Ajay Kumar Jadhav

CC 75 of 2020 1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 18 th day of August, 2022

CC.No. 75 of 2020

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally...Complainant

And

A1: Allepu Raju S/o Poshetti, aged 29 years, Caste: Oddera, Occu: Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP25 AL 7679, Trolley No.TS16 UA 4584 R/o Dharpally village and mandal. A2:Allepu Gangadhar S/o Poshetty, aged 31 years, Caste: Oddera, Occu: Driver of Tractor bearing No.TS16 UB 1412, Trolley No.TS16 UB 1411 R/o Dharpally village and mandal. A3:Sirsu Srinu S/o Yellaiah, aged 31 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Owner cum Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP25 P 4312, Trailor No.AP25 F 5174 R/o Waddera colony, Dharpally mandal. …. Accused

This case is coming on 18-08-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri B.Manik Raj, learned counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

(a)That on 27.08.2019 at 1100 hrs Sri. S. Rajaram, Asst. Sub-Inspector of

Police of Dharpally left from Police station along with HG-230 for night patrolling duty. During his duty when he reached at Sri Venkateshwara Theater, on 28.08.2019 at 0230 hrs, which is situated at Dharpally (V&M) found 3 tractors with fully loaded sand and proceeding towards Dharpally(V) and he stopped them and asked the drivers of said tractors to show the permission letter from concerned authorities for transporting the sand, but they failed to show. As such took A1 to A3 to the police station along with tractors and trolleys B.No: AP25-

AL-7679, Trolley B.No: TS16-UA-4584, TS-16-UB-1412, trolley TS-16UB-1411,

CC 75 of 2020 2

AP25-P-4312, AP25-F-5174 and handed over to the Sub.Inspector of Police, PS

Dichpally.

(b)Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub.Inspector of Police,

Dharpally registered Crime No. 60 of 2019 under Section 379 IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of the informant and visited the scene of offence, seized three tractors tractors and trolleys B.No: AP25-AL-7679, Trolley B.No: TS16-UA-4584, TS-16-UB-1412, trolley TS-16UB-1411, AP25-P-4312, AP25-F-5174 loaded with sand under the cover of Seizure panchanama in the presence of the mediators. On 27-08-2019 the sub.Inspector of Police served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, instructing them to appear before this Court as and when they receive summons. After completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

(d) This court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 379 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

(e) On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC. Charge has been framed against them for the above said offence, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 5 and got marked P1 to P7 on its behalf. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard learned both counsels, perused material available on record.

CC 75 of 2020 3

5.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC ?

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and got exhibited P1 to P7. Pws 1 & 2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, confession and seizure panchanama; PW3 is the complainant; PW4 is the eye witness and PW5 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of

PW1 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P2 is the signature of PW1 on confession and seizure panchanama; Ex.P3 is the signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P4 is the signature of PW2 on confession and seizure panchanama; Ex.P5 is the First Information Report; Ex.P6 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P7 is the confession and seizure panchanama.

7.The learned APPO would submits that the evidence PWs3 & 4 coupled with the Investigating Officer/PW.5 amply proves the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

8.Per contra, the learned defense counsel would submits that there is no independent witness examined by the Investigating Officer/PW5. PW1 & PW2 panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, confession and seizure panchanama did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit them.

9.Basing on the rival contentions advanced by both the learned counsels this court has to scrutinize the evidence and material available on record.

10.Pws 1 & 2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, confession and seizure panchanama, both of them did not support the version of the prosecution.

11.PW3 is the complainant, who deposed that on 27.08.2019 he alongwith

LW3/SK.Afroz assisted LW6/K.Pande Rao, SI of Police and they all went to patrolling duty when reached near Venkateshwara theater, Dharpally on

CC 75 of 2020 4

28.09.2019 at about 2-30 AM, noticed three Tractors B.No. AP-25-AN-7679

Trolley No. TS-16-UA-4584, TS16-UR-1412 along with Trolley No. TS-16-UA-1411 and Tractor AP-25-P-4312 along with Trolley No. AP-25-P-5174 which are coming from Dharpally canal on suspicion they stopped said Tractors and enquired its drivers i.e accused No.1 to 3 for valid documents to transport the sand on which accused No.1 to 3 failed to furnish the same and about to confess their guilt that without permission they transporting sand, on which they took the above said vehicles and accused No.1 to 3 to Police Station and Lw6/K.Pande Rao, SI of police registered a suo motto case. During the cross examination he admitted that Venkateshwar theater is a busy road surrounded by several shops and residential houses. He admitted that he has not mentioned the names of any independent witnesses as eye witnesses. He admitted that he has not taken the photographs of the crime vehicles at the spot.

