Smt T Rajya Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST

WOMEN, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: T. Rajyalakshmi, VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against women, Chittoor.

Friday, the Eighth (8th) day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty two (08.04.2022).

Sessions Case No. 259 of 2018

(P.R.C. No. 10/2018

(On committal by Sri Y. Gopala Krishna, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati, in P.R.C.No. 10 of 2018 dated 12.06.2018 in Crime No.68/2018 of East Police Station, Tirupati)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Complainant: Sub-Divisional Police Ofcer, East Sub-Division, Tirupati.

: A-1: Mopuri Nehru, S/o M. Venkatamuni, aged Accused: about 28 years, Senior Executive Quality Control, Cifla Company, Bangalore, resident of Kayampeta Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District.

A-2: M. Venkatamuni, S/o M. Papaiah, aged about 61 years, resident of Kayampeta Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District.

A-3: M. Dhananjaya @ Dhananjayulu, S/o M. Venkatamuni, aged 27 years, resident of Kayampeta Village, Vadamalapeta Mandal, Chittoor District.

Prosecution case: Smt. T. Nirmala, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, : Sri B. Nagaraja- Advocate for Accused No.1 to 3 Accused defended by Nature of ofence: Under Sec.498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

Pleaofthe: Accused No.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty. accused Finding of the: Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty. court Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the ofence 2 punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and A-2 and A-3 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec.4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Smt. T. Nirmala - Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri B. Nagaraja- Advocate for Accused No.1 to 3 and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Divisional Police Ofcer, East Sub-Division, Tirupati fled charge sheet in Cr.No.68/2018 for the ofence U/Sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No.1 to 3.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that A. Sumalatha is daughter of defacto complainant A. Sreenivasulu who is resident of D.No. 1- 01-63, 1st Floor, Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati. She is given in marriage to A-1 on 22.08.2016. At the time of marriage, her father gave 10 sovereigns of gold ornaments to A-1 and 50 sovereigns of gold jewels to her and spent Rs.

10,00,000/- for the marriage apart from providing house hold articles worth

Rs. 1,50,000/- and he also promised to give his four stairs building to her after his death. After marriage, A-1 and Sumalatha resided in K.R. Puram,

Bangalore and as A-1’s Salary is not sufcient, her father helping A-1 and her and A-1 started harassing her demanding additional dowry. They are blessed with female child. Due to birth of female child, A-1 continued harassment aginst his wife Sumalatha and demanded her to register the house in his name immediately as promised earlier at the time of marriage, he, A-2 father and A-3 younger brother of A-1 demanded her for additional dowry. She brought it to the notice of her father and neighbours also informed to her father about harassment meted out to her by A-1 to A-3. So her father 3 brought A-1 and Sumalatha to his house at Tirupati about 2 months back and since then they stayed in his house. A-1 had quarrel with his wife Sumalatha and went to Bangalore. On 04.03.2018 he came to the house and had a quarrel with her and on 05.03.2018 morning, she informed to her father that

A-1 harassed her for additional dowry through out night and so saying she went to 2nd floor and vexed on her life, committed suicide by hanging to ceiling fan in her bed room by bolting inside. Basing on the complaint of her father, LW-28/SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.68/2018 U/Sec. 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. LW-29 Sub-Divisional

Police Ofcer investigated the case and examined witnesses and visited the scene of ofence and prepared rough sketch of the scene and seized material objects under cover of mahazar and photographed the dead body of deceased at scene of ofence and he got held inquest over the dead body of deceased through Tahsildar and got held postmortem through the medical ofcer and on 12.03.2018 he arrested A-1. A-2 and A-3 got anticipatory bail.

After receipt of postmortem certifcate and completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the above mentioned ofences.

3. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati has taken cognizance of case for the ofence U/Sec. 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and U/Sec. 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No.1 to 3 vide

P.R.C.No. 10 of 2018 and committed it to the court of Sessions as the ofence under Sec. 304-B IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Chittoor registered it as S.C. No.

259 of 2018 and made over it to V Additional District Judge’s Court, Tirupati for disposal

5. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 before V Additional District

Judge, Tirupati, upon considering the material on record and upon hearing

the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused No.1 to 3, charges were framed U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec. 3 and 4 of 4 D.P Act against A-1, U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC and U/Sec. 4 of D.P

Act r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3 have been framed, read over and explained to accused No.1 to 3 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.When the matter is pending for trial, it is transferred to this court on being designated as Special Court for trial of ofences against women, for disposal according to law.

