Sri B. Hussain

1 /10 CC.No.519/2020

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: BOATH ::

ADILABAD DISTRICT.

Friday, this the 18th day of October, 2024

PRESENT:- SRI B.HUSSAIN

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Boath.

CC.No.519 OF 2020

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sirikonda.

….. Complainant.

// A n d //

A1: Durva Raju, S/o. Lachu Goud, Age: 40 years. A2: Athram Bheem Rao, S/o. Sungu, Age: 39 years. A3: Madavi Chander show S/o. Dashvanth Rao, Age: 39 years. A4: Pusham Anand Rao, S/o. Sungu, Age: 43 years. A5: Gedam Haridash, S/o. Bheemu, Age: 60 years.(Abated on 31.07.2023) A6: Kova Jyothiram, S/o. Lachu, Age: 65 years. A7: Madavi Laxman S/o. Janagu, Age: 65 years. A8: Madavi Madhav Rao, S/o. Lachu, Age: 60 years. A9: Pusham Dev Rao, S/o. Sungu, Age: 30 years. A10: Madavi Bhojju, S/o. Jangu, Age: 30 years. A11: Durva Dinesh S/o. Chithru, Age: 28 years. All are Caste: Gond, Occ: Agriculture and residents of Mallapur village of Sirikonda Mandal.

….. Accused No. 1 to 11.

This case having come before me for final hearing on 18.10.2024 in the presence of Sri H.Sridhar, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and of Sri P.Shankar, Sri D.Waman Rao and Sri. A.Hareesh learned Counsels for Accused No. 1 to 11, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following :

2 /10 CC.No.519/2020

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Sirikonda filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 to 11 for the offence Punishable

U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC r/w 149 IPC, in Cr.No.30/2019.

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

The brief facts of the case are that on 05.07.2019 at 1100 hrs,

LW7 along with Lws 1 and 2 proceeded to Mallapur Village for Village

Visiting. Then, LW7 came to know that, on 17.06.2019 at 1000 hrs, A1 to A11 sent out the teachers i.e., Lws 3 and 4 who belong to Lambada

Caste, and gave slogans as 'Lambada Teachers ni ma gramaniki ranivvamu' and abstracted duties of the aforementioned teachers. Later,

LW-7 made discreet enquiries about the incident. Secured the presence of two mediators i.e., Lws 5 and 6, LW-7 drafted the rough sketch of the scene of the offence and conducted the CDF.

Subsequently, LW-8 took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-8 visited the scene of the offence and conducted discreet enquiries about the incident. Re-examined the above witnesses, and they stated the same version as they deposed earlier to LW-7. As such, LW-8 could not re-record their statements. During the course of 3 /10 CC.No.519/2020 investigation on 17-10-2019, the A1 to A11 came to PS and surrendered

before LW-8.

During the course of interrogation, the Accused persons voluntarily confessed their guilt. Later, LW-8 issued notice to the accused persons

U/Sec. 41(A) CrPC. After collection of all relevant documents, LW8 filed charge sheet for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC r/w 149

IPC against A1 to A11.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC against A1 to A11.

4.On appearance of the Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 were examined U/Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC were read over and explained to them in vernacular language. For which, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11, the prosecution has examined PW 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1, Exs.D1 and D2. Ample opportunity given to the prosecution to produce the 4 /10 CC.No.519/2020 witnesses. Though, they failed to produce the witness i.e.2 and 7.

Hence, this court was constrained to suo-motu closed their evidence.

7. PW1 who assisted to LW7. Pws.2 and 3 are the eye witness to the incident. Pws 4 and 5 are the panch witness for CDF. PW6 is the

Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW4 on CDF. Ex.D1 is the Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.D2 is the

Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 were called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313(1)(b) of CrPC. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now,the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC?”

POINT:

11 (i) PW1/Shaik Arshad who is the Police personnel testified that, on 05.07.2019 at 11.00 hours, he along with LW2 accompanied with LW7 and went to the Mallapur village for village visiting. Then, LW7 came 5 /10 CC.No.519/2020 to know that on 17.06.2019, at 10.00 hours, A1 to A11 went to MPPS

School, Mallapur and sent out the teachers i.e., Lws 3 and 4, who belongs to Lambada Caste and gave slogans as “Lambada Teachers ni

Ma Gramaniki Ranivvamu” and obstructed their duties. Then, they returned to the Police Station and LW7 suo-motu registered a case against A1 to A11.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that, the incident not occurred in their presence.

ii) To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of PW1, the prosecution has relied upon to the testimony of PW2/Rathod Prakash and

PW3/RathoVasanth Rao who are the eye witness to the incident testified that, on 17.06.2019, at 10.00 hours, about 15 to 20 people came to their school saying that “Lambada Teachers ni Ma Gramaniki Ranivvamu” and obstructed their duties. On 05.07.2019, at about 12.00 p.m., the SI of police Sirikonda came to their school and enquires about the incident.

