Smt S.Surya Kiransri

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS CUM ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: NARASAPURAM:: PRESENT: Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur.

Thursday, the 18h day of June, 2020

CC NO.1002/2016

Between: State: Sub Inspector of Police,

Mogaltur Police station. ..Complainant

AND

1. Kollati Srinivasarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age 55 yrs, C/AK.Kshatriya, Chintarevu, H/o Mogaltur village and Mandal.

2. Kollati Satyanarayana, S/o Srinivasarao, Age 30 yrs, C/AK.Kshatriya, Chintarevu, 

H/o Mogaltur village and Mandal...Accused

This case is coming on 15.06.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for the state and of Sri Ch.Danayya Naidu, learned advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of the both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:­

JUDGMENT

The accused were arraigned for the offence punishable under section 353 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr.No.221/2016 of

Mogaltur police station. 

2.The SI of police, Mogaltur police station filed a final report

U/Sec 173 Cr.P.C with the following averments:

The P.W1 is working as a Tahsildar in Mogaltur Mandal and he received a petition from the Panchayathi Secretary of Mutyalapalli village.

Thereby, on 16.11.2016 at about 11:00AM, the P.W1 along with P.Ws.2 to 6 went to Mutyalapalli village and trying to remove the encroachments in Mutyalapalli village in Government lands situated at 216 National

Highway. Then, the A1 and A2 used criminal force and obstructed their 2 legitimate duties and abused them in vulgar language. A2 with a common intention, kept his passion pro motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 AU 1376 across the road and made interruption to the traffic. Then, P.W1 gave report to Mogaltur police station. 

Basing on the report of P.W1, P.W7 registered the above case on 17.11.2016 at 7:30PM and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared rough sketch. He secured the witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. On 20.11.2016, he served Sec.41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC.

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

5. Accused were examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offence under section 353 IPC, has been read over, explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in, but Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. 

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr. P.C. for the incriminating evidence on record against the accused, for which they denied the same.

3

8.Heard both sides through video conferencing and I have gone through the evidence on record.

9.Now the point for determination is: ­

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 353 IPC?

10.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as P.W1, the eye witnesses of the alleged incident as

P.Ws.2 to 6, and the investigating officer as P.W7, and got marked the report of P.W1 as Ex.P1, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4 as Ex.P2, the original FIR as Ex.P3, and the rough sketch as Ex.P4. 

POINTS:

11. In order to prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that that accused assaulted or used criminal force towards P.W1 who is a public servant, in the execution of his duty, or intentended to prevent or deter P.W1 from discharging his duty, as public servant or in consequences to deter the duty of P.W1, the accused has done something. In order to prove the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, P.W1 is the defacto complainant, the then MRO of Mogaltur, P.W2 is the then Revenue Inspector of Mogaltur,

P.W3 is the then VRO of Mutyalapalli, P.W4 is Ex­Sarpanch of

Mutyalapalli, P.W5 is VRA of Mutyalapalli and P.W6 is Panchayat

Secretary of Mutyalapalli.

12.The evidence of P.W1 reveals that on 16.11.2016 during morning hours, himself and P.Ws.2 to 6 went to the water tank in

Mutyalapalli to remove the encroachments on the request of Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary i.e., P.Ws.4 and 6. Then, the accused came 4 there and they obstructed their duties. They placed the motorcycle across the road and caused obstruction to the traffic. Then, he went to

Mogaltur police station and gave Ex.P1 report. So, according to P.W1 on the request made by P.Ws.4 and 6, he went to the scene of offence to remove the encroachments. In this regard, the evidence of P.W4 reveals that in the year 2016, the Government has sanctioned a site to construct the Dwakra building. The said site is Government site and it is an extent of AC.1­21 cents and located near cyclone center, Mutyalapalli. The accused and other people are living in the said Government site by constructing houses. The Government has issued orders to get vacate the people from the said site and to construct the Dwakra building in the said site. In the month of November 2016 at 11:00AM, P.Ws.1 to 3,5 and 6 and himself went to the above Government land to get vacate the people in the said land, as per the orders of the Government. Then, the

A1 obstructed them by saying that the said site belongs to him. Except this, P.W4 did not depose that he made a request to the P.W1 to remove the encroachments. Further, according to P.W1, the scene of offence is at water tank of Mutyalapalli, but, P.W4 stated that the scene of offence is situated near cyclone center, Mutyalapalli. Further, P.W4 stated that the

Government has issued orders to get vacate the people who are residing in the Government site. P.W1 did not inform about the said orders. P.W.4 further deposed that A1 obstructed their duties. But, P.W1 deposed that

A1 and A2 obstructed them and they placed motorcycle across the road and caused obstruction to the traffic. Nothing was deposed by P.W4 about the obstruction of traffic by the accused.

5

13. Now coming to the evidence of P.W6, he deposed in his evidence, he submitted a requisition to P.W1 to get vacate the land in survey number 74 beside NH road in Mutyalapalli village after removing the encroachments. On 16.11.2016, in between 11:00AM to 12:30PM,

P.Ws.1 to 5 and himself went to the said land. Then, the accused obstructed them and stated that they would not vacate the houses and they would not permit them to remove the encroachments, as they have been residing in the said land from their fore fathers. P.W6 further deposed that A2 scolded the P.W1 and he placed bike across the NH road and obstructed the traffic. So, according to P.W6, he gave requisition to

P.W1, but no such requisition was filed before this court by the prosecution. P.W1 also did not depose that he received requestion from

P.W6. Further, according to P.W6, the scene of offence is beside NH road in Mutyalapalli village, where as according to P.W1 it is at water tank in

Mutyalapalli and according to P.W4, the scene of offence is situated at cyclone center, Mutyalapalli. Hence, there is no consistency in the evidences of P.Ws.1,4 and 6 about the scene of offence. Further, P.W6 did not depose that the Government has issued orders to get vacate the land in which the accused are residing. P.W6 deposed that A2 scolded the P.W1 and placed the motorcycle across the road. P.W1 did not depose that A2 scolded him. Where as P.W4 deposed that A1 obstructed them. He did not depose that the accused i.e., A1 or A2 placed motor cycle across the road.

14.Now coming to the evidence of P.W3 his evidence reveals that on 16.11.2016 at about 11:00AM, P.Ws.1,2,4 to 6 and himself 6 proceeded to Mutyalapalli cyclone center to conduct enquiry about road encroachments. When they were conducting enquiry, A1 came there and questioned them what they were doing in his site. Then, they replied that they were conducting enquiry. When they asked the accused to show any document relating to the said site, he told that he has no document and replied arrogantly. He disputed with P.Ws.1,2 and when P.W5 intervened,

A1 pushed P.W5, in the mean while, A2 took one coconut stem and tried to beat P.W5, A2 kept his motorcycle across the road and raised hue and cry. The accused obstructed their legitimate duties. So, according to

P.W3, they went to the scene of offence to conduct enquiry about road encroachments. But, P.Ws.1,4 and 6 deposed that they went to the scene of offence to get vacate the people in the Government site and to remove the encroachments. P.W3 deposed that A1 pushed P.W5 and he tried to beat him. But, P.Ws.1,4 and 6 did not depose the said fact. P.W3 further deposed that when they asked the accused to show the documents, he did not show the documents and replied arrogantly. The said fact was also not deposed by P.Ws.1,4 and 6.

15.Now coming to the evidence of P.W5, he deposed that

P.W.6 submitted a letter to P.W1 to get vacate the land in survey number 74 which is situated at NH road in Mutyalapalli village after removing the encroachments. On 16.11.2016 in between 10:00 AM to 11:00AM,

P.Ws.1 to 4,6 and himself went to the said land, then the accused obstructed them and said that the said land belongs to them. When, A2 tried to beat P.W1 with coconut stem, he intervened, A2 tried to beat him. A2 placed his bike across the NH road and obstruction the traffic.

7

Later, P.W1 gave report to police. P.W1 called the police and two constables came to the scene of offence and they cleared the traffic and they have taken away the accused. So, according to P.W5, they went to the scene of offence to get vacate the land. But, P.W3 stated that they went to the scene of offence only for enquiry. P.W5 deposed that A2 tried to beat P.W1, they he intervened, on that he tried to beat him. But,

P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 did not depose the said fact. P.W3 deposed that A1 pushed P.W5. But, he did not depose that A2 tried to beat P.W5. P.W5 deposed that two constables came to the scene of offence and they have taken the accused. But, the other witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 did not depose the said fact.

16.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the

Government has issued pattas to the accused and they constructed houses in the said land and have been living in the said site since their fore fathers. Due to political rivalry, P.Ws.4 and 6 i.e., Ex.Sarpanch and

Panchayat Secretary of Mutyalapalli tried to get vacate the accused from the said land and with the help of P.Ws.1,3 and 5 and in consequences of that a false case is foisted against the accused in order to get vacate them from the said land basing on the false case. In order to prove that the said land was given to the accused by the Government, the learned counsel got marked Exs.D1 to D4. Ex.D1 is the Patta Pass Book, Ex.D2 is the endorsement given by the Tahsildar of Mogaltur in the year 2009,

Ex.D3 is the compared copy of patta issued by MRO to the wife of A1 and the Ex.D4 is the paper clipping. Ex.D1 stood in the name of Kollati

Chinavenkatarao. It has given for RS.No.74/3. The learned counsel for 8 the accused submitted that the said pass book was issued to the father of the A1.

17.During the course of cross examination, P.W1 categorically admitted that Ex.D1 was issued in favour one Kollati Chinavenkatarao and Government issued patta to him for the said land. He further admitted that in the year 2009, the then MRO issued endorsement under

Ex.D2 by alloting house site to an extent of AC.0­03 cents in RS.No.74/3 to the wife of A1. He also admitted that patta was issued to her under

Ex.D3. He also admitted that the then Sub­Collector, Narsapur accorded permission to A1 to construct a house in the said land and the said news was published in Eenadu news paper under Ex.D4. P.W3 also admitted that Ex.D2 was issued by the then Tahsildar, Mogaltur in the year 2009 and it was given in the name of A1 in survey No.74/3. He also admitted that Ex.D3 was also given to the wife of A1. P.W5 stated in his cross examination that the extent of area in survey number 74 is AC.1­24 cents. He further stated that nearly 10 to 15 families constructed houses in the said land and they have been residing there from so many days. He also stated that the accused have been residing in the said land for more then 15 years. P.W6 also stated the said fact in his cross examination. So, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, it is evident that the accused and other families have been residing in the said site from so many years. Here in this case, this court has to see whether the accused has obstructed the legitimate duties of the P.W1 and other who are

Government officials and whether the accused obstructed or used criminal force against them when they were discharging their duties.

Except this, the court cannot go beyond and decide whether the said site 9 belongs to A1 or his wife or where the Government has allotted site to the wife of A1 or not. Even then, Exs.D1 to D3 coupled with evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 6 show that the accused has been residing in the said site from so many years.

18.According to the P.W1, himself and P.Ws.2 to 6 went to the scene of offence on 16.11.2016 during morning hours. During the course of cross examination, P.W1 stated that himself and P.W2 proceeded to the scene of offence in his car and they started from his office nearly at 11:30AM. He further stated that by the time they reached the scene of offence P.Ws.3 to 6 were already present there and himself and P.W.2 reached the scene of offence at 12:00noon. P.W2 deposed that they went to the scene of offence at 11:00AM. P.W2 stated that himself and P.W1 went to the scene of offence and by the time they reached to the scene of offence there were 10 persons present. He further stated that P.W1 called police and they came to the scene of offence at 12:00PM. But, nothing was deposed by P.W1 that he called police to the scene of offence and they came to the scene of offence. P.W1 stated that nearly 25 persons gathered at the scene of offence, where as P.W2 stated that 10 persons gathered at the scene of offence. P.W3 stated in his cross examination that P.Ws.1,2,5 and 6 and himself went to the scene of offence at the same time. P.Ws.1,2 came in a car and the other people went to the scene of offence on their respective motorcycles. But, P.Ws1 and 2 stated that by the time they reached to the scene of offence P.Ws.3 to 6 were already present there. P.W3 further stated that they went to the scene of offence at 11:00AM, where as P.W1 stated that they went to the scene of offence at 11:30AM and P.W.2 stated that they went to the scene of 10 offence at 12:00PM. P.W3 further stated that 30 to 40 persons were present in the scene of offence at the time of incident. P.W4 did not state anything about the gathering of people at the scene of offence.

19.Further, P.W6 stated in his cross examination that neither police nor Mandal Surveyor came to the scene of offence along with them and no police came to the scene of offence on the date of incident. P.W6 further stated that nearly 25 persons gathered at the scene of offence.

But, P.Ws.2 to 5 stated that P.W.1 called the police and they came to the scene of offence. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is in consistence with regard to gathering of people at the scene of offence by the time of incident and coming of police to the scene of offence. Further, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 6 at the time of scene of offence is at a time is doubtful. Further, except, P.Ws.1 to 6, no other person was examined or cited by P.W7 i.e., the investigating officer in this case. 

20.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is a delay of 24 hours in presenting Ex.P1 report, if really, any incident was happened as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 6, P.W1 ought to have gave Ex.P1 report to the Mogaltur police on the same day, since the Mogaltur police station is situated at a distance of 5KM from the scene of offence, the failure of giving Ex.P1 immediately to the police after the incident show that the accused are falsely implicated in this case due to political rivalry. This court perused Ex.P1. P.W1 submitted Ex.P1 on 17.11.2016 and it was registered on 17.11.2016 at 7:30PM. According to P.Ws.1 to 6, the incident was happened on 16.11.2016 during morning hours. Even though, P.Ws.1 to 6 deposed different times of incident, the incident was alleged to be happened on 16.11.2016. According to Ex.P3 FIR, the 11 distance between the scene of offence and Mogaltur police station is 5KM. If really, any incident was happened as deposed by P.Ws.1 to 6,

P.W.1 ought to have given report to the police immediately after the incident. Further, P.Ws.2 to 5 stated in their cross examination that two constables came to the scene of offence when P.W1 called them over phone and they have taken away the accused. But, the same thing was not deposed by P.Ws.1 and 6. If really, two constables came to the scene of offence and taken away the accused on the date of incident i.e., on 16.11.2016, P.W1 ought to have given report to the police on the same day i.e., on 16.11.2016, but he submitted Ex.P­1 report on 17­11­2016.

21.At this stage the learned defence counsel relied upon the

Judgment reported in 2008(1) ALD (Crl) 419 (AP) in between Perela

Veeraiah (Vs) State of Andhra Pradesh in this case there is a delay of nine hours in lodging of complaint then the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh held that Unexplained inordinate delay of 9 hours casts doubt on credibility of prosecution case. The learned defence counsel further relied upon a Judgment reported in 2008(1) ALD (Crl) 677 (AP) in between Koona Rama Krishna Reddy and others (vs) State of Andhra Pradesh in this case the distance between the village and the police station is 8 Kms and no formal complaint was lodged after the incident and there is delay of 3 hours between the occurrence and recording of statement of P.W.1 which is basis for FIR, then the Hon’ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the said delay is sufficient for

deliberations, particularly when the occurrence has traces of faction

rivalry. The learned defence counsel further relied upon another

Judgment reported in 2013(1) ALD (Crl) 209 (AP) in between Korra 12

Govardhan (vs) State of Andhra Pradesh in which the incident took place in the early hours at 4­30 a.m, but reported to the police next day at 6 pm and the reason for delay was not explained by the prosecution, then the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Mere delay,

even for a longer period, alone will not be enough to disbelieve the

prosecution case, but when delay stands unexplained, it shall cause

a reasonable suspicion that there could be concoction after

deliberation and embellishment might have been brought and

further held that non explain delay is fatal to the case of the

prosecution. The learned defence counsel further relied upon a

Judgment reported in 2007(2) ALD (Crl) 553 (AP) in between Gogu

Narasamma (vs) State of A.P in which the Hon’ble High Court held that

First Information Report in the criminal case is an extremely vital

and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the

oral evidence adduced at the trial and the Hon’ble Apex Court has

held in the delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often

results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On

account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of

spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured

version, exaggerated, account or concocted story as a result of

deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the

delay in the lodging of the First Information Report should be

Satisfactorily explained.

22.Here in this case, even though the alleged incident said to have been taken place on 16­11­2016 during morning hours, the FIR 13 was lodged on 17­11­2016 at 7­30 P.M, hence there is delay of nearly one and half day. Further, P.W.7, the Investigating Officer clearly admitted that there is a delay of one and half days in presenting Ex.P1 report. He further admitted that Mogaltur and Mutyalapalli are adjacent villages. He admitted that in column No.8 of Ex.P3 FIR, it was mentioned that there is no delay. Hence, the prosecution failed to explain the said delay. Hence, the contention of learned defence counsel has much force and the delay in giving Ex.P1 is fatal to the prosecution case. Hence, the above Judgments are squarely applicable to the present case. Further, the contents of Ex.P1, does not reveal the time of incident and also the presence of P.Ws.3 to 6 at the scene of offence. P.W7 who is the investigating officer admitted that P.W1 did not mention the time of incident in Ex.P1. P.W7 further stated that he recorded the statements of

P.Ws.2 to 6 on 18.11.2016 from 10:00AM to 1:00PM, but P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 stated that they were not examined by any police after Ex.P1. P.W7 further stated that the scene of offence were shown by P.Ws.3 and 5 to him, but, P.Ws.3 and 5 stated that they never examined by police.

Further, in Ex.P4 rough sketch, the scene of offence was shown at the house of A2 by P.W.7. He did not show whether the said house is situated in the Government Land and he did not show any water tank at the scene of offence. But, according to P.W1, the scene of offence is situated at water tank and according to P.Ws.2 to 6 the scene of offence is near National High Way, but P.W7 shown one R&B road at the scene of offence and he did not show the National High Way at the scene of offence in Ex.P4 rough sketch. Hence, it clearly shows that P.W7 did not prepare Ex.P4 by going to the scene of offence and hence, the contention 14 of learned defence counsel that P.W7 conducted a table investigation cannot be brushed out.

23.Further, no motorcycle was seized by P.W7 and produced the same before this court to show that the accused obstructed the traffic at the scene of offence. The learned defence counsel further contended that the P.Ws.2 to 6 are interested witnesses and hence their evidence cannot be believable. At this stage the learned defence counsel relied upon a Judgment reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 549 in between State of Punjab (vs) Jit Singh  in which the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that the evidence of interested witnesses needs to be

scrutinized considering the probabilities, past statements and

attending circumstances. The learned defence counsel further relied upon another Judgment reported in AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 598 in between Anokh Singh (vs) State of Punjab in which the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that improbability of prosecution story, doubtful

presence of eye witnesses, delay in lodging FIR and unnatural

conduct of the complainant all are to be examined carefully while

convicting the accused. Here in this case, P.Ws.2,3,5 worked under the control of P.W.1. P.W.6 worked under the control of P.W.4­Sarpanch of the village. P.W.4 admitted in his cross examination that accused and himself have no talking terms since five or six years. He further admitted that he contested in panchayat elections,2013 and one Karri Pullayya was his opponent. But, he denied the suggestion that the accused supported the said Pullayya in that elections. He further admitted that no notices were issued by Panchayat to the accused to vacate the said land. P.W.6 admitted that no resolution is passed in Panchayat about 15 vacating the said land. Further, P.W.1 also admitted that he gave five or six reports against others for the offence under section 353 IPC during his tenure as Mogaltur MRO. Hence, from the above, it is manifest that

P.Ws.2,3,5 are subordinates of P.W.1 and P.W.6 worked under P.W.4.

Hence, all are interested witnesses. Further, no single independent witness was neither cited nor examined in this case. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 is inconsistent with regard to time of incident, place of incident and present of police at the scene of offence. Hence, the above Judgments relied on by the learned defence counsel are squarely applicable to the present case and the contention of learned defence counsel that the present case was foisted against the accused due to the political rivalry in the village cannot be brushed out. 

24.Hence, from the above discussion, this court hold that, the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

25.In the result, the accused i.e., A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 353 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted

U/Sec 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437­A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me through video conferencing, on this 18th day of June, 2020. 

Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram. 

16

Appendix of Evidence

witness examined

For prosecution: PW.1 : Sripada Harinadh PW.2 : Monduri Venkata Narasimha Murthy PW.3 : Pampana Suresh PW.4 : Kopanathi Palayya PW.5 : Yerramsetti Venkateswara Rao PW.6 : Geddam Subba Rao PW.7 : K.Gurayya

For Accused: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution Ex.P.1: Report of P.W1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4 Ex.P.3: Original FIR Ex.P.4: Rough Sketch

For accused: 

Ex.D.1: Old Farmer Pass Book of P.W1 Ex.D.2: Endorsement Dt.23.10.2009 Ex.D.3: Compared copy of Patta Ex.D.4: Paper Clipping

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

­­NIL­­ . Sd/S.S.K.S, A.J.M.F.C.

CUM A.J.C.J,

N.S.P.

17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 16.11.2016 17.11.2016 20.11.2016 20.11.2016 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 27.07.2019 19.03.2020 18.06.2020 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment of Calendar Case No.1002/2016 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Cr.No.221/2016 of Mogaltur Police Station

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Kollati Srinivasarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age 55 yrs, C/AK.Kshatriya, Chintarevu, H/o Mogaltur village and Mandal.

2. Kollati Satyanarayana, S/o Srinivasarao, Age 30 yrs, C/AK.Kshatriya, Chintarevu, H/o Mogaltur village and Mandal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: under section 353 IPC.

Finding: Accused are found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused i.e., A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec 353 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/Sec 437­A Cr.P.C.

Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram. 

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARASAPURAM

Present : ­ Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 25th day of June,2020.

C.C. No. 992 of 2016

BETWEEN: State represented by The Station House Officer, Mogaltur Police Station.… Complainant ...

A n d

Javvadi Gopi, S/o Peddiraju, A/ 43 Yrs, C/Kapu, Driver, Kalipatnam West, Mogaltur Mandal… Accused ...

