Smt. V. Rajani
SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda
Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex · Nalgonda · Telangana
SMT. V. RAJANI, SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda, is posted at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana, India. 6 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT): AT NALGONDA
Dated this the 9 th day of January, 2017
Present: V. Rajani,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
(Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
C.C.No.14 of 2013
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munugode Police Station. ….COMPLAINANT
AND
1)Madaru Ramesh, S/o Anjaiah, Age 22 years, Occ: Driver of lorry bearing No. AP 29 TA 3646, R/o Munugode Village
2)Boyapalli Srikanth, S/o Sathaiah, Age 23 years, Occ: Driver of lorry bearing No. AP 29 TA 6058, R/o Ookondi Village …ACCUSED
This case came before me on 04.01.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.P. Praveen Kumar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Munugode Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.82 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35 of A.P. WALTA.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the Tahsildar, Nalgonda formed a team consisting of ARI, Munugode, VRO, Velmakanne, VRA,
Ookondi, VRO, Gudapur and VRA, Gudapur for apprehension of illegal
Page No. 2C.C.No.14 of 2013 transportaters of sand from Munugode Mandal limits. A-1 and A-2, on 05.09.2012, in the morning hours, along with their lorries bearing Nos. AO 29 TA 3646 and AP 29 TA 6058 went to the stream situated at the outskirts of Gudapur village, loaded sand in the lorries for transportation of the same to Hyderabad for wrongful gain by violating the provisions of AP WALTA; that while they were transporting the same to Hyderabad, on their way, at about 04.30 a.m, they were apprehended by the above said team at Gudapur
Village. A-1 and A-2 on seeing them, left their lorries and fled away. The
ARI, Munugode seized the lorries under cover of panchanama in the presence of mediator and reported the matter to Tahsildar, Nalgonda, who in turn lodged report with the police. Thus, A-1 and A-2 have committed the offences under Section 379 IPC and 35 of AP WALTA.
3. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35 of A.P.
WALTA was taken against accused Nos.1 and 2 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nalgonda. Later the case was transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as C.C.No.14 of 2013.
4.On appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations levelled against them in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same. Charges for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35 of A.P. WALTA were
Page No. 3C.C.No.14 of 2013 framed against the accused; read over and explained to them, in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. L.W.1/the circumstantial witness is examined as
P.W.1. L.W.2/Tahsildar, Nalgonda is examined as P.W.2. L.Ws.3 and 5 to 7/the eye witnesses are examined as P.Ws.5, 3, 4 and 6 respectively. L.Ws.8 and 9/the panch witnesses for seizure are examined as P.Ws.7 and 8 respectively. L.W.11/the investigating officer is examined as P.W.9.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Accused denied the same and stated that they have no oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
7.The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35 of A.P. WALTA.
8.Heard learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.
9.POINT:The case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2, on 05.09.2012, in the morning hours, committed theft of sand from the stream situated at the outskirts of Gudapur Village and while they were transporting
Page No. 4C.C.No.14 of 2013 the same in their lorries, the revenue officials caught hold the lorries; that
A-1 and A-2 fled away from the scene and that the lorries were seized by the revenue officials in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8.
10.P.W.1 in his evidence in chief deposed that about 4 ½ years prior to his date of deposition, the Tahsildar asked him to hand over a letter and two lorries loaded with sand in the police station, Munugode and that he accordingly handed over the same to the police, Munugode. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not know what was written in the said letter.
11.P.W.2 in her evidence in chief deposed that on 04.09.2012, she formed a team consisting of P.W.5, S.K.M Madarsha/VRO, Palivela
Village /L.W.4 (evidence is closed, since died) and P.W.3 to apprehend illegal transporters of sand; that the above team conducted vehicle checking at Gudapur on 05.09.2012, in the early hours and apprehended two lorries with sand load; that she was informed about the same and also that the drivers of the lorries fled away from the scene; that ARI conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators and seized the lorries; that the team brought the lorries to the MRO office; that the numbers of the lorries are AP 29 TA 3646 and AP 29 TA 6058; that she sent a report along with panchanama and two lorries to the police.
12.P.W.3 in his evidence in chief deposed that on 05.09.2012, on the instructions of P.W.2, himself, P.W.5, P.Ws.6 and 7 along with L.W.4
Page No. 5C.C.No.14 of 2013 proceeded to Gudapur village and apprehended a lorry at about 02.00 a.m, and the number of the lorry is 3646; that ARI conducted panchanama and seized the lorry and thereafter they went to police station and handed over the lorry.
13P.W.4 in his evidence in chief deposed that on 05.09.2012, on the instructions of Tahsildar, Nalgonda/P.W.2, himself, P.W.3, L.W.4, P.Ws.5 and 6 proceeded to Gudapur village and they apprehended two lorries at about 02.00 a.m, near Shanthinikethan School, Gudapur, and the numbers of the lorries are 3646 and 6058; that ARI conducted panchanama and seized the lorries and thereafter they took the lorries to Tahsildar’s office.
