Sri. Arravapalli Krishna Thej

CC. 192 of 2020 1 29.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : MAHABUBABAD

Present: Sri A. Krishna Thej, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

CC. No. 192 of 2020

Between: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kesamudram Police Station. (Cr.No.140/2019) …. Complainant

A N D

Bura Raju, S/o Bikshapathy, Age:29 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Adershnagar colony, Kesamudram. …. Accused This case is coming before me on 29.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri.T.Srinivas, advocate for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kesamudram filed a charge sheet in Crime

No.140/2019 against the accused for the offences punishable under section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’).

2. The case of prosecution is that the accused committed theft of cash of INR 1,59,900/- from an SBI ATM center within the limits of Kesamudram police station on the night of 15.11.2019 at around 23.10 hours. It is the case of prosecution that on the night of 14.11.2019, the accused pickedup a crow bar from his house, went to ATM centre situated near Telangana statue,

Kesamudram station and after covering his face with a kerchief, he switched off the tube light in the ATM center, hit the ATM box loaded with cash with the crow bar and broke the machine. The accused immediately picked up

Rs.1,59,900/- cash from the ATM, returned to his house and hid the crow bar in a corner of the house. It is also the case of the prosecution that the police recovered about Rs.40,000/- out of Rs.1,59,900/- stolen by the accused.

CC. 192 of 2020 2 29.04.2026

3.Basing on the report Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 who worked as an ATM incharge officer, L.W.8 took up the investigation, examined the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and visited the scene of offence for the purpose of the

Crime Details Form (‘CDF’). LW9 examined as PW5 subsequently tookup the investigation and on 10.03.2020, while he discharged patrolling duties he found the accused in suspicious circumstances and stopped the accused.

4. PW5 secured the presence of PW4 and LW7 and prepared the confession and seizure panchanama dated 10.03.2020 and Ex.P8 seizure panchanama

dated 10.03.2020. The relevant portion of the confession and seizure

panchanama is marked as Ex.P5 and under Ex.P5, PW5 seized cash of

Rs.40,000/- from the accused and deposited the same before this Court vide

CPR.No.32/2020. The crow bar allegedly used in the commission of the crime was seized under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama, deposited before this Court vide

CPR.No.32/2020 and marked as MO1. PW5 also collected certain school fees receipts marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to show that the accused used the cash stolen to pay school fees of his son who studied at SVP High school

Kesamudram and then filed a charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence under aforesaid section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. This Court registered a case against the accused for the offence under the section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused for his appearance. The accused appeared before this Court in response to the summons issued and copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C). The accused was then examined under section 239 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Charges framed against him were explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC. 192 of 2020 3 29.04.2026

6. To prove the guilt of accused, a total of 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Exs P1 to P8 and MO1 crow bar were marked through the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He denied the veracity of the incriminating material on record. He submitted that he was drunk and did not understand what had happened. Counsel for accused submitted that a false case is filed against accused and requested this Court to acquit the accused.

8.Heard arguments of both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

Now the point for determination us:- whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 380 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses in addition to PW1. PW1 is the complainant in this case and he lodged the petition Ex.P1 report with the police.

10.PW1 deposed in his evidence that on 15.11.2019 he went to the ATM of

SBI TATA ATM bearing ID IFBB200152006 in Kesamudram at around 07.30 AM for the purpose an audit, that he found cash stolen from the ATM, that he called

PW2, LW3 and others and requested them to come to the ATM center. He further deposed that cash of 18 lakhs rupees was loaded into the ATM on 13.11.2019 by LW3 and therefore they took note of all the transactions to understand total cash dispensed by the ATM until the morning of 15.11.2019, and that the online data showed that the ATM still had a cash of Rs.11,62,000/-.

He also deposed that when they counted the cash available in the machine they understood the ATM only had a cash of Rs.10,02,100/- and noticed the

CC. 192 of 2020 4 29.04.2026

cash shortage of INR 1,59,900/-. He lastly deposed that the door and presenter of the ATM were damaged and lodged Ex.P1/report on 15.11.2019.

11. PW1’s evidence shows that the cash of 1,59,000 rupees was stolen from the ATM and it is important for the prosecution to prove that it is the accused who committed theft of the said cash. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW2 to PW5 in support of its case.

12. PW2 supported the case of the prosecution through his evidence. He deposed that he worked as ATM engineer, that PW1 called him and informed him that money in one SBI TATA ATM in Kesamudram was stolen, that he visited the ATM center on the next day at around 11.00 am and noticed the damage sustained by the ATM. He further deposed that the dispenser of the ATM and the wood door were damaged, that the dispenser and wood door could have been damaged by a rod or a spade, that PW1 and LW3 verified the cash in the

ATM and found out that cash of about 1,60,000/- was missing. He lastly deposed that he checked the CC TV footage of the ATM center and gave it to the investigating officer. The evidence of PW2 is that of a circumstantial witness and does not link the accused to the commission of the crime.

Therefore, it is important to look for the evidence of the other witnesses examined by the prosecution.

13. PW3 is a person in whose presence Ex.P2 is Crime Detail Form was prepared. He deposed that the police came to scene of offence i.e SBI ATM near the shop and prepared Ex.P2/panchanama. He deposed that cash from the machine was stolen and the police came to the ATM center on 16.11.2019. The evidence of PW3 is helpful to the prosecution only to show Ex.P2 was prepared but does not link the accused to the commission of the crime.

CC. 192 of 2020 5 29.04.2026

14. PW4 is the witness in whose presence the police prepared two panchanamas and seized cash of 40,000/- rupees and the material object crow bar allegedly used in the commission of the crime by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the police seized 40,000/- cash from the accused in the presence of PW4 and LW7/Balu but PW4 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and LW7 was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons not explained to this Court. PW4 deposed in his evidence that he does not know the case facts and that Ex.P3 is his signature on confession and seizure panchanama dated 10.03.2020 the relevant portion of which is marked as

Ex.P5 and Ex.P4 which is his signature on the seizure panchanama Ex.P8. The evidence of PW4 is of little help to the case of the prosecution as he deposed that the does not know the case facts and the contents of both the panchanamas.

15. The evidence of PW5 remains for consideration. He is the investigating officer in this case and he reiterated the contents of the charge sheet. He deposed that he prepared Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 panchanama, collected school receipts Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and seized cash of 40,000/- rupees from the accused and deposited the same before this Court vide CPR.No.32/2020. He also deposed that he seized the crow bar marked as MO1 under Ex.P8 seizure panchanama.

16. The evidence of PW8 supported the case of the prosecution to show that cash and MO1 were recovered from the accused but PW4 the only panch witness to Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 turned hostile. The mere fact that cash and crow bar MO1 were recovered from the accused is no reason to hold the accused guilty when i) there is no direct eye witness to support the case of the prosecution and identify the accused as the person who committed theft of

CC. 192 of 2020 6 29.04.2026

cash from the ATM and ii) PW2 deposed in his evidence that he gave the CCTV footage of the ATM center to the investigating officer and PW5 deposed in his evidence that he did not collect the CCTV footage of the ATM center to submit the same before this Court. The school receipts Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 also do not establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt as it is not proven by the prosecution that the accused had committed theft of cash from the ATM and used the same to pay his sons school fees immediately after he stole the cash.

17. The evidence of PW5 investigating officer alone cannot prove the seizure of cash and crow bar MO1 from the accused cannot prove the case of the prosecution that it is the accused who committed theft of cash of at the ATM beyond all reasonable doubt as the only panch examined PW4 turned hostile.

18.In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no option but to hold the accused NOT GUILTY for the offence under section 380 of Indian Penal

Code and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The accused did not claim the cash as his cash when he was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of cash of Rs.40,000/- deposited before this Court was given to

PW1 and the same shall become absolute after the expiry of the appeal time.

MO1 crow bar shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

(Typed on my dictation by Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 29th day of April, 2026)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad

CC. 192 of 2020 7 29.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution PW.1 : B. Ravi PW.2 : M. Raj Kumar PW.3 : T. Sugunasagar PW.4 : G. Veerunaik PW.5 : B. Sathish

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Report, dt.15.11.2019. Ex.P2 : signature of PW3 on panchanama. Ex.P3 : signature of PW4 on confession panchanama. Ex.P4 : signature of PW4 on seizure panchanama. Ex.P5 : relevant portion of confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P6 : school fees receipt dated 15.11.2019. Ex.P7 : school fees receipt dated 29.09.2020. Ex.P8 : seizure panchanama dated 10.03.2020.

Accused: Nil

No. of Material Objects Marked : MO1 : Crowbar

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad

CALENDER EXTRACT

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

AT MAHABUBABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 192 OF 2020

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. Kesamudram

2. Crime Number: 140/2019

3. Offences: U/Sec.380 of IPC

4. Name of the Accused : Bura Raju, S/o Bikshapathy

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 14.11.2019 b. Complaint : 15.11.2019 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 09.09.2025 f. Close of trial :25.03.2026 g. Judgment :29.04.2026

R E S U L T: The accused NOT GUILTY for the offence under section 380 of Indian Penal Code and is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. The accused did not claim the cash as his cash when he was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The interim custody of cash of Rs.40,000/- deposited before this Court was given to PW1 and the same shall become absolute after the expiry of the appeal time. MO1 crow bar shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Explanation for Delay: The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2025. The trial commenced on 09.09.2025 and concluded on 25.03.2026. The judgment is pronounced on 29.04.2026.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [1] 30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : MAHABUBABAD

Present: Sri A. Krishna Thej,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad.

Thursday, this the 30th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No.1875 of 2022

Between: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, (Cr.No.153/2014) Kothaguda Police Station. …Complainant

A N D

Durgam Bixam, S/o Pentaiah, Age:45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Komalagudem

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 30.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the prosecution and of Sri.B.Chakravarthy, Advocate for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kothaguda Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as IPC).

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused outraged the modesty of

PW1 and insulted her on 27.11.2014 at about 1430 hours. It is the case of the prosecution and PW1 that on 27.11.2014, while PW1 worked alone in her fields, the accused entered her land, held her hand and dragged her. PW1 then shouted for help and the accused slapped her, hit her on her back then threatened to kill PW1 if she shouted and on seeing the witnesses in this chargesheet arrive, the accused escaped from the land of PW1. PW1

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [2] 30.04.2026

subsequently informed her husband and lodged Ex P1 report with the police with a request to take action against the accused.

3. On receipt of the report made by PW1, LW10 registered a case in crime in this case for the offences under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

He recorded the statements of PW1 and 2. He visited the scene of offence and prepared the Crime details form in the presence of LW7 and PW5. Thereafter the police recorded the statements of LW3, LW4, PW3 and PW4 and notice under section 41-A of the Code of Criminal procedure to the accused.

LW11/filed the chargesheet took over the investigation from LW10 and filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offences under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.The case was taken on file against accused for the offences under section 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec. 207 of the

Cr.P.C. The accused was then examined under section 239 of the Cr.P.C and the charges framed under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5 and Exs P1 to P3 were marked for the prosecution through them. The evidence of the other witnesses is closed since the prosecution had not examined them despite granting adequate opportunities.

6.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. denied the veracity of the incriminating evidence against him and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [3] 30.04.2026

7.Heard arguments of both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

Now the point for determination is: Whether prosecution established the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences

under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with section

34 of Indian Penal Code ?

8.The record is perused. The Ld. Counsel for the accused denied the charges made and submitted that the accused must be held not guilty by this

Court. He submitted that both there cannot be any conviction only on the basis of evidence of PW.1 and witnesses related to her.

9. Basis the case and evidence record before me, I am satisfied that evidence of PW1 and other witnesses examined in support of the case of the prosecution do not drive home the case of the prosecution that the accused committed the offences he is charged with for the reasons explained hereinafter.

10.PW.1 deposed in her evidence that about 11 years back, the accused called her while she worked in her agricultural land, asked her about her native place and she asked accused to change the tone in which he spoke and questioned her. She deposed that the accused then came running to her and grabbed her neck, held her hand and her hair and hit her head against the ground. She also deposed that the accused abused her and also grabbed her saree and severely hit her. She deposed that she shouted for help, PW2/LW2 came to rescue her and the accused then escaped. She lastly deposed that the accused left her saying that accused would not spare her in the future and she informed PW2/LW2 what had happened, that LW3 to 5 also came to her when the incident happened and that she lodged Ex P1 report on the next day.

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [4] 30.04.2026

11. PW2 supported the case of the prosecution. He deposed in his evidence that his land is near the land of PW1, that while she and PW1 were engaged in agricultural work in their respective lands on 27.11.2014, he heard PW1 shout.

He further deposed that he proceeded to the land of PW1, he saw the accused holding the saree of PW1 and that the accused escaped on seeing him. He further deposed that PW1 cried and explained what had happened to him and that she informed him that she was abused and attacked by accused.

12. PW3 is the husband of PW1. His evidence is identical and he deposed that on 27.11.2014, while PW1 was engaged in agricultural work in their land, the accused went to her, grabbed her saree and hands and tried to forced himself upon her. The incident was witnessed by PW2 and LW3 to 5. He deposed that the accused beat her wife and PW2 and LW3 rescued his wife and the accused escaped from the scene of offence. He lastly deposed that PW1 informed him about the incident and she lodged report on the next day.

13. PW4 who is eye witness to the incident and PW5 who is panch for scene deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts. They turned hostile and their evidence does not support the case the prosecution tried to establish. The other witnesses cited in the chargesheet were not examined despite granting multiple opportunities for the reasons not explained to this

Court.

14. The case of the prosecution rests only on the oral evidence of the PW.1,

PW2 and PW3, the husband of PW1. The alleged incident that happened is sought to be proved only through their oral evidence and no other witness who is examined supported the case of the prosecution. This Court cannot rely solely on the evidence of the victim/PW1 and her husband/PW.3 and decide the

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [5] 30.04.2026

question of the culpability of the accused in the light of the admitted fact that

PW1 and the accused have had land disputes and that the government had reclaimed the land of PW1. The evidence of PW2 is of little use to the prosecution for he had also admitted in his cross examination that he had uprooted trees in the forest land and cultivated the said land and panchayats were held when the accused claimed PW1’s land.

15.The evidence of the PW.1 to PW3 cannot establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable dispute in the light of the admitted background of the parties. It is reiterated that PW.4 and 5 did not support to prosecution and there is absolutely no other evidence on record to prove the case of the prosecution under any of the sections the accused are charged with.

16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and basis the evidence led before me, I am inclined to hold the accused not guilty for the offences under sections 354 and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. As a consequence, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after the expiry of the appeal time.

No order as to any property since nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April, 2026).

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MAHABUBABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Accused PW.1 : T. Manjula -None- PW.2 : G. Ramesh

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [6] 30.04.2026

PW.3 : T. Cheralu PW.4 : J. Bharath PW.5 : D. Sambaiah

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Is the report Ex.P2 : U/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3 : is signature of PW5 on CDF.

Accused: -Nil-

No. of Material Objects Marked -Nil -

ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MAHABUBABAD

CC.No.1875 of 2022 [7] 30.04.2026

CALENDER EXTRACT

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

AT MAHABUBABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 1875 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. Kothaguda

2. Crime Number: 153/2014

3. Offences: U/Sec. 354 and 506 of IPC

4. Name of the Accused :

Durgam Bixam, S/o Pentaiah

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 27.11.2014 b. Complaint : 28.11.2014 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 02.12.2025 f. Close of trial :30.04.2026 g. Judgment :30.04.2026

R E S U L T: The accused not guilty for the offences under section 354 and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after the expiry of the appeal time. No order as to any property since nothing is deposited before this Court.

Explanation for Delay: The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. on 14.11.2025. The trial commenced on 02.12.2025 and concluded on 30.04.2026. The judgment is pronounced on 30.04.2026.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

JCL.No. 21/2025 1 28.04.2026

IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :

MAHABUBABAD

Present: Sri A. Krishna Thej, Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad

Tuesday this the 28thday of April, 2026.

J.C.L.No. 21 of 2025

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station. (Cr.No.122 of 2021) …Complainant.

A N D

Bhukya Nikhil, S/o Shankar, Age:17 years, Occ: Student, R/o Gaddigudem thanda, Mahabubabad.

. . . JCL

This case is coming before me on 21.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the prosecution and of Sri.R.Praveen Kumar, Counsel for the JCL and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Town filed a charge sheet against the JCL for the offences punishable under section 11 read with section 12 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: as per the guidelines of

Covid-19 issued by the State Educational Department of Telangana conducting

ZOOM online classes, online classes were conducted using the ZOOM application for the class X-A students studying at Maharshi Vidyalaya school situated at Mahabubabad town. On 06.04.2021 at 01.15 PM, a ZOOM link was sent to X-A students by the physics teacher/LW4/PW6 and the students of X-A

JCL.No. 21/2025 2 28.04.2026 joined the link. During the class, the teacher observed vulgar messages from unknown person addressing the students, the teacher as well as the victim girl/

LW2. The teacher as well as the girl student felt humiliated among the participants and it was brought to the notice of the complainant/PW1 who approached the police and lodged Ex P1 report.

3. LW12 received Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.122/2021 for the offences punishable under section 11 read with section 12 of POCSO Act against the JCL. Subsequently, LW13 took up the investigation into this case.

He recorded statements of PW1 and other witnesses. He also visited scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of PW4 and PW5. He recorded the statement of PW2 with the assistance of LW11/woman police and he recorded the statement of PW3 and PW6 in detail. Subsequently, he addressed a letter to LW10/magistrate to record the statement of the victim girl and the statement of the victim girl was recorded on 16.07.2021.

4. Be this as it may, on 18.11.2021 at 12.30 hours, the JCL in this case Bhukya

Nikhil surrendered before the police and confessed to the commission of the crime before the police. He also produced the case property Oppo Company cell phone with Airtel Company SIM and phone number 9948487630 and the same was seized under a confession and seizure panchanama prepared in the presence of PW7 and LW9 and deposited before this Board as the phone was used to send vulgar messages during the Zoom online classes. Thereafter, the police issued notice under section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the

JCL and filed a charge- against the JCL for the offences punishable under section 11 read with section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 after deleting section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

JCL.No. 21/2025 3 28.04.2026

4. The case was taken on file against JCL for the offences under section 11 read with section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and summons were issued to him for his appearance. On appearance of JCL, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated u/sec.207 of the Cr.P.C. The JCL was examined under section 251 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure and the accusation against him was explained to the JCL in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the JCL, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as

PW.1 to PW7. Exs. P1 to P8 were marked for the prosecution through them.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C was dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused. The learned APP givenup the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7. Heard arguments of both sides and perused entire evidence on record. Now the point for determination is: Whether prosecution established the guilt

of the JCL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section

11 read with section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 ?

8. In order to bring home guilt of JCL, prosecution examined the complainant/LW1 as PW1, the victim girl/LW2 as PW2 and five other witnesses including the teacher/LW4 as PW6. None of the witnesses including PW1 supported the case of the prosecution and led evidence proving the guilt of the

JCL who was tried before this Court.

9. PW1 deposed in her evidence he does not know anything about the case facts. Ex.P1 is his her signature on report dated 04.05.2021 and Ex.P2 is her

JCL.No. 21/2025 4 28.04.2026 Cr.P.C statement. PW2 is the victim girl and she turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. She deposed that the JCL is her former classmate, that none harassed her and that the police did not record her statement. PW3 deposed on similar lines and turned hostile. Exs.P3 and Ex.P4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of

PW2 and PW3 respectively and the same constitute no evidence. PW4 and PW5 are panch for Crime Details Form. Both deposed that they do not know anything about the case and Exs P5 and P6 are their signatures on Crime

Details Form panchanama. PW6 deposed that he does not know anything about the case facts and that the JCL is his student. Ex.P7 is his 161 Cr.P.C statement.

PW7 is the last witness examined in support of prosecution’s case and he turned hostile and his signature alone was marked. Ex.P8 is the signature of

PW7 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama prepared by the police.

10. There is no evidence brought on record to show that JCL committed the offences punishable under sections 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the JCL used the mobile phone deposited before this Court to send vulgar messages addressing the victim girl during PW6’s online classes. As a consequence, this

Court does not have any other option but to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the JCL beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered against the prosecution.

11.In the light of the aforesaid discussion and basis the evidence led before me, I am inclined to hold the JCL not guilty for the offences 11 r/w 12 of POCSO

Act, 2012. The point is accordingly answered and the JCL is accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the JCL, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property I

JCL.No. 21/2025 5 28.04.2026 i.e Oppo Company smart cell phone shall be dealt with in accordance with law after the expiry of the appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.)

Prl. Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Mahabubabad.

Member Juvenile Justice Board

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For JCL

PW.1 : M.Sudha - None- PW.2 : Victim Girl PW.3 : J.Ramadevi PW.4 : L.Venkanna PW.5 : P.Venkateshwarlu PW.6 : J. Ravish PW.7 :B. Mangilal

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of Prosecution: Ex.P1 : is signature on report dated 04.05.2021 Ex.P2 : is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3 : is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4 : is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 : is Signature of PW4 on CDF panchanama Ex.P6 : is Signature of PW5 on CDF panchanama Ex.P7 : is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P8 : is signature of PW7 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

JCL: -Nil-

No. of Material Objects Marked: -Nil-

Prl. Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Mahabubabad.

Member Juvenile Justice Board

JCL.No. 21/2025 6 28.04.2026

CALENDER EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL MAGISTRATE FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD

AT MAHABUBABAD

JCL CASE No. 21 OF 2025

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. Mahabubabad Town

2. Crime Number: 122/2021

3. Offences: U/Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

4. Name of the Accused :

Bhukya Nikhil, S/o Shankar

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 06.04.2021 b. Complaint : 04.05.2021 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 17.01.2025 f. Close of trial :24.03.2026 g. Judgment :28.04.2026

R E S U L T: JCL not guilty for the offences 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. The point is accordingly answered and the JCL is accordingly acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the JCL, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Explanation for Delay: This Court has a pendency of 3164 cases and the trial commenced on 17.01.2025 and concluded on 24.03.2026. The judgment is

pronounced on 28.04.2026.

Prl. Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Mahabubabad.

Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

C.C. 317 of 2023 1 30.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

MAHABUBABAD

Present: Sri A. Krishna Thej, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

C.C. No. 317 of 2023

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station. (Cr.No. 254/2022) …Complainant.

A N D

Mothukuri Maheshwara Chary, S/o Somaiah Chary, Age:45 years, Occ: Driver/Business, R/o Veeraram village, Maripeda madnal, Mahabubabad District.

... Accused.

This case is coming before me on 30.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri.G. Veeranna, advocate for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural filed a charge sheet in

Crime No.254/2022 against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 22.12.2022 at about 12.15 hours, on main road near Jamandlapally village bus stand, the accused who was coming in poosite side drove the car in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the Autorickshaw of LW6, due to which the deceased and LWs2, 6

C.C. 317 of 2023 2 30.04.2026 and 7 received serious bleeding injuries. On 23.12.2022 at about 20.00 hours deceased succumbed to her injuries while under going treatment at MGM hospital, Warangal.

3. PW1 lodged the report dated 22.12.2022. LW16 registered a case in Cr. No.

254 of 2022 for the offences under sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal

Code and took up investigation. He visited the mortuary and secured the presence of LW1, 3 to 5 and conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LWs10 and 11. He also photographed the body of the deceased with the help of LW5.

4. During the course of investigation, LW16 had recorded the statements of

PW1 and 2. He obtained postmortem report from LW14 who opined that the cause of death was due to “DUE TO MULTIPLE INJURIES”. He also obtained the vehicle inspection report from LW15 who issued the same with an opinion that the crime vehicle did not have any mechanical defects. After completion of entire investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused before this

Court for the offences under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.

5. The case was taken on file against accused for the offences u/secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code. On appearance of accused, copies of documents on which the prosecution intended to rely were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C). The accused was then examined under section 251 of the

Cr.P.C for the offences u/secs.304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C. 317 of 2023 3 30.04.2026

6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses PW.1 to PW.6 and exhibited P.1 to P.7 as indicated in appendix of evidence. The evidence of the other witnesses was closed by this Court as PW1, who is key witness in this case, turned hostile and PW1 submitted that he does not intend to contest the case any further the matter was settled outside the Court.

Examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with since there was no incriminating material brought on record.

7. Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution established guilt of the accused for offences under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. To establish the case of the prosecution under sections 304-A of the Indian

Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the satisfaction of the following condi- tions as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in State of Punjab v.

Balwinder Singh and others, (2012) 2 SCC 182. All of the aforesaid pre- conditions laid down in the decision of the Apex Court should be satisfied con- junctively and beyond doubt. Therefore, I will now proceed to examine if each of these pre - conditions have been satisfied by the prosecution in this case.

9. First, the death of the deceased is proven beyond doubt to the satisfaction of this Court. There is no denial of the same by the counsel for the accused, who did not raise this issue at all during his arguments as one of his defenses.

Therefore, the first pre-condition ought to be taken as satisfied, warranting a deliberation on satisfaction of the other conditions.

10.Second, the involvement of the crime vehicle in question in causing the death of the deceased is not proven to the satisfaction of this Court. PW1 did

C.C. 317 of 2023 4 30.04.2026 not depose about the crime vehicle and its details before this Court. He is not an eye witness to the accident and he deposed that this matter was settled outside the Court. In order to bring home guilt of accused, prosecution exam- ined six witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6. All turned hostile and deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and their 161 of Cr.P.C statements of PW1 to

PW7 were marked but none of them constitute evidence and advance the case of the prosecution.

11.In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution does not prove its case that it is the accused whose negligence resulted in the death of the deceased. Accordingly, I find the accused not guilty for the offences under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and is acquitted under sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property if any shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

(Typed on my dictation by stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 30thday of April, 2026)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Accused:

PW.1 : Md. Rizwana - None - PW.2 : Md. Raheema PW.3 : Md. Allauddin PW.4 : Md. Fathima PW.5 : Md. Rajak PW.6 : Md. Javeed

C.C. 317 of 2023 5 30.04.2026

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of Prosecution:

Ex.P1: PW1’s signature on Report on 22.12.2022. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6.

No. of Material Objects Marked: - Nil -

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad

C.C. 317 of 2023 6 30.04.2026

CALENDER EXTRACT

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

AT MAHABUBABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 317 OF 2023

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S. Mahabubabad Rural

2. Crime Number: 254/2022

3. Offences: U/Sec. 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC

4. Name of the Accused :

Mothukuri Maheshwara Chary, S/o Somaiah Chary.

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 22.12.2022 b. Complaint : 22.12.2022 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 08.10.2025 f. Close of trial :30.04.2026 g. Judgment :30.04.2026

R E S U L T: Accused not guilty for the offences under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and is acquitted under sec. 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property if any shall be disposed of in accordance with law.

Explanation for Delay: The trial commenced on 08.10.2025 and concluded on 30.04.2026. The judgment is pronounced on 30.04.2026.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.

CC. 2879/2022 [1] 05.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : MAHABUBABAD

Present: Sri A. Krishna Thej, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mahabubabad.

Tuesday, this the 05thday of May, 2026.

C.C. No.2879 of 2022

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S Mahabubabad Rural. …..Complainant

A N D

1. Ajmeera Veeranna, S/o Nandhya, Age:35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Chakruthanda of Gudur mandal.

2. Banoth Suguna, W/o Chukla, Age:50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Chakruthanda of Gudur mandal.

3. Banoth Sunitha, W/o Swamy, Age:48 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Somla thanda of secundreabad.

4. Korra Sujatha @ Sushila, W/o Deva, Age:49 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rajiya thanda of Apprachipally village.

5. Banoth Gone @ Swamy, S/o Mangthiya, Age:50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Somla thanda of secundreabad.

6. Korra Deva, S/o Narsimha, Age:52 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Rajiya thanda of Apprachipally village.

7. Banoth Chokla, S/o Somani, Age:60 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Chakruthanda of Gudur mandal.

... Accused 1 to 7

This case is coming before me on 05.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri.M.Sathyanarayana, advocate for the accused 1 to 7 and having perused the evidence adduced on either side and exhibits marked and the material papers available on record and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.216/2022 against the accused 1 to 7 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

CC. 2879/2022 [2] 05.05.2026

2.The case of prosecution is that about 5 years back PW1’s parents performed her marriage with accused 1 and at the time of marriage, they gave

Rs.4,50,000/- cash to the first accused and his family. After their marriage they lead happy marital life for few days. Thereafter, the accused 1 to 7 started harassing PW1/Ajmeera Roja physically and mentally by abusing her in filthy language and demanding additional dowry Rs.5 Lakhs. PW.1 lodged the report in this case with LW8/Ch. Arun Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police, Mahabubabad

Rural and he registered a case in Cr.No.216 of 2022 and issued First Information

Report against accused 1 to 7 for the offences under sections 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. L.W8 took up the investigation, examined the concerned witnesses, visited the scene of offence for the purpose of the Crime Details Form (‘CDF’) and collected all necessary documentary proof and then filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 7 herein for the offences under sections 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The accused appeared before this Court and copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C). The accused 1 to 7 were examined under section 239 of the Cr.P.C and the charges framed was also explained. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused 1 to 7, the prosecution examined witnesses PW1 and 2 and exhibited P1 to P3 as indicated in appendix of evidence. The evidence of the other witnesses was closed as PW1 and PW2, who are key witnesses in this case, turned hostile. Examination under section

CC. 2879/2022 [3] 05.05.2026

313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with since there was no incriminating material brought on record.

6.Heard arguments of both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

Now the point for determination is: - whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused 1 to 7 for the offences under section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

7.In order to bring home guilt of accused 1 to 7, prosecution examined two witnesses and they turned hostile. Exs.P1 to P3 are marked for the prosecution.

There is no evidence brought on record to show that the accused 1 to 7 committed the offences punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As a consequence, this Court does not have any other option but to hold that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused 1 to 7 beyond reasonable doubt. The point is answered against the prosecution.

8.In the result, the accused 1 to 7 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to any property since nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed on my dictation by the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 05thday of May, 2026)

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Mahabubabad

CC. 2879/2022 [4] 05.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution PW.1 : Ajmeera Roja PW.2 : Bhukya Jyothi

For Accused: None

No. of Exhibits Marked on behalf of Prosecution : Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 on report dated 10.10.2022. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.c statement of PW1. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.c statement of PW2.

Accused: Nil

No. of Material Objects Marked: - Nil -

Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class , Mahabubabad

CC. 2879/2022 [5] 05.05.2026

CALENDER EXTRACT

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

AT MAHABUBABAD

CALENDER CASE No. 2879 OF 2022

1. Name of the Police Station.: P.S.Mahabubabad Rural

2. Crime Number: 216/2022

3. Offences: 498-A of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 DP Act

4. Name of the Accused :

1. Ajmeera Veeranna, S/o Nandhya

2. Banoth Suguna, W/o Chukla

3. Banoth Sunitha, W/o Swamy

4. Korra Sujatha @ Sushila, W/o Deva

5. Banoth Gone @ Swamy, S/o Mangthiya

6. Korra Deva, S/o Narsimha

7. Banoth Chokla, S/o Somani

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : Prior to 10.10.2022 b. Complaint : 10.10.2022 c. Apprehension : - d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 15.04.2025 f. Close of trial :05.05.2026 g. Judgment :05.05.2026

R E S U L T: The accused 1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated u/sec 437-A Cr.P.C. No order as to any property since nothing is deposited before this Court.

Explanation for Delay: The accused 1 to 7 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. on 10.04.2025. The trial commenced on 15.04.2025 and concluded on 05.05.2026. The judgment is pronounced on 05.05.2026.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad. Dis.No. Date: Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.