Smt.s.sreedevi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY ON THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt. S. Sreedevi,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.

C.C.No. 228 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The State of A.P. Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennaraopet. …Complainant

And

A-1: Dhowpati Rayanna, s/o. Jojaiah, Age: 48 years, A-2: Dhowpati Dheva Dhanamma, W/o. Rayanna, Age: 45 years, Both R/o. Thimmarainpad village. …Accused

This case coming on 27.09.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP Sri. T. Venkateshwarlu, for complainant and of Sri K. Sanjay kumar,

Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of police, Chennaraopet police station laid a charge sheet against Accused in Crime No. 143 of 2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 325 r/w 34 IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant/Mallavarapu

Innaiah lodged a written report before the police stating his grievance as follows.

The houses of LW-1/Mallavarapu Innaiah and accused are adjacent to each other and there are pending old disputes between two families. On 30.11.2012 at about 06.30 hours as LW-2/Dasari Sandhya Rani was present in her house, A-2 while sweeping infront of their court yard started scholding said LW-2/D. Sandhya Rani by putting her name unnecessarily. On hearing the same LW-2/D. Sandhya Rani questioned A-2 about her scholding unnecessarily, then A-1 who is the husband of A-2 came outside from the house and by keeping the previous grudge in mind voluntarily caused hurt by beating LW-2/D. Sandhya Rani with stick, due to which she received 2 injury to her left hand and A-2 beat her with fisted hands on her face, due to which she received injuries. Later LW-1/M. Innaiah went to police station and lodged a written report requesting for proper action. On receipt of such report, a case was registered in

Cr. No. 143/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 325 r/w 34 IPC against Accused. After completion of investigation, IO filed final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C opining that Accused have committed the offence punishable U/s. 325 r/w 34 IPC.

2.After taking cognizance of the offence, relevant copies of the documents were furnished to the accused and a charge U/S. 325 r/w 34 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6.

After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in prosecution evidence, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and contended that it is false and reported no evidence on his behalf. Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

3.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 325 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

4.PW-1 stated that about three years back, PW-2 telephoned him and informed that accused beat her at her house, she asked him to come to police station as she was waiting at that place. He went to police station but did not found PW-2. At that time police obtained his signatures on white papers, he met PW-2 at her relatives house at Narsampet and found bleeding injuries on her right shoulder. In the cross examination, it was elicited that he do not know what was scribed above his signature on that white paper on which he put his signature and he even do not know on which 3 date the galata took place and the details of the galata.

PW-2 stated that about three years back at 6.30 A.M., while she was cleaning the front yard of her house, at that time A-2 abused her in filthy language, then she questioned her about her abusing, by hearing the same A-1 come out and beat her with a stick on her left hand due to which she sustained fracture injuries, A-2 fisted her with her palm on her face, at that time PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 were present and witnesses the incident. She went to police station and PW-1 was also present by that time before the police station and he lodged a complaint. Police referred her to Community health centre at Narsampet for treatment. She also stated that A-2 is in the habit of abusing of the locality people and prior to the incident also she abused PW-2 on many occasions.

In the cross examination, it was elicited that she lodged a complaint in the year 2014 against a Muslim family by alleging that they committed theft of her gold ornaments, she stated that she do not know whether the said Muslim family left the village after lodging of complaint against them. It was elicited that, she did not give any complaint against the accused in this case on any prior occasions even though they abused her. It was also elicited that she was treated as in patient at MGM Hospital, Warangal. It was suggested to her that neither A-1 beat her with stick nor A-2 fisted her on her face but she fell down at her house and foisted a false case by taking advantage of those injuries for which she denied. PW-3 stated that about three years back he brought PW-2 to

Community Health Centre, Narsampet from Police Station. The daughter of PW-2 informed that PW-2 sustained injuries as somebody beat her.

PW-4 to PW-6 turned hostile. The evidence of all the remaining witnesses was gave up by the prosecution.