During the course of cross examination they admitted that, they do not know the names and particulars of Accused No. 1 to 11 and got marked Ex.D1 and D2.

iv)To Prove the contention of Pws 1 to 3, the prosecution has examined PW6/Shaik Fareed who is the Investigating Officer, testified that, on 17.10.2019, he received CD file from LW7, verified the same 6 /10 CC.No.519/2020 and found in proper and correct lines. On 17.10.2019, in between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m., A1 to A11 came to the Police Station and voluntarily surrendered before him. A notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C is issued to A1 to

A11 and released them on the same day. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A11 for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 r/w 149 IPC.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that, he did not conduct confession panchanama of Accused No. 1 to 11.

Appreciation of Evidence on Record:-

12. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the evidence of PW2, 3 and 6 corroborate the evidence of PW1, it clearly shows that, the Accused No. 1 to 11 obstructed Pws 2 and 3 while discharging their legally enforceable duties at MPPS School, at Mallapur village and committed the offence. Hence, prays to convict the Accused

No. 1 to 11.

13.On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for Accused No. 1 to 11 vehemently argued that, Pws 2 and 3 failed to identify the Accused persons and all the Accused persons never committed the offence. Further, for statistical purpose, LW7 registered a false case against the Accused persons. Hence, prays to acquit the Accused No. 1 to 11.

14.On going through the rival contentions of both parties and material 7 /10 CC.No.519/2020 available on record, it is evident that, PW1 who assisted to Lw7 and he along with LW2 went to the Mallapur village for visiting. Where, LW7 received a credible information that, A1 to A11 obstructed duties of Pws 2 and 3 and sent them from the MPPS School at Mallapur. Basing on the evidence of information, LW7 enquired into the matter and registered a case against all the Accused persons. To prove his contention, the prosecution has examined Pws 2 and 3 who are the Teachers working at

MPPS School Mallapur, failed to identify the any one of the Accused persons and got marked Exs.D1 and D2. It clearly shows that, there is no eyewitness to the incident that the all the Accused persons went to the

School with a slogan that “Lambada Teachers ni Ma Gramaniki

Ranivvamu” and obstructed their duties as on the date of incident.

15.Further, toprove the contention of PW1 to 3, the prosecution has examined Pws4 and 5, who are the panch witness for CDF, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Declaring them as hostile, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecution cross examined them. But nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version except marking signature of PW4 on CDF as Exs.P1.

Based on the evidence of Circumstantial Witnesses, the Accused persons cannot be convicted.

16. Ample opportunity given to the prosecution to produce the 8 /10 CC.No.519/2020 witnesses. Though, they failed to produce the witness i.e. LW. 2 and 7.

Hence, this court was constrained to suo-motu closed their evidence.

17.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the Accused No. 1 to 11 were went to MPPS School, Mallapur and sent out the teachers i.e., Pws 2 and 3, who belongs to Lambada

Caste and gave slogans as “Lambada Teachers ni Ma Gramaniki

Ranivvamu” and obstructed their duties, as on the date of commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Accused No. 1 to 11 were given the benefit of doubt for the same.

18. In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction,pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of October, 2024).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Boath.

9 /10 CC.No.519/2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence: PW1: Shaik Arshad -None- PW2: Rathod Prakash. PW3: Rathod Vasanth Rao. PW4: M.Ramesh. PW5: M.Raju. PW6: Shaik Fareed.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW4 on CDF.

For Defence: Ex.D1: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.D2: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Boath.

10 /10 CC.No.519/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM- JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, BOATH

CC.No. 519 of 2020

1.Date of offence 05.07.2019

2.Date of Report/Complaint 05.07.2019

3.Date of Apprehension of 05.07.2019 Accused

4.Date of Release 05.07.2019

5.Date of Commencement of Trial 01.10.2024

6.Date of Closure of Trial18.10.2024

7.Date of Sentence/Order18.10.2024

8.Explanation for Delay-

9.Remarks--

10.Name of ComplainantThe state of Telangana Through Police Station Sirikonda. 11Name of the accused A1: Durva Raju, S/o. Lachu Goud, Age: 40 years. A2: Athram Bheem Rao, S/o. Dashvanth Rao, Age: 39 years. A3: Madavi Cahnder show S/o. Dashvanth Rao, Age: 39 years. A4: Pusham Anand Rao, S/o. Sungu, Age: 43 years. A5: Gedam Haridash, S/o. Bheemu, Age: 60 years A6: Kova Jyothiram, S/o. Lachu, Age: 65 years. A7: Madavi Laxman S/o. Janagu, Age: 65 years. A8: Madavi Madhav Rao, S/o. Lachu, Age: 60 years. A9: Pusham Dev Rao, S/o. Sungu, Age: 30 years. A10: Madavi Vhojju, S/o. Jangu, Age: 30 years. A11: Durva Dinesh S/o. Chithru, Age: 28 years. All are Caste: Gond, Occ: Agriculture and residents of Mallapur village of Sirikonda Mandal.

….. Accused No. 1 to 11.

12.Offence Under Section(s) U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC.

13.Finding of the Court Found not guilty .

14.Sentence/order In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 11 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 341, 353 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

Boath.

1CC 270 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

(Friday, this the 12 th day of July,2024)

Present:- Sri B.Hussain

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor

C.C.No. 270 of 2021

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Indervelly P.S. ...Prosecution A n d

Gayakwad Vanitha W/o Ganesh, age: 35 years, Caste: BC-Marata, Occ: Agril., R/o. Ramnagar, Indravelly village and Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12-07-2024 in the presence of Smt M.Mounika, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Bhav Rao, Advocate counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Indravelly filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC, 287 IPC in

Crime No. 20 of 2020.

02)The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

On 28-03-2020 at 10.30 hrs, Lw1 came to the Police station and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, on 28-03-2020 at about 06.00 hrs, his

JFCM,UTNOOR.

2CC 270 of 2021

Father/Deceased namely Mali Prem Singh S/o Gobriya had brought the Mini

Crusher Machine for harvesting the Wheat crops from Gayakwad

Vanitha/Accused and kept at his agricultural field and while the wheat crops were harvesting by putting in the Crusher at about 10.00 hrs, the dry crops were struck in the Crusher while Deceased was trying to remove the dry crops, accidentally he also Crushed in the Crusher, Waist to lower body was crushed in the Crusher and died at the spot. Further, Lw1 stated that, the Owner of the

Mini Crusher i.e., Accused has not informed the procedure and the operating system of the Crusher to the Deceased. Due to which, his father was died. As such,he requested to take necessary action.

Based on the report, Lw12/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No. 20 of 2020 for the offence under Section 304 of IPC, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of

Lw1 and rushed to the spot, observed the scene, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 6 and took the photos of Deceased with the help of Lw7, secured two mediators i.e., Lws 8 & 9, conducted Inquest Panchanama in their presence. Later, sent a requisition to Medical Officer/Lw10 for PME report and later the dead body of the Deceased handed over to his relatives, conducted

CDF and drafted Rough sketch before Lws 8 & 9. later, Lw13 took up further

Investigation as per the instructions of SDPO, Utnoor on 10-06-2020. Later, he collected the copies of the Crime vehicle i.e., Mini crusher Br.No. AP01X-9767 and on verification, he came to know that, the owner of the crime vehicle is

Accused. Later, sent a requisition to AMVI for inspection of crime vehicle and report. Later, Lw14 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by Lws 12 & 13 and found it on proper lines. Later, on 08-10-2020, he served Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the Accused with a direction to appear

JFCM,UTNOOR.

3CC 270 of 2021

before the SHO, Indravelly on 09-10-2020 with ID and Residential proof for

further investigation. On 10-10-2020, Accused came to Police Station and surrendered before SHO and on interrogation, she voluntarily confessed her guilt and released her with a direction to co-operate with the police agency as and when required and also instructed to appear before the Hon’ble Court on receipt of summons. Basing on the statements of Lws 1 to 6 the section 287

IPC is added. After completion of the investigation and collection of all necessary documents, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 287 IPC.

