Sri Sadanagiri Kamalakara Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: S.Kamalakara Reddy,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Friday, this the 13th day of March, 2020

C.C No.772 of 2017

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Vijayawada City. …Complainant A N D

2. Meda Suresh Babu, S/o late Subbarayudu, 48 yrs., H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

(1.Kadiam Sai Kiran, S/o Gangadharachari, 20 yrs, Viswa Brahmin, D.No.76-60-6/5, Old MIG, H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. 3.Koduru Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Veera Raghavulu, 49 yrs., Rajaka, D.No.456/1, Street No.2, Gayathri Nagar, Moulali Post, Hyderabad.) (Case against A.2 was split up from main C.C.No.387/2013) … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, APP for Complainant and of Sri A.Syam Sundar Reddy, Advocate

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

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) This is split up case from C.C.No.387/2013. The case against K.Sai

Kiran/A.1 and K.Siva Nageswara Rao/A.3 was tried and ended in conviction. Since

Meda Suresh Babu/A.2, for a long time, failed to appear before the court the case against him was split up and numbered as C.C.No.772/2017. Subsequently he was apprehended, remanded to judicial custody, later was enlarged on bail. Thereafter trial has been conducted in this split up case.

2)The facts of the case are as follows:-

Mudraboyina Hanumantha Rao/defacto complainant studied M.Com and was working as Supervisor in milk project. He got acquaintance with Sai Kiran/A.1 in the year 2011. After few days the defacto complainant got acquainted with Suresh Babu/A.2 through A.1. Both A.1 and A.2 promised the defacto complainant that they would provide VRO job through K.Siva Nageswara Rao/A.3 who was staying at Hyderabad 2 and asked the defacto complainant to pay Rs.3,50,000-00. The defacto complainant believed the words and deposited an amount of Rs.20,000-00 initially in the ICICI Bank on 28.11.2011. Again on request of Sai Kiran/A.1 the defacto complainant deposited another amount of Rs.20,000-00 in S.B.I account on 1.2.2012. Likewise the defacto complainant went on depositing amounts into the accounts of A.1 to A.3. On request of

A.2 the defacto complainant gave Rs.5,00,000-00 by hand. He totally paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000-00 to the accused. However A.1 and A.2 further asked Rs.2,00,000-00.

Though it was initially agreed Rs.3,50,000-00 for providing job, the accused told the defacto complainant that there was heavy competition for the VRO job. On their demand the defacto complainant further gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000-00. Thus he totally gave an amount of Rs.4,25,000-00 to both A.1 and A.2 (through bank deposits as well as by hand). When VRO job results were released the Hanumantha Rao noticed that his name was not found in the results. He asked both A.1 and A.2. They replied that it was only first list that there would be second list of VRO jobs. Both A.1 and A.2 took the victim/Hanumantha Rao to Hyderabad and introduced Siva Nageswara Rao/A.3 who was also informed that he knew several officers in ‘Sachivalayam’. The said Siva

Nageswara Rao/A.3 also informed Hanumantha Rao/ victim that his name would be in the second list but on enquiry Hanumantha Rao/victim came to know that all the VRO jobs were filled up that there would be no second list. Then he asked the accused. They replied him that they could not provide VRO job that they would provide a job at VTPS.

But they failed to provide any job at VTPS also. The victim/Hanumantha Rao demanded the accused to return the amount of Rs.4,25,000-00 but they failed to do so. Thus all the accused 1 to 3 cheated the victim/Hanumantha Rao to a tune of Rs.4,25,000-0. On 4.4.2013 the victim went to I-town P.S., and presented a written report.

On the basis of the report the S.I/L.W.5 registered a case in

Cr.No.247/2013 for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. A.1 to A.3 were arrested on 5.4.2013 and were remanded to judicial custody. M.Suresh Babu/A.2 obtained anticipatory bail from the

Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s court, Vijayawada. After completion of

investigation he laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offence U/s.420 of IPC.

3

3) As stated above the main case vide C.C.No.387/2013 which was tried against A.1, A.3 ended in conviction. Since the present accused/Suresh Babu/A.2 failed to appear before the court, the case against him was split up and numbered as C.C.

No.772/2017. Subsequently he was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and later enlarged on bail.

4)The accused/A.2 was furnished with case documents U/s.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. A charge punishable U/s.420 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to him. He stated that it is a false case that he did not commit any offence and claimed to be tried.

5) During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P.1 & P.2 documents.

5) After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him. He stated that it is a false evidence that he did not commit any offence, reported no defence evidence.

6) I heard arguments on both sides.

7) Now the Points for determination before me are:

(1) Whether the accused by with dishonest intention and in fraudulent manner made the defacto complainant to deliver cash, under the guise of providing a job or not?

(2) Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.420 of IPC or not?

8) Point No.1:-

The ingredients that are required to be proved by the prosecution for the offence U/s.420 of IPC are that the accused cheated the defacto complainant/

Hanumantha Rao by dishonestly inducing him to deliver the cash to him under the guise of providing VRO job. Cheating has been defined U/s.415 of IPC. The main ingredient of cheating are that there should be deception and there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the person to deliver the property. So, the deception, fraud and dishonest must be present on the part of accused. Keeping this in the back drop let the prosecution case be tested.

9)Even before the commencement of trial in the main C.C.No.387/2013, the victim/Hanumantha Rao died by committing suicide. So on production of death 4 certificate by the prosecution the evidence of the victim/Hanumantha Rao was closed on 12.3.2018 as per the endorsement in the memo of evidence appended to the charge sheet. His brother and friends are examined as other witnesses.

10)Now we see the substance of the evidence of each witnesses.

M.Govindaraju/P.W.1 is the elder brother of deceased Hanumantha Rao.

He stated that his younger brother/Hanumantha Rao died by committing suicide. He knew A.1 to A.3. A.1 informed Hanumantha Rao that VRO job would be provided to him. An amount of Rs.1,45,000-00 was deposited into the account of M.Suresh

Babu/A.2. An amount of Rs.80,000-00 was deposited into the account of Sunny. (The said Sunny is not shown as accused and not being prosecuted). The amounts were deposited during the period from February, 2012 to July, 2012. In the month of July, 2012 an amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 in cash was given to Sai Kumar/A.1. The accused did not provide any job. Whenever they had asked the accused, about the job, they did not respond properly. Finally they stated that they would provide job at VTPS. But no such job was provided. They did not return the amount given to them. Finally

Hanumantha Rao/L.W.1 approached I-town P.S., and presented report. The report was marked as Ex.P.1.

When it comes to cross-examination he stated that his brother/GHanumantha

Rao appeared for the examination but he did not know the date of examination and hall ticket was not shown to the police. When an amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 was given to

Sai Kiran/A.1 he was present. He was not present when amounts were deposited or given to other accused. Piecemeal amounts were deposited into the account of the accused, totally in 12 times. He did not know the name of the accused present in the court hall (Meda Suresh Babu/A.2) he denied that at the instance of police he was deposing falsely.

110P.W.2 is one M.Durga Rao. He stated that Hanuman Rao/victim died by committing suicide. Sai/A.1 informed Hanumantha Rao that he would get a job through

Suresh Babu/A.2. In the month of November, 2011 Hanumantha Rao deposited

Rs.20,000-00 into the account of Suesh Babu/A.2. Likewise he went on depositing amounts and totally deposited Rs.2,40,000-00 into the accounts of Sai Kiran/A.1,

Suresh Babu/A.2 and one Sunny. An amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 was given to Sai/A.1 in 5 his presence and in the presence of one T.Yedukondalu/L.W.4. Hanumantha Ro/L.W.1 totally paid Rs.4,25,000-00 to the accused. He appeared in examination but his name was not found in the results. The accused 1 to 3 informed Hanumantha Rao that he would get job in 2nd list (but no such list was published). Finally the accused stated that they would provide job at VTPS. Even that job was also not provided. The accused postponed and finally did not pay any amount. Hanumantha Rao went I-Town P.S., and presented report. He denied that Suresh Babu/A.2 is one of the accused.

In the cross-examination he deposed that he knew Hanumantha Rao since his childhood as they studied together. He did not know when Hanumantha Rao appeared for the examination or not. Initially he met Sai/A.1 and gave an amount of

Rs.2,00,000-00 to him on 23.7.2012. The amount of Rs.2,25,000-00 was deposited into the account of the accused nine times. He was not present when the said amounts were deposited into the accounts of the accused but Hanumantha Rao showed him the bank receipts. He did not know what was the job Suresh Babu/A.2 was doing. He did not know whether he maintain general stores or not. He categorically stated that

Hanumantha Rao gave amounts to Suresh Babu/A.2 in his presence as per the directions of Sai/A.1. He stated to the police that he was present when Hanumantha

Rao gave amounts to Suresh Babu/A.2. He did not know the account details of the accused but it belonged to ICICI and S.B.I. He did not remember the dates of deposit of amounts into the account of accused. But such deposits started on 11.2.2011 and continued to till July, 2012. He did not follow Hanumantha Rao to the banks at the time of depositing of amounts. In his presence there was no discussion that a job would be provided to Hanumantha Rao,. He did not know whether Hanumantha Rao/L.W.1 made galata at the shop of Suresh Babu/A.2. He did not know whether Hanumantha

Rao/L.W.1 took any provisions from the shop of Suresh Babu/A.2. He denied that

Suresh Babu/A.2 was nothing to do with job or amounts that he was deposing falsely.

12)P.W.3 is Yedukondalu. Hanumantha Rao/L.W.1 is his brother-in-law. He informed him that Sai and Suresh Babu/A.1 & A.2 assured him that he would get VRO post if an amount of Rs.3,50,000-00 was paid to him. He further informed him that he deposited an amount of Rs.2,20,000-00 in installment into the accounts of Sai and

Suresh Babu/A.1 & A.2 and another person Sunny. Hanumantha Rao also gave 6

Rs.2,00,000-00 in cash to the accused. After the results were announced Hanumantha

Rao name was not found. When questioned, the accused assured Hanumantha Rao that they would get a post in VTPS, Kondapalli but the accused did not provide any such job. Hanumantha Rao asked the accused to return the amount but the accused failed to return the amount. Thereafter Hanumantha Rao presented report to the

Bhavanipuram police.

In the cross-examination he stated that he was not present when

Hanumantha Rao deposited the amounts to the accused and when Hanumantha Rao met the accused for the purpose of job. He denied that Hanumantha Rao did not tell anything to him. He denied that Hanumantha Rao quarreled with Sruesh/A.2 at his shop and as a counter blast this case was registered against him that he was deposing falsely. He did not know hall ticket number of Hanumantha Rao.

13)P.W.4 is the S.I of police, who registered the case and investigated into the offence. According to him on 4.4.2013 at 5.00 p.m., the victim/Hanumantha Rao came to the police station along with L.Ws 2 to 4 and presented a written report/Ex.P.1.

On the basis of the said report he registered a case in Cr.No.247/2013 for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC vide Ex.P.2/FIR. Along with report the victim/L.W.1 furnished bank counter foils. He examined the victim and other witnesses. He arrested A.1 and

A.3, sent them to judicial custody. During the further investigation by his successor/L.W.6 A.2/Suresh Babu obtained bail from Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions

Judge’s court, Vijayawada and enlarged on bail, later his successor laid charge sheet.

In the cross-examination he stated that the report/Ex.P.1 was scribed by the victim. He stated that L.Ws 2 to 4 ie., P.Ws 1 to 3 were not along with the victim/

L.W.1, when the money transaction taken place. He did not verify the bank accounts with the respective banks as shown in the Ex.P.1 report to ascertain whether the amounts were really transferred or not. He did not know whether accused/A.2 Suresh

Kumar maintain general stores at Bhavanipuram or not. He denied that there was enmity between Hanumantha Rao and Suresh Babu/A.2 in connection with supply of milk and other financial transactions. He denied that due to that enmity this case was registered against Suresh Babu/A.2. He denied that one Khaza, assistant of Suresh

Babu/A.2 came to the police station and presented report against Hanumantha Rao/ 7

L.W.1. He denied that he did not conduct proper investigation but the accused did not commit any offence.

14) As stated above the basic ingredients that are required to be proved by the prosecution are that fraudulent, dishonest intention acts on the part of the accused.

In the instant case the victim/Hanumantha Rao died by committing suicide. It is submitted by the learned APP that on account of fraudulent act and cheating done by the accused the victim, having no other go, committed suicide.

Irrespective of these facts we have to test the case of the prosecution and come to conclusion whether it has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.420 of

IPC.

If we analyze the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly P.Ws 1 to 3; P.W.1 is the elder brother of Hanumantha Rao. P.W.2 is the friend whereas

P.W.3 is the brother-in-law. Merely because P.Ws 1 to 3 are very close associates, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Admittedly the post of VRO in Revenue department is a government job and it will have its own importance in the revenue department so also in the society. Any person worth of his salt wish to do government job because it has its own charm. Hanumantha Rao also dreamt that he would get the

VRO post, a government job. In that process he came to contact initially with A.1.

Through A.1, he got acquaintance with A.2. Likewise he got acquaintance with A.3 who stays in Hyderabad. The evidence of P.W.1 elder brother of the victim/Hanumantha

Rao categorically stated that an amount of Rs.1,45,000-0 was deposited into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. Though deposed that cash of Rs.80,000-00 was deposited into the account of Sunny, it is not known as to why Sunny is not being prosecuted along with A.1 to A.3. Amounts were given to A.1 at various dates. As discussed in the above paras the present case shall be confined to Meda Suresh Babu/A.2 only. This witness/P.W.1 stated that an amount of Rs.1,45,000-00 was deposited into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. All the hopes of Hanumantha Rao was shattered when he could not find his name in the VRO list. So he preferred report with the I-Town police. The original report was placed in C.C.No.387/2013 and certified copy of the said report is marked as Ex.P.1. In this case. P.W.2/Durga Rao also categorically stated that amounts were deposited into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. However this witness 8 admitted that when amounts were deposited by Hanumantha Rao he was not present.

Similar is the evidence of P.W.3/T.Yedukondalu. He stated that amounts were remitted to the accounts of both accused/A.1 & A.2. These three witnesses were cross-examined by the accused counsel but nothing worth was extracted or elicited to disbelieve their evidence. The accused attempted to demonstrate that the Hanumantha Rao took some provisions from the shop of Suresh Babu/A.2 and to repay the amounts Hanumanta

Rao deposited amounts into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. But P.W.3 in his cross- examination categorically stated that Hanumantha Rao gave amounts to Suresh

Babu/A.2 in his presence as per the directions of Sai/A.1. The accused made a last ditch effort to extricate himself saying that the amounts were remitted into his account by Hanumantha Rao was towards payment of the provisions due amount. But no where in the cross-examination of P.W.1 such a stand was taken by the accused. It appears that the accused had taken this kind of defence only as a last resort to wriggle out of this case. The accused further made attempts to demonstrate that Hanumantha Rao came to his shop and made galata. But it is not known as to why Suresh Babu/A.2 kept quiet without prefering any report to the police when Hanumantha Rao made such a galata. It was suggested to the Investigating Officer that one Khaza an assistant of

Suresh Babu/A.2 at his shop gave report against Hanumantha Rao contending that

Hanumantha rao came to the shop and made galata and beat them. The Investigating

Officer categorically denied such statement. The accused failed to put forth any details as to the alleged galata. Hanumantha Rao died about three years ago. No details as to the date, time etc., pertaining to the said alleged galata were placed before the court to believe the version of the accused. Further more the suggested made by the accused that Hanumantha Rao remitted the amounts into the account of the accused towards provisions of amount would establish that Hanumantha Rao deposited amounts into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that

Hanumantha Rao deposited the amounts into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2 with a fond hope that VRO post would be provided to him. When the accused says that the amounts were deposited into his account only to clear off the debts, the burden is on him to place evidence to believe his stand. No such evidence is placed before the court.

Filling up of VRO post is the duty of the Government. No individual will have any say in 9 the process of selection of VROs. Demanding the victim/Hanumantha Rao to give amounts and collect amounts into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2 for the post of VRO would certainly amount to dishonest and fraudulent intention on the part of Suresh

Babu/A.2. Suresh Babu/A.2 has no authority to provide allot a job to the victim. Taking amount from Hanumantha Rao on the pretext that he would provide job to Hanumantha

Rao clearly cover under cheating as defined U/s.415 of IPC punishable U/s.420 of IPC.

The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and the suggestion made to these three witnesses would ample establish that amounts were remitted into the account of Suresh Babu/A.2. He failed to establish that the amounts were deposited by Hanumantha Rao only towards repayment of debt amount which was incurred by him after purchasing provisions.

16)Suresh Babu/A.2 entertained his fraudulent and dishonest intention from the inception. This can be understood from the conduct of the accused. He knew well that VRO post is a government job that unless one compete in the competitive examination, selection will not be given. Taking amounts by promising the defacto complainant/Hanumantha Rao that job would be provided to him is nothing but deception and making the defacto complainant to forego his valuable security ie., money in the instant case. The counsel for the accused would contend that only at the instance of A.1, the accused/A.2 had received money that A.2 did not have knowledge about the alleged cheating etc. But the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly

P.W.1, who is brother of Hanumantha Rao discloses that Hanumantha Rao got contact with Meda Suresh Babu/A.2 through A.1 that the amounts were given to Suresh

Babu/A.2 for getting job. Durga Rao/P.W.2 in his cross-examination categorically stated that Hanumantha Rao/L.W.1 gave amount to Suresh Babu/A.2 in his presence as per the directions of A.1. Though this sentence is not found in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement in verbatim what can be found is that Hanumantha Rao gave amounts by depositing into the accounts of Suresh Babu/A.2. The evidence produced by the prosecution consistently establish that Suresh Babu/A.2 received amounts having full knowledge that the amounts were being credits to his account for job purpose. Suresh

Babu/A.2 has shared his criminal intention with other accused and received the amounts. There is no material extracted from the witnesses to disbelieve their stand.

Considering all these factors, I am of the view that the prosecution able to establish the 10 guilt of A.2 for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

17)POINT NO.2:-

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S.420 of

IPC and he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.PC.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13thday of March, 2020

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Vijayawada.

Accused is present. He is asked as to the quantum of sentence (vide separate sheet).

He stated that his health condition was not good that his wife was suffering from ill-health that he should get operated for his ailment. As stated in the above paras the accused was found guilty for the offence U/s.420 of IPC. He, along with other accused ie., A.1 and A.3, who were already convicted, made deceased Hanumantha Rao, to deposit amounts in to his account.

Hanumantha Rao on account of deception played by the accused committing suicide. He could not get his desired job nor got back his amount. For the reasons narrated in the above paras I am of the view that the accused does not deserve the beneficial Provisions of Sec.360 of

Cr.P.C., and the provisions of P.O Act. For the act done by the accused I am of the view that the accused shall be sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one yeart and fine.

19) In the result, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of (1) one year and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000-00 in default of payment of fine he shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. The remand period undergone by this accused shall be set off as contemplated Us.428 of Cr.P.C. (The accused had undergone remand period from 13.8.2019 to 16.8.2019).

The accused when asked about his capacity to engage a counsel at appellate court, he replied that he has got capacity. The accused is informed that the appeal lie before the Hon’ble Sessions court.

The copy of judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court, on this the 13thday of March, 2020

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Vijayawada.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution.For Defence. P.W.1: Dated 26.12.2019 M.Govinda Rajulu P.W.2: Dated 26.12.2019 M.Durga Rao P.W.3: Dated 22.1.2020 T.Yedukondalu P.W.4: Dated 3.3.2020 Sk.Rahman Johny …None…

Documents marked for Prosecution.

Ex.P1: Certified copy of complaint Ex.P2: Attested copy of FIR

Documents marked for defence: NIL

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No.772 of 2017

1Offence :Prior to 4.4.2013 2Apprehension of Accused:Obtained Anticipatory bail on 23.4.2013 3Commencement of Trial :24.9.2019 4Close of Trial :3.3.2020 5Judgment :13.3.2020 6Offence :U/S. 420 of IPC 7Name of Complainant:The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town P.S., Vijayawada City. 8Name of Accused:2. Meda Suresh Babu, S/o late Subbarayudu, 48 yrs., H.B.Colony,Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. (1.Kadiam Sai Kiran, S/o Gangadharachari, 20 yrs, Viswa Brahmin, D.No.76-60-6/5, Old MIG, H.B.Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. 3.Koduru Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o Veera Raghavulu, 49 yrs., Rajaka, D.No.456/1, Street No.2, Gayathri Nagar, Moulali Post, Hyderabad.) (Case against A.2 was split up from main

C.C.No.387/2013)

9Plea of Accused :Guilty 10Finding :Convicted 11Result :In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/S.420 of IPC and he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.PC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of (1) one year and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000-00 in default of payment of fine he shall sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. The remand period undergone by this accused shall be set off as contemplated Us.428 of Cr.P.C. (The accused had undergone remand period from 13.8.2019 to 16.8.2019). The accused when asked about his capacity to engage a counsel at appellate court, he replied that he has got capacity. The accused is informed that the appeal lie before the Hon’ble

Sessions court.

The copy of judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.

12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/S.420 of IPC. Copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 26.8.2019 accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidence is commenced on 24.9.2019. On 26.12.2019 P.ws.1 & 2 were examined. On 22.1.2020 P.W.3 was examined. On 3.3.2020 P.W.4 was examined, prosecution evidence was closed. On 6.3.2020 accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 13.3.2020 heard arguments. Judgment

pronounced on 13.3.2020. Hence, the delay.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: S.Kamalakara Reddy,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.3624/2018

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavanipuram P.S, Vijayawada City. …Complainant A N D

Banka Sridhar, S/o Appa Rao, 39 yrs., C/Nagaralu, P.Nainavaram, Jakkampudi, Vijayawada Rural. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, APP for Complainant and of Sri S.D.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub- Inspector of Police, Bhavanipuram police laid charge sheet against accused/Banka Sridhar for the offence punishable U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC.

2)The prosecution case is as follows:-

The complainant/Banka Chinni is the wife of accused/Sridhar. She works as a nurse. Her marriage was performed with accused about 12 years ago and she was blessed with two children. Disputes arose between wife and husband and they were living separately for the past four years. B.Chinni registered criminal cases against the accused and the matter was pending. While things stood thus, the accused/Sridhar followed Chinni, threatened her that he would kill her. On 23.2.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., while Chinni was present in her house the accused came there, beat her with hands, banged her head against a wall. As a result Chinni suffered injuries. She approached the Bhavanipuram P.S., and presented a written report.

On the basis of the said report the Bhavanipuram police registered a case in Cr.No.117/2018 for the offence punishable U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC. The injured was sent to Government hospital for treatment. The S.I/L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, 2 prepared rough sketch and examined witnesses. He issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. The accused agreed to follow the conditions of said notice. The Medical officer who examined the victim issued wound certificate opining that chinni/victim suffered simple injuries. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence U/Ss.324 and 506 of IPC.

3)This court took the cognizance of the offence punishable U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC and issued summons. On receipt of summons the accused appeared before the court, case documents U/s.207 Cr.P.C furnished. He was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. A charge punishable U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5 documents.

5) After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses read over and explained to him. He stated that it was a false evidence that he did not commit any offence. On behalf of the accused his daughter/Meghana was examined as D.W.1.

6) I heard arguments on both sides.

7) Now the Points for determination before me are:

(1) Whether the accused beat his wife/Chinni with deadly and dangerous weapons and caused injuries or not?

(2) Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC or not?

8) Point No.1:-

The ingredients that are required to be established by the prosecution for the offence U/s.324 of IPC are that the accused with dangerous and deadly weapons beat his wife/Chinni and caused simple injuries. The ingredients that are required to be proved for the offence punishable U/s.506 of IPC are that the accused threatened

Chinni with injury to her person, reputation and property that the threat caused alarm to

Chinni.

3

9)To substantiate its case prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 5.

Now we have to see the substance of the evidence of each witness.

P.W.1 is the material witness and she is the injured. She deposing in the following liens:- Accused was her husband that her marriage taken place in the year 2004. She begot two children, disputes arose, thereby they were living separately for about five years. She got registered a case for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and the same was pending. On 23.2.2018 during afternoon hours the accused came to her house, beat her and banged her head against a wall. She suffered head injury, she went to police station and prepared Ex.P.1 report. Police sent her to Government hospital.

In the cross-examination she stated that she did not know whether

Sec.498-A IPC against the accused was ended in acquittal or not. Her daughter was staying with accused. The accused gave a report against her stating that one

Varikuppala Vijay and she took away her daughter from the school. She added that she alone took away her daughter. She denied that accused made a report against her and

Vijay that both beat him on 20.6.2019. The incident taken place at 1.00 p.m, on 23.2.2018. One hour after the incident neighbours took her to police station. She did not know who drafted the Ex.P.1 report. She denied that no incident had taken place on 23.2.2018. She denied that she gave complaint against the accused for about 200 times with the Bhavanipuram police. But witness added that she gave complaint whenever the accused beat her. She did not know what time she reached the hospital as she was not in consciousness since the time of incident. She regained consciousness about 7.00 p.m.

10) P.W.2 is one N.Varalakshmi. She stated that Chinni./P.W.1 is wife of accused and they were her neighbours. On 23.3.2018 at about 3.30 p.m., she heard noise of scuffle from the house of Chinni/P.W.1. She came out and found the accused was beating Chinni/P.W.1 with hands so also with objects available in the house. The accused sped away whereas Chinni/P.W.1 suffered injuries on her head. Chinni/P.W.1 later lodged a report.

4 In the cross-examination she stated that about 5 or 6 persons gathered when she came out of the house on hearing the noise of scuffle. Due to disputes the accused and his wife were residing separately for about four years prior to the incident.

She did not know whether one V.Vijay lives in the same house along with Chinni/P.W.1.

She went to police station along with Chinni. One Jyothi also came to the police station.

Meghana/elder daughter of accused is now staying with accused but not with

Chinni/P.W.1. P.W.1 and she came to the court together. As on the date of giving evidence P.W.1 was present in the court hall. She denied that she was deposing falsely to help Chinni/P.W.1 who is her friend. She denied that accused never beat P.W.1

11)P.W.3/Kasi Rao stated that he did not witness any incident that police did not examine him. He was declared as hostile and he denied the suggestion that the accused beat Chinni/P.W.1 and caused injuries that he stated to the police as in his

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement/Ex.P.2.

12)P.W.4 is the S.I of police. He testified that on 23.2.2018 at 10.00 p.m.,

Chinni/P.W.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P.1/report. On the basis of report he registered a case in Cr.No.117/2018 for the offence punishable U/Ss. 324 and 506 of IPC. The FIR is marked as Ex.P.3. He examined Chinni/P.W.1 and recorded her statement. He forwarded to the hospital for treatment. He rushed to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.4. He secured other witnesses examined and recorded their statements. He issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice. Accused agreed to follow the conditions. He obtained wound certificate/Ex.P.5 and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC.

When it comes to cross-examination he deposed that he did not enquire as to what were the cases registered by Chinni/P.W.1 prior to the present case. The house in which the gatala had taken place was taken by the victim on rent. He did not know whether the accused made complaint against Bhavanipuram police stating that false cases were registered against him. He did not examine the children of Chinni/

P.W.1. He denied that Chinni/P.W.1 was living with one Vijay.

5

13)P.W.5 is Dr.Hima Bindu. According to her she examined Chinni/P.W.1 at 11.11 p.m. at 23.2.2018 and found swelling over forehead, bruise on her right shoulder, right side of neck and abrasions over right elbow. According to her the injuries were simple in nature. The age of injury was less than 24 hours. She issued wound certificate which was already marked as Ex.P.5. She further stated that the injuries shown in the wound certificate are possible if a person was banged against a wall.

In the cross-examination she admitted that the injuries shown in the wound certificate/Ex.P.5 are possible if a person accidentally falls on rough surface or hit against a wall. She denied at the instance of police she issued wound certificate.

.14)As stated above to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.324 of IPC there should be some dangerous and deadly weapon. Only when there is such weapon the accused can be prosecuted for the offence U/s.324 of

IPC that the injuries on the victim are simple in nature. In the instant case the prosecution contends that the accused beat Chinni/P.W.1 with hands and banged her head against a wall. Even going by the version of the prosecution no such dangerous weapon was involved. Therefore, the basic ingredient that is required U/s.324 of IPC is not satisfied. However we have to test the case of the prosecution for minor charge.

15)The other charge that was leveled against the accused is Sec.506 of IPC.

In the above paras I have narrated as to what are the ingredients that are required to be proved for the offence U/s.506 of IPC. Threat to cause injuries to the body and to the property of a person must be present to find the guilt of the accused. But in the instant case even if we go by the report of Chinni vide Ex.P.1 there are no ingredients viz., threat to her body and to the property. After analyzing the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 it is quite clear that the threat of injury or death to Chinni/P.W.1 was absent. So, the basic ingredients that are required for Sec.506 of IPC are absent.

16)Now we have to see whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for any minor offence. P.W.1 deposed that on 23.2.2018 during afternoon hours the accused came to her residence beat her and banged her head against a wall. P.W.2 who was the neighbour of P.W.1 stated that on 23.3.2018 she 6 heard noise of scuffle from the house of Chinni/P.W.1, she came out and found the accused beating P.W.1 with hands. The prosecution version is that the incident had taken place on 23.2.2018. P.W.1 deposed that the incident had taken place on 23.2.2018 whereas P.W.2/Vara Lakshmi deposed that the incident had taken place on 23.3.2018. It is the contention of the accused counsel that the incident had allegedly taken place on 23.3.2018 as deposed by Vara Lakshmi/P.W.2 that it is not the case projected by the prosecution that P.W.2 was deposing some other incident which was no way connected to the prosecution version that her evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

It is true the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to date of incident is quite inconsistent to the prosecution version. Though she deposed that on hearing the cries she came out of the house and witnessed the accused beating Chinni/P.W.1, the date of the incident she had spoken was 23.3.2018. So, the evidence of P.W.2 has to be kept in the back burner for a while and much importance cannot be attached to her evidence. Probably the date she might have mistely spoken. After the incident both the accused and the victim did not meet and no other incident has taken place between them. So is has to be presumed that the pw-2 was referring to the incident which had taken place on 23.2.2018 but not 23.3.2018. P.W.3 said to be another eye witness; he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version.

The evidence of doctor is quite important. According to him she found bruises, abrasion and swelling over the body of Chinni/P.W.1. The injuries, according to her, were caused about less than 24 hours. She stated that the injuries were possible if a person beat the victim and banged her head against a wall. So, the injuries spoken by doctor through her wound certificate tally with the evidence of P.W.1. Now we have the evidence of P.W.1 corroborated by doctor evidence.

17)As against evidence of the prosecution the accused examined her daughter/Meghana as D.W.1. She narrated that she was with her mother till 1.5.2018 that during her stay, with her mother, the accused never came to her mother house and never beat her. However she admitted that she goes to school in the morning at 8.00 7 a.m., and comes home at 6.00 p.m. The incident had taken place on 23.2.2018 during the after noon hours. So, there is no possibility for Meghana to be present at the house and witness the incident. As per the wound certificate Chinni suffered head injuries on 23.2.2018. When her mother suffered injuries, taken into hospital, she would naturally knew about the injuries of her mother. But she did not say that her mother suffered injuries. It is a stand of APP that since Meghana/D.W.1, now staying with her father, there is possibility to depose evidence supporting her father. Thus, the evidence of

Meghana/D.W.1 shall be relegated to back ground. So, now we have the evidence of

P.W.1 on one hand supported by wound certificate.

Now we have to consider whether the evidence of P.W.1 got to be believed and taken into consideration. The injuries of Chinni/P.W.1 are certain in as much as the doctor who examined her opinion that the injuries were less than 24 hours age and issued wound certificate/EX.P.5. The question is who caused the injuries. The counsel for the accused would argue that for the about five years prior to the incident both Chinni and her husband were living separately that number of cases were registered by Chinni against her husband that this one was also part of series of those cases. He attempted to project that Chinni was leading adulterous life with one V.Vijay.

However this court cannot consider the alleged adulterous life being lead by Chinni/

P.W.1. The charges in the instant case are whether the accused beat Chinni or not. The counsel for the accused further contended that Chinni/P.W.1 and V.Vijay high handedly taken away their daughter from the school. This alleged incident also not a relevant factor for consideration of the charges leveled against the accused.

17)When there is such rivalry between Chinni and accused, Chinni cannot name any other person than the real culprit. She suffered injury and she cannot name any other person than the person who caused injuries on her.

In this regard I rely upon a decision held between Bhajan Singh @

Harbhajan Singh & ... vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011 vide CRIMINAL APPEAL

NO. 562 of 2007 their Lordship at para 21 held as follows:

8 The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else.

The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide: Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259; Kailas & Ors. v. State of

Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 793; Durbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 2

SCC 676; and State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC.

18)As per the above decision it is clear that the victim can name only the person who caused injuries and not the third one. The evidence of P.W.1/Chinni is supported by wound certificate issued by doctor. Though P.W.2 evidence can be relegated to background her evidence would disclose that there were differences between Chinni and the accused that the accused came to her house and made galata.

The counsel for the accused would contend that the complainant is a quarrelsome nature that she was leading adulterous life that her own evidence in cross-examination would reveal that she had approached the police 200 times. The learned APP would argue that the harassment from the accused was so much that as and when the accused ill-treated or abused, the complainant/Chinni used to go to the police and make report against the accused that in that process the complainant might have gone to police station to give report against the accused.

19) So far as the adulterous life of the complainant concerned, it is not the forum to decide and the issue is not before this court as to such adulterous life. The counsel for the accused would argue that daughter of the complainant/P.W.1 stated that 9 she was with her mother during the period of the alleged offence that she did not notice his father ie., accused came in to the house of her mother and beating her. The evidence of D.W.1 need not be considered in the backdrop of the wound certificate issued by the doctor. The doctor categorically stated that she found injuries over the head of Chinni that the injuries were aged less than 24 hours that she treated her and issued wound certificate. If really D.W.1 was telling truth she would have narrated that her mother suffered injuries and got treated that the injuries were not caused in the hands of the accused that she suffered them when she fell down. It is the stand of the accused counsel that the victim/Chinni fell on the ground and suffered injury and taking advantage of those injuries this case is foisted. But D.W.1 did not state as to howher mother suffered injuries. what she stated was that her father never came to her mother’s house and never beat her mother. So, the evidence of P.W.1 and the wound certificate would falsifies the evidence of D.W.1.

20)The conclusion that can be arrived at is that the accused quarreled with his wife/Chinni and banged her head against a wall, caused bleeding injuries. Since there is no deadly weapon involved in this case Sec.324 of IPC cannot be made applicable. Further more in the evidence of P.W.1 as well as in the Ex.P.1 report there is no material to say that the accused criminally intimidated Chinni with dire consequences. So, Sec. 506 of IPC can also be ruled out. Though the accused is charged U/s.324 of IPC the evidence available on record would show that the accused beat Chinni with hands and caused injuries. Thus, Sec.323 of IPC can made applicable.

Sec.323 of IPC is a minor offence to the Sec.324 of IPC.

For the reasons stated in above paras, I conclude that the accused is liable for punishment U/s.323 of IPC instead of Secs.324 and 506 of IPC.

21) In the result, accused found guilty for the offence U/s.323 of IPC and he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.PC.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17thday of March, 2020

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , 10 Vijayawada.

22)Accused is present. He is asked as to the quantum of sentence (vide separate sheet). He stated that he is the bread winner of his family that he has to maintain his daughter and aged parents that mercy may be shown. In the facts and circumstances of this case and since the accused beat his wife and caused injuries the

Provisions of Sec.360 of Cr.P.C., and the provisions of P.O Act cannot be made applicable. The defacto complainant is none other than wife and their marriage has not been severed. Both of them have got teenage children. Keeping the accused in imprisonment would be harsh and his life and his children life would suffer. Considering all these factors I am of the view that imposition of fine would meet the ends of justice.

23) In the result, accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500-00 in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/s.323 of IPC.

The copy of judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith. The accused are appraised of the appeal provisions and the legal aid that can be availed under Legal Services Authority.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17thday of March, 2020.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution.For Defence. P.W.1: Dated 28.6.2019 B.ChinniD.W.1: B.Meghana P.W.2: Dated 8.8.2019 N.Vara Lakshmi P.W.3: Dated 16.12.2019 M.kasi Rao P.W.4: Dated 24.12.2019 M.V.Raju P.W.5: Dated 9.1.2020 G.Hima Bindu

Documents marked for Prosecution. Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 11 Ex.P3 : FIR Ex.P.4: Rough sketch Ex.P.5: Wound certificate

Documents marked for defence: NIL

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No.3624 of 2018

1Offence :23.2.2018 2Apprehension of Accused:-- 3Commencement of Trial :28.6.2019 4Close of Trial :9.1.2020 5Judgment :17.3.2020 6Offence :U/Ss. 324 & 506 of IPC 7Name of Complainant:The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavanipuram P.S, Vijayawada City.

8Name of Accused:Banka Sridhar, S/o Appa Rao, 39 yrs., C/Nagaralu, P.Nainavaram, Jakkampudi, Vijayawada Rural.

9Plea of Accused :Guilty 10Finding :Convicted 11Result :In the result, accused found guilty for the offence U/ss3323 of IPC. and he is coniicted U/ss3248(2) .r3PC.3and sentenced to pay fne of Rs.500-00 in default of payment of fne he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/ss3323 of IPC.3 The copy of judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith3 The accused are appraised of the appeal proiisions and the legal aid that can be aiailed under Legal Seriices Authority3 12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/Ss.324 & 506 of IPC. On 12.4.2019 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 21.5.2019 accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidence is commenced on 28.6.2019. On 28.6.2019 P.W.1 was examined. On 8.8.2019 P.W.2 was examined. On 16.12.2019 P.W.3 was examined. On 24.12.2019 P.W.4 was examined. On 9.1.20202 P.W.5 was examined, prosecution evidence was closed. On 20.1.2020 accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 17.3.2020 heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 17.3.2020. Hence, the delay.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­CUM­

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: S.Kamalakara Reddy,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate­cum­Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 6th day of November, 2019

C.C No. 923 of 2017

Between:

The State: Rep.by Sub­Inspector of police, Ajith Singh Nagar P.S., Vijayawada City. …Complainant A N D

Nandipamu Ramesh, S/o Tirupathi Rao, 32 years, SC/Madiga, Hanumanthulagudem village, Nuzvid Mandal. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.V.L.V.Himabindu, APP for Complainant and of Sri B.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub- Inspector of Police, A.S.Nagar P.S laid charge sheet against the accused/N.Ramesh for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC.

2)The prosecution case is as follows:-

The marriage of the complainant/N.Sandhya Rani was performed with accused/Ramesh about eight years ago. At the time of marriage cash of

Rs.3,00,000/-, 5 sovereigns of gold were presented to the accused and his parents as a dowry. The complainant/Sandhya Rani during the wedlock blessed with two children.

The accused was a cobbler and so also sells footwear near Raghavendra theater.

After the marriage the accused looked after the complainant well for considerable time. About three years ago father of the complainant died. Since then the accused and her in-laws started demanding her to bring her share of property. The accused is in the habit of drinking alcohol and in drunken condition he used to beat and harass the complainant, demanding her to bring additional dowry from her natal house. The 2 mother of the complainant and her elder brother tried to settle the disputes but the accused did not change his attitude. Unable to endure the cruelty the complainant went to Patamata police station and presented report. The police admonished him and directed him to mend his ways. While so, on 11.6.2017 at 9.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of complainant in drunken state, demanded her to bring money from her parental house and he beat her with hands and legs. Neighbors assembled and separated the accused. Later the accused went to his parents house at

Hanumanthulagudem, Nuzvid Mandal. The complainant went to the A.S.Nagar police station and presented a written report.

On the basis of the report given by L.W.1 a case in Cr.No.262/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.498-A IPC was registered. During the course of investigation A.S.I/L.W.5 visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses. On 20.6.2017 the accused appeared before the police. He agreed to abide by the conditions of Sec.41-A Cr.P.C.., notice. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of IPC.

3)This court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.498-A

IPC against the accused. On receipt of summons he appeared before the court and case documents U/s.207 Cr.P.C furnished. The accused was examined U/s.239

Cr.P.C., he denied the prosecution case. A charge punishable U/s.498-A IPC was framed, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1, her mother as P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer as P.W.3. L.Ws 3 & 4 were given up by the APP on the ground that they were dead. L.W.6 was also given up by the APP stating that he merely filed charge sheet.

5) After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He stated that it is a false case that he did not commit any offence, reported no defence evidence.

6) I heard arguments on both sides.

3

7) Now the Points for determination before me are:

(1) Whether the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty or not?

(2) Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC or not?

8)The prosecution to establish it’s case examined P.Ws 1 to 3. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. She deposed that at the time of marriage cash and gold were presented that she was blessed with one son and one daughter. The accused looked after her well for seven years. Later accused started harassing her by come to the house in drunken condition and failed to maintain the family. Whenever complainant questioned him he used to beat and scold her. He did not pay school fee of the children. Thereafter she went to A.S.Nagar P.S., and presented Ex.P.1 report.

When it comes to cross-examination she deposed about her marriage.

Her father was RTC mechanic. The accused was a cobbler even prior to her marriage.

He got his own house at his native place ie., Hanumanthulagudem of Nuzvid. On her instructions the Ex.P.1 report was prepared. Even prior to giving Ex.P.1 report she complained to the police and the police conducted counseling. She admitted that in the Ex.P.1 report she stated that the accused beat her and there was no mention of demand of dowry. She denied that it was a false case.

9)P.W.2 is mother of the complainant. She deposed about the marriage of

P.W.1, birth of two children. For five years after the marriage the accused looked after

P.W.1 well, thereafter he addicted to drinking, started beating P.W.1. On one day the accused beat P.W.1 by pulling her nighty and thrown her to the ground. Her daughter went to the police station and presented report.

In the cross-examination she was asked as to the performance of marriage, birth of children and nature of the work of the accused. She further deposed that the accused used to come to the house in drunken condition. Mother of the accused had once given report against her son, police conducted counseling but did not register any case. There is no doctor certificate to show that the accused beat 4

P.W.1 and caused injuries. She denied that the accused did not ill-treat that she was deposing falsely.

10)P.W.3 is the A.S.I, who registered the case, examined the witnesses.

According to him on 17.6.2017 at 5.00 p.m., the complainant came to the police station and presented report/Ex.P.1. On the basis of it he registered a case in

Cr.No.262/2017 U/s.498-A of IPC vide Ex.P.2 FIR. He examined and recorded the statements of complainant and her mother(P.Ws 1 & 2) in the police station. Later he visited the scene of offence, situated at Lenin center, examined L.Ws 3 & 4 and recorded their statements. On 20.6.2017 he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. The accused appeared in the station, agreed to abide by the conditions.

Later his S.I laid charge sheet.

In the cross-examination it was suggested to him that he did not go to scene of offnece, did not examine anyone that the accursed did not commit any offence but all the documents were prepared in the police station itself.

11)POINTS 1 AND 2:-

The accused is facing trial for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC.

The specific charge punishable U/s.498-A IPC has been framed against him. To establish it’s case the prosecution has to prove that the accused being husband of the complainant subjected her to ill-treatment, harassment and cruelty. Cruelty has been defined as follows:- “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 mental or physical); harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand for valuable security”.

The accused should have done some overt acts which result in causing injury both mentally and physically to the complainant. Further more the attitude of the accused should be in such a way that he forced the complainant to bring valuable security/money from her natal house. After going through the prosecution case and 5 evidence produced by the witnesses, what can be discernible is that the accused said to have beat the complainant demanding her to bring her share of property. If we scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 it could be understood that the complainant and accused lived happily for a period of seven years. According to P.W.1 the differences cropped up only after death of her father. She contends that the accused demanded her to bring her share of property from her natal house for that the complainant refused. In this connection the disputes arose and the accused said to have beat the complainant. P.W.2 contended that the accused is a good man in his heart but he used to beat the complainant demanding her to bring her share of property.

12)The Ex.P.1 report is the document which set the criminal law into motion and which made the A.S.nagar police to register FIR against the accused. If we go through the Ex.P.1 report it is quite clear that the accused demanded the complainant to bring her share of property and thereafter addicted to drinking alcohol. P.W.2 also deposed in the same lines. There is no mention in the Ex.P.1 report or in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 that the accused demanded her to bring additional dowry from her parents house that the dowry presented at the time of marriage was not satisfactory.

So, the accused never intended to demand the complainant to bring additional dowry or never made any allegation that the dowry if any presented at the time of marriage was not sufficient. In fact there is no substantial material to establish that at the time of marriage cash and gold was presented to the accused. The contention of the complainant in her chief evidence that at the time of marriage cash of Rs.70,000-00 and five sovereigns of gold was presented far from truth in as much as the accused is a cobbler prepared footwear near theater Raghavendra. He did not have any specific shop and he sells footwear by the side of theater. Moreover there is no substantial evidence to believe that so much of dowry and gold were presented to the accused at the time of marriage. Hence so far as presentation of dowry and demand of dowry concerned there is no material against the accused to say that he demanded complainant to bring additional dowry. Even according to P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 report the 6 accused had asked the complainant to bring her share of property. Asking the complainant to bring her share of property from her natal house cannot be termed as demanding the complainant/P.W.1 to bring additional dowry.

13)The other contention of the complainant is that the accused beat her by pulling her night dress and thrown her to ground. This incident triggered the complainant to approach the police and presented a report. According to the complainant/P.W.1 when the accused beat her, neighbours gathered and separated her. The alleged neighbours are L.Ws 3 & 4. But the prosecution has closed their evidence on the ground that they were dead. Except the evidence of the complainant/P.W.1 that she was beaten by the accused by pulling her night dress and thrown her down, there is no other evidence. P.W.2 is a mother of P.W.1 but she was not present at the time of incident. What she stated was that the accused used to come to the house in a drunken state and used to beat P.W.1. She made general and omnibus allegations against the accused and she did not specifically mention about any particular incident which made the complainant to file report.

14)The Ex.P.1 report and the evidence of P.W.1 would further reveal that earlier a report was presented to the police that the police admonished the accused.

But there are no details as to who presented report and on what ground such report was presented. The evidence of P.W.1 would show to some extent that there were disputes between P.W.1 and accused that the accused come to the house in a drunken state. But the ill treatment, harassment and cruelty as mentioned above have not been established. The ingredients that required to say that the accused subjected the complainant cruelty required that the accused should have done certain overt acts which would cause physical injury, mental injury and which would force the complainant to commit suicide or to cause bodily injury to herself. But in the instant case such ingredients are not established. The alleged beatings by the accused have not been supported by any independent witness. Except this criminal case the complainant did not register any other case. There are children to the complainant to be looked after and taken care of by both the complainant and accused. On the basis 7 of the kind of evidence produced by the prosecution the accused cannot be put behind bars.

In Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam reported as (2009) 13 SCC 330 their lordship held that “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It should be determined by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The Court further held that petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC”.

The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in P Gangadhar Vs State of A.P 2006(1) ALD (Crl.) 493 it was held that “the facts deposed by witnesses during the trial, which is silent in the F.I.R. and 161 Cr.P.C. statements is an improvement and cannot be considered.”

The Apex Court of India in Tarun @ Gautam

Mukharjee Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 99 observed that the material omission in the statement to the police recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. would discredit the version of the witness in the Court. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 to the effect that A1 addicted to vices and used to beat deceased/Mamatha in drunken conditions, cannot be considered since the same is not mentioned in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

In Subhash v. State of Haryana 2011 (1) JCC 41 SC, the

Supreme Court held that the statements of witnesses who made substantial improvements over their statements under Section 161

CrPC did not inspire confidence. 

8

In the instant case also there is any amount of discripancy between 161 statements and the evidence of Pw­1 and Pw­2.

The material produced by the prosecution do not inspire any confidence that the accused subjected P.W.1 to cruelty. In built inconsistencies in the evidence of

P.Ws 1 and 2 do not establish any cruelty.

Considering all these factors, I hold that the material produced by the prosecution not sufficient, consequently the accused is entitle dfor acquittal.

20) In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/S.498-A of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure. The Bail bond of the accused shall remains in force for a period of six months from today.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 6thday of November, 2019.

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate­cum­ Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution. For Defence. P.W.1: Dated 2.11.2018 N.Sandhya Rani P.W.2: Dated 14.6.2019 K.Vijaya Lakshmi P.W.3: Dated 5.11.2019 D.V.Ramana Naik …None…

Documents marked For Prosecution. For Defence.

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: FIR ­NONE­

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate­cum­ Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

9

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­CUM­

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No. 923 of 2017

1Offence : Prior to the report on 17.6.2017 2Apprehension of Accused:Surrendered on 20.6.2017 3Commencement of Trial : 3.7.2018 4Close of Trial :5.11.2019 5Judgment :6.11.2019 6Offence :U/S.498­A of IPC 7Name of Complainant:The State: Rep.by Sub­Inspector of police, Ajith Singh Nagar P.S., Vijayawada City. 8Name of Accused: Nandipamu Ramesh, S/o Tirupathi Rao, 32 years, SC/Madiga, Hanumanthulagudem village, Nuzvid Mandal. 9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty 10Finding :ACQUITTAL 11Result :In the result,accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.498­A of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail bond of the accused shall remains in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment 12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/s. 498­A of IPC . On 3.5.2018 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 5.6.2018 accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidence is commenced on 3.7.2018. P.W.1 examined in chief on 2.11.2018. On 13.5.2019 P.W.1 was cross­examined. On 14.6.2019 P.W.2 was examined. On 5.11.2019 P.W.3 was examined, prosecution evidence was closed. On 5.11.2019 accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 6.11.2019 heard arguments. Judgmentpronouncedon 6.11. 2019. Hence, the delay. 

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate­cum­ Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

Present: S.Kamalakara Reddy,

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 7th day of November, 2019

C.C.No.3718 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, A.S.Nagar P.S., Vijayawada City. …Complainant A N D 1.Amara Chaitanya, S/o Subba Rao, aged 32 years, C/Vysya, D.No.6-21-55, Raavi Chettu centre, Kothapet, Vijayawada.

2. Amara Durga Bhavani, W/o Subba Rao, aged 56 years, C/Vysya, D.No.4-119, Anjanadri Residency, Gangamma temple veedi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

3. Amara Subba Rao, S/o Subbaiah, aged 60 years, C/Vysya, D.No.4-119, Anjanadri Residency, Gangamma temple veedi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing on this day before me in the presence of Smt.V.L.V.Himabindu, APP for Complainant and of Sri K.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, A.S.Nagar police station laid charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of IPC & Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

2) The prosecution case is as follows:-

The marriage of the complainant/A.Naga Lakshmi was performed with

A.Chaitanya/A.1 on 16.12.2012. At the time of marriage parents of complainant presented cash of Rs.1,00,000-00, 1 ½ sovereigns of gold, bracelet as a dowry to the accused. For some time marital life of complainant went on well. But A.1 to 3 started harassing the complainant both mentally and physically. They slowly started 2 demanding the complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000-00 from her parents. Later the complainant and A.1 shifted their residence to a house near current office, Singh Nagar, Vijayawada. While so, A.Chaitanya/A.1 developed illegal intimacy with T.Naga Lakshmi, a native of Vizag. Coming to know about the illegal intimacy the complainant questioned Chaitanya/A.1. Since then A.1 subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment both physically and mentally. He demanded her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000-00 from her parents house, otherwise, he threatened

her that he would marry the woman with whom he developed intimacy. Parents of

Chaitanya also supported Chaitanya to harass the complainant. On 1.6.2018 the complainant gave birth to a female child. But the accused continued to harass complainant on one pretext or other and he started that he does not want to have the complainant and her child. Unable to endure the ill-treatment the complainant went to

A.S.Nagar police and presented report.

On the basis of the report a case in Cr.No.72/2018 was registered for the offence U/s.498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act by L.W.7/S.I. During the course of investigation the S.I/L.W.7 visited the scene of offence, examined L.Ws 1 to 6 and recorded their statements. On transfer of L.W.7/S.I his successor S.I/L.W.8 took up investigation. He issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notice to A.1 to A.3. They appeared before the police, agreed to abide by the conditions. After completion of investigation

L.W.8/S.I laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of

IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

3)This court took the cognizance of the offence U/S. 498-A of IPC and

Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act against the accused 1 to 3. On their appearance case documents U/s.207 Cr.P.C., furnished to them. They were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C, they denied the prosecution case. A Charge punishable U/S.498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act is read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4)During the course of trial the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1 and her mother as P.w..2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 documents. Since the 3 complainant and her mother did not support the prosecution case, they were declared as hostile and the learned APP has given up the remaining witnesses. Since there are no incriminating circumstances, the Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination was dispensed with.

5) I heard both sides.

6) Now the Point for determination before me is:

Whether the Prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of IPC & Secs.

3 & 4 of D.P.Act or not?

7)POINT:-

The burden is on the prosecution to establish that at the time of marriage, on demand, parents of the complainant presented dowry that the accused not satisfied with the dowry demanded the complainant and her parents to bring

additional dowry that the accused 1 to 3 subjected the complainant to harassment and

cruelty. The prosecution shall also establish that the accused 1 to 3 indulged in certain overt acts which would drive the complainant to cause injury to her body or mind or driven her to commit suicide. In the present case the prosecution has examined the complainant and her mother as P.Ws 1 and 2. The learned APP given up other witnesses on the ground that no useful purpose would be served by examining them in as much as the complainant and her mother failed to support the prosecution case.

Since there are no incriminating circumstances Sec.313 Cr.P.C., examination was dispensed with.

8)P.W.1 deposed that her marriage with A.1 was performed in the year 2012 that about six months prior to giving report due to petty quarrels her elders obtained her signature in some papers that she did not know the contents of the report, but she admitted her signature on the report which was marked as Ex.P.1. She was declared as hostile and her Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement was marked as Ex.P.2. In the cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she stated before the police as in her Sec. 161 Cr.P.C/Ex.P.2. However she made a statement voluntarily that she agreed to obtaine divorce from the accused that she settled the dispute out of the 4 court. She did not speak anything against the accused or the alleged ill-treatment and cruelty.

9)P.W.2 mother of the complainant/P.W.1 stated that she did not know anything about the case that she was not examined by the police. Her Sec. 161

Cr.P.C., statement in the cross-examination was marked as EX.P.3.

10)As stated above the ingredients that are required to be proved by the prosecution are that the accused 1 to 3 being husband and in-laws of the complainant subjected her to cruelty. In fact the complainant in the report narrated several incidents as to giving dowry and demand of dowry by the accused. She further narrated that her husband/A.Chaitanya got illegal intimacy with one T.Naga Lakshmi.

But she did not speak a word as to the alleged cruelty and alleged intimacy of her husband. What she stated was that she did not know anything about the case. But as elicited by the APP in the cross-examination she admitted that she intended to take divorce mutually from the accused. It appears that the complainant does not want to prosecute the accused and intended to settle the dispute amicably. As stated above the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused subjected the complainant to ill-treatment and cruelty but the evidence available on record do not establish any of such ingredients. On the basis of this kind of evidence it cannot be concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, as a result of it I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

11) In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7thday of November, 2019.

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution. For Defence. P.W.1: Dated 7.11.2019 A.Naga Lakshmi P.W.2: Dated 7.11.2019 A.Kanaka Durga - NONE -

Documents marked For Prosecution.For Defence.

Ex.P.1: Signature portion of P.W.1 on report Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 - NIL -

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-

Addl. Mahila Magistrate,Vijayawada.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MAHILA MAGISTRATE, VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No. 3718 of 2019

1Offence :Prior to the report on 3.3.2019 2Apprehension of Accused: -- 3Commencement of Trial : 7.11.2019 4Close of Trial :7.11.2019 5Judgment :7.11.2019 6Offence : U/S.498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act 7Name of Complainant:The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, A.S.Nagar P.S., Vijayawada City. 8Name of Accused 1.Amara Chaitanya, S/o Subba Rao, : aged 32 years, C/Vysya, D.No.6-21-55, Raavi Chettu centre, Kothapet, Vijayawada.

2. Amara Durga Bhavani, W/o Subba Rao, aged 56 years, C/Vysya, D.No.4-119, Anjanadri Residency, Gangamma temple veedi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada.

3. Amara Subba Rao, S/o Subbaiah, aged 60 years, C/Vysya, D.No.4-119, Anjanadri Residency, Gangamma temple veedi, Gollapudi, Vijayawada. 9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty 10Finding :ACQUITTAL 11Result : In the result, accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.498-A of IPC and Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. 12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/S.498-A of IPC & Secs. 3 & 4 of D.P.actg On 27.9.2019 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 7.11.2019 accused were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. On 7.11.2019 P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 3 documents marked. P.Ws.1 & 2 did not support the case and turned hostile. On the same day examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with and prosecution evidence was closed and on the same day arguments heard. Judgment pronounced on 7.11.2019. Hence, no delay.

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Addl. Mahila Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Present: S.Kamalakara Reddy,

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Wednesday, this the 18th day of March, 2020

C.C No.5148 of 2019

Between:

The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Vijayawada City. …Complainant A N D

Dunkroth Rajesh, S/o Ram Babu, 25 yrs., Sugali, 4-22-19, Lambadipet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada. … Accused

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Krishna Kishore, APP for Complainant and of Sri T.Bharath Kumar, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1) The Sub- Inspector of Police, II Town P.S laid charge sheet against accused/D.Rajesh for the offence punishable U/S.326 of IPC.

2)The prosecution case is as follows:-

On 10.5.2019 the victim/injured/A.Suresh visited Chittinagar to meet his friend/ Rajesh. As Rajesh was busy with his own work at about 1.30 p.m., the victim went to Vineela Bar and while discussing with his friends, the accused came there and asked him to arrange liquor for him. Victim replied that he did not have money and there took place an altercation. The accused beat the victim with a beer bottle on his left cheek and caused bleeding injuries. The injured was shifted to hospital. On receipt of hospital intimation the H.C/L.W.2 visited the Government General hospital and recorded the statement of injured.

On the basis of the statement of injured a case in Cr.No.324 of IPC registered and investigated into. During the further investigation the H.C visited the scene of offence, observed it, prepared rough sketch. He also seized broken beer bottle and prepared observation report in the presence of mediators. He examined the relevant witnesses from the scene of offence. On 21.8.2019 the accused was arrested, 2 remanded to judicial custody. Later he was enlarged on bail. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been laid against the accused for the offence punishable

U/s.326 of IPC, as the wound certificate disclose that the injuries on the victim was grievous in nature.

3)This court took the cognizance of the offence punishable U/S.326 of IPC.

On receipt of summons the accused appeared before the court, case documents

U/s.207 Cr.P.C furnished. He was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. A charge punishable

U/S.326 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. He stated that he did not commit any offence and claimed to be tried.

4)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.10, M.O.1.

5) After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses read over and explained to him. He stated that it was a false case, reported no defence evidence.

6) I heard arguments on both sides.

7) Now the Point for determination before me is:

Whether the prosecution able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.326 of IPC or not?

8) Point :-

The ingredients that are required to be proved by the prosecution for the offence punishable U/s.326 of IPC are that the accused with dangerous and deadly weapons such as beer bottle caused grievous injuries on the victim/injured/A.Suresh.

To substantiate its case the prosecution examined the injured/Suresh and his mother so also the Investigating Officer.

9)The substance of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is as follows:-

Suresh the injured deposed that he went to Vineela Sai Bar and

Restaurant at Chittinagar. Someone was smoking cigarette and he asked them to go away and smoke cigarette at a corner. A galata ensued. Someone pushed him down and he fell on the ground, suffered injuries on his left cheek and eye. The broken beer bottle pieces pierced into his left cheek. He was shifted to Government hospital. Police 3 did not examine him and obtained his signature in some written papers. His signature portion was marked as Ex.P.1. He categorically stated that he did not know who had written in the papers. He was declared as hostile. He denied a suggestion of the APP that it was the accused who beat him with a beer bottle on his left cheek and caused injuries and he stated to the police as in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement/EX.P.2. He did not state anything as to the identity of the accused.

10) P.W.2/A.Seethamma is the mother of the injured/Suresh. She stated that coming to know about the incident she rushed to the Andhra Hospital and found her son with bleeding injuries. She came to know that a galata had taken place in a Bar. She did not state anything about the incident or the accused. She was also declared as hostile and her Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement was marked as Ex.P.3.

11) The rest of the evidence is the Investigating Officer/S.I of police. He testified that his H.C rushed to the G.G.H and recorded the statement of the injured/

Suresh. The hospital intimation was marked as Ex.P.4 and the statement of the injured was marked as Ex.P.5. On the basis of the statement he registered a case in

Cr.No.260/2019 vide Ex.P.6/FIR. He again went to hospital and recorded the statements of L.Ws 1 to 3. Thereafter he rushed to the Vineela Bar and Restaurant at

Chittinagar, prepared observation report/Ex.P.7. He seized broken glass pieces vide

M.O.1 and took photographs of the scene of offence/Ex.P.8. He prepared rough sketch/

Ex.P.9. He received wound certificate/Ex.P.10. Thereafter in further investigation this witness verified the investigation done by his H.C and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.326 of IPC

When it comes to cross-examination this witness admitted that he did not re-examine any witness, did not collect CC T.V. footage. He denied that he conducted only table investigation.

12)The burden is on the prosecution to establish that it was accused who beat with dangerous and deadly weapons such as beer bottle caused grievous injuries on the left cheek of the victim/Suresh. The prosecution has to prove the manner in which the incident had taken place and the presence of the witnesses. The injured/ victim is the best witness to speak about the presence of culprit and his overtacts. But what he says was that during galata some one pushed him down and he suffered 4 injuries on his left cheek. He did not name the accused as the culprit who caused injuries on him. His mother evidence is also not of any use with regard to identity of the accused. The learned APP given up rest of the witnesses on the ground that the material witness and injured remained hostile to the prosecution case. Only on the basis of the evidence of Investigating Officer who is not an eye witness to the incident it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. The evidence of

Investigating Officer is purely technical in nature. He may depose with regard to registration of FIR, examination of witnesses, arrest of the accused, obtaining wound certificate and filing charge sheet. His evidence cannot be taken as substantial evidence to punish the accused. Since the very injured remained hostile and failed to identify the accused it cannot be said that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused.

Consequently I am of the view that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is answered accordingly.

13)In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.326 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from to-day. M.O.1 ie.., broken glass pieces shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of March, 2020

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate , Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosecution.For Defence. P.W.1: Dated 16.3.2020 A.Suresh P.W.2: Dated 16.3.2020 A.seethamma P.W.3: Dated 17.3.2020 P.Viswanath …None…

Documents marked For Prosecution.For Defence.

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 in complaint - NONE- Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: Hospital intimation Ex.P.5: statement Ex.P.6: FIR 5

Ex.P.7: Scene observataion report Ex.P.8: Two photographs EX.p.9: Rough sketch Ex.P.10: wound certificate

Material Objects marked:-

M.O.1: Broken glass pieces

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

C.C No. 5148 of 2019

1Offence :10.5.2019 2Apprehension of Accused:-- 3Commencement of Trial :30.1.2020 4Close of Trial :17.3.2020 5Judgment :18.3.2020 6Offence :U/S.326 of IPC 7Name of Complainant:The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town P.S., Vijayawada City.

8Name of Accused:Dunkroth Rajesh, S/o Ram Babu, 25 yrs., Sugali, 4-22-19, Lambadipet, Chittinagar, Vijayawada.

9Plea of Accused :Not Guilty 10Finding :Acquitted 11Result :In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.326 of IPC and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from to-day. M.O.1 ie.., broken glass pieces shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

12Explanation for delay :This case was taken on file U/S.326 of IPC. On 4.9.2019 copies of documents furnished to the accused. On 18.12.2019 accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidence is commenced on 30.1.2020. On 16.3.2020 P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined. On 17.3.2020 P.W.3 was examined, prosecution evidence was closed. On 17.3.2020 the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. On 18.3.2020 heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 18.3.2020. Hence, the delay.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.