Sri. T. Murali Mohan

1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

DATED ON THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2020

CC.NO. 646 OF 2017

Between: The State through P.S Thimmajipet A N D

1. Raheem Pasha S./o Jahangeer, Age:30 years, Occ: Hitachi Operator

2. Ameena Bee W/o Jahangeer, age;55 years, Occ:Hould hold

3. Md.Abdul Nabi W/o Jahangeer, age:42 years, Occ:Driver

4. Md.Chandpasha S/o Jahangeer, age:38 years, Occ:Driver

5. Md.Shameema Begum W/o Janimiya, age:25 years, Occ:Tailor

6. Md.Jani Miya S/o Jahangeer, age:34 years, Occ: Driver

7. Md.Habeeba W/o Jahangeer, age:20 years, Occ:Tailor

8. Md.Md.Haseena W/o Anwar, age:21 years, Occ:House wife

9. Md.Fatima Begum W/o Abdul Nabi, age:28 years, Occ:Tailor All are R/o Pothireddypally village

....Accused

This case coming on this day before me on 03-07-2020 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, counsel for the prosecution and Sri Mohd Hameed Ali counsel

for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub Inspector of Police Thimmajipet has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 498(A) IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP act.

The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that, On 07-04-2016 at 10.30 hours the defacto complainant Smt.Farzana begum had lodged a report before the police Thimmajipet stating that her marriage was solemnized with A1 on 09-10-2015 in their village and after their marriage they lived happily for about one month and thereafter, A1 in collusion with A2 to A9 harassed her mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and finally on 10-01-2016 around 1000 hours the defacto complainant was necked out from the house of A1 to A9 demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, PW9 registered a case in crime no.32/2016 under section 498-A IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. It is further discloses that PW9 examined the defecto complainant at police station and visited the scene, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 2 of 9 of mediators and also examined material witnesses. On 20-04-2016 he served notice under section 41-A CrPC on the accused and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet against A1 to A9 for the offence punishable under section 498-A IPC and

Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence the charge.

2.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence under section 498(A) IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP act against the Accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents as required under section 207 CrPC were furnished to them. The accused were examined under section 239 CrPC. A charge for the offence U/s 498(A) IPC and sec 3 and 4 of DP act as framed

U/s 240 (1) CrPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused u/s 240 (2) of CrPC to which the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to 9 and got marked Exs P1 to Ex P7 the defence did not choose to examine any witnesses on behalf and no documents got marked.

5After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC on the incriminating material appeared against them, to which the accused denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

6.The prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined the defacto complainant as PW1. Her parents were examined as PW2 and PW3. The neighbours of the accused were examined as PW4, PW6 and PW7. The panchas for the scene of offence were examined as PW5 and PW8. The investigation officer was examined as

PW9.

7. PW.1 deposed that her marriage with A1 was solemnized at Thimmajipet on 09-10-2015 and she joined the company of A1. PW1 and A1 setup after their marriage family at Bijinepally where they lived together for a period of one month. Thereafter accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and one acre land agreed by her father to A1 and his family. She further deposed that the accused had

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 3 of 9 necked her out from their house as she failed to fulfil their demand of additional dowry.

Thereafter, she lodged report with police, Thimmajipet. Her report is marked as Ex.P1.

8.In her cross examination he testified that PW1 and A1 were in love prior to their marriage and her brother beat her and she consumed poison. She also testified that a panchayath was held in between her family and the accused family where in the village elders resolved to perform PW1 marriage with A1. She further testified that

before the present report, she also lodged a report before women police station,

Mahabubnagar and they summoned the accused and gave counselling. She denied suggestion that as there were no merits in the complaint lodged before women police station, Mahabubnagar, they did not register any case on the said complainant. She further testified that she got mentioned in Ex.P1 report and also stated before the police in her 161 statement that on the next day of her marriage, A2 necked out her as such A1 setup separate family. She admitted that she has not mentioned in her report that her father agreed to give Ac.1-00 land to A1. She also testified that in Bijinepally they lived for 20 days and A1 met with accident while he was proceeding from

Bijinepally to Jadcherla and after discharge of A1 from the hospital, PW1 and A1 shifted their house to the house of accused at Pothireddypally village where they stayed for about 10 to 15 days. She denied the suggestion that after the discharge of A1, her family members beat the accused family and took PW1 with her. She admitted that after discharge of A1 from the hospital there were no disputes in between PW1 and A1.

She admitted that A3 to A5 are living separately from A1 at different places. She denied suggestion that the accused never demanded RS.2,00,000/- as dowry and that under the guise of present report, PW1 family demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the accused and that she is deposing false.

9.PW2, who is mother of PW1 has deposed that at the time of the marriage of A1 with PW1, they gave Ac.1.00 land to A1 and his family and after some period the accused used to harasses PW1 for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and PW1 was sent from their family as such she lodged a report. In her cross examination she testified that after the marriage, PW1 and A1 lived together happily for a period of 3 months and out of 3 months period, 1 to 1 ½ month they lived at Bijinepally and they shifted to

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 4 of 9

Pothireddypally due to the accident of A1. She further testified that the disputes arose between PW1 and A1 during their stay at Pothireddypally village.