This case has come on 24­06­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri Lakku Venkateswarlu, learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: 

J U D G M E N T

The accused was prosecuted for the trial of offences punishable under sections 498­A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act in Cr.No.223/2016 of Mogaltur Police Station.

2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mogaltur police station filed a charge sheet in the above crime against the accused with the following allegations: 

P.W.1 is the de­facto complainant. She is resident of Kalipatnam East of Mogaltur Mandal. On 4­8­2001, her marriage was performed with the accused, as per Hindu Rites and Caste customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of

P.W.1 gave Rs.70,000/­ cash and some gold to the accused towards dowry. After the marriage, the accused looked after the P.W.1 very well for four years. Later, the accused addicted to vices like drinking alcohol etc. He did not look after P.W.1 and her children. He demanded additional dowry and every day harassed the P.W.1 physically and mentally and necked out P.W.1 and her daughters from his house.

Then, the P.W.1 went to her parent’s house and gave report to Narasapur Rural 2

Police. The Sub­Inspector of Narasapur Rural Police Station called the accused and gave counselling. The accused promised that he would look after the P.W.1 and her children. Later, he put up separate family in another house. The accused looked after them for two months properly and again in the year 2011, he beat

P.W.1 and started harassment to bring additional dowry. Finally, he necked out

P.W.1 and her daughters from the house. The parents of P.W.1 took her and her daughters to their house.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.7 registered the above crime against the accused on 18­11­2016 and took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared rough sketch. He issued section 41­A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 498­A IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under sections 498­A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against accused, was framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in but Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence available against him and reported no defence evidence.

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state through video conference and learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments through e­ 3 filing. 

9.Now point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 498­A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ?

10.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined defacto complainant as P.W.1, father of P.W.1 as P.W.2, father of the accused as P.W.3, maternal uncle of P.W.1 as P.W.4, mother of P.W.1 as P.W.5, mother­in­law of

P.W.1 as P.W.6 and the Investigating Officer as P.W.7 and got marked the report of

P.W.1 as Ex.P­1, relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 as Ex.P­2,

Original FIR as Ex.P­3, rough sketch as Ex.P­4.

11.In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused being the husband of P.W.1, demanded and received dowry at the time of marriage. The prosecution has also to prove that the accused demanded additional dowry amount and he subjected P.W.1 to cruelty when she failed to fulfill his demand. The cruelty as contemplated under section 498­A IPC is any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether physical or mental) of the woman (or) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

12.To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,4 to 7 and Exs.P­1,P­3 and P­4. P.W.1 who is the de­facto complainant deposed in her evidence that her marriage with the accused was performed on 4­8­2001 in Mogaltur Ramalayam as per Hindu Rites and Caste

Customs. Her parents gave Rs.70,000/­ dowry to the accused at the time of 4 marriage. They also presented two sovereigns of gold to the accused. After the marriage, the accused and herself led marital life happily for four years. They blessed with two daughters. Later, the accused harassed her to bring additional dowry amount from her parents. If she failed to bring the said amount, he used to beat her. Later, he sent her to her parent’s house along with her children. She informed the matter to her parents and her parents placed the matter before the elders. Then, she gave report to the Narasapur Rural Police against the accused.

The police conducted counselling to her and the accused. The accused assured

before the police that he would look after her and her children and then he took

them to Kalipatnam. Later, he looked them properly for two months. Again, he harassed her mentally. Then, she again went to her parent’s house, but P.W.3 and

P.W.6 came there and they took her children and her to Kalipatnam. But, the accused did not change. Due to his harassment, finally she gave Ex.P­1 report.

13.So, according to the evidence of P.W.1, her marriage with the accused was performed on 4­8­2001 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave

Rs.70,000/­ cash and gold to the accused. The same was mentioned in Ex.P­1 report, by the P.W.1. But, during the course of cross examination, P.W.1 stated that the dowry amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid to the father of the accused by her junior paternal uncle and her paternal grand father. She further stated that the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/­ was given in installments after the marriage. She stated that she cannot say the date and place when the amount of Rs.40,000/­ was paid and she cannot say in how many installments the amount of Rs.30,000/­ was paid. The above said facts were not mentioned in Ex.P­1 and the same was admitted by P.W.1 in her cross examination. She further stated that during

Sankarathi festival one sovereign of gold was presented to the accused. P.W.7, the investigating officer clearly stated in his cross examination that P.W.1 did not state

before him that they paid the amounts to the accused on installment basis.

5

14.On the aspect of dowry, the evidence of P.W.2 who is father of P.W.1 reveals that at the time of marriage, they paid Rs.70,000/­. He did not depose to whom the said amount was given. Further, he did not depose about the gold which was alleged to be presented to the accused. In his cross examination, P.W.2 stated that his brother and senior paternal uncle paid an amount of Rs.40,000/­ to the father of the accused along with marriage card prior to the marriage of P.W.1 with the accused. He further stated that he cannot say the date, when they paid the said amount and also the period i.e., how many days prior to the said marriage, they paid the said amount. He stated that the name of his uncle is Gannabathula

Anjaneyulu and the name of his brother is Mutyalarao. But, either the said

Anjaneyulu or Mutyalarao was neither cited nor examined as witnesses in this case.

P.W.2 further stated that the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/­ was paid to the maternal uncle of the accused and also to the father of the accused in three or four installments. So, according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the amount of

Rs.70,000/­ was not given to the accused, it was given to the father of the accused as per the version of P.W.1 and Rs.40,000/­ was given to the father of the accused and Rs.30,000/­ was given to the maternal uncle of accused, as per the version of

P.W.2.

15.P.W.3 who is father of the accused deposed in his evidence that at the time of marriage, both families exchanged articles. Except this, he did not depose anything. P.W.4 who is maternal uncle of P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.70,000/­ was paid to the family members of the accused by the family members of P.W.1. He did not specifically depose to whom the alleged amount was paid. During the course of cross examination, P.W.4 stated that he was not present when the parents of P.W.1 paid Rs.70,000/­ to the accused and his family members. He further stated that the amount of Rs.70,000/­ was given to P.W.3 by the junior paternal uncle of P.W.1. Where as, P.W.1 deposed that

P.W.2 paid the said amount. P.W.4 further stated that the family members of P.W.1 6 told him that they paid the said amount. He further stated that he has not stated

before police that the amount of Rs.70,000/­ and gold were paid to the accused by

the family members of P.W.1. So, P.W.4 has no personal knowledge about the amount which was said to have been paid before the marriage of P.W.1 to the accused and he deposed the said fact before this court only.

16.On this aspect, the mother of P.W.1 i.e., P.W.5 deposed that at the time of marriage, they sent Rs.40,000/­ along with wedding card and they presented one sovereign of gold to the accused. She also deposed that they paid

Rs.40,000/­ to the in­laws of P.W.1 and again paid Rs.30,000/­ to the accused.

During her cross examination, P.W.5 stated that they paid Rs.40,000/­ to the in­ laws of P.W.1. She further stated that they never paid Rs.30,000/­ to the accused.

She further stated that she did not state before police that at the time of marriage, they paid Rs.70,000/­ towards dowry, and gold to the accused. She further stated that she did not state before police that before marriage, they paid Rs.40,000/­ to the in­laws of P.W.1 and they also paid Rs.30,000/­ to the accused after marriage.

She further stated that she did not state before police that they paid amounts to the accused, whenever he demanded. So, whatever, the P.W.5 deposed before this court with regard to dowry and other amounts which were said to have been paid to the accused, was not stated by her before police. Hence, the contention of learned defence counsel that P.W.5 did not know anything but she deposed evidence at the instructions of P.W.2, who is her husband and as P.W.1 is her daughter, she deposed the same, cannot be brushed out.

17.Now, coming to the evidence of P.W.6, who is mother­in­law of

P.W.1, she did not depose anything about the dowry amount which was said to have been paid by the P.W.2, who is father of P.W.1 to the accused, at the time of marriage. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2, 4 and 5 is not consistent with regard to payment of dowry and gold to the accused, at the time of marriage. Further, none 7 of the witnesses have deposed that they paid amount to the accused on his demand.

Hence, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused demanded dowry at the time of marriage and on that P.W.2 paid the amount to him on his demand.

18.P.W.1 further deposed that after marriage herself and the accused led marital life happily for four years. P.W.2 deposed that they led marital life happily for two or three years. P.Ws.3 and 6 deposed that they led marital life happily for some period. P.W.4 deposed that they led marital life happily till the birth of two children. P.W.5 deposed that after the marriage, P.W.1 and the accused led marital life happily for ten years. So, the evidence, of P.Ws.1 to 6 is inconsistent on the aspect that how many days, the P.W.1 and the accused led marital life happily.

P.W.1 further deposed that the accused harassed her for additional dowry amount.

She neither deposed in her evidence nor mentioned in Ex.P­1, how much amount was demanded by the accused towards additional dowry. P.W.2 deposed that the accused demanded Rs.5,000/­ to Rs.10,000/­ and he used to harass the P.W.1 and used to beat her. But, during the course of cross examination, P.W.2 clearly admitted that he cannot say the dates when the accused demanded the said amounts and the dates when he paid the said amounts to the accused.

19.P.W.2 further stated that he has no proof to show that he paid the said amounts to the accused. He stated that he used to take the said amounts and went to the house of the accused and used to pay the said amounts to the maternal uncle of the accused. He further stated that he do not remember whether he stated the said fact to the police or not. But, P.W.7, the investigating officer clearly stated in his cross examination that P.W.2 did not state before him that he paid Rs.5000/­ and Rs.10,000/­ to the accused, whenever he demanded the amounts. Hence, even though P.W.2 deposed in his chief that he paid Rs.5,000/­ or Rs.10,000/­to the accused, he clearly admitted in his cross examination that he paid the said amounts 8 to the maternal uncle of accused, but not to the accused. Further, P.W.2 deposed the said fact at first before this court, he did not state the same before the police. If really, P.W.2 paid the said amounts to the accused, he ought to have deposed the said fact before the police.

20.On the aspect of harassment of accused, P.W.4 deposed that the accused suspected the character of the P.W.1 and used to beat P.W.1. He also deposed that the accused demanded additional dowry amount from P.W.1 and he used to beat the P.W.1 for the said amount. P.W.4 also did not depose how much amount was demanded by the accused. During the course of cross examination, he admitted that he has not stated before police that the accused beat P.W.1 by suspecting her character. He further stated that he do not know whether the parents of P.W.1 paid any additional dowry amount to the accused and he cannot say how much amount was demanded by the accused from P.W.1 towards

additional dowry amount. Hence, P.W.4 did not know anything about the demand

of the accused. P.W.5 stated in her cross examination that after eight years of marriage, the accused beat P.W.1 and harassed her for additional dowry amount.

Then, they paid Rs.5,000/­ and Rs.10,000/­ to the maternal uncles of the accused.

But, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that after four years of marriage, accused demanded

additional dowry amount. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,4 and 5 is not

consistent with regard to demand of additional dowry amount by the accused.