03) This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 287 & 304-

A IPC against Accused.

04) On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05) The Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation levelled against the accused for the offence U/Sec. 287 and 304-

A IPC, was read over and explained to her in Telugu. For which, she denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06) To bring home the guilt of the Accused, prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. As the material witnesses turned hostile, this court was constrained to closed the evidence of Lws 7,9 to 14.

07) PW1 is the Complainant. Pw2 is the Wife of the Deceased. Pw3 is the

Brother of the Deceased. Pw4 is the Father of the Deceased. Pws 5 & 7 are the

JFCM,UTNOOR.

4CC 270 of 2021

Eye witnesses to the incident. Pw6 is the Panch witness for CDF and Inquest

Panchanama. Ex.P1- Signature of Pw1 on Report. Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 & Ex.P9 are

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pws 1 to 5 & 7. Ex.P7 is the Signature of Pw6 on

CDF Panchanama. Ex.P8 is the Signature of Pw6 on Inquest Panchanama.

08) As, no incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution witnesses against the Accused, section 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with.

09) Arguments also dispensed with.

10) Now, the point for consideration is-

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention

levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused

committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 287 & 304-A IPC?”

POINT:

11) Pw1/Mali Raju/Complainant/Son of the Deceased testified that, above (03) years back his Father/Deceased while removing dry crops from crusher, unfortunately his Father/Deceased fell into the crusher and died on the spot.

Immediately, he went to the crusher machine and saw his Father. Immediately, shifted to Utnoor CHC Hospital, where Doctors declared brought dead. Later, hospital authorities obtaining his signatures on written paper. He never went to the police station and never lodged report against Accused. He failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile. Pw2/M.Laxmi Bai/

Wife of the Deceased, Pw3/M.Bhahadur Singh/Brother of the Deceased. Pw4/

M.Gobriya Naik/ Father of the Deceased. Pw5/T.Ramesh/Eye witness,

Pw7/B.Pandurang/Eye witness and Pw6/T.Bahadur Singh/Panch witness for

JFCM,UTNOOR.

5CC 270 of 2021

CDF & Inquest Panchanama also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Declared them as hostile. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version, except marking of signature and

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.

12) As the material witnesses turned hostile, this court was constrained to suo-motu closed the evidence of Lws 7,9 to 14.

13) In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the Accused is the owner of the Mini crusher, negligence of the Accused and she did not informed the procedure and operating system of vehicle, as on the date of commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the

Accused was given the benefit of doubt for the same.

14)In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 287,304-A IPC. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The Un- marked property, if any shall be made absolute to the Owner after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 12 th day of July-2024.)

Sd/-

FAC:Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

6CC 270 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 Mali Raju None PW2 Mali Laxmi Bai PW3 Mali Bahadur Singh PW4 Mali Gobriya PW5 Tagire Ramesh PW6 Tagire Bahadur Singh PW7 Baradwal Pandurang.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 Signature of Pw1 on Report NIL Ex.P2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P7 Signature of Pw6 on CDF Panchanama Ex.P8 Signature of Pw6 on Inquest Panchanama Ex.P9 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Utnoor.

//True copy//

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

7CC 270 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 270 OF 2021

1. Name of the Police Station Indravelly

2. Description of the accused Gayakwad Vanitha W/o Ganesh, age: 35 years,Caste: BC-Marata, Occ:Agril., R/o. Ramnagar,Indravelly village and Mandal.

4. a) Date of Occurrence 28-03-2020

b) Date of Complaint 28-03-2020

c) Date of Apprehension 08-10-2020

d) Date of Release on bail -

e) Date of Commencement of 03-05-2024 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 12-07-2024

g) Date of Judgment 12-07-2024

5. Offence 287, 304-A IPC

6. Finding Not guilty

7. Sentence or order : In the result,the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 287,304-A IPC. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The Un-marked property, if any shall be made absolute to the Owner after appeal time is over.

8. Explanation for delay: No delay

FAC:JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

1CC 111 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT: UTNOOR

(Friday, this the 28 th day of June,2024)

Present:- Sri B.Hussain

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Boath.

FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor

C.C. 111 of 2021

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, Indervelly P.S. ...Prosecution A n d

A1-Salvaji Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishna Rao S/o Manohar Rao age: 32 years, Caste: Yellapi, Occ: Business, R/o. Vinayaka Nagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A2-Salvaji Shamala W/o Manohar Rao, age:44 years Caste: Yellapi, Occ: House wife, R/o. Vinayaka Nagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A3-Salvaji Manohar Rao S/o Laxman Rao age: 49 years, Caste: Yellapi, Occ: SCCL Employee, R/o. VinayakaNagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A4-Salvaji Sandeep S/o Manohar Rao, age: 26 years Caste: Yellapi,R/o. VinayakaNagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

...Accused No. 1 to 4

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt M.Mounika, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Raju Advocate

JFCM,UTNOOR.

2CC 111 of 2021 counsel for Accused No. 1 to 4 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Utnoor filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and

Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act in Crime No. 226 of 2019.

02)The brief facts of the charge-sheet are as follows:-

On 16-09-2019 at 19.30 hrs, Lw1 came to the Police station and lodged a

Telugu written petition stating that, her marriage was performed with the

Accused No.1 on 31-05-2015 as per their customs and rites which prevailed in their community and during the marriage, the parents of Lw1 presented

Rs.5,00,000/- and household articles to the Accused No.1. After the marriage, they led a happy marital life for a period of 06 months. Thereafter, Accused

No.1 addicted to alcohol and on instigation of A2 to A4 harassed Lw1 mentally and physically every day for want of additional dowry of Rs.2,50,000/- and necked out from the house by stating “if you did not bring additional dowry I will not allow you into the house” then, she came to her parents house and since then she lived at her parent’s house but, the Accused No.1 attitude remained unchanged, As a result, Pw1 has been living at her parents house since one year. Later, she requested to take necessary action.

Based on the report, Lw12/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.226 of 2019 for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act, issued an FIR, and took up the investigation. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 3. During the course of investigation, on 17-10-2019, he rushed to the scene of offence situated at Beersaipet village

JFCM,UTNOOR.

3CC 111 of 2021 and conducted CDF in the presence of Lws 8 & 9 and recorded the statements of Lws 4 & 5. Later, on 23-12-2019, Lw13-SI of police took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by Lw12 and found it on proper lines. During the course of investigation, on 19-10-2020, Lw13 rushed to the scene of offence situated at Vinayaka Nagar colony, Kattarmapur of

Karimnagar and observed the scene, secured two mediators i.e., Lws 10 & 11 and conducted Scene of offence Panchanama along with rough sketch, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 6 & 7. On 06-12-2020, he served

Sec 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the Accused No.1 to 4 with a direction to appear

before the Hon’ble Court on receipt of summons. After completion of the

investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/S 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act.

03) This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 DP Act against Accused No.1 to 4.

04) On appearance of Accused No. 1 to 4, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

05) The Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. The charge under section U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act were framed.

The contents of charge were read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06) To bring home the guilt of the Accused, prosecution has examined Pws.1 & 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

JFCM,UTNOOR.

4CC 111 of 2021 had given up the evidence of Lws 2 to 4, 6 to 13, as the material witnesses turned hostile. Hence, this court was constrained to closed their evidence.

07) PW1 is the Complainant/Victim. Pw2 is the village elder. Ex.P1 is the

Signature of Pw1 on Report. Ex.P2 & Ex.P3 are the Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statements of Pws 1 & 2.

08) As, no incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution witnesses against the Accused No. 1 to 4, section 313 Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with.

09) Arguments also dispensed with.

10) Now, the point for consideration is-

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention

levelled against the Accused No. 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt that the

Accused No.1 to 4 committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and

Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act ?”

POINT:

11) Pw1/S.Ravali/Victim testified that, in the year 2015, her marriage was performed with A1 at her in-law’s house i.e., Karimnagar. Later, small dispute took place between them. In this regard, she informed the same to her parents, where her parents conducted panchayath before the village elders. Later, village elders obtained her signatures on written papers but, she never went to the police station and she had never lodged a report to the police against A1 to

A4. She failed to support the prosecution case and completely turned hostile.

Pw5/P.Yella Reddy/Village elder also turned hostile and did not support the

JFCM,UTNOOR.

5CC 111 of 2021 prosecution case. Declared them as hostile. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version, except marking their Sec. 161

Cr.P.C statements as Ex.P1 & Ex.P2.

12) The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of

Lws 2 to 4, 6 to 13, as the material witnesses turned hostile. Hence, this court was constrained to closed their evidence.

