Smt Sk.faizunnisa, B.sc., M.l.,

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VENKATAGIRI.

Present : Smt. Sk.Faizunnisa,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri.

Dated this the 24th day of August, 2015.

C.C.No. 70/2014

Between:- The State through, Forste Rang Officer Venkatagiri ,

..... Complainant.

AND

A-1:Pare Murali, S/o Polaiah, aged 28 years, Harijan by caste, Cooli, Dacheruvu village, Venkatagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. A-2: Manneti Mohanrao, S/o Siddaiah, aged 35 years, Mutharasi by caste, Mokkalapadu village, Venkatagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District.

..... Accused.

This case is coming on before me on 17.8.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. D.Raja Rao, Counsel for the accused after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the The Forest Rang Officer Venkatagiri, filed charge-sheet against accused in D.O.R. No. 31/2012-13 for the offence u/Sec.

379 IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P

Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transit rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red

Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-

Diversity Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)

(a) of A.P Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 alleging that on 20.12.2012 when forest officials were on patrolling duty at Dacheruvu

Veddipalem road at 6.00 p.m they noticed one TATA ACE vehicle. When they tried to stop it did not stop. But the vehicle was stoped by moving at some distance and the persons absconded from the vehicle. The officials observed the Logs in the vehicle and secured presence of P.W-1 and L.W-2 to act as mediators. The logs were 20 in number in the TATA ACE vehicle Bearing

No.AP26AB-1128. In their presence the case was registered as acase in

Page 1 of 6

D.O.R.No.31/2012-13 in Form-A. The R.S logs were seized under Form-B and

The seized property was handed over for safe custody under Form-C. The accused were absconding from the date of offence and are obtaining prosecution orders the charge-sheet was filed.

2. This case was taken cognizance of for the offence u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)

(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and

Red sandle wood transit rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P

Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 against accused and when they appeared copies of documents were furnished to them u/Sec.207 Cryptic.

3. The accused were examined U/s 239 Cryptic for which they denied the offence. After consideration a charge u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv)

And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transit rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b)

Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P Forest Act, Sec.55 of

Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 was framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined P. Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-5 and no documents were marked by the defence and no M.Os. were marked by the prosecution.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and when incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put to them, they denied the evidence as false and did not state anything and did not wish to examine the witnesses on his behalf.

Page 2 of 6

6.After hearing arguments this case is posted for judgment.

Now the point for consideration is whether

the prosecution proved the charge u/Sec. 379

IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act,

1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Saandle wood and Red

sandle wood transit rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P

Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989

Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity

Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967,

punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P Forest Act,

Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 against

accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

7.The prosecution though cited Six (6) witnesses and examined P. Ws.1 to 4 of which P.W 1 & L.W-2 who are punch witnesses. The Evidence of Lws.

2 and 6 was given up by prosecution.

8. Out of the witnesses examined P.Ws 2 to 4 are official witnesses.

9.The defence taken by the accused is that of total denial.

10. The investigation in this case commenced after seizing of red sanders logs under punchnama. The same is registered as a case in D.OR. No 31/2012-13. Ex. P-2 is From-A. Ex.P3 is From-B containing seized property.

The seized property is given for safe custody under Ex.P4 From -C. Ex. P-5 is measurement list.

11.The panchanama was registered as a case in D.O.R No. 31/2012-13 for the offence u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transit rules 1969,

Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of

Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002.

In the present case, the Forest Officials P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed to the fact of seizing red sanders logs from the TATA ACE vehicle. There is deviation as to the mode of convenience to the scene of offence by the official witnesses.

Page 3 of 6

12.P.W-3 deposed that he went to scene of offence by Jeep. P.W-4 deposed in his cross-examination that they went to the scene of offence on

Motor-bike and P.W-3 accompanied him in his bike which is a deviation from the evidence of P.w-3.

13.P.W-2 deposed in his cross-examination that they went to scene of offence by auto. Hence, there is material deviation as to the conveyance to the place of offence between P.Ws 2 to 4 who are official witnesses.