Further, whatever deposed by P.Ws.2,4 and 5 before this court with regard to demand of additional dowry amount by the accused, was not stated by them before police and they deposed the same before this court only. Further, P.Ws.2,4 and 5 stated that they paid the amounts to the maternal uncle of the accused.

21.P.W.1 deposed that when the accused harassed her, she informed the same to her parents and they placed the matter before the elders. But, the matter was not settled, then she gave report to Narasapur Rural Police. The police 9 conducted counselling to her and the accused and the accused assured before the police that he would look after her and her children and he took them to

Kalipatnam. He looked after them two months properly and again started harassment for additional dowry amount. Then, she again went to her parent’s house, then P.Ws.3 and 6 came there and took her to their house. P.W.1 did not depose either the date or month or year when she finally came to the house of her parents. But, in Ex.P­1, she mentioned that in the year 2011, the accused beat her, demanded additional dowry amount and necked out her and her children from his house. So, according to Ex.P­1, P.W.1 was necked out by accused in the year 2011.

But, Ex.P­1 was given in the year 2016. Hence, there is gap of 5 years in giving

Ex.P­1 to the police. The prosecution failed to explain the said delay properly.

Further, in column No.8 of Ex.P­3, it was mentioned that there is no delay. Hence, the said unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned defence counsel argued that this case was falsely foisted against the accused, as accused did not heed the words of P.W.1 and her father. He further argued that when the accused filed divorce OP against the P.W.1, she gave a false complaint against the accused, as counter blast.

22. P.W.1 stated in her cross examination that the names of the elders

before whom they placed the matter are Thota Satyanarayana, Javvadi Peddi Raju,

Muppala Bannumurty and Muppala Dhanujaya. But, except the said Thota

Satyanarayana i.e., P.W.4 none other was examined in this case. Further, P.W.4 is maternal uncle of P.W.1. Further, P.W.2 did not depose that when the accused harassed P.W.1, they placed the matter before the elders. He deposed that when the accused harassed P.W.1, they gave report to Narasapur Rural police. P.Ws.4 and 5 did not depose about mediation through elders and also giving of report to

Narasapur Rural police. They simply deposed that when the accused harassed

P.W.1, she gave police report i.e., Ex.P­1. Further, the copy of said report was not filed before this court to show that previously P.W.1 gave report against the 10 accused in Narasapur Rural Police Station. P.W.1 deposed that after the police conducted the counselling, the accused took her to Kalipatnam. But, during the course of cross examination, she deposed that the accused took her to Kottata.

Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is not consistent. Further, P.W.2 stated in his cross examination that after the said counselling P.W.1 and the accused lived in his house for two months. But, P.W.1 did not depose and did not mention in Ex.P­1, that after the counselling they lived in the house of P.W.2.

23.According to P.W.1, when accused and herself lived in Kalipatnam after counselling, he continued his harrassment and on that she came to her parent’s house again and on that P.Ws.3 and 6 came there and took her and her children to their house. But, in Ex.P­1, P.W.1 mentioned that after the accused necked out her from his house, P.Ws.3 and 6 took her and her children to their house. She did not mention in Ex.P­1 that after the accused necked out her, she went to her parent’s house. P.W.1 clearly admitted in her cross examination that she did not mention the said fact in Ex.P­1. Hence, the contents of Ex.P­1 and the evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with each other. The learned counsel for the accused argued that when the P.W.1 demanded the accused to come to his house as illatum son­in­law, he agreed for the same and went to the parent’s house of P.W.1.

He used to do agriculture there, but when the accused harvest the said field, P.W.1 and P.W.2 sold the paddy without the consent of the accused and on that the accused questioned them, on that P.Ws.1 and 2 disputed with him. He further argued that due to that the accused came to Kalipatnam, but P.Ws.1 and 2 came there with elders disputed with him and P.W.2 beat him. In turn, P.Ws.1 and 2 foisted a false case against him.

24.The learned counsel further argued that if really the accused harassed

P.W.1 in such a way as contemplated under section 498­A IPC, why she kept quiet without giving police report against the accused till 2016. He further argued that 11 there are property disputes between P.W.3, who is father of the accused and the accused and the P.W.1 supported P.W.3 and hence, P.Ws.3 and 6 came before this court to give evidence and they kept P.W.1 and her children in their house. He further argued that the accused filed divorce OP against the P.W.1 and as a counter blast she gave a false report against the accused. P.Ws.1,2,5 clearly admitted that

P.W.3 refused to give share to the accused in ancestral property and hence, he came out of his house and there are no talking terms between the accused and P.W.3 since long time. Further, P.W.5 stated in her cross examination that the brother­in­ law of P.W.1 by name Javvadi Vijay instructed P.W.1 to give report against the accused. She further stated that he has no talking terms with the accused. Further, the learned counsel for the accused could mark Ex.D­3 which is the certified copy of

HMOP petition, which was filed by the accused against P.W.1. Ex.D­3 shows that he filed the said petition on 22­09­2016 and the Ex.P­1 was registered on 18­11­ 2016, so after two months of Ex.D­3, Ex.P­1 was registered. If really, the accused harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally and necked out her in the year 2011, why she kept quiet till 2016, without giving a police report against him. Hence, from the above, the contention of learned defence counsel that as a counter blast the P.W.1 gave a report against the accused cannot be brushed out.

25.Further, except P.Ws.1 to 6 who are interested witnesses, no independent witnesses either at the house of accused or at the parent’s house of

P.W.1 or any other elders was examined before this court. Further, the evidence of

P.Ws.3 and 6 is no way helpful to the prosecution, as they did not depose that accused harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry or on some other reason. P.W.3 deposed that the accused suspected the character of P.W.1 and left her. P.W.6 deposed that P.W.1 and the accused disputed with each other and she do not know the reason. Further, P.W.4 has no personal knowledge about the disputes and whatever he deposed before this court, was deposed by him at first time and he did not state the same before the police. Further, P.Ws.2 and 5 who are parents of 12

P.W.1 also did not state before police about the payment of dowry, they deposed the same before this court only. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 5 also not consistent. Except, the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 5, which is inconsistent with regard to payment of dowry and the harassment of accused, no other evidence is available to prove that the accused received dowry from the parents of P.W.1 on demand, harassed P.W.1 for additional dowry amount.

26.Hence, from the above discussion supra, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and by placing cogent evidence. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

27.In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the charge under sections 498­A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437­A

Cr.P.C

Typed in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me through video conference, this the 25th day of June,2020.

Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINE

For Prosecution:For Defence: 

P.W.1: Javvadi Varalakshmi ­­­ NIL ­­­ P.W.2: Gannabattula Satyanarayana P.W.3: Javvadi Peddi Raju P.W.4: Thota Satyanarayana P.W.5: Gannabattula Mangatayaru P.W.6: Javvadhi Bharathi P.W.7: K.Gurayya 13

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W3 Ex.P.3: Original FIR Ex.P.4: Rough sketch

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.D2: Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.D3: H.M.O.P.87/2016 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsapur.

M.Os. Marked: – Nil –

SD/S.S.K.S, A.J.F.C.M,

CUM.A.J.C.J,

N.S.P - 14 -

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NARSAPUR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18.11.2016 18.11.2016 19.11.2016 19.11.2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01.08.2019 23.03.2020 25.06.2020 Due to non­production of witnesses ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No. 992/2016 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub­Inspector of Police

Cr.No.223/2016 of Mogaltur Police Station

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Javadi Gopi, S/o Peddiraju, Age 43 yrs, C/Kapu, Driver, Kalipatnam West, Mogaltur Mandal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence: under section 498­A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P Act.

Finding: Accused is found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the charge under sections 498­A IPC and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437­A Cr.P.C.

/Smt.S.Surya K Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram. 

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CUM ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARASAPURAM

Present : - Smt. S.Surya Kiran Sri,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 12th day of June, 2020

C.C. No. 26/2018

BETWEEN:

State represented by

Inspector of Police, Narasapuram Circle, Narasapuram. … Complainant

A n d

1) Rapaka Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sriramulu, Age 28 years, C/S.C-Madiga, D.No.6-3-33, Jangalinga Vari Veedhi, Old S.B.I Street, Narasapuram.

2) Bonthu Ramana, S/o Apparao, Age 30 years, C/Settibalija, Chelluru, Rayavaram Mandal.

3) Gosala Lakshim, W/o Aruna Kumar, Age 25 years, C/S.C-Madiga peta, Mandapeta, East Godavari District.

4) Moka Rani, W/o Lakshmana Rao, Age 42 years, C/Kapu, Ganesh Nagar, Pennada, Palakoderu Mandal.

5) Moka Veera Raju, S/o Lakshmana Rao, Age 28 years, C/Kapu, Ganesh Nagar, Pennada, Palakoderu Mandal.

6) Moka Kasi Viswanadham, S/o Lakshmana Rao, Age 26 years, C/Kapu, Ganesh Nagar, Pennada.

7) Achanta Sattibabu, S/o Nagabhushanam, Age 36 years, C/Kapu, Vedurumudi of Kapileswaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

8) Rapaka Madhu, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 22 years, C/S.C-Madiga, D.No.6-3-33, Old S.B.H Road, Narasapuram.

9) Boddapati Kumari, W/o Sreenu, C/S.C-Madiga, Madigapeta, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District.

10) Sale Lakshmi, W/o Sreenu, A/27 years, Yerukala, Injetivaripeta, Mogalthuru village and Mandal.

11) Gandham Bujji alias Varalakshmi, W/o Sattibabu, Age 26 years, C/Kapu, Pasalapudi, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. … Accused 2

(The Case against A8 is separated from the original case i.e.,

C.C.240/2010 and renumbered as C.C.26/2018 i.e., this case, the

other split up cases i.e., C.C.209/2012, CC 351/2016 are already

disposed of against the other accused except A9. The case against

A9 is renumbered as C.C.351/2016 and it is still pending, as the NBW

against A9 is pending in the said case)

This case has come on 11-06-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri G. Vijaya Babu, learned Advocate for Accused No.8 and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused i.e., A8 was prosecuted for the trial of offences punishable under sections 3,4, 5 and 8 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act in

Cr.No.70/2007 of Narasapuram Circle.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that :

A1 and other accused are organizers and running a brothel house at the house of A1 at Narasapuram and at the house of other accused at

Pennada village and they were taking female persons i.e., A-8 to A-11, wrongfully confined them there for the sake of prostitution and thereby living on the earnings of prostitution. A-5 and A-6 are sons of A-4 and A-7 is customer and he was present at the time of conducting raids by the

Inspector of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Eluru, the C.I of Police, Narasapuram circle and S.I of Police, Narasapuram Town P.S, along with staff and the mediators.

On 14-4-2007, on receipt of information from C.I, AHTU i.e., Anti Human

Trafficking Unit and his staff , team headed by Sri A.Apparao, S.I, Narasapur

Town Police Station and Women Police Constable 353 of Woman P.S, Eluru,

P.W.5 conducted raids at the house of A-1, wherein, a brothel house is organizing at the premises of his building located in Old SBI Road,

Narasapuram vide H.No.6-3-33 and found A-1 and some others i.e., two male and three female persons i.e., A8 and others. On seeing the police, they 3 tried to sneak out their presence from the spot. Then, the police surrounded all of them and arrested them at the same time i.e., on 14-4-2007 at 1.00

P.M, in the presence of the mediators.

