Sri. U.rama Mohan

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Sri U. RAM MOHAN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Friday, this the Thirteenth (13th) day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 100 of 2018

(Crime No.7 of 2018 of R.C.Puram Police Station)

Between:

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police,

R.C.Puram Police Station. .. Complainant

And:

Chatla Venkatesh, age 50 years, S/o. C.Swamy Naidu, Kuppam Badur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.… Accused

This case came before me on 10.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S.Nayeemunnisa Begum - Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri C.Anandaiah, Counsel for accused; upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, R.C.Puram Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.7 of 2018 for the offences under Sec.354, 323 & 506 of IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:-

The accused is a resident of Kuppam Badur Village of R.C.Puram Mandal.

The defacto complainant and other witnesses are residents of the same village. It is further alleged that one C.Subramanyam, who is the husband of the defacto complainant had two wives. First wife by name

Rathnamma blessed with a daughter by name Revathi and she was given in marriage to one Kesavulu. Due to some differences arose between the 2 said Subramanyam and his first wife he deserted his wife and married the defacto complainant as second wife and they were blessed with a daughter by name Lakshmi Devi (L.W.2). The defacto complainant went to Kuwait and stayed there for about 5 years and after return to India, he deposited some savings amount in Post Office in Postal (Recurring

Deposits) RDs and given some amount for interest to others by obtaining promissory notes. Subsequently, her husband died on 19.11.2017 due to ill-health. At that time, the first wife Rathnamma along with her daughter and son-in-law came to their village and demanded for share in the property of C.Subramanyam. Then the village elders intervened and postponed to talk the issue and observed funeral rites. After that, the defacto complainant handed over all the Recurring deposit books and promissory notes executed during the days of her husband, to the accused for dividing them equally. The accused postponed the distribution of money inspite of repeated requests by the defacto complainant and village elders. Therefore, on 28.02.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., the defacto complainant along with her daughter and one Charan went to the house of the accused and questioned about the Recurring

Deposit books and promissory notes, for which the accused carelessly stated that he had given them to the said Rathnamma, who is the first wife of deceased. When the defacto complainant questioned the accused, the accused threatened as “do what ever you like” and slapped on the cheek and pushed down and kicked with legs and torn her blouse and thereby outraged her modesty. When the daughter of the defacto complainant intervened to rescue, the accused beat her with hands. The eyewitnesses by name Charan and Ramu intervened and rescued the defacto complainant and her daughter. Then she was shifted to SVRRGG

Hospital, Tirupati and got admitted for treatment. Basing on the 3 complaint, a case in Cr.No.7 of 2018 for the offences under sections 354, 323 & 509 of IPC was registered and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused on 10.03.2018 when he surrendered before the police and released him on bail as the offences are bailable in nature.

After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.354, 323 & 509 of IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of offences under Sec.354, 323 & 509 of IPC against the accused. After receipt of summons accused appeared before the court and copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet filed for the offences under Sec.354, 323 & 509 IPC against the accused, has been read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined the defacto complainant – cum - injured as P.W.1, her daughter as P.W.2, the alleged eyewitnesses as P.W.3 to P.W.6, the doctor who treated the injured as P.W.7 and the investigating officer as P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and M.O.1.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for 4 which, he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

7.While addressing arguments, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly shows that the accused attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2 and beat them with hands and legs and torn her jacket and outraged her modesty in the public view. He further threatened the defacto complainant when P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to his house to ask about the promissory notes as well as Recurring

Deposit books that were deposited with him by P.W.1 during the lifetime of her husband. Therefore, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused. She further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is corroborated by the evidence of doctor. Even though the alleged independent witnesses who are examined as P.W.3 to P.W.6 turned hostile, part of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 has to be taken into consideration with regard to a quarrel between both parties. Their evidence is supported the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, there is no necessity to rely on their remaining past of hostile evidence.

Keeping in view of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7 and P.W.8, the accused is liable for conviction for the offences with which he is charged.

She further argued that even though the material witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing is elicited to disprove the case of the prosecution and finally prayed to convict the accused for the offence under Sec.354, 323, 509 IPC.

8.In reply the learned counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and further argued that the accused never beat P.W.1 and P.W.2. He is falsely implicated in this case due to financial disputes between both parties.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 might have influenced the doctor and obtained the 5 wound certificate. They influenced the police and got registered false complaint against the accused. The hostility of material witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further argued that one Charan, who followed P.W.1 and P.W.2 to the scene of offence on the date of the alleged incident, is not examined by the prosecution, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, basing on the insufficient evidence of prosecution witnesses, conviction cannot be imposed and finally prayed to acquit the accused.

9.In view of the above said pleadings the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home

the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 354, 323 & 509 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused, this court examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet filed for the offences under Sections 354, 323 & 509 of IPC, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant – cum - injured as P.W.1, her daughter as P.W.2, the alleged eyewitnesses as P.W.3 to P.W.6, the doctor who treated the injured as

P.W.7 and the investigating officer as P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.10 and M.O.1.

11.Admittedly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are mother and daughter. There is no dispute that P.W.3 to P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. As per the version of prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.5 supported the version of prosecution upto some extent regarding a quarrel between both parties. She further argued that they might have been gained over by the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 and 6

P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of doctor, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused.

12.On this aspect, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to extract the veracity from their evidence.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that on 28.02.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1, her daughter Lakshmi Devi/PW2 and another person by name

Charan/LW3 went to the house of accused to receive promissory notes that handed over by them earlier to the accused, to collect the amount from the debtors, who indebted amount to the husband of P.W.1. At that time the accused did not handover the said promissory notes and abused them in Filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences stating that “I don’t give any promissory note and complain to anybody and do whatever you want” and driven them away from his house. In the said quarrel he slapped PW1, as a result she fell on the ground. When PW1 retaliated against him, he caught hold of her jacket and torn it and degraded in the public view. In the meanwhile

P.W.2 tried to rescue her mother, then the wife of accused came out of their house and slapped her and abused her in filthy language. Then

LW3 rescued them and shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G Hospital, Tirupati. There

P.W.1 gave complaint/Statement to the police. Ex.P1 is complaint. P.W.1 produced her torn jacket in the open Court and the same is marked as

MO.1.

13.A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there is no contradiction or deviation. Both of them intact deposed what allegedly happened at the time of incident.

14.At this juncture the main contention of the learned counsel

for the accused is that no incident was taken place and in order to

7 threaten the accused, P.W.1 and P.W.2 influenced the police and doctor and gave false complaint against him by obtaining wound certificate.

15.On this aspect, it is the duty of the court to see whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is true and trustworthy. Admittedly, P.W.3 to

P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

P.W.3 to P.W.5 deposed that about 3 months back P.W.3 to P.W.5 conducted mediation between the accused on the one hand and PW1 and 2 on the other hand regarding some bonds. Except that they do not know anything about this case. As these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and permission is granted.

In the cross examination, they denied a suggestion that they were examined by the police and that they stated before the police as in their respective section 161 Cr.P.C statements. Therefore, the contradictory portions in section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.W.3 to P.W.5 are marked as

Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4.

16.Admittedly, P.W.6 also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He clearly and categorically deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the police. As this witness too did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witness as hostile and permission is granted. In the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he was examined by the police and that he stated before the police as in his section 161

Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, the contradictory portion in section 161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 is marked as Ex.P.5. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor argued that P.Ws.3 to 5 clearly stated that they participated in a mediation, between both parties, regarding some 8 bonds. As per the version of prosecution, the motive for the incident was to collect some promissory notes from accused.

