Sunkara Sree Devi

6/5/20151CC No.42/14

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUNTUR

Present:: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi., B.Sc., B.L., V Additional Junior Civil Judge On Wednesday, sixth (6th) day of May two thousand fifteen.

C.C. No. 42/2014

Between:

State: Station House Officer, Arundelpet P.S., Guntur...Complainant

Versus

1. Vetagiri Nara Hari S/o Narasimha Rao, 30 yrs, Yanadi, Bharatpet, 4th lane, guntur.

2. Vetagiri Vara Lakshmi W/o Narasimha Rao, 48 yrs, Yanadi, Narukullapadu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Potluri Chenchi Lakshmi W/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 yrs, Yanadi, Police Head quarters, Hanmakonda, Warangal District.

... Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Sri Y. Kishore Kumar, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Arundelpet Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.666/13 U/sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:-

L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri is native of China Lingayapalem village of Kakumanu Mandal, Guntur district. Her marriage was performed with A1 resident of Narukullapadu village of Amaravthi Mandal, Guntur district about five years ago. L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri working in Universal college of Engineering, Perecherla on part time. A1 was working in Endowments department. Two years after the marriage A1 started consuming liquor and started coming home at late nights and harassed L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri both physically and mentally to get amount from her parents. A1 used to invite his friends and giving feast to them. He used to insult L.W.1 V. Rekhasri before them. When L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri informed the same to A2 and A3 who are her mother in law and sister in law they supported A1. When L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri informed the same to her mother L.W.2 Chowtu Bhoo Lakshmi she used to adjust amounts to A1 and also pacified L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri to adjust herself. A1 developed friendship with one Vamsi Reddy who used to come to home and they both enjoyed the parties and returned home at late nights. When L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri called A1 on phone the same shows out of coverage area and on that she used to call Vamsi Reddy and asked to give his phone to A1. The said Vamsi Reddy is younger than L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri and used to call her as sister and call A1 as brother in law. L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri used to talk with Vamsi Reddy about the timings of college bus. A1 who suspected the character of L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri when they were at A.T. Agraharam and harassed her severely. When she informed the same to her parents who advised to give report in the police station and accordingly she presented a report before Women Police station. Police summoned A1 to A3 and held counseling and there 6/5/20152CC No.42/14 the accused promised to attend L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri properly. There after they put up their family at 4th lane, Bharatpet, Guntur and however there was no change in the attitude of A1. The accused started threatening L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri that they will perform another marriage to A1. A1 took away all of her gold ornaments and pledged the same to clear of his debts. He also took away her ATM card and using her salary for his vices. On 5.10.13 L.W.3 Vetagiri Lavamma came to their house and in her presence A1 scolded L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri. On 6.10.13 at 9 PM A1 beat her and took a knife and threatened her that he will stab L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri and later he will commit suicide and on that on 11.10.13 she went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report before the ASI of Arundelpet P.S who registered the present crime and took up investigation. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 12.10.13 A1 and A2 were arrested and forwarded for remand. On 5.11.13 A3 was arrested and released on station bail. On completion of the investigation the CI of Arundelpet P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act was taken against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case record were furnished to accused U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, for which, accused denied the accusation put to them as alleged in the charge sheet. After framing of charge U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 marked. PW.1- V. Rekhasri. PW.2- Chowtu Bhoo Lakshmi. PW.3- V. Lavamma. PW.4- Peram Udaya Bhaskar. PW.5- B. Samba Rao Nayak. Ex.P1- Report, Ex.P2- 161 Cr.p.C statement of P.w.4, Ex.P3- FIR, Ex.P4- Rough sketch, On behalf of accused Exs.D1 to D10 were marked. Ex.D1 List of student names in M.Tech. Ex.D2 Dairy. Ex.D3 Relevant entry in Dairy. Ex.D4 Signature on Letter. Ex.D5 Hand writing. Ex.D6 copy of S.S.C Certificate. Ex.D7 Photostat copy of provisional certificate. Ex.D8 3 phots. Ex.D9 Copy of Telephone number particualrs (13). Ex.D10 3 pages On behalf of accused Exs.D1 to D10 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which, accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses reported no defence. Hence, the defence is closed.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?

9.Heard the A.P.P. and counsel for defence.

10. Learned APP argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws 1 to 3 categorically shows the harassment caused by the accused towards P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case. Learned APP submitted that there are several debts to A1 who joined P.W.1 in a job to get amount and harassed her physically and mentally not only by suspecting her character but also with a demand to get more amount from her parents.

6/5/20153CC No.42/14

11. On the other hand the learned counsel for defence argued before this court that P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant is the wife of A1. P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1. P.W.3 who is mother of P.W.2. So all the witnesses P.Ws 1 to 3 are closely interrelated and their evidence has to scrutinized carefully. His argument shows no dowry was given and the same was stated by P.W.2 in her chief examination. When the question of dowry not found in the marriage of P.W.1 and A1, the demand of additional dowry does not arise. His argument further shows the omissions in the evidences of P.Ws 1 to 3 which are material and comes under contradictions under the provision of Sec.162 Cr.P.C. Counsel for defence lastly refer the facts in the evidences of P.Ws 1 to 3 which are not corroborating with each other and ruled out the harassment of A1 against P.W.1 prior to 6.6.2013 is itself enough that a false case was foisted against the accused to bring A1 to the terms of the defacto complainant and her parents.

POINT:-

12. The case of the prosecution as per the evidences of its witnesses is that the marriage of the defacto complainant i.e., L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri with A1 was performed 5 years prior to the date of report. Two years after their marriage A1 who addicted to vices started consuming liquor, coming home to late nights started harassing the defacto complainant both physically and mentally to get amount from her parents. He used to bring his friends to consume liquor and started harassing the defacto complainant in their presence. As and when the victim informed the harassment of A1 to her mother in law A2 and to her sister in law A3 they started supporting A1. A1 developed friendship with one Vamsi Reddy who is a student to the defacto complainant in Universal college of Engineering, Perecherla and he started suspecting the character of defacto complainant. But the said Vamsi Reddy is younger than L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri and used to call her as Akka and call A1 as Bava. When the defacto complainant and A1 were residing at A.T. Agraharam, on one occasion A1 suspected her fidelity and harassed her severely, on that she presented a report in the Women police station and counseling was held to all the three accused and after the family counseling the accused promised to attend her properly and again the defacto complainant joined A1 at 4th lane, Bharatpet, Guntur. However there was no change in the attitude of A1 and the accused started threatening the defacto complainant L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri that they will perform another marriage to A1. A1 took away all her gold ornaments and pledged the same to discharge his debts and he also collected her ATM card to receive the salary of the victim. On 5.10.13 when the maternal aunt of the defacto complainant L.W.3 Vetagiri Lavamma came to their house, then A1 in her presence beat the victim and On 6.10.13 at 9 PM A1 picked up a knife and threatened her that he will stab the defacto complainant L.W.1 Vetagiri Rekhasri and there after to commit suicide and there by harassed the victim both physically and mentally. Unable to bear the harassment the defacto complainant presented a report before the ASI of Arundelpet P.S on 11.10.13 which was registered as the present crime.

13. The contention of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 harassed the defacto complainant severely both physically and mentally with in the meaning of Sec.498- A IPC and also they are liable for the offences punishable U/s 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. Let us see whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its contention.

14. Before adverting to the point the admitted facts are that A1 is none other than the brother of P.W.2 who is the mother of the defacto complainant. The father of A1 Vetagiri Narasimha Rao got two wives. A2 is the second wife and P.W.3 is the first wife. It is another admitted fact that P.W.2 was brought up in the house of A2 after the completion of her 10 years and her marriage was performed in the house of A2 and her husband who is none other than the father of P.W.2 and A1.

6/5/20154CC No.42/14

15. Let us see the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 in her chief examination is at length which is in addition to her statement before the police so also the contents found in her report. As seen from her chief examination shows her marriage with A1 on 10.2.08 at Annavaram Satyanarayana Swamy vari Devastanam in accordance with Hindu caste and custom. Her evidence shows the presentation of 10 sovgs of gold, motor cycle and house hold articles and Lanchanams to the accused. No where P.W.1 stated about the presentation of dowry to the accused. P.w.2 who is the mother of the defacto complainant stated in her chief examination that nothing was given as dowry. So considering the evidences of P.Ws 1 and 2 no dowry was given to the accused. Here the counsel for defence argued before this court that when there is no dowry the question of demand for addition dowry does not arise.

16. Now let us see whether the argument of defence is tenable and probable considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution in toto. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 by the time her marriage was performed in the year 2008 she was prosecuting her B.Tech at Hyderabad. Subsequently in the year 2010 after completion of fourth year she joined A1 at A.T. Agraharam in a rented house. According to her, her matrimonial life went normal for a period of 3 years. Later A1 started coming home at late nights and when she questioned the same he used to scold her and also demanding amount to discharge his debts. To meet his demand A1 started beating her and send her to her parents house. He used to abuse her in filthy language and started bringing his friends to home and taking liquor. A1 himself joined P.W.1 in a school as a teacher as there was no amount. She worked there for a period of six months and again A1 joined her at Universal Engineering college, Dokiparru as programmer and sine then he started collecting her salary from the ATM card. When she informed the harassment to A2 and A3 they also supported A1. Her evidence further shows P.W.2 who is her mother adjusted Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- on number of occasions. A1 used to beat her in the presence of her mother with a demand to bring more amount as he indebted to others. Her mother used to pacify the same and advised her to adjust herself. So the evidence of P.W.1 shows till 2013 her matrimonial life went normal. However her evidence shows that A1 for the sake of additional amount harassed her which was meted out by her mother P.W.2 by paying Rs.25 to 50 thousand on number of occasions. However the evidence of P.W.1 further adds that in the year 2012 A1 got an offer at Dubai as Physiotherapist and he asked her Rs.5 lakhs to pay the same for his job and he used to demand her to bring the said amount from her parents. On one occasion, he got boarded a bus and sent her to her parents house to bring amount, then she went to her mother and asked for Rs.5 lakhs. When the mother of P.W.1 failed to arrange the same made A1 to ask her to ask Vamsi Krishna Reddy for amount who is the student of P.W.1 coming to their home. When she refused to ask Vamsi for amount, however A1 insisted her and on that she asked Vamsi Krishna Reddy for amount for which he replied that he already adjusted so much of amount to A1. Since then A1 started demanding her to bring amount from her parents house and out of fear she informed the same to her parents but they did not respond. The evidence of P.W.1 shows since then A1 intensified his harassment. Here there is ambiguity in the evidence of P.W.1. According to her, her matrimonial life went normal for a period of three years i.e., for the period from 2010-13, where as the evidence of P.W.1 shows in the year 2012 A1 who asked P.W.1 to secure Rs.,5 lakhs from her parents and when they expressed their inability he started demanding her to get the said amount from Vamsi Krishna reddy who is the student of P.W.1 in her college. Here it is pertinent to refer the case of the defence who elicited material through out the cross examination of P.W.1 about the said Vamsi Krishna reddy who is the colleague of P.W.1 in her college where she is working and P.W.1 went to Hyderabad to attend the sister's marriage of Vamsi Krishna Reddy in the year 2012. Her evidence shows Vamsi Krishna Reddy was present on the first occasion went there was a dispute in between her and A1 on 6.6.13, when P.W.1 and said Vamsi Krishna Reddy were in the bed room of A1, they were seen by A1 and since 6/5/20155CC No.42/14 then disputes arose in between their marital life. The father of P.W.1 who is SP working at commandant in APSP Battalion at Hyderabad and with his influence, influenced the police at Guntur and summoned A1 to Police station forcibly who has no interest to join P.W.1 and A1 refused to lead matrimonial life with P.W.1 made the father of P.W.1 to influence the police of Arundelpet P.S and foisted this false report by collecting all the material from A1 with reference to P.W.1 and Vamsi Krishna Reddy and their alleged illicit intimacy and detained A1 in police custody for a period of 10 to 15 days and to bring A1 to the terms of father of P.W.1.

17. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 in her chief examination lastly shows the occurrence dt: 5.10.13 in their rented house at 4th lane, Bharat pet. On that day P.W.3 who came there due to ill health of P.W.1 who raised quarrel with her and thrown out the house hold articles and beat P.W.1 in front of P.W.3 and also bolted the kitchen from inside by opening the nobs and removed the rubber tube of the gas cylinder and when she opened the bolt out of fear, A1 picked up a knife and came upon her and when P.W.3 intervened, A1 cut his left hand with the said knife and started threatening them that he will kill them before committing suicide made her to present a report immediately before Arundelpet P.S. The evidence of P.W.1 shows the last alleged incident on 5.10.13. But the contents of the charge sheet shows the said alleged incident is on 6.10.13 but not on 5.10.13 as deposed by P.W.1. However through P.W.1 her report was marked as Ex.P1.

18. Here the evidence of P.W.1 shows immediately on the date of last incident she went to Arudnelpet P.S and presented a report before the police. But the date underneath her signature on Ex.P1 shows 6.10.13.Where as the contents of Ex.,P1 shows the last incident on 6.10.13 at 9 P.M. There is no explanation either in the evidence of P.W.1 or in the contents of the charge sheet at what time the report was presented on 6.10.13 before the police at Arundelpet P.S. However the report was registered on 11.10.13 at 11 AM. Absolutely there are no reasons in the printed proforma of FIR to show why the report was registered 5 days after the presentation of report. There is no explanation in the FIR for the delay in registering the report as the report was immediately presented on the date of last incident. Here the argument raised by the counsel for defence shows that the report was cooked up in the police station with the influence of father of P.W.1. In view of the admission of P.W.1 in her cross examination that accused was detained in the police custody for a period of 10 to 15 days supports the version of defence that A1 was illegally detained in police custody. As seen from the evidence and documents there are no reasons to explain the delay in registering the FIR which is very much fatal to the case of prosecution.

19. However let us see the cross examination of P.W.1 done by the counsel for defence at length. There are number of material omissions in the evidence of P.W.1. Counsel for defence marked Exs.D1 to D10 which are the documents pertaining to the defence raised by the accused with reference to the relationship of P.w.1 with Vamsi Krishna Reddy. Those documents relating to the person Vamsi Krishna Reddy and P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted the said documents and that all those documents shows the probabilities in the case of the defence. However it is not the case to decide or to consider the contents under Exs.D1 to D10 to believe the version of the defence. It is only a crime registered for the offence punishable for the dowry harassment. The cross examination of P.w.1 shows the entire evidence of P.w.1 is nothing but omissions. Evidently the entire chief examination is improved in the evidence of P.W.1. According to the case of the defence on the alleged date of incident on 6.6.2013 when P.W.1 and the person Vamsi Krishna Reddy were caught red-handedly in the bed room of A1, but her admission shows that they were found in the bed room of A1 and A1 locked the door from outside.

20. The evidence of P.w.2 who is the mother of P.W.1 similarly shows that on one day A1 called her on phone and informed her about P.W.1 and Vamsi Krishna 6/5/20156CC No.42/14

Reddy in the bed room of A1 made him to lock the door shows the root cause for the disputes in the matrimonial life of P.W.1. As already referred above that the ambiguity in the evidence of P.W.1 about the harassment started by A1 for Rs.5 lakhs to secure job at Dubai is totally absent in Ex.P1 or in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. Though P.W.2 also improved the said evidence in her chief examination. Absolutely the same is not corroborated with their version in their 161 Cr.P.C statements before the police. There are no particulars either in the evidence of P.W.1 or in the evidence of her mother P.W.2 regarding the payment of Rs.25 to 50 thousand as deposed by P.W.1 in her chief examination which were paid to A1 on number of occasions. P.W.1 deposed in her chief examination that the marital life went normal for a period of 3 years but quite contrary to her admission she added that the disputes arose since 2012 when A1 demanded her for Rs.5 lakhs to go to Dubai and prior to that P.W.2 adjusted Rs.25 to 50 thousand on number of occasions shows variance in the evidence of P.W.1 which is nothing but embroidery. Similarly P.w.2 also admitted about the variance in her evidence with reference to the harassment caused by A1 for Rs.5 lakhs which was not found in her 161 Cr.P.C statement. The material admission in the evidence of P.W.1 which was very much stressed by the counsel for defence shows that the first date A1 started harassing her and the disputes arose in her matrimonial life is on 6.6.2013 which is the material incident as per the case of the defence. The chief examination of P.w.1 shows that her matrimonial life went normal for a period of 3 years and on the other way shows in the year 2012, A1 demanded her to bring Rs.5 lakhs to go to Dubai did not corroborate with one another to believer her version since how long A1 has been harassing P.w.1 with a demand to get amount from her parents house.

21. P.W.1 is not a rustic witness failed to say the relevant dates when her mother adjusted thousands of rupees on number of occasions to A1 to meet the demand of accused. Here the case of the defence shows that A1 used to consume liquor and coming to home at late nights and also used to bring his friends to home for taking liquor is also ruled out with the evidence of P.w.3 who is the maternal grand mother of P.W.1 who categorically deposed before this court that she never saw during the period when she stayed in the house of P.W.1 that A1 consumed liquor at home. The evidence of P.W.1 with reference to the material improvements in her chief examination shows the adjustment of amount by her mother and the demand of A1 for Rs.5 lakhs absolutely not found in any one of her report or in her statement made this court to say that the evidence of P.W.1 was improved and the same is nothing but exaggeration which could not be believable in view of the incident dt: 6.6.2013 which is the root cause for the disputes arose in between P.W.1 and A1.

22. The evidence of P.W.2 who is the mother of the defacto complainant categorically shows in her chief examination that nothing was given to A1 as dowry. Here the contention of the defence that A1 is a near relative of P.W.2. So the question of dowry to the marriage of A1 and P.W.1 does not arise and the same reveals the question of demand for additional dowry does not arise. This court is also agreeing with the said argument which has its probabilites.

23. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 in further shows that after the completion of her daughter's education when she joined A1 at A.T. Agraharam and in the mean while A1 addicted to drinking when P.W.1 was at Hyderabad and started coming home at late nights. Her evidence further shows A1 and P.W.1 enquired Vamsi Krishna who is studying 4th year in the college of P.W.1 about the timings of bus and she treated the said person as her son. During the weekends, the said Vamsi Krishna came to the home of A1 and joined A1 to attend parties. The prosecution improved the version of P.W.2 about Vamsi Krishan Reddy which is not at all found in the evidence of P.W.1. No where P.w.1 stated about the said Vamsi Krisha reddy who started coming their home and joined A1 to attend parties and P.W.1 got acquaintance with him to know the bus timings. When P.W.1 was cross 6/5/20157CC No.42/14 examined at length by the counsel for defence by confronting the documents Exs.D1 to D10. Prosecution improved the evidence of P.W.2 by introducing the evidence about Vamsi Krishna Reddy in the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.w.2 shows P.W.1 who came to Hyderabad as A1 demanded her for Rs.5 lakhs to secure job at Dubai and when she expressed her inability to adjust any more amount boring grudge against the same A1 started harassing P.W.1 severely. When the same was informed to A2 and A3 who replied to P.W.1 that if they preferred another marriage to A1 they would get Rs.3 lakhs as dowry and p.W.1 did not get any dowry to him. No where the prosecution witnesses stated before this court that the accused demanded for dowry. When they themselves stated nothing was given as dowry how the version of P.W.2 is tenable that A2 and A3 criticized P.W.1 that they would get dowry of Rs.30 lakhs if they preferred another marriage to A1 which is not worthy of credence. The evidence of P.W.2 further added the incident dt: 6.6.13. Though the witness did not state the said date, according to her P.w.1 got fever on the said day due to the harassment caused by A1 who returned to the home at 4 PM and the said Vamsi Krishna called A1 on phone and asked him to come home as he was also coming home with two bottles of coconut water for P.W.1 and informed to A1 about the fever of P.W.1 and to take P.W.1 to hospital for check-up. Vamsi Krishna who came earlier to the house of P.W.1 noticed that p.W.1 was sleeping inside by putting lock to the main door and Vamsi Krishna opened the door and entered into the house of P.W.1, in the mean while A1 who came there, closed the door and locked the door from outside. By that time they were at Hyderabad. A1 who called her on phone informed her that he obtained photographs and he was proceeding to Police station to hand over the same in the P.S. This incident found in the evidence of P.W.2 was introduced by the prosecution after the cross examination of P.W.1 which was done by the counsel for defence at length. P.W.1 who is a material witness in this case not even whispered about the alleged incident when herself and Vamsi Krishna reddy were in the bed room of A1 made A1 to put lock to the door, the same is improved in the evidence of P.W.2 and the same is not the case of the prosecution. However this witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence at length. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows the material contradictions in their evidence and the reason to present Ex.P1 is for otherwise but not for the alleged harassment stated by P.Ws 1 and 2.

24. Now let us see the evidence of p.W.3 to corroborate the evidences of P.Ws 1 and 2 who is none other than the mother of P.W.2. However she was present on the last date of incident dt: 5.10.13. Her evidence is silent regarding the particular dates. But according to her A1 who beat P.W.1 in her presence and he also thrown away the house hold articles in a pell mell condition and threatened P.W.1 to kill her and creating galata. P.W.3 is the eye witness to the said incidents. The evidence of P.W.3 was denied by the counsel for defence and elicited the material about A1. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that A1 himself cut his hand with a knife to prove the contention of the prosecution which comes under the provisions of Sec.506 IPC. According to P.w.1 they went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report on the same day but the contents of the report shows the same is at 9 PM on 6.10.13. But there is no time on it to show when the report was presented on 6.10.13. But there is delay of 5 days for registration which was registered on 11.10.13.

