Sri V.c. Gunnaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri V.C. Gunnaiah

X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Tuesday, the ( 24 th ) day of December, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Sessions Case No. 83 of 2013

Complainant : Inspector of Police, Renigunta Rural Circle (Cr. No.31 of 2012)

Accused:Gadhi Reddy, Muneeswar Reddy @ Yugandhar @ Bujji, age 36 years, S/o Nagaraja Reddy, Peruru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

P.R.C.:P.R.C.No.21/2011 on the file of V Addl Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri K. Suryanadha Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

Accused defended by:Sri I. Ramesh

Charge: U/Secs. 302, 404, 201 IPC.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 302, 404 and 201 IPC and is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months as U/Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. M.O.2 and 7 were identified by P.W.2 the husband of the deceased. According to prosecution M.O.1 belongs to the deceased. Hence M.O.1, Nokia cell phone, M.O.2 gold chain and M.O.7 a pair of silver anklets shall be returned to P.W.2, M. Jyothi Reddy and M.Os.3 to 6 and 8 which are non valuables shall be destroyed by the committal court after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 12-12-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state; and Sri I. Ramesh, Advocate to defend the accused

and after hearing both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Renigunta Rural Circle filed charge sheet against Accused for the offences U/Secs. 302, 404, and 201 IPC before

V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati in Cr.No. 31 of 2012 of

Gajulamndyam Police station alleging as follows:

2

2. The accused is resident of Perur village and he is the contract labour in T.T.D Forest Department. The deceased Nagabhushanamma is also the resident of the same village and was doing milk business and she was maintained a TVS-50XL vehicle bearing registration No. AP-03-AU-6862 purchased by her mother Vijayamma (P.W.5) used to maintaining a petty shop near Peruru Village, the deceased used to utilizing the TVS-50 XL for personal use for purchasing sundry articles to her mother. The accused developed illegal intimacy with the deceased and he used to visit the house of the deceased for sexual intercourse, during the temporary absence of her husband (P.W.2) the same was notice by her mother (P.W.5) and her relatives and that they warned the deceased and accused, but they did not care them. The accused presumed that the deceased is character less and she was having illicit contact with others also. So that he decided to do away her life of the deceased.

While so, on 05-5-2012 at about 11.30 A.M., the deceased contacted the accused in phone and informed him that she is going to Renigunta

Shanta on her TVS-50 XL vehicle and asked him to meet her at

Thukivakam Peddachervu tank bund to spend for some time with her for their sexual act. The accused who was waiting for the opportunity, he agreed to meet her in the above said place, when they went to Peddachervu tank bund at about 1.30 P.M., by the time the deceased was also waiting there by keeping her TVS-50 XL vehicle on tank bund. The accused and deceased went to the thorny bushes, situated on the eastern side of the

Thukivakam Chinnachervu Tank bund for sexual intercourse. The same was witnessed by Pradeep and Munisekhar Reddy (P.W.7 and 8). The accused took the deceased inside the thorny bushes and had sexual intercourse with her at about 2.00 p.m., and after that the accused intentionally pressed her nose and mouth, forcibly and killed her with his hands by smothering. After committing murder of the deceased, the accused snatched away a gold bondu chain from her neck and also one Nokia cell phone belonging to her and escaped from the spot leaving the dead body there. While on 15-5-2012 at about 6.00 p.m., VRO, Thukkivakam village (P.W.1) who came to know about un-known female dead body at tank bund give a report to

Gajulamndyam P.S., in turn S.I of police (P.W.17) registered the same as 3

Cr.No.31/2012 U/Sec.174 Cr.P.C., (Suspicious Death) and investigated the same. After inquest on 16-5-2012 P.W.17 sent the body for postmortem and P.W.14 conducted the postmortem P.W.17 the S.I of police also seized the clothes of the deceased and also examined witnesses and record their statements. On 18-5-2012 at about 6.00 pm., Vijayamma (P.W.5) the mother of the deceased abused the accused got enraged by it, the accused admitted that he has committed the murder of deceased. Then Vijayamma gave report to Gajulamandyam P.S., on the same day at 8.00 p.m., and on receipt of the same, the S.I of police altered section of law from 174 Cr.P.C (Suspicious death) and was altered into 302 IPC and issued express FIR. On 18-5-2012 the inspector of police Renigunta, Rural Mandal (P.W.18) took up investigation into this case, examined the witnesses and record their statements. On 19-5-2012 at 2.00 pm., Panchayat Secretary Perur Village (P.W.7) produced the accused before P.W.18 and presented the report stating that the accused made extra Judicial confession regarding the murder of deceased before him at 10.00 am.,. In turn P.W.18 take the accused in to custody and interrogated in the presence of P.W.1, and P.W.13 and recorded the statements and arrested the accused. The accused lead the police party to D.No.2-129 of Peruru village and produced Nokia Cell phone bearing

No. 7569007787 belonged to the deceased and the same was seized under a cover of Mahazar at 4.30 p.m., in the presence of panchaythdars. The police also seized on the confession made by the accused, a gold bondu chain weighing 25 grams belonging to deceased, when produced from Santhosh (P.W.10) which was pledged by the accused with the help of his friend

Eswaraiah for Rs.56,000/- and same was seized at 6.00 P.M., in the presence of Panchayadars under a cover of mahazar. The accused was sent for judicial custody were analyzed by Assistant directors RFSL, Tirupati and he opined that no poisonous substance in the material object. P.W.14

Dr. Mamatha, Professor, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, S.V. Medical College,

Tirupati, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave postmortem certificate and after receiving analysis report and she opined no exact opinion can be given regarding cause of death and there are no Antimortem wounds over the body and no poisonous substance and the body was advanced decomposition. Since the accused made extra judicial 4 confession about the murder of deceased and snatched away her gold chain the accused has committed offence punishable U/Secs. 302, 404 of IPC.

3. Learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati took cognizance of case for the offences U/Sections 302, 404 and 201 IPC against accused. As the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate numbered the same as PRC No.21 of 2012 and issued process for appearance of accused. Since the accused was in Judicial custody on production of him copy of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. After considering the material on record the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati committed the case to the court of sessions, Sessions Division, Chittoor. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor has numbered the same as S.C.No.83 of 2013 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law. But the case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Prl. District & Sessions

Judge, Chittoor in Dis No.4203 dt. 14.5.2013 after establishing this court for

disposal according to law.

4. On receipt of case record process was issued for the appearance of accused who was on bail. On appearance of accused and on hearing both sides charges U/Secs. 302, 401 and 201 IPC have been framed read over and explained to him for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the above said charges against the accused, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.20 and

M.Os 1 to 8.

6. After closure of prosecution side evidence the Accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating evidence appearing against him. The accused denied his complicity and evidence appearing against him.

He further stated he has been falsely implicated in this case due to ill feelings to him with P.W.2 and he had no relationship with deceased and with the death of her. He is called upon to enter into defence and adduce evidence if any for him, but he did not examine any defence witnsses.

7. Heard arguments on both sides.

8. The point for consideration is “Whether the prosecution has proved 5 the charges for the offences U/Secs. 302, 404, 201 IPC against accused beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State contended that though there is no direct evidence against the accused that there is extra judicial confession made by accused before P.W.7 as per Ex.P.7 and police seized M.Os.1, 2 and 7 at the instance of the accused U/Ex.P.4.

Therefore the prosecution proved the charges against the accused to connect with the death of the deceased.

10. Per contra learned counsel for the accused contended that absolutely there is no evidence against the accused either to prove that accused had any illegal intimacy with the deceased and was found in the company of accused at any point of time or prior to her death. Therefore prosecution failed to establish that the accused had illegal intimacy with deceased and was seen near the Thukkivakam tank prior to her death. The learned counsel further contended that no confession was made by accused as per Ex.P7 before P.W.7 and the evidence of P.W.7 goes to show that

Ex.P7 was prepared by police in the police station. So the same cannot be proved against the accused as it was hit by sections. 25 and 26 of Indian

Evidence Act and no statement made to police officer is to be proved against the accused. Learned counsel further contended that the material witnesses P.W.6, 8, 9, 13, and P.W.15 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version and the recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 are also not proved at the instance of the accused. Learned counsel lastly argued that the reason for the death of deceased was not proved, as doctor could not give any opinion as the dead body of the deceased was found in highly decomposition state and no motive against the accused was proved to murder the deceased. As such the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

11. Amongst all the 18 witnesses examined by the prosecution,

P.W.1, T. Subramanyam Pillai is the VRO, Thukkivakam village who gave

Ex.P1 is the report on 15-5-2012 to Gajulamndyam police, on coming to know about the dead body of deceased near Thukkivakam tank and he is also attestor of Ex.P2 mahazar for arrest of the accused, Ex.P3 the test

Identification Parade and Ex.P4 the police proceedings. P.W.2 N. Jyothi 6

Reddy is the husband of the deceased. P.W.3 V. Ramesh is co-brother of

P.W.2. P.W.4 G. Vijayamma is the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 C.