10.PW3, the father of PW1 deposed that A1 and PW1 lived together happily for about 3 moths and thereafter the accused used to harass PW1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and when they failed to pay the additional dowry, the accused beat PW1 and sent her to his house. The accused did not change their attitude and continued to demand additional dowry, therefore PW1 lodged report. In his cross examination he testified that PW1 and A1 lived for a period of two months happily in their in laws house. He further testified that 10 days after the marriage PW1 lodged report against A1 before women police, Mahabubnagar. He admitted that the said report was not registered as case. He further testified that since the accused agreed for settlement, the case was not registered. He denied suggestion that he did not state before the police that after 3 months of the marriage, the accused started harassment of PW1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. He denied suggestion that the accused never demanded any amount as dowry and that PW1 herself withdrawn the company of A1 and filed false case against the accused to harasses them.

11.PW4 deposed that about 3 years back at about 10.00 am he found A1 to A4 were quarrelling with PW1 at the house of A1 with regard to additional dowry and he went to the scene and witnessed the same. In his cross examination he testified that the marriage of PW1 was took place 3 months prior to the present incident. He also testified that his statement was recorded by the police on the evening of the date of incident in his village. He admitted that he did not state before the police about the facts stated by me in his chief examination.

12. PW5 deposed that about 2 years back the police called him to the house of A1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and also noted down the boundaries of the scene and thereafter he signed on it. The panchanama was marked through him as Ex.P2. In his cross examination he denied suggestion that the police

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 5 of 9 never conducted any panchanama in his presence.

13.PW6, PW7 examined as the circumstantial witnesses to the incident and PW8 examined as another panch for the scene have failed to support to the prosecution case, consequently their testimonies were declared as hostile.

14.PW9 deposed that on 07-04-2016 at 10.30 hours he received Ex.P1 report from

PW1 basing on which he registered a case in crime number 32/2015 under section 498-

A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP act. He further deposed that he examined PW1 at police station and proceeded to Pothireddypally village where he examined PW2 to PW4, PW6 and PW7 and he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and

PW8. He laid charge sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation.

In his cross examination he testified that Ex.P1 report and 161 statements of PW2 to

PW4, PW6 and PW7 does disclose that the accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry.

He admitted that PW1 to PW4, PW6 and PW7 did not state before me that PW2 had agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- cash and Ac.1-00 land to the accused as dowry. He denied that the accused never harassed PW1 for demand of dowry and that a false case was filed against the accused at the instance of PW1.

15.Heard arguments of learned APP and the defence counsel.

16.The learned APP through her arguments submitted that the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and out of them PW1 who is material witness and her evidence his consistence with regard to the offence committed by the accused against her. The learned APP has also submitted that PW2 and PW3, the parents of PW1 and PW4 who is independent witness have supported to the prosecution case and there evidence is in corroboration with each other with regard to the offence by the accused against PW1.

The investigation officer was examined as PW9 and his testimony is in corroboration

PW1 to PW5, therefore, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17.On the other hand the learned defence counsel through his arguments has submitted that though the prosecution examined the defacto complainant/victim as

PW1 but her testimony does not stand to proof any alleged harassment either mentally

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 6 of 9 are physically for the demand of fulfilling the dowry. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had ever harassed PW1 for dowry. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 being parents, cannot believed as they are interested witnesses. Apart from

PW1 to PW3 there is no substantial material on record to hold that the accused had committed any offence against the accused.

, 18.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences Punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP act beyond all reasonable doubt?

19. Before appreciate the evidence on record, it would be better to draw the attention to the ingredients of section 498-A IPC. The ingredients under section 498-A

IPC are as under.

1.The women must be married.

2.She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment.

3.Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of women or by the relatives of her husband to must demand of dowry.

20. POINT –I

The prosecution in order to establish that PW1 and A1 are wife and husband has relied on the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 and PW9. The evidence of PW1 categorically reveals that her marriage with A1 was solemnized on 09-10-2015 at Thimmajipet village. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 also corroborates that the marriage of PW1 with

A1 was solemnized in Thimmajipet village as decided by the Masjid committee,

Thimmajipet. The evidence of PW1 also categorically reveals that after that marriage with A1 they put up their family at Bijinepally. The defence through the cross examination PW1 to PW4 and PW9 has failed to elicit any material to deny the prosecution contention that PW1 got married A1 at Thimmajipet. Further, the cross examination of PW1 categorically reveals that PW1 and A1 were in love prior to their marriage and their marriage was solemnized by the Masjid committee at Thimmajipet.

Thus, considering the above material on record, this court found that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage of A1 with PW1, therefore, it is held that the

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 7 of 9 prosecution has undoubtedly established the marriage of PW1 was solemnized on 09-10-2015 with A1 at Thimmajipet.

21. POINT NO.II

The prosecution in order to establish that the accused have harassed PW1 mentally and physically to meet the demand of additional dowry has relied upon the testimonies of PW1 to PW5 and PW9. The learned APP has contended that all the accused have harassed PW1 demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW1 family and the learned APP to appreciate her contention, has drawn the attention of this court to the testimonies of PW1 to PW4. The testimony of PW1 categorically reveals that all the accused have demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and when PW1 failed to fulfil their demand of additional dowry, PW1 was necked out from their house. The testimonies of PW2 and PW3 corroborates with PW1 testimony with regard to the demand of additional dowry by the accused. The evidence of PW4 categorically reveals that on one day he witnessed A1 to A4 were quarrelling with PW1 demanding her additional dowry. Considering the above, the learned APP has contended that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is consistence and the prosecution has proved the fact of harassment by the accused against PW1 to meet additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Per contra, the learned defence counsel has contended that the cross examination of