12.PW4 is cited as eye witness who deposed that Pw3, Lw3 and 6 are my superior officers. On 27.08.2019 he alongwith Lw3/Sk.Afroz were assisted Pw3 and they all went to patrolling duty when they reached near Venkateshwara theater, Dharpally on 28.09.2019 at about 2-30 AM, they noticed three Tractors

B.No. AP-25-AN-7679 Trolley No. TS-16-UA-4584, TS16-UR-1412 along with

Trolley No. TS-16-UA-1411 and Tractor AP-25-P-4312 along with Trolley No. AP- 25-P-5174 which are coming from Dharpally canal on suspicion they stopped said

Tractors and enquired its drivers i.e accused No.1 to 3 for valid documents to transport the sand on which accused No.1 to 3 failed to furnish the same and about to confess their guilt that without permission they transporting sand, on which they took the above said vehicles and accused No.1 to 3 to Police Station and Lw6/K.Pande Rao, SI of police registered a suo motto case. During the cross examination he admitted that he has not take any photographs of the crime vehicles at the spot. He admitted that Venkateshwara threater area is a busy road surrounded by several shops and residential houses.

CC 75 of 2020 5

13.PW5 is the Investigating Officer who deposed his line of investigation during the chief examination. He deposed that on 27.08.2019 at about 11-00 hours, he along with Pws 3 & 4 were conducting night patrolling duty when they reached near Venkateshwara theater at 12-30 AM they noticed three Tractors were coming on suspicion they stopped said Tractors I.e 1. AP-25-AN-7679 with

Trolley B.No. TS-16-UA4584, 2. TS-16-UB-1412 along with Trolley B.No. TS-16-UB- 1411, 3. AP-15-T4312 along with Trolley B.No. AP-25-F-5174 and on conducted search and found all the above said Tractors were loaded with sand. Thereafter, they enquried with A1 to A3 with regard to the documents to transport the sand on which all the accused failed to furnish the same. Thereafter, they brought the above said Tractors and accused to Police Station and he registered a suo-motto case in Cr.No. 60/2019 and issued Ex.P5/FIR. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Pws 3, 4 and Lw3/SK.Afroz. Later he visited scene of offence situated at Venkateshwar theater, Dharpally and conducted Ex.P6/scene of offence panchanama. Later he returned to Police Station and conducted

Ex.P7/confession and seizure panchanama and seized Tractors 1) AP-25-AN-7679 with Trolley B.No. TS-16-UA-4584, 2) TS16-UB-1412 along with Trolley B.No. TS- 16-UB-1411, 3) AP-15-T-4312 along with Trolley B.No. AP-25-F-5174. Later he issued 41(A) Cr.P.C to all the accused as they complied the same as such he has not effected their arrest. Thereafter on 04.09.2019, he addressed a letter to

Tahasildar, Dharpally with regard to crime vehicles, on which the Tahsildar,

Dharpally imposed penalty of Rs.6,000/- on each tractor. Later he released the crime vehicles and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination he admitted that he has not examined any independent eye witness in this case. He admitted that the place of alleged incident is a road which is busy and surrounded by other residential hosues. He admitted that he has not filed the photographs of alleged incident. He admitted that he has not examined any Gram Panchayath member or Revenue officials of

Dharpally.

CC 75 of 2020 6

14.Considering the material on record goes to show that PW5/Investigating

Officer admitted that he failed to examine any independent witness of

Venkateshwara theater locality or any villager of Dharpally village. In the absence of any independent witness, the version of Pws 3 & 4 cannot be believed. Further the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, confession and seizure panchanama i.e., Pws 1 & 2 did not support the version of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they were charged.