14.P.W.5 in his evidence in chief deposed that he worked as ARI,
Munugode from 2010 to 2013; that on 05.09.2012, himself, LW-4/VRO
Velmakanne, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 were formed into a team, on the instructions of the Tahasildar, to apprehend illegal transporters of sand; that on the above date, their team proceeded to Gudapur, on the instructions of the Tahasildar, at about 4.30 a.m, and near a private school, they stopped two lorries and on their checking of the lorries, they found sand in the same; that the drivers of the lorries escaped from the scene; that the registration numbers of the lorries are AP 29 TA 3646 and
AP 29 TA 6058 and the lorries are of the make of Ashok Leyland; that he conducted panchanama and seized the above lorries in the presence of panchas and that thereafter he handed over the lorries and the panchanama to the Tahasildar.
Page No. 6C.C.No.14 of 2013
15.P.W.6 in his evidence in chief deposed that on 05.09.2012, himself and PWs 2 to 5 on the instructions of the Tahasildar, to apprehend illegal transporters of sand proceeded to Gudapur, at about 6.00 a.m, and near a private school, they stopped two lorries and on their checking of the lorries, they found sand in the same; that the drivers of the lorries escaped from the scene; that P.W.5 conducted panchanama and seized the above lorries in the presence of panchas and that thereafter P.W.5 handed over the lorries and the panchanama to the Tahasildar.
16.P.Ws.7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution and they stated in their evidence that police, Munugode obtained their signatures on blank papers.
17.The evidence of P.W.9 shows about receiving of report from
P.W.2; based on the said report, registering of a case, issuance of FIR, examination of the witnesses, arresting of accused and filing of charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 for the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35
AP WALTA.
18.The evidence of P.W.2 shows that on 04.09.2012, she formed a team consisting of P.Ws.3, 5 and L.W.4; that on 05.09.2012, she was informed to the said team to apprehend illegal transporters of sand; that the said team apprehended two lorries; that the lorries were brought to the
MRO office and she lodged report with the police. But, P.W.3 did not say
Page No. 7C.C.No.14 of 2013 that a team was formed by the Tahsildar consisting of himself, P.W.5 and
L.W.4. He in his evidence in chief stated that on the instructions of the
Tahsildar, Nalgonda, himself along with others proceeded to Gudapur village and they apprehended a lorry at about 02.00 a.m. The evidence of
P.W.4 also shows that on 05.09.2012, on the instructions of Tahsildar,
Nalgonda, himself and others proceeded to Gudapur village and they apprehended two lorries at about 02.00 a.m near Shanthinikethan School.
But the evidence of P.W.5 shows contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 and he stated that on 05.09.2012, a team was formed by Tahsildar and on the said date, the said team consisting of himself and others proceeded to
Gudapur village, and at about 04.30 a.m near Shanthinikethan private school, they stopped two lorries; that he conducted panchanama and seized the lorries under cover of panchanama. The evidence of P.W.6 is also inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5. He stated that on the instructions of Tahsildar, Nalgonda, himself, P.Ws.2 to 5 proceeded to
Gudapur village and at about 06.00 a.m, near a private school, they stopped two lorries and they found sand in the same and P.W.5 conducted panchanama and seized the lorries. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 is inconsistent with each other with respect to forming of a team for apprehension of illegal transporters of sand and apprehension of lorries in question. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that she did not give the details of the members of the team in her report/Ex.P1 and that she did not give in the report the time of inspection of the vehicles by the team.
P.Ws.3 to 6 in their cross-examination admitted that there were no written
Page No. 8C.C.No.14 of 2013 instructions to them. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that after
P.W.5 and L.W.4 went to Gudapur village, himself, P.Ws.4 and 6 went there; that they reached the spot in the midnight and the panchanama was conducted at about 06.00 a.m. P.W.4 in his cross-examination stated that they went to the spot at about 06.00 a.m and that all of them together went to the spot; that P.W.5 first reached the spot and by the time, they reached the spot, P.W.5 apprehended the lorries. P.W.5 in his cross-examination stated that no information was given to the police prior to their proceeding to the spot; that their team was present at Gudapur from midnight 12.00; that in Ex.P2/panchanama , the details of the colour of the lorries and the chassis number or engine number are not given; that the lorries were apprehended at 04.30 a.m. and the panchanama was conducted at 08.00 a.m. P.W.6, in his cross-examination stated that he was not present at the time of conducting panchanama. Thus, even the information elicited by the accused in the cross-examination of P.Ws.2 to 6 is also inconsistent with each other about their going to Gudapur village and apprehension of alleged sand loaded lorries. The independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws.7 and 8 did not support the case of the prosecution that in their presence, P.W.5 conducted panchanama and seized the lorries, which were loaded with sand. P.Ws.3 to 6 did not speak anything against the accused and it is not their evidence that the accused were the driver of the alleged sand loaded lorries at the time of their apprehension of the lorries. There is also no evidence on record to show that A-1 and
A-2 were the persons who committed theft of sand and that while they
Page No. 9C.C.No.14 of 2013 were transporting the same in the lorries belonging to them, they were apprehended by the revenue officials and also the procedure prescribed under AP WALTA is also not followed by the prosecution. In the absence of any material on record to connect the accused with the offences under
Sections 379 IPC and also since the prosecution did not follow the procedure prescribed under AP WALTA, the accused cannot be found guilty of the said offences. Hence, A-1 and A-2 are entitled to acquittal.