Later, confessional statements of victims as well as accused were recorded under the cover of mediators report at the house of A-1 on 14-4- 2007 at 1.00 P.M. Basing on their statemens and the version of A-1, the police party and the mediators rushed to the house of A-4, wherein the A-4 to

A-7 were taken into police custody on 14-4-2007 at 4.00 P.M and police recorded their confessional statements under the cover of mediators report and also recorded the confessional statements of the victims as well as accused, during the time of their confessional statements, the offence proved against the accused persons.

Basing on the mediator report, on 14-4-2007 at 4.00 P.M, the SI registered a case in Cr.No.70/2007 under section 3,4,5, and 6 of ITP Act, 1956 and Section 344 of IPC, Narasapuram Town P.S on 14-4-2007 at 7.00

P.M and issued FIR. He handed over entire CD file to P.W.5 and he took up investigation in this case, subsequently, he sent accused to Judicial Remand.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of ITP Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. Originally, the case against A1 to A11 was numbered as

C.C.313/2007. Later, the case against A1,A2,A3, A8 and A9 was separated from original CC, as NBWs against them were pending since long time. The case against A1 and A8 was renumbered as C.C.240/2010. The case against

A-8 again separated from C.C.240/2010, as NBW against her also pending 4 since long time and renumbered as C.C.26/2018. The case against A2,A3 was renumbered as C.C.209/2012, the case against A9 was renumbered as

C.C.351/2016.

5. Accused i.e., A8 was examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. She denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charge for the offence under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of ITP Act against accused, was framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked and M.O.1 and M.O.2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating evidence levelled against her and reported no defence evidence.

8. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of ITP Act“?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the SI of police,

Narasapuram Town Police Station as P.W.1, CI of Police, Anti Human

Trafficking Unit, Eluru Range as P.W.2, mediator to the confessional statement as P.W.3, another mediator as P.W.4 and CI of Police, Narasapuram

Town police station as P.W.5 and got marked the signature of P.W.4 on the mediators report as Ex.P-1, the mediator report dt.14-4-2007 at 1-00 P.M as

Ex.P-2 and original FIR as Ex.P-3. M.O.1 is LML Vespa scooter bearing No.AP 5 37 N 1002 and M.O.2 is Auto.

11. The evidence of P.W.1/M.Krupanandam, who is the then S.I of

Police, Narasapuram Town Police Station reveals that on 14-4-2007 at about 1.00 P.M, P.W.2 received information about Human Trafficking. Then, he secured other staff, along with Immoral Trafficking Squad, Eluru proceeded to the house of A1 bearing door no.6-3-33 situated in Jagilinga Vari Veedhi,

Narasapuram. Where, they found two ladies in the said house and they also found three male persons. Then, his C.I enquired all the persons and accused stated their identity particulars. On further enquiry the three male persons confessed that they are participated in prostitution with the two ladies. Then, his C.I got drafted mediator report, arrested accused and other persons and booked case against accused. P.W.1 further deposed that on the same day they went to house of one Moka Rani at Pennada Village situated in Ganesh

Nagar. Where they found two male persons and two female persons. On seeing them they tried to escape, then, they caught hold them and interrogated them and on that they revealed their identity particulars. On further enquiry they confessed that they are doing prostitution in the said house. Then, his C.I arrested them and got drafted mediator report. Later, his

C.I brought accused and other persons to police station and registered case.

But, he deposed that he can not identify those persons due to lapse of time.

In his cross examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that they did not proceed to the house of accused in Narasapuram and Pennada Villages along with his C.I of Police and staff and did not arrest the accused.

12. The evidence of P.W.2/B.Apparao, who is the then, Inspector of police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Eluru Range, reveals that on 14-4-2007, he received information from Woman Police constable by name Lakshmi regarding conducting of Prostitution in a building in Jalingavari Street, Near

Old SBI, Narasapuram. Then, he passed the information to P.W.5 and P.W.1.

6

He also instructed his staff to accompany the C.I of Police, Narasapuram and to assist him in the said raid.

In his cross examination, P.W.2 stated that he gave directions to his staff, but at present he can not say their names, except the name of woman

Police constable by name Lakshmi. He stated that he passed the information to S.I of Police, Narasapuram and C.I of Police of Narasapuram through his cell phone.

13. The mediator for mediator report and for recording the confessional statement of accused i.e., P.W.3 turned hostile to the prosecution case. He did not support the prosecution version. He deposed that he signed on a report in Narasapur Town Police Station at the request of police. The evidence of P.W.4/Talluri Indira Devi, who is Family Counseling

Member, Narasapuram reveals that about ten years ago, when their family counseling meeting was conducting in police station, the CI of Police received information about prostitution. Then, he along with his staff, took herself and other members to the old SBI street, Narasapur to a house. When they went there they did not find any one. She further deposed that after one week, the CI again called her to the police station and he stated that they arrested the persons who were participated in prostitution. She deposed that at present she cannot identify those persons. She further deposed that she signed on a report, but she deposed that she do not know the contents of said report. So, P.W.4 also turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.3 and 4 did not support the prosecution version. The signature of P.W.4 was marked as Ex.P-1.

14.Now, coming to the the evidence of P.W.5/P.Venkateswara Rao, who is the then, C.I of Police, Narasapuram, and his evidence reveals that on 14-4-2007 on receipt of information from P.W.1, he along with P.Ws.1,2,4 and

L.Ws.3 and 5 i.e., Lakshmi, woman police constable and Tenneti Chandrahas, 7 mediator proceeded to a building bearing Dr.No.6-3-33 located at old SBI street, Narasapur. They found two male persons and three female persons.

The accused is one of them. On seeing them, they tried to escape, then, with the help of his staff, he detained them and obtained their address particulars. Then, he got recorded the confession cum mediator report through L.W.5/Tenneti Chandrahas. Then, himself, P.Ws.3,4 and L.W.5/Tenneti

Chandrahas, signed on Ex.P-2 mediator report and he obtained the signature of accused on it. The accused in this case confessed that she is doing prostitution along with her husband A1 and she further confessed that the amount which was obtained from the said business was sharing among the other accused and herself. Later, he recorded the statements of others.

They also confessed the offence. On the confession of A1, he proceeded to

Ponnada village and arrested A4 and others, who are running brothel house.

15.He further deposed that he seized M.O.1 LML vespa scooter and

M.O.2 auto at the house of A1 and produced them before the court. On that same day, he returned to police station. Basing on Ex.P-2, he registered a case in Cr.No.70/2007 for the offences under sections 3,4,5,6 of ITP Act, 1956 and issued Ex.P-3 FIR. Later, he sent accused to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

In his cross examination, P.W.5 stated that he received information during morning hours in between 11-00 to 11-30 A.M. The said building belongs to one Gangahdararao, but he do not know his surname. He admitted that the scene of offence is situated in busy locality and there are shops on both sides of the road. He stated that he do not remember the directions of the said house. He admitted that he has not prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He stated that during his tenure as CI of

Police, Narasapur there are no other crimes registered against the accused.

8

16.The learned A.P.P argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 coupled with Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 and M.O.2 proves the guilt of accused and hence, prays to convict the accused. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5 is not consistence and there is no corroboration in between their evidence. He further argued that the P.W.1 did not depose name of the house owner of the accused. The house owner of accused was not cited in this case. He further argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he prays to acquit the accused.

17.On going through the material available on record, according to

P.Ws.1 and 5, they received information from P.W.2 about the human trafficking at Narsapur. They deposed in their evidence that after receiving information themselves, one woman police constable by name Lakshmi,

P.W.3 and P.W.4 and other staff proceeded to the house of A-1 bearing door bearing no.6-3-33 situated in Jagilinga Vari Veedhi, Narasapuram. P.W.1 did not depose the name of the present accused. Where as P.W.5 deposed her name. P.W.1 categorically deposed in his evidence he cannot identify those persons due to lapse of time. P.W.1 further deposed that they found two ladies and three male persons. Where as P.W.5 deposed that they found two male persons and three female persons. P.W.1 did not depose the name of the present accused in his evidence. P.W.5 deposed that the present accused is one of the lady among them. Further, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are independent mediators did not support the version of P.Ws.1 and 5. P.W.4 deposed that when they went to old SBI street, Narasapur, they did not find anyone.

18.Further, according to P.Ws.1 and 5, Ex.P.2 was got drafted at the house of A1. But, P.Ws.3 and 4 deposed that they signed on a report in

Narasapur Town Police Station. Further, P.W.1 stated in his cross examination 9 that they did not enquire about the name of house owner of accused. But,

P.W.5 stated that the house belongs to one Gangadhar but he cannot say his surname. P.Ws.1 and 5 stated that they can not say the boundaries of house of accused. Further, they stated that the house of accused situated in residential locality and busy locality. If that be the case, what prevented the

P.Ws.1 and 5 to secure the local inhabitants at the time of raid, as contemplated under section 100 Cr.P.C. Further, the mediator who alleged to have been drafted Ex.P.2 i.e., P.W.3 turned hostile and he did not support the prosecution version. Further, the prosecution given up the evidence of other mediator who also participated in the said raid along with P.Ws.1 to 4.

Further, P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he can not identify those persons who were detained by them in the said raid, at present, due to lapse of time.

Further, on perusal of Ex.P.2 which was alleged to be got drafted on 14-4- 2007 at 1.00 P.M, at the house of A-1, reveals that the raid was conducted by the C.I of Police along with S.I of Police, L.W.5/Chandrahas and P.W.3. But, it does not reveal that the P.W.4 also participated in the said raid. Further, according to P.W.4, Ex.P.2 was drafted at the police station. But, the contents of Ex.P.2 reveals that it was drafted at the house of accused. The independent witnesses i.e., P.W.3, P.W.4 did not depose that the Ex.P.2 was drafted at the house of accused. Further, Ex.P.2 does not reveals that the woman police constable by name Lakshmi was also participated in the said raid. But, the P.W.1 and P.W.5 deposed that the said woman police constable was also participated in the said raid. Further, the prosecution failed to examine the said woman police constable and filed a memo stating that she resigned her job. Basing on the said memo, this Court closed the evidence of said police constable. Hence, there is no evidence available on record, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 who are police officials and interested witnesses, to show Ex.P.1 was drafted at the house of accused.

10

19. P.W.1 and P.W.5 failed to collect any documentary evidence to show that the said house belongs to accused. They also failed to secure the house owner in whose house the accused was said to have been running a brothel house. If really, P.W.1 and P.W.5 conducted raid in the house of accused, they ought to have examined the house owner or if the said house belongs to accused, they ought to have collected any documentary proof to show accused is owner of said house, but P.W.1 and P.W.5 failed to collect any of the said evidence. Further, according to the evidence of P.W.5, he brought the accused along with victims by name Madhu, B.Kumari to police station, but the said victims were not shown as a witnesses in this case.

