SK. Ayesha Sareen

1 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2024.

Present: Smt. Shaik Ayesha Sareen, Prl.Junior Civil Judge – Cum- Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

C.C.No.193 of 2015 (Crime No.23/2015, P.S VM Banjar) BETWEEN: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, VM Banjar.

...Complainant

And

A1 - Jonnalagadda Sashirekha,W/o.Mysaiah (late), Age.45 years, Caste.SC- Maiga, Occ.Agriculture Coolie, R/o.Kotha Karaigudme of Penuballi Mandal.

A2 - Ravuri Ramakrishna, S/o.Venkateswarrao, Age.23 years, Caste.SC- Madiga, Occ.Student, R/o.Kotha Karaigudme of Penuballi Mandal.

…Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming before me today on 10.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri Bogi Naga

Malleswara Rao, Advocate, for the accused No.1 and 2; perused the record and after hearing both sides this court delivered the following:

2 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS VM Banjar filed charge sheet in Cr.No.23/2015 against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC with following allegations:

2.That on 16.02.2015 at 22.00 hours, PW1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that on 15.02.2015 at about 06.00 pm his son PW2 was proceeding to the fields, at that time the accused A1 and A2 stopped PW2 and took him to the house of A1 and abused him by saying that “ARE

LANJAKODAKA MEE NANNA SRINU MAA KODALU JONNALAGADDA

KAVITHA BARTHARATNAKAR RATHIRIPOOTA BADI NADUPUTA LEDANI

PIRYADU CHESINADATA, MEE NANNA YEMAINA POTUGADA NAAKODAKA”.

Later they tied his hands with rope and beat him with stick and iron rod. On listening to the hues and cries of his son, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 went to the house of A1 and opened the door by force and found that PW2 was unconscious and tied with a rope. Immediately, they rescued PW2 and informed the same to PW1. Later PW2 was shifted to Government Hospital,

Penuballi for treatment and on the advise of medical officer again he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam for better treatment. Hence, PW1 3 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. filed this report to take necessary action against A1 and A2. Basing on the report, PW8 registered the case in Cr.No.23/2015 and issued FIR for the offences Under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC and conducted part of investigation and later handed over the CD file to PW9 who also conducted part of investigation and arrested the accused. PW9 handed over the CD file to

LW12/P.Naveen, Sub Inspector of Police, PS VM Banjar who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet.

3.On consideration of charge sheet and other material on record the court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC against the A1 and A2 and issued summons to the accused persons under section 204 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused persons, the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying were served to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation levied against the accused for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC are explained to the accused in Telugu, which language is known to them for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and charges are framed for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 4 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC against the accused and same was read over and explained to them.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P8. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was subjected to examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution is put to accused, they denied the same and stated that they have got defence evidence and the accused no.1 examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.

6.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC?

2. To what result?

8.The learned APP submitted in his arguments that the accused have committed the offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC. The accused have tied PW2 with rope and beat him indiscriminately leading to several injuries to him. The accused persons beat PW2 and also abused PW1 and PW2. The evidence of injured witness stands at higher pedestal when 5 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. compared to evidence of other witnesses. Therefore, basing on the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 the accused are liable to be convicted.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his arguments that the accused are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in this case. The eye witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution. The accused persons never committed any offence pertaining to this case and PW.1 and PW.2 have filed this false case against the accused persons by keeping old grudges in mind. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled to be acquitted.

POINT 1:

10.The case of the prosecution is that, the son of PW1 i.e., PW2 while going to his field on 15.02.2015, the accused persons stopped PW2 and abused

PW2 and also beat PW2 with iron road due to which PW2 sustained injuries.

As such, PW1 filed this report against accused persons. In order to prove the contention of prosecution, they got examine Pws.1 to 9.

11.PW1 who is the father of the injured person i.e., PW2 and the defacto complainant deposed in his chief examination that one Jonnalagadda Kavitha 6 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. obtained permission to run night schools to children for which PW1 complained to MEO stating that there are no night school running at their village, but the said Jonnalagadda Kavitha was taking salary for the same.

PW1 stated that bearing the same in their mind, the accused persons tied PW2 with thread at the house of Accused No.1 and beat PW2 with iron rod on his head, due to which he fell down. PW1 along with PWs.3 to 5, PW7 went to the house of Accused No.1, but the accused No.1 did not open the doors of his house as such they opened the door by lifting the same. PW1 deposed that he found PW2 in an unconscious stage and later he was shifted to

Government Hospital, VM Banjar and on the advise of doctor he was shifted to

Khammam Government Hospital and on the next day he lodged the report. In his cross examination, he denied stating before the court in his chief examination that one Jonnalagadda Kavitha obtained permission to run the night school to children and that he complained before MEO stating that there are no night schools and they are taking salary. He stated that he only requested the S.I of Police to take action in this matter. He also stated that in the year 2014 panchayath elections were conducted and one Venkatamma contested in the elections on TDP side and PW1 is her follower. He denied the suggestion of accused No.2 is the follower of Congress party and he supported 7 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. one Nandhini. He admitted that Accused No.1 and her son Jonnalagadda

Ratnakar and his wife Kavitha are residing in their house. He denied the suggestion that on 15.02.2015 at about 07.30 pm when the daughter in law of

A1 who is Jonnalgadda Kavitha went to nature calls, PW2 went there and misbehaved with her due to which his son i.e., PW2 escaped from there by pushing every one aside. He also denied that on the same day at 09.30 pm, himself along with ten other persons went to the house of Jonnalagadda

Kavitha and beat her and her husband by break-opening the doors and also abused them. He admitted that one complaint was lodged against Pw2, himself, Kurapati Maraiah, Kurapati Laxmi, Kurapati Madhusudhan Rao,

Kurapati Madhava Rao, Kurapati Venkamma, Kurapati Vinod, Kurapati

Mariyamma, Kurapati Venkamma, Kurrapati Venkatamma and Muddangula

Radha in Cr.No.21/2015 for the offences under Sections 448, 354, 323, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 IPC. He also admitted that in the said case as PW2 was juvenile, the Juvenile court has convicted PW2 and imposed sentence and later released

PW2 on probation of good conduct and placed under supervision of District

Probation Officer for a period of one year and also ordered to perform community service at Government Hospital at VM Banjara for a period of Six 8 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. months. He denied the suggestion that he filed this case only as a counterblast to the case filed by the accused against PW2.

