Sri. Ajay Ullam

Page No.1 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD

PRESENT:- Ajay Ullam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T. FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Friday, 25th day of July, 2025

C.C.No. 596 OF 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Asifabad Police Station. ..…PROSECUTION

AND

Tekam Ramarao @ Umesh, S/o. Ananda Rao, Age: 38 years, R/o. Danthanally village of Utnoor Mandal, Now at Musarambagh, Hyderabad.

…ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Smt M. Anjani Devi,learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of police, Asifabad has laid charge sheet against accused in

Cr.No. 300 of 2022, for the offences punishable under Secs. 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC” for brevity).

2.Brief facts of the case of Prosecution are that, on 17.12.2022 at 18:00 hours the complainant/LW-1 Pendur Venkatesh, came to police station and lodged report stating that, since two months he is residing in the house of Durgam Nagarjuna at Paikajinagar,

Asifabad on rent basis. On 08.12.2022 he along with his wife went to Adilabad. On 13.12.2022 at about 4:00 P.M., he returned to his house and opened the gate lock and found that his house main door lock was broken and thrown on the ground, he entered into house and found that almirah locker was broken and articles were thrown at pell-mell position and gold ornaments i.e., 1. Two Gold chains, 2.Gold Ear studs (Kammalu,14 grams), 3. Gold maties

Page No.2 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 (wg.5 grams), 4. Two Gold hand rings (wg.6 grams), 5. Gold ring (wg.6 grams), 6. Nine small rings (wg.19 grams), 7. Three Gold lockets(3.5 grams), 8. Two pairs of small ear studs (wg.4 grams), 9. Silver leg chains 5 pairs(wg.17 tulas), 10. Two gold chains big (wg.8 tulas), 11. Seven silver Kadas (wg.5 tulas), 12. Silver Kunkuma Bharani (wg.3 tulas), 13. Silver chain (wg. 1 tula) and Net cash Rs.20,000/- were not found in almarah locker. Some unknown offenders illegally trespassed into house by broke open doors and locker of the almarah and committed theft of 5 ½ tulas gold, 33 tulas silver ornaments total worth Rs.1,94,000/- and net cash of

Rs.20,000/- and dacamped with booty. Hence he requested to take necessary action.

3. On receipt of above complaint, the LW-7/Ch. Ranaprathap, Inspector of police case was registered in Cr.No. 300/2022, for the offences U/secs. 457, 380 of IPC and issued

FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. He examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence and noted the details in Crime Details Form. On 07.02.2024 LW-8/G.

Sathish, Inspector of police took up the investigation.

3(i).On 25.05.2024 the inspector of police, Siddipet-II town police station arrested the accused/Tekam Ramarao @ Umesh in Cr.No 22/2024, for the offences U/sec. 457, 380, 411 of IPC. During interrogation, he recorded the confessional statement of accused and seized the stolen property ie., 1. Two Gold chains (16 grams), 2.Gold Ear studs (Kammalu (14 grams), 3. Gold maties (wg.5 grams), 4. Two Gold hand rings(wg.6 grams), 5. Gold ring (wg.6 grams), 6. Nine small rings(wg.19 grams), 7. Three Gold lockets(3.5 grams), 8. Two pairs of small ear studs (wg.4 grams), 9. Silver leg chains 5 pairs(wg.17 tulas), 10. Two gold chains big (wg.8 tulas), 11. Seven silver Kadas (wg.5 tulas), 12. Silver Kunkuma Bharani (wg.3 tulas), 13.

Silver chain (wg. 1 tula) and accused confessed that he used net cash Rs.20,000/- for his jalsa.

3(ii).On knowing the same LW-8 filed requisition before the Hon’ble Court with a request to issue PT warrant against the accused in this case, accordingly the Hon’ble Court

Page No.3 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 issued the PT warrant. On 19.06.2024 the accused produced before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sec. 457, 380 of IPC against accused.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Secs. 457, 380 of IPC against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, he was examined under sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and the charges framed against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.

457, 380 of IPC, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-5 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 are marked on behalf of Prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the accused himself admitted about committing theft and the same was also reflected in his confession panchanama. The property against which the offence committed was also recovered from the possession of the accused. Moreover, all the evidence given by the witnesses were in corroboration with each other except a minute changes as the offence occurred long back.

Considering this, requested that the accused should punish accordingly.

Page No.4 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024

9)On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that all the witness statements were in contradiction and also stressed that the complainant(PW1) mentioned in the complaint(Ex.P1) that the “unknown persons committed theft”. So, the persons who committed theft was not seen by the complainant and the innocent accused was involved in this case on suspicion. Moreover, PW2 did not mention the correct boundaries of the place, where the police conducted scene of offence panchanama gives a notion that it was a table investigation conducted by the police and the case was filed for statistical purpose.

Finally, concluded by arguing that the seized property belongs to the accused, as he purchased the property. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10) The points for determination are:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC beyond all or any reasonable doubt?

2) To what order?

11. POINT No.1:

11(i).In this case, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution called the complainant and examined as PW1. He deposed in his chief examination that on 08.12.2022, he along with his family members left to Adilabad and returned back on 13.12.2022 and found that the lock of the house was broken and the things were scattered in the house. Further noticed Rs.

20,000/- and gold ornaments were missing. Then, realizing the theft was committed, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). Nothing new or contrary came to the record during the cross examination done by the learned counsel for the accused.

11(ii). Later, the panch witness for scene of offence and rough sketch was called and examined as PW2. He deposed in his chief examination that on 17.12.2022, the police had conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. After drafting the panchanama, the same was read over and explained to him, upon which he attested his signatures. He even

Page No.5 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 identified the signatures. Nothing new or contrary came to the record during the cross examination done by the learned counsel for the accused.

11(iii). Thereafter, the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama was called and examined as PW3. He deposed that on 25.05.2024 the police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized stolen articles. Further, he deposed that the accused also confessed about committing theft and even identified the accused standing in the Court hall, as the same person who confessed about the commission of the offence. After drafting the panchanama, the same was read over and explained to him, upon which he attested his signatures and even he identified his signatures. Except suggestions, nothing was asked in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, as such his evidence remained admitted and unrebutted.

12.Moreover, the investigation officers, were called by the prosecution and examined as

PW4 & PW5. They deposed about the registration of complaint, examination and recording of the witness statement, visiting the scene of offence, conducting scene of offence panchanama, arrest of accused, recording of confession panchanama, recovery of case property from the accused, deposition of the same before the Court and filing of charge sheet. In their cross examination, nothing new or contrary came to the record.

13.At this juncture, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor considering that having no improvement of evidence even though other witnesses were called to depose the evidence, as the vital witnesses deposed the require evidence to establish the case, so in the interest of justice and to save the Court time, given up the further evidence of LW2, LW4 and LW6.

14.The golden rule that runs through the web of Civilized Criminal Jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless he is found guilty of the charged offence.

Page No.6 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024

Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Art.14(2) of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political rights, 1966. Art.11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, 1948 also provides that any charged with penal offences has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trail at which he has all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

15.In the case of V.D Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762 the Hon’ble supreme court has held that it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lies upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt.

16.After considering the evidence on record, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that, non-mentioning of correct boundaries of the place by the PW2 in his cross examination was an example to say that it was a table investigation conducted by Police and the case was filed for statistical purpose, did not attain any weight in satisfying the court to the extent to draw a conclusion that the accused was an innocent.

17.The variations in their deposition, rather, went to prove that these witnesses told the truth as they saw it and they were free from tutoring. Therefore, their depositions are found above reproach, as they have no previous axe to grind against the accused to falsely implicate the accused and let the actual culprit go Scot free.

18.Because, the evidence of all the witnesses were in corroboration with each other, without any inherent discrepancies, except a minute changes. That draw back of minute changes was erased in the mind of the court by a satisfactory explanation from the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor that it was due to the time gap i.e., from occurrence of the crime to the trial, which was a general and usual irregularity seen in many cases while examining

Page No.7 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 the witnesses and that should not be attained utmost weight, when the other evidence on record supporting the prosecution case. This made the court to satisfy that their depositions are natural and truth worthy.

19.Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel for accused that PW1, deposed that “unknown persons committed the theft”. So, as the exact person who committed the theft was not known and the said accused was arrested on suspicion. At this juncture, this court come across with the Section 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act, which states that “the court may presume, that a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. This principle was also held in state of Orissa Vs Nenkuri, 1986 Cr.L.J 439(Ori)” that “where certain gold ornaments proved to be stolen were recovered from the possession of the accused person immediately after the occurrence of theft, the court can raise a presumption that the accused are thieves”. Considering this and the evidence of PW-2 and 3, a presumption was drawn against the said accused.

20.Apart from all these, the learned counsel for accused also argued that the claimed stolen property belong to the accused, as he purchased the property. At this juncture, it is rather desirable to extract what section 103 of Indian evidence Act speaks, for convenience:

103. Burden of proof as to particular fact- the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in his existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. By considering this principle of Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the claimed stolen property belongs to accused, was casted on accused himself by producing cogent evidence. Because, the accused himself wishes the court to believe that is his own property. But, the accused as well as the learned counsel for accused did not provide any facta probanda as well as facta probantia to prove that the claimed stolen property was his own property. So, the defect in production of defence evidence by the accused and the learned counsel of the

Page No.8 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 accused, on whom the burden of proof lies cannot be cured by criticizing the evidence of prosecution.

21.Moreover, it is also rather desirable to extract what section 102 of Indian evidence Act speaks, for convenience :

102. On whom burden of Proof lies- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This says, if the person on whom the burden lies to produce suffice evidence was considered as failed to produce the evidence, if he does not produce the evidence for his claim. Considering this principle, here the accused and the learned counsel for the accused did not produce the suffice evidence for their claim. Hence, they deemed to be failed to produce the suffice evidence to prove that claim.

22.Moreover, it is further desirable to extract what section 114 Illustration(g) of Indian

Evidence Act speaks, for convenience:

114 illustration(g).The court may presume, that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. This says,

That the person on whom the burden lies to produce the evidence, to prove his claim, but did not produce the evidence raises a may presumption in the mind of the court that such evidence might be unfavorable to that person, if produced. Considering this principle, as the accused and the learned counsel did not produce any evidence to satisfy the court that the stolen property belongs to the accused himself, raises a may presumption that if at all any evidence is produced that might be unfavorable to the accused and creates a suspicion in the mind of the court about the possession and ownership of the stolen property by the accused.

23.From the above, not only the learned counsel for accused failed to prove, that there was a fault in investigation but also failed to prove the innocence of the accused, as she failed to produce the evidence in support of her arguments. But, the prosecution from its evidence, proved that all the facts were in consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

Page No.9 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The evidence on record also reflect the chain of circumstances is so coherent and complete that the testimony has shown that in all human probability the offence is committed by the accused. The testimonies of the witnesses are also straight forward and convinced that they did not exaggerated the prosecution story and hence it becomes reliable and believable. In view of the above discussion and considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt with the support of evidence on record. This point is answered accordingly.

