Sri. V. Srinivas, Junior Civil Judge, Banswada

1 CC 477/15

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BANSWADA

Present: Sri V. Srinivas, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2019.

CC No. 477 of 2015

Between:-

The State of Telangana through SHO, PS. Banswada in crime No. 217 of 2015. …Complainant

AND

A1)Shaik Shamim Begum, W/o. Shaik Ahmed, age : 39 yrs, Muslim, Occ : House wife, R/o. 2-4-20, Bandagalli, Banswada.

(During the pending of the trial the accused No.1 was died. The prosecution filed death certificate of the accused No.1 and the case against the accused No.1 abated vide orders 31-01-2019)

A2)Shaik Ahmed, S/o. Khaja Miya, age : 31 yrs, Muslim, Occ : Driver, R/o. 2-4-20, Bandagalli, Banswada.

A3)Rahamath, S/o. Shaik Ahmed, age : 26 yrs, Muslim, Occ : Labour, R/o. 2- 4-20, Bandagalli, Banswada. …Accused No.1 to 3 ­0­

This case is coming on 25-02-2019 before me for final disposal in the presence of APP for State and of K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for the Accused having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the Sub Inspector of

Police, PS.Banswada has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 alleging that on 17-09-2015 at 12.00 noon when Pw.1 was at her house at about 11.00 a.m. the accused No.1 to 3 came to the house of the Pw.1 and they were asked the accused to give loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- for performing marriage of their 2 CC 477/15 daughter, upon which the Pw.1 was replied that she is not having money and she was expended her money for her husband who suffering from ill-health and now her financial condition is very week. The accused persons were enraged and they were confined the Pw.1 in a room and they were beat the Pw.1 indiscriminately with their hands by stating that the Pw.1 was made the accused persons rome around the house of the Pw.1 for lending money and thereafter she was cheated them by not lending money. When the accused persons were beating the Pw.1, her mother Pochavva (Pw.2) and her brother Srinu (Pw.3) came there and rescued her. Thereafter the Pw.1 went to the police station and lodged complaint against the accused persons for necessary action.

2.The complaint was registered by the Pw.5 in a crime No. 217/2015 for the offence U/s. 448, 506, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into the case and during course of investigation he was examined and recorded statements of

Pw.1 and visited the scene of offence, where he was examined Pw.2 to Pw.4 and also secured the presence of Pw.6 and Lw.6/Y. Venkateshwarlu and in their presence prepared the scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P3 by describing the place of occurrence. On 15-10-2015 the Pw.5 was issued a notice u/s. 41-A

CrPC to the accused No.1 to 3 with a instruction to appear either before the police or court when ever they were summoned and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

3 CC 477/15

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 448, 506, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC and on appearance of accused copies of documents are furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused were examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C and substance of the accusation for the offence U/s. 448, 506, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC explained to the accused for which they were denied and claimed to be tried.

5.To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined only PWs.1 to 6 out of 7 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP given up the evidence of Lw.6/Y. Venkateshwarlu who is the mediator to the scene of offence panchanama. During the pending of the trial the accused No.1 was died. The prosecution filed death certificate of the accused No.1 and the case against the accused No.1 is abated vide orders dt. 31-01-2019.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined as contemplated U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Point for determination is:- “ Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/sec. 448, 506, 323, 290 r/w 34 IPC ?

4 CC 477/15

Point:-

9.PW.1 is the victim in this case and she deposed that she had lend money to the accused No.1 and 2 and she was asked them to return her money for which the accused asked her to give Rs.6,00,000/- again, withholding the already lent money, for which she was stated to them that she had no money.

The Pw.1 further deposed that about three years back the accused No.1 to 3 were came to her house on the day of the Ganesh festival and when they were celebrating festival the accused No.1 to 3 were illegally came into their house and abused her in most filthy language by stating that she is not lending money to the accused and also they were confined the Pw.1 in the house by bolting the door and also she stated that the accused persons were beat her with their hands.

The Pw.1 further deposed that the Pw.2 was came there and pacified the matter.

Thereafter she went to the police station and lodged complaint with the police.

The Pw.1 identified her complaint which said to have lodged before the police and same is marked under Ex.P1.

10.Mother of the Pw.1 examined as Pw.2 and she deposed that about three years back she came to know that the accused persons were beating her daughter i.e. Pw.1 when she was in the house. The Pw.2 further stated that immediately she was rushed to the house of the Pw.1 where she witnessed that the accused

No.1 to 3 were beating the Pw.1 and some other persons were called Pw.3 over a phone and Pw.3 was reached to the house of the Pw.1 and they were intervened and pacified the matter. The Pw.2 further stated that the accused persons were 5 CC 477/15 beat the Pw.1 as she was not lent money of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused for their daughter marriage.

11.The Pw.3 who is brother of the Pw.1, he deposed that in the year 2015 at about 11.00 a.m. some persons were informed to him that the accused persons were beating the Pw.1. Then, immediately he went to the house of the Pw.1 where he witnessed that the accused persons were beating the Pw.1 by caught hold of her neck. The Pw.3 further stated that he was intervened and pacified the matter. The Pw.3 stated that the accused persons were confined the Pw.1 in a room and he was opened the doors and brought the Pw.1 from the house and rescued the Pw.1 from the clutches of the accused persons. The Pw.3 further stated that the accused persons were again called 20 members to attack on them, then they were went to the police station and lodged complaint with the police.

12.The Pw.4 who is independent witness, he deposed that about three years back at about 11.00 a.m. when he was going through the Chaitanya colony,

Banswada he was heard hues and cries from the house of the Pw.1 and he went to the house of the Pw.1 where he had witnessed that the accused persons as well as the Pw.1 to Pw.3 were quarreled with each other. The Pw.4 further deposed that he enquired with the Pw.1 about their quarreling, for which she stated to me that as she not lent money to the accused person they were beating hIM. The Pw.4 further stated that he was asked the accused persons then they were state that the Pw.1 was cheated them by not lending money. The Pw.4 further stated that he was advised the Pw.1 to lodge complaint with the police.

6 CC 477/15

13.As seen the evidence of the Pw.1 to Pw.4 they were consistently stated that the accused No.1 to 3 were entered into the house of the Pw.1 and they were confined the Pw.1 in the house and beat the Pw.1 with their hands. The Pw.2 and Pw.3 who are mother and brother of the Pw.1 respectively they were stated that after came to know about the incident they went to the house of the Pw.1 and seen that the accused persons were confined the Pw.1 in the house and they were pacified the mater and brought the Pw.1 from the house and rescued the

Pw.1 from the clutches of the accused persons. The Pw.4 who is the independent witness he also stated that there was a quarrel occurred at the house of the Pw.1 and the Pw.1 informed to him that as she was not lent money to the accused persons they were beat the Pw.1. From the evidence of the Pw.1 to

Pw.4 it is clearly established that the accused persons were illegally trespassed into the house of the Pw.1 and they were beat the Pw.1 with their hands and they were contravened the provisions of 323, 448 IPC.

14.The learned counsel for the accused while drawing the attention of the court towards the cross examination of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 he argued that the Pw.1 and Pw.3 were improved their case and they were omitted to state before the police and first time before the court deposed that Pw.1 have already lent money to the accused No.2 and the accused were asked again Rs. 6,00,000/- withholding the already lent money. Further the learned counsel draw the attention of the court to the cross examination of the Pw.3 wherein the Pw.3 stated that the accused persons were called 20 members to attack on them. The 7 CC 477/15 learned counsel argued that the above statements not stated by the Pw.1 and

Pw.3 before the police, however they were first time deposing before this court and they improved version, discredit the testimony of the Pw.1 and Pw.3 and therefore their evidence is not trust worthy. It is true the Pw.1 omitted to state

before the police about lent money of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused No.2 and

equally it is true that Pw.3 omitted to state before the police that 20 members were called by the accused to attack on them, but those omissions are minor which cannot discredit the testimony of the Pw.1 and Pw.3 and they were categorically stated the accused No.1 to 3 were confined the Pw.1 in the house and they were beat the Pw.1 as she was not lend money to the accused persons.

The testimony of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 is supported by the independent witness

Pw.4. The learned counsel argued that the Pw.1 to Pw.3 are belongs to same family members and they have interest in this case and the Pw.4 is obtained loan from Pw.1 so that he was supported the case of the Pw.1, therefore their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The learned counsel however argued that the Pw.4 was obtained loan from the Pw.1 so that he was supported their case but, during the cross examination of the Pw.4 not elicited anything in support of their case, that the Pw.1 was lent money to the Pw.4. The Pw.4 is the chance witness, as seen the evidence of the Pw.4 it is clear that as he was passing through the chaitanya colony he was witnessed the incident and moreover he was at the house of the Pw.1 and enquired both the Pw.1 and accused persons and they were replied for the cause of the incident, it cannot be stated that as the Pw.4 obtained loan from Pw.1 he is supporting the case of the

Pw.1. The learned counsel further argued that the Pw.1 to Pw.3 are belongs to 8 CC 477/15 same family, therefore their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. It is true the Pw.1 to Pw.3 are belongs to same family, but there is nothing was elicited from the cross examination of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 to discredit the testimony of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 mere the witnesses belongs to same family their evidence cannot be brushed out when the edifice of the case of the prosecution is depend on the evidence of the Pw.1 to Pw.3.

15.The investigation officer examined as Pw.5 and he deposed that after receiving the complaint he was issued FIR, examined and recorded statements of witnesses and on the same day visited scene of offence, conducted panchanama in presence of mediators and he was issued notice to the accused persons. After completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

16.During the cross examination of the Pw.5 it is elicited that Pw.4 is not belongs to the locality of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 and also it is elicited the Pw.1 to Pw.3 are belongs to same family. The Pw.5 denied that the Pw.4 was present at the time of the incident. The Pw.5 admitted that the scene of offence is surrounded with the houses of Bairi Ambar Singh and K. Srinivas and he was not examined them. The Pw.5 further admittedly stated that he had not examined the public who were gathered at the scene of offence and also he not sent the Pw.1 for recording the injuries. The Pw.5 denied that he was registered the false case against the accused at the instance of the Pw.1 to Pw.3 and filed false charge sheet against the accused persons.

9 CC 477/15

17.The learned counsel argued that the investigation officer not examined the persons who are residing around the house of the Pw.1 and also not examined the public who were gathered at the scene of offence. It is to be noted that after lodging the complaint the investigation officer visited the scene of offence on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. when the investigation officer reached to the house after receiving the complaint it is not possible to secure all the public who were gathered at the scene of offence as they may disburse from the scene of offence. Further the neighbours whose houses are surrounded around the house of the Pw.1 may not witness the incident at the time of the incident.

18.I found no reasons to discredit the testimony of the Pw.1 to Pw.5, as stated by the learned counsel for the accused. The Pw.6 who is the mediator to the scene of offence he stated that the police were called him to the scene of offence and the police were obtained his signature on some white papers by stating that there was a quarrel occurred at one house of chaitanya colony. The Pw.6 identified his signature and same is marked under Ex.P5. During the cross examination the Pw.6 stated that the police were prepared the scene of offence panchanama by drawing the rough sketch in his presence. The Pw.6 however stated, the police obtained his signature on white papers, he supported the police were called to the scene of offence and prepared the scene of offence panchanama.

19.As seen the entire evidence of the prosecution it is well corroborated and there is no major inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution. The learned counsel elicited minor variations in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 10 CC 477/15 during cross examination, however those minor variations cannot discredit the testimony of the witnesses. From the evidence of the Pw.1 to Pw4 it is established that the accused No.1 to 3 were intentionally trespassed into the house of the Pw.1 and they were beat the Pw.1 with their hands. And they were contravened the provisions of Sec.448 and 323 of IPC. Further as seen the entire evidence of the prosecution there is no evidence to state that the accused persons were abused the Pw.1 in filthy language in public place and there by they were threatened the Pw.1 with dire consequences. Therefore the charge u/s.

506, 290 IPC shall be fall down.

20.As per the reasons stated above, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable u/s 448, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

21.In the result, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are found guilty of the charged offence under Section 448, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are convicted of the same U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the charged offence u/s. 290, 506 IPC and they are acquitted of the same u/s. 255(1)

CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this 7th day of March, 2019.

11 CC 477/15

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

13.Heard the accused on the quantum of sentence. The accused No.2 and 3 submitted that they are not having any previous history of committing offences and also they submitted that they are sole bread winner of their family. The accused No.2 stated that his wife was died and he has to look after entire family and the accused No.2 and 3 prayed for mercy. Having regarding tot he facts and circumstances of the case and considering the plea of the accused persons this court of the view take lenient view will meets ends of the justice. The accused

No.2 and 3 sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences u/s. 448 and 323 of IPC and in default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each count. The bail bonds of accused shall stand discharged.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this 7th day of March, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence:

PW.1. D. Nagamani-None- 12 CC 477/15

PW.2. J. Pochavva

PW.3. J. Srinivas

PW.4. K. Ramakanth

PW.5. N. Sampath Kumar

PW.6. Ravinder

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P.1 :is the complaint

Ex.P.2 :is the FIR

Ex.P.3 :is the CDF along with rough sketch

Ex.P.4 :is the tax receipt issued by the GP, Banswada.

Ex.P.5 :is the signature of PW.6 on Scene of offence panchanama

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

1 MC 10/17

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT BANSWADA

Present: Sri V. Srinivas, JFCM, Banswada.

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2019.

. C. No. 10 of 2017 M

Between:

1)Gujjalvar Venkata Laxmi, W/o. Gujjalwar Pandari, age : 29 years, Occ : House wife, R/o. Danthepally village, mandal : Ramayampet, Dist. Medak. At present residing in her parents house at Desaipet (V) of Banswada mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

2)Gujjalvar Harshitha, D/o. Gujjalwar Pandari, age : 3 years, Minor, under the guardianship of her natural mother i.e. petitioner No.1.

…. Petitioner No.1 and 2 // And //

Gujjalwar Pandari @ Pandu, S/o. Narayana, age : 32 years, Occ : Private employee, R/o. Danthepally village, mandal : Ramayampet, Dist. Medak. At present working at International Hotel (Bar and restaurant) at Banswada road, Kamareddy, Dist. Kamareddy.

...Respondent

-:O:-

This case coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Laxmareddy, Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri. M. Laxminarayana Murthy, Advocate,

for the Respondent having perused the material on record, after hearing and having

stood over for consideration the Court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of

Rs.10,000/- per month to each petitioner from the respondent towards their separate maintenance.

2.The facts that led to the filing of this case are as follows:- That, the petitioner is 2 MC 10/17 the legally wedded wife of Respondent, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 23-05-2013 at Desaipet village of Banswada mandal as per the

Hindu custom prevailing in their community and at the time of the marriage the parents of the petitioner No.1 were presented Rs. 1,50,000/- net cash towards dowry, 5 tulas gold, ½ gold ring and 11 tulas silver leg chains and also expended Rs. 3,00,000/- for performing marriage. The petitioner No.1 and respondent lead matrimonial life for a period of 15 days only and thereafter the respondent started harassing the petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- and the respondent used to came to house by consuming the liquor in the late hours and used to beat the petitioner by stating that she is not looking good if he would perform another marriage he would get more dowry and also he was demanded for more dowry. The respondent beat the petitioner mercilessly then, the family members were conducted a panchayath but the respondent did not changed his attitude, meanwhile the petitioner No.1 gave birth to the petitioner

No.2. In the month of August 2016 the respondent and his family members were beat the petitioner No.1 and drove both the petitioners from their house. Therefore the petitioner No.1 and 2 in miserable condition they went to their parents house. In the month of September, 2016 the parents of the petitioner No.1 were conveyed a panchayath and caste elders of both the parties were found mistake of the respondent and his family members and suggested them to lead marital life with the petitioner No.1.

However the respondent and his family members were did not heed their words and again they demanded additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- in that panchayath also and they were stated that they will not allow the petitioners into their house if the parents of the petitioner not fulfill their demand. Then, the petitioner went to the police station,

Banswada and lodged complaint with the police and same was registered by the police.

3 MC 10/17

The marriage between the petitioner No.1 and respondent is subsisting and the respondent is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing job at Bar and Restaurant,

Kamareddy and also he is earning Rs. 3,50,000/- per annum from agricultural lands which is sufficient to maintain the petitioners. The petitioner further submitted that the respondent not provided food, clothes, and also not giving maintenance amount to the petitioners since they are residing at their parents house and it is the bounden duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners, therefore prayed to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 10,000/- maintenance per month to each petitioner from the date of the petition.

3.The respondent is filed his counter denying all the allegations against the respondent made by the petitioner in her petition. It is denied that the parents of the petitioner presented dowry at the time of marriage on demand of the respondent and his family members. It is denied that the respondent started harassing the petitioner for want of additional dowry. It is denied that the respondent addicted to consume liquor daily and coming in late night hours. It is denied that the respondent and his family demanded additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is denied that the respondent necked out the petitioners from his house by beating her in mercilessly. It also is denied that a panchayath was conducted and where the panchayath elders were found fault with the respondent and their family members and also they were again demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from the parents of the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by doing job at bar and restaurant and also Rs. 3,50,000/- from agricultural lands.

4.The respondent submitted that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 and respondent was performed and at the time of the marriage no dowry was presented and there is no 4 MC 10/17 tradition in their community about presenting dowry. The respondent further submitted that the petitioner No.1 lived with respondent for one month at his village Danthepally and at that time the petitioner No.1 harassed the respondent and his family members with the instigation of her parents by not giving food, cooking food and she did not attended any domestic work at his house and also she was insulted the respondent by stating that he is not suitable to her. The petitioner for every petty issue insulted the respondent in their locality and father of the petitioner No.1 is dominating nature and he was threatened the respondent to shift his family to the Kamareddy as per the threaten he was shifted his family to the Kamareddy where the petitioner No.1 and respondent were lived only two months and thereafter the petitioner No.1 abused the respondent in filthy language by stating that he is not suitable to her. The respondent tolerated all the harassment with a hope that the petitioner No.1 will change her attitude. The respondent further submitted that when the petitioner No.1 is pregnant about three months the parents of the petitioner were taken the petitioner No.1 to their house without informing to the respondent and after the petitioner No.2 birth credile ceremony was performed but, parents of the petitioner not invited the respondent and his family members. In the

December, 2014 a panchayath was conducted at Danthepally village and elders of the said panchayath were advised the petitioner No.1 to join the company of the respondent but, after joining the company the petitioner No.1 again raised a quarrel with the respondent and she left the respondent. The respondent many times requested the petitioner No.1 to join the company of the respondent but, all his efforts were in vain.

The respondent further submitted that he is doing coolie work when ever it is getting and earning Rs. 150/- per month and he has to maintain his younger brother and old aged parents and he unable to maintain the petitioner by giving separate maintenance of 5 MC 10/17

Rs.10,000/-.

5.The respondent further submitted that he ready to lead marital life with the petitioner No.1 and take back to his house. The respondent further submitted that he is not having any properties in his name. Therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.After filing the counter during the inquiry the petitioner her self examined as

Pw.1. The respondent himself examined as Rw.1 and in support of his case marked

Ex.R1 and R2 viz., certificate issued by the VRO, Danthepally, dt. 18.4.2018 and also certificate issued by the Surpanch, Danthepally, dt. 21.04.2018. After closing the evidence of both the parties heard the arguments.

7.Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is neglected by the respondent to maintain her as stated by the petitioner ? If so, the petitioners is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?

Point :

8.It is admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the respondent and petitioner No.1.

It is admitted fact that now the petitioners and respondent are separately living at their respective parents houses. It is the case of the petitioner is that the respondent harassed the petitioner No.1 for want of additional dowry of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the parents of the petitioners were not meeted such demand of the respondent, the respondent was necked out the petitioner from his house. On the other hand it is the case of the respondent is 6 MC 10/17 that the petitioner after marriage always harassed the respondent and his family members by stating that the respondent is not suitable for the petitioner and the petitioner herself left the company of the respondent voluntarily without informing to the respondent and the respondent several times made attempts to brought the petitioners to his house but, the petitioner bluntly refused to join the company of the respondent.

Therefore the petitioner not entitled for any maintenance amount.

9.As seen the evidence of the both the parties they were alleged their respective contention in the chief affidavit and affirmed the facts by entering into the witness box.

10.As seen the cross examination of the Pw.1, it is suggested the case of the respondent to the petitioner No.1 but, all the suggestions it was denied by the Pw.1 in her cross examination. As seen the cross examination of the Pw.1 nothing was elicited to support the contention of the respondent that the petitioner herself left the the company of the respondent voluntarily without informing to the respondent. As seen the evidence of the respondent as well as allegations in the counter it is appearing that the petitioner No.1 resided along with the respondent at Danthaplly village which is native place of the respondent as well as Kamareddy for some period. During the period residing at Kamareddy the petitioner No.1 was got pregnancy. If the petitioner not have interest to lead the matrimonial life along with the respondent the petitioner could not join the matrimonial life with the respondent at Danthepally and Kamareddy villages.

During the cross examination the Pw.1 stated that now also she is ready to join the company of the respondent to lead matrimonial life if, the petitioner not have interest to lead matrimonial life she cannot state during her cross examination that she is ready to 7 MC 10/17 join with the respondent. Moreover the respondent nothing was elicited in support of his case that the petitioner left the company of the respondent voluntarily. The respondent alleged that when he went to the house of the petitioners then the parents of the petitioner No.1 were beat him and necked out from their house and he was lodged complaint with the police against the parents of the petitioners. The respondent during his cross examination admittedly stated that he was not filed such complaint before this court if, he would not lodged complaint before the police the same copy may be filed

before this court to substantiate his case, but there is no such document before this court

to believe the version of respondent. As seen the case of the both the parties were alleged against each other but, they were failed to brought on the record any material to show that in support of their allegations. However the fact is remained that the petitioner is residing at her parents house and now the respondent is not maintaining the petitioners by paying monthly maintenance to them. It is the bounden duty of the respondent being husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner No.2 to maintain them when they were unable to maintain themselves. Therefore this court of the view that the respondent has to maintain the petitioner No.1 and 2 by paying separate maintenance allowance. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondent.

11.Coming to the quantum of maintenance it is the case of the petitioner is that the respondent is having agricultural land and out of which the respondent earning Rs.

3,50,000/- and the respondent doing job in private services and getting Rs.20,000/- per month. On the other hand it is the case of respondent is that now he is not doing any job due to criminal cases filed by the petitioner he was lost his job and further stated that he 8 MC 10/17 is not having any agricultural land. The respondent in support of his case he brought on the record Ex.R1 and R2 certificate issued by the VRO, and surpanch of Danthepally village stating that the respondent not having any properties in his name. As seen Ex.R1 and R2 it is appearing that the respondent not having any properties in his name.

However it is the duty of the respondent to maintain the petitioners. The petitioner also failed to file any scrap of paper to substantiate her case that the respondent is earning Rs.

20,000/- per month. But, it is appearing that the Respondent is well bodied so he must earn considerable amount and it is the obligation of the Respondent being the husband and father to maintain his wife and daughter. Now the petitioner is residing at her parents house in helpless condition and she must need to fulfill her daily necessities and also the necessities of the petitioner No.2. Taking into the consideration of this fact and the plight condition of the petitioners it would be meet ends of the justice if grant relief of monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- each towards separate maintenance to the petitioners.

12.In the result the petition is allowed in part. The Respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to the each petitioner from the date of the order. The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the each petitioner every 10th of calendar month. (The copy of this order shall be furnished to the parties on free of cost).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of March, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

9 MC 10/17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW.1: Smt. Gujjalvar Venkata Laxmi Rw.1: Gujjalwar Pandari @ Pandu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner :

- Nil -

For Respondent:

Ex. R1 :is the certificate issued by the VRO, Danthepally, dt. 18.4.2018

Ex. R2 :is the certificate issued by the Surpanch, Danthepally, dt. 21.04.2018.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

1 CC No. 06/17

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE; BANSWADA

Present:- Sri V. Srinivas Judl. I Class Magistrate, Banswada

Dated, this the 6th day of March, 2019.

C.C. No. 06 of 2017

Between:- The State through the Station House Officer, Nizamsagar Police Station in Crime No. 124 of 2016.

...Complainant.

Vs

A1)Bingi Sailoo, S/o. Late Nagaiah, age : 33 yrs, Erukala by caste, Mason/labour, R/o. Ranagargalli, near post office, Bodhan.

A2)Eduga Poshetty, S/o. Gangaram, age : 28 yrs, Erukala by caste, labour, R/o. Ranagargalli, post office road, Bodhan.

A3)Smt. Eduga Laxmi W/o. Eduga Poshetty, age : 26 yrs, Erukala by caste, labour, R/o. Ranagargalli, post office road, Bodhan.

A4)Smt. Sriram Nagamani, W/o. Ramesh, age : 40 yrs, Erukala by caste, labour, R/o. Tattikota Galli, Bodhan. Vg & Ml.

A5)Smt. Edibidi Shyamala, W/o. Late Venkati, age : 28 yrs, Erukala by caste, labour, R/o. Ranagargalli/Dhobigalli, near post office road, Bodhan.

A6)Smt. Ddigi Jyothi, W/o. Poshetty, age : 20 yrs, Erukala, cooli, R/o. Dhobigalli, Bodhan vg & ml.

A7)Bingi Ravi, S/o. Poshetty, age : 30 yrs, Erukala by caste, R/o. Rudrur vg of Varni Mandal.

...Accused No. 1 to 7.

-0-

This case coming before me on 06-03-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, representing for the state/Complainant and of Sri Syed Hameed, advocate, counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :- 2 CC No. 06/17

JUDGMENT

The above named accused No.1 to 7 have been brought before this court for the trial of the offence punishable under section 454, 380, 411 of IPC

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Nizamsagar has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 454, 380, 411 of IPC alleging as follows:-

3. On 20-07-2016 at about 6.00 pm the Pw.1 came to the Police station and lodged a complaint stating that on the same day at about 11.00 a.m. he along with his wife went to Yellareddy village to attend their personal work duly locking their house. About 2.00 p.m. they came to know through their villagers that some unknown offenders were break open the lock of the house and committed theft at their house. On such information they were returned to the house and found that some unknown offenders were gained entry into the house by break opening the locks and they were also broke iron almarah from which they were committed theft of Rs. 40,000/-, gold necklace weighing 1 ½ tula and ½ tula gold ear rings all worth of Rs. 90,000/- and fled away with the stolen property. Therefore they are requested for necessary action against the offenders.

4. The complaint was registered by the Lw.15/S.M. Gandhi Goud, ASI of

Police in crime No. 124 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 454, 380 of IPC and he was examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1, 3 CC No. 06/17

Lw.2/Saina bai and visited the scene of offence, where he was examined the witnesses and prepared the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators. Thereafter the Lw.15 was handed over the CD file to the Pw. 9 for further investigation. While the investigation was in progress the Pw.9 was conducting patrolling at Boggu Gudisa cross road, they were found five persons in suspicious circumstances and he was apprehended them and on interrogation they were confessed about the commission of the offence and the

Pw.9 was seized Rs. 40,000/- and gold necklace from the possession of the accused No.2 to 6 under cover of the panchanama. The accused No.2 to 6 were confessed that the accused No.1 and 7 and 8 also participated in the commission of the offence. While the investigation was in progress for apprehension of the accused No.1 and 7, 8 and Pw.9 was received information that the accused No.1 was surrendered before this court and the Pw.9 was taken the accused No.1 to police custody and on interrogation the accused No.1 confessed that he was committed this offence and his share was given to the accused No.7. The accused No.7 was arrested by the Pw.9 on 23.12.2016 at

Boggu gudise cross road and on interrogation he also confessed about the commission of this offence and also confessed he was sold away the stolen property at Bodhan to some unknown person. The confession of the accused

No.7 was recorded and produced him before the court and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 leveling the charges for the offence under section 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and with a prayer to file separate charge sheet against the accused No.8 when ever he is apprehended.

4 CC No. 06/17

5.The case was taken on file against accused No. 1 to 7 for the offence punishable under Section 454, 380 and 411 of IPC. When the accused No. 1 to 7 appeared before the Court, he supplied copies of documents. The accused No.

1 to 7 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. charge framed for the offence punishable under section 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and to explained the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PW-1 to 9 out of the 16 listed witnesses and brought on the record Ex.P.1 to P.32 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. The

Prosecution given up the evidence of Lw.2/Saina Bai, Lw.3/Ch. Yellaiah,

Lw.4/B. Anjaiah, Lw.6/K. Mohan Reddy, Lw.11/Mohd. Qayyum,

Lw.14/Bugani Sailu, Lw.15/S.M. Gandhi Goud. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explained the incriminating evidence appearing from prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Therefore, heard on both side.

Now the point for determination of the case is “whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused for the offense punishable under section 454, 380 and 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ”?

Point :

7.It is the case of the prosecution is that the Pw.1/defecto complainant lodged Ex.P.1 complaint stating that when they went to Yellareddy for their personal work, in their absence some unknown offenders gained entry into their house by break opening lock of the door and committed theft of Rs. 40,000/-, gold necklace and ear rings total worth of Rs. 90,000/-. Based on the Ex.P1 5 CC No. 06/17 complaint the case was registered while the investigation was in progress the

Pw.9 while conducting the patrolling at Narsingaraopally cross road he was found the accused No.2 to 6 in suspicious circumstances and on enquiry they were voluntarily confessed about commission of this offence and he was secured the presence of two mediators Pw.3 and Pw.4 and in their presence seized Rs. 40,000/- net cash and also gold necklace. As seen the evidence of the Pw.1 it is appearing that some unknown offenders were committed theft at their house by breaking opening the lock of their house. From Ex.P1/complaint and also from the evidence of the Pw.1 it is appearing that some unknown offenders were committed theft at the house of the Pw.1. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused with this crime. In the absence of the direct evidence the panchanama proceedings under which the stolen property was seized are the material to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The mediators to the panchanama proceedings are the material witnesses. On examination of the Pw.3 to Pw.6 who are mediators to the confession and seizure panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 they were deposed that the police obtained their signatures about 2 years back on some papers by stating that some unknown offenders were committed theft. The Pw.3 to Pw.6 were identified their signatures appearing on the confession panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 and same are marked under Ex.P3 to P22 respectively. The Pw.3 to 6 during their cross examination they were denied that the Pw.9 was arrested the accused

No.2 to 6 and in their presence the police were seized gold necklace and

Rs.40,000/- from the possession of the accused persons. Further it is the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 7 also admitted their guilt in this 6 CC No. 06/17 case when the Pw.9 was interrogated. Admittedly the Pw.9 was nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused No.1 and 7 after they were made confession about the commission of the offence. Therefore the confession made by the accused No.1 and 7 cannot be proved against the accused person in the absence of the recovery of any material object pertaining to the case property. However the prosecution examined Pw.7 and 8 who are mediators to the confession panchanama of the accused No.1 and 7. On examination of the Pw.7 and Pw.8 they stated that when they were went to the police station the police obtained their signatures on some papers on showing the signatures appearing on the confession panchanama of the accused No.1 and 7 they are admitted that the signatures belongs to them and same are marked under

Ex.P24 and P23 respectively. The Pw.7 and PW.8 denied that the police were arrested the accused No.1 and 7 and they were confessed about commission of this offence in their presence. The independent mediators Pw.3 to Pw.8 were did not supported the case of the prosecution and they denied about the seizure of the stolen property from the possession of the accused persons. The material document to prove the guilt against the accused person is the panchanamas covered under Ex.P26 to P31 which not proved by the prosecution inspite it has examined the independent mediators to the said panchanama proceedings.

8.The investigation officer deposed that he was seized the stolen property from the possession of the accused in the presence of the Pw.3 to Pw.6.

However they were did not supported the version of the investigation officer, 7 CC No. 06/17 when the Pw.3 to Pw.6 denied about seizure of the stolen property i.e. M.O.1 and M.O.2 from the possession of the accused and also denied about preparation of the confession cum seizure panchanamas, therefore much weight cannot be attached to the panchanama proceedings under which the stolen property said to have seized.

9.The mediator for the scene of offence examined Pw.2 and he deposed that the police were called him to the house of the Pw.1 and at the request of the police he went to the house where he was observed the house lock was broken and the articles in the house found in scattered and the police were examined the Pw.1 in his presence about the stolen property and prepared

ExP2/scene of offence panchanama in his presence. The evidence of the Pw.2 helpful to the prosecution to the extent of establishing the scene of offence.

However it is not connecting the accused with this crime. As seen entire evidence on the record which could not connecting the accused with this crime. Therefore the accused are entitled to be acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused No. 1 to 7 are not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 454, 380 and 411 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. the accused No.2 is detained in Dist. Jail, Nizamabad. The superintendent Dist. Jail, Nizamabad is directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

The M.O.1 and M.O.2 given to the interim custody of the Pw.1 shall be hold good after expiry of appeal period.

8 CC No. 06/17

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 6th day of March, 2019.

JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE

BANSWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1:Sri Shainu - NONE-

PW-2: Sri Gadila Vittal Reddy

PW-3: Sri Mangali Sailu

PW-4: Sri Kesari Balaiah

PW-5: Smt. G. Keshavva

Pw.-6: Smt. T. Balamani

PW-7: Sri M. Srinivas

PW-8: Sri K. Durgaiah

PW-9: Sri N. Anthi Reddy (IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1 is the Complaint- Nil -

Ex.P-2: is the Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P-3 to P7: are the signatures of PW.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 respectively.

Ex.P-8 to P12: are the signatures of PW.4 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 respectively.

Ex.P13 to P17: are the signatures of PW.5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 respectively.

Ex.P18 to P22: are the signatures of PW.6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.2 to 6 respectively.

9 CC No. 06/17

Ex.P23: is the signatures of PW.7 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.7.

Ex.P24: is the signatures of PW.7 on confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused No.1.

Ex.P25: is the FIR

Ex.P26 :is the confession panchanama of accused No.1

Ex.P27 : is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.2

Ex.P28:is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.3

Ex.P29:is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.4

Ex.P30:is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.5

Ex.P31:is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.6

Ex.P32:is the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused No.7

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 :is the gold necklace

M.O.2 :is the ear rings

JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE

BANSWADA.

1 CC 82/16

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT BANSWADA

Present: Sri V Srinivas Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2019

CC No. 82 of 2016

Between:-

The State of Telangana through SHO, PS. Banswada in crime No. 59 of 2016 …Complainant AND

A1)Vadla Sailu, S/o. Vittal, age : 38 yrs, Caste : Vadla, Occ : Caste profession, R/o. H.No. 4-68/1, Mohammadnagar village of Nizamsagar mandal.

A2)Gundu Ambaiah, S/o. Narayana, age : 37 yrs, Caste : Padmashali, Occ : Agril, R/o. H.No. 5-13 1 Mohammadnagar village of Nizamsagar mandal.

..Accused No.1 and 2

-0-

This case is coming on this day on 07-03-2019 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The above named accused No.1 and 2 have been brought before this Court for the trial of the offence punishable under section 332, 506 of

IPC.

2. The S.H.O P.S Banswada has filed charge sheet against the accused

No.1 and 2 alleging that the Pw.1 who is duty doctor at area hospital, 2 CC 82/16

Banswada. On 03.03.2016 at about 00.30 hours when he was on duty one person by name Vadla Veeraiah was brought to area hospital, Banswada and he was admitted in the hospital and after 10 mins two persons came to the hospital by shouting and they were raised voice against the Nalla

Rajashekar who was on duty in the hospital as a sanitary worker and also they were picked up quarrel with him. Then the said Nalla Rajashekar (Pw.2) was came to his room by stating that the accused No.1 and 2 were quarreling with him and also they were beat him. When the Pw.2 came to the Pw.1 room then also the accused persons beat him on his face and back. For the acts of the accused persons the Pw.1 filed complaint and requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3.Basing on the complaint, Lw.7/ K. Srinivas Reddy, Inspector of police, P.S Banswada registered a case in crime No. 59 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 332, 506 IPC and handed over the CD file to the Lw.8/U. Chandra Shekar SI of police for further investigation.

The Lw.8 was examined Pw.1 and recorded the statement and visited to the government hospital where he was secured Pw.2, Lw.3/P. Geetha Rani,

Lw.4/Abdul Khader and recorded their statements and also secured the presence of two mediators Lw.5/ B. Sailu and Lw.6/Md. Faheem in their presence prepared the scene of offence panchanama. The Lw.8 was obtained the medical certificate of the Pw.2. On 28.02.2016 the accused

No.1 and 2 were surrendered before the Lw.8 and admitted their guilt. The

Lw.8 was issued notice u/s. 41-A CrPC and after completion of the 3 CC 82/16 investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section332, 506 IPC.

4.The case was taken on file against accused NO.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 332, 506 IPC. When the accused 1 and 2 are appeared before the Court, they supplied copies of documents. The accused 1 and 2 were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charge U/s. 332, 506

IPC against the accused was framed, read over and explained in vernacular for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial the prosecution examined Pw.1 and 2 out of 8 listed witnesses and brought on the record Exs.P1 to P3. The prosecution given up the evidence of Lw.3 to Lw.8 viz., Pambala Geetha

Rani, Abdul Khader, Bairi Sailu and Md. Faheem, K. Srinivas Reddy and

U. Chandra Shekar SI of police,

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating material found against the accused for which they are denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Point for determination is:- 4 CC 82/16 “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable 332, 506 IPC ?

Point:-

9. It is the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 2 were came tot he hospital of the Pw.1 where the Pw.1 was on duty as a duty doctor and the Pw.2 also was on duty at hospital as a sanitary worker and the accused No.1 and 2 were beat the Pw.2 and caused injuries while he was discharging his duties, when the Pw.2 was asked the accused No.1 and 2 why they are shouting in the hospital. For the acts of the accused the

Pw.1 lodged complaint against the accused persons. In this case the Pw.2 who is victim is complete hostile to the prosecution case and on his examination he deposed that he not known anything about the facts of this case and also he completely expressed ignorance about the accused persons and finally he stated that the police were not examined him.

10.The defacto complainant deposed that about 2 ½ years back at about 12.00 a.m. to 1.00 a.m. in the intervening night hours when he was in the room in his duties then he was heard some dispute and then he came out from room and found that the accused No.1 and 2 were quarreling with the Pw.2 and also they were beat the Pw.2 with their hands. The Pw.1 further deposed that he had informed the same to the police by dialing 100 number and thereafter he was lodged complaint with the police under

Ex.P1. The Pw.1 further deposed that on the same day he was received a 5 CC 82/16 requisition from SHO PS Banswada for issuing the medical certificate of the Pw.2 and he was examined the Pw.2 and found abrasion over the chest of the Pw.2 and he was issued Ex.P2 medical certificate by opining that the said injuries are simple in nature.

11.As seen the evidence of the Pw.1 he stated that the accused No.1 and 2 were beat the Pw.2 and caused injuries to him, however the Pw.2 denied about occurrence of the alleged incident and also received injuries. When the Pw.2 who is victim in this case not supported the case of the prosecution much weight cannot be attached to the evidence of the Pw.1 and also the Ex.P1/complaint as well as the Ex.p2 medical certificate which said to have issued by the Pw.1. The learned APP given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses, may be the reason the Pw.2 who is the material witness did not supported the case of the prosecution. The

APP was given up the evidence.

12.What ever the reason it may be there is no material on the record to connect the accused persons. Hence it can be hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Therefore, they are entitled to be acquittal.

13.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 506 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the 6 CC 82/16 accused 1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437 of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of March, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution Defence

PW-1: Sri Dr. B. Kannaiah -NONE-

PW-2: Sri Nalla Raja Shekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1 : is the Complaint - NIL-

Ex.P2: is the medical certificate of Pw.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.I CLASS MAGISTRATE;

BANSWADA.

Present:­ Sri V. Srinivas Judl. I Class Magistrate,Banswada 

Dated, this the 7th day of March, 2019 

C.C. No. 165 of 2016 

Between:­ The State through the Station House Officer Birkur,Police Station in Crime No. 74 of 2016. 

...Complainant.

Vs

1. Budala Pochaiah S/o Sailu, Age: 28 years, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Durki Village of Birkur Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

2. Budala Vittavva W/o Pochaiah, Age: 31 Years, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Durki Village of Birkur Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy. 

3. Rogala Chinna Gangavva W/o Ramulu, Age: 41 Years, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Wajidnagar Village of Bichkunda Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

4. Budala Savithri @ Sayavva W/o Ramulu, Age: 36 Years, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Durki Village of Birkur Mandal, Dist. Kamareddy.

...Accused No. 1 to 4.

This case coming before me on 07­03­2019 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, representing for the state/Complainant and of Sri M.L.N. Murthy, Advocate, Counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :­ 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The above named accused No.1 to 4 have been brought

before this court for the trial of the offence punishable under

section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Birkur, has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC alleging as follows:­

3. On 14­06­2016 at about 8.15 a.m., the Pw.1 came to the

Police station and lodged a complaint stating that on 13­06­ 2016 the Pw.1, Lw.2/Sattavva, who is daughter of the Pw.1 went to Durki village on knowing that her daughters brother in law and his wife were quarreling with the daughter of the Pw.1 namely Nagamani with regarding to distribution of the properties. On the same day at about 6.00 pm the accused No.1 to 4 were quarreled with the Pw.1 and taken a water glass from her hand and beat the Pw.1 back side with that glass and also they beat with stick on her hand which resulted caused injuries on her right hand. The Lw.2/Sattavva was intervened and tried to rescue the pw.1 from the accused person but all the accused person were beat the Lw.2/Sattavva with a stick and at the time of the incident one Dobballa Kistavva and Gudisey Bhumavva 3 were came there and they were rescued the Pw.1 and

Lw.2/Sattavva, therefore the Pw.1 filed complaint and requested necessary action against the accused persons.

4. The complaint was registered by Lw.9/G.Rajbarath, S.I of police, Birkur in crime No. 74 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation, during the course of the investigation he was examined Pw.1 and Lw.2/Sattavva and recorded their statements and visited to the scene of offence where he was secured the presence of Pw.2,

Lw.4/G. Bhumavva, Lw.5/D.Kistavva and recorded their statements and also secured the presence of Lw.6/M. Ramulu and Lw.7 /P. Laxman and in their presence prepared the scene of offence panchanama under cover of the C.D.F by drawing the rough sketch. On 17­06­2016 the accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily surrender before the Lw.9 and confessed their guilt therefore the Lw.9 was arrested the accused and after furnishing the sureties released them on bail. The Lw.9, after obtaining the medical certificate from the Lw.8 Dr. G.Vijaypaul filed charge sheet against the accused person.

5.The case was taken on file against accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. When the accused 4 were appeared before the Court, they supplied copies of documents. The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. charge framed for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and explained to the accused for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PW­1 and 2 and brought on record Ex.P.1 & P2. The learned APP given up the evidence of

Lw.2, Lw.4 to Lw.9 viz., Bandalla Sattavva, Gudisey Bhumavva,

D.Kistavva, M. Ramulu, P. Laxmi, Dr. G. Vijaypaul and G.

Rajbarath, SI of police, Birkur. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination as required under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed.

7. Heard on both side.

Now the point for determination of the case is “whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of accused for the offense punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ”?

POINT: 

8.The defacto complainant and injured examined as PW.1 in this case, she herself destroyed the entire prosecution case by deposing that, about 3 years back some dispute was arose between Pw.1 and accused person at their house for which 5 some of her relatives obtained her thumb impression and lodged a complaint with the police. On showing the thumb impression on the complaint, the Pw.1 admitted that thumb impression belongs to her but the Pw.1 expressed complete ignorance about the contents of the complaint as well as facts of this case.

During her cross examination by the learned Asst. Public prosecutor, she denied the suggestions made to her regarding to her allegations made in the complaint as well as in her statement before the police under Ex.P­1 and that she is deposing false, as she compromise with the accused out side the court. The Pw.2, who is the daughter of the Pw.1, she also deposed in the line of the Pw.1 and she expressed complete ignorance about the facts of the case and she denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.p2 that the accused persons were beat the PW.1 and LW.2/B. Sattavva and caused injuries.

9. As pointed out above, even though the prosecution examined PW.1 and 2, who are the complainant/injured and eye witness in this case themselves vitiated their own case by deposing that they do not know any thing about this case, some of their relatives lodged complaint with the police and subsequently they were declared hostile by the learned Asst.

public prosecutor and tested in cross examination, but nothing 6 could be elicited to support the case of prosecution. Thus the evidence of PW.1 and 2 not at all helpful to the prosecution case to bring home the guilt of the accused. The Pw.1 and 2 during their cross examination admittedly stated that they were compromise the case with the accused outside the court. Pw.1 and 2 as they were compromised the case with the accused may be the reason they were not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned APP may be the reason Pw.1 and 2, who are material witness did not supported the case of the prosecution given up the evidence of Lw.2, LW.4 to 9. Whatever the reason it may be absolutely there is no legal evidence on the record to connect the accused with the crime. In the absence of such evidence adduced by the prosecution it is not possible to hold that the accused committed the alleged offence and consequently it must be held that the accused is entitled to be acquittal.

10.In the result, the accused No. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. 

7

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 7th day of March, 2019. 

JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE

BANSWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW­1:Smt Bandalla Rukkavva ­ NONE­

PW­2: Smt. Budala Nagamani

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P­1 is the relevant portion of section ­NIL­ 161 of Cr.p.c.statement of Pw.1.

Ex.P­2 is the relevant portion of section 161 of Cr.p.c. statement of Pw.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL 

 JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BANSWADA.