Sri.V.Sanketh Mithra

1 C.C.No.507 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AT NARSAMPET

TUESDAY, THIS THE 03 RD DAY OF JULY, 2018

PRESENT: V. Sanketh Mithra,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC. Special Magistrate

Narsampet.

C.C.No. 507 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Gudur…Complainant

AND

A-1 Penka Krishna, S/o.Lingaiah, Age: 40 years, ST/Koya, A-2 Eesam Venkanna, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 55 years, ST/Koya, Both are R/o.Bethamcharla, H/o.Macharla village. A-3 Sanna Chinna Venkanna, S/o.Govindu, Age: 45 years, ST/Koya, A-4 Dhansari Nagaiah, S/o.Venkataiah, Age: 45 years, ST/Koya, Both are R/o.Komuram Bheemgudem village. A-5 Pagidipala Ramanadham, S/o.Narsaiah, Age: 45 years, Mangali, R/o.Bethamcharla, H/o.Macharla village.

… Accused

This case coming before me on 14.06.2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr. APP for the State and Sri K.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5, in Crime No.94/2016 for the offences u/Ss.143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case, that on 02.07.2016 at morning hours, LW-1 Ajmeera Chinna Suraiah, Forest Section Officer along with

Section Staff and Mobile Party, Gudur i.e., Dharavath Narya/LW.2, Danasari

Adinarayana/LW.3, Mulkanuri Narender/LW.4, Pathri Venkateshwarlu/LW.5, were moving in Mucherla Beat in Reserve Forest Comport No.1001 for checking 2 C.C.No.507 of 2016

C.P.T. for the year, 2016-2016 in view of Haritha Haram Scheme at about 0930 hours, they reached at Comport No.1001, where they noticed that, accused No.1 to 5 and the villagers of Bethamcherla and Komuram Bheem were illegally trespassed into Forest with 12 pairs bullock ploughs and ploughing the Forest

Area for cultivation and on seeing, the Forest Officials rushed to the accused

No.1 to 5 and stopped them and explained that it is an offence to plough of forest land and they asked the accused to leave there. But, the accused paid deaf ear and pushed the forest officials by discharging their legitimate duties and threatened with dire consequences that how they will perform their duties here and threatened to kill them. Therefore, Ajmeera Chinna Suraiah (LW.1) requested the police to take necessary action against them. On receipt of report, MD. Rahamath

Ali, Head Constable (LW.8), registered the case in Crime No.94/2016, for the offences u/Ss.143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation of this case. During the course of investigation, Md.Rahamath Ali, HC (LW.1) examined the complainant and recorded his statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Dharavath Narya (LW.2), Danasari Adinarayana (LW.3), Mulkanuri Narender (LW.4), Pathri Venkateshwarlu (LW.5) examined them and recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence panchanama duly drafting it in C.D.F. with rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of Kottem Niranjan (LW.6) and Chuncha Munender (LW.7). On 06.08.2016, Y.Satheesh, S.I of Police (LW.9) served notice to the accused No.1 to 5 u/S.41-A Cr.P.C. and accordingly, he effected the arrest of accused No.1 to 5 by issuing arrest form and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC against the accused No.1 to 5 and on their appearance 3 C.C.No.507 of 2016

before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated

U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and they are examined u/S.251 of Cr.P.C., for the accusation under Sections 143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. The evidence of LW.8-MD. Rahamath Ali, Head

Constable was closed.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 5 are examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by readover the incriminating material against them and denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5

for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC beyond

all reasonable doubt?

8.In order to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 5, prosecution as listed LWs.1 to 5, 7, 6, 9 witnesses are examined as PWs.1 to 8 respectively and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4.

