VACANT FAC,V.Sreenivasulu,ASCJ

1

In the court of the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

Present: Sri V.Sreenivasulu, Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Anantapur (FAC) Gooty

Saturday, this the 4thday of March, 2017

S.C.No.503/2014

1. Name of the Complainant : State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police Guntakal I town P.S.,

2. Description of the accused :1.Boya Masthan, 22yrs, s/o Boya Lakshmanna, D.No.27/339-B, behind Hamali office, Guntakal 2.Shaik Usman s/o Muthuza, 21yrs D.No.14/332, 'alur road, CITU colony, Guntakal 3.Gadwal Murali s/o Malesu, 21yrs, D.No.9/261, Ramireddi colony, Guntakal

3. Offences : U/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 IPC

4. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge : Not found guilty

6. Sentence or order: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences charged u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. Police station and Cr.No.:Cr.No.117/2014 Guntakal I town PS

This is a case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Addl. P. P. for prosecution and of Sri T. Dhanunjaya, advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

2

1. The Sub -Inspector of Police, Guntakal I town PS laid a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.117/2014 for the offences u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 alleging that on 6-6-14 at 0-30am PW1 gave complaint stating that PW2 who went to Sha Info Tech Computer center, by the side of Andhra Bank, Guntakal on 5-4-14 at 12-30pm to attend her class found missing. On a complainant given by PW.1 a case was registered under Girl Missing and investigated into. On 6-6-14 while LW6 and LW7 were patrolling in the town heard the cries of victim behind the SJP High school at 2-15am and found A1 to A4 running away leaving PW2 in auto bearing Nmo.AP02 UA T/R 2140. On enquiry PW2 revealed that on 5-4- 14 at 2-30pm when PW2 came out form the computer center, A1, A3 and

A4 and Juvenile delinquent(A2) way laid with the auto of A2 and forcibly dragged PW2 into the auto and took her to lonely place situated near

Shiridi Sai Baba temple at Alur road, Gutnakal and A1 forced to marry

PW2 and when she rejected, A1 slapped her, at about 2am A1 brought

PW2 in the auto to the ground situated behind SJP High school, Guntakal and forced to marry him and threatened with dire consequences and due to fear PW2 raised cries. Then L<W6 and 7 rushed there and the accused ran away. LW11 altered section of law to 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 IPC and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed.

2.After filing of the charge sheet the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Guntakal has taken the case on file for the offences punishable u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 against the accused and numbered the same as PRC No.21/2014.

3. When the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the

Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as 3 contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the PRC 21/2014 as

Sessions Case No.503/2014 and made over the same to the Assistant

Sessions Judge's Court, Gooty for trial.

4.When the accused appeared before the court of Assistant

Sessions Judge, Gooty, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C

and charges have been framed for the offences under section u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 against the accused, and read over the content of the charges and explained the same in Telugu to the accused. Then the accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, totally four witnesses are examined as

PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked.

6.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were not examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C as there is no any incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence the examination of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides and also verified the entire case records with relevant documents.

9.The points for determination is:-

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence charged u/s. u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 beyond all the reasonable doubts?

10.Point:The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the 4 prosecution argued that, PW.s 1 and 2 being the prosecution witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution as all the material witnesses turned hostile.

11. The learned counsel for defence argued that there are number of contradictions among all the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of

PW1 and 2 are contradictory and there is no corroboration among all the prosecution witnesses, all the material witnesses are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, hence prosecution given up the evidence of the medical officer and investigation officer. Accordingly prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences against the accused u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 IPC

12.PW.1 is the complainant, PW2 is the victim. Both the witnesses viz., Pws1 and 2 clearly deposed that the accused never kidnapped PW2 and threatened her with dire consequences to marry A1.

Police obtained the signature of PW1 in a white paper and prepared a complaint. PW1 do not know the contents of the complaint and Pws1 and 2 did not state anything against the accused as A1 to A3 kidnapped

PW2 with an intent to perform marriage of A1 with PW2 and threatened

PW2 with dire consequences and they are responsible for kidnap of PW2.

Pw1 stated that about 2years back his daughter PW2 went to Anantapur to her relatives house without informing them and he scolded her for not studying well and she came back after 2 days. He orally informed to polcie about missing of PW2. As such PW.s 1 and 2 not deposed anything against the accused and not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 are contradictory with their 161 Cr.P.C. Statements. As Pws1 and 2 being the material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution and not deposed anything against the accused, the evidence of the medical officer and the investigating 5 officer is given up by the prosecution.

13.In the above said circumstances, and in the light of the evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the offences against the accused u/s u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no appreciation in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in view of the proviso u/s 3 of Indian Evidence

Act. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

14.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 323, 342, 366, 506 r/w 34 and they are acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of March, 2017

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, ANANTAPUR (FAC) Gooty.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence: PW 1: N. NeelavathiNone PW 2: Peddanna

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2

Exhibits marked for the defence: Nil 6

M.Os. Marked:

Nil

A.A.S.J.

FAC ASJ

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE NO.20 of 16

1.Name of the complainantS.H.O. Tadipatri town, Cr.No. 371/2015 and Crime No.

2.Name of the accusedTalari Sivaiah @ Ulligadda Sivaiah @ Sivaiah s/o Late Naganna, 32yrs, SC colony, Nandalapadu area, Tadipatri town.

3.Date of Offence21-10-15

4.Date of complaint21-10-15

5.Date of apprehension of30-10-15 accused

6.Date of release on bail10/12/15

7.Date of committal11-12-15

8.Date of commencement of25-11-16 trial

9.Date of close of trial27-1-17

10.Date of sentence of order10-2-17

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 27-11-15 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.68/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taditri and posted to 13-11-15 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished on 27-11-15 and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 22-4-15 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted to 9-9-16 for trial. On 25-11-16 trial was commenced and closed on 27-1-17, and after completion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C dispensed with as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 10-2-17.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 307 of IPC and he is acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur (FAC) ASJ Gooty.

1

In the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gooty

Present: Sri V.Sreenivasulu, Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Anantapur (FAC) Gooty

Saturday, this the 4thday of March, 2017

S.C.No.297/2015

1. Name of the Complainant : State, rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police Peddavaduguru P.S.,

2. Description of the accused :1.Dudekula Abdulla @ Tulasi s/o Akbar, 25yrs, 2.Vanamala Penna Obulesu @ Lakshmi, s/o V. Ramanjineyulu 22yrs, 3.Mekala Basha s/o Mekala Dasthagiri, 30yrs, 4.Sake Nallappa s/o S. Nallappa, 23yrs, 5.Giddappagari Subbarayudu, 23yrs s/o G. Chinna Nallappa, 6.Vadde Ramu s/o V. Damodar, 24yrs, All are of Marthadu village, Garladinne Mandal

3. Offences : U/s 395 IPC

4. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge : Not found guilty

6. Sentence or order: In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences charged u/s 395 IPC and they are acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso contemplated u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. Police station and Cr.No.:Cr.No.118/2015, Peddavaduguru P.S.

This is a case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Addl. P. P. for prosecution and of Sri R. Ramgopal, advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub -Inspector of Police, Peddavadurugu PS laid a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.118/2014 for the offence u/s 395 of IPC alleging that PW1 resident of Banglore working as driver of lorry bearing

No.KA13-A-7742. On 11-8-14 at about 8-00pm PW1 left Hyderabad with plastic roles load to Banglore and on the way on 12-8-14 at about 5- 00am on NH 44 road near Dashmesh Punjabi Dhaba A1 and A2 wearing sarees gave signals to the lorry drivers with torch light and PW1 stopped the lorry and then A1 and A2 went to PW1 and then A3 to A6 came from back of PW1 and caught him tightly and all of them beat PW1 with hands and legs and robbed cash of Rs.1600/- and fled away. On a complainant given by PW.1 a case was registered and investigated into and after completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed.

2.After filing of the charge sheet the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Gooty, has taken the case on file for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC against the accused and numbered the same as PRC

No.28/2014.

3. When the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the PRC 28/2014 as

Sessions Case No.297/2015 and made over the same to the Assistant

Sessions Judge's Court, Gooty for trial.

4.When the accused appeared before the court of Assistant

Sessions Judge, Gooty, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C

and charge has been framed for the offence under section 395 of IPC 3 against the accused, and read over the contents of the charge and explained the same in Telugu to the accused. Then the accused pleaded not guilty of the charge and denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, totally three witnesses are examined as

PW.1 to PW.3 and Exs.P1 to P4 are marked.

6.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the accused.

7.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was not examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C as there is no any incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, hence the examination of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard the arguments on both sides and also verified the entire case records with relevant documents.

9.The points for determination is:-

Whether prosecution is able to bring home the guilty of the accused for the offence charged u/s. 395 of IPC beyond all the reasonable doubts?

10.Point:The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that, PW.s 1 to 3 being the prosecution witnesses are not supported the case of prosecution as all the material witnesses turned hostile.

11. The learned counsel for defence argued that there are number of contradictions among all the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of

PW1 to 3 are contradictory and there is no corroboration among all the prosecution witnesses, all the material witnesses are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, hence the prosecution given up the evidence of the medical officer and investigation officer. Accordingly 4 prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused u/s 395 of IPC.

12.PW.1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the mahazar witnesses. PW1 clearly deposed that about 2yrs back while he was going to Banglore to Hyderabad in a lorry with plastic rolls and reached to Gooty highway, some unknown persons stopped hs lorry and robbed a sum of Rs.1600/-. He gave complaint to police and after 2 months of the incident police called him and shown the photos of 3 persons and he identified 3 persons, but he cannot identify the persons who robbed the amount form him. Pws2 and 3 mahazar witnesses clearly deposed that at the request of C.I of police on 12-8-14 they went to police station and put their signatures in arrest seizure mahazar, and police not arrested anybody and not seized cash and clothes of any persons and they stated that they do not know the contents of the mahazar. Pws1 to 3 did not state anything against the accused as the accused robbed PW1. As such PW.s 1 to 3 not deposed anything against the accused and not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of Pws. 1 to e are contradictory with their 161 Cr.P.C.

Statements. As Pws1 to 3 being the material witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution and not deposed anything against the accused, the evidence of the investigating officer is given up by the prosecution.

13.In the above said circumstances, and in the light of the evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the offence against the accused u/s 395 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no appreciation in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in view of the proviso u/s 3 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

14.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence u/s 5 395 of IPC and they are acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 4th day of March, 2017

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, ANANTAPUR (FAC) Gooty.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence: PW 1: H.N. Kumaraswamy None PW 2: B. Sekhar Reddy PW.3: M. Abubakar

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2 in seizure mahazar Ex.P4: Signature of PW.3 in seizure mahazar

Exhibits marked for the defence: Nil

M.Os. Marked:

Nil

A.A.S.J.

FAC ASJ

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE NO.191 of 15

1.Name of the complainantS.H.O. Guntakal, Cr.No. 23/2015 and Crime No.

2.Name of the accusedDonekal Rudrappa, 40yrs, s/o Late Parashappa, D.No.6/619-44, Kothakottala, Guntakal town.

3.Date of Offence21-3-15

4.Date of complaint21-3-15

5.Date of apprehension of23-3-15 accused

6.Date of release on bail--

7.Date of committal6-4-15

8.Date of commencement of16-12-17 trial

9.Date of close of trial23-12-16

10.Date of sentence of order17-2-17

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 6-4-15 this case was taken on file and numbered as P.R.C.2/2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal and posted to 6-4-15 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished on 6-4-15-15 and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapur.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 22-4-15 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of accused after framing charges this case was posted to 12-1-16 for trial. On 16-12-16 trial was commenced and closed on 23-12-16, and after completion of prosecution evidence, examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C dispensed with as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments. Judgment pronounced on 17-2-17.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences u/s 324, 307 of IPC and he is acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months in view of the proviso u/s 437-A of Cr.P.C., The unmarked case property if any is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapur (FAC) ASJ Gooty.

A1 and A2 called present. On verification of the evidence ofthe prosecution witnesses it is observed that, there is no any incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to conduct the examination U.sec313 Cr.P.C. against the accused. Hence the examinationU.sec 313 of arguments and also verified the entire case records with relevant documents. Judgment pronounced (VSJ) In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence charged 498-A,306 r/w 34 IPC and sec 3 and 4of DP Act beyond all the reasonable doubts and they are acquitted U.sec 232 of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any, is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

1

Heard and verified the evidence of PW1 and alsoEx.A1 and A2. In the result the suit is decreed with costs as prayed and defendants are directed to divide the suit schedule property into three equal shares and to allot such 1/3rd share to the plaintiffs and1/3rd share to D3 to D5 and the remainder 1/3rdshare to defendants No.1 ,2,6 and 7 in the suit schedule property within two months, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get divide the suit schedule property as prayed for through the court and through the process of law.

The plaintiff present and examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A3 marked. Heard and verified the records. In the circumstances the suit is decreed for a Sum of Rs.5,54,867/- with costs as prayed for. Butthe subsequent interest shall be paid at the rate of 6p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of realization only on the principle amount ofRs.3,50,000/- .