15.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of August, 2022.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: S.Venkati PW.2: A.Gangadhar -NIL- PW.3: S.Rajaram PW.4: M.Govind PW.5:K.Pande Rao/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P2 is the signature of PW1 on confession and seizure panchanama; -NIL- Ex.P3 is the signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P4 is the signature of PW2 on confession and seizure panchanama; Ex.P5 is the First Information Report; Ex.P6 is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 is the confession and seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

CC 75 of 2020 7

CC 712 of 2017 1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 11 th day of August, 2022

CC.No. 712 of 2017

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally ...Complainant

And

A1:Nalagangi Srinivas S/o Shingaiah, aged 37 years, Caste: Golla, Occu: Driver of Mahindra Tractor bearing No.AP25 V 5011 with trolley No.AP25 U 1783 R/o Honnajipet village of Dharpally mandal. A2:Banavath Sevya S/o Nandya, aged 38 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occu:DriverofSwarajTractorbearingengine No.391358/SWM15446, Chassis No.WYTM28932143434 R/o Nadimi thanda,Honnajipet village of Dharpally mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 11-08-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Bollaram Rajkumar, Counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally police station filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused transported sand illegally from the government reaches in the Tractor bearing No.AP25 V 5011 with trolley No.AP25 U 1783 and Tractor bearing engine No.

391358/SWM15446, Chassis No.WYTM28932143434, without any permission from the concerned authority, as defined under Section 379

IPC, Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2.The case of the prosecution is that,

(a) That on 14-02-2017 at 0530 hrs the complainant JanaGangadhar

S/o Gangaram, lodged a complaint in which he stated that on the credible information on 14-02-2017 at about 0315 hrs when he

CC 712 of 2017 2

was at Government Hospital apprehended two tractors which were loaded with sand in trolleys, on stopping the tractors the drivers of tractors were fled away, on observation found 01)

Mahindra tractor Bearing no AP 25 V 5011 with trolley AP25 U 1783 and another swaraj tractor which was not having registration number, Tractor engine Number 391358/SWM15446, Chassis No

WYTM2832143434, and not having trolley number and conducted seizure Panchanama in their presence of the mediators and shifted the tractors to Police station with the help of VRS's and handed over to SI Dharpally. Further he suspected that they were not having any valid permission from the government to transport the sand.

(b) Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub.Inspector of Police,

Dharpally registered Crime No. 17 of 2017 under Section 379 IPC & Sec. 3 of PDPP Act and took up the investigation, during the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of the informant and visited the scene of offence, seized Tractor bearing

No.AP25 V 5011 with trolley No. AP25 U 1783 and Tractor bearingengineNo.391358/SWM15446,Chassis

No.WYTM28932143434 under the cover of Seizure panchanama in the presence of the mediators and also conducted confession panchanama of accused. That on 18-02-2017 accused No.1 & 2 went to police station and surrendered themselves before the

Sub.Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally, on which the Sub.Inspector of Police served Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notices to the accused and as they complied to the said notices, as such he did not arrest them.

After completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

CC 712 of 2017 3

(c) This court took the cognizance for the offences punishable under

Section 379 IPC, Sec.3 of PDPP Act against the accused, on appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

(d)A1 and A2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC, Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

Charges have been framed against them for the above said offences, read over the contents of the same in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 7 and got exhibited P1 to P9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard learned both counsels, perused material available on record.

5.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the accused persons committed theft of sand from the government reaches and transporting the same in the Tractor bearing No.AP25 V 5011 with trolley No.AP25 U 1783 and Tractor bearingengineNo.391358/SWM15446,Chassis

No.WYTM28932143434, without any permission from the concerned authority, as defined under Section 379 IPC, Sec.3 of

PDPP Act ?

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got exhibited P1 to P9. PW.1 is the informant; Pws 2 & 3 are the witnesses; Pws 4 & 5 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama; PW6 is the panch witness for confession and PW7 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the Seizure panchanama; Ex.P2 is the report given by PW1 to the police; Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3;

CC 712 of 2017 4

Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P6 is the signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama and Ex.P7 is the First

Information Report.