9.In this case, prosecution examined PW.1, who is defacto complainant and victim has deposed in his chief-examination, that he is working as Forest

Section Officer, Macherla of Gudur Mandal from March, 2015. On reliable information, on 02.07.2016 at about 9.00 a.m., he along with PW.2, PW.3, PW.4,

PW.5 performing patrol duty at Reserve Forest Compartment No.1001 and found five persons ploughing the forest land. The witness identified A.1 to A.5. Then he along with PWs.2 to 5 obstructed them from ploughing the forest land and 4 C.C.No.507 of 2016 they did not hear words and continued. A.1 to A.5 pushed them aside and also threatened to kill, thereupon, he and PWs.2 to 5, went to Police Station, Gudur and lodged Ex.P.1 against A.1 to A.5. In cross-examination, he deposed that he lodged the Ex.P.1 on 02.07.2016 at about 10.30 a.m. and police examined him on the same day. He deposed that he handed over the Forest Map to Police, Gudur with regard to compartment No.1001 as it falls under reserve forest. He deposed that he went on jeep to the scene of offence. He admitted that his Beat Officer issued Preliminary Occurrence Report, but, he cannot say the number of POR.

He admitted that he seized Kani which attached to plough and handed over in the Police Station, Gudur. He further admitted that by the time of his arrival to the scene of offence there were about 20 persons gathered.

10.PW.2 who is Forest Beat Officer and eyewitness has supported the version of PW.1. However, he deposed that at the time of incident, 50 to 100 villagers were present. In cross-examination, he deposed that they went to the scene of offence on two wheelers, PW.1 also came to the scene of offence on two wheeler. He admitted that they took 12 ploughs to their Range Office, Gudur, but, the same was not handed over to police. He denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the police that at the time of examination the fact that about 50 to 100 persons were present by the time of their reaching forest compartment

No.1001 and identified only five persons. He admitted that he did not hand over the duty certificate to the Police, Gudur. He admitted that no Preliminary

Occurrence Report was issued by the Forest Department.

11.PW.3 who is Forest Beat Officer and eyewitness to the incident has corroborated the version of PWs.1 and 2, but, after the incident they went to

Range Office and informed about the incident to their Range Officer. On his advice they went to P.S, Gudur for lodging of Ex.P.1. In cross-examination, he 5 C.C.No.507 of 2016 deposed that trenches were dug in the forest land. He deposed that

Vanasamrakshana Samithi were being appointed for the purpose of obstruct the encroaches into the forest land and to inform the same to the Forest Department and to lodge report before the police. He admitted that he has no information from Vanasamrakshana Samithi, Macherla with regard to this crime. He admitted that there were 50 persons gathered at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he has no acquaintance with the accused prior to this incident.

He admitted that he did not hand over the 12 ploughs to the Police, Gudur. He deposed that on the following day i.e., on 3rd PW.1 lodged Ex.P.1 before Police,

Gudur.

12.PW.4 is Forest Beat Officer and eyewitness deposed that on the information received by PW.1, he along with PW.1 and PW.5 proceeded to Forest

Compartment No.1001 in a private jeep and found 120 persons of Macherla

Village were present. They found the said villagers ploughing the forest land and obstructed them. He further deposed that 12 ploughs were seized from the scene of offence. The rest of the facts corroborated with the version of PW.3. In the cross-examination, PW.4 clearly admitted that the FIR (Ex.P.3) was issued on the influence of Ranger Officer. He denied the suggestion that he did not state

before police that he was working in Mobile Party, Narsampet. He admitted that

he has no prior acquaintance with accused No.1 to 5. He admitted that he can not say the description particulars of each plough.

13.PW.5 is the Forest Beat Officer and eyewitness to the incident supported the version of PW.4. He deposed that 12 persons were ploughing with the forest land with ploughs and he further deposed that they seized 12 ploughs from the scene of offence. He deposed that on the following day PW.1 lodged

Ex.P.1. In the cross-examination he deposed that he cannot say the names of 12 6 C.C.No.507 of 2016 persons who were ploughing the forest land. He admitted that he did not see any bulls in the scene of offence. He admitted that he did not state before police that he was working in mobile party at Narsampet and admitted that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused No.1 to 5 .

14.PWs.6 and 7 who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence did not support the prosecution case. PW.7 deposed in chief examination that, he identified his signature on Ex.P.4 (crime details form) which is marked as Ex.P.2.

The learned FAC Sr. APP did not elicit anything in the cross-examination.