17.From the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, they clearly and categorically deposed that they attended a mediation between the accused on the one hand and P.W.1 on the other hand. That means the motive for the said incident is established by the prosecution from the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5. As per their version they attended a mediation between both parties with regard to some bonds. I have also perused the complaint. The defacto complainant clearly and categorically stated that the incident was taken place due to handing over of some promissory notes and recurring deposit books. Therefore, basing on the fact deposed by P.W.3 to P.W.5 regarding their medication between P.W.1 and the accused regarding some bonds, it can be presumed that the motive for the said incident was monitory issues between two parties.

18.Now, it is to be seen whether the accused beat P.W.1 and

P.W.2. On this aspect, I have perused the evidence of doctor, who is examined as P.W.7, deposed that on 28.02.2018 at about 6.12 p.m., she examined PW1 by name C.Pushpalatha and found the following injuries:- (1) Lost consciousness + 30minutes; (2) Pain over right forearm, thigh, leg; (3) Pain over right side of face, unable to open mouth and (4) Pain over abdomen. She referred the patient for X-ray. After examining the X- ray report annexed to Wound Certificate of PW1, she did not find any bony injury. To that effect she issued Wound Certificate opining that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P6 is Wound Certificate of PW1.

19.In the cross-examination, the doctor clearly and categorically denied a suggestion that the above said injuries are not possible, if two 9 persons fight each others. That means, the said injuries are possible if two persons quarreled with each other.

20.Now, the evidence surfaced to the prosecution is the evidence of Investigating officer, who is examined as P.W.8 deposed that on 01.03.2018 at about 9.00 a.m., while he was present in the Police

Station, he received Medico legal case intimation from S.V.R.R.G.G

Hospital, Tirupati. Acting upon it, he rushed to S.V.R.R.G.G Hospital,

Tirupati and found PW1 undergoing treatment in the hospital. He recorded the complaint/statement of PW1 and came back to Police

Station and registered the case in Cr.No.07 of 2018 for the offences under Sec.354, 323, 509 of IPC and issued FIRs to all concerned officials.

Ex.P7 is F.I.R. Again he proceeded to S.V.R.R.G.G Hospital, Tirupati and secured the presence of PW1, 2 and LW3/by name Charan and examined them and recorded their statement. He seized MO.1 under a cover of police proceedings. Ex.P8 is police proceedings for seizure of M.O.1,

dated 01.03.2018 at about 11.30 a.m. Again he visited the scene of

offence situated infront of the house of PW1 in Kuppam Badur Village of

R.C.Puram Mandal and observed the scene of offence and prepared

Rough Sketch. Ex.P9 is Rough Sketch. There he secured the presence of

PW3 to 5 and examined them and recorded their statements. He searched for accused and found absconding. Again on 03.03.2018 he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of PW6 and examined him and recorded his statement. Further investigation was conducted by their Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P10 is M.L.C. intimation,

dated 01.03.2018. During course of further investigation their Sub

inspector of Police arrested the accused on 10.03.2018 and released him as the offences are bailable in nature. After collecting the Wound 10

Certificate of PW1 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

21.Admittedly, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are womenfolk. As I discussed supra, the motive for the said incident was recovery of promissory notes and Recurring Deposits and the same was asserted by P.W.3 to P.W.5.

Therefore, it can be presumed that the accused beat P.W.1 and P.W.2 with hands and legs and caused simple injuries. So far as Sec.354 of IPC is concerned, it is natural if two persons are quarreled certainly some wearing apparels of the womenfolk will be torn. At the time of deciding the ingredients under Sec.354 of IPC, it is the duty of the court to see the intention of the accused to degrade the womenfolk. In the case on hand, the motive for the said offence was recovery of promissory notes and

Recurring deposit books from the hands of accused. Therefore, it cannot be presume that the accused earlier had no intention to degrade P.W.1 by tearing her jacket. There are umpteen number of decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that if two persons quarreled, in which one womenfolk involved, certainly some wearing apparels of womenfolk may torn, and it cannot be taken into consideration as if the male person degraded her in the public view. After all that might have been taken place in a physical quarrel. Therefore, this court cannot attribute guilt against the accused for the offence under Sec.354 of IPC.

So far as Sec.509 of IPC is concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly and categorically stated that the accused abused them in filthy language with intend to insult the modesty of a woman and threatened them that do whatever you want. Even though the alleged eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution established that the accused beat P.W.1 and P.W.2 and therefore, it can be presumed that the accused might have abused them and threatened them with dire 11 consequences to insult the modesty of a woman. Therefore, the accused is also liable for punishment for the offence under Sec.509 of IPC. Even in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the learned counsel for the accused could not disprove the case of the prosecution. Except giving some suggestions, he could not elicit that the accused did not beat P.W.1 and P.W.2. Even in the cross-examination of Investigating officer, the learned counsel for the accused could not elicit anything against the prosecution. In view of my discussion supra, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sec.323 & 509 of IPC, but not liable for punishment for the offence under Sec.354 of IPC.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.354 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Further, the accused is found guilty for the offences under

Sec.323 & 509 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted for the same under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C..

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

23.Now the accused is questioned about the quantum of sen- tence to be imposed on him for the offences under Sec.323 & 506 of IPC, for which, he pleaded mercy. He submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the complainant and her daughter are his relatives and the said incident was taken place due to spur of emotion not with any intention. He fur- ther submitted that he is sole bread winner of his family. On enquiry 12 with the police, the police submitted that this is the first offence against the accused. The accused assured in the open court that he will not re- sort to commit such type of offences in future and requested this court to take lenient view against him.

24.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view of the relation between the accused party and the complainant party as well as, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the said incident was taken place due to spur of emotion and as assured by accused that he will not repeat such type of incidents in future, it is a fit case to take lenient view in sentencing the accused with fine rather than imprisonment. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Sec.323 of IPC,in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) for the offence under

Sec.509 of IPC,in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(Total fine amount is Rs.3,000/-).

The material object M.O.1 i.e., Red colour torn blouse in C.P.R.No.36 of 2018 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal against this judg- ment before the Appellate authority/court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 13 th day of March, 2020.

(Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1:C.Pushpalatha (Defacto complainant-cum-injured) P.W.2:C.Lakshmi Devi (Daughter of P.W.1) P.W.3:K.Kuberaiah (Eyewitness) P.W.4:K.Bhaskar Reddy (Eyewitness) P.W.5:A.Maraiah (Eyewitness) P.W.6:C.Ramu (Eyewitness) P.W.7:Dr.Ch.Arunakumari (Doctor who treated the injured) P.W.8:T.J.Kishore Babu (Investigating officer)

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Complaint given by P.W.1. Ex.P.2:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.3:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.4:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.5:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.6:Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.7:First Information Report in Cr.No.7 of 2018 of R.C.Puram Police Station. Ex.P.8:Police proceedings for seizure of M.O.1, dated 01.03.2018 at about 11.30 a.m. Ex.P.9:Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.10: M.L.C intimation, dated 01.03.2018.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil

Material objects:

M.O.1: Red Colour torn blouse.

// True copy \\(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

14

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS; PUTTUR.