PW1 to PW4 categorically establishes that their evidence should put to strict stand in the cross examination but they failed to establish the allegation of demand of dowry by the accused. The learned defence counsel to appreciate his contention has drawn the attention of this court to the cross examinations of witnesses. Admittedly, the cross examination of PW1 to PW3 categorically reveals that after the marriage of PW1 with

A1, they lived at Bijinepally for 20 days. It is also evident from their cross examination that PW1 and A1 alone lived separately from the accused family at Bijinepally and no other member of accused family were present with them at Bijinepally. Admittedly, the entire period of PW1 material life was about 3 months i.e., from 09-10-2015, the date of her marriage to till 10-01-2016, the date of her alleged necked out by accused from their family. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether PW1 meted any cruelty either in the hands of A1 or A2 to A9 during the entire period of 3 moths of her stay with accused family for the reason of doubt. As seen from the cross

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 8 of 9 examination of PW1 to PW3, it is categorically establishes that there were no disputes between PW1 and A1 during their stay of 20 days period at Bijinepally. The material on record also categorically reveals that the alleged harassment for demand of additional dowry was cropped up during the stay of PW1 at the house of accused at

Pothireddypally village after their shifting residence from Bijinepally to Pothireddypally village. Even if it is admitted that the alleged harassment was cropped up during the stay at Pothireddypally village subsequent after the discharge of A1 from the hospital but the cross examination of PW1 categorically reveals that there were no disputes between PW1 and the accused after discharge of A1 from the hospital. The cross examination of PW1 further also categorically establishes that A3 to A6 are residents at different places from A1 house. The material on record does not reveal any incidents as to demand of dowry by the accused or PW2 and PW3 or their family members have held any panchayaths before the village elders to pacify the said illegal demand of dowry. Though the prosecution case categorically reveals that PW2 had agreed to pay

Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry to the accused at the time of the marriage of PW1 with A1 but the prosecution did not bring any such material on record to substantiate the same.

The cross examination of the investigation officer also categorically reveals that PW1 to PW4, PW6 and PW7 did not state before him in their 161 statements that PW2 had agreed to give Rs.2,00,000/- and Ac.1-00 land to the accused. Hence considering the material on record, on appreciation of entire evidence on record and also the contentions of the leaned APP and defence counsel, this court is of considered view that there is no substantial material on record to hold that the accused have demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from PW1 family. Accordingly, this court held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, A1 to A9 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498(A) IPC and sec.3 and 4 of DP act and accordingly, A1 to A9 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled under section 437-A CrPC. No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of the property.

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 9 of 9

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of July, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

1. PW1 is Farzana Begum

2. PW2 is Raziya Begum

3. PW3 is Molla Khasim

4. PW4 is S.Nirajan

5. PW5 is Narsimha

6. PW6 is E.Buchanna

7. PW7 is Jangi Reddy

8. PW8 is K.Siva Prasad

9. PW9 is T.Guruswamy, SI of police

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1 is the report

2. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama

3. Ex.P3 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW6

4. Ex.P4 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW7

5. Ex.P5 is the Signature of PW8 on scene of offence panchanama

6. Ex.P6 is the FIR

7. Ex.P7 is the scene of offence panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool.

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 10 of 9

CC.No. 646 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool

1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SPECIAL MOBILE COURT AT

NAGARKURNOOL

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2020

CC.No. 43 OF 2018

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Revally ... Complainant

A N D

1. Galigalla Balakrishna S/o Kurmaiah, Age:17 years, caste:Madiga, Occ:Student,

2. Ketapally Chakravarthy S/o Balaswamy, age:26 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Agril.,

3. Voddeman Sulthan S/o Balakistaiah, Age:23 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Student

4. Galigalla Vinod S/o Gangaraiah, Age:19 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Student,

5. Teppa Govardhan S/o Babu, Age:22 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Agril.,

6. Voddeman Venkatesh S/o Balaiah, Age:18 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Student

7. Kethapally Paramesh S/o Balaswamy, Age:23 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Student

8. Kethapally Nagaiah @ Donga Nagaiah S/o Chinna Laxmaiah, Age:23 Years, caste:Madiga, Occ:Student.

9. Ranga Ramesh S/o Venkataiah, Age:23 Years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Student All are R/o Thalpanur village of Revally mandal and A4 presently residing at Thudukurthy village of Nagarkurnool mandal.

....Accused

This case coming on this day before me on 19-06-2020 for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP, counsel for the prosecution and Sri G.RamLaxman, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of PS Revally has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that on 22-09-2017 at 12.30 hours the defacto complainant U.Krishnaiah lodged a report before the police stating that on 21-09-2017 at 2000 hours all the accused beat him at Chaithanya Yuvajana sangam and caused injuries. He also submitted that the accused abused him in filthy language and he was rescued by P.Krishnaiah, A.Suresh, S.Bheemudu,

T.Neeranjan. The above report was registered as crime number 26/2017 under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC by D.Suresh SI of police. After investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC.

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 2 of 8

3.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w34 IPC against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under section 207 CrPC were furnished to them. The charge for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC was framed under section 240 (1) of CrPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused under section 240(2) of CrPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to ExP7 on their behalf and the defence did not choose to examine any witness and no documents were got marked on their behalf.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 CrPC, on the incriminating material found against the accused to which the accused denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

7.The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused has examined

PW1 to PW9. The defacto complainant was examined as PW1. PW2 to PW5 were examined as eye witnesses. PW6 and PW7 were examined as panchas for scene of offence. The doctor was examined as PW8 and the investigation officer was examined as PW9.