19.In the result, accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 379 IPC and 35 (1) of A.P. WALTA, and they are, accordingly, acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 9th day of January, 2017).
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence:
P.W.1: M. Mallaiah -None- P.W.2: A. Pramodini P.W.3: J. Narsimha P.W.4: P. Lingaswamy P.W.5: Sk. Javid P.W.6: J. Narender P.W.7: Ch. Raju P.W.8: U. Yadagiri P.W.9: K. Kondal Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Page No. 10C.C.No.14 of 2013
Ex.P1 : Report lodged by P.W.2, dated 05.09.2012 Ex.P2 : Scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P3 : First Information Report
For Defence: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE
(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT): AT NALGONDA
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2014.
Present:V. Rajani, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
C.C.No.84 of 2010
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station ….COMPLAINANT AND
1)Kurapati Onaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 30 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
2)Kurapati Sudarshan S/o Ramulu, Age 25 years, Caste: SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
3)Kurapati Jangaiah S/o Pitchaiah, Age 32 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
4)Kurapati Mallaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 35 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie All R/o Thummalapally Village …ACCUSED
This case came before me on 16.04.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.S.V. Ramana, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet filed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 are that on 13.07.2009 at 1400 hours, the de facto complainant/Kurapati
Seethaiah (L.W.1) lodged a report stating that he along with his wife, two daughters and one son are residing in Thummalapally Village. His caste
Page No.2 C.C.No.84 of 2010 people spread rumors in the Village for the last 5 years and branded him as a sorcerer. On 12.07.2009, one of his villagers by name Kurapati Kotesh fell ill. Brother of the said Kotesh i.e. Kurapati Onaiah alleged that his brother fell ill after talking to him on 10.07.2009 and alleged that he is responsible for the ill health of his brother. Alleging so, Onaiah, Sudarshan, Jangaiah and Kurapati Mallaiah (accused Nos.1 to 4) forcibly took him into a forest in an auto, slapped him and threatened him to kill if he fails to cure the illness of Kotesh. On the above said report, the Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police/LW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.64 of 2009, for the offences under
Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and took up investigation. He examined the de facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 on 15.07.2009 and released them on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the above referred to offences.
3. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC was taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.
918 of 2009 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Later the case was transferred to this court and it is re-numbered as C.C.
No.84 of 2010.
4. On appearance of the accused, all of them were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and accused
Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C explaining them the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
Page No.3 C.C.No.84 of 2010
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. The de facto complainant, during pendency of the case, died.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.
7. The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
8. Since none appeared for the prosecution, the arguments of the prosecution are treated 'heard'. Heard learned counsel for accused Nos.
1 to 4 and I have gone through the material available on record.
9. POINT:The allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 are that they forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest, slapped him and threatened him to kill suspecting that he did sorcery on the brother of accused No.1 by name Kotesh. Thus the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
10. The prosecution, to establish the guilt of the accused, examined LWs 2 to 6 as PWs 1 to 5. PW.1 is the wife and PWs 2 and 3 are the daughters of the de facto complainant. P.Ws.1 to 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PWs 4 and 5, who are cited as circumstantial witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile.
Page No.4 C.C.No.84 of 2010
11. PW.1, in her chief-examination, stated that five years ago at about 07.00 pm, Kotesh came to their house and questioned her husband as to why he made sorcery due to which, he fell sick. Her husband replied that he did not make sorcery and he touched the feet of Kotesh to excuse him, but the said Kotesh asked her husband to cure his illness. Her husband went outside the house, then accused No.1 came in front of the house, beat her husband stating that he made sorcery on his brother Kotesh. Jangaiah, Sudershan and
Mallaiah also came to her house and forcibly took her husband in an auto to a forest. Then the police obstructed and took all of them to Police Station.
12. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.1 as L.W.2 did not say that accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant at the house. It was only stated by her that her husband was taken away by all the accused in an auto into a forest. Thus there is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1.
13. P.W.2, in her chief examination, stated that the de facto complainant/LW.1 is her father and PW.1 is her mother. According to her, in 2009 on one day at about 09.00 am., when herself, PW.1 and her other elder sister were in their house, accused No.1 came to their house and enquired about their father. They stated that their father is repairing 'dabba' on the road. Accused No.1 went to their father, dragged him on to the road and asked him as to why he did sorcery on his brother Kotesh and demanded her father to relieve Kotesh from the sorcery. The sister of Onaiah also beat her father; that accused No.2 also beat her father and threatened to kill him.
Accused No.4 also beat her father blaming that he made sorcery on his son also and all the accused took her father in an auto away from their village.
In her cross examination, she stated that accused No.1 came to their house
Page No.5 C.C.No.84 of 2010 and took away her father out of the house and all of them took her father in an auto and she cannot give the number of the auto.
14. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other.
While P.W.1 stated that at about 07.00 pm. when her husband/de facto complainant was in the house, the accused came to their house and accused
No.1 beat her husband, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that accused No.1 went to her father when her father was on the road, dragged him on to the road and accused No.1, 2 and 4 beat her father and thereafter took him in an auto.
PW.2 has also introduced a new case stating that sister of accused No.1 also came and beat her father. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.2 as
L.W.3 did not state that her father was beaten by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and that there is also no mention therein about the sister of accused No.1 coming and beating her father.
15. PW.3 the another daughter of de facto complainant, in her chief examination, stated that on 12.07.2009 accused No.1 came to their house, took away her father forcibly with him, accused Nos.1 to 4 beat her father on the ground that her father did sorcery on one Kotesh and forced her father to treat him. She further deposed that all the accused tied her father to a tree with a rope and beat him and thereafter took her father in an auto into a forest. In her cross examination, she stated that she does not know the number of the auto and that she did not state before the police that accused
Nos.1 to 4 tied her father to a tree and beat him. She further stated in her cross-examination that police noticing that accused were taking her father in an auto brought all of them to village and that she does not know whether the same was mentioned in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or not.
Page No.6 C.C.No.84 of 2010
16. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.3 as L.W.4 stated that all the accused took her father in an auto into a forest and forcibly demanded him to cure the illness of Kotesh, who is the brother of A-1. PW.3 did not say in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that all the accused beat her father, tied him to a tree with a rope and that police on hearing the cries of her father, while he was being taken in the auto by the accused, brought all of them to the village. Thus, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3 also.
17. P.Ws 4 and 5, as already stated, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his younger sister; P.Ws 2 and 3 are the daughter of P.W.1 and that he knows accused Nos.1 to 4. He came to know through P.Ws 1 to 3 that on 12.07.2009, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the house of P.W.1 and took the husband of P.W.1 in an auto. He further stated that he was not examined by the police. Similarly, P.W.5, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his sister-in-law and P.Ws 2 and 3 are his niece. He knows P.W.4 and the accused and about 2 years back all the accused took L.W.1/de facto complainant in an auto from their village stating that he made sorcery on
Kotesh and that he was not examined by the police. Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statements of both these witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. In Ex.P1, P.W.4 stated that through phone he came to know that accused No.1 came to the house of the de facto complainant stating that he did sorcery on his brother and that his brother fell ill and the accused forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest. In
Ex.P2, PW.5 as LW.6 stated that he came to know that all the accused took
Page No.7 C.C.No.84 of 2010 the de facto complainant into a forest in an auto forcibly and that he came to know about the same through PWs 1 to 3. Thus, PWs 4 and 5 resiled from the versions spoken to by them in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and stated that they were not examined by the police. The prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer, who registered the case; examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is also not corroborating with each other in the material particulars and the circumstantial witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Thus there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2014)
Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1: Kurapati Muthyalu -None- P.W.2: Kurapati Geetha P.W.3: Kurapati Rajitha P.W.4: Mudigonda Eshwaraiah P.W.5: Kurapati Pandu
Page No.8 C.C.No.84 of 2010
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5
For Defence:-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
None
Judl.First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE
(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT): AT NALGONDA
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2014.
Present:V. Rajani, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
C.C.No.84 of 2010
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station ….COMPLAINANT AND
1)Kurapati Onaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 30 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
2)Kurapati Sudarshan S/o Ramulu, Age 25 years, Caste: SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
3)Kurapati Jangaiah S/o Pitchaiah, Age 32 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
4)Kurapati Mallaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 35 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie All R/o Thummalapally Village …ACCUSED
This case came before me on 16.04.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.S.V. Ramana, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet filed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 are that on 13.07.2009 at 1400 hours, the de facto complainant/Kurapati
Seethaiah (L.W.1) lodged a report stating that he along with his wife, two daughters and one son are residing in Thummalapally Village. His caste
Page No.2 C.C.No.84 of 2010 people spread rumors in the Village for the last 5 years and branded him as a sorcerer. On 12.07.2009, one of his villagers by name Kurapati Kotesh fell ill. Brother of the said Kotesh i.e. Kurapati Onaiah alleged that his brother fell ill after talking to him on 10.07.2009 and alleged that he is responsible for the ill health of his brother. Alleging so, Onaiah, Sudarshan, Jangaiah and Kurapati Mallaiah (accused Nos.1 to 4) forcibly took him into a forest in an auto, slapped him and threatened him to kill if he fails to cure the illness of Kotesh. On the above said report, the Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police/LW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.64 of 2009, for the offences under
Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and took up investigation. He examined the de facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 on 15.07.2009 and released them on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the above referred to offences.
3. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC was taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.
918 of 2009 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Later the case was transferred to this court and it is re-numbered as C.C.
No.84 of 2010.
4. On appearance of the accused, all of them were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and accused
Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C explaining them the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
Page No.3 C.C.No.84 of 2010
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. The de facto complainant, during pendency of the case, died.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.
7. The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
8. Since none appeared for the prosecution, the arguments of the prosecution are treated 'heard'. Heard learned counsel for accused Nos.
1 to 4 and I have gone through the material available on record.
9. POINT:The allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 are that they forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest, slapped him and threatened him to kill suspecting that he did sorcery on the brother of accused No.1 by name Kotesh. Thus the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
10. The prosecution, to establish the guilt of the accused, examined LWs 2 to 6 as PWs 1 to 5. PW.1 is the wife and PWs 2 and 3 are the daughters of the de facto complainant. P.Ws.1 to 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PWs 4 and 5, who are cited as circumstantial witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile.
Page No.4 C.C.No.84 of 2010
11. PW.1, in her chief-examination, stated that five years ago at about 07.00 pm, Kotesh came to their house and questioned her husband as to why he made sorcery due to which, he fell sick. Her husband replied that he did not make sorcery and he touched the feet of Kotesh to excuse him, but the said Kotesh asked her husband to cure his illness. Her husband went outside the house, then accused No.1 came in front of the house, beat her husband stating that he made sorcery on his brother Kotesh. Jangaiah, Sudershan and
Mallaiah also came to her house and forcibly took her husband in an auto to a forest. Then the police obstructed and took all of them to Police Station.
12. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.1 as L.W.2 did not say that accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant at the house. It was only stated by her that her husband was taken away by all the accused in an auto into a forest. Thus there is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1.
13. P.W.2, in her chief examination, stated that the de facto complainant/LW.1 is her father and PW.1 is her mother. According to her, in 2009 on one day at about 09.00 am., when herself, PW.1 and her other elder sister were in their house, accused No.1 came to their house and enquired about their father. They stated that their father is repairing 'dabba' on the road. Accused No.1 went to their father, dragged him on to the road and asked him as to why he did sorcery on his brother Kotesh and demanded her father to relieve Kotesh from the sorcery. The sister of Onaiah also beat her father; that accused No.2 also beat her father and threatened to kill him.
Accused No.4 also beat her father blaming that he made sorcery on his son also and all the accused took her father in an auto away from their village.
In her cross examination, she stated that accused No.1 came to their house
Page No.5 C.C.No.84 of 2010 and took away her father out of the house and all of them took her father in an auto and she cannot give the number of the auto.
14. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other.
While P.W.1 stated that at about 07.00 pm. when her husband/de facto complainant was in the house, the accused came to their house and accused
No.1 beat her husband, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that accused No.1 went to her father when her father was on the road, dragged him on to the road and accused No.1, 2 and 4 beat her father and thereafter took him in an auto.
PW.2 has also introduced a new case stating that sister of accused No.1 also came and beat her father. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.2 as
L.W.3 did not state that her father was beaten by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and that there is also no mention therein about the sister of accused No.1 coming and beating her father.
15. PW.3 the another daughter of de facto complainant, in her chief examination, stated that on 12.07.2009 accused No.1 came to their house, took away her father forcibly with him, accused Nos.1 to 4 beat her father on the ground that her father did sorcery on one Kotesh and forced her father to treat him. She further deposed that all the accused tied her father to a tree with a rope and beat him and thereafter took her father in an auto into a forest. In her cross examination, she stated that she does not know the number of the auto and that she did not state before the police that accused
Nos.1 to 4 tied her father to a tree and beat him. She further stated in her cross-examination that police noticing that accused were taking her father in an auto brought all of them to village and that she does not know whether the same was mentioned in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or not.
Page No.6 C.C.No.84 of 2010
16. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.3 as L.W.4 stated that all the accused took her father in an auto into a forest and forcibly demanded him to cure the illness of Kotesh, who is the brother of A-1. PW.3 did not say in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that all the accused beat her father, tied him to a tree with a rope and that police on hearing the cries of her father, while he was being taken in the auto by the accused, brought all of them to the village. Thus, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3 also.
17. P.Ws 4 and 5, as already stated, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his younger sister; P.Ws 2 and 3 are the daughter of P.W.1 and that he knows accused Nos.1 to 4. He came to know through P.Ws 1 to 3 that on 12.07.2009, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the house of P.W.1 and took the husband of P.W.1 in an auto. He further stated that he was not examined by the police. Similarly, P.W.5, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his sister-in-law and P.Ws 2 and 3 are his niece. He knows P.W.4 and the accused and about 2 years back all the accused took L.W.1/de facto complainant in an auto from their village stating that he made sorcery on
Kotesh and that he was not examined by the police. Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statements of both these witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. In Ex.P1, P.W.4 stated that through phone he came to know that accused No.1 came to the house of the de facto complainant stating that he did sorcery on his brother and that his brother fell ill and the accused forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest. In
Ex.P2, PW.5 as LW.6 stated that he came to know that all the accused took
Page No.7 C.C.No.84 of 2010 the de facto complainant into a forest in an auto forcibly and that he came to know about the same through PWs 1 to 3. Thus, PWs 4 and 5 resiled from the versions spoken to by them in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and stated that they were not examined by the police. The prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer, who registered the case; examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is also not corroborating with each other in the material particulars and the circumstantial witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Thus there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2014)
Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1: Kurapati Muthyalu -None- P.W.2: Kurapati Geetha P.W.3: Kurapati Rajitha P.W.4: Mudigonda Eshwaraiah P.W.5: Kurapati Pandu
Page No.8 C.C.No.84 of 2010
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5
For Defence:-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
None
Judl.First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE
(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT): AT NALGONDA
Dated this the 21st day of April, 2014.
Present:V. Rajani, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, (Spl. Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
C.C.No.84 of 2010
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station ….COMPLAINANT AND
1)Kurapati Onaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 30 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
2)Kurapati Sudarshan S/o Ramulu, Age 25 years, Caste: SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
3)Kurapati Jangaiah S/o Pitchaiah, Age 32 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie
4)Kurapati Mallaiah S/o Ramulu, Age 35 years, Caste:SC(Madiga), Occ: Coolie All R/o Thummalapally Village …ACCUSED
This case came before me on 16.04.2014 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.S.V. Ramana, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chandur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506
IPC.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet filed against accused Nos. 1 to 4 are that on 13.07.2009 at 1400 hours, the de facto complainant/Kurapati
Seethaiah (L.W.1) lodged a report stating that he along with his wife, two daughters and one son are residing in Thummalapally Village. His caste
Page No.2 C.C.No.84 of 2010 people spread rumors in the Village for the last 5 years and branded him as a sorcerer. On 12.07.2009, one of his villagers by name Kurapati Kotesh fell ill. Brother of the said Kotesh i.e. Kurapati Onaiah alleged that his brother fell ill after talking to him on 10.07.2009 and alleged that he is responsible for the ill health of his brother. Alleging so, Onaiah, Sudarshan, Jangaiah and Kurapati Mallaiah (accused Nos.1 to 4) forcibly took him into a forest in an auto, slapped him and threatened him to kill if he fails to cure the illness of Kotesh. On the above said report, the Assistant Sub Inspector of
Police/LW.7 registered a case in Cr.No.64 of 2009, for the offences under
Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and took up investigation. He examined the de facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 on 15.07.2009 and released them on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed against the accused for the above referred to offences.
3. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC was taken against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the case was numbered as C.C.No.
918 of 2009 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Later the case was transferred to this court and it is re-numbered as C.C.
No.84 of 2010.
4. On appearance of the accused, all of them were furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and accused
Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C explaining them the allegations leveled against them in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same and claimed to be tried.
Page No.3 C.C.No.84 of 2010
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. The de facto complainant, during pendency of the case, died.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.
7. The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
8. Since none appeared for the prosecution, the arguments of the prosecution are treated 'heard'. Heard learned counsel for accused Nos.
1 to 4 and I have gone through the material available on record.
9. POINT:The allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 are that they forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest, slapped him and threatened him to kill suspecting that he did sorcery on the brother of accused No.1 by name Kotesh. Thus the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC.
10. The prosecution, to establish the guilt of the accused, examined LWs 2 to 6 as PWs 1 to 5. PW.1 is the wife and PWs 2 and 3 are the daughters of the de facto complainant. P.Ws.1 to 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PWs 4 and 5, who are cited as circumstantial witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile.
Page No.4 C.C.No.84 of 2010
11. PW.1, in her chief-examination, stated that five years ago at about 07.00 pm, Kotesh came to their house and questioned her husband as to why he made sorcery due to which, he fell sick. Her husband replied that he did not make sorcery and he touched the feet of Kotesh to excuse him, but the said Kotesh asked her husband to cure his illness. Her husband went outside the house, then accused No.1 came in front of the house, beat her husband stating that he made sorcery on his brother Kotesh. Jangaiah, Sudershan and
Mallaiah also came to her house and forcibly took her husband in an auto to a forest. Then the police obstructed and took all of them to Police Station.
12. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.1 as L.W.2 did not say that accused No.1 beat the de facto complainant at the house. It was only stated by her that her husband was taken away by all the accused in an auto into a forest. Thus there is contradiction in the evidence of PW.1.
13. P.W.2, in her chief examination, stated that the de facto complainant/LW.1 is her father and PW.1 is her mother. According to her, in 2009 on one day at about 09.00 am., when herself, PW.1 and her other elder sister were in their house, accused No.1 came to their house and enquired about their father. They stated that their father is repairing 'dabba' on the road. Accused No.1 went to their father, dragged him on to the road and asked him as to why he did sorcery on his brother Kotesh and demanded her father to relieve Kotesh from the sorcery. The sister of Onaiah also beat her father; that accused No.2 also beat her father and threatened to kill him.
Accused No.4 also beat her father blaming that he made sorcery on his son also and all the accused took her father in an auto away from their village.
In her cross examination, she stated that accused No.1 came to their house
Page No.5 C.C.No.84 of 2010 and took away her father out of the house and all of them took her father in an auto and she cannot give the number of the auto.
14. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is not corroborating with each other.
While P.W.1 stated that at about 07.00 pm. when her husband/de facto complainant was in the house, the accused came to their house and accused
No.1 beat her husband, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that accused No.1 went to her father when her father was on the road, dragged him on to the road and accused No.1, 2 and 4 beat her father and thereafter took him in an auto.
PW.2 has also introduced a new case stating that sister of accused No.1 also came and beat her father. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, P.W.2 as
L.W.3 did not state that her father was beaten by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and that there is also no mention therein about the sister of accused No.1 coming and beating her father.
15. PW.3 the another daughter of de facto complainant, in her chief examination, stated that on 12.07.2009 accused No.1 came to their house, took away her father forcibly with him, accused Nos.1 to 4 beat her father on the ground that her father did sorcery on one Kotesh and forced her father to treat him. She further deposed that all the accused tied her father to a tree with a rope and beat him and thereafter took her father in an auto into a forest. In her cross examination, she stated that she does not know the number of the auto and that she did not state before the police that accused
Nos.1 to 4 tied her father to a tree and beat him. She further stated in her cross-examination that police noticing that accused were taking her father in an auto brought all of them to village and that she does not know whether the same was mentioned in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or not.
Page No.6 C.C.No.84 of 2010
16. In her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, P.W.3 as L.W.4 stated that all the accused took her father in an auto into a forest and forcibly demanded him to cure the illness of Kotesh, who is the brother of A-1. PW.3 did not say in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that all the accused beat her father, tied him to a tree with a rope and that police on hearing the cries of her father, while he was being taken in the auto by the accused, brought all of them to the village. Thus, there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.3 also.
17. P.Ws 4 and 5, as already stated, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his younger sister; P.Ws 2 and 3 are the daughter of P.W.1 and that he knows accused Nos.1 to 4. He came to know through P.Ws 1 to 3 that on 12.07.2009, accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the house of P.W.1 and took the husband of P.W.1 in an auto. He further stated that he was not examined by the police. Similarly, P.W.5, in his chief examination, stated that P.W.1 is his sister-in-law and P.Ws 2 and 3 are his niece. He knows P.W.4 and the accused and about 2 years back all the accused took L.W.1/de facto complainant in an auto from their village stating that he made sorcery on
Kotesh and that he was not examined by the police. Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statements of both these witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 are marked as Exs.P1 and P2 respectively. In Ex.P1, P.W.4 stated that through phone he came to know that accused No.1 came to the house of the de facto complainant stating that he did sorcery on his brother and that his brother fell ill and the accused forcibly took the de facto complainant in an auto into a forest. In
Ex.P2, PW.5 as LW.6 stated that he came to know that all the accused took
Page No.7 C.C.No.84 of 2010 the de facto complainant into a forest in an auto forcibly and that he came to know about the same through PWs 1 to 3. Thus, PWs 4 and 5 resiled from the versions spoken to by them in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements and stated that they were not examined by the police. The prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer, who registered the case; examined the witnesses and filed the charge sheet. The evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is also not corroborating with each other in the material particulars and the circumstantial witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Thus there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them and the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. In the result, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2014)
Judl. First Class Magistrate Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1: Kurapati Muthyalu -None- P.W.2: Kurapati Geetha P.W.3: Kurapati Rajitha P.W.4: Mudigonda Eshwaraiah P.W.5: Kurapati Pandu
Page No.8 C.C.No.84 of 2010
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5
For Defence:-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
None
Judl.First Class Magistrate, Spl. Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT): AT NALGONDA
Dated this the 25 th day of January, 2017
Present: V. Rajani,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
(Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
C.C.No.230 of 2012
BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Narketpally Police Station. ….COMPLAINANT AND
Yellendula Ganesh,S/o Pandraiah, Age 20 years, Occ: Inter Student, R/o Yellareddygudem …ACCUSED
This case came before me on 23.01.2017 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Radha Krishna, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, and on hearing both the sides and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narketpally Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.43 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC.
2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the de facto complainant/L.W.1/
Chinthakayala Lingamma reside at temple of Sri Jadala Ramalingeshwara Swamy situated at Cheruvugattu. On 15/16.03.2012, while the de facto complainant along with other devotees were sleeping on the temple hillock, at about 1.30 a.m,
Page No. 2C.C.No.230 of 2012 the accused went there, misbehaved with the de facto complainant and others, abused L.W.1 in filthy language, pelted stones on her and created nuisance. He also beat Babiram and Thellavadi Krishna Prasad/ L.Ws.2 and 3, with hands, when they intervened and ran away from the scene.
3. Cognizance of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC was taken against the accused and the case was numbered as C.C.No.507 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda. Later the case was transferred to this Court and it is renumbered as C.C.No.230 of 2012.
4.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C with reference to the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. Accused denied the same. Charge for the offences under
Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC was framed against the accused; read over and explained to him, in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The de facto complainant/L.W.1/injured is examined as
P.W.2. The eye witness/L.W.2 is examined as P.W.1. The witnesses for scene of offence/L.Ws.4 and 5 are examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. The investigating officer/L.W.7 is examined as P.W.5. The evidence of L.W.3/eye witness is closed as the prosecution filed a report stating that his whereabouts are
Page No. 3C.C.No.230 of 2012 not known. The evidence of doctor/L.W.6 is give up by the learned Asst. Public
Prosecutor in lieu of the evidence of P.W.5/investigating officer.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same. He reported no oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
7.The point that arises for determination in this case is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC.
8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.
9.POINT:The case of the prosecution is that on 15/16.03.2012, while
P.W.2 and others were sleeping on the hillock of temple of Jadala
Ramalingeshwara Swamy at Cheruvugattu village, the accused went there, disturbed them and misbehaved with P.W.2 and when P.W.2 questioned him about his behavior, he abused her in filthy language, pelted stones and also beat
P.W.1 and another (L.W.3) with hands and ran away.
10.P.W.2 in her evidence in chief deposed that she knows P.W.1, but she does not know the accused; that about 4 years prior to her date of deposition, as there was some galata at Cheruvugattu temple, police obtained her signature on a blank paper; that she sustained injury in her stomach in the said galata and she
Page No. 4C.C.No.230 of 2012 identified her signature on the report.
11.P.W.1 in his evidence in chief deposed that he does not know the accused and he knows P.W.2. He further deposed that he does not know anything about this case.
12.P.Ws.3 and 4 also did not support the case of the prosecution and they stated in their evidence that the police never conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence. They further deposed that the scene of offence panchanama does not contain their signatures.
13.The evidence of P.W.5 shows about receiving of report from P.W.2 on 16.03.2012, registration of case sending P.W.2 to hospital, visiting scene of offence, conducting scene of offence panchanama, seizure of stone, examination of witnesses, arresting of accused and filing of charge sheet. The stone which is stated to have been seized by P.W.5 from the scene of offence is not produced
before this Court and therefore, the same could not be marked as a material
object.
14.According to P.W.5, he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4. But, P.Ws.3 and 4 failed to identify their signatures on the scene of offence panchanama and it is their evidence that the police never conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that there was some galata at Cheruvugatta about 4 years prior to her date of deposition and in the said galata, she sustained injury in her stomach, but she does not speak anything against the accused. There is no material on record, except the evidence of investigating officer that he arrested the accused in
Page No. 5C.C.No.230 of 2012 connection with the offences in question, to show that the accused misbehaved with P.W.2, beat her with stone and abused her in filthy language and also beat
P.W.1 and another person when they tried to stop him. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt.
15.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 509 and 290 IPC and he is accordingly, acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
-Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25th day of January, 2017
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:For Defence:
P.W.1: Babiram -None- P.W.2: Ch. Lingamma P.W.3: B. Ranga Reddy P.W.4: Ch. Venkataiah P.W.5: R. Jagan Mohan Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Signature of P.W.2 on the report, dated 16.03.2012 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 : First Information Report Ex.P5 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 : Medical certificate of P.W.2
Page No. 6C.C.No.230 of 2012
For Defence: -Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda.
Order Record 4 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC/3230/2012 | CHINTHAKAYALA LINGAMMA vs YELLENDULA GANESH | 25 Jan 2017 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/314/2013 | A PRAMODINI vs MADRU RAMESH | 09 Jan 2017 | Judgement | Acquitted |
| CC/384/2010 | Kurppati Seethaiah vs Kurapati Onaiah | 21 Apr 2014 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| CC/3103/2011 | DEVARAPALLY CHELLA REDDY vs DASARLA KRISHNA | 21 Apr 2014 | Order On Exgibit | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has SMT. V. RAJANI handled?
SMT. V. RAJANI has handled 6 court orders since 2014 at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.
What types of cases does SMT. V. RAJANI hear?
Based on available records, SMT. V. RAJANI primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is SMT. V. RAJANI currently posted?
SMT. V. RAJANI is posted as SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex, Nalgonda, Telangana.
Are judgments by SMT. V. RAJANI available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by SMT. V. RAJANI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
Since when is SMT. V. RAJANI serving?
SMT. V. RAJANI has been serving at Nalgonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2014.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Mar 2017 — Apr 2017SPL. JFCM.EXCISE JUDGE, Nalgonda
-
Apr 2014 — May 2017JFCM. SPL MOBILE JUDGE, Nalgonda · 6 orders
-
Apr 2014 — Apr 2014Junior Civil Judge
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court