No. AP 10 Z 7182. Thus, he is a circumstantial witness, not a direct eye witness. P.W.4 is also not an eye witness, admittedly. The P.W.5, projected himself as an eye witness, deposed that he found one R.T.C. Bus about seven months ago in the early morning hitting a two wheeler. He clarified that as there was a turning at the spot he could not see at whose fault the accident occurred. In the cross-examination he clarified that there are bushes on either side of the road, and that, the road is very narrow as such there is no possibility for any bus to come at any speed muchless high speed.

12. In this case, the prosecution could not examine the Medical Officer who treated the injured, and, the investigating officer.

13. On conglomeration of above evidence what emerges clear is that the injured witness is the crucial witness to this case. As seen from the records, on the fateful day the injured witness was also going by a bike and that it is his case that he was hit by crime vehicle. Though the injured witness pointed out, that, because of the fault of the accused herein in driving the bus the accident occurred, but he has not divulged the alleged rashness or negligence on the part of the accused in driving the crime vehicle. The word “fault” cannot be equated with that of words “rashness” or “negligence”. There is a discernible difference in the above three words. By no rate and at no stretch of imagination, in the place of “rashness” or “negligence”, the word “fault” will meet the ends. Thus, from the eye witness account there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged crime vehicle. This itself shows the capability of all the eye witnesses in pointing out the incident and it's intricacy whereby it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to establish the important duo viz., the rashness or negligence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 is no way useful to the case of prosecution to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence. The evidence of complainant is not useful to the case when he is not an eye witness to the case at all. Same is the case with P.Ws.3 and 4 who found to be circumstantial witnesses to the case. The P.W.5, though claimed as an eye witness, has altogether deposed that as there were bushes on either side of the road and that the road is very narrow there is no possibility for the bus to come in any speed muchless high speed. He further 4 added that as there was turning at the spot he could not see at whose fault the accident had occurred. Thus his evidence is also of no avail.

14. So far as the identity of the accused as that of the crime vehicle, the prosecution could not either file the employment card of the accused as that of the driver of the crime vehicle or the statistical report of the vehicle at the relevant date and time to show that the accused handled the crime bus. In the circumstances, the identity of the accused as that of the driver of the crime vehicle was also at doubt. The mere point of the injured witness and circumstantial witnesses towards the accused as that of the driver of the R.T.C. Bus cannot be countenanced in the absence of record as to his identity when the identity of the accused can be proved by file of documentary record. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution is filled with doubts.

15. On agglomeration of above discussion the Court is of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is filled with doubts, the doubts pointed out supra are reasonable in nature, the benefit thereof shall go in favour of the accused. Thereby, the point is determined against the prosecution.

16. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 338 I.P.C., thereby acquitted him u/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months u/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant and after his transcription, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23rd day of December, 2013.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution:Defence:

P.W.1: S.Karthikeyan-None-. P.W.2: S.Jalendrian P.W.3: K.Ranganatham P.W.4: P.S.Kumaresan P.W.5: M.Sudhakar Naidu 5

Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Complaint given by P.W.1 dated 13.3.2013.

Defence:

Ex.D1:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.c. statement of P.W.2. Ex.D2:Portion of 161(3) Cr.P.c. statement of P.W.3.

Material Objects marked: -Nil-.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

J.M.F.C., NAGARI.

// True copy //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: NAGARI.

Calender in C.C.No. 79 of 2013

Date of offence: 12-03-2013 Date of complaint: 13-03-2013 Date of taken on file : 30-04-2013 Date of apprehension of accused: 15-03-2013 Date of commencement of trial: 03-07-2013 Date of close of trial : 27-11-2013 Date of sentence or order : 23-12-2013 Complainant : The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayapuram P.S. (Cr.No.10/2013 of Vijayapuram P.S.)

Name of the accused Father’s name Age

S.VibhishanuduS.Munaswami Naidu 53 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling

PutturPuttur HinduDriver of APSRTC bus

Nature of offence: Sec.338 I.P.C. -Causing grievous hurt by an act which endangers human life, etc.

Section of law:Sec. 338 I.P.C. Finding of the Court:Accused found not guilty for the above offences. Sentence or Order: In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 338 I.P.C., thereby acquitted him u/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months u/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

// True copy //

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Dr.S.Md.Fazululla, B.Sc., M.L, Ph.D.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Thursday, the 9th day of January, 2014.

C.C.No. 125 of 2013

The State, represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Nagari. (Cr.No. 486/2010-11 of Nagari

Prohibition & Excise Station) ... Complainant.

Versus

1.S.Ganesh, age 39 years, S/o. Sambasivaiah, Caste: S.C., R/o. Near Sugar Factory, Nindra Cross, Nindra Mandal. (Died).