14.Also the accused was not arrested on the date of offence. Absconding charge-sheet is filed against them. But coming to the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4 who deposed as follows to the identity of accused to the offence.

15.P.W-4 deposed that they have taken accused into custody but the fact is different as accused absconded from the scene of offence. Further, P.W-3 admitted in his cross-examination that he came to know the names of accused from P.W-4 and he further admits that he came to know the names of the accused after filing charge-sheet. If the evidence of P.W-4 is perused he deposed that accused were taken into custody in cross-examination which is not a fact as the accused absconded from the scene of offence.

16.As the evidence of L.W-4 as to the custody of accused differs from the real fact, his evidence as to the said fact cannot be believed. When the evidence of L.W-4 as to the above fact is not believed the fact that P.W-3 established identity of accused with the offence basing on L.W-4 also cannot be believed.

17.Hence, there is discrepancy as to the identity of accused to the commission of offence by the official witnesses P.Ws 3 and 4.

18.Now the only evidence left is that of P.W-1 who deposed as to the seizure of Logs from the TATA ACE vehicle. As seen from his evidence who deposed that he observed 28 Logs, whereas as per the other material on record and as per evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4, 20 Logs were seized from the

Page 4 of 6 vehicle. Further, all the official witnesses P.Ws 2 to 4 admitted that P.W-1 and L.W-2 are connected with Forest Range Office.

19.Really if the offence took place they shall not be deviation as to the seizure of number of logs from the punch witness P.W-1 to that of official witnesses P.Ws 2 to 4.

20.For the above material discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 creates doubt as to the commission of offence and the identity of accused with the commission of offence.

19.Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transite rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity

Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P

Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 against the accused and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.The accused are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)

(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and

Red sandle wood transite rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of A.P

Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002

In the result the accused are not found guilty for the offence

punishable u/Sec. 379 IPC, 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest

Act, 1967 Rule 3 &4 of A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood

transite rules 1969, Rule 3 of A.P Red Sander wood possession

rules, 1989 Contraventions of Sec.7, 24 (1) of Bio-Diversity Act,

2002 r/w 29(2)(b) Of A.P Forest Act 1967, punishable U/s 29(4)(a) of

A.P Forest Act, Sec.55 of Bio-Diversity Act, 2002 and they acquitted

Page 5 of 6

for the same U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C and they are directed to be set at

liberty and their bail bond shall stand canceled subject to

Sec.437(a) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24th day of August, 2015.

Smt.Sk.Faizunnisa

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Venkatagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Arava Naveen P.W.2: B.C.Penchalaiah- NONE - P.W.3: Sk.Khaja Rahamthulla P.W.4: G.Srinivasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Panchanama. Ex.P-2: Form-A. Ex. P-3: Form-B Ex. P-4: Form-C Ex. P.5: The Measurement list.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

Smt.Sk.Faizunnisa J.M.F.C, Venkatagiri.

Page 6 of 6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VENKATAGIRI.

PRESENT : S.FAIZUNNISA,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri.

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015.

C.C.No. 252/2010

Between:- The State through, Forest Range Officer Venkatagiri ,

..... Complainant.

AND

A-1:Suddarasi Sankaraiah, S/o Papaiah, 42 years, Mala (SC), Cheekeranipali (V), dakkili Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. (As A-1 died Case against him was abated) A-2: Vemula Eswaraiah, S/o Papaiah, 45 years, Velama, Vellampalli (V), Dakkili (M), S.P.S.R Nellore District. A-3: Mudda Muniswamy Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, 45 years, Kapu, Cheekerenipalli (V), Dakkili (M), S.P.S.R Nellore District. A-4: Kalakala Sivaiah, S/o Ramachandraiah, 40 years, Velama, Vellampalli (V), Dakkili (M), Nellore District.

..... Accused.

