Sri Srinivas Kanchi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 223 / 2016.

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.19/2016) … Complainant.

And

1)Bommidi Lakshman Sudheer @ Lakshmana Sudhir, Age: 35 years, S/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

2)Smt B. Mahalakshmi, Age: 53 years, W/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No. 14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilandu.

3)B.V.V. Sathyanarayana, Age:58 years, S/o B. Lakshman Rao, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

4)B. Bala Suman @ Suman, Age:33 years, S/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

... Accused.

--- This case is presented before me on 24-07-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri I. Ramesh, Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4, upon hearing on both sides through Blue Jeans Video Conference Call and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1)State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station,

Tirupati filed charge sheet in Cr.No.19/2016 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under section 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

The de-facto complainant Pakala Vidhya has studied up to B.Com (Computers) at Chennai, Tamilnadu State by staying in a hostel. Accused

No.1 is the husband of de-facto complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws and accused No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. Her marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 05.12.2014 in Uday International

Hotel, Tirupati. Prior to her marriage, she had studied by staying in a hostel at T-Nagar, Chennai from July 2014 to 12.04.2015. After consummation of their marriage, her first night was arranged in the house of her parents, on that day, her husband did not participate in sexual intercourse and also maintained distance with her and he did not lead marital life with her. After that, she went to her in-law’s house with “Sare and Sangyam”. There, her husband intentionally attended night duties and he used to maintain distance to her and he further stated with the de-facto complainant that he don’t want children and also he advised de-facto complainant as “Samsara Sukamena Mukyam, Mundu

Maa Amma Nannalaku Seva Cheyadam Nerchuko”. All accused started harassment and ill-treatment physically and mentally, demanded the de- facto complainant to get cash, jewels, car and plot and also silver ornaments. Accused No.4 threatens the de-facto complainant to look after the welfare of his parents and he is ready to go to foreign studies.

Thereby, accused Nos.1 to 4 threatened the de-facto complainant from her marriage to 12.04.2015. On 12.04.2015 she came back to Tirupati to her parent’s house along with her brother and same was informed to her parents with regard to harassment of her in-laws.

On 08.06.2016 on presentation of written complaint made by the de-facto complainant, police registered a case and investigated into.

3

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

4)When the accused Nos.1 to 4 appeared before this court, the copies of documents which was relies upon by the prosecution, supplied to them u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)When the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled, for which, accused Nos.1 to 4 denied having committed the offence. Thereafter, a charge under section 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In support of the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked.

7)After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, the accused

Nos.1 to 4 have been examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence appearing leveled against them in the evidence of PWs 1 to 6, to which, they denied and filed eight documents at the time of their 313 Cr.P.C examination and no defense witnesses were examined.

8)Heard arguments of Learned APP and Learned Counsel for accused through Blue Jeans Video Conference Call. Learned counsel for accused

Nos.1 to 4 contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 were falsely implicated in this case and they did not commit any offence and it is a case of one and denial.

9)Perused record.

4

10)Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC and u/s 4 of D.P. Act?

POINT:-

11)The case of the prosecution as per Ex.P1 is PW1 studied up to

B.Com (Computers). Her marriage was performed with accused on 05.12.2014 in Uday International Hotel, Tirupati. Before her marriage till 12.04.2015, she has stayed in a hostel at T-Nagar, Chennai. The first night function was arranged at her parents’ house but her husband did not perform sexual intercourse with her. On that, she came to know her husband is unfit for sexual intercourse as he is impotent person. Even though her parents presented “Sare and Sangyam” and dropped PW1 at her in-law’s house. There, her husband maintained distance to PW1 and also stated that he did not want children and further stated “Samsara

Sukamena Mukyam, Mundu Maa Amma Nannalaku Seva Cheyadam

Nerchuko” and further accused Nos.1 and 4 harassed PW1 to get cash, jewelery, car, plot and silver ornaments. Accused No.3 also harassed

PW1 to look after his parents’ very well as he goes to foreign studies.

PW1 did not inform the harassment to her parents and on 12.04.2015 she came back to her parent’s house and same was informed pertaining to the harassment of accused Nos.1 to 4. On 08.06.2016 she went to police station and filed written report who drafted by her father. Basing on it, Mahila Police registered a case against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

12)Coming to the evidence of PW1, through PW1, Ex.P1 her report and Ex.P2 wedding card were marked. PW1 deposed in her evidence that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave a dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold to the accused and also her parents incurred 5 marriage expenses and gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused for house hold articles and further deposed that accused Nos.2 and 3 used to scold her and demanded additional dowry stating that she brought less dowry and further deposed that accused No.3 demanded car worth of Rs.8,00,000/- and one kilogram gold and 3 kilograms of silver and one house plot and vacant site from her parents and further deposed that accused No.3 demanded to execute the properties in his name if her parents would give her those properties. She further deposed that she bared the harassment of accused up to 3 months.

13)Coming to the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 denied having suggestion that she stayed in Prachara Saba Hostel at T-Nagar, Chennai till 12.04.2015. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she mentioned in Ex.P1 so also before the police she stayed in a hostel at T-

Nagar, Chennai right from July 2014 to 12.04.2015. PW1 further denied having suggestion that accused No.1 did not take any dowry from her parents.

14)Coming to the evidence of PW2, PW2 is the mother of PW1. She deposed that on 05.12.2014, her daughter marriage was performed with accused No.1 at Uday International Hotel, Tirupati as per Hindu Customs and Rites. At the time of marriage, they give dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold to accused No.1 and they also incurred marriage expenses. She further deposed that after the marriage of PW1, she went to her in-law’s house at Chennai to perform Sathyanarayana Vratham, on that day, PW1 and her husband came back to their house, there they arranged first night. She further deposed that accused No.1 stayed in their house for one day and went to Chennai and he did not came back to their house. Later, she came to know through her daughter that there 6 is no marital relationship between them and further she deposed that she came to know through PW1 that accused No.1 is a impotent person.

She further deposed that she questioned accused No.1 and further requested the accused No.1 to come to their house for mediation but accused No.1 refused to talk with her.

15)PW3 is an another witness. He deposed that on 05.12.2014, PW1’s marriage was performed with accused No.1 as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. Their marriage was an arranged one. He further deposed that their first night function was arranged at PW1’s house. He further deposed that he came to know the fact that accused No.1 is an impotent person. He is not suitable for conjugal life. He further deposed that PW1 was sent to her in-law’s house with “Sare Sanghyam”. He further deposed after 3 days, PW1 made a phone call to him and informed that accused No.1 intentionally attending night duties and also maintain distance with PW1. He further deposed that accused harassed PW1 stating that to look after his parents. He further deposed that the parents of PW1 conducted mediation, he also attended the said mediation but it was not fruitful.

16)PW4 is independent witness, he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Through PW4, Ex.P3 i.e., his 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked.

17)PW5 is the another witness deposed that on 05.12.2014, PW1’s marriage was performed with accused No.1 at Uday International Hotel,

Tirupati as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After that, their first night function was arranged in the house of PW2. On the next day, accused

No.1 went to Chennai and after 3 days, she along with parents of PW1 went to Chennai and dropped PW1 at her in-law’s house with “Sare and 7

Sangayam”. She further deposed that after two months, she came to know the harassment of accused and demand of additional dowry through PW1.

18)PW6 is the Investigation Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 08.06.2016 at 8.00 a.m., on presentation of report by PW1 along with her father by name P.M.Krishnamurthy. Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Cr.No.19/2016 for the offence under section 498-A of

IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. He examined PW1 to

PW3 and recorded their statements. He seized wedding card and two marriage photos under cover of Ex.P5 Police proceedings. On the next day, he examined PW4-G.Venkatesh and LW5-G.Rajeswari and after completion of investigation, he handed over CD file to his Superior

Officer LW9-Damodara Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahila P.S., and he filed charge sheet before this court.

19)The prosecution has given up the crucial witnesses in this case i.e.,

LW2 – P.M.Krishnamurthy who is father of PW1, LW5-G.Rajeswari who came to know about the case facts, there is no explanation from the prosecution why the prosecution has not examined the said crucial witnesses.

20)Turn to the evidence of PW1, PW1 in her chief examination stated that her parents gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments and incurred marriage expenses and also gave

Rs.3,00,000/- to accused No.1 for house hold articles. But the said fact was not mentioned neither in her report Ex.P1 nor examination before the police. It is a material omission pointed out in the evidence of PW1.

This court is also pointed out another material omission in the evidence of PW1 that accused No.3 has demanded car worth of Rs.8,00,000/-, one 8 kilogram gold and three kilogram silver, one house plot and one vacant site from her parents. But the said fact was not mentioned neither in

Ex.P1 report nor examination before the police. PW1 first time deposed the said fact before this court. It is admitted in the evidence of PW1 that prior to her marriage, from July 2014 to 12.04.2015, she has stayed in a hostel at Chennai. It is admitted in the evidence of PW1 that she came back to her parents’ house along with her brother on 12.04.2015. In this case, there is no demand for dowry at the time of marriage of PW1 with accused No.1. Even PW2 deposed that they presented gold and dowry to accused No.1. Even the said fact was not mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C., statement also. PW2 first time deposed the said fact before this court.

PW1 further admitted in her cross-examination that her marriage was an arranged marriage and they know the financial background of both families. She further admitted in her cross-examination that three police officers examined and recorded her statements. She vaguely deposed evidence as she was examined by police at five times and recorded her statements.

21)The main attack of counsel for accused is there is no demand for dowry on the side of the accused. The defense of the accused is PW1 prior to her marriage, she praising jesus if the parents of accused No.1 believing the ownership of Hindu Gods. Accused did not accept the demand of PW1 then only PW1 has foisted a false case against the accused. To disprove the prosecution case, he confronted the documents at the time of cross-examination of PW1 and the learned defense counsel showed one diary and one in-land letter to PW1 and asked whether handwriting belongs to her or not and that PW1 admitted that handwriting belongs to her and further admitted that the prayer of jesus

Christ was written in diary. She further admitted that she aware of the 9 contents in in-land letter which was shown to her. Further, the counsel

for accused showed a written paper. PW1 admitted the contents of

written paper and the writing shown is belongs to her. The learned counsel for accused also showed a letter issued by Prayer Tower to PW1 at the time of her cross-examination and she admitted that the letter was received by PW1 from United Peoples Fellowship, Hyderabad and she further admitted prior to her marriage, she used to follow prayers of jesus Christ. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she issued a legal notice to accused No.1 on 19.04.2015 for desolution of marriage. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she did not inform to her in-laws that she is a devotee of jesus Christ. She further admitted that if accused No.1 agrees to put up a separate family, she would join with her husband. She further admitted in her cross- examination that her husband obtaining certificate from Apollo Hospital,

Chennai as he is a fit person to marital life. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she got issued a legal notice to accused No.1 for settlement of dispute out of the court. She further admitted in her cross- examination that Ex.P1 was scribed by her father and she was signed on it.