Sujatha is the younger sister of the deceased. P.W.6 N. Chandraiah is resident of Thukkivakam village. P.W.7 T. Obanna is working as Panchayath

Secretary, Perur Village before whom the accused made confession of the crime on 19-5-2012 and who produced the accused before Police by giving

Ex.P7 report. P.W.8 M. Pradeep and P.W.9 S. Muunisekhar Reddy are residents of Thukkivakam village who are said to have witnessed the deceased charting with a person on 05-5-2012 near Thukkivakam cheruvu and also found TVS XL on 05-5-2012. P.W.10 Santosh Radhesyam is the owner of Sri Balaji Pawn Broker Shop, Tirupati. Where M.O.2 gold chain was said to have been pledged with him by the accused and recovered the same on 19-5-2012 under Ex.P.10. P.W.11 and 12 K.Kumar and N. Sekhar are the attestors of Ex.P.11 the inquest report. P.W.13 S. Venkata Reddy is said to be the person present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizure of the property at the instance of accused on 19-5-2012 under

Ex.P.2 and P.4. P.W.14 Dr. K. Mamatha who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem certificate under Ex.P.12. On receipt Ex.P.13 is the RFSL report. P.W.15 C.

Eswaraiah is the person who is said to have been assisted the accused who pledged gold chain M.O.2 with P.W.2. P.W.16 M. Kodandapani Police

Constable in Gajulamandyam P.S., who produced the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination. P.W.17 is the Sub-inspector of police in

Gajulamndyam P.S., who registered the crime and investigated into first instance. P.W.18 is the Sub-inspector of police, Renigunta Rural circle who took up investigation subsequently arrested the accused seized the property and laid charge sheet against the accused.

12. P.W.14 Dr. K.Mamatha who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased testified in her evidence on 16-5-2012 she examined the dead body of the deceased and found that there were no ante-mortem wound external and internal injuries over the dead body. She further says that the body was in advanced decomposition position state and she was of the opinion that deceased was died one to two weeks prior to postmortem examination and no exact opinion can be given regarding cause 7 of death. As per Exs.P.12, Ex.P.14 issued by her. Ex.P.13 is the RFSL report received by P.W.14 also does not disclose any poisonous substance in the body of deceased. Since the death of deceased was one to two weeks prior to postmortem examination, it is proved by the death of deceased

before 15-5-2012.

13. P.W.1 is the VRO, Thukkivakam village, according to him on 15-5-2013 he find the dead body of deceased on information and gave report to the S.I of Gajulamndyam P.S., Ex.P1 to P.W.17. His evidence also reveals that he was present with police station arrest for accused as per Ex.P2. On 19-5-2012 and he conducted Test Identification Parade of gold chain through P.W.5 on 21-5-2013 under Ex.P3 and he attested Ex.P4 for sezior of gold chain also.

14. P.W.2 is the husband of deceased P.W.3 is the co-brother of

P.W.1, P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased and P.W.5 is younger sister of the deceased. They testified in their evidence on 05-5-2012 the deceased left to Renigunta Shandy of TVS -50 XL and did not return to home till evening, so P.W.2 gave report to M.R. Palli Police on 06-5-2012 and on 15-5-2012 Gajulamndyam police station informed them about the dead body of the deceased at about 8.30 P.M., and they identified the dead body. On 16-05-2012 morning they suspected that the accused might have killed the deceased. P.W.2 identified MO.2 is the Gold Bondhu Chain wearing by the deceased at the time of going from the house on 05-5-2012. But none of the above witnesses found the deceased in the company of accused at any point of time prior to 05-5-2012 or on 15-5-2012 when the deceased left the home. On the other hand P.W.5 says that she came to know about the illegal relationship of deceased with accused through P.W.4 her mother, but

P.w.4 the mother of deceased did not say anything against the accused that he had illegal intimacy with the deceased. So their evidence to prove that accused had illegal intimacy with deceased and was last seen with the deceased as alleged by the prosecution cannot be believed.

15. P.W.6 N. Chandraiah, P.W.8 Pradeep, P.W.9 S. Munisekhar

Reddy, who are the main and important witness in this case to speak about the witnessing of accused in the company of the deceased at Thukkivakam cheruvu with TVS-50 XL vehicle on 05-5-2012 but they did not support the 8 prosecution version that they saw the accused with deceased at

Thukkivakam tank on 05-5-2012. P.W.13 S.Venkata Reddy is said to be present at the time of arrest of the accused and seizor of property on 19-5- 2012 under Ex.P2 and P.4 but he did not support by prosecution version.

On the other hand he says that police obtained his signatures on some papers in the police station. P.W.15 C. Eswaraiah who is said to have assisted the accused to pledge M.O.2 gold chain with P.W.10 also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version that he pledged gold ornament M.O.2 by accompanying the accused to the shop of P.W.10.

P.W.6 , 8 and 15 denied that they were examined by police and stated as marked in Ex.P.6, P.8 P.9 and P.15. So the evidence of P.Ws. 6,8,9, 13 and 15 is no way helpful to prove the prosecution case at all.

16. The entire case of prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial confession of the accused said to have been made before P.W.7. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence of P.W.7 is trust worthy and acceptable to prove the extra- judicial confession of accused in his presence. According to P.W.7 Thukkivakam Panchayat

Secretory of Peruru village, on 19-5-2012 at about 10.00 a.m, the accused came to him and informed that he had illegal intimacy with the deceased and he intended to surrender before the police then he took him to police station and handed over him to the police and recorded the statement about the confession of crime by accused under Ex.P7 and handed over the same to police. In the cross-examination he further stated that Ex.P7 was scribed in police station by police and he signed in it. A perusal of Ex.P7 also shows that the same was written in the language of P.W.7, but not to the true version given by the accused and also not as statement of him (accused). More over as per clear admission of P.W.7 Ex.P7 was drafted by police in the police station. If such is the case since the accused was already was in police custody as he was produced by P.W.7 and the statement Ex.P7 was recorded by police in the police station, the same is hit by sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The statement recorded by police while in custody is not to be proved against accused. Therefore no importance can be given up Ex.P.7 statement which is recorded by police in the custody which is sole basis for this case. So far as the 9 discovery of M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused is also doubtful and conducting Test Identification Parade of M.O.2 by P.W.1 as also very much doubtful in this case. P.W.13 who is the attestor of the mahazar

Ex.P.4 stated that he attested the same in police station. Though P.W.1 stated that he attested Ex.P4 but stated that police prepared mahazar and he attested the same. So the evidence of P.W.18 who is the inspector of police cannot be believed that M.Os 1 and 2 were seized at the instance of accused on his arrest under Ex.P2 which is said to have been prepared in the police station. So it is not proved by the prosecution that M.Os.1 and 2 are recovered at the instance of accused in this case beyond doubt.

So also the test identification of M.O.2 conducted by P.W.1 through

P.Ws. 2 and 4 under Ex.P3 on 25-1-2013 is also doubtful as P.Ws.2 and 4 did not say in their evidence that they identified M.O.2 gold chain before

P.W.1. Ex.P3 also does not contain the signatures of P.Ws.2 and 4 for identifying the gold chain M.O.2. Therefore prosecution failed to prove that

P.W.1 conducted test identification parade of M.O.2 through P.Ws.2 and 4 under Ex.P3.

17. The other evidence on record with regard to pledging of gold chain M.O.2 with P.W.10 by accused, through P.W.10 who is the owner of

Sri Balaji Pawn broker shop testified in his evidence that on 05-5-2012 one

Eswaraiah (P.W.15) Pudipatala pledged the gold chain weighing 27 grams for an amount of Rs.56,000/- and he issued EX.P10 receipt, but P.W.15 bluntly denied in his evidence pledging M.O.2 gold chain with P.W.10. So there is no evidence placed by prosecution that the accused pledged M.O.2 gold chain on 05-5-2012 in P.W.10 shop by the deceased of Eswaraiah (P.W.15). So the pledge of gold chain by the accused has not been established by for prosecution by placing reliable evidence. P.W.12 and 13 stated about attestation of inquest report, Ex.P11 by them. But a perusal of inquest report does not disclose that the accused caused the death of deceased. P.Ws.17 and 18 deposed about the registration of crime investigation, and filing of charge sheet who has not been corroborated by any reliable evidence regarding the arrest, sezior of property M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the accused.

18. Though prosecution established that the deceased died in 10 between 05-5-2012 and 15-5-2012, but prosecution failed to establish that the accused had illicit intimacy with the deceased prior to 05-5-2012 and on 05-5-2012 he was last seen with the deceased at Tukkivakam Tank bund and had sexual intercourse with her and at that time he committed the murder of deceased by pressing her neck and nose by smothering and snatched away her gold chain and Nokia cell phone. Although P.Ws.2, 3, 4, and 5 stated that accused might have killed the deceased, but the same cannot be believed. Suspicion, however strong that cannot take the place of proof. On mere suspicion. without convincing evidence on record the accused cannot be convicted for the offences alleged caused to him.

Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused for the offences U/Secs. 302, 404 and 201

IPC beyond doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 302, 404 and 201 IPC and is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months as U/Sec.437 (A)

Cr.P.C. M.O.2 and 7 were identified by P.W.2 the husband of the deceased.

According to prosecution M.O.1 belongs to the deceased. Hence M.O.1,

Nokia cell phone, M.O.2 gold chain and M.O.7 a pair of silver anklets shall be returned to P.W.2, M. Jyothi Reddy and M.Os.3 to 6 and 8 which are non valuables shall be destroyed by t he committal court after expiry of appeal time.