24. POINT NO.2:

24(i).In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of July, 2025)

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

25)Heard the accused on the point of quantum of sentence to be imposed against him.

Accused submitted that he is poor and requested the Court to take a lenient view.

26)Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of accused and his counsel, this Court feels that this is not a fit case to invoke the beneficial provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. in favor of the accused. However taking into consideration

Page No.10 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024 the social status and submission made by the convicted, this Court is of the view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

27)Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days for the offence punishable under

Section 457 IPC; to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR AND SIX

MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another (15) days for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Both the sentence shall run concurrently.

28.Since the accused person has been in jail, the period of detention undergone by the accused person during investigation, inquiry and trial of the case shall be set off against the sentences awarded under Section 428 CrPC. (19.06.2024 to 25.07.2025)

29.The Case property vide C.P. No. 86/2024 shall be handed over to its rightful owner in due course after observing necessary legal formalities.

30.Copy of judgment furnished to the accused free of cost forthwith. (Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of July, 2025)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Page No.11 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Pendur Venkatesh

PW-2Vairagade Prashanth Kumar

PW-3Gyadari Narsimlu:: NONE ::

PW-4Ch. Ranaparathap (I.O)

PW-5G. Sathish (I.O)

Page No.12 of 11CC No. 596 of 2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint Ex.P-2Crime Details Form Ex.P-3Rough Sketch Ex.P-4Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-5First Information Report

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Page No.1 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD

PRESENT:- Ajay Ullam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T. FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Friday, 25th day of July, 2025

C.C.No. 595 OF 2024

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Asifabad Police Station. ..…PROSECUTION

AND

Tekam Ramarao @ Umesh, S/o. Ananda Rao, Age: 38 years, R/o. Danthanally village of Utnoor Mandal, Now at Musarambagh, Hyderabad.

…ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Smt M. Anjani Devi,learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter 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, Asifabad has laid charge sheet against accused in

Cr.No. 5 of 2023, for the offences punishable under Secs. 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC” for brevity).

2.Brief facts of the case of Prosecution are that, on 07.01.2023 at 13:00 hours the complainant/LW-1 Yada Ramesh, came to police station and lodged report stating that, on 04.01.2023 he along with family went to Hyderabad, his tenant also went to other village

before his family members. On 06.01.2023 his tenant return to his house and informed him

that his house latch was removed . On 07.01.2023 morning at about 5:30 hours he reached to his house and found that the unknown offenders illegally trespassed into house by latch broken doors and broken beruva locker and stolen net cash Rs.30,000/-, 2 tulas gold (small

Page No.2 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024 pieces), worth Rs.30,000/-, total Rs.60,000/- from his house. Hence he requested to take necessary action.

3. On receipt of above complaint, the LW-7/E. Ramesh, SI of police case was registered in Cr.No. 5/2023, for the offences U/secs. 457, 380 of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. He examined the witnesses and went to the scene of offence and noted the details in Crime Details Form. On 07.02.2024 LW-8/M. Praveen

Kumar, SI of police took up the investigation.

3(i).On 25.05.2024 the inspector of police, Siddipet-II town police station arrested the accused/Tekam Ramarao @ Umesh in Cr.No 22/2024, for the offences Usec/. 457, 380, 411 of IPC. During interrogation, he recorded the confessional statement of accused and seized the stolen property two tulas of golden pieces before two mediators and accused confessed that he used net cash Rs.30,000/- for his jalsa.

3(ii).On knowing the same LW-8 filed requisition before the Hon’ble Court with a request to issue PT warrant against the accused in this case, accordingly the Hon’ble Court issued the PT warrant. On 19.06.2024 the accused produced before the Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sec. 457, 380 of IPC against accused.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Secs. 457, 380 of IPC against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, he was examined under sec.

239 Cr.P.C., and the charges framed against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.

457, 380 of IPC, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No.3 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

5.During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 and Exs.P-1 to P-5 are marked on behalf of Prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under Sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the accused himself admitted about committing theft and the same was also reflected in his confession panchanama. The property against which the offence committed was also recovered from the possession of the accused. Moreover, all the evidence given by the witnesses were in corroboration with each other except a minute changes as the offence occurred long back.

Considering this, requested that the accused should punish accordingly.

9.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that all the witness statements were in contradiction and also stressed that the complainant(PW1) mentioned in the complaint(Ex.P1) that the “unknown persons committed theft”. So, the persons who committed theft was not seen by the complainant and the innocent accused was involved in this case on suspicion. Moreover, PW2 did not mention the correct boundaries of the place, where the police conducted scene of offence panchanama gives a notion that it was a table investigation conducted by the police and the case was filed for statistical purpose. Finally, concluded by arguing that the seized property belongs to the accused, as he purchased the property. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused.

10) The points for determination are:

Page No.4 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

1) Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC beyond all or any reasonable doubt?

2) To what order?

11. POINT No.1:

11(i).In this case, to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution called the complainant and examined as PW1. He deposed in his chief examination that on 04.01.2023, he along with his family members left to Hyderabad and returned back on 07.01.2023 at 5.30 am and found that the lock of the house was broken and the things were scattered in the house. Further noticed Rs. 30,000/- and 2 tulas of gold were missing. Then, realizing the theft was committed, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). Nothing new or contrary came to the record during the cross examination done by the learned counsel for the accused.

11(ii).Later, the panch witness for scene of offence and rough sketch was called and examined as PW2. He deposed in his chief examination that on 07.01.2023, the police had conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. After drafting the panchanama, the same was read over and explained to him, upon which he attested his signatures. He even identified the signatures. Nothing new or contrary came to the record during the cross examination done by the learned counsel for the accused.

11(iii).Thereafter, the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama was called and examined as PW3. He deposed that on 25.05.2024 the police conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in his presence and seized stolen articles. Further, he deposed that the accused also confessed about committing theft and even identified the accused standing in the Court hall, as the same person who confessed about the commission of the offence. After drafting the panchanama, the same was read over and explained to him, upon which he attested his signatures and even he identified his signatures. Except

Page No.5 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024 suggestions, nothing was asked in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, as such his evidence remained admitted and unrebutted.

11(iv).Moreover, the investigation officer, was called by the prosecution and examined as PW4. He deposed about the registration of complaint, examination and recording of the witness statement, visiting the scene of offence, conducting scene of offence panchanama, arrest of accused, recording of confession panchanama, recovery of case property from the accused, deposition of the same before the Court and filing of charge sheet. In his cross examination, nothing new or contrary came to the record.

12)At this juncture, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor considering that having no improvement of evidence even though other witnesses were called to depose the evidence, as the vital witnesses deposed the require evidence to establish the case, so in the interest of justice and to save the Court time, given up the further evidence of LW2, LW4 and LW6.

Finally, the evidence of LW8 was closed, as the prosecution failed to produce the witness

before the court, to depose the evidence, even after several adjournments were given.

13)The golden rule that runs through the web of Civilized Criminal Jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless he is found guilty of the charged offence.

Presumption of innocence is a human right as envisaged under Art.14(2) of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political rights, 1966. Art.11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights, 1948 also provides that any charged with penal offences has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trail at which he has all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

14.In the case of V.D Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762 the Hon’ble supreme court has held that it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the

Page No.6 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024 burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lies upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt.

15.After considering the evidence on record, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that, non-mentioning of correct boundaries of the place by the PW2 in his cross examination was an example to say that it was a table investigation conducted by Police and the case was filed for statistical purpose, did not attain any weight in satisfying the court to the extent to draw a conclusion that the accused was an innocent.

16.The variations in their deposition, rather, went to prove that these witnesses told the truth as they saw it and they were free from tutoring. Therefore, their depositions are found above reproach, as they have no previous axe to grind against the accused to falsely implicate the accused and let the actual culprit go Scot free.

17.Because, the evidence of all the witnesses were in corroboration with each other, without any inherent discrepancies, except a minute changes. That draw back of minute changes was erased in the mind of the court by a satisfactory explanation from the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor that it was due to the time gap i.e., from occurrence of the crime to the trial, which was a general and usual irregularity seen in many cases while examining the witnesses and that should not be attained utmost weight, when the other evidence on record supporting the prosecution case. This made the court to satisfy that their depositions are natural and truth worthy.

18.Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel for accused that PW1, deposed that “unknown persons committed the theft”. So, as the exact person who committed the theft was not known and the said accused was arrested on suspicion. At this juncture, this court come across with the Section 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act, which states that

Page No.7 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024 “the court may presume, that a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession”. This principle was also held in state of Orissa Vs Nenkuri, 1986 Cr.L.J 439(Ori)” that “where certain gold ornaments proved to be stolen were recovered from the possession of the accused person immediately after the occurrence of theft, the court can raise a presumption that the accused are thieves”. Considering this and the evidence of PW2 & 3, a presumption was drawn against the said accused.

19.Apart from all these, the learned counsel for accused also argued that the claimed stolen property belong to the accused, as he purchased the property. At this juncture, it is rather desirable to extract what section 103 of Indian evidence Act speaks, for convenience:

103. Burden of proof as to particular fact- the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in his existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. By considering this principle of Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the claimed stolen property belongs to accused, was casted on accused himself by producing cogent evidence. Because, the accused himself wishes the court to believe that is his own property. But, the accused as well as the learned counsel for accused did not provide any facta probanda as well as facta probantia to prove that the claimed stolen property was his own property. So, the defect in production of defence evidence by the accused and the learned counsel of the accused, on whom the burden of proof lies cannot be cured by criticizing the evidence of prosecution.

20.Moreover, it is also rather desirable to extract what section 102 of Indian evidence Act speaks, for convenience :

102. On whom burden of Proof lies- The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. This says, if the person on whom the burden lies to produce suffice evidence was considered as failed to produce the evidence, if he does not produce the evidence for his claim. Considering this

Page No.8 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024 principle, here the accused and the learned counsel for the accused did not produce the suffice evidence for their claim. Hence, they deemed to be failed to produce the suffice evidence to prove that claim.

21.Moreover, it is further desirable to extract what section 114 Illustration(g) of Indian

Evidence Act speaks, for convenience:

114 illustration(g).The court may presume, that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. This says,

That the person on whom the burden lies to produce the evidence, to prove his claim, but did not produce the evidence raises a may presumption in the mind of the court that such evidence might be unfavorable to that person, if produced. Considering this principle, as the accused and the learned counsel did not produce any evidence to satisfy the court that the stolen property belongs to the accused himself, raises a may presumption that if at all any evidence is produced that might be unfavorable to the accused and creates a suspicion in the mind of the court about the possession and ownership of the stolen property by the accused.

22.From the above, not only the learned counsel for accused failed to prove, that there was a fault in investigation but also failed to prove the innocence of the accused, as she failed to produce the evidence in support of her arguments. But, the prosecution from its evidence, proved that all the facts were in consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The evidence on record also reflect the chain of circumstances is so coherent and complete that the testimony has shown that in all human probability the offence is committed by the accused. The testimonies of the witnesses are also straight forward and convinced that they did not exaggerated the prosecution story and hence it becomes reliable and believable. In view of the above discussion and considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt with the support of evidence on record. This point is answered accordingly.

Page No.9 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

23. POINT NO.2:

23(i)In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of July, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

24)Heard the accused on the point of quantum of sentence to be imposed against him.

Accused submitted that he is poor and requested the Court to take a lenient view.

25)Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of accused and his counsel, this Court feels that this is not a fit case to invoke the beneficial provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. in favor of the accused. However taking into consideration the social status and submission made by the convicted, this Court is of the view that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

26)Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (15) days for the offence punishable under

Section 457 IPC; to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR AND SIX

MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another (15) days for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC. Both the sentence shall run concurrently.

Page No.10 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

27.Since the accused person has been in jail, the period of detention undergone by the accused person during investigation, inquiry and trial of the case shall be set off against the sentences awarded under Section 428 CrPC. (19.06.2024 to 25.07.2025)

28.The Case property vide C.P. No. 85/2024 shall be handed over to its rightful owner in due course after observing necessary legal formalities.

29.Copy of judgment furnished to the accused free of cost forthwith. (Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of July, 2025.)

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Yada Ramesh

PW-2Gandapalli Satyanarayana

PW-3Gyadari Narsimlu:: NONE ::

PW-4E. Ramesh, (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint Ex.P-2Crime Details Form Ex.P-3Rough Sketch Ex.P-4Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-5First Information Report

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

Page No.11 of 10CC No. 595 of 2024

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad

Page No.1 of 6CC No.449 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT ASIFABAD

PRESENT:- Ajay Ullam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T. FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Thursday, 12th day of February, 2026

C.C.No. 449 OF 2020

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Asifabad P.S ..…PROSECUTION AND

1. Athram Bheem Rao, S/o. Dev Rao, Age: 20 years, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o. Sandeep Nagar, Asifabad.

2. Madavi Rajesh, S/o. Shankar, Age: 21 years, Occ: Tractor driver, R/o. Dadpapur village of Asifabad Mandal.

3. Raparthi Murali, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Busness/owner of tractor, R/o. Sandeep Nagar, Asifabad.

4. Pirsingula Krishnamurthy, S/o. Rajanna, Age: 30 years, Occ: Busness/owner of tractor, R/o. Noornagar, Asifabad. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri. Raparthi Ravinder, learned counsel for A-1 & A-3 and Sri. J. Shyam Kumar, Learned counsel for A-2 & A-4, upon hearing both sides and the matter 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, Asifabad has laid charge sheet against accused

No.1 to 4 in Cr.No. 466 of 2020, for the offences punishable under Sec.379 of Indian Penal

Code against A-1 & A-2 and under Sec.379 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against A-3 & A-4 (hereinafter referred as “IPC” for brevity).

2.Brief facts of the case of Prosecution are that, on 21.06.2020 at 15:15 hours the complainant/LW-1 N. Madhukar, SI of police, Asifabad police station came to police station and lodged report stating that, on 21.06.2020 on reliable information about transportation of sand illegally through tractors, he along with staff rushed to the outskirts

Page No.2 of 6CC No.449 of 2020 of Sandeepnagar near Srinidhi Wines and found two tractors bearing Nos. TS-20-T-2848 along with trolley and TS-01-EB-5994 along with trolley bearing No. TS-20-T-0557 with transporting sand worth Rs.2,000/- from Peddavagu of Thumpally village to Asifabad illegally. They apprehended the drivers of said tractors, during interrogation they reveled their names as

Athram Bheem Rao/A-1 and Madavi Rajesh/A-2 and confessed that they along with their tractor owners i.e., Raparthi Murali/A-3 and Pirsingula Krishnamurthy/A-4 use to bring the sand illegally in order sell the same in Asifabad. He recorded their confession statement in the presence of mediators i.e., Vairagade Shankar and Kota Komuraiah and seized the tractors with sand load worth Rs.4,000/-. He brought the accused No.1 & 2 to police station along with tractors.

3.On receipt of above complaint, the LW-8/G. Harishekar, Sub Inspector of

Police, Asifabad police station registered a case vide Cr.No.466 of 2020 for the offence under

Sec.379 of IPC and Sec. 21 of Mines and Mineral Act against accused persons and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. He examined the witnesses and issued notices to accused persons and directed to appear before him. On 22.06.2020 accused persons appeared before him and admitted their guilt. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Secs.379 of IPC and Sec. 21 of Mines and

Mineral Act against the accused persons.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec. 379 of IPC against A-1 & A-2 and under Sec. 379 r/w 34 of IPC against A-3 & A-4.

On appearance of accused persons, copies of case documents furnished to them as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, they were examined under sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the charges framed for the offence punishable under Secs. 379 of IPC against A-1 & A-2 and under Sec. 379 r/w 34 of IPC against A-3 & A-4, read over and explained to them in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No.3 of 6CC No.449 of 2020

5.During trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-5 and Exs.P-1 to P-10 are marked on behalf of Prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused persons are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused persons is closed.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8.Perused the material available on record.

9.Now the point for my determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 379 of IPC against A-1 & A-2 and under Sec. 379 r/w 34 of IPC against A-3 & A-4 beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.POINT:

10(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. PW-1 is Complainant/SI of police. Pws-2 & 3 are panch witnesses for recovery panchanama. PW-4 is panch witness for Crime Details Form and PW-5 is investigation Officer. Ex.P-1 is report. Exs.P-2 & P-3 are signatures of PWs 2 & 3 on

Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Exs. P-4 & P-5 are signatures of PW-4 on CDF and rough sketch. Ex.P-6 is complaint. Ex.P-7 is First Information Report. Ex.P-8 is Crime Details Form.