7.To substantiate its case, prosecution examined Pws-1 to 4 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-3/A. Radhakrishna, LW-4/Amjikare Koteswar, LW-5/C. Suresh

Babu, LW-6/E. Hemanth Kumar, LW-7/K. Jayaram Yadav, LW-9/D. Ramakrishna

Reddy, LW-11/B. Muni Reddy, LW-12/V. Jansi, LW-13/D. Naveen Kumar, LW-14/

K. Nagaraja, LW-15/V.M. Ravi, LW-16/C. Manjunath, LW-17/timmanna Gowda,

LW-18/V.VenkatramanaReddy,LW-19/BathalaKumaraswamy,

LW-20/Cheemala Hemaiah, LW-21/Maddu Subramanyam, LW-22/Ember

Vemaiah, LW-23/Balachandar Jayalakshmi, LW-24/A. Chandra Mohan,

LW-25/Dr. Naveen Kumar, LW-26/Dr. K. Mamatha, LW-27/Dr. V. Nagaraju, LW- 28/B. Praveen Kumar and LW-29/M. Muniramaiah.

8.Since there is no incriminating material against the accused No.1 to 3 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel

for accused No.1 to 3.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the

accused No.1 for the ofence U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec.

3 and 4 of D.P Act, U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec. 4 of D.P

Act r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Point:

According to prosecution, A-1 married Sumalatha daughter of PWs-1 5 and 2 and at the time of marriage he has taken gold towards dowry and after marriage A-1 demanded her to get the house of her father registered in his name and A-1 to A-3 demanded her for additional dowry and about 2 months prior to her death, she along with A-1 were brought to her parental house and there they stayed and A-1 had quarrel with her demanding additional dowry and on that she vexed on her life and committed suicide in her parental house on 05.03.2018 by hanging. PW-1 A. Sreenivasulu and PW-2 A. Kumari who are parents of Sumalatha stated in their evidence that the marriage of

Sumalatha with A-1 was performed on 22.08.2016 at DBR Kalyana

Mandapam, Tirupati. A-2 is father of A-1 and A-3 is brother of A-1. After marriage A-1 and Sumalatha stayed at Bangalore and they are blessed with female child after one year of the marriage. Since the date of delivery, their daughter Sumalatha sufered headche and she was diagnosed that she was sufering from migrane, therefore they brought her to their house one week prior to her death. Unable to bear headache, she went inside bed room and bolted the door and committed suicide by hanging to fan. They opened the door forcibly and took her to Sankalpa Hospital, Tirupati and there she was declared dead. PW-3 E. Bharath Kumar, distant relative of PWs-1 and 2, deposed that A-1 is husband of Sumalatha, A-2 is father of A-1, A-3 is brother of A-1. Sumalatha was sufering from headache and Sumalatha committed suicide and she was shifted to hospital and immediately he rushed to hospital and saw that Sumalatha died and he know to this extent. PW-4 B.

Subramanyam neighbor of PWs-1 and 2, deposed that A-1 is husband of

Sumalatha. Sumalatha was sufering from headache and she committed suicide in her parents house due to her headache and he saw in hospital that

Sumalatha died. The above evidence of PWs-1 to 4 speaks that A-1 is husband of Sumalatha. A-2 and A-3 are father and brother of A-1 respectively and that A-1 and Sumalatha were blessed with female child and Sumalatha committed suicide in her parental house. According to PWs-1 to 4 Sumalatha 6 was sufering from headache and unable to bear her migraine headache, she committed suicide. They did not speak anything against accused and further

PW-1 in his chief itself stated that his relatives obtained his signature stating that they have given complaint but he does not know the contents of it except his Ex.P-1 signature on it. PWs-2 to 4 stated that police did not examine them. In view of the above evidence of PWs-1 to 4, they were declared hostile and cross-examined. PWs-1 and 2 denied that at the time of marriage they have given 50 sovereigns of gold to their daughter Sumalatha and 10 sovereigns to A-1 and Rs. 1,50,000/- worth house hold articles towards dowry on demand and spent Rs. 10,00,000/- for marriage expenses.