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

Pronounced in the open court, this the 24 th day of December, 2013.

Sd/-V.C.Gunnaiah

X Additional District &Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1 T. Subramanyam Pillai NIL P.W.2 N. Jyothi Reddy P.W.3 V. Ramesh P.W.4 G. Vijayamma P.W.5 C. Sujatha P.W.6 N. Chandra 11

P.W.7 T. Obanna P.W.8 M. Pradeep P.W.9 S. Munisekhar Reddy P.W.10 S. Radhesyam P.W.11. K. Kumar P.W.12 N. Sekar P.W.13 S. Venkata Reddy P.W.14. Dr. Mamatha P.W.15. C. Esawariah P.W.16 M. Kodandapani P.W.17 Mallesh Yadav (SI) P.W.18 N.T. Ram Kumar (C.I)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-

SExhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks l.NoNo.Document

1.Ex.P-115-5-2012Report given by PW1 to - Police.

2.Ex.P-219-05-2009Arrest Mahazar-

3.Ex.P-321-5-2012Test Identification Mahazar - for gold chain

4.Ex.P-419-5-2012Sezior mahazor for gold - chain

5.Ex.P-518-5-2012Report given by P.W.4 to - police

6.Ex.P-619-5-2012161 Cr.P.C statement of - P.W.6

7.Ex.P-719-5-2012Confession statement of - accused recorded by P.W.7

8.Ex.P-819-5-2012Marked portion in 161 - Cr.P.C statements of P.W.8

9.Ex.P-919-5-2012Marked portion in 161 - Cr.P.C statement of P.w.9

10.Ex.P.1005-5-2012Pawn Broker receipt-

11.Ex.P.1116-5-2012Inquest report- 12Ex.P1216-5-2012P.M certificate issued by - P.W.14

13. Ex.P1321-7-2012RFSL report-

14.Ex.P1411-9-2012Final opinion issued by - P.W.14

15.Ex.P1521-5-2012161 Cr.P.C statement of - P.W.15

16.Ex.P1615-5-2012FIR in Cr.No.31/2012 of - Gajulamndyam P.S., 12

17.Ex.P1716-5-2012Rough sketch-

18.Ex.P1818-5-2012Altered FIR in - Cr.No.31/2012

19.Ex.P.1919-5-2012Sezior Mahazrar for Nokia cell phone

20.Ex.P.2016-5-2012Police proceedings for seizor of M.Os 3 to 8.

For defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

1. M.O.1 Nokia cell phone

2. M.O.2 Gold Bondhu chain

3. M.O.3 Black and white colour palister saree

4. M.O.4 Black and white colour Jacket

5. M.O.5 Petty coat

6. M.O.6 Red colour Broken pieces of Bangles

7. M.O.7 A pair of Silver Anklets

8. M.O.8 A pair of slippers.

Sd/-VCG

X Addl. D & S.J. Tirupati.

Copy to:

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The District Collector, Chittoor. The Superintendent of Police, Tirupati Urban. The III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, X Addl. District Judge’s Court, Tirupati.

13

Draft Judgment in S.C.No.383/2009, Dt.21-10-2013.

Before the Court of Sessions :: Chittoor Division

In the Court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati

Present :: Sri V.C.Gunnaiah,

X Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Tirupati.

Tuesday, the Seventeenth (17 th ) day of December, 2013.

Sessions Case No. 137 of 2012

P.R.C.No. 6/2011 on the file of III Addl. J.F.C.M., Tirupati

The State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tirupati East.

.... Complainant.

Vs.

Arumuthu Vijaya Kumar Reddy, aged 29 years, S/o.late A.Raja Reddy, D.No.3- 117/B, Padipet village, Tirupati Rural Mandal.

.. Accused.

PRC:: P.R.C.No.6/2011 of Addl. J.F.C.M., Tirupati.

Prosecution conducted by:: Sri K.Suryanadha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor, Tirupati.

Accused defended by:: Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate, Tirupati.

Charge:: U/secs.304-B, 302, 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act

Plea of the accused:: Not guilty.

Finding of the court:: Accused is found not guilty of the charges u/secs.304-A, 302, 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act., hence he is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Sentence or order:: The accused is found not guilty of the charges u/secs.304-B, 302 IPC for the deaths of deceased 1 to 4, u/sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5, which are non valuables shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time by committal court. The accused complied Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. to appear before higher court as and when such court issues notice in respect of appeal or petition filed against judgment of this court and the bail bonds shall be in force for six months.

This case coming on 04-12-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri

K.Suryanadha Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri I.Ramesh,

Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tirupati East laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.74/2011 of Tiruchanur P.S. for the offences u/secs.498-A, 304

IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging as follows:

The marriage of Arumuthu Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi (deceased No.1) was performed on 11-03-2007 at Padipet village of Tirupati Rural Mandal. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.45,000/- and 16 sovereigns of gold were given as demanded by the mother of the deceased No.1. After the marriage, they blessed with two daughters by name Ramya (deceased No.3) and Suma (deceased No.2), who are aged three years and two years by the date of death of them. The accused and deceased No.1 lived happily till 2009. During 2009, PW1 Munaiah, brother of the deceased No.1 sold a piece of land for Rs.10,00,000/- to clear off the debts, the accused demanded half share in the sale amount, but PW1 told he sold the land to clear the debts and however, deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Padmavathi (deceased No.1) as single premium in LIC Market Plus. Not satisfied with that amount, the accused used to subject the deceased No.1 Padmavathi for physical and mental harassment for want of dowry. He also demanded to got transfer of a house plot in her name for getting

additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. With regard to that, there was frequent quarrels

between them. PWs.1 and 2 consoled the deceased No.1 and gave an amount of

Rs.50,000/-. Still the accused harassed her want of half share in the remaining land that there was continuous harassment by the accused to Padamavathi for want of additional dowry. On 30-04-2011, the accused and Padmavathi (deceased No.1) along with their two daughters (deceased Nos.2 and 3) went for Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at

Appalayagunta village and left them at the house of PW1 at about 9-30 a.m., directing her to get her share in the property , but PW1 refused to give share in the property. At about 6-00 p.m. on the same day, the accused again came to the house of PW1, picked up his wife and children i.e., deceased 1 to 3 and went home. At about 9-00 p.m. on the same day, the accused quarelled with his wife i.e., deceased No.1 for not getting share as directed by him and beat her. At about 2-00 a.m. during night i.e., 01-05-2011,

Padmavathi (deceased No.1) vexed on her life, bolted the door from inside and poured kerosene and set fire with an intent to do away her life. Flames caught to the clothes and other articles in the room and also caught her two children Suma and Ramya i.e., deceased Nos.2 and 3 and also one Gollapalli Yamini, the daughter of P.Ws.8 and 9 who was also with them, caught fire and they sustained extensive burns on their persons and raised alarm and on hearing the cries and smoke coming out of the house through ventilators, the neighbours forcibly opened the door by using crowbars. By that time,

Padmavathi and Suma (deceased 1 and 3) died and deceased Nos.3 and 4 sustained burns all over their body. In '108' ambulance, they were shifted to SVRRGG Hospital,

Tirupati. At about 4-20 a.m., Ramya (deceased No.3) died in the hospital and Yamini (deceased No.4) was shifted to Keelapauk Medical College, Chennai, but she succumbed to injuries on 03-05-2011 while undergoing treatment.

On the report given by PW1, the brother of deceased No.1 on 01-05-2011 at 6-00 a.m., Tiruchanur police registered a case in Crime No.74/2011 u/sec.304-B IPC and investigated into. Mandal Executive Magistrate, Tirupati Rural (PW11) conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased Padmavathi on 01-05-2011. PW17

V.Bhaskar, Inspector of Police held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased Suma and their deadbodies were sent for postmortem examination. PW18 Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Tirupati East examined the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and seized the incriminating articles under mahazars attested by mediators. PW.16 S.I. of Police,

Tiruchanur P.S. conducted inquest over the deadbody of Ramya (deceased No.3) and sent the deadbody for autopsy. PW18 also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the incriminating material to RFSL, Tirupati. PW15 T.Parandama,

Head Constable conducted inquest over the deadbody of Yamini (deceased No.4) at

Keelapauk Medical College, Chennai at 03-05-2011 and sent the deadbody for autopsy.

It is revealed during the investigation the deceased No.1 was subjected to harassment for want of additional dowry prior to her death and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide by setting ablaze of herself by pouring kerosene and the deceased 2 to 4 also died due to burns, which are sleeping along with her. The accused was apprehended on 06-05-2011 and was sent for remand. After receiving reports from RFSL, Tirupati and after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused. Thus the accused has committed offences punishable u/secs.498-A and 304-B IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

02. The charge sheet was taken on file by the III Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati vide PRC.No.60/2011 and after securing the presence of

the accused, after furnishing copies of case documents as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it is numbered as S.C.137/2012 and it was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

03. After securing the presence of the accused before this court, after hearing both sides, the accused was examined u/sec.228 (1) Cr.P.C. and charges u/sec.304(B), 302, 498-A IPC and u/secs.3 and 4 of D.P.Act were are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 apart from M.Os.1 to 5.

05. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material on record. The accused denied the same as false. The accused stated that his wife first deceased had ill feelings with PW1 and was suffering with stomach pain, so she committed suicide. He further stated that he never harassed the 1st deceased and is not responsible for her death. He examined

D.W.1 on his behalf and got marked Exs.D1 and D2.

06. Heard arguments on both sides and perused record.

07. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution contended though charge u/sec.302 IPC against the accused for the deaths of deceased 1 to 4 are not proved by the evidence placed on record, but the prosecution is able to establish the charges u/secs.498-A and 304-B IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused and hence he is liable for conviction for the said charges.

08. Per contra, learned counsel for accused submitted the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and mother of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi are interested witnesses and their evidence is full of material omissions, which cannot be relied either to prove the demand of dowry, harassment leading to suicidal death of the first deceased, attracting Secs.304-B, 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. He further argued the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 is hear say and cannot be taken into consideration to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He also contended there is no evidence on record that soon before the death of the first deceased, the accused harassed her either for dowry or for anything. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilty of the accused for any of the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. He lastly contended that the first deceased committed suicide for obvious reasons in the absence of the accused in the home on that night, as there were ill feelings between PW1 and first deceased Padmavathi @

Munilakshmi, for which the accused cannot be held liable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for accused relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India viz.,Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 2

Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 15 and (2) T.Aruntperunjothi Vs. State through S.H.O.,

Pondicherry (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 528.

09. In Vipin Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 2 Supreme

Court Cases (Cri) 15, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing a case u/secs.304-B and 498-A IPC, held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses showing that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant/accused towards deceased and they have brought any specific overt acts of cruelty or harassment by appellant towards the deceased cannot be accepted, therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

1. In T.Aruntperunjothi Vs. State through S.H.O., Pondicherry (2006) 2 Supreme

Court Cases (Cri.) 528, the Hon'ble Apex Court discussed the essential ingredients of the offence u/sec.304-B and held that if demand of dowry or harassment is not proved soon before the death of deceased, it cannot be said that the offence u/sec.304-B IPC is established beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. Now it has to be seen Whether the evidence placed on record by the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

12. POINT:: Amongst 18 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the defacto complainant and the brother of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi.

PW2 R.Gunamma is the mother of the first deceased. PW4 R.Govinda Reddy is relative of P.Ws.1 and 3, PW.3 N.Dora Babu, PW5 A.Srinivasulu and PW7 K.Venkataramana are the neighbours of first deceased and accused who came to know about the suicidal death of the first deceased on 30-04-2011. PW6 R.Ravikumar is photographer who took photographs at the instance of police at the scene of offence. PW8 G.Giri and PW9

A.Ammulu are the wife and husband and are relatives to the accused and the first deceased. They are also parents of fourth deceased Yamini. PW10 P.Ravikumar is the panch witness of seizure of material objects M.Os.1 to 5, observation of scene under

Ex.P5 and inquest reports Exs.P6 to P9. PW11 C.S.Suresh Babu is Mandal Executive

Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead body of first deceased Padmavathi @

Munilakshmi as per Ex.P6. PW12 is one S.Kanneppa Reddy who attested the inquest report Ex.P9 relating to fourth deceased Yamini. PW13 is Dr.B.Venkateswarlu who contended postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the deceased 3 and 2 Ramya and Suma as per Exs.P10 and P11. PW.14 is Dr.B.Venkatesulu who conducted postmortem over the deadbody of the first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi and issued postmortem report under Ex.P12. PW15 is the then Head Constable of

Tiruchanur P.S. who conducted inquest over the deadbody of fourth deceased Yamini.

PW16 is the then S.I. of Police, Tiruchanur P.S. who held inquest over the deadbody of third deceased Ramnaya under Ex.P8 and also assisted for the arrest accused. PW17

U.Bhaskar is the then Inspector of Police who registered the crime and assisted investigated to PW18 and also conducted inquest over the deadbody of Suma (2nd deceased) under Ex.P7. PW18 is the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tirupati East who investigated the case, arrested the accused in this case.

13. DW.1 is the Sarpanch of the village of the accused and first deceased.

He deposed that the accused and first deceased were living happily after marriage, but first deceased suffering with stomach pain and had ill feelings with her brother due to sale of their land, hence the first deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her, setting fire to herself.

14. P.W.8 G.Giri and P.W.9 G.Ammulu who are the parents of fourth deceased Yamini did not support the prosecution version. They were treated hostile by the prosecution and were cross examined. Even in their cross examination, they denied the suggestion that the accused subjected the first deceased to cruelty by demanding dowry, so she committed suicide.

15. PW1 who is the brother of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi and PW2 mother of her deceased as to how the first deceased and accused were living, begot children Suma and Ramya, who are deceased 2 and 3 and carrying the first deceased away with fifth month. According to them, after the marriage in 2007, the accused and first deceased lived happily, but after children were born, the accused used to harass her for dowry, though they gave Rs.45,000/- and 16 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage and they used to give Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- like that now and then to the accused. According to them, two years prior to the death of first deceased,

PW1 sold Ac.2-00 cents of land for Rs.10,00,000/- and he discharged the debts of

Rs.7,00,000/- and deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of first deceased and paid

Rs.50,000/- to the accused in cash, but still the accused demanded house site of 35 cents, for which he refused and so the accused harassed the deceased. Therefore, the first deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her on the night of 30-04-2011 and during that incident, herself, her two children Ramya and Suma and daughter of P.Ws.8 and 9 Yamini died who were sleeping with her in the house. PW2 stated in her evidence on the date of incident at about 6-00 p.m., the accused and first deceased with their children came to their house after darshan of Appalayagunta Temple and left to their home by quarelling with them. PW1 further says that on the night of 30-04-2011, he was on his duty as technician in Swarna E & T Hospital, Tirupati and at about 3-00 a.m., PW5 informed him in phone about the first deceased Padmavathi poured kerosene, set fire to herself and then he rushed to his house at Brahmanapattu village and found Padmavathi and Suma died, Ramya and Yamini (deceased 3 and 4) were removed to hospital in '108' ambulance. He also says that Ramya died in hospital and Yamini died while undergoing treatment at Chennai. Then at 6-00 a.m., he gave report to police.

In their cross examination, P.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and mother of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi says that they did not tell to police that they used to give Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- or Rs.10,000/- or Rs.5,000/- to the accused whenever demanded. They also omitted to say before the police that the accused came at 6-00 p.m. and quarelled with PW2 or PW1 and beat first deceased and took her away from the house of P.Ws.1 and 2. These omissions are proved by the evidence of PW18, the investigating officer. So the evidence of P.Ws.1 an 2 though they stated that the accused used to harass for dowry and they used to pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- like that to accused is only an improvement and cannot be believed, as the same was omitted

before police at the earliest point of time during the investigation. The said material

omissions amounts to contradictions to disbelieve their evidence that the accused demanded dowry subsequent to the marriage and they used to pay the same to him.

P.Ws.3, 4, 5 and 7 are hear say witnesses. Though their depositions goes to show that they came to know about the harassment and giving dowry through PW1, so no importance can be given to their evidence to prove that the accused demanded dowry or harassed the first deceased prior to her deaths the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is untrustworthy.

PW6 is only photographer who took photographs at the instance of police and there is no dispute about the taking photographs under Ex.P2.

PW10 P.Ravikuamr testified in his evidence that he was present when inquest held over the deadbodies of 1 to 3 Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi, Suma and

Ramya under Exs.P6, P7 and P8 and attested them and also present when police observed the scene and seizure of M.Os.1 to 5 under Ex.P5.

PW11 C.S.Suresh Babu testified in his evidence that on 01-05-2011 he conducted inquest under Ex.P6. PW11 testified in his evidence that when he was present when the inquest was conducted by PW15 on 03-05-2011 under Ex.P9 and attested the same. PW13 testified in his evidence that he conducted postmortem examination over the deadbodies of deceased Ramya and Suma and issued Exs.P10 and P11, opining that the deaths are due to consequence of burns. PW14 is another doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody of first deceased Padmavathi @

Munilakshmi and issued Ex.P12 and he is of the opinion that the death is due to effect of antemortem burns.

PW15 deposed about the inquest conducted by him as per Ex.P9 over the deadbody of deceased Yamini. PW16 deposed about attesting of PW18 regarding investigation and according to him, he conducted inquest over the deadbody of third deceased Ramya as per Ex.P8 and also seized MO1 partly burnt underwear under

Ex.P13 police proceedings.

P.Ws.17 and 18 deposed about the registration of crime and investigation, arrest of accused and filing of charge sheet.

16. There is no dispute regrading the death of first deceased Padmavathi @

Munilakshmi, 2nd deceased Suma, third deceased Ramya and fourth deceased Yamini, as the first deceased poured kerosene and set fire to herself, causing burn injuries to herself and her children deceased 2 and 3 and Yamini, the daughter of P.Ws.8 and 9 and they died due to burns and the death of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi the wife of accused is suicidal one. So also the other deceased 2 to 4 died in view of the burn injuries caused to them when caught fire along with first deceased. There is also no dispute that the death of first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi along with other deceased occurred within seven years of marriage of her with the accused. The main thing which has to be considered in this case is

Whether there was any cruelty or harassment to the deceased and

whether she was subjected to cruelty or harassment, demanding additional dowry

by the accused soon before her death, so that she committed suicide ?

17. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and mother of first deceased, there is no other corroborating evidence against the accused to prove that he subjected his wife i.e., first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi demanding dowry soon before her death and due to that she committed suicide. Although P.Ws.1 and 2 stated the accused demand dowry now and then and they used to pay Rs.10,000/- and

Rs5,000/- (as per PW1) and Rs.10,000/- and Rs.20,000/- (as per PW2), they omitted to state the same before police during investigation. Their evidence also does not disclose that there was any specific instance of accused demanding dowry and subjecting his deceased wife cruelty demanding dowry subsequent to the marriage. There is absolutely no evidence that the accused was present in the house before the first deceased poured kerosene, set fire to herself and her children and another Yamini. On the other hand, the evidence placed on record shows that the accused was not in the house at the time of incident on the night of 30-04-2011 i.e., early hours on 01-05-2011. If such is the case, when there is no dispute between the accused and first deceased regrading anything, muchless demanding dowry, it cannot be said soon before the death of first deceased, the accused, who is her husband subjected her to cruelty and harassed her for dowry, attracting Sec.304-B IPC. So also the evidence on record placed by the prosecution does not attract the offences u/secs.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act, as there is no evidence that the accused subjected the first deceased Padmavathi @

Munilakshmi to cruelty and demanded dowry at the time of marriage. In view of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, though the prosecution established that first deceased Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi wife of accused along with her two children and another Yamini died due to committing suicide by setting fire to herself, but the prosecution failed to prove soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband, who is accused in this case, demanding dowry or for anything. Therefore, I hold the prosecution failed to prove all the charges for the offences u/secs.302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, in which event, he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charges u/secs.304-B, 302 IPC for the deaths of deceased 1 to 4, u/sec.498-A IPC and Secs.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 5, which are non valuables shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time by committal court. The accused complied Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. to appear before higher court as and when such court issues notice in respect of appeal or petition filed against judgment of this court and the bail bonds shall be in force for six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, this the 17th day of December, 2013.

X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: PW1 : R.Munaiah. PW2 : R.Gunamma. PW3 : N.Dora Babu. PW4 : R.Govinda Reddy. PW5 : A.Srinivasulu. PW6 : R.Ravikumar. PW7 : K.Venkataramana. PW8 : G.Giri. PW9 : G.Ammulu. PW10:P.Ravikumar. PW11:C.S.Suresh Babu. PW12:S.Kanneppa Reddy. PW13:Dr.B.Venkatesulu. PW14:Dr.B.Venkatesulu. PW15:T.Parandama. PW16:P.Ramalingaiah. PW17:U.Bhaskar. PW18:D.Ch.Hussaian. Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence: DW1: N.Dhanamuni Reddy. Exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P1 : 01.05.2011: Report given by PW1 to police. Ex.P2 : Four photographs. Ex.P3 :04.05.2011 : Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW8.

Ex.P4 :04.05.2011 : Marked portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW9. Ex.P5 :01.05.2011 : Scene observation mahazar. Ex.P6 :01.05.2011 : Inquest report of first deceased i.e. A.Padmavathi Ex.P7 :01.05.2011 : Inquest report of 2nd deceased A.Suma. Ex.P8 :01.05.2011 : Inquest report of 3rd deceased A.Ramya. Ex.P9 :03.05.2011 : Inquest report of 4th deceased Yamini. Ex.P10:02.05.2011 : Postmortem report of Ramya. Ex.P11:02.05.2011 : Postmortem report of Suma. Ex.P12:02.05.2011 : Postmortem report of first deceased A.Padmavathi @ Munilakshmi Ex.P13:02.05.2011 : Police proceedings to seizure of MO1. Ex.P14:01.05.2011 : FIR in Crime No.74/2011 of Tiruchanur P.S. Ex.P15:06.05.2011 : Police proceedings for seizure of wedding card, xerox copies of LIC Policies. Ex.P16:Wedding card. Ex.P17:Xerox copy of LIC policies. Ex.P18:01.05.2011 : Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P19:03.05.2011 : Postmortem report of G.Yamini. Ex.P20:02.07.2011 : FSL report. Ex.P21:06.09.2011 : RFSL report.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defence: Exs.D1 and D2: Marked portions in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5.

Material objects marked: MO1: Plastic can. MO2: Blur colour Lungi. MO3: Partly burnt bed sheet. MO4: Wooden plank. MO5: Partly burnt underwear.

X Addl.S.J., TPT

Fair Judgment in

S.C.No.137 of 2012,

dated 17.12.2013.

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri V.C.Gunnaiah, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the Twenty Seventh (27th) day of December, Two Thousand Thirteen.

Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2012

in C.C.No. 416 of 2012

(On the file of X Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati)

Between:

S.Rupesh Reddy @ Rupesh...Appellant/A­1

And:

The State rep. by Sub­Inspector of 

Police, Renigunta Police station. .. Respondent/Complainant.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2012

From which court the appeal is V Additional Judicial Magistrate of preferred First Class Court, Tirupati.

Number of the case in that Court C.C.No. 416 of 2012

Number of the appeal before this C.A.No. 225 of 2012 court

Name and description of the Seenuri Rupesh Reddy @ Rupesh, appellant. S/o. S.Koteswara Rao, residing at D.No.225,TarakaramaNagar, Karakambadi village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. 

The offence under which U/Sec. 498­A IPC. appellant/accused was convicted and sentence imposed. A­1 is found guilty for the offence Under Sec. 498A IPC and he is convicted Under Sec. 248(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/­, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days. 

Whether the appeal confirmed, In the result, Criminal appeal is modified or reversed, if modified, allowed setting aside the Judgment, 2 the modification. conviction and sentence, dated 14­09­2012 passed by learned V 

Additional Judicial Magistrate of 

First Class, Tirupati in C.C.No. 

416/2012. Appellant/A­1 is found not guilty for the offence Under Sec. 498A IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence. Fine amount if any paid by appellant/A­1 shall be refunded to him after expiry of appeal time. Appellant/A­1 complied with Sec. 437A Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall be in force for six months. 

Date of presentation :21­09­2012

Date of admission :21­09­2012

Date of hearing :18­12­2013

Date of sentence or order : 27­11­2013

This appeal coming on 18­11­2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Yoganand, Advocate for the Appellant/A­1 and of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1. Appellant, who is A­1 in C.C.No.416/2012 filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable Under 

Sec.498­A IPC by trial court in its Judgment, dated 14­09­2012, sentencing him to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000­00, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 60 days. 

2.Appellant/A­1 was charge sheeted along with three others, who are A­2 to A­4 by Inspector of Police, Renigunta Police station in Crime 

No.89/2010 for the offence punishable U/S. 498­A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of 

Dowry prohibition Act alleging as follows. 

3

The appellant/A­1 married Jyoshna (PW­1), who is his maternal uncle’s daughter on 22.11.2007 at Tiruchanur. At the time of marriage Pw­ 1’s father i.e., PW­2 gave dowry of Rs.1,00,000­00 and 20 sovereigns of gold. After marriage A­1 harassed PW­1 on the pretext that she is not beautiful. So also A­2 to A­4 who are mother, father and younger brother of 

A­1 were criticising her and demanded additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000­ 00, lest A­1 would not lead marital life with her. During their wedlock PW­ 1 was blessed with one male child in the month of December, 2008, but the appellant or his parents or his brother i.e., A­2 to A­4 have not visited baby. 

A mediation was held by relatives with appellant/A­1 and other accused. 

Then appellant/A­1 put up separate family at Renigunta and PW­1 joined with him, but still all accused stated harassing her for dowry. In the month of January, 2010 PW­1 left to her parents house and but could not get dowry. So, A­1 to A­4 necked her out for not bringing additional dowry. 

Later appellant/A­1 send divorce notice and filed divorce application also against PW­1. Thereafter PW­1 gave report Ex.P­1 to police, which was registered as case in Crime No.89/2010 for the offence punishable U/S. 

498A IPC and U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act on 29­06­2010 and investigated into. Accused were arrested and subsequently charge sheet was filed for the above said offences before III Additional Judicial Magistrate of 

First Class, Tirupati.

3Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, 

Tirupati has taken cognizance of the offence Under Sec. 498­A IPC and 

U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused and numbered the case as C.C.No.335/2010.

4

4.Learned Magistrate, on appearance of accused, copies of case documents were supplied to them as contemplated Under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C and ware examined U/S. 239 Cr.P.C and charges Under Sec. 498­A IPC and U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to accused, for which they denied the accusation and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5Subsequently the case was transferred to V Additional Judicial 

Magistrate of first Class, Tirupati by Hon’ble District Judge, Chittoor in 

Dis.No.4291, dated 22­5­2012 for disposal according to law. 

6. Before trial court, PWs­1 to 6 were examined and got marked 

Exs.P­1 and P­2. Prosecution given up the other witnesses cited in the charge sheet. 

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr P C regarding the incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the evidence. Accused were called upon to enter into defence evidence, but they did not examine any defence witnesses. 

8On hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, trial court found the appellant/A­1 and other accused i.e., A­2 to A­4 not guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 3 and 4 of Dowry 

Prohibition Act and A­2 to A­4 were found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 498A IPC and A­2 to A­4 were acquitted for the said offences. However, appellant/A­1 was found guilty for the charge Under 

Sec. 498A IPC, convicted and sentenced him as afore said mentioned.

9.Aggrieved by the said Judgment, of conviction and sentencing him for the offence punishable U/S. 498A IPC, appellant/A­1 preferred the 5 present appeal on the grounds inter­alia that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is against law, weight of evidence, that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence, but wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable U/S. 498­A IPC, though the offence 

U/sec. 498­A IPC is not proved against him beyond doubt, therefore the appellant/A­1 is entitled for acquittal by allowing appeal by setting aside the Judgment of trial court. 

10Heard both sides.

11. Point for consideration in this case is:

Whether the Judgment, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/A­1 for the offence punishable U/S. 498A IPC is sustainable under law or is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal?

12.POINT :

Learned counsel for appellant/A­1 submits that appellant/A­1 and his wife PW­1 are close relatives being residing in opposite houses and there was no demand of dowry or harassment for additional dowry at any point of time and since PW­1 who is wife of appellant/A­1 left matrimonial home when she was pregnant and not returned to the house of appellant/A­1 inspite of mediations, then appellant/A­1 filed divorce petition against her by issuing notice in H.M.O.P. No.34/2010 on the file of 

Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tirupati and after receiving notice in 

that divorce petition, PW­1 gave report to police with false allegations and till filing of divorce petition no complaint is made against appellant/A­1 or other accused regarding the harassment for dowry or taking dowry. The 6 trial court rightly acquitted the appellant/A­1 and other accused i.e., A­2 to A­4 for the offences punishable U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also acquitted other accused i.e.,A­2 to A­4 for the offence punishable 

U/S. 498A IPC, but strangely convicted appellant/A­1 for the offence punishable U/s.498A IPC, though there is no substantial evidence. Learned counsel for appellant/A­1 further contended that evidence on record shows that report was given only after divorce petition was filed by appellant/A­1 and there is no specific allegation that when the harassment was made for 

additional dowry and in the absence of such evidence appellant/A­1 can 

not be convicted, but the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant/A­

1. Therefore, appellant/A­1 is entitled for acquittal and Judgment of trial court is liable to be set aside by allowing appeal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant relied on the following Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:

1Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2009(2) ALD(Crl,) 497(SC) 2C.Magesh and others etc., Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2010(2) ALD(Crl.) 147(SC) 13Per contra, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended supporting the Judgment of trial court. 

14In Shakson Belthissor Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in 2009(2) ALD(Crl,) 497(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a case Under Sec. 498­A IPC held that to constitute cruelty of nature as mentioned in Explanation(b), there must be harassment of woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. In the absence of any such allegations neither in First Information Report nor in charge sheet make 7 out a case Under Sec. 498­A IPC does not arise, in such circumstances accused is entitled for acquittal. 

15In C.Magesh and others etc., Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2010(2) ALD(Crl.) 147(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if two views of the matter are possible, view favourable to the accused should be taken. 

16In the present case on hand the trial court after elaborate discussion held that neither appellant/A­1 nor the other accused i.e., A­2 to 

A­4 who are parents and brother of appellant/A­1 received dowry or A­2 to 

A­4 harassed PW­1, wife of appellant/A­1 for additional dowry, hence, they are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Sec. 3 and 4 of 

Dowry Prohibition Act and A­2 to A­4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Sec. 498A IPC and that A­2 to A­4 are acquitted. 

However, appellant/A­1 alone was convicted for the offence punishable 

U/S.498A IPC holding that he harassed PW­1, who is his wife for dowry after marriage. 

17Now, in the light of above Judgments and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellate, it has to be seen whether prosecution is able to establish the offence punishable U/S.498A IPC as per the evidence available on record or Judgment of trial court is liable to be set aside by allowing appeal. 

18Among six witnesses examined by prosecution PW­1 is the wife of appellant/A­1, Pws­2 and 3 are the in­laws of appellant/A­1, being the parents of PW­1. PW­4 is the sister of PW­1 and PW­5 is the sister of PW­3. PW­6 is the Sub­Inspector of Police, Renigunta Police station, who registered the crime, investigated the case and filed charge sheet. PW­1 to 8 5 are the material witnesses in this case being defacto complainant, her parents and relatives. PW­5 appears to be turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version with regard to demanding of dowry, additional dowry and harassment of PW­1 by accused. Though Pws­1 to 4 have stated in their evidence that accused used to harass PW­1 after marriage for dowry, but a careful scrutiny of their evidence does not reveal any specific incidents of harassment for dowry or any property or harassment for not meeting their demand. Trial court properly evaluated their evidence with regard to receiving of dowry at the time of marriage and harassment of 

PW­1 for dowry by appellant/A­1 and A­2 to A­4 and held that prosecution failed to prove the offences U/S.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition 

Act against appellant/A­1 and also held that prosecution failed to prove the offence U/S. 498A IPC and U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against 

A­2 to A­4 and they are rightly acquitted for the said offences. Trial court also held that there was no demand of dowry by appellant/A­1 and there was no harassment by A­2 to A­4 to PW­1 demanding additional dowry. 

19Although PW­1 stated that accused demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000­00 and a motor cycle and harassed her, but the same has not been spoken by PW­2, who is father of PW­1, who is expected to meet the demand of appellant/A­1, if really made by him. So, it can not be believed that subsequent to the marriage appellant/A­1 demanded 

additional dowry from the parents of PW­1 and harassed PW­1 on that 

pretext. Their evidence is also silent on which date or at which place the said demand was made by appellant/A­1. PW­1 who is wife of appellant/A­1 clearly admitted in her evidence that she gave report to police about the alleged harassment by appellant/A­1 subsequent to filing 9 of H.M.O.P.No.34/2010 against her by appellant/A­1. The said H.M.O.P appears to be filed for divorce as PW­1(wife of appellant/A­1) has not turned up to appellant/A­1 after she went to delivery, to her parents house. A close perusal of evidence of PW­1 also discloses that she left to her parents house when she was carrying 5th month pregnancy. Her evidence also discloses that till the birth of her son she led happy marital life with appellant/A­1. Her evidence also further discloses that she did not return to house of appellant/A­1 after birth of her son. If such is the case, when PW­1(wife of appellant/A­1) left matrimonial home while she was carrying 5th month pregnancy and not returned to the house of appellant/A­1 even after she gave birth to son and till the birth of her son she led happy marital life with appellant/A­1, there is no possibility to appellant/A­1 to demand additional dowry or harass PW­1 for dowry or anything. Therefore, the evidence Pws­1 to 4 that appellant/A­1 used to harass PW­1 for additional dowry can not be believed and not established beyond reasonable doubt. 

20.The evidence of PW­5, who is sister of PW­3, does not disclose that appellant/A­1 harassed PW­1 for additional dowry subsequent to the marriage. If really there was any harassment by appellant/A­1, the same would have been spoken by PW­5 also, who is sister of PW­3. As admitted by PW­1in her evidence that she went to her parents house when she was carrying 5th month pregnancy for delivery and did not return to the house of appellant/A­1 even after delivery, and when appellant/A­1 filed divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.34/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, 

Tirupati against PW­1, then only she preferred report to police and got crime registered against appellant/A­1 and others. 

10 21 All these circumstances goes to show that only to substantiate her case, PW­1 gave report to police subsequent to divorce petition filed by appellant/A­1 by making some unfounded allegations of harassment. 

Though, the trial court found the appellant/A­1 not guilty for the offences punishable U/S. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and A­2 to A­4 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S. 498­A IPC and U/S. 3 and 4 of 

Dowry Prohibition Act , erroneously found guilty of appellant/A­1 for the offence punishable U/S. 498A IPC, though there is no substantial or reliable evidence against him to base conviction for the said offence. Viewed in this angle and in view of the cited Judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court by holding that if there is two possible views i.e., one from the side of Pws­1 to 4, which is inconsistent and the other from the side of PW­5, which does not support the version of prosecution and as there is no evidence to attract the ingredients of Sec. 498­A IPC, I hold that appellant/A­1 is entitled for benefit of doubt and he is entitled for acquittal of the charge U/sec, 498­A 

IPC, as such Judgment of trial court is liable to be set aside by allowing appeal.

Accordingly, the point is answered. 

22.In the result, Criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the 

Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 14­09­2012 passed by learned 

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati in C.C.No. 

416/2012. Appellant/A­1 is found not guilty for the offence Under Sec. 

498A IPC and he is acquitted for the said offence. Fine amount if any paid by appellant/A­1 shall be refunded to him after expiry of appeal time. 

Appellant/A­1 complied with Sec. 437A Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall be in force for six months. 

11

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of III ADJ Court, Tirupati, transcribed by him, 

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of November, 2013.

Sd/­V.C.GUNNAIAH , X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Copy to: The V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Before the Court of Sessions :: Chittoor Division

In the court of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present :: Sri V.C.Gunnaiah,

X Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Tirupati.

Monday, the Sixteenth (16 th ) day of December, 2013.

Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2012

C.C.No. 489/2013 on the file of V Addl. J.F.C.M., Tirupati

N.V.Prasad, S/o.N.Ramaiah.

.. Appellant/Accused No.1.

