Sri T.Kanhya Lal

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT LUXETTIPET

Present: T.Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of the I Class,

Luxettipet.

Monday, this the 10 th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 492 of 2016

Between:-

The State the state of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Luxettipet. …. Complainant /and/

Tekam Ramu s/o. Chandraiah, age: 19 years, caste: Manne (ST), occ:Coolie, r/o. Near Post Office, Seepathinagar, Mandamarri.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on 22-03-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Laxmi Prasad, APP for the state Telangana and Sri Nalinikanth, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Luxettipet had filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.166/2015 for the offence under Sec. 379 of

IPC.

2-The brief facts of the case are that on 01-11-2015 at 11.00 hours the PW-1/complainant came to Police Station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, on 30-10-2015 at about 11.30 AM PW-1 was parked his

Hero Honda Splendar Plus Motor Cycle B.No. AP01G 1607 in front of Govt.

Civil Hospital, Luxettipet and went into the hospital to attend meeting with his officials. After completion of meeting, Pw-1 came to his motor cycle and

PW-1 found that his motor cycle found missing from place, on that Pw-1 was searched for his motor cycle here and there but not traced, further PW-1 stated that some unknown offenders had committed theft of his motor cycle and his motor cycle value is Rs. 25,000/-. Finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this court 2 has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC against the accused.

4- On appearance of the accused, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207, Cr.P.C.

5-The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusations leveled against him in telugu and after understanding the same he denied his involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence a charge under Sec. 379 of IPC has been framed against the accused and he was tried by this court by issuing summons to all the material witnesses on the request of APP.

6-In support of its case , the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 and P7 and MO.1 on his behalf.

7-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313, Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same by stating them false. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Therefore, defence evidence was closed.

8- Heard both side arguments.

9-Now, the point for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.379 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

10-P O I N T: The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 to prove the guilt of the accused. PW-1 was the owner of the bike which was stolen on the date of offence and who gave report to the police. PW-2 is the panch for seizure of motor cycle. PW-3 is the panch for confession of the accused in

Cr.No.456/2016 of P.S. Mancherial. PW-4 is the panch for Crime details form.

PW-5 is the first investigation officer who issued FIR, examined the witnesses, conducted crime details form and seized stolen motor cycle from the bushes.

PW-6 is the second investigation officer who arrested the accused on

Prisoners transit warrant and filed charge sheet. PW-7 is the police officer 3 who apprehended the accused and recovered stolen property pertaining to other cases and before whom the accused had confessed about this alleged offence.

11-PW-1 deposed that he did not know the accused and on 30-9- 2015 at 11.30 AM he parked his motor cycle Hero Honda Spelder Plus bearing no.AP01G1607 in front of Govt. Civil Hospital, Luxettipet and attended meeting with his officials in the hospital, after completion of meeting at about 2.30 PM he came out side and found that his motoro cycle was stolen by some body. The defence counsel did not choose to cross examine PW-1 as he did not depose anything against the accused.

12-PW-4, who was the panch for Crime Details Form deposed that police called him and LW-3/Anand Bhaskar and conducted scene of offence panchanama through CDF in their presence in front of the government hospital and the contents were read over to them and then they signed on it.

Ex.P-5 is the CDF. PW-4 did not depose anything against the accused.

13-PW-2 is one of the important witness because he stood as panch for recovery of motor cycle from the bushes at Vasavai Nagar, Uthkoor

Chowrastha under the cover of panchanama by PW-5, the first investigation officer. PW-2 deposed that on 14-11-2015 at 10.00 am police of luxettipet called him and LW-5/Chindam Srinivas at the bushes near Vasavi nagar,

Uthkoor Chowrastha and and they came to know that some unknown offender committed theft of motor cycle bearing no.AP01G1607 and same was recovered before them from the bushes and after reading out the contents of the panchanama, they signed on it. Ex.P-2 is the seizure panchanama of motor cycle bearing no.AP01G1607. In cross examination,

PW-2 admitted that he works in same department of PW-1.