Calendar in C.C.No. 100 of 2018

(Crime No.7 of 2018 of R.C.Puram Police Station)

Date of offence:28.02.2018

Date of complaint:01.03.2018

Date of taken on file:16.04.2018

Date of apprehension of accused:21.06.2018

Date of commencement of trial:22.04.2019

Date of close of trial:10.03.2020

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:13.03.2020

Complainant:The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.C.Puram Police Station.

Name of theFather’s nameAgeReligion VillageMandal/Occupation AccusedDistrict Chatla Venkatesh C.Swamy Naidu50HinduKuppam BadurCultivation yearsVillage, R.C.Puram Mandal.

Nature of offence:Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Section of Law:Under sections 354, 323 & 509 of IPC. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty for the offence under Sec.354 of IPC Fount guilty for the offences under Sec.323 & 509 of IPC Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.354 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Further, the accused is found guilty for the offences under Sec.323 & 509 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted for the same under Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced 15 to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under

Sec.323 of IPC,in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousands only) for the offence under

Sec.509 of IPC,in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(Total fine amount is Rs.3,000/-).

The material object M.O.1 i.e., Red colour torn blouse in C.P.R.No.36 of 2018 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is informed of his right to prefer appeal against this judgment before the Appellate authority/court.

// True copy \\(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Sri U. RAM MOHAN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Thursday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 286 of 2019

(Crime No.71 of 2019 of Vadamalapeta P.S.)

Between:

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Vadamalapeta Police Station. ... Complainant.

And:

S.Venkatesh, age 37 years, S/o. K.Seetharamana, Resident of D.No.1-50/39-48-1, Vasundharanagar, Tiruchanoor, Vedic Scholars at Appalayagunta Temple, Vadamalapeta Mandal.

Driver of Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570.… Accused.

This case came before me on 10.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S.Nayeemunnisa Begum - Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Counsel for accused, and upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon perusing the material 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 Inspector of Police, Vadamalapeta Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.71/2019 for the offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:- The accused is a resident of Door No.1-50/39-48-1, Vasundharanagar of

Tiruchanoor and he was the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570 at the time of accident. The defacto complainant and other witnesses are residents of in and around Pudi BC 2

Colony of Vadamalapeta Mandal. The deceased Radhamma was also resident of Pudi B.C.Colony. The scene of offence is situated infront of the house of the defacto complainant, situated by the side of Pudi –

Tiruchanur road in B.C.Colony, Pudi.

It is further alleged that on 24.05.2019 at 5.10 a.m., the accused who was the driver of Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner while passing through

B.C.Colony in Pudi between Vadamalapeta – Tiruchanoor road and dashed a fencing wall that constructed infront of the house of defacto complainant by name Muninarayana, as a result of the said accident, the wall fell on the mother of the defacto complainant by name Radhamma while she was sleeping on a cot, as a result of the accident, she sustained injuries and raised cries. Then the brother of the complainant and other inmates of the house of the said Radhamma came out and found her with injuries and they pulled the collapsed wall from the said

Radhamma and within fraction of seconds she died on the spot with severe bleeding injuries. They found the accused entangled in the car and immediately, they rescued him as the said car turned turtle at the scene of offence. The front side portion of the car was badly damaged.

Basing on the complaint, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.71 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.304(A) & 279 IPC.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating officer visited the scene of offence, observed the same, prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements. The Investigating Officer got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem.

He arrested the accused on 25.05.2019 and released him on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties, as the offence is bailable in nature. After 3 verifying the driving license and the vehicle record, the Investigating officer came to a conclusion that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. During the course of further investigation, the Investigating officer seized the crime vehicle i.e., Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570 and sent the same to Motor

Vehicle Inspector for inspection. After collecting the Postmortem report,

M.V.I report and after completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC & Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V Act.

3.This court took cognizance of offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V. Act against the accused. After receipt of summons, the accused appeared before the court and copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. On further appearance, the accused was examined under

Sec.251 Cr.P.C and contents of charge sheet filed for the offences under

Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V Act against the accused, have been read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined the sons of the deceased as P.W.1 to P.W.3, niece of the deceased as P.W.4, one of the Inquestdars as P.W.5, the alleged independent witness for scene observation as P.W.6, Motor Vehicle

Inspector as P.W.7, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased as P.W.8 and the Investigating Officer as P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.

6.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating 4 circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to the accused, for which, the accused denied and reported no defence witnesses on his behalf.

7.While addressing arguments the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 shows that the accident was taken place in which a car dashed a wall, as a result of the accident, the wall collapsed and fell on the mother of the P.W.1 to P.W.3 while she was sleeping on a cot. The said accident was taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The evidence of P.W.6, who was punch witness for scene observation mahazar deposed about the nature of accident. Therefore, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused. The evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector discloses that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect.

The evidence of other witnesses is with regard to conducting of autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and the Investigation conducted by the investigating officer. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused for the offences with which he is charged. She further argued that even though the material witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing is elicited from their cross-examination to disprove the case of prosecution and finally prays to convict the accused for the offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of M.V Act.

8.In reply the learned counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned APP and further argued that the accused was not at all the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He is falsely implicated in this case. There was no rash and negligence on the part of the accused. Only to claim insurance, the accused is implicated in this case by involving his vehicle. None of the 5 witnesses deposed against the accused. There is no direct evidence to show the rash and negligent act of the accused and finally prayed this court to acquit the accused.

9.In view of the above said pleadings the point that arises for consideration is:Whether the prosecution is able to bring home

the guilt against the accused for the offences under Sec.304-A &

279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused in the charge sheet the accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C and contents of charge sheet filed for the offences under

Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act against the accused have been read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, therefore initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused.

In that process the prosecution has examined the deceased as P.W.1 to

P.W.3, niece of the deceased as P.W.4, one of the Inquestdars as P.W.5, the alleged independent witness for scene observation as P.W.6, Motor

Vehicle Inspector as P.W.7, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased as P.W.8 and the Investigating Officer as

P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.

11.In this case P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the sons of the deceased by name Radhamma and all of them deposed that on 24.05.2019 at about 5.10 a.m., while P.W.1 to P.W.3 and their family members were sleeping in their house, their mother by name Radhamma was sleeping in the varanda of their house in Pudi Village, they heard a big sound from the road infront of their house. Then they came out of their house and found the compound wall fell on their mother and she sustained injuries and died on the spot. They further deposed that the reason for falling of the 6 compound wall is, a car dashed the compound wall. To that effect P.W.1 gave complaint. Ex.P.1 is complaint. Surprisingly, they deposed that they did not find any vehicle at the scene of offence. That means there was no accident caused by a car. Even from the evidence of another witness, who is the niece of the deceased, it is clear that her paternal aunt died when a collapsed wall fell on her. She too did not support the case of the prosecution. As P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and permission is granted to cross examine them. In the cross examination they denied a suggestion that they stated before the police as in their section 161 Cr.P.C statements and the contradictory portions in their respective section 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5.

12.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.6 deposed about the scene observation, in which they found a car at the scene of offence. On this aspect, it is obvious to refer the evidence of

P.W.6. P.W.6 deposed that on 24.05.2019 at about 5.00 p.m., at the request of police, himself and L.W.9 by name Srinivasulu observed the scene of offence situated in the house of P.W.1, in which they observed the compound wall of the house of P.W.1 fallen on the body of said

Radhamma and to that effect they prepared scene observation mahazar.

Ex.P.7 is scene observation mahazar.