15.PW.8 is the Investigation Officer, who filed charge sheet, reiterated the contents of charge sheet. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not collect any Forest Map from Forest Range Office, Gudur. He further admitted that he did not collect the duty certificates of PWs.1 to 5. He admitted that in his investigation, apart from A.1 to A.5 other persons were also involved in this case. However, he did not elicit the particulars. He admitted that he did not seize incriminating material from the scene of offence. He deposed that he did not collect Preliminary Occurrence Report, which was issued against the accused.

16.The contention of the learned Sr. APP that there is corroboration among the prosecution witnesses and it is sufficient to convict the accused No.1 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that the evidence on record is not sufficient and there is a contradiction among the prosecution witnesses in many aspects.

17.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 to 5 ploughing the forest land in compartment No.1001 and obstructed the duties of the Forest

Beat Officers and threatened them with dire consequences.

7 C.C.No.507 of 2016

18.On careful examining the evidence on record, there is a corroboration among the witnesses with regard to date of incident. There is a contradictory in the testimony of PW.4 that he deposed, PW.4 accompanied the

PW.1 and PW.5 to proceed to the compartment No.1001. Whereas PW.5 deposed that he along with PW.4 went to the compartment No.1001. In this regard, there is no corroboration who went to the scene of offence on receiving of reliable information. However, the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 corroborated with regard to who went to the scene of offence. PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 deposed that they went to the scene of offence on jeep. However, the testimony of PW.2 reveals that they went to the scene of offence on two wheelers. There is a contradictory evidence from witness to witness with regard to number of persons present at the scene of offence. The testimony of PW.4 and PW.5 reveals that they have seized 12 ploughs from the scene of offence. However, PW.8 admitted that he has not seized any incriminating material from the scene of offence. There is no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses with regard to time of lodging of

Ex.P.1 and also examination by the Police, Gudur. PW.1 deposed that his Beat

Officer issued Preliminary Occurrence Report. Whereas the testimony of PW.2 reveals that no POR was issued by the Forest Department. During the cross- examination of PW.8, he admitted that he has not collected POR which was issued against the accused. Except PW.1, no other witness deposed with regard to obstruction of the duties by the accused. From the testimony of PW.8, it is crystal clear that he has not collected the forest map from Forest Range Office,

Gudur with regard to the compartment No.1001 and also not collected the duty certificates of PWs.1 to 5 and also did not seize any incriminating material from the scene of offence. Coming to the panch witnesses who are examined as PWs.6 and 7 did not support the prosecution case.

8 C.C.No.507 of 2016

19.In the light of the foregoing discussion, there is no corroboration among the prosecution witnesses and there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 5 and against the prosecution.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Ss.143, 447, 427, 353, 506 r/w.149 IPC and they are acquitted u/S.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled. No property.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of July, 2018)

Sd/-

FAC SPECIAL MAGISTRATE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Ajmeera Chinnasuraiah, Defacto complainant - None - PW-2 : Dharavath Narya, FBO PW-3 : Danasari Aadinarayana, FBO PW-4 : Mulkanuri Narender, FBO PW-5 : Pathri Venkateshwarlu, FBO PW-6 : Chuncha Muninder, Panch for CDF PW-7 : Kottem Niranjan, Panch for CDF PW-8 : Y.Sathish, Investigating Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Written Report dated 03.07.2016. Ex.P2 : Signature of PW.7 on CDF. Ex.P3: F.I.R. Ex.P4 : Crime Details Form.

Material Objects Marked : - NIL -

Sd/-

FAC SPECIAL MAGISTRATE,

NARSAMPET.

C.C.No.370 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARSAMPET

Wednesday, this the 24rd day of February, 2021

Present:- V. Sanketh Mithra,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsampet.

C.C.No.370 OF 2013

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Narsampet. …Complainant

AND

A-1 Gudimalla Rajesh, S/o.Prathap, Age:30 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Senior Chemistry in Private Company. A-2 Gudimalla Venkata Laxmi, W/o.Prathap, Age:45 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Tailoring. A-3 Gudimalla Prathap, S/o.Shankar Lingam, Age:52 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ:Tailoring. All are R/o.Girmajipet, Warangal.