Vs.

The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Renigunta P.S.

.. Respondent/Complainant.

Offences:

Under sections 448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

Whether the appeal confirmed, modified or reversed, if modified, the modification.

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/A1 for the offence u/sec.448 of

IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 in

C.C.No.489/2012, dt.04-09-2012 and the appellant/A1 is acquitted of the said offences.

The fine amount paid by the appellant/A1shall be refunded to him by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Date of presentation::21-09-2012 Date of admission::21-09-2012 Date of hearing::11-12-2013 Date of judgment::16-12-2013

This appeal coming on 11-12-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Yoganand, Advocate for appellant and of Sri K.Suryanadha Reddy, Additional

Public Prosecutor for complainant and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction of appellant/A1 in C.C.No.489/2012, dt.04-09-2012 by the V Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences

punishable u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property

Act, 1984 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/sec.448 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days for the offence u/sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public

Property Act, 1984.

02. The appellant is the first accused in the above C.C.No.489/2012 and he faced trial along with seven others, who are A2 to A7 mentioned therein for the charges u/secs.447, 448, 353 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984. The matrix of the prosecution case as seen from the charge sheet is that on 21-06- 2006 at about 11-30 a.m., A1, who is Telugu Desam party leader along with mob, consisting of 100 to 200 people gathered at M.P.D.O.Office, Renigunta and was discussing about the forcible withdrawn of contesting candidate of Telugu Desam party

MPTC by Congress party member and also about issuing new ration cards and at about 12-30 p.m. on the same day at M.P.D.O.Office DPC Centre, Renigunta, the appellant along with mob formed unlawful assembly, criminally trespassed into DPC Centre and thrown away computers and monitors from the tables and caused damage and obstructed the officials i.e., PW1 and others when they were discharging their official duties of distribution of cards and deterred their duties and on the report given by PW1 at about 6-45 p.m., Renigunta police registered a case in Crime No.85/2006 u/secs.147, 448 and 353 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and investigated into and on 22-08-2006 at 4-00 a.m., the accused were arrested and lateron, they were enlarged on bail and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the above offences.

03. The case was taken on file by the trial court for the above offences and issued process for the appearance of the appellant and other accused and on their appearance, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 IPC and they were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. Chargfes u/secs.147, 448 and 353 of IPC and

Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 were framed by the trial court against A1 to A8, for which the appellant and other accused denied the accusation and pleaded not guilty.

04. In order to prove the charges against the appellant/A1 and other accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

05. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the appellant and other accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the evidence on record against them, but not examined any defence witnesses.

06. On hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the trial court found A2 to A8 not guilty of the charges u/secs.147, 353 and 448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and A1 was found not guilty of the charges u/secs.147 and 353 of IPC and they were acquitted for the said offences, but the appellant was found guilty for the offences u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of

Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 and was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid mentioned on 04-09-2012.

07. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence of him, the appellant/A1 preferred the present appeal on the grounds, inter alia:-

That the conviction and sentence passed against him by the lower court is against law and evidence. The lower court failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly, though P.Ws.1 to 4 did not support the prosecution version and there is no damage to the property even as per Ex.P1 report, but wrongly convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to

Public Property Act, 1984 , though acquitted u/secs.147 and 353 IPC, hence the judgment of the trial court finding the appellant/A1 is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal and the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal.

08. Heard arguments on both sides.

09. Point for consideration is :: Whether the judgment of trial court is unsuitable and the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal by allowing the appeal ?

10. POINT :: Learned counsel for appellant/A1 submitted that P.Ws.2 to 4, who are direct witnesses to the alleged incident did not support the prosecution version and PW1 is only a hear say witness and she gave report only on the information given by PW5 and PW5 evidence is not trustworthy and acceptable, as the same was not corroborated by any other witnesses to the incident, but the lower court erroneously find the appellant/A1 guilty for the offence u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of

Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, though the trial court recorded finding the other accused i.e., A2 to A8 and appellant/A1 are found not guilty for the offences u/secs.147 and 354 IPC and also A2 to A8for the offence u/sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to

Public Property Act, 1984. Learned counsel further contended that when two views are possible on the basis of evidence available on record, the one in favour of the accused should be accepted and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of witness, who is not trustworthy. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on State of U.P. Vs. Nandu Vishwakarma and others (2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 583 (SC)) and B.Murali @ Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 139 (AP)).

11. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended supporting the judgment of the trial court.

12. The allegations against the appellant/A1 and A2 to A8 is that on 21-06- 2006 at about 12-25 p.m., they formed into unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed in DPC Centre, damaged computers, printers and monitors, etc. and caused damage to the public property and obstructed the Deputy M.R.O. (PW1) and others from discharging their duties.

13. The trial court, after elaborate discussion in the judgment, dt.04-09-2012 in para 26 of the judgment, it is observed that for the foregoing reasons, the court holds that the prosecution failed to establish all the ingredients of Sec.353 of

IPC, therefore the court holds the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A8 for the offence punishable u/sec.353 of IPC. In para 30 of the judgment, the trial court also observed that in view of the discussion, the court holds the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A8 for the offence punishable u/sec.148 of IPC. In para 33 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A2 to A8 for the offence punishable u/sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public

Property Act, 1984, as they are not identified by any of the witnesses.

14. Now the point is :: Whether the appellant/A1 criminally trespassed into

DPC centre and caused mischief, attracting the offences punishable u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 with the evidence available on record ?

15. PW1 is the defacto complainant, being the Deputy M.R.O.,

Renigunta who send Ex.P1 complaint to police along with letter (Ex.P2).

According to this witness, on 21-06-2006 she along with P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and others working in M.P.D.O.Office, Renigunta to distribute ration cards, one group of people consisting of 100 to 200 belong to T.D.P. got into the terrace of the

M.P.D.O.Office on the ground that the Congress party people forcibly made the

M.P.T.C. Member to withdraw his nomination and there was huge mob: Sub

Inspector of Police was also came to the building when distributing the new ration cards. She (PW1) also says that she cannot identify the persons who damaged the property. In the cross examination, she also says she does not know the names of the accused and their details and she never saw them. PW2 T.Mohan, PW3

T.Sankaraiah and PW4 P.Subramanyam, who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident did not support the prosecution version about the appellant/A1 and other accused trespassing the office on 21-06-2006 and causing mischief to the public property. All these three witnesses were declared hostile and in the cross examination, they denied having stated before police as marked in Exs.P3 to P5.

PW5 is T.Subramanyam Pilai, who is V.R.O. of Tukivakam village. He testified on 21-06-2006, when PW1 is issuing new ration cards, 200 persons along with A1 trespassed into the office, by raising slogans and entered the ground floor and they pulled down computers, two printers and two lamination printers, etc. and damaged them. According to him, he cannot identify the persons except A1. This witness further stated in the cross examination he cannot identify the person who raised slogans and he did not give any report to police. PW6 is the panch witness for Ex.P6 observation mahazar prepared by PW7. According to him, at about 7- 30 p.m. on 21-06-2006, S.I. of Police observed M.D.O.Office, Renigunta and found computers, monitors, printers and CPU on the ground. PW7 is the investigation officer who is said to have present even before the incident is happened to control the mob at the place of incident. Though he stated in his evidence about the registration of crime, investigation and filing of charge sheet he did not say that he noticed A1 in the mob at the time of alleged incident. This witness further says he found the computers and monitors on the ground and does not say they were damaged.

16. A careful scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 placed on record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence that the appellant/A1 criminally trespassed with an intention to commit offence and cause damage to public property. PW1 who send Ex.P1 report on the information given by PW5 is unable to identify any of the persons, including the appellant/A1. Her evidence shows only a mob consisting of 60 to 70 people of one group of Telugu Desam party made slogans outside the office. So her evidence is noway helpful to unfold the prosecution version that the appellant/A1 along others trespassed the office, caused mischief, resulting damage to the public property.

17. P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution version. So their evidence is noway helpful to prove the prosecution case.

18. Although PW5 stated that A1 along with 200 people came by raising slogans and trespassed into the ground floor of the office, but he is not able to identify the other accused, who were said to be present at that time, whose names are mentioned in the FIR. His evidence does not disclose that the appellant/A1 thrown computers and other articles and caused damage.

19. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 and Ex.P6 scene observation mahazar does not discloses that the computers or other articles were disturbed and damaged. The computers were simply found on the floor. If any such damager is caused to the articles, PW1 who was working there is the best person to saw that the appellant/A1 pulled them down and caused damage to the public property, but no such evidence is forthcoming either from PW1 or PW5. So when A2 to A8, who are alleged to be with the appellant/A1 at the time of incident and when all of them are not found guilty by the trial court for the offences u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of

Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, the appellant/A1 cannot be convicted on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW.5, which is not trustworthy and acceptable.

20. Moreover, there are contradictory versions given by P.Ws.1 and 5 with regard to the mob coming to the office by raising slogans. PW1 says that 60 to 70 people came from one side and on the other hand, PW5 says 200 people came by raising slogans at that time and P.Ws.2 to 4 says that some mob came to the office by raising slogans. In such circumstances,when two views are possible, one in favour of the accused is to be accepted. In State of U.P. Vs. Nandu Vishwakarma and others (2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 581 (SC)), the Hon'bel Apex Court held that when two views are possible one in favour of accused and other against the accused on the basis of evidence, one favoring accused should be accepted. In the present case on hand, only PW5 identified the appellant/A1 along with 200 people at the time of incident, whereas P.W.1 is unable to identify the appellant/A1 and on the other hand, she says some 60 to 70 people were present and P.Ws.2 to 4, who are eye witnesses did not say the presence of the appellant/A1 and other accused at all. In such circumstances, in view of the contradictory evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, the view possible in favour of the accused that he was not present in the mob should be accepted. In B.Murali @ Prasad Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh (2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 139 (AP), the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held that the evidence of solitary witness requires corroboration and conviction cannot be based on the sole uncorroborated testimony of a witness.

21. In the present case on hand, the entire case based on the evidence of

PW5, which is uncorroborated by the direct witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4. The circumstances also not corroborated the evidence of PW5 regarding the damage of public property.

Simply finding some articles i.e., computers, printers and monitors which are not marked even during trail cannot be held that they are thrown away by the appellant/A1 and caused damage to the public property. Therefore, in view of the above said circumstances, the appellant/A1 is entitled for benefit of doubt on par with A2 to A8, who are acquitted by the trial court for all the charges. Viewed in this angle, I hold the judgment of the trial court is erroneous and conviction against the appellant/A1 for the offence u/sec.448 of IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed holding that the appellant/A1 is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

22. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/A1 for the offences u/sec.448 of

IPC and Sec.3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 in

C.C.No.489/2012, dt.04-09-2012 and the appellant/A1 is acquitted of the said offences.

The fine amount paid by the appellant/A1shall be refunded to him by the trial court after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of December, 2013.

X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Nil.

X Addl.S.J.,

Tpt.

Fair Judgment in C.A No.227 of 2012,

dated 16.12.2013.

Before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional District And Sessions

Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, 

X Additional District Judge, ­cum­ 

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

Tirupati.

Saturday, the Seventh ( 7 th ) day of December,

Two Thousand Thirteen.

M.V.O.P.No. 377/2009 

Smt. M. Kumari .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Smt. Rajammal, 2.M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, Rep. By its Divl. Manager, Tirupati. 3.M/s. Sriram General Insurance Co., Limited Sitampura, rep. By its Branch Manager (3rd respondent is added as per orders in

I.A.No.1241/2011, dt. 20­12­2011) .. Respondents

... 

This petition coming on 18­11­2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt S. Vinutha, Advocate for petitioner; and 1st Respondent remained exparte and Sri M. Vinod, Advocate for 2nd respondent and Sri K. Prem Kumar, Advocate for 3rd respondent, upon hearing both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:­

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

2. The averments of the petition in brevity are that the petitioner was aged 27 years, coolie and earning Rs.150/­ per day. On 01­3­2009 at about 8.30 A.M., she was going in an Auto bearing No. AP.03/W­7411 near Arundathiwada, Kathiraplli village, the driver of the milk Van bearing NO. AP.03/X­2733 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto caused the accident, due to that the petitioner sustained severe injuries and became disabled by its dis­figuration of her face all over the body. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Community Health Center, Puttur for treatment.

3. The Station House Officer, Karvetinagar Police Station, registered Crime No. 11/2009 for the offence U/sec. 338, 337 of IPC and 134 (A) and (B) of M.V.Act against the 1st respondent's driver and and later filed charge sheet against him. Due to injury caused to petitioner he spent huge amount towards medicines, extra­nourishment and for attendant charges. He was treated in Community Health Center, Puttur.

4. 1st respondent is the owner, 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle of milk Van and there was valid insurance policy to the above said vehicle. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ as special and general damages as detailed in Col.No.25 of the petition with interest at 12% per annum. 

5. 1st respondent remained exparte.

6. Petition against R.2 is not pressed by petitioner.

7. 3rd respondent insurance company filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioner denying the allegations regarding the age, occupation, earnings of the petitioner, rash and negligent driving on the part of 1st respondent's driver, manner of milk Van and called upon the petitioner to prove all of them.

It is further averred that the Auto driver only the petitioner was traveling in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and no negligence on the part of the driver of 1st respondent's driver, this respondent seeks protection U/Sec. 147, 148,149 of M.V.Act. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation, the 1st respondent violated the policy conditions. The claim of the petitioner under various heads is excessive and petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:­

1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 01­3­2009 at about 8.30 a.m due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Milk carrying Van bearing No. AP03­X­2733 of the respondent vehicle alleged? 

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so what is the quantum of compensation amount and against whom?

3. To what relief ?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, herself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. No oral and documentary evidence has adduced by 3rd respondent who contested the matter.

9. Heard arguments on both sides.

10. ISSUE NO.1:­

P.W.1 is the petitioner ­cum­ injured. She testified as to how she met with accident and sustained injuries. Her evidence discloses that on 01­3­2009 at about 8.30 A.M, she was going as Auto bearing No. AP.03/W­7411 near Arundathiwada, Kathirapalli village, the driver of said milk Van bearing registration No. AP.03/X­2733 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed milk Van and caused the accident. Due to that she sustained injuries along with other inmate and she was admitted to Community Health Center, Puttur where she was treated. According to her evidence also discloses that Karvetinagar police registered case as per Ex.A1 FIR and later filed charge sheet as per Ex.A.2 for the offence U/sec.338, 337 IPC and 134 (A) and (B) of M.V.Act she filed Ex.A.3 wound certificate as per Ex.A.3. She sustained two injuries which are grevious in nature. In the cross­ examination she denied the suggestion that she sustained only simple injuries.

The 3rd respondent insurance company has not adduced any evidence though took a plea that the accident was caused by Auto driver in which petitioner was traveling. Therefore the plea of 3rd respondent is not substantiated that by any evidence to show that accident was caused by 1st respondent driver.

The oral and documentary evidence placed on record to proved that she was traveling in Auto on 01­3­2009 near Arundathiwada, Kathirapalli village at about 8.30 A.M., and at that time the 1st respondent milk Van bearing No. AP.03/X­2733 dashed the Auto caused the accident, due to that bleeding injuries on her face. The evidence placed on record by the petitioner is trustworthy and acceptable to prove the manner of accident pleaded. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 01­3­2009 due to rash and negligent driving of the milk Van bearing Registration No. AP.03/W­7411 by its driver as pleaded by the petitioner. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of petitioner.

11. Issue No.2:­

Since, the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident, she is entitled for compensation as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

Quantum:

12. Special Damages and General Damages:

The petitioner claimed Rs. 500/­ towards transport to hospital, besides the same reasonable, hence the same is awarded under this head. The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/­ towards medical bills and extra­nourishment. Though the petitioner has not filed any medical bills but still since the petitioner sustained bleeding injury on her face and was treated she would have attended by somebody and meet some medical expenses. Though treated in government hospital, hence the injuries and treatment to the petitioner. I hold petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/­ towards treatment, medicines, extra­ nourishment and attendant expenses.

As records to pain and suffering is concerned as already noted the petitioner sustained two grevious injuries on her face as per wound certificate Ex.A.3, hence the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/­ which is just and reasonable in this case. Accordingly the same is awarded under this head. Though the petitioner claimed compensation for permanent disability, disfiguration and loss of future earnings. But absolutely there is no evidence to prove that petitioner has any disability much less permanent in nature. She has not filed any permanent disability certificate nor examined the doctor. The petitioner is a coolie so there is no diminishing of her income due to injuries caused. So she is not entitled for said disability and loss of earning power as claimed. However since the petitioner sustained injury on her face and she being laid there would be same scar etc., on her face, due to the injury. Therefore in my view the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5000/­ for the deformity caused to her due to the injuries. Accordingly the same is awarded under these head.

13. In all the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts only.

1. Transportation to Hospital Rs. 500­00

2. Medical Bills, Extra Nourishment attendant charges Rs. 5,000­00

3. For pain and suffering Rs.20,000­00

4. Deformity Rs. 5,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total Rs.30,500­00 (Rupees Thirty thousand and Five hundreds only)

14. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. The petitioner is not entitled to any other compensation.

15. The 1st respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle, hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation to the petitioner. 2nd respondent liable to pay compensation as he is not insurer of offending Van and petition against R.2 is not pressed by petitioner. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.

16.  Issue No.3:­ 

In the result, petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation amount of Rs.30,500/­ (Rupees Thirty thousand and five hundred only) to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit recoverable by the petitioner from the respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed. Petition against 2nd respondent is dismissed has not pressed by petitioner. Time for deposit is one month. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount with accrued interests and costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000 (Rupees One thousand only)

Dictated to the Personal Assistant of VI ADJ Court, transcribed by her, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 7th day of December, 2013.

X Additional District and Judge­cum­

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For respondent:

PW1: M. Kumari No oral evidence

Exhibits Marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Is the C.C of FIR in Cr.No.11/2009 of Karvetinagarm P.S. U/Sec.338, 337 of IPC. Ex.A.2 Is the C.C of Charge sheet. Ex.A.3 is the C.C of Wound Certificate.

For Respondent: NIL

X A.D.J., ­cum­ Chairman, MACT, Tirupati

Fair Order in M.V.O.P. No. 377 /2009

Dt. 07-12-2013