25. Let us see the evidence of P.W.5 who is the ASI of Arundelpet P.S registered the FIR and investigated the crime. According to him the report was presented on 6.10.13 but there is no explanation from him to show the reasons for the delay in registering the report. P.W.5 totally denied the case of the defence that A1 handed over the callers list to him to show that P.W.1 was talking with Vamsi Krishna Reddy on phone during the night time also and the other particulars furnished by A1 in the P.S. P.W.1 who admitted before this court that the ASI collected all the material from A1 supports the case of the accused. P.W.1 also admitted that A1 detained in the P.S for a period of 10 to 15 days which shows the probabilities in 6/5/20158CC No.42/14 the case of defence which was suggested to P.W.5. Coming to the omissions which was suggested all most all statements of P.Ws 1 to 3 in their chief examination before the police which are material to believe the version of the prosecution is itself ruled out the case of the prosecution that the entire evidence was improved only before this court which cannot be believable to consider the case of the prosecution. The admission of P.W.1 coupled with the documents of the defence shows another angle to the case of the prosecution which is not an offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. Though the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.w.4 who is the house owner of P.W.1 and A1 at 4th lane, Bharathpet, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The entire evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 in their cross examination is itself enough to consider the case of the prosecution and there by the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

26.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1- V. Rekhasri NIL PW.2- Chowtu Bhoo Lakshmi PW.3- V. Lavamma PW.4- Peram Udaya Bhaskar PW.5- B. Samba Rao Nayak

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1- Report, Ex.P2- 161 Cr.p.C statement of P.w.4, Ex.P3- FIR, Ex.P4- Rough sketch,

For Defence: Ex.D1 List of student names in M.Tech Ex.D2 Dairy Ex.D3 Relevant entry in Dairy Ex.D4 Signature on Letter Ex.D5 Hand writing Ex.D6 copy of S.S.C Certificate Ex.D7 Photostat copy of provisional certificate Ex.D8 3 phots Ex.D9 Copy of Telephone number particualrs (13) Ex.D10 3 pages Sd/- S. Sridevi V A.J.C.J., Gnt.,

// True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

6/5/20159CC No.42/14

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C. No.42/14 DATES OF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence on bail of trial trial or order Prior to 10-01-14 14-7-14 25-10-13 (A1) 20-11-14 4-3-15 6-5-15 11.10.13 17-10-13 (A2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 10-01-14, and copies furnished to accused on 14-7-14, and on 16.6.14 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined on 20.11.14 and Prosecution side evidence closed on 4-3-2015 after examining P.W.5 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 25-4- 2015 and Exs.D1 to D10 were marked on behalf of accused. Heard arguments on 30.4.15 & Judgment pronounced on 6-5-2015. Hence the delay.

Between:

State: Station House Officer, Arundelpet P.S., Guntur...Complainant

Versus

1. Vetagiri Nara Hari S/o Narasimha Rao, 30 yrs, Yanadi, Bharatpet, 4th lane, guntur.

2. Vetagiri Vara Lakshmi W/o Narasimha Rao, 48 yrs, Yanadi, Narukullapadu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Potluri Chenchi Lakshmi W/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 yrs, Yanadi, Police Head quarters, Hanmakonda, Warangal District.

... Accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

6/5/201510CC No.42/14

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present :: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi., B.Sc., B.L., V. Additional Junior Civil Judge On Tuesday, nineteenth (19th) day of May two thousand fifteen.

C.C. No. 100/2015

Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S. ...Complainant

Versus

1.Marri Ramu S/o Sambaiah, 22 yrs, C/ Mudirajulu, Devapuram, 5th lane, beside NTR stadium, Guntur town.

2.Tadisetty Ganesh Babu S/o Venkatanarasaiah, 23 yrs, C/ Uppara, D.No.7-6-355/2, 1st lane, Sanjeevanagar, Guntur town. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 18-5-2015 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and GSD Ganesh, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Arundelpet Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 462/2014 U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On 18.7.2014 at 1 PM L.W.1 Gundabathuni Adilakshmi and L.W.2 Gundabathuni Malakondaiah were proceeding from 1st lane Chaitanyapuri to 1st lane Gowthami Nagar by walk, A1 and A2 who came opposite to their direction on a motor cycle and snatched the two rows gold nanthadu and two rows black beeds chain from the neck of L.W.1 Gundabathuni Adilakshmi and escaped with the booty. Basing on the report of L.W.1 Gundabathuni Audilakshmi a case in cr.No.462/14 U/s 379 IPC was registered on 18-7-2014 at 3-00 P.M by the SI of Arundelpet P.S. He took up investigation, visited the scene, prepared a rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 11.12.2014 the SI of Police, Repalle P.S arrested the accused No.1 and 2 in their crime No.161/14 U/s 379 IPC in the presence of mediators. Both the accused confessed about the commission of offence pertaining to the crimes of Repalle P.S and also the present crime of Arundelpet P.S. The SI of Repalle P.S seized the two rows gold nanthadu and 2 rows black beeds chain from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 after identifying it as stolen property in the present crime. On 15.12.2014 the CI of Arundelpet P.S filed a requisition before this court seeking P.T warrant and accordingly on 27.12.14 accused were produced before this court on execution of P.T warrant. On 29.12.14 L.w.1 Gundabathuni Adi Lakshmi successfully identified her recovered stolen property in the presence of mediators. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Arundelpet P.S. filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC was taken against accused.

2

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case record were furnished to accused u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC, for which, accused denied the charge sheet allegations. After framing of charge U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC, the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and M.Os.1 and 2 marked. PW.1- Gundabathuni Mala Kondaiah . PW.2- Gundabathuni Adilakshmi. PW.3- Tadiboina Siddaiah. PW.4- Yakanuru Ramakrishna. PW.5- Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy. PW.6- P. Krishnaiah. PW.7- M. Anand Rao. Ex.P1/P.W.1- Report. Ex.P2/P.W.4- Attested Xerox copy of Mediatornama dt.11-12-2014 at 3-00 P.M. Ex.P3/P.W.5- Property Identificationnama. Ex.P4/P.W.6- F.I.R. Ex.P5/P.W.6- Rough Sketch . M.O.1/P.W.2- 2 Rows Gold Nanuthadu. M.O.2/P.W.2- 2 Rows Black Beeds chain.

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which, accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses reported no defence. Hence, the defence is closed.

8.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether M.Os.1 and 2 belongs to P.W.2 was subjected to theft on the date of offence ?

2. Whether the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested when they were in possession of MOs.1 and 2 on the date of arrest ?

3. Whether the accused No.1 and 2 accounted for MOs.1 and 2 ?

4. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs.379 or 411 of IPC ?

9.Heard the A.P.P. and counsel for defence.

10. POINT No.1:-

The case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2014 at 1 PM when the defacto complainant/L.W.1 Gundabathuni Audilakshmi and her husband L.W.2 Gundabathuni Malakondaiah were returning from a temple, got down from the auto and proceeding from 1st lane Chaitanyapuri to their house at 1st lane Gowthami Nagar by walk, A1 and A2 who came opposite to their direction on a motor cycle and snatched the two rows gold nanthadu and two rows black beeds chain from the neck of defacto complainant/L.W.1 Gundabathuni Audilakshmi and escaped with the booty. Immediately the defacto complainant and her husband went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report

before the SI of Arundelpet P.S which was registered as the present crime on

the same day at 3 PM. The SI of Police who took up investigation, visited the scene and prepared a rough sketch. He also recorded the statements of the available witnesses. During the course of investigation on 11.12.2014 the SI of Police, Repalle P.S arrested the accused No.1 and 2 in their station crime No.161/14 U/s 379 IPC in the presence of mediators where in both the accused confessed about the commission of offence pertaining to the crimes of Repalle P.S and also in crime No.462/14 which is the present crime and the SI of Repalle P.S seized Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of accused No.1 and 2 after identifying it as stolen property in the present crime. On 27.12.2014 the accused were produced before this court on execution of P.T warrant filed by the CI of Arundelpet P.S.

3

11.Let us see whether the prosecution succeeded either in proving its contention that A1 and A2 are the persons snatched the gold Nanthadu and black beeds chain two rows from the neck of P.W.2 on the date of offence or Mos 1 and 2 which are the stolen property belongs to the defacto complainant were recovered from the possession of accused at the time of their arrest. Initially the husband of the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1. On perusal of his evidence shows on 18.7.14 at 1 PM when himself and his wife i.e., L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi after attending pooja at Venkateswara Swamy vari temple, Gorantla boarded an auto and got down from the auto at Mutyalareddy nagar and they were proceeding by walk to reach their home. When they crossed the four road junction, A1 and A2 who came on a motor cycle opposite to them and snatched the gold nanthadu and black beeds chain from the neck of L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi. They raised cries and tried to caught the accused but they fled away. On hearing the cries the passers by came there and all the persons advised them to present a report in the police station. The evidence of P.W.1 shows by the time the accused snatching the gold nanthadu from the neck of L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi, her blouse was tared. Immediately they went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report before the SI of Police who deputed the constable to enquire at the scene.

12. So the evidence of P.W.1 who is the person present with the defacto complainant, being the husband of the defacto complainant went to the P.S to present a report for the occurrence which was took place at 1 PM that when both himself and his wife were proceeding by walk A1 and A2 who came opposite to their direction and snatched the gold nanthadu and black beeds chain from the neck of L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi. This witness was thoroughly cross examined by the counsel for defence. According to him both himself and his wife signed on the report. He informed to the police about the physical features of the accused who snatched the gold chains of L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi . Counsel for defence cross examined the witness about the topography of the scene and as seen from the cross examination shows the case of defence that this witness saw the accused only before this court at the instance of police and he never stated before the police that he can identify the suspects and by informing their physical features. The counsel for defence who argued before this court that the report and 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses is completely silent regarding the physical features of the accused and they were firstly identified before this court at the instance of police. Though the report which was marked through P.W.2 and the 161 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses did not show the physical features of the accused, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 the probability to identify A1 and A2 cannot be thrown out. Evidently the place of offence and the time of offence is quite possible to the witnesses to identify the persons who snatched the gold chains from the neck of the defacto complainant. Absolutely the cross examination of P.W.1 is unshaky to disbelieve the version of the prosecution that the gold chains of L.W.1 Audi Lakshmi were subjected to theft on the date of offence and the same was witnessed by P.W.1 being the husband of the defacto complainant present at the spot.

13. Now let us see the evidence of P.W.2 who is the defacto complainant in this case. According to her when herself and her husband were returning home from the temple and they got down the auto at Mutyalareddy nagar and when they were proceeding by walk towards their house, both A1 and A2 came on a bike opposite to them and A1 who slapped her on her cheek and snatched her gold naanuthadu and black beeds chain and fled away. When she raised cries and tired to chase the accused. L.W.3 Siddaiah came there and immediately herself and her husband went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report before the police. So the evidence of P.W.2 similarly shows the way in which the offence took place on that day. As seen from her evidence shows the time of occurrence is at 1 PM which is in the after noon when herself and P.W.1 were proceeding by walk to their home, two persons came there on a motor cycle in their opposite direction and one among them slapped her and 4 snatched her gold chain and black beeds chain. Here the evidence of P.W.2 similarly shows the possibility to identify the accused on the date of offence which is at 1.00 PM in the after noon. Through P.W.2 her report was marked as Ex.P1 and the recovered gold informed by the police identified by the victim as Mos 1 and 2. MO1 is the two rows gold nanthadu and MO2 is the two rows black beeds gold chain. This witness was cross examined by the counsel for defence where in he wants to elicit the topography of the temple and their way to reach their home and about the identity of accused which was not stated by the witness to the police. According to the defence her gold ornaments were misplaced at elsewhere and she presented a false report against the accused and if really she saw the suspects she will name their physical features in Ex.P1. Here it is pertinent to say that P.W.2 is a woman aged about 61 years. As seen from the physical appearance of P.W.2 and her age one cannot be expect in her report which is within two hours after the occurrence about her identification of suspects when the occurrence took place. In general the people under the impression that presenting a report about the occurrence is enough to register the crime and it is the duty of the investigating officer to elicit material in their statements which is very much material for the purpose of investigation. When both P.Ws 1 and 2 in one voice stated before this court by identifying the accused are the persons who came to their opposite direction on a motor cycle and snatched Mos 1 and 2 from the neck of P.W.2 on the date of offence which is at 1.00 PM in the after noon, the investigating officer failed to elicit the material from the persons and not even tried to conduct the test identification parade to identify the suspects is itself enough to say the way in which the investigation done by the investigating officer in this case. But it is settled proposition of law that mere a faulty investigation is not a ground to discard the case of the prosecution and the same cannot be brushed the case of the defacto complainant who came to this court or any court of law seeking justice. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 categorically shows the way in which the occurrence took place and the accused No.1 and 2 who came opposite to their way and snatched the gold chains from the neck of P.W.2 is absolutely probable and tenable and remains unshaky during the course of cross examination. No where the counsel for defence either denied the theft or the right of P.W.2 over Mos 1 and 2.

14. Now let us see the evidence of P.W.3 who is one of the independent witness to the scene of offence. According to him on hearing the cries of P.Ws 1 and 2 he came outside from his house and saw two persons fled away from their motor cycle. He came to know about the chain snatching and P.W.1 tried to chase the motor cycle, but in vain. Subsequently P.Ws 1 and 2 went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report. He was examined by the police. This witness is a postmaster and according to the case of prosecution the occurrence took place in-front of his house. This witness was cross examined by the counsel for defence where in it was suggested to the witness that he was a planted witness and to support the witnesses he was deposing false which was denied by the witness. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, there is no such reason found to disbelieve his version. His evidence did not disclose that either he witnessed the occurrence or the identity of the accused. But the evidence of P.W.3 strengthen the case of the prosecution about the chain snatching that took place on the date of offence and two persons fled away from the scene and he came to the scene on hearing the cries of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows the case of the prosecution on that day.

15. Considering the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 in one voice shows two persons on a motor cycle came opposite direction of P.w.2 and snatched the gold nanthadu and gold black beeds chain i.e., Mos 1 and 2 from the neck of P.W.2 which resulted an injury to p.W.2 which was elicited by the defence in their cross examination remains unshaky to consider the case of the prosecution.

16. To corroborate the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.6 who is the SI of Arundelpet P.S who registered the FIR 5 within two hours on the date of occurrence on 18.7.2014. His evidence shows his investigation by way of preparing rough sketch at the scene and recording the statements of the witnesses P.Ws 1 to 3. This witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence where in the witness denied that he went to the scene and prepared a rough sketch and recorded the statements of the witnesses by way of investigation is false. So altogether the registration of the crime by way of FIR under Ex.P4 through P.W.6 corroborates the case of the prosecution that on 18.7.2014, Mos 1 and 2 belongs to P.W.2 were subjected to snatching and on that immediately a report was presented and registered as the present crime. The right of P.W.2 over Mos 1 and 2 remains unchallenged.

17. In view of the above discussion the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P1 and MOs 1 and 2 made this court to say that Mos 1 and 2 belongs to P.W.2 were subjected to snatching on the date of offence. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:

18. The case of the prosecution in further is that after registration of FIR during the course of investigation the SI of Repalle P.S arrested A1 and A2 on 11.2.2014 at 3 PM near the bus stand at Repalle in Cr.No.161/14 of Repalle P.S. When the accused No.1 and 2 were interrogated in the presence of mediators, they confessed about the commission of offence relating to Repalle P.S and also Arundelpet P.S which is the present crime No.461/14. The SI of Repalle P.S seized Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of accused after identifying them as stolen properties in this crime and got drafted a mediators report.

19. To prove the contention of the prosecution about the arrest of A1 and A2 when they were in possession of Mos 1 and 2 which is the stolen property in this case, prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.4 who is the VRO of Repalle. According to him on 11.2.2014 at 3 PM when he was in his office he was called by the police to act as a mediator. On that he went to the P.S and the police took him to APSRTC bus stand at Repalle. Himself and another mediator L.W.5 Ravi Sriramulu accompanied the SI of Repalle P.S to the bus stand and there the police caught A1 and A2 and they were interrogated in the presence of L.W.5 R. Sri Ramulu and himself and they confessed about the commission of offence which were reduced into writing under the cover of Ex.P2 original. The evidence of P.W.4 shows himself and L.W.5 Ravi Sriramulu attested Ex.P2 original and police seized the case property in this crime from the possession of A1 and A2. This witness was thoroughly cross examined by the counsel for defence. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4 the prosecution to prove its contention marked Ex.P2 which is the attested xerox copy of the mediators report dt: 11.2.2014 at 3 PM which shows the mediators report when the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and on their interrogation they confessed about the commission of offences within the jurisdiction of Repalle and Arundelpet, Guntur and the Seizure of Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of accused after identifying it as stolen property in this case. This witness was throughly cross examined by the counsel for defence. No material was elicited to discard the evidence of P.W.4. Only a formal suggestion was put to the witness that he being a stock mediator of police, signed in the P.S and nothing was took place in his presence which was denied by the witness. Evidently P.W.4 being a VRO of Repalle certainly ought to have act as mediator in criminal cases at the request of police. Mere participation of P.W.4 at the time of arrest and seizure at the request of police is not at all a ground to consider the case of the defence that P.w.4 is a stock mediator as such his evidnece is untenable is absolutely improbable. The cross examination of P.w.4 did not shows any material to disbelieve the version of P.W.4 that he is only a stock mediator and his evidence could not be believable to consider the case of the prosecution. Absolutely there is no defence on behalf of accused to explain how the accused are in possession of Mos 1 and 2 which is the stolen property in Cr.No.462/14. As per the provision U/s 114 of Indian Evident Act, the 6 burden is on the accused to explain the account of Mos 1 and 2 when the said stolen property was found in their possession. The evidence of P.W.4 was fully corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7 who is the SI of Repalle P.S who collected the mediators to the place of arrest i.e., RTC Bus stand at Repalle and arrested A1 and A2 and interrogated the accused in the presence of mediators. The evidence of P.W.7 is fully corroborated with the evidence of P.w.1 not only to consider the arrest of accused but also their interrogation and seizure of Mos 1 and 2 from their possession. The cross examination of P.w.7 is also formal to disbelieve the version of prosecution about the arrest of A1 and A2 when they were in possession of Mos 1 and 2.

20. In view of the above discussion as the prosecution adduced the evidence to prove its contention in further that Mos 1 and 2 which is the stolen property belongs to P.W.2 were found in possession of A1 and A2 on the date of their arrest. Accordingly this point is also answered in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.3:

21. In view of the findings in points No.1 and 2, evidently theft of Mos 1 and 2 belongs to P.w.2 were took place on the date of offence. Basing on the report of P.W.2 the present crime was registered and investigated by the SI of Arundelpet P.S and during the course of investigation both the accused No.1 and 2 were arrested by the SI of Repalle P.S on 11.12.2014 at 3 PM along with Mos 1 and 2. So evidently the accused were arrested when they were in possession of Mos 1 and 2. Now the burden shifts on the accused to explain the account of Mos 1 and 2. But there is no defence on behalf of accused to explain the account of Mos 1 and 2. No where the counsel for defence in the cross examination of any one of the prosecution witnesses denied about the theft or right of P.Ws 1 and 2 over Mos 1 and 2. IN absence of any evidence either oral or documentary on behalf of defence to explain the account of Mos 1 and 2 this point is also answered in favour of prosecution.

Point No.4:

22. In view of the findings in point Nos.1 to 3, the evidence adduced by the prosecution cogently shows the chain snatching i.e., Mos 1 and 2 which are the gold nanthadu and gold black beeds chain belongs to P.W.2 were subjected to chain stanching on the date of offence for which a report was registered and subsequently the police recovered Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of accused on the date of their arrest and the accused failed to explain the account of Mos 1 and 2 by way of raising any defence. Here the contention of the prosecution is that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 shows that they identified A1 and A2 are the persons who snatched Mos 1 and 2 from the neck of P.W.2. The counsel for defence who argued only on the aspect that their identity was not established by the prosecution by way of conducting TIP. As already discussed that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 remains unshaky and no where shows any improbability to disbelieve their version that they saw A1 and A2 on the date of offence. However if it is presumed for argument sake that P.Ws 1 and 2 only on first occasion identified A1 and A2 before this court by giving a benefit of doubt to the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 what about the evidence of P.W.4 coupled with Ex.P2 shows the arrest of A1 and A2 and seizure of Mos 1 and 2 to consider the provision U/s 411 IPC. Evidently there is a theft on the date of offence. Evidently Mos 1 and 2 are the snatched property belongs to P.W.2. Evidently Mos 1 and 2 which are the stolen property found in the possession of accused No.1 and 2. Evidently there is no explanation from the accused about the account of Mos 1 and 2 and there by the further contention of the prosecution about the arrest of accused when they were in possession of stolen property U/s 411 IPC remains unchallenged. Even if it is otherwise to consider the offence U/s 379 IPC not believing the version of P.Ws 1 and 2, the remaining evidence of the prosecution categorically shows its case in further that A1 and A2 were found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 IPC.

7

Absolutely there is no dispute on it. Considering the same point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution

23.After considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the accused cannot be given benefit of either 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of probation of offenders Act as they involved in number of property offence and the court intends to impose punishment on the accused. Hence, I found the accused No.1 and 2 are guilty for the offence punishable U/s.411 of IPC. Accordingly, point is answered partly in favour of the prosecution and partly against the prosecution.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

24.Heard the Accused No.1 regarding the quantum of sentence. He represented that

Sd/- Marri Ramu

Signature of Accused No.1.

25.Heard the Accused No.2 regarding the quantum of sentence. He represented that

Sd/- T. Ganesh Babu

Signature of Accused No.2.

The Facts and the circumstances of the case and in view of the representation by the Accused this court declined to lessen the sentence.

26.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 411 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and also sentenced to pay fine of 500/- each. In case of default, Accused No.1 and 2 has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month each. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused were informed about their right of appeal on this Judgment. M.Os.1 and 2 which were already given to P.W.2 towards interim custody stands good after appeal time is over.

Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.379 IPC. Accordingly, Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s 379 IPC.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of May, 2015.

8

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1- Gundabathuni Mala Kondaiah-None- PW.2- Gundabathuni Adilakshmi PW.3- Tadiboina Siddaiah PW.4- Yakanuru Ramakrishna PW.5- Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy PW.6- P. Krishnaiah PW.7- M. Anand Rao

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/P.W.1- Report Ex.P2/P.W.4- Attested Xerox copy of Mediatornama dt.11-12-2014 at 3-00 P.M. Ex.P3/P.W.5- Property Identificationnama Ex.P4/P.W.6- F.I.R. Ex.P5/P.W.6- Rough Sketch

For Defence: -NIL- M.Os. Marked M.O.1/P.W.2- 2 Rows Gold Nanuthadu M.O.2/P.W.2- 2 Rows Black Beeds chain

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. A.J.C.J.,

// True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C. No.100/2015 DATES OF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 18-7-14 21-1-14 21-1-15 --- 29-1-15 9- 3-15 19-5-15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 21-1-14, and copies furnished to accused on 21-1-15, and on 27-1-15 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined on 29-1-2015, Prosecutions side evidence closed on 9-3-2015 after examining P.w.7. Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is 12-3-2015. Heard arguments on 18.5.2015 & Judgment pronounced on 19-5-2015. Hence the delay. Between:

State: Inspector of Police, Arundelpet P.S. ...Complainant

Versus

1. Marri Ramu S/o Sambaiah, 22 yrs, C/ Mudirajulu, Devapuram, 5th lane, beside NTR stadium, Guntur town.

2. Tadisetty Ganesh Babu S/o Venkatanarasaiah, 23 yrs, C/ Uppara, D.No.7-6- 355/2, 1st lane, Sanjeevanagar, Guntur town.

... Accused.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nature of Offence :- U/s.379 or 411 of IPC.

Plea of accused :- Not Guilty.

Finding:- Found Guilty U/s.411 IPC. Found Not Guilty U/s.379 IPC.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

Accused No.1 and 2 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 411 of IPC. Accordingly, they are convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each and also sentenced to pay fine of 500/- each. In case of default, Accused No.1 and 2 has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month each. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused were informed about their right of appeal on this Judgment. M.Os.1 and 2 which were already given to P.W.2 towards interim custody stands good after appeal time is over Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.379 IPC. Accordingly, Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s 379 IPC.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

10 // True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl. Rules of Practice)

On 19-5-2015 I received free copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.

422/2014 Dt.19-5-2015 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Guntur.

Guntur, Signature of the Accused.

Dt.19-5-2015 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl. Rules of Practice)

On 19-5-2015 I received free copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.

100/2015 Dt.19-5-2015 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Guntur.

Guntur, Signature of the Accused.

Dt.19-5-2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl. Rules of Practice) 12

On 19-5-2015 I received free copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.

100/2015 Dt.19-5-2015 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Guntur.

Guntur, Signature of the Accused.

Dt.19-5-2015

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present :: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi., B.Sc., B.L., V. Additional Junior Civil Judge On Tuesday, nineteenth (19th) day of May two thousand fifteen.

C.C. No. 422/2014

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Medikonduru P.S. ...Complainant

Versus

Kopuri Yacobu S/o Yesobu, 26 yrs, Mala, Gullapalli village, Nakarikal Mandal, presently working as driver in Kallam company

... Accused.

This case is coming on 18-5-2015 before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Sri Kancharla Babu, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following:

JUDGMENT

The Station House Officer, Medikonduru Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 237/2013 U/Secs.323 and 354 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

On the intervening night of 14/15.12.13 at 2.30 AM the accused resident of Gullapalli village, Nakarikal Mandal working as driver in Kallam Agro Company went to the house of L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai and with an evil intention he asked for Rs.500/- change. L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai replied that there was no change. Later L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai was proceeding to the cattle yard to provide feed to the cattle, the accused with an evil intention went to her, dragged her to some distance and he made her fell down and bitten her on her right cheek. On hearing her cries L.W.2 Marturi Rangaiah rushed to the spot and on seeing the same accused fled away. L.W.2 Marturi Rangaiah informed the same to L.W.5 Guntupalli Sankar who is their son in law who shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur. On 16.12.13 at 2 PM basing on the report of L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai SI of Medikonduru P.S registered the present crime and investigated the matter. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also prepared a rough sketch at the scene. The accused was arrested on 18.12.13 by the SI of Medikonduru P.S and forwarded for remand. After completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Medikonduru P.S. filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/Secs.323 and 354 of IPC was taken against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case record were furnished to accused u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Secs.323 and 354 of IPC, for which, accused denied the charge sheet allegations. After framing of charge U/Secs.323 and 354 of IPC, the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked. PW.1- Marturi Chinnammai. PW.2- Marturi Rangaiah. PW.3- Guntupalli Sankar. PW.4- Guntupalli Aruna Kumari. PW.5- L. Anuradha. Ex.P1/P.W.1- Report. Ex.P2/P.W.5- F.I.R. Ex.P3/P.W.5- Rough Sketch. Ex.P4/P.W.5- Wound certificate .

7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses reported no defence. Hence, the defence is closed.

8.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Secs.323 and 354 of IPC ?

9. Heard the A.P.P. and counsel for defence filed his written arguments.

10.Learned APP argued that the evidence of P.w.1 is quite trust worthy to believe the version of the prosecution. She is aged more than 65 years and the accused with an evil intention without considering her age tried to outrage her modesty on that night resulted an injury to the right cheek of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case is itself enough to consider the charge against the accused.

11.On the other hand counsel for defence who filed his written arguments contended that a false case was foisted intentionally against the accused in order to harass him. His argument further shows there is unexplained delay in presenting the report which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Counsel for defence who filed his written arguments reiterated the evidence of prosecution witnesses and concluded that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and according to the case of accused a false case was cooked up against the accused who is innocent and in view of money disputes with reference to the buddy shop of the defacto complainant with the accused.

POINT No.1:-

12.The case of the prosecution is that On the intervening night of 14/15.12.13 at 2.30 AM when the accused went to the buddy shop of the defacto complainant L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai handed over a 500/- note and asked for change. The defacto complainant L.W.1 Marturi Chinnammai who is aged more than 65 years residing in the said house along with her old aged husband maintaining a buddy shop in her house replied the accused that there was no change. Within 15 or 20 minutes when the victim went outside to provide grass to her cattle, the accused who stood by the side of a wall with an evil intention went to her, hold the hand of the victim and dragged her to some distance and he made her to fell on the ground. The accused bitten her on her right cheek resulted a bleeding injury. Then she raised cries and on hearing her cries, the husband of the victim L.W.2 Marturi Rangaiah who was walking only through the crutches came to her and on seeing her husband the accused fled away. Immediately L.W.2 Marturi Rangaiah informed the same to his son in law L.W.5 Guntupalli Sankar who shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur where the injured was treated for her injury and later they went to Medikonduru P.S and presented a report before the SI of Medikonduru P.S which was registered as the present crime.

13. The prosecution to prove its contention that the accused with a criminal intention tried to outrage the modesty of a woman who is more than 65 years and he failed to notice even the age of the victim as he being 25 years acted inhumanly against the victim which resulted an injury to her right cheek, let us see whether the prosecution succeeded in proving its contention. Before adverting to the point as 3 seen from the place of offence and time of offence one cannot expect any eye witness to the occurrence. Evidently the evidence of the victim alone before this court which has to be scrutinized carefully to consider the case of the prosecution.

14. The first witness is none other than the defacto complainant and victim in this case aged 65 years. The evidence of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case shows the occurrence about one year back at 1 mid night. On that day accused who came to their house to purchase beedies gave Rs.500/-. She informed to him that there was no change and on that accused left that place. Within 15 minutes when she went out side to provide grass to the cattle, accused who hold her hand and dragged her up to some distance and there he bitten her right cheek resulted bleeding injury. He started pressing her neck and throat and when she raised cries on hearing the same her husband rushed to the spot. ON seeing the arrival of her husband by leaving the victim the accused fled away. Immediately the matter was informed to her son in law who came there and shifted her to GGH, Guntur and after the treatment she presented a report under Ex.P1. Here the evidence of P.W.1 is very precise to show the occurrence on that night at 1 mid night. Accused who came to their house asked for beedies and gave Rs.500/- and there after he left that place. When the victim left that place the accused who hold her hand, also bitten her right cheek shows his criminal intention towards p.W.1 which is nothing but an offence with an intent to insult the modesty of a woman. Here the specific importance to the evidence of P.W.1 being a senior citizen having 65 years age who shown the scar on her right cheek due to the occurrence on that night. This witness was cross examined by the counsel for defence where in the counsel for defence elicited that her husband whose leg was fractured four months prior to the date of occurrence unable to walk without the support of crutches. Counsel for defence who filed written arguments with a contention that the evidence of P.W.1 is untenable to believe her version that p.W.2 rushed to the spot, as per her admission when his leg was fractured. But here the presence of husband of the victim at the spot is not crucial to consider the case of the prosecution. Evidently one cannot expect any eye witness at 1 mid night at the place of offence when the defacto complainant and her husband are alone residing in a house which is the outskirts of the village. It is not the case of the defence or prosecution that the house of P.Ws 1 and 2 are surrounded with residential houses. Here the evidence of P.W.1 shows the injury which is bleeding towards her right cheek. Let us see whether the evidence of P.W.1 supported with any medical evidence. Though the prosecution cited L.W.7 Dr. K. Vijay Kumar who treated the injured on that night subsequently given up the said witness with a report that his where abouts are not known. However the wound certificate was marked through the investigating officer as Ex.P4. On perusal of the wound certificate shows the laceration 3*3*1 CM on right cheek noticed by the medical officer when he saw the injured at 6.38 A.M on 15.12.13 supports the case of the prosecution about the treatment taken by P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence. Mere failure to produce the medical officer who examined the injured is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the injury found on the wound certificate is quite corroborating with the evidence of prosecution what else is required to believe her version that she sustained injury on her right cheek in the hands of accused on that night. Here the evidence of P.W.1 particularly in her chief examination did not show any exaggeration or embroidery to show the arguments submitted by the counsel for defence though no where denied the acquaintance of accused with P.W.1 being a lorry driver working in Kallam company coming to the Buddy shop of victim to purchase Beedies. The arguments of APP more clearly shows the case of the prosecution about the acquaintance of P.W.1 with accused being a customer of P.W.1. The counsel for defence peculiarly raised a defence that due to money disputes in between P.W.1 and accused a false case was foisted against the accused which is not at all the case of the defence at any point of time in any one of the prosecution witnesses tendered for cross examination. Absolutely the cross examination of P.W.1 is not worthy of credence even to believe the case of the defence that a man aged 22 years tried to outrage the 4 modesty of a woman aged 65 years and a false report was presented against the accused for no reason. No where the counsel for defence suggested to P.W.1 to present a false report against the accused that too for an offence which is an intention to insult the modesty of a woman aged about 65 years which is equal to the age of the mother of the accused or grand mother. This court did not find any improbability to believe the version of P.W.1 and not find any reason to disbelieve her version that she is deposing false against a person who came to purchase Beedies from her shop due to petty disputes relating to money and lodged a report at 1 mid night that the accused tired to outrage her modesty resulted a bleeding injury on her right cheek. Absolutely the arguments filed by the counsel for defence by way of written arguments is not only a point for consideration but it is absolutely improbable to believe the version of defence which cannot be found at any point of time. As seen from the case of the prosecution P.W.1 is the only person found at the spot when the occurrence took place. Similarly P.,W.1 no where stated about the presence of any person who witnessed the occurrence. Her evidence lastly shows on hearing her cries her husband P.W.2 who came to the spot and on seeing him the accused fled away. That does not mean p.w.2 witnessed the occurrence. However the evidence of P.w.1 coupled with Ex.P1 is absolutely unshaky to believe the version of the prosecution that accused is aged 26 years working as a lorry driver went to the house of the victim on that mid night to purchase Beedies and waited for an opportunity with a criminal intention and tried to commit an offence against P.W.1 who is aged 65 years shows his intention which is absolutely impermissible and inhuman to consider the defence. The result of the offence shows the accused with an intent to outrage the modesty of P.W.1 ended with simple injury on her right cheek.

15. To corroborate the evidence of prosecution it further examined P.W.2 who is the husband of the victim and evidently as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 he was present inside the house and unable to move from bed due to his leg fracture. But on hearing the cries of P.W.1 he came outside along with crutches which was supported in the chief examination of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that he stated the occurrence after coming to know through P.W.1. However his evidence shows the occurrence on that night and he called P.W.3 on phone who came to the spot and shifted P.W.1 to the hospital.

16. P.W.3 is another prosecution witness who is the son in law of P.W.1. His evidence shows coming to know about the occurrence on phone he rushed to the spot and shifted P.W.1 to GGH, Guntur. Before that when he came to know about the occurrence through P.W.1 immediately went to Medikonduru P.S and brought the constables, searched for accused but they could not trace out the accused and after the third day to the date of occurrence he along with his friends and owner of the lorry went to Gullapalli village and brought the accused. His evidence shows the owner of the lorry confirmed the identity of the accused. This witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence where in he wants to elicit the omissions in the evidence of P.W.3 about the identity of the accused and he was caught by the police at Gullapalli village which was not stated by him before the police. Here the SI of Medikonduru P.S who registered the crime and investigated the case altogether quite contrary to her investigation shown the arrest of accused at Perecherla on 18.12.13. But considering the evidence of P.W.3 who is the son in law of the victim stated about their trace out of the accused at Gullapalli village and the constables who accompanied him to Gullapalli village brought the accused to the police station shows the real arrest of accused at Gullapalli village and the reason best known to the investigating officer it was formally shown at Perecherla., If at all the same had not happened how the same could be found in the evidence of P.W.3 which is also worthy of credence. P.W.3 is the person who rushed to the spot on hearing the occurrence and shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur and attended her treatment. Here the evidence of P.w.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 who is the wife of P.W.3 similarly stated that P.W.3 alone shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur and after the treatment a report was presented before Medikonduru P.S. This 5 witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence who failed to elicit any material in the cross examination.

17. P.W.4 is none other than the daughter of the victim who similarly stated about the occurrence and their knowing about the scene on that mid night and went to the house of her mother and her husband shifted the injured to GGH, Guntur shows that they all saw the injured with bleeding injury on her right cheek. Here the evidence of P.Ws 2 to 4 before this court through the prosecution corroborates and supports the evidence of P.W.1 that they saw P.w.1 with an injury on her right cheek. Here the counsel for defence who failed to raise any defence on behalf of the accused put a formal suggestion to P.W.4 in her cross examination that due to fell on a heap of Mirchi dried crop plants P.W.1 sustained injury further supports that the defence also did not deny the injury to P.W.1 on that night. As already discussed above about the argument of counsel for defence that due to petty disputes relating to money a false case was foisted against the accused which was altogether unbelievable and not considerable and the evidence of the investigating officer which shows the treatment of P.W.1 before the medical officer which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1 about her injury on her right cheek and the acquaintance of P.W.1 with accused as admitted by the counsel for defence are all shows the case of the prosecution. Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 who is the only material witness in this case when scrutinized carefully this court do not find any infirmities to disbelieve her version that a false case was foisted against the accused for no reason. The evidence of P.W.1 shows the way in which the accused tried to outrage her modesty on that night invariably shows his intention towards the victim though she is the age of his mother or grandmother and the evidence of P.W.1 about her injury which is of simple in nature are all shows that the prosecution through P.W.1 coupled with the wound certificate made out a case in favour of it by adducing the evidence that the accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of P.w.1 assaulted her and there by resulted a simple injury to the victim.

18. Sec.354 IPC which reads as follows :-

Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty :-

Whoever assaults or causes criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage, her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term. which shall not be less tan one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

On perusal of the definition of Sec.354 IPC which shows the assault against a woman who is P.w.1 in this case and the accused with an intent to outrage her modesty committed the occurrence which is punishable U/s 354 IPC. Here the evidence of P.W.1 which shows her injury under Ex.P1 which is simple in nature is also shows accusation punishable U/s 323 IPC. The evidence of P.W.1 alone

before this court is sufficient to believe the version of the prosecution.

19. The observation by their lordships of Hon'ble supreme court of India in :-

State of Uttara pradesh VS Anil Singh

Their lordships while discussing the judgment of Hon'ble High court referred that “ this court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either want of corroboration by independent witnesses or for some false hood stated or embroidery added by the witnesses. In some cases the entire prosecution case is doubt for not examining the witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The 6 public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the court. It is therefore not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all the witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses. If the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable.

Their lordships further experienced that it is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or false hood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other both are public duties which the judge has to perform.

While giving the above observation their lordship believed the version of P.w.1 in the above case with a conclusion that the same is worthy of credence. Now coming to the case on hand the evidence of P.W.1 is without any infirmities and worthy of credence and this court believing the version of P.W.1 to consider the case against the accused.

20. In view of the above discussion the evidence of P.W.1 which is unshaky to consider the case of the prosecution made out a case in favour of the prosecution and there by proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

21. After considering the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the accused cannot be given benefit of either 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of probation of offenders Act as the accused with an intend to insult the modesty of a woman who is aged 65 years which is equal to the age of his grand mother and the court intends to impose punishment on the accused. Hence, I found the accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s.354 and 323 of IPC. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the prosecution

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

18.Heard the Accused regarding the quantum of sentence. He represented that

Sd/- K. Yacobu

Signature of Accused .

The Facts and the circumstances of the case and in view of the representation by the Accused this court declined to lessen the sentence.

19. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 354 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of 1000/-. In case of default, Accused has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

7

Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 323 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month and also sentenced to pay fine of 500/-. In case of default, Accused has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 days.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused was informed about his right of appeal on this Judgment.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1- Marturi Chinnammai-None- PW.2- Marturi Rangaiah PW.3- Guntupalli Sankar PW.4- Guntupalli Aruna Kumari PW.5- L. Anuradha

Documents Marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1/P.W.1- Report Ex.P2/P.W.5- F.I.R. Ex.P3/P.W.5- Rough Sketch Ex.P4/P.W.5- Wound certificate

For Defence: -NIL- M.Os. Marked NIL

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. A.J.C.J.,

// True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur 8

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C. No.422/2014 DATES OF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trial or order 14/15.12.13 22-8-14 15-9-14 --- 5-1-15 29- 4-15 19-5-15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 22-8-14, and copies furnished to accused on 15-9-14, and on 8-10-14 accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined on 5-1-2015, Prosecutions side evidence closed on 29-4-2015 after examining P.w.5. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is 13-5-2015. Heard arguments on 18.5.2015 & Judgment

pronounced on 19-5-2015. Hence the delay.

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Medikonduru P.S. ...Complainant

Versus

Kopuri Yacobu S/o Yesobu, 26 yrs, Mala, Gullapalli village, Nakarikal Mandal, presently working as driver in Kallam company

... Accused.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nature of Offence :- U/s.354 and 323 of IPC.

Plea of accused :- Not Guilty.

Finding:- Found Guilty U/s.354 and 323 IPC.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 354 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of 1000/-. In case of default, Accused has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 month. Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 323 of IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. by sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month and also sentenced to pay fine of 500/-. In case of default, Accused has to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off U/s. 428 Cr.P.C. The accused was informed about his right of appeal on this Judgment.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

9 // True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(Under Section 363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Crl. Rules of Practice)

On 22-3-2013 I received free copy of Calender and Judgment in C.C.

580/2012 Dt.22-3-2013 on the file of V Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Guntur.

Guntur, Signature of the Accused.

Dt.22-3-2013

4/5/20151CC No.308/13

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUNTUR

Present:: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi., B.Sc., B.L., V Additional Junior Civil Judge On Monday, fourth (4th) day of May two thousand fifteen.

C.C. No. 308/2013

Between:

State: Station House Officer, Women P.S., Guntur Urban...Complainant

Versus

Viswanadhampalli Subbarao S/o Venkateswarlu, 35 yrs, Besta, Gadavarru vilalge

Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.... Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Sri D. Siluva Raju, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Women Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.515/12 U/sec.498-A of IPC.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:-

The marriage of L.W.1 Viswanadhampalli Lakshmi with accused was performed about 14 years ago. L.W.2 Avanigadda Devi mother of the defacto complainant gave cash of Rs.22,000/- as dowry to the accused and also gave one pair of ear studs and one pair of Anklets to her daughter. During their wed lock they blessed with two children. Since 3 years prior to the date of report accused addicted to bad vices and started coming home in a drunken state and subjected L.W.1 Viswanadhampalli Lakshmi to cruelty with a demand to bring additional amount from her mother. Two years back he beat her and driven her out from her marital home. L.W.3 Chinta Sivaiah and L.W.4 Nadakuduru Basava Punnaiah set rite the accused and sent L.W.1 Viswanadhampalli Lakshmi to join him. However there was no change in the attitude of the accused who similarly continued his harassment for money. Basing on the report of L.W.1 Viswanadhampalli Lakshmi Head constable of Arundelpet P.S registered the present crime on 11.12.12 at 5 PM and forwarded the FIR to women P.S for investigation. On 12.12.12 at 2.15 PM the CI of Women P.S who received the FIR, took up investigation in this case. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared a rough sketch at the scene. On 7.1.13 he arrested the accused at women P.S and forwarded for remand. On completion of the investigation the CI of Women P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A of IPC was taken against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case record were furnished to accused U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC, for which, accused denied the accusation put to him as alleged in the charge sheet. After framing of charge U/Sec.498-A of IPC, the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4/5/20152CC No.308/13

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses reported no defence. Hence, the defence is closed.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC ?

9.Heard the A.P.P. and counsel for defence.

POINT:-

10. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the defacto complainant (L.W.1) Viswanadhampalli Lakshmi with accused was performed about 14 years ago. During their wed lock they blessed with a boy and girl. The mother of the defacto complainant gave cash of Rs.22,000/- as dowry to the accused. She also presented gold ear studs and silver anklets to her daughter. Since three years prior to the date of this report accused addicted to drinking and started harassing the defacto complainant to bring amount from her mother. Two years back when the victim was driven out from her marital home elders settled their matrimonial life. However there was no change in the attitude of accused who similarly harassed her and driven her out from her marital life. On that she presented a report on 11.12.12 which was registered as the present crime.

11. To prove the contention of the prosecution that the accused harassed the defacto complainant and subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC it examined P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant who presented the report as P.W.1.

12. The defacto complainant who is examined as P.W.1 deposed in her evidence about her marriage with accused at about 16 years ago at Tenali in accordance with Hindu Caste and custom. Her parents who gave Rs.22,000/- as dowry to the accused also presented gold ear studs, silver anklets to the accused. After the marriage she joined the accused at Godavarru along with her mother in law and her sister in laws and her marital life went normal for a period of 8 years. There after the accused started beating her in a drunken state and demanded her to bring amount from her parents house. On number of occasions she brought amount from her parents to meet the demand of accused and in total she brought Rs.70,000/- from her mother. The evidence of P.W.1 shows the accused who intensified the harassment to bring more and more amount from her mother and finally her mother expressed her inability. On three occasions the elders of accused came to her parents house and took her back to join the accused. However there was no change in the attitude of accused and finally two years back she unable to bear the harassment returned to her parents house. Five or six months prior to her report when her mother fell ill accused did not allow her to see her mother and as and when she asked the accused to see her mother he used to beat her indiscriminately. Unable to bear the harassment caused by the accused, finally she went to Arundelpet P.S and presented a report.

13. Here the evidence of P.W.1 shows the harassment caused by the accused in a drunken state to bring amount from her mother for which her mother adjusted Rs.70,000/- on different occasions. But the evidence of P.W.1 lastly concluded that five or six months prior to the report when her mother fell ill and the accused did not send her to see her mother and started beating her indiscriminately as and 4/5/20153CC No.308/13 when she asked to go to see her mother. Unable to bear the harassment finally she left her matrimonial life and presented a report before the police.

14. The evidence of P.W.1 is totally silent with reference to any date or year or the specific particulars about the way in which the accused harassed her to meet his demand.

15. Let us see the report which was marked through the victim as Ex.P1. The contents of Ex.P1 shows her marriage with accused at about 12 years ago and she left her marital home on 11.12.12 when the accused did not allow the victim to see her mother who was suffering from ill health. She left her marital home and presented the report on the very same day. The contents of Ex.P1 further shows the accused since three years prior to the date of report completely neglected the house maintenance and started beating the victim. He used to consume liquor and unable to see the condition of the victim her mother started adjusting the amounts. However there is no change in the attitude of accused and about two years back accused who driven her out and she started living with her mother and accused along with elders came to her parents house and took her back to her matrimonial life. Since then the accused started harassing her to bring her daughter who was staying with her mother with a view to attend coolie work and started beating her to meet the said demand. The report under Ex.P1 lastly shows when the accused did not allow P.W.1 to attend her mother, unable to bear the harassment she left her marital home. So the contents of Ex.P1 no where shows the demand of accused either for any amount or for any additional dowry as stated by her in her chief examination. Not only that the contents of Ex.p1 completely absent about the quantum of amount adjusted by her mother to meet the demand of accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is not at all found in her report under Ex.P1. Though the contents shows accused in a drunken state beat the victim indiscriminately, failed to provide the house maintenance and did not allow her even to see her mother who was ill made her to present the report on 11.12.12. The contents of Ex.p1 is also absent about the date or year when the accused sent her to her parents house two years prior to the date of report made the elders came to her house and took her back to join the accused.

16. Let us see the cross examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted that her daughter was brought up in her mothers house from her child hood. She also admitted that Ex.p1 or her 161 Cr.P.C statement before the police is silent about the amount of Rs.70,000/- adjusted by her mother to meet the demand of accused on number of occasions. Her evidence further shows the admission that she received notice from Tenali in divorce O.P136/14 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's court, Tenali and she added that she did not appear before the said court unable to spent amount. The case of the defence was suggested to the witness that P.W.1 voluntarily left the accused as she got illicit intimacy with Malabanti Sivaiah and falsely presented a report to threaten the accused which was denied by the witness. The cross examination of P.W.1 further shows the elders who settled the matter took her to Godavarru to join the accused and the names of the elders suggested to the witness are the elders of accused besides his family members. So the admission of P.W.1 in her cross examination shows the material omission with reference to the quantum of amount adjusted by the mother of P.W.1 to accused to meet his demand which is material to consider the case of the prosecution. As already discussed above that the report under Ex.P1 is totally silent about the demand of the accused either for any amount or for any additional dowry as deposed by P.W.1. Similarly on perusal of her 161 Cr.P.C statement is also silent regarding the demand of accused by way of additional dowry. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the case of the defence the elders of accused who settled the dispute in between the parties and took P.w.1 back to join the accused I..e, two years prior to the date of report. The evidence of P.W.1 and her report did not show the subsequent incident to the said settlement and the last incident we could find in the evidence of P.W.1 when the accused did not allow her 4/5/20154CC No.308/13 to see her mother who fell ill and as per Ex.P1 who demanded her to bring her daughter to attend coolie work made her to left her marital home and presented the report. So absolutely the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.p1 did not show any material under the provisions of Sec.498-A IPC.

17. Now let us see the other evidence on behalf of prosecution is P.W.2, who is the mother of the victim P.W.1. Her evidence shows the presentation of cash of Rs.22,000/- as dowry to the accused when the marriage of P.W.1 with accused was performed in the year 1998 at Tenali. According to her the matrimonial life went normal for a period of 12 years and the disputes arose when the sister of accused who is a widow entered into the house of accused. Accused who started consuming liquor beating P.W.1 indiscriminately to bring amount from P.w.2 and nearly Rs.70 to 80 thousand she adjusted to the accused towards the investment of his agricultural work. Here the evidence of P.W.2 is crucial to consider the case of the prosecution. In one way the evidence of P.W.1 shows the accused addicted to drinking, failed to provide house maintenance demanded amount to meet his vices not even left the coolie amount of P.W.1 for his drinking. But the mother of P.W.1 arranged the alleged amount of Rs.70,000/- added in her chief examination that she adjusted Rs.70 to 80 thousand towards investment for agricultural work to the accused which shows their own contention that he has no avocation and failed to attend any work and used to take the coolie amount of P.W.1 for his vices was ruled out. P.w.2 deposed in her evidence that on one occasion Accused beat P.w.1 indiscriminately and she returned to their home and informed the same to her. The elders of accused came to her house to settle the dispute and before the elders the accused promised to attend P.W.1 property and took her with him shows that the demand for additional amount or additional dowry by the accused could not be found in the evidence of P.W.2 also. The evidence of P.W.2 similarly shows the harassment caused by the accused by beating the victim in a drunken state. Though she added that she adjusted Rs.70 to 80 thousand the same is not for his vices and the same is for his cultivation investment which is not the evidence of P.W.1. This witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence who tried to elicit about the quantum of amount adjusted by the witness to the accused towards his demand not found in her 161 Cr.P.C statement which was denied by the witness. As already discussed that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 though shows the beating of accused in a drunken state made the mother of the victim to adjust Rs.70 thousand the same is totally absent in Ex.P1 so also in her statement

before the police. The evidence of P.W.2 similarly shows the elders of the accused

who approached P.W.2 and take back P.W.1 to join the accused and accused who promised to attend P.W.1 property unable to name the persons who acted as elders. But as seen from the evidence of P.w.1 the elders are on behalf of the accused. However the case of the defence was similarly suggested to P.W.2 who also denied the same. Here the evidence of P.W.2 did not show about her witnessing any occurrence when the accused beat P.W.1 indiscriminately.

18. Now coming to the third witness on behalf of prosecution is P.W.3 who is the maternal uncle of P.W.1. According to him the matrimonial life of P.W.1 went normal for a period of 14 years and two years prior to his evidence disputes arose in between their marital life. P.W.1 who returned to her mother's house as accused beat her and did not provide house maintenance. On two occasions when she came to her parents house as accused demanded amount and driven her out by beating her, then they pacified the matter and sent P.W.1 to join the accused. P.W.1 who stayed there for four months again returned to her parents house as accused continued similar harassment. Here the evidence of P.W.3 which shows the demand of accused and to meet his demand he driven her our form her marital home which was not found in the evidence of P.W.2 who is the mother of the victim. The evidence of P.W.3 with reference to the last incident shows the accused who beat P.W.1 and driven her out from her marital home is also not found in the evidence of P.W.1. According to P.W.1 coupled with her report shows she left her marital home lastly when the accused did not allow her to see her 4/5/20155CC No.308/13 mother who fell ill. But quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 who acted as an elder stated before this court that lastly she was driven out from her marital home with a demand to bring amount from her parents which is not the case of the prosecution. The name of P.W.3 is also not found in the evidence of P.W.1 that he acted as an elder to settle her matrimonial life. According to the evidence of P.w.1 the elders of accused and the family members of accused came to their house and took her back to join the accused to settle the matter. This witness was also cross examined by the counsel for defence on the similar lines by suggesting the defence which was denied by the witness. There is no evidence through P.W.3 as stated by P.Ws 1 and 2 as elders of accused came to her house and take her back to the house of accused to join the accused. Though his chief examination initially shows the disputes when accused in a drunken state beat her and failed to provide maintenance the same was improved by subsequently adding that he driven her out from her marital home and demanding amount which is not the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2. So the evidence of P.W.3 is also not trust worthy to believe the version of the prosecution that accused severely harassed P.W.,1 within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC.

19. The fourth witness on behalf of prosecution is the neighbour of P.W.1. According to her P.W.1 came to her parents house and informed that accused was beating her with a demand to bring additional amount on that the mother of P.W.1 adjusted amount and again P.W.1 joined the accused. Again within one year P.W.1 returned to the house of P.W.2 as the accused with the similar demand driven her out. P.W.1 who informed to P.W.4 that accused harassed her for the sake of amount and on one occasion P.W.2 fell ill and accused failed to sent her to her parents home to see her mother and also beat her. On that p.W.1 without informing to the accused, returned to the house of P.W.2 and recently she came to know that she presented a report before the police. So the evidence of P.W.4 shows that she came to know about the harassment through P.W.1. However this witness similarly stated that the accused did not send P.W.1 to see her mother when she was fell ill and on that P.W.1 without informing to the accused returned to her mother by leaving her marital home and since then she started living with her mother. All the witnesses in once voice stated that the accused by way of beating in a drunken state and sending P.W.1 to her mother for getting amount, but the same was not corroborated with their 161 Cr.P.C statements and as seen from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 shows that she is only a hear say witness. But her evidence was improved before this court which is quite improbable to the contention of P.W.1. Altogether the disputes in between the matrimonial life of P.W.1 could be seen in the prosecution witnesses but the same is not within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC.

20. The remaining witnesses on behalf of prosecution is P.W.5 who is the H.C of Arundelpet P.S registered the FIR and P.W.6 who is the CI of Women P.S filed charge sheet in this case. The cross examination of CI of women P.S is itself to conclude that the report was presented for the reason accused beat P.W.1 indiscriminately and did not allow her to see her mother but not for the reason as stated by P.Ws 2 and 3. The CI who investigated the case categorically concluded that the ingredients for demand of additional dowry did not found in Ex.p1. The CI who simply recorded the statements of the witnesses in the P.S not even verified the neighbours of the accused at Goidavarru village to conclude his investigation whether the accused harassed the victim within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC. If at all this court believed the version of P.W.1 that accused beat her and failed to provide maintenance to her, the same is not enough to meet the ingredients U/s 498-A IPC and there by the prosecution proved its contention that the accused is liable for the offence punishable U/s 498-A IPC. Accordingly point is answered against the prosecution.

4/5/20156CC No.308/13

21. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498- A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1- V. Lakshmi None PW.2- A. Devi PW.3- Chinta Sivaiah PW.4- D. Rama Kotamma PW.5- J. Venkateswarlu PW.6- Ch. Seetaramaiah

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1- Report, Ex.P2- FIR, Ex.P3- Rough sketch,

For Defence: NIL

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V A.J.C.J., Gnt., // True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

4/5/20157CC No.308/13

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C. No.308/13 DATES OF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence on bail of trial trial or order Prior to 1-06-13 26-3-14 9-1-13 15-12-14 17-3-15 4-5-15 11.12.12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 1-06-13, and copies furnished to accused on 26-3-14, and on 1.8.14 accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined on 15.12.14 and Prosecution side evidence closed on 17-3-2015 after examining P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. On 19-3- 2015 and reported no defence and defence side evidence closed. Heard arguments on 28.4.15 & Judgment pronounced on 4-5-2015. Hence the delay.

Between:

State: Station House Officer, Women P.S., Guntur Urban...Complainant

Versus

Viswanadhampalli Subbarao S/o Venkateswarlu, 35 yrs, Besta, Gadavarru vilalge

Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District.... Accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- u/s 498-A IPC

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 498-A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

5/5/20151CC No.784/14

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUNTUR

Present:: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi., B.Sc., B.L., V Additional Junior Civil Judge On Tuesday, fifth (5th) day of May two thousand fifteen.

C.C. No.784/2014

Between:

State: S.I of Police, Arundelpet P.S., Guntur Urban...Complainant

Versus

Didla Raj Kiran S/o Ramesh Babu, 27 yrs, Mala, Dr No.4-17-89, Velangini Nagar,

Guntur town.... Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant Police and Sri B. Kishore Kumar, Counsel for accused, and having stood over for consideration to this day and on, hearing both sides, this court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Station House Officer, Arundelpet Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.349/14 U/sec 427 of IPC.

2.The contents of the charge sheet in brief is as follows:-

L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna is living by doing fruits business by keeping push cart in-front of medical college hostel, Amaravathi road, Guntur. On the night of 8.5.14 one Kennadi and some others of Velangini nagar attacked L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna and caused injuries to him. In that connection he filed a case before Arundelpet P.S which was registered as Cr.No.339/14 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC. The accused and their relatives in the said case insisted L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna for compromise and he did not agree for the same. Accused who is relative of accused in Cr.No.339/14 grew wild against L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna and with a view to cause loss to L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna he alone went to the fruit carts of the defacto complainant at 1.30 PM on 18.5.2014 who torn the tarpaulins covered on the fruit carts and broken the glasses and plastic boxes and there by caused loss of Rs.1000/- . Basing on the report of the defacto complainant the Head constable of Arundelpet P.S registered the present crime U/s 427 IPC on 20.5.14 and investigated the case. He examined the scene in the presence of Mediators and got prepared a scene observation report. He seized the broken glass pieces, brick stone pieces and Tarpaulins pieces in the presence of mediators. On 18.6.2014 the accused was arrested and released on station bail. On completion of the investigation the SI of Arundelpet P.S filed charge sheet in this case.

3. Cognizance of offence punishable U/Sec. 427 of IPC was taken against accused.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case record were furnished to accused U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec.427 of IPC, for which, accused denied the accusation put to him as alleged in the charge sheet.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Mos 1 to 3 marked. PW.1- K. nagarjuna. PW.2- K. Sravana Sandhya.

5/5/20152CC No.784/14

PW.3- T. Basivi Reddy. PW.4- D. Vara Prasad. PW.5- B. Naga Malleswara Rao. PW.6- V. hari Prasada Rao. Ex.P1- Report, Ex.P2- 4 phots with C.D., Ex.P3- 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3, Ex.P4- Observation Report, Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, Ex.P6- FIR, Ex.P7- Rough sketch, Mo1: Broken glass pieces Mo2: Brick pieces. Mo3: Pieces of Mat.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, for which, accused denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses reported no defence. Hence, the defence is closed.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.427 of IPC ?

9.Heard the A.P.P. and counsel for defence.

POINT:-

10. The case of the prosecution is that there was Cr.No.339/14 U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC, basing on the report of L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna against Kennedi and others for the occurrence on the night of 8.5.2014. Accused in this case who is relative of accused in Cr.No.339/14 grew wild against the defacto complainant (L.W.1) Kalukuri Nagarjuna caused damage to the push carts of the defacto complainant (L.W.1) Kalukuri Nagarjuna located at medical college hostel, Amaravathi road and there by loss to a tune of Rs.1000/-. Basing on the report of the defacto complainant the present crime was registered by the Head constable of Arundelpet P.S.

11. To prove the contention of the prosecution that the accused with a wrongful intention as the defacto complainant lodged a report against his relatives, caused damage to the push cart of L.W.1 Kalukuri Nagarjuna and there by liable for the offence punishable U/s 427 IPC, it examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1.

12. On perusal of his evidence shows the occurrence on 18.5.2014 in between 11 to 11.30 PM. On that day when himself and his wife and L.W.5 Uday Kumar in an auto proceeding towards his shop situated at Amaravathi road, Guntur after coming from police station. There he saw the glasses of his push cart were broken. The tarpaulins were teared and the fruits in the push cart were spoiled. When he enquired in the near by Petrol Bunk L.w.3 Nagamalleswara Rao informed him that six persons came to the scene and caused damage to his push cart. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the reason for the occurrence is that he refused to enter into a compromise with the accused in Cr.No.339/14. Through P.W.1 his report was marked as Ex.P1. So also the photographs under Ex.P2. According to P.W.1 he sustained loss of Rs.8000/-. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that when he reached the scene he noticed the damage and on enquiry L.W.3 Nagamalleswara Rao informed him about the occurrence and the evidence of P.w.1 shows six persons who came to the scene and accused caused damage to the push cart.

13. Now let us see the report under Ex.P1. The contents of Ex.P1 similarly shows that he returned from the police station when the accused in Cr.No.339/14 and their relatives insisted for compromise which was refused by him and when he reached his push cart he saw the damage to his push cart. On that he went to the police station and reported the matter to the CI and the CI who deputed police to the scene who came to the scene and enquired the persons present near the scene, and came to know that six persons on bikes came there and caused damage with stones. When he tried to enquire to know the persons who caused damage one Kiran who came there on a bike and the police enquired the said 5/5/20153CC No.784/14

Kiran who admitted before the police that he is ready to pay the compensation and as such he presented the report before the police. So the evidence of P.W.1 or his report under Ex.p1 no where shows the presence of accused who caused damage to his push cart resulted damage worth of Rs.1000/- to P.W.1. The contents of Ex.P1 shows that accused admitted before police that he is ready to pay the compensation made the police to present the charge sheet against the accused. The contents of Ex.P1 so also the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 is totally silent regarding the identity of accused as the person who caused damage to the push cart of P.W.1. However P.W.1 was thoroughly cross examined by the counsel for defence. As seen from the cross examination P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence and he came to know about the persons who caused damage through L.W.3 Naga Malleswara Rao who is working in near by petrol bunk.

14. Now let us see the evidence of P.W.5 who is working in the near by petrol bunk. His evidence shows about the occurrence at about one year back in between 11 to 11.30 PM. On that day when he was on duty some people who came opposite to their bunk and damaged the glass boxes of watermelon vendor's push carts. On hearing the galata, he came outside and by that time, the persons left that place. His evidence shows he had not personally witnessed the same. The evidence of P.W.5 shows the occurrence but the same not shows the identity of accused. This witness was also declared as hostile by the learned APP and the learned APP confronted the 161 Cr.P.C statement to the witness and marked the same as Ex.P5. So the evidence of P.W.5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the identity of accused. On perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 also did not show the name of the accused went to the scene and caused occurrence. Here it is pertinent to say that the photographs under Ex.P2 shows the occurrence on that night. But the investigating agency failed to identify the persons who caused the occurrence on that night.

15. Let us see the evidence of P.W.2 who is wife of P.W.1. According to the defacto complainant he and his wife proceeded to the scene of offence when it was already occurred. But quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 stated that she saw the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 shows the probability to witness the occurrence which was denied by P.W.1 who was the driver of the said bike on the date of offence. As seen from her 161 Cr.P.C statement categorically shows that she reached the scene after the occurrence but not as she stated before this court. The entire case of the prosecution including the 161 Cr.P.C statements of all the witnesses no where shows the names of the accused. Ex.P1 is the only piece of evidence that could be found the name of the accused who agreed before the police to pay compensation, is the root cause to show the accused as suspect in this case and filed charge sheet against him.

16. The other evidence on behalf of prosecution is P.W.4 who is said to be the one of the mediator present when the police observed the scene of offence under the cover of Ex.P4. The same shows it was drafted on 20.5.2014 at 6 PM. Through P.W.4, Mos 1 to 3 which are the broken glass pieces, brick pieces and pieces of mat were seized by the police under the cover of Ex.P4. P.w.4 bluntly denied his relation with P.W.1 though the counsel for defence suggested to him in his cross examination. But quite contrary to his evidence P.W.6 who is the investigating officer registered the FIR and investigated the case categorically admitted that P.W.1 alone secured the mediators under Ex.P4 and he do not know their particulars. So the admission of P.w.6 is itself enough that the mediator is none other than the relative of P.W.1. However as already discussed above that the photographs and the evidence of P.W.5 shows the occurrence on that night in between 11 to 11.30 PM. It is also evident that the defacto complainant presented another report before the Arundelpet P.S for the occurrence dt: 8.5.2014. If it is presumed for arguments sake that the accused boring grudge against P.W.1 as he did not agree for the compromise in Cr.No.339/14 and there by committed occurrence in this case absolutely there is no evidence except the explanation of 5/5/20154CC No.784/14

P.W.1 to show the involvement of accused in the present crime. Even as per the report under Ex.P1 and the investigation of the investigating officer shows six persons caused the occurrence. But he did not choose to identify the said persons who caused damage to the push carts of P.W.1 in the present case. Mere admission of the accused before the police that he is ready to pay compensation is not enough to fix the accused as accused in the present occurrence. In absence of any evidence to identify the accused as the person who committed the occurrence, point is answered against the prosecution.

17. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 427 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of May, 2015.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V. Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Appendix of evidnece

WITENSSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1- K. nagarjuna None PW.2- K. Sravana Sandhya PW.3- T. Basivi Reddy PW.4- D. Vara Prasad PW.5- B. Naga Malleswara Rao PW.6- V. hari Prasada Rao

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1- Report, Ex.P2- 4 phots with C.D., Ex.P3- 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3, Ex.P4- Observation Report, Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, Ex.P6- FIR, Ex.P7- Rough sketch,

For Defence: NIL material Objects Marked Mo1: Broken glass pieces Mo2: Brick pieces Mo3: Pieces of Mat.

Sd/- S. Sridevi

V A.J.C.J., Gnt., // True copy//

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

5/5/20155CC No.784/14

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR. C.C. No.784/14 DATES OF --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence Filing Appearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence on bail of trial trial or order 18-5-14 18-10-14 27-11-14 18-6-14 5-1-15 20-4-15 5-5-15

Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 18-10-14, and copies furnished to accused on 27-11-14, and on 12-12-14 accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. P.W.1 was examined on 5.1.15 and Prosecution side evidence closed on 20-4-2015 after examining P.W.6 and Exs.P1 to P7 and Mos 1 to 3 were marked. Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is 21-4-2015. Heard arguments on 28.4.15 & Judgment pronounced on 5-5-2015. Hence the delay.

Between:

State: S.I of Police, Arundelpet P.S., Guntur Urban...Complainant

Versus

Didla Raj Kiran S/o Ramesh Babu, 27 yrs, Mala, Dr No.4-17-89, Velangini Nagar,

Guntur town.... Accused.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding: - Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:-

Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 427 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled.

V ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to :

The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Guntur.