8.PW1 deposed that on 21-09-2017 at about 7-00 pm while he was passing through the village, he found A1, A2, A4 were quarrelling at the house of one

Mahesh then he pacified them and went to Chaithanya Yuvajana sangam building at bus stand. He along with PW3 to PW5 while chitchatting in the tailoring shop of PW2 at Chaithanya Yuvajana Sangam building, A1 to A9 came there. A1 thrown hammer at him to which he sustained pain on his chest. A6 beat him with Iron box on his

Head. The other accused beat him with hands and abused him in filthy language.

He further deposed that, he was rescued by PW2 to PW5 and thereafter he was

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 3 of 8 shifted to Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool. He lodged report before the police on the next day. He identified the material objects used against him as such the same were marked as MO1 and 2. In his cross examination he admitted that during the incident he lost his consciousness and he regained it on the next day around 11-00 am while he was at Nagarkurnool Hospital. He also testified that he was referred to

Mahabubnagar Hospital for CT scan and he was discharged from Nagarkurnool

Hospital on 22-09-2017. He admitted that he had no personal disputes with the accused prior to the present incident. He also admitted that the neighbours of the scene i.e., is Babaiah, Venkataraja and others were present at the time of incident.

He further testified that he is the supporter of congress party. He denied that the accused never beat him and caused any injuries.

9.PW2 to PW4 examined as eye witnesses and their testimonies to an extent of the alleged incident is found on the similar lines of PW1. PW2 in his cross examination testified that accused and some other persons around 40 members came to the scene and he stated the same to the police in his statement. He admitted that PW1, PW3 to PW5 and himself are the members of same caste and the accused belong to SC community. He also admitted that the brother of A3 and some others filed SC/ST case against one Shekar Reddy, Kasi Reddy. He denied that to support them PW1 has filed the present report against the accused to get compromise the SC/ST case.

10.PW5 is examined as one of the eye witness PW6 and PW7 examined as panchas for the scene and recovery of MO’s.1 and 2 have failed to support the prosecution case, consequently their testimonies were declared as Hostile.

11.PW8 deposed that on 10.10.2017 at about 12.30 pm he examined PW1 at

CHC, Revally and found 1.Contusion 5x2 cm on left chick below lower eyelid. 2. Scar mark 3x1 cm over left partial bone region. 3. Healed abrasion 1x1 cm back near spinal-cord region lumbar region. He further deposed that the age of the injuries are 16 to 20 days and they are simple in nature. Ex.P5 Medical certificate was issued

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 4 of 8 by him. In his cross examination he testified that the injured did not produce any medical record of his previous treatment to the injuries referred above. He testified that he got X-ray for chest pain of PW1 but he did not handover X-ray report to police. He further testified that he received requisition for examination of PW1 on 10.10.2017.

12.The investigation officer who is examined as PW9 has deposed that on 22.09.2017 at 1230 hours he received a report from PW1, on which he registered a case in crime no.26/2017 under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

He examined PW1 at police station and on the same day he visited the scene where he secured the presence of PW6 and PW7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and also seized MO’s 1 and 2 from the scene. He further testified that he examined PW2 to PW5 at the scene. He further deposed that on receipt of report, he referred PW1 to CHC, Revally for Medical examination and again on 10.10.2017 he sent him for X-ray report. On 23.09.2017 he served 41-

A notice on the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross examination he testified that he had not seized blood stain clothes from PW1. He admitted that the date on requisition for medical certificate has got correction. He further admitted that he had not examined the other members at Chaithanya Yuvajana Sangam except as suggested by PW1 in the report. He denied the suggestion that he did not sent PW1 for medical examination and that Ex.P5 was created for the purpose of this case and that he is deposing false.

13.Heard arguments of learned APP and defence counsel.

14. Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC. beyond reasonable doubt?

15.On careful scrutiny of material on record, the prosecution case through the contention of the learned APP unfolds that, all the accused assaulted PW1 and caused injuries, more particularly A1 caused injury to PW1 with MO1 on his chest

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 5 of 8 and A6 caused head injury to PW1 with MO2. The prosecution to establish its case against the accused has let in the evidence of as many as nine witnesses. PW1 was examined as defacto complainant/injured. PW2 to PW5 were examined as eye witness to the incident. The learned APP to appreciate her contention has drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of PW1 to PW4. On scrutiny of the ocular evidence of PW1 to PW4, it is found that all the accused assaulted PW1 on the alleged day and caused injuries. However, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 would stand as fact only after passing the test of cross examination. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has contended that the testimonies of PW1 to PW4 are covered by contradictions and their evidence cannot be believed. To establish the contradictions, the learned defence counsel has drawn the attention of this court to the cross examination of PW1 to PW4. Admittedly, PW1 to PW4 are friends.

According to PW1, A1 to A9 attacked on PW1 and out of them A1 and A6 caused grievous injuries with MO1 and MO2. The cross examination of PW2 to PW4 categorically reveals that on the alleged day of incident A1 to A9 and 40 other persons attacked on PW1. Their cross examination further discloses that they stated

before the police in their 164 statement that A1 to A9 and 40 other persons

participated on the alleged day of incident. Now a question that arises is, whether 40 more persons participated in the alleged incident on that day apart from A1 to

A9. To answer the same, when perused the 161 CrPC statements of PW2 to PW4, nothing material as to 40 more number of persons participated apart from A1 to A9 is found. The testimony of the investigation officer who is examined as PW9 also does not reveal any such fact. Further, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 discloses that the neighbouring shop owners of scene were present at the time of incident, but the testimony of PW9, the investigation officer discloses that he has not examined the neighbours of scene as eye witnesses except PW2 to PW5 as suggested by PW1. At this point this court found that as the evidence of PW1, PW2 to PW4 is found contradictory as to number of persons participated in the alleged incident, the prosecution would have supplemented the sale through the independent evidence available at the scene, but as it is clear from PW9 evidence, that no such

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 6 of 8 independent evidence is collected from the scene. Thus, the evidence of PW1 to

PW4 found contradictory and as admitted, PW2 to PW4 are friends of PW1, their presence at scene on the alleged day is found doubtful. The prosecution though examined PW5 as one of the eye witnesses to the alleged incident but he failed to support the prosecution case. Hence the contention of defence counsel that the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is covered by contradictions as to identity of the accused and also the number of persons participated in the offence is found on sound lines.

16.The prosecution to prove the injury of PW1 has relied upon the evidence of

PW1, PW8 and PW9. PW1 evidence discloses that after the incident he was shifted to Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool and he remained in the hospital on 21-09-2017 and on the next day he was referred to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar for CT scan. It is also evident from his testimony that he was discharge from Area Hospital,

Nagarkurnool on 22-09-2017. The evidence of PW8 categorically reveals that he received requisition from SHO, Revally on 10-10-2017 and he examined PW1 at CHC

Revally and found the injuries mentioned in Ex.P5 medical certificate. The age of alleged injuries was recorded in the medical certificate as 16 to 18 days. The evidence of PW9 categorically reveals that he referred PW1 to CHC, Revally immediate after receipt of report and again sent PW1 to CHC, Revally on 10-10-2017 for X-ray report. His cross examination categorically reveals that the date on requisition for Ex.P5 medical certificate has got correction. Thus, it is clinchingly establishes that the evidence of PW1 and PW8 is quite opposite because, the evidence of PW1 discloses that he took treatment for his injuries in the alleged incident at Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool whereas PW8 evidence discloses that he examined PW1 at CHC, Revally. At this point, this court, considering the medical certificate and the oral evidence of PW1 found that, even if PW1 was treated at Area

Hospital, Nagarkurnool on 21-09-2017 and he was referred to District Hospital,

Mahabubnagar for CT scan and subsequently he got examined through PW8 on 10- 10-2017 but the prosecution failed to bring all such material on record to appreciate the same. Therefore, considering the discussion made supra, this court is of

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 7 of 8 considered view that a cloud is casting on the testimonies of PW1, PW8 and PW9 to prove the injuries on PW1.

17. The prosecution failed to establish the recovery of MO1 and MO2 from the scene as the panchas failed to support the prosecution case. The rough sketch map alleged to have prepared by PW9 also does not discloses, about any description of

MO1 and 2 at scene. Further, there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 to

PW4, PW8 and PW9 as to abusive words alleged to have uttered by accused against

PW1. Therefore, this court found that the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of section 504 IPC against accused.

In view of the above discussion, admissions filed this court is of considered view that the prosecution has filed establish the guilt of accused for the offences under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, A1 to A9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324, 504 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly A1 to A9 are acquitted under section 248 (1) CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled under section 437-A CrPC. MO1 and MO2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June, 2020. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

1. PW.1 is Sri U.Krishnaiah

2. PW.2 is Sri Krishnaiah

3. PW.3 is Sri A.Suresh

4. PW.4 is Sri S.Bheemudu

5. PW.5 is Sri T.Niranjan

6. PW.6 is Sri A.Parandamulu

7. PW.7 is Sri.T.Chandraiah

8. Pw.8 is Sri Dr.P.Naresh Kumar

9. PW.9 is Sri B.Suresh

FOR DEFENCE -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1 is the report

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 8 of 8

2. Ex.P2 is 161 CrPC statement of PW5

3. Ex.P3 is Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama

4. Ex.P4 is Signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama

5. Ex.P5 is the Medicial certificate

6. Ex.P6 is the FIR

7. Ex.P7 is the Scene of offence panchanama

FOR DEFENCE - NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: -

MO 1 is the Hammer MO.2 is the Iron box

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile, Nagarkurnool.

CC.No. 43 of 2018 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool

1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SPL. MOBILE COURT ::

AT NAGARKURNOOL.

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JULY,2020 PRESENT:T.MURALI MOHAN,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

CC.NO. 320 OF 2017

Between:-

The State through PS Gopalpet ...Complainant

A N D Ankiraopally Gopal S/o Bakkaiah, Age:30 years, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o Pasupula village of Kodair mandal

....Accused

This case coming on this day before me on 10-07-2020 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, counsel for the prosecution and Sri G.Ram Lakshmaiah, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub-Inspector of police, Gopalpet, has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

2.The averments of charge sheet in brief are that, on 13-03-2014 at 1630 hours the defacto complainant Erapaga Laxmaiah has lodged a report before the police,

Gopalpet taking that on 12-03-2014 at about 2300 hours his daughter Naramma and his son in law were proceeding on a tractor bearing number AP22 S5806 from

Wanapatla and Yedutla which was driven by his son in law and on the way at

Chittamonikunta of Ananthapur village, the accused drove the tractor in high speed, consequently his daughter fell down from the tractor and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Basing on his report, PW11 registered a case in crime no.34/2014, under section 304-A IPC. He investigated in to the case and PW9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.

Hence the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence under section 304-A IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under section 207 CrPC were furnished to him. The accused was examined under section 251

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 2 of 5

CrPC and accusation for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC was explained to the accused, to which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW11 and Ex.P1 to P6 got marked. The defense did not examine any witnesses and no exhibits were got marked on their behalf.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 CrPC on the incriminating material found against the accused to which the accused denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.The prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined PW1 to PW11.

The defacto complainant and his relatives were examined as PW1 to PW4. The eye witnesses were examined as PW5. PW6 and PW7 were examined as panch for inquest panchanama of deceased Naramma and scene of offence panchanama. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of deceased Naramma was examined as PW8. PW10 was examined as MVI and the investigation officers were examined as PW9 and 11.

9. The learned APP through her arguments submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by examining 11 witnesses. The learned APP has further submitted that the prosecution could establish the identity and negligence of the accused through the testimonies of PW1 to PW4. The learned APP has also further contended that the testimonies of PW8, PW9 and PW11 categorically establishes that the deceased Naramma succumbed to injuries that were sustained in the accident in question, therefore, the learned APP contended that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

10.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel through his arguments has submitted that, though the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses but non of the witnesses spoke about the negligent of the accused and also the identity of the accused as the driver of tractor in question. The learned defence counsel further

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 3 of 5 submitted that there is no substantial piece of evidence to prove the case against the accused, therefore prayed to acquit the accused.

11. Now the point for consideration is

1. Whether the deceased Naramma succumbed to injuries sustained in the motor Vehicle accident at the scene of offence place?

2. Whether the tractor in question involved in the accident?

3. Whether the accused was the driver of tractor and drove the tractor in question in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident?

POINT NO.1

12.The prosecution in order to establish that the deceased Smt Naramma, the daughter of the defacto complainant and wife of the accused was succumbed to injuries that were sustained in the alleged accident at the scene in question, has relied upon the testimonies of PW1 to PW4, PW8, PW9 and PW11. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2 are the parents of the deceased Naramma and PW3 and PW4 are the relatives of PW1 and PW2. The testimonies of PW1 to PW4 categorically reveal that the deceased

Naramma succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident at Chittamonikunta while herself and the accused were proceeding towards PW1 house. Their evidence further categorically reveals that on the information received from PW5 they rushed to the scene and found the deceased under the tractor with the injuries. The testimony of

PW8 discloses that she held Postmortem examination over the dead of deceased

Naramma on 13-03-2014 on the requisition issued by SHO, Gopalpet and issued PME report certifying that the death of the deceased was due to fracture of upper and lower limbs and pelvis. The Postmortem examination report marked through her as Ex.P3.

The postmortem examination categorically discloses that the deceased sustained multiple injuries such as fracture of right lower limb ( leg, thigh and foot), fracture of right and left forearms, injury to right eye, bleeding from nose and mouth and fracture of pelvic bones. The testimony of PW11 categorically establishes that on receipt of the report under Ex.P1, he had been to the scene and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Naramma in the presence of PW6 and PW7. His testimony also discloses that he gave requisition to PW8 to hold Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Though

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 4 of 5

PW6 and PW7 failed to support the prosecution case to an extent of holding inquest by

PW11 over the dead body of deceased Naramma, but as seen from the cross examination of PW1 to PW4, PW8, PW9 and PW11, this court does not find any material to contradict the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Naramma died in accident at the scene. Therefore, in the absence of any material contradictions, the evidence of PW1 to PW4, PW8, PW9 and PW11 is found intact and unchallenged. Thus, in my considered view, this court held that the prosecution has established that deceased Naramma died due to the injuries sustained in the accident at the scene in question.

POINT NO.2 & 3

13.The prosecution has contended that the accused was the driver of the tractor in question and the accused drove the tractor in negligent manner while proceeding from

Wanapatla to Yedula village on the alleged day of accident. The prosecution to prove the above contention has let in the evidence of 11 witnesses. PW1 to PW4 as admitted are the relatives of the deceased Naramma and their evidence categorically reveals that they came to know about the accident through PW5. As seen from the prosecution case, PW5 was examined as eye witness to the accident but surprisingly,

PW5 failed to support the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution declared him as hostile and the prosecution failed to elicit any material from his cross examination.

Moreover, except PW5 there are no other material witnesses to speak about the identity and negligent driving of the accused at the time of the accident. Further, the prosecution did not choose to examine any independent witnesses from the scene except PW5 as suggested by the defacto complainant in his report dated 13-03-2014.

The panchas for the scene who were examined as PW6 and PW7 have also failed to support the prosecution case. Thus, this court is of considered view that there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that the accused was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident at the scene and he drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 5 of 5

14.In view of the above discussion this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the alleged tractor and the accused drove the tractor in question in negligent manner at the time of the accident.

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC, accordingly the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of

CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled under section 437-A of CrPC.

No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of case property.

Dictated to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the

16th day of July, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

1. PW1 is E.Laxmaiah

2. PW2 is E.Ramulamma

3. PW3 is Bhagyamma

4. PW4 is Balaswamy

5. PW5 is K.Niranjan

6. PW6 is T.Balamma, VRA

7. PW7 is G.Thirupathaiah

8. PW8 is Dr.P.Thulasi, CAS

9. PW9 is K.Karunakar, Inspector of police 10.PW10 is Shaik Raja Mohammed, MVI 11.PW11 is Syed Iliyaz, Retd., ASI

FOR DEFENCE - NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1 is the report

2. Ex.P2 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW5

3. Ex.P3 is the PME report

4. Ex.P4 is the FIR

5. Ex.P5 is the FIR

5. Ex.P6 is the scene of offence panchanama

6. Ex.P7 is the Inquest panchanama

FOR DEFENCE:

1. Ex.D1 is the some part of 161 CrPC statement of PW4

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil –

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 6 of 5

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool.

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool 7 of 5

CC.No. 320 of 2017 JFCM, Mobile Court,

Nagarkurnool

1 Of 5

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

PRESENT: T. MURALI MOHAN,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, NAGARKURNOOL

DATED ON THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2020

CC.NO. 526 OF 2017

Between:

The State through P.S Thimmajipet .... Complainant

A N D A1 Mallepaka Chennaiah S/o Jangaiah, Age:33 years Occ:Lorry driver R/o Ibrahimpally village of Balangar Mandal A2 Sangyam Vishnuvardhan Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, Age:35 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Lorry owner R/o Mudireddypally village of Balangar Mandal

....Accused

This case coming on this day before me on 22-06-2020 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, counsel for the prosecution and Sri K.Giridhar goud, counsel

for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The state represented through the Sub Inspector of Police Thimmajipet has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC and

Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2.The averments of the charge sheet in brief are that, on 03-12-2013 at 0700 hours the defacto complainant Sri Khaja Raheemuddin, VRO has lodged report stating that he along with his assistant Jangamma under the instructions of MRO, Thimmajipet were on route watch to discover illegal transportation of sand on that day and at about 6.30 hours he found a lorry bearing number AP28123909 loaded with sand. He informed the same to the police on which to constables came to the scene and shifted the lorry to the police station. Basing on his report, a case in crime number 129/2013 under section 379 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act were registered against the accused and recorded a confession panchanama of the accused and they were remanded to judicial custody. After the completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.Basing on the charge sheet filed by the police, the case was taken on file for the offence under section 379 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

CC.No. 526 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 2 Of 5

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents as required under section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them. The accused were examined under section 239 CrPC. A charge for the offence U/s 379 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act was framed U/s 240 (1) CrPC and the same was read over and explained to the accused u/s 240 (2) of

CrPC to which the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 the defence did not choose to examine any witnesses on behalf and no documents got marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 CrPC on the incriminating material appeared against them, to which the accused denied and reported no evidence to be adduced on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP and the defence counsel.

8.The learned APP in their Arguments submitted that the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and out of them PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 are the material witnesses and their evidence is consistencies and un challenged, therefore, the prosecution has established the case against the accused.

9.On the other hand the learned defence counsel through the documents has submitted that the prosecution has filed a false case for statically purpose and that

PW1, PW2, PW3, and PW5 are interested witnesses and expect that there is no independent evidence on record as such their evidence cannot be weighed against the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.I have carefully gone through the material on record and gave thoughtful consideration to the submission of the learned APP and the learned defence counsel.

The contention the learned APP is that the accused were found at the scene with lorry

CC.No. 526 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 3 Of 5 in question loaded with sand. The learned APP to appreciate her contention has drawn the attention of this court to the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5. The testimony of PW1 discloses that he along with PW7 discovered the lorry in question at the scene on the alleged day and he informed the same to the police, Thimmajipet who in turn came to the scene and shifted the lorry to the police station. The testimonies of

PW2, PW3 and PW5 as to the information received by them through PW1 about his discovery of lorry in question at the scene is found in corroboration. But their evidence must be weighed against the accused only after passing the test of cross examination.

The cross examination of PW1 categorically reveals that he and PW7 had been to the scene under the instructions of the MRO Thimmajipet. His cross examination further discloses that the offence was discovered at 6.30 AM and he informed the same to the police immediately and it is also evident from his cross examination that the distance in between the police station and the scene is about 200 meters. The cross examination PW2 discloses that they started from the police station at about 8-00 AM and reached the scene at about 8-15 AM and the distances between police station and scene is about 500 meters. The cross examination of PW5 discloses that he do not remember the number of people gathered at scene at the time of their visit.

Considering the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the alleged scene of offence place is in between 200 to 500 meters from the police station, Thimmajipet and the evidence of PW1 though discloses that he had been to the scene under the instructions of MRO, Thimmajipet but the prosecution failed to collect any material as to drafting PW1 to above duty on that day. Admittedly, PW1 was working as VRO,

Markel on the alleged day but the prosecution failed to establish as to the authority of

PW1 to discover the offence at the scene. Further, on perusal report and the FIR, it is found that the time of registration of the alleged crime as got material alteration. The prosecution as also failed to examine any independent witnesses from the scene who ascertain about the alleged offence. Further, PW7 who alleges to have accompanied

PW1 to the scene on the alleged day has failed to support the prosecution case. Thus, considering the material on record and the discursion made above, this court is of considered view that the presence of PW1 at the scene on the alleged day is found doubtful.

CC.No. 526 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 4 Of 5

12. The material on record categorically reveals that the investigation officer had recorded the confession panchanama of the accused and seized the vehicle in the presence of PW4 and PW6 but they failed to support the prosecution case. The evidence of PW5 discloses that they did not obtain the photographs of the alleged lorry at the scene when they found it at the scene. Therefore in the absence of material and independent evidence on record, it is unsafe to believe the evidence of investigation officer. Hence this court is of considered view that the prosecution has to failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC, Sec. 3 of PDPP act and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The interim custody of the lorry given to the owner is made absolute after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of June, 2020.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

1. PW1 is Khaja Raheemdoddin

2. PW2 is B.Raju, Police constable

3. PW3 is PN.Jani Babu, Head Constable

4. PW4 is S.Govind

5. Pw.5 is SN Khadri, ASI

6. PW.6 is A.Mallaiah

7. PW.7 isB.Jangamma, VRA

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P1 is the Report

2. Ex.P2 is the Signature of PW4 on confession cum seizure panchanama

3. Ex.P3 is the Signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama

4. Ex. P4 is the Signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama

5. Ex.P5 is the Signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama

6. Ex.P6 is the 161 CrPC Statement

MATERIAL OBJECTS:-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile Court, Nagarkurnool.

CC.No. 526 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool 5 Of 5

CC.No. 526 of 2017 JFCM, Spl.Mobile Court

Nagarkurnool

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL I ADDL.JUDGE-cum-SPL.JMFC(MOBILE) AT

NAGARKURNOOL

DATED : 28thday of July, 2020

PRESENT: Sri T.Murali Mohan I Addl.JCJ-cum-Spl.JMFC(Mobile), Nagarkurnool.

CC. No.209 of 2019

Between:- S. Anjaneyulu S/o Rajaiah age:49 Years, Occ:Executive officer of GandiAnjaneyaswamy temple

Address - R/o Buddaram village of Gopalpet mandal.

...Complaint AND

1) naguluri Adhinaryana Yegaiah age:30 Years Occ:Fishing

Address - R/on Kotha Madavaram vilage, Ontimitta mandal.

2) Chinna Venkatswamy S/o Yegaiah age:25 years, Occ:TV Covers seller

R/on Kotha Madavaram vilage, Ontimitta mandal.

3) Gurunadam Anjaneyulu S/o Hanmanthu @ Anjaneyulu age:19 years, Occ:TV covers seller

R/on Kotha Madavaram vilage, Ontimitta mandal.

4) Naguluri Yesob S/o Late Yesaiah age:20 years, Occ:TV Cover seller

R/on Kotha Madavaram vilage, Ontimitta mandal.

5) Naguluri Yesu Rathanam S/o Yessaiah age:23 years, Occ Snake catcher /Beggar

R/on Kotha Madavaram vilage, Ontimitta mandal.

6) naguluriAnjaneyulu S/o Venkateshwarlu age:23 years, Occ:Mason

R/o Masaram village Kanigiri mandal prakasham district, AP

...Accused

Offence punishable under : U/s 457, 380 r/w 511 IPC

DOCKET ORDER:

Accused nos.1 to 4 produced before me in District Jail at Mahabubnagar and made requisition voluntarily admitting his/their guilt for the offences under section 457, 380, 511. Further, accused nos.1 to 4 submitted that he/they pleaded not guilty at the time of examination

in the court but now, he/they likes to plead guilty voluntarily. Accordingly, this court relied on the

judgment of the Hon&amp#039ble Kerala High court on 26-022003 reported in 2003 Law suit (Kerala ) 172 in between Santhosh V/s State of Kerala. Whetherin, it was held that &ampquotthe accused can withdraw his plea of trial at any time and plead guuilty at any stage after commencement of trial&ampquot and it appears that the accused pleaded guilty voluntarily. Hence, he/they covicted under section 241 CrPC for the offences punishable under section 457, 380, 511. 2.Heard the accused nos.1 to 4 on the quantum of sentence to imposed on him/them. For which, he/they pleaded the court to tae a lenient view stating that he/they is/are the sole bread winners to their family members and suffering with ill health. Taking into consideration, the facts and circmstances of the case, a lenient punishment is sufficient in the interest of justice and the accused nos.1 to 4 sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 8 months (day/months) and also to pay fine of Rs.50/- each 457, 380 IPC payment of fine to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of 7 (days/months). All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period from 01-08-2019 to 25-07-2020 is set off under section 428 CrPC. The un-marked case property vide CPR no.on the file of JMFC/Addl.JMFC shall be destroyed/returned to the defacto complainant/owner of the proiperty. If already given to the owner of the property for interim custody shall become absolute. The Superintendent, District, Mahabubnagar is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he/they not required in any other cases.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of July, 2020.

I Addl.JCJ-cum-Spl.JMFC(mobile) Nagarurnool

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

31 th day of October, 2020 PRESENT: Sri.T. Murali Mohan Junior Civil Judge-Cum, Spl.Mobile,Nagarkurnool Nagarkurnool

Cr. No.207 of 2020

Between:- Kdaem Laxmamma W/o Late Shankartaiah, age:58 years, Caste:Veeramusti, Occ:Coolie R/o

Uyyalawada village of Nagarkurnool mandal

Complaint AND

Sarangi Balaraju @ Balaswamy S/o Jambulaiah, age:52 years, Caste:Veeramusti, Occ:Coolie, R/o

Moosapet now at Marketyard, Nagarkurnool

.Accused

Offence punishable under : U/s 302 IPC of CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

ORDER:

Perused the record. The recordes discloses that the accused was remanded to Judicial custody on 27-06-2020 and sine them he has been in judicial custody. The secured further discloses that the present case was requested apart the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC. The report of Seeterm check ----- that no charge sheet is filed in them case as

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23 rd day of November, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.