… Accused

This case is coming before me on 16.02.2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr.APP for the State and Sri T.Sarangapani, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsampet Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3, in Crime No.305/2012 for the offence u/S.498-A, and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 12.12.2012 the marriage of LW1/Gudimalla Shailaja solemnized with accused no.1 at MSA Emerald Function Hall before their elders and during marriage LW1 parents i.e., LW2/M.Prabhakar & LW3/M.Sree Laxmi provided

Rs.4,00,000/- net cash along with Rs.2,00,000/- worth gold and other house hold articles to Accused no.2 & A3 towards dowry and accordingly LW1 and

C.C.No.370 of 2013 accused no.1 led marital life amicably for six months and later accused no.1 started harassing Gudimalla Shailaja/LW1 by suspecting her character. The couple has blessed with a boy child. The LW1 and accused no.1 shifted to

Hyderabad on secure of job by accused no.1 in a Private company. A1 harassed the LW1 on the instigation of A2 and A3 mentally and physically for bringing of additional dowry. A1 used to harass by suspecting the character of LW1 and used to lock the house by keeping Lw1 in the house when ever he used to go office. He also used to snatch the SIM card of LW1 for avoiding communication with her parents. Whenever the in-laws used to go Hyderabad they always demanded for additional dowry from the LW1. On 19.06.2012 and 08.04.2012 the caste elders conducted panchayath between LW1 and accused and convinced them to lead marital life. Inspite of that there was no change from accused no.1 to 3. Due to unbearable torture by A1 to A3 the LW1 came to her parent house Narsampet. The accused no.1 spread the rumours against the LW1 as she had illegal contacts and sent a divorce notice to her with an intention to get second marriage.

On receipt of written information, V.Balu Jadhav, Inspector of Police/LW6 registered a case in Crime No.305/2012, for the offence u/S.498 (A) IPC,Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, issued FIR and took up the investigation of this case. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Mundrathi Prabhakar/LW2, Mundrathi Sree Laxmi/LW3, Gunti

Kishan/LW4, Kuluguri Samma Rao/LW5. On 21.11.2012, he arrested the accused No.2 and 3 and produced them before the Hon’ble court to remand them for judicial custody. The A1 filed petition before the Hon’ble III

Addl.sessions Judge, warangal for bail vide Crl.M.P.No.2321/2012 vide

C.C.No.370 of 2013

Dis.No.1212, dt:28.11.2012. In view of the above said orders A1 surrendered

before Lw6 in P.S.Narsampet, furnished sufficient sureties and released him on

bail.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC,

Sec.4 of D.P.Act and on appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and the accused are examined u/S.239 of Cr.P.C., in respect of charges framed under

Sections 498-A , Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-3. The Sr.APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., Gunti Kishan/LW4, Kuluguri Samma Rao/LW5, V.Balu Jadhav,Inspector of

Police,Narsampet/Lw6.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C. by readover the incriminating material against them and denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3

for the offence under Sections 498-A, IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

8.In this case, the prosecution has examined the defacto complainant/vic- tim as PW1, she deposed that Accused no.1 is her husband and A2 and A3 are

C.C.No.370 of 2013 in-laws. On 12-12-2010 PW1 marriage was performed with accused No.1 and that on the demand of A1 to A3 cash of Rs.4 lakhs and gold worth Rs.2 lakhs and house hold articles were presented to them on borrowing debt. After mar- riage she joined accused No.1 at hyderabad as he works there. They lived hap- pily for some days. There after accused No.1 to 3 harassed her for bringing ad- ditional dowry. During that period whenever accused No.1 used to go office he puts her inside the house and lock the same. Further accused No.1 took her

SIM card. After the demand of additional dowry she informed the same to her parents Lw2 and 3. Her parents conducted panchayath before elders Lw4 and 5 on 19-06-2011,08-4-2012. On that Accused No.1 took her along with him on the advice of elders. Inspite of that there is no change in their attitude. On the abetment of A2 and A3, A1 used to suspect her. Since then she has been living with her parents at Narsampet. Thereafter accused No.1 sent a divorce notice to her. Then she brought the notice of the said notice to the Circle Inspector of

Police, Narsampet i.e., Balujadav/Lw6 on 07-11-2011 at 1PM and lodged a re- port before police and registered a case against A1 to A3.

9.During the cross examination Pw1 admitted that she deposed her exami- nation in chief on the issuing of divorce notice by the accused no.1. Further she admitted that the accused no.1 to 3 neither harassed her nor demanded for ad- dittional dowry at any point of time and leading the conjugal life happily with accused no.1.

10.The testimony of PW2 and PW3 who are parents of PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

11.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW1 who is victim deposed against the accused no.1 to 3 in her examination in chief. Subsequently in her cross

C.C.No.370 of 2013 examination she clearly admitted that accused no.1 to 3 never harassed her and leading conjugal life with the accused no.1 happily. In this circumstance the evidence of PW1 do not inspire confidence. Moreover the version of PW1 is not supported by her parents i.e., PW2 and PW3. The learned Sr.APP did not choose to excamine the LW4 to LW6 and given up their evidence. Having re- gard to the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordinlgy, the point is answered and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC, Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted u/S.248(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of February, 2021) Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.24 16:09:14 +0530 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Gudimalla Shailaja/Defacto complainant/Victim. - None - PW-2 : Mundrathi Prabhakar/Circumstantial witness. PW-3 : Mundrathi Sree Laxmi/Circumstantial witness.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex. P1 : Report dated:07.11.2012. Ex. P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex. P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Material Objects Marked : - NIL - Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.24 16:09:22 +0530 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet

1

M.C.No.7 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARSAMPET

Thursday, this the 25th day of February, 2021

Present:- V. Sanketh Mithra,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsampet.

M.C.No.07/2020

Between:-

1) Jogunoori Madhavi @ Saduvala Madhavi, W/o.Dilip @ Dilip Kumar, D/o.Saduvala Srinivas, Age:26 years, Occ: House-hold,

2) Jogunoori Karuna Babu, S/o.Dilip @ Dilip Kumar , Aged:6 years, Occ: Student,

3) Jogunoori Siona, D/o.Dilip @ Dilip Kumar , Aged 3 years, Occ: Nil, (Petitioners No.2 and 3 being minors rep. by their natural guardian mother Jogunoori Madhavi i.e., petitioner No.1) All are presently residing at Marrimitta Village of Gudur Mandal in Mahabubabad District. …Petitioners

And

Jogunoori Dilip @ Dilip Kumar, S/o.Late Levin Kumar, Age:34years, Occ:RTC Conductor, R/o. Plot No.250, Shubhodaya colony, Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District. … Respondent

This case coming before me on 16.02.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas, counsel for the petitioners and the respondent set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record this Court delivered the following:

:: ORDER ::

The petitioner No.1 filed this petition under section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C. on her behalf and on behalf of her minor children claiming maintenance of

Rs.4,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,500/- p.m each to the petitioners No.2 and 3 from the respodnent and to award costs of the petition with the following averments:- 2

M.C.No.7 of 2020

2.The marriage of petitioner No.1 performed with respondent on 03.07.2013. At the time of marriage, her parents paid Rs.5,00,000/- cash, 6 tulas gold, 40 tulas silver, and other house-hold articles towards dowry to the respondent. The petitioner No.1 and respondent lead happy marital life for some period and they blessed with petitioners No.2 and 3. The petitioner stated that after birth of the petitioner No.3 the respondent started harrassing the petitioner physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry of

Rs.5,00,000/- and used to suspect and in a drunken condition used to beat her indiscriminately. Due to unbearable harassment of the respondent the petitioner informed her parents and they conducted panchayath before the village elders and found fault with the respondent as such the respondent assured to take care of petitioners. However the respondent and his parents did not change their attitude. On 09.05.2018 the respondent and his family members beat the petitioner No.1 and driven out the petitioners with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. In this circumstances petitioner No.1 approached her parents and they conducted many panchayaths but there is no change in their attitude and finally lodged a report before police Gudur and registered a case against respondent. The petitioners further submitted that the respondent not maintained the welfare of the petitioners and unable to maintain themselves.

Having sufficient means to the respondent fail to maintain the petitioners. The respondent has been working as RTC conductor at Bandlaguda Depot, Nagol,

Hyderabad and gets salary of Rs.19,713/- per month. Hence the petition.

3. The respondent is set exparte on 08.02.2021.

4. The petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

3

M.C.No.7 of 2020

5. Heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioner and perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7.It is the brief case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent and petitioners No.2 and 3 are their son and daughter respectively. The petitioner No.1 herself got examined as PW1 and narrated all the material facts mentioned in her petition affidavit. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that the respondent harassed petitioner No.1 physically and mentally with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and neglected the petitioners without paying any maintenance. It is the specific evidence of PW1 that she has no means to maintain herself and her children and respondent failed to give maintenance to the petitioners and even he failed to provide reasonable necessities for the petitioners.

8.Further, it is the specific evidence of PW1 that respondent is earning

Rs.19,713/- p.m. Ex.P1 is marriage invitation card and Ex.P2 marriage photograph shows that marriage of petitioner No.1 performed with respondent on 03.07.2013 at Marrimitta village of Gudur Mandal,Warangal District, Ex.P3

Salary Certificate of J.Dilip, dated:26-05-2020 discloses the respondent working as Conductor at Badlaguda Depot and drawing a salary of Rs.19,713/-,

Ex.P4 Mother and Child protection Card. The respondent is set exparte as such there is no evidence on record to disbelieve the version of the petitioner No.1.

4

M.C.No.7 of 2020

9.The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. In view of oral evidence of

PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.P1 to P4, it is established that the respondent inspite of having sufficient means neglected the petitioners and not provided maintenance. It is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife, children and he cannot escape from his legal liability. As such, the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioners.

10.In the result, the petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month to petitioner

No.1 and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) per month each to petitioners No.2 and 3 from the date of this petition. The total maintenance amount is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only). The respondent shall deposit the same in the bank account of petitioner No.1 on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The petitioner No.1 shall furnish the bank account details to the respondent.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February, 2021)

Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.25 14:31:56 +0530

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARSAMPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDEN

PW.1 : Jogunoori Madhavi @ Saduvula Madhavi None 5

M.C.No.7 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.P1 : Marriage Invitation Card. Ex.P2 : Marriage photograph. Ex.P3 : Salary Certificate of J.Dilip, Dt.26.05.2020. Ex.P4: Mother and Child protection Card.

FOR RESPONDENT

-NIL-

Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.25 14:32:06 +0530

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

NARSAMPET

1

M.C.No.2 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE

AT NARSAMPET

Wednesday, this the 10th day of July, 2019

Present:V.Sanketh Mithra,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC. Special Magistrate Narsampet.

M.C.No.2/2015

Between :

1. Muchala Navatha, W/o.Vijay Kumar, Age 27 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Nanchari Madur of Thorrur Mandal, now residing at Gudur (v) and Mandal in Warangal District.

2. Muchala Varshith Kumar, S/o.Vijay Kumar, Age 4 years, Occ: Student,

3. Muchala Mokshith Kumar, S/o.Vijay Kumar, Age 6 months, (Petitioners No.2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their natural guardian mother Muchala Navatha i.e., petitioner No.1) …Petitioners

AND

Muchala Vijay Kumar, S/o.Venkateshwarlu, Age 35 years, Occ: A.S.O (Assistant Security Officer), MGM Hospital, Warangal, R/o.Nanchari Madur (v) of Thorrur Mandal in Warangal District. … Respondent

This case coming before me on 19.06.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sanjay Kumar, counsel for the petitioners and the respondent set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record this Court made the following:

:: ORDER ::

The petitioners filed this petition under Section 125 (1) of Cr.P.C.

claiming maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month each to petitioners No.1 to 3 towards their maintenance, residence, clothes, medical expenses and also award costs of this petition with the following averments:-

2.The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent. The marriage of petitioner No.1 was performed with the respondent on 21.02.2007 at Gudur. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner No.1 gave 2

M.C.No.2 of 2015

Rs.1,00,000/- apart from household articles worth Rs.50,000/- to the respondent towards dowry. After the marriage they lived 5 months only at Nanchari Madur

(v) and shifted his family to Gudur. The respondent is working at MGM

Hospital, as A.S.O. Out of their wedlock, they blessed with petitioners No.2 and thereafter, the respondent changed his attitude and addicted to alcohol, suspecting the character of petitioner No.1, used to beat her and abused her un-parliamentary language. The panchayat elders conducted 4 or 5 panchayats.

On 22.09.2014 the petitioner No.3 was born after that the respondent consuming liquor regularly, went to duty and staying there 3 to 4 days in a week and sleeping in the lodges. The respondent never incurred singe paisa for the family welfare, never pay the room rent but the father of petitioner No.1 bear all the expenses. The petitioner No.2 suffering with fits, petitioner No.1 used to admit him in the hospitals by incurring much amount and the petitioner No.3 is a small kid and petitioner No.1 is not doing any work. The respondent is working as A.S.O. in MGM Hospital, Warangal and getting Rs.20,000/- p.m.

towards salary and he also having own house at Nancharu Maduru (v). The respondent having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but he is willfully neglected to maintain the petitioners. Hence the petition.

3.On service of summons on the defendant, he appeared through his counsel and failed to file counter, hence the defendant is set exparte on 24.04.2017.

4.The petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2.

5. Heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and perused the entire record.

3

M.C.No.2 of 2015

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7.The petitioner No.1 herself got examined as PW1 and she narrated all the material facts mentioned in her petition affidavit. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent was performed on 21.02.2007. It is the specific evidence of PW1 that out of their wedlock, they blessed with petitioners No.2 and 3, the respondent addicted to alcohol, suspecting the character of petitioner No.1, used to beat her and abused her unparliamentary language. The petitioner No.2 suffering with fits, he requires amount for the treatment and petitioner No.3 is a small kid and petitioner No.1 is not doing any work.

8.Further, it is the specific evidence of PW1 that the respondent is working as A.S.O. in MGM Hospital, Warangal and getting Rs.20,000/- p.m.

towards salary and he also having own house at Nancharu Maduru (v). Ex.P1 is wedding card shows that marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent was performed on 21.02.2007 at Sri Kanyakaparameshwari Kalyana Mandapam,

Gudur Village and Mandal, Ex.P2 marriage photo also shows that the petitioner and respondent are married. The respondent having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but he is willfully neglected to maintain the petitioners and failed to give maintenance to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 has failed to file any document showing that the respondent is working as A.S.O. in MGM

Hospital, Warangal and having house and getting income. The respondent is set exparte as such there is no evidence on record to disbelieve the version of the petitioner No.1.

4

M.C.No.2 of 2015

9.The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged. In view of oral evidence of PW1, it is established that the respondent having sufficient means neglected the petitioners No.1 to 3 and not provided maintenance to them. It is the bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife, children and he cannot escape from his legal liability. As such, the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of petitioners.

10.In the result, the petition is partly allowed directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) per month each to the petitioners No.1 to 3 from the date of filing of this petition on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The total monthly maintenance is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only). The respondent shall deposit the same in the bank account of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 shall furnish the bank account details to the respondent.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of July, 2019)

Sd/-

FAC SPECIAL MAGISTRATE

NARSAMPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:FOR RESPONDENT

PW.1 : Mucharla NavathaNone

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.P1 : Wedding Card. -NIL- Ex.P2 : Marriage photo.

Sd/-

FAC SPECIAL MAGISTRATE

NARSAMPET

C.C.No.303 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NARSAMPET

Wednesday, this the 24th day of February, 2021

Present:- V. Sanketh Mithra,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsampet.

C.C.No.303 OF 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana through Proh.& Excise Sub-Inspector station Narsampet. …Complainant

AND

Guguloth Veeru,S/o.Ramulu, Age:45years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Bilyanaik Thanda. … Accused

This case is coming before me on 16.02.2021 for final hearing in the presence of learned Sr.APP for the State and Sri D.Ramesh and S.Kiran Kumar, Advocates for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector Station, Narsampet has filed charge sheet against the accused, in C.O.R.No.82/2014-15 for the offence u/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

That on 25-03-2014 at about 9-00 AM, S.Prabhakar,HC/LW3 of Police Station Nallabelly along with staffconducting patrolling in Bilyanaik thanda meanwhile received reliable information that, one person by name Guguloth Veeru/Accused was selling the ID liquor near his house. Hence he along with the staff proceeded to near Guguloth Veeru’s house and found one person was selling the ID liquor near the house and after seeing the raid party, he left one white plastic and ran away. Then the officer secured two mediators, i.e., Maloth Balaji/LW1 and Maloth Dhanraj/LW2 opened the plastic can filled with some liquid in it and by virtue of smell of the contents of the plastic can, the Lw1 to LW3 identified as 5 liters of ID liquor. On enquiry it was revealed that, the absconding person namely Guguloth Veeru. Further the Lw3 seized the above contraband, duly drawn two samples at random, each sample containing about 180 ml. of ID liquor for chemical examination and sealed them by affixing the chits duly signed by the Panchas and Officer under cover of panchanama.

C.C.No.303 of 2015

Based on the strength of panchanama LW4/M.Naresh, SI of police Nallabelli registered a case vide FIR No.62/2014 u/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995. Therafter arresteda the abconding accused on 27.03.2014 and produced beforecourt for judicial remand. LW4 handed over the case file along with property and samples to the LW5/A.Srinivas, P&ESI Based on that he registered a case against accused in COR No.82/2014-15 dt:18.04.2014 u/S.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995. During the course of investigation out of 2 samples one sample has been forwarded to the Govt.Chemical Examiner of Proh. Excise Warangal/LW6 and opined the sample consist of I.D. liquor unfit for potable purpose and injurious to health vide report C.E.No.1324/2014, Sl.No.16529, dt:20.05.2014. The seized I.D.liquor has been confiscated and destroyed the I.D.liquor vide proceedings Cr.No.451/2013/P&E/B4, dt:24.05.2014 before the mediators LW7/Merugu Yellaiah and LW8/Satla Chandu under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation, LW9/P.Poshetti, P&ESI filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The Court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and on appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C., and the accused is examined u/S.239 of Cr.P.C., in respect of charges framed under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which hepleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, prosecution examined PW 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to 5 .

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by readover the incriminating material against him and denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides. Perused material on record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

8.In order to prove the case, panch witness for seizure and destruction of case property is examined as PW1, PW2, PW4 & PW5. However their testi- mony did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile except

C.C.No.303 of 2015 admitting the signatures and same is marked as Ex.P1 to P4. PW3/M.Naresh S.I of police Nallabelli who registered a case has reiterated the contents of chargesheet in his testimony. It is needless to add no reliance can be placed on the testimony of investigation Officer and his evidence is a formal one without its independent corroboration. The court has granted sufficient time to serve the summons of S.Prabhakar/LW3, A.Srinivas/LW5, K.Sridevi/LW6, P.Poshetti,Proh. & Excise S.I of Police,Narsampet/LW9. Despite grant of sev- eral adjournments the prosecution failed to serve the same. In these circum- stances the evidence of LW3, LW5, LW6 and LW9 closed. In that view of the matter, this Court opines that prosecution has miserably failed to bring the guilt of accused for the offence with which he is charged and accordingly, entitled to benefit of doubt.

9.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act and he is acquitted u/S.248(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of February, 2021)

Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.24 16:09:49 +0530 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1 : Maloth Balaji/Panch witness - None - PW-2 : Maloth Dhanraj/Panch witness PW-3 : M.Naresh/Registered the case and issued FIR PW-4 : Merugu Yellaiah/Destruction of case property PW-5 : Satla Chandu/Destruction of case property

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex. P1 : Singnature of PW1 Ex. P2 : Singnature of PW2 Ex. P3 : FIR Ex. P4 : Signature of PW4 on destruction of panchanama Ex. P5 : Signature of PW5 on destruction of panchanama Material Objects Marked : - NIL - Digitally signed by V

V SANKETH

SANKETH MITHRA

MITHRADate: 2021.02.24 16:09:58 +0530 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsampet