Sri. Arun Kumar Naram

Fair 1 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

METPALLY.

Present: Sri. Arun Kumar Naram, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Metpally.

Friday, the 24th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE No. 48 OF 2024

(Cr.No. 230/2023)

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, Mallapur.

... Complainant.

And

Bale Shivaji S/o. Gangaram, Age: 51 years, Caste: Padmashali, R/o. H.NO.1-9-6/1, Adarshnagar, Metpalli town, Jagtial district, Aadhar no. 9806 9574 5132, Cell no. 9912586929.

...Accused.

@ @ @

This case is coming before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri. P. Bhanumurthy, Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material on record and after having been heard and having 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, Mallapur Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 230/2023 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act.

2.The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows: -

On 02.12.2023 at 08:00 A.M. the complainant/Alishetty Mallavva lodged a complaint in which she stated that, on 01.12.2023 in the morning at about 10.00 A.M. her younger son went out on personal work on his bike

B.No.TS 02 EP 3649. On the same day at about 03.30 P.M. her villager by

Fair 2 C.C. No. 48 of 2024 name MD Salman called to the complainant over the phone informed that, at outskirts of Muthyampet village they found that one car B.No. TS 21 H 9222 and HF Deluxe bike fell down by the side of the road, two persons were there in the said car and beside the said bike, complainant’s son fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Then on enquiry of Ramagiri Dinesh who was present at the time of incident and witnessed the same was revealed that while the biker going towards Mogilipet village from

Muthyampet village one person drove his car in rash and negligence manner and hit to the bike in opposite direction, due to which both car and bike flew away and fell down the side of the road. On that information the complainant along with Mukkera Rajender and Alishetty Venkat rushed to the spot, before reaching to the spot complainant’s younger son has already shifted to Govt. Hospital, Metpalli through Ambulance. Then they were proceeded to hospital and found that the deceased was sustained severe bleeding injuries over right leg, hand and chest. On advice of duty doctor they shifted the deceased to Harini Hospital at Karimnagar for better treatment, where he was died while undergoing treatment at about 08.00

P.M. Then she came to know the name of the diver of the crime vehicle as

Balya Shivaji S/o. Gangaram. Finally she requested to take necessary action against accused.

3.Based on the complaint, the LW-15 has registered a case in

Cr.No.230/2023, U/Sec. 304-A of IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned officers. On receipt of copy of FIR, the LW-16 took up the investigation, during the investigation LW.16 proceeded to mortuary of government

Fair 3 C.C. No. 48 of 2024 hospital, there he secured presence of LW.9 & 10, held inquest over the corps of the deceased, got photographed through LW.7, during the inquest he has examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 to 7. Later subjected the dead body for PME, the LW.13 has conducted PME and handed over the corpse of the deceased to its kin for funerals. Further LW-16 has visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators LWs-11 & 12, drew sketch map and incorporated the details in the crime details form before the same mediators. Shifted the crime vehicle to PS Mallapur submitted requisition for inspection by MVI, Then LW.16 examined and recorded LW.8 statement. After establishment of offence against accused LW.16 served 41-

A Cr.P.C to accused with directions to comply the conditions of notice.

Accordingly accused complied the notice conditions and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Produced all the documents.

LW.16 again issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and informed him to appear before this court on receipt of summons. LW.13 issued PME report in which he opined that “cause of death is due to Cardio- Respiratory Arrest due to shock, due to blunt injury abdomen with massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage. LW.14 inspected the crime vehicle issued report, in which he opined that accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 304(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act.

4. The case was taken on file against accused by this court for offence

U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act. Upon appearance of accused,

Fair 4 C.C. No. 48 of 2024 copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec. 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

5. The accused was examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act were explained to accused in vernacular language to which he denied and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses

P.W.1 to P.W.7 cited witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 as indicated in appendix of evidence. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW.3, LW.6, LW.7, LW.9 to LW.14, hence their evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against him and reported no defense evidence.

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

9.Now the point for determination is: -

“Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused

for the offences under Section 304(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act

beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10.POINT: To establish the case of prosecution, examined PW.1 to 7 out of sixteen witnesses. The PW.1, PW.2 are eye witnesses, PW.3 is complainant, PW.4 is who was first identified the deceased and informed to complainant/ circumstantial witness, PW.5 Circumstantial witness, PW.6 is 1st I.O., PW.7 is 2nd I.O..

Fair 5 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

11.PWs. 1 to 5 have turned antagonistic to the case of prosecution and they volte faced in the witness box. During examination by the learned APP as per Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act read with Sec.162 proviso of Cr.P.C, nothing could be elicited or culled out in favour of prosecution from them.

12.PW.6 is 1st I.O., he has deposed that he had received complaint from

PW.3, based on complaint he registered the case in Cr. no. 230 of 2023 offence u/sec. 304-A of IPC and handed over the CD file to LW.16 for further investigation.

During the cross examination he denied all the suggestions.

13.PW.7 is 2nd I.O. in his chief he deposed his part of investigation done by him. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence u/sec. 304-A IPC, Sec. 184 of M.V. Act.

During the cross examination he denied all the suggestions.

14.In order to attract Sec.304-A of IPC the death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.

There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act. The cause of death is the primary point and negligent and rash act is the next point. Sec.304-A of IPC presupposes the negligent act.

15.However, this court has weighed the essential ingredients of section 304-A of IPC carefully as follows:-

The essential ingredients Under Sec.304-A of IPC.

Fair 6 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

1.Accused did some act.

2.He did it rashly or negligently.

3.The act was such as to endanger to human life or personal safety of others

4. Grievous hurtwas caused in consequence of such act

16.The essential ingredients Under Sec.304-A of IPC Causing Death by negligence:

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

17.Ingredients of Sec. 304-A of IPC

1) There must be death of the person in question

2) The accused must have caused such death and

3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide State of Punjab Vs Balwinder Singh (2012) 2 SCC 182.

18.The complainant, i.e., PW.3, during the course of trial, clearly stated that the matter was amicably settled between the parties outside the court on the advice and intervention of elders from the community. Consequently, the prosecution witnesses, namely PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 & PW.5, who were expected to support the prosecution case and substantiate the allegations against the accused, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any material particular. Their testimonies, therefore, lack evidentiary value and fail to inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Fair 7 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

19.Further, the only remaining witness, PW.6, who is the Investigating

Officer, is admittedly an official witness and cannot be considered wholly independent or impartial, especially in the absence of corroboration from any other credible witness or supporting material evidence. It is a well- established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the testimony of the

Investigating Officer, unless it is duly corroborated by cogent, reliable, and independent evidence.

20.In the present case, the evidence on record appears to be inconsistent, vague, and lacking in probative value. The prosecution has failed to place on record any concrete or credible material that would directly link the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. The available evidence is not only insufficient but also riddled with contradictions and inherent improbabilities, thereby raising substantial doubts about its truthfulness and authenticity.

21.The prosecution’s case is unclear and filled with doubt and suspicion.

The inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, coupled with the hostile nature of key witnesses and the absence of corroborative evidence, create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. It is a settled legal position that when such reasonable doubt arises, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

Fair 8 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

22.Therefore, in the absence of sufficient, credible, and incriminating material on record to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

23.For the foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused. In this view this court is of the opinion that the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec. 304(A) of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act is not sufficiently made out by the prosecution against accused.

As such, the Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the above said offence.

24.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC, sec. 184 of MV Act and consequently accused acquitted U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher

Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant.

Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on screen, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Metpally.

Fair 9 C.C. No. 48 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 – Raagiri Dinesh- Eye witness PW.2 –Samboju Nagabushan- Eye witness PW.3 – Alishetty Mallavva- Complainant PW.4 – MD. Salman- Circumstantial witness PW.5- Mukkera Rajender- Circumstantial witness PW-6- G. Naveen kumar- 1st I.O Pw.7- K. Laxminarayana- 2nd I.O. FOR DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P6 is Complaint Ex.P7 is F.I.R Ex.P8 is C.D.F. panchanama Ex.P9 is Inquest panchanama Ex.P10 is PME report Ex.P11 is M.V.I. report. FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Metpally.

Fair 1 CC. No. 184 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT: KORUTLA.

Present: Sri.Arun Kumar Naram, Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Metpally, FAC: Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Korutla.

Thursday, this the 26th March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No. 184 of 2022

(Cr. No.44 /2022)

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Kathlapur.

.... Complainant.

And

Mothe Tharun S/o. Raj kumar, Age: 22 years, Caste: Beda Buduga Jangam, R/o. Medipalli village and mandal, Cell: 9182939742.

...Accused.

@ @ @ This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution; and of Sri. S. Jijay Sai Advocate for accused; upon perusing the material on record and after having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.,

Kathalapur laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.44/2022 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420 of IPC, and Sec. 7(1)(a)(I) of

Essential Commodities Act , and sec.181, 196, 177 M.V. Act.

Fair 2 CC. No. 184 of 2022

2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution version is that:

On 06.05.2022 at about 01.00 A.M. the S.I of Police, PS

Kathalapur/complainant along with PCs while conducting town patrolling at Doolur outskirts on reliable information she along with police personnel found one vehicle in suspicious manner by carrying with load, they stopped and verified the vehicle and bags, they found

PDS rice in that bags. Then she secured presence of two mediators and interrogated the accused before them, the accused voluntarily admitted his guilt of offence and stated his identity particulars, further stated he procuring PDS rice from common people at lower price and selling the same at higher price in various shops at Vemulawada to earn huge profits in easy way, as usual on 06.05.2022 he loaded about 20 quintals of PDS rice on his vehicle illegally. After panchanama she has seized the vehicle B.No. TS 23 T 8100 and 20 quintals of rice from the possession under confession and recovery panchanama.

3. LW.6 brought them to PS and registered a suo motu case vide Cr. No.

44 of 2022, U/sec. 420 of IPC, Sec. 7 (1)(a)(i) of E.C Act and took up the investigation. During the investigation LW.6 examined and recorded the statements of LW.3 & 4 and drew a rough sketch of scene of offence and incorporated the same in CDF before LW.1 & 2. She prepared a notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. served on accused and directed him to comply the conditions, in response to the notice accused appear

before LW.6, but failed to produce insurance certificate of crime

vehicle, driving license. She again served notice against accused

Fair 3 CC. No. 184 of 2022 u/sec. 41-A Cr.PC with a direction to appear before this court on receipt of the summons from this court. Later LW.6 handed over the 20 quintals of rice to LW.5 , the LW.5 received and seized the rice, thereafter LW.6 recorded statement of LW.5. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 420 of IPC, and Sec. 7(1)(a)(I) of Essential

Commodities Act and sec. 181, 196/177 of M.V. Act.

4.This case was taken on file by this court against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC and sec. 7 (1) (a) of Essential

Commodities Act and sec. 181, 196 r/w 177 of M.V. Act.

5.After appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.PC.

6.The accused is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed against him for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC and sec. 7 (1) (a) of Essential Commodities Act and sec. 181, 196 r/w 177 of M.V. Act, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To prove its case the prosecution examinedPWs.1 to 4 cited witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.P.1 as indicated in appendix of evidence. The prosecution failed to file report a to LW.4 & LW.6, hence their evidence was closed.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidence against him and reported no defense evidence.

Fair 4 CC. No. 184 of 2022

9.Heard learned Asst.,Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the accused .

10.Now the point for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the accused by proving the charge for the offence U/Sec. 420 of IPC and sec. 7 (1) (a) of Essential Commodities Act and sec. 181, 196 r/w 177 of M.V. Act beyond reasonable doubts?.

11. POINT:-To prove this case, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to 4 out of Six witnesses. The PW.1 & PW.2 are panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama and crime details form, PW.3 is police personeel, assisted to I.O., PW.4 is Civil

Supply Officer.

12.PW.1 and PW.2 are the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama, they have turned antagonistic to the case of prosecution and they volte faced in the witness box. During examination by the learned APP as per Sec.154 of Indian Evidence

Act read with Sec.162 proviso of Cr.P.C, nothing could be elicited or culled out in favour of prosecution from them.

13.PW.3 is police personnel, who assisted to I.O., he has deposed that on 06.05.2022 he along with LW.4 & 6 while conducting patrolling at outskirts of Dulur shivar, the LW.6 received a reliable information regarding illegal transport of PDS rice in Ashoka Leyland

B.No. TS 23 T 8100, then they stopped the vehicle and found in suspicious manner, when they checked the vehicle they found illegal

Fair 5 CC. No. 184 of 2022 possession of PDS rice in 40 bags . On interrogation the driver of the crime vehicle stated his identity perticulars and further he confessed to have committed this offence before panch witnesses i.e., PW.1 &

PW.2. He purchased the PDS rice from surrounding villages and selling them at higher prices. They were seized 20 quintals of PDS rice in 40 bags from possession of accused, then they have taken them along with crime vehicle to P.S. Late LW.6/ I.O, has registered suo-motto case and handed over seized PDS rice to MLS point at

Korutla.

During the cross examination he stated that the seized PDS rice were in plastic bags and that PDS rice bags does not contain any government logo on them. He admitted that even there is weigh bridge at Kathalapur, but they have weighed the seized rice at

Yakinpur road.

14.PW.4 is Civil Supply Officer, he has stated that he was worked as Godown officer as incharge of MLS point Godown, Korutla in the year 2021 to 2023, he received a requisition from Police Korutla to receive PDS rice, accordingly he received 20 quintals of PDS rice in 40 bags and issued Badratha receipt, dated: 07.05.2022. Ex.P1

Badratha receipt, dated: 07.05.2022.

During the cross examination he did not mention the date in

Ex.P1, he filed such receipt in Cr. NO. 44 of 2022. The seized PDS rice were in plastic bags and there is no government logo on the bags, on the same day he has weighed the seized rice with help of

Fair 6 CC. No. 184 of 2022 police, which was 20 quintals in 40 bags, but he further stated the weight is not 20 quintals apart from that he did not remember the place where they were weighed the seized rice.

15.Thus, in view of the above discussion and from the above testimonies this court found that the PW.1, 2 who are the material witness turned hostile, PW.3 who is police personnel during the cross examination he stated that PDS rice bags does not contain any government logo on them. He admitted that even there is presence of weigh bridge at Kathalapur, but they have weighed the seized rice at

Yakinpur road. The PW.3 who is civil supply officer, and issued

Ex.P1( Badratha receipt) during the cross examination innitially he stated that the seized rice was 20 quintals in 40 bags, but later stated not about 20 quintals which create doubt in the mind of this court. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, unless it is duly corroborated by cogent, reliable, and independent evidence.

16.In the present case, the evidence on record appears to be inconsistent, vague, and lacking in probative value. The prosecution has failed to place on record any concrete or credible material that would directly link the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. The available evidence is not only insufficient but also riddled

Fair 7 CC. No. 184 of 2022 with contradictions and inherent improbabilities, thereby raising substantial doubts about its truthfulness and authenticity.

17.The prosecution’s case is unclear and filled with doubt and suspicion. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, coupled with the hostile nature of key witnesses and the absence of corroborative evidence, create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the

Court regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence.

It is a settled legal position that when such reasonable doubt arises, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

18.In the light of above discussion, this Court feels that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420 IPC and

Section 7(1)(a) of Essential Commodities Act against the accused. As such, the accused no.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt for the above said offence.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.420 of IPC and sec. 7 (1) (a) of Essential

Commodities Act and sec. 181, 196 r/w 177 of M.V. Act and consequently he is acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

Fair 8 CC. No. 184 of 2022 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade -III directly onto screen, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 26thday of March, 2026).

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Metpally.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 – Nakka Nikhil- Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama & CDF panchanama PW.2- Jupaka Rajesh- Panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama & CDF panchanama PW.3– P. Purshottham- PC-2766- Assisted to I.O. PW.4- G. Mangya Nayak- Civil Supply Officer. FOR DEFENCE: -None-

Exhibits Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Badratha receipt FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Metpally.

Fair 1 CC No.19 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT METPALLY

Present:- Sri. Arun Kumar Naram

Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Metpally.

Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026

CALENDAR CASE NO. 19 OF 2021

(Cr.No. 255/2020)

Between:-

The State represented through the Sub Inspector of Police, Metpalli.

.... Complainant.

And

A-1: Ramagiri Lavanya W/o. Srinivas, Caste: Mera, R/o. Kalanagar, Metpalli. A-2: MD. Shabhana W/o. Azeem, Age: 38 years, Muslim, Dudekula, R/o. Ramnagar, Metpalli. A-3: Ramagiri Sairam S/o. Srinivas, Age: 19 years, Caste: Mera, R/o. Kalanagar, Metpalli.

JCL: MD. Umar S/o. Azeem, Age: 17 years, Muslim, Dudekula, R/o. Ramnagar, Metpalli.

...Accused no. 1 to 3.

@ @ @ This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. K. Venkat Swamy Advocate for Accused; upon perusing of the material on record and after having been heard and having 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, Metpalli Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused no. 1 to 4 in Crime No.255/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code( herein after called as IPC).

Fair 2 CC No.19 of 2021

2. The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows: - On 11.09.2020 at 03.00 P.M. the complainant Chiluveri Sumalatha lodged a complaint by stating that she is resident of Metpalli. On 10.06.2019 she gave debt of Rs. 6,40,000/- @ 1.50 paisa interest to

Ramagiri Lavanya i.e., accused no.1 at that time her son i.e., accused no.3 also present and on 17.06.2019 she gave debt of Rs. 6,00,000/- @ 1.50 Paisa interest to MD Shabana i.e., accused no.2. Later when she asked the accused for repayment of hand loan amount, they were postponed the same. On 08.09.2020 at 07.00 P.M. when complainant was at her rented house, meantime accused no. 1 to 3 and JCL along with some others went to her and abused her in most filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences by stating that “ Neeku dabbulu ichiedi ledu, memu neeku dabbulu ivvam, emu chesukuntavo chesuko” and all the accused beat her with hands and threatened to kill her and her family members then went away from there. Finally she requested to take necessary action against accused persons.

3.Based on the complaint, the LW.7 has registered a case in

Cr.No.255/2020, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned. Later LW.7 examined and recorded the statement of LW.1. Then LW.7 visited scene of offence secured the presence of LW.5 & 6, observed the scene

Fair 3 CC No.19 of 2021 and drew rough sketch incorporated the details in CDF before them.

Later LW.7 secured the presence of LW.2 to 4, examined them and recorded their statements. Subsequently LW.8 took up further investigation, found the investigation done by LW.7 on proper lines.

LW.8 served a notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. against the accused no. 1 to 4 with directions to comply the conditions, in response to the notice accused appeared before him and voluntarily admitted the offence. On that he again issued a notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C against the accused and directed them to appear before this court on receipt of summons from the court, and after filing of charge sheet. After completion of investigation he had filed charge sheet against the accused no. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable u/sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

4. The case was taken on file by this court against accused no. 1 to 3 for offence U/Sec.420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Upon appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

5.The accused no. 1 to 3 were examined U/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC were explained to accused in vernacular language to which they denied and claimed to be tried.

Fair 4 CC No.19 of 2021

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 cited witnesses and exhibited documents

Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 as indicated in appendix of evidence. The prosecution has filed report as to LW.1, 2 ,4 and the prosecution failed to file report as to LW.8, hence, their evidence was closed.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against them and reported no defense evidence.

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

9.Now the point for determination is: - “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused no. 1 to 3 for the offences under Section 420, 448, 290,

323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubts”?

10. POINT: To establish the case of prosecution, examined PW.1 to 4 out of eight witnesses. PW.1 is eye witness, PW.2 is panch witness,

PW.3 is panch witness, PW.4 is 1st I.O.

11.The PWs. 1 to 3 have turned antagonistic to the case of prosecution and they volte faced in the witness box. During examination by the learned APP as per Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act

Fair 5 CC No.19 of 2021 read with Sec.162 proviso of Cr.P.C, nothing could be elicited or culled out in favour of prosecution from them.

12.The PW.4 is the 1st I.O., he has deposed that, based on complaint he has registered a case in Cr. no. 255 of 2020 for the offence u/sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Later he examined and recorded statements of LW.1, Lw.2, Pw.1 and LW.4 later visited scene of offence conducted CDF panchanama in presence of PW.2 & PW.3. Handed over the CD file to LW.8 for further investigation.

During the cross-examination he stated that he did not collect documents relating to identification and address proof of complaint and there is no proof to confirm that complainant residence as

Metpalli. He denied all the suggestions.

13.The complainant, i.e., LW.1 was not entered into witness box to prove her case. Consequently, the prosecution witnesses, namely

PW.1 to PW.3, who were expected to support the prosecution case and substantiate the allegations against the accused, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any material particular.

Their testimonies, therefore, lack evidentiary value and fail to inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Fair 6 CC No.19 of 2021 14.Further, the only remaining witness, PW.4, who is the

Investigating Officer, is admittedly an official witness and cannot be considered wholly independent or impartial, especially in the absence of corroboration from any other credible witness or supporting material evidence. It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the testimony of the Investigating Officer, unless it is duly corroborated by cogent, reliable, and independent evidence.

15.In the present case, the evidence on record appears to be inconsistent, vague, and lacking in probative value. The prosecution has failed to place on record any concrete or credible material that would directly link the accused to the commission of the alleged offence. The available evidence is not only insufficient but also riddled with contradictions and inherent improbabilities, thereby raising substantial doubts about its truthfulness and authenticity.

16.The prosecution’s case is unclear and filled with doubt and suspicion. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, coupled with the hostile nature of key witnesses and the absence of corroborative evidence, create a reasonable doubt in the mind of the

Court regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence.

It is a settled legal position that when such reasonable doubt arises, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.

Fair 7 CC No.19 of 2021

17.Therefore, in the absence of sufficient, credible, and incriminating material on record to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.

18.For the foregoing reasons, I am of considered view that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused. In this view this court is of the opinion that the essential ingredients for the offence U/Sec.

420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC is not sufficiently made out by the prosecution against accused. As such, the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt for the above said offence.

19.IN THE RESULT, the accused no. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 420, 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and consequently they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months from the date of judgment as per Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. for preferring appeal to the higher Court, from this judgment by prosecution or by the defacto complainant. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.

(Typed to dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III directly on screen, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Metpally.

Fair 8 CC No.19 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 –Podishetty Padma- Eye witness PW.2 Karipe Laxminarayana- Panch witness for CDF PW.3 –Paripelli Laxminarayana- Panch witness for CDF panchanama PW.4- D. Sathyanaratana-ASI-1729- 1st I.O. FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 is signature of PW.2 on CDF panchanama Ex.P3 is signature of PW.2 on CDF panchanama Ex.P4 is complaint Ex.P5 is First Information Report Ex.P6 is CDF panchanama FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Metpally.

1O.S. NO. 47 of 2023

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

FIRST CLASS, KORUTLA.

PRESENT:- Sri. Arun Kumar Naram ,

Junior Civil Judge, Metpally, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Korutla.

FRIDAY THE, 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

O.S.NO. 47 OF 2023

Between:- Abdul Mannan S/o. Abdul Jabbar, Age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 5-3-279, Mominpura, Korutla town and Mandal of Jagtial District, Telangana.

...Plaintiff

And

1. Abrar Ahmed S/o. Mohammad Ifteqar Ali, Age: 26 yers, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H.No: 1-1-170/1, Hajipura, Korutla Town and Mandal of Jagtial District, Telangana.

2. Ma Majid S/o. Abdul Jabbar, Ae: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No: 1-1- 73/4/3/4, Hajipura, Korutla Town and Mandal of Jagtial District, Telangana.

3. Nyavanadi Gangaram S/o. Nadipi Gangaram, Age: 78 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No: 2-6-223, Shivaji Road, Korutla Town and Mandal of Jagtial District, Telangana.

...Defendants No. 1 to 3.

Claim:- Suit for perpetual injunction.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Gandra Praveen Kumar , Advocate and Sri. Bairi Vijay kumar, Advocae for plaintiff, and of defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 were set exparte having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of land to an extent of 56 square yards in Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla Town and Mandal, Jagtial District ( hereinafter would be referred as “Suit Schedule land”).

2. The averments of the plainti, in brief are that:-

The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of Open plot to an extent of 56 square yards in Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla Town and Mandal, Jagtial District which 2O.S. NO. 47 of 2023 was mentioned in the Schedule-I as per the registered sale deed vide doc.No.

628 of 219,dt; 31-01-2019 on the file of S.R.O. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule open plot from one Nyavanandi Anjaiah through a registered sale deed vide doc.No. 628 of 2019, dated: 31-01-2019 on the file of S.R.O, Korutla. The plaintiff also purchased another open land to an extent of 35.55 Sq.yards in the same Sy.No. i.e., Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla town and mandal of Jagtial

District through registered sale deed vide doc.No. 628 of 2019, dated; 31-01- 2019 with different boundaries. The vendor was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac. 00-23 guntas in Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla town and mandal of Jagtial district. The plaintiff has filed the original registered sale deed vide doc.No. 628 of 2019, dated: 31-01-2019 executed before S.R.O Korutla, the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2012-13 issued by Dy. Tahsildar, Korutla, the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar,

Korutla, the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2014-15 issued by the Dy.

Tahasildar, Korutla, the certified copy of Pahani for the year 2016-17 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla. And the plaintiff also submitted that the defendants No. 1 to 3 are the strangers to the suit schedule land to an extent of 56 sq.yards in Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla, and they have no rights on the suit schedule property and the defendants No.1 to 3 were tried to create bogus and fixitious documents in resepect of the neighbouring Sy.No. i.e., Sy.No. 317 and also tried to interfere in to the peaceful and enjoyment possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule open plot. On 18-03-2023 when the plaintiff was cleaning suit schedule open plot and removing the grass bushes and garbage over it, the malafide defendants No.1 to 3 along with their henchmen illeglly entered into the suit plot and tried to occupy the suit schedule open plot by 3O.S. NO. 47 of 2023 threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences of kill him and occupy the suit schedule open plot. Upon which the plaintiff resisted the defendants No.1 to 3 and their hechmen with the help of his family members from occupying it. He also submitted that the defendants No.1 to 3 are realtors and very influential persons and with the help of money and muscle power may tamper and create false documents in respect of suit schedule open plot and may disposess the plaintiff from suit schedule open plot . The plaintiff has got prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and he prayed that the relief of Perpetual injunction against the defendants No. 1 to 3 and their family members, henchmen, relatives, successors, agents and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule open plot. Hence the suit.

3. Despite appearance made, the defendants No.1 to 3 faield to file their written statement within statutory period and hence they were set exparte on 08.06.2023.

4. During the course of enquiry, the plaintiff himself is examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.

5. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction against defendants as prayed for?”

7.POINT:- Perused the material on record. The plaintiff, in support of his case he has examined himself as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.

The plaintiff in his cheif-examination affidavit, reiterated the plaint averments and he stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit land from one Nyavanandi 4O.S. NO. 47 of 2023

Anjaiah through a register sale deed vide document No. 628 of 2019 dated: 31- 01-2019 an extent of 56 Sq.Yards and also another open land to an extent of 35.55 Sq.yards in the same Sy.No. i.e., Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla through a register sale deed vide document No. 628 of 2019, dated: 31-01-2019 with the different boundaries, which was mentioned in Schedule-I as per the registered sale deed vide doc.no. 628 of 2019, dt; 31-01-2019 on the file of S.R.O. And his vendor was the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.00-23 guntas in

Sy.No. 312 situated at Korutla, since he has been continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit property. That to substantiate his ownership over the suit land the plaintiff has filed exhibits i.e., Ex.A1- is the Original registered sale deed vide doc.No. 628 of 2019, dated; 31-01-2019 executed before S.R.O ,

Korutla, Ex.A2- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2012-13 issued by the Dy.

Tahasildar, Korutla, Ex.A3- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla Ex.A4- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2014-15 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla and Ex.A5- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2016-17, issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla. On 18.03.2023 when the plaintiff cleaning suit schedule open plot and removing the grass bushes and garbage over it, the defendant and his followers and agents were tried to enter into the suit property in order to occupy suit land then the plaintiff resisted thier illegal acts but the defendant became like a wild he threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences as one or other day they disposses the plaintiff at any cost, but, the defendant interfered countinously into suit land and the defendant denied very much title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule porperty. As seen from the Ex.A1to A5, it is evident that plaintiff is the owner of plot bearing

Sy.No. 312 to an extent of 56 Square yards situated at Korutla town and mandal 5O.S. NO. 47 of 2023 district Jagtial. Thus it is the evidence from Ex.A1 to A5 proves that planintiff is the possesor and owner of the suit scheduled property. It is evidence of plaintiff as remained unchallenged as defendant failed to contest and participate the matter and they remained exparte.

8.From the above unchallenged evidence of PW1, coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 that the plaintiff has established his case that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land property and the defendants No. 1 to 3 are do not have any right over the suit schedule property. It is also evidence from oral evidence of PW1 that the defendants No. 1 to 3 tried to occupy suit schedule land which was registered by the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff apprehends danger in the hands of defendants and as such the possession of the plaintiff is required to be protected by way of granting perpetual injunction wherein the defendants have no manner right over the schedule land. Accordingly point is answered.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 22nd day of September, 2023.)

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

METPALLY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KORUTLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : PW-1: Abdul Mannan

For defendant : -None- 6O.S. NO. 47 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1- is the Original registered sale deed vide doc.No. 628 of 2019, dt; 31-01-2019 executed before S.R.O , Korutla, Ex.A2- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2012-13 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla, Ex.A3- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2013-14 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla, Ex.A4- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2014-15 issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla, Ex.A5- is the C.C. Pahani for the year 2016-17. issued by the Dy. Tahasildar, Korutla.

For The Defendant : NIL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

METPALLY,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KORUTLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: KORUTLA

Present: Ms. K. Pavani, Junior Civil Judge,

KORUTLA.

Date : 28-03-2026

CC/10/2026

Between:-

State of Telangana Address: Kathalapur Korutla Circle Igp, Warangal Region Jagtial … Complainant

AND

Ramesh Muddangula Address: 5-30/14Gutpa,Gutpa of Makloor, NIZAMABAD, … Accused

ORDER

In view of National Lok Adalat, wide publicity given and the accused before this court in the present case and appealed to consider their pleading for guilty. Copies furnished. Accused is examined under section.262 BNSS for the offences U/sec.303(2) BNS and the substance of accusation/charge is read over in vernacular language. The accused having understood the same admitted the offence. As the admission appears to be Voluntary the same is accepted. In the result the accused is convicted for the offence under section 303(2) BNS and they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. In default, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. The total fine amount of Rs.3,000X1=3,000/- is paid by Accused. Note: The case property if any shall be delivered/property if any given in interim custody shall be made absolute.

This Order Generated in CIS.

Date : 28-03-2026

Junior Civil Judge

KORUTLA