7.The learned APPO would submits that though Pws 3 to 6 did not support the version of the prosecution, but the evidence of PWs1, 2 coupled with the Investigating Officer/PW7 amply proves the guilt of the accused. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

8.Per contra, the learned defense counsel would submits that the witness/PW3, Pws 4 & 5/the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and PW6/panch witness for confession panchanama turned hostile to the version of the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

9.Basing on the rival contentions advanced by both the learned counsels this court has to scrutinize the evidence and material available on record.

10.It is the version of the prosecution that on 14-02-2017 at 0530 hrs the complainant JanaGangadhar S/o Gangaram, lodged a complaint in which he stated that on the credible information on 14-02-2017 at about 0315 hrs when he was at Government Hospital apprehended two tractors which were loaded with sand in trolleys, on stopping the tractors the drivers of tractors were fled away, on observation found

01) Mahindra tractor Bearing no AP 25 V 5011 with trolley AP25 U 1783 and another swaraj tractor which was not having registration number,

Tractor engine Number 391358/SWM15446, Chassis No WYTM2832143434, and not having trolley number and conducted seizure Panchanama in their presence of the mediators and shifted the tractors to Police station with the help of VRS's and handed over to SI Dharpally. Further he suspected that

CC 712 of 2017 5

they were not having any valid permission from the government to transport the sand.

11. PW1 is the complainant who deposed that on 14.02.2017 at about 3.15 AM, on receiving credible information with regard to the transportation of sand with Tractor from Dharpally river, immediately he rushed to the spot along with LW2/Chelimela Ramulu, LW3/Balle Buchanna near government hospital, Dharpally, meantime he noticed two Tractors

B.No. AP-25-V-5011 along with Trolley B.No. AP-25-U-1783 another is

Swaraj Tractor is new one without having registration number, on seeing them the drivers of the above said Two Tractors were fled away. Thereafter, they searched the above said Two Tractors and found two Tractors are loaded with sand. Later he secured the presence of LW5/Edla Gangaram,

LW6/Ramadugu Pochaiah and conducted seizure panchanama as Ex.P1

Later he took the above said two Tractors and handed over to the SHO, P.S

Dharpally and filed Ex.P2/complaint. During the cross examination he admitted that he cannot identify the drivers who left the above said two tractors at the place of panchanama.

12.PW2 who is cited as witness deposed that on 14.02.2017 at about 3.15 AM, on receiving credible information with regard to the transportation of sand with Tractor from Dharpally river, immediately he alongwith LW2/Chelimela Ramulu were assisted Pw1 and rushed to the spot near government hospital, Dharpally, mean while he noticed two

Tractors B.No. AP-25-V-5011 along with Trolley B.No. AP-25-U-1783 another is Swaraj Tractor is new one without having registration number, on seeing them the drivers i.e., both the accused drivers of the above said Two

Tractors were fled away. Thereafter, they searched the above said Two

Tractors and found two Tractors are loaded with sand. Pw1 conducted seizure panchanama and seized the above said two Tractors. Thereafter,

CC 712 of 2017 6

Pw1 took the above said two Tractors and handed over to the SHO, P.S

Dharpally.Later Pw1 filed a complaint. During the cross examination he admitted that when he reached the spot, the drivers of the vehicles were not present.

13.PW3 is another witness, who did not support the version of the prosecution. Pws.4 & 5 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, who did not support the version of the prosecution. PW6 is the panch witness for confession also did not support the version of the prosecution.

14.PW7 is the Investigating Officer who deposed his line of investigation during chief examination. During the cross examination he denied suggestion that accused are no way concerned with this case and never confessed their guilt nor transported sand in the crime vehicles.

15.Considering the evidence on record, it can be said that the crucial witness i.e., PW3/witness, Pws 4 & 5/panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and PW6/ panch witness for confession did not support the version of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they were charged, as such the accused No.1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property i.e., Tractor bearing No.AP25 V 5011 with trolley No.AP25 U 1783 which is given to its registered owner towards interim custody vide orders in Crl.M.P.no. 251 of 2017 dt.07-03-2017 and tractor bearing No.TS16 KTR 9128 with Trailor

No.AP25 AQ 1755 which is given to its registered owner towards interim

CC 712 of 2017 7

custody vide orders in Crl.M.P.No. 306 of 2017 dt.23-03-2017 shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of July, 2022