12.PW2 who is the injured person deposed that in the year 2015 at about 7.30 pm, PW1 asked him to switch off electric motor in the field. A1’s daughter-in-law and son/A2 were teaching old-aged persons as part of

Sakshara Bharat Mission and without teaching they were drawing salary unauthorizedly and the same was questioned by PW1. PW2 deposed that when he went to field to switch off the electric motor, A1 and A2 scolded him and his father in filthy language by stating that “Mee nana veeruda ra maa meeda complaint ichadu MPDO Office lo”. When I warned them not to abuse me or my father, A2 slapped me, then PW2 pushed A2, A1 picked up a stick and beat PW2 on his head and again A2 picked up the same stick from the hands of A1 and beat PW2 again on his head and locked him in the room. Then

PW2 started raising hues and cries and on hearing them Pws.3 to 5, Pw.7 came there and rescued PW2 by break opening the doors of the house, later he was shifted to Government Hospital, Penubally and from there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam for better treatment. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know from which year the daughter-in- law of A1 was running the night school and he does not know who was 9 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. crediting salary to the daughter in law of A1. He stated that he does not know the contents of his statement given to the police and he stated that his statement was given by his father. He deposed that in the year 2014 in

Gramapanchayat Elections, his mother by name K.Venkata Ramanamma contested as TDP candidate as Sarpanch and she got defeated in the election by one Nandhini who was opponent and contested from Congress party. He stated that A1, son and daughter in law of A1 resided in one house. He denied the suggestion that in the year 2015 he followed the daughter in law of

A1 at around 07.30 pm while she was attending calls of nature and when she raised hues and cries, A1 came there and on seeing her he pushed them and escaped. He also denied that while A1’s daughter in law was narrating about the incident to her husband, he along with his father/Pw1, Kurapati Maraiah,

Kurapati Laxmi, W/o.Maraiah, Kurapati Madhusudhana Rao, Kurapati Madhava

Rao, Kurapati Kutumba Rao, Kurapati Vinod, Kurapati Mariyamma, Kurapati

Venkamma, Kurapati Venkatamma and Muthangula Radha went to the house of A1 and abused A1 and son and daughter in law of A1 as “Ore lanjakodaka maa abbaiah mee avidani lagadani antavura” and beat the A1 and A1’s son and daughter in law, due to which A1’s son sustained head injury. He admitted that a case was registered in Cr.No.21/2015 at 19.30 hours against 10 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. him and others including his father for the offences under Section 354, 323, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 IPC. He admitted that he was minor at that time, as such he was tried before Juvenile Court, Khammam in which the case was proved against him and the court ordered to perform community service in the

Government Hospital for a period of Six months. He denied the suggestion that he sustained injuries by falling off the motor cycle.

13.Pws.3 to 5, Pw7 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident. All the eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

14.Pw.6 who is the panch witness to the CDF panchanama deposed that on 17.09.2015 during noon time police called him to the house of A1 and drafted scene of offence panchanama and prepared rough sketch of the boundaries of the scene of offence. In his cross examination he stated that there are around 30 houses in between his house and the house of A1. Himself and PW1 belongs to same caste and he is related to Pws.1 to 5, Pw7 and LW7.

15.Pw8 who is the Police personnel who issued FIR in this case deposed that on 16.02.2015 at 22.00 hours PW1 came to police station and lodged a report, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.23/2015 for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR later he 11 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW3, PW4 and also prepared the CDF and drafted rough sketch of the place of offence. Later he handed over the CD file to PW9. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know whether he issued FIR in Cr.No.21/2015 also. He denied that he corrected the time column in Section 161 Cr.PC statement of Pws.1, 3 and 4.

He stated that he did not examine MEO as a witness as he handed over the entire record to PW9.

16.PW9 who is the Investigating Officer of this case deposed in his chief examination that he received the CD file from PW8 and later on 11.03.2015 the accused surrender before him and voluntarily admitted their guilt and he released them on bail after obtaining sureties by issuing Section 41-A Cr.PC notice later he collected medical certificate from LW9/Dr.Nehdia and he handed over the CD file to LW12/P.Naveen, Sub-Inspector of police, PS VM

Banjara who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he stated that the offence occurred on 15.02.2015 at 19.30 hours but it was mistakenly printed as 18.00 hours and he received the complaint on 16.02.2015 at 22.00 hours. He stated that he does not know whether the night schools were conducted with the permission of MEO and he did not record the 12 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. statement from MEO. He stated that he does not know about the authority who conduct the night schools. He admitted that the MEO has issued a letter

dated 04.01.2021 stating that there are no night schools running in Penubally

mandal. He stated that he does not know about the political groups of the accused and the complainant. He admitted that he did not seize any material objects at the time of investigation and he also admitted that there are correction to the time mentioned Section 161 Cr.PC statements of all the witnesses. He stated that he does not know about the counter case filed by the accused in Cr.No.21/2015 for the offences U/Sec.354, 323, 294(b) and 506 r/w 34 IPC and as per the record the counter case was filed prior to the present case.

17.From the entire evidence it is clear that except PW.1 and PW2 no other eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. There are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In order to prove an offence under Section 324 of IPC there has to be any material object i.e., any instrument used for causing hurt to the injured persons. But in this case no such weapon or instrument was seized from the place of offence by the investigating officer. Moreover PW1 has stated in his evidence that the accused persons beat PW2 with an iron rod, but PW2 who is injured person himself 13 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. has stated that the accused persons beat him with a stick. There is no clarity with regard to the weapon used for causing injuries. The Pws.1 and 2 admitted in their evidence that the accused person have filed a case against them in Cr.No.21/2015 for the offences under sections 354, 323, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 IPC prior to registering of this case and PW2 was tried as a juvenile and the case was proved against him, as such false implication cannot be ruled out. There are no direct witnesses to support the contention of Pws.1 and 2.

