Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail

1

Calendar and Judgment Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROMIN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES –CUM – I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES –CUM – I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE.ONGOLE.

Present:- Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail, Present:- Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail, Spl. Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Spl. Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the 28 Wednesday, this the 28thth day of June, 2017 day of June, 2017

POCSOA SESSIONS CASE No.22/2017 POCSOA SESSIONS CASE No.22/2017

(Crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi Police Station) (Crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi Police Station)

Between : Between :

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi PS., State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi PS., ......Complainant Complainant

And And

Darnasi @ Dharnasi Chiranjivi @ Chiranjeevi, Darnasi @ Dharnasi Chiranjivi @ Chiranjeevi, son of Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, SC Mala by caste, son of Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, SC Mala by caste, native of Budhvada village of Chimakurthi Mandal, native of Budhvada village of Chimakurthi Mandal, Resident of Ravellavaripalem village of Resident of Ravellavaripalem village of Marripudi Mandal.Marripudi Mandal.……Accused Accused

1.1.Date of occurrenceDate of occurrence::07.01.201707.01.2017

2.Date of Complaint:07.01.2017

3.Date of appearance of accused : 22.02.2017

4.Date of commencement of trial:16.05.2017

5.Date of close of trial:23.06.2017

6.Date of sentence or order:28.06.2017

Sentence or order:-:-Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for theIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexualoffence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section.235(1) of CriminalOffences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of SixThe bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under Section.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.months as contemplated under Section.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

As there is no property in this case the order in respect of disposal ofAs there is no property in this case the order in respect of disposal of the property is not passed. the property is not passed.

Explanation for the delay:- On 08.02.2017 this case was taken on file forExplanation for the delay:- On 08.02.2017 this case was taken on file for the offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexualthe offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused and on appearance of the accused,Offences Act, 2012 against the accused and on appearance of the accused, copies furnished to him, heard on charges and on 22.02.2017 the accusedcopies furnished to him, heard on charges and on 22.02.2017 the accused

2

was examined under section.228(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, for which thewas examined under section.228(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, for which the accused denied the offence and claimed to be tried and a charge underaccused denied the offence and claimed to be tried and a charge under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 wassection.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was framed against the accused. Later this case is being posted from time toframed against the accused. Later this case is being posted from time to time for trial. In this case, trial was commenced on 16.05.2017 and closedtime for trial. In this case, trial was commenced on 16.05.2017 and closed on 23.06.2017 and during the course of trial, the prosecution has examinedon 23.06.2017 and during the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. After closure of the evidence ofPws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. After closure of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, on 27.06.2017 the accused was examined underprosecution witnesses, on 27.06.2017 the accused was examined under section.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminatingsection.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecutioncircumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported that he had nowitnesses, for which he denied the same and reported that he had no defence evidence and on the same day arguments heard. On 28.06.2017defence evidence and on the same day arguments heard. On 28.06.2017 judgment is pronounced, acquitting the accused of his offence charged with.judgment is pronounced, acquitting the accused of his offence charged with. Hence, the delay. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Shaik. Mohd. Ismail Sd/- Shaik. Mohd. Ismail

Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole. I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at HyderabadThe Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Copy to :

1. The Director of Prosecution, Vijaywada.

2. The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Ongole.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

3

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROMIN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES –CUM – I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CASES –CUM – I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE.ONGOLE.

Present:- Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail, Present:- Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail, Spl. Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual Spl. Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, Wednesday, this the 28this the 28thth day of June, 2017 day of June, 2017

POCSOA SESSIONS CASE No.22/2017 POCSOA SESSIONS CASE No.22/2017

(Crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi Police Station) (Crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi Police Station)

Between : Between :

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi PS., State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi PS., ......Complainant Complainant

And And

Darnasi @ Dharnasi Chiranjivi @ Chiranjeevi, Darnasi @ Dharnasi Chiranjivi @ Chiranjeevi, son of Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, SC Mala by caste, son of Bramhaiah, aged 30 years, SC Mala by caste, native of Budhvada village of Chimakurthi Mandal, native of Budhvada village of Chimakurthi Mandal, Resident of Ravellavaripalem village of Resident of Ravellavaripalem village of Marripudi Mandal.Marripudi Mandal.……Accused Accused

This sessions case coming on 27.06.2017 before me for final hearingThis sessions case coming on 27.06.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant andin the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri I.Venkateswarlu and Ch.Bala Chennaiah, Advocates for the accused,of Sri I.Venkateswarlu and Ch.Bala Chennaiah, Advocates for the accused, and on perusal of material on record, upon hearing the counsels for bothand on perusal of material on record, upon hearing the counsels for both parties, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Courtparties, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:delivered the following:

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section.10The accused was charged for the offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

2.2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police Station, filed chargeThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.3/2017 under sections.448, 354(B) ofsheet against the accused in crime No.3/2017 under sections.448, 354(B) of

Indian Penal Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of Protection ofIndian Penal Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to punish the accused according toChildren from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, to punish the accused according to law.law.

3.3.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows that, theThe brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows that, the victim girl is daughter of PW.1 Solasa Varalakshmi and PW.2 Solasavictim girl is daughter of PW.1 Solasa Varalakshmi and PW.2 Solasa

Veerabrahmaiah and they are residents of Ravellavaripalem village ofVeerabrahmaiah and they are residents of Ravellavaripalem village of

Marripudi Mandal. The victim girl is aged about 16 years and is suffering withMarripudi Mandal. The victim girl is aged about 16 years and is suffering with

4

physically and mentally disordered and dumb girl. The accused is vagabondphysically and mentally disordered and dumb girl. The accused is vagabond and put his evil eyes on the victim girl and waiting for an opportunity toand put his evil eyes on the victim girl and waiting for an opportunity to quench his sexual thirst with her. On 07.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours PWs.1quench his sexual thirst with her. On 07.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours PWs.1 and 2 went to the fields for securing grass to the buffaloes, leaving the victimand 2 went to the fields for securing grass to the buffaloes, leaving the victim girl alone in their house and taking advantage of it, at about 15.30 hours thegirl alone in their house and taking advantage of it, at about 15.30 hours the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the victim girl, caught holdaccused criminally trespassed into the house of the victim girl, caught hold the hand of the victim girl, behaved indecently with the victim girl by usingthe hand of the victim girl, behaved indecently with the victim girl by using criminal force. Frightening to the acts of the accused, the victim girl raisedcriminal force. Frightening to the acts of the accused, the victim girl raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5hue and cry and on hearing her cries PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5

Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7 Solasa Chennamma rushed to the scene ofSolasa Govindaiah and PW.7 Solasa Chennamma rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the acts of the accused towards the victim girl andoffence and witnessed the acts of the accused towards the victim girl and then PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7then PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7

Solasa Chennamma admonished the accused and among them PW.4 tried toSolasa Chennamma admonished the accused and among them PW.4 tried to catch hold of the accused but the accused managed to escape from thecatch hold of the accused but the accused managed to escape from the scene of offence and then on the report of PW.1, PW.12 Sub-Inspector ofscene of offence and then on the report of PW.1, PW.12 Sub-Inspector of

Police, Marripudi Police Station, registered a case in crime No.3/2017 underPolice, Marripudi Police Station, registered a case in crime No.3/2017 under sections.448, 354(B) of Indian Penal Code; and under section.7 read withsections.448, 354(B) of Indian Penal Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ofsection.8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of

Marripudi Police Station and submitted original First Information Report to theMarripudi Police Station and submitted original First Information Report to the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, and copies to all the concernedJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, and copies to all the concerned

officers and during the course of investigation, PW.12 examined Pws.1 to 7officers and during the course of investigation, PW.12 examined Pws.1 to 7 and recorded their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. and also visitedand recorded their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. and also visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch the scene ofthe scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch the scene of offence and scene observation report duly attested by the mediators and onoffence and scene observation report duly attested by the mediators and on 09.01.2017 arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody for remand09.01.2017 arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody for remand and on completion of further investigation laid charge sheet against theand on completion of further investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections.448, 354(B) of Indian Penalaccused for the offence punishable under sections.448, 354(B) of Indian Penal

Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of Protection of Children fromCode; and under section.7 read with section.8 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of Marripudi Police Station. Sexual Offences Act, 2012 of Marripudi Police Station.

4.4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable underThe case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

5

section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, againstsection.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, against the accused. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing of all thethe accused. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing of all the copies of documents and on hearing of the learned counsels for both thecopies of documents and on hearing of the learned counsels for both the parties, the accused was examined under Section.228(2) of Criminalparties, the accused was examined under Section.228(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code, and a charge under section.10 of Protection of Children fromProcedure Code, and a charge under section.10 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was framed against the accused, read over andSexual Offences Act, 2012 was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and pleaded notexplained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined andOn behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. Exs.P1 to P16 were marked.

6.6.After closure of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accusedAfter closure of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining thewas examined under section.313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence ofincriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported noprosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. defence evidence.

7.7.Heard the learned counsels for both parties.Heard the learned counsels for both parties.

8.Now, the points for determination are:

1. 1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case against Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under the accused for the offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, beyond all reasonable doubt? Offences Act, 2012, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. 2. To what result, the accused is entitled? To what result, the accused is entitled?

Point No.1 : Point No.1 :

99..The case of the prosecution is that, the victim girl is daughter ofThe case of the prosecution is that, the victim girl is daughter of

PW.1 Solasa Varalakshmi and PW.2 Solasa Veerabrahmaiah and they arePW.1 Solasa Varalakshmi and PW.2 Solasa Veerabrahmaiah and they are residents of Ravellavaripalem village of Marripudi Mandal. The victim girl isresidents of Ravellavaripalem village of Marripudi Mandal. The victim girl is aged about 16 years and is suffering with physically and mentally disorderedaged about 16 years and is suffering with physically and mentally disordered and dumb girl. The accused is vagabond and put his evil eyes on the victimand dumb girl. The accused is vagabond and put his evil eyes on the victim girl and waiting for an opportunity to quench his sexual thirst with her. Ongirl and waiting for an opportunity to quench his sexual thirst with her. On

6

07.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours PWs.1 and 2 went to the fields for securing07.01.2017 at about 15.00 hours PWs.1 and 2 went to the fields for securing grass to the buffaloes, leaving the victim girl alone in their house and takinggrass to the buffaloes, leaving the victim girl alone in their house and taking advantage of it, at about 15.30 hours the accused criminally trespassed intoadvantage of it, at about 15.30 hours the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the victim girl, caught hold the hand of the victim girl, behavedthe house of the victim girl, caught hold the hand of the victim girl, behaved indecently with the victim girl by using criminal force. Frightening to the actsindecently with the victim girl by using criminal force. Frightening to the acts of the accused, the victim girl raised hue and cry and on hearing her criesof the accused, the victim girl raised hue and cry and on hearing her cries

PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7 SolasaPW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah, PW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7 Solasa

Chennamma rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the acts of theChennamma rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the acts of the accused towards the victim girl and then PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah,accused towards the victim girl and then PW.4 Bathula Veeraiah @ Yerraiah,

PW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7 Solasa Chennamma admonished thePW.5 Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7 Solasa Chennamma admonished the accused and among them PW.4 tried to catch hold of the accused but theaccused and among them PW.4 tried to catch hold of the accused but the accused managed to escape from the scene of offence. accused managed to escape from the scene of offence.

10.10.To prove the guilt of the accused, on behalf of prosecutionTo prove the guilt of the accused, on behalf of prosecution

P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked.

11.11.PW.1- Solasa Vara Lakshmi who is the mother of the victim girlPW.1- Solasa Vara Lakshmi who is the mother of the victim girl and who set criminal law into motion by giving complaint to police, turnedand who set criminal law into motion by giving complaint to police, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that she knows the accused,hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that she knows the accused, she does not know anything about the offence and she cannot say anythingshe does not know anything about the offence and she cannot say anything about the occurrence, she gave Ex.P1 report to Marripudi Police but she doesabout the occurrence, she gave Ex.P1 report to Marripudi Police but she does not know its contents and she was not examined by police and hernot know its contents and she was not examined by police and her section.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2. She further deposedsection.161(3) Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2. She further deposed that she gave statement before Magistrate at Darsi on the tutoring of police. that she gave statement before Magistrate at Darsi on the tutoring of police.

12.12.PW.2- Solasa Veera Brahamaiah who is husband of PW.1 andPW.2- Solasa Veera Brahamaiah who is husband of PW.1 and father of victim girl, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposedfather of victim girl, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and deposed that he knows the accused, he does not know anything about the offencethat he knows the accused, he does not know anything about the offence and he cannot say anything about the occurrence and he was not examinedand he cannot say anything about the occurrence and he was not examined by police and he gave statement before the Magistrate at Darsi on theby police and he gave statement before the Magistrate at Darsi on the tutoring of police. tutoring of police.

13.13.PW.3- Solasa Mayuri and PW.6- Solasa Nageswara Rao, who arePW.3- Solasa Mayuri and PW.6- Solasa Nageswara Rao, who are material witnesses to the case of prosecution, turned hostile and deposedmaterial witnesses to the case of prosecution, turned hostile and deposed

7

that they do not know anything about the offence and they cannot saythat they do not know anything about the offence and they cannot say anything about the occurrence and they were not examined by police andanything about the occurrence and they were not examined by police and their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.P4 andtheir statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.P4 and

P7 respectively. P7 respectively.

14.14.PW.4-Bathula Veeraiah, PW.5-Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7-PW.4-Bathula Veeraiah, PW.5-Solasa Govindaiah and PW.7-

Solasa Chennamma, who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the criesSolasa Chennamma, who rushed to the scene of offence on hearing the cries of victim girl and saw the acts of the accused which were committed by himof victim girl and saw the acts of the accused which were committed by him against the victim girl to quench his sexual thirst, turned hostile to the caseagainst the victim girl to quench his sexual thirst, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and in one voice they deposed that they do not know anythingof prosecution and in one voice they deposed that they do not know anything about the offence and they cannot say anything about the occurrence andabout the offence and they cannot say anything about the occurrence and they were not examined by police and their statements under section.161(3)they were not examined by police and their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.P5, P6 and P8 respectively. of Cr.P.C. were marked as Exs.P5, P6 and P8 respectively.

15.15.PW.8-Mallapuram Ramesh and PW.9- Pasupuleti Suresh BabuPW.8-Mallapuram Ramesh and PW.9- Pasupuleti Suresh Babu who acted as mediators at the time of observation of the scene of offencewho acted as mediators at the time of observation of the scene of offence and drafting of scene observation report turned hostile to the case ofand drafting of scene observation report turned hostile to the case of prosecution and their signatures on scene observation report was marked asprosecution and their signatures on scene observation report was marked as

Exs.P9 and P10 respectively. Exs.P9 and P10 respectively.

16.16.PW.10 Dr.K.Ramesh Babu deposed that he is working as TutorPW.10 Dr.K.Ramesh Babu deposed that he is working as Tutor in Psychiatry, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, since 04.01.2012. He deposed that onin Psychiatry, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, since 04.01.2012. He deposed that on 01.02.2017 on the requisition of Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police01.02.2017 on the requisition of Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police

Station, he examined the victim girl to know her mental status and foundStation, he examined the victim girl to know her mental status and found that she is having lower intelligence and comes under “SEVERE MENTALthat she is having lower intelligence and comes under “SEVERE MENTAL

RETARDATION” under developmental screening test and after examination ofRETARDATION” under developmental screening test and after examination of the victim girl he issued Ex.P11 certificate to the Sub-Inspector of Police,the victim girl he issued Ex.P11 certificate to the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Marripudi Police Station.Marripudi Police Station.

17.17.PW.11 -Dr.M.Subba Rao deposed that he is working asPW.11 -Dr.M.Subba Rao deposed that he is working as

Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole,Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS Hospital, Ongole, since 08.08.2011. He deposed that on 31.01.2017 at 11.00 am., on thesince 08.08.2011. He deposed that on 31.01.2017 at 11.00 am., on the requisition of Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police Station, he examinedrequisition of Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police Station, he examined the victim girl for determination of her age and after examination of thethe victim girl for determination of her age and after examination of the

8

victim girl he issued Ex.P12 age certificate of victim girl and he opined thatvictim girl he issued Ex.P12 age certificate of victim girl and he opined that the age of the victim girl is about 16 to 17 years.the age of the victim girl is about 16 to 17 years.

18.18. PW.12 Y.Srihari deposed that he is working as Sub-Inspector PW.12 Y.Srihari deposed that he is working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Marripudi Police Station since 05.05.2016. He deposed that onof Police, Marripudi Police Station since 05.05.2016. He deposed that on 07.01.2017 at 18.00 hours while he was present in Marripudi Police Station07.01.2017 at 18.00 hours while he was present in Marripudi Police Station

PW.1 came to Police Station along with PW.2 and PW.1 presented Ex.A1 toPW.1 came to Police Station along with PW.2 and PW.1 presented Ex.A1 to him and he registered the said Ex.P1 as crime No.3/2017 under sections.448,him and he registered the said Ex.P1 as crime No.3/2017 under sections.448, 354-B of Indian Penal Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of354-B of Indian Penal Code; and under section.7 read with section.8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and submitted Ex.P13Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and submitted Ex.P13

First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili andFirst Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili and then he examined PWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements underthen he examined PWs.1 and 2 and recorded their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. He deposed that on 08.01.2017 he proceeded to thesection.161(3) of Cr.P.C. He deposed that on 08.01.2017 he proceeded to the scene of offence which is situated in the house of PW.1 in Ravellavaripalemscene of offence which is situated in the house of PW.1 in Ravellavaripalem village of Marripadu Mandal and drafted Ex.A14 scene observation report onvillage of Marripadu Mandal and drafted Ex.A14 scene observation report on 08.01.2017 at 08.30 am., and after drafting of Ex.P14, he drafted Ex.P1508.01.2017 at 08.30 am., and after drafting of Ex.P14, he drafted Ex.P15 rough sketch of the scene of offence. He deposed that after drafting ofrough sketch of the scene of offence. He deposed that after drafting of

Ex.P15, he secured the presence of Pws.5 to 7 and examined them andEx.P15, he secured the presence of Pws.5 to 7 and examined them and recorded their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. He deposed thatrecorded their statements under section.161(3) of Cr.P.C. He deposed that during course of investigation on 09.01.2017 he filed Ex.P16 memo beforeduring course of investigation on 09.01.2017 he filed Ex.P16 memo before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, for recording section.164 Cr.P.C.the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, for recording section.164 Cr.P.C.

statement of the victim girl, Pws.1, 2, 5 and 7 and on 09.01.2017 he arrestedstatement of the victim girl, Pws.1, 2, 5 and 7 and on 09.01.2017 he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody for remand and afterthe accused and sent him to judicial custody for remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused. completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

19.19.By relying upon the evidence on record, By relying upon the evidence on record, though the officialthough the official witnesses who are Pws.10 to PW.12 deposed supporting the case ofwitnesses who are Pws.10 to PW.12 deposed supporting the case of prosecution, the de facto complainant and eye witnesses to the case ofprosecution, the de facto complainant and eye witnesses to the case of prosecution turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecutionprosecution turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution consequently the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accusedconsequently the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused that the accused put his evil eyes on the victim girl to quench his sexualthat the accused put his evil eyes on the victim girl to quench his sexual thirst with her and on 07.01.2017 at about 15.30 hours when the victim girlthirst with her and on 07.01.2017 at about 15.30 hours when the victim girl

9

alone present in her house, he gained entrance into her house andalone present in her house, he gained entrance into her house and attempted to commit rape on her by using criminal force. attempted to commit rape on her by using criminal force.

In view of the above said discussion, I answered this point against theIn view of the above said discussion, I answered this point against the prosecution and in favour of the accused. prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point No.2: Point No.2:

20.20.In view of my answering on Point No.1 in favour of the accusedIn view of my answering on Point No.1 in favour of the accused and against the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove its caseand against the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishableIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012under section.10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted under section.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. and he is acquitted under section.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of SixThe bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months as contemplated under Section.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.months as contemplated under Section.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code.

As there is no property in this case the order in respect of disposal ofAs there is no property in this case the order in respect of disposal of the property is not passed. the property is not passed.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronouncedTyped to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28thby me in open Court, this the 28th Day of June, 2017. Day of June, 2017.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole. I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :- For Prosecution :- For Defence: - For Defence: -

P.W.1 : Solasa VaralakshmiP.W.1: Solasa Varalakshmi NONE NONE P.W.2 : Solasa Veera BrahmaiahSolasa Veera Brahmaiah P.W.3 : Solasa MayuriSolasa Mayuri P.W.4 : Bathula Veeraiah PW.5: Solasa Govindaiah PW.6: Solasa Nageswara Rao PW.7: Solasa Chennamma PW.8: Mallapuram Ramesh PW.9: Pasupuleti Suresh Babu PW.10: Dr.K.Ramesh Babu PW.11: Dr.M.Subba Rao PW.12: Y.Srihari, SI of Police

10

Documents Marked For Prosecution: For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P2 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2Ex.P3: 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3Ex.P4: 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4Ex.P5: 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4 Ex.P6 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5Ex.P6: 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5 Ex.P7 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6Ex.P7 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7Ex.P8 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7 Ex.P9 : Signature of PW.8 on scene observation report, dated 08.01.2017 at Ex.P9 : Signature of PW.8 on scene observation report, dated 08.01.2017 at 08.30 am., 08.30 am., Ex.P10: Signature of PW.9 on scene observation report, dated 08.01.2017 at Ex.P10: Signature of PW.9 on scene observation report, dated 08.01.2017 at 08.30 am., 08.30 am., Ex.P11 :Letter addressed by PW.10 to PW.12 about mental condition of victim Ex.P11 :Letter addressed by PW.10 to PW.12 about mental condition of victim girl girl Ex.P12 : Age Certificate of the victim girlEx.P12 : Age Certificate of the victim girl Ex.P13 : First Information Report in crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi PS., Ex.P13 : First Information Report in crime No.3/2017 of Marripudi PS., Ex.P14 : Scene Observation Report, dated 08.01.2017Ex.P14 : Scene Observation Report, dated 08.01.2017 Ex.P15 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P15 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P16 : Memo to record section.164 Cr.P.C. statementsEx.P16 : Memo to record section.164 Cr.P.C. statements

For Defence:- NIL

Material Objects Marked :-

NIL

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children Spl.Judge for trial of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- from Sexual offences Act Cases-cum- I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole. I-Addl. Sessions Judge,Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION: ONGOLE

(Before the Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Ongole]

Present: Sri Shaik Mohd.Ismail

I Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole

FAC/Judge, Family Court-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the 11 th day of November, 2014

S.C.No.217/2012.

(PRC No.3/2012 on the file of the Court of Addl.Judicial First Class, Chirala relating to Cr.No.184/2011 of Chirala I Town Police Station)

BETWEEN:

The State: Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station, Prakasam District.--COMPLAINANT.

AND

Seelam Wilson Babu, @ Wilson, S/o Eslon Karmiya, Aged 29 years, SC-Mala by caste, R/o near Puttathota, Jawahar Nagar, Chirala, Prakasam District.-- ACCUSED.

Nature of the charges:U/s.302 of I.P.C.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and he is acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other case. Inform the same to the Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole.

It is further ordered that the non- valuable properties i.e., M.Os 1 to 6 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time.

This case coming on 5.11.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant/state and of Sri K.Pitchaiah, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing the counsels on record, upon perusing the material and documents available on record and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.184/2011 under Section 302 of I.P.C of

Chirala I Town Police Station to punish the accused according to law.

3.The brief averments in the charge sheet are as follows that:-

The deceased is residing near Puttathota, Jawahar Nagar, Chirala and the deceased is also resident of same locality residing in a rented house in front of the house of PW1. The deceased developed illegal intimacy with the wife of the accused and the accused warned the same to the wife of accused and the deceased, but the deceased did not change his attitude and on 24.9.2011 the accused left his house for his Cooly work and surprisingly came back at about 06.30 hours and the found the deceased was with the wife of the accused and then the accused picked up a knife and hacked the deceased indiscriminately on his right side of neck, left hand, left armpit and caused severe injuries, due to the said injuries caused by the accused the deceased fell down and after causing injuries the accused went away, then P.Ws 1 to 3 were present at the time of the incident, they shifted the injured to Area hospital, Chirala for treatment from there he was referred to Government

General Hospital, Guntur for better treatment and on the report of PW1 the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station registered a case against the accused as Cr.No.184/2011 under Sec.307 of I.P.C and investigated into and the injured while undergoing treatment on 25.9.2011 at about 12.00 noon died and on receiving the death intimation the Section of Law was altered to under

Sec.302 of I.P.C from 307 of I.P.C and the Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town 3

Police Station took up further investigation and during the course of investigation the Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station arrested the accused on 29.9.211 and on his confession the Inspector of Police, Chirala I-

Town Police Station recovered the blood stained knife on production of the accused and after completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Chirala

I-Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused to punish the accused according to law.

4.The learned Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala taken cognizance of the case as P.R.C.No.3/2012 under section 302 of I.P.C and after following the procedure, as the case is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division

under Sec. 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.

5.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Prakasam Ongole was pleased to number the same as S.C.No.217/2012 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.On appearance of the accused and after hearing the learned counsels for both the parties, a charge under section 302 of I.P.C was framed against the accused, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P27 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked.

8.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material in the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 12 and 14 to 17 was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he has no defence evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

4

9.Arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for both parties heard.

10.Now the points that arise for determination are

1. Whether the prosecution has proved its case against

the accused for the offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result, the accused is entitled?

POINT No.1:-

11.

a) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased during his life time developed illegal intimacy with the wife of the accused and in spite of warning by the accused, the deceased did not change his attitude and on 24.9.2011 at about 05.30 hours the accused left his house to attend his works and surprisingly he came back at 06.30 hours and found the deceased with the wife of the accused and on seeing the same the accused grew wild and picked up a knife and stabbed the deceased and caused multiple injuries and after causing of the injuries the accused went away and immediately the injured was shifted to Area hospital, Chirala and on the report of PW1 the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station registered a case against the accused as

Cr.No.184/2011 under Sec.307 of I.P.C and while undergoing treatment the deceased died in Government General Hospital, Guntur and after receiving death intimation the sections of law was altered to under section 302 of I.P.C from section 307 of I.P.C and the Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police

Station took up investigation and arrested the accused and recovered M.O.3 knife on production of the accused and after completion of investigation, the

Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused to punish the accused according to law.

5

b) To prove the guilty of the accused the prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 17, Exs.P1 to P27 and M.Os 1 to 6 were marked.

c) PW1 is the sister of PW4 and who is the de facto complainant and eyewitness to the incident. She did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and her 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements are marked as

Exs.P2 and P3 and was cross-examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor. PW2 is husband of PW1 and who is an eyewitness to the incident, he also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and his 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P4 and P5. PW3 is the brother and PW4 is the mother of the deceased, they also did not support the case of the prosecution and they deposed that they do not know anything about the offence and they cannot say how the deceased died. As P.Ws 3 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor treated the witnesses as hostile and their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P6 to P8. PW5 is the maternal uncle of the deceased and P.Ws 6, 7 and 13, who are the eyewitnesses to the incident, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile and their 161 (3) Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P9 to

P12 and P16 respectively.

d) PW8 is the photographer who took the photographs at the scene of offence. P.Ws 9 to 11 are the mediators, who said to have been present at the time of observation of the scene of offence and at the time of drafting of inquest report and at the time of arrest and seizure of M.O.3 from the possession of the accused, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW12 is in charge out post police station of Area hospital

Chirala. PW14 is the medical officer who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW15 is working as Village Revenue

Officer and his evidence shows that he was present when the Inspector of

Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station arrested the accused under cover of

Exs.P14 and P15 and at the time of seizure of M.O.3 on production of the 6 accused. PW16 is the investigating officer, who registered Ex.P1 as a case in

Cr.No.184/2011 under section 307 of I.P.C and after the death of the deceased he filed a memo for alteration of section of law and PW17 is working as

Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station and he is the investigating officer in this case.

e) By relying upon the evidence on record, all the eyewitnesses and the material witnesses, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, in view of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7 and 13, I am of the opinion that there is no evidence against the accused that the accused killed the deceased on the date of incident, though PW15 Village Revenue Officer and

PW17 Inspector of Police, Chirala I-Town Police Station deposed that they arrested the accused under cover of Exs.P14 and P15 and the accused produced

M.O.3-MODDU KATHI, but as Exs.P14 and P15 were recorded immediately in the presence of police, I am of the opinion that Exs.P14 and P15 are inadmissible in evidence.

f) In FAC-III-Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),

Ranga Reddy District vs. Chandra Bhushan Upadhyay reported in 2007 (2)

ALD (Crl.) 135 the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that:

“Confession statement before the Police Officer is

in admissible in evidence.”

Following the above decision, and in the absence of any other convincing evidence, I am of the opinion that Exs.P14 and P15 are inadmissible in evidence.

g) By relying upon the above decision and relying upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7 and 13, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the contents of Exs.P14 and P15 cannot be accepted in evidence. Following the above decision and facts of the 7 case, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

h) In view of the above said discussion, I answered this point in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

POINT No.2:-

12.

In view of my answering on point No.1 in favour of the accused and against the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and is acquitted under Sec.232 Cr.P.C.

The Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is no longer required in any other case. Inform the same to the Superintendent, District Jail, Ongole.

It is further ordered that the non-valuable properties i.e., M.Os 1 to 6 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal time.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of November, 2014)

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

FAC/JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Battula Eswaramma. None PW2: Battula Anjaneyulu. PW3: Kunchala Brahmaiah. PW4: Kunchala Yanadamma. PW5: Rayani Govindamma. PW6: Kunchala Nageswara Rao. PW7: Thummalapati Sugunamma. PW8: Suragani Ranganath.

8

PW9: Shaik Jan Basha PW10: Kommuri Raja. PW11: Valluri Venkataswamy. PW12: K.S.Rajyam. PW13: Gunji Sreenu. PW14: Dr.V.Siva Kameswara Rao. PW15: Amarneni Udaya Bhasar. PW16: G.Chndrasekhar, S.I of Police. PW17: Ch.V.Seshaiah, Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1/24.09.2011: Statement of PW1 given to police. Ex.P2/24.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P4/24.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P5/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P6/24.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P7/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P8/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW4. Ex.P9/24.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P10/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW5. Ex.P11/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P12/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW7. Ex.P13/-- : Ten (10) Photographs along with Compact Disc. Ex.P14/24.09.2011: Hospital intimation. Ex.P15/24.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW13. Ex.P16/26.09.2011: 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW13. Ex.P17/26.09.2011: Post-mortem report of the deceased. Ex.P18/29.09.2011: Mediators report dated 29.9.2011 at 3.30 p.m. Ex.P19/29.09.2011: Seizure Mediators report dated 29.9.2011 at 4.45 p.m. Ex.P20/24.09.2011: Original FIR in Cr.No.184/2011 of Chirala I-Town P.S. Ex.P21/24.09.2011: Scene observation report dt.24.9.2011 at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P22/-- : Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P23/-- : Death intimation of the deceased. Ex.P24/25.09.2011: Alteration memo. Ex.P25/26.09.2011: Inquest report of the deceased. Ex.P26/10.10.2011: Letter of advice. Ex.P27/12.12.2011: R.F.S.L. Report.

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Blood stained Snuff colour full hands shirt.

M.O.2: Blood stained Black Pant.

M.O.3: Moddu Katti with 1 feet length with handle.

M.O.4: Blood stained stone. M.O.5: Stone without blood.

M.O.6: Blue colour embroidery shirt with blood stains.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

9

FAC/JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri K.V. Vijayakumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ongole

Dated this 29th day of August 2015

OS. No.225/2015

Between:

Petitioner and Advocate

1) Shaik Meeravali Address - Ro Dibbala road, Ongole. Advocate- Sk. Hujuthulla Bujji1) Silam Srinivasa Goud Address - Viswanadhapuram of Podili town and Mandal, Prakasam District, Driver cum owner of TATA Sumo AP 27 TV 0560.

Respondent and Advocate /Docket Order//

Made over to the VIIIAddl. District Judge, Ongole for disposal according to law.

Sd/- Sri K.V. Vijayakumar

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.99/2013

(in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur P.S.)

Between:

Siraboina Ranganayakulu @ Rangaswamy, s/o. Chinna Rangaiah, Hindu, 28 years, R/o. Kothakota village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/accused AND

State S.H.O., Giddalur P.S. rep. by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Mallikarjuna Reddy, counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following: -

O R D E R

This petition has been fled u/sec.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused concerned in Cr.No.2/2013 of Giddalur PS. for the offences u/Secs. 452,36. r/w. 511 of C.P.C.

2.Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to allow the petition.

3.Heard.

4.Point for consideration in this matter is

Whether the petition can be allowed as prayed for?

..Point:-

(a)As seen from the material available on record, on 3.1.2013 at 9.30 p.m., the mother of the complainant went into the village to see 40 days Jarthulu festival and the complainant, her father and brother slept in the house and when they were in sleep the petitioner entered into the house in a drunken state and removed the dupatta covered on the complainant the caught hold of the hand of the complainant and tried to drag her and on observing the alcohol smell the complainant told her father and then he woke up and picked up a stick and on seeing the same the petitioner ran away from there.

(b) Investigation is pending. I see no reasons to grant bail at this stage.

(c)In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the .th day of February, 2013.

PRL. SESSIONS

JUDGE,

ONGOLE Copy to:

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

2. The S.H.O., Giddalur P.S.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.127/2013

(in Cr.No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S.] Between:

1.Dara Samson s/o.Kotaiah, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.1).

2.Kaki Annadora s/o.Sarangam, aged 26 years, Mala by caste, Mariyampeta, Perala, Chirala (A.2)… Petitioners/Accused

AND

State: SHO, Chirala II town Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners/Accused and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C.to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.1/2013 of Chirala II town P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 446, 354, 50. r/w.34 IPC.

2.Notice is given to the Public Prosecutor, who opposed to grant bail to the petitioners/accused.

3.Heard both sides.

4.Pont for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 can be enlarged

on bail as prayed for?

5.POINT:

(a) As seen from the material on record, it shows that the petitioners are high handed nature and they used to roam in their locality without any job and that the 1st petitioner used to follow the defacto complainant Shaik Khasim Bee and was visiting her house for no cause in the temporary absence of inmates and brought pressure on her to fulfll his lust and when she denied, the 1st petitioner threatened her with dire consequences, and on 04.01.2013, at about 3 PM, when the defacto complainant was at her house, both the petitioners entered into her house, misbehaved with her and tried to catch and on hearing her cries, when the neighbours came there, the petitioners escaped from the house of the defacto complainant.

Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case was registered.

(b) As seen from the material available on record and as per the contents of the Xerox copy of the charge sheet fled by the petitioner along with a memo, the entire investigation was completed and charge sheet has been fled. Hence, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

..In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.5,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chirala with a further condition that he shall not cause any coercion, threat or promise to the witnesses connection to this case.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February, 2013

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala

2. The Station House Ofcer, Chirala II town Police Station. // t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS: PRAKASAM DIVISION:

ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole]

Present: Sri G.Chakradhara Rao, B.com., B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the sixth day of February, 2013

CRL.MP.No.125/2013

(in Cr.No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S.) Between:

1. Muchha @ Mutchu Anil s/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged 25 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (A.2).

2. Kondepi Nagarjuna s/o.Subba Rao, aged 21 years, Auto driver, Vellampalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District (A.3).… Petitioners/A.2 & A.3

AND

State: SHO, Maddipadu Police Station, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Jr.P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 and Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent and upon hearing the counsel of both parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1. This second bail application has been fled by the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. to grant bail, concerned in Crime No.246/2012 of Maddipadu P.S. for the offence punishable under Sections 3.. & 36. (iii)(g) r/w.511 & 201 IPC.

2. Notice was given to the Public Prosecutor, who strongly opposed to grant bail as sought for by the petitioners.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the petitioners/A.2 & A.3 can be released on bail as prayed for?

..POINT:

(a)As per material on record, it shows that, on 21.12.2012, at about 10 PM, the victim girl by name Palaparthi Sujatha, aged 19 years boarded the auto of the accused at Vellampalli bus stop along with some passengers for going to her house after completion of her duty and after reached Doddavaram village,

A.1, who works in medical shop in Vellampalli village and two other auto drivers kidnapped her and turned the auto towards the felds at the outskirts of Doddavaram and pulled her from the auto, dragged her in the felds and attempted to commit gang rape against her, and the victim girl struggled with them and escaped from the hands of A.1 to A.3, and the petitioners herein, who are A.4 & A.5 advised A.1 to A.3 and gave amount of

Rs.2000/- and sent them to Ongole and instructed them not to return to village till the matter is settled and thereby screened away the occurrence.

(b)The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 and A3 were arrested on 1.1.2013 and the entire material part of the investigation was completed and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

(c)As seen from the material on record, it further shows that the victim girl Palaparthi Sujatha boarded the auto at Vellampalli bus stop due to missing of Addanki bus and A.1 & A.2 were there, and when the auto reached Doddavaram village, all the passengers got down except A.1 to A.3 and the victim girl and when auto left Doddavaram village and when reached near

Poleramma temple at Doddavaram village, then A.1 to A.3 kidnapped the victim girl by turning the auto towards felds, dragged her into felds, fell down her on the ground and tried to commit gang rape on her. The victim girl with a great struggle with the accused, could escape from their hands, which shows that the accused not only kidnapped the victim girl, but also attempted to commit gang rape on her and the involvement of the petitioners in this crime is very serious one and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners in both the petitions.

..I see no changed circumstances from the date of dismissal of the earlier bail application.

6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected, and pronounced by me in open Court, this the .th day of February 2013.

PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to

1. The Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mobile Court, Ongole

2. The Station House Ofcer, Maddipadu Police Station.

Sd/-G.Chakradhara Rao,

// t.c.f.b.o.//

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

DISTRICT COURT, ONGOLE

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the 13 th day of December, 2016.

Original Suit No. 183/2016

BETWEEN:

Kunchala Subba Rao, son of Yedukondalu, aged about 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konidena village of Ballikurava Mandal... Plaintif

AND

Kunchala Nageswara Rao, son of Veera Raghavulu, aged about 54 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konidena village of

Ballikurava Mandal... Defendant

This original suit is coming on 06.12.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Nagarjuna Rao and P.Sriramaiah, advocates for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16,19,500/- being the

principal and interest due on an understanding agreement, dated 23.05.2015

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,30,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows, that the plaintiff purchased landed property in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents situated in survey

No.179/2B in Konidena village of Ballikurava Mandal which said to be belongs to the defendant and paid total consideration of an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on 30.11.2013 to the defendant and to that effect the defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff. Later on enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the land which said to be belongs to the defendant is a

Government land known as MANDABAYALU and then on Panchayat before elders the defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12,30,000/- to the plaintiff and executed a document styling it as ANGEEKARA OPPUDALA

PATRAM, dated 23.05.2015 stating that he will pay the said Rs.12,30,000/- 2 within two months from the date of agreement but failed to do so consequently the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.02.2016 and the defendant having received the said notice kept quiet without paying any amount due under the understanding agreement and thus the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the amount and submits for passing of decree with costs.

3.The defendant remained ex-parte on 28.11.2016 and no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 and A2 were marked.

The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and PW.2 is the 3rd attestor of

Ex.A1; Ex.A1 is the understanding agreement, dated 23.05.2015, Ex.A2 is legal notice, dated 23.02.2016

5.On behalf of the defendant, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

6.Now, the points for consideration are:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum as prayed for?

3.To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

7.Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits by relying upon the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, Ex.A1 that the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant for the land bearing survey

No.179/2B in Konidena village which is said to be belongs to the defendant but on enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the said land is Government land known as MANDA BAYALU and then on Panchayat before elders the defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.12,30,000/- to the plaintiff within two months from the date of 23.05.2015 but failed to do so and hence the 3 plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.02.2016 and the defendant having received the said legal notice kept quiet without giving proper reply and hence submits for passing of decree with costs.

On behalf of plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked.

To rebut the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the defendant did not adduce any evidence and remained, ex-parte. Hence, in view of the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2, as the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is unchallenged and as the defendant remained, ex-parte, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount has to be decreed as prayed for.

In view of the above discussion, I answered this point accordingly.

8.Point No.2:- The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits as per Ex.A1 understanding agreement, dated 23.05.2015 the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,30,000/- within two months from the date of its judgment but failed to do so and in spite of Ex.A2 legal notice as the defendant failed to discharge the due amount under

Ex.A1, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the due amount under Ex.A1 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and submits for passing of decree by awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

But as seen from the recitals of Ex.A1 there is no stipulation of contract for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence,

I am of the opinion that awarding of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.12,30,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

In view of the above said fact, I answered this point in favour of the plaintiff.

9.Point No.3:- In view of my answering on point Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs.

4

In the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.14,31,105/- with proportionate costs granting further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on

principal amount of Rs.12,30,000/- from the date of suit, till the date of

realisation.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th Day of December, 2016.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For plaintif:-For Defendant :-None PW.1: Kunchala Subba Rao PW.2: Tanneeru Ramanjaneyulu

Documents Marked

For plaintif:- Ex.A1:Understanding Agreement, dated 23.05.2015 Ex.A2:Office copy of Legal Notice with postal receipt, dated 23.02.2016

For Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole 5

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the 13 th day of December, 2016.

Original Suit No. 183/2016

BETWEEN:

Kunchala Subba Rao, son of Yedukondalu, aged about 50 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konidena village of Ballikurava Mandal... Plaintif

AND

Kunchala Nageswara Rao, son of Veera Raghavulu, aged about 54 years, Hindu, cultivation, resident of Konidena village of

Ballikurava Mandal... Defendant

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.16,19,500/- being the

principal and interest due on an understanding agreement, dated 23.05.2015

executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.12,30,000/-.

Plaint presented on : 21.07.2016 and filed on : 28.07.2016

Cause of action:- Cause of action for the suit arose on 30.11.2013 on the date of agreement of sale and when the defendant executed undertaking agreement, dated 23.05.2015 when he failed to discharge amount and when the plaintiff issued legal notice, dated 23.02.2016 and demanded to discharge the amount and when the defendant failed to discharge the same at Konidena village within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation and Court fee:- The value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.16,19,500/- on which a court fee of Rs.18626/- is paid under section.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.16,19,500/-

This original suit is coming on 06.12.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Nagarjuna Rao and P.Sriramaiah, advocates for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:- (1)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,31,500/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.12,30,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 21.07.2016, till the date of realisation; (2)that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.39139/- towards proportionate costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of Rs.NIL (No CM & FC filed).

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 13th Day of December, 2016.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Table of costs

Amount In Rupees For plaintiff For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2.00(CM & FC not filed) Stamp on Plaint16826.00 Stamp on process94.00 Advocate fee 22117.00 Type charges 100.00 Total 39139.00

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have to be taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by this Court.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the 14 th day of December, 2016.

Original Suit No. 174/2016

BETWEEN:

Chennupati Veeranjaneyulu, son of Peda Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 33 years, cultivation cum business, resident of Talakondapadu village, Pedacherlopalli Mandal, Prakasam District. .. Plaintif

AND

Nelakurthy Srinivasulu, son of Yerukalaiah, Hindu, aged about 43 years, business, resident of H.No.3-122, Satyanarayanapuram, 60 Feet Road,

Ongole, Prakasam District. .. Defendant

This original suit is coming on 08.12.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pendyala Sivahari, advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.29,20,600/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note, dated 22.07.2013 for receiving an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- That the defendant for his family necessities borrowed an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.07.2013, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and later in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the due amount and postponing the event on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff recently came to know that the defendant is trying to leave the jurisdiction of this Court by selling his properties to evade the amount due payable to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file 2 this suit for recovery of the amount due and submits for passing of decree with costs.

3.The defendant remained ex-parte on 23.11.2016 and no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked.

The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and PW.2 is the scribe of Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note, dated 22.07.2013 for

Rs.17,00,000/-.

5.On behalf of the defendant, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

6.Now, the points for consideration are:-

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

2.To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

7.Point No.1:- The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits by relying upon the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, Ex.A1 that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- on 22.07.2013 for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and as the defendant failed to pay the due amount, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount as the defendant executed Ex.A1, agreeing to repay the due amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and submits for passing of decree with costs.

On behalf of plaintiff, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 was marked. To rebut the evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the defendant did not adduce any evidence and remained, ex-parte. Hence, in view of the evidence of

Pws.1 and 2, as the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is unchallenged and as the defendant remained, ex-parte, I am of the opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount has to be decreed as prayed for.

3

In view of the above discussion, I answered this point accordingly.

8.Point No.2:-In view of my answering on point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.29,20,600/- with costs granting further interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount of

Rs.17,00,000/- from the date of suit, till the date of realisation.

Typed dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th Day of December, 2016.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For plaintif:-For Defendant :-None PW.1: Chennupati Veeranjaneyulu PW.2: Meenuga Prasad

Documents Marked

For plaintif:- Ex.A1:Original Promissory Note, dated 22.07.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-

For Defendant:- Nil

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole 4

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Mohd. Ismail,

I-Additional District Judge, Ongole

Wednesday, this the 14 th day of December, 2016.

Original Suit No. 174/2016

BETWEEN:

Chennupati Veeranjaneyulu, son of Peda Brahmaiah, Hindu, aged about 33 years, cultivation cum business, resident of Talakondapadu village, Pedacherlopalli Mandal, Prakasam District. .. Plaintif

AND

Nelakurthy Srinivasulu, son of Yerukalaiah, Hindu, aged about 43 years, business, resident of H.No.3-122, Satyanarayanapuram, 60 Feet Road,

Ongole, Prakasam District. .. Defendant

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.29,20,600/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note, dated 22.07.2013 for receiving an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff.

Plaint presented and filed on : 20.07.2016

Cause of action:- Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities by executing suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 22.07.2013, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and when the defendant failed to pay the due amount payable to the plaintiff and when the said transaction was taken place at Talakondapadu village of Pedacherlopalli Mandal within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation and Court fee:- The value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.29,20,600/- on which a court fee of Rs.31726/- is paid under section.20 of APCF & SV Act.

Jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.29,20,600/-

This original suit is coming on 08.12.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pendyala Sivahari, advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH

ORDER AND DECREE:- (1)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.29,20,600/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 20.07.2016, till the date of realisation; (2)that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.76407/- towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of Rs.NIL (No CM & FC filed).

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 14th Day of December, 2016.

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Table of costs

Amount In Rupees For plaintiff For Defendant Stamp on Vakalat2.00(CM & FC not filed) Stamp on Plaint31726.00 Stamp on process120.00 Advocate fee 44459.00 Type charges 100.00 Total 76407.00

Sd/- Shaik Mohd. Ismail

I-Addl. District Judge, Ongole

Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have to be taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by this Court.