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: J.Gangadhar PW.2: Buchanna -NIL- PW.3: D.Srikanth PW.4: G.Rajendhar PW.5: U.Mahender PW.6: S.Sailoo PW.7: K.Chander Rathod/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the Seizure panchanama; Ex.P2 is the report given by PW1 to the police; -NIL- Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3; Ex.P4 is the signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P5 is the signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P6 is the signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama Ex.P7 is the First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-nil- -nil-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

CC 712 of 2017 8

CC 690 of 20171

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

CC.No. 690 of 2017

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally ...Complainant

and

A1: Megavath Gema S/o Late Harisingh, aged 30 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occu: House-hold, R/o Belya thanda, Damannapet village of Dharpally mandal. A2:Malavath Kavitha H/o Gema, aged 28 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Belya thanda, Damannapet village of Dharpally mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 10-08-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State-complainant and Sri M.B.Santosh Naag, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.02.2008 the marriage of Lw-1/

Smt.Megavath Sunitha@ Anuradha/Complainant was performed with accused no.1.

During the matrimonial life accused no.1 and Lw-1/Complainant blessed one daughter and son. Since few months accused no.1 who harassed the

Lw-1/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha Anuradha physically and mentally and developed love affair with accused no.2. That on 30.05.2017 accused no.1 performed secondmarriagewithaccusedno.2withoutknowledgeof

Lw-01/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha @ Anuradha at Sri Maddul at Laxminarsimha

Swamy temple and exchanged garlands.

3.Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

CC 690 of 20172

Station Dharpally registered this case vide Crime No. 61 of 2017 under Section 498-A, 494 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 29-06-2017 served 41-A Cr.P.C notices on the accused instructing them to appear

before this Court as and when they receive the notice from this Court. After

completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused person.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC, against accused. Charges have been framed for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 6 and got exhibited Exs P1 to P6 and no material objects were marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

6.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 494 IPC ?

7.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got exhibited P1 to P6. PW.1 is informant; Pws 2 to 5 are the witnesses and PW6 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW1 to the police; Exs.P2 to P5 are the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws 2 to 5 and Ex.P6 is the First Information report.

8.The learned APPO submitted that the victim/PW1 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW6 is sufficient to convict the accused persons, as such prayed to convict the accused.

CC 690 of 20173

9.Per contra the learned defense counsel would submit that except the victim no other corroborative evidence placed before this Court to convict the accused.

Pws 2 to 5 did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10.Basing on the rival submissions this court has to scrutinize the evidence available on record.

11.It is the version of the prosecution that on 25.02.2008 the marriage of Lw-1/

Smt.Megavath Sunitha@ Anuradha/Complainant was performed with accused no.1.

During the matrimonial life accused no.1 and Lw-1/Complainant blessed one daughter and son. Since few months accused no.1 who harassed the

Lw-1/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha Anuradha physically and mentally and developed love affair with accused no.2. That on 30.05.2017 accused no.1 performed secondmarriagewithaccusedno.2withoutknowledgeof

Lw-01/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha @ Anuradha at Sri Maddul at Laxminarsimha

Swamy temple and exchanged garlands.

12.PW1 is the victim who deposed that on 25-02-2008 her marriage was performed with A1, out of the wed-lock she blessed with one daughter and one son.

That on 30-05-2017 at about 9.30 p.m. she came to know that A1 performed second marriage with A2 at Mallagutta Kaman, on which she approached Lws 2 to 4/Megavath Gangaram, Smt.Megavath Sunitha, Gugloth Ravi and Megavath Chander.

Then A1 stated that he performed second marriage with A2. Later A1 stated to her that he will take care of her and A2, to which she did not accept. Later several panchayaths were conducted, but in vain. Thereafter she went to the police station,

Dharpally and filed Ex.P1/report. During the cross examination she deposed that she has not witnessed the second marriage of A1 with A2. She denied suggestion that she is not interested to live with A1, as such to avoid him and harass him filed this case.

CC 690 of 20174

13.Pws 2 to 5 are cited as witnesses, none of them supported the version of the prosecution.

