Sri A. Kumaraswamy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

:: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI A. KUMARA SWAMY,

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 20739 of 2019 Between : The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1] S.Venugopal, S/o. Late Venkata Subbaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ: Doctor, R/o. H.No. J 419, Site I NRR Puram, Borabanda, Hyderabad.

A2] S. Chanakyasai, S/o. S. Vengupal, Aged 27 years, R/o. J-419, Site I NRR Puram, Borabanda, Hyderabad. …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Naveen Kumar, the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri J. Mohan, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:- 2 :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 394/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 427, 323 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case:-

(i)On 20.05.2017 at about 1300 hours, A1 and A2 trespass into the house of PW1 broke open the water sump door, when PW1 questioned

A1 and A2, they pushed PW1 with hands and beat with hammer on her right leg, due to which, PW1 sustained injuries to her right hand, while she tried to call out post, police, A2 taken her mobile from her. Hence, the complaint.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, LW5/R.Laxman, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.394/2017, under sections 448, 427, 323 IPC against the accused No.1 and 2. During the course of investigation, LW-5 recorded the detailed statement of the complainant, which corroborates the facts of the complaint. LW-5 visited the scene of offence, Notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was issued to A1. LW-6/S.Iqbal Hussain, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, collected the medical certificate from

Neelima Hospital, where LW-4/Dr.P.Srinivasulu, Medical Officer treated 3

PW1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. LW-6 examined

PW2 and PW3 and recorded their statements. Then, Notice under

Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. was also issued to A2. Further, statements of neighbours were recorded. After completion of investigation,

LW7/D.Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 448, 427, 323

IPC.

3. This Court taken cognizance of the offence under sections 448, 427, 323 IPC against the Accused Nos.1 and 2 and issued the process.

4.On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before this Court, copies of documents have been furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under section 251

Cr.P.C., who denied the accusation levelled against them. After hearing the learned APP and the Defence Counsel, a charge under sections 448, 427, 323 IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to them, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

4

6.In order to substantiate the said charges, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to PW5, and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of

Prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW5, argued that the testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW2 to PW4, which establishes that A1 and A2 assaulted PW1, causing her injuries. Therefore, he prayed for the conviction of the accused.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that a civil case was pending between PW1 and the accused regarding ancestral property before the City Civil Court, and both parties have admitted the existence of such a dispute. It was argued that both PW1 and the accused have rights over the said property. The counsel further argued that A1 had issued a legal notice to PW1 to 5 vacate the house, and, to avoid vacating the premises, PW1 lodged a false case. It was also submitted that the mother of PW1 and A1 was residing on the ground floor, and as the door was locked, A1 came there to open it. Further, A1 used to visit the ground floor where his mother was residing. The counsel argued that, despite knowing that

PW1 had undergone surgery on her right leg, she falsely alleged that

A1 beat her on her leg and lodged a false case. Hence, he prayed to acquit the accused.

11.The points for consideration is:-

(i) “Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused No.1 and 2, committed house trespass punishable under section 448 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

(ii) “Whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused No.1 and 2, committed mischief causing damage punishable under Section 427 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?”

(iii) "Whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused No.1 and 2, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1, punishable under Section 323 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?" 6

12.POINT: To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

13. It is the case of the prosecution is that both the accused break open the water sump door when PW1 questioned both abused her in filthy language and pushed PW1 and beat her with a hammer, due to which she sustained injuries to her right hand and leg.

14.To prove the prosecution case, prosecution got examined Pws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. So as the alleged substances of charge under sections 448, 427 IPC are concerned.

15. So far as the charge under Section 448 IPC is concerned, it alleges that the accused committed house trespass by break opening the water sump. It is just and necessary to reproduce the provision relating to house trespass. House trespass is defined under Section 442 IPC, and Section 448 IPC prescribes the punishment for committing house trespass.

Now, for the definition: Section 442 IPC – House-trespass - “Whoever commits house-trespass, that is, enters into or upon property used as a dwelling, or any part of it, with intent to commit an 7 offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property, is said to commit house-trespass.”

Section 448 IPC – Punishment for House-trespass - “Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 427 IPC – Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees:- Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 425 IPC defines the term Mischief as – Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits ‘mischief’.

16. In this regard, as reflected from Ex.P1 lodged by PW1, it is evident that PW1 was residing on the first floor of House No. 8-4- 337/7/419, Site-I, NRR Puram, while her mother was residing on the ground floor of the same premises. On 20.05.2017 at about 1:30 PM, 8

PW1’s brother, who is A1, along with A2 and a key maker, allegedly broke open the lock of the sump water door. Further, PW1 in her evidence stated that at the said date and time, she heard a noise from the ground floor indicating that someone was breaking open the lock.

Upon immediately going downstairs, she observed A2 breaking open the lock of the room in which her mother was residing and entering the same.

17. PW2 deposed that upon hearing noise, he came to the spot and observed a quarrel between PW1 and the accused persons, however, he stated that he could not ascertain who assaulted whom.

18. PW3, whose house is situated opposite to that of PW1, stated that on 05.05.2017 at about 12:00 noon, while she was standing outside her house, PW1 called her. Thereafter, she along with PW2 went to PW1’s house, where she allegedly witnessed A1 and A2 breaking open the water sump, pushing PW1, and assaulting her.

19. From the evidence on record, PW1 deposed that A2 broke open the lock of the room in which her mother was residing. However, PW3 stated that A1 and A2 broke open the water sump. Thus, there is a material inconsistency between the testimonies of PW1 and PW3, and no proper corroboration between them on this aspect. Further, PW2, 9 who is an alleged eyewitness, did not depose anything regarding the breaking open of the sump or door.

20. It is also admitted by PW1 that the property in question is ancestral in nature and that both she and her brother have rights over the same. In this context, the learned counsel for the accused argued that A1 had come to the premises only to open the locked portion of the property to which he had a lawful claim. Moreover, although PW1 alleged that A2 broke open the lock of the room where her mother was residing, the mother being a material witness was not examined

before the Court, which creates a gap in the prosecution’s case. In

view of these facts, particularly the lack of consistent and corroborative evidence, the non-examination of a crucial witness, and the admitted joint ownership over the property, it appears that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences under section 448 IPC and Section 427 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

21. So far as the charge under Section 323 IPC is concerned, it alleges that the accused committed house trespass by break opening the water sump. It is just and necessary to reproduce the provision relating to common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1.

Section 323 IPC deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It applies when a person intentionally causes bodily pain, 10 disease, or infirmity to another person, without grave and sudden provocation.

Section 319 IPC defines the term “hurt” itself, which states that whoever causes bodily pain, disease, or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

22. As per Ex. P1 and the evidence of PW1, when she questioned the accused persons as to why they had come to her house, A1 allegedly pushed the door. PW1 immediately called her neighbour, Imam Ghori, who came to the spot. At that time, A1 told him that he was not concerned with the issue and asked him to leave the place. Thereafter,

A1 allegedly assaulted PW1 on her leg with a hammer, despite being aware that she had previously undergone surgery. As a result, PW1 fell down, and A1 also twisted her hand. Meanwhile, PW1’s son i.e., A2 took her mobile phone.

23. Further, PW1 deposed that when she tried to resist the forcible opening of the door, A1 pushed the already broken-open door from the opposite side and entered the room. She also stated that she noticed weapons such as a hammer, screwdriver, and cutting plier in the possession of the accused. A1 again beat her with a hammer on her right leg, fully aware of her prior surgery. It is further alleged that 11

A2 snatched her mobile phone and A1 twisted her hand. Thereafter,

PW2 came to the scene.

24. As seen Ex.P1, A1 only beat her with hammer and A1 twisted her hand, A2 only forcibly snatched her cellphone. Even the evidence of PW1 discloses that A1 beat with a hammer on her right leg with which she sustained injuries, fell on the floor. A2 snatched the floor.

Whereas, the evidence of PW2 disclose that he observed there was a quarrel in between PW1 and accused persons and he did not know who beat whom. PW3 deposed that, A1 and A2 pushed PW1 and beat her. Now as seen from Ex.P1, but A1 beat with hammer and twisted her hand and evidence of PW1 also discloses that A1 beat her with hammer and twisted her hand. whereas, PW3 evidence did not disclosed that PW1 was beat with hammer she only stated that they beat PW1. Now as seen that the evidence of PW4 who is the medical officer, issued Ex.P3, he deposed that PW1 sustained an abrasion on distal right forearm and swelling on left great toe and injury to right distal leg and further in his cross examination he admitted that he mentioned the names of weapons in her medical certificate through

PW1.

25. As seen from Ex. P1, A1 only beat her with a hammer and twisted her hand, while A2 forcibly snatched her cellphone. Even the 12 evidence of PW1 discloses that A1 beat her with a hammer on her right leg, as a result of which she sustained injuries and fell on the floor. A2 snatched her phone. Whereas, the evidence of PW2 discloses that he observed a quarrel between PW1 and the accused persons and he did not know who beat whom. PW3 deposed that A1 and A2 pushed

PW1 and beat her. As seen from Ex. P1 and the evidence of PW1, it is clear that A1 beat PW1 with a hammer and twisted her hand; however, PW3’s evidence does not specifically state that PW1 was beaten with a hammer, and she only stated that they beat PW1.

Further, PW4, the medical officer, issued Ex. P3 and deposed that PW1 sustained an abrasion on the distal right forearm, swelling on the left great toe, and injury to the right distal leg. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he mentioned the names of weapons in the medical certificate through PW1.

26. As seen from Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, it only discloses that A1 beat PW1 and twisted her hand. Whereas PW3’s evidence does not disclose that PW1 was beaten with a hammer. As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW5, Ex. P1 and the evidence of PW1 disclose that only A1 beat PW1 and twisted her right hand. There is corroboration in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 that a quarrel took place, during which

PW1 was beaten and sustained injuries. The injuries of PW1 are also corroborated by the evidence of PW4 coupled with Ex. P3.

13

27. As seen from Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, it is established that A1 alone beat PW1, due to which she sustained injuries, and the same is corroborated by Ex.P4. There is no indication that PW1 gave any sudden or grave provocation to the accused, nor was there any right or justification for committing such offence. The above discussion goes to show that only A1 beat PW1, while A2 only took away the cellphone of PW1. Therefore, in view of the above, it is evident that

Accused No.1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1. Accordingly, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of A1 under Section 323

IPC.

28. In the result, Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and is accordingly convicted under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accused No.2 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 448 and 427 IPC and are accordingly acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.

Dedicated to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

14

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE:

29.The Accused No.1 is questioned about the quantum of sentence.

He pleaded for mercy of the Court stating that he is an old aged person having family and his family is dependent on him. I am a dental doctor and professor.

30.Having considering the submission of the Accused No.1 and learned Counsel and considering the nature of offence, it is not desirable to invoke the provision of Probation of Offenders Act.

Keeping in view the mitigating circumstances put-forth by the accused and the nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the accused No.1 is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only] for the offence under section 323 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

31.(i)In the result, Accused No. 1 is found guilty of the offence under Section 323 IPC and is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees One Thousand only]. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

15

(ii) However, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 448 and 427 IPC. Further, Accused No. 2 is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 448, 427, and 323 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused No. 2 shall stand cancelled, subject to Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(iii) Accused No. 1 is apprised of his right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence within a period of one month. Further, he is also informed of his right to avail legal assistance to defend him in the appellate court, if so required, on filing a proper application before the appellate court.

Dedicated to the Grade-III Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 – Smt.P.B.Rani, (de facto complainant/Injured) - None - PW2 – Imam Ghori (Circumstantial Witness) PW3 - Smt.Vijayamma (Circumstantial Witness) PW4 - Dr. P. Srinivasulu, (Medical Officer) PW5 - D. Ashok (Investigating Officer) 16

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 is Complaint, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P3 is medical certificate of PW1, Ex.P4 is FIR.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

//TRUE COPY//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI A. KUMARA SWAMY

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Wednesday, the 15th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 2606 of 2018

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

1) N. Balraju Goud S/o. Neela Sattaiah, age: 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 2-99, Kongara Kalam Village, Ibrahimpatnam (M), Ranga Reddy district.

2) G. Srinivas @ G. Srinivas Narayana, S/o. Laxman Rao, Age: 33 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.H.No. 8-4-323/1, Near Madhura nagar, Hyderabad, N/o.81-16(1), Near Temple, Bheemavaram, West Godavari district.

3) Chalamala Venkata Siva Naga Raju @ Ch. V.S. Narendra Raju, S/o. Ch. Kotaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Private Service, R/o.H.No. 431/C, B-Block, Sri Krishna Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Accused No.1 to 3 [Note: Case against Accused no.2 is abated]

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Naveen Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri E. Radha Krishna, Advocate for Accused no.1, Sri K.L.N. Swamy, Advocate for Accused no.3, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 in Crime No. 938/2011 for the 2 offences punishable under sections 406, 420 r/w 120(b) of Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are:-

(i)That on 05.10.2011 at 1900 hours Police S.R. Nagar received court referred complaint of LW1/Sri B. S. Srinivas Apparao in which he stated that

Ch.V.S.Narendra Raju (A3) was his tenant, who introduced N. Balraj Goud (A1) and G. Srinivas (A2) to him and that since few days LW1’s health is deteriorated, taking advantage of the same A3 hatched a conspiracy; LW1 got two credit cards which were swiped before Padmavathi Jewellers by A2 on 18.05.2011, 23.05.2011, 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and 31.05.2011 without the signature of LW1 on the slips and the same amounts have been utilized by A2 and A3; after knowing the fact his wife LW2/Smt.B.Bharathi insisted for return of amounts, A3 gave two cheques for Rs.3,00,000/- and

Rs.1,70,000/- and taken one cheque for Rs.3 Lakhs and one cheque for

Rs.1,70,000/- is with LW1; when being questioned A2 written on an invalid bond paper stating that he is going to pay the amounts to HDFC credit cards and also City bank on 05.07.2011; for that accused developed grudge against

LW1, hatched a conspiracy and compelled LW1 to open an account in

Karnataka Bank, Srinagar colony branch and the same was introduced by A1 and he has taken three bank cheques from LW1 and also obtained signatures of LW1 on those cheques along with two pro-notes with signatures; as if one

Beauty parlour was being run by one Rajeshwari in one Mulgi of LW1, A2 and

A3 have created one fake agreement as if they are the owners of Beauty 3 parlour and they got created one fake agreement with LW1 with forged signatures; accused have taken finance on the fake agreement; A1 to A3 henchmen played fraud before Lws.1 to 3. According to their plan, accused opened the account in Karnataka and representation made before it itself shows that accused are lying and trying to take vengeance. When Lws.1 and 2 realized the fraud, the amounts were already duped. They threatened LW1 and other family members with dire consequences. LW1 has not taken any amount from the bank or there is no any transaction with Karnataka bank.

The very introduction of the Bank by opening of the account and taking of the cheque book itself shows the fraud of accused. No transactions are there except opening of account and taking cheque book. LW1 need not pay any amount, in fact, on the other hand accused no.1 has fraudulently taken three blank cheques from LW1 and obtained signatures of LW1 and obtained signatures of LW1 and 2 on blank pro notes on 25.07.2011. In fact, by swiping the cards of City bank and HDFC banks. Rs.5,40,000/- is taken by accuse no.1.

(ii)Basing on the above court referred complaint, LW3/D. Ramtulasi Reddy (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered a case in Crime No. 938/2011 under sections 420, 406 r/w 120-B of IPC. During investigation, LW3/D. Ramtulasi reddy examined and recorded the statements of LW1/B.S.Srinivas Apparo and LW2/Smt.B.Bharathi, visited scene of offence and inspected it. While investigation was in progress, A1 and A3 surrendered before Hon’lbe I Addl.

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and obtained anticipatory bail vide

Crl.M.P.No. 854/2012. As per the court orders, A1 and A3 appeared before

4 police station, produced sureties and released on bail. A2 also surrendered

before Hon’ble Court and obtained anticipatory bail vide Crl.M.P.No.

2061/2012, he too appeared before police station, produced sureties and got released on bail. On completion of investigation, LW4 filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against Accused no.1 to 3.

4.During pendency of the case, accused no.2 died. Hence, case against

A2 was abated. On the appearance of accused no.1 and 3 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.1 and 3 have been examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

They denied the accusations leveled against them. After hearing the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, framed charge under section 420 of IPC against Accused no.1 and 3, read over and explained to them in vernacular language. Accused no.1 and 3 pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 and 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances, found against them 5 during the prosecution evidence have been read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could prove its case against the accused no.1 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 420 of IPC?”

10.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 colluded with each other and cheated the complainant/LW1 wherein the two credit cards of LW1 were swiped before Padmavathi Jewellers by A2 on different dates without the signature of LW1 on the slips and the said amounts have been utilized by A2 and A3, upon knowing the same his wife LW2/Smt.B.Bharathi insisted them to return the amounts for which A3 gave two cheques for Rs.3 Lakhs and

Rs.1,70,000/- out of which one cheque waa kept with LW1 and other with A3, when being questioned A2 got invalid bond paper and wrote on it stating that he is going to pay the amounts to HDFC credit cards and also city bank on 05.07.2011 and developed grudge against him and later accused compelled

LW1 to open an account in Karnataka bank, Srinagar colony branch which was introduced to him by A1 wherein he took 3 blank cheques with 6 signatures from LW1 and also obtained two pro-notes with signatures; accused also created a fake agreement stating as if one beauty parlor is being run by one Rajeswari in one mulgi of LW1 and that A2 and A3 are owners of the beauty parlour with forged signatures of LW1 and also gone for finance based on fake agreement. When Lws.1 and 2 realised the fraud, the amounts were already duped, accused also threatened LW1 and other family members with dire consequences.

11.As seen the evidence of PW1 that on 05.10.2011 LW3/Ram Tulasi Reddy,

Head constable received a court referred complaint under Ex.P1 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 938/2011 u/sec. 420, 406 IPC r/w 120-B

IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P2; PW1 received CD file and took up investigation, examined and recorded statements of LW1/Srinivas Apparao and LW2/Smt. D. Bharathi, visited scene of offence, inspected the scene; while investigation was in progress to apprehend the accused persons, A1 and A3 surrendered before the I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad and obtained Anticipatory bail, later A2 also taken Anticipatory bail; after investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

12.PW1 is the only investigating officer. To corroborate his version, prosecution did not examine any of the witness. Prosecution filed a report that whereabouts of LW1/B.S. Srinivas Apparao/complainant and

LW2/Smt.B.Bharathi, are not known. Hence, their evidence is closed.

Prosecution given up the evidence of LW3/D.Ramtulasi Reddy in order to 7 avoid repetance of evidence, hence, his evidence is closed. Therefore, except the investigating officer evidence, no witnesses are examined. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 and P2 are no way helpful the case of prosecution in the absence of material witness to prove alleged charge u/sec.

420 IPC against the A1 and A3.

13.In the result, accused no.1 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 420 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused no.1 and 3 shall stand canceled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1- N. Suresh Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1- ComplaintNil Ex.P2- First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI A. KUMARA SWAMY

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 09th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 3053 of 2020

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

1) Guruvelli Sai Kiran, S/o. Madhava Rao, Aged 19 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. 8-3-296/19/A, Rahmath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

2) Naragani Vishal, S/o. Sudhakar, Aged 26 years, Occ: Private job, R/o. 8-3-976/76, Plot No. 202, Bharathi Residency, Srinagar colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3) Boda Vinay Sagar, S/o. Samuel, Aged 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. 4-36-242, R.P. Colony, Jagatgirigutta, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy district. …… Accused No.1 to 3

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Naveen Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and M/s. P.L. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Accused no.1 to 3, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against accused no.1 to 3 in Crime No. 58/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.].

2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are:-

(i)That on 20.01.2020 at 2100 hours LW1/Mahesh Kumar lodged a complaint stating that on 14.01.2020 at around 4.30 PM, while he was at his tea stall at Indira nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad and selling the tea, a locality person by name Sai Kiran (A1 herein) went to his tea stall, demanded money and asked to give cash box or else to give him cigarette box, when he refused, A1 threatened that he will see his end and abused him in filthy language; meantime friends of A1 i.e., Vishal (A2) and Vinay (A3) came to his tea stall and started beating him with hands and gave fist blow, they took him to cellar and beat with iron rod, due to which his right hand finger got fractured and received bleeding injuries on his head. LW1/Mahesh Kumar was taken for treatment at Osmania general hospital at 11.30 PM, he was unable to come out of the house as he was suffering with high fever as the accused no.1 to 3 frightened him. Hence, requested for necessary action.

(ii)Basing on the complaint of LW1/Mahesh Kumar, LW7/ P. Rambabu (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered a case in Crime No. 58/2020 under sections 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued F.I.R. During investigation,

LW7/P. Rambabu examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited scene of offence, secured the presence of LW4/D. Subba Raidu and

LW5/Smt.Lakshmi, conducted scene of offence observation panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene in their presence. He has also secured the presence of eye witness LW2- Smt. Rama Devi, recorded her statement.

LW7 collected CCTV footage in the form of C.D. from LW3- P. Laxman Panda, who is also an eye witness. A1 to A3 surrendered before LW7 and voluntarily 3 admitted their guilt. LW7 effected the arrest of accused on 22.1.2020 at 1235 hours and produced them before the court for judicial remand. LW7 received medical certificate of LW1 from LW6- Dr. A. Supraja, basing on which he altered section of law from sec. 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC to sec. 325, 506 r/w 34

IPC. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.This Court took cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under sections 325, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused no.1 to 3.

4.On the appearance of accused no.1 to 3 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5.Accused no.1 to 3 have been examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. They denied the accusations levelled against them. After hearing the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, framed charges under sections 325, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused no.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in vernacular language. Accused no.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5 on its behalf.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances, found against them 4 during the prosecution evidence have been read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could prove its case against the accused no.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 325, 506 r/w 34 of IPC?”

10.POINT:

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2020 at about 1600 hours while the LW1/Mahesh Kumar was at his Tea stall selling tea, meantime A1 came to his tea stall, demanded money and said to give cash box in which he kept his cash or else give cigarette box, he refused, A1 threatened to see his end, abused him in filthy language. Meantime, A2 and A3 came there, started beating LW1-Mahesh Kumar with fist blow with hands, as a result LW1-

Mahesh Kumar’s right hand finger got fractured. To prove the prosecution case, prosecution got examined the PW1, who is the investigating officer and got marked Ex.P1 to P5.

11.As seen the evidence of PW1 that on 20.01.2020 he received Ex.P1 complaint from LW1- Mahesh Kumar, basing on which he registered a case in 5 Cr.No. 58/2020 u/sec. 324, 506 IPC, issued FIR under Ex.P2 and took up investigation. He stated that he has examined and recorded statement of

LW1- Mahesh Kumar, LW1- Mahesh Kumar taken treatment at Osmania

General Hospital vide OP No. 4122 dt. 14.01.2020 vide MLC No. 1440. He visited the scene of offence, secured the panchas, in their presence he conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch under

Ex.P3. He searched for stone and iron rod, but not found. He secured presence of eye witness LW2- Smt. Rama devi, examined and recorded her statement. He collected CCTV footage in C.D. from LW3- P. Laxman Panda.

He collected 65-B certificate along with CD under Ex.P4. A1 to A3 came to

Banjara hills police station after receiving 41-A Cr.P.C. On interrogation, they confessed their guilt. He effected their arrest, produced before the court.

After receiving medical certificate from LW6- Dr.A.Supraja, who treated the injured, under Ex.P5, shows that the injuries are grievous, hence he altered section of law from 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC to sec. 325, 506 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12.PW1 is the only investigating officer. To corroborate his version, prosecution did not examine any of the witness. Prosecution filed a report that whereabouts of LW1- Mahesh Kumar/complainant/injured and LW2-

Smt. Rama Devi/ eye witness, are not known. Hence, their evidence is closed. Prosecution failed to get examined the remaining witnesses, hence, their evidence is closed. Therefore, except the investigating officer evidence, no witnesses are examined. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 coupled with 6 Ex.P1 to P5 are no way helpful the case of prosecution in the absence of material witness to prove alleged charges u/sec. 325, 506 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 to A3.

13.In the result, accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 325, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused no.1 to 3 shall stand canceled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 09 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1- P. Ram Babu Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1- ComplaintNil Ex.P2- First Information Report Ex.P3- Scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P4- C.D. along with 65-B Certificate Ex.P5- Medical certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI A. KUMARA SWAMY

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 09th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 12921 of 2020

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

Rangumudri Venkata Ramana, S/o. Appalanaidu, Age about 30 years, Occ: Hotel worker, R/o. H.No. 8-3-228/575/C, Near Pochamma Temple, Rahamath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, N/o. Kotha Veedhi, Chilakalapally (V), Balijipeta (M), Vizianagaram district, Andhra Pradesh state. …… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Naveen Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri P.L. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for Accused, and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 799/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are:-

(i)That on 29.10.2018 at 0900 hours LW1/Yelamanchali Seshu Sharma lodged complaint stating that he is working as Poojari in Veera Abaya 2 Anjaneya Swamy temple, East Srinivas Nagar, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad from last 30 years. That on 28.10.2018 in the night at about 2100 hours he went to his home by duly locking temple, on 29.10.2018 in the morning at 0600 hours, he opened the front gate of temple and found that the lock of one of two Hundi’s in the premises of temple was broke open and the Hundi amount was missing from it and he also found that the lock of back side gate of temple was broke open. He further stated that hundi amount was approximately Rs.5,000/-, hence, requested to take necessary action.

(ii)Basing on the complaint of LW1/Yelamanchali Seshu Sharma, LW6/N.

Sanjay Kumar (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered a case in Crime No.

799/2018 under sections 457, 380 of IPC and issued F.I.R. During investigation, LW.6/N. Sanjay Kumar examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Y. Seshu Sharma, visited scene of offence, caused enquiry; while investigation was in progress accused was arrested on 29.01.2019 in Cr.No.

543/218 u/sec.457, 380 IPC of PS S.R. Nagar and produced before court on 30.01.2019 and was lodged in Chanchalguda Jail; During his confession, accused confessed to have committed this offence, on that LW6 filed P.T.

warrant requisition before this court. Later on the transfer of LW6, LW7/Sri

K.Bandaiah (Sub-Inspector of Police) taken over the C.D. file; this court issued PT warrant against accused and his arrest was regularized on 14.03.2019. Subsequently on transfer of LW7, LW8/Sri K. Gokari (Sub-

Inspector of Police) took over CD file and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3

3.This Court taken cognizance of the case for the offences punishable under sections 457, 380 of IPC against the Accused.

4.On the appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused has been examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation levelled against him. After hearing the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, framed charges under sections 457, 380 of IPC against the Accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P3 on its behalf.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating circumstances, found against him during the prosecution evidence has been read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

4

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC?”

10.POINT:

The case against accused is that he entered into the temple by break opening lock of temple gate and broke open the lock of one of two Hundis in the premises of temple, committed theft of Rs.5,000/- and spent for his lavish purpose. In this regard, prosecution got examined the PW1, who is the investigating officer and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. P.S. S.R. Nagar filed report that LW1/Y. Seshu Sharma is a priest of temple, he is not interested to depose and also filed a report that whereabouts of LW2/M. Seetha Rama Raju and LW3/K.Rajeshwar Rao are not known. Hence, their evidence is closed.

The only evidence available on record is of PW1, who is the investigating officer, who deposed that after receiving Ex.P1 from LW1-Y. Seshu Sharma, he registered a case in Cr.No. 799/2018 u/sec. 457, 380 IPC, issued Ex.P2

F.I.R. He examined and recorded statement of LW1 and while investigation was in progress, the accused, who was arrested by him on 29.01.2019 in

Cr.No.543/2018 u/sec. 457, 380 IPC of P.S. S.R. Nagar presently he was lodged in Chanchalguda prison, he confessed to have committed the present offence in the presence of panchas. He filed a P.T. warrant against accused.

On his transfer, he handed over CD file to LW8- Sri K. Gokari, who filed charge sheet after investigation.

5

11.As seen that, except the evidence of PW1, no evidence is produced by prosecution, even the priest/LW1-Y. Seshu Sharma who has given the complaint is not examined by prosecution and further LW2/M. Seetha Rama

Raju and LW3/K. Rajeshwar Rao in whose presence confession and seizure panchanama of accused was conducted, were not examined. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged charges u/sec. 457, 380 IPC against the accused that he gained entry into the temple premises, broke open the lock of one of the Hundi and accused has committed theft of

Rs.5,000/-. In the absence of defacto complainant evidence, the PW1 evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the case.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 457, 380 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 09 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

PW1- N. Sanjay Kumar Nil 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1- ComplaintNil

Ex.P2- First Information Report

Ex.P3- Attested copy of Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

//TRUE COPY//

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI A.KUMARA SWAMY,

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Monday, the 13thday of April, 2026 C.C. No.2485/2026 in Cr.No.06/2026 (PS S.R.Nagar) Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S.S.R.Nagar Hyderabad.

…… Complainant

And

Gannamalla Mukesh Kumar @ Bittu, S/o. G.Srinivas, Aged about 23 years, Occ: DJ Operator, R/o.Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of the Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the accused in person and after perusing the case records and upon hearing, this Court made the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. S.R.Nagar has filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No. 06/2026 for the offence punishable under section 305(a) and 331(4) of BNS against Accused.

2.The brief facts, leading to the prosecution of the Accused can be summarized as follows:-

In the intervening night of 03.01.2026 at about 01.00 hrs, accused entered into Sri Kanaka

Durga Hostel and went up to the 5th Floor while checking all the hostel room, accused noticed one mobile phone kept beside LW1/Patan Afzal Khan taking the advantage of the situation and ensuring that no one was watching accused committed theft of the said Vivo mobile phone and fled away from the hostel and again in 2nd floor entered into one room and committed theft of blue color Vivo mobile phone and fled away.

3.Basing on charge sheet leveled against the accused this Court taken cognizance of the offence under section 305(a) and 331(4) of BNS against Accused .

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him U/Sec.230 BNSS.

5.Accused produced from jail. He examined under section 262 BNSS. He admitted the accusation voluntarily. A charge under section 305(a) and 331(4) BNS are framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular and he pleaded guilty voluntarily. Accepting his plea of guilt as voluntarily and free from inducement, duress or coercion, I convict the

Accused u/s.264 BNSS for the offence u/s. 305(a) and 331(4) BNS .

6.Heard the Acused on quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, for which the accused prayed to take lenient view by saying that he is a pvt job. Further he stated that he will not commit any further offence in future.

7.Having considering the submission of the accused and facts of the case, it is not desirable to invoke the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act and as seen that the property involved.

8.Accordingly, Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Three (03) months and 9 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- , in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 05 days for the offence u/s.305(a) BNS and further Accused is also hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for Three (03) months and 09 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- , in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 05 days for the offence u/s.331(4) BNS. Total fine amount to be collected Rs.200/-. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

9The period of remand under gone by Accused during investigation and trial i.e., from 13.09.2025 till date shall be given set off under section 468 BNSS.

10The unmarked case property deposited vide PI No.58/2026 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

III ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by either side