22)After careful examination of evidence of PW1, this court is pointed out major omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 that the evidence of PW1 did not corroborated with Ex.P1. PW1 first time deposed the fact that demand for dowry and also presenting of dowry at the time of marriage but the same was not mentioned in Ex.P1 or examination

before the police. PW1 on one hand alleging that her husband is an

impotent person and on other hand she willing to join with her husband if her husband put up a separate family. The main contention of the accused that there is no major disputes between PW1 and accused No.1.

10

The main reason for dispute is PW1 is follower of jesus christ and the parents of accused are following Hinduism then only the disputes arose and also there is no demand for dowry or harassment as alleged by the prosecution. To prove his case, the counsel for accused filed diary at the time of section 313 of Cr.P.C examination. In fact, the said diary was confronted before PW1 at the time of her cross-examination and she also admitted her hand writing which was appeared in the diary, it is admitted by PW1 and that admitted fact need not be proved under section 58 of Indian Evidence Act. She also admitted hand writing of in- land cover which was belong to her and also further admitted the letter which was sent by Prayer Tower belongs to her, it is an admitted fact that she is follower of jesus Christ prior to her marriage. In section 498-A cases demand for dowry from her husband or relative of her husband is a material aspect. But in this case either PW1 did not mentioned in Ex.P1 or examination before the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C statement but the first time PW1 deposed before this court as her parents gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold to accused No.1 at the time of her marriage and it is an omission which can root into the entire prosecution case.

23)PW2 who is mother of PW1. She also deposed as they presented cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and 30 sovereigns of gold to the accused No.1 at the time of marriage of PW1 but the said fact was not mentioned before the police under section 161 Cr.P.C statement and the evidence of PW2 is not reliable with regard to the material aspect that she deposed more extent than PW1. No doubt, section 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence.

PW1 did not inform the harassment of accused till 12.04.2015. On 08.06.2016, she presented a report before the police after one year two months when she left the matrimonial home along with her brother and 11 what prevented PW1 to present a report before the police, it is an admitted fact in the evidence of PW1 that she got issued a legal notice to accused No.1 on 19.04.2015. PW1 is not an illiterate woman, she studied up to B.Com (Computers), she vaguely deposed evidence that she was examined by the police five times and recorded her statements.

Even PW2 also deposed as same lines that she was examined by the police at ten times and recorded her statements by the police. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 suffered irregularity and there is no corroboration in between PW1 and PW2. The evidence of PW1 is suffered from material omissions and discrepancies. The said omission has destructs the entire case of the prosecution.

24)Coming to PW3, PW3 is an interested witness. His evidence also did not support the case of prosecution. PW4 is one of the witnesses in present case but he turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW5 is another interested witness to PW1. Her evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.

25)Section 498-A of IPC deals with husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty.

For the purpose of the section, cruelty has been explained in Explanation

(a) and (b).

As per Explanation (a), it is any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health whether mental or physical.

As per Explanation (b), it is harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on 12 account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Unless allegations made in the report and the evidence adduced fall within any one of the Explanation, except a person cannot be convicted for the offence under section 498-A of IPC.

26)It is the right time to discuss the evidence of PW6, PW6 is the

Investigation Officer who registered the case and examined the witnesses. PW6 is the star witness to our present case. His admissions alone elevated as star witness to the present case. Coming to the admissions in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not examine the neighbors of PW1 and also admitted that PW1 stayed four days at her in-law’s house. It is further admitted in the evidence off PW6,

PW1 visited her parents’ house with a Bible and she left the house immediately. It is admitted in the evidence of PW6 as PW1 did not adjust the Hinduism, for that reason only, she left the matrimonial home. It is admitted in his evidence that there is no major dispute between PW1 and accused family with regard to the dowry harassment. The main dispute is religious aspect. As per evidence of PW6, it is admitted in the evidence of PW6, accused obtained medical records from Apollo

Hospital, Chennai which reveals accused No.1 is a potent person. It is also admitted in the evidence of PW6 that PW1 demanded monitory benefit from accused to settle the dispute. It is admitted in the evidence of PW6 that accused fails to fulfill the demands of PW1, then only she foisted a case against the accused. It is also admitted in the evidence of

PW6 that PW1 stayed at hostel in T-Nagar, Chennai from July 2014 to 12.04.2015. The entire omissions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 were confronted to PW6 at his cross-examination. It is further admitted in the 13 evidence of PW6 that PW1 did not state before the police in her 161

Cr.P.C statement or did not mentioned in Ex.P1 that accused No.4 came to her house along with Laptop and also threatened PW1 to record her voice and reveal the same. It is admitted in the evidence of PW6 that there is mediation between PW1 and accused No.1. In said mediation, there is a demand by parents of PW1 that accused No.1 put up a separate family at Tirupati, then only, their daughter join with accused

No.1.

27)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed written arguments arguing that the evidence of PW1 corroborated with PW2 with regard to all aspects and further argued that PW3’s evidence is consistent with the prosecution as well as the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 about the harassment suffered by PW1 in the hands of accused for demand of dowry. As per the prosecution version, PW5 is the independent witness.

Her evidence also consistent with the case of prosecution with all aspects. The prosecution relied upon the citation of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Balasubramaniam and another v. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 627 (SC). On perusal of said judgment in para No.4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the evidence of PW1. In said judgment, the father of the deceased stated has stated how the deceased was ill-treated in her matrimonial house, his evidence that the accused constantly harassed the deceased and asked her to bring gold sovereigns and money from her parents. Due to his financial condition, he did not fulfill those demands. He stated at the time of marriage, a demand of 25 gold sovereigns but due to his inability, he could give 20 gold sovereigns. Coming to the present case on hand, it is not the prosecution case at the time of marriage, accused was demanded dowry and other gold jewelery. In fact, Ex.P1 is silent with regard to the 14 demand of dowry and giving gold and other lanchanams to the accused.

So, the above said judgment which was relied on by the prosecution is not applicable to the present case on hand. The case facts which was relied upon by the prosecution is entirely different to the present case on hand.

28)The prosecution filed another citation of Hon’ble High Court of our

Division Bench in Gaddegudem Vadenna v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2011(1) ALD (Crl.) 759 (AP). I have carefully gone through the said judgment. In that case, the deceased wife of the accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., mother and sister of accused No.1 while accused Nos.1 to 3 were charged for the offence under section 498-A of

IPC. Accused No.1 also charged for the offence under section 302 of IPC.

In said judgment, PW1 to PW3 have categorically deposed that the deceased and accused No.1 were lived happily for a period of four months. Thereafter, accused No.1 started demanding the de-facto complainant to bring additional dowry. In said judgment, there cannot be any dispute that harassment of wife by the husband coercing her to meet unlawful demand is a cruelty within the meaning of clause (b) of section 498-A of IPC.

29)Coming to the present case facts on hand, the main allegation of

PW1 that accused No.1 is an impotent person, he used to attend night duties and also maintaining distance with her. Further, PW1 stated accused No.3 harassing her by demanding a car, house plot, gold and silver jewelries. Ex.P1 is silent about the harassment of accused No.3 but

PW1 first time deposed the said fact before this court. Even PW2 deposed on the same lines of PW1. When PW1 admitted that she had studied at Chennai by staying in a hostel prior to her marriage to till 15 12.04.2015, this court has expressing a serious doubt of cohabitation of

PW1 with accused No.1 in same roof.

30)Coming to the present case on hand, the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 is not reliable, their evidence was inconsistent with Ex.P1 report.

Even independent witness also did not depose the harassment of accused and the police has failed to secure the neighbors who residing beside the house of PW1, those are the best persons to speak about the harassment of PW1 in the hands of accused. So, the judgments relied upon by the prosecution are not ought for present case on hand.

31)After careful perusal of entire prosecution witnesses and documents filed by the accused at the time of section 313 Cr.P.C examination and on considering the material available on hand as PW1’s evidence is suffered from irregularities, PW2’s evidence did not corroborated with the evidence of PW1, PW1 evidence is inconsistent with Ex.P1 lodged by PW1. There are number of material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1. PW3 is the related witness, his evidence also did not support the case of prosecution. PW5 is another interested witness, his evidence also did not taken into consideration.

PW6 is the Investigation Officer, he categorically admitted that there are no serious disputes between PW1 and accused No.1. On perusal of medical report which was filed by the accused, it reveals that he is a potent person and he is a fit person to lead conjugal life. PW1 categorically admitted that she is praising the Jesus Christ when dispute arose between accused No.1 and PW1. PW1 is following prayer of Jesus

Christ as contended by defense, there is no reliable evidence with regard to the harassment of PW1 in the hands of accused. PW1 also failed to prove that there is a demand for dowry. PW1 on one hand alleging that 16 accused No.1 is an impotent person and on the other hand, she is willing to lead marital life with accused No.1 if accused No.1 put up a separate family. It is clear that the allegations against accused No.1 i.e., he is an impotent person is false.

32)In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered.

33)In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused

Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

As there is no property in this case, no order is passed in that regard.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed, corrected and

pronounced and updated on this the 30 th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1:P. Vidhya.None PW2:Smt G. Hemavathi. PW3:G. Prakash. PW4:G. Venkatesh. PW5:T. Lalitha.

PW6:P.V. Subbaiah, A.S.I.

17

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report of PW1, dated 08.06.2016. Ex.P2:Wedding Card. Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P4:FIR. Ex.P5:Police proceedings.

Material objects:

Nil.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

18

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Thursday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 223 / 2016.

Calender Case No:223 of 2016. Name of the Police Station and : State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Number of offenceMahila P.S., Tirupati. (Cr.No.19/2016)

Description of Accused: 1)Bommidi Lakshman Sudheer @ Lakshmana Sudhir, Age: 35 years, S/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

2)Smt B. Mahalakshmi, Age: 53 years, W/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No. 14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilandu.

3)B.V.V. Sathyanarayana, Age:58 years, S/o B. Lakshman Rao, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

4)B. Bala Suman @ Suman, Age:33 years, S/o B.V.V. Satyanarayana, Door No.14-38/1, Krishnappa street, Chepauk, Chennai-5, Tamilnadu.

Date of OccurrencePrior to 08.06.2016. Date of Complaint08.06.2016. Date of Apprehension14.07.2016. Date of taken on File27.07.2016. Release on bail14.07.2016. Commencement of Trial03.08.2018. Closure of Trial22.05.2019. Date of sentence or Order30.07.2020. Explanation for Delay: Due to non production of witnesses.

u/s 498-A IPC – Husband or relative of husband of a Nature of offencewoman subjecting her to cruelty and u/s 4 of D.P. Act – Penalty for demanding dowry. Found not guilty. Finding of the court 19

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437- A of Cr.P.C.

As there is no property in this case, no order is passed in that regard.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS::

TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: Sri K.Srinivas, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Friday, this the Twenty Eighth day of June, Two thousand and Nineteen. ( 28.06. 2019).

CC.No. 27 of 2014

(Cr.No. 339 of 2011 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati)

Between: The State, represented by the Inspector of Police,

Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati. ..Complainant.

And:

1. Thakkali Elumalai Reddy, age 75 years, S/o. Late Thakkali Mutha Reddy,

2. Dinnipati Venkata Suddaiah, age 37 years, S/o. D. Siddaiah, Door No.2-70/1, M.R.Palli, Tirupati, Managing Partner, S.V.S Ventures, Tirupati, Caste by Ediga.