They further denied that A-1 to A-3 demanded them for building which is situated in Tirupati and PW-1 promised to give it to their daughter and that as he did not meet their demand, A-1 to A-3 harassed their daughter and unable to bear harassment, she came to their house and A-1 also came to their house and had quarrel with Sumalatha demanding Rs. 50,000/- and they gave Rs. 10,000/- to him and even then he harassed their daughter by scolding and beating her and so she committed suicide by hanging. They further denied that regarding the incident, PW-1 lodged complaint. They further denied that they stated before police as in Ex.P-2 and P-3. PWs-3 and 4 also denied that A-1 to A-3 subjected Sumalatha for additional dowry and house and unable to bear their harassment, she committed suicide. They further denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P-4 and P-5 161 Cr.P.C statements. Thus PWs-1 to 4 resciled from their earlier statements and nothing was elicited from them in support of prosecution version. Since PWs- 1 and 2 who are parents of deceased Sumalatha and PWs-3 and 4 who are distant relatives and neighbor of them did not support the case of prosecution and did not speak anything against the accused and on the other hand they stated that the deceased Sumalatha was sufering from headache and unable to bear headache, she committed suicide and they resciled from 7 their earlier statements turning hostile to the prosecution version, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses.

Therefore there is no evidence before the court to say that A-1 has received dowry and A-1 to A-3 subjected Sumalatha to harassment for additional dowry and house and that led her to commit suicide. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused No.1 to 3 for the ofence with which they are charged, beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

12. In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and A-2 and A-3 are found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and U/Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-

A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable case property shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

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

and pronounced in the open Court, this the 8th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- T. Rajyalakshmi,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum- Spl. Court for the trial of ofences against Women,

CHITTOOR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence: None.

PW1: A. Sreenivasulu

PW2: A. Kumari

PW3: E. Bharath Kumar

PW4: B. Subramanyam

Exhibits marked

On behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on complaint 8 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

On behalf of Defence: Nil.

Material Objects: Nil. Id/- T.R.L,

VI ADJ,

CTR

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST

WOMEN, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: T. Rajyalakshmi, VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against women, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Thirty First (31st) day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty two (31.03.2022).

Sessions Case No. 318 of 2018

(P.R.C. No. 04/2018

(On committal by Syed Ziyauddin, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle in P.R.C.No. 04 of 2018 dated 19.03.2018 in Crime No.135/2017 of Madanapalli Taluk Police Station)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Complainant: Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli P.S., : Tarigonda Ashok Kumar, S/o T. Sankara, aged about Accused: 22 years, resident of Yeraballi Colony, H/o Valasapalli Village, Madanapalli Mandal, Chittoor District.

Prosecution case: Smt. T. Nirmala, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, : Sri D. Reddeppa Reddy - Advocate for Accused Accused defended by Nature of ofence: Under Sec.306 IPC.

Pleaofthe: Accused pleaded not guilty. accused Finding of the: Accused is found not guilty. court Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 306 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235(1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

This Sessions case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Smt. T. Nirmala - Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri D.

Reddeppa Reddy - Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Madanapalli Taluk Police Station fled charge sheet in Cr.No.135/2017 against the accused for the ofence U/Sec.

306 IPC.

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

The deceased Supriya is 15 years old. She is daughter of LW-1 G.

Pedda Reddeppa, resident of Boggitivaripalle Village. The accused is resident of Yeraballi Colony. The accused used to follow the deceased stating that he was in love with her and forced her to love him. Unable to tolerate it, the deceased informed the same to her brother G. Mani/LW-3, who in turn asked the accused not to follow the deceased and gave a warning to him. A panchayat was also held in the village and LW-6 G. Sadasiva, LW-7 K.

Amaravathi, LW-8 Balakrishna, LW-9 Kunchapu Nagaiah, LW-10 Pulakunta

Adinarayana, LW-11 Bajji Ramanappa and LW-12 Pulakunta Sekhar being elders advised the accused not to follow the deceased. Inspite of warning and advises, accused continued following the deceased. Unable to tolerate the attitude of accused, on 05.09.2017 night at 10.00 PM, she consumed some poisonous pills in her house and while she taking to hospital for treatment, on the way, she died. On the complaint of her father, LW-17 SI registered a case in Cr.No.135/2017 U/Sec. 306 IPC and held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of her relatives and panchayatdars and examined the witnesses and observed the scene and prepared rough sketch and after inquest he sent the dead body for autopsy. Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased issued Postmortem Certifcate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of due to Organophosphate an insecticide poison. LW-17 arrested the accused on 19.09.2017 and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been fled.

3. The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli has taken cognizance of the ofence U/Sec. 306 IPC vide PRC No. 04/2018 against the accused and committed the case to Court of Sessions as the 3 ofence U/Sec. 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Chittoor registered it as S.C. No. 318 of 2018 and made over it to Principal Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Madanapalli.

5.On appearance of accused before Principal Assistant Sessions

Judge’s Court, Madanapalli, upon considering the material on record and upon

hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charge U/Sec.306 has been framed, read over and explained to accused in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

When the matter is pending for fxation of schedule, it is transferred to this court on being designated as Special Court for trial of ofences against women, for disposal according to law.

6.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-14. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-4/G. Swathi, LW-9/Kunchapu Nagaiah,

LW-10/Pulakunta Adinarayana, LW-11/Bajji Ramanappa, LW-12/Pulakunta

Sekhar, LW-13/Boggiti Sankara, LW-14/Vemala Ramanamma, LW-16/Dr. V.

Nagaraju.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied it and he reported no evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the

accused for the ofence U/Sec.306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?”

10.Point:

According to prosecution, accused followed Supriya stating that he was in love with her and forced to love him and inspite of warnings by her brother 4 and advise of elders not to follow her, he continuously followed her and unable to tolerate his attitude, Supriya committed suicide by consuming poisonous pills and thus accused committed ofence U/Sec. 306 IPC.

10-A.Section 306 IPC says that “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fnee.

To attract Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that

Supriya died and her death is suicidal death and that accused abetted her to commit suicide.PWs-1 to 3 who are parents and brother of Supriya spoke that Supriya consumed pesticide in their house and while they were shifting her to hospital, on the way she died. PW-4 Rajamma who is grandmother of deceased Supriya deposed that her daughter/PW-2 informed that her daughter Supriya consumed pesticide due to her stomach pain and while she was taking to hospital, Supriya died and then she went to see her grand- daughter Supriya. PW-6 Amarnath deposed that he know to the extent that

Supriya died. PW-7 Balakrishna, resident of Boggitivaripalli deposed that about 3 years back Supriya consumed pesticide and died and he came to know it through villagers. PW-8 Doctor deposed that on 06.09.2017 he conducted postmortem over the dead body of Supriya and issued Ex.P-8

Postmortem Certifcate and after receipt of Ex.P-9/RFSL report, he gave fnal opinion/Ex.P-10 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of due to organophosphate an insecticide poisoning and the time of death is 12 to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. PW-9 the then SI deposed that he received written complaint/Ex.P-11 from PW-1 and then he registered it as

Ex.P-12/FIR and then he visited the scene of ofence situated in

Boggitivaripalli Village, Madanapalli and prepared Ex.P-13/rough sketch and held inquest over the dead body of Supriya in the presence of panchayatdars under cover of Ex.P-14 inquest report. The above evidence of PWs-1 to 4, 6 8 and 9 was not disputed by accused. The undisputed evidence of above 5 witnesses speaks that Supriya consumed pesticide on 05.09.2017 at 10.00

AM in her house and died while she was shifting to hospital and her death is suicidal death.

10-B.Now it is to be seen that whether accused abetted Supriya to commit suicide. PW-1/father of deceased Supriya deposed that Supriya consumed pesticide due to her stomach pain. PW-3/brother of deceased deposed that he does not know reason as to why his sister consumed pesticide. PW-4/grandmother of deceased deposed that her daughter PW-2 informed her that Supriya consumed pesticide due to her stomach pain. PW-5 speaks that he does not know anything about this case. PW-6 speaks that he does not know the reason of death of Supriya. PW-7 deposed that deceased

Supriya committed suicide due to her stomach pain. But PW-2 who is mother of deceased deposed that deceased consumed pesticide as accused harassed her insisting to love her and inspite of warning by her son, accused continued to harass and threaten her. But in the immediate cross- examination, she admitted that her daughter Supriya consumed pesticide unable to bear her stomach pain and thereby she has given two diferent versions. There is no corroboration from other witnesses that the deceased committed suicide as accused harassed her insisting to love her and inspite of warning of her son, the accused continued to threaten and harass her. It is true PW-9/Investigating Ofcer evidence reveals that PW-1 has given Ex.P-11/ written complaint against accused. But PW-1 denied his giving any report or complaint to police. His evidence is that his children obtained his signature/Ex.P-1 on white paper and he does not know the contents of report shown to him. He denied that accused followed his daughter Supriya and insisted her to love him and his daughter informed the same to his son and his son warned the accused and inspite of it, he continued to follow her and in view of it, she felt humiliation and committed suicide and with regard to it, he lodged report and stated before police as in Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C statement.

So PW-1 did not corroborate Ex.P-1 written complaint contents. Further he 6 resciled from his earlier statement recorded by police U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. PW-3 and PW-4 who are brother and grandmother of deceased also denied that accused harassed Supriya and PW-3 warned accused and inspite of it he continued to harass Supriya and therefore Supriya committed suicide and they denied to have stated before police as in ExP-3 and P-4. PWs-5 to 7 also denied that accused harassed the deceased following her and therefore deceased Supriya committed suicide and they denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P-5 to P-7 161 Cr.P.C statements and thereby they resciled from their earlier statements. Thus PWs-1, 3 to 7 did not speak anything against accused in their entire evidence and on the otherhand they denied that accused is responsible for the death of Supriya. As already stated, even though PW-2 in her chief evidence sated that because of accused harassing

Supriya, Supriya committed suicide, she in the cross-examination stated that deceased Supriya committed suicide due to her stomach pain. In view the said evidence of PW-2 in her cross-examination, her evidence in chief against accused, cannot be given any weight and further basing on such uncorroborated version of PW-2, it cannot be concluded that accused is responsible for her death. So for the foregoing discussion, it can be safely said that prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused for the ofence with which he is charged and therefore accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 306 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.

437-A Cr.P.C.

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

and pronounced in the open Court, this the 31st day of Market, 2022.

Sd/- T. Rajyalakshmi,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum- Spl. Court for the trial of ofences against Women,

CHITTOOR.

7

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence: None.

PW1: G. Peddareddeppa

PW2: G. Rajeswari

PW3: G.Mani

PW4: K. Rajamma

PW5 : G.Sadasiva

PW6 : K.Amarnath

PW7 : T. Balakrishna

PW8 : Dr. K. Lakshmiprasad Reddy

PW9 : B. Sunil Kumar

Exhibits marked

On behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on report

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7

Ex.P8: Postmortem Certifcate

Ex.P9: RFSL report

Ex.P10:Final opinion

Ex.P11: Written Complaint

Ex.P12: First Information Report

Ex.P13: Rough sketh

Ex.P14: Inquest report

On behalf of Defence: Nil.

Material Objects: -NIL- Id/- T.R.L.,

VI ADJ,

CTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE -CUM- SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST

WOMEN, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: T. Rajyalakshmi, VI Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Special Court for trial of ofences against women, Chittoor.

Friday, the Twenty Fifth(25th) day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty two (25.03.2022).

Sessions Case No. 401 of 2019

(P.R.C. No. 08/2019

(On committal by Smt. D. Durga Kalyani, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nagari in P.R.C.No. 08 of 2019 dated 07.11.2019 in Crime No.135/2017 of Nagari Urban Police Station)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Complainant: Inspector of Police, Nagari Urban P.S., : K. Munaswamy, S/o Mani, aged 35 years, Accused: Gundrajukuppam Village & Post, Nagari Mandal. Prosecution caseSmt. T. Nirmala, : conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor,

Sri K. Masthanvalli-Advocate for Accused Accused defended: by Nature of ofence:Under Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC.

Plea of the accused :Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court :Accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC and he is acquitted

U/Sec.232 Cr.PC. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.473-A Cr.PC.

This Sessions case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Smt. T. Nirmala - Additional Public Prosecutor and Sri K. Masthanvalli- Advocate for Accused and upon hearing both sides, upon perusal of material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Nagari Urban Police Station fled charge 2 sheet in Cr.No.135/2017 U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC against the accused.

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

The defacto complainant M. Chittemma and accused belonged to

Gundrajukuppam Village. The accused developed sexual desires on her and waiting for an opportunity to fulfll his desires on her. On 16.10.2017 the defacto complainant/victim went to Nagari to attend coolie work and after fnishing her work, she left Nagari in share auto and reached

Gundrajukuppam cross road at 6.30 PM and then left for her house alone by walk and when she reached near Chandra Reddy Stone Crusher Unit, the accused who was waiting for her, suddenly came out of the bushes and restrained her wrongfully and demanded to fulfll his sexual desires and when she did not agree for it, he pulled her to road side bushes, kissed her and bite on her cheeks, pushed down her, pressed her breast and attempted to commit rape on her and when she raised alarm, Munirathnam who was proceeding to Gundrajukuppam Village from the cross road on his motor cycle heard the cries and went to road side bushes and noticed the accused lying on the complainant and forcing for sexual intercourse. In the meanwhile K.

Venkatesulu also came. On seeing them, accused got up and ran way from the place. Then she informed them about accused attempt to commit rape on her and causing injury on her by biting on her cheek. Then on information from Munirathnam, Ravi and Sai Kumar came to the said place and shifted her to Area Hospital, Nagari and there she gave statement to police about the incident and basing on her statement, case has been registered and investigated into and fled charge sheet against the accused for the above mentioned ofences.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari has taken cognizance of case for the ofence U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC against the accused vide P.R.C.No. 08 of 2019 and committed it to the court of 3

Sessions as the ofence under Sec. 376 r/w 511 IPC is exclusively triable by

the Court of Sessions.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Chittoor registered it as S.C. No.

401 of 2019 and made over it to this court on being designated as a Special

Court for trial of ofences against women, for disposal according to law.

5. On appearance of accused, upon considering the material on record and upon hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused, charge U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.To substantiate its case, prosecution examined Pws-1 to 3 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-4/M. Muni Krishna, LW-5/B. Munirathnam, LW-6/K.

Venkatesulu, LW-7/Dr. Manjula, LW-8/N. Vikram, LW-9/K. Sivasankara/SI of

Police, LW-10/P. Sai Prasad/Inspector of Police.

7.Since there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8. Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel

for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the

accused for the ofence U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC against

accused beyond reasonable doubt?”

10.Point:

According to prosecution, the accused developed sexual desires on victim woman who belonged to his village and on 16.10.2017 at 6.30 PM, she after her coolie work returning to home from Nagari and reached

Chandra Reddy Stone Crusher Unit by walk, the accused who was waiting for her in road side bushes, all of a sudden came to her and restrained her 4 wrongfully and kissed her, bite her cheeks and pulled her to road side and attempted to commit rape on her and when she raised cries one

Munirathnam and Venkatesulu came there and on seeing them, accused ran away. But the victim woman examined as PW-1 deposed that about 4 years back, she was attending agricultural work in her feld and accused was also attending agricultural work in his feld situated by the side of her land and there they both had quarrel with respect to watering of lands and then she went to Nagari Police station to report the same. There police obtained her signature/Ex.P-1 on white paper and she does not know the contents of said statement. PW-2 U. Ravi and PW-3 J. Sai Kumar also deposed that about 4 years back, there was a galata between PW-1 Chittemma and accused in their fled. PW-2 deposed that he went there and by that time galata was over and he does not know what happened between them. PW-3 deposed that in connection with said galata, they all went to police station and police obtained his signatures on white paper. Pws-1 to 3 deposed that police did not examine them. Thus, Pws-1 to 3 did not speak anything about the incident and did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore they were declared hostile and were cross-examined by prosecution. PW-1 victim denied that on 16.10.2017 at 8.00 AM, she went to Nagari to attend mason work and at evening hours after fnishing her work, she left Nagari in auto and when reached Gundrajukuppam cross, she got down from auto and started to go to her village by walk on foot and when she reached Chandra Reddy Stone

Crusher, accused all of sudden came from bushes and restrained her and pulled her forcibly to road side bushes and attempted to commit rape on her.

She further denied that she raised cries and then LW-5 Munirathnam came there and rescued her and on seeing him, accused ran away. She further denied that she informed the incident to Ravi and Sai Kumar over phone and they came and shifted her in auto to Nagari Area Hospital and that police came to hospital and that she gave statement to police about the incident.

5 She further denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C statement. She denied that she is deposing false due to compromise with accused. Pws-2 and 3 also denied that on receipt of information from

Munirathnam, they went to Chandra Reddy stone crushers and there PW-1

Chittemma informed them that accused attempted to commit rape on her and caused injuries on her. They further denied that they shifted PW-1 to

Area Hospital, Nagari for treatment. They further denied to have stated

before police as in Ex.P-3 and P-4 161 Cr.P.C statements. Thereby Pws-1 to 3

resciled from their earlier statements. Nothing was elicited in their cross- examination in support of prosecution version. Since victim woman did not speak anything against accused and gave altogether version and resciled from her earlier statement and Pws-2 and 3 also did not speak anything against accused and resciled from their earlier statements and given altogether diferent version, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has given up remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served by examining them. So there is no evidence before the court to say that accused way laid the victim woman near Chandra Reddy stone crusher and kissed her, bite her cheeks and pulled her forcibly to road side bushes and attempted to commit rape on her. Therefore it is held that the prosecution failed to establish its case against the accused for the ofence with which he is charged, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence punishable U/Sec. 341, 324, 376 r/w 511 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.232

Cr.PC. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.473-A Cr.PC.

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

and pronounced in the open Court, this the 25th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- T. Rajyalakshmi,

VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cum- Spl. Court for the trial of ofences against Women,

CHITTOOR.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Prosecution: Defence: None.

PW1: Victim Woman

PW2: U. Ravi

PW3: J. Sai Kumar

Exhibits marked

On behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on statement

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3

On behalf of Defence: Nil.

Material Objects: Nil. Id/- T.R.L,

VI ADJ,

CTR

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: CHITTOOR.

Present : T. Rajyalakshmi, VI Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Friday, the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of March,Two Thousand and Twenty Two

(25.03.2022).

A.S.No.161 of 2018

O.S.No.01 of 2014 on the fie of I Addi. Junior Civii Judge’s Court, Chittoor

Between: K. Dakshayani, W/o K. Siva Kumar, aged about 30 years, House-wife, residing at K.C. Kandriga, Nalagampalle Village and post, Bangarupalem Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Appellant And:

1. N. Murugaiah, S/o Doraswami Mandadi, aged about 30 years, residing at 197, Ramapuram Village and post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. P. Venkatesh, S/o late Purushotham, aged about 24 years, now residing at D.No.7-1, Astalakshmi layout, 3rd Main Road, Sarkari, Bangalore City, Karnataka State.

3. Minor Dinesh, S/o late Kamal, aged about 6 years, now under the care and custody of his parental grandfather Mani Mandadi who is a guardian, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Kaidhigani Kandriga Village, A.L.Puram Post, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. …. Defendants

This appeal fled by the Appellant/Plaintif to set aside the Judgment and decree in OS No. 01/2014 dt: 23.10.2018 on the fle of I Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Chittoor and for costs.

This appeal case coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T. Purushotham - Counsel for Appellant and of Sri T. Baiaji– Advocate for Respondents No.1 and respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Memo is fled on behalf of the Appellant submitting that due to mediations of both sides elders in the village, the above matter is compromised between the parties and 1st respondent executed Registered deed in favour of Appellant and in view of compromise between the parties and matter is settled out of court, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal as not pressed in the interest of justice. Memo is recorded. Appeal is dismissed as not pressed as settled out of court. Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- T. Rajyalakshmi,

VI Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Id/- T.R.L,

VI ADJ., CTR

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: CHITTOOR.

Present : T. Rajyalakshmi, VI Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Friday, the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of March,Two Thousand and Twenty Two

(25.03.2022).

O.S.No.70 of 2017

Between: S.P. Jayasimha Reddy, S/o S.N.Parthasarathi Reddy, aged 63 years, Hindu, business and cultivation, residing at Flat No.204, Subodhaya Apartments, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor Town and District. … Appellant And: P. Ramabadra Naidu, S/o P. Doraswamy Naidu, aged about 50 years, residing at Flat No.304, Subodhaya Apartments, Kongareddypalli, Chittoor Town and District. …. Defendant

This suit is fled by the plaintif for recovery directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs. 16,38,696/- with further interest at 24% p.a. on Rs. 10,00,000/- to the plaintif till the disposal of suit and for costs. This suit coming on before me on 25.03.2022 for defendant evidence in the presence of Sri P. Prakash Reddy- Advocate for Plaintif and Sri A. Jyothi Ram– Advocate for Defendantand and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Plaintif and defendant present. Their counsels present. Full Satisfaction memo is fled on behalf of plaintif submitting that plaintif received entire suit amount from the defendant towards full and fnal satisfaction and therefore prayed to record full satisfaction Memo and dismiss the suit and raise attachment in IA No.193/2017. Heard plaintif and his counsel who reported to record Full satisfaction and dismiss the suit and raise attachment over the properties of defendant in IA No.193/2017. Therefore Full satisfaction memo is recorded. Attachment order passed in IA No.193/2017 is raised. Accordingly suit is dismissed. Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of March, 2022.

Sd/- T. Rajyalakshmi,

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Id/- T.R.L

VI ADJ.,

CTR