Y.Parusuram

1 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT:RAJAHMUNDRY

Present : SRI Y.PARUSURAM V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE.

Thursday, the 28th day of December, 2017.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.141/2016

From which Court, this appealIII Addl. Judicial First Class is preferredMagistrate, Rajamahendravaram

Number of case in that Court:C.C.No.53/2015

Date of Judgement in lower court : 03.03.2016

Name and description of Palli Tammayyanaidu, Appellant: S/O Atchi Tammayyanaidu, A/44 years,C/KoppulaVelama, D.No.42-9-32, Near Railway gate, Kothapeta, Rajamahendravaram.

Name and description State SHO III Town P.S. Respondent: Rajamahendravaram represented by its Public Prosecutor.

The Sentence and law under Accused is convicted U/Sec. which it was imposed:248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.353 of Indian Penal Code. Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- IDSI for 6 months. Whether confirmed, reversed or modified. If modified, the

REVERSED

modification:

DATE ON WHICH :

Presentation of appeal 21.03.2016

Filing 21.03.2016

Hearing 28.12.2017

Judgment 28.12.2017 2 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

This Criminal Appeal coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S S Prakasha Rao, advocate for Appellant, and learned APP for respondent, upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Palli Thammayyanaidu, the appellant herein is the sole accused in

CC No.53/2015 on the file of Court of III Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Rajahmundry. The offence alleged against the appellant is

under Sec.353 of Indian Penal Code (herein after refered as "IPC")

2.The brief averments of the prosecution case are that : On 24.10.2014 as per the orders of Sub Collector, Rajahmundry regarding illegal quarrying of sand from Kotilingala ghat Rajahmundry, P.W.1, Pindi

Veera Venkata Gopala Krishna, Tahsildar cum Mandal Executive Magistrate,

Rajahmundry urban along with staff i.e., P.W.2 Goluguri Bapiraju, L.W.3

Vasamsetti Srinivasa Rao, L.W.4 Munjuluri Satyananda Venkata

Subrahmanyam, P.W.3 Kontipudi Subbarao, L.W.6 Karri Raju, L.W.7 Md.

Madeena L.W.8 Basha, P.W.4 Randhi Seshu, P.W.5 P.Krishna, P.W.6 Addanki

Adinarayana, L.W.11 Boora Apparao, Civil Contractor went to Kotilingala

Ghat and found six motor boats used for illegal quarrying of sand. Accused who is a civil contractor of Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry went there and high handedly obstructed the complainant (P.W.1) abused him in filthy language stating that as to who is they to do all these things, forcibly obstructed the lorries which were transporting the seized sand from the scene and deterred LW.1 Pindi Veera Venkata Gopala Krishna from discharging his legitimate duty. Basing on the complaint given by P.W.1

Gopala Krishna, P.W.7 SI of police, III Town L & O PS Rajahmundry registered a case in Cr.No.545/2014 under section 353 of IPC and 3 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 investigated into.

On 24.10.2014 at 6.30 a.m. accused was arrested in front of

Municipal Corporation office, Rajahmundry and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance was taken by the trial court for the offence punishable u/s 353 IPC against the accused. On furnishing of copies to him, accused was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the accusation levelled agaisnt him.

4.During trial, prosecution to substantiate its case, examined

P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P3. Accused denied the incriminating material found against him on record during examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence.

5.The learned Magistrate settled the following point for determination:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC beyond all reaonsable doubt or not ?

6.Upon hearing on both sides and considering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty for the offence punishbale u/s 353 of IPC and sentenced him to under go simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months.

7.The above order of conviction and sentence is assailed by way of this appeal by the accused.

Grounds of appeal in brief :-

1) The trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant on the ground that there are lot of discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.s 3 to 7 ;

2) The trial court failed to take into consideration as to author of Ex.P1 report, through whom the same was sent to the Investigation officer and who registered the FIR ; 4 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

3) The trial court failed to observe as to when and where P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined ;

4) The trial court failed to observe the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 with regard to the place of offence ;

5) The trial also failed to observe as to whether police were present at the scene of offence, and if so, basing on the complaint, police ought to have arrested the accused ;

6) The trial court failed to take into consideration that no independent witness was examined by the Investigation officer though the alleged offence was taken place in open place and during day time.

7) The trial court failed to take into consideration that the Investigation officer even did not examine any lorry drivers who alleged to have been obstructed the appellant in loading the sand which shows the falsity of the case.

8) The trial court failed to observe that admittedly P.Ws.1 to 6 are strangers to the appellant and even their statements does not disclsoe the identity particulars of the appellant and even their statements do not disclose that they can identify the appellant and admittedly no identification parade was conducted.

9) The trial court failed to observe that no ‘alibi’ plea was taken by the appellant/accused and did not consider the defence taken by the accused.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Upon perusal of judgment of the trial court, evidence and other material on record, the point that falls for determination is :

whether the judgment of the trial court in CC No.53/2015 dt.03.03.2016 is liable to be set aside?

10. POINT :

For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court to avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, the parties in this appeal hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Calendar case

before trial court i.e., prosecution and accused.

5 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

11.The main case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. at Kotilingala ghat, accused deterred P.W.1 (L.W.1) Pindi

Veera Venkata Gopala Krishna from discharging his official duties, abused him in filthy language and behaved highhandedly.

12. On the other hand, the contention of the accused, as per his statement during examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that on the alleged date of offence he was present at Municipal Office in connection with his pending bills and he was called to Police station and he was arrested there.

13.In trial court, prosecution out of listed witness L.Ws.1 to 12, examined Pindi Veera Venkata Gopala Krishna Tahsildar and defacto compalinant as P.W.1, Goluguri Bapiraju, Deputy Tahsildar as P.W.2,

Kontipudi Subbarao, AD Vigilance as P.W.3, Randhi Sehsu, VRO,

Rajahmundry Urban as P.W.4, Pulimetla Krishna, VRO, Rajahmudnry urban as P.W.5, Addanki Adinarayana, VRO, Rajahmundry Urban as P.W.6 and

Investigation officer, SI of police III Town L & O PS as P.W.7. No oral or documentaruy evidence is adduced by the accused. Remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution.

14.As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he categorically stated that on 24.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. on the directions of Sub

Collector Rajahmundry he along with VROs, Senior Assistant Manideep,

Office Superintendent Bapiraju and Vigilance Subbarao and AD Fisheries went to Kotiligala Revu and by the time they reached Kotlingala revu, they noticed some bags of sand made ready for transportation illegally. They also caught hold of 6 mechanised boats containig sand load. They seized all the 6 boats. Then they heard some cries on the bund. Immediately he went to the bund and noticed one person. On enquiry he disclosed his 6 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 identity particualrs as that of accused and that he was contractor dealing with works of Rajahmundry Muncipal Corporation. Later, when he was taking proceedings for handing over the seized bags to Government works, accused approached him questioned him about his proceedings, abused him, questioned his authority and used unparliamentary langauge.

Accused stopped lorries and thereby obstructed him in discharging his official duties. He reported the matter to III Town Station House Officer and Ex.P1 is his report.

15.During cross examination, he stated that on his dictation, their

Deputy Tahsildar, M.Bapiraju drafted Ex.P1 report at the spot i.e.,

Kotilingalapeta, Rajahmundry. He noticed some lorries were parked on

Godavari bund near Pandiri Mahadevudu satram. None of the lorry drivers complained before him stating that the accused has been stopping their lorries. He has not filed any document to show that he received orders from Sub Collector, Rajahmundry. While the incident taken place, none of the police officers were present. Police came to the scene at about 11.00 a.m. Being an Executive Magistrate, he did not order the concerned police to arrest the accused. According to him accused is present at the scene during 11.30 a.m. It is true that, he is the complainant as well the person who remanded the accused to the judicial custody. He denied the suggestion that accused being a Municipal contractor is entitled to receive the seized sand.

16.P.W.2 G.Bapiraju, Deputy Tahsildar Civil Supplies deposed that on 24.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. he along with P.W.1 and other staff members went to Kotilingalarevu on information about illegal transportation of sand in the boats. While he was noting down particulars of owners of boats, he heard some cries and approached P.W.1 and he 7 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 noticed a verbal exchange between P.W.1 and accused. P.W.1 stated that he has to allot the sand for Government works, but meanwhile accused obstructed P.W.1 and demanded him to allot the sand without priority basis. When P.W.1 expressed his inability to allot the sand, he used filthy language against P.W.1 and prevented him from discharging his official duties. Later police came and P.W.1 presented report.

17.In cross examination, he stated that except his oral saying there is no documentary proof showing his duty on that day. About 60 to 70 members gathered at the time of the incident. Police stayed at the spot till 2.00 p.m. but accused stayed upto 12 noon. He denied the suggestion that he was speaking falsehood at the instance of P.W.1.

18.P.W.3 K.Subbarao, Asst. Director of Mines and Minerals

Department deposed that on 24.10.2014 at 10.00 a.m. near

Kotilingalapeta, Rajahmundry, he received some instructions from Sub

Collector, Rajahmundry and he along with staff accompanied MRO Urban,

Fisheries AD and another MRO proceeded to Kotilingalarevu, Rajahmundry and reached there at about 10.00 a.m. They noticed some sand was stalled for distribution and subsequent to seizure of the Engine boats, diverted the sand to utilise the same to Government works. During said proceedings, one person Thammayya naidu, obstructed P.W.1 from attending his offical duties and interrupted for a period of half an hour and later left the place.

19.During his cross examination, he deposed that offence took place betwen 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. He along with other VROs remained at the scene till 5-00 p.m. Accused did not obstruct him individually to perform his official duties. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false with a view to help P.W.1.

8 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

20.P.W.4 Randi Seshu, VRO Lalacheruvu deposed that on 24.10.2014 at about 10.00 a.m. their department received information that some persons illegally transporting the sand and then their MRO accompanied by staff members proceeded to Kotilingalarevu, seized the engine boats on which sand is illegally transporting. While they are attending the same work, one person by name Thammayya naidu, approached them abused them in filthy language stating that he saw so many officers like them and interfered and obstructed their work for a period of half an hour and later went away.

21.During cross examination he stated that he has not filed any document to show that on 24.10.2014 he attended his duties. Incident took place at about 11.00 a.m. Their MRO stood on the bund. He do not know about the details of the incident which was occurred on the bund, since he was at Kotilingalarevu. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing false.

22. P.W.5 P.Krishna, VRO, Rajahmundry deposed that on 24.10.2014 as per the orders of their collector, they proceeded to

Kotilingalarevu where they found engine boats which are selling sand illegally. They seized the said boats. Their MRO was making effort to load the sand into lorries with a view to transport the same to government works. Then accused went there and in loud voice stated that “whether he know him?” and abused in filthy language and caused interference to their legitimate duties.

23.During cross examination he stated that there is documentary evidence to show that after receiving orders from Sub Collector they conducted raid. At that time he was at river bank and MRO was at

Godavari bund. Public gathered at the time of occurrence. He denied the 9 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of P.W.1, who is their superior.

24.P.W.6 A.Adinarayana, VRO Rajahmudnry deposed that on 24.10.2014 on receiving phone call from MRO, to come to

Kotilingalararevu, he along with other VROs went there by 10.00 a.m. and seized Enigne boats When their MRO making efforts to transport the sand seized, he was on Godavari bund, he noticed some dispute and went to their MRO, and noticed the acused was shouting in loud voice questioning him, “ who sent all of them and whether he know him ?” Thereafter their

MRO submitted written report to concerned police.

25.During cross examination, he stated that there is no recorded evidence available in their office to show that on 24.10.2014 he was on duty at Kotilingalarevu. The distance between place where they are attending duties and where the alleged offence took place is about 100 meters and they have not personally witnessed the said incident. P.W.1 sent report through their RI by name Manideep. Police persoonel are available at the scene from beginning of their raid. At the time of incident about 200 persons gathered there. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing fasle.

26.P.W.7 V Sampath, SI of police III Town PS deposed that on 24.10.2014 at about 3.00 p.m. while he was attending his duties in the police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a written report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.545/2014 for the offence punishable u/s 353 IPC Through this witnes FIR is marked as Ex.P2.

Later he examined witnesses observed the scene of offence and on the same day at 6.30 p.m he arrested accused and since accused complained stomach pain, he sent him to Government hopsital Rajahmundry. On 10 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

26.During cross examination he stated that P.W.1 sent Ex.P1 through his staff member but he has not noted the details of staff member. He has not examined the said staff member. On the said date, he was on bandobust duty at Kotilingalarevu from 8.00 a.m.to 2.00 p.m.

but he was not present at the scene of offence. It is true that none of the 11 witneses stated before him that they can identify the accused and they know the accused and that they did not give descriptive particulars of the accused. Subsequent to the arrest, he did not conduct test identification pararde. Accused was produced before P.W.1 and sent him to judicial custody. He denied the suggestion that no offence took palce and no notice under section 41 Cr.P.C. was served on the accused. Further he denied the suggestion that accused gave complaint to ACB authorites against Y.Siva Sankarararo, examiner of Municipal corporation, as such employees of the Municipal Corporation colluded and got filed false case through P.W.1. Rough sketch prepared by the P.W.7 is marked as Ex.P3.

27.As could be seen from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, this court is of the opinion that there are many discripancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, who are said to be direct witnesses to the incident. As per P.W.1, on his dictation P.W.2 drafted report at Kotilingala Ghat. Offence took place at Kotilingala revu after 10.00 .m. and accused was present at scene by 11.30 a.m. and police arrived to the scene of offence at 11.00 a.m. It is unexplained as to what prevented him from complaining to police about the offence, take their help and to give instructions for apprehending the accused, if it is true that accused was present at the scene of offence.

11 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

28.Further P.W.2 stated that on hearing cries, he apprached P.W.1 who was standing on bund. P.W.1 presented a report. About 60 to 70 persons gathered at the scene of offence. No where he deposed that he drafted Ex.P1 report on the dictation of P.W.1. He further deposed that police stayted at the spot till 2.00 p.m. Accused stayed upto 12 noon. But none complained about accused to police, if the prescne of accused at the scene of offence is true.

29.P.W.3 deposed that accused caused interruption to the

Government officials who are attending their duties. So, according to him, accused obstructed other officials too, but they failed to complain against the accused. But in cross examination, he stated that accused did not obstruct him.

30.P.W.4 deposed that at about 10.00 a.m. he received information and they reached Kotilingalarevu at 10.00 a.m. There is no whisper about the time of incident He stated the words used by the accused that “ he saw so many officers like them” which statement was not supported or deposed by other witnesses. In cross examiantion he stated that incident took place at 11.00 am. SI of police sampath came to the scene at 12.00 p.m. Further P.W.4 deposed that accused abused in loud voice and asked “whether he know him “ In cross examiantion he stated that he was present at river bank and their MRO was at Godavari bund at the time of incident. Then it creates doubt about listening of words uttered by the accsued by the witness, even though accused shouted loudly.

31.P.W.6 in his evidence stated that accused in loud voice shouted that as to “who sent all of them and whether he know as to who he is ?”

But in the cross examination he stated that distance between the place 12 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 where they were attending their duteis and the alleged place of offence is about 100 meters and that he did not personally witnesed the said incident. Further police personnel are present during raid.

32.P.W.7 in chief examination stated that P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a report, where as in cross examiantion he stated that Ex.P1 was brought by some official., but he failed to give reasons, why he has not examined the said person. Moreover, he stated that he was at bondobust duty till 2.00 p.m.at the place of offence only i.e., Kotilingala revu, but it is peculiar to observe that he has not witnessed the incident which according to prosecution took place for about half an hour. What prevented the police officals to apprehend the acused, who is creating obstruction to the Government officials from discharging their duties and disturbed the peace by shouting loudly and caused public gathering.

33.Further it is pertinent to note that almost all P.Ws.1 to 6 deposed that they seized 6 engine/motor boats at the place of offence.

There are no details about the driver of the boats or owner of the boats and none of them were examined. Similarly all witneses deposed that there are some lorries on the bund and during the alleged incident, MRO was present at the bund only. Even accused obstructed the lorries from moving, but none of the lorry drivers were examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

34.There is no explanation from the prosecution as to why no other independent witness was examined during investigation, and listed witnesses are all offical witnesses.

35.The complaint against accused was given by P.W.1. Even accused was remanded by P.W.1, which is against to the principles of natural justice.

13 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017

36.The trial court concluded that as there is no enemity between the complainant and accused, there is no need for them to depose agaisnt the accused, but failed to take into consideration about the defence pleaded by the accused and suggestions given to the witnesses about his complaint given to ACB against the staff member of the Municipal

Corporation.

37.In view of my above discussion, this court found that there are descripancies with regard to the author of the Ex.P1 complaint, place of offence, time of offence, presence of public persons gathered, lorries etc..

When there is no indepenent evidence and the availabel evidence is that of offical and interested witnesses, the Trial court should be very careful while appreciating the evidence. Inspite of so many discripaices, trial court concluded that accused deterred P.w.1 from discharging his officai duties and convicted the accused which is not correct. More over there is no evidence on record that P.W.1 and other witnesses were present at

Kotilingalarevu /kotilingalaghat, Rajahmundry in discharging their official duties. Offence did not take place at the office of P.W.1, but out side the office and there are no written proceedings to him to visit the alleged place of offence to discharge his allotted duty.

38. Therefore, considering the material contradictions from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, , this court is of the opinion that the

Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and did not properly appreciate the evidence and convicted the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

39. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the

Judgment passed by the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class,

Rajamahendravaram in CC No.53/2015, on 03.03.2016. The accused is 14 C.A 141 of 2016, Dt.28.12.2017 herey acquitted u/s 255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 353 of IPC.

The bail bonds of the accused and suriteis, if any, shall be in force for a further period of six months. Fine amount if any, paid by the accused is ordered to be returned, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28th day of December 2017

V Addl.Sessions Judge Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

nil.

V Addl.Sessions Judge Rajamahendravaram

Copy to:

1. Copy submitted to the Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

2. Copy to the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry

3. Copy to the III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajamahendravaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE :: EAST GODAVARI,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

PRESENT: SRI Y.Parusuram, V Addl. Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 14th day of December 2017

C.R.P.No.37/2017

Between: Kosanam Kranthi Kumar, S/o late Prakasha Rao, Hindu, A/32 years, D.No.4-133, Stickering works, Near Gowri devi temple street, Pedapudi village cum Mandal.… Revision Petitioner/ Respondent.

And

1) Kosanam Apsara, W/o Kranthi Kumar, S/o Late Prakasha Rao, Hindu, A/32 years, D.No.4-133, stickering works near Gowri Devi temple street, Pedapudi village cum mandal,

2) Kosanam Geetha Gayathri, D/O Kranthi Kumar, Hindu, A/6 years, C/O Sri Raaghava Engineering works Kakinada Road, Ramachandrapuram. … Respondents.

Revision Petition is filed against the order dt.31.01.2017 in M.C. No.1/2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram.

Between:

1) Kosanam Apsara, W/o Kranthi Kumar, S/o Late Prakasha Rao, Hindu, A/32 years, D.No.4-133, stickering works near Gowri Devi temple street, Pedapudi village cum mandal,

2) Kosanam Geetha Gayathri, D/O Kranthi Kumar, Hindu, A/6 years, C/O Sri Raaghava Engineering workdds Kakinada Road, Ramachandrapuram.… Petitioners.

And

Kosanam Kranthi Kumar, S/o late Prakasha Rao, Hindu, A/32 years, D.No.4-133, Stickering works, Near Gowri devi temple street, Pedapudi village cum Mandal. … Respondent.

This revision petition coming for final hearing before me on this day, in the presence of Sri G.Mohana Vamsi, Advocate for the revision petitioner, and Sri K.Bharat Kumar, advocate for the respondents, upon perusing grounds of Revision and other material available on record, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and this matter having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

2

O R D E R

This Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after refered as Cr.P.C.) against the orders dt.31.01.2017 passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ramachandrapuram in M.C. No.1/2016.

For the sake of convenience and for better appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial court to avoid unnecessary repetition and confusion, the parties in this Revision hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before trial court i.e., petitioners and respondent.

2.The main case of the Petitioners is that she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance at the rate of

Rs.6000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.4000/- to the 2nd petitioner. The first petitioner is legally wedded wife and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of respondent and their marriage took place on 03.07.2010 as per Hindu rites and caste customs, after fulfilling all demands made by the parents of the respondent. After marriage, 1st petitioner along with respondent and his family members lived happily for some time. Later they shifted their residence from Ramachandrapuram to Rajamahendravaram. During pregnancy of the 1st petitioner, i.e., in 4th month, respondent asked 2 ½ sovereigns gold necklace. When she refused to give the same, respondent beat and scolded her in filthy language, made a pone call to her parents to take the 1st petitioner. When parents of the 1st petitioner approached and questioned him about his attitude, he scolded them in filthy language, beat them and necked out them from his house. Parents of the 1st petitioner took their daughter to their house. After mediation, respondent took back 1st petitioner to his house and began harassing her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- as 3

additional dowry. 1st petitioner delivered 2nd petitioner on 7.10.2011 and

joined with the respondent and his family members after five months. But respondent and his family members harassed her for additional dowry, subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally. Respondent addicted to vices and spent all cash and gold articles. At the age of one year to 2nd petitioner, respondent left the petitioners and went away to unknown places. Then petitioners stayed at Ramachandrapuram. Later on the interference of uncle of the respondent Madhabattula Apparao, 1st petitioner joined the respondent to lead marital life and set up family at

Pedapudi village and lived for one week. On 03.03.2015, respondent and his family members necked out the petitioners from their house and having no other go petitioners reached the house of the parents of 1st petitioner at

Ramachandrapuram on 5.3.2015, and 1st petitioner lodged a complaint

before Pedapudi P.S. Later counselling was done to both parties, but their

efforts proved futile. When respondent harassed 1st petitioner to withdraw the complaints and beat her, she lodged a complaint before SHO,

Ramachandrapuram on 8.8.2015 basing on which a Crime No.156/2015 under section 498(A), 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the respondent and his family members. Respondent got issued legal notice dt.09.08.2015 asking the 1st petitioner to come and join with him for which she got issued reply dt.19.08.2015 stating that she is ready and willing to join him, if he change his attitude. Respondent did not take back the petitioners till today.

Respondent is doing stickering work at Pedapudi and Kakinada and earning

Rs.1000/- per day. Respondent is having capacity to maintain the petitioners. Petitioners have no sufficient means and depending upon the parents of 1st petitioner who are old aged. Hence the petition.

4

3.The respondent denied the averments of the petition except the relationship between him and petitioners. He further averred that the 1st petitioner intentionally left the respondent without any cause and 1st petitioner filed this petition at ill-advice of her parents. Respondent is ready to take back the petitioners to his house, if they are willing to come with him. Respondent is having little earnings and has no capacity to pay separate maintenance to the petitioners and only to harass him, petitioners filed this petition. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record allowed the petition in part by directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance to 1st petitioner at the rate of

Rs.5000/- and at Rs.3000/- to 2nd petitioner from the date of the order.

Further directed the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance to the petitioners on or before 10th of every succeeding month and pay Rs.2000/- to the petitioners towards costs.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed this revision on the following grounds :

1) Respondent falsely represented in the lower court that the Revision petitioner earn Rs.30,000/- per month.

2) Petitioners willfully neglected this revision petitioner without cause on false advices of parents of the petitioners.

3) Allegations by respondent that the revision petitioner has transferred his landed property to his sisters is false.

5

4) Maintenance granted by the lower court is very excessive and not maintainable.

6.Heard both sides and and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is that “Whether the order of the trial Court dt.31.01.2017 is sustainable ?"

8.The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is undisputed. The case of the petitioner is that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent and his family members for

additional dowry and that she was deserted. On the other hand, the case of

the respondent is that the first petitioner her self deserted him without any reasonable cause.

9.To prove their respective contentions, in trial court, 1st petitioner herself examined as P.W.1, got examined her father as P.W.2 and 3rd party to the case as P.W.3. Further she exhibited the registered legal notice got issued by the respondent as Ex.P1, copy of reply notice dt.19.08.2015 as Ex.P2 and postal acknowledgment as Ex.P3. On the other hand, respondent himself examined as R.W.1.

10.Upon perusal of the evidence, it is not in dispute that both petitioners and respondent are living separately. None of the parties filed any petition

before any court for restitution of conjugal rights or even for divorce. There

is no iota of evidence that the respondent paid any amount or has been paying amount for maintenance of his legally wedded wife and daughter i.e., petitioners.

11.As rightly held by the Trial court, there is no evidence on record with regard to the means of the parties, except some oral allegations. P.W.2 the father of the 1st petitioner corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 in all 6 aspects. P.W.3 also deposed on same lines as P.W.2. Peculiarly during cross examination, no suggestions were given by the respondent to the 1st petitioner about the allegations of physical and mental harassment demanding additional dowry. So as rightly pointed out by the trial court, an inference can be drawn that 1st petitioner suffered harassment in the hands of the respondent for additional dowry. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that respondent beat her demanded her to withdraw the reports lodged by her and then she lodged a report before Station House Officer,

Ramachandrapuram basing on which a case in Cr.No.156/2015 was registered. So, the contention of P.W.2, i.e., father of P.W.1 that there is life threat to the petitioners in the hands of respondent is not untenable. It is natural that the parents will be so careful while dealing with the life and future of their children.

12.The main contention of the respondent is that the 1st petitioner willfully deserted him without any cause. Hence, she is not entitled for maintenance. But as could be seen from the Exs.P2 and P3, legal notices when the respondent asked the petitioners to come and join with them, they expressed their readiness to join with the respondent, if he changes his attitude and execute a bond for their security. No steps were taken by the respondent in that way. No mediations were conducted by the respondent or on his behalf through any one, after exchange of legal notices for bringing the petitioners to the house of the respondent. No amount was paid for the maintenance of the petitioners, though respondent admitted that the 1st petitioner is a house wife and she has no properties in her name or she has any means to maintain herself or their minor daughter.

13.Even though there is no material on record about the means of the respondent, respondent himself admitted that he used to do stickering 7 work and earn some amount of money. He is not idle or disabled person.

Further it is borne on record that 1st petitioner has no means and she along with her daughter is completely dependent on the parents of 1st petitioner for their maintenance.

14.Even as per Section 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance

Act 1956, husband’s obligation to maintain his wife is absolute and personal.

The Act does not say that the husband has a duty to maintain the wife, if and to the extent she is unable to maintain herself out of her own estate or income. It is clear from this that the husband is under absolute obligation to maintain her. The obligation is personal. It does not depend upon whether the husband has sufficient means to provide for her maintenance. The court will certainly take into account the economic conditions of the husband, while determining the amount of maintenance, but it cannot absolve him totally of the obligation.

According to Manu, ancient Hindu Law giver, the husband is bound to maintain his legally wedded wife and infirm children, even by doing 100 misdeeds.

15.Further, it is settled law that in respect of the liability to pay maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. it is not necessary that the respondent should have properties or stable income. It is sufficient if he has able body to earn. The petitioners are living with the parents of 1st petitioner and depending on them. No means of the petitioner were proved by the respondent to maintain herself and their daughter. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is preventive measure serving a special purpose. The idea behind that is the wife and children should not be left helpless which may force them to commit some crime. The respondent is under statutory liability to 8 maintain the petitioners who is his wife and daughter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for maintenance.

16.Hence, in view of discussion supra, this court is of the view that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in proper way and arrived at correct conclusion in granting maintenance to the petitioners and there is no need to interfere with the order of the trial court. Point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result, Revision petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the trial court dt.31.01.2017 in MC No.1/2016.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court this 14th day of December 2017.

V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

V ASJ

Copy to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: EAST

GODAVARI :: RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT:- Sri Y.Parushuram, V Addl. Sessions Judge,

Wednesday, the 27th day of December 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.131/2017

COMPLAINANTNAME & DESCRIPTION OF

ACCUSED

State, Inspector of police, A1. Kimmudu Kalyan, S/O late Addateegala Circle,balanna, A/28 years, (The Prosecution is A2. Kimmudu Ganesh, S/O late conducted by Additional Balanna, A/30 years, Public Prosecutor, East Both are Bhagata caste (ST) Godavari District, R/O Kothapalli village, Rajahmundry.) H/O Dabbapalem village, Addateegala mandal (The accused is defended by Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate, Rajahmundry as legal aid counsel )

Nature of ChargeUnder Sec.302 IPC r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or order In the result, this court find the accused not guilty for the offences u/s 302 r/w 34 of and thereby they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and of their sureties shall stand discharged after 6 months. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The prosecution filed this case against the accused for the offences U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in crime No.8/2011 of

Dutcherthi Police station.

2. Succinctly the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 18.02.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 Sadela Nagaraju came to

Dutcherthi P.S and gave complaint about murder to P.W.9 A.L.S Ravi Kumar,

Sub Inspector of police, Dutcherthi Police station and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.8/2011 and P.W.11 G.Pallam Raju, Inspector of police, Rampachodavaram conducted investigation which reveals that deceased Padala Lakshmayya is the husband of P.W.2 Padala Sambaramma and brother in-law of the accused. Deceased who was addicted to drinking used to go to house after consuming liquor, abuse and beat his wife Padala

Sambaramma for which accused used to warn him. Accused 1 and 2 borrowed Rs.6,000/- from the deceased failed to repay the same in time.

On the intervening night of 17/18.2.2011 at about 1.00 hours, accused and deceased disputed with each other for the money. Mother in-law of deceased Kimmudu Chinnammi (L.W.8) interfered and tried to pacify them.

Deceased picked up a stick lying in the vicinity and beat on her left leg and caused small bleeding injury. Accused grew wild, tied hands and legs of deceased with nylon rope. A1 beat deceased with a stick on his head, face and body indiscriminately on the abetment of A2 and caused severe fracture injuries on his head and other multiple injuries on his person, due to which deceased died on the spot. A1 set fire to his own house with a view to take defence.

P.W.11 Inspector of police, Rampachodavaram arrested accused on 27.02.2011 at Vedurunagaram, recorded their statements and seized the crime weapon (Maddi karra) and blood stained clothes in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.7 Madakam Bulli Abbai, L.W.11 Nimmagadda Konda

Babu, P.W.1 Sadelu Nagaraju, under cover of mediators report and forwarded accused for remand. After receipt of Post mortem certificate

Inspector of police, Addateegala filed charge sheet.

3.The said charge sheet was numbed as PRC No.4/2017 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addateegala and since it is exclusively trialable by Sessions Court, matter was committed to Sessions

Division and case was made over to this court.

4.Accused was charged for the offences under Sec.302 r/w 34 of

India Penal Code, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

5.During trial on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 are examined. Exs.A1 to P14, M.O.s 1 to 5 are marked. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

6.On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material found in evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no evidence.

7.Arguments heard on both sides.

8.The point for determination herein is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:- As per the version of prosecution, accused are brother in-laws of the deceased. On the fateful day i.e., on 17/18.2.2011 at about 1.00 hours, accused and deceased disputed with each other for an amount of Rs.6,000/- which was given by deceased to accused as credit. When mother of the accused interfered, deceased beat her with a stick and caused her injury. Accused grew wild, tied legs and hands of the deceased and on the abetment of A2, A1 beat deceased with a stick (maddi karra) indiscriminately all over the body and caused severe injuries, due to which deceased died on the spot.

10.In support of its case, out of the listed 15 witnesses prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11. P.W.1 is the person who gave complaint to police, P.W.2 is wife of the deceased, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are witnesses to the incident, P.W.6 is the photographer, P.W.7 is the mediator, P.W.8 is the medical officer, P.W.9 to P.W.11 are Investigation officers. L.W.4 and L.W.11 are given up by learned APP. L.W.6 and L.W.8 are died and their evidence is closed.

11.PW.1 to P.W.5 who are crucial witnesses turned hostile. During the course of examination of P.W.1, report given by him is marked as Ex.P1,

Inquest report was marked as Ex.P2, Signature on scene observation report was marked as Ex.P3, Marked portion in mediators report is marked as Ex.P4, Mediators report dt.27.02.2011 drafted at about 5.00 p.m. is marked as Ex.P5, scene observation report is marked as Ex.P6. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.Ws.2 to 5 are marked as Ex.P6 to P10.

12.P.W.1 S.Nagaraju VRO stated in his chief examination that he was told that Padala Lakshmayya was murdered and went to Kothapalli village and noticed dead body of said Lakshmayya and that he gave written report to police in Ex.P1 and that at the scene of offence, inquest was held over the said dead body of deceased lakshmayya and Sub Inspector of police seized blood stained earth and control earth and that identifying slips were affixed and he signed on them and that except that he do not know anything about the case.

13.P.W.2 Padala Subbamma is the wife of deceased in her chief examination, she stated that she does not know as to how her husband died and that she was not examined by police.

14.P.W.3 Padala Veerababu is the son of deceased. In his chief examination he stated that he do not know as to how his father died and that he was not examined by police.

15. P.W.4 Pangi Mukundam in his chief examination stated that he do not know as to how the said Lakshmayya died and that he was not examined by police.

16.P.W.5 Pangi Mallesu in his chief examination stated that he do not know as to how deceased Lakshmayya died and that he was not examined by police.

In this case, P.W.s 1 to 5 are material witnesses, but turned hostile.

17.PW.6 Manepalli Ramakrishna photographer, running a photo studio under the name and style RAMAKRISHNA PHOTO STUDIO deposed that in the month of February 2011 on the request of police, he photographed the dead body of Lakshmayya and also burnt thatched house. Through this witness four photos were marked as Ex.P11.

18.PW.7 VRO Dutcherthi deposed that on 18.2.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. on the request of Dutcherthi police, he went to the scene of offence and noticed dead body of Lakshmayya with head injury in a pool of blood. In his presence controlled earth and blood stained earth were seized. Again on 27.2.2011, he accompanied CI of police and staff and police arrested accused at Veduranagar center in his presence. Accused produced blood stained shirts and stick (weapon) and police seized the same.

19. PW.8 Dr L. Ramalakshmi CAS, Yeleswaram deposed that during her service as Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Addategala, on 18.02.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. on the request of Inspector of police,

Rampachodavaram, she conducted autopsy over the dead body of Padala

Lakshmayya and gave opinion that the death is due to head injury which lead to massive hemorrhage and and cardiac arrest. Through this witness, post mortem report is marked as Ex.P12.

20. PW.9 A L S Ravi Kumar, deposed that during his service as SI of police Dutcherthi P S on 18.2.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. he registered a case in Cr.No.8/11 under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC basing on the written report given by P.W.1 and submitted FIR to concerned. Ex.P13 is the said FIR.

21. PW.10 G .Kennedy Working as Inspector of police Vijayawada deposed that previously he worked as Inspector of police, Addateegala and during his tenure, he received RFSL report in Cr.No.8/2011 and he filed

Charge sheet in this case. Through this witness, RFSL report is marked as

Ex.P14.

22.As could be seen from the evidence available on record, material witnesses turned hostile. Mother of the accused shown as L.W.8 was died. Even P.W.2 wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, we cannot give any credence to the evidence of doctor and police witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied due to the hostile evidence of material witnesses.

23.In view of my above discussion, it is clear that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

24.In the result, I find that the accused A1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, and accused are acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

The unmarked non-valuable property, if any and M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 27th day of December 2017.

V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : Saledu Nagaraju, P.W.2 : Padala Sambaramma, P.W.3 : Padala Veerababu, P.W.4 : Pangi Mukundam, P.W.5 : Pangi Mallesu, P.W.6 : Manepalli Ramakrishna, P.W.7 : Madakam Bulli abbai, P.W.8 : Dr. L.Rama Lakshmi, P.W.9 : A L S Ravi Kumar, P.W.10:G.Kennedy, P.W.11:G.Pallam Raju.

For Defence:- None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1:Report, Ex.P.2:Inquest report, Ex.P.3:Signature of P.W.1 on scene observation report, Ex.P.4 : Marked portion in mediators report dt.27.02.2011 at 3.00 p.m., Ex.P5 : Mediators report dt.27.02.2011 at 5.00 p.m. Ex.P6 : Scene observation report, Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex.P9 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex.P10 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, Ex.p11 : Photographs (4) with CD, Ex.P12 : Post Mortem Report, Ex.P13: FIR in Cr.No.8/2011 of Dutcherthi Police station, Ex.P14 : RFSL Report,

For Defence;- Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Blood stained earth, M.O.2 : Control earth, M.O.3 : Blood stained full hand shirt, M.O.4 : Blood stained half hand shirt, M.O.5 : Stick.

V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: EAST

GODAVARI :: RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT:- Sri Y.Parushuram, V Addl. Sessions Judge,

Wednesday, the 27th day of December 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.131/2017

COMPLAINANTNAME & DESCRIPTION OF

ACCUSED

State, Inspector of police, A1. Kimmudu Kalyan, S/O late Addateegala Circle,balanna, A/28 years, (The Prosecution is A2. Kimmudu Ganesh, S/O late conducted by Additional Balanna, A/30 years, Public Prosecutor, East Both are Bhagata caste (ST) Godavari District, R/O Kothapalli village, Rajahmundry.) H/O Dabbapalem village, Addateegala mandal (The accused is defended by Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate, Rajahmundry as legal aid counsel )

Nature of ChargeUnder Sec.302 IPC r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or order In the result, this court find the accused not guilty for the offences u/s 302 r/w 34 of and thereby they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and of their sureties shall stand discharged after 6 months. M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The prosecution filed this case against the accused for the offences U/Sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in crime No.8/2011 of

Dutcherthi Police station.

2. Succinctly the case of the prosecution is as follows :

On 18.02.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 Sadela Nagaraju came to

Dutcherthi P.S and gave complaint about murder to P.W.9 A.L.S Ravi Kumar,

Sub Inspector of police, Dutcherthi Police station and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.8/2011 and P.W.11 G.Pallam Raju, Inspector of police, Rampachodavaram conducted investigation which reveals that deceased Padala Lakshmayya is the husband of P.W.2 Padala Sambaramma and brother in-law of the accused. Deceased who was addicted to drinking used to go to house after consuming liquor, abuse and beat his wife Padala

Sambaramma for which accused used to warn him. Accused 1 and 2 borrowed Rs.6,000/- from the deceased failed to repay the same in time.

On the intervening night of 17/18.2.2011 at about 1.00 hours, accused and deceased disputed with each other for the money. Mother in-law of deceased Kimmudu Chinnammi (L.W.8) interfered and tried to pacify them.

Deceased picked up a stick lying in the vicinity and beat on her left leg and caused small bleeding injury. Accused grew wild, tied hands and legs of deceased with nylon rope. A1 beat deceased with a stick on his head, face and body indiscriminately on the abetment of A2 and caused severe fracture injuries on his head and other multiple injuries on his person, due to which deceased died on the spot. A1 set fire to his own house with a view to take defence.

P.W.11 Inspector of police, Rampachodavaram arrested accused on 27.02.2011 at Vedurunagaram, recorded their statements and seized the crime weapon (Maddi karra) and blood stained clothes in the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.7 Madakam Bulli Abbai, L.W.11 Nimmagadda Konda

Babu, P.W.1 Sadelu Nagaraju, under cover of mediators report and forwarded accused for remand. After receipt of Post mortem certificate

Inspector of police, Addateegala filed charge sheet.

3.The said charge sheet was numbed as PRC No.4/2017 on the file of Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addateegala and since it is exclusively trialable by Sessions Court, matter was committed to Sessions

Division and case was made over to this court.

4.Accused was charged for the offences under Sec.302 r/w 34 of

India Penal Code, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed tobe tried.

5.During trial on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 are examined. Exs.A1 to P14, M.O.s 1 to 5 are marked. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

6.On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material found in evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no evidence.

7.Arguments heard on both sides.

8.The point for determination herein is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT:- As per the version of prosecution, accused are brother in-laws of the deceased. On the fateful day i.e., on 17/18.2.2011 at about 1.00 hours, accused and deceased disputed with each other for an amount of Rs.6,000/- which was given by deceased to accused as credit. When mother of the accused interfered, deceased beat her with a stick and caused her injury. Accused grew wild, tied legs and hands of the deceased and on the abetment of A2, A1 beat deceased with a stick (maddi karra) indiscriminately all over the body and caused severe injuries, due to which deceased died on the spot.

10.In support of its case, out of the listed 15 witnesses prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11. P.W.1 is the person who gave complaint to police, P.W.2 is wife of the deceased, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are witnesses to the incident, P.W.6 is the photographer, P.W.7 is the mediator, P.W.8 is the medical officer, P.W.9 to P.W.11 are Investigation officers. L.W.4 and L.W.11 are given up by learned APP. L.W.6 and L.W.8 are died and their evidence is closed.

11.PW.1 to P.W.5 who are crucial witnesses turned hostile. During the course of examination of P.W.1, report given by him is marked as Ex.P1,

Inquest report was marked as Ex.P2, Signature on scene observation report was marked as Ex.P3, Marked portion in mediators report is marked as Ex.P4, Mediators report dt.27.02.2011 drafted at about 5.00 p.m. is marked as Ex.P5, scene observation report is marked as Ex.P6. 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.Ws.2 to 5 are marked as Ex.P6 to P10.

12.P.W.1 S.Nagaraju VRO stated in his chief examination that he was told that Padala Lakshmayya was murdered and went to Kothapalli village and noticed dead body of said Lakshmayya and that he gave written report to police in Ex.P1 and that at the scene of offence, inquest was held over the said dead body of deceased lakshmayya and Sub Inspector of police seized blood stained earth and control earth and that identifying slips were affixed and he signed on them and that except that he do not know anything about the case.

13.P.W.2 Padala Subbamma is the wife of deceased in her chief examination, she stated that she does not know as to how her husband died and that she was not examined by police.

14.P.W.3 Padala Veerababu is the son of deceased. In his chief examination he stated that he do not know as to how his father died and that he was not examined by police.

15. P.W.4 Pangi Mukundam in his chief examination stated that he do not know as to how the said Lakshmayya died and that he was not examined by police.

16.P.W.5 Pangi Mallesu in his chief examination stated that he do not know as to how deceased Lakshmayya died and that he was not examined by police.

In this case, P.W.s 1 to 5 are material witnesses, but turned hostile.

17.PW.6 Manepalli Ramakrishna photographer, running a photo studio under the name and style RAMAKRISHNA PHOTO STUDIO deposed that in the month of February 2011 on the request of police, he photographed the dead body of Lakshmayya and also burnt thatched house. Through this witness four photos were marked as Ex.P11.

18.PW.7 VRO Dutcherthi deposed that on 18.2.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. on the request of Dutcherthi police, he went to the scene of offence and noticed dead body of Lakshmayya with head injury in a pool of blood. In his presence controlled earth and blood stained earth were seized. Again on 27.2.2011, he accompanied CI of police and staff and police arrested accused at Veduranagar center in his presence. Accused produced blood stained shirts and stick (weapon) and police seized the same.

19. PW.8 Dr L. Ramalakshmi CAS, Yeleswaram deposed that during her service as Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Addategala, on 18.02.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. on the request of Inspector of police,

Rampachodavaram, she conducted autopsy over the dead body of Padala

Lakshmayya and gave opinion that the death is due to head injury which lead to massive hemorrhage and and cardiac arrest. Through this witness, post mortem report is marked as Ex.P12.

20. PW.9 A L S Ravi Kumar, deposed that during his service as SI of police Dutcherthi P S on 18.2.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. he registered a case in Cr.No.8/11 under section 302 r/w 34 of IPC basing on the written report given by P.W.1 and submitted FIR to concerned. Ex.P13 is the said FIR.

21. PW.10 G .Kennedy Working as Inspector of police Vijayawada deposed that previously he worked as Inspector of police, Addateegala and during his tenure, he received RFSL report in Cr.No.8/2011 and he filed

Charge sheet in this case. Through this witness, RFSL report is marked as

Ex.P14.

22.As could be seen from the evidence available on record, material witnesses turned hostile. Mother of the accused shown as L.W.8 was died. Even P.W.2 wife of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, we cannot give any credence to the evidence of doctor and police witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied due to the hostile evidence of material witnesses.

23.In view of my above discussion, it is clear that prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

24.In the result, I find that the accused A1 and A2 are not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, and accused are acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment.

The unmarked non-valuable property, if any and M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 27th day of December 2017.

V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution:- P.W.1 : Saledu Nagaraju, P.W.2 : Padala Sambaramma, P.W.3 : Padala Veerababu, P.W.4 : Pangi Mukundam, P.W.5 : Pangi Mallesu, P.W.6 : Manepalli Ramakrishna, P.W.7 : Madakam Bulli abbai, P.W.8 : Dr. L.Rama Lakshmi, P.W.9 : A L S Ravi Kumar, P.W.10:G.Kennedy, P.W.11:G.Pallam Raju.

For Defence:- None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P.1:Report, Ex.P.2:Inquest report, Ex.P.3:Signature of P.W.1 on scene observation report, Ex.P.4 : Marked portion in mediators report dt.27.02.2011 at 3.00 p.m., Ex.P5 : Mediators report dt.27.02.2011 at 5.00 p.m. Ex.P6 : Scene observation report, Ex.P7 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.P8 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex.P9 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex.P10 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, Ex.p11 : Photographs (4) with CD, Ex.P12 : Post Mortem Report, Ex.P13: FIR in Cr.No.8/2011 of Dutcherthi Police station, Ex.P14 : RFSL Report,

For Defence;- Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 : Blood stained earth, M.O.2 : Control earth, M.O.3 : Blood stained full hand shirt, M.O.4 : Blood stained half hand shirt, M.O.5 : Stick.

V Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-SRI Y.Parusuram, Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 11th day of September, 2015

O.S.463/2015

Between:-

Kovvuri Sathi Reddy Address - Balabhadrapuram, Biccavolu Mandal, Anaparthi PJCJ.

….. Plaintiff (s).

And

1) Yalla Sesharao Address - Subhadrammapeta, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G.District, Peddapuram PJCJ.

2) Yalla Soorayamma Subhadrammapeta, Rangampeta Mandal, E.G.District, Peddapuram PJCJ.

…. Defendant (s)

This case is coming on this day for hearing before me and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.Both parties called present and they filed compromise memo. The matter is settled before Lok Adalat.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of September, 2015.

Sd/-Y.Parusuram,

Senior Civil Judge,

Ramachandrapuram.