2.Smt.K.Vanaja, age 30 years, W/o. Paradesi, Caste: S.C., R/o: D.Kodiyambedu H/W, Nindra Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is presented before me on 8.1.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Babu, Advocate for accused No.2, and the accused No.1 having died and case against him being abated, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nagari, has filed Charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7A r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995, alleging that on 20.11.2010 at about 6.30 A.M. the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector along with his staff raided at 9th mile Cross, which is on Nagari – Nindra bus road, and found the accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of one plastic can each containing about 10 + 5 liters of I.D. arrack in the cans of A1 and A2 respectively, totally 15 liters of I.D. arrack, on that, the said contraband was seized from the possession of accused under the cover of a Special Report and that the accused arrested. Adverting to the above, basing the Special Report a case in Cr.No. 486/2010-11 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nagari, u/sec. 7A r/w. 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995, registered and on completion of investigation, Charge sheet is filed.

2. This Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

2

3. On appearance of the accused No.2 the copies of documents as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished. On the death of accused No.1, case abated against him.

4. The accused No.2 examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby Charge under 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu. She denied the charge.

5. The prosecution, in support of the case, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs. P1 to P3, so also, marked M.O.1.

6. The accused No.2 examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. She termed the evidence of prosecution as false. Not chosen to examine any witnesses and no documents are marked on her behalf. Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with.

7. Heard both the sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ?

Analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts :

9. This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10. In this case, the then Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector is examined as P.W.1 and the then Prohibition and Excise Constable is examined as P.W.2. In their evidence-in-chief they have given their evidence in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through P.W.1 Exs.P.1 to P.3 so also M.O.1 received in evidence.

11. On perusal of cross-examination the following facts emerged that the scene of offence is nearby 9th mile Cross situated on Nagari-Nindra bus road whereby one can expect people all along so also Revenue officials, and that the deputed Constable/P.W.2, though entrusted with the duty of 3 securing mediators, failed, but to prove the said fact he has not filed any report thereto, and that, admittedly the Prohibition party has not measured the contraband.

12. On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges clear, is that, the alleged scene is situated nearby 9th mile Cross situated on Nagari- Nindra bus road and thus the scene is laid in a busy locality, and that, the alleged raid is in the day broad light. Despite this topography of the scene and the alleged time of incident, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the Prohibition party in deputing the Constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed Constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all there is force in the contention of the Prohibition party that it has tried to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed the report of the deputed Constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the Prohibition party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing the Special Report appears to be doubtful virtually. In this way of the matter, there is doubt in the case of prosecution. The doubt further precipitated when the Prohibition party based the case against the accused on conjectures and surmises, in the sense, the Prohibition party has not measured the contraband. In the absence of measure thereto, the allegation that the accused were found in possession of I.D. liquor cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court. In this way of the matter also, the case of the prosecution has become doubtful.

13. With this what emerges clear is that by the time the search was conducted and seizure made there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words the local inhabitants are not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus the entire search is against the spirit of law of search. Thereby, the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in repugnant to the above law. In this way of the matter, the bald and perfunctory evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to prove the Special Report on which the case of the prosecution is edificed, thereby the Special Report doubted, consequently the entire case of the prosecution.

4

14. On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of prosecution filled with doubts and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not inspiring the confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, this Court found the accused No.2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, thereby acquitted her under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. She be set at liberty. Her bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.1 abated on his death. Order relating to case property: In this case, the M.O.1 sample bottles received in C.P.R.No.40/2010 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 9th day of January, 2014.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :DEFENCE: P.W.1 : S.Dheeraj Reddy -None-. P.W.2 : K.Sivarao

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Special Report dated 20-11-2010. Ex.P2:First Information Report, dated 20-11-2010. Ex.P3:Lab Report.

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O-1 : Two sample bottles.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

J.M.F.C., NAGARI. // True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: NAGARI.

Calender in C.C.No. 125 of 2013

Date of offence: 20-11-2010 Date of complaint: 20-11-2010 Date of taken on file : 30-07-2013 Date of apprehension of accused: 20-11-2010 Date of commencement of trial: 27-12-2013 Date of close of trial : 08-01-2014 Date of sentence or order : 09-01-2014 Complainant : The State, represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Nagari. (Cr.No.486/2010-11 of Nagari Prohibition & Excise Station)

Name of the accused Father’s name Age

1.S.Ganesh (died)S/o. Sambasivaiah 39 years

2.Smt.K.VanajaW/o. Paradesi30 years

Village Mandal Religion Calling

Nindra Cross Nindra HinduCooly D.Kodiyambedu H/W”””

Nature of offence: 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P.P.Act- Buying, selling, consumption of liquor.

Section of law: 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995. Finding of the Court: Accused No.2 found not guilty for the above offence. The case against accused No.1 abated on his death. Sentence or Order: In the result, this Court found the accused No.2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, thereby acquitted her under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. She be set at liberty. Her bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.1 abated on his death. Order relating to case property: In this case, the M.O.1 sample bottles received in C.P.R.No.40/2010 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI. // True copy //

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Dr.S.Md.Fazululla, B.Sc., M.L, Ph.D.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Friday, the 7th day of February, 2014.

C.C.No. 220 of 2012

The State, represented by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Nagari. (Cr.No. 726/2011-12 of Nagari

Prohibition & Excise Station) ... Complainant.

Versus

1.D.Vadivelu (Died), age 60 years, S/o. Desappa, Caste: Palegaru, R/o. Gollakandriga @ Istakameswarapuram, Vijayapuram Mandal;

2.Smt.Munemma, age 50 years, W/o. Chengaiah, Caste: Palegaru, R/o: Amagunta village, Vijayapuram Mandal;

... Accused.

This case is presented before me on 4.2.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Babu, Advocate for accused, and the accused No.1 having died and case against him being abated, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Nagari, has filed Charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7A r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995, alleging that on 26.2.2012 at about 9.30 A.M. the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector along with his staff raided at Amagunta village cross, which is situated in Pannur sub station – Chivada bus road, Vijayapuram Mandal, and found the accused Nos.1 and 2 in possession of one plastic can each containing about 5 + 5 i.e., totally 10 liters of I.D. arrack, on that, the said contraband was seized from the possession of accused under the cover of a Special Report and that the accused arrested. Adverting to the above, basing the Special Report a case in Cr.No. 726/2011-12 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Nagari, u/sec. 7A r/w. 8(e) of A.P.P.Act, 1995, registered and on completion of investigation, Charge sheet is filed.

2. This Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

2

3. On appearance of the accused No.2 the copies of documents as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished. On the death of accused No.1, case abated against him.

4. The accused No.2 examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby Charge under 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act 1995 framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu. She denied the charge.

5. The prosecution, in support of the case, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs. P1 to P3, so also, marked M.O.1.

6. The accused No.2 examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. She termed the evidence of prosecution as false. Not chosen to examine any witnesses and no documents are marked on her behalf. Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with.

7. Heard both the sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ?

Analysis of evidence and marshalling of facts :

9. This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, considered the arguments of both sides and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10. In this case, the then Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector is examined as P.W.1 and the then Prohibition and Excise Head Constable is examined as P.W.2. In their evidence-in-chief they have given their evidence in tune with the records of the prosecution. Through P.W.1 Exs.P.1 to P.3 so also M.O.1 received in evidence.

11. On perusal of cross-examination the following facts emerged that the scene of offence is nearby Amagunta village whereby one can expect people all along so also Revenue officials, and that the deputed Constable/P.W.2, though entrusted with the duty of securing mediators, 3 failed, but to prove the said fact he has not filed any report thereto, and that, admittedly the Prohibition party has not measured the contraband.

12. On conglomeration of the above evidence what emerges clear, is that, the alleged scene is situated nearby Amagunta village and thus the scene is laid in a busy locality, and that, the alleged raid is in the day broad light. Despite this topography of the scene and the alleged time of incident, the prosecution failed to secure the support of independent witnesses for the search of the accused and seizure of contraband. The attempt of the Prohibition party in deputing the Constable to secure mediators and his return in vain, has become futile when the deputed Constable failed to file the report of non-availability of mediators. If at all there is force in the contention of the Prohibition party that it has tried to secure mediators and failed, they ought to have filed the report of the deputed Constable as to whom he contacted and where and that he failed to secure the mediators. In the absence of such report, the alleged attempt of the Prohibition party to secure mediators and proceeding against the accused basing the Special Report appears to be doubtful virtually. In this way of the matter, there is doubt in the case of prosecution. The doubt further precipitated when the Prohibition party based the case against the accused on conjectures and surmises, in the sense, the Prohibition party has not measured the contraband. In the absence of measure thereto, the allegation that the accused were found in possession of I.D. liquor cannot stand to the scrutiny of this Court. In this way of the matter also, the case of the prosecution has become doubtful.

13. With this what emerges clear is that by the time the search was conducted and seizure made there were people all along in the nearby vicinity and locality, despite their presence the investigating officer could not take their assistance to act as mahazardars. In other words the local inhabitants are not pressed into service to act as mahazardars. Thus the entire search is against the spirit of law of search. Thereby, the alleged seizure and arrest thereon is in repugnant to the above law. In this way of the matter, the bald and perfunctory evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to prove the Special Report on which the case of the prosecution is edificed, thereby the Special Report doubted, consequently the entire case of the prosecution.

14. On agglomeration of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the case of prosecution filled with doubts and that the evidence of 4

P.Ws.1 and 2 is not inspiring the confidence of this Court to proceed against the accused. Hence, the point is answered holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, this Court found the accused No.2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, thereby acquitted her under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. She be set at liberty. Her bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case against accused No.1 abated on his death. Order relating to case property: In this case, the M.O.1 sample bottles received in C.P.R.No.140/2012 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 7th day of February, 2014.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF : PROSECUTION :DEFENCE: P.W.1 : S.M.Basha -None-. P.W.2 : P.Govindaswamy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF: PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1:Special Report dated 26-02-2012. Ex.P2:First Information Report, dated 26-02-2012. Ex.P3:Lab Report.

DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O-1 : Two sample bottles.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

J.M.F.C., NAGARI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NAGARI.

PRESENT:- Dr.S.Md.FAZULULLA, B.Sc., M.L, Ph.D.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Monday, the 16th day of December, 2013.

C.C.No. 209 of 2013

The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nindra,

(Cr.No.50/2013 of Nindra P.S.) .. .. Complainant

Versus

I.P.Chakrapani, age 43 years, S/o. V.Muddu-

krishnama Naidu, Padiri village, Nindra Mandal; .. .. Accused

This case is presented before me this day for final hearing in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri K.Somasundaram, Sri M.Dharani, Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nindra P.S. has filed Charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C. alleging that on 30-10-2013 at about 7.30 A.M. at the house of the complainant K.Asha at Padiri village, Nindra Mandal, in the early morning while she was sweeping in front of her house the accused woke up from the cot in front of his house and asked her as to why she and her husband are quarreled, and that, if not set, stay with him, and that, he can give her whatever she want, and that, being afraid of she went to the house without drawing color powder diagrams in front of the house and that this all happened due to an intention to insult her. Adverting to the above, basing the statement of the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.50/2013 u/Sec. 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C. of Nagari P.S. has been registered and after completion of investigation Charge sheet is filed.

2. The Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C. against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents as required u/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. furnished.

2

4. The accused examined u/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. for the accusation levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C. and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

5. The prosecution, in support of the case, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3.

6. The examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with.

7. Heard both the sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt or otherwise ?

9. POINT: In this case, the defacto complainant examined as P.W.1 has not supported the case of prosecution in any way though set the criminal law into motion. The P.W.2, who is none other than her grand father/father-in-law also not supported the case of the prosecution. When the material witnesses have given go bye to the case of the prosecution, the Assistant Public Prosecutor reported closure of prosecution contending that no useful purpose would be served by examining the remaining witnesses. Verily there is force in the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10. As seen from the evidence of the defato complainant/victim, there appears some skirmish/quibble in between the complainant and the accused in respect of certain neighbourhood issues and, that, this resulted into preference of complaint and other incidental consequences. When the defacto complainant appeared before this Court along with the second material witness P.W.2 and have given evidence sans incriminality, so there cannot be case against the accused for the offences charged. As such, in cases of this sort, when the material witnesses have given go bye to the case of prosecution, the prosecution can no longer edifice the case against the accused for the offence charged. Thereby the Court determined the point holding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

3

11. In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C., thereby acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months u/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 16th day of December, 2013.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution:Defence: P.W.1: K.Asha -None-. P.W.2: K.Subramanyam Naidu

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Statement of P.W.1 dated 30-10-2013. Ex.P2:161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 dated 30-10-2013.

Defence: -Nil-. Material Objects marked: -nil-.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

J.M.F.C., NAGARI.

// True copy //

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NAGARI.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NAGARI.

Calender in C.C.No. 209 of 2013

Date of offence: 30-10-2013 Date of complaint: 30-10-2013 Date of taken on file : 05-12-2013 Date of apprehension of accused: 04-11-2013 Date of commencement of trial: 16-12-2013 Date of close of trial : 16-12-2013 Date of sentence or order : 16-12-2013 Complainant : The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nindra P.S. (Cr.No.50/2013 of Nindra P.S.)

Name of the accused Father’s name Age Village Mandal Reli- Calling

(years) gion I.P.ChakrapaniV.Muddukrishnama43Padiri NindraHinduFarmer Naidu

Nature of offence: Sec. 323 I.P.C.- Voluntarily causing hurt. Sec. 341 I.P.C.- Wrongfully restraining any person. Sec. 509 I.P.C.- Uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman, etc.

Section of law: 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C. Finding of the Court: Accused found not guilty for the above offences. Sentence or Order: In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323, 341 and 509 I.P.C., thereby acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months u/Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/- S.Md.FAZULULLA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NAGARI.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

NAGARI.