The actual dispute stated by Pws.1 and 2 is that when the PW1 questioned the son and daughter in law of Accused No.1 for running night school at

Penubally without permission, the accused persons stopped PW2 and beat him leading to occurrence of the incident pertaining to this case. A careful perusal of the entire evidence clearly shows that there are no questions posed to Pws.1 and 2 regarding the said night school and how the disputes with regard to the said night school occurred between PW1 and the daughter in law of Accused

No.1 and moreover the MEO, to whom PW1 gave a complaint with regard to running of night Schools by the accused was also not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, basing only on the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 without there being any corroboration, the accused persons cannot be convicted for the 14 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally. offences under Sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC. This point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT 2:

18.In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under sections 342, 324, 294(b) r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) of the

Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed on dictation by Stenographer – Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2024

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution:

P.W.1: K.Srinu P.W.2: K.Nagaraju P.W.3: S.Tirupathaiah P.W.4: G.Nagaraju P.W.5: J.Venkaiah P.W.6: M.Gopi P.W.7: D.Lakshmi P.W.8: Sk.Jaleelmiya P.W.9: B.Parasuramulu

Defence:

J.Sashirekha 15 of 15 C.C.No.193 of 2015, dated.31.01.2024 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report

Ex.P.2: Section 161 CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P.3: Section 161 CrPC statement of PW4

Ex.P.4: Section 161 CrPC statement of PW5

Ex.P.5: Crime Details Form

Ex.P.6: Section 161 CrPC statement of PW7

Ex.P.7: First Information Report

Ex.P.8: Medical Certificate of PW2

Defence:

Ex.D1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.21/2015, dated 16.02.2015 of PS

VM Banjar

Ex.D2: Certified copy of Charge Sheet and memo of evidence in

Cr.No.21/2015 of PS VM Banjara

Ex.D3: Certified copies of Chief and Cross examination of PW3

Ex.D4: Certified copy of Judgment, dated 17.06.2016 in JCC.No.26/2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

1 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 30th day of January, 2024

Present: Smt. Shaik Ayesha Sareen, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

FAC- Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

C.C.No.413 of 2022 (Crime No.36/2022, P.S.VM Banjara) BETWEEN: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, VM Banjara

...Complainant

And

Sk.Ahamadmiya, S/o.Fajurulla Shareef, Age.65 years, Caste.Muslim, Occ.Tipper Driver (TS 04 UC 3571). R/o.Gumpena Kothru (Kattugudem), Annapureddipally Mandal, Kothagudem District …Accused

This case is coming before me today i.e.,22.01.2024 on final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri V.Ram Mohan Rao, Advocate, for the accused; perused the record and after hearing both sides this court delivered the following:

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

1. The State represented by Sub Inspector of police, PS VM Banjara filed charge sheet in Cr.No.36/2022 against the accused for the offence under

Section 304 (A) of IPC with following allegations.

2 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

2.That on 23.02.2022 PW1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that on 22.02.2022 in the night, his son by name Gopishetty Naresh went to VM Banjara on the motor cycle bearing number AP 20 K 8976 to purchase provisions and at about 07.30 pm, PW3 informed him over phone that one coal tipper bearing number TS 04 UC 3571 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle of his son at ‘Y’ Junction bypass road, Penubally due to which the son of PW1 sustained injuries to his head and died on spot. Immediately PW1 along with his family members rushed to the spot and found that the deceased was lying in the pool of blood and PW1 came to know the name of the driver of crime vehicle as

Ahamadmiya. Later the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital

Mortuary, as such PW1 filed this report to take necessary action. On receipt of above report, the PW9 registered the case in Cr.No.36/2022 for the offence under section 304(A) of IPC and issued FIR, investigated into and filed charge sheet.

3.On consideration of charge sheet and other material on record the court has taken cognizance for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC against the accused and issued summons to the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. On 3 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

appearance of the accused, the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying were served to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation levelled against the accused for the offence under section 304A IPC is explained to the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P6. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was subjected to examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution is put to accused, he denied the same and stated that he has got no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner leading to the death of the deceased to attract punishment under section 304A of IPC?

2. To what result?

8.The learned APP Submitted in his arguments that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of the incident, the 4 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses who are direct witnesses to the occurrence have supported the case of prosecution and identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. The accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner which resulted into this accident and caused death of one person as such he committed the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC. Hence accused is liable to be convicted.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his arguments that the accused was not the driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged day of incident.

The accused is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.

The accused has been falsely implicated in this case. The name of the accused was also not correctly mentioned by the prosecution witnesses in their evidences. Hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

POINT 1:

10.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, they got examined PW1 to PW9. PW1 who is the defacto complainant and the father of the deceased deposed in his evidence that about one year ago at around 07.00 to 07.30 pm when his son halted his motor cycle at VM Banjara to attend a call, one coal tipper vehicle came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit the 5 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

motorcycle of his son due to which his son sustained injuries on his forehead.

He stated that he came to know about the accident through PW3 and on the subsequent day he lodged the report. In his cross examination, he deposed that

Ex.P1 was prepared by his elder brother and he does not know the contents of

Ex.P1.

11.PW2 is cited as the person who shifted the body of the deceased to the hospital, he deposed that the deceased is the son of his elder brother and on 22.02.2022 at around 7.30 pm, PW1 called him over phone and informed about the death of his son/deceased. Immediately he rushed to scene of offence at “Y” Junction Penubally and found that the deceased was spot dead and he have got injuries on his head. He later enquired and came to know from PW3 that when the deceased was proceeding from Yedla Banjar to

VM Banjar on his motor cycle, one lorry proceeding from Kothagudem to VM

Banjar loaded with coal came from behind in high speed rashly and hit the motor cycle. He also stated that he came to know the name of the driver of lorry as Ahmadmiya. In his cross examination he stated that the accident took place in February which is winter season. He admitted that he came to know about the incident through PW3.

6 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

12.PW3 Who is cited as eye witness deposed that about 1 ½ year ago on day at 7.45 pm, an accident took place at Penubally junction wherein a lorry proceeding from Kothagudem to Sathupally hit a motor cycle of one Naresh, due to which the said Naresh sustained head injuries then he immediately called 108 Ambulance and took the said Naresh to Government Hospital. He stated that the came to know the name of the driver of the lorry as Ahmadali.

In his cross examination he stated that he was present at the place of accident and the lorry did not halt after the accident. The accident took place at the outskirts of the Penuballi Village and had enough lighting and he came to know the name of the driver of crime vehicle as Ahmadali through police.

13.PW.4 who is an eye witness to this case deposed that on 22.02.2022 at around 07.30 pm, when himself and PW3 were present at Penubally “Y” junction at a shop, one lorry came and hit a motor cycle from behind due to which the rider of the motor cycle died on the spot. Then he made a call to 108 Ambulance and informed about the accident to father of the deceased. He stated that the lorry halted at some distance and lot of people gathered at the place of offence. In his cross examination he stated that lorry halted at a distance of 300 – 500 meters away from the place of accident and he do not know the driver of the lorry prior to incident, he specified physical features of 7 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

the driver to the police. He stated that no Test Identification Parade was conducted for identification of the accused.

