VACANT FAC Smt R.M.Subhavalli, Spl.JFCM Excise

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present:- Smt.R.M. Subhavalli,

Spl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Proh. & Excise Court, Anantapuramu

FAC Spl. Mobile Court, Aantapuramu

Friday, the 28 th day of November, 2014

C.C. 238/2011

Between: State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of police,

Anantapur Rural P.S. ... Complainant.

AND

1. Juturu Ramanjaneyulu, 50yrs s/o Late Juturu Chinna Naganna,

2. Juturu Ramakrishna, 48yrs s/o Late Juturu Chinna Naganna

3. Juturu Gopala Krishna, 34yrs s/o Late Juturu Chinna Naganna

4. Harijana Chinna Muthyalappa @ Muthyalu s/o Pullanna, 46yrs, Allare of Kakkalapalli (V)

Anantapuramu Rural Mandal ... Accused

This case coming on this day 19-11-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri S.B. Subbaiah, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

Case is U/Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 IPC

1) The sub Inspector of Anantapur rural P.S. has laid charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 in Cr.No.46/2011 for the offence punishable Under section 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC

2) The brief contents of the charge sheet is as follows:

The defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu had Ac.4-58cents land in

S.No.213-3 at Kakkalapalli village, Anantapur Rural sicne 1984 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and he paid cist receipt vide 752616,

Book.No.E, fasli 1392 and 1393 dt.8-5-1984, while so, A1 to A4 are the owners of 2 the adjacent land to the defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu and they tried to encroach the land of the defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu, then he filed a perpetual injunction suit against the accused and a decree passed in his favour and restrain the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defacto complainant

R.Venkata Ramudu. On 24-3-11 at evening hours the accused A1 to A4 entered into the land of the defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu and they thrown LW1 to 3 R.Venkataramudu,B.Chennappa, B.Mallarayudu and broken down all the slabs erected in the land and the hut of the complainant and thereby caused loss to the defacto complainant Venkataramudu an amount of Rs.80,000/- and the accused also warned the defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu not to go into the said land in case fails they threatened that they wil file SC, ST case and as they are claiming that the land belongs to themselves. Basing on the court endorsement and on the private complaint of the defacto complainant

Venkataramudu, Shaik Saleem, A.S.I of police registered a case in Cr.No.46/2011 u/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation Sri Shaik Saleem, A.S.I of police recorded the statements of the defacto complainant Venkataramudu, Boya Chennappa, Boya Mallarayudu and R.

Bharathi , and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence, and arrested the accused A1 and A2 on 4-7-2010 at 4-15PM and send them to Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. On 7-7-10 at 9 AM Sri K. Ajaykumar,

S.I of police arrested A3 and on the same day at 9-30AM arrested A4 and send them to Hon'ble Court for judicial remand and after receipt of the wound certificate of T.V. Lokesh and after completion of investigation, Sri. M. Siva Prasad

Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 u/sec.

447,427 r/w 34 IPC.

3) The cognizance was taken against the accused A1 to A4 for the offence under section 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC by learned AJFCM and numbered as

C.C.434/2011 and issued summons to the accused A1 to A4.

4) During the summons stage of A1 to A4 as per the Hon'ble Dist court, 3 Anantapuramu orders case was transferred to this court and re-numbered as C.C.

238/2011.

5) On appearance of the accused A1 to A4 all relevant case records were furnished to them, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC.

6) The accused A1 to A4 were examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them as per the charge sheet contents and a charge u/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC is framed and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 are marked on its behalf .

8) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A4 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused A1 to A4 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9) Both sides arguments heard.

10) Now the point for determination is:

1.Whether the accused A1 to A4 criminally trespass in the land of the defacto complainant R.Venkataramudu with an intention or not?

2.Whether the accused A1 to A4 Caused damage of Rs. Rs.80,000/- to the defacto complainant R.Venkataramudu or not ?

3.Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused A1 to A4 u/s 447, 427 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11. POINT: 1& 2: The prosecution to establish its case adduced PW.1 to PW7 evidence out of 8 listed witnesses and marked as Ex.P1 to P9. The defacto complainant R. Venkataramudu examined as PW1. PW1 in his chief examination admitted that he know all the accused, and also admitted that the accused having lands adjacent to his land. PW1 said as per the proceeding in

RC.No.A/464/90 dt.31-3-1990 Tahsildar, Anantapur Rural issued order to cultivate the above said land which was assigned government in the year 1984 in 4 S.No.113-3 an extent of Ac.4-58 cents, from 1990 to 1996 PW1 was paying cist and PW1 again said in the year 1994 when all the accused started obstructing hi possession and enjoyment of the above land then he filed a perpectual injunction suit same was decreed on 31-5-10 in his favour, after that PW1 surveyed his land and fixed boundaries by government surveyor, after that he planted stones around the property with the help of PW2 and PW4 and PW1 said that the stones were planted on 23-3-2011, and said on the next day all the accused entered into the land and damaged the stone slabs and when he questioned their high handed acts, the accused beat him. When his daughter-in-law (PW3) came there to rescue him from the hands of accused then they beat her and PW1 also said that the accused threatened him with dire consequences and stated that they will damage the stones, kill him and burried him under the stones and PW1 again said they also threatened him that they would lodge a report against him for the offence under Prevention of Atrocities Act. To establish this the prosecution adduced PW2 evidence who intervened and rescued PW1, PW2 in his chief examination said that he know all the accused who are present in court hall and said he was working as coolie on the date of incident, but PW2 fails to disclose the date of offence and said approximately one year back when he was standing in front of gate, PW1 called him for working to fixing the stones near Kakkalapalli in his fields, at that time himself along with some other coolies went there at about 5PM. When they reached there PW1 was present and they have done the work, but as per PW1 evidence he was not disclosed about calling of PW2 for collie while he was standing in front of his gate. Further, PW1 was not disclosed at what time he planted stones with the assistance of PW4 and PW2. With regard to the time of working of coolies, the defence counsel when put question to PW2,

PW2 denied the coolies were working only in morning hours. PW2 in his chief examination said that while they are doing work the four persons who are accused present in court hall came to near them and obstructed them not to fixing the stones. Then, PW1 questioned why he did not done the work, then the 5 accused thrown PW1 and all the accused broken the stones which was fixed by them. when we observe the PW1 evidnece PW1 was said that the stones

were planted on 23-3-11 and also said that the next day i.e., 24-3-11 all

the accused entered into the land and damaged the stone slabs, but when we observe the PW2 eye witness evidence and also who worked for planting stones in PW1 field, PW2 said that while they were fixing stones all accused came and obstructed them not to fixing the stones. The same was pointed out by learned defence counsel and also mentioned in his written arguments, as there is inconsistency with regard to date of offence, and the PW2 evidence was corroborated by PW4 who is also working as a cooly along with PW2 on the date of incident at about 5PM. When we see the evidnece of PW4, PW4 said in his chief examination since one year back PW1 called him for cooly work to construct a compound wall in Kakkalapalli in his fields and said himself and

PW2 went there and erected stones around his field at about 5PM and PW4 also said that at that time all the accused came there and broken the erected stones, then PW1 obstructed them but when we see the evidnece of PW3 who is daughter-in-law of PW1, she also came to near scene of offence for rescuing PW1 from the hands of accused. PW3 said that sicne one and a half year back PW1 made boundaries by fixing stones in the month of March through coolies and said at about 5-30PM herself and PW1 went near fields along with coolies for erecting stones. On that date all the accused came near PW1 and abused as "yemiledu musalinaa kodaka ani dobbinaru." From the evidence of PW3 discloses at about 5-30PM both herself and PW1 went to fields, but as per PW2 and 4 they erected stones at 5PM and PW1 was not disclosed time and date when PW2 and

PW4 erected stones and PW1 in Ex.P1 also not mentioned the time when the accused came in his field an damaged the erected stones. Further, PW1 was not disclosed either in his chief examination or in Ex.P1 about how many erected stones damaged by accused, but PW2 in his cross examination said that they have fixed stones and there is lying remaining 15 stones said that the accused 6 damaged 8 erected stones and PW2 in his cross examination said that the remaining 15 stones were lying there near scene of offence. PW3 in his cross examination said that after she came to know that there is galata took place then she went there. It shows she was not eye witness to the incident, but PW3 voluntarily adds that at the time of incident she was along with PW1 near the scene of offence. PW3 admitted in her cross examination the stones never fell down if thrown and if any one beat with hammer, then only the stones wil broken.

Here we have to verify the evidence of PW1. PW1 not disclosed how the accused damaged the stone slabs by pushing the stones or by beating with hammer. This was not also disclosed by PW2 and PW4 who are working as coolies as masons even then they fails to disclose how the accused damaged the stone slabs which was erected around the PW1 field as a compound wall, after surveying the boundaries fixed the stones as admitted by PW1, and PW3 also said they engaged coolies for working in morning time, but the coolies came at evening time, but

PW4 in his cross examination admitted that the stones were not broken, while thrown by anybody, as said like PW3, by beating with hammer only, but PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he did not specifically mentioned before police how many stones the accused broken.

As per Sec.447 IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass:-

Whoever commits criminal trespass, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three

months, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or or with

both.

The prosecution has to prove that on the date of incident PW1 was in actual possession and the accused entered into the PW1 property with intent to extract as alleged by PW1. As per PW1 version and also admitted by himself that his land situated in "vanka poramboku" and the land is government land and

PW1 also said government issued Eksal permission to him in the year 1992 and

PW1 said beside his land one Chinna Naganna land is situated and the said 7 Chinna Nagamma is having sons as A1 to A4 and PW1 said in S.No.213 is divided into sub-division of 26 members, and PW1 said his S.No. is 113/3 mentioned in his chief and in his cross examination he admitted that his S.No.213/3 and when the learned defence counsel showed the copy issued by M.R.O for pahani (Chitta adangal) for the year 2012 and 2013 for that PW.1 answered that she is not visible properly whether Sy.No. was mentioned in it or not and PW.1 denied that and Ex.P3 to P7 are not belongs to him and in Ex.P3 to P7 S.No., was showed as

S.No.213-3 is mentioned, for that PW1 said that he does not visible properly and learned defence counsel showed the Ex.P3 to P7 to him, but PW1 in his cross examination admitted that he filed Chitta adangal in OS 628/04 and PW1 identified his signature on xerox copy of requisition given to MRO for issuing chitta adangal. In Ex.P7 vide RC.A.No.464/90 dt.31-3-1990 MRO issued temporary cultivation permission to PW1 in S.No.213-3 an extent of 4 acres out of 4.58 acres. The accused contention is that their land was included in the PW1 land, there is dispute in between PW1 and A1 to A4 with regard to that Ex.P2 was filed before court and permanent injunction was granted in favour of PW1 against

A1 to A3. So, from the above evidence it establishes that PW1 was in possession as on date of alleged incident, then it has to be established by prosecution whether A1 to A4 entered into the disputed land of PW1. From the evidence of eye witnesses PW2 and PW4 both were not disclosed the date of offence simply they mentioned one and a half year back at 5PM when they were planting stones around PW1 field, at that time A1 to A4 came and obstructed them not to fix the stones, but PW1 mentioned in his chief examination he planted the stones around the property with the help of PW2 and PW4 on 23-3-2011 and said on the next day the accused entered into the land and damaged the stone slabs. So, there is inconsistency with the date of offence in between PW1 and both the eye witnesses PW2 and PW4. But, PW3 who is daughter-in-law of PW1 she was also not disclosed the date of offence, but she mentioned in the month of March at about 4-30PM herself and PW1 went to fields along with coolies for erecting the 8 stones, but PW.1 was not disclosed the presence of PW.3 and from the evidence of PW1 the incident happened after fixing the stones and of next day, but PW3 said that while they were erecting stones with the help of coolies, all the accused came near them and abused PW1 and informed they will file case under SC and

ST Act, but PW1 not disclosed whether accused A1 to A4 beat PW1 and also PW3 not disclosed the presence of PW2 and PW4 whether they are the coolies on that date of incident or not. The learned defence counsel also raised objection in his written arguments that both PW2 and PW4 belongs to Alamuru village and PW2 was admitted the same as he belongs to Alamuru village, but both PW2 and PW4 said that when they were standing near Ramnagar gate, PW1 came there and asked them to work in his field. The said fact was not disclosed by PW1, but he simply said that he take assistance of PW2 and PW4.

Further the learned defence counsel raised objection that there is delay and mentioned in his written arguments that the evidence of PW1 the offence occurred on 24-3-2011 and as per the complaint i.e., Ex.P1 was filed on 30-3-2011 before Hon’ble AJFCM, Anantapuramu. As per the complaint the PW1 gave complaint to the police on 25-3-2011, but the same was not yet marked by the prosecution. More over as per Ex.P1 i.e. complaint that the PW1 approached to Superintendent of Police on 30-3-2011 and the same endorsed to the police that copy also not yet marked by the prosecution. What happened both documents? Inspite of that the PW1 approached the court for the private complaint, the same was received the police on 21-4-2011 and also mentioned that the offence occurred on 25-3-11 as per the complaint or 24-3-2011 as per the evidence of PW1, but the case was registered on 21-4-2011, such delay was not explained by the prosecution to the court. The delay clearly shows the latches of the prosecution. Inspite of that they filed the unnecessary documents to prove their case.

As per the investigation officer who is PW6 was categorically stated in cross examination “it is true any person gave complaint in police station, it can 9

be entered in GD register. On 25-3-2011 there is no whisper in GD entry

with regard to this case. It is true if any one gave complaint to SP in turn

it was forwarded to me and 30-3-11 I have not received any

endorsement on complaint with in this case. I have verified only

photographs of scene of offence which was taken by PW5.(such photos also not filed before the court in stead of that the prosecution marked other exhibits beyond the case)

When we see that the PW1 was mentioned in his complaint on 24-3-

11 during the evening hours the accused and their accomplaints high

handedly entered into their land and thrown away the complainant and

the coolies and broken all the slabs, when they were placing the slabs

around the entire land of the complainant and in the said Ex.P1 PW1 also mentioned on 25-3-2011 he went to police station and gave written complaint and said police not taken any action and not registered case, even PW1 requested 5 days, then the PW1 filed complaint before SP of Anantapuramu on 30-3-2011 as per his endorsement Taluk P.S not taken any action against the accused, then

PW1 filed private complaint before Hon'ble AJFCM Court Anantapuramu on 11-4-2011 and for investigation it was sent to concerned police on 21-4-2011, here when we see the evidence of PW5, who registered the case, PW5 said in his chief examination that on 21-4-2011 at 8AM while he was present in police station as per the endorsement of Hon'ble AJFCM, he registered a case in

Cr.No.46/11 u/s 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR as Ex.P8. Here, surprisingly in Ex.P8 (FIR) in Col.No.14 PW5 obtained the signature of PW1 on 21-4-2011.

When due to non taking any action about the PW1 complaint by police when PW.1 approached to police but when the PW1 approached before Hon'ble AJFCM Court, filed private complaint with these reasons, how PW1 signe and obtained by PW.5 in Ex.P8, generally in FIRs police were not taking the defacto complainant signature in all cases, how except this case PW5 has shown interest the reason best known to him, that too on 21-4-2011 at 8AM how he received case file from 10 court on the same day itself, when case taken on file and PW5 in his cross examination said that he does not know prior to receiving complaint from court whether the defacto complainant(PW1) appraoched police or not. PW5 said that after registering case he visited scene of offence and drafted rough sketch, himself along with PW1 went to scene of offence and said that on his observation he found near scene of offence there are nearly 20 stones (slabs) were broken.

It clearly establishes the PW5 was not visited scene of offence, it was revealed from the evidence of PW2, PW2 who is cooly who worked and planted stones nera scene of offence. PW2 in his cross examination clearly said that they fixed 8 stones and there is remaining 15 stones. Assume for the sake of argument if

PW2 was fixed 8 stones, how 20 stones were broken by the accused as deposed by PW5. Further PW5 in his cross examination admitted that if stones are broken through hammer only with force and PW3 also said the same like PW5 as if any one beat with hammer then only the stones will broken, if that much of strong of stones how the A1 to A4 thrown the stones by pushing the stones without using any weapons. PW1 to PW4 not disclosed A1 to A4 whether they came along with any weapon nor they used any weapon which was available near scene of offence for breaking the slabs which were erracted by PW.2 and PW.4but PW4 in his cross examination clearly admitted that he cannot specifically mentioned before police how many stones the accused broken and PW5 clearly said that he was not collected any broken stones near scene of offence, if really incident happened, who prevented PW5 not to seize the broken stones, whether which were available near scene of offence. It clinches there is suspicion about the trust worthy of

PW5 evidence. It establishes from PW3 evidence the incident happened due to the reason as admitted by PW.3 in her cross examination that all the BJP colony persons and their Kakkalapalli colony people and Prajasakthi colony from there, they all pass through their fields and all the residents of the above said colony persons they went to cooly and return back in the evening hours, they are pass through PW.1 filed as it was using their fields as pathway. Same was 11 corroborated by PW4, PW4 in his cross examination admitted that the residents of

Kakkalapalli village and BJP colony and Prajasakthi colony persons are going to their houses at evening times all are pass through near scene of offence, but PW5 said in his cross examination he did not enquired surrounding neighbours i.e., BJP colony, Kakkalapalli colony and Prajasakthi colony. If he really visited scene of offence he certainly examined the surrounding neighbours and PW5 also not disclosed anything about the delay from 23-3-2011 to 21-4-2011 was not properly explained nor they fails to produce the documents which was mentioned in list of documents in Ex.P1 viz., the copy of complaint preferred to

Superintendent of Police Anantapuram dt.30-3-11 and endorsement of

Superintendent of Police that too the prosecution fails to mark the photographs which were very much available in case record.

As per Sec.427 IPC:

Mis chief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees:-

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to

the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two

years, or with fine, or with both.

Further as alleged by PW1 in his complaint and the accused also destroyed the entire hut. But, PW1 in his chief examination was not mentioned specifically about the destruction of his hut as alleged in his complaint, but he mentioned he sustained loss to a tune of Rs.80,000/- and PW2 to 4 also not disclosed anything with regard to destruction of hut and when PW5 visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of scene of offence as Ex.P9 and in said scene of offence also not shown the existence of hut and prosecution also fails to prove that the PW1 was residing in the fields itself or not. From PW1 cross examination as he admitted that his land is situated in Vanka Poramboke which is government land. So, it clearly establishes near scene of offence there is no hut in existence. If hut is not in existence, the damage of hut does not arises.

12 With regard to damage of property as alleged by PW1 Rs.80,000/- from the evidence of PW2 and PW4 they fails to disclose how many stone slabs were damaged by accused. From the evidence of PW2 it shows only 8 stones were erected, but PW3 admited in cross examination she said that they purcahsed 4 tractors load of stones and approximately 2000 stones were there.

Assume for the sake of argument if 2000 stones were there, how deposed by

PW2,PW4 deposed as 8 stones were allegedly damaged and remaining 15 stones were lying there and PW5 how he deposed that nearly 20 stones were broken.

So, with regard to damage also there is inconsistency in between PW1 to PW5.

Surprisingly PW1 was not disclosed how many stones were damaged by accused and also not disclosed how many stones were erected which was 6 feet height and half feet width around his field and how many stone slabs kept near scene of offence When the learned defence counsel put suggestion to PW4 who is cooly on the date of incident, he denied that PW.1 never called them as coolie work and

PW.4 also denied for filling through out 4 acres the requirement of stones were 2000,if the mason himself denied the suggestion the requirement of stones of 2000 were required for 4 acres, how can ordinary person i.e., PW3 she said that approximately 2000 stones were present near scene of offence. It all establishes that all the evidence was cooked by creating that the accused is having lands beside his lands and all the villagers were pass through his fields, to curtail them the PW1 taking advantage of decree of perpetual injunction he created that the accused entered into his land and damaged the erected stones. Assume for the sake of argument if really the accused beat PW1 and whether really he sustained injuries, why PW1 himself not disclosed that the accused threatened him with dire consequences by saying that they will damage the stones, kill him and burry him under the stones. if he erected stones. It shows the accused only warned to damage the stones if he erected the stones. So, it clinches the stones were not at all fixed on the ground for making as a fencing around the fields of PW1. PW6 said that in his chief examination on 12-6-2011 he forwarded requisition to 13 Tahsildar Anantapuramu for obtaining particulars of S.No.213-3 an extent of 4.58 acres whcih was disputed property, but PW5 in his cross examination said that after receiving complaint from court he did not enquired with MRO pertaining to the documents whether it is genuine or not, but PW5 fails to disclose which documents genuiness he wants to verify and PW6 in his cross examination said that he verified only photographs of scene of offence which was taken by PW5.

With regard to that, PW5 not disclosed anything whether he taken photographs of scene of offence or not and the said photos which was taken was not marked as exhibits in this case, but the said photos were very much available in the case record. PW3 in her cross examination admitted that she stated before police as mentioned in her 161 statement 23-3-2011 va thedi bhoomi chuttu niluvu

bandalu paathutaku gaanu Boya Chennappa, Boya Mallarayudu, Alamuru

graamamu inka konthamanditho kalisi cooliki maatladukonipiluchukoni

raayi pai bhoomilochuttu sarihaddu yeerparuchukovalani niluvubandalu

paathuchundagaa prakka polamu vaaraina and A1 to A4 addamu vacchi

dourjanyamugaa galata cheyuchunnarani thelisi nenu parigetthukoni pyi

choodagaa paivaaru,maa maama Venkataramudu nu pakkaku nooki, PW3 in her chief examination exaggerated that the accused A1 to A4 abused PW1 as yemiledu musalinaa kodaka ani dobbinaru and also said that they will file case agaisnt them under SC ST Act. With regard to threatening accused about their caste they will file case agaisnt PW1, as admitted by PW1 he belongs to

Ediga caste and his profession is taking toddy liquor from toddy trees. PW1 denied that the government granted permission for taking toddy whch is lying in vanka porambok. This was not disclosed in rough sketch of scene of offence and

PW5 is also not disclosed anything with regard to toddy trees existence near scene of offence. PW5 also admitted that he was not seized any damaged broken stones near scene of offence, nor marked the photographs which discloses the scene of offence and in scene of offence (Ex.P9) shown 1 to 5 are pagilina niluvu raallu and also showed fencing from north side and showed in red ink X 14 mark as no.6 as scene of offence, 1 to 6 were lying on the west and east side and scene of offence is on south side. PW5 also in his cross examination admitted that he was not seized any damaged slab stones in this case. Why he was not seized as in Ex.P.9 it shows item 1 to 5 are stones lying if they really broken why he was not seized broken stones. Further, PW1 in his complaint (Ex.P1) is not mentioned the names of coolies viz., PW2 and PW4 and in Ex.P1 nor them shown as witnesses and in rough sketch on west side one Srinivasulu s/o Kalamadi

Narayanaswamy land is existing, but the said person was not shown as witness in memo of evidence and also Harijana Muthyalu whose land is situated on south side, he was also not shown as witness in memo of evidence nor PW.5 examined them, same admitted by PW.5. So, PW2 and PW4 how they are shown as eye witnesses as they worked at the time of incident. With regard to that PW5 to PW7 not done any investigation and only disclosed before police by PW1. PW1 said that after fixing the stone slabs on the next day accused came and damaged the stone slabs, but PW2 to 4 said that while they were erecting stones the accused came and PW1 also in his complaint not mentioned either on next day after planting stones or at the time of erecting stones was not specifically disclosed, straight away “he said during evening hours the accused and their accomplaints high handedly entered on which date where So, there is ambiguilty with regard to alleged offence whether the incident happened at the time of erecting stones or after erecting on the next day the incident happened.PW.1 in his complainant (Ex.P.1) mentioned the accused also destroyed his entire hut, but in his chief examination PW.1 was not disclosed with regard hut. Except PW.1 to PW.4 evidence, who are interested witness, there is no other independent evidence was not adduced.

27] In the above facts and circumstances there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused entered into the PW1 land and damaged the erected stone slabs as alleged by PW1 to 4 and fails to prove the guilty of accused A1 to A4, and prosecution fails to prove the guilty of accused A1 to A4 15 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence A1 to A4 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

28] In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.447, 427 r/w 34 IPC and the accused A1 to A4 are acquitted U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled after six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of November, 2014.)

Sd/- R.M.Subhavalli

FAC Judl.Magistrate,of I Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Anantapuramu. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1: R. Venkataramudu Nil PW2: Mallarayudu PW3: Bharathi PW4: Boya Chinnappa PW5: Shaik Saleem PW6: Ajaykumar PW7: M. Siva Prasad

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex: P1: Private complaint. Nil. Ex: P2: Decree and judgment in OS 628/04 Ex. P3:CC of land tax receipt Ex.P4 : CC of land tax receipt dt. 12-3-1990 Ex.P5 : CC of land tax receipt dt.3-3-1993 Ex.P6 : CC of land tax receipt dt.8-4-1996 Ex.P7 : CC of Eksal permission granted by MRO dt.31-3-1990 Ex.P8: FIR Ex.P9: Rough Sketch

MOs marked on behalf of Prosecution. Defence

Nil Nil

Id/- R.M.S

JFCM.

// True Copy // 16

C.C.187/2013 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PROH. & EXCISE CASES, ANANTAPURAMU

Present:- Smt.R.M. Subhavalli,

Spl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Proh. & Excise Cases, Anantapuramu

Monday, this the 23rd day of March, 2015

C.C.No.187/2013

Between:-

State Reptd., by the Inspector of Police, Anantapur Mahila Police Station. … Complainant

And

1. Anantapur Noor Mohammed, 29 years, s/oMohammed Saheb,r/oLakshmi Reddy New Bulildings,Kalyanadurgam road,near Nandamuri Nager, Anantapur(T).

2. Anantapur Noorjohan Bi aged about 58 years, w/o, Mahaboob Saheb, R/o.Lakshmi Reddy New Buildings, Kalyandurgam Road, Near Nandamuri Nagar, Anantapuram Town.

3. Anantapur Mahaboob Saheb, aged 63 years, R/o.Lakshmi Reddy New Buildings, Kalyandugam Road, Near Nandamuri Nagar, Anantapur Town.

4. Gulab @ Anantapur Sajida, aged 35 years, w/o. Baba, R/o.Near Auto stand, Vinayaka Nagar, Anantapuram Town.

5. Baba Fakruddin, aged about 38 years, R/o.Near Auto stand, Vinayaka Nagar, Anantapur Town. … Accused

This case has coming on 28.11.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri R.Abdual Rahiman, Advocate for the Accused for A1 to A5 and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court doth delivered the following:

C.C.187/2013 2

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

Case is U/Sec. 498 (A)R/W34 IPC.

and Sec 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

1]The Sub Inspector of Mahila PS, Anantapuramu has laid charge sheet against the accused A1 to A5 in Cr.No.46/12 for the offence punishable

U/Ss. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2]The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows :-

The defacto complainant Pariki Syed Sameena is the daughter of

P.S.Kalimunnisa and P.S.Noor Mohammed ,while so the defacto complaint Pariki

Syed Sameena marriage was held with A1 on 6.2.12 and at the time of marriage the defaco complaint Pariki Syed Sameena parents gave cash of Rs.1,50,000/- and 8+1 tulas of gold and also gave Rs.1,50,000/- worth of house hold articles to the accused as dowry as per the terms and conditions of the marriage and the parents of the defacto complaint Pariki Syed Sameena parents spent Rs.2,00,000/- for performing her marriage . A1 to A5 began torture on the defacto complaint Pariki

Syed Sameena with a demand to transferr her parent"s house in the name of A1 and to bring more money, gold from the defaco complaint Pariki Syed Sameena parents and they also threatned P.S.Hafiz Salman and Pariki Syed Zameer where ever they found by saying that if they apporached police or made Panchyat they will have face to consequences and all the accused torture the defacto complaint

Pariki Syed Sameena by saying that they performed their marriage on seeing their house, but not seeing on her. Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant

Pariki Syed Sameena B.Chalapathi Rao, Circle Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.46/2012 U/Ss. 498-A, r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and during the course of investigation he examined the defacto complainant

Pariki Syed Sameena and on 25-8-2012 the accused A1 arrested and sent him to

Hon'ble court for Judicial remand and A2 to A5 got anticipatory bail from the

Hon'ble I Additional Sesisons Judge, Anantapur vide Cr.M.P 1112/12 dt.5-9-12 and

after completion of investigation, B.Chalapathi Rao, Circle Inspector of police filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A5 U/Ss. 498-A, r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 & 4

C.C.187/2013 3

of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3]The cognizance was taken against the accused A1 to A5 for the offence under sections U/S. 498-A,r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition

Act by the learned AJFCM, Anantapuram and numbered as CC.1072/2012.

4] On appearance of the accused A1 to A5, all relevant case records were furnished to them, as prescribed under section 207 of Cr.P.C 5]During the course of examination as per the orders of the Hon'ble Dist.

& Sessions Judge,Anantapurm the case was transferred to this court and it was renumbered as C.C.187/2013.

6] The accused A1 to A5 were examined U/s 240 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them as per the charge sheet and a charge

U/Ss. 498-A, r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry prohibition Act is framed against them, same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7]During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on its behalf.

8)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A5 examined

U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. as there is incriminating material found against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, about the relationship with accused, same was read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

9]On the other side no one examined and no documents marked on their behalf.

10]Both sides reported arguments taken as heard,, Heard.

11] Now the points for determination is :

1. Whether the accused A1 to A5 harassed the defacto complainant

C.C.187/2013 4

Pariki Syed Sameena physically and mentally as enshrined u/s 498-A IPC?

2. Whether the accused A1 to A5 threatened the defacto complaint Pariki Syed Sameena to bring additional dowry and transfer her parents house on A1 or not ?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A5 u/s.498(A) r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

12]POINT No.1 & 2 :-

It is a case of matrimonial offense done by A1 to A5 on PW1 as alleged by prosecution. To establish its case prosecution adduce PWs.1 to 3 evidence out of 7 listed witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The defacto complainant Pariki

Syed Sameena is examined as PW1. PW1 in her chief examination She admitted that A1 is her husband and said her marriage was performed with him on 6-2-1012 at Rahamath function hall in Anantapur and said immediately after marriage she joined with A1 for leading marital life in Anantapur and PW1 said presently she is residing along with A1 and PW1 said specifically that no dowry amount was given at the time of her marriage to accused ,PW1 not disclosed any harassment meted by her from the hands of A1 to A5 and PW1 also said police obtained her signature while she was in hospital, here prosecution fails to extract from PW1 why she was joined in hospital and PW1 identified her signature as Ex.s.P1 , further PW1 said she does not know the contents of complaint and PW1 not supported prosecution version and also PW1 denied the contents of her earlier statement as Ex.s.P2. The reason best known to her .

13]Prosecution on seeing PW1 evidence to established their case addused the evience of PW2 ,PW2 who is the mother of PW1 and wife of PW3 .

PW2 said in her chief examination that PW1 is her daughter and PW3 is her husband and PW2 admitted the relationship with A1 to A5 and PW2 clearly said that no disputes arises in between PW1 and A1 and PW2 also said that her daughter never gave any complainant against the A1 to A5 about the demanding

additional dowry amount and said that PW1 and A1 are residing happily.PW2 also

C.C.187/2013 5

not supported the prosecution version and denied the giving of complainant by

PW1 ,but PW1 identified her signature on complaint,PW2 also denied her earlier statement as Ex.s.P3.

14] On seeing PW1 and PW2 evidence prosecution adduced the evidence of PW3 ,PW3 who is the father of PW1 and husband of PW2 ,PW3 said in his chief-examination as admitting the relationship with PW1 and PW2 and also admitted the relationship with A1 to A5 .PW3 clearly said that PW1 was residing in his house and said no disputes arises in between PW1 and PW2 and PW3 also said that at the time of marriage they did not gave any dowry and said her daughter never gave any complainant against the A1 to A5 about the demanding additional dowry amount and said both PW1 and A1 were residing happily like PW1 and PW2 ,the PW3 also not supported prosecution version and also denied his earlier statement as Ex.s.P4.

15]As per Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code:

Husband or relatives of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty:

“whoever being the husband or the relatives of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3

years shall also be liable to fine”.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “Cruelty” means :

a] any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is

likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause of grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mentally or physically) of the woman or

b] harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any

C.C.187/2013 6

unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

16]The ingredients of Sec.498-A are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

17]As per Sec.498-A the prosecution has to prove the harassment metted by PW.1 from the hands of accused A1 to A5, with regard to any demand made by accused. But in present case on hand PW1 in her chief examination clearly said that at the time of her marriage her parents no dowry amount gave to accused and PW1 not disclosed the harassment of A1 to A5 and she clearly said that presently she is residing along with A1 .From the evidence of PW1 it was not established that A1 to

A5 threatened her for transferred the house in A1 name as mentioned in charge sheet and in the complainant of PW1,when we observe the evidence of PW2 and

PW3 who are parents of PW1 ,they also said no disputes arises in PW1 and A1 and both said in one voice their daughter never gave any complainant against the A1 to

A5 ,but PW1 said when she was in hospital police obtained her signature as Ex.s.P1 and prosecution fails to extract through PW1 why PW1 was in hospital and why police obtained her signature the reason was not established by prosecution. For established the same prosecution not examined B.Chalapathi Rao who registered the case basing on the PW1 complainant ,if he examined it reveals that whether

PW1 gave complainant to B.Chalapathi Rao or not and prosecution fails to established the contents of PW1 where PW1 admitted her signature as Ex.sP1, in the said complainant PW1 allegedly mentioned about the harassment of A1 to A5 ,but PW1 denied the contents of the complainant where she admitted her signature as Ex.s.p1. To constitutes cruelty as defined in terms of the explanation appended to Sec.498 A IPC includes two elements in the word of "cruelty" means by way of

C.C.187/2013 7

harassment driving a women to commit suicide or to suffer injury ,and the second element of the section indicates that the harassment should be in connection with dowry, but in the present case in hand there is no evidence on record to established that A1 to A5 demanded addition dowry and demand PW1 for transferring her parents house in the name of A1, even PW2 and PW3 said that no disputes arises in between PW1 and A1 with demand of dowry amount and PW1 clearly said that no dowry given at the time of her marriage with A1 and prosecution fails to establish that the A1 harassed and threatened PW1. Hence there is no evidence on record to clinch the accused A1 to A5 u/s 498-A IPC purview.

As per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act :-

Penalty for giving or taking dowry :- 1] If any person, after commencement of this Act, gives or

takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable, [with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less that [five years, and with

fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of

the value of such dowry, whichever is more]:

Provided that Court may, for adequate and special reasons to

be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a

term of less than [Five years].

2] Nothing in sub-section(1) shall apply to, or in relation to

a] presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bride

(without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such parents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act :

b] presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

C.C.187/2013 8

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on

behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of

a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to

the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such

presents are given.

As per Sec.4 of D.P.Act, Penalty for demanding dowry:-

If any person demands, directly or indirectly from the parents

or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be

any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 2 years and with

fine which may extend to Rs.10,000/-.

from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly established that at the time of PW1's marriage no dowry amount gave to accused and PW2 and PW3 who are parents of PW1, they also said A1 to A5 there is no demand of additional dowry amount, PW1 clearly said that at the time of marriage no dowry amount given to accused.

18]The case in hand the threatening is not established by prosecution.

PWs.1 to 3 in single voice not disclosed about the that accused A1 to A5 threatened to PW.1 ,if she fails to transferred the house in A1 name and the same threaten was not established by prosecution for that harassed her or demand her to bring

additional dowry , the gist of the offense is the effect which the threat is intended

to have upon the mind of the person threatened, with intention as alleged in charge sheet. The PWs.1 to 3 not disclosed anything about the demand of A1 to A5 on PW1 and the same was not proved by prosecution but, So the prosecution also fails to prove the ingredients of Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act and fails to clinch the A1 to A5 under preview of Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act.

C.C.187/2013 9

19]In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused U/Ss. 498-A R/W 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition act beyond all reasonable doubt. So the accused is entitled for acquittal.

20]In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Ss. 498-A R/W 34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act accordingly the accused A1 to A5 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A5 shall stands canceled after six months. As there is no property, hence no property order passed.

[Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd day of March, 2015].

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Prosecution Defence

PW.1 : Pariki Syed Sameena. None. PW.2 : P.S.Kalimunnisa. PW.3 : P.S.Noor Mohammed.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on ComplaintNIL Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Mos marked on behalf of Prosecution

NIL

SJFCM.

C.C.187/2013

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN

C.C.187/2013

Dates of

Report or Commen Apprehension of Released Close of Sentence or Offence Complain cement of accused on bail trial Order t trial A1 A1 prior to 25-08-1229-8-12 10-08-1219-3-201519-03-1523-03-15 10-08-2012A2 to A5 A2 to A5 05-09-1205-09-12

Calendar and Judgment in C.C. 187 of 2013 on the file of Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Proh. & Excise, Anantapur.

Complainant : Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station, Anantapuramu.

Cr.No.:46 of 2012

S.No. Name of the Father’s Age Calling Religion Residence

accused Name

1. Anantapur Noor Mohammed, 29 years, S/oMohammed Saheb, R/o.Lakshmi Reddy New Bulildings, Kalyanadurgam road, near Nandamuri Nager, Anantapur(T).

2. Anantapur Noorjohan Bi aged about 58 years, W/o, Mahaboob Saheb, R/o.Lakshmi Reddy New Buildings, Kalyandurgam Road, Near Nandamuri Nagar, Anantapuram Town.

3. Anantapur Mahaboob Saheb, aged 63 years, R/o.Lakshmi Reddy New Buildings, Kalyandugam Road, Near Nandamuri Nagar, Anantapur Town.

4. Gulab @ Anantapur Sajida, aged 35 years, W/o. Baba, R/o.Near Auto stand, Vinayaka Nagar, Anantapuram Town.

5. Baba Fakruddin, aged about 38 years, R/o.Near Auto stand, Vinayaka Nagar, Anantapur Town.

Offence : U/Ss. 498-A R/W 34 I.P.C and

Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Ss. 498-A R/W 34 I.P.C and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition act accordingly the accused A1 to A5 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A5 shall stands canceled after six months. As there is no property, hence no property order passed.

Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Proh. & Excise Court, Anantapuramu. Copies submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present:- Smt.R.M. Subhavalli,

Spl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Proh. & Excise Court, Anantapuramu

FAC Spl. Mobile Court, Aantapuramu

Wednesday, this the 26 th day of November, 2014

C.C.No.149/2013

BETWEEN:

State Rep. by. Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur Rural P.S. … Complainant.

AND

Peta Subbarayudu, 23yrs, s/o Peta Subbarayudu,

Kakkalapalli, Anantapur ... Accused.

This case coming on 21-11-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri N.C. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

Case is U/Sec.324IPC

1) The Sub-Inspector of Anantapur Rural P.S has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.138/2012 for the offence punishable Under section 324 I.P.C.

2) The brief contents of the charge sheet as follows:

The defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu is father of Peta

Lakshmanna and the accused and all his children were married and separated from his father, there is dispute ensued between accused and the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu over fetching of water to the fields of 2 accused. While so, on 17-8-12 at about 12noon the accused came to the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu and picked up quarrel with him alleging that he became hindrance to fetch water in his fields, so saying the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu and accused exchanged heated arguments and then the accused took a stick and beat the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu as a result he caused bleeding injury on left hand, M. Sreekanth and Kuturu Pennappa witnessed the offence and rescued the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu and informed the same to Peta

Lakshmanna, he rushed to the spot and witnessed the defacto complainant

Peta Subbarayudu sustained injuries in the hands of accused and took his father to Anantapur rural P.S and preferred a written complaint against the accused. Basing on the complaint of the defacto complainant Peta

Subbarayudu Sri G. Sivaramudu, S.I of police, Anantapur Rural P.S registered a case in cr.No.138/2012 u/s 324 IPC against the accused and during the course of investigation G. Sivaramudu, S.I of police recorded the statements of the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu , Peta

Lakshmanna, M. Sreekanth, Kuturu Pennappa, G. Anand Reddy and recorded their statements, and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offnece and arrested the accused on 24-8-12 and send him to

Hon’ble court for judicial remand and after receiving wound certificate of the

defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu and after completion of investigation

G. Sivaramudu S.I of police filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 324

IPC.

3) The Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence U/S 324 IPC by the learned AJFCM, Anatapuram and numbered as

C.C.1002/2012 and issued summons to him.

3

4) On appearance of the accused all relevant case records were furnished to him, as required under section 207 of Cr.PC 5] During the course of examination stage, as per the orders of the

Hon'ble Dist.& Sessions Judge, Anantapur the case was transferred to this

court and renumbered as C.C.149/2013.

6) The accused was examined Under Section 240 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him as per the charge sheet contents and a charge u/s 324 IPC is framed against the accused the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7] The prosecution examined PW.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to

P-3 on its behalf and on defence side no one examined and no documents marked on his behalf.

8) After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over and explained to him and same was denied and reported no evidence.

9) Heard both side arguments.

10) Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the accused beat the defacto complainant Peta Subbarayudu with stick or not ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused u/s 324 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11] Point Nos. 1 and 2:- The prosecution to establish its case adduced PW.1 and PW.2 evidence out of 7 listed witnesses and marked as 4 Ex.P1 to P3. The P.Lakshmanna who is the son of the defacto complainant

Peta Subbarayudu is examined as PW1, PW1 in his chief examination said that Peta Subbarayudu is his father, he is no more, and said the accused is his own brother and said he can identify his father signature and said his father signature was not in the complaint which was confronted to him and

PW1 further said since 2 years back his father sustained injury on his left hand while he fell down from bullock cart and said his father not gave any complaint against the accused but PW.1 again said he admitted his father’s signature in the complaint and his signature marked as Ex.P.1 said he does not know the contents of the complaint. PW1 is the son of defacto complainant cum injured Peta Subbarayudu, and as per charge sheet PW.1 came to know about the incident from M.Sreekanth and PW.2 and reached to the scene of offence and took his father to Anantapuramu Rural Police station and gave written complaint against the accused, but PW1 said in his chief examination that his father sustained injury on his left hand while he fell down from bullock cart but not said the reason which was mentioned in complaint of Petta Subbaryudu and PW.1 said his father not gave any complaint against the accused and he denied his earlier statement as Ex.P2.

The reason why PW1 not disclose anything against accused is known to him only.

12) On seeing pw1 evidence prosecution adduced Pw2 evidence, pw2 who is eye witness to the incident, who rescued PW1 and informed the incident to PW.1. PW2 said in his chief examination that he know the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu, PW1 is son of the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu, he is no more and said the accused is own son of the defacto 5 complainant Petta Subbarayudu and said he does not know anything about the case facts and said at the time of incident he was not there and he denied his earlier statement as Ex.P3, but prosecution fails to extract from

PW2 whether PW1 gave any complaint against accused or not and also not extracted whether accused beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu with stick and caused injuries on the defacto complaint Peta Subbarayudu hand and whether he rescued the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu or not, and prosecution also fails to extract from PW.2 whether he informed the incident to PW.1, PW.2 who is eye witness to the incident he fails to disclose the real facts before court.

13) From the evidence of pw1 and pw2 there is no proof showing that accused beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu with stick even prosecution not tried to examine M. Sreekanth, G. Ananda Reddy who are eye witnesses to the incident and rescued the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu from the hands of accused, even though they shown as witnesses in memo of evidence not adduced their evidence and simply given up their evidence.

14] Neither PW.1 nor PW.2 not supported prosecution version and there is no evidence on record showing the that accused beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu with stick, even adduced PW.2 evidence who is eye witness, he is also not supported prosecution version, if PW1 being the son of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu himself not disclosed anything against accused and also simply said that the accused never beat his father with stick, and also said that his father sustained injury on his left hand while he fell down from bullock cart. PW2 clearly said that he does not 6 know anything about the case facts and at the time of incident he was not there.

15] On seeing the hostile nature of PWs.1 and 2, prosecution given up the evidence and not choose to examine the said M. Sreekanth and G.

Ananda Reddy who are eye witnesses. The prosecution also not examined

Dr. Sydanna who examined the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and issued wound certificate and prosecution also not examined Sri G.

Sivaramudu, S.I of police who registered the case basing on the complaint defacto complaint Petta Subbarayudu Suppose, if they are examined the real incident may be revealed.

16)As per Section 324 of Indian Penal Code :

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire, or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both”.

17] The prosecution has to establish whether the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu sustained injury from the hands of accused.

As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 there is no whisper with regard to sustaining bleeding injury on his left hand, even PW.1 who is son of the 7 defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu, he himself fails to disclose the injury sustained by his father, even prosecution fails to extract through PW.1 whether his father sustained any injury on his left hand from the hands of the accused, the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu in his complaint also mentioned the accused name but prosecution not examined the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and filed his death certificate and he is abated, but U/s.32 evidence Act his complaint is relevant but PW.1 said he can identified his father signature, and in complainant his father signature was not there, but after altering Asst. Public Prosecutor witness again PW.1 identified his father signature as Ex.P.1, but PW.1 very next movement said that his father not gave any complaint against accused, but if prosecution adduce G.Sivaramudu, then the prosecution also not examined the author or scribe of the defacto complaint where PW.1 admitted his father signature as

Ex.P.1 and even prosecution not followed the modes as indicated in Sec.45 and 47 of evidence Act. but before court neither PW1 nor PW2 not disclosed the accused name even both PW.1 and accused are the own brothers, pw1 has identified the signature of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu on the complaint as Ex.P1 but fails to disclose the real incident but pw1 said that he does not know the contents of complaint, as per charge sheet the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu gave complaint to police, but before court pw2 was not disclosed whether the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu gave any complaint against accused. In the said complaint the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu clearly mentioned the name of accused and also disclosed the overt act attributed that the accused beat him with stick and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand, but before court PW.1 fails to disclose all those things which was mentioned in the 8 complaint, simply he admitted his father’s signature as Ex.P1, but PW.1 further said his father not gave any complaint against accused, and also said he does not know the contents of complaint, even PW.1 also denied his earlier statement as Ex.P.2.

18] As per sec.324 the prosecution has to establish that the accused caused the hurt voluntarily with deadly weapon, as seen from the evidence of pw1 said that the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu sustained injury when he fell down form bullock cart and PW.2 stated specifically he does not know anything about the case facts. The prosecution has to prove voluntarily causing hurt with weapon, as per charge sheet allegedly the accused beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu with stick on his left hand, but, the prosecution fails to establish that the accused beat with stick on the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and prosecution fails to prove the injury of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and also not adduced the evidence of Dr. Sydanna who treated the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu and issued wound certificate of the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu and prosecution fails to mark the wound certificate of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and the said certificate disclosed that the the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu sustained simple injury.

PW1, who is the son of the injured himself not disclosing the injury sustained by his father from the hands of accused and PW.1 said that his father sustained injury on his left hand while he fell down form bullock cart but not the reason mentioned in defacto complaint Petta Subbarayudu complainant and PW1 admitted his father signature as Ex.P1, but prosecution fails to extract from PW1 without knowing contents why his father signed on it, if

PW1 discloses the reason, then real facts will automatically came out, PW.1 9 being the son of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu who is injured, he himself excuses the acts of the accused and not disclosing the hurt which his father suffered from the hands of the accused. Even Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 also not proved by prosecution. Prosecution fails to examine any independent witnesses, nor examined Sri G. Sivaramudu who registered the written complaint of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu, and issued FIR and drafted scene of offence, rough sketch, if issuing FIR is not established by prosecution and filed the charge sheet after receipt of wound certificate of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and prosecution fails to prove the injuries of the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu sustained injuries from the hands of accused and prosecution also not examined G.

Sivaramudu, who filed charge sheet against accused is not proved and the registering the case against the accused and arrest of accused is also not established, so there is no case made out against accused. Hence, in the above facts and circumstances accused is entitled for acquittal.

19] Further u/sec.324 IPC the prosecution has to prove the weapon used by the accused, as per charge sheet the alleged accused used the stick to beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu, but prosecution fails to extract from the evidences of PW1 and PW.2. The PW.1 and 2 are the eye witness to the incident and fails to disclose the using of stick by accused, and if PW1 or PW2 can disclose anything about using of weapon then can make surmises to the nature of the said weapon, even though prosecution not disclosed with regard to seizing of the weapon in charge sheet. As per the evidences of pw1 and PW.2 there is no specific over tact attributed as alleged by prosecution on the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu by accused.

10 20] In the above facts and circumstances there is no inch of evidence proving that the accused beat the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu and in turn the defacto complainant Petta Subbarayudu sustained bleeding injury. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilty of accused committed the offence U/S.324 IPC, in turn the defacto complainant Petta

Subbarayudu sustained injury beyond all reasonable doubt.

21] In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.324 IPC and the accused is acquitted U/S 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of November, 2014.)

FAC Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Spl.Mobile Court, Anantapuramu. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined.

Prosecution Defence

PW.1: Peta Lakshmanna. Nil PW.2: Juturu Pennappa.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex:P1: Signature of Petta Subbarayudu on complaint Ex.P2: 161 Statement of PW1. Nil. Ex:P3: 161 Statement of PW2.

MOs marked on behalf of

Prosecution. Defence

Nil Nil

JFCM.

11

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPL. MOBILE COURT, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present:- Smt.R.M. Subhavalli,

Spl. Judl I Class Magistrate, Proh. & Excise Court, Anantapuramu

FAC Spl. Mobile Court, Aantapuramu

Friday, the 28 th day of November, 2014

C.C.No.59/2013

Between:-

State Reptd., by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapur Mahila P.S. … Complainant

And

1.B. Madhusudhan, 33 years, S/o. B. Obulanarayana,

2.B. Mariyamma, 52 years, w/o. B. Obulanarayana,

3.B. B. Obulanarayana, 64 years, S/o.Late Obulesu, All are in D.No.202, Sainath Apartment, Sainagar, Anantapur … Accused

This case has coming on 21-11-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P for the state and of Sri M. Guruswamy, Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

Case is U/Sec.498 (A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act 1] The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu Mahila P.S has laid charge sheet against the accused A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.38/2012 for the offence punishable U/Ss.498(A) r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

2] The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

It is a case of matrimonial offence done by the accused A1 to A3.

D. Saraswathi and Late Obulesu blessed with 3 female and one male children and the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi is 3rd issue of her parents 2 and her father died in the year 2010, the defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi studied up to M.A. The marriage of defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi was solemnized with A1 B. Madhusudhan on 23-11-2011 at

Nama Kalyanamandapam, Anantapuramu according to customs and traditions prevailing in their community before elders of Kasi

Venkatachalapathi, Dandu Obulesu and Dandu Narasimhulu and at the time of marriage on demand of A1 to A3 D.Saraswathi gave Rs.3,00,000/- and 10 tulas gold to A1 to A3 and spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards marriage expenses.

A1 has been working as Software Engineer in SYNTEL company of Chennai and earn salary of Rs.70,000/- permonth and after marriage the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi joined her matrimonial house to lead marital life with A1. That A1 is addicted to alcohol and other all bad habits and when she questioned A1 about his attitude to A1 to A3, all A1 to A3 abused her and beat her indiscriminately by saying to bear what had happened there. The defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi informed the same to D.Saraswathi, Kasi Venkatachalapathi, Danda Obulesu, Danda

Narasimhulu through phone. A1 to A3 used to torture the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi physically and mentally by stating that A1 is a Sioftware Engineer and he is getting a match of 10 lakhs dowry and

Saraswathi gave just Rs.3,00,000/- and hence the defacto complainant

Dandu Lakshmidevi should bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from her parents, otherwise A1 will give divorce to the defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi and marry again. Knowing this D.Saraswathi requested A1 to

A3 that her husband was died and she cannot give such huge amount and requested to look after the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi well, even then A1 to A3 did not change their behavior and so D.Saraswathi held panchayat in the eldership of Kasi Venkatachalapathi, Danda Obulesu, 3

Danda Narasimhulu, they suggested to the defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi that she should go to her matrimonial house by convincing A1 to A3 and as per panchayat the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi went to her matrimonial house to lead marital life. A1 did not take the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi to Chennai and he himself came to

Anantapur in holidays and A2 and A3 always left the defacto complainant

Dandu Lakshmidevi in her parents house and they go to Tarimala village.

While so, on 13-5-2012 A1 to A3 beat the defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi for additional dowry and threatened her if she will not come without additional dowry A2 and A3 will do second marriage to A1 and necked her out from their house and as there is no other alternative the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi went to D.Saraswathi’s house and told everything to her and again a panchayat was held, but A1 to A3 still told that in every panchayat before Kasi Venkatachalapathi, Danda Obulesu,

Danda Narasimhulu that they will accept the defacto complainant Dandu

Lakshmidevi only when she brought additional dowry. Mean while the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmi devi afraid of A1 to A3 attitude if she go with out dowry to their house then the complaint of the defacto complainant

Dandu Lakshmidevi, preferred complaint on 26-5-2012 at 1-00 P.M

Sri V. Rathnam, ASI of police registered a case in Cr.No.38/2012 U/S.498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P. Act, during the course of investigation V.

Rathnam, ASI of police visited Aravindanagar, Anantapur and examined the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi, Saraswathi Kasi

Venkatachalapathi, Danda Obulesu, Danda Narasimhulu and Boya Raja and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 4-6-12 at 1-30PM S. Jaffar Vali HC 394 arrested A1 at Kelambakkam street, Chennai city of Tamil Nadu state and 4 sent him to Hon’ble Court for Judicial remand. On 21-6-12 A2 and A3 got anticipatory bail from Hon’ble Family court cum Additional Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu and after completion of investigation Sri P.Raja Sub Inspector of Mahila police which filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 U/s. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP.Act.

3] The cognizance was taken against the accused A.1 to A3 for the offence under sections 498(A) r/w 34 I.P.C by the learned AJFCM,

Anantapuramu and numbered as CC.876/2012.

4] During the course of summons stage, as per the orders of the

Hon'ble Dist. & Sessions Judge, the case was transferred to this court and it

was renumbered as C.C.59/2013 5] On appearance of the accused A1 to A3, all relevant case records were furnished to them, as prescribed under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6] The accused A1 to A3 were examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them as per the charge sheet and charge U/Ss.498(A) r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A3 was framed, same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried according to law.

7] During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 and

PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

8] After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A3 examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C as there is incriminating material evidence found against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and same was read over and explained to them for which the accused A1 to A3 denied the same and reported no evidence.

9] Both sides reported, arguments taken as heard. Heard.

5 10] Now the point for determination is:

1) Whether the accused A-1 to A-3 harassed the defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi mentally and physically as enshrined in Sec.498-A IPC?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 U/s.498(A) r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS NOs.1 and 2:-

11) The prosecution to establish its case adduced PWs.1 and 2 evidence out of 9 listed witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The defacto complainant Dandu Lakshmidevi is examined as PW.1, PW1 admitted in her chief-examination that A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are her in-laws,

Saraswathi is her mother, Kasi Venkatachalapathi and Danda Obulesu are her brothers, she know Danda Narasimhulu and Boya Raja, further PW.1 said on 23-11-2011 her marriage was performed with A1 at Nama

Residency, Anantapuramu as per their customs and rites, and said she signed in complaint, but she does not know the contents but PW.1 identified her signature as Ex.P1 on complaint and said presently she is residing along with her husband happily and said she did not filed any case against A2 and

A3. To establish the harassment of A1 to A3 pw1 not disclosed anything about the harassment meted by her from the hands of accused A1 to A3, pw1 in her complaint mentioned that the A1 to A3 harassed her and demanded to bring the additional amount and harassed her physically and mentally, but before court pw1 not deposed anything against accused.

Further pw1 said she signed in complaint and identified her signature as

Ex.P1, but it is not reasonable, and pw1 also said that she does not know the contents of the said complaint, if she does not know the contents why she signed on it. Prosecution fails to extract through pw1 about the contents of complaint, pw1 who is sufferer of harassment from the hands of A1 to A3, 6 but fails to disclose the real facts before court, the reason best known to her.

12) On seeing pw1 evidence prosecution to substantiate their case adduced the pw2 evidence, pw2 who is the brother of pw1, he said in his chief-examination that PW1 is his sister, D.Saraswathi is his aunt, Danda

Obulesu is his brother and said A1 is husband of PW1, A2 and A3 are in-laws of PW1, and said he does not know anything about case facts and said he does not know whether PW1 filed any case against A1 to A3. As seen from

PW2 evidence he is also not supported prosecution version with regard to harassment of PW1 and demanding of dowry and PW2 is none other than brother of PW1 even then he fails to disclose the harassment or demand of

additional dowry amount by A1 to A3 and same was mentioned in complaint

by PW1, but PW2 also said he does not know whether PW1 gave any complaint against accused A1 to A3 and PW2 denied his earlier statement as

Ex.P3 the reason best known to him why he was deposed quite different not compare with his earlier statement as in Ex.P3 which was deposed before police, the reason best known to her.

13) On seeing hostile nature of PW1 and PW2 the prosecution given up the evidence of Saraswathi mother of PW1, Danda Obulesu, Danda

Narasimhulu, Boya Raja who are mediators for the pahchayath held by

D.Saraswathi along with PW.1 and with A1 to A3, S. Jaffar Vali who arrested the accused A1, V. Rathnam who registered case and done entire investigation and P.Raja, Sub Inspector of Police who filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

15] This is a case of harassment enshrined as Sec.498-A.

Sec.498(A) of Indian Penal Code: Husband or relatives of

husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty:

7 “whoever being the husband or the relatives of the

husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall

be punished with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to 3 years shall also be liable to fine”.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “Cruelty” means :

a] any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely

to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause of grave

injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mentally

or physically) of the woman or

b] harassment of the woman where such harassment is

with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to

meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable

security or is on account of failure by her or any person

related to her to meet such demand.

16) The ingredients of Sec.498-A are:-

1. The woman must be married

2. She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment and

3. Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband or by the relatives of husband.

17] As per Sec.498-A the prosecution has to prove the harassment meted by PW.1 from the hands of A-1 to A-3, with regard to any demand made by A-1 to A-3. But in present case on hand there is no such evidence at all. PWs.1 and 2 even did not spell out a word about harassment of PW.1 after marriage by the accused A-1 to A-3 physically and mentally demanding additional dowry. PW1 herself said that presently she is residing along with her husband happily, PW2 who is brother of PW1, even then PW2 did not disclose anything against accused and PW2 clearly said he does not know anything about case facts and he does not know whether PW1 filed any complaint against accused A1 to A3, the 8 reason best known to him. Further, there is no harassment was not established by prosecution which was done by A-1 to A-3 against PW1. PW1 who is sufferer she herself disclose that she is residing with her husband happily. PW1 also said she was not given any complaint to police, and she signed in complaint, but she does not now the contents of the compliant and if prosecution examined S. Jaffar Vali, H.C394 who arrested the A1 and V.

Rathnam, ASI of police who registered the case basing on PW1 complaint, issued FIR and done entire investigation, and PW2 said that he does not know whether PW1 gave any complaint against A1 to A3 prosecution not adduced the evidence of D.Sarswathi who is mother of PW.1, who done panchayat with the help of LW.1 to LW.6 D.Lakshmi Devi, D.Sarswathi,

K.Venkatachalapathi, D.Obulesu, D.Narasimhulu and B. Raja they also not examined by prosecution as they conducted panchayat in between PW.1 and

A1 to A3 along with D.Saraswathi. Hence there is no evidence on record to clinch the A1 to A3 u/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC purview.

18] In the above facts and circumstances the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the A-1 to A3 U/Ss.498-A r/w 34 I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt. So A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

19] In the result, the accused A-1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Ss.498(A) r/w 34 I.P.C and accordingly, A1 to A3 are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A-1 to A3 shall stands cancelled, after six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of November, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC Spl.MobileCourt, Anantapuramu.

9

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

Prosecution Defence

PW.1 : D.Lakshmidevi. None. PW.2 : K.V. Chalapathi

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW.1 on Complaint NIL Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Mos marked

NIL

JFCM.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no....

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge

Case No. :CC/0000218/2010 Ms Sreeram City union Fin Ltd Reptd by its GPA Vs M.Gangireddy

Date : 26-12-2011

Business: Accused present Judgment pronounced in open court In the result accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s 138 of NI Act and he is convicted U/s 255-2 Crpc. In the result accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and further he is directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant U/s 357-3 Crpc towards compensation will undergo further one month of simple imprisonment for the offense Us 138 of NI ACt the under gone period of remand hall be set off U/s 428 Crpc. Nature of Disposal: CONVICTED Disposal Date: 26-12-2011 Spl.JFCM Mobile for trial of cases under PCR Act Cum II Addl. Jr.Civil Judge Court Judge 1 of 130/08/24, 14:54