13.A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.6 also did not speak that they found a car at the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 is also not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14.When coming to the evidence of P.W.5, one of the

Inquestdars deposed that on 24.05.2019 at about 9.30 a.m., at the request of police, Vadamalapeta Police Station, himself L.W.5 & 6 by 7 names K.Venkatarayudu and L.Vijayulu conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name Radhamma, aged about 65 years. After conducting inquest they came to a conclusion that she died due to head injury and injuries to other parts of the body sustained in wall collapse.

To that effect they prepared inquest report. Ex.P6 is the inquest report.

15.When coming to the evidence of P.W.7, Motor Vehicle

Inspector deposed that on 25.05.2019 at the request of police,

Vadamalapeta Police Station, he conducted inspection over the crime vehicle i.e., Light motor vehicle Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570. After conducting the inspection he came to a conclusion that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. He found the following damages to the crime vehicle: (1) Complete body and engine damaged. Due to accidental damages he could not put the crime vehicle road test, but on physical verification, he found the breaking system intact. Ex.P8 is the M.V.I. report.

16.When coming to the evidence of P.W.8, doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed that on 24.05.2019 at the request of police, Vadamalapeta Police Station, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased by name

P.Radamma, aged 55 years and found internal and external injuries and after conducting Postmortem, he came to a conclusion that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhagic shock due to severe left side chest injury sustained in an accident. To that effect he issued

Postmortem report. Ex.P8 is the Postmortem report.

17.The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the accused is falsely implicated in this case by involving his vehicle for the purpose of insurance. None of the direct witnesses deposed against the accused regarding his rash and negligent driving at 8 the time of accident. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the compound wall of P.W.1, in which the wall collapsed and fell on the mother of P.W.1 to P.W.3, leading to instantaneous death of their mother. Therefore, I concur with the contention of learned counsel for the accused on this aspect.

18.Now the evidence surfaced to the prosecution is the evidence of Investigating officer, who is examined as P.W.9 deposed that on 24.05.2019 at about 7.00 a.m., while he was present in the Police

Station, PW1 came to Police Station and presented the written complaint and he inturn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.71 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.304-A, 279 of IPC and issued FIRs to all concerned officials. Ex.P10 is F.I.R. Then he visited the scene of offence, situated in the compound of the house of PW1 and observed the scene of offence and prepared Rough Sketch. Ex.P11 is Rough Sketch. There he got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by name

P.Radamma, aged 55 years and the sent the dead body for Postmortem.

There he secured the PW1 to 4 and examined them and recorded their statements. There he seized the crime vehicle i.e, Car bearing registration No.AP03 CB 6570 and sent the same to M.V.I for inspection.

He also prepared scene observation in the presence of PW6 and LW9. He arrested the accused on 24.05.2019 when he surrendered before him and confessed about the rash and negligent driving of the car at the time of accident. He released him on bail as the offences are bailable in nature. After collecting the Postmortem report, M.V.I report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

19.In the cross-examination of P.W.9, he clearly denied a suggestion that he conducted table investigation in this case and filed 9 false charge sheet against the accused in order to claim insurance to the kin and kith of the deceased.

20.A overall reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and he driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, in which the mother of P.W.1 to P.W.3 died.

Therefore, this court has no other go except to acquit the accused.

Accordingly, benefit of doubt can be extended towards the accused.

21.So far as other offences under Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor

Vehicle Act are concerned, as the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt against the accused under Sec.304-A of IPC, this court cannot attribute guilt against the accused for the offence under Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, the accused is also entitled for acquittal under those sections.

22.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of

Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of

Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 12 th day of March, 2020. (Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1:P.Muninarayana (Son of deceased/Radhamma) P.W.2:P.Ashok Kumar (Son of deceased/Radhamma) 10

P.W.3:E.Uday Kumar (Son of deceased/Radhamma) P.W.4:P.Maheswari (Niece of deceased/Radhamma) P.W.5:B.Subramanyam (Inquestdar) P.W.6:A.Dharmateja (Independent witness for scene observation) P.W.7:B.Dhamodar Naidu (Motor Vehicle Inspector) P.W.8:Dr.P.Jayapal (Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased) P.W.9:P.Suneel (Investigating officer)

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Complaint given by P.W.1. Ex.P.2:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6:Inquest report of deceased by name Radhamma. Ex.P.7:Scene observation mahazar. Ex.P.8:Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.P.9:Postmortem certificate of deceased by name Radhamma. Ex.P.10:First Information Report in Cr.No.71 of 2019 of Vadamalapeta PS. Ex.P.11:Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil

Material objects marked Prosecution: Nil // True copy \\(Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur 11

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS; PUTTUR.

Calendar in C.C.No. 286 of 2019

(Crime No.71/2019 of Vadamalapeta P.S.)

Date of offence:24.05.2019

Date of complaint:24.05.2019

Date of taken on file:22.07.2019

Date of apprehension of accused:27.08.2019

Date of commencement of trial:06.02.2020

Date of close of trial:10.03.2020

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:12.03.2020

Complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadamalapeta Police Station.

Name of theFather’s nameAgeReligionVillageMandal/Occupation AccusedDistrict S.Venkatesh K.Seetharamana28HinduVasundharanagar,Vedapandit yearsTiruchanoor.

Nature of offence:Causing death by rash and negligent Act and damages to the vehicle and also not having valid insurance. Section of Law:Under Sec.304 (A) & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Found not guilty for the above offences. Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sec.304-A & 279 of IPC and under Sec.146 r/w 196 of

Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly, he is acquitted in terms of Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

// True copy \\(Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Judicial Magistrate of I ClassPuttur.

Puttur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PUTTUR

PRESENT: SRI. U. RAM MOHAN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

PUTTUR.

Monday, the Sixteenth (16th) day of March, 2020.

C.C.No. 348 of 2019 (Cr.No.64 of 2019 of K.Nagar Police Station) Between:

State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Karvetinagar Police Station.... Complainant

And:

A-1:P.Nagaraju, age 40 years, S/o. Vamannan, Resident of D.No.5-59, Manipuram Street, Palasamudram Town & Mandal, Chittoor District. A-2:T.M.Subramanyam, S/o. T.Krishnaiah, Resident of Indra Colony, R.K.V.B Peta Village, K.Nagar Mandal, Chittoor District. … Accused

This case came before me on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S.Nayeemunnisa Begum - Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri Gali Suresh Babu, Counsel for accused; upon hearing arguments on both sides, upon perusing the material 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-Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.64 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.153(A), 505 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology

Act.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:-

The accused No.1 is a resident of D.No.5-59, Manipuram Street, 2

Palasamudram Town & Mandal, Chittoor District and he worked as 10 TV reporter. Accused No.2 is a resident of Indra Colony, R.K.V.B.Peta Village of K.Nagar Mandal. The defacto complainant is a resident of

Padirikuppam Village of Karvetinagar Mandal.

It is further alleged that on 11.08.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., in Padirikuppam Village, the complainant received a whatsapp message, in which accused No.1 made some untruthful comments and provocative words against K.Narayanaswamy, Excise Minister and his family members stating that “Excise Mantrigari Urulone Vitchalavidiga Sarayi ammakam”. The said provocative words have been made by accused

No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2. Having seen the said provocative words, the complainant got hurt and gave complaint to the police. Basing on the complaint, the police have registered a case in

Crime No.64 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.153 (A), 505 r/w 34 IPC & Sec.67 of Information Technology Act.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating officer visited the scene of offence and examined the material witnesses. He arrested the accused No.2 on 11.08.2019 at 9.00 p.m., on Chittoor –

Puttur main road in the presence of two respectable mediators and recorded his confessional statements. During the course of further investigation, on 14.08.2019 at 10.30 a.m., the accused No.1 voluntarily came to the police station and surrendered before him and in the presence of mediators, the police arrested him and recorded his confessional statements. During the course of further investigation, on 12.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m., the complainant produced TV10 visuals in a CD and he seized the same under a cover of police proceedings. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer laid charge sheet 3 against the accused for the offences under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act.

03.This court took cognizance of offences under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act against the accused. After receipt of summons the accused Nos.1 & 2 appeared

before the court, and copies of documents furnished to them as

contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

04.On further appearance of the accused Nos.1 & 2, they were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and charges under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act have been framed read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1, other alleged eyewitnesses as

P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, the alleged independent witnesses who were present at the time of arrest and recording of confessional statements of accused Nos.1 & 2 as P.W.8 and P.W.9 and the

Investigating officer as P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and M.O.1.

06.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused

Nos.1 & 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating circumstances appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence witnesses on their behalf.

07.While addressing arguments, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that the accused No.1 at the instigation of accused No.2 uploaded the derogatory statement against the Excise Minister of Andhra Pradesh stating that 4 “Excise Mantrigari Urulone Vitchalavidiga Sarayi ammakam” and degraded him in the public. Therefore, basing on the part of the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution successfully established the guilt against the accused Nos.1 & 2. Even though the alleged eyewitnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, basing on the part of the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of Investigating officer, the accused

Nos.1 and 2 are liable for conviction for the offences with which they are charged. She further argued that even though the material witnesses were cross-examined at length by the defence counsel, nothing is elicited from their cross-examination to disprove the case of prosecution and finally prays to convict the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences under

Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act.

08.In reply the learned counsel for the accused vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned APP and further argued that the accused Nos.1 & 2 are nothing to do with this case and falsely implicated due to political pressure. None of the witnesses deposed against the accused. Basing on the sole testimony of the Investigating officer, conviction cannot be imposed and finally prayed this court to acquit the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act.

09.In view of the above said pleadings the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home

the guilt against the accused for the offences under Sec.153-A,

505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act,

beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT: Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused, this court examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C and charges under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information

Technology Act have been framed, read over and explained to them in 5

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused Nos.1 & 2. In order to prove the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 & 2, the prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1, other alleged eyewitnesses as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, the alleged independent witnesses who were present at the time of arrest and recording of confessional statements of accused Nos.1 & 2 as P.W.8 and

P.W.9 and the Investigating officer as P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.12 and M.O.1.

11.Admittedly, P.W.1, who is the complainant in this case did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. As per the version of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor part of the evidence of

P.W.1 has to be taken into consideration and he clearly and categorically stated that the accused No.1 uploaded the derogatory statements against Excise Minister at the instigation of accused No.2. Therefore, the said incriminating material coupled with the evidence of Investigating officer, successfully establishes the guilt against the accused.

12.In view of the arguments addressed by the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, it is obvious to scrutinize the evidence of P.W.1 carefully. P.W.1 deposed that in the month of September, 2019 he received a Whatsapp message from a cell phone, in Ambedkar Uvajana

Seva Group in which it was scribed as “Excise Mantrigari Urulone

Vitchalavidiga Sarayi ammakam”. He is also resident of the same village of the said Excise Minister i.e., Padirikuppam. In the next line he further clearly and categorically deposed that he did not find such Arrack sales in their village. Therefore, he gave complaint to the police. His villagers also put signatures on the said complaint. He gave complaint against the 6 accused on suspicion. The witnesses identified his signatures on the complaint. Ex.P1 is complaint.

13.A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1, even though he stated that in a whatsapp group under the caption of Ambedkar Uvajana

Seva Group, he received a derogatory statement against Excise Minister as if “Excise Mantrigari Urulone Vitchalavidiga Sarayi ammakam”, but he did not speak that the accused No.1 forwarded the said message at the instigation of accused No.2. He further categorically deposed that on suspicion only he gave complaint to the police against the accused.

Merely suspecting a person is not sufficient to establish the guilt against the accused, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused Nos.1 & 2 alone have forwarded such derogatory statement against a respectable Minister. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to establish the guilt against the accused as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused. As P.W.1 did not speak anything about the derogatory statement against accused Nos.1 & 2, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor finally sought permission to treat the witness as hostile and permission is granted. In the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he was examined by the police and that he stated before the police as in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, the contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.2.

14.When coming to the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses, who were examined by the prosecution as P.W.2 to P.W.6, they too did not support the case of the prosecution. They clearly and categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police. As these witnesses too did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought 7 permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and permission is granted to cross examine them. In the cross examination they denied a suggestion that they stated before the police as in their section 161 Cr.P.C statements and the contradictory portions in their respective section 161

Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7.

15.Now, the burden again lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused Nos.1 & 2, from the evidence of P.W.7 to

P.W.9. Out of them, P.W.7 is the Investigating officer and he deposed that on 11.08.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., while she was present in the Police

Station P.W.1 to 6 came to Police Station and P.W.1 present a written complaint and she inturn registered the same as a case in Crime No.64 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.67 of Information Technology Act and issued FIRs to all concerned officials.

Ex.P.8 is FIR. She examined them and recorded their statements. Shee seized one C.D containing some photographs. On the same day at about 9.00 p.m., she received credible information with regard to movement of

A.2 near R.K.V.B.Peta Village and accordingly, herself and L.W.9 and

L.W.10 by name Thyagaraj and Murugeshan, independent witnesses proceeded to the said village and found A.2 and recorded his confessional statement and arrested him and seized one Samsung

Galaxy J7 Max cellphone under a cover of panchanama, dated 11.08.2019 at 9.00 p.m. The said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.9. The said Compact Disc that was seized from P.Ws.1 & 2 is marked as Ex.P.10.

The witness produced the seized cellphone in the open court and the same is marked as M.O.1. She produced A.2 before the court for judicial custody. On the next day i.e., 12.08.2019 she visited Padirikuppam

Village and examined L.W.7 & 8 by names Kesavulu and Rajithamma and recorded their statements, in which they stated that a news reporter 8 came to their village and took photographs in his cellphone. On 14.08.2019, A.1 himself surrendered before her and confessed about his involvement in this case and accordingly she arrested him and issued

Sec.41-A Cr.PC notice and he complied with. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet against the accused.

16.In this case the version of Investigating officer is that she recorded the confessional statement of accused Nos.1 & 2 as if they uploaded the derogatory statement against the Excise Minister. Now, it is to be seen whether the confessional statement made by accused

Nos.1 & 2 is established through the evidence of P.W.8 and P.W.9, who were punch witnesses at the time of recording the confessional statements of accused Nos.1 & 2. P.W.8 and P.W.9 deposed that about one year back on one day when they went to Police Station, the police requested them to put their signatures on some papers. Accordingly they put their signatures. They do not know the contents in it. The witnesses identified their signatures on arrest and confessions –cum – seizure panchanama and the same are marked as Ex.P11 and Ex.P.12.

As these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and permission is granted. In the cross- examination, they clearly and categorically denied a suggestion that the police arrested the accused Nos.1 & 2 and recorded their confessional statements and seized one cellphone in their presence and to that effect a panchanama was prepared.

17.A overall reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.11, there is no iota of evidence to show that accused No.1 uploaded the derogatory statements against the Excise Minister of Andhra Pradesh. Merely making allegations against the accused is not sufficient, it is to be 9 established through the evidence of independent witnesses, but the prosecution utterly failed to do so. Moreover, the prosecution also failed to file any document to show that the derogatory statement was uploaded in whatsapp group from the cellphone of accused No.2. Under these circumstances, it is not fit case to rely on sole testimony of P.w.7,

Investigating officer. Therefore, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and under

Sec.67 of Information Technology Act and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

As there is no case made out against accused No.2 and that M.O.1

Samsung Galaxy J7 Max cellphone was seized by the police from accused

No.2 at the time of his arrest. Hence, the material object M.O.1 Samsung

Galaxy J7 Max cellphone in C.P.R.No.137 of 2019 is ordered to be returned to accused No.2, as he is the original owner, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of March, 2020.

(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1:A.Chiranjeevi (Complainant) P.W.2:V.Govardhan (Eyewitness) P.W.3:A.Mallikarjuna (Eyewitness) 10

P.W.4:K.Munirathnam (Eyewitness) P.W.5:T.Chinnaiah (Eyewitness) P.W.6:A.Sahadevudu (Eyewitness) P.W.7:M.Priyanka (Investigating officer) P.W.8:C.Thyagaraju (Independent witness who was present at the time of arrest and recording of confessional statements of accused Nos.1 & 2) P.W.9:C.Murugeshan (Independent witness who was present at the time of arrest and recording of confessional statements of accused Nos.1 & 2)

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Complaint given by P.W.1. Ex.P.2:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.7:Contradictory portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8:First Information Report in Crime No.64 of 2019 of K.Nagar Police Station. Ex.P.9:Panchanama, dated 11.08.2019 at 9.00 p.m., for seizure of M.O.1. Ex.P.10:Compact Disc seized from P.Ws.1 & 2. Ex.P.11:Signature of P.W.8 on arrest and confession – cum – seizure panchanama, dated 11.08.2019 at 9.00 p.m. Ex.P.12:Signature of P.W.9 on arrest and confession – cum – seizure panchanama, dated 11.08.2019 at 9.00 p.m.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil

Material objects:

M.O.1: Samsung Galaxy J7 Max cellphone.

// True copy \\(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

11

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS; PUTTUR.

Calendar in C.C.No. 348 of 2019

(Cr.No.64 of 2019 of K.Nagar P.S)

Date of offence:11.08.2019

Date of complaint:11.08.2019

Date of taken on file:27.08.2019

Date of apprehension of accused:08.01.2020

Date of commencement of trial:09.01.2020

Date of close of trial:12.03.2020

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:16.03.2020

Complainant:The State, represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karvetinagar Police Station.

Name of theFather’s nameAgeReligionVillage,Occupation AccusedMandal/ District P.NagarajuVamannan40HinduPalasamudram Town &Reporter years Mandal, Chittoor District. T.M.SubramanyamT.Krishnaiah46HinduR.K.V.B.Peta Village,Teacher years Karvetinagar Mandal.

Nature of offence: Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc., and doing acts prejudical to maintenance of harmony, statements conducing to public mischief and cheated by impersonation of computer resource. Section of Law: Under Sec.153(A), 505 r/w 34 IPC & Sec.67 of Information Technology Act. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the above said offences. Sentence or order: In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under

Sec.153-A, 505 r/w 34 of IPC and under

Sec.67 of Information Technology Act and accordingly, they are acquitted in terms of Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences.

The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as per 12 section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

As there is no case made out against accused No.2 and that M.O.1 Samsung

Galaxy J7 Max cellphone was seized by the police from accused No.2 at the time of his arrest, the material object M.O.1 Samsung

Galaxy J7 Max cellphone in C.P.R.No.137 of 2019 is ordered to be returned to accused

No.2, as he is the original owner, after expiry of appeal time. // True copy \\ (Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Judicial Magistrate of I ClassPuttur.

Puttur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Sri U. RAM MOHAN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Monday, this the Sixteenth (16th) day of March, 2020.

C.C.No.298 of 2019

(Splitup from C.C.No. 225 of 2017)

(Crime No.39 of 2017 of R.C.Puram Police Station) Between:

The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police,

R.C.Puram Police Station. ..Complainant.

And:

1.V.Bhanu Kumar Reddy, age 40 years, S/o. V.Arjun Reddy. C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

2.D.Pushpakantha Reddy, age 33 years, S/o. D.Ramamurthy Reddy. D.No.1-21, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal. This case is splitup

3.K.Siva Sankar Reddy, age 50 years, from C.C.No.225 of S/o. Late Subba Reddy, 2017 against D.No.1-94, C.Ramapuram Village, accused No.8 as R.C.Puram Mandal. NBW pending

4.B.Obhi Reddy, age 39 years, against him and the S/o. Adinarayana Reddy, said C.C. was D.No.1-125, Lokamathapuram Village, disposed on R.C.Puram Mandal. 01.10.2019 against

5.T.Giridhar Reddy, age 49 years, accused Nos.1 to 7 S/o. Siddamuni Reddy, & 9 to 21. Now, this Nennur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal. C.C is against

6.N.Yogananda Reddy, age 42 years, accused No.8 only. S/o. Narayana Reddy, Nadavalur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

7.I.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Arjun Reddy, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

8.M.Vijay Kumar, age 25 years, S/o. Srinivasulu, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

9.P.Venkataramana Reddy, age 25 years, This case is splitup from S/o. P.Deena Reddy, C.C.No.225 of 2017 against C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.accused No.8 as NBW pending against him and the said C.C.

10. S.Jayachandra Reddy, age 20 years,was disposed on 01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7 & 9 S/o. S.Venkata Reddy, to 21. Now, this C.C is against C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.accused No.8 only.

2

11. Chandragiri Guna Sekhar, age 26 years, S/o. Bhaskar Reddy, D.No.1-86, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

12. Thimmapuram Siva Sankar Reddy @ Madhu Reddy, age 40 years, S/o. Rama Chandra Reddy, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

13. Gampala Rajendra Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Jayarami Reddy, D.No.2-32, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

14. K.Mohan Reddy, age 55 years, This case is splitup S/o. Balaram Reddy, from C.C.No.225 of C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal. 2017 against

15. B.Lakshmipathi, age 49 years, accused No.8 as S/o. Late Chinnamuni Swamy, NBW pending Gangireddypalle Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.against him and the said C.C. was

16. N.Sadasiva Reddy, age 43 years, S/o. Krishna Reddy,disposed on C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7

17. C.Ramabhadra, age 43 years, S/o. Gangulaiah,& 9 to 21. Now, this Kunepalli Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.C.C is against accused No.8 only.

18. M.Bhaskar Reddy, age 50 years, S/o. Late M.Bala Krishna Reddy, Nadavalur Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

19. D.Kesavulu, age 43 years, S/o. D.Venkatamuni, Cherlopalle Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. Now residing at Haripuram Colony, Tirupati Rural.

20. Pakala Ashok, age 34 years, S/o. P.Anandaiah, D.No.5-21, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal.

21. P.Giri, age 36 years, S/o. P.Subbaiah, D.No.5-20, C.Ramapuram Village, R.C.Puram Mandal. … Accused

This case came before me on 06.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S.Nayeemunnisa Begum - Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri N.Murugeshan Reddy,

Counsel for accused No.8, upon hearing arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:

3

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.C. Puram Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 21 in Cr. No.39 of 2017 for the offences under Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC.

2. The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:- All the accused are residents of S.R.Puram Mandal and they are strong followers of YSR Congress Party. The defacto complainant is a resident of Gollapalle Village of R.C.Puram Mandal and he is working as driver of dumper vehicle in Municipal Corporation, Tirupati. It is further alleged that during the year 2004, the Revenue authorities allotted land to an extent of Ac.25.26 cents in Sy.No.415, 416, 417 and 426 of Durga

Samudram Village Accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal for the purpose of dumping solid waste generated in Tirupati Town. Since 2005, the

Municipal Corporation and TTD jointly dumping the solid waste from

Tirupati town to the above dumping yard without any objection from anybody. While so, on the night of 22/23.06.2017 the complainant

V.Nageswara Rao being the driver of dumper vehicle bearing registration

No.AP03 TD 4200 while transporting the solid waste from Tirupati town to the dumping yard with the help of L.W.2/S.Sanjeevi, who is working as watchman at the dumping yard, all the accused Nos.1 to 21 conspired together, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of their common object wrongfully restrained the above vehicle at 2.17 a.m., on 23.06.2017 by placing stone boulders across the road at the turning of SWETHA Engineering College road leading to

C.Ramapuram – Adapareddypalle Village Indiramma Colony, near

C.Ramapuram Village of R.C.Puram Mandal and thereby obstructed the public servants while discharging their legitimate duties. Further all the accused removed V.Nageswara Rao and S.Sanjeevi from the above 4 vehicles, snatched away the keys of the vehicle and threatened to do away them and also threatened to set fire to the above vehicle if they try to move the vehicle further. Therefore, the complainant V.Nageswara

Rao gave complaint to the police. Basing on the complaint, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.39 of 2017 for the offences under

Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Investigating officer visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements. During the course of further investigation, he arrested the accused Nos.1 to 21 on 23.06.2017 and released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 21 for the offences under

Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC.

3. This court took cognizance of offences under sections 143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 21. After receipt of summons all the accused, except accused No.8, appeared

before the court and copies of documents furnished to them as

contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C. Hence, NBW issued against accused No.8.

4.At the stage of examination, this case is splitup from

C.C.No.225 of 2017 against accused No.8 as NBW pending against him and the said C.C. was disposed on 01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7 & 9 to 21. Now, this C.C is against accused No.8 only.

5.On appearance of accused No.8, the accused No.8 was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet filed for the offences under sections 143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be 5 tried.

6.During the course of trial, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor filed adoption memo requesting this court to adopt the evidence of all the witnesses from main C.C.No.225 of 2017 on the file of this court. Notice given to other side and other side endorsed no objection. Accordingly, the memo is allowed. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor filed certified copies of depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.5.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.8, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1, watchman of dumping yard as P.W.2 and the alleged independent witnesses as

P.Ws.3 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6.

8. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses against the accused No.8, and they turned hostile, examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9. In view of the above said pleadings the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home

the guilt of the accused No.8 for the offences under section 143,

341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:Basing on the allegations leveled against the accused No.8, this court examined the accused No.8 under section 251

Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation levelled against him in the charge sheet filed for the offences under Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC have been read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.8, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1, watchman of dumping yard as P.W.2 and the 6 alleged independent witnesses as P.Ws.3 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.6.

11.In this case, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that he is working as Driver of dumper pressure vehicle, Municipal corporation, Tirupati. He has been working in same cadre for the last 7 years. On 23.06.2017 at about 2.10 a.m., while he was driving his vehicle i.e., dumper pressure vehicle bearing registration No.AP03 TD 4200 from Tirupati to Ramapuram dumping yard in order to unload the garbage along with his colleague Sanjeevi watchman in their Municipal Corporation, and when he reached to

Swetha College in Ramapuram, a group of people consisting of 20 to 30 persons came there and stopped his vehicle by demanding him to unload somewhere else. Then he went to Municipal Office, Tirupati and informed to their vehicle incharge by name Ramesh. He asked him to come back. He clearly and categorically deposed that he does not remember whether the accused persons were present in the said mob as it was dark night. The witness identified his signature on the complaint and the same is marked as Ex.P1. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested this court to grant permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross examine. Permission is granted. In the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he stated before the police as in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, the contradictory portion in section 161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.2.

12.When coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is working as watchman of dumping yard also deposed on the same lines as stated by

P.W.1. Therefore, there is no necessity to reiterate the evidence of P.W.2.

7

As this witness too did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested this court to grant permission to treat the witness as hostile and to cross examine.

Permission is granted. In the cross examination, he denied a suggestion that he was examined by the police and he stated before the police as in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. Therefore, the contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P.2.

13.The prosecution examined the alleged independent witnesses as P.W.3 to P.W.5. They clearly and categorically deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they were not examined by the police. As these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor requested this court to grant permission to treat the witnesses as hostile and to cross examine. Permission is granted. In the cross examination, they denied a suggestion that they were examined by the police and they stated

before the police as in their respective section 161 Cr.P.C statements.

Therefore, the contradictory portions in section 161 Cr.P.C statements of

P.W.3 to P.W.5 are marked as Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6.

14.A careful reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, there is no incriminating circumstances against the accused No.8 to show that the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and wrongfully restrained the vehicle of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and thereby obstructed them while discharging their legitimate duties. As there are no incriminating circumstances, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses. In view of the hostility of the prosecution witnesses, accused No.8 cannot be convicted as prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt against the accused for 8 the charges levelled against him. Accordingly the accused No.8 is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused No.8 is found not guilty for the offences under Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Further the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of March, 2020. (Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:

P.W.1:V.Nageswara Rao (Complainant) P.W.2:Sanjeevi (Watchman of dumping yard) P.W.3:G.Venkataramana (Independent witness) P.W.4:Munirami Reddy (Independent witness) P.W.5:Ranjith Kumar (Independent witness)

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1:Signature of P.W.1 in the complaint Ex.P.2:Contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3:Contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4:Contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5:Contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.6:Contradictory portion in section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil

Material objects marked on behalf of Prosecution: Nil // True copy \\ (Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Judicial Magistrate of I ClassPuttur.

Puttur.

9

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS; PUTTUR.

Calendar in C.C.No.298 of 2019

(Splitup from C.C.No. 225 of 2017)

(Crime No.39 of 2017 of R.C.Puram P.S.)

Date of offence:22/23.06.2017

Date of complaint:23.06.2017

Date of taken on file:10.08.2017

Date of apprehension of accused:31.01.2020

Date of commencement of trial:12.03.2020

Date of close of trial:16.03.2020

Explanation for delay:No delay

Date of sentence or order:16.03.2020

Complainant:The State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, R.C.Puram Police Station.

Name of theFather’s nameAgeReligionVillageMandal/Occupation AccusedDistrict V.Bhanu Kumar V.Arjun Reddy Reddy D.Pushpakantha D.Ramamurthi ReddyRedy K.Siva Sankar Late Subba ReddyReddy This case is splitup from C.C.No.225 of 2017 B.Obhi ReddyAdinarayana Reddyagainst accused No.8 as NBW pending T.Giridhar ReddySiddamuni against him and the said C.C. was disposed Redy on 01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7 & N.Yogananda Narayana ReddyReddy9 to 21. Now, this C.C is against accused I.Chandra Sekhar Arjun ReddyNo.8 only. Reddy P.Venkataramana P.Deena Reddy Reddy M.Vijay KumarSrinivasulu 32HinduC.Ramapuram Village,Private job yearsR.C.Puram Mandal. S.Jayachandra S.Venkata ReddyReddy This case is splitup from C.C.No.225 of 2017 Chandragiri GunaBhaskar Reddy against accused No.8 as NBW pending against Sekhar him and the said C.C. was disposed on Thimmapuram Rama Chandra Siva Sankar Reddy01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7 & 9 to Reddy @ Madhu

21. Now, this C.C is against accused No.8 only. Reddy 10

Gampala Jayarami Rajendra ReddyReddy K.Mohan ReddyBalaram Reddy B.LakshmipathiLate This case is splitup from C.C.No.225 of 2017 Chinnamuni Swamyagainst accused No.8 as NBW pending against N.Sadasiva Reddy Krishna Reddyhim and the said C.C. was disposed on C.RamabhadraGangulaiah 01.10.2019 against accused Nos.1 to 7 & 9 to M.Bhaskar RedyLate M.Bala

21. Now, this C.C is against accused No.8 only. Krishna Reddy D.KesavuluD.Venkatamuni Pakala AshokP.Anandaiah P.GiriP.Subbaiah

Nature of offence:Punishment for wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, criminal intimidation and criminal conspiracy with common intention.

Section of Law:Under sections 143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused No.8 is found not guilty for the offences under Sec.143, 341, 353, 506, 120-B r/w 149 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Further the bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437(A) of

Cr.P.C.

// True copy \\(Sd/- U.Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Sri U. RAM MOHAN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Puttur.

Tuesday, this the Sixteenth (16th) day of June, 2020.

C.C.No. 119 of 2020

(Crime No.149 of 2019 of Puttur P.S.) Between:

The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police,

Puttur police station. ..Complainant.

And:

Devarinti Vinod Kumar Reddy, age 34 years, S/o. D.Sidda Reddy, D.No.14-21/A, Devarintipalli Village, Nallacheruvu Post & Mandal, Ananthapuram District. Now residing at D.No.2-5/C, 3rd Floor, Annamayya Nagar, Sai Nagar, Bairagipatteda, Tirupati. … Accused.

This case came before me on this day i.e., 16.06.2020 for examination of accused under section 239 of Cr.P.C in the presence of

Smt. S.Nayeemunnisa Begum, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/complainant and the accused appeared party in person; upon perusing the material on record and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Puttur Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.149 of 2019 for the offences under

Sec.417 & 380 of IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are that:-

Accused is a resident of D.No.14-21/A, Devarintipalli Village,

Nallacheruvu Post & Mandal, Ananthapur District. Now residing at

D.No.2-5/C, 3rd floor, Annamayya Nagar, Sai Nagar, Bairagipatteda,

Tirupati.

It is further alleged that on 04.10.2019 in between 12.30 p.m., and 2.30 p.m., in Krishnasai Fancy Store, Beside Andhra Bank ATM, D.No.1- 165, Tirupati-Puttur road, Puttur Town and Mandal, Chittoor District, wherein the accused saying his name as Ramesh came to the fancy store of complainant and saying that he is the Head of credit card Department in Andhra Bank, Puttur and want to purchase the stationary and pay the money in “Phone Pay”. Then the complainant opened his phone on behalf of the accused and kept on the table to bring other stationary item, meantime he bravely cheated and committed the theft of complainant cellphone and transferred an amount of Rs.15,800/- in 4 times to rummy games and the complainant received the information to his mail. Basing on the complaint given by the complainant, police have registered a case in Cr.No.149 of 2019 for the offences under Sec.417 & 380 of IPC.

During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the material witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. During the course of further investigation, on 17.12.2019 the police produced the accused

before the court on P.T warrant. After completion of investigation, a

charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under sections 417 & 380 of IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of offences under sections 417 & 380 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

4.After receipt of summons accused produced from District-Jail,

Chittoor and copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.When accused produced from District-Jail, Chittoor, he is examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation levelled against him by the prosecution in the charge sheet, charges under Sec.417 & 380 or 411 IPC, are framed, read over and explained to him, for which he confessed the offences and pleaded guilty. Accused is questioned repeatedly for which he stated that he is voluntarily admitting the offence. This court feels that there is no force or influence against the accused, in his voluntary admission. Accordingly, his plea of guilt is recorded. In view of the admission of accused, this court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sec.417 & 380 or 411 of IPC.

6.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under Sec.417 & 380 or 411 of IPC and he is convicted for the same under Sec.241 Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of June, 2020.

(Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

7.Now the accused is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offences under Sec.417 & 380 or 411 of IPC, for which, he pleaded mercy. He further submitted that he has old age mother, wife and son and they are depending upon his earnings as he is the sole bread winner of his family.

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view of the remand period of the accused, as he has been in

Judicial Custody for the last 6 months and keeping in view of the plight of the accused and family burden of accused and also now the world itself is suffering from Covid-19 and the lives of all people including economic is shattered, and it is the duty of the head of the family member to save his dependents in the present time. Therefore, it is a fit case to take lenient view in sentencing the accused.

9.Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 182 days for the offences under Sec.417, 380 or 411 of IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the said offences, in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The period of remand already undergone by the accused from 17.12.2019 to till date i.e., 16.06.2020 i.e., 182 days is ordered to be set off under Sec.428

Cr.P.C.

10.The Superintendent, District-Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 16 th day of June, 2020.

(Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:Nil

Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil

Material objects: Nil // True copy \\ (Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Judicial Magistrate of I ClassPuttur.

Puttur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS; PUTTUR.

Calendar in C.C.No. 119 of 2020

(Crime No.149 of 2019 of Puttur P.S.)

Date of offence: 04.10.2019

Date of complaint: 11.10.2019

Date of taken on file: 17.02.2020

Date of apprehension of accused: 26.02.2020

Date of commencement of trial: 16.06.2020

Date of close of trial: 16.06.2020

Date of sentence or order: 16.06.2020

Complainant: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Puttur Police Station.

Name of theFather’s nameAgeReligionVillageMandal/Occupation AccusedDistrict DevarintiD.Sidda Reddy35HinduDevarintipalli Village,Tea stall Vinod KumaryearsNallacheruvu Post & ReddyMandal, Ananthapur District.

Nature of offence: Cheating, Theft in dwelling house or Dishonestly receiving stolen property. Section of Law: Under sections 417 & 380 or 411 of IPC Plea of the accused: Pleaded guilty Finding of the Court: Found guilty for the above offence. Sentence or order : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under Sec.417, 380 or 411 of

IPC and he is convicted for the same under

Sec.241 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 182 days for the offences under Sec.417, 380 or 411 of IPC and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the said offences, in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. The period of remand already undergone by the accused from 17.12.2019 to till date i.e., 16.06.2020 i.e., 182 days is ordered to be set off under

Sec.428 Cr.P.C.

Accused paid fine amount of Rs.100/-.

The Superintendent, District-Jail, Chittoor is directed to release the accused forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

// True copy \\ (Sd/- U. Ram Mohan)

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Judicial Magistrate of I ClassPuttur.

Puttur.