3. Thakkali Veera Bhadraiah, age 48 years, S/o. Late Thakkali Mutha Reddy,

4. Thakkali Jagadeesh Reddy, age 42 years, S/o. Late Thakkali Mutha Reddy,

5. Thakkali Murugesh, age 39 years, S/o. Late Thakkali Mutha Reddy,

6. S. Ranemma, age 55 years, W/o. S.Rami Reddy, S/o. Late Thakkali Mutha Reddy,

7. K. Eswaramma, age 45 years, W/o. Late. Ranganadham,

Nos.1, 3 to 7 are residents of Karanam Mitturu village, Thimminaidupalem Panchayat, Tirupati, Vanne Reddy by

...Accused.

caste.

This case is coming before me on 11.06.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.N.Manohar and Sri D.Ramakrishna, Advocate for accused Nos.1, 3 to 7, and of Sri A.Purushotham, Advocate for Accused No.2, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material on record and this matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati filed charge sheet before this Court against the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Cr.No.339 of 2011 2 under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy and L.W.2/Smt. P.Sredevi are the Managing

Directors of Cherishma Housing Private Limited, Tirupati.

L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy has purchased the land in S.No.116/2A with an extent of Ac:1.40 cents of Upparapalem village accounts, Mangalam Group,

Tirupati from A1/Thakkali Elumalai Reddy and got registered the same in favour of M/s. Cherishma Housing Private Limited, Tirupati vide document

No.270 / 2002 dated 06.02.2002, represented by its Managing Director-

L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy. Since then, L.Ws.1 and 2 are in possessionand enjoyment of the said land. According to the Revenue records,

Gudimitta Lakshmaiah, son of Gudimitta Venkataiah and Gudimitta

Reddappa, son of G.Lakshmaiah are the absolute owners of the said land in

S.No.116/2 with a total extent of Ac:3.00 cents. A1/Takkali Elumalai Reddy has purchased the land from the absolute owners Gudimitta Lakshmaiah, son of G.venkataiah and Gudimitta Reddappa, S/o. G.Lakshmaiah under a registered sale deed vide document No. 2068/1971 dated 25.06.1971, since then, A.1 was in possession and enjoyment of the said land. But, in the registered document No.2068/1971 the survey number was mistakenly furnished as S.No.96 instead of S.No.116/2. As such, the same was rectified under registered rectification deed vide document No.5312/1984 dated 28.08.1984. Subsequently, the authorities of TUDA, Tirupati Sub-Divided the land in S.No.116/2 as 116/2B and acquired the said land with an extent of

Ac:0.06 cents for formation of road in the year 1989 vide Award in

Roc.A1/2849/85 dated 30.12.1989. Thereafter L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna has purchased the said land in S.No.116/2 with an extent of Ac:1.49 cents from

A.1/Takkali Elumalai Reddy noted herein and got registered the same in favour of M/s. Cherishma Housing Private Limited, Tirupati, represented by

L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna, as Managing Director at Sub-Registrar’s office,

Renigunta Vide Document No.270/2002dated 06.02.2002. it was self acquired property of A.1/Takkali Elumalai Reddy, but not his ancestors property. Since the, L.Ws.1 and 2 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. They have erected fencing stones around the said land and 3 constructed a small shed at their land and kept L.W.5/Sake Sivaiah @ Siva of

Nagulagudem Village, Anantapur District as watchman at the said land for safe custody. A1/Elumalai Reddy also sold away the remaining portion portion in the said land with an extent of Ac:0.45 cents to one Nadipaiah. Subsequently,

A2/Dinnipati Venkata Siddaiah being the Managing Partner of S.V.S Ventures,

Tirupati with mala-fide intention to knock away the land of L.Ws.1 and 2, colluded with A.1/Thakkali Elumalai Reddy and his children A3 to a7, all of them created a forged and fabricated document pertaining to the land in

S.No.116/2 and A1, A3 to A6 noted herein have executed a registered sale deed in favour of A.2/Dinnipati Venkata Siddaiah vide document

No.2276/2010 dated 06.05.2010 at Sub-Registrar’s office, Tirupati knowing fully well that A.1/Takkali Elumalai Reddy has already sold way the same self acquired land to L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna underr a registered ale deed, thereby cheated L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna and L.W.2/Smt. P.Sreedevi.

It is further alleged that according to document No.2276/2010 dated 06.05.2010 executed by A.1/T.Elumalai Reddy and his children A3 to a7 in favour of A2/Dinnipati Siddaiah, it is clear that basing on the document

No.4119/1963 dated 07.12.1963, A1/T.Elumalai Reddy and his children A3 to a7 have executed registered sale deed vide document NO.2276/2010 in favour of A.2/Dinnipati Venkata Siddaiah said to be the ancestors of Late

Madarapaku Ellappa Reddy @ Takkali Ellappa Reddy, said to be the father of

A.1/Takkali Elumalai Reddyh and grand father of A3 to A.7. According to document No.2068/1971 dated 25.06.1971, the land in S.No.116/2 with an extent of Ac:2.00 cents is the self acquired property of A.1/Takkali Elumalai

Reddy, since Takali Elumalai Reddy has purchased the said land from

Gudimitta Lakshmaiah, S/o. G.Venkataiah and Gudimitta Reddappa, S/o.

G.Lakshmaiah which clearly shows that it is not the ancestors property of

Madarapaku Ellappa Reddy @ Takkali Ellappa Reddy. With mala-fide intention to cheat L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna and L.W.2/Smt. P.Sredevi, only A1,

A3 to A.7 colluded with A.2/Dinnipati Venkata Siddaiah, created forged and fabricated document pertaining to the said land and executed a registered sale deed cum General Power of attorney in favour of A.2/Dinnipati Venkata

Siddaiah by furnishing the name of the father of A.1 as Madharapaku Ellappa 4

Reddy @ Takkali Ellappa Reddy, instead of Takkali Mutha Reddy in the registered sale deed cum General Power of Attorney by using the fabricated document as genuine, thereby cheated L.Ws.1 and . Basing on the fabricated document vide doc. No.2276/2010 executed by A1, A3 to A7, A.2 prepared blue print sketch pertaining to the said land and sold away some plots to different persons including L.W.6/S.Venkataramana by showing the fabricated document.

It is further alleged that, while so, on 22.11.2011 at about 11.30 A.M A.1 to A.7 criminally trespassed into the land in S.No.116/2, Upparapalem village accounts, Mangalam Group, Tirupati belongs to L.w.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna and

L.W.2/P.Sreedevi, damaged the fencing stones with crow bars and hammers, beat the watchman/L.W.3-S.Sivaiah @ Siva with hands, threatened him with dire consequences with intent to knock away the said land for their pecuniary benefits. Immediately, L.W.3/S.Sivaiah @ Siva informed the same to

L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna over cell phone and as L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna was out of station, L.W.3/S.Sivaiah informed the same to L.W.4/G.Ravindra and

L.w.5/G.Purushotham, they rushed to the spot and questioned, A.2 also pushed them aside and threatened them with dire consequences that the said land is belongs to A.2 by showing some fabricated documents and went away.

Basing on the report of L.W.1/C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy, a case in Cr.No. 339 of 2011 under sections 420, 468, 471, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the material witnesses, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch and prepared observation proceedings, on 25.11.2011 arrested A1 to

A3, recorded their confessional statements and seized -1)Original registered document vide document No.4119/1963 dated 07.12.1963 from the possession of A.2; and 2) original registered document vide document

No.2276/2010 dated 06.05.2010 from the possession of A.2 under a cover of mahazar in the presence of mediators and sent them for judicial custody, A4 to

A.7 surrendered before this court and enlarged on bail. The investigating officer collected scanned copies of registered documents No.270/2002 and 2276/2010 along with connected documents. After completion of investigation, 5 charge sheet was filed against A1 to A.7 for the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. This court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents, on which, the prosecution intends to rely upon, were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On further appearance of accused, they were examined under

Sec.239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, charges are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, A1 to A7 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against the accused by the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. Perused the entire record.

9.Now the Point for determination is:Whether the prosecution is

able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable

under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond the reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT: Sec. 420 of IPC prescribes Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver anyproperty to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.

6

11. C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy, examined as P.W.1. He is defacto complainant in this case and Managing Director of Charishma Housing Private

Limited, Tirupati. He purchased the land in an extent of Ac:1.49 cents in

S.No.1162A of Upparapalam village accounts from A.1 under a registered sale deed dated 06.02.2002 and the same was registered in Sub-Registrar Officer,

Renigunta. Since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. He also constructed a compound wall and erected a shed in the said site and engaged one Sivaiah as Watchman to safeguard the said land. While so, on 22.11.2011 the accsued persons demolished the compound wall and the same was informed to P.W.1 by his Watchman.

Immediately, P.W.1 deputed P.W.2 and L.W.5/G.Purushotham, all the persons beat P.W.2, P.W.6 and L.W.5/G.Purushotham and threatened them with dire consequences and stated that the said land belong to accused persons. After his arrival, he gave a complaint before the Alipiri Police.

12. In his cross examination P.W.1 he filed document to show that he is the owner of property, he cannot say the boundaries of his land, there is no electrical service connection to their shed, there is no estimation for the alleged damages from the engineer. He further admitted that one Gopinadha Reddy who was retired as Deputy General is his own brother, on the date of the complaint, his brother is in service. P.W.1 further admitted that A.2 laid a lay out and sold away 12 sites to 12 different persons.

13. P.w.1 in his complaint/Ex.P.1 mentioned that A.1 sold the property in S.No.116/2A in an extent of Ac:1.49 cents , since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land by constructing compound wall and one room and one S.Seiva was engaged as a watchman. Later, A.1 knowing that he sold teh saidproepty to P.w.1, intentionally with a dishonest intention colluded with A.2, A.1 along with his childen, on 06.05.2010 by changing his father’s surname as Madarapaku Ellapopa Reddy @ Thakkali Ellappa Reddy instead of Takkali Mutha Reddy, executed a GPA in favour of A2/Dinnipati Venkata

Siddaiah, registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Renigunta.

14 Ex.P.4 is the sale deed executed by A.1 in favour of M/s. Cherishma

Housing Private Limited represented by its managing Director Sri 7

C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy i.e P.W.1, dated 06.02.2002 vide document

No.270/2002. In Ex.P.4 it is recited that A.1 is absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property and is having right over the same in self-acquired nature and the vendor has got the schedule proeprty under sale deed dated 25.06.1971 executed by G.Lakshmaiah, G.Reddeppa, G.Chandraiah and

G.Chinna Chandraiah under a registered document No.2068/1971 in book

No.1, Vol.834, pages 55-57. The property is situated in S.No.116/2A of No.8

Mangalam village group, Upparapalem vilalge accounts within the boundaries i.e East: 150 feet wide road; South: land of Vendee (A1), West: lands of

P.Krishnaiah agreed to be sold to the vendee; and North: Lands of

P.Krishnaiah agreed to be sold to the vendee. But, P.W.1 did not even file scanned copy of the said document No.2068/1971. If that document is filed, the truth will come out. For the best reasons known to P.W.1, though has not filed the same into court.

15. P.W.1 also filed Ex.P.3/ Registered Sale agreement cum un- revocable General Power of Attorney in favour of A2 executed by A1 and his children i.e A3 to A.7. In Ex.P.3 the schedule is mentioned as No.8 Mangalam village group, Upparapalem vilalge accounts, S.No.116/2A,an extent of

Ac:2.40 cents out of Ac:3.68 cents withing the following boundaries – East:

Cart-track leading to Mangalam; West: Uddagiri Munaswamy land; North: land retained by executants of Ex.P.3, and south: Annacheruvu kaluju kaluva.

16. As per Ex.P.7/rough sketch also only complainants property in an extent of Ac:1.49 cents is shown but not shown the property of for which A1,

A3 to A.7 executed sale greement cum G.P.A. The proeprty shown in ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 is different with different boundaries. The Sub-Registrar,

Renigunta, who was examined as P.W.5 admitted that the extent and boundaries of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are different properties.

17. Ex.P.8 document shows that one Madarapaku Ellapa Reddy purchased an extent of Ac:4.13 cents in S.No.116/2 from Gudimittla

Lakshmaiah and Gudimitla Guravaiah. After his demise, his son i.e A.1 inherited the said property. A.1 along with his children i.e A.3 to A.7 executed

Ex.P.3 in favour of A.2. After getting Ex.P.3 in his favour, A.2 formed a layout 8 and sold plots. P.W.4 is one of the purchaser of one plot. P.W.1 in his cross examination also admitted that A2 laid a lay out and sold away 12 sites to 12 different persons. Though P.W.1 filed some documents, but failed to file document No.2068/1971 on which P.W.1 was relying and stating that in that document A.1 alone sold the property in Ex.P.4 to him by representing that it is his self acquired property. What prevented P.w.1 to file scanned copy of said document into this court, if it was registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office. If that document is filed into this court, the truth will come out whether the allegation of P.W.1 is true or not. The burden is on P.w.1 to prove that accused

Nos.1, 3 to 7 cheated him. P.W.1 failed to discharge his burden. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused cheated P.W.1 by executing a registered sale deed in favour of P.W.1 in the year 2002 and again sold the same property to A.2 by colluding along with his children A3 to A.7.

18. Coming to the rest of offences i.e under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, to establish the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and 6 to 8. P.W.1 is hearsay witness. P.w.1 depsoed that on 06.02.2002 he purchased an extent of Ac:1.49 cents in S.No.116/2A from A.1, since the date of his purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by constructing a compound wall and a shed in the said land by engaging a watchman/P.W.6. He further deposed that on 22.11.2011 when he was out of station, he received a phone call from P.w.6 informing that all accused persons demolished his boundary wall and beat P.w.6, then deputed

P.w.2 and L.W.5/Purushotham, all the accused beat them and threatened them with direconsequences. After his arrival, on 24.011.2011 he gave complaint/Ex.P.1. P.w.1 evidence is helpful to the extent of his giving

Ex.P.1/report. He is not a witness to the rest of the overtacts of the accused against P.W.2, L.W.5/Purushotham and P.W.6. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution regarding the above offences.

19. P.W.2 depsoed that he received a phone call from P.W.6 informing that A.2 and other persons came to the site of P.W.1 and demolished the wall, on that himself and L.w.5/Purushotham went to the site and obstructed from demolishing teh boundary wall, A.2 pushed P.W.2, then P.w.2 informed about 9 the same to P.w.1 over phone. Then, the neighbouring land owners came to the scene of offence and the accused went away from the scene of offence. In his cross examination P.w.2 stated that A.2 and other persons were present at the scene of offence when he reached. He further admitted the names of other accused. He further clearly admitted that his father acted as a mediator for

P.W.1’s company since 15 years.

20. P.W.6 is the watchman of the P.W.1’s property. He deposed that he know all the accused persons. He further deposed that in the year 2009 he joined as a watchman in P.W.1’s company, on 22.11.2011 at about 11.30 A.M

A1 and A.2 and the daughters and sons of A.2 came to the site and demolished teh shed and boundary wall , he questioned the acts of the accused, the accused stated that the site belongs to them. Then, P.w.6 immediately made a phone call to P.W.2 and L.W.5/Purushotham. On 23.11.2011 P.W.1 came to Tirupati and lodged a report. P.w.6 identified the accused Nos.1 and 2 with their names, but stated that he do not know the remaining accused, but they came to the scene of offences on the date of incident. In his cross examination P.W.6 clearly admitted that he do not know the boundaries and measurements of the land, since he acted as a watchman.

He further stated that he do not know anything about the documents, except purchase of land by P.w.1 from A.1.

21. On perusal of evidence of P.w.2, there is no specific overtacts towards them by the accused persons. There is no recital in their evidence about beating and threateneing P.Ws.2 and 6 with direconsequences by accused. There is no corroboration between the evidence of P.w.2 and P.w.6.

P.W.2 is working as Supervisory in P.W.1’s company, P.W.6 is watchman.

Hence, they are interested witnesses to P.W.1.

23. A careful perusal of evidence of P.ws.1, 2 and 6, P.W.1 deposed that he received phone call from P.W.6 informing about the incident and he deputed P.w.2 and L.W.5/G.Purushotham to the scene of offence. P.W.2 deposed that on receiving phone call from P.w.6 about the acts of accused at the scene of offence site, he went there and obstructed the accused from demolishing the compound wall, A.2 pushed him aside, then he informed the 10 same over phone to P.W.1. P.w.6 deposed that he informed about the incident over phone to P.w.2 and L.W.5/G.Purushotham. There is no corroboration in between P.W.1, 2 and 6 with regard to passing of information about the incident to P.W.1.

24. The remaining evidence is the investigating officers. P.W.7 deposed that on receipt of complaint from P.w.1 on 24.11.2011, he registered a case in

Cr.No.339 of 2011 under sections 420, 468, 471, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, issued FIR/Ex.P5, visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence/Ex.P.7, arrested A.1 to A.3 on 25.11.2011, recorded the confession of

A.1 to A.3 in the presence of mediators under a cover of arrest cum confession mahazarnama, seized Ex.P.6/certified copy document No.2276/2010 dated 06.05.2010, as part of investigation and forwarded the accused to judicial remand, later obtained photostart copy of compensation award No.8/1989 and handed over the file to his successor.

25. P.W.7 in his cross examination admitted that Ex.P.5/FIR does not reveal the specific date of offence. He further admitted that Ex.P.7/rough sketch does ot reveal the destruction of compound wall and shed and he did not sezied any material objects from the scene of offence. He also not mentioned in his rough sketch the measurements of shed, compound wall.

26. P.W.8 is another investigating officer in this case. He deposed that during his investigations, on 10.02.2012 A4 to A.7 surrendered before him and they are enlarged onbail. On 10.01.2012 he received scanned copies of documents vide No.270/2002/Ex.P.4 and 2276/2010/Ex.P.3 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. P.W.8 admitted that A.2 is the registered purchaser under Ex.P.4 and he did not examine any revenue officials as witnesses in this case. He further categorically admitted that whether A.2 filed a civil suit against P.W.1 or not. He further admitted that he did not seize any material objects from the scene of offence.

27. P.w.9 is the Special Tahsildar, TUDA, his evidence is only with regard to acquiring 0.06 cents of land in S.No.116/2A and produced award copy before this court. His evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution 11 either to prove the offences leveled against the accused. Hence, his evidence is discarded by this court.

28. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 does not disclose that eitehr

P.W.2 or P.W.6 received injuries in the hands of accused or threatened with dire consequences. They only deposed that accused demolished the compound wall and shed in the site of P.w.1. If really accused beat P.Ws.2 and 6 and damaged the shed and compound wall, what prevented either P.w.6 being watchman of the site or P.W.2 being employee of P.W.1’s company to give a report before the police. The incident was occured on 22.11.2011 and complaint was lodged by P.W.1 on 24.11.2011. There is two days delay in lodging FIR. There is no explanation for delay. The accused are contending that the brother of P.w.1 is Ex-D.G.P of Andhra Pradesh and with his influence the present false case is foisted against the accused and P.W.7 and P.w.8 did not seized any material objects used for commission of offence, Ex.P.7/rough sketch also does not reveal the existence of compound wall and shed. More over P.W.3/mediator for arrest of A1 to A.3 deposed that in his presence police arrested A.1 to A.3 but not seized any documents from A.1 to A.3, but P.W.7 deposed that he seized Ex.P.6 from the possession of A.2, it is a material contradictionin the evidence of P.W.7. It creats that Ex.P.2 is drafted in the presence of P.W.3 or not. Therefore, Ex.P.2 recorded by the police is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

29. Through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it failed to establish that accused trespassed into the land of P.W.1, damaged the compound wall and shed in the land of P.W.1 and threatened P.W.2 and P.w.6 with direconsequences. More over the investigating officer failed to take photograph of the scene of offence, or damaged wall parts or the weapons used for damaging the compound wall and shed. It creates a doubt whether really ther is trespass by accused and caused damage to the compound wall and shed of P.w.1 and threatened P.Ws.2 and 6 with dire consequences.

Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that all accused threspassed into the land of

P.w.1, demolished the compound wall and shed and threatened P.w.2 and 12

P.w.6 . Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal for the offences under sections 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly point is answered.

30. In the result, I found the accused Nos.1 to 7 not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

According,y, A.1 to A.7 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.7 shall be in force for further period of six (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The non-valuable, unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28 th day of June 2019.

(Sd/- K. Srinivas) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution: P.W.1C.N.Mallikarjuna Reddy.

P.W.2Gudimallam Ravindra.

P.W.3M.S.Ramesh.

P.W.4Seshadri Venkataramana.

P.W.5G.V.Konda Reddy.

P.W.6Sake Sivaiah @ Siva.

P.W.7B. Katama Raju (CI).

P.W.8G.Rajasekhar,(CI)

P.W.9K. Indrasena (Spl. Tahsildar).

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution: Ex.P.1Report given by P.W.1.

Ex.P.2Mahazarnama dated 25.11.2011.

Ex.P.3Scanned copy of document bearing No.2276/2010 dated 06.05.2010.

Ex.P.4Scanned copy of the document bearing No.270/2002 dated 06.02.2002.

Ex.P.5First Information Report in Cr.No. 339 of 2011 of Alipiri Police station.

13

Ex.P.6Certified copy of document bearing No.2276/2010, dated 06.05.2010.

Ex.P.7Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Ex.P.8Document bearing No.4119/1963 dated 07.12.1963.

Ex.P.9TUDA proceedings.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil.

// True copy \\(Sd/- K. Srinivas) (Sd/- K. Srinivas)IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I ClassTirupati. Tirupati.

14

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

TIRUPATI.

CC.No. 27 of 2014

(Cr.No. 339 of 2011 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati)

Date of offence:22.11.2011

Date of complaint:24.11.2011

Date of taken on file:01.11.2018

Date of apprehension of accused:A1 to A.3 on 25.11.2011 A4 to A7 on 06.02.2012 Date when released on bail:A1, A3 on 08.12.2011 A2 on 02.12.2011 A4 to A.7 on 06.02.2012 Date of commencement of trial:23.09.2016

Date of close of trial:06.11.2017

Date of sentence or order:28.06.2019

Complainant:The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati.

Name of theFather’s/AgeReligionVillageMandal/ DistrictOccu- AccusedHusband’s namepation

A1/TakkaliLate Thakkali75HinduKaranam Mitturu village Elumalai ReddyMutha ReddyyearsThimminaidupalem Panchayat, Tirupati.

A2/DinnipatiD. Siddaiah37HinduD.No.2-70/1, M.R.Palli, Venkata SiddaiahyearsTirupati, Managing Partner, S.V.S Ventures, Tirupati.

A3/Thakkali VeeraTakkali Elumalai48Hindu BhadraiahReddyyears

A4/ThakkaliTakkali Elumalai42HinduKaranam Mitturu village Jagadeesh ReddyReddyyearsThimminaidupalem Panchayat, Tirupati. A5/ThakkaliTakkali Elumalai39Hindu MurugeshReddyyears

A6/S.RanemmaW/o. S.Rami55Hindu Reddyyears

A7/K.EswarammaW/o. Late45Hindu Ranganadhamyears 15

Nature of offence:Cheating with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain, criminal trespass, causing mischief, criminal intimidation with common intention. Section of Law:Under sections 420, 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Court:I found A1 to A.7 not guilty Sentence or order : In the result, I found the accused Nos.1 to 7 not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 427 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. According,y, A.1 to A.7 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.7 shall be in force for further period of six (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The non-valuable, unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

// True copy \\(Sd/- K. Srinivas) (Sd/- K. Srinivas)IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I ClassTirupati. Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twenty-ninth (29th) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 189 / 2019.

Between:

State represented by Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Tirupati. (Cr.No.167/2019) … Complainant.

And

1)Shaik Musthafa, Age: 21 years, S/o Shaik Chand Basha, D.No.18-6-406/B, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by Muslim, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

2)Vemuri Lakshmi Deepak, Age: 32 years, S/o V. Muni Chandra Reddy, D.No.19-12-519, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

3)Matam Deva, Age: 21 years, S/o M. Rama chandraiah, D.No.18-6-3/A, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by SC Rajaka, Occ: YSRCP Party Follower.

4)Polireddy Nagi Reddy, Age: 47 years, S/o P. Penchala Reddy, D.No.18-6-153, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

5)Panjam Ashok Kumar Reddy, Age: 49 years, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, D.No.5-4, Thurpu palli, Anantharaju peta, Koduru Mandal, Kadapa District. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

... Accused.

--- This case is presented before me on 27-07-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri I. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 5, upon hearing on both sides through Blue Jeans Video Conference Call and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

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

1)State represented by Inspector of Police, East Police Station,

Tirupati filed charge sheet in Cr.No.167/2019 against the accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence under section 171-E, 188 of IPC.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

On 04.04.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., the de-facto complainant

N.V. Krishna Reddy, flying squad team-1, West zone, Tirupati appointed as squad tema – 1 for the purpose of upcoming general elections 2019 wherein he had received credible information with regard to the distribution of money to the voters, then he immediately rushed to the place where the suspects influencing the public at about 9.30 p.m.

There, they found five persons having voters list and out of five, three persons were having cash of Rs.33,500/-. On inquiry, they revealed their names and identity particulars. Inspector of Police, East Police Station,

Tirupati enquired the accused and seized voters list, cash of Rs.33,500/-, the entire incident was video graphed by PW3/P.Ganesh who is witnessed the offence. After completion of investigation, Inspector of

Police filed charge sheet.

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 171-E and 188 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

4)When the accused Nos.1 to 5 appeared before this court, the copies of documents which was relies upon by the prosecution, supplied to them u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)When the accused Nos.1 to 5 were examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled, for which, accused

Nos.1 to 5 denied having committed the offence. Thereafter, the 3 substance of allegation under section 171-E of IPC and under section 188 of IPC have been read over and explained the same to them in

Telugu language, for which, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In support of the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked. The prosecution has given up

LW3-P.Nageswara Rao and LW4-A.Vijaya Kumar.

7)After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, the accused

Nos.1 to 5 have been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing leveled against them in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, to which, they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

8)Heard arguments of Learned APP and Learned Counsel for accused through Blue Jeans Video Conference Call. Learned counsel for accused

Nos.1 to 5 contended that accused Nos.1 to 5 were falsely implicated in this case and they did not commit any offence and it is a case of one and denial.

9)Perused record.

10)Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable u/s 171-E IPC and u/s 188 IPC?

POINT:-

11)It is an election case. During the period of 2019 general elections,

PW1 has appointed as flying squad, Team-1 for Tirupati Assembly

Constituency, the said team consists of PW1, LW3 – P.Nageswara Rao,

ARHC and LW4-A.Vijaya Kumar, ARPC who are working in Armed force, 4

Tirupati. On 04.04.2019 while PW1 discharging his duties at town club junction, Tirupati. At that time, PW2/S.Kullayappa had received information as the persons of suspects at Railway colony, Tirupati pertaining to the influencing the voters in the event of forth coming general elections 2019. Immediately, he along with PW2 rushed to the said locality. Meantime, Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Tirupati along with his staff came to said spot, all together conducted raid, they noticed five persons. Out of five persons, one person was holding voters list in his hand, on enquiry they revealed their names as Mustaffa,

Nagireddy, Deepak. Witness did not recollect remaining two other accused names due to lapse of time. PW1 further deposed that police searched the said five male persons and seized cash of Rs.33,500/- in the possession of one accused person. PW1 did not remember name of the person in whose possession the police seized cash of Rs.33,500/-.

PW1 did not identify the persons who holding voters list at scene of offence due to lapse of time. Witness further deposed due to lapse of memory, he unable to identify all the accused except he only identified after thoroughly seeing the persons who were present in the court hall by pointing out one person as accused No.1. Through PW1, Ex.P1 report and voters list marked as Ex.P2. Sub-treasury challan is marked as

Ex.P3.

12)In the cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that he did not hand over the proceedings to the police as he was deputed to flying squad in the event of general elections 2019. He further categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he did not state before the police that he accompanied with the police and they proceeded to Railway colony.

Further, he admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P2 voters list does not contain the signatures of accused.

5

13)Coming to the evidence of PW2, PW2 is police witness. He had attended duties as Executive Magistrate during the general elections 2019 along with LW3-P.Nageswara Rao and LW4-A.Vijay Kumar. On 04.04.2019 at about 8.30 p.m. he along with LW3-P.Nageswara Rao and

LW4-A.Vijay Kumar were conducting vehicle checking at town club,

Tirupati, at that time, he had informed the presence of suspects at

Railway colony, Tirupati pertaining to the election offence. Immediately, he along with LW3-P.Nageswara Rao and LW4-A.Vijay Kumar rushed to the Railway colony, Tirupati, meanwhile, Inspector of Police, Tirupati along with his staff came to the said spot, altogether noticed a group of persons consisting of five members, one person was holding voters list in his hand and other person holding bunch of Rs.500/- notes in his hand and on enquiry, he revealed his name as Mustaffa the person who is holding cash in his hand and another person reveals his name as

Lakshmi Deepak. PW2 identified all the accused except accused No.2 who was absent on that day at the time of evidence of PW2. PW2 further deposed that Inspector of Police seized the cash of Rs.33,500/-, voters list and one DVD under cover of police proceedings. He further deposed that the accused confessed that they are followers of YSRCP political party.

14)Coming to the cross-examination of PW2, PW2 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that he did not state before the police the place of offence is Railway colony. He further admitted the fact that PW1 recorded the statement of accused. He further admitted that he did not state before the police that accused No.1 was holding voters list in his hand at scene of offence. PW2 further deposed that he did not file any scrap of paper to show that accused were followers of YSRCP 6 political party. It is admitted fact in the evidence of PW2 that the raid party did not prepare any mahazar at scene of offence.

15)Coming to the evidence of PW3, PW3 is videographer who covered entire incident on 04.04.2019. As per his evidence, he had been running a photo studio in the name and style of Delli photo studio at

Nethakuppam. He deposed that he was deputed to assist the flying squad in video coverage during the general elections 2019. On one day, elections flying squad conducted vehicle checking near town club,

Tirupati, at that time, flying squad received information of distributing of money at Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Immediately, they rushed to the

Railway colony, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. There, they noticed four male persons holding voters list and some cash. He had video graphed the entire incident, same was handed over to Inspector of Police,

Tirupati. He did not remember the names of the persons. Through PW3,

Ex.P4 DVD is marked.

16)When look into the cross-examination of PW3, he admitted that he has not having any valid license to run the photo studio. He admitted in his cross-examination that he was issued a letter as he was appointed as videographer accompanied with the officials during the period of general elections 2019. He further denied the suggestion that he did not accompany with the police and nothing was video graphed the said incident.

17)Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is the Investigation Officer in the present case, on 04.04.2019 he received information with regard to the offence in connection with the general elections at Railway colony,

Tirupati. Immediately he informed to the election flying squad team i.e.,

PW1. After that, he along with his staff proceeded to said place, 7 meanwhile PW1 along with his team came to the said spot, altogether conducted raid, there they noticed five persons, on enquiry they confessed that they are distributing money to the voters and further confessed that they are followers of YSRCP political party. He seized cash of Rs.33,500/-, one DVD and voters list from the possession of accused under cover of police proceedings Ex.P6. He further deposed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were holding voters list and the remaining accused were holding cash of Rs.33,500/-. Then he shifted the accused to the police along with case property and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Through PW4, Ex.P5 FIR is marked.

18)Coming to the cross-examination of PW4, it is admitted in the evidence of PW4 that Ex.P6 does not contain the signatures of accused.

It is further admitted in the evidence of PW6 that scene of offence is busy locality area consisting of 3000 houses and further admitted in the evidence of PW4 that Ex.P2 voters list does not reveals the signatures of accused.

19)The entire case of the prosecution is relied upon the official witnesses. The Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PW1 is corroborated with other prosecution witnesses as well as Ex.P1 and the entire incident was video graphed and the prosecution successfully brings home the guilt of accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused contended that accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact the defense of the accused is one and total denial, nothing was seized in the possession of accused and the police filed false case against the accused due to political rivalry.

20)When look into the evidence of PW1, he did not file any proceedings to show that he was appointed as flying squad in the event 8 of general elections 2019. As per the case of the prosecution, he is official witness and he is not required any such type of proceedings as he is working under color of public servant. PW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he did not state before the police that he accompanied with police and they were proceeded to Railway colony and it is pointed out in the evidence of PW1 that himself along with police were rushed to the scene of offence but the same is not stated in his examination under section 161 Cr.P.C statement. The witness stated

before this court even the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.P1 report

also. It is a contradiction in the evidence of PW1. It is further admitted that Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of accused. Assuming a moment if the raid party conducted search at scene of offence, they certainly prepared any written panchanama to that affect. But in this case, PW1 did not depose any such type written document was executed at the scene of offence. Moreover, Ex.P2 did not contain the signatures of accused and a reasonable doubt created in the mind of the court whether search and seizure was conducted in accordance with law time being in force.

21)When look into the evidence of PW2, he is another police witness.

According to his version, he discharging his duties at town club junction,

Tirupati on 04.04.2019, at that time, he received information from

Inspector of Police, East Police Station, Tirupati informing that presence of suspects at Railway colony, Tirupati. Immediately they rushed to the spot, there they noticed five persons. PW2 deposed that accused No.2 was holding cash of Rs.33,500/- on the date of alleged incident. He identified all the accused except accused No.2 who is absent on that day when he deposed evidence before this court. It is pertinent to note that

PW2 did not state in earlier statement as place of offence took place at 9

Railway colony. Surprisingly PW2 deposed the evidence mentioning that they were reached to the place as Railway colony. It is further pointed out in the evidence of PW2 that on the date of offence, accused No.1 was holding the voters list wherein he did not mentioned the said fact in his previous statement i.e., 161 Cr.P.C statement but the witness first time deposed the said fact before this court even without mentioning the said fact in Ex.P6 Police proceedings.

22)When look into the evidence of PW3, according to the defense version, he is not an authorized person to videograph the entire proceedings. PW3 did not file any scrap of paper to show that he was deputed to videograph during the period of general elections, 2019.

When he is resident of Ramachandrapuram mandal of Pillarikona and is distance of 25 kms from Tirupati, how he was appointed as a videographer, there is a reasonable suspicion expressed by this court even without any written authorization, this court is ready to believe the version of prosecution as PW3 accompanied as a videographer to the flying squad during the period of general elections 2019. Moreover, PW3 admitted that he did not having any valid license to run the studio.

Moreover, there is no mahazar was prepared at scene of offence. There is a suspicion pointed out in the evidence of PW3. Thus, this court does not inspire the confidence of evidence of PW3. So, his evidence is not reliable to the case of prosecution.

23)Coming to the evidence of PW4, it is well settled principle that the evidence of prosecution witnesses need not be rejected in toto as he is a police witness. Except PW3, there is no independent witnesses were examined at scene of offence. The prosecution did not examine any independent witness near to the scene of offence as scene of offence is 10 busy locality as admitted by the prosecution. It is a case of the prosecution accused influence the voters with money but the prosecution did not secure the independent witnesses and the entire case of the prosecution was suspicious even police did not follow the mandatory provision of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C, it is better to retreated provisions under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C:

Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer

or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

24) It is pertinent to note that the judgment of our Hon’ble High

Court in Baba Saheb v. Babu Saheb reported in Crl. Revision

Petition No.492/2004, dt.11.09.2009. In this case, the Hon’ble High

Court held that where any search was conducted by the police, officials are must follow the conditions prescribed under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

If the police did not follow the rules prescribed under section 100(4) of

Cr.P.C, the entire search will be vitiated. In the present case, the police did not follow the provisions under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., even Ex.P6 police proceedings did not appear the signatures of accused even the prosecution witnesses. Ex.P2 voters list also did not contain the signatures of accused, and that, the prosecution did not secure the independent witnesses in the present case, there is no corroboration between the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the identification of accused as well as seizure from the possession of the accused in the absence of mahazar, this court did not relied upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses as PW4 is a police witness and non examination of 11 independent witnesses near scene of offence, prosecution also fails to prove accused are followers of YSRCP political party. There is no reliable evidence to show that the accused were influencing the voters at scene of offence. This court is expressing serious suspicion in the entire case of prosecution. Hence, this court did not relied upon the entire case of the prosecution.

25)In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under section 171-E of IPC and under section 188 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered.

26)In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC and under Section 188 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.255(1)

Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Case property i.e., cash of Rs.33,500/- which was marked as Ex.P3 was already remitted to the Government vide challan

No.30018318672019, dt.13.05.2019, shall holds good.

Case property i.e., one DVD which was marked as Ex.P4 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed, corrected and

pronounced and updated on this the 29 th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1:N.V. Krishna Reddy.None PW2:S. Kullayappa. PW3:P. Ganesh. PW4:M. Chandrababu Naidu.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report of PW1. Ex.P2:Voter list. Ex.P3:Challan No.30018318672019 pertaining to cash of Rs.33,500/-. Ex.P4:DVD. Ex.P5:FIR.

Ex.P6:Police proceedings.

Exs.P7 Served copies of Notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C to accused Nos.1 to P11:to 5.

Material objects:

Nil.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

13

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twenty-ninth (29th) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 189 / 2019.

Calender Case No:189 of 2019. Name of the Police Station and : State represented by Inspector of Police, Crime Number of offenceEast Police Station, Tirupati.

(Cr.No.167/2019)

Description of Accused: 1)Shaik Musthafa, Age: 21 years, S/o Shaik Chand Basha, D.No.18-6-406/B, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by Muslim, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

2)Vemuri Lakshmi Deepak, Age: 32 years, S/o V. Muni Chandra Reddy, D.No.19-12-519, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

3)Matam Deva, Age: 21 years, S/o M. Rama chandraiah, D.No.18-6-3/A, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by SC Rajaka, Occ: YSRCP Party Follower.

4)Polireddy Nagi Reddy, Age: 47 years, S/o P. Penchala Reddy, D.No.18-6-153, Sundaraiah Nagar, Tirupati. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower.

5)Panjam Ashok Kumar Reddy, Age: 49 years, S/o P. Narayana Reddy, D.No.5-4, Thurpu palli, Anantharaju peta, Koduru Mandal, Kadapa District. Caste by Kapu, Occ: YSRCP Party follower. Date of Occurrence04.04.2019. Date of Complaint04.04.2019. Date of Apprehension- Date of taken on File10.05.2019. Release on bail- 14

Commencement of Trial30.01.2020. Closure of Trial30.01.2020. Date of sentence or Order29.07.2020. Explanation for Delay: Due to non production of witnesses.

u/s 171-E IPC and u/s 188 IPC – Punishment for Nature of offencebribery; Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Finding of the courtFound not guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 171-E of IPC and under Section 188 of IPC, and thereby, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 5 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Case property i.e., cash of Rs.33,500/- which was marked as Ex.P3 was already remitted to the Government vide challan No.30018318672019, dt.13.05.2019, shall holds good.

Case property i.e., one DVD which was marked as Ex.P4 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Wednesday, this the Twenty-ninth (29th) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 117 / 2017.

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Tirumala. (Cr.No.178/2016) … Complainant.

And

Kamapraju. Chandra Babu, Age: 29 years, S/o K. Gurrappa Raju, D.No. 5-1150, Thangayyelu Colony, Santhapeta, Chittoor District.

... Accused.

This case is presented before me on 28-07-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt S. Thenmoshi, Learned Counsel for Accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1)Sub-Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Tirumala filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.178/2016 for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC.

2)The brief facts of the charge sheet in nutshell is as follows:

On 16-12-2016 at 06-30 P.M, at Steel hundi near Bangaru Baavi inside Srivari temple, Tirumala, the accused K.Chandra Babu committed theft of cash of Rs.3,000/- and he redhandedly caught hold by N.V. Kiran

Kumar, ARPC who is on duty on that day and produced in police station along with De-facto complainant. Basing on the report of LW1/B.Kurma 2

Rao, AV&SO, I/c Sector-I, Tirumala, R. Nagaraja, HC, C.C.S., Tirumala registered a case in Cr.No.178/2016 u/s 379 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, Investigation Officer examined the De-facto complainant, visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. Thereafter, he arrested the accused on the same day, recorded the confession statement of accused and also seized stolen property i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- from the possession of accused. LW7/K.Dharma

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Tirumala verified the investigation and filed charge sheet before this court.

3)The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under sec.

379 IPC against the accused.

4)When the accused appeared before this court, the copies of documents which was relies upon by the prosecution, supplied to him u/s 207 of Cr.P.C.

5)When the accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the accusation leveled, for which, accused denied having commit any offence. Thereafter, a charge under section 379 of IPC or alternative offence under section 411 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 5 and

Exs.P1 to P7 marked.

7)After closure of evidence on behalf of prosecution, the accused has been examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating evidence leveled against him in the evidence of PWs 1 to 5, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

3

8)Heard arguments. Learned counsel for accused contended that accused was falsely implicated in this case and he did not commit any offence and it is a case of one and denial.

9)Perused record.

10)Now the point for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has successfully brought

home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt

for the offence punishable under sec.379 IPC or

alternative offence under sec.411 of IPC?

POINT:-

11)This is a case of hundi theft which was committed by the accused on 16.12.2016 inside of the Srivari temple. The report of PW1 which was treated as FIR which is set into the criminal law into motion. According to

PW1, he is working as AV & SO, Sector-II, TTD, Tirumala. On 16.12.2016 at about 6.30 PM, he has present his regular duties in Tirumala. PW2 –

M.V.Kiran Kumar, ARPC attending his regular duties at Srivari Bangaru

Baavi within the premises of Srivari temple, brought one male person and also informed that he caught hold the said male person while he committed theft of Rs.3,000/- offerings from Srivari mobile steel hundi at

Bangaru Baavi. On his enquiry, the said male person revealed his name as Chandra Babu and also confessed the theft of Rs.3,000/- from Srivari mobile steel hundi. Later, PW1 verified the CCTV footage, on verification, he noticed the so called Chandra Babu committed theft of cash which was offered by the devotees in Srivari mobile steel hundi. Through PW1,

Ex.P1 is marked. PW1 identified the accused. Ex.P2 is CCTV footage in

Compact Disk in broken condition is marked through PW1. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited in the mouth of PW1 that he along with PW2 were forwarded the accused along with cash and CCTV 4 footage to police station. Except that, nothing was elicited in the mouth of PW1 in favour of accused.

12)Coming to the evidence of PW2, on 16.12.2016 while he was attending his duties at Srivari Bangaru Baavi, Srivari temple premises,

TTD, Tirumala, at 6.30 PM, he noticed one male person moving near

Bangaru Baavi in suspicious manner. On that, he followed the said person and he noticed that the said person inserted his hands into the

Srivari mobile steel hundi and picked up the offerings from said hundi and also watched the said person kept the said offerings in his pocket.

On seeing, he followed and caught hold him redhandedly. On his enquiry, the suspected person confessed about committing of theft. Then, he handed over the accused to PW1 along with stolen property. PW2 identified the accused when accused is present in the court hall during the course of cross-examination of PW2. It is elicited in the mouth of

PW2 that he enquired the accused at the place where he caught hold the accused. PW2 having denied the suggestion that accused has not committed any theft as alleged.

13)Coming to the evidence of PW3, he is mahazar witness. According to PW3, on 16.12.2016 at 9.00 PM, while he was present near Srivari temple, Tirumala, one Head Constable of CCS Police station requested him to come to Police station, on that, he along with LW4/R.Babu who is working as laddu counter boy went to CCS Police station, Tirumala and further deposed that one Head Constable found cash of Rs.3,000/- in pant pocket of accused. In his presence, accused confessed that he committed theft of said cash from steel hundi situated at Bangaru Baavi within the premises of Srivari temple, TTD, Tirumala. Through PW3,

Ex.P3/mahazarnama is marked. PW3 identified the accused in court hall.

In cross-examination of PW3, he stated that he was witness in two cases 5 regarding to the Tirumala CCS Police station. PW3 admitted that he has not read the mahazarnama personally.

14)Coming to the evidence of PW4, he is the Investigating officer in this case. He deposed his evidence with regard to registration of case, arrested the accused, seized the cash of Rs.3,000/- and also CCTV footage, observed the scene of offence and preparation of rough sketch.

He further deposed that he obtained acknowledgment from

PW5/R.Rajendrudu.

15)Coming to the evidence of PW5, he is the Special Grade Deputy

Executive Officer in Srivari Parakhamani, TTD, Tirumala. According to

PW5, on 30.01.2017, CCS Police, Tirumala handed over cash of

Rs.3,000/- to him and same is deposited in the account of TTD vide challan no.8, dt.31.01.2017. After remitting the cash, he issued acknowledgment. Through PW5, Ex.P7 Acknowledgment receipt is marked. In cross-examination of PW5, PW5 deposed that one Police constable, CCS, Tirumala handed over stolen property i.e., cash of

Rs.3,000/- to him. PW5 having denied the suggestion that the said cash of Rs.3,000/- is not offered by the pilgrims in hundi at Srivari temple,

Tirumala. Except that, nothing was elicited in the mouth of PW5.

16)PW1 is the Asst. Vigilance & Security Officer, Sector-II, TTD,

Tirumala. His testimony clearly establishes that accused caught hold by

PW2 immediately after committing theft of cash of Rs.3,000/- which was offered by the pilgrims at Srivari mobile steel hundi, Srivari temple premises, TTD, Tirumala. To support his version, CCTV footage is marked and same was in broken condition, this court is unable to go through the

CCTV footage. Even at the time of marking, CCTV footage is in broken condition. On careful perusal of evidence of PW1, accused was brought by PW2 to him along with cash of Rs.3,000/-. In cross-examination of 6

PW1, this court is not pointed out any deviations to shake credibility with regard to his chief examination. PW2 is direct and eye witness to the present case who is catching the accused redhandedly while committing the theft at Srivari Bangaru Baavi, Srivari temple premises, TTD,

Tirumala at about 6.00 PM. Then, he brought the accused to PW1 along with stolen property. The evidence of PW2 is fully corroborated with the evidence of PW1 on par with identity of accused before the court. PW3 is the mediator. According to PW3, on 16.12.2016 at about 9.00 PM, while he was present at CCS Police station, Tirumala, on the reqeust of one

Head Constable, he acted as a mediator but his evidence is not supported to the case of prosecution since the confession statement of accused is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the court is invariably to discard the evidence of PW3 with regard to the confession of accused before the police officials. PW4 is the Investigating officer. He deposed his evidence within the boundaries of his investigation. PW5 is the Special Grade Deputy Executive Officer in Sri T.T.Parakhamani, TTD,

Tirumala. On careful perusal of evidence of PW5, it is clear that police seized stolen property i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- from the possession of accused and same was remitted to TTD account on 31.01.2017. The said cash of Rs.3,000/- is in denomination of Rs.100/- notes which was deposed by PW5 in his cross-examination.

17)According to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, accused was committed theft of offerings i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- from Srivari mobile steel hundi in Srivari temple premises, TTD, Tirumala. PW2 is the eye witness to the alleged incident. PW2’s statement is relevant to section 6 of Indian

Evidence Act. It is most appropriate to refer section 6 of Indian Evidence

Act.

7

S. 6 of the Indian Evidence Act states; “Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place of at different times and places” “Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.

18)Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is fully corroborated with each other. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is free from discrepancies and omissions. This court is nothing pointed out any deviations in between the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is corroborated with each other with regard to the identity of the accused and PW2 caught hold the accused immediately after commission of theft and accused fails to explain the amount which was kept in his pocket.

The main attack of the counsel for accused is that the prosecution foisted a false case against the accused. But, there is no stretch of imagination that the prosecution plotted a case against the accused.

The evidence of PW4 is only helpful with regard to the arrest of accused.

19)On careful perusal of entire evidence, accused fails to explain the amount which was kept in his pocket immediately after commission of offence and also caught by the PW2 red handedly.

20)Coming to the presumption u/s 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, the

Court may presume that whenever property not being on accused person has been recorded soon after the theft, he is presumed to be thief or receiver of the stolen property and it is for him to account for the possession of the same.

21)The entire incident took place at Bangaru Baavi, Srivari temple premises, TTD, Tirumala which is busy with priests and pilgrims. There is 8 no opportunity to secure the independent witness. Even, this court is of opinion that there is no necessity to prosecution fitted cash of Rs.3,000/- in this case and also accused failed to account for the amount of

Rs.3,000/- which was seized in his possession. Hence, this court is of opinion that accused committed the offence under section 379 IPC.

Even, the prosecution fails to protect the documentary evidence i.e., CD during the course of trial. This court has no hesitation to acquit the accused for the charge u/s 379 of IPC and accused is convicted u/s 411 of IPC.

22)In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and aforesaid discussion, it is held that prosecution fairly established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this point is answered.

23)In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and thereby, he is convicted in terms of

Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed, corrected,

pronounced and updated on this the 29 th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

24)Accused is produced along with his counsel through Blue Jeans

Video Calling APP (Web/Virtual hearing). When questioned about the quantum of sentence, accused submitted that he is having old aged parents and children. He further submitted that he is suffering with jaundice and hence, he requested the court to take lenient view.

25)Having considering the nature of offence, facts and circumstances of the case and property involved in this case, it is not a fit case to 9 initiate the proceedings under Sec.360 or 361 Cr.P.C and under Sec.3 & 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

26)On considering the submissions of accused, health condition of accused and family background of accused, this court is take lenient view.

27)Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of four (4) months for the offence punishable under Section 411 of

Indian Penal Code.

28)Remand period undergone by the accused i.e., from 17.12.2016 to 12.01.2017 and 15.02.2020 to 01.06.2020, shall be set off under

Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.

29)Unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- was returned to the Deputy Executive Officer, Sri T.T.Parakamani, TTD, Tirumala under receipt, is made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

30)Accused is informed that he has right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from M.L.S.A.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcribed, corrected,

pronounced and updated on this the 29 th day of July, 2020.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1:B. Kurma Rao.None PW2:M. V. Kiran Kumar. PW3:K. Prabhakar. PW4:R. Nagaraju. PW5:R. Rajendrudu.

10

Exhibits marked on behalf of the

Prosecution: Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2:CD (CCTV footage CD in broken condition) Ex.P3:Mahazarnama, dated 16.12.2016 at about 10.00 p.m. Ex.P4:FIR. Ex.P5:Police Proceedings. Ex.P6:Rough sketch. Ex.P7:Acknowledgment receipt.

Material objects:

Nil.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: TIRUPATI.

Calender as per Rule 67 Crl.R.P.

Present:- K. Srinivas, IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Wednesday, this the Twenty-ninth (29th ) day of July, 2020.

C. C. No. 117 / 2017.

Calender Case No:117 of 2017. Name of the Police Station and : State represented by Crime Number of offenceSub-Inspector of Police, C.C.S., Tirumala.

(Cr.No.178/2016)

Description of Accused: Kamapraju. Chandra Babu, Age: 29 years, S/o K. Gurrappa Raju, D.No. 5-1150, Thangayyelu Colony, Santhapeta, Chittoor District.

Date of Occurrence16-12-2016. Date of Complaint16-12-2016. Date of Apprehension17-12-2016. Date of taken on File28-06-2017. Release on bail01-06-2020. Commencement of Trial23-04-2019. Closure of Trial27-02-2020. Date of sentence or Order29-07-2020. Explanation for Delay: Due to non-production of witnesses

U/Sec.411 IPC – Dishonestly receiving stolen Nature of offence property. Finding of the courtFound guilty. Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and thereby, he is convicted in terms of Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C., for the said offence.

Accused is sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of four (4) months for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal

Code.

Remand period undergone by the accused i.e., from 17.12.2016 to 12.01.2017 and 15.02.2020 to 01.06.2020, shall be set off under Sec.428 of

Cr.P.C.

12

Unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs.3,000/- was returned to the

Deputy Executive Officer, Sri T.T.Parakamani, TTD, Tirumala under receipt, is made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Accused is informed that he has right to prefer an appeal and right to get free legal aid from M.L.S.A.

Sd/- K. Srinivas,

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

// True Copy //

IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, FAC II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TIRUPATI.

PRESENT: Sri. K.Srinivas, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

Saturday, the Sixteenth day (16th) day of April, 2022.

CCNo. 46 of 2022

(Cr.No. 483 of 2020 of Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati)

Between: The state represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, AlipiriPolice Station, Tirupati… Complainant.

And: Dasari Purushotham, aged 42 years, S/o. D.Govind, Kota Street, Nandyala Town, Kurnool District, caste by Balija, coolie.… Accused.

This case is coming before me on 12.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri Y.Suresh

Raju, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alipiri police station, Tirupati filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 483 of 2020 for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC.

2. The averments of the charge sheet are that: The defacto complainant – Boodidhipalli Babu is resident of Sanjev Colony, Maruthi Nagar, Erukula Colony,

Tirupati and he is an auto driver and injured in this case. On 21.08.2020 at 8.30

P.M B.Babu went to Cherlopalli in his Auto taking Vinayaka Statue and after unloading, he was returning to Tirupati, when reached near Petrol Bunk, A1 and a2 and another stopped his auto boarded into his auto. While traveling in the auto, they cried loudly, on that, complainant stopped auto near Aravind eye hospital, Zoo park road, Tirupati, asked them to get down from auto, on that, they got down from his auto, among them, one person went away from the spot, but, A1 and A2 grew wild, made quarrel with him, beat with stones on his mouth, head, elbows and 2 knees indiscriminately, caused bleeding injuries. Then, he was shifted to SVRRGG

Hospital, Tirupati and got admitted for treatment. On the statement of B.Babu, a case in Cr.No.483 of 2020 u/s.324 r/w 34 of IPC was registered on 05.09.2020 and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, the investigation officer examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch of scene, received wound certificate of B.Babu opining that the injuries are grievous in nature. Then, section of Law was altered from 324 r/w 34 of IPC to 326 r/w 34 of IPC and filed a memo before the court. On 31.08.2021 at 12.30 P.M the investigation officer arrested A.1 near Bonthalamma temple on Karakambadi road, Tirupati, sent him to judicial custody and filed charge sheet against A.1 (as A2 – Chinna is absconding since the date of offence, sincere efforts made to trace out to arrest A2 are in vain) for the offence punishable under section 326 r/w 34 of IPC by mentioning as A.2 absconding and a separate charge sheet will be wiled whenever A2 is apprehended.

3. This court took cognizance for the offence under sections 326 of IPC against accused and issued summons to the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. On further appearance of accused, he was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, charges for the offences punishable under sections 326 of IPC are framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 documents were marked. The Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2-B.Meri, L.W.4-B.Durga.

3

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence deposed against him by the prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

9. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution is able to

bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections

326 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT: i. The case of the prosecution as per Ex.P.1/report is that while

P.W.1 was returning in his Auto from Cherlopalli to Tirupati, when he reached near

Petrol Bunk, three persons stopped his auto and boarded. During travel, they were shouting loudly, near Aravind Eye Hospital P.W.1 stopped his auto and asked them to get down from his auto, then they got down, among them one person went away, remaining two persons beat him with stones on his mouth, head, knees, elbows and escaped from the place. As it was night, he remained there due to injuries and on the net day surrounding people shifted him to SVRRGG Hospital,

Tirupati.

ii. P.W.1 – B.Babu is the injured in the hands of accused. He deposed that on 21.03.2020 he went to Cherlopally in his auto with Lord Vinayaka idol, handed over the idol and returning to Tirupati, three persons boarded his auto, when his auto reached near Aravind Eye Hospital, said three persons were scuffling with each other in a drunken state, when he questioned them, one person got down from auto, remaining two persons i.e accused and one Chinna picked up stone, beat him on his head, mouth, hands and legs, due to that, he sustained bleeding injury on his head, lost his teeth and sustained fracture injury to his left hand, they robbed one cell phone and cash of Rs.3,000/- from P.W.1 and left away. P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he did not given any complaint to Alipiri Police, 4 but his wife gave complaint on 05.09.2020 and there is a gap of 20 days in lodging

FIR and he did not see the accused prior to the incident. He denied a suggestion that accused is not connected with this case and he sustained injuries while traveling in his auto and accused never beat him.

iii. P.W-4 – S.Ravi Kumar is friend of P.W.1. He deposed that on 21/22.08.2021 at about 8.30 P.M wife of P.W.1 telephoned and informed that unknown persons beat P.W.1 at Zoo Park Road after crossing Aravinda Eye

Hospital, Tirupati, then, he went to Ruya Hospital, met P.W.1, enquired about the incident and came to know that while returning from cherlopalli, near petrol bunk, thre persons boarded into his auto, they were quarreling with each other in talks after passing zoo park, before Aravinda Eye Hospital, P.W.1 requested them to leave his auto, out of them, two persons maintaining silence got from auto, one persons abused P.W.1, then, thee persons beat P.W.1 with stones on his mouth, head for which P.W.1 received cut injuries on his mouth, teeth set dislocated and injuries on his knee. P.W.4 further deposed that on the next day, he visited the scene of offence and found stones, blood stain marks. In his cross examination

P.W.4 admitted that he came to know about the incident through P.W.1 and he did not state before police from which number and from whom he received phone call and he cannot say the exact date when he received phone call. P.W.4 further stated in his cross examination that P.W.1 lodged report on the next day of when he received injuries.

iv. P.W.5 is the investigation officer who received information on 05.09.2020 at about 4.45 P.M stating that P.W.1 was assaulted by Chinna and Purushotham, immediately, he visited the house of P.W.1, examined him and recorded his statements, went to police station, registered a case in Cr.No.483 of 2020 for the offene under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC, thereafter left police station, visited P.W.1 house, recorded his statement, visited scene of offence, drawn rough sketch, there he secured Marry, Ravi Kumar, Durga, examined them and recorded their statements. Through P.W.5, Ex.P.5/FIR and Ex.P.6 rough sketch were marked. In 5 his cross examination P.W.5 admitted that as per FIR incident was happened on 21.08.2020, from 21.08.2020 to 05.09.2020 he had not received any information about the incident. He further stated that he tried to secure local inhabitants, but no person did not come to give statement.

v. P.W.6 – M.Parameshwar Naik is another investigation officer. He deposed that on 31.08.2021 he received case file from P.W.1, during his investigation, he received wound certificate, basing on it, he altered section of Law from section 324 IPC to section 326 of IPC and on the same day, on received credible information about accused near Bonthalamma Temple, he caught-hold the accused, ascertained his identity particulars and arrested the accused and sent to judicial remand, filed charge sheet against accused, as A.2 is not apprehended. In his cross examination P.W.6 stated that Ex.P.1 does not reveal the identity features of accused.

vi. P.W.3 – Dr. Y.Prathyusha is the Doctor who treated the injured M.Babu (P.W.1) deposed that on 22.08.2020 around 9.30 A.M they received patient through ambulance in O.P.No.173506 with the history of assault by unknown person on 21.08.2020 around 10.30 P.M at Alipiri. He examined the patient and found complaining left shoulder movement restrictions, then, he referred to radiology department for X-ray and found X-ray chest AP fracture of right 4th and 5th ribs, X-

Ray of left fore arm fracture of ulna and issued wound certificate/Ex.P.4 opining that the injuries are grievous in nature. In his cross P.W.3 stated that the above injuries may be possible if any person fell down on a hard surface.

Vii. P.W.2 – Dr. O.Sreedhar Babu deposed that on 22.08.2020 he examined

X-Ray of CT Scan of patient by name Babu and found X-Ray chest showing fractures of right 4th and 5th ribs, X-Ray left fore arm showing fracture shaft of ulna,

CCT chest and abdomen fracture right 4th and 5th ribs, CT brain showing fracture lateral wall of left orbit, Fracture left zygomatic arch, fracture walls of left maxillary 6 sinus, fracture alveolar process of maxilla. Through P.W.1 Ex.P.2 X-ray report,

Ex.P.3 CT scan are marked.

Viii. According to Ex.P.1 investigation officer received information about the assault to P.W.1 and he went to P.W.1’s house and recorded his statement, but, section 161 Cr.P.C statement goes to show that P.w.1 after recovering from injuries, he himself went to police station, lodged a report on 05.09.2020. P.W.1 in his chief examination stated that accused robbed one cell phone and cash of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands). Ex.P.1 and section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 is silent about the robbery of cell phone and cash of Rs.3,000/- from him by accused.

It is an exaggerated version of P.W.1 in his chief examination. According to P.W.1’s version in his chief examination, his wife gave report before Alipiri police. P.W.5 – investigation officer stated that on receipt of credible information, he himself went to the house of victim, recorded his statement, then, he registered the case. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is quite contra version about giving police report.

More over, the exaggerated version was not stated by P.W.1 in his section 161

Cr.P.C statement or in the report. The investigation officer also did not speak about the robbery off cell phone and cash from P.W.1 by the accused. The incident was happened on 21.08.2020 at about 8.30 P.M, admittedly, the report given on 05.09.2020. As per report the investigation officer himself went to the house of

P.w.1 and recorded his statement, basing on P.W.1 statement, he registered the case. According to medical evidence P.W.1 was received for treatment in

SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati through in 108 ambulance on 22.08.2020 at 9.13 A.M with case history of assaulted by unknown persons. According to P.W.4 he received phone call from wife of P.W.1 on 22.08.2020 informing about the assault to P.W.1 by unknown person near Zoo Park Road, Tirupati and on the next day he went to the scene of offene and observed the blood stained marks and stones.

P.W.4 in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement not stated about his visit to the scene of offence, observing blood stained marks and stones at the scene of offence. He was examined by police on 05.09.2020. If really, P.W.4 received phone call from 7

P.W.’s wife, he would have stated in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. On perusal section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 he received phone call from P.W.1 about his sustained injuries in the hands of unknown persons. The exaggerated version of

P.W.4 about his visit to scene of offence is not stated before the investigation officer. According to investigation officer, he visited scene of offence on 05.09.2020, prepared rough sketch. P.W.4 categorically admitted that on the next day he was examined by police, recorded his statement. P.W.1 was shifted to

SVRRGG Hospital through 108 ambulance for treatment and there is no Medico

Legal Intimation on 22.08.2020 to the police, there is no evidence to show when

P.w.1 was discharged from hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 creates suspicion about the by whom criminal law was set into motion. There is delay of 15 days occurred in lodging FIR. According to P.W.1 he do not know the accused person on the date of alleged incident. Subsequently, he enquired about the culprits and came to know their names as Purushotham and Chinna. P.w.1 took treatment and got discharged from hospital. What prevented him to give report immediately after discharged from hospital or sent hospital intimation to Alipiri

Police about the incident through hospital authorities. Admittedly, P.W.1 received grievous injuries, he identified the accused in open court, but, he failed to explain from whom he came to know the name of accused persons. Contradiction was elicited by learned counsel for accused through the evidence of P.W.1 about the robbery of his cell phone and cash of Rs.3,000/- creates suspicion about the involvement of accused in the alleged incident. P.W.1 categorically deposed that accused and one Chinna beat him with stones for which, he received injuries on his ribs, lost his teeth, received fracture injury on his lower jaw and head injury.

The investigation officer failed to conduct test identification parade of accused through P.w.1 as P.w.1 initially stated that unknown persons assaulted him an on his enquiry, he came to know the names of accused as Purushotham and Chinna., but, he did not given any complaint to the police till 05.09.2020. P.W.4 stated that he was examined by police on the next day of the incident and he visited the scene 8 of offence. Said circumstance not narrated by investigation officer. The evidence of P.W.1 is not in agreement with P.W.4 and investigation officer. P.W.1 is having wife, what prevented her to give report before police. The identification by P.W.1

before this court is not believable because the evidence of P.W.1 is suffering with

irregularities, with some exaggerated version of robbery of his mobile phone and cash of Rs.3,000/- by accused. Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, point is answered.

10. In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. No property is produced before this court, hence, no property order is passed. The accused is ordered to be released, forth with, if he is not required in any other cases.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of April, 2021. (Sd/- K. Srinivas) IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1B.Babu.NIL P.W.2Dr. O.Sreedhar Babu. P.W.3Dr. Y. Prathyusha. P.W.4S. Ravi Kumar. P.W.5R. Vinod Kumar. P.W.6M. Parameswar Naik.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.2X-Ray report. Ex.P.3CT Scan report. Ex.P.4Wound certificate. Ex.P.5Original FIR in Cr.No. 483/2020 of Alipiri police station, Tirupati. Ex.P.6Rough sketch of scene of offencc.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL // True copy \\(Sd/- K. Srinivas) (Sd/- K. Srinivas)IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Tirupati. Tirupati.

9

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

TIRUPATI.

Calender in C.C.No. 46 of 2022

(Cr.No. 483 of 2020 of Alipiri Police Station)

Date of offence:21.08.2020

Date of complaint:05.09.2020

Date of cognizance taken:10.01.2022

Date of appearance of accused:01.09.2021

Date when accused released on bail:In judicial custody

Date of commencement of trial:20.01.2022

Date of close of trial:12.04.2022

Date of Judgment:16.04.2022

Complainant: The state represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati.

Name ofFather’s nameAgeReligionResidenceMandal/Occupation AccusedDistrict DasariD.Govindu42HinduKota Street, Nadyala Town,Coolie PurushothamyearsKurnool

Nature of offence:Causing grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons

Section of Law:Under section 326 of IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court: NOT GUILTY

Sentence or Order: In the result, I found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the same under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. No property is produced before this court, hence, no property order is passed. The accused is ordered to be released, forth with, if he is not required in any other cases.

// True copy \\(Sd/- K. Srinivas) (Sd/- K. Srinivas)IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,Tirupati. Tirupati.