Sri.Sai Ram Potharlanka

1 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy 1Name of the CourtII Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Court, Tanuku - West Godavari District 2Name of the Presiding Shree: Sai Ram Potharlanka Officer 3Calendar Case Number56 of 2023 4Date11.03.2025 (Tuesday, Eleventh Day of

March, Two Thousand Twenty-Five) 5Complainant

The State, Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Penumantra

Police Station, West Godavari District.

6Accused

1. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, Age 32 years,

R/o.D.No.1-113, Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda, Manchii

Village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Smt.Velagala Ammaji, W/o. Krishna Reddy, Age 57 years, House- wife, R/o.D.No.1-113, Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda, Manchii

Village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Velagala Krishna Reddy, S/o.Sathi Reddy, Age 62 years,

Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-113, Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda,

Manchii Village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari District.

4. Smt.Medapati Lakshmi Baby, W/o.Jogi Reddy, Age 41 years,

House-wife, R/o.D.No.1-113, Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda,

Manchii Village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari.

7Assistant Public ProsecutorShree. E.Hanumantha Rao 8Name of the Advocate for accused Shree. R.Srinivas 9This case came before me for hearing on 10.03.2025 in the presence of both side counsels and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy

J U D G M E N T

The Penumantra Police registered a case in crime number 203 of 2022 under section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961 against A1 to A4 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961.

10The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

a. The marriage of LW.1/Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi was performed on 30.05.2021 with A1 and at the time of marriage, her parents i.e.,

LW.2/Nallamilli Venkata Lakshmi and LW.3/Nallamilli Rami Reddy presented Rs.10 Lakhs towards dowry, 2 sovereigns of gold chain, 2 sovereigns of gold bracelet, 1 sovereign of gold ring and Rs.1 Lakh towards adapaduchu-lanchanam and spent an amount of Rs.2

Lakhs during marriage. Her parents-in-law represented that A1 worked in Dubai and earned lot of amount and he also possessed cultivating land and so saying that they got spent huge amount by her parent and got performed all the lanchanams in lavish manner.

Her parents sold the cultivating fields and performed her marriage.

After consummation of the marriage, she joined with her husband at her matrimonial home in Manchili Village.

b. The A1 used to get done field works by coolies and used to return to home in drunken condition and caused all sorts of harassment towards her and they looked after her in amicable manner for one month only. From then onwards, her husband/A1, her parents-in- law/A2 and A3 harassed LW.1/Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi and subjected her to cruelty physically and mentally by saying that she did not bring more dowry amounts. Her sister-in-law/A4 who is the resident of same village, used to stay at their house very frequently and also used to say that the adapaduchu-lanchanam which was 3 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy given to her is not sufficient and also insulted her several times by saying that LW.1 is very short and black complexion lady and all they are getting done the entire house-hold works by her and treated her as a slave and servant-maid.

c. Soon after marriage, the A1 to A4 harassed and tortured

LW.1/Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi by ridiculous words. They spent the entire dowry amount given by her parents for their personal uses and moreover, they demanded to bring an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from her parents towards additional dowry. Her husband/A1 used to speak somebody over phone when she questioned the same, he did not give proper reply. Then LW.1 suspected and verified the phone of A1 and noticed that he was speaking some other lady regularly and she also came to know that her husband and above said woman were in illegal intimacy. On that she strictly questioned her husband/A1 about his attitude, for which, he openly proclaimed by uttering that he married her only for dowry and asked her to keep quiet and heed his words. On that she informed the matter to her parents and in turn her parents placed the matter before the elders and the elders admonished her husband by saying that no to spoil the matrimonial life. On that A1 to A4 developed grudge against

LW.1 and they intensified their harassment and torture towards her by saying that her parents assured that they would give an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to them and demanded her to bring the amount immediately. On that she placed the matter before the elders but there was no change in the attitude of her husband.

d. Whenever, LW.1/Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi questioned her husband about his attitude, he beat her and ultimately A1 to A4 beat her and necked her out from their house in the month of January- 2022. Further, A1 openly proclaimed that he would stay with the 4 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy woman with whom he has illicit intimacy and asked her to shut up and keep quiet and if she agrees the same and then only he would lead family life with her. Moreover, her husband filed divorce petition and later A1 to A4 with an intention that they have to return her dowry and gold they withdraw the petition during its pending and then A1 started torturing her to come and rejoin and lead family life with him.

e. As the matter stood like this, on 29.11.2022, on account of

Subrahmanya Shasti festival, while LW.1 was going to Sri

Subrahmanyeswara Swamy vari Temple at Natharameswaram at about 11:00 AM., her husband work mask and asked her to heed his words or else he threatened to kill her by pouring acid over her.

Hence, LW.1 came to Penumantra Police Station on 14.12.2022 at 6:00 PM., and presented a report to police.

f. Basing on the report of LW.1/Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi,

LW.9/J.V.L.N.Radha Krishna, Head Constable, Penumantra Police

Station registered the same as Crime No.203/2022 under section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the scene of offence place and prepared rough sketch of the same and examined the witnesses. On 02.01.2023 at about 5:30 PM., A1 to A4 surrendered before Police

Station and hence, LW.10/B.Surendra Kumar, Sub-Inspector of

Police served the notice under Sec.41-A (1) Cr.P.C to A1 to A4 and released them after obtaining their undertakings and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against A1 to A4.

11This Court took cognizance of the offences under section 498-A r/w 34 of

IPC. On appearance of A1 to A4 they were furnished with copies of case documents under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy 12The A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C by framing charges under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry

Prohibition act, 1961. The contents of charge are read over and explained to A1 to A4 in their vernacular language i.e., Telugu. For which they denied and claimed to be tried.

13To prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1 out of 10 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. The evidence of other witnesses was given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as PW.1 turned hostile due to compromise.

14As there is no incriminating material in the prosecution evidence, the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

15Heard arguments of both side and perused the material available on record.

16Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 to A4 beyond all

reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under section 498-A

r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961 ?

17Answer:

i.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined the defacto-complainant as P.W.1.

ii.PW1 deposed that her marriage was solemnized with A1 on 30.05.2021 at Rama Satyanarayana Temple in Manchili as per

Hindu rites and caste customs. PW.1 further deposed that she did not know whether there is any exchange of customary gifts in connection with marriage. After marriage, she joined with A1 at his house in Manchili village and they lived happily for some days.

Thereafter some differences taken place between them and she informed the same to her mother and her mother placed the matter 6 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy

before the elders and the elders pacified the differences and

obtained her signatures on written paper but she do not know the contents in it.

iii.On that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses and after obtaining permission, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did cross-examination. In the cross-examination of PW1, she categorically admitted that she herself and a1 compromised and obtained divorce before Court of

Law.PW.1 denied the contents of her 161 (3) of Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P2.

iv.In view of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961. Hence, A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

18 In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961 and thereby they are acquitted for the same under Section 271 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short BNSS) (erstwhile

Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C). The bail bonds A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of Six (06) months as contemplated under

Section 480 of BNSS (erstwhile Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C).

19APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of witnesses for prosecution:

PW.1/ Velagala Lakshmi Parvathi

List of Exhibits Marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1/P.W.1 - Signature of PW.1 on Report dated 14.12.2022

Ex.P.2/P.W.1 - Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 7 of 9

CC.No.56 of 2023, Dt.11.03.2025, II ACJ (JD)-cum-II AJMFC Court, Tanuku

The State vs. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy

No witness is examined for accused and no exhibit is marked for

accused.

20 Directly typed to dictation on my personal computer by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 11th day of March, 2025.

21

SAI RAM

SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

c=IN, st=Andhra Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=9d08d5ecdd3c972ed5d3b95ba0372e92a49c25ae98d487b59b858 858d97ed45d, postalCode=534211, street=TANUKU, pseudonym=aee34c867668c870ba48f8c34f9187c5,

POTHARLANKA

serialNumber=b0bed198bdcdb80763df2c137628c75dcbdac3cbc5a7a0e21 64e074bd2e75e04, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, o=HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, cn=SAI RAM POTHARLANKA 2025.03.11 16:54:39 +05'30'

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku

FAC/ IIACJ (JD)-cum-IIAJMFC, Tanuku

8 of 9

Name of the court : II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Court, Tanuku - West Godavari District

Calendar Case Number : 56 of 2023

Date of Offence :Prior to 14.12.2022

Date of Complaint :14.12.2022

Date of Apprehension of :Served notices u/s. 41-A Cr.P.C. Accused Date of taking on file :23.01.2023

Date of Commencement of :10.03.2025 trial Date of Closure of trial :10.03.2025

Date of Sentence / Order :11.03.2025

Complainant : The State, Represented by its Sub-Inspector of

Police, Penumantra Police Station, West

Godavari District.

Name of the Accused :1. Velagala Rama Pulla Reddy, S/o.Krishna

Reddy, Age 32 years, R/o.D.No.1-113, Near

Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda, Manchii

Village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari District.

2. Smt.Velagala Ammaji, W/o. Krishna Reddy,

Age 57 years, House-wife, R/o.D.No.1-113,

Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda,

Manchii Village, Attili Mandal, West

Godavari District.

3. Velagala Krishna Reddy, S/o.Sathi Reddy,

Age 62 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-113,

Near Vinayaka Temple, Paati-Meeda,

Manchii Village, Attili Mandal, West

Godavari District.

4. Smt.Medapati Lakshmi Baby, W/o.Jogi 9 of 9

Reddy, Age 41 years, House-wife,

R/o.D.No.1-113, Near Vinayaka Temple,

Paati-Meeda, Manchii Village, Attili Mandal,

West Godavari

Nature of Offences :Subjecting that A1 to A4 are liable for punishment.

Section of Law :Under Section498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

Finding of the Court :A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Section498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

Sentence/Order: In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act, 1961 and thereby they are acquitted for the same under Section 271 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short BNSS) (erstwhile Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C). The bail bonds A1 to A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of Six (06) months as contemplated under Section 480 of BNSS (erstwhile Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C).

Explanation for delay: The prosecution did not secure witnesses in proper time. No witness is required to attend more than three times. Hence, the delay.

SAI RAM SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

c=IN, st=Andhra Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=9d08d5ecdd3c972ed5d3b95ba0372e92a49c25ae98d487 b59b858858d97ed45d, postalCode=534211, street=TANUKU, pseudonym=aee34c867668c870ba48f8c34f9187c5,

POTHARLANKA

serialNumber=b0bed198bdcdb80763df2c137628c75dcbdac3cbc5 a7a0e2164e074bd2e75e04, ou=JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, o=HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, cn=SAI RAM POTHARLANKA 2025.03.11 16:55:12 +05'30'

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku

FAC/ IIACJ (JD)-cum-IIAJMFC, Tanuku

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 1

IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT TANUKU

PRESENT: SHREE SAI RAM POTHARLANKA,

PJCJ-CUM-JMFC

Tuesday, this the 27th day of June, 2023.

C.C. No.68/2024

Between:-

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station.

...Complainant.

And

1. Garapati Engedibabu, S/o.Rama Rao, Age 40 years, Kamma, Nadupallikota Village, Peravali Mandal, W.G.Dist.

2. Smt.Garapati Padma, W/o.Engedibabu, Age 34years,Kamma,House-wife, Nadupallikota Village, Peravali Mandal, W.G.Dist. ….Accused

This case came before me for final hearing on 23.06.2023 in the presence of Sri M.S.Mehar Baba, Advocate for the accused and of Sri E.Hanumantha Rao, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and 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, Undrajavaram Police Station laid a charge sheet against the Accused/A1 and A2 in Cr.No.89/2013 of Undrajavarm

Police Station for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC.

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

(a) One Karuturi Sundaramma @ Sundari is one of the victim/informants among other victims and she was examined as P.W.1 during trial. About six years back, Karuturi Venkateswara Rao donated the site to the accused

No.1 as the accused No.1 assured to construct the Church in the said site.

The said site is located in Chinthala Thota Stree. All the dwellers of the said vicinity donated the total amount of Rs.10,000,00/-. The accused No.1 told them that he would construct the Church. But instead of constructing the

Church, he constructed a dwelling house in that site. Then all they approached the accused No.1 about one month back and questioned him, why he constructed the house for him instead of constructing the Church as promised. Then the accused No.1 arrogantly replied saying that the said site

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 2 belonged to him, and they have no right to question him. Moreover, the accused No.1 obtained injunction orders from Hon’ble Civil Court of law against them. Then the victims placed the matter before the village elder

Vakalapudi Ratnam. On 21.06.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. the village elder

Vakalapudi Ratnam asked the accused No.1 to wait for some time as the matter is pending before the court. Then the accused No.1 stopped constructing the building for some period. Later, they went away from their house. But after few days the accused No.1 restarted the construction works, but they did not interfere in the said matters. Eventhough, they did not interfere in the affairs of the Church matters or into the affairs of the accused No.1. the accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1 started abusing all the dwellers in the vicinity in filthy language. Thus the accused

No.1 deceitfully received the vacant site by making false representation of constructing a Church and received huge cash amount from them, but instead of constructing a Church he constructed a dwelling house for him and thereby cheated the villagers. When the P.W.1 and others questioned the same, the accused No.1 and 2 criminally intimidated them with dire consequences. Hence, he submitted a report against accused No.1 and 2.

(b) Based on the report of LW.1/Karuturi Sundaramma @ Sundari, L.W./20

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station registered the same as F.I.R in Cr.No.89/2013, Sections 420 and 506 (2) r/w Sec.34 of

IPC and took up investigation; examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The accused/A1 and A2 obtained anticipatory bail orders from the Hon’ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru vide Crl.MP.Nos.1162/2013 and 1163/2013 dated 14.08.2013. On 16.08.2013 at 4:30 PM, the accused/A1 and A2 came to Police Station and surrendered. Then LW.21/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the A1 and A2 and released after verifying the solvencies which were produced by the A1 and A2 as per the anticipatory bail orders. After completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offence under sections 420 and 506 r/w

Sec.34 of IPC against the A1 and A2. On appearance of the Accused, they were furnished with copies of case documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C.

4. A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C, charge under sections 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC against A1 and A2 was framed, read over and

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 3 explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.15 out of 22 witnesses and got marked Exhibits P.1 and P.2. The learned prosecutor given up evidence of LW4/Alajangi Appanna as he died;

LW.5/Duddupudi Nageswara Rao; LW.8/Kantamani Naga Ratnam and

LW.10/EedupugantiRajeswari;LW.20/K.JayaKrishnaand

LW.21/P.V.V.L.P.Ramam are no more.

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the A1 and A2 were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to the Accused, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed. In the cross-examination of PW.4 and PW.5, Ex.D1 and

Ex.D2 are marked.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. Now the Point for determination of this court is:

Whether prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2

for the offence under sections 420 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. P oint:

a) In order establish the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined the victim informant as P.W.1 and got marked her report to police as

Ex.P.1. She deposed in her examination in chief in the lines of her report.

The P.W.2 to 14 also deposed in their examination in chief in corroboration with P.W.1. The P.W.15 is the investigation officer who filed the charge sheet and he deposed that in the lines of charge sheet. The

P.W.15 deposed that his subordinate L.W.20/Jaya Krishna registered the present case and investigated. Later his another subordinate did investigation. Subsequently, he filed charge sheet. The PW.5 deposed that his both sub-ordintes are no more.

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 4

10.Marshalling of Facts:

a) The prosecution alleged offence has three limbs. The first one is that the accused No.1 received the site for the construction of Church, but he has not constructed. The next one is that the accused No.1 has received an amount of Rs.10,000,000/- for the construction of Church, but he has not constructed. The last one is that the accused No.1 and 2 abused and threatened the P.W.1 to P.W.14 and others with dire consequences when they questioned about the acts of the accused.

b) The following admissions are extracted from the evidence of prosecution witnesses:

1. Their group has no name and no registration.

2. They have no documentary evidence except their oral testimony.

3. They did not maintain any accounts while collecting the amount of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. They did not issue any receipt while collecting the amount in the form of donations and contributions.

5. The P.W.2 to 14 admitted that they don’t know the contents of the

Ex.P.1 report but they signed or affixed thumb impression.

6. Some of the witnesses stated that they signed on Ex.P.1 at their village and some deposed that they signed on Ex.P.1 at police station.

c) The prosecution must establish that the son of P.W.1 Karuturi

Venkateswara Rao had given the site to the accused No.1 on free of cost for the construction of Church. But the prosecution did not examine him and did not collect any proof of document to show that the accused No.1 was given land.

d) No witness stated, except P.W.1, about the extent of the land, boundaries of the land and in which year the accused No.1 was given land. Each witness deposed differently about the duration of collection of the amount. Some stated that they collected total ten lakh amount within a week, within a month and within a year. There is no corroboration in that aspect.

e) Some of the witnesses stated that the collected amount was given to

P.W.1 and later the P.W.1 given the same to accused No.1. The amount of Rs.10,000,000/- is not a small amount. There is no evidence about the contribution of each person. The P.W.1 deposed that they went to neighbouring villages to collect the amount by way of donations. The other witnesses did not corroborate with P.W.1.

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 5

f)The prosecution witnesses admitted that after the accused No.1 obtained injunction order against them they filed the present case.

Further the police did not collect any iota of evidence to show that the gifted land was got registered in the name of the accused No.1 as alleged in Nidadavolu Sub-registrar Office.

g) The P.W.1 to 14 deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 abused them in filthy language. Except that there is no specific allegation and the P.W.1 to 14 did not state the specific words uttered by the accused No.1 and 2 in order to ascertain such words amounts abusive or intimidates.

h) In order to record the omissions and contradictions of the witnesses during their evidence, the person who registered the case and recorded the statements is no more. Even the prosecution witness testimony is taken into consideration in its entirety their version does not inspire the confidence of the court. However all the prosecution witnesses are illiterates or having no proper education, believing their words without cogent evidence is not correct. Even the P.W.15 wihout verifying investigation done by his subordinate simply filed charge sheet.

11.Consideraing the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence the benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused. accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The above matter is typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 27th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty three.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tanuku

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1/ K.Sundaramma26.09.2019, 16.12.2021 P.W.2/ E.Krupavaram08.05.2023, 05.06.2023 P.W.3/ G.S.Prakasa Rao @ Prakasam07.06.2023 P.W.4/ T.Seethamma07.06.2023 P.W.5/ D.Muthyavathi07.06.2023 P.W.6/ M.Satyavathi08.06.2023 P.W.7/ E.Akkamma08.06.2023 PW.8/ P.Manga08.06.2023 PW.9/ T.Rama Krishna08.06.2023 PW.10/ M.Satyanarayana08.06.2023 PW.11/ P.Sankar09.06.2023 PW.12/ D.Lakshmi09.06.2023 PW.13/ G.Naga Rathnam09.06.2023 PW.14/ M.Padmavathi09.06.2023 PW.15/ Y.V.V.Satyanarayana19.06.2023

Number of exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P1/PW.1Complaint of PW1 Ex.P2/PW.15Original FIR rgistered by LW.20/K.Jaya Krishna

Number of witnesses examined for accused/defense:

--None--

Number of exhibits marked for accused/defense:

Ex.D1/PW4Underline Red Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.D2/PW7Underline Red Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7.

Number of Material Objects marked for prosecution: --Nil--

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

PJCJ cum JMFC Tanuku

C.C. N0.68/2014 PJCJ-CUM-JFCM, TANUKU 7

IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT TANUKU

Calendar Case Number 68 of 2014

Date of Offence:Prior to 01.07.2013 Date of Complaint:01.07.2013 Date of Apprehension of Accused :Obtainedanticipatorybailvide Crl.MP.Nos.1162/2013 and 1163/2013 dated 14.08.2013 from Hon’ble II Addl. District and

Sessions Court, W.G., Eluru

Date of taking on file:22.01.2014 Date of Commencement of trial:26.09.2019 Date of Closure oftrial:19.06.2023 Date of Sentence / Order:27.06.2023 Complainant:The State- Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Undrajavaram Police Station

Name of the Accused :1. Garapati Engedibabu, S/o.Rama Rao, Age 40 years, Kamma, Nadupallikota Village, Peravali Mandal, W.G.Dist.

2. Smt.Garapati Padma, W/o.Engedibabu, Age 34 years, Kamma, House-wife, Nadupallikota Village, Peravali Mandal, W.G.Dist.

Nature of Offences:Subjecting that the A1 and A2 are liable for punishment.

Section of Law:U/s. 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Finding of the Court:Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sentence/ Order: In the result the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 and A2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Explanation for delay: The prosecution did not secure witnesses in proper time. No witness is required to attend more than three times. Covid 19 pandemic is major hurdle to dispose the case at earliest point of time.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Tanuku

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS:: TANUKU.

Present: Shri Sai Ram Potharlanka

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku.

Saturday, this the 4th day of November, 2023

Calendar Case No.1422/2022

Between:

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town P.S. Cr.No.141/2022 of Tanuku Town P.S. …Complainant

And

Ponnada Ravi Sankar @ Veera Babu, S/o Late Venkateswarlu, 30 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Yeti Moga Village, Jagannadhapuram Mandal, Kakinada District . … Accused

This case is coming on 04.11.2023 for hearing and heard Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri P.Rajesh Roshan, Learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Tanuku Town P.S. filed charge sheet in Cr.No.

141/2022 for the offence under Sections 457, 380 & 411 of IPC against the Accused.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- On 01.06.2022 at about 11.00 PM, LW.1/Vempati Krishna Murthy along with his family members slept in master bed room situated near Ambedkar Bhavan in Housing

Board Clony of Tanuku Town by duly locked the main doorsill of their house and they woke up on the next day i.e. 02.6.2022 at about 5.30 A.M; In the mean while, accused gained entrance into the building of LW.1 through main doorsill and forcibly opened the iron safe and committed theft of Gold Vinayaka Image Ring wg. 6 Sov. and some cash,

Lenova Company Lap Top and also committed theft of Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BH 0925 from the verandah of their house and escaped with the stolen property all worth of Rs.80,000/- and then LW.1 lodged a report to the police.

Basing on report of LW.1, LW.12/M.Veera Babu-SI of Police, registered a case in

Cr.No.141/2022 u/sec. 457, 380 of IPC and investigated into this case. During investigation, he visited the scene of offence, got drafted the scene observation report, 2 prepared rough sketch, examined LWs.1 to 6 and recorded their 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statements.

On 09.09.2022, LW.10/B.Krishna Kumar-Circle Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram

II Town P.S. arrested the accused near Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple at “S” Turning of

Gollavani Tippa Road in Bhimavaram in connection with Cr.No.243/2012 of

Bhimavaram II Town Town P.S. and recorded his detailed statement, in which, he confessed that he committed theft of Gold Ring, cash of rs.20,000/- , One Lap Top and motorcycle and kept the motorcycle at Tanuku Bus Stand and later he concealed the motorcycle in the bushes located after Sanjana Center at Gollavani Tippa road in

Bhimavaram. He sold the Gold ring through Valluri Chitti Apparao and shared the sale consideration of stolen gold ring equally among them and he spent stolen cash of

Rs.10,000/- for his lavish expenses. Further, the accused also produced the stolen

Lap Top and part of stolen cash of Rs.10,000/-, then the CI of Bhimavaram seized the above said laptop and cash from the possession of accused in this case under the cover of mediators report in the presence of LWs.8 and 9.

In pursuant to confession, on 09.09.2022 accused led LW.11/CI of Bhimavaram

II Town P.S. and mediators LWs.9 & 10 to bushes located nearer to Sanjana Venture at

Prakash Nagar, Gollavani Tippa, Bhimavaram and then accused produced the stolen motorcycle and the same was seized by the LW.11/CI of Bhimavaram II Town P.S.

from the possession of accused and got drafted the mediators report . On 20.09.2022 the SI of Police produced the accused on execution of PT warrant before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

3. This Court took cognizance for the offence U/sec. 457, 380 & 411 of IPC against the Accused. On appearance of the accused, Copies of documents were furnished to accused as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C.

by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence alleged against him. Charge under Sec.457, 380 or alternatively 411 of IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused is in judicial custody from 20.09.2022 to 30.05.2023 and from 08.08.2023 to till today i.e. 04.11.2023.

4. During the course of trial, upon the oral request of the Accused, he was examined under section 313 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C. During his examination the Accused voluntarily admitted about his commission of offence in this crime, under Sec.411 of

IPC. The accused also prayed to take lenient view by stating that he is having old 3 aged mother, wife and small children and also stated that his family is a poor family and the entire family is depending upon his coolie works. He also stated that the entire family will suffer if they are sentenced to longer punishment. The Accused stated that he would never commit any offence in future. Considering the oral submissions made by the accused, this Court is of opinion that the admission of guilt under section 411 of IPC voluntary and without any coercion.

6. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of IPC on his own admission and accordingly the Accused is convicted under Section 241 of Cr.P.C. The SHO, Tanuku Town P.S is directed to return the unmarked case property i.e. 1) Lenova Company Lap Top 2) Cash of Rs.10,000/- 3) Hero Splendor Plus

Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BH 0925 to the defacto Complainant by name Vempati

Krishna Murthy S/o Bulleyya on proper identification and shall take photographs at the time of release the case property to the Defacto complainant and shall file the acknowledgment before the Court.

7. Now the Accused is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. Hence the case is passed over for the examination of the Accused.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tanuku.

Hearing on quantum of sentence:-

8. The Accused when asked about quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he pleaded mercy of the Court and stated that he is having old aged mother, wife and small children depends upon him. He further stated that if he is put behind the bars, his family members will suffer immensely and his carrier will be jeopardized. Considering the same, lenient view was taken against accused.

9. In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.411 of IPC and convicted U/s.241 of Cr.P.C. The Accused is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of One (1) Year for the offence u/sec.411 of

IPC.

Furthermore, the substantive sentence in the present case and in

CC.No.1308/2022 wherein he was convicted U/Sec. 241 Cr.P.C and sentenced to

imprisonment on this day i.e. 04.11.2023 on the file of this court, are ordered to be run concurrently and the default sentences are ordered to be run consecutively.

4

The accused is already in remand from 20.09.2022 to 30.05.2023 and from 08.08.2023 to till today i.e. 04.11.2023. The remand period of accused from 20.09.2022 to 30.05.2023 and from 08.08.2023 to till today i.e. 04.11.2023.shall be set off u/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

The Accused are informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has right to approach the Appellate court and also legal assistance from the Mandal

Legal Services Authority, Tanuku, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this 4th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Number of witnesses examined for prosecution:

---nil---

Number of exhibits marked for prosecution:

---nil--- No witness is examined and no exhibit is marked on behalf of accused/defense side.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Tanuku.

//true copy//

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

5

IN THE COURT II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-II ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT TANUKU

C.C. NO.1422/2022

Date of Offence:01.06.2022

Date of Complaint:02.06.2022

Date of Apprehension of Accused:20.09.2022, 08.08.2023

Date of taking on file:31.10.2022

Date of Commencement of trial :U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. 24.11.2022 Re-examination U/s.313 (1) (a) – 04.11.2023

Date of Closure of trial:--

Date of Sentence / Order:04.11.2023

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Complainant: Police, Tanuku Town P.S. Name of the Accused:Ponnada Ravi Sankar @ Veera Babu, S/o Late Venkateswarlu, 30 years, Agnikula Kshatriya, R/o Yeti Moga Village, Jagannadhapuram Mandal, Kakinada District : Nature of Offences Subjecting that the Accused is liable for punishment.

: Section of Lawunder Section 411 of IPC.

: Finding of the CourtAccused is found guilty.

In the result, the Accused is found guilty of the offence punishable U/s.411 of IPC and convicted U/s.241 of Cr.P.C. The Accused is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of One (1) Year for the offence u/sec.411

of IPC.

Furthermore, the substantive sentence in the present case and in

CC.No.1308/2022 wherein he was convicted U/Sec. 241 Cr.P.C and sentenced to

imprisonment on this day i.e. 04.11.2023 on the file of this court, are ordered to be run concurrently and the default sentences are ordered to be run consecutively.

The accused is already in remand from 20.09.2022 to 30.05.2023 and from 08.08.2023 to till today i.e. 04.11.2023. The remand period of accused from 20.09.2022 to 30.05.2023 and from 08.08.2023 to till today i.e. 04.11.2023.shall be set off u/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

The SHO, Tanuku Town P.S is directed to return the unmarked case property i.e. 1) Lenova Company Lap Top 2) Cash of Rs.10,000/- 3) Hero Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing No.AP37 BH 0925 to the defacto Complainant by name Vempati 6

Krishna Murthy S/o Bulleyya on proper identification and shall take photographs at the time of release the case property to the Defacto complainant and shall file the acknowledgment before the Court.

The Accused are informed about his right to get Free Copy of Judgment and he has right to approach the Appellate court and also legal assistance from the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Tanuku, if he is entitled for Legal Aid to file Appeal.

Explanation for delay: NIL.

Sd/- Sai Ram Potharlanka

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

//true copy//

Prl .Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku

FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku.

Page No. 1 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TANUKU

Present: Sri. Sai Ram Potharlanka PCJ (JD) cum JMFC

FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, TANUKU

Friday, on Twenty Eighth Day of March, Two Thousand Twenty-Five

(28.03.2025)

C.C.No. 1018/2021

Between:

The State, Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station,

Tanuku, West Godavari District. ... Complainant

and

1. Yallamilli Mohan Rao, S/o Babu Rao, 42 years,

2. Yallamilli Pandu, S/o Yohanu, 32 years,

3. Yallamilli Sudhakar, S/o Babu Rao, 25 years,

All are residents of Mukkamala Village, Peravali Mandal. ... Accused

Counsels on record:

For complainant : Sri. E. Hanumantha Rao, Asst. P.P.;

For accused No.1 to 3 : Sri. U.B. Ranjendra Prasad; Sri. V. Sathish Kumar;

Final hearing Date : On 21.03.2025

JUDGMENT

a. The charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC in Cr. No. 388/2021 of Peravali Police Station. The case was registered based on a complaint by the injured/LW.1/P.W.1/Yallamilli

Sundar Rao for the offence under sections 324, 323, 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

b. Facts of the Prosecution Case: The case arises from an incident on 05.09.2021 at 3:00 PM in Mukkamala village, Peravali Mandal, where a dispute arose regarding the joint hand-pump between the accused and LW.1.

During the altercation, A-2 allegedly caught the neck of LW.1, and A-3

Page No. 2 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 assaulted him with a brick, causing injuries. LW.1 was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Tanuku, where his statement was recorded. The police registered the case and investigated the matter by examining witnesses, preparing a scene-of-offence sketch, and obtaining medical evidence. The accused were served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and later appeared

before the Court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the accused under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC in Cr. No.

388/2021 of Peravali Police Station.

c. Summons served to the accused No.1 to 3. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 Copies of all documents, including FIR, statements, and medical evidence, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges were framed accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

d. The prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 (injured witness) deposed regarding the attack by the accused. PW-2 (wife of PW-1) stated she was informed about the assault by her daughter. PW-3 to PW-7 (eyewitnesses) were declared hostile. PW-8 (Head Constable) spoke about the hospital intimation and statement recording. PW-9 (S.I. of Police) conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW-10 (Head

Constable) registered the FIR and examined witnesses.

e. After completion of investigation the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating materiel found against them in prosecution case. For which the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. They reported no defence evidence and did not lead any defence evidence.

f. Arguments:

g. Prosecution: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW-1’s testimony is consistent and supported by medical evidence. Despite PW-3 to PW-7 turning hostile, the direct evidence of PW-1, coupled with the wound certificate, proves that the accused assaulted him. The delay in FIR

Page No. 3 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 registration was due to procedural constraints and does not affect the credibility of the case. The prosecution urged that the court should rely on the victim’s testimony, as it is supported by medical evidence.

h. Defense: The learned counsel for the accused contended that the case was falsely fabricated due to family disputes. They argued that PW-3 to PW-7, who were cited as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution. The doctor (PW-6) admitted that PW-1 was under alcohol influence at the time of examination, which raises doubts about the accuracy of his statements. The delay in FIR registration and the failure to seize the weapon (brick) also weaken the prosecution’s case. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

i. Heard both side and perused the record.

j. Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC?

k. Answer to Point:

l. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of PW-1, the injured witness. PW-1 in his chief examination stated, "A-2 caught my neck and A-3 hit me with a brick on my head, due to which I sustained bleeding injuries and fell on the ground." He further stated that "neighbours rescued me and took me to the Government Hospital, Tanuku." His statement is supported by

Ex.P-1, which is his initial complaint given to the police.

m. PW-2, the wife of PW-1, stated, "I was not present at the scene of offence, but my daughter informed me over the phone that A-1 to A-3 beat PW-1 and shifted him to the hospital." However, PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that she did not witness the incident firsthand.

n. PW-3 to PW-7, who were cited as eyewitnesses, turned hostile and denied knowledge of the incident. PW-3, in his deposition, stated, "I do not know how PW-1 got injured. I only saw him lying on the road and helped him reach

Page No. 4 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 the hospital." PW-4 to PW-7 gave similar statements, leading to inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events.

o. The medical evidence provided by PW-6, the doctor, stated, "PW-1 had a laceration on the parieto-occipital region and another on the occipital region.

The injuries were simple in nature." He also confirmed issuing Ex.P-5, the wound certificate, but noted in cross-examination that "PW-1 was under the influence of alcohol when he arrived at the hospital." p. The delay in FIR registration also raises doubts. PW-10, the head constable who registered the FIR, stated, "I received hospital intimation after 17 hours from Tanuku Town Police Station, which led to the delay in registering the case." This delay remains unexplained and affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

q. Given that the primary eyewitnesses (PW-3 to PW-7) turned hostile and the

FIR registration was delayed, the prosecution's case hinges solely on the testimony of PW-1. While PW-1’s version is consistent, the absence of independent corroboration, coupled with the contradictions in witness statements and procedural lapses, creates reasonable doubt.

r. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution. Thus, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

s. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 271(1) of the BNSS (formerly Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure). The accused No.1 to 3 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS (previously Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of judgment.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1/ Yallamilli Sundara Rao/15.03.2023

Page No. 5 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

P.W.2/Yallamilli Sujatha/15.11.2023

P.W.3/Y. Rajesh/16.10.2024

P.W.4/A. Srinu/16.10.2024

P.W.5/M. Sattemma/23.10.2024

P.W.6/ Dr. L.Sai Balaji/23.10.2024

P.W.7/ K.V. Subba Rao/23.10.2024

P.W.8/ N. Jaya Simha/22.01.2025

P.W.9/ M. Surya Bhagavan/29.01.2025

P.W.10/ V. Srinivas/05.02.2025

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1/P.W.1/ is the statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2/P.W.3/is the statement of P.W.3 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.3/P.W.4/ is the statement of P.W.4 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.4/P.W.5/ is the statement of P.W.5 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.5/P.W.6/ is the wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.6/P.W.6/ is the police intimation.

Ex.P.7/P.W.6/ is the endorsement of P.W.6 on Ex.P.1.

Ex.P.8/P.W.7/ is the statement of P.W.7 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.9/P.W.9/ is the deletion memo.

Ex.P.10/P.W.10/ is the Original FIR.

Ex.P.11/P.W.10/ is the Rough Sketch

No witness is examined, and no exhibit is marked for accused No.1 to 3.

Above judgment is directly typed by me on personal computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this 28 th day of March 2025

SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

2025.03.28 15:08:44 +05'30'

Digital Signature of PCJ (JD) cum JMFC, FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, Tanuku

Page No. 6 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TANUKU

C.C.No. 1018/2021

Calendar Case Number: 1018 of 2021

Date of Offence: 05.09.2021

Date of Complaint: 05.09.2021 (Hospital Statement)

Date of Apprehension :U/Sec.41(A)(1) Cr.P.C. notice served.

of Accused

Date of taking on file: 29.10.2021

Date of Commencement of trial: 30.11.2022

Date of Closure of trial: 12.03.2025

Date of Sentence of Order: 28.03.2025

Complainant:The State, Represented by its Sub-

Inspector of Police, Peravali Police

Station, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

Name of the Accused:1. Yallamilli Mohan Rao, S/o Babu Rao, 42 years,

2. Yallamilli Pandu, S/o Yohanu, 32 years,

3. Yallamilli Sudhakar, S/o Babu Rao, 25 years,

All are residents of Mukkamala Village,

Peravali Mandal.

Nature of Offences:Subjecting that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for punishment.

Section of Law:u/Section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC

Finding of the Court:Accused Nos.1 to 3 found not guilty for the offence under Section 324, 323 of I.P.C.

r/w. 34 IPC.

Page No. 7 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

Order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 271(1) of the BNSS (formerly Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure). The accused No.1 to 3 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for six months under Section 481 of the

BNSS (previously Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of judgment.

Explanation for delay: The prosecution did not secure witnesses in proper time.

No witness is required to attend more than three times. NBW pending against

Accused. Hence the delay.

Digital Signature:

SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

2025.03.28 15:09:11

+05'30'

PCJ (JD) cum JMFC, FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, TANUKU

Page No. 1 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: TANUKU

Present: Sri. Sai Ram Potharlanka PCJ (JD) cum JMFC

FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, TANUKU

Friday, on Twenty Eighth Day of March, Two Thousand Twenty-Five

(28.03.2025)

C.C.No. 1018/2021

Between:

The State, Represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Peravali Police Station,

Tanuku, West Godavari District. ... Complainant

and

1. Yallamilli Mohan Rao, S/o Babu Rao, 42 years,

2. Yallamilli Pandu, S/o Yohanu, 32 years,

3. Yallamilli Sudhakar, S/o Babu Rao, 25 years,

All are residents of Mukkamala Village, Peravali Mandal. ... Accused

Counsels on record:

For complainant : Sri. E. Hanumantha Rao, Asst. P.P.;

For accused No.1 to 3 : Sri. U.B. Ranjendra Prasad; Sri. V. Sathish Kumar;

Final hearing Date : On 21.03.2025

JUDGMENT

a. The charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC in Cr. No. 388/2021 of Peravali Police Station. The case was registered based on a complaint by the injured/LW.1/P.W.1/Yallamilli

Sundar Rao for the offence under sections 324, 323, 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C.

b. Facts of the Prosecution Case: The case arises from an incident on 05.09.2021 at 3:00 PM in Mukkamala village, Peravali Mandal, where a dispute arose regarding the joint hand-pump between the accused and LW.1.

During the altercation, A-2 allegedly caught the neck of LW.1, and A-3

Page No. 2 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 assaulted him with a brick, causing injuries. LW.1 was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Tanuku, where his statement was recorded. The police registered the case and investigated the matter by examining witnesses, preparing a scene-of-offence sketch, and obtaining medical evidence. The accused were served notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and later appeared

before the Court. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the accused under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC in Cr. No.

388/2021 of Peravali Police Station.

c. Summons served to the accused No.1 to 3. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 Copies of all documents, including FIR, statements, and medical evidence, were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges were framed accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

d. The prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 (injured witness) deposed regarding the attack by the accused. PW-2 (wife of PW-1) stated she was informed about the assault by her daughter. PW-3 to PW-7 (eyewitnesses) were declared hostile. PW-8 (Head Constable) spoke about the hospital intimation and statement recording. PW-9 (S.I. of Police) conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW-10 (Head

Constable) registered the FIR and examined witnesses.

e. After completion of investigation the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating materiel found against them in prosecution case. For which the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. They reported no defence evidence and did not lead any defence evidence.

f. Arguments:

g. Prosecution: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that PW-1’s testimony is consistent and supported by medical evidence. Despite PW-3 to PW-7 turning hostile, the direct evidence of PW-1, coupled with the wound certificate, proves that the accused assaulted him. The delay in FIR

Page No. 3 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 registration was due to procedural constraints and does not affect the credibility of the case. The prosecution urged that the court should rely on the victim’s testimony, as it is supported by medical evidence.

h. Defense: The learned counsel for the accused contended that the case was falsely fabricated due to family disputes. They argued that PW-3 to PW-7, who were cited as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution. The doctor (PW-6) admitted that PW-1 was under alcohol influence at the time of examination, which raises doubts about the accuracy of his statements. The delay in FIR registration and the failure to seize the weapon (brick) also weaken the prosecution’s case. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

i. Heard both side and perused the record.

j. Point for Determination: Whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed offences under Sections 324, 323 read with 34 IPC?

k. Answer to Point:

l. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of PW-1, the injured witness. PW-1 in his chief examination stated, "A-2 caught my neck and A-3 hit me with a brick on my head, due to which I sustained bleeding injuries and fell on the ground." He further stated that "neighbours rescued me and took me to the Government Hospital, Tanuku." His statement is supported by

Ex.P-1, which is his initial complaint given to the police.

m. PW-2, the wife of PW-1, stated, "I was not present at the scene of offence, but my daughter informed me over the phone that A-1 to A-3 beat PW-1 and shifted him to the hospital." However, PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that she did not witness the incident firsthand.

n. PW-3 to PW-7, who were cited as eyewitnesses, turned hostile and denied knowledge of the incident. PW-3, in his deposition, stated, "I do not know how PW-1 got injured. I only saw him lying on the road and helped him reach

Page No. 4 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021 the hospital." PW-4 to PW-7 gave similar statements, leading to inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events.

o. The medical evidence provided by PW-6, the doctor, stated, "PW-1 had a laceration on the parieto-occipital region and another on the occipital region.

The injuries were simple in nature." He also confirmed issuing Ex.P-5, the wound certificate, but noted in cross-examination that "PW-1 was under the influence of alcohol when he arrived at the hospital." p. The delay in FIR registration also raises doubts. PW-10, the head constable who registered the FIR, stated, "I received hospital intimation after 17 hours from Tanuku Town Police Station, which led to the delay in registering the case." This delay remains unexplained and affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

q. Given that the primary eyewitnesses (PW-3 to PW-7) turned hostile and the

FIR registration was delayed, the prosecution's case hinges solely on the testimony of PW-1. While PW-1’s version is consistent, the absence of independent corroboration, coupled with the contradictions in witness statements and procedural lapses, creates reasonable doubt.

r. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against prosecution. Thus, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.

s. In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 271(1) of the BNSS (formerly Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure). The accused No.1 to 3 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for six months under Section 481 of the BNSS (previously Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of judgment.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

List of witnesses examined for prosecution:

P.W.1/ Yallamilli Sundara Rao/15.03.2023

Page No. 5 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

P.W.2/Yallamilli Sujatha/15.11.2023

P.W.3/Y. Rajesh/16.10.2024

P.W.4/A. Srinu/16.10.2024

P.W.5/M. Sattemma/23.10.2024

P.W.6/ Dr. L.Sai Balaji/23.10.2024

P.W.7/ K.V. Subba Rao/23.10.2024

P.W.8/ N. Jaya Simha/22.01.2025

P.W.9/ M. Surya Bhagavan/29.01.2025

P.W.10/ V. Srinivas/05.02.2025

Exhibits marked for prosecution:

Ex.P.1/P.W.1/ is the statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2/P.W.3/is the statement of P.W.3 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.3/P.W.4/ is the statement of P.W.4 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.4/P.W.5/ is the statement of P.W.5 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.5/P.W.6/ is the wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.6/P.W.6/ is the police intimation.

Ex.P.7/P.W.6/ is the endorsement of P.W.6 on Ex.P.1.

Ex.P.8/P.W.7/ is the statement of P.W.7 recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C. by police.

Ex.P.9/P.W.9/ is the deletion memo.

Ex.P.10/P.W.10/ is the Original FIR.

Ex.P.11/P.W.10/ is the Rough Sketch

No witness is examined, and no exhibit is marked for accused No.1 to 3.

Above judgment is directly typed by me on personal computer, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this 28 th day of March 2025

SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

2025.03.28 15:08:44 +05'30'

Digital Signature of PCJ (JD) cum JMFC, FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, Tanuku

Page No. 6 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

CUM

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: TANUKU

C.C.No. 1018/2021

Calendar Case Number: 1018 of 2021

Date of Offence: 05.09.2021

Date of Complaint: 05.09.2021 (Hospital Statement)

Date of Apprehension :U/Sec.41(A)(1) Cr.P.C. notice served.

of Accused

Date of taking on file: 29.10.2021

Date of Commencement of trial: 30.11.2022

Date of Closure of trial: 12.03.2025

Date of Sentence of Order: 28.03.2025

Complainant:The State, Represented by its Sub-

Inspector of Police, Peravali Police

Station, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

Name of the Accused:1. Yallamilli Mohan Rao, S/o Babu Rao, 42 years,

2. Yallamilli Pandu, S/o Yohanu, 32 years,

3. Yallamilli Sudhakar, S/o Babu Rao, 25 years,

All are residents of Mukkamala Village,

Peravali Mandal.

Nature of Offences:Subjecting that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable for punishment.

Section of Law:u/Section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC

Finding of the Court:Accused Nos.1 to 3 found not guilty for the offence under Section 324, 323 of I.P.C.

r/w. 34 IPC.

Page No. 7 of 7 (Fair)

CNR No. APWG170017202021

Order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 324, 323 of I.P.C. r/w. 34 IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 271(1) of the BNSS (formerly Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure). The accused No.1 to 3 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for six months under Section 481 of the

BNSS (previously Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of judgment.

Explanation for delay: The prosecution did not secure witnesses in proper time.

No witness is required to attend more than three times. NBW pending against

Accused. Hence the delay.

Digital Signature:

SAI RAM POTHARLANKA

2025.03.28 15:09:11

+05'30'

PCJ (JD) cum JMFC, FAC/I ACJ(JD) cum I AJMFC, TANUKU