This case is coming on before me on 17.8.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. C.V.V.Sai Vara Prasad, Counsel for the accused after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the The Forest Rang Officer Venkatagiri, filed charge-sheet against the accused in D.O.R. No. 12/2009-10 for the offence u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)

(a) of A.P Forest Act alleging that on 28.01.2010 when forest officials were on patrolling duty in vernarable Red Smugler route at about 4.30 a.m saw three people moving fast on two-wheeler and chased them as they were carrying logs. The officials caught one person while others escaped. The person showed some more logs in the bushes. Two of the officials secured three mediators from nearby village and conducted panchanama in their presence. They seized 13 R.S Logs and shifted them along with accused to

Page 1 of 6 forest range office, Venkataigiri and weighed them in presence of mediators.

Accused admitted the offence and his confessional statement is recorded.

The accused stated to show the houses of remaining escaped persons. The forest officials accompined accused to Cheekerenipalli where no escaped person was found. Then they went to Velampalli village where A-4 escaped through back door. Then the accused brought them to A-2's house and on intorogation he admitted the offence of transporting R.S logs from Velampalli

Padaiah Samudram region through his bullockot. The seized logs were marked and measurement list was prepared. This is registered as a case in

DOR No 12/2009-10 in Form-A, seized the case property under Form-B and given for safe custody under Form-C and shifted the property to range office.

After obtaining prosecution orders filed charge-sheet.

2. This case was taken cognizance of for the offence u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)

(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red Sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act against accused and when they appeared copies of documents were furnished to them u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3. The accused were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C for which they denied the offence. After consideration a charge u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P

Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red Sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act was framed, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and no documents were marked by the defence and no M.Os. were marked by the prosecution.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and when incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put to them, they denied the evidence as false

Page 2 of 6 and did not state anything and did not wish to examine the witnesses on his behalf.

6.After hearing arguments this case is posted for judgment.

Now the point for consideration is whether

the prosecution proved the charge u/Sec. 20(i)

(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967

Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red Sandle

wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b),

Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act against accused

beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

7.The prosecution though cited Ten witnesses and examined P.Ws.1 to 4 of which P.Ws 1 who is punch witnesses turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case for the reasons best known to him. Evidance of Lws. 6,8 to 10 was given up by prosecution and evidence of L.W-2 was closed.

8. Out of the witnesses examined P.Ws 2 to 4 are offical wittnesses.

9.The defence taken by the accused is that of total denial.

10. The investigation in this case commenced after seizing of red sanders logs under punchnama. The same is registerd as a case in Dor No 12/2009-

10. Ex.P4 is From-A. Ex.P5 is From-B contaning seized property.The seized proprety is given for safe custdy under Ex.P6 From -C. Ex.P-7 is measurement list.

11.The panchanama was registered as a case in Dor No. 12/2009-10 for the offence u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of

A.P Sandle wood and Red sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b),

Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act .

12.In the present case, the Forest Officlas P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed to the fact of seizing red sanders logs from the scene of offence. There is deviation

Page 3 of 6 as to the scene of offence as per P.W-2 it is Sivamaiduthota. As per P.W-3 it is in the bushes. As per P.W-4 it is at some distance from water tank of

Pedhaiah Samudram region.

13.Further, A-1 gave the identity of absconded accused as per P.Ws 2 to

4. P.W-2 admitted in his cross examination that he do not kmnow the identity of person on Motor-cycle who is the first accused Caught. Further, he admits that the same A-1 gave identity of other absconded accused. Hence, the evidence of P.W-2 does not disclosed the commission of offence by the accused.

14.As seen from the evidence of P.W-3 who deposed that 3 members were moving in Motor-cycle and who tried to escape on seeing them.

Further, in his cross examination he deposed that A-1 gave identity about A- 3 and A-4 and the case was registered against A-1 to A-4.

15.There is no material on record to prove that the persons moving in the

Motor-cycle are accused who committed offence and also the variation in number from the persons on Motor-cycle and the number of accused.

16.As seen from the evidence of P.W-4 who also deposed that they saw 3 persons moving on Motor-cycle but the number of accused charged are four.

There is no ioata of evidence to show how the four accused were involved in commission of offence when they saw three persons on the Motor-cycle.

17.Further the punch witnesses P.Ws. 1 who turned hostile not supporting the prosecution case for the reasons best known to him.

18.Mere allegation of offical wittnesses with out establishing the identity of accused with the offence and the proof of commission of offence is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

19. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)

(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red

Page 4 of 6

Sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest

Act against the accused and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

20.The accused are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)

(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P Sandle wood and Red Sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act .

In the result, as the accused A-1 died case against him

was abated and A-2 to A4 are not found guilty for the offence U/Sec.

20(i)(c)(ii)(iii)(iv) And(x) Of A.P Forest Act, 1967 Rule 3 of A.P

Sandle wood and Red Sandle wood transite rules 1969, R/W

Sec.29(2)(b), Sec29(4)(a) Of A.P Forest Act and he acquited for the

same U/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C and they are directed to be set at liberty

and their bail bond shall stand cancelled subject to Sec.437(a)

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 21st day of August, 2015.

Sd/- Smt.Sk.Faizunnisa

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Venkatagiri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Vemula Subbaramaiah P.W.2: R.S Chiranjeevulu- NONE - P.W.3: P.Liyakhatail Khan P.W.4: Sk.Rafi

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Signature of P.W.1 Panchanama. Ex.P-2: Confessional Statement of A-1 Ex.P-3: Confessional Statement of A-2 Ex.P-4: Form-A

Page 5 of 6

Ex.P.5: Form-B. Ex.P-6: Form-C Ex.P-7: The Measurement list.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

Smt.Sk.Faizunnisa J.M.F.C, Venkatagiri.

Page 6 of 6

1 Calendar Case No.111 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, VENKATAGIRI.

Present:-Smt Sk.Faizunnisa, B.Sc., M.L.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri.

Friday, this the 18th day of July, 2014.

C.C.No.111 of 2014

State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station. … Complainant -Versus-

1.Ganta Tiripaiah S/o Chinnaiah, aged about 60 years, SC-Mala by caste, Sanganapalli village, Dakkili Mandal.

2. Ganta Eswaraiah S/o Tiripaiah, aged about 40 years,

SC-Mala by caste, Sanganapalli village, Dakkili Mandal. ... Accused

This case is coming on 17.7.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri C.V.V.Sai Vara Prasad,

Advocate for the accused 1 and 2, having heard the arguments of both the counsel, perused records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused A1 & A2 in Crime No.1 of 2014 for the offence punishable under

Section 324 read with 34 IPC alleging that accused A1 & A2 picked up quarrel with

LW.1/Chitteti Penchalaiah. A1 beat him with palmyrah stick causing bleeding injury over head. LWs.2, 4 & 5(Panjam Eswaraiah, Ganta Ramachandra and Ganta Balaiah) rushed to the spot and tried to rescue him. LW.2/Panjam Eswaraiah Shifted

LW.1/Chitteti Penchalaiah to Government hospital, Rapur. On the statement given by LW.1/Chitteti Penchalaiah, LW.7/Y.Sai Prasad, S.I of Police, Dakkili P.S, registered the case. Thus the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

2 Calendar Case No.111 of 2014

2. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.111 of 2014 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused A1 & A2.

3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

4. Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation made against them. They denied the same. A charge under Section 324r/w 34 IPC against accused is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In support of its case, prosecution got examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LWs.

2 to 7 (Panjam Eswaraiah, Chitteti Chinnamma, Ganta Ramachandra, Ganta Balaiah,

Dr.M.V.Neelima and Y.Sai Prasad, S.I of Police, Dakkili P.S).

6. The case of the prosecution, as could be seen from charge sheet, and Ex.P1, in brief, is as follows. A1 & A2 picked up quarrel with LW.1/Chitteti Penchalaiah over beating of LWs.1 to 3 over her cheek. LW.3/Chitteti Chinnamma is the wife of

LW.1 and daughter of accused A1 & A2. Accused beat LW.1 over head with palmera sticks causing bleeding injury. LWs.2, 4 & 5 intervened and pacified the matter.

LW.2 admitted LW.1 in hospital. On report given by LW.1, LW.7 registered the same as a case in Crime No.1 of 2014 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into. LW.7 has examined 5 witnesses, visited scene of offence, drafted rough sketch. On 7.1.2014 LW.7 arrested accused at Sanganapalli road centre. LW.6 who examined LW.1 issued wound certificate that the injury is simple in nature. After investigation LW.7 filed charge sheet.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused are examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for which they denied incriminating evidence. As there is no evidence on behalf of accused defence evidence is closed.

3 Calendar Case No.111 of 2014

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused

of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC,

beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:- The accusation made against the accused is that they picked up quarrel with PW.1 over beating of PW.1 to his wife who is daughter of accused. The accused beat PW.1 with palmira stick on head causing bleeding injury. Thereby accused have committed an offence punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 IPC.

Therefore, prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the offences with which they were charged.

11. Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution could prove its case. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC, prosecution has examined PW.1 who is injured not supported the case of prosecution. As material witness turned hostile, prosecution has given up the evidence of other list witnesses.

12. PW.1 who is defacto complainant deposed that on 1.1.2014 at about 10.00 PM there were about 30 persons near temple in Sanganapalli village in drunken state.

While he was passing that way he got injured his forehead with stone. He deposed that he do not know who caused the injury. He identified Ex.P1 which is complaint given by him but stated he do not know its contents. He denied the suggestion by

Assistant Public Prosecutor that he deposed to the police as per Ex.P2 in cross examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor.

13. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled to be acquitted.

4 Calendar Case No.111 of 2014

14. In the result, accused are not found guilty of the offence punishable under

Section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 18th day of July, 2014.

Sd/-Sk.Faizunnisa

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Venkatagiri.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:-None PW.1:Chitteti Penchalaih- Nil -

Exhibits marked for prosecution Ex.P1: Complaint given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.1 given before police.

Exhibits marked for defence. - Nil -

Material Objects marked. -Nil- For Defence: nil

Sd/-Sk.Faizunnisa

JMFC., Venkatagiri.

Calendar Case No.111 of 20145 FORM NO.72.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT.

C.C.No.111 of 2014 District : SPSR Nellore District.

Calendar case tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District.

DATES OF :-

1. Offence: 31-12-2013

2. Report/complainant: 01-04-2014

3. Apprehension of accused : 07-01-2014

4. Release on bail : 07-01-2014

5. Commencement of trial : 17-07-2014

6. Close of trial: 17-07-2014

7. Sentence/Order: 18-07-2014

EXPLANATION OF DELAY AND REMARKS:-

This case was taken on file on 23.03.2014. After appearance of the accused copies of documents were furnished on 13.06.2014 and charge was framed on 13.06.2014. PW.1 was examined on 17.07.2014. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, as LWs.2 to 7 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and on the same day the prosecution evidence was closed. Exs.P1 and P2 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Since there is no incriminating material against the accused, the examination of the accused under section 313(i) (b) of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with on the same day.

Judgment was pronounced on 18.07.2014. Hence the delay.

Judgment in Calendar Case No.111/2014 on the file of the court of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri , SPSR Nellore district.

Complainant: State: State, represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Venkatagiri Police Station.

Accused:1. Ganta Tiripaiah S/o Chinnaiah, aged about 60 years, SC-Mala by caste, Sanganapalli village, Dakkili Mandal.

2. Ganta Eswaraiah S/o Tiripaiah, aged about 40 years, SC-Mala by caste, Sanganapalli village, Dakkili Mandal.

Offence : under section 324 read with 34 IPC.

Finding : Accused are not found guilty.

Sentence : The accused are not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under

Calendar Case No.111 of 20146 Section.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Sd/-Sk.Faizunnisa

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri.

Date of receipt : From The Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri :

To The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

C.C.No.:111 of 2014

Date of Judgment :18.07.2014

Date of Dispatch of Calender :

Date of Receipt :

Remarks of the Hon’ble Ist Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Nellore.