14.PW6 is the Investigating Officer who deposed his line of investigation who deposed his line of investigation during his chief examination. He deposed that on 31-05-2017 at about 3.30 p.m. LW7/Md.Khaleel Pasha, ASI received complaint/Ex.p1 from PW1, basing on it he registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2017 and issued

Ex.P6/FIR.Later he handedover the case file toLW8/

B.Murali, SI of Police. After receiving RCD from LW7, LW8 verified it and found it on proper lines. Later LW8 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2, as they complied the same, as such he has not effected their arrest. On 05-10-2017 he assumed charge of SI of police, Dharpally, as such he received RCD from LW8 and verified it and found it on proper lines. On 15-11-2017 he visited Baliya thanda of Dammannapet village of Dharpally mandal and recorded the statements of Pws 4 & 5. After completing the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination, he admitted that neither himself nor Lws 7 & 8 have recorded the statements of any employee of the temple where the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 took place. He also admitted that he has not examined and recorded the statements of the parents of the complainant and accused No.2.

15.As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW1 is the victim, the version of PW1 is not supported by any independent witnesses. Pws 2 to 5 did not support the version of the prosecution. PW1 has not witnessed the marriage of

A1 with A2. The Investigating Officer failed to examine any employee of the temple where the alleged marriage of A1 with A2 took place. In these facts and circumstances, this Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC and they are acquitted under Section

CC 690 of 20175

248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of August, 2022

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Smt.M.Sunitha @ Anuradha PW.2: Smt.N.Sunitha -NIL- PW.3: G.Ravi PW.4: Megavath Chander PW.5: Smt.Anusha PW.6: K.Chander Rathod/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1 to the police; Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2; Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3; -NIL- Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2; Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3; Ex.P6 is the First Information Report;

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

CC 690 of 20176

CC 690 of 20171

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NIZAMABAD

PRESENT: Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 10th day of August, 2022

CC.No. 690 of 2017

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally ...Complainant

and

A1: Megavath Gema S/o Late Harisingh, aged 30 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occu: House-hold, R/o Belya thanda, Damannapet village of Dharpally mandal. A2:Malavath Kavitha H/o Gema, aged 28 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Belya thanda, Damannapet village of Dharpally mandal.

…. Accused

This case is coming on 10-08-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P. for the State-complainant and Sri M.B.Santosh Naag, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 25.02.2008 the marriage of Lw-1/

Smt.Megavath Sunitha@ Anuradha/Complainant was performed with accused no.1.

During the matrimonial life accused no.1 and Lw-1/Complainant blessed one daughter and son. Since few months accused no.1 who harassed the

Lw-1/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha Anuradha physically and mentally and developed love affair with accused no.2. That on 30.05.2017 accused no.1 performed secondmarriagewithaccusedno.2withoutknowledgeof

Lw-01/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha @ Anuradha at Sri Maddul at Laxminarsimha

Swamy temple and exchanged garlands.

3.Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police

CC 690 of 20172

Station Dharpally registered this case vide Crime No. 61 of 2017 under Section 498-A, 494 of Indian Penal Code and took-up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 29-06-2017 served 41-A Cr.P.C notices on the accused instructing them to appear

before this Court as and when they receive the notice from this Court. After

completion of the investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused person.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC, against accused. Charges have been framed for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 6 and got exhibited Exs P1 to P6 and no material objects were marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

6.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A, 494 IPC ?

7.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got exhibited P1 to P6. PW.1 is informant; Pws 2 to 5 are the witnesses and PW6 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW1 to the police; Exs.P2 to P5 are the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws 2 to 5 and Ex.P6 is the First Information report.

8.The learned APPO submitted that the victim/PW1 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW6 is sufficient to convict the accused persons, as such prayed to convict the accused.

CC 690 of 20173

9.Per contra the learned defense counsel would submit that except the victim no other corroborative evidence placed before this Court to convict the accused.

Pws 2 to 5 did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10.Basing on the rival submissions this court has to scrutinize the evidence available on record.

11.It is the version of the prosecution that on 25.02.2008 the marriage of Lw-1/

Smt.Megavath Sunitha@ Anuradha/Complainant was performed with accused no.1.

During the matrimonial life accused no.1 and Lw-1/Complainant blessed one daughter and son. Since few months accused no.1 who harassed the

Lw-1/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha Anuradha physically and mentally and developed love affair with accused no.2. That on 30.05.2017 accused no.1 performed secondmarriagewithaccusedno.2withoutknowledgeof

Lw-01/Complainant/Megavath Sunitha @ Anuradha at Sri Maddul at Laxminarsimha

Swamy temple and exchanged garlands.

12.PW1 is the victim who deposed that on 25-02-2008 her marriage was performed with A1, out of the wed-lock she blessed with one daughter and one son.

That on 30-05-2017 at about 9.30 p.m. she came to know that A1 performed second marriage with A2 at Mallagutta Kaman, on which she approached Lws 2 to 4/Megavath Gangaram, Smt.Megavath Sunitha, Gugloth Ravi and Megavath Chander.

Then A1 stated that he performed second marriage with A2. Later A1 stated to her that he will take care of her and A2, to which she did not accept. Later several panchayaths were conducted, but in vain. Thereafter she went to the police station,

Dharpally and filed Ex.P1/report. During the cross examination she deposed that she has not witnessed the second marriage of A1 with A2. She denied suggestion that she is not interested to live with A1, as such to avoid him and harass him filed this case.

CC 690 of 20174

13.Pws 2 to 5 are cited as witnesses, none of them supported the version of the prosecution.

14.PW6 is the Investigating Officer who deposed his line of investigation who deposed his line of investigation during his chief examination. He deposed that on 31-05-2017 at about 3.30 p.m. LW7/Md.Khaleel Pasha, ASI received complaint/Ex.p1 from PW1, basing on it he registered a case in Crime No.61 of 2017 and issued

Ex.P6/FIR.Later he handedover the case file toLW8/

B.Murali, SI of Police. After receiving RCD from LW7, LW8 verified it and found it on proper lines. Later LW8 issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2, as they complied the same, as such he has not effected their arrest. On 05-10-2017 he assumed charge of SI of police, Dharpally, as such he received RCD from LW8 and verified it and found it on proper lines. On 15-11-2017 he visited Baliya thanda of Dammannapet village of Dharpally mandal and recorded the statements of Pws 4 & 5. After completing the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination, he admitted that neither himself nor Lws 7 & 8 have recorded the statements of any employee of the temple where the alleged second marriage of A1 with A2 took place. He also admitted that he has not examined and recorded the statements of the parents of the complainant and accused No.2.

15.As seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, PW1 is the victim, the version of PW1 is not supported by any independent witnesses. Pws 2 to 5 did not support the version of the prosecution. PW1 has not witnessed the marriage of

A1 with A2. The Investigating Officer failed to examine any employee of the temple where the alleged marriage of A1 with A2 took place. In these facts and circumstances, this Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In the result the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 494 IPC and they are acquitted under Section

CC 690 of 20175

248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of August, 2022

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW-1: Smt.M.Sunitha @ Anuradha PW.2: Smt.N.Sunitha -NIL- PW.3: G.Ravi PW.4: Megavath Chander PW.5: Smt.Anusha PW.6: K.Chander Rathod/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is the report given by PW.1 to the police; Ex.P2 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2; Ex.P3 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3; -NIL- Ex.P4 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2; Ex.P5 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3; Ex.P6 is the First Information Report;

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

CC 690 of 20176

CC 614 of 2022 1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Jadhav, II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 17 th day of August, 2022

CC.No. 614 of 2022

Between: The State through

Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Navipet...Complainant

And

A1: Dumala Sandeep S/o Gangadhar, aged 25 years, Caste: Kurma, Occu: Driver, R/o H.No.1-87, Nizampoor village of Navipet mandal. A2:Surakathula Bhumesh S/o Surakathula Nadipi Poshetty, aged 28 years, Caste: Goondla, Occu: Driver, R/o H.No.1-6, Nizampoor village, Navipet mandal. …. Accused

This case is coming on 17-08-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri M.B.Santhosh Naag, learned counsel for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet police station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

(a)On 12-04-2022 in the night at about 1.00 hours while LW1/Md.Zakeer

Hussain, PC 675 alongwith LW2/Ollepu Mahesh as per the instructions of their

SHO PS Navipet were performing patrolling duty at Nandigam village shivar, they found two tractors 1) TS16 EK 6965 belonging to accused No.1 and 2) Tractor bearing No.AP25 PB 3773 belonging to accused No.2 with sand load and on enquiry accused No.1 & 2 did not show any document for transportation of sand.

(b)Basing on the report of the informant, the Sub.Inspector of Police,

Navipet registered Crime No. 96 of 2022 under Section 379 IPC and took up the investigation.

CC 614 of 2022 2

(c)During the investigation he examined and recorded the statement of the informant and visited the scene of offence, seized two tractors 1) TS16 EK 6965 belonging to accused No.1 and 2) Tractor bearing No.AP25 PB 3773 loaded with sand under the cover of Seizure panchanama in the presence of the mediators. On 12-04-2022 the sub.Inspector of Police served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused, instructing them to appear before this Court as and when they receive summons. After completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

(d) This court took the cognizance for the offence punishable under

Section 379 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

(e) On appearance of the accused copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 & 2 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC. Charge has been framed against them for the above said offence, read over the contents of the same in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs1 to 4 and got marked P1 to P5 on its behalf. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 & 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4.Heard learned both counsels, perused material available on record.

5.Now the Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC ?

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and

CC 614 of 2022 3

got exhibited P1 to P5. Pws 1 & 2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama; PW3 is the complainant; PW4 is the Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P2 is the signature of

PW2 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P3 is the complaint; Ex.P4 is the First

Information Report and Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama.

7.The learned APPO would submits that the evidence PW3 coupled with the

Investigating Officer/PW.4 amply proves the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, prayed to convict the accused.

8.Per contra, the learned defense counsel would submits that there is no independent witness examined by the Investigating Officer/PW5. PW1 & PW2 panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama did not support the version of the prosecution. Hence, prayed to acquit him.

9.Basing on the rival contentions advanced by both the learned counsels this court has to scrutinize the evidence and material available on record.

10.Pws 1 & 2 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence, both of them did not support the version of the prosecution.

11.PW3 is the complainant, who deposed that on 12-04-2022 he alongwith

LW2/Ollepu Mahesh Kumar were conducting patrolling duty, on the same day at about 1.00 a.m. they noticed two tractors bearing Nos.TS16 EK 6965 and AP25 TD 2773 loaded with sand, when they reached Nandigoan village shivar, on enquiry accused did not furnish any valid permission, as such they took the tractors alongwith accused to the police station and handed over the crime vehicles to

LW5/D.Raja Reddy, SI of Police and filed Ex.P3/complaint. During the cross examination he admitted that there is a correction of registration number of crime vehicle in Ex.P3/report. He also admitted that the has not recorded the confessional panchanama of both the accused. He admitted that he has not taken the photographs of the crime vehicles.

12.PW4 is the Investigating Officer who deposed his line of investigation

CC 614 of 2022 4

during the chief examination. He deposed that on 12-04-2022 at about 9.00 a.m.

he received Ex.P3/complaint from PW3, basing on it he registered a case in Crime

No.96/2022 and issued Ex.P4/FIR. Later he went to the scene of offence and conducted Ex.P5/scene of offence panchanama. On 12-04-2022 he issued Sec.

41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused No.1 & 2, as they complied, as such he did not effected their arrest. On 18-04-2022 he addressed a letter to the Tahsildar,

Navipet for necessary action, on which the Tahsildar imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- on each vehicle. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination he admitted that he has not recorded the statement of any independent witness.

13.Considering the material on record goes to show that PW4/Investigating

Officer admitted that he failed to examine any independent witness or any villager of Nandigoan village. In the absence of any independent witness, the version of Pws 3 & 4 cannot be believed. Further the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama i.e., Pws 1 & 2 did not support the version of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they were charged.

14.In the result, the accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2022.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1: A.Vijay Kumar PW.2: K.Raju -NIL-

CC 614 of 2022 5

PW.3: Md.Jakeer Hussain PW.4: D.Raja Reddy/IO

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on -NIL- scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P3 is the complaint; Ex.P4 is the First Information Report Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL- -NIL-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

CC 614 of 2022 6