Sri S. Sivasankar Reddy, B.Sc.,L.L.M.,

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

1/6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Sivasankar Reddy, Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017

Calendar Case No. 501 of 2014

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town PS…Complainant -: And :-

Patan Magdhum @ Basha S/o Babu Khan, age 22 years, Muslim by caste, Rosaiahh colony, Ramapuram Beach road, Vetapalem. … Accused

This is case is coming on 01.05.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II for the state-complainant and Sri M.Suresh Chowday, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town P.S., filed charge sheet u/Section 417, 420 of IPC in Cr.No.181/2014 against sole accused.

02.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the parents of Athmakuri

Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) was demised when she was one year old. After demised of parents of Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1), Sathupati Kotamma (L.W.2) looking after the welfare of Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) and his sister

Athmakuri Kiran Kumar (L.W.3). Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) got married with one Manupati Syam, but after six months of their conjugal life her husband was succumbed in a train mishap. After the death of her husband, accused started following and trying to induce Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) that he loves and he would marry her. On believing the deceitful words of accused, Athmakuri Venkata

Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) agreed to marry mean while accused few times seduced her and maintaining illegal intimacy with her on pretext of marriage. Accused not only induced the complainant on pretext of love and marriage, but also taken money from her in the presence of Sathupati Kotamma (L.W.2) and Athmakuri Kiran Kumar (L.W.3) on various reasons such as to purchase a bike and his sister's marriage expenses for a tune of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Mean while some times Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) and accused had gratified their love and lust by committing intercourse at her rented house

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

2/6

which is in Rice mill bazaar, Vizilipeta, Chirala. One time when both Athmakuri Venkata

Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) and accused were having physical intimacy at the rented house of the complainant, Marri Parameswari (L.W.4), Sathupati Ramesh (L.W.5) and

Thagallamudi Srinivasa Rao (L.W.6) have noticed and admonished both of them not to maintain such illegal intimacy. In this juncture at about two months back Athmakuri

Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) requested the accused to marry her as it is being late, then accused provoked upon her and expressed his unwillingness to marry her as she belongs to Brahmin caste and accusing as she is an adulteress. Besides, accused is trying to avoid the Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) by putting his mobile phond switched off. Except the Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) and Sathupati

Kotamma (L.W.2) and Athmakuri Kiran Kumar (L.W.3), no other independent witnesses has supported the case against the alleged accused/A2 and A2 ie., the involvement of

A2 and A3 in cheating the Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) by inducing and received money with false promises and malicious statements by putting the complainant under impression of that he would marry her. Having no other go, Athmakuri Venkata

Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) gave report to the police. Basing on the report of Athmakuri

Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) a case in Cr.No.181/2014 under sec.417, 420 r/w 34 of

IPC was registered by G.Hazarath Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.9) and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses by recording their statements. He also deleted the names of alleged accused/A2 and A3 from this case, for that he filed a memo before this Honourable court.

He also arrested the accused and sent him to this Honourable court for judicial remand.

After completion of investigation, he filed chargesheet against accused for the offence under sec.417, 420 of IPC.

03. On appearance of sole accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same and hence a charge under Sec.417, 420 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

3/6

04.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were got marked.

06.As there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. Accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

07.Heard arguments of learned A.P.P for the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused.

08.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

Whether the prosecution has bring home the guilt of accused for the offences u/s 417, 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

09. POINT:- The gravamen of the allegations against the sole accused is that the accused cheated the Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi (L.W.1) by inducing and receiving money with false promises and malicious statements by putting the complainant under impression of that he would marry her.

10.The prosecution in order to prove its case got examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 wife of the accused, but she failed to support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. P.W.1 claimed that in the year 2014, the accused followed her stating that he is in love with her. After some period she also believed the words of the accused and fell in love with him and accused also promised her that he will marry her. Believing the words of the accused, herself and accused also done intercourse on several times. Thereafter, some petty quarrel took place between them.

At that time, her elders obtained her signatures on some written papers. Ex.P.1 is her report to the police, but she do not know its contents. P.W.1 further claimed that in

Dasara days of 2016, the accused married her according to Christian caste customs in the church situated at Vizilipet in the presence of caste elders on their both sides. Since then, herself and accused have been living as husband and wife happily and presently she is carrying 6th month pregnancy also. Accused never cheated her. She do not know anything about this case. She was not examined by the police.

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

4/6

(i)P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the grand mother and sister of P.W.1 deposed in one voice that they know the accused, who is the husband of P.W.1. Accused married

P.W.1 in the year 2016 according to caste customs before the elders on both sides and both of them are living happily presently. Now P.W.1 is carrying 6th month pregnancy at present. They further deposed that accused never cheated P.W.1. They do not know anything about this case. They were not examined by the police.

(ii) In view of the above evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, the learned A.P.P declared them as hostile and put questions in the nature of cross examination, however with permission of the court but except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.2 to P.4, nothing could be elicited to show that they are deposing false. Inview of the above evidences of

P.Ws.1 to 3, the learned A.P.P given up the remaining witnesses as no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined.

11.A careful perusal of the oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with the original statement containing the signature of P.W.1 which was marked as Ex.P.1 and the 161

Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 which were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.4, it is vividly clear that they are quiet contradictory to each other and on the other hand, it leaves no manner of doubt that P.W.1 might have compromised the matter with the accused and that might be the reason for P.Ws.1 to 3 in not supporting the case of prosecution.

Coming to Exs.P.2 to P.4, the 161 Cr.P.C statement, it is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can, at best be used for the purpose of corroboration under Sec.157 of

Indian evidence Act, 1872 or contradiction under Sec.145 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

However, on careful perusal of entire material available on record, absolutely there is no evidence to connect the accused with the above crime and hence this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec.417, 420 of IPC and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

5/6

12.In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec.417, 420 of IPC and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case, no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 - Athmakuri Venkata Mahalakshmi NONE P.W.2 - Sathupati Kotamma P.W.3 - Athmakuri Kiran Kumar

// DOCUMENTS MARKED //

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1/ Signature of PW.1 on the report given to police.--NIL-- Ex.P2/ 161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.1 Ex.P3/ 161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.2 Ex.P4/ 161(3) Cr.P.C.,statement of PW.3 // MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED //

-NIL-

Ild/- SSSR A.J.C.J.

// True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

C.C.501/2014

A.J.C.J.Court, Chirala

6/6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::CHIRALA

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.501 of 2014

Date of offence prior to:20.08.2014 Date of report: 20.08.2014 Date of apprehension of accused: 01.09.2014 Date of release of accused: 08.09.2014 Date of commencement of trial: 02.05.2017 Date of closure of trial: 01.05.2017 Date of Judgment: 02.05.2017

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town PS…Complainant -: And :-

Patan Magdhum @ Basha S/o Babu Khan, age 22 years, Muslim by caste, Rosaiahh colony, Ramapuram Beach road, Vetapalem. … Accused

Offence:u/Sec.417, 420 of IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec.417, 420 of IPC and hence he is acquitted of the same under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under Section 437(a) Cr.P.C. In this case, no property seized and produced, hence no property order is passed.

Explanation for delay:-

This case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.417, 420 of IPC against the sole accused. On appearance of accused before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when he was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, the accused denied the same and hence a charge under Sec.417, 420 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried. The trial was commenced on 01.05.2017 and concluded on the same day, during trial P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and prosecution evidence was closed. As there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused, examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with., Heard arguments on both the sides. On 02.05.2017 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

Sd/- S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole // True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

1 // 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

This, the 26th day of April, 2017

Calendar Case No.500 of 2015

Between: The State rep. By S.I of Police, Chirala Rural P.S.…Complainant -: And :- 01.Mamilla Samanna, S/o Mamilla Kumar, 23 years, Banda Munnamvaripalem, Chinnaganjam (M), Now at Kunderu Chirala (Driver of auto bearing No.AP 27 X 1831) 02.Thella Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o Krishna Murthy, 46 years, Devanga, Ramakrishnapuram, Chirala Mandal.… Accused

The case coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

A2 called present. APP filed a memo along with the copy of death certificate of

A1 and the same is recorded.

Accordingly, the case against A1 is ABATED as died.

Copies are furnished to the accused/A2 under sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Accused/A2 examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation against him for the offence under Sec.5 read with 180 of M.V.Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded guilty and admitted the offence.

The plea of guilt made by the accused is appears to be voluntary and the same is accepted.

Accordingly accused/A2 is found guilty for the offence under sec.5 r/w 180 of

M.V.Act and he is convicted under Sec.252 Cr.P.C.

When questioned about the quantum of sentence, the accused/A2 pleaded that he is the sole bread winner of his entire family and prayed for mercy of the Court and to treat this mistake as his first and last mistake by imposing fine instead of sentence.

2 // 2

Having considered the plea of the accused/A2 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case to impose fine instead of sentence in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, accused/A2 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under sec.5 r/w 180 of M.V.Act and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) days.

The accused/A2 is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and about free legal aid.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of April. 2017.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

-:WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

---NIL---

A.J.C.J, Chirala

1 // 2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Srinivas,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

This the, 26th day of April 2017

C.C.93/2015

Between: State Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnaganjam P.S. …Complainant -: And :- Duddukuri Ramesh Babu @ Yesu Babu, S/o yacobu,, 29 years, Caste by Madiga, Jarubulavaripalem village of Karamchedu Mandal, Driver of College bus bearing No. KA 0ZC 338…Accused

The case coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of Asst. public Prosecutor for complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

Accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaininy the substance of accusation against him for the offence under Sec.337, 338of IPC read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded guilty and admitted the offence.

The plea of guilt made by the accused is appears to be voluntary and the same is accepted.

Accordingly accused si found guilty for the offence under Sec.337, 338 of IPC and he is convicted under Sec.252 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly accused is sentenced to pay of fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 337 IPC and in default suffer simple imprisonment for 3 days. Accordingly accused is sentenced to a pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Five hundered only ) for the offence U/s 338 IPC and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 days. The accused in in formed about his right to prefer an appeal against this Judgment and about free legal aid.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of April, 2017.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Chirala

2 // 2

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

---NIL---

A.J.C.J, Chirala

1 // 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri S.Srinivas

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

This the 4th day of May, 2017

C.C.102/2017

Between:

Pidaparthi Ravindra Reddy, Hindu,

R/o Gopalnagar, Kothapet, Vetapalem Mandal. … Complainant

And

T.V.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Business, R/o Flat No.101,

Tirumala Shah Apartments, Yellareddyguda road, Hyderabad.… Accused

The case coming on today for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Hari babu, Advocate for complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

Complainant is called present. Summons sent to accused by R.P served personally.

Accused called absent. The complainant counsel filed Crlmp 2099/2017 under sec 257 crpc and the same is allowed permitting the complainant to withdraw the complaint. Accordingly,this complaint is dismissed as not pressed and accused is discharged U/s 257 crpc.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 4 th day of May, 2017.

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Chirala

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

---NIL---

A.J.C.J, Chirala