PW-7 is the doctor who treated the PW-2 on the requisition issued by

Chennaraopet police, accordingly he examined her and found contusions and abrasions and issued Ex.P-4 medical certificate by opining that the three injuries are simple in nature and one injury is grevious in nature. In the cross examination, it was elicited that 4 he gave only preliminary treatment to PW-2 and referred to MGM hospital, Warangal to consult Orthopedician. He admitted that a person sustained injuries which were mentioned in Ex.P-5 if he fall on ground suddenly and that he did not handed over reports given at MGM Hospital or X-ray reports of PW-2 to police. It was suggested to him that he did not treated PW-2 and issued Ex.P-5 only at her instance for which he denied.

5. It is the version of the prosecution that accused beat PW-2 and she informed the same to PW-1 and he lodged a complaint against the accused and the offence was witnessed by PWs 3 to PW-6. PW-7 stated that he received requisition from Station House officer, Chennaraopet and examined PW-2 and opined that one injury sustained by her is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature.

6.To substantiate its version prosecution examined seven witnesses, the evidence of PW-1 has no way helpful to the prosecution case. He categorically stated that even though PW-2 asked him to come to police station but she did not come to police station when he went to police station, more over he clearly stated that he do not know what are the contents scribed above his signature and he put his signature on white paper. The evidence of PW-3 is also not helpful because he only accompanying with PW-2 to go to hospital and he do not know who beat PW-2. The evidence of PW-2 only is available on record and she stated that A-1 and A-2 beat her and the same was witnessed by PWs 3 to PW-6, she even stated that on so many prior occasions also A-2 abused her. It was elicited that she did not lodged any complaint with police on any of those prior occasions.

PW-4 to PW-6 turned hostile and they stated that they did not witness accused beating PW-2. Hence, the evidence remained on record is that of only PW-2 and PW-7. PW-7 is a Doctor and his evidence will have little weitage as that of expert 5 evidence. The evidence of PW-2 is very much crucial but even her evidence has not inspiring any confidence and did not find support from the evidence of any independent witness. When PW-3 stated that the daughter of PW-2 informing him about PW-2 sustaining injuries, but the daughter of PW-2 was not examined either by investigating agency or by prosecution. The complaint itself is not sufficient before the Court because

PW-1categorically stated that he put his signature on a white paper but he did not know what was scribed above his signature and the said paper is the complaint which is a primary document and itself is not sufficient before the Court to prove the guilt of the accused, any account of evidence spoken by PW-2 is also of no use as it got no strength and basis and reliable view of complaint. Hence it was felt that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7. In result, A-1 & A-2 were found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

325 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they were acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. As there is no case property, no property order was passed.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of October, 2016)

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : M. Innaiah (Complainant/Eye witness) - None –

PW-2 : D. Sandhya Rani (Injured)

PW-3 : D. Balaswamy (Eye witness)

PW-4 : D. Francis (Eye witness)

PW-5 : D. Nirmala (Eye witness)

PW-6 : D. Rathna (Eye witness)

PW-7 : Dr. V. Kishan (Treated the injured) 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on Complaint, - Nil – Ex.P-2: Statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-4, Ex.P-3: Statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-5, Ex.P-4: Medical certificate.

: Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

THURSDAY ON THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt. S. Sreedevi,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.

C.C.No. 546 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

The State of A.P. Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Duggondi. …Complainant

And

Lenkalapalli Sambaiah, S/o. Cheralu, Age: 40 years, R/o. Rekampalli village, Narsampet, Warangal district. …Accused

This case coming on 29.09.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP Sri. T. Venkateshwarlu, for complainant and of Sri A. Srinivas, Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the

following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of police, Duggondi police station laid a charge sheet against Accused in Crime No. 116 of 2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 325

IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant/Lenkalapally

Vanamma lodged a written report before the police stating her grievance as follows.

The LW-1/Lenkalapally Vanamma and LW-2/L. Mallaiah are wife and husband, the accused and LW-2/Mallaiah are own brothers and resident of Rekampally village having their agricultural lands adjacent to each other. Prior to the alleged incident the mother of accused and LW-2/Mallaiah has sold away their agricultural lands, on that accused suspected that LW-2/L. Mallaiah played a role in selling away their land and developed grudge over his brother. Keeping the said grudge in mind on 07.11.2011 at 06.00 hours while LW-2/L. Mallaiah fetching water to his cotton fields and attending the work, accused attacked LW-2/L. Mallaiah and voluntarily caused hurt by 2 beating him on his left temple with spade stick, due to which LW-2/L. Mallaiah sustained severe bleeding injury. LW-3/K. Swamy witnessed the incident and informed the same to LW-1/L. Vanamma. Later she went to police station and lodged a written report requesting for proper action. On receipt of such report, a case was registered in Cr. No.

116/2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 325 IPC against Accused. After completion of investigation, IO filed final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C opining that Accused have committed the offence punishable U/s. 325 IPC.

2.After taking cognizance of the offence, relevant copies of the documents were furnished to the accused and a charge U/S. 325 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in prosecution evidence, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and contended that it is false and reported no evidence on his behalf. Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

3.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 325 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

4.PW-1 stated that about four years back, his mother sold away her agricultural land. On one day at about 04.00 AM, while he was watering his cotton crop, accused went and beat him with a stick on his left cheek, due to which he fell down to ground and lost conscious. After regaining conscious, he went to his house and his wife lodged a complaint with police. Police referred him to Community health centre,

Narsampet for treatment. Accused bore grudge against him as his mother sold away their agricultural land. In the cross examination, it was elicited that accused is his brother and a partition took place between himself and accused about 20 years back. It 3 was suggested to him that the land of one M. Rajaiah is situated adjacent to his land for which he denied. It was also suggested to him that Chiranjeevi prepared the cement rings for installation in the well and a galata took place between himself and Chiranjeevi and the said Chiranjeevi beat him on his cheeks with spade for which he denied. It was suggested to him that Chiranjeevi lost one of his teeth when he beat Chiranjeevi and subsequently died due to those beatings for which he denied. It was suggested to him that accused will not reside at their village but he reside at another place for his livelihood for which he denied. It was also suggested to him that he sustained injuries in the hands of Chiranjeevi and by taking advantage of the same he lodged a false complaint for which he denied.

PW-2 turned hostile to prosecution.

PW-3 is the Investigating officer who stated about LW-7/B. Narayana Reddy receiving complaint and registering the same. He also stated that the said B. Narayana reddy examined PW-1, PW-2 and conducting scene of offence panchanama by securing the presence of LW-4/J. Thirupathi, LW-5/G. Sadaiah. He even send PW-1 to

Community health centre, Narsampet for treatment and collected the medical certificate.

Later the case file was handed over to him, he verified the investigation done by LW- 7/B. Narayana Reddy and found it on correct lines. He effected the arrest of the accused on 11.11.2011 and send him for remand. He laid charge sheet on completion of investigation. It was elicited in the cross examination that he neither examine any other witnesses nor visited the scene of offence. He did not even seized any weapon pertaining to this case. It was suggested to him that accused is no way responsible for the offence for which he denied. It was also elicited that he did not examine Dr. Ravi

Kiran who treated PW-1 initially. After examining three witnesses prosecution gave up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses.

4

5. It is the version of prosecution that accused beat PW-1 due to which he sustained injuries and the same was witnessed by PW-2, but surprisingly PW-2 is an independent witnesses and who is also designated as eye witness turned hostile to prosecution. LW-1/L. Vanamma is defacto complainant and admittedly she is not an eye witness to the incident. The evidence remained on record is that of PW-1 who is injured and the evidence of PW-3 who is an investigating officer. Even PW-3 role in doing investigation is very much limited because the maximum portion of investigation was done by LW-7/B. Narayana Reddy and there is no corroboration to the evidence of

PW.1. No doubt it is the settled principle of law that even after its inspiring confidence conviction can be based depending upon the sole evidence of the victim who is PW-1 in this case but in the present case on hand it is not inspiring any confidence and moreover the reasons mentioned by PW-1 is that accused beat him is appearing to be very vague. According to him, accused beat him and he bore grudge against PW-1 because their mother sold away her share of land. PW-1 failed to give reasons as why accused will bore grudge against PW-1 when his mother sold away her share of land. It is not the version of prosecution that at the instance of PW-1, her mother sold away her share of land and it is also not the version of prosecution that PW-1 himself purchased the said land from his mother had a give away prize, then the questioned remained unanswered on record is why accused will bore grudge against PW-1.

Moreover the doctor who treated Pw-1 initially was not examined before the court likewise the Doctor who treated PW-1 subsequently at Community health centre also was not examined and no property was marked before the court to substantiate the version of PW-1 and to corroborate his version. Hence, it was felt that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

6. In result, Accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 325

IPC and accordingly, he was acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail 5 bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. As there is no case property, no property order was passed.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of October, 2016)

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : L. Mallaiah (Injured) - None –

PW-2 : K. Swamy (Eye witness)

PW-3 : Md. Mastan Miya (Investigating officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P-1: Statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-2, - Nil – Ex.P-2: Complaint lodged by PW-3, Ex.P-3: F.I.R, Ex.P-4: Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-5: Medical certificate of PW-1.

: Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY ON THIS THE 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt. S. Sreedevi,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.

C.C.No. 301 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The State of A.P. Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallabelli. …Complainant

And

Sapavath Yakub, S/o. Bixam, Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Muduchekkalapally village. …Accused

This case coming on 03.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP Sri. T. Venkateshwarlu, for complainant and of Sri D. Sambaiah, Advocate

for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the

following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of police, Nallabelli police station laid a charge sheet against Accused in Crime No. 15 of 2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 457, 380 IPC.

The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant/Kadiyala Veera Chary lodged a written report before the police stating his grievance as follows.

On 12.2.2012 during night hours LW-1/Kadiyala Veera Chary has closed his kirana shop business and went to sleep. On 13-02-2012 at about 05.00 hours when

LW-1/K. Veera Chary woke up and found the kiranam shop doors were opened and on search they found missing of Rs.11,500/-, 20 milk packets worth of Rs.200/-, and 20 kgs size gold flake cigarette packets worth of Rs.1000/-, total worth of Rs.12,700/- were missing and that accused was committed H.B., by entering into the kiranam shop and committed theft of the above said articles, total worth of Rs.12,700/-. Later LW-1/K.

Veera Chary went to police station and lodged a written report requesting for proper 2 action. On receipt of such report, a case was registered in Cr. No. 15/2012 for the offence punishable U/s. 457, 380 IPC against Accused. After completion of investigation, IO filed final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C opining that Accused have committed the offence punishable U/s. 457, 380 IPC.

2.After taking cognizance of the offence, relevant copies of the documents were furnished to the accused and a charge U/S. 457, 380 IPC is framed, read over and explained to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused were examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appeared against them in prosecution evidence, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and contended that it is false and reported no evidence on his behalf. Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

3.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 457, 380 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

4.PW-1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW-2 stated that about 4 years back while he was present at his shop, police asked him to come to Rudraguda bus stand. Accused was also present along with police, he questioned accused for his presence in the police custody, on that accused confessed that he committed theft of money, milk packs and some kiranam items and led them to his house. Police prepared confessional panchanama and at the instance of accused police seized Rs.15,000/- in cash, one cell phone under the cover of seizure panchanama. In the cross examination, it was elicited that he do not have any acquaintance with the accused and accused neither confessed about the offence nor any property was seized from his possession 3 but he put his signature on some blank papers at the instance of police about three years back.

PW-3 stated that he is running kiranam shop and about 3 years back i.e., on 22.2.2012 he closed down his shop and went away to his house in the evening hours and in the morning he found missing of 25 bags of cigarettes, 10 milk packets and

Rs.12,000/- which were committed theft, he lodged a complaint with police but till today he did not got back his stolen properties.

5. Prosecution has gave up the evidence of all the remaining witnesses, according to prosecution, accused committed theft at the shop of PW-3 and took away milk packets, cigarette packets and cash which were kept at that shop. The evidence of

PW-3 confirms about that aspect but the crucial aspect which prosecution ought to prove that accused is responsible for the offence. To substantiate that version, prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-2 who are the panch witnesses for the confession of the accused and recovery of the property at his instance. PW-1 turned hostile to prosecution by saying that accused did not confessed anything in his presence and no property was seized during his possession but whereas PW-2 clearly supported the version of prosecution in his chief examination by speaking about the confession of the accused and also gave the property seizure aspect but surprisingly in the cross examination he denied his earlier version by saying that accused did not confessed about the offence and no property was seized at his instance. Prosecution did not suggested anything to that witness in the re-examination and hence his cross examination remained good which washes away his chief examination. Hence the vital aspect of confession of the accused and seizure of the property at his instance basing on his confession was not at all proved by prosecution. Hence it was felt that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

4

6. In result, Accused was found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s. 457, 380 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property shall be returned to PW-3 on proper acknowledgment and shall hold good after the lapse of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of October, 2016)

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : K.Govardhan (Panch witness) - None –

PW-2 : G. Sudhaker (Panch witness)

PW-3 : K. Veera Chary (Complainant)

PW-4 : Upendra Rao (Investigating officer)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW-1 on confessional/seizure panchanama, - Nil – Ex.P-2: Signature of PW-2 on confessional/seizure panchanama, Ex.P-3: Confessional panchanama, Ex.P-4: Seizure panchanama, Ex.P-5: Complaint given by PW-3, Ex.P-6: F.I.R, Ex.P-7: Crime details form.

: Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

SATURDAY, THIS THE 8 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt. S. Sreedevi,

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.

C.C.No. 474 OF 2011

BETWEEN:

The State of A.P. Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nallabelly. …Complainant

And

A-1: Gampa Rajkumar, S/o. Vishwanadham, Age: 26 years, A-2: G. Vishwanadham, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 55 years, A-3: G. Padma, W/o. Vishwanadham , Age: 50 years, A-4: T. Anusha, W/o. Yugender, Age: 21 years, A-5: T. Yugender, S/o. Prabhaker, Age: 30 years, A-6: V. Swetha, D/o. Ramulu, Age: 21 years, A-7: V. Ramulu, S/o. Ellaiah, Age: 65 years, A-8: V. Radha, W/o. Ramulu, Age: 60 years, A-9: M. Narayana Goud, S/o. Rajaiah, A-10: K. Nagesh Goud, S/o. Ramulu, A-11: P. Vinay, S/o. Ramesh Babu, A-12: G. Sambaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 58 years, All R/o. Narsampet, Warangal district. …Accused

This case coming on 05.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP Sri. T. Venkateshwarlu, for complainant and of Sri

D. Ramesh & S. Kiran Kumar, Advocates for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of police, Nallabelly police station laid a charge sheet against Accused in Crime No. 78 of 2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC,

Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Complainant/Gampa Srividya lodged a written report before the police stating her grievance as follows.

The marriage of LW-1/Complainant Gampa Srividya and A-1 was performed by the parents of LW-1 in the year 2006 as per their customs and traditions 2 prevailing in their community. At the time of her marriage, the parents of LW-1/G. Srividya has gave net cash of Rs. 5 lakhs, 10 tulas of gold and one motor cycle TVS victor and other house hold articles on demand of all accused, after the marriage she joined the society of accused and lived happily for some period and blessed with one son and one daughter. Later all the accused started harassing LW-1/G. Srividya physically and mentally for want of additional dowry of Rs. 3 lakhs to bring from her parents house. On which the parents of LW-1/G. Srividya held a panchayath in presence of village elders and they advised and admonished all the accused not to harass her but accused did not change their attitude and again started harassing her. As A-1 used to work at Hyderabad, he kept

LW-1/G. Srividya in his parents house at Ashoknagar. Later LW-1/G. Srividya came to know that on 18.07.2011 without her consent and knowledge A-1 has re-married A-6 in

Peddapally Registrar Office. On knowing the information, LW-1/G. Srividya went to police station and lodged a written report requesting for proper action. On receipt of such report, a case was registered in Cr. No. 78/2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC,

Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused. After completion of investigation, IO filed final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C opining that Accused have committed the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused.

2. After taking cognizance of the offence, relevant copies of the documents were furnished to the accused and a charge U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against Accused are framed, read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 and got marked Exs-P.1 to P-3. After closure of prosecution evidence, Since there is no incriminating material appears against the accused in prosecution evidence examination U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Heard both sides.

Perused material on record.

3. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry 3

Prohibition Act against Accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

4. In this case prosecution examined PW-1, PW-2 did not supported the version of prosecution and turned hostile. PW-1 is the complainant and victim, PW-2 is the mother of PW-1 and belongs to one family in this case turned hostile to prosecution and no purpose will be served even though other witnesses were examined and it is wastage of precious time of court, hence the prosecution evidence was closed. Even though PW-1,

PW-2 supported the version of prosecution when their statement was recorded by police.

Subsequently they resiled from their evidence and clearly admitted in the cross examination which was done by learned Sr. APP that she compromise the matter with the accused and they donot have any objection if the accused were acquitted in this case and that prosecution utterly failed in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In view of all the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, I opine that the prosecution could not establish its case against the accused.

5. In result, A-1 to A-12 was found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.

498-A, 494 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and accordingly they were acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. As there is no case property, no order was passed.

(Typed to my Dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of October, 2016)

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: G. Srividya (Complainant/Victim) - None –

PW-2: B. Sumathi (Mother of LW-1) 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1: Complainant lodged by PW-1,

Ex. P2: Statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-1.

Ex. P3: Statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., of PW-2,

Material Objects Marked

- NIL –

Sd/-

Judl. First Class Magistrate, Narsampet.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THIS THE 7th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.

PRESENT: Smt . S. Sreedevi,

Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class, Narsampet.

P.R.C. No. 54 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The State of A.P. Represented by

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nekkonda. ...Complainant.

And

A-1: Konijeti Bixapathi, S/o. Satyam, Age: 38 years, A-2: Mohd Yakub Pasha, S/o. Jaffer, Age: 26 years, Both R/o. Nekkonda village,

Warangal district. ...Accused.

OFFENCE U/S. 143, 427, 341, 436, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of

PDPP Act

This case coming before me for final disposal on this day, in the presence of

Sri T. Venkateshwarlu, APPO for State and of Sri A. Srinivas, Advocate for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court deliver the following:

: : COMMITTAL ORDER : :

1.The SI of police, Nekkonda has filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No. 7/2012 for the offences U/S. 143, 427, 341, 436, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of PDPP Act against Accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are :

The LW-1/Complainant Parshi Narayana Rao is the driver of APSRTC

Bus bearing No. AP 28-Z-2616 of Narsampet depot. On 6.01.2012 a party meeting is going to be held at Palakurthy, in this connection the members of TRS and JAC decided to obstruct the tour programme of TDP meeting of “Rythu Poru Bata” at

Palakurthy and given bandh call of Warangal district. On the day of meeting, during evening hours LW-1/Parshi Narayana Rao started his bus from Narsampet depot inorder to attend meeting, when the bus reached fly-over bridge of Nekkonda, a mob of people about 15 members along with A-1, A-2 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons, stopped the bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 2616 and cleared the public and LW-1/Parshi Narayana Rao and threatened them by pelting stones, deflated the air from tyres, damaged bus glasses and sprinkled petrol on bus and set ablaze the same, due to which the bus was burnt and thereby accused caused loss to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- of public property. Later LW-1/Complainant Parshi

Narayana Rao who is the driver of the bus lodged a complaint with police. After completion of investigation LW.11/S. Amrutha Reddy, Investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence against accused U/S. 143, 427, 341, 436, 506 r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of PDPP Act against Accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies u/s 208 have been furnished.

5. On perusal of the record I am of the view that the offence in the case is exclusively triable by the court of sessions. Hence, the case is hereby committed.

Notify the public prosecutor about the commitment of the case.

6.When questioned about the means, accused is reported he has means to engage counsel to defend themselves in the sessions court.

(Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 7th day of October, 2016)

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

--NIL—

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsampet.