Sri Vinod Kumar

C.C.No.29/2015 1 Oct. 18th, 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES::

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri. Vinod Kumar Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for trying P&E offences, Machilipatnam.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No.29/2015

Between: The State, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station,

Bandar. ... Complainant

And

Peyyala Raju, S/o Paidayya, 45 years, Kapavaram Village,

Pamarru Mandal. ... Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. G.Aruna Madhuri, Learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri.K.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for accused and upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police

Station has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.420 IPC in

Cr.No.26/2010 of Inaguduru Police Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per Charge sheet is as follows:

The complainant is resident of Chennuvanipuram, Pamarru. He joined

Electrician Course in S.S.N.R.M. I.T.I for the academic year 2004-2006. For the said tenure the accused worked as Principal of the said college. His admission number is 2025. Due to mis conduct of the accused, the management of the said college expelled him as a Principal of the said college about five years back, but the accused did not revealed the same and giving colour to the innocent people as he is working as

Principal of the said college. The accused received an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the

complainant towards examination fee and term fees. The accused got admitted him in

S.S.N.R.M. I.T.I college, Chinthaguntapalem, Machilipatnam and gave study certificate. In 2006, complainant asked the accused for Hall Ticket in order to write final examination, but the accused prolonged the matter with his misleading words, the complainant went to the college in the month of January, 2010 to know the details of the college. The neighbours LW.5/Veeramachaneni Rama Mohana Rao and

LW.6/Vadapalli Balaji informed him that the college was completely closed and the

C.C.No.29/2015 2 Oct. 18th, 2016 accused was detached as a Principal of the said college. Having learnt the same the complainant went to the house of accused and asked him what about his future. The accused again mislead the complainant stated that the T.C of the complainant and attendance register of the said college are present with him and assured the complainant to send him for examination through another college but the accused failed to do so. When the complainant asked the accused to refund of the fees amount, the accused informed that he paid the said amount to I.T.I. Board. Then the complainant went to Hyderabad and enquired at the I.T.I Board and found no fees details in the name of the complainant.

On 24.1.2012 at 12.00 hours the complainant turned up to the Pamarru PS and presented a written complaint against the accused, LW.7/Abdul Nabi (S.I of Pamarru

PS) registered the same as FIR in Cr.No.17/2012 under sec.420 IPC of Pamarru PS and took up investigation in this case. Secured presence of complainant, examined him and recorded his detailed statement. After examination of LW.1/Done Vijaya

Prasad, S.I Pamarru learnt that the offence took place at Chinthagunta Palem,

Machilipatnam and he prepared a detailed report addressing to the Superintendant of

Police, Krishna requesting to transfer the case to Inaguduru PS on the point of jurisdiction. On 3.3.2012 at 12.00 hours while LW.8/K.N.V.Jaya Kumar was present in the P.S. received CD file in Cr.No.17/2012 under sec.420 IPC of Pamarru PS from the

Superintendant of Police, Krishna vide memo in C.No.392/C1/2012, dated 18.2.2012 with instructions to re-register the case and took up further investigation as per the provisions of law and inform the details through the SDPO, Bandar and CI Bandar

Town circle. As per the instructions, LW.8 registered the report as FIR in

Cr.No.26/2012 under sec.420 IPC of Inaguduru PS on 3.3.2012 at 12.00 hours.

Accused in this case obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court, AP

Hyderabad on 27.2.2012 vide Crlp.No.1986/2012. After completion of entire investigation LW.8/K.N.V.Jaya Kumar (S.I of Inaguduru PS) filed the charge sheet.

Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file by the II A.J.F.C.M Court for the offence

U/s.420 IPC against the accused and numbered as C.C.113/13.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon were furnished to him as per 207(a) of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on the substance of accusation. He denied the accusation. On a consideration of entire material on record a charge U/s.420 IPC was framed against the accused read over and explained to him

C.C.No.29/2015 3 Oct. 18th, 2016 in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble District Court,

Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.7247, dt.17.9.14 and assigned new number as

C.C.29/15.

6.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6 and

Exs.P.1 to P7 and were marked on behalf of prosecution.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. He denied the incriminating material and reported there is defence evidence on his behalf. On behalf of accused

DW.1 was examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the defence counsel.

9. The point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The prosecution has cited as many as 8 witnesses and examined 6 witnesses among them. The evidence of LW.4/Bobba Anjaneyulu and

LW.5/Veeramachaneni Rama Mohana Rao is given up by the prosecution. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and victim, Pws. 2, 3 & 4 are the circumstantial witnesses and PWs. 5 & 6 are the Investigating Officers.

11. As per the oral testimony of PW.1 he was working as watch man in 2008 at Gollapalli Sub Station, and the accused was working as Principal in S.S.N.R.M. I.T.I

College. In 2004 he approached the accused for pursuing higher education in ITC electrician course in Seelam Nageswara Rao Memorial ITI College situated at

Chintaguntapalem, Machilipatnam. There after he joined the course through the accused in 2004 and also paid fee of Rs.25,000/- to the accused in two installments.

Wherein the accused promised PW.1 that he will make him to attend final examinations of the Course, but when PW.1 approached the accused to attend final examinations in the college, the accused postponed it on one pretext or the other and did not respond properly. PW.1 himself approached the college and came to know that said ITI college was closed long back and the accused is no more the Principal of the college. But the accused gave a study certificate to the effect that PW.1 is a student of

Seelam Nageswara Rao Memorial ITI College, having no other go he gave a report to the SHO Pamarru (Ex.P.1). During the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited that he

C.C.No.29/2015 4 Oct. 18th, 2016 do not know about availability of electrician course in said S.N. Rao ITI College for the academic year 2004-2006 and it is also admitted by PW.1 that the accused was not the principal of the college but he worked as Secretary and Correspondent of S.N.Rao

ITI College.

12.PW.2 is no other than close friend and relative of PW.1 also testified on the same lines and further stated that he was an eye witness when PW.1 paid

Rs.25,000/- in three installments i.e., Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Thereafter he was told by PW.1 that accused denied issuing certificate of

ITI electrician course. PW.3 & 4 are independent witnesses declared as hostile and nothing could be elicited during their cross examination.

13.PWs.5 & 6 are investigation officers, PW.5 would say that on 24.1.2012 he received a report from PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.17/2012 at PS of

Pamarru and after recording of statements of witnesses under sec.161 Cr.P.C. he referred the FIR to the Superintendant of Police, Krishna to transfer to the concerned police station on the point of jurisdiction. PW.6 the other investigation officer who conducted almost all the investigation and filed charge sheet say that on 3.3.2012 he received C.D. file from Pamarru PS along with FIR in Cr.No.17/2012 as per the proceedings of Superintendant of Police, Krishna. Subsequently he again issued another FIR in Cr.No.26/2012 of Inaguduru PS for the offence under sec.420 IPC, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Except the oral testimony of PWs.1 & 2 he could not collect any other material.

14.DW.1 is the witness examined on behalf of the accused who is the

Principal of Government Basic Training Center, Vijayawada would say that Basic

Training Center, Vijayawada has conducted admissions for the Academic year 2004- 05 for all the Government ITI Colleges in Krishna District and for the Academic year 2004 Seelam Nageswara Rao College did not provide electrician course, only two courses were offered by the college i.e., Diesel Mechanic and Fitter, electrician course was not offered at S.N.Rao Memorial ITC College for the Academic years 2004-06. It is further stated by him that except the counseling conducted by Basic Training

Center,Vijayawada for 2004 Academic year there was no admissions for ITI and ITC course in the entire Krishna District.

15.PWs.1 & 2 and the only material witnesses who supported the case of prosecution and testified that the accused has collected Rs.25,000/- from PW.1

C.C.No.29/2015 5 Oct. 18th, 2016 pretending himself to be Principal of Seelam Nageswara Rao Memorial ITI College,

Chintaguntapalem, Machilipatnam towards tuition fee of electrician course for 2004-06

Academic year. It is the further case of PW.1 that he has paid the above amount in two installments to the accused.

16.PW.2 is the only witness who supported PW.1 to the effect that PW.1 paid Rs.25,000/- to the accused for pursuing electrician course in S.N.Rao Memorial

ITI College, Machilipatnam, he is an eye witness to the above transaction, wherein the complainant has paid Rs.25,000/- to accused in three installments Rs.10,000/-,

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Though both of them are close relatives and best friends but there is no corroboration with regard to the above alleged payments and it is admitted by both PWs.1 & 2 that except the oral say, there is no material towards payment of the above amounts to the accused.

17.The evidence of PW.1 is even inconsistent with his report (Ex.P.1) at one point of time said that accused was the Principal of S.N.Rao Memorial ITI College and again he would say that he was not the Principal but was Secretary and Correspondent of the college, and he does not even whether electrician course is offered by S.N.Rao

Memorial ITI College for the Academic year 2004-2006.

18.On the other hand the evidence of DW.1 who was the authority who conducted admissions and counseling for the Academic year 2004 in the entire

Krishna District for all the ITI and ITC colleges goes to show that there is no such course offered by S.N. Rao Memorial ITC College for 2004 Academic year, only two courses were offered by the college i.e., Diesel Mechanic and Fitter. The above evidence of Pws.1, 2 and DW.1 goes to show that there is no such course offered by the above said college for electrician course and there is no material and no corroboration between PWs.1 & 2 with regard to the payment of alleged amount to the accused towards tuition fee. Thus the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is unworthy of credit.

19. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are PWs.3 & 4 who are independent circumstantial witnesses have reciled from earlier version, were declared hostile and nothing is elicited during their cross examination. Though the evidence of Pws.5 & 6 who are the investigating officers is affirmative and in support of case of prosecution since the evidence of PW.1 itself is inconsistent and beyond the

Ex.P.1 report and the investigation conducted by PW.6 is also to the affect that no such course is offered by S.N. Rao Memorial ITC College, 2004 Academic year.

C.C.No.29/2015 6 Oct. 18th, 2016

20. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of this case, material and evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such I fine no reason to find the accused guilty of the offence under sec.420 IPC.

21. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s.420

IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and there is no order as to the disposal of case property.

Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 18th day of October, 2016. Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P&E Offences, Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the prosecution: For the defence:

PW.1Done Vijaya RaoDW.1:Y.Siva Rama Krishna PW.2G.Ramesh PW.3T.Venkateswara Rao PW.4V.B.S. Kumar PW.5Abdul Nabi PW.6K.N.V. Jaya Kumar

Documents marked on behalf of:

For the prosecution: Ex.P.1Report given by PW.1 Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4FIR in Cr.No.17/2012 Ex.P.5Proceedings of Supt. of Police, Krishna Ex.P.6Altered FIR in Cr.No.26/12 Ex.P.7Rough sketch For the Defence : Ex.D.1:Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.D.2: Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.D.3: Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

Material objects marked

-Nil- Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P&E Offences,

Machilipatnam.

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M. Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.29/2015 7 Oct. 18th, 2016

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE FOR TRYING

PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES MACHILIPATNAM.

C.C.NO. 29/2015

1Date of offence: Prior to 24.01.2012 2Date of Complainant : 22.03.2013 3Dt. of Appearance of accused : 03/06/13 4Commencement of trial: 18.06.2015 5Close of trial: 14.10.2016 6Date of Judgment: 18.10.2016 7Name of the complainant: The Sub Inspector of Police, Inaguduru police station 8Name of the accused: Peyyala Raju, S/o Paidayya, 45 years, Kapavaram Village, Pamarru Mandal. 9Offence : U/s.420 IPC 10Plea of the accused: Not Guilty 11Finding: Not Guilty

12. Result:- The accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s.420 IPC and he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and there is no order as to the disposal of case property.

13. Explanation for delay: - Originally this case was taken on file by II A.J.F.C.M. Court, Machilipatnam for the offence u/s.420 of IPC against the accused and numbered as C.C.113/13. On 3.6.13, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused. Accused was examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C on 2.6.14. There after this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Hon'ble District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.7247 dt.17.9.14 and assigned new number as 29/15. During the course of trial Pws.1 to 6 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. On 4.3.2016 accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. DW.1 examined and Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked on behalf of the accused. On 14.10.2016 heard arguments and on 18.10.2016, judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam

Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M. Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.252/2015 1 Oct. 18th , 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES ::

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri Vinod Kumar Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for trying P & E offences, Machilipatnam.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of October, 2016.

C.C.No.252 /2015

Between: The State, Rep by The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chilakalapudi Police Station. ... Complainant

And

1. Jonnala Pandurangarao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 24 years, Kapu, D.No.6-18, Naveen Mittal Colony, Machilipatnam. (Mekavanipalem President).

2. Pasupuleti Pawan Kumar @ Pawan, S/o Ram Babu, 26 years, Kapu, Naveen Mittal Colony,

Machilipatnam. ... Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna Madhuri, Learned A.P.P. for the State and M/s P.Anka Raju and T.Kesava Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Chilakalapudi filed

Charge Sheet against the accused 1 & 2 for the offences U/s.333, 332 r/w 34 I.P.C in

Cr.No.80/2015.

2. The brief case of the prosecution as per Charge sheet is as follows:

LW.1 – Matta Nagaraju is working as Jr. Line man in Electricity

Department for Manginapudi village and is also working as in-charge of Mekavanipalem,

Pothireddipalli and Tapasipudi villages of Bandar Rural Mandal. On 28.4.2015 night A.1 telephoned to him and informed that the cross arm is broken. Then LW.1 replied that he is engaged with some other work and would attend in 03 days. On that A.1 abused him in filthy language, for which he also abused A.1. At the same time besides A.1, A.2 also scolded LW.1 with unbearable language and threatened him by saying “tell us where you are?, we will come and kill you now”. LW.1 informed the same to Lws.2 & 3 (Borra

Srinivasarao and Addala Murali Mohana Krishna) through phone. Later, on 29.4.2015 morning at 6.30 a.m, both A.1 and A.2 came to his residence, shouted from outside

C.C.No.252/2015 2 Oct. 18th , 2016 saying “Ra Raa Naa Kodaka, Nee Anthu Chustam” (Come out, we will see your end).

When he came out, A.1 picked up a stick and beat LW.1 on his right leg, for which he sustained invisible injury, but felt severe pain. A.1 also beat him with hands and legs indiscriminately, for which he sustained abrasion on his right hand middle finger. A.1 &

A.2 took him to LW.7 – Panchaparvalla Kasi Viswanadha Rao (5th Ward Counselor) on their bike. When LW.1 was narrating the facts, A.2 slapped him. Meanwhile LW.2 –

Borra Srinivasa Rao came there and shifted him to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam for treatment. On 29.04.2015, on receipt of intimation from hospital, LW.9 –

B.B.Sambasiva Rao, A.S.I P.S. Chilakalapudi rushed to hospital, recorded the statement of LW.1. Basing on the intimation and statement of LW.1, LW.10 – Dadi

Chandra Sekhar, S.I of Police P.S Chilakalapudi registered FIR in Cr.No.80/2015 under

S.332 I.P.C and investigated into. LW.10 secured 07 witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene, served S.41(A)(2) Cr.P.C notices to A.1 & A.2, obtained wound certificate of

LW.1. As the injuries sustained by LW.1 is opined as grievous in nature, altered section of law and filed charge sheet against A.1 & A.2 u/s.333, 332 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.This case was taken on file by the II A.J.F.C.M Court, Machilipatnam for the offence U/s.333, 332 r/w 34 IPC against A.1 & A.2 and numbered as C.C.240/2015.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution has relied upon are furnished to them as per 207(a) of Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble

District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.7866 dt.15.10.15 and assigned a new number as C.C. 252/2015.

5.Accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on the substance of accusation.

They denied the accusation. On a consideration of entire material on record a charge

U/s.332, 333 r/w 34 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 on behalf of the prosecution.

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

Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating material. They denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

C.C.No.252/2015 3 Oct. 18th , 2016

8. Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the defence counsel.

9. The point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 & 2 for the offence punishable U/s.333, 332 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The prosecution has cited as many as 10 witnesses and examined 09 among them. The evidence of LW.4 – Chintala Tagore is given up by the prosecution.

PW.1 is the defacto complainant and victim. Pws.2, 3 & 5 are the eye witnesses, PW.4 & PW.7 are circumstantial witnesses, Pws.6, 8 & 9 are official witnesses.

11.PW.1 testifies that on 28.4.2015 he was in-charge line man of

Mekavanipalem village and his original working place is Manginapudi. On 28.4.2015 in the evening he received a phone call from A.1, who complained about power cut in their village by telephone, then he replied that he will repair it in 03 days, accused scolded him in filthy language and PW.1 also scolded the accused in the same manner. Again on the next day morning i.e., on 29.4.2015 at 6.00 a.m., both accused 1 & 2 came to his roomat Chilakalapudi centre, A.1 beat him with a stick on his leg and took him to the house of PW.4 and again A.1 scolded and A.2 slapped him. Meanwhile, PW.2 came there and took him to Government Hospital, he do not have any written proceedings to show that he was in-charge line man for Mekavanipalem village on 28.4.2015, and did not inform to his higher officials about the incident and further admit that he himself sustained an injury to his right leg on 29.4.2015 early in the morning.

12.PW.2 is senior line man who is colleague of PW.1 is a hearsay witness speaks about the telephonic conversation and about the incident said to have been happened at Chilakalapudi Centre. He would further say that there was some 'galata' at the house of PW.4, wherein, PW.1 was beaten by A.2. It is also admitted by PW.2 that he did not disclose the above incident to his higher officials and did not give any report to police.

13.Pws.3, 4 & 5 are the eyewitnesses, all of them are declared hostile and nothing is elicited during their cross examination. PW.6 is the Doctor, who examined

PW.1, would say that he sustained an injury to his right ankle. PW.7 is circumstantial witness, who came to know about the incident through PW.1.

14.PW.8 is the investigation officer who recorded the statement of PW.1 in the hospital and referred it to PW.9. PW.9 is another investigation officer, who registered the case, investigated into it and filed charge sheet, would say that he did not examine

C.C.No.252/2015 4 Oct. 18th , 2016 any witness at Chilakalapudi centre and the entries in General Diary as per FIR are made at 10.10 p.m and he did not furnish any particulars about the time, when he registered the case, when he visited the scene of offence and when he examined statements of witnesses.

15.Pws.1 & 2 are the material witnesses, who supported the case of prosecution and corroborated with each other about the alleged incident said to have been happened at the house of PW.4. Since they both are the colleagues and are interested persons, their testimony requires some other corroboration. PW.1 is the only witness about the incident said to have been happened at Chilakalapudi centre, admitt that he himself fell down from the staircase on early morning on 29.4.2015 and sustained injury to his right ankle. Thus the admission made by PW.1 itself shows that the injury sustained by him is accidental. Since there is no other corroboration for the incident said to have been happened at Chilakalapudi, the version of PW.1 cannot be believed. Though Pws.1, 2 & 7 testified to the effect that the complainant was in charge line man for Mekavanipalem village, there is no such material to that effect, the story of

PW.1 that he was in charge line man for Mekavanipalem village is also not proved, as such the incident said to have been happened at Chilakalapudi is also not proved.

16.Except Pws.1 & 2, no other independent witness supported their version on the incident said to have been happened at the house of PW.4. All the independent eyewitnesses Pws.3 to 5 & 7 are declared hostile and nothing is elicited from their cross examination. Non examination of independent witnesses takes away the credibility of

Pws.1 & 2 since they are close associates and there is no material to support their version, thus it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pws.1 & 2 alone to held the accused guilt.

17.Moreover, for the offence u/s.332 & 333, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the victim was discharging his official duties. Whereas, except the oral say of PW.1, there is no other material to the fact that PW.1 was in-charage line man of

Mekavanipalem village on 28.4.15 and 29.4.15 and that he was obstructed and was beaten by the accused while he was discharging his official duties. Since the allegation is that accused came to his house in the early morning of 29.4.2015, a line man is expected to discharge his official duties at his residence at 6.00 a.m. In the morning.

18.In the light of above material and evidence and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that PW.1 was discharging his official duties and was beaten by accused.

C.C.No.252/2015 5 Oct. 18th , 2016

19.Non corroboration of defacto complainant and eyewitnesses about the alleged incidents, absence of proof to the effect that he was in-charge lineman for

Mekavanipalem vilage and that he was discharging duties at the time of the incident.

And discrepancy in the evidence of I.O about entries of General Diary and delay in commencement of investigation are the reasons, which are fatal to the case of

Prosecution. As such, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.332, 333 r/w 34 I.P.C and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and there is no order as to the disposal of case property.

Dictated to the stenographer Gr – III, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18th day of October, 2016. Sd/. Vinod Kumar S.J.M.F.C. For trying P&E Offences, Machilipatnam. Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 – Matta Nararaju – None – PW.2 – Borra Srinivasarao PW.3 – Adapa Jayaram PW.4 – P.Kasi Viswanadharao PW.5 – Ch.Dharmarao PW.6 – Dr. B.Praburam PW.7 – A.Murali Mohana Krishna PW.8 – B.Sambasivarao PW.9 – D.Chandrasekhar

Documents marked on behalf of:

For the prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P.1Statement of PW.1 recorded by police. Ex.P.2S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.3S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P.5Wound Certificate Ex.P.6MLC intimation. Ex.P.7FIR Ex.P.8Rough Sketch

Material objects marked

– Nil – Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam. // True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M Machilipatnam

C.C.No.252/2015 6 Oct. 18th , 2016

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

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

TRYING PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES MACHILIPATNAM.

C.C.NO.252/2015

01.Date of offence:29.04.2015

02.Date of Complainant :22.06.2015

03.Dt. of appearance of accused :13.10.2015

04.Commencement of trial:10/06/16

05.Close of trial:17.10.2016

06. Date of Judgment:18.10.2016

07.Name of the complainant:The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakalapudi Police Station.

08. Name of the accused:1. Jonnala Pandurangarao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 24 years, Kapu, D.No.6-18, Naveen Mittal Colony, Machilipatnam. (Mekavanipalem President).

2. Pasupuleti Pawan Kumar @ Pawan, S/o Ram Babu, 26 years, Kapu, Naveen Mittal Colony, Machilipatnam. .

09.Offence :U/s.332, 333 IPC

10.Plea of the accused:Not Guilty

11.Finding:Not Guilty

12. Result:- The the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.332, 333 r/w 34 I.P.C and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months and there is no order as to the disposal of case property.

13. Explanation for delay:- Originally this case was taken on file by the II A.J.F.C.M. Court, Machilipatnam for the offence U/s.332, 333 IPC against the accused and numbered as C.C.240/2015. Copies of case documents furnished to the accused on 13.10.2015. Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court and assigned new number as C.C.252/15. On 10.3.16 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and commenced the trial on 10-06-2016. During the course of trial, Pws.1 to 9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.8 marked on behalf of the prosecution. None were examined and no document was marked on behalf of the accused and prosecution evidence was closed on 17.10.2016, examined the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C and also heard arguments on the same day. On 18.10.2016 Judgment was pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay. Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam. Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M Machilipatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CASES::

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri. Vinod Kumar Spl. Judl. Magistrate of I class for trying P&E offences, Machilipatnam.

Tuesday, this the 18th day of October, 2016

C.C.No. 263 /2015

BETWEEN: The State, Rep. By its Station House Officer,

Mahila Police Station. ... Complainant

And

1. Kota Naga Babu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 28 years, C/Periki, RTC Colony, 4th line, Sri Rama Apartments, Saibaba Temple Road, Vijayawada.

2. Kota Krishna Kumari, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 55 years, C/Periki, RTC Colony, 4th line, Sri Rama Apartments, Saibaba Temple Road, Vijayawada.

... Accused

This case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna Madhuri, Learned A.P.P., for the State/Complainant and Sri J.J.Nehru, Advocate for the accused; and upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by Station House Officer, P.S Mahila,

Machilipatnam filed Charge Sheet against the accused in Cr.No.12/2015 for the offence

U/ss.498(A) IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act.

2. The brief allegations of the prosecution are that marriage of LW.1 – Kota

Dhana Lakshmi Sinduja was performed with A.1 on 22.11.2012 as per Hindu Customs.

At the time of marriage, LW.2 – Angati Savithri gave an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, 10 sovereigns gold to the accused. At the time of marriage, accused induced LW.1 family that he was working as City Manager in Vodafone and waiting for job in HDFC Bank, A.2 is working as attender at Andhra Bank, Bharati Nagar Branch. LW.1 and A.1 lead marital life at the house of accused at Vijayawada. After 02 months of the marriage, A.1 & A.2 started harassment against LW.1, demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs from LW.2 and they harassed LW.1 both physically and mentally. Due to unbearable torture, LW.1 informed the matter to her mother. The elders pacified the matter and

LW.2 again gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in presence of the elders. Subsequently,

A.1 got job at HDFC Bank, since then accused demanded for divorce. Alleging that he will get more dowry as a bank employee. On 3.5.2015 at 8.00 p.m A.1 & A.2 brought

LW.1 to her parents' house at Chemmanagiripet, Bandar and demanded for divorce.

Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.10 – A.Vimala Kumari W.H.C of Mahila P.S registered

FIR in Cr.No.12/2015 u/s.498-A, S.3 & 4 of D.P Act, inspected the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, served 2

S.41(A)-2 Cr.P.C notices to the accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, the charge.

3. This case was taken on file by the II A.J.F.C.M Court, Machilipatnam for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act against the accused and numbered as

C.C.329/2015.

4.On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of all documents on which the prosecution relied upon are furnished to him as per Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court as per the proceedings of Hon’ble

District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam in Dis.No.7866, dt.15.10.15 and assigned new number as C.C.263/15 on the file of this court.

5.Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. on the substance of accusation.

They denied the accusation. On a consideration of entire material on record a charge

U/s.498-A and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 & 2 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.3.

7.As there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, the examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8. Heard arguments.

9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.498-A IPC, S.3 & 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.The prosecution has cited as many as 10 witnesses and examined 02 among them. PW.1 is the wife of accused No.1 and defacto complainant. PW.2 is mother of PW.1. The evidence of LWs.3 to 10 (Ch. Vijaya Nirmala, Ch.Suresh,

Ch.Madan, A.Veera Venkateswara Rao, M.Krishna, V.Kumari, J.Venkata Bala Sailaja @

Ammulu and A.Vimala Kumari respectively) was given up by the A.P.P.O.

11.As per the oral testimony of PWs.1 & 2, marriage of PW.1 was performed with A.1 on 22.11.2012 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Vijayawada. At the time of marriage, PW.2 gave Rs,3,00,000/- as dowry and Rs.25,000/- as Adapadachu

Lanchanam and also presented 10 soverigns of gold ornaments as Pasupu-Kunkuma latter PW.1 joined for conjugal life with A.1 at Vijayawada at her in-laws house.

3

Thereafter, some disputes arose between them and the elders conducted mediation and pacified the issues. PW.1 further deposed that Ex.P.1 is her signature which was taken by one of the elders on a white paper. PW.2 deposed that she do not know anything about the case. They did not support the case of prosecution and reciled from their earlier statements and were declared hostile by learned APPO. As such, it is of no use for no use for prosecution case.

12. The material witnesses i.e., Pws.1 & 2 are declared as hostile and the prosecution has given up the evidence of Lws.3 to 10. Non corroboration of material witnesses and non examination of other independent witnesses including the

Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13.In the light of above material and evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

14. IN THE RESULT, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s.498-A IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act. Accordingly A.1 & A.2 are acquitted U/s.248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 06 months and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18th day of October, 2016.

Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences,

Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

For the prosecution: For the defence:

PW.1Kota Dhanalakshmi Sindhuja -Nil- PW.2Angati Savithri

Documents marked on behalf of:

For the prosecution: For the defence: Ex.P.1Signature of PW.1 on the report to Police Nil Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2

Material Objects marked on both sides

- Nil -

Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam. // True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M. Machilipatnam.

4

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

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

FOR TRYING PROH. & EXCISE OFFENCES MACHILIPATNAM.

C.C.NO.263/2015

01.Date of offence:Prior to 03.05.2015

02.Date of Complaint :21.07.2015

03.Date of appearance of the accused :07/10/15

04.Commencement of trial:03/10/16

05.Closure of trial:03/10/16

06. Date of Judgment:18.10.2016

07.Name of the complainant:The Station House Office, Mahila P.S, Machilipatnam.

08.Name of the accused:1. Kota Naga Babu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 28 years, C/Periki, RTC Colony, 4th line, Sri Rama Apartments, Saibaba Temple Road, Vijayawada.

2. Kota Krishna Kumari, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 55 years, C/Periki, RTC Colony, 4th line, Sri Rama Apartments, Saibaba Temple Road, Vijayawada.

09Offence :U/s.498-A IPC, S.3 & 4 of D.P Act.

10.Plea of the accused:Not Guilty

11.Finding:Not guilty

12. Result: The accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act. Accordingly, A.1 & A.2 are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 06 months and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time.

13. Explanation for delay:- Originally this case taken cognizance by the court of II A.J.F.C.M Court, Machilipatnam against the accused for the offence u/ss. 498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P Act and numbered as C.C.329/15. On 7.10.15 case copies were furnished to the accused. Subsequently, this case was transferred to this court, as per the proceedings of the Hon'ble District Court, Machilipatnam in Dis. No.7866, dt.15-10- 15 and assigned new number as C.C.263/15. Accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C on 21.12.15. During the course of trial, Pws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.3 marked. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with on 03.10.2016, heard arguments on the same day and pronounced judgment on 18.10.2016. Hence, the delay. Sd/. Vinod Kumar Spl.J.M.F.C. For trying P & E Offences, Machilipatnam Copy submitted to:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

// True Copy //

Spl.J.F.C.M. Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRYING PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFENCES,

MACHILIPATNAM.

Dated this the 12 th day of Septeber, 2015

CC.No. 278/2014

Between:-

Sub Inspector of police Chilakalapudi P.S, Machilipatnam.. … Complainant

And

Amrutha Srinivasa Rao ... Accused

O R D E R

Defacto complainant accused 1 to 3 and their counsel present defacto complainant is identified by P.C. 2086 of chilakalapudi, P.S. Matter is settled before Lok-Adalat. The offence U/sec.324 and 323 r/w 34 IPC is compounded and the accused is acquitted U/sec.320(8)of Cr.P.C for the above said offence. Accordingly an Award is passed.

Spl.J.M.F.C. For Trying P & E Offences,

Machilipatnam.