Further, according to P.W.2, he received information about the Human

Trafficking, at Narasapuram through woman police constable by name

Lakshmi, but P.W.1 and P.W.5 did not depose the said fact and deposed that they received information from P.W.2. Further, accord to P.W.1, P.W.2 and

P.W.5, the Human Trafficking Squad, Eluru were also participated in the said raid and the contentions of Ex.P.2 also reveals the same fact. But, no such staff of said Squad were cited as witnesses in this case. Except, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5, no evidence available on record to show that the accused is running brothel at his house. Even though, the P.W.1 and P.W.5 deposed that they caught hold accused at his house, they failed to depose the boundaries of said house and they did not produce any evidence to show that the said house belongs to accused or she was running brothel house in the said house and participating in the prostitution and living on the said earnings. Further, according to P.W.1 and P.W.5 the said house situated in residential locality. If that be the case, no one dare to conduct brothel house in the middle of residential locality and dare to participate in prostitution during morning hours. If really, accused is conducting brothel at her house, which is situated in residential locality, one of the locality people should give 11 information to the police. But, in this case no locality people has given such report against A1.

20. Hence, from the above discussion, this Court is of opinion that basing on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 who are police officials and who did not follow the procedure for search as contemplated under section 100 of

Cr.P.C, it is not safe to conclude that the accused along with her husband is running a brothel house at Jangalinga Vari Veedhi of Narasapuram and she is earning amounts and living on the said amounts. It is further, not safe to conclude that the accused is inducing the persons for the sake of prosecution and seducing the persons for the purpose of prostitution. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the accused is living on the earnings of prostitution. She is procuring persons along with A1 for the sake of prosecution and seducing the persons for the purpose of prosecution.

Except P.W. 5, the other prosecution witnesses did not identify the accused.

Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 lacks corroboration. Hence, this Court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

21. In the result, the accused i.e., A-8 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. There shall be no order for disposal of M.Os.1 and 2, since other split up cases are still pending against the other accused.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of June, 2020.

Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: M.Krupanandam -- NIL --

P.W.2: B.Apparao

P.W.3: L.Amrutha Rao

P.W.4: T.Indira Devi

P.W.5: P.Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Prosecution:For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on mediator report -- Nil --

Ex.P.2: Mediator Report, dt,14-4-2007

Ex.P.3: First Information Report

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1: L.M.L.Vespa Bearing No.A.P 37 N 1002

M.O.2: Auto

SD/S.S.K.S, A.J.F.C.M,

CUM, A.J.C.J,

N.S.P.

13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14.4.2007 14.4.2007 4.12.2007 4.12.2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4.7.2017 16.3.2020 12.06.2020 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Judgment of Calendar Case No.26/2018 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class

Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Cr.No.70/2007 of Narasapuram Town P.S.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village

Rapaka Madhu, W/o Venkateswara Rao, Age 22 years, C/S.C-Madiga, D.No.6- 3-33, Old S.B.H Road, Narasapuram.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence: under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 Finding: A-8 is found not guilty

Sentence: In the result, the accused i.e., A-8 is found not guilty for the offence under sections 3,4,5 and 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. There shall be no order for disposal of M.Os.1 and 2, since other split up cases are still pending against the other accused.

Sd/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram.

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: NARSAPUR

Present: Smt. S. Surya Kiran Sri, Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate Cum Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

MONDAY, THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JUNE,2020.

M.C.No. 45 OF 2018

Between:

1. Simhadri Karuna Kumari, W/o Sridhar, Age 37 yrs, Female, Hindu, Housewife, D/o Chennuri Satyanarayana, Kotha Peta, Sitarampuram North Narsapur Mandal.

2. Simhadri Jhaneswari, D/o Sridhar, Age 16 yrs, Female, Hindu, Student.

3. Simhadri Rakesh, S/o Sridhar, Age 14 yrs, Male, Hindu, Student. (Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors, represented by Mother/Natural Guardian: 1st petitioner).… Petitioners

 A N D

Simhadri Sridhar, S/o Krishnamachari, Age 39 yrs, Male, Hindu, Carpenter and Business, C/o Veeravalli Krishna, Vendra Village, Palakoderu Mandal.…. Respondent

This petition has come on 17­6­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L.Venkateswarlu, Learned Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Sri D.Narasimha Raju, Learned Advocate for Respondent, and upon hearing the arguments of the both sides by way of written arguments through e­filing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petition is filed by the petitioners under section 125 Cr.P.C prays to grant them monthly maintenance Rs.10,000/­ each and for costs of this petition.

2

2.The averments of the petition, are as follows.

The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are daughter and son of the respondent respectively. The marriage of 1st petitioner was performed with respondent on 24.02.2000 in the parents’ house of 1st petitioner at Bhimavaram as per Hindu rites and caste customs. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of respondent and his family members, the petitioner’s parents gave Rs.50,000/­ towards dowry, and also presented Rs.20,000/­ worth of Sari samans, while sending the 1st petitioner for marital life with respondent. The 1st petitioner and respondent led their marital life happily till 2005. During their wedlock, they blessed with two issues i.e., 2nd and 3rd petitioner. Later, the respondent shifted his family to Hyderabad for his livelihood. Thereafter, the respondent addicted to vices like drinking, gambling etc.,. Subsequently, the respondent quarreled with 1st petitioner without any fault of her. When the 1st petitioner questioned the respondent with regard to his vices, the respondent beat the 1st petitioner mercilessly and indiscriminately. Due to the highhanded and illegal acts of the respondent, the 1st petitioner was vexed with him. In the year 2011, the respondent necked out the petitioners from his house at Hyderabad. As, there is no other option, the 1st petitioner informed the same to her brother, her brother brought the petitioners to his house at Bhimavaram. Subsequently, the brother of the 1st petitioner requested the respondent to take back the 1st petitioner to lead marital life, but he could not heed the words of 1st petitioner’s brother. Later, the respondent imposed some conditions and after obeying his conditions, the 1st petitioner’s brother arranged financial needs to the respondent and on that he put up separate family at Bhimavaram in the year 2013. In

Bhimavaram, the respondent borrowed amounts from others and later escaped. Due to that, the 1st petitioner suffered mental agony.

(ii)It is further averred in the petition that later the respondent harassed the 1st petitioner to bring amount of Rs.5,000/­ from her brother. When the 1st petitioner expressed her in ability to bring the same, the respondent beat 3 her mercilessly and indiscriminately all over her body and escaped from the house by leaving the petitioners to their fate. Later, the brother of 1st petitioner along with elders approached the respondent in

Mangalaguntavaripalem and asked him to lead marital life with the 1st petitioner, but the respondent told that he has no interest towards the 1st petitioner and he would not join with her. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent on 30­07­2016. Later, she filed

M.C.100/2016 on the file of II Add. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Bhimavaram and after filing the said MC, the respondent approached the 1st petitioner and requested for compromise. Then, the 1st petitioner could not attend the court and hence the said MC was dismissed. After dismissing the said MC, the respondent put up separate family in Sitaramapuram North.

He lived with the petitioners only for one month. Later, he demanded the 1st petitioner to bring additioal dowry amount of Rs.50,000/­ from her parents. When the 1st petitioner expressed her inability, he beat her all over her body indiscriminately and he left the petitioners and went away.

Having vexed with the behaviour of the respondent, eventually, the 1st petitioner filed OP.2/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Bhimavaram U/Sec 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent having received the summons from the Hon’ble Court, was called absent and was set ex­parte. Later, the divorce was granted to the 1st petitioner. Now, the petitioners are residing in Sitaramapuram North village of Narasapur Mandal by depending upon the parents of the 1st petitioner.

The petitioners have no movable or immovable properties. The health of 1st petitioner was spoiled due to the illegal and highhanded acts of the respondent. The respondent is not providing anything to the petitioners, since 2016.

(iii)It is further averred in the petition that the respondent is working as a carpenter, thereby he is getting a monthly income of

Rs.30,000/­ per month, besides that, the respondent is also doing contract works of new buildings for wood, upon which he is getting monthly income 4 of Rs.50,000/­. The respondent is also having house and other properties.

The respondent is able to maintain himself and the petitioners too, but he neglected, deserted and abandoned the petitioners. Hence, the petition. 

3.On the other hand, the respondent filed his counter by denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and submits that from the date of marriage, he has been looking the petitioners with utmost love and affection. He further submits that he never addicted to any vices. He submits that the brother of the 1st petitioner and elders never approached the respondent at any point of time. The brother of the 1st petitioner is the root cause for the troubles between 1st petitioner and the respondent. The respondent requested the 1st petitioner and her brother to restore the conjugal life, but they did not agree to restore the conjugal life. He further submits that the 1st petitioner is an arrogant woman, she always quarreled with the respondent, to keep away his old aged parents from them, but the respondent refused the same, then the dispute was arisen between them. In the year 2013, the petitioner went away to her matrimonial home without any cause. He never demanded the 1st petitioner to bring the additional dowry from her parents. He further submits that the 1st petitioner has been doing tailoring and she is also a dwakra member, thereby she has been getting a monthly income of Rs.30,000/­ per month. He further submits that he do not has any movable or immovable properties. He is working as a daily cooly, and there by he is getting Rs.200/­ per day. There are neither bonafides nor merits in filing the above petition. Hence, the respondent prays to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners. 

4. During the enquiry, the 1st petitioner was herself examined as P.W.1, and the respondent was himself examined as R.W.1, R.W2 was examined on his behalf. No documentary evidence was produced by both sides. 

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners filed written arguments through e­filing. The learned counsel for the respondent reported that 5 arguments may be treated as heard. I have gone through the entire evidence on record.

6.Now the points for determination are that 

1. Whether the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children of respondent ?

2. Whether the 1st petitioner obtained divorce from the respondent?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance?

4. If so, what is the adequate maintenance if petitioners are entitled for maintenance?

5. To What relief?

Point No. 1 :

7. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage of 1st petitioner with respondent and the birth of 2nd and 3rd petitioners during their wedlock. The respondent himself admitted in his counter about the relationship with petitioners. Hence, I hold the 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children of the respondent.

Point No.2:

8.There is no dispute that 1st petitioner obtained divorce from the respondent. She herself admitted in the petition, as well as in her evidence that having vexed with the behaviour of the respondent, she filed

O.P.2/2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhimavaram under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the respondent having received summons from the court remained absent and was set ex­party.

Hence, decree of divorce granted to the 1st petitioner in the year 2018.

Further, the respondent who was examined as R.W.1 admitted in his evidence that the 1st petitioner got issued legal notice to him, when he was in Vendram, for divorce. He further admitted that he has not given any reply notice to the said notice. He stated that he tried to take her back 6 through his village elders by name Gubbala Radha, Chelluboina Panduranga and others. He further admitted that he received court notices in divorce case filed by the 1st petitioner, but, he did not attend the court. Even though the respondent deposed that he tried to take back the 1st petitioner through elders whose names mentioned supra, he did not adduce the evidence of any one of those elders to prove his contention. Further, the respondent admitted that after divorce granted to the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner and himself did not remarry. The learned counsel for the respondent also could elicit through the evidence of P.W.1 that she obtained divorce from the respondent. Hence, as there is no dispute with regard to divorce of the 1st petitioner and the respondent, this court hold that the 1st petitioner obtained divorce from the respondent.

Points No.3 and 4:.

9.The petitioner is examined as P.W.1 and deposed that the respondent refused and deserted her and her children after he addicted to vices. The respondent/R.W.1 submitted that the P.W.1 is an arrogant woman, she always quarreled with him, refused to look after his old aged parents. She never cooked for him and always fight with him. I have gone through the evidences of P.W.1 and R.W.1. P.W.1 stated in her cross examination that

R.W.1 and herself led marital life in Magalaguntavaripalem village till 2005, in her in­laws’ house. She further stated that R.W.1 and herself lived in the said house along with the parents of R.W.1. R.W.1 admitted that the disputes arose in between himself and the P.W.1 in the year 2015 and till then, the P.W.1 and himself led marital life happily. He further stated that the disputes arose in between them, as the P.W.1 intends to lead luxurious life and she used to dispute with him, as he failed to bring amounts.

Further, the marriage of P.W.1 and R.W.1 was performed in the year 2000 and as per the admission of R.W.1, they led marital life happily till 2015 and later disputes arose between them, as P.W.1 intends to lead luxurious life. Hence, the contention of the R.W.1 that the petitioner never looked 7 after him and his parents and she never cooked food for him, is not acceptable, as they lived together for 15 years, as per the version of R.W.1.

10.Further, the P.W.1 contended that in the year 2005, the R.W.1 put up separate family in Hyderabad and there after addicted to vices and did not look after the petitioners. R.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that they shifted their family to Hyderabad in the year 2005 and stayed in

Hyderabad from 2005 to 2011. He further admitted that he has habit of consuming alcohol but he says that it is not his regular habit and he consumes alcohol now and then. P.W.1 further deposed that when she informed the harassment of R.W.1 to her brother, he came to Hyderabad and tried to convince the RW.1, but he refused then they came to

Bhimavaram. She further deposed that later her brother along with elders again went to Hyderabad and then R.W.1 put conditions before them and on that her brother got put up a separate family in Bhimavaram by them and he bear the expenditure. RW.1 admitted in his cross examination that in the year 2011, they again put up separate family in Bhimavaram, after coming from Hyderabad. But, he denied that the brother of P.W.1 got put up separate family and he bear expenses. If really, the R.W.1 never harassed the P.W.1 and looked after the petitioners, why he came from

Hyderabad to Bhimavaram and put up separate family, there is no explanation of R.W.1 on this aspect. Hence, the contention of P.W.1 that due to harassment of R.W.1, they came to Bhimavaram and put up separate family, at the assistance of her brother, cannot be brushed out.

11.It is further contention of P.W.1 that in Bhimavaram also the respondent indebted to so many others and he demanded her to bring amounts, when she expressed her inability, he went to

Mangalaguntavaripalem in the year 2013 without informing her. She further contended that even though she mediated through her brother and other, the respondent refused to led marital life with her, later having no other go, she sent legal notice on 30­07­2016 to the respondent. The 8 respondent admitted about the legal notice and he admitted that he has not sent any reply to the said notice. If there is no fault on the part of the respondent, why he kept quiet without giving any reply to the notice of

P.W.1. Even though R.W.1 stated in his evidence that he mediated through elders, he did not choose to examine any one of them on his behalf.

Further, R.W.1 admitted that previously, P.W.1 filed another maintenance case vide M.C.100/2016 on the file of II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Bhimavaram and later she withdrawn the same on his request. He further admitted that after withdrawing the said MC, they again put up family in Seetharamapuram North and led marital life for six months.

Hence, it shows that the P.W.1 did not intend to leave the R.W.1 and she intends to live with him, so that she has withdrawn the said MC.

12.The P.W.1 further contended that when the R.W.1 put up separate family after she has withdrawn MC, he looked after her only for one month and again started harassment and demanded to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.50,000/­ from her parents. When she expressed her in ability, he beat her indiscriminately and he again went away by leaving her and her children. Having vexed with him, she filed divorce OP. Even though, the respondent denied the same, he did not give any proper explanation why P.W.1 left him. A married woman having children never left her husband without any sufficient reason. Further, R.W.1 clearly admitted that when he received legal notice from the P.W.1, he did not give any reply to her. He further admitted that he did not attend the court, when he received court summon in divorce case. If really, R.W.1 wanted to lead marital life with P.W.1, he ought to have made all efforts to bring back her after he received notice from her, but R.W.1 did not do so and he simply kept quiet. He even did not file ex­party order set aside petiition in divorce

OP. Which shows that the respondent intends to leave the petitioners.

Further, R.W.1 adduced the evidence of R.W.2 to support his contention but nothing could be elicited from his evidence in favour of R.W.1. Further,

P.W.1 contended that R.W.2 did not know anything about their family 9 affairs and as he is friend of R.W.1, he deposed false on his behalf. She further contended that neither the contents of counter of respondent nor his evidence reveal the name of R.W.2 and hence R.W.2 is a planted witness.

13.This court perused the evidence of R.W.2. In his chief examination at para 1, he mentioned that he do agriculture. At para 2, it was mentioned that he is a mason. During the course of cross examination, R.W.2 stated that he do carpenter work. He further stated that respondent is not a carpenter. He further stated that the respondent has been working under him since 18 years. He further stated that he visited the house of R.W.1 in the year 2018, when they lived in Seetaramapuram and he never visited his house till 2018. He stated that he do not know the children particulars of

P.W.1 and R.W.1. He further stated that he do not know the disputes between the P.W.1 and R.W.1. He stated that the brother of P.W.1 is master. But, the learned counsel for the respondent could elicit during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 that the brother of P.W.1 do coolie work. Further, there is no mentioning about R.W.2 either in the courter or in the evidence of R.W.1. Hence, if really the respondent has been working under R.W.2 since 18 years and R.W.2 attended the marriage of P.W.1 and

R.W.1, he ought to know their family matters. But, R.W.2 clearly stated that he do not know the disputes between P.W.1 and R.W.1 and do not know about their children particulars. Further, he does not disclose his occupation particulars properly in his evidence. From the above, the evidence of R.W.2 is not trust worthy and it is no way helpful to the respondent and the contention of petitioner that R.W.2 is a planted witness cannot be brushed out.

14.Further, the evidence of R.W.1 is also not consistent. On one breath he deposed in his chief that the P.W.1 did not look after his old aged parents and asked them to leave them. But, during the course of cross examination, he categorically stated that his father is no more. R.W.1 admitted that the parents of 1st petitioner paid Rs.10,000/­ to him towards 10 dowry and Rs.20,000/­ towards sari samans. Further, the R.W.1 himself admitted that he never went to see his children after he deserted them. In these facts and circumstances, I hold that the respondent neglected the petitioners and addicted to vices and due to the harassment of respondent and having vexed with his attitude P.W.1 obtained divorce from him. Even though, she obtained divorce, R.W.1 clearly admitted that they did not remarry. So, according to section 125 explanation (b) a wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. Further, it is not the case of respondent that he paid lumpsum amount to 1st respondent after divorce. Hence, this court hold that the petitioners are entitled to maintenance.

15.With regard to the quantum of maintenance, P.W.1 has deposed that the respondent is working as carpenter and getting monthly income of

Rs.30,000/­ per month, besides that he is doing contract works of new buildings, upon which he is getting Rs.50,000/­. He has house and other properties. But, no piece of paper was filed to prove the means of the respondent. The respondent has denied the sources of income in his chief affidavit. But, he admitted that his maternal uncle has a house and site in an extent of Ac.0­06 cents in Magalaguntavaripalem and his uncle gave the said house to them for living and they are living in the said house. He further deposed in his evidence that he is getting Rs.200/­ per day.

Further, he admitted in cross examination that P.W.1 has no properties and she is depending upon her brother and parents. He further admitted that the health condition of P.W.1 is not good. Further, even though, R.W.1 deposed that the P.W.1 and her daughter is doing tailoring work and earning Rs.30,000/­, no documentary evidence was produced before this court. Further, R.W.1 is aged about 39 years. He is hale and healthy. Now, a days, a hale and healthy person can get Rs.500/­ to Rs.700/­ per day by doing any kind of work. Hence, taking into consideration, the above means of respondent, I am inclined to allow the petition partly granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/­ to 1st petitioner and Rs.2,500/­ each to 2nd and 11 3rd petitioners as it is adequate mean to maintain petitioners in the present standard of living.

16. In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees three thousand only) to the 1st petitioner and Rs.2,500/­ (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the date of the petition i.e. on 2­11­2018.

The respondent shall make the payment on or before 10th every succeeding month. The arrears of maintenance shall be paid within four months from the date of order. The respondent is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/­ towards cost of this petition.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me, this the 22nd day of June,2020.

SD/SMT.S.SURYA KIRAN SRI,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NARASAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

P.W.1: Simhadri Karuna Kumari

FOR RESPONDENT:

R.W.1: Simhadri Sridhar R.W.2: Veeravalli Naga Venkata Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

­­­ NIL ­­­

FOR RESPONDENT:

­­­Nil­­­

SD/SMT.S.SURYA KIRAN SRI,

ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE

NARSAPUR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. J.F.C. MAGISTRATE: NARASAPURAM

PRESENT: ­ SMT. S.SURYA KIRAN SRI Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Friday, the 10th day of August, 2018.

C.C. No. 113 of 2009

State represented by The Sub­Inspector of Police, Narsapur Town Police Station. … Complainant

A n d

Pothumudi Bangarababu, S/o Mohanrao, Age 28 yrs, C/SC­Mala, R/o Rameswaram, Church Road, S.K.Palli Mandal. Driver on motor cycle AP5 AS 5163 Hero Glamar… Accused

This case is coming on 09­08­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and of Sri L.Venkateswarlu, Advocate

for the accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court made the following: ­

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused is arraigned for the trial of offences punishable under Section 304­A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr. No.137/2008 of Narsapur Town Police

Station.

2.The brief facts of the case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that: ­

On 3­7­2018 at about 2:30PM the injured/deceased was going on the main road in Narsapur towards bus stand to go to Bhimavaram, while he was crossing the road, the accused being the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Hero Glamar motor cycle bearing No.AP 5 AS 5163 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner coming from Palakol side to Narsapur dashed the injured/deceased, resulting he fell down on the road and sustained head injury and also scratch injuries on his hands and legs. The incident was witnessed by Sk.Mastanvalli, Pattepu Hari and

Tadi Venkateswararao(L.Ws.2 to 4) and they got details of accused. Later, the accused absconding from the scene of offence. Later, the injured was shifted to

Government Hospital, Narsapur through 108 Ambulance and admitted there for treatment. Later, he was shifted to Bhimavaram Hospital for better treatment and they shifted to ASRAM Hospital, Eluru. He again shifted to ST.Joseph, Hospital, 2

Visakhapatnam for brain operation and while under going the treatment the accused succumbed to injuries on 31­12­2008 at 1:30AM.