14.PW5 who is cited as panch for inquest panchanama deposed about the inquest conducted on 23.02.2022 at Government Hospital, Penubally. He stated that he observed injury on the head of the deceased by name Gopisetty

Naresh. In his cross examination he was confronted with the inquest panchanama wherein he identified the name of the driver of vehicle in column

No.15 of the inquest panchanama as Ahmad Sharif.

15.PW6 who is the panch witness for CDF deposed about the scene of offence panchanama conducted in his presence. In his cross examination he stated that there is a speed breaker near the place of accident and the place of accident is a vacant place, there are no shops or houses near the place of accident and there were shops at some distance from the place of offence. He stated that he knows the police and he has acquaintance with the police and out of such acquaintance only he signed on the CDF panchanama.

16.PW7 who is the Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem

Examination on deceased deposed in his chief examination about the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased as 1.Fracture of skull part of brain not present. The size of wound was 10 x 5 cms. The part on which the injruy 8 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

was caused on fronto parieto temporal region. The injury caused by using blunt object. The injury was antemortem. 2.Abrasion over the both knees measuring about 1 x 1 cms caused by blunt object. The injury was antemortem. He further deposed that the cause death in his opinion was due to head injuries leading to cardio respiratory arrest which was around 16 to 24 hours prior to Post Mortem Examination. In his cross examination nothing much was elicited except for the suggestion that he has prepared Post Mortem

Examination report only on the request of the police. He admitted that he has not mentioned Post Mortem Number in the said report.

17.PW8 who is the motor vehicle inspector deposed that he received requisition on 24.02.2022 from PS VM Banjar to inspect vehicle bearing

No.TS04 UC 3571 TATA Motor Goods Carriage HMV. On which he inspected the said vehicle in the premises of police station VM Banjar and issued report.

In his cross examination he stated that he prepared Ex.P5/MVI Report only after going through the Driving Licence and RC pertaining to crime vehicle and he did not mention the time, place and date of the accident in Ex.P5 as he was not informed about the same. He stated that he inspected the vehicle within the premises of the police station as such he mention in Column

No.5 of Ex.P5 as PS VM Banjar. He stated that as per Column No.16-A in 9 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

Ex.P5 the name of the owner of crime vehicle is mentioned as Vijaya Kumar

Potluri, S/o.Venkataramaiah and in Column No.16-B the name of driver is mentioned as Ahmad Mohammed, S/o.Fazulla.

18.PW9 who is the investigating officer in this case deposed in his chief examination regarding receiving of the report from PW1 on 23.02.2022 and registering of FIR, conducting of investigation till filing of Charge Sheet. In his cross examination he stated that PW4 did not disclose any physical features of driver of crime vehicle to him. Pws.3 and 4 did not state before him that they can identified the driver of crime vehicle at later stage. He denied the suggestion that PW6 signed on the CDF only out of cordial relationship with the police. He admitted that the name of the accused is mentioned as

MD.Ahmmad, S/o.Fazil in the Charge Sheet and the name of the accused is mentioned as Ahmmad Sharif in the inquest panchanama. He stated that he did not issue RC and driving licence to the Motor Vehicle Inspector pertaining to this case. He denied the suggestion that Ahmmad Mohammad, S/o.Fazala,

Shaik Ahmad Miya, S/o.Fajurulla Sharief are two different persons. He admitted that he did not examine the owner of the crime vehicle to ascertain whether the accused was driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged day of 10 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

incident. He also admitted that he did not seized any trip sheet and did not conduct any identification parade.

19.A careful scrutiny of entire evidence clearly shows that PW1 and PW2 are not direct witness to the occurrence. PW1 stated in his evidence that he came to know about the accident through PW3. PW2 stated in his evidence that he came to know about accident through PW1 over phone and when he reached the place of offence, he came to know from PW3 that one lorry loaded with coal came from behind with high speed rashly and hit the motor cycle of the deceased and the name of the driver of the lorry was

Ahamadmiya. From the evidence of PW2 it is clear that PW3 had informed

PW1 and PW2 about the incident. When the evidence of PW3 is looked into, he has not stated about rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle and he has clearly stated that he came to know the name of the driver of the crime vehicle as Ahmad Ali through the police. On perusal of docket sheet, it is noticed that the accused was called present on the day of examination of PW3 but the accused was not identified by PW3. The PW3 and PW4 are cited as

Eye witnesses to the occurrence and both PW3 and PW4 have not deposed about the manner of accident. Both of them stated that they were present at the time of incident but PW3 deposed that the lorry did not halt after the 11 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

accident but PW4 deposed that the lorry halted at a distance after the accident. There is no corroboration between the evidence of PW3 and PW4 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. When the other evidence on record is looked into, the PW9 who is the investigating officer, deposed that he has not enquired with the owner of the crime vehicle to ascertain whether the said vehicle was driven by accused on the day of incident. PW8 deposed that after verifying the Driving License, R.C pertaining to crime vehicle, he prepared

Ex.P5/MVI report but when the same is questioned to PW9, he deposed that he has not provided any driving license or R.C pertaining to the crime vehicle to PW8. The PW6 stated that he signed on the CDF panchanama only at the instance of police out of acquaintance. The name of the accused in the entire evidence is stated differently by each witness who deposed the name of the accused in their evidence. PW2 stated that the lorry was driven by

Ahmmadmiya, PW3 stated that the name of the driver as Ahammadali, in

Ex.P2/Inquest Panchanama the name is mentioned as Ahmmad Sharief and in

Ex.P5/MVI Report the name is mentioned as Ahmmad Mohammad. The prosecution has given several names which is creating ambiguity with regard to the actual accused. In the Charge Sheet the name of the accused mentioned as Ahmmadmiya, S/o.Fajurulla Shareef and in Ex.P.5/MVI Report it is mentioned as Ahmmad Mohammad, S/o.Fazulla which are two different names.

12 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

The prosecution has failed to explain regarding the difference in the names of the accused in the total record and failekd to ascertain by producing sufficient evidence that even though there are different names shown, the person is one and the same. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of accident and with regard to death of the deceased, but there are several contradictions in the entire evidence which clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, this court does not feel it proper to convict the accused under section 304A IPC. This point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT 2:

20.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by Stenographer – Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2024.

FAC-Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

13 of 13 C.C.No.413 of 2022 dated.30.01.2024 A.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: G.Satyianarayana -Nil- P.W.2: G.Narasimha Rao P.W.3: P.Goutham P.W.4: M.Eeswar P.W.5: T.Venkateswar Rao P.W.6: J.Srinivasa Rao P.W.7: Dr.Venkateswarlu P.W.8: D.Manohar P.W.9: G.Suraj

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P.1: is the Report --Nil-- Ex.P.2: is the Inquest Ex.P.3: is the Crime Details Form PW2 Ex.P.4: is the Post Mortem Report Ex.P.5: is the MVI Report Ex.P.6: is the First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC-Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

1 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 26th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. Shaik Ayesha Sareen, Prl.Junior Civil Judge – Cum- Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally. FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

C.C.No.225/2017 (Crime No.67/2017, P.S.,Kalluru) BETWEEN: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kalluru

...Complainant

And

Jeenugu Bhaskerrao, S/o Yakoob, age.59 years, RMP, R/o Gopaladevaboinapalli Village. Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

…Accused

This case is coming before me today on 29.8.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.Mayara Ramesh, Advocate, for the accused; perused the record and after hearing both sides this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS Kalluru filed charge sheet in Cr.No.67/2017 against the accused for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC with following allegations:

2 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

2.That on 15.3.2017 at about 2000 hours the defacto complainant came to police station along with her son and daughter-in-law and lodged a report stating that, she was married since 32 years to Jenugu Bhaskar Rao/accused and they were blessed with four children i.e., one male and three female children in their marital life and they performed marriages of all the children.

They lead their marital life happily for 10 years. Later, he started neglecting her by maintaining illegal affairs with another woman and harassed her both mentally and physically and also suspected her chastity and neglected the family responsibilities. At the time of marriage of her son she approached the elders by name Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao and Vallabhaneni Bhaskar Rao and stated that they were living separately and requested to do something to change the attitude of her husband in view of marriage of her son. On that, both the elders summoned her husband and warned him and sent him to her house. After completion of their son’s marriage since two months he again started harassing her both physically and mentally and suspecting her chastity and on 13.3.2017 at about 1700 hours he picked up a quarrel with her and pulled her to street from the house by catching hold of her hair and punished her with his hands as a result, she received injuries under right eye, nose and shoulder. Due to which she was admitted to the hospital for treatment and later she lodged this report to take necessary action.

3 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

3.On receipt of above report, the PW7 registered the case in

Cr.No.67/2017 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and issued FIR, investigated into the case and filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence under section 498-A IPC.

4.On consideration of charge sheet and other material on record the court has taken cognizance for the offence under section 498-A of IPC against the accused and issued summons to the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying were served to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the substance of the accusation levied against the accused for the offence under section 498-

A IPC is explained to the accused in Telugu, which language is known to him for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and charges are framed for the offence under section 498-A of IPC against the accused and same was read over and explained to him.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P7. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused was subjected to examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. and when the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution is put to accused, he denied the same 4 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

and stated that he has got no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed.

7.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed cruelty within the meaning of explanation to section.498-A of IPC?

2. To what result?

9.The learned APP submitted in his arguments that the offence under section 498-A of IPC is committed within four walls of the house. The victim will be the only person to know about the harassment by the accused. The prosecution was able to prove that the accused harassed PW1 both physically and mentally as such the accused is liable to be convicted.

10.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his arguments that the accused is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that the accused committed an offence under section 498-A of IPC and the eye witnesses to the occurrence have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As such the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

5 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

POINT 1:

11.The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 is wife of accused and the accused used to harass PW1 both physically and mentally and he never took care of their children or the PW1. In order to substantiate their contention the prosecution got examined the defacto complainant herself as PW1. She deposed that, her marriage was performed in the year 1984 with the accused and they were living happily till they were blessed with children. Later, quarrels took place between her and accused and the accused neglected to look after her and the children. The accused used to beat her, then a panchayath was also held in the presence of LW6/Vallabhaneni Bhaskerrao and LW7/Katamneni

Venkateswararao and in the said panchayath the accused agreed to look after her and the children but he failed to do so and in the year 2017 the accused beat her by punching on her face. Then she lodged this report. She stated in her cross examination that, the accused, her son and daughter-in-law are residing in the ground floor of the house and she was residing in the first floor in the same house from nearly two years. She admitted that, herself and accused were living separately since 8 years, due to misunderstandings between them. She stated that, they had four children out of which the marriages of two children were performed by the accused and the marriages of other two children were performed by her. She denied the suggestion that the 6 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

marriages of the four children were performed by accused and herself together. She stated that at first she went to Kalluru police station for lodging the report, but the police did not register her case, then she approached DSP, then the DSP after looking at her wounds instructed the SHO Kalluru to register the case. She stated that she got treatment for the injuries at

Somalingareddy hospital and she had not mentioned the same in her report i.e., Ex.P.1. she deposed that she did not handed over any medical records pertaining to her treatment to the police. She denied the suggestion that, she has filed this false case as she is not interested to proceed with the marital life along with the accused.

12.PW2 who is the son of PW1 and accused deposed that, in the year 2017 on one day, when he was inside the house he heard his father and mother quarreling with eachother out side the house, then he tried to stop them. In his cross examination, he admitted that, PW1 and the accused are living separately since long time and the accused residing with him in the ground floor of the house and PW1 is residing in the first floor of the same house. He also admitted that, his mother was residing separately from his father as she is not intending to lead marital life with the accused. He admitted that he did not witness the quarrel between accused and PW1 by himself. He stated that, the marriage of all the four children were performed by PW1 and accused 7 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

together. He admitted that, there are no disputes between his mother and father but they are living separately and PW1 have filed this case as she is not intending to proceed with marital life with the accused. He stated that, the accused is a responsible person and he looked after the welfare of him and his sisters and took the family responsibilities.

13.PW3 and PW4 are cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence. Both PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW5 and PW6 are cited as panch witnesses to the CDF and they have also turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

14.PW7 who is investigation officer of this case, deposed in his chief examination about the investigation done by him. In his cross examination he stated that, on 15.3.2017 PW1 herself came to police station alone. She did not approach police station prior to 15.3.2017. He deposed that, he did not receive any instructions from DSP for registering this case. There were no injuries on PW1 at the time when she came to the police station for lodging report. He deposed that, he did not enquire with the hospital where the PW1 got treated for her injuries. He denied the suggestion that, there is delay in filing complaint by the PW1 as the incident occurred on 13.3.2017 and report was filed on 15.3.2017 and further stated that, the harassment is continuous process which was both physical and mental. He admitted about the minor 8 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

discrepancies like the date of FIR in CDF is mentioned as 16.3.2017 instead of 15.3.2017 and non mentioning of date of dispatch of FIR to the Court in

Ex.P.6. He admitted that, Ex.P.6 FIR is not disclosing the signature of the

Complainant. He also admitted that he has not examined the neighbours of

PW1 by names Seelam Swamy reddy and Banothu Ramulu. He stated that, at the time of investigation he came to know that the accused and PW1 are residing in separate rooms in the same house.

15.The case of the prosecution is that, the accused harassed PW1 both physically and mentally and the said harassment was witnessed by PW3 and

PW4. The eye witnesses to the occurrence i.e., PW3 and PW4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution the PW1 has stated that a panchayat was conducted between herself and the accused in the presence of LW.6 and LW7, but the prosecution has not examined the elders of the village (LW6/Vallabhaneni Bhaskar Rao and LW7/Katamaneni Venkateswara Rao) as witnesses in the Court, in the presence of whom panchayath between the PW1 and accused was conducted. The panch witness to the CDF have also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The only evidence available is the evidence of PW1, the evidence of son of the PW1 and the evidence of investigating officer. The PW1 herself who has filed the present report stated that, herself and her husband i.e., accused are residing separately since 8 years which was 9 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

admitted by PW2. PW1 stated that, she at first went to Kalluru police station for lodging the report, but the police did not register her case as such, she approached the DSP who after looking at the wounds instructed the SHO

Kalluru to register the case. But in contrary to her statements, the PW7 who is the investigating officer deposed that, he has not noticed any injuries on the

PW1 when she came to the police station for lodging the report and he has not received any instructions from DSP for registering the FIR. When the PW1 is claiming that the accused caused injuries to her by punching her on her face, it is burden of the PW1 to provide evidence to that effect. But in the present case the PW1 has not filed even a single document to show that she sustained injuries due to the acts of the accused. The PW2 stated that, he heard quarrel between his father and mother outside the house but he has not witnessed the same. PW2 being the son of PW1 and accused himself admitting that the accused used to look after the welfare of all the children and the accused used to take responsibilities of their family, the PW1 and accused were living separately as the PW1 was not intending to continue the marriage between PW1 and accused. He being the son himself has stated that, that his mother PW1 is not intending to lead marital relationship with the accused as such she had file this false complaint against the accused. There is 10 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

no witness who has deposed about cruelty or harassment by accused against

PW1 including the son of the accused and PW1.

16.In order to attract punishment under section 498-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cruelty must be to such an extent to drive a woman to commit suicide. But in this case, there is no evidence to prove the same.

17.Therefore, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused can not be convicted only on the basis of the evidence of PW1 without there being any corroborative evidence. This point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT 2:

In the result, the Accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under sections 498-A IPC. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Type to dictation on my official laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2023.

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

11 of 11 C.C.No.225 of 2017, dated.26.9.2023 Addl.J.F.C.M,Sathupally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: Jeenugu Jyothu Pushpa -Nil- P.W.2: Jeenugu Sandeep P.W.3: Seelam Krishnareddy P.W.4: Ailuri Appireddy P.W.5: Seelam Srinivasa Reddy P.W.6: Nangunoori Prasad P.W.7: D.Pavan Kumar P.W.8: V.Sri Hari Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P.1: Report -Nil- Ex.P.2: 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P.3: 161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P.4: Signature of the PW5 on CDF panchanama Ex.P.5: Signature of the PW6 on CDF panchanama Ex.P.6: First Information Report Ex.P.7: CDF panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

Page No.1 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 27th day of September, 2023.

Present: Smt. Shaik Ayesha Sareen, Prl. Junior Civil Judge – Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sathupally.

FAC - Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally

C.C.No.970/2020

(Crime No.150/2018 of P.S, V.M Banjara) BETWEEN: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, V.M Banjara

...Complainant

And

Mullagiri Kantha Rao, S/o.Ramulu, Age.48 years, Caste.Mala, Occ.RMP, R/o.Bhavannapalem of Penubally Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me today i.e., on 25.09.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri.J.V.Narendra, Advocate for accused; perused the record and after hearing both sides this court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, PS VM Banjara filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 150/2018 for the offences under sections 336 of IPC and section 15 of

Medical Council Act,1956 against the accused with following allegations.

2.That on 27.09.2018 the complainant came to Police station and lodged a report stating that on 10.06.2018 one Purnam Sandhya W/o Srikanth was found over bleeding. She was carrying her 8th month pregnancy. Her family members shifted her to the local ANM/ Asha worker, where the medical officer advised them to take her

Page No.2 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

to Khammam hospital for better treatment but due to lack of money they brought her to VM Banjara to their house, again they tried to shift her to khammam but she became very sick as such they called local RMP by name Kantha Rao to their house who gave an injection to the pregnant lady. Then the lady started shivering due to which she was shifted to Penuballi Hospital where the medical officer declared her as brought dead. Therefore after making enquiry with the inlaws of the deceased and on the instructions of the District Collector, Khammam, she lodged this report to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, PW9 registered the case in Crime No. 150/2018 for the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal

Code. Later after completion of investigation PW9 altered the section of law from section 304A IPC to section 336 of IPC and section 15 of Indian Medical Council

Act,1956 and filed charge sheet.

3.On consideration of charge sheet and material on record, the court took cognizance for the offence under section 336 of IPC and section 15 of Indian Medical

Council Act against accused and issued summons to the accused under Section 204 of

Cr.P.C. On appearance of accused, the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying are furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offences under section 336 of IPC and section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act are read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to tried.

Page No.3 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

5.During trial the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was subjected to examination under section 313 Cr.P.C and when the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution is put to the accused, he denied the same and stated that he has got no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the points for determination are:- (1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence to attract punishment under section 336 of

IPC and section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act?

(2) To what result ?

8.The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor submitted in his arguments that the accused is an RMP and without having proper knowledge about the medication to be given to a pregnant lady has administered a medicine to the deceased which lead to her death. The accused has committed the offence punishable under section 336 of

IPC. He is not a qualified medical practitioner. His negligence caused the death of one pregnant lady as such he is liable to be convicted.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his arguments that the accused is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has not committed any offence hence he is entitled to be acquitted.

Page No.4 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

POINT No:-1 :-

10.In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, they got examined PWs 1 to

9. PW1 is the defacto complainant and the medical officer, deposed that on 22.09.2018 a review was conducted by the collector and in that review the collector came to know that due to administration of some injections by an RMP, there was death of one Puranam Sandhya who was pregnant at that time which was intimated to the collector by the mother in law of the deceased and on the instructions of the collector she conducted enquiry and filed this complaint. She stated that in the enquiry she came to know from the mother in law of the deceased that the deceased was taken to the hospital of LW13/ Dr. I.S.N.V.Prasad on the complaint of excessive bleeding and he referred her to Khammam hospital for better treatment. Later they called RMP by name Kantha Rao and the said Kantha Rao gave an injection to the deceased and after the injection, the deceased turned cold due to which she was brought to CHC, Penubally. In her cross examination she deposed that she had prior knowledge about the incident. She received oral instructions from the Collector as well as DMHO but there is no documentary proof as such. She deposed that she conducted enquiry in which the mother in law of the deceased had stated about the incident but she has not recorded the same in writing. She deposed that she could not record the statements of the family members of the deceased in writing as they were not willing to give their statements in writing and she has informed the same to the police. She deposed that the deceased used to visit PHC at the time of her pregnancy and she was in a good health. She stated that she doee not know the name of the medicine administered to the deceased by way of injection. She admitted

Page No.5 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

that she has not taken any action even after having knowledge about the incident prior to receiving instructions from the Collector. She stated that as they had no evidence at that time, they could not take any action. She admitted that on the instructions of the collector she had filed this case.

11.PW2 to PW4 are the family members of the deceased and they have simply turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to excessive bleeding. PW5 and PW6 who are the panch witnesses for the Crime Details Form have also turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

12.PW7 who is cited as a circumstantial witness deposed that while the deceased was 3 months pregnant, the PW8 brought the deceased to her and she prescribed her with some iron tablets and later the deceased visited her while she was 8 months pregnant. Later after four days one Asha worker called her and informed her that the deceased was having excessive bleeding and she was being shifted to hospital. After same time on the same day, the said Asha worker again called PW7 and informed about the death of the deceased. She stated that she does not know the reason of the death of the deceased and later PW1 conducted enquiry on the instructions of the collector and she submitted the reports to PW1. The prosecution has declared this witness as Hostile. In her cross examination by the learned APP she stated that the accused is an RMP at their village and she does not know whether the deceased died due to injection administered by the accused to the deceased and not due to excessive bleeding.

Page No.6 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

13.PW8 who is cited as a circumstantial witness also deposed in the same lines as that of PW7 and PW8 was also declared as hostile by the prosecution. In her cross examination by the learned APP she stated that the accused is an RMP at their village and she does not know whether the deceased died due to injection administered by the accused to the deceased and not due to excessive bleeding.

14.PW9 who is the Investigating officer deposed about the investigation done by him till filing of charge sheet. In his cross examination he stated that the delay in filing report by PW1 was three months. He admitted that he has not examined the neighbours of the house of the deceased where the incident occurred.

15.A careful scrutiny of entire evidence clearly shows that there is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased by name Puranam Sandhya. The PW1 has lodged a complaint against the accused stating that the death of the deceased was caused due to injection administered by the accused to the deceased who was pregnant at that time. The PW1 got marked the medical records of the deceased as

Ex.P2 to show that she was pregnant at the time of her death. PW1 has deposed that she lodged this report on the instructions of the collector and she enquired into the matter before lodging the report. The PW1 stated that she has orally examined the family members of the deceased but she has not obtained the statements in writing as they were not willing to give their statements in writing. In contrary, the family members of the deceased stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to excessive bleeding and not due to administration of injection by the accused. Except

PW1 none of the witnesses have stated that the accused has administered any

Page No.7 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

injection to the deceased which finally lead to her death. PW1 stated that she has knowledge about the incident even prior to filing of the report but there was a delay of three months in lodging the report which shows that she had lodged the report only on the instructions of her superiors. All the family members of the deceased and also the panch witnesses for the CDF have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

The prosecution has failed to produce any evidence on their behalf showing that the death of the deceased was caused due to the injection administered by the accused.

Moreover the Ex.P11 which is the Post Mortem Examination report also is not disclosing that the death was caused due to any kind of medicine. Therefore in the absence of any evidence against the accused, he will be entitled for benefit of doubt.

This point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT 2:

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 336 IPC and section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act,1956. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 255(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non valuable case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed on my official Laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of September, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally. FAC-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

Page No.8 to 8 CC.No.970 of 2022, dated.27.9.2023 Addl. Judl Magistrate of I Class, Sathupally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: Dr.B.Shantha Rani -Nil- P.W.2: P.Gangamma P.W.3: P.Srikanth P.W.4: Ch.Yellamma P.W.5: G.Durgaiah P.W.6: N.Sai P.W.7: N.Rani P.W.8: T.Nagamani P.W.9: T.Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: Ex.P.1: Report --Nil-- Ex.P.2: Medical Certificates and Records Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6: Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.7: Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7 Ex.P.9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.10: First Information Report Ex.P.11: Post Mortem Examination Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

FAC-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sathupally.

1/8C.C.N: 27/2018

IN THE COURT OF ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: AT SATHUPALLY

Dated this the 1st July, 2022

Present: Smt Shaik Ayesha Sareen Addl.Junior Civil Judge ­cum­ Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Sathupally.

C.C. No.27 of 2018 (Crime No.180/2017 of V.M.Banjar P.S.)

Between The State Police through Sub­Inspector of Police, V.M.Banjar .….Complainant //and//

Kommurigiri Shiva S/o: Krishnaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Coolie R/o: Pathakuppenakuntla village of Penuballi mandal

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 01.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of P.V.G.B.Bhaskar rao, , Advocate for accused , upon perusal of the entire material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The Sub inspector of Police of PS VM Banjar filed chargesheet in

Cr.No:180/2017 against sole accused for the offences under section 354(A), 354(D), 506 IPC with following allegations.

2.That on 07­09­2017 at about 2:00 PM in the absence of the family members of PW1, the accused came to her house and started misbehaving with her and threatened her by saying "Neevu natho rakapothe nee anthu chustanu". PW1 informed the same to her uncle PW­2 and her husband 2/8C.C.N: 27/2018

PW3 and they called the accused before elders of the village for admonishing him but the accused did not turn up. Then on 08­09­2017 at 9:30 PM the

PW1 came to the police station and lodged a report stating that the accused used to come to her house and was asking her to fulfill his sexual desires and also was making indecent gestures from 20 days. The accused is misbehaving and threatening her even after being admonished by her uncle

PW2 and brother PW4 hence she lodged the report. The same is registered as FIR in Cr.No.180/2017, investigated into and filed chargesheet.

3.On consideration of chargesheet and material on record the court took cognizance for the offences under sections 354­A, 354­D and 506 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to him. On appearance of accused the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying are furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused is examined under section 239 Cr.PC and the substance of accusation for the offences under sections 354 A, 354 D, 506 of IPC are readover and explained to him in telugu which language is known to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Charges for the offences under sections 354­A, 354­D, 506 of IPC are framed, readover and explained to the accused.

5.During trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and Ex. P1 to P6 marked. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused is examined 3/8C.C.N: 27/2018 under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against the accused for which accused denied and stated that he has no defence evidence.

6. Heard arguments of both sides.

7.Now the points for determination are; (1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused stalked, sexually harassed and criminally intimidated PW1 punishable u/s 354 D, 354 A and 506 of IPC ? 

(2) To what result ?

8.The learned APP submitted in his arguments that the accused used to behave indecently with PW1 and threatened her, as such PW1 gave report to the police. The prosecution examined PW1 to 7. Though PW1 did not support the case of prosecution, she did not say that the accused did not misbehave with her and did not threaten her. Pw2to4 who are close relatives of PW1 have stated that they have placed the matter before elders who admonished the accused for his misbehavior with PW1. Pw5 and 6 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on evidence of PW7 the accused is liable to be punished.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted in his arguments that the main witness to the case turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW2 to 4 are not direct witnesses and they are hearsay witnesses. In the absence 4/8C.C.N: 27/2018 of corraboration with PW­1 the evidene of PW­7 can not be taken into consideration the prosecution conducted table investigation as such PW1 turned hostile. The evidence of PW­7 is formal and the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

10. POINT No­1

I have perused the entire evidence and other material available on the record. The accused is charged for the offences u/s 354A, 354D and 506

IPC. If a man commits any act of physical contact and advances or demands or requests for sexual favors, shows any pornography, makes any sexually colored remarks against women he is guilty of offence u/s 354A IPC.

Similarly if any man follows a women, contacts or attempts to contact or monitor through internet, E­Mail etc he is said to be stalking that women which is punishable u/s 354D IPC. If any person threatens another with injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he/she is not legally bound to do, the person so threatens or intimidates is liable for punishment under section 506 IPC.

11.In the present case, in order to substantiate the case of Prosecution,

PW1 to PW7 are examined. PW1 is the defacto complainant, PW2 to PW5 are circumstantial witnesses, PW6 is the panch witness for observation of scene of offence and PW7 is the Investigating officer. 

5/8C.C.N: 27/2018

12.PW1 deposed that she filed this complaint about 5 years ago and the accused is like brother to her. She was compelled to sign on the complaint and she turned hostile. She admitted her signature as Ex.P1 but denied the contents of report. After declaring hostile in her cross examination by the learned APP she denied having stated to police as in Ex.P2.

13. The PW2 who is father­in­law of PW1 stated that ,the accused insited PW1 to come along with him and this matter was placed before the elders i.e., before PWs 3to5 who called the accused and warned him not to repeat the same but even after warning,the accused used to threaten PW1 because of which he went to police station along with PW1 and lodged a report. In his cross examination he stated that in his 161 CrPC statements he didnot mention about the incident where elders admonished the accused. He denied that there are disputes between his family and the family of the accused.

14. The PW3 who is husband of PW1 stated that in the year 2017 when PW1 informed him that the accused was behaving indecently with her, he and PW2 called the accused before the elders to warn him but the accused didnot turn up and later PW1 lodged a police report. In his cross examination he stated that he didnot mention in his 161 crpc statement that the accused insisted PW1 as "Neevu naatho rakapothe nee anthu chustha" and he denied that there are disputes between his family and the family of the accused.

6/8C.C.N: 27/2018

15.PW4 who is brother of PW1 and brother­in­law of PW3 stated that in the year 2017, PW1 came to him and informed that accused was insisting her to come along with him for which he advised PW1 to lodge a police report.

16.PW5 who is village elder and independent witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that he does not know the facts of the case and he didnot state to the police the things stated in Ex.P3.

17.PW6 who is mediator to the scene observation report stated that the police drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of himself and LW6 and they signed on Ex.P4 and the contents of Ex.P4 are true. In his cross examination he stated that he doesnot know the contents of

Ex.P4.

18.Pw7 is the Investigation Officer, he stated that when he was working as SI of Police at PS VM Banjar on 8­9­2017 at about 9:30PM, PW1 came to the police station and lodged a report basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 180/2017 for the offences u/s 354A, 354D, 506 IPC and he marked Ex.P5 FIR and Ex.P6 complaint. He further stated that in the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the scene of offence and prepared crime detail form in the presence of PW6 and LW6/Mamidi Laxman and also examined PW2 to 5 and recorded their statements. Later, he arrested the accused on 12­9­2017 and served section 41A CrPC notice and released him on station bail after 7/8C.C.N: 27/2018 obtaining sureties. In his cross examination he denied that he filed false case against the accused.

19.On considering the entire evidence of prosecution, the PW1 defacto complainant did not support the case of prosecution and simply turned hostile and stated the accused is like a brother to her. PWs 2 to 4 who are father­in­law, husband and brother of PW1 are not direct witnesses and they stated that the PW1 informed them and they placed the matter before elders. PW2 stated that the elders called accused and admonished him,

PW3 stated that the accused did not turn up before the elders. PW4 did not state about placing matter before elders so there are contradictions among the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on the material facts. The alleged elder examined as PW5 simply turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that he do not know the facts of case and denied having stated to police as in Ex.P3.

Even the mediator for Crime detail form prepared by police did not speak in favor of prosecution. In these circumstances simply basing on evidence of

PW7 the accused can not be convicted for the alleged offences. This court feels that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. The point is accordingly answered against the prosceution.

POINT No­2

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty. Accordingly the accused is acquitted u/s 248(1) CrPC for the offences u/s 354A,354D,506 8/8C.C.N: 27/2018

IPC. The bail bonds of accused persons and of their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per section 437­A CrPC.Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation and therefore no order as to property is passed.

 Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July, 2022

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Sathupally

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED )

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE 

PW1: Marakala Vani PW2: Marakala Venkateswara Rao ­None­ PW3: Marakala Pullarao PW4: Rayala Ravi PW5: Mamidi Mysaiah PW6: Sirikonda Deva Sahayam PW7: G.Naresh, SI of police,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE 

EX.P1: is the Signature of PW­1 on complaint Ex.P2: is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW­1 ­ NIL­ Ex.P3: is the Sec. 161 Cr.p.C. statement of PW­3 Ex.P4: is the CDF Ex.P5: is the F.I.R. Ex.P6: is the Complaint

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class Sathupally