Sri.T.Muralidhar

1

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT: SRI.T.MURALIDHAR

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA

Monday, the 14th day of September, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No. 228 of 2015

(PRC No. 94 of 2010 on the file of JMFC, Sircilla)

Name of the complainant :The Sub Inspector of Police, Konaraopet PS (Cr.No.54 of 2009).

Name of the accused :Manuka Narsaiah, S/o Mallaiah, age: 28 years, Caste: Golla, R/o Nimmapalli village

Charges against the U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 506 IPC accused:

Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Not guilty

Sentence or Order :The accused is found not guilty and he is accordingly acquitted U/s 232

CrPC of the charges U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 506 IPC.

He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any cause.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by :Sri D.Sanjeeva Reddy, Addl. P.P., Sircilla.

Counsel for the accused :Sri A.Nagaraju, legal aid counsel

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Konaraopet laid charge sheet in

Cr.No.54 of 2009 for offences punishable U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 2 506 IPC alleging as follows: The accused, who is the cousin brother of the informant and victim, developed illegal contacts with the mother of the informant and he used to visit the house of the informant quite often.

On 20-04-2009 the father of the victim returned from Dubai and learnt about the illegal contacts of his wife with the accused. The accused, with a view to continue his illegal contacts, prepared a plan to take away the wife of the mother of the victim along with her two children namely

Manuka Swapna and Manuka Rajitha and also with an intention to have sexual intercourse with the victim. Accordingly, on 24-4-2009 at about 8-30 PM the accused went to the house of the victim and forcibly took the victim, her younger sister and their mother to Sadashivanagar and kept them in a rented house belonging to Dekonda Pandari and confined them and forced the victim to fulfil his sexual desire at the point of knife and that when she refused to oblige him, the accused attacked her with a knife and caused injury on her back and threatened her that if she did not fulfil his desire, he would sell her to a prostitute den in Mumbai. On 22.5.2009 the victim and her younger sister, however, escaped from the rented house and both of them approached the police where the victim lodged a report. During the course of investigation, on 23-5-2009 the accused was arrested and the knife used by him in the commission of offence was recovered from his possession and at his instance before the mediators under cover of a panchanama and charge sheet was laid after completion of investigation.

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla took cognizance U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 506 IPC and after supplying 3 copies of case documents, committed the case to the court of Session as the offences U/Ss 366 and 354 IPC are exclusively triable by the court of

Session. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Karimnagar made over the case to this court for disposal as per law.

3.On appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides, this court framed charges U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 506 IPC against him, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the victim and her younger sister as PWs1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3.

5.Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence on record, the examination of the accused U/S 313 CrPC is dispensed with.

6.I have heard the arguments of both sides.

7. The point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

8. The victim, who is none other than the cousin sister of the accused, is the informant and examined as PW1 and her younger sister

Rajitha is examined as PW2. Both of them in one voice deposed that about 6 years ago a quarrel took place between their family members and the accused, upon which they approached the police, who obtained the signature of PW1 on a blank white paper, marked as in Ex.P1, stating 4 that they would summon the accused and subside the issue and thus the accused committed no offence against them nor PW1 lodged any report

before the police in writing. The prosecuting agency filed a report that

the father of PWs1 and 2, who is cited as LW3 (Manuka Narayana), expired about two years ago. A certificate issued by the competent authority to that effect is filed into the court. PW1 further deposed that her elder brother Manuka Srinivas, who is cited as LW4, went to gulf for a living and there is no chance of his returning to India in near future.

According to PW1, her grandmother Chirram Rajavva who is cited as

LW5, became old and is unable to attend the court due to old age. In view of the fact that PWs1 and 2 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, it appears the prosecution has not evinced interest in taking steps for producing further evidence, as no useful purpose will be served even if they are examined. Consequently, this court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

9.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is accordingly acquitted U/s 232 CrPC of the charges U/Ss 366, 342, 354, 324 and 506 IPC. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any cause.

10. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of September,

2015.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution :- PW1: Manuka Swapna, victim & informant PW2: Manuka Rajitha, younger sister of PW1

For defence:- -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For prosecution :- For defence:- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report dt.23-05-2009 -Nil- Ex.P2: S 161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3: S 161 CrPC statement of PW2 ::MATERIAL OBJECTS:: -Nil-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: SRI.T.MURALIDHAR., 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

E.P.No.13 of 2014.

Between:

Ms Sriram City Union Finance Pvt Ltd.

…Petitioner.

And

Madishetty Krupal.

…Respondent.

::DOCKET ORDER DATED: 07-9-2015::

Full satisfaction memo is file and the same is recorded. EP is terminated.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: SRI.T.MURALIDHAR., 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

E.P.No.18 of 2011.

Between:

Ms. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., …Petitioner.

And

Aakkannapally Kiran Kumar.

…Respondent.

::DOCKET ORDER DATED: 07-9-2015::

Full satisfaction memo is filed and the same is recorded. EP is terminated.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA.

PRESENT: SRI.T.MURALIDHAR., 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.

E.P.No.26 of 2012.

Between:

Khairath Pasha., …Petitioner.

And

Miskin Pasha.

…Respondent.

::DOCKET ORDER DATED: 08-9-2015::

Heard the counsel. Memo is recorded. E.P is dismissed as withdrawn pending further action on administrative side.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SIRCILLA.