Hence, L.w1/Mylabathula Ester who is wife of deceased gave report to

Narsapur Town police station on 31­12­2008 at 12:00noon. Basing on her report the section of law was attested from 338 IPC to 304­A IPC in Cr.No.137/2008 of

Narsapur Town police station. L.W17/M.Krupanandam, SI of police, Narsapur

Town police station took up investigation in this case, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted interest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of inquest panchanama dars. He sent the dead body to

Government Hospital, Narsapur for postmortem Examination. On 5­7­2008 he arrested the accused and sent him to court for judicial remand. He sent requisition to L.W14/N.Sivaramakrishna, former Motor Vehicle Inspector to examine the crime vehicle. He inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report.

L.W15/Dr.D.swarnalatha, CAS, Government Hospital, Narsapur who conducted autopsy over the dead body on deceased issued postmortem report. After completion of investigation, L.W17/SI, filed charge sheet. 

3.Cognizance was taken under section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 304­A IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.

P.C.

5.Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. Hence, the charges under sections 304­A IPC has been framed, read over and explained in Telugu, for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

3

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence available against him and reported no defence evidence. 

8.I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for the accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence against him?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined the wife of deceased as

P.W1, the eye witness to the alleged incident as P.W2, the son of deceased as P.W3, the independent witnesses as P.Ws.4 and 5, the motor vehicle inspector as P.W6, the investigating officers as P.Ws.7 and 8 and got marked statement of P.W1 as

Ex.P1, the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W2 as Exs.P2 and P3, the signature of P.W4 on the scene observation report as Ex.P4, the signature of P.W4 on inquisition as

Ex.P5, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W5 as Ex.P6, the MVI report as Ex.P7,

Hospital Intimation as Ex.P8, FIR as Ex.P9, rough sketch as Ex.P10, report of P.W3 as Ex.P11, altered FIR as Ex.P12, inquest report as Ex.P13, wound certificate as

Ex.P14 and Postmortem certificate as Ex.P15.

POINT

11.Admittedly P.Ws.1,3 and 4 are not the direct witnesses to the incident and they came to know the incident through others. P.Ws.2 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the said incident but they did not support the prosecution case. They turned hostile to the prosecution case. The evidence of P.W1 shows that she do not know the accused. On 3­7­2018, when she was present in Elim school in Poolapalli village, some body informed her through phone that her husband met with an accident at RTC Bus stand, Narsapur, while he was crossing the road to get in to the bus. They also informed her that one person who was riding Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle hit her husband and he came in high speed and in negligent manner. They 4 informed that her husband received injury on his head and also informed that they were shifting her husband to Bhimavaram Hospital in 108 Ambulance and asked her to present at the gate of her school in Poolapalli village. Then, she shifted her husband to Bhimavaram Hospital in the said Ambulance. The doctors in

Bhimavaram Hospital took scan to her husband and stated that his condition is serious and directed her to shift him either to Eluru or Kakinada. On the advice of

L.W11/Deepati Jaanakiraju who is church elder, she shifted her husband to Eluru

Hospital. Police came to Eluru Hospital and recorded Ex.P1 her statement. Later, her husband went in to Koma and he was bed ridden for six months and later he died. She deposed that the husband died due to accident.

12.The evidence of P.W3 who is son of deceased reveals that at the time of incident he was in Hyderabad and on 3­7­2008, he went to Hyderabad and some body called him over phone and informed that his father met with an accident at

RTC complex, Narsapur. Later, he came to Narsapur and shifted his father to Eluru

Hospital and later his father went in to Koma. Finally his father died. The evidence of P.W4 reveals that in the year 2008, the deceased met with an accident at

Narsapur RTC Bus stand. He came to know the same through others. They informed him that a motor cycle hit him when he was crossing the road. He went to Government Hospital, Narsapur when postmortem was conducted to the body of deceased. P.W4 deposed that he did not remember the other things except the above. He deposed that police never examined him and recorded his statement. He deposed that he signed on two reports, but he do not know the contents of said report. Hence, P.Ws.1,3 and 4 are not the direct witnesses to the said incident.

According to the evidence of P.W1, she came to know that one person who was coming on motor cycle, hit her husband and he came in a high speed and caused the accident. At this stage this court perused the Ex.P1 statement of P.W1. In Ex.P1 it was mentioned that the accident was occurred on 3­7­2018 at 2:30PM. It was also mentioned that P.W1 came to know about the accident. But the name of the persons who is responsible for the said accident or the number of motor cycle or 5 the company name of the motor cycle was not mentioned in Ex.P1. Further, Ex.P1 is with regard to the injuries received by the deceased and basing on Ex.P1, Ex.P9

FIR was registered by the P.W7 for the offence under section 338 IPC. 

13.In her cross examination P.W1 stated that her husband is a sugar and BP patient by the time of accident and his age above 60 years. She categorically stated in her cross examination that she do not know hoe her husband crossed the road at the time of accident, she do not know at which side of road the said accident was occurred, she do not know how the person who caused the said accident has rode his vehicle, either in right direction or wrong direction . She further stated that she cannot say about the accident. She further stated that after Ex.P1 she never examined by the police in this case. She stated that her husband died in

Visakhapatnam Hospital and Visakhapatnam doctors conducted the postmortem to the death body of her husband. But P.W8 who is investigating officer in his cross examination stated that the deceased died at his house after treatment and postmortem was conducted to the body of deceased at Narsapur Government

Hospital. P.W4 who is the independent witness also deposed in his evidence that he went to Government Hospital, Narsapur where Postmortem was conducted to the body of deceased. Further, the incident was occurred on 3­7­2008 and postmortem was conducted on 31­12­2008. Hence, there is gap of six months between the date of accident and date of death of deceased. Further, P.W3 who is son of deceased did not depose that his father died in Visakhapatnam Hospital. He categorically stated in his cross examination that he do not know how the accident took place.

he stated that on 5­7­2008, he was examined by police. But P.W7 who is the investigating officer deposed in his evidence that he examined P.W3 on 31­12­ 2008. Further, in her cross examination P.W1 stated that she came to know that at the time of accident three persons were coming on crime vehicle. But the contents of Ex.P1 reveals that one person caused the accident. If really three persons were coming on motor cycle at the time of accident, how the investigating officer arrived that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. This was not 6 explained by the prosecution. Further, in Ex.P13 which it was mentioned that the postmortem of deceased was conducted at Narsapur Government Hospital, but

Ex.P11 which is the report of P.W3 and the statement of P.W1, during the course of cross examination reveals that the deceased died at Visakhapatnam. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the contents of Ex.P1 and P11 are not corroborating with each other. Further, P.W3 did not depose that he gave Ex.P11 to P.W8. But,

P.W8 deposed that he received Ex.P11 report from P.W3 and basing on Ex.P11 he altered the section of law from 338 IPC to 304­A IPC. Further, to know the cause of death of deceased and to prove the contents of postmortem report, the prosecution has to bring the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination. But here in this case, the prosecution failed to produce the medical officer who conducted postmortem examination. The prosecution filed a memo stated that the medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination of deceased was retired from services and at present her where abouts are not known. In view of said memo, this court closed the evidence of medical officer. Hence, the contents of

Ex.P15 are not proved by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence.

14.P.W6 who is the motor vehicle inspector deposed in his evidence that on 12­ 08­2008, he received requisition from Narsapur Town police and on 13­08­2008, he proceeded to Narsapur Town police station and examined motor cycle bearing

No. AP 5 AS 5163. He found no damages to the said vehicle. He put the vehicle to road test and found that foot operated service brake system was intact and in order. Accordingly he issued Ex.P7 MVI report. So, according to the evidence of

P.W6 the crime vehicle was in condition and the accident was not occurred due to the damage of crime vehicle. But, to prove that the accused is the rider of crime vehicle by the time of accident, no records of crime vehicle were produced by the prosecution before this court. To prove that the above crime vehicle in the name of accused, the documents are relevant. But no such documents were produced before this court. Even though no documents were produced before this court, the prosecution has to establish the accused is the driver of crime vehicle by the 7 adducing the evidence of eye witnesses. But P.Ws.2,5 who are said to be the eye witnesses did not support the prosecution version. The learned prosecutor cross examined them but nothing could be elicited from their cross examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2,P3 and P6. Further, the prosecution filed memos with regard to other independent witnesses stating that at present they are in abroad. Since, their presence could not be get in near future and basing on the memos of prosecution, this court closed the evidences of other independent witnesses. The said witnesses are also not direct witnesses to the incident. Further, the contents of Ex.P13 are also not proved by the prosecution, since P.W4 who is inquestdhar could not support the prosecution version. Even though, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, P.Ws.1,2,4 are not direct witnesses to the incident, P.Ws.2 and 5 did not support the prosecution version and P.Ws.6 to 8 are motor cycle inspector and investigating officers, whose evidence cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of other corroborating evidence. From the evidence of P.Ws.1,3,4 and 6 to 8, it cannot be established that the accused is the driver of motor cycle by the time of accident. Further, the prosecution failed to establish that due to the accident the deceased died. Further, there is a gap of six months between the date of accident and death of deceased. No medical records were produced before this court to show the deceased was in Koma for six months and later he died. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed the name of the accused and none of them deposed that the accused is responsible for the accident and he is responsible for the death of deceased. Further, P.Ws.1,2,4 categorically deposed that they do not know accused. 

15.Hence, in view of foregoing discussion, this court hold that the prosecution failed to prove the offence against accused punishable under section 304­A IPC by placing cogent evidence. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. 

 16.Therefore, in the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 304­A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall stand discharge. 

8

Dictated to my personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of August, 2018.

SD/S.Surya Kiransri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Mylabathula Esteru ­­ NONE ­­

P.W.2: Sk.Mastan Valli

P.W.3: Mylabathula Daniel Sundar Kamalakar

P.W.4: Geddam Syambabu 

P.W.5: Pamula Raja Sekhar

P.W.6: N.Siva Rama Krishna

P.W.7: M.Krupanandam, CI 

P.W.8: M.V.V.Jaganmohanrao

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement given to police by P.W1

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2 

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W2

Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W4 on Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W4 on Inquest Report

Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W5

Ex.P.7: MVI Report

Ex.P.8: Hospital Intimation 

Ex.P.9: Original FIR

Ex.P.10: Rough Sketch

Ex.P.11: Report of P.W3

Ex.P.12: Altered FIR

Ex.P.13: Inquest Report

Ex.P.14: Wound Certificate

Ex.P.15: Postmortem Certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

­NIL­

Material Objects Marked:

­NIL­ 9

ID/S.S.K.S A.J.F.C.M N.S.P

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari

Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offenceReport of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail 10 (1) (2) (3) (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03-07-2008 05-08-2008 15-07-2008 01-05-2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18-06-2018 08-08-2018 10-08-2018 --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.133/2009 on the file of Additional Judl.

I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Cr.No.137/2008 of Narsapur Town P.S.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pothumudi Bangarababu, S/o Mohanrao, Age 28 yrs, C/SC­Mala, R/o Rameswaram, Church Road, S.K.Palli Mandal. Driver on motor cycle AP5 AS 5163 Hero Glamar ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence:under sections 304­A IPC

Finding:Accused is found not guilty

Sentence: Therefore, in the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 304­A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds if any shall stand discharge.

SD/S.Surya Kiransri, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narsapuram

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru