S.Vijaya Chandar

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: Sri S.Vijaya Chandar Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

Tuesday, this the 23 rd day of June, 2020

C.C.NO.382/18 Between: State: Represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kruthivennu Police Station

...Complainant

And

1.Jalla Bhaskara rao, S/o Krishna murthy, 52 years, 2.Jalla Soban babu, S/o Krishna murthy, 40 years, 3.Jalla Yedukondalu, S/o Bhaskara rao, 26 years, 4.Jalla Krishna murthy, S/o Bhaskara rao, 23 years, all are r/o Orlagonditippa, h/o Nidamarru village, Kruthivennu mandal … Accused

This case has came up before me on 24.3.20 for hearing in the presence of Asst.P.P., for complainant and of Sri M.Moses, counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

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

The SHO, Kruthivennu P.S laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.153/18 for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 290 r/w 34 of

IPC.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

PW1 is the resident of Orlagonditippa, h/o Nidamarru village,

Kruthivennu mandal, PW2 is her husband and PW3 is her daughter. On 15.11.18 at about 1.30 pm, at Orlagonditippa, h/o Nidamarru village, when PW1/Jalla Venkateswaramma was going to sundry shop, all the accused restrained her and beat her with hands and abused her due to a quarrel regarding a house site. On 17.11.2018 at about 7.30 AM., while

PW4/investigating officer was present in the police station, PW.1 came to police station and presented a typed report about the offence, basing 2 on the said report, he registered the same as a case in Crime No.153 of 2018 under section 341, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC. He examined PW.1 at police station and recorded her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Later he went to scene offence and examined PW.2 and 3 and recorded their Sec. 161

Cr.P.C. statements. On the same day he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then he served Sec. 41 Cr.P.C notice to A1 to A4.

After completion of investigation, PW4 laid charge sheet against A1 to

A4 under sections 341, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offence

U/s 323, 341, 290 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated

U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. On appearance and consideration, accused were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C and accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 4 and Ex.P1 to P3 None of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the accused. The details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

7. On being closed the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appearing in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused u/s.313(1)(b)

Cr.P.C, for which the accused denied the incriminating circumstances from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the learned A.P.P for complainant and the learned counsel 3

for accused. Perused the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P3.

9. Now the point for determination is – Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the charge punishable U/sec. 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Learned APP argued that evidence of Pws. 1 to 4 and Ex.P.1 to P3 proved the case of the prosecution and prayed to convict the accused as per law.

11. The learned defence counsel had argued that all the accused are close relatives i.e., A1, A2 are the brothers in law of defacto complainant, biological brothers of PW2 and senior paternal uncles of

PW3. A3, A4 are the sons of A1. There is a civil dispute with regard to one cent of land which was allegedly purchased by PW1 though there is no proof of sale and PW1 to 3 hatched a plan to grab the land of A1 by attributing false cases against them, the case of prosecution also reveals the same. Further except PW1 to 3 who are wife, husband and daughter, no other witnesses were examined either by investigating officer or by the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses are inconsistent and contradictory and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

12. POINT:-

Heard and perused the record. I have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence.

13. PW1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that about 20 years back, they purchased a house site from A1 to an extent of 1 cent which is adjacent to their site for an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Later A1 was asking the said house site and causing troubles. On 15.11.2018, at about 1.30

P.M., when PW1 was going to kirana shop from her house, A1 to A4 obstructed and abused her in filthy language and beat her with their 4 hands. Then she raised cries, meanwhile PW.2/her husband/J.Rambabu and PW.3/her daughter/N.Nagalakshmi came there to rescue her, then

A1 to A4 beat them also with their hands. Later she placed the matter

before the elders to admonish A1 to A4, then elders called all the

accused, but they did not turn up and then after 2 days, she went to the

Police Station and lodged complaint about the incident.

14. PW2 who is the husband of defacto complainant and brother of

A1, A2, paternal uncle of A3, A4 deposed that about 20 years back, they purchased a house site from A1 to an extent of 1 cent which is adjacent to their site for an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Later A1 asking the said house site and accused making troubles. On 15.11.2018, at about 1.30 P.M., when PW.1 was going to kirana shop from her house, A1 to A4 obstructed and abused PW.1 in filthy language and beat PW.1 with their hands. Then PW.1 raised crises. Hearing the same, he and PW.3/her daughter/N.Nagalakshmi went there to rescue PW.1. By that time she laid aside without dress. Then A1 to A4 also beat her and PW.3 with their hands. Later A1 to A4 ran away. Later they placed the matter

before elders to admonish them, but they did not turn up. Then elders

suggested him to go to hospital. Then they were treated by RMP Doctor by name Sekhar. After 2 days, they went to the Police Station and lodged a report.

15. PW3 who is daughter of PW1 and 2 deposed that about 20 years back, PW.1 and 2 purchased a house site from A1 to an extent of one cent which is adjacent to their site for an amount of Rs.5,000/-. Later A1 asking the said house site and accused made troubles to PW.1 and 2. At about one and half year back, at about 1.30 P.M., when PW.1 was going to kirana shop from their house, A1 to A4 obstructed and abused PW.1 in filthy language and beat PW.1 with their hands. Then PW.1 raised cries. Hearing the same, she and PW.2 went there to rescue PW.1. By that time she laid aside without dress. Then A1 to A4 also beat her and

PW.2 with their hands. Then she along with PW.1 and 2 were treated by 5

RMP Doctor by name Sekhar. After 2 days, they went to Police Station and PW.1 lodged a report.

16. PW4 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 17.11.2018 at about 7.30 AM., while he was present in the police station, PW.1 came to police station and presented a typed report about the offence, basing on the said report, he registered the same as case in Crime

No.153 of 2018 under section 341, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC. He examined

PW.1 at police station and recorded her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Later he went to scene offence and examined PW.2 and 3 and recorded their Sec.

161 Cr.P.C. statements. On the same day he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Then he served Sec. 41 Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A4.

After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against A1 to A4 under sections 341, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC.

17. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.11.18 at about 1.30 pm, while PW1 was going to kirana shop nearer to her house A1 to A4 obstructed her and they beat with hands and created public nuisance, then she raised hues and cries and hearing the same PW2 and 3 also reached there, then A1 to A4 also beat them indiscriminately.

18. On perusal of cross examination of PW1, 100 people witnessed this offence and on perusal of cross examination of PW2 and 3, twenty to thirty persons witnessed the alleged offence but no one was either examined by investigating officer or by the prosecution. Further as per the evidence of PW1 the alleged offence had occurred in front of the house of one Jalla Nagamani ho was also not examined either by the investigating officer or by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

19. It is further noted that there is two days delay in lodging case by the defacto complainant i.e., as per the evidence of prosecution the alleged offence had occurred on 15.11.18 at about 1.30 pm and it was 6 allegedly reported on 17.11.18 at about 7.30 am, and the reasons for delay was explained by the prosecution witnesses that at first, they approached and placed the matter before the elders for admonition of accused and when the elders called the accused they did not turn up. If such is the case it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that whether the elders received the complaint from defacto complainant and they called the accused or not. To prove this instance, the investigating officer should have examined any of the elder but he did not do so, even the prosecution also not examined any of the elders to prove the same. Therefore, the delay has not been explained properly, which is also fatal to the case of prosecution.

20. It is further noted in the chief examination of PW2 and 3 that

PW1 was laid aside without dress which was not at all deposed by PW1 in her evidence, further she also not deposed that who disrobe her.

Moreover, during her cross examination PW1 deposed that she simply signed on a white paper and gave it to the police who drafted on their own. Per contra she again stated that Ex.P1 report was drafted with the handwriting of the police. PW1 specifically deposed in her cross examination that one Jalla Nagamani, Bhulakshmi, Veeramma,

Bharatamma witnessed the alleged offence but they were not examined by the prosecution. She further admitted that there is no specific that for the alleged offence on the day of alleged offence.

21. As per the evidence of PW1 to 3, they received bleeding injuries but they did not go to the hospital, whereas PW2 and 3 deposed that they were treated by one RMP doctor by name Sekhar, who had not been examined by prosecution to prove the said instance. Moreover,

PW2 deposed that his 161 Cr.PC statement was recorded with handwriting i.e., manuscript, on perusal of the 161 Cr.PC statements which is apparently typed one. PW3 deposed that she was examined by the police on the next day of alleged incident i.e., on 16.11.18 which is prior to the registering of this case and hit by 162 Cr.P.C. As per the case 7 of prosecution, PW1 to 3 alleged that they purchased house site of one cent from A1 and there is no documentary proof at all, in that circumstances, there is every scope to implicate false case against the accused who are close relatives of PW1 to 3. From the discussion made above, the prosecution, failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, they are liable to be acquitted.

22. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months, as contemplated u/s 437 A of Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence, no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation directly by stenographer on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23 rd day of June, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1 J.Venkateswaramma – None –

PW.2 J.Rambabu

PW.3 N.Nagalakshmi

Pw.4 M.Tulasi rama krishna,SI of police

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF

PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 Report given by Pw.1.

Ex.P.2 FIR

Ex.P.3 Rough sketch

DEFENCE:Nil 8

MATERIAL OBJECTS : Nil

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE, BANTUMILLI

C.C.No.382/18

01. Date of offence : 15.11.18

02. Date of Complaint : 17.11.18

03. Date of Apprehension of : -- the accused

04. Release on bail : --

05. Commencement of trial : 10.2.20

06. Closure of trial : 24.3.20

07. Date of Judgment : 23.6.20

08. Name of the complainant : The State, Sub-Inspector of police, Kruthivennu P.S. Cr.No.153 of 18.

09. Name of the accused : 1.Jalla Bhaskara rao, S/o Krishna murthy, 52 years, 2.Jalla Soban babu, S/o Krishna murthy, 40 years, 3.Jalla Yedukondalu, S/o Bhaskara rao, 26 years, 4.Jalla Krishna murthy, S/o Bhaskara rao, 23 years, all are r/o Orlagonditippa, h/o Nidamarru village, Kruthivennu mandal

10. Offence : U/s. 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC

11. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

12. Finding : Not guilty

13. Sentence : In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months, as contemplated u/s 437 A of Cr.P.C. No property was produced before this court, hence, no order as to the property.

14.Explanation for delay: Cognizance of the offence U/sec. 341, 323 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC was taken against the accused on 31.12.18. On 11.2.19 accused were examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C on the substance of accusation. PW1 to 4 were examined and Ex.P1 to P3 were marked, the prosecution closed the evidence. On 18.3.20 accused were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C, on 24.3.20 arguments heard and on 23.6.20 Judgment is

pronounced in open court. Hence the delay.

Copy submitted to:JFCM, Bantumilli. The Hon’ble I Addl. District and

Sessions Judge,Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: SRI S.Vijaya Chandar, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

Tuesday, the 2nd day of June, 2020

C.C. No.105 of 20 Between: State, represented by Sub Inspector of police, Kruthivennu P.S

...Complainant

And

Peddi Padmavathi, W/o Seshaiah, 40 years, Chinagollapalem village,

Kruthivennu mandal ...Accused

This case has come up before me on 24.3.20 for hearing in the presence of Asst.,P.P., for complainant and of Sri Y.Soma Sekhar, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by SI of police, Kruthivennu PS filed charge sheet against accused alleging that on 30.1.20 at about 6.00 pm, while PW2/Sub

Inspector of police and his staff conducting raids, he along with his staff went to Chinagollapalem village, found the accused with ID liquor bottles, then he along with his staff caught hold her and seized the contraband from her and brought her and seized property to police station, then they registered a case against her u/s 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995. During the course of investigation the police examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and after completion of all formalities and after completion of investigation, they laid charge sheet against accused.

2. On perusal of the material available on record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/s. 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment)

Act, 1997 against the accused.

3. On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. On hearing both parties, accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C and framed charges u/s. 240 Cr.P.C for the offence u/s 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P

Prohibition Amendment Act, 1995 against the accused, read over and 2 explained to her in Telugu, for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pw1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P.1 and 2 besides M.O.1 on its behalf. None of the witnesses were got examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the accused. The details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the same. When the accused was called upon to enter upon her evidence, she reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned A.P.P. for complainant and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the evidence of Pw.1 and 2, Ex.P.1 and P2 and M.O.1.

8. The point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge u/s 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 ?

9. POINT:

Heard and perused the record. I have carefully scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence.

10. The learned APP argued that the evidence of Pw.1 and 2, the contents of Ex.P.1 and P2 besides M.O.1 proved the case of prosecution and prays to convict the accused according to law.

11. The learned defence counsel argued that PW.1 never seized any liquor bottles from the possession of accused under cover of Ex.P.1/occurrence report and she foisted this false case against the accused for statistical purpose only. He further argued that the prosecution did not choose to examine the Analyst, who issued Analysis Report. Except the official witness no independent witness was examined to prove the case of prosecution and prayed to acquit the accused on benefit of doubt.

3

12. PW2 deposed that on 30.01.2020 at about 6.00 PM., on credible information, he along with PW.1 and LW.2/B.Parameswararao went to the

Aswini Hatchary, Chinagollapalem village, Kruthivennu mandal and found the accused with two plastic bags containing illicit arrack of 05 Lts. in each bag, on seeing them, she tried to skulk away from there. Then he asked her name and address particulars and also about the possession of illicit arrack, then she told to PW2 her name and address particulars and also confessed the offence in order to sell the same to the public to get income, accused also confessed that she prepared the said illicit arrack with the 2 bottles. Then PW2 seized the same under cover of occurrence report containing thumb impression of accused and then he arrested the accused and brought to police station, basing on the strength of occurrence report, he registered the case in Cr.

No.41/20 U/s. 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of APP Act. Later he examined PW.1 and

LW.2/B.Parameswararao and recorded their detailed statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW2 gave 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to accused. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against accused U/s. 7(a) r/w. 8(e) of APP

Act. PW1 being subordinate to PW1, supported the case of prosecution.

13. Here in this case, the only evidence for the prosecution is that of PW.1 and 2 and PW.1 and 2 admitted in their cross examination that the scene of offence is situated in residential locality. When the scene of offence is situated in busy locality, naturally the independent witnesses would be available, hence, PW2 could have seized the alleged contraband in their presence. But, she did not do so.

14. Admittedly, Pw.1 and 2 are official witnesses and interested witnesses to the prosecution case. No independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Here, PW.1 is the complainant and she is also the investigation officer of this case.

Further this Hon’ble court relied upon a decision in between –

Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported

in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 641 A.P His Lordship held at para 6 that – “On the sole self serving testimony of defacto complainantcum

Investigating Officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the evidence of

PW.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search on 5.7.2002, both 4 trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of

PW.1, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned Trial Judge referring to Sec.134 of Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But, here this PW.1 being the complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he cannot be compared on par with a prosecutrix in a rape case or a victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of PW.1 for convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgment of Courts below are liable to be set aside.” As per above decision, PW.1 being the complainant and investigation officer of this case, naturally he is interested in getting conviction to the accused. The sole self serving statement of PW.1 is not at all acceptable without any corroboration of any independent witness.

15. In view of the above said circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge u/s. 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition

Act, 1995. As such benefit of doubt is given to the accused for the said charge.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1997. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/s.248(1 ) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 A Cr.PC. M.O1 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by stenographer on the computer and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of June, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE PW.1 P.Thrimurthulu, PC Nil PW.2 V.Ravi chandra kumar, SI of police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE Ex.P.1 Occurrence report Nil Ex.P.2 FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 – ID liquor sample bottle J.F.C.M/BTM 6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE:

BANTUMILLI

C.C.No.105/20 01.Date of offence :30.1.20 02.Date of Complaint :30.1.20 03.Date of Apprehension of the accused : 04.Released on bail : 05.Commencement of trial : 17.3.20 06.Closure of trial : 24.3.20 07.Date of Judgment : 2.6.20 08.Explanation for delay : Cognizance of the offence U/sec. 7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P. Prohibition Act was taken against the accused on 19.2.20. On 12.3.20 she was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C on the substance of charge. She denied the same and claimed to be tried. P.W.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.P.1 and 2 and MO.1 was marked and on 18.3.20 accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating material. She denied the incriminating material, reported no defence evidence, on 24.3.20 heard arguments and on 2.6.20 Judgment is pronounced in the open court. Hence the delay.

09.Name of the complainant : The State represented by Sub Inspector of police, Kruthivennu PS Cr.No.41/20 10.Name of the accused : Peddi Padmavathi, W/o Seshaiah, 40 years, Chinagollapalem village, Kruthivennu mandal 11.Offence :U/sec.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P.Prohibition Act 12.Plea of the accused : Not guilty 13.Finding : Not guilty 14.Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge punishable u/s.7 (a) r/w 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 A Cr.PC. M.O1 shall be destroyed after appeal time. J.F.C.M., Bantumilli. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: SRI S.Vijaya Chandar Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

Tuesday, this the 2nd day of June, 2020

C.C.NO.201/18 Between: State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Bantumilli Police Station. ...Complainant.

And

1.B.Naresh, S/o Ramakrishna, 27 years, 2.B.Ramakrishna, S/o Koteswara rao, 60 years, 3.B.Madavi, W/o Ramakrishna, 50 years,

All are r/o Pedatonnuru village, Mudinepalli mandal, ... Accused

This case has come up before me on 24.3.20 for trial in the presence of Asst., P.P., for complainant and of Sri S.Suresh babu, counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Bantumilli P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.60/18 for the offences punishable u/s.498 A of I.P.C and sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

PW1/Battula Hima Nagavalli is wife of A1. A2 and A3 are her in laws.

At the time of marriage, A1 to A3 took Rs.4,00,000/- towards pasupukumkuma and other lanchanams from her father. A1 and PW1 lead marital life for one month. Later A1 along with A2, A3 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally and demanded to bring additional dowry with the instigation of A2,

A3. Basing on the report of complainant, the police registered the case and investigated into it. During the course of investigation they visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their statements u/s 161 (3) Cr.P.C and served S.41(A) Cr.P.C. notices to A1 to A3 and after completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against them.

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences U/s. 498 A of

I.P.C and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act against the accused.

2

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. On appearance and consideration, the accused were examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C and charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pw.1 and got marked

Exs.P.1 and P.2 on its behalf. None of the witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the accused. The details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence in the testimony of prosecution witnesses against the accused.

8. Heard the learned A.P.P for complainant and the learned counsel for accused. Perused the evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.P.1 and P2.

9. Now the point for determination is – “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.498 A of I.P.C and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act ?”

10. POINT:

PW.1 being complainant did not depose anything against the accused and she turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

11. Now, the question is whether at the time of marriage, A1 to A3 took

Rs.4,00,000/- towards pasupukumkuma and other lanchanams from father of

PW1 and after one month A1 along with A2, A3 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally and demanded to bring additional dowry with the instigation of A2, A3. However, during cross examination by the learned A.P.P,

Pw.1 deposed that she never stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (marked portions of her 161 Cr.P.C statement). Nothing was drawn in her cross examination in favour of prosecution and she turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

3

12. In view of the above evidence of PW.1, the learned A.P.P rightly gave up the evidence of rest of witnesses in the charge sheet. As discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that at the time of marriage, A1 to A3 took Rs.4,00,000/- towards pasupukumkuma and other lanchanams from father of PW1 and after one month A1 along with A2, A3 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally and demanded to bring additional dowry with the instigation of A2, A3. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 A of I.P.C and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No property was produced before this court, hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation directly by the stenographer on the computer and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of June, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1 – B.Hima Nagavalli – none –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P.2: Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS Nil –

J.F.C.M. BTM

4

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE:

BANTUMILLI.

C.C.No.201/18

01. Date of offence : Prior to 10.5.18

02. Date of Complaint : 10.5.18

03. Date of Apprehension of the accused : --

04. Release on bail : --

05. Commencement of trial : 24.3.20

06. Closure of trial : 24.3.20

07. Date of Judgment : 2.6.20

08. Name of the complainant : The State, Sub Inspector of police, Bantumilli P.S. Cr.No.60 of 18.

09. Name of the accused : 1.B.Naresh, S/o Ramakrishna, 27 years, 2.B.Ramakrishna, S/o Koteswara rao, 60 years, 3.B.Madavi, W/o Ramakrishna, 50 years, All are r/o Pedatonnuru village, Mudinepalli mandal,

10. Offence : 498 A IPC, sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act 11.Plea of the accused : Not guilty 12.Finding : Not guilty 13.Sentence : In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 A of I.P.C and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No property was produced

before this court, hence no order as to the property.

14. Explanation for delay Cognizance of the offence U/sec.498 A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P Act was taken against the accused on 3.7.18. On 17.3.20 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C on the substance of charge. P.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.P.1 and P2. The prosecution closed the evidence, as there is no incriminating material against the accused, examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, arguments heard and on 2.6.20 Judgment is pronounced in the open court. Hence the delay.

Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bantumilli. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BANTUMILLI

PRESENT: SRI S.Vijaya Chandar Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli

Tuesday, this the 16th day of June, 2020

C.C.NO.276/18 Between: State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Bantumilli Police Station. ...Complainant.

And

1.K.Nancharaiah, S/o late Venkateswarlu, 27 years, 2.K.Pennamma, W/o late Venkateswarlu, 50 years, 3.J.Subbamma @ Lakshmi, W/o Ramesh, 36 years, 4.J.Naga Lakshmi, W/o Janardhana rao, 32 years, all are r/o Narayanapuram village, h/o Korlapadu village, Bantumilli

mandal, ... Accused

This case has come up before me on 24.3.20 for trial in the presence of Asst., P.P., for complainant and of Sri PV Venkateswara rao, counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Bantumilli

P.S laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.73/18 for the offences punishable u/s.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 156 (3) of

Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The Sub-Inspector, Bantumilli P.S filed charge Sheet against accused alleging that PW1/Kolleti Bhavani is wife of A1. A2 to A4 are her in laws. After giving birth to a son, A1 along with A2 to A4 started harassing her physically and mentally demanded additional dowry along with A2, A3, and also beat and tried to kill her. Basing on the court forwarded report of PW1, the police registered the case and investigated into it. During the course of investigation they visited the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their statements u/s 161 (3) Cr.P.C and served S.41(A) Cr.P.C notices on them and after 2 completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable u/s.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C

3. Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available on record, this court took cognizance of the offences

U/s. 498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, the relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated

U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. On appearance and consideration, the accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C and charge was read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pw.1 and got marked

Exs.P.1 and P.2 on its behalf. None of the witnesses were examined and no documents were got marked on behalf of the accused. The details of which are mentioned hereunder in Appendix of Evidence.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence in the testimony of prosecution witnesses against the accused.

8. Heard the learned A.P.P for complainant and the learned counsel

for accused. Perused the evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.P.1 and P2.

9. Now the point for determination is – “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge u/s.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C ?”

10. POINT:

3

PW.1 being complainant did not depose anything against the accused and she turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

11. Now, the question is whether after giving birth to a son, A1 along with A2 to A4 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally demanded

additional dowry along with A2, A3, and also beat and tried to kill her.

However, during cross examination by the learned A.P.P, Pw.1 deposed that she never stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (marked portions of her 161 Cr.P.C statement). Nothing was drawn in her cross examination in favour of prosecution and she turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

12. In view of the above evidence of PW.1, the learned A.P.P rightly gave up the evidence of rest of witnesses in the charge sheet. As discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that after giving birth to a son, A1 along with A2 to A4 started harassing PW1 physically and mentally demanded additional dowry along with A2, A3 and also beat and tried to kill her. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No property was produced before this court, hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation directly by the stenographer on the computer and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of June, 2020. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bantumilli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: PW.1 – K.Bhavani – none – 4

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE: Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P.2: Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS Nil –

J.F.C.M. BTM

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE:

BANTUMILLI.

C.C.No.276/18

01. Date of offence : 1.10.17

02. Date of Complaint : 3.7.18

03. Date of Apprehension of the accused : --

04. Release on bail : --

05. Commencement of trial : 24.3.20

06. Closure of trial : 24.3.20

07. Date of Judgment : 16.6.20

08. Name of the complainant : The State, Sub Inspector of police, Bantumilli P.S. Cr.No.73 of 18.

09. Name of the accused : 1.K.Nancharaiah, S/o late Venkateswarlu, 27 years, 2.K.Pennamma, W/o late Venkateswarlu, 50 years, 3.J.Subbamma @ Lakshmi, W/o Ramesh, 36 years, 4.J.Naga Lakshmi, W/o Janardhana rao, 32 years, all are r/o Narayanapuram village, h/o Korlapadu village, Bantumilli mandal,

10. Offence : 498 A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, 11.Plea of the accused : Not guilty 12.Finding : Not guilty 13.Sentence : In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437 (A) of Cr.PC. No property was produced before this court, hence no order as to the property.

14. Explanation for delay Cognizance of the offence U/sec.498 A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC was taken against the accused on 11.9.18. On 17.3.20 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C on the substance of charge. P.W.1 was examined and marked Ex.P.1 and P2. The prosecution closed the evidence, as there is no incriminating material against the accused, examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, arguments heard and on 16.6.20 Judgment is

pronounced in the open court. Hence the delay.

Judl. I Class Magistrate, Bantumilli. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.