14-PW-5, who is the first investigation officer deposed that he received Ex.P-1 report from PW-1 on 24-9-2015. After registering the case he took the investigation and during the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence and secured LW-3 and PW-3 and drafted crime details form before them later on reliable information PW-5 seized motor cycle in the presence of both thepanch witnesses under the cover of panchanama i.e., Ex.P-2. Later handed over the CD file to PW-6 for 4 further investigation.

15-PW-3 is another important witness as he was the panch for confession of the accused recorded by PW-7 in relating to offences of PS

Mancherial. As per the prosecution the accused had confessed about this offence before PW-7 and the confession was recorded in the presence of PW- 3.

PW-3 deposed that he knew the accused and on 4-11-2016 at 2.20 pm the police of Mancherial were checking the vehicle at ACC Cross road, at that time the accused was having one scooty bearing no.TS01D3207 and by seeing the police the accused tried to fled away from the spot.

Immediately the police constable apprehended the accused and enquired in which the accused had confessed about the presence offence along with other cases. The accused also confessed that he committed theft of motor cycle from various places i.e., total 10 vehicles. After reading out the contents of the panchanama he along with LW-7/P.Venkata Swamy signed on it. The accused also confessed that remaining vehicles are kept at the bushes of Ralla Vagu and the remaining vehicles are kept at the Ralla vagu.

They proceeded to the Ralla Vagu and observed 7 or 8 vehicles into the bushes. Ex.P-3 was the confession recovery panchanama in which accused confessed about commission of this offence and hide the motor cycle into a bush at Uthkoor chowraths. Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama of the motor cycle pertaining other police station. But in cross examination he admitted that by that time he went to the police, the accused was already apprehended by the police. He also admitted that as he was V.R.O., that is why police asked him to act as panch. He also admitted that he also acted as panch in three another cases. He also admitted that the place where the motor cycles were hidden was near to the road and neighboured by other houses.

16-PW-6 deposed that on further investigation on 11-4-2016 he received information about the accused that he was arrested in

Cr.No.456/2016 of P.S., Mancherial in which the accused had confessed about this offence and on P.T.Warrant he produced the accused before this court and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

5 17-PW-7 is the police officer who arrested the accused in

Cr.No.456/2016 of P.S., Mancherial and before whom the accused had confessed about the said offence and he recovered 10 motor cycles pertaining to other cases and later he informed to the SHO Luxettipet about confession of the accused. He further deposed that he handed over case property along with the accused to PW-5.

18-After going through the evidence of all the witnesses the evidence of PW-7 is very much important as he is the person who had arrested the accused and the accused confessed about this offence before him, but in his evidence he deposed that he handedover case property along with accused to PW-5, but contradictorily PW-5 deposed that he recovered case property on reliable information. As per the panchanama i.e., Ex.P-3 the accused had confessed about stolen of 9 bikes and 8 bikes were recovered from the bushes and one scooty was under the possession of accused. As per PW-5 he recovered motor cycle pertaining to this case from the bushes, then how this motor cycle comes under the counting of 9 bikes when already 8 bikes were recovered from the bushes and one scooty was recovered from the possession of the accused. It clearly shows that to complete the investigation the accused was falsely implicated in this case by

PW-5 with the help of PW-7.

19-After going through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 i.e., the owner of the bike and the investigation officer, the offence occured on 30-9- 2015 but PW-1 gave report on 1-11-2015 that means even after expiry of 30 days PW-1 did not move to the police station for giving report, even though

PW-1 came to know about the alleged offence on the same day. There is more than 30 days of dealy in giving report to the police and the reason for delay is not explained by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW-5 the bike was recovered from the bushes, but the prosecution has not filled the gap that how PW-5 came to know that the stolen property was lying into bushes and how some body came to know about the same which was lying into the bushes. There is no rough sketch of the scene of offence which itself created doubt about the proceeding of the PW-5 to the scene of offence.

PW-3 who was the panch for confession panchanama deposed that because he was V.R.O., that is why police called him to act as panch. He also 6 admitted that he acted as panch in other three cases that means PW-3 was the stock witness of the police. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-3, 5 and 7 are not trustworthy and it seems that the accused’s name has been implemented in this case as the offence was committed by unknown offender and to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet. Even the theft of bike itself is doubtful as the owner sat idle for 30 days without giving report to the police and the story of recovery of bike from the bushes.

Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

20-IN THE RESULT, this court finds that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The marked case property i.e., MO-1 shall made absolute after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: Jadav Noorsingh- Complainant. PW2: A. Venu – Panch for seizure panchanama PW3: Mudimadugula Mohan – Panch for confession statement of accused. PW4: Velpula Surendar– Panch for CDF PW5: A. Ashok – 1st IO issued FIR and conducted CDF and seized property PW6: B. Sammaiah – IO produced the accused on PT warrant and filed charge sheet. PW7: A. Rambabu – Conducted confession and recover panchanama.

FOR DEFENSE:-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the report by PW-1. Ex.P-2 is the seizure panchanama by PW-2. Ex.P-3 is the confession and recovery panchanama by Pw-3 7

Ex.P-4 is the seizure panchanama of the motorcycle pertaining to other P.S. by PW-3. Ex.P-5 is the CDF by PW-4 Ex.P-6 is the FIR issued by Pw-5. Ex.P-7 is the receipt, dated. 8-12-2015 by PW-5.

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

MOs. MARKED

MO-1 is the Motorcycle Hero Honda Splendar Plus B.No. AP01G1607 by Pw-1.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT LUXETTIPET

Present: T.Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of the I Class,

Luxettipet.

Monday, this the 10 th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 491 of 2016

Between:-

The State the state of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Luxettipet. …. Complainant /and/

Tekam Ramu s/o. Chandraiah, age: 19 years, caste: Manne (ST), occ: Coolie, r/o. Near Post Office, Seepathinagar, Mandamarri.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on 22-03-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Laxmi Prasad, APP for the state Telangana and Sri Nalinikanth, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Luxettipet had filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.143/2015 for the offence under Sec. 379 of

IPC.

2-The brief facts of the case are that on 24-09-2015 at 16.00 hours the PW-1/complainant came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that, on 15-09-2015 at about 11.00 PM PW-1 had parked his Hero

Honda Splender Plus Motor Cycle B.No. AP01Q 9317 in house front yard and

went for slept, on the next day i.e., 16-09-2015 early hours at 4.00 AM Pw-1 woke up and found his motor cycle was missing, on that PW-1 was searched for his motorcycle here and there but could not trace, further PW-1 stated that some unknown offenders had committed theft of his motorcycle and his motorcycle values was Rs. 25,000/-. Finally PW-1 requested to take 2 necessary action against the accused.

3-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC against the accused.

4- On appearance of the accused, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207, Cr.P.C.

5-The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusations leveled against him in telugu and after understanding the same he denied his involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence a charge under Sec. 379 of IPC has been framed against the accused and he was tried by this court by issuing summons to all the material witnesses on the request of APP.

6-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 and P7 and MO.1 on his behalf.

7-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313, Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same by stating them false. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Therefore, defence evidence was closed.

8- Heard both side arguments.

9-Now, the point for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.379 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10-P O I N T: The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 7 to prove the guilt of the accused. PW-1 was the owner of the bike which was stolen on the date of offence and who gave report to the police. PW-2 is the panch for crime details form. PW-3 is the panch for recovery of the bike panchanama. PW-4 is the panch witness for confessional statement of accused in Cr.No.456/2016 of P.S., Mancherial. PW-5 is the first investigation 3 officer who issued FIR, examined the witnesses, conducted crime details form and seized stolen motor cycle from the well. PW-6 is the second investigation officer who arrested the accused on Prisoners transit warrant and filed charge sheet. PW-7 is the police officer who apprehended the accused and recovered stolen property pertaining to other cases and before whom the accused had confessed about this alleged offence.

11-PW-1 deposed that he did not know accused and on 15-9-2015 at night hours he parked his motor cycle Hero Honda Spelder Plus bearing no.AP01Q9317 infront of his house and on next morning at 4.00 am he found that his motor cycle was stolen by some body. The defence counsel did not choose to cross examine PW-1 as he did not depose anything against the accused.

12-PW-2, who was the panch for Crime Details Form deposed that police called him and LW-4/Subba Rao and conducted scene of offence panchanama through CDF in their presence and the contents were read over to them and then they signed on it. Ex.P-2 is the CDF. PW-2 also did not depose anything against the accused.

13-PW-3 is one of the important witness because he stood as panch for recovery of motor cycle from the well under the cover of panchanama by

PW-5, the first investigation officer. PW-3 deposed that about one year ago, police of luxettipet called him and LW-6/D. Raju at the well of Indla

Bheemaiah and before them they pulled out one motor cycle bearing no.9317 from the well and after reading out the contents of the panchanama, they signed on it. Ex.P-3 is the seizure panchanama of motor cycle bearing no.9317. In cross examination, except giving suggestion by the defence counsel nothing was elicited from PW-3.

14-PW-4 is another important witness as he was the panch for confession of the accused recorded by PW-7 in relating to offences of PS

Mancherial. As per the prosecution the accused had confessed about this offence before PW-7 and the confession was recorded in the presence of PW- 4.

4

PW-4 deposed that he knew the accused and on 4-11-2016 at 2.20 pm the police of Mancherial were checking the vehicle at ACC Cross road, at that time the accused was having one scooty bearing no.TS01D3207 and by seeing the police the accused tried to fled away from the spot. Immediately the police constable apprehended the accused and enquired in which the accused had confessed about the presence offence along with other cases. The accused also confessed that he committed theft of motor cycle from various places i.e., total 10 vehicles. After reading out the contents of the panchanama he along with LW-7/P.Venkata Swamy signed on it. The accused also confessed that remaining vehicles are kept at the bushes of Ralla Vagu and the remaining vehicles are kept at the Ralla vagu.

They proceeded to the Ralla Vagu and observed 7 or 8 vehicles into the bushes. Ex.P-4 was the confession recovery panchanama in which accused confessed about commission of this offence and thrown the motor cycle into the well. Ex.P-5 is the seizure panchanama of the motor cycle pertaining other police station. But in cross examination he admitted that by that time he went to the police, the accused was already apprehended by the police.

He also admitted that as he was V.R.O., that is why police asked him to act as panch. He also admitted that he also acted as panch in three another cases.

He also admitted that the place where the motor cycles were hidden was near to the road and neighboured by other houses.

15-PW-5, who is the first investigation officer deposed that he received Ex.P-1 report from PW-1 on 24-9-2015. After registering the case he took the investigation and during the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence and secured LW-3 and PW-3 and drafted crime details form before them later on reliable information PW- 5 seized motor cycle in the presence of both thepanch witnesses under the cover of panchanama i.e., Ex.P-2. Later handed over the CD file to PW-6 for further investigation.

16-PW-6 deposed that on further investigation on 11-4-2016 he received information about the accused that he was arrested in

Cr.No.456/2016 of P.S., Mancherial in which the accused had confessed about this offence and on P.T.Warrant he produced the accused before this court 5 and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

17-PW-7 is the police officer who arrested the accused and before whom the accused had confessed about the said offence and he recovered 9 motor cycles pertaining to other cases and later he informed to the SHO

Luxettipet about confession of the accused. He further deposed that he handed over case property along with the accused to PW-5.

18-After going through the evidence of all the witnesses the evidence of PW-7 is very much important as he is the person who had arrested the accused and the accused confessed about this offence before him, but in his evidence he deposed that he handedover case property along with accused to PW-5, but contradictorily PW-5 deposed that he recovered case property on reliable information. As per the panchanama i.e., Ex.P-4 the accused had confessed about stolen of 9 bikes and 8 bikes were recovered from the bushes and one scooty was under the possession of accused. As per PW-5 he recovered motor cycle pertaining to this case from the well,then how this motor cycle comes under the counting of 9 bikes when already 8 bikes were recovered from the bushes and one scooty was recovered from the possession of the accused. It clearly shows that to complete the investigation the accused was falsely implicated in this case by

PW-5 with the help of PW-7.

19-After going through the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 i.e., the owner of the bike and the investigation officer, the offence occured on 15-9- 2015 but even after expiry of 9 days PW-1 did not move to the police station for giving report, even though PW-1 came to know about the alleged offence on the same day. There is nine days of dealy in giving report to the police and the reason for delay is not explained by the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW-5 the bike was recovered from the well of one Bheemaiah, but the prosecution has not filled the gap that how PW-5 came to know that the stolen property was lying into a well and how some body came to know about the same which was lying under the water. The said Bheemaiah was 6 also not examine by the police. There is no rough sketch of the scene of offence which itself created doubt about the proceeding of the PW-5 to the scene of offence. PW-4 who was the panch for confession panchanama deposed that because he was V.R.O., that is why police called him to act as panch. He also admitted that he acted as panch in other three cases that means PW-4 was the stock witness of the police. Therefore, the evidence of

PWs-4, 5 and 7 are not trustworthy and it seems that the accused’s name has been implemented in this case as the offence was committed by unknown offender and to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet. Even the theft of bike itself is doubtful as the owner sat idle for nine days without giving report to the police and the story of recovery of bike from a well. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

20-IN THE RESULT,this court finds that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 248 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The marked case property i.e., MO-1 shall made absolute after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2017.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: B.Sathyanarayana - Complainant. PW2: Merugu Ramesh – Panch for CDF. PW3: M.Mallesh – Panch for seizure panchanama. PW4: Mudimadugula Mohan– Panch for confession statement of accused. PW5: A. Ashok – 1st IO issued FIR and conducted CDF and seized property PW6: B. Sammaiah – IO produced the accused on PT warrant and filed charge sheet. PW7: A. Ram Babu – Conducted confession and recovery panchanama.

7

FOR DEFENSE:-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the report by PW-1. Ex.P-2 is the CDF by PW-2. Ex.P-3 is the seizure panchanama of the motor cycle by PW-3. Ex.P-4 confession and recovery panchanama by Pw-4 Ex.P-5 is the seizure panchanama of the motorcycle pertaining to other P.S. by PW-4. Ex.P-6 is the FIR issued by Pw-5. Ex.P-7 is the receipt, dated. 4-12-2015 by PW-5.

FOR DEFENSE: NIL

MOs. MARKED

MO-1 is the Motorcycle Hero Honda Splendar Plus B.No. AP01Q9317 by Pw-1.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT LUXETTIPET

Present:- T.Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of the I Class,

Luxettipet.

Friday, this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

C.C.No.50 of 2015

Between:- The State through Police PS Luxettipet …. Complainant /and/

Kamilla Kumar, S/o. Poshaiah, age: 40 years, Caste: Mala (SC), Occ: Auto driver, r/o. Chandaram village of Luxettipet Mandal.

..Accused

This case coming on 6.4.2017 for final hearing in the of Sri Laxmi Prasad, APP for the state and Sri E. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Luxettipet had filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.149/2014 for the offence under section 498(A) IPC & Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

2-The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2014 at 18:00 hours the

PW-1 (Complainant) came to Police Station and submitted a telugu written petition that her parents resident of Mancherial. Her marriage was performed with the accused 8 years ago as per their caste and customs. Durng the marriage her parents (LW-2/Sudamalla Rajaiah and PW-2/Sudamalla Bhudevi) presented as dowry an amount of RS.1,50,000/-, a Motor cycle, 3 Tulas gold and house hold articles.

During their conjugal life they blessed three male children. The accused addicted to bad voices/habits since 3 years and started harassment on the PW-1 pysically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.1 Lakh from her parent's house.

The accused sold 3 tulas gold which was presented at the time of marriage by her parents. Although the PW-1 adjusted it and continued her conjugal life with the 2 accused. While she was continuing her conjugal life with the accuse, on 14.10.2014 a 08:00 house the accused beat her by demanding to bring additional dowry. The same was informed to her mother-in-laws but they did not heed her words. Finally the complainant stated that she is having threat from them requested to take action against them.

4-On receipt of such complaint, LW-6/A. Ashok, S.I. of Police,

Luxettipet Police Station had registered a case in Cr.No.149/2014 under section 498(A) IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and issued FIR. After completion of investigation, LW-6/A. Ashok, S.I. of Police, Luxettipet Police Station had filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 498(A) IPC and

Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, the accused is charge sheeted for the offence under section 498(A) IPCand Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

5-After careful consideration of the material, cognizance was taken of the offence punishable u/sec.498(A) IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act against accused.

6-On appearance of the accused, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required u/sec.207, Cr.P.C.

7-The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.p.c. by explaining the accusations leveled against him in the charge sheet. He denied his involvement.

Hence a charge 498(A) IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on its behalf.

9-In supports of its case the prosecution has examined Pws-1 and 2 and

Ex.P1 to P4 are marked, Lws-2, 4 to 6 are given up by APP. Hence prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under section 313, Cr. P.C., is dispensed with.

3 10- Heard both side arguments 11-Now, the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt ?

12- P O I N T:The prosecution has examined PWS-1 and 2 and got markd Ex.P1 to P4. PW-1 is the victim and wife of accused who gave report to the police. PW-2 is the mother of PW-1.

13-PW-1 deposed that accused was her husband and there were some petty disputes between them, due to which she went to the police station and on the instance of the police she signed on a written paper without knowing the contents.

She further deposed that she was not examine by the police and police did not record her statement. As PW-1 did not depose anything against the accused and also deposed that on the instance of police she signed on a written paper she was declared hostile. The learned APP had put questions to PW-1 in the nature of cross examination, but did not elicit anything from PW-1 against accused. PW-1 in cross examination admitted that she had settled the matter out of court and she is living happily with the accused. She denied suggestion that she is deposing false to help the accused.

14-PW-2 deposed that there were no disputes between PW-1 and accused and they are living happily. She deposed that she did not know anything about this case and police never examine her and never record her statement. She was also declared hostile. The learned APP in cross examination PW-2 did not elicit anything against accused.

15-After examination of Pws-1 and 2, the learned APP had given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and by examining the remaining witnesses no purpose will be served and it would be a wastage of time.

16-After going through the evidence PW-1 it is clear that she has compromise the matter with the accused and at present they are living together without any dispute that is why she is not in a mood to deposed anything against 4 the accused. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

17-IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the accused is acquitted u/sec.248(1), Cr. P.C., and his bail bond stand cancelled after six months. No case property.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 Kamilla Sridevi – Complainant. PW2 Sudhamalla Bhudevi – Mother of the PW-1.

FOR DEFENSE: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on report by PW-1. Ex.P-2 is the contents of the report by PW-1. Ex.P-3 is the 161 statement by PW-1. Ex.P-4 is the 161 statement by PW-2.

FOR DEFENSE: -NIL-

MOs. MARKED: -NIL-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

AT LUXETTIPET

Present:- T.Kanhyalal,

Judicial Magistrate of the first class,

Luxettipet.

Monday , this the 10 th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 416 of 2015

Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Hajipur …. Complainant /and/

Durgam Kistaiah, S/o. Rayamallu, age: 27 years Caste: Nethakani, Occ: Coolie, r/o.Peddampet village of Mancherial Mandal.

..Accused

This case is coming before me on 07-04-2017 for final hearing in the

presence of APP for the state of Telangana and Sri Karukuri Surendar, Advocate

for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration,

this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hajipur had filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.99/2015 for the offence under section 380 of

IPC.

2-The brief facts of the case are that on 19-09-2015 at 11.00 hours the complainant Durgam Bhagya(PW-1) came to Police Station and lodged a written petition, stating that on 19-09-2015 in the morning hours PW-1’s children went to school and her husband (PW-2) went for coolie work, later at about 8.30 hours the PW-1 closed doors and put her two pusthela thadu (rope) along with two gold pusthelu (Small gold discs) on the TV stand at her home went away in to the bath mean time her brother-in-law (accused) was fleeing from her house then PW-1 followed him until he(accused) reached the road and asked him that, why he (accused) came to her home then he (accused) fled away, this incident was direct witnessed by PW-3 and PW-4.

Later PW-1 searched for her pusthela thadu along with two pusthelu (Samll gold discs) which PW-1 earlier put on the TV stand but her two gold pusthelu 2 disappeared. PW-1 stated that accused stolen away her ½ tula two gold pusthela thadu worth of Rs. 15,000/-. Finally complainant requested to take necessary action against accused.

3-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of IPC against accused.

4- On appearance of the accused, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to him as required u/sec. 207, Cr.P.C.

5-The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusations leveled against him in the charge sheet. He denied his involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence a charge under Sec. 380 of IPC has been framed against the accused and he was tried by this court by issuing summons to all the material witnesses.

6-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 on its behalf.

7-In supports of its case the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 8 and Ex.P1 to P8 are marked, LW-5 and LW-6 are given up by APP. Hence prosecution evidence was closed. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, since there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused under section 313, Cr. P.C., was dispensed with. Heard both side arguments 8-Point for determination:

W hether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, for

the offence punishable under Sec. 380 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9-PW-1, who is complainant and she deposed that during the year 2015 at about 8.30 AM she kept her pusthelathadu on a TV table and and went away in to bath, after completion of her bath PW-1 found that her pusthelathadu was missing, PW-1 filed this case on the suspicion on accused, but PW-1 did not know who committed the offence and lodged a report at the 3 police station. Ex.P1 is the report given by her. MO-1 is the gold pusthelathadu.

10-PW-2, who is the husband of the PW-1 and brother of the accused. He deposed that he did not know anything about this case and he turned hostile.

11-PWs-3 and 4 are the eye witness turned hostile because they deposed that police never examined them and recorded their statements.

PWs-5, PW-6 and PW-8 are the punch for CDF turned hostile and they deposed that at about two years ago while they were walking on the road at

Peddampet, at that time police of Hajipur stopped them and obtained their signatures on printed proforms, they did not know the contents of the paper.

PW-7 is the punch for Confessional and seizure panchanama turned hostile and he deposed that at about two years ago he was standing at Donabanda auto stand, at that time police of Hajipur called him and obtained his signature on white blank paper and he did not know the content of the paper.

12-After the examination of PWs-1 to 8 the learned APP had given up the evidence of LWs-5 and 6 witnesses by thinking that it will be futile effort to examine other witnesses when the material witnesses turned hostile and it will be a waste of time.

13-Therefore, due to the lack of incriminating evidence against the accused and due to the hostile attitude of PWs-1 to 8 the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14- Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec. 380 of IPC.

15-IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec. 380 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C for said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. MO.1 which is given to interim custody to the owner shall be made absolute after appeal period.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed her, after correction,

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of April, 2017 .

4

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 Durgam Bhagya – Complainant PW2 Durgam Chandraiah –husband of PW-1 PW3 Durgam Ramachandraiah – Eye witness PW4 Durgam Chiluku – Eye witness PW5 Kota Bhaskar Goud – Punch for CDF PW6 Pidugu Santhosh – Punch for confessional and seizure panchanama PW7 Chatharaju Ravinder - Punch for confessional and seizure panchanama PW8 Ravula Ravinder – Panch for CDF

FOR DEFENSE: -NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - is the report by Pw-1 Ex.P2 - is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW-2 Ex.P3 - is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW-3 Ex.P4 - is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW-4 Ex.P5 - is the signature on CDF, dated 19-9-2015 by PW-5 Ex.P6 - is the signature on Confession and recovery panchanama by PW-6 Ex.P7 - is the signature on confession and recovery panchanama by PW-7 Ex.P8 - is the signature on CDF, dated: 19-9-2015

FOR DEFENSE: -NIL-

MOs. MARKED:

M.O.1: Pusthelu.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

LUXETTIPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

LUXETTIPET

PRESENT: T.Kanhya Lal, Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet.

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

O.S.NO.36 of 2016

Between:-

Kalluri Anjaiah, S/o. Pocham @ Pochaiah, Age: 27 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Itikyala village R/Mandal: Luxettipet. …Plaintiff //and//

Ithineni Lachaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Itikyala, R/M. Luxettipet.

…Defendant

This suit is coming on 3.4.2017 before me for final he aring in the presence of Sri K.Surender, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri. G. Govinda Rao, Advocate for the defendant and the Defendant remained exparte. After having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit field by the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

02.The averments of the plaint in brief are that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and Pattedar and possessor of the said lands measuring Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.50 situated at Itikyala village of

Luxettipet Mandal (Herein after referred as suit land).

03. The brief fact of the plaint is that the plaintiff had acquired the suit land from his father after his father death and since then the plaintiff has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit land and he has been cultivating suit land by raising cotton crops. The defendant who has land faraway from the suit land approached plaintiff and offered to purchase plaintiff land. The plaintiff did not accept the offer of defendant and stated that the suit 2 land is only the mean for his livelihood, but the defendant challenged that he would grab the suit land. On 18.7.2016 the defendant trespassed into the suit land and tried occupy the suit land, but the plaintiff with the helpof his wellwhishers stopped him. The plaintiff has apprehension that the defendant may grab his land at any time due to his political influence. Hence the suit.

04.The summons were served on the defendant and eventhough he appeared before this court but he did not file his written statement. Even though sufficient time was given and took more than mandatory period. Hence the defendant was set exparte.

05.Now the point for consideration:

Whether the plaintiff had proved his case or not ?

06.The Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and examined as PW1 U/Ord.18, Rule 4 of C.P.C. and got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A5.

07.Heard the Counsel for the plaintiff.

08.The evidence of PW-1 goes to show that he acquired the suit land from his father after his father death and he has been cultivating the suit land by raising cotton crop.

09. P O I N T: On perusal of the documents under Ex. A-1 to

A-5 i.e., the certified copies of pahanies from 2012 to 2016, the description of the property are tallying with the suit land. Coloum

Nos.12 and 13 are showing the name of the father of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor of the suit land. The defendant did not contest the matter and remained exparte and hence there is no rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s case is 3 proved and he is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants.

10.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit land i.e., measuring Ac.3-00 in

Sy.No.50 situated at Itikyala village of Luxettipet Mandal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2017.

Junior Civil Judge Luxettipet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For plaintiffs:-For defendant:-

PW1: Kalluri Anjaiah NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: is the Computerized pahani (Fasli) 1422. Ex.A2: is the computerized pahani (Fasli) 1423. Ex.A3: is the computerized pahani (Fasli) 1424. Ex.A4: is the computerized pahani (Fasli) 1425. Ex.A5: is the computerized pahani (Fasli) 1426.

For defendant: NIL

Junior Civil Judge Luxettipet.