IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

1ST CLASS, KAMALAPURAM.

CC NO. 176 of 2021

Between:

State Rep by Its Inspector of Police,

Kamalapuram P.S. …
Complainant

V/s

1. Karnati Chinna Subba Reddy – A1

2. Karnati Nageshwar Reddy – A3

3. Karnati Udaykumar Reddy – A4

4. Kalluri Janardhan Reddy – A5

5. Nagi Reddy Chinna Subbaiah – A6 … Accused

WRITTEN STATEMENT ARGUMENTS FILED ON BEHALF OF

THE ACCUSED U/S 352 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK
SURAKSHA SAMHITA 2023

1. It is Respectfully submitted that the Sub – Inspector of Kamalapuram P.S

laid chargesheet against A1, A3 to A6, for the Alleged offences Punishable
U/S 506, 509 read with 34 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief runs as under :

1) That on 10.07.2020 in between 7.00 AM and 8.00 AM at Jangampalli

Village fields, Kamalapuram mandal the accused were alleged to have

abused the defacto complainant in vulgar language and also Threatened
that they would kill them and their husbands and not to allow them to go in
the village and further the accused hurled sand stones upon the defacto
complainant and LW2 hence the FIR.

3. On behalf of the prosecution PW’s 1 to 6 gave evidence and Exhibits P1

to P3 are marked on its behalf. Ex P1 is the copy of Complaint, Ex P2 is
161(3) CrPC statement of PWs and, Ex P3 is FIR. PW1 is P. Narayanamma,
PW2 is P. Pavan kumari, PW3 is P. Sridevi and, PW4 is P. Vishwanatha
Reddy, PW5 is H. Renuka Reddy, PW6 is P. Thulasi Naga Prasad who is the
Investigative Officer.

4. Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to

prove the guilt of accused for offences U/S 506, 509 read with 34 IPC
beyond all reasonable doubts?

5. It is submitted that it is an admitted that PW1 and 2 are co-sisters-in-

law. At the time pf alleged offence PW1 and 2 were said to have been cutting
the jowar grass in their fields. According to PW1 on 10.07.2020 between
7.00 AM and 8.00 AM A1 to A6 have entered into the fields in 1 car and 2
motor cycles and threatened her besides abusing her in vulgar language.
According to PW2 A1 to A5 came on 2 motor cycles and confronted them by
quarrelling and that all the accused abused them in filthy language. As seen
from the evidence of PW3 to 5 who are said to be the Eye Witnesses to the
alleged Offence and who belongs to same village testified that the accused
confronted them and pick a quarrel with PW1 and 2. No specific words were
stated by PW’s 1 to 4 with regard to the alleged intimidation and Outraging
the Modesty of PW1.

6. It is submitted that the Sec 506 IPC which stands for Criminal
Intimidation and it states that any individual who threatens another with
Injurires to their person, property or reputation with an intent to cause
anare or bitter them from some course of action can be charged with
criminal intimidation. In order to establish an offence of criminal
intimidation it is necessary to demonstrate that the accused harboured an
intention to cause threat to complainant. Hence, it is imperative for the
Prosecution to prove that the accused threatened victim to cause his or her
death or grievous hurt to a person or another in whom he is specifically
interested. Thus, intention plays a pivotal role in deciding the ingredient of
Sec 506 IPC and that simple or mere use of hateful words does not
constitute within the ambit of criminal intimidation.

7. Coming to the case on the hand, Pw1 admitted that in the Cross-
Examination that Ramakrishna Reddy and Animela Narayana filed a civil
suit wide OS NO. 56 of 2020 before this hon’ble court that apart A6 in this
case file criminal case against Husband of Pw1, Ramakrishna Reddy,
Lakshmi Devamma and, Rama Devi and same is pending wide CC No. 157
of 2020. This fact is not disputed by PW2 also who is the co-sister-in-law of
PW1. By the admission in cross examination of PW’s 1 and 2 it is
established that already there is a litigation pending against accused on one
side and that in view of enmity between them, the chances of implicating the
accused in false criminal case cannot be ruled out having regard to enmity
prevailed between them at the time of alleged offence. In addition to that
there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint according to prosecution,
the offence was alleged to have taken place on 10.07.2020, whereas the
complaint that is ExP1 was given on 16.07.2020 that is with delay of more
than 6 days. However, there is no possible explanation for such length of
such delay. PW1 stated in ExP1 that out fear she did not lodged the
complaint immediately and that by listening to the words of their relatives
and then they came to police station and lodged the complaint. This part of
the statement made by PW1 runs contrary to the contents of ExP3 FIR. As
seen from the column No.8 of FIR it is clearly mentioned that “NO DEALY IN
REPORTING BY THE COMPLAINANT”. In column No.3 of FIR, the date of
offence is mentioned as 16.07.2020 and the Numerical Number “6” was
overwritten as “0” but there is no initial upon it. In Column No. 12 the date
of alleged offence was shown as 16.07.2020. thus, the contents of FIR and
contents of the complaint are contradicting with each other in so far as the
date of alleged offence is concern. In any event, the inordinate delay is fatal
to case of prosecution the entire foundation of prosecution case has been
adversely affected giving lies to reasonable apprehension that the accused
falsely implicated due to their previous ill-feelings and the state of affairs
prevailing on the alleged date of offence. Apart rom that it is admitted fact
that A4 belongs to TDP party whereas the husband of PW1 belongs to YCP
party which was ruling back then. Taking undue advantage of political
influence, the present case was falsely implicated on the accused in order to
harass them out of political ill will only.

8. It is further submitted that Sec 509 IPC defines Outraging Modesty of

woman, through by word, gesture or act. Primary elements of offence U/S
509 is intention and that a purposeful statement or deed that disparages a
woman modesty is considered as an offence. It is settled law that the
intention is distinguishable from the act falling under the per view of Sec
509 IPC from ordinary speech and expression.

9. In the given case nowhere in the complaint PW1 asserted that the
accused acted in such a way that causes the modesty in an outrageous
situation. PW1 asserted in complaint that the accused abused her but who
abused her, she did not state it specifically. Except abusing and throwing
sand stones no specific overtakes were attributed against accused as seen
from ExP1 as well as evidence of PW1 to 5. Even assuming for a moment,
the same does not attract any of the ingredients of Sec 506 and 509 IPC.
The evidence of Investigating Officer reveals that no incriminating material
has been collected or seized that connects accused with the alleged offences.
The Investigating Officer did not seize any material and did not collect any
stones or stick alleged to have carried by the accused at the time of alleged
offence as such the investigation is nothing but table made and same is
scanty and to prove the charges against the accused viewed from any angle
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused are all entitle for Benefit of
Doubt from all the charges.

10. It is therefore prayed that the hon’ble court may pleased to acquit the
accused of the charges U/S 506, 509 read with 34 IPC in the interest of
justice.

Advocate for the Accused