Ex.P-9 is Rough Sketch and Ex.P-10 is Confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

10(ii).To prove the allegations leveled against the accused persons, the complainant was called by the prosecution and examined as PW-1. He deposed about the incident and seizure of sand along with accused persons, recording of confession statements, seizure of tractors and arrest of accused.

Page No.4 of 6CC No.449 of 2020 10(iii).During cross-examination of PW1, the PW1 admitted that no photographs of tractors were taken with sand. Other than this, nothing new or contrary to the case of prosecution came to the record during his cross examination.

10(iv).Further, the panch witnesses were called by the prosecution and examined as

PWs 2 to 4. They deposed that they don’t know the facts of the case. At this stage, the

Learned Assistant public prosecutor requested to declare them as hostile and tried to extract truth from them. But through their statements, they completely absolved the accused from the charges framed against them and further denied the suggestions advanced by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor of having colluded with accused persons.

10(v). Finally, the Investigating officer was called by the prosecution and examined as

PW-5. He deposed about the registration of First Information Report, examination of witnesses, conducting of scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch, admission of guilt by accused, disposal of sand and filing of charge sheet. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not visit the spot, where sand was excavated. Other than this, nothing new or contrary to the case of prosecution came to the record during his cross examination.

11. Finally, the evidence of LW3 and LW-6 was closed, as the prosecution failed to produce the witness before the Court, to depose the evidence, even after several adjournments were given.

12.As seen from the record, the case of prosecution was completely based upon the testimony of above said vital witnesses, but the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses did not satisfy the Court, with respect to the allegation leveled against the accused. The testimony of PW1 that no photographs of tractors were taken with sand and testimony of PW5 that he did not visit the spot, where sand was excavated, creates numerous

Page No.5 of 6CC No.449 of 2020 doubts about the process of investigation underwent in this case. Further, PW2 to PW4 retracted from their previous version and did not support the prosecution case. This further aggravates numerous doubts about the process of investigation and crops up a benefit of doubt in favour of accused. But the prosecution failed to explain these drawbacks with rational answers, which leads to acceptance of lacuna in prosecution. Apart from this, the testimony of witnesses also not had any concrete effect in crystallizing the allegation against the accused. Thus, the accrued evidence on paper does not washout the benefit of doubt created in the mind of the Court, in favour of the accused.

13.It was rock laid principle that, in order to justify the interference of the guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused persns and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis, than of their guilt. But, as there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the accused persons with this offense, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt by producing relevant and cogent evidence. Therefore, the accused persons herein are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

14.IN THE RESULT, theaccused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 of IPC and accused No.3 & 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.379 r/w 34 of IPC . Accordingly they are acquitted under Sec.271(1)

BNSS, of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.481 BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Page No.6 of 6CC No.449 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1N. Madhukar (SI)

PW-2Vairagade Shankar :: NONE ::

PW-3Kota Komaraiah

PW-4Jadi Vilas

PW-5G. Harishekar (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Report Ex.P-2Signature of PW-2 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-3Signature of PW-3 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-4Signature of PW-4 on CDF Ex.P-5Signature of PW-4 on Rough sketch Ex.P-6Complaint Ex.P-7First Information Report Ex.P-8Crime Details Form Ex.P-9Rough Sketch Ex.P-10Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T. FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad.

Page No.1 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT ASIFABAD

PRESENT:- Ajay Ullam, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T. FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Thursday, 5th day of March, 2026

C.C.No. 1473 OF 2020

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Deputy Range Officer, Asifabad Range ..…PROSECUTION AND

Puttala Saikumar, S/o. Eshwar, R/o. Utnoor village. …ACCUSED

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. E. Elisha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Sri. P.M Rajeev Reddy, learned counsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Deputy Range Officer, Asifabad Range laid charge sheet against accused in POR No. 3076/124, dated 07.06.2020 for the offences punishable Under

Secs.20(1)(d)(ii), 29(4)(a)(ii) of T.S Forest Act.

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 07.06.2020 at 1:00

P.M, the LW-3/V. Shankar, Forest Beat Officer, Indhani, checking the vehicles at check post of Asifabad, he stopped one Bajaj auto bearing No.AP-01-Y-2192 and found teak timber loaded in that vehicle. Then he questioned the vehicle driver for transit permits for transport of teak timber load, but driver said that he did not have any transit permission for transportation of teak timber. Immediately, he called the

LW-4/P. Jhansi Laxmi, Dy.Range Officer, Asifabad, she reached the scene of offence

Page No.2 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020 and verified the teak timber and did not find any pass hammer marks on the timber.

On enquiry the vehicle driver revealed his details as Puttala Saikumar and stated that he has no permits for transport of the timber load in the said vehicle.

2(i).Later, the LW-4 verified the timber and unloaded the same in the presence of panchas and conducted spot panchanama at the scene of offence. The timber value Rs.15,524/- (02 Nos/0.155 cumt) and seized the timber along with crime vehicle. During interrogation accused reveled that he is the owner of the vehicle and teak material purchased from Dantanpally village from unknown persons. Based on the verification he registered a case vide POR No.3076/124, dt: 07.06.2020 for the offences U/secs. 20(1)(c) & 29, 44 punishable under sec. 29, 44(1)(ii) punishable under sec.20 1 (D) Telangana Forest Act 1967 and r/w 34 & 378, 379 of IPC.After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable 20(1)(d)(ii), 29(4)(a)(ii) of T.S Forest Act against accused. Accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., for the offences U/Secs.20(1)(d)(ii), 29(4)(a)(ii) of T.S

Forest Act., are read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-4 and

Exs.P-1 to P-4 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies

Page No.3 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020 of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of accused is closed.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for my determination is: -

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 20(1)(d)(ii), 29(4)(a)(ii) of T.S Forest Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.POINT:

9(i).As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. PWs-1 & 2 are panch witnesses. PWs-3 & 4 are investigation Officers. Exs.P-1 & P-2 are signatures of PW-1 & PW-2 on panchanama.

Ex.P-3 is panchanama and P-4 is POR.

9(ii).To prove the allegations leveled against the accused, the panch witnesses were called by the prosecution and examined as PW-1 and PW-2. But, they deposed that they do not know anything about the case and pleaded complete ignorance about the facts of this case. At this stage, the Learned Assistant public prosecutor requested to declare them as hostile and tried to extract truth from them. But through their statements, they completely absolved the accused from the charge framed against him and further denied the suggestions advanced by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor of having colluded with accused.

Page No.4 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020 9(iii). Then, the Investigating Officers were called by the prosecution and examined as PW-3 and PW-4. They deposed about the registration of POR, examination of witnesses, conducting of scene of spot panchanama, rough sketch, arrest of accused and filing of charge sheet.

In their cross-examination, the PW-3 and PW4 deposed that there are no

CCTV cameras at the Forest check post. Further, they admitted that they did not file any photographs showing the possession of seized teak wood by the accused. Also, admitted that they did not gather any evidence to show that the accused was the owner of sized auto. Other than this, nothing new or contrary to the case of prosecution came to the record during their cross examination.

10.As seen from the record, the case of prosecution was completely based upon the testimony of above said vital witnesses, but the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses did not satisfy the court, with respect to the allegation leveled against the accused. The PW1 and PW2 retracted from their previous version and did not support the prosecution case, creates numerous doubts about the process of investigation underwent in this case. Moreover, the testimony of PW3 and

PW4 that there are no CCTV cameras at the Forest check post. Further, the admission by them that they did not file any photographs showing the possession of seized teak wood by the accused. Also, the admission that they did not gather any evidence to show that the accused was the owner of sized auto, creates a suspicion about the veracity of the testimony of witness and crops up a benefit of doubt infavour of the accused. This inturn also aggravate the suspicion about the happening of the incident, also further aggravates numerous doubts about the process of investigation. But the prosecution failed to explain these drawbacks with the rational

Page No.5 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020 answers, which leads to acceptance of lacuna in prosecution. Apart from this, the testimony of witnesses also not had any concrete effect in crystallizing the allegation against the accused. Thus, the accrued evidence on paper does not washout the benefit of doubt created in the mind of the court, in favour of the accused. So, this court is of the opinion, that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offense against him, beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.It was rock laid principle that, in order to justify the interference of the guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis, than of his guilt.

But, as there is no sufficient evidence available on record to connect the accused with this offense, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt by producing relevant and cogent evidence. Therefore, the accused herein is entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

12.IN THE RESULT, theaccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Secs.20(1)(d)(ii), 29(4)(a)(ii) of T.S Forest Act . Accordingly he is acquitted under Sec.271(1) BNSS, of the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.481 BNSS.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

Page No.6 of 6CC No.1473 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1K. Mahender

PW-2Gummula Poshanna :: NONE ::

PW-3V. Shankar (F.B.O)

PW-4P. Jhansi Laxmi (I.O)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Signature of PW-1 on panchanama

Ex.P-2Signature of PW-2 on panchanama

Ex.P-3Panchanama

Ex.P-4Preliminary Offence Report

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class Sirpur-T FAC: Prl.JFCM, Asifabad

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM- PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ASIFABAD.

Present:- Smt. J. Anantha Laxmi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

Monday, this the 01st day of September, 2025

PRC. No.26 of 2025

Between:-

State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sirpur-U (Cr.No.29/2017)

...Complainant

//And//

A2: Nama Ajay Raju S/o. Anand Rao, Age: 48 years, Caste: SC. Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.407, Venkateshwaranagar, Ambarpet, Hyderabad, Cell No.7700056546.

...Accused No.2

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-08-2025 in the presence of learned in-charge of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the prosecution having heard and consider the record, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a case of “Cheating and Abetment for committing suicide” wherein the Sub Inspector of Police, PS Sirpur-U, has filed charge sheet against accused No.2 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.420, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as

IPC).

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 28.09.2017 at 09-00 hours, the complainant/LW1-wife of deceased lodged a complaint at PS Sirpur-U, stating that her husband/deceased (Sk. Mahithab) went to an area between

Devudapally and Bogadaguda villages, consumed an unknown poison and informed his friends Lws 8 & 9 over the phone. That Lws 8 & 9 informed LW5-elder brother of the deceased. Immediately they rushed to the spot, took him to Jainoor Hospital, from there to PHC

Utnoor, later to RIMS, Adilabad, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, he passed away on the same day at 15-00 hours. Further the complainant stated that her husband/deceased has given Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to her brother - Syed Sadulla, but he does not return the amount. Additionally two vehicle brokers from

Godavarikhani, A2 & A3 took Rs. 10,00,000/- from her husband/deceased for selling an Eicher van but neither provided the vehicle nor returned the amount. Further stated that her younger brother-in-law-A4 has also taken an amount of Rs.40,000/- and failed to return it. The complainant stated that her husband/deceased repeatedly asked for his money from the above mentioned persons, but they refused to repay him and even told him to do whatever he

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 3 wanted. On the night of 26.09.2017, her husband/deceased returned home in a drunken condition, crying and expressed his distress over the financial loss and that he would commit suicide. The complainant/LW1 tried to console him. That on 27.09.2017 at about 10-00 hours left the house. At around 12-15 hours LW9 informed LW1 over the phone that her husband has consumed poison. She further stated that the above mentioned four persons cheated her husband by not returning his money, which led to extreme distress. As a result, he consumed insecticide poison and committed suicide.

3. As per the contents of the complaint, LW17/Sub Inspector of

Police, PS Sirpur-U, registered a case in Cr.No.29/2017, U/Sec. 420, 306 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and took up investigation.

a)During the course of investigation, LW-17/Sub Inspector of

Police, PS Sirpur-U examined and recorded the statement of LW-1

U/sec.161 Cr.P.C in case diary part-II, visited the RIMS Hospital,

Adilabad, where the dead body of deceased was kept in mortuary.

Further LW-17 examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 10 u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C in case diary part-II and photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of LW10. Later LW-17 in the presence

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 4 of two mediators Lws 11 & 12 observed the dead body and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and subjected for PME. The medical officer has held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and preserved viscera for chemical analysis and report

b)Further LW-17 visited the Devudapally, Bogadaguda village in the presence of two mediators Lws 13 & 14, observed the scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of same mediators Lws 13 & 14 and drafted rough sketch of scene of offence.

c)On 25.10.2017 at 10-00 hours on reliable information, LW-17 along with police party rushed to Jainoor village and apprehended A1 & A4. On interrogation the accused persons voluntarily confessed their guilty to commission of this offence. LW-17 brought the A1 & A4 to PS Sirpur-U at 11-00 hours and affected their arrest by issuing arrest memos duly informing the grounds of arrest and legal rights to them and their relatives under proper acknowledgment and remanded them to judicial custody.

d)While efforts in continuing on reliable information on 05.04.2018 the LW-18 proceeded to Bus stop area Sirpur-U at 21-30 hours, apprehended A3. On interrogation him systematically, he

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 5 confessed his guilt to commission of this offence. Brought him to PS

Sirpur-U at 22-00 hours, affected his arrest by issuing arrest memo duly informing grounds of arrest him and his relative, served the notices 50 and 50-A Cr.P.C and remanded him to judicial custody.

e)The analyst LW-15 who analyzed the material objects and issued report in which he opined that “Item No.1 to 4” are analyzed and

Organophosphate an insecticide poison is found in item No.1, 2 and 3 but not in item No.4 which is saline received as sample of preservative.

f)The Medical Officer LW-16 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has issued PME report and opined that, the cause of death of deceased is due to “Organophosphate poisoning”.

g)LW20 took up the CD file for further investigation and found the investigation conducted by LW-19 to be correct. He noted that

LW-19 has filed a charge sheet against A1, A3 and A4 on 27.02.2019, which is pending trial in SC No.16/2023 on the file of the Hon’ble Prl.

District and Sessions Court, K.B. Asifabad. In the charge sheet, LW-19 mentioned that A2 is absconding. A separate charge sheet will be filed against A2 upon his arrest.

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 6

h)On 18.03.2025, A2 approached LW-20 and submitted a copy of the Anticipatory bail order vide Crl.MP.No.3002/2025, dated 13.03.2025, issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. The order stated that A2 shall surrender before the SHO, Sirpur-U, on or before 18.03.2025, and upon such surrender, the SHO shall release A2 on bail upon his executing a personal bond for Rs.30,000/- with two sureties.

Accordingly, A2 submitted his personal bond for Rs.30,000/- along with two sureties for a like sum. LW-20 verified the same and found them to be in order. Consequently, A2 was released on bail and instructed to appear before the Hon’ble Court whenever summoned.

4.Cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 306 r/w 34 IPC, against accused No.2. On appearance of accused No.2 copies of all relevant documents furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec. 230 BNS.

5.Perused the record available. Prima-facie record reveals that accused No.2 committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 306 r/w 34 IPC . The offence U/Sec. 420, 306 r/w 34 IPC, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence, the case against accused No.2 committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions U/Sec. 232(a) BNS.

Prl. JMFC

PRC No.26/2025 Dated: 01-09-2025 Page No. 7

6.As the accused No.2 is on bail and allowed to remain on bail during and until the conclusion of trial U/Sec. 232(b) BNS.

7.The Public Prosecutor is notified about the committal of the case to Sessions Court U/Sec. 232(d) BNS.

8.On enquiry, accused No.2 reported that he has sufficient means to engage an advocate on his behalf.

9.The Office is directed to submit the entire case record and property if any to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, K.B. Asifabad, forthwith. The case is committed to Hon’ble Court of Sessions, K.B

Asifabad, accordingly.

10.As per the Circular Order of Hon’ble. Prl. District and Sessions

Judge’s Court, K.B. Asifabad, Vide: Dis. No.240/2023 and Dated:

01.03.2023. Accused No.2 is bind over to appear before the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, K.B. Asifabad on 15.09.2025.

Typed to my dictation by copyist, after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01 st day of September, 2025. ANANTHADigitally signed by

ANANTHA LAXMI

LAXMI

JAKKULA

JAKKULADate: 2025.09.01 13:06:01 +0530 Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Asifabad.

Prl. JMFC