13) In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the Accused No.1 harassed Pw1 physically and mentally for additional dowry on instigation of A2 to A4, as on the date of commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Accused No. 1 to 4 were given the benefit of doubt for the same.

14)In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 28 th day of June-2024.)

Sd/-

FAC:Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, Utnoor.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

6CC 111 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1 Salvaji Ravali None PW2 Peesu Yella Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence: Ex.P1 Signature of Pw1 on Report NIL Ex.P2 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Utnoor.

//True Copy//

FAC: Judicial Magistrate Of First Class,

Utnoor.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

7CC 111 of 2021

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR

C.C.NO. 111 OF 2021

1. Name of the Police Station Utnoor.

2. Description of the accused A1-Salvaji Ramakrishna @ Ramakrishna Rao S/o Manohar Rao,age: 32 years, Caste: Yellapi, Occ: Business, R/o. VinayakaNagar colony,Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A2-Salvaji Shamala W/o Manohar Rao, age:44 years,Caste: Yellapi, Occ: House wife, R/o. Vinayaka Nagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A3-Salvaji Manohar Rao S/o Laxman Rao age: 49 years, Caste: Yellapi, Occ: SCCL Employee, R/o. VinayakaNagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

A4-Salvaji Sandeep S/o Manohar Rao, age: 26 years,Caste: Yellapi, R/o. VinayakaNagar colony, Kattarmapur of Karimangar District.

4. a) Date of Occurrence 16-10-2019

b) Date of Complaint 16-10-2019

c) Date of Apprehension 06-12-2020

d) Date of Release on bail 06-12-2020

e) Date of Commencement of 28-06-2024 trial

f) Date of Close of trial 28-06-2024

JFCM,UTNOOR.

8CC 111 of 2021

g) Date of Judgment 28-06-2024

5. Offence 498-A IPC and Sec 3 & 4 of DP Act

6. Finding Not guilty

7. Sentence or order : In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

8. Explanation for delay No delay :

FAC:JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR.

JFCM,UTNOOR.

1/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: BOATH ::

ADILABAD DISTRICT.

Friday, this the 18th day of October, 2024

PRESENT:- SRI B.HUSSAIN

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Boath.

CC.No.322 OF 2021

Between: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Echoda, Police Station.

....Complainant.

A n d

Purka Someshwar, S/o. Gangaram, Age: 25 years, Caste: ST Gond, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narayanpur of Sirikonda Mandal.

..... Accused.

This case having come before me for final hearing on 18.10.2024 in the presence of Sri H.Sridhar learned Assistant Public Prosecutor., for the state and of Sri G. Dhamapal learned Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Echoda filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC,

Sec.181 of MV Act, in Cr. No.61/2021.

2/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

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

That, on 29.06.2021, at 08.45 hours, the LW1/complainant came to the Police Station and lodged a Telugu written report stating that, on 28.06.2021 , at about 13.00 hours, his Wife/Sidam Thrupa Bai left the house by saying that she is going to Market to attend Sandy day at

Echoda and proceeded along with Accused on his Motorcycle B.No.

TS01EP4479 as a pillion rider, while proceeding to Echoda on the way after crossing the Bandaguda situated at out skirts of Sirichelma village at about 13.30 hours, Accused drove his Motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break. Due to which his wife had fell down from Motorcycle. Immediately, he received the information and rushed to spot and found noticed that his wife sustained head injury and both shoulders and right cheek and other places and she felt unconscious state and laid down on the ground. Immediately he had called one Auto and shifted her to RIMS Adilabad for treatment. Where, his wife died while undergoing treatment, at 05.30 hours, Further he stated that due to sustaining injuries and said Accused is held responsible on the death of his wife. Therefore, LW1 requested to take necessary action.

3/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

On receipt of report from LW1, LW-13 registered a case in Crime

No.61/2021 for the offence punishable U/ Sec.304-A IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, the LW-13 examined and recoreded Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of LW1, Thereafter, rushed to RIMS

Adilabad secured presence of mediators i.e., Lws7 and 8 and conducted

Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above mediators. Later, LW13 visited the scene of offence, where he examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of Lws.9 and 10 drafted CDF along with rough sketch in their presence. On requisition of

LW13, LW12/MVI inspected the crime vehicle at Police Station and issued report.

On 02.07.2021, the Accused came to Police Station and surendered

before the LW13 and voluntarily confessed as to the commission of

offence. Later, LW13 served notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to Accused. After collection of all relevant documents and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC, Sec.181 of MV Act.

4/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A

IPC and Sec.181 MV Act against Accused.

4. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of CrPC.

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.251 CrPC.The substance of accusation levelled against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-

A IPC and Sec.181 of MV Act was readover and explained to him in

Telugu.For which, he denied the same,pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PWs:1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The Learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor had givenup the evidence of Lws 6 to 8.

Death Certificate of LW9 filed. Hence, their evidence was closed. Since the PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution case, it is not necessary to examine the remaining witnesses i.e. Lws 9,11 to 13. Hence,this court was constrained to suo-motu closed their evidence.

7.PW1 is the Defacto-Complainant and husband of deceased. PW2 is the Brother in Law of deceased. PW3 is the Sister of deceased. PW4 is the eyewitness. PW5 is the husband of PW4. PW6 is the panch for CDF 5/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

Panchanama. Ex.P1 is the thumb impression of PW1 on report. Ex.P2 to

P6 are the Relevant portion of Sec.161 CrPC statements of Pws 1 to 5.

Ex. P7 is the signature of PW6 on CDF Panchanama.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313(1)(b) of

CrPC. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now,the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec.181 MV Act ?'' POINT:

11.(i) PW6/P. Madhav Rao is the panch for CDF testified that, About 3 years back, Police called him to the scene of offence and conducted CDF.

After completion of CDF Panchanama and readover the contents of said

Panchanama, he signed on said Panchanama under Ex.P7. Further, LW9 also signed on said Panchanama.

PW1/ Sidam Jangu, PW2 /Sidam Gangaram, PW3/ P. Jangu Bai,

PW4/P. Maru Bai, PW5/P. Narayana, are the family members of deceased 6/8 CC.No.322 of 2021 they are turned hotile and did not support the prosecution case.

Declaring them as hostile. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined them. But nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements and Thumb Impression on Report as Ex.P1 to P6.

12. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had givenup the evidence of Lws 6 to 8. Death Certificate of LW9 filed. Hence, their evidence was closed. Since the PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution case, it is not necessary to examine the remaining witnesses i.e. Lws 9,11 to 13. Hence,this court was constrained to suo-motu closed their evidence. The evidence of PW6 only to extent that the Police conducted CDF at Scene of Offence.

13. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the Accused ride the Two Wheeler bike with high speed and applied sudden break and caused the death of the deceased as on the date of incident. As such, the Accused was given the benefit of doubt for the same.

14. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. U/Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec. 181 of MV Act. Accordingly, 7/8 CC.No.322 of 2021 he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked property if any, shall be made absolute to the owner of the proerty, after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, after correction,pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of October, 2024).

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

BOATH

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Sidam Jangu -None- PW2: Sidam Gangaram PW3: P. Jangu Bai. PW4: P. Maru Bai. PW5: P. Narayana. PW6: P. Madhav Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- Ex.P1: Thumb Impression of PW1 on Report. Ex.P2: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P6: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P7: CDF. MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

BOATH 8/8 CC.No.322 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOATH

CC.No. 322 of 2021

1.Date of offence 28.06.2021

2.Date of Report/Complaint 29.06.2021

3.Date of Apprehension of 02.07.2021 Accused

4.Date of Release 02.07.2021

5.Date of Commencement of 16.10.2024 Trial

6.Date of Closure of Trial18.10.2024

7.Date of Sentence/Order18.10.2024

8.Explanation for Delay-

9.Remarks--

10.Name of ComplainantThe state of Telangana Through Police Station Echoda. 11Name of the accused Purka Someshwar, S/o. Gangaram, Age: 25 years, Caste: ST Gond, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narayanpur of Sirikonda Mandal.

12.Offence Under Section(s)U/Sec. U/Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec. 181 of MV Act

13.Finding of the Court Found not guilty .

14.Sentence/order In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. U/Sec. 304-A IPC and Sec. 181 of MV Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The un- marked property if any, shall be made absolute to the owner of the proerty, after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

Boath.

1 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

BOATH ::

ADILABAD DISTRICT.

Friday,this the 27thday of September, 2024

PRESENT:- SRI B.HUSSAIN

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Boath.

CC.No.136 OF 2024

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Boath.

….. Complainant.

// A n d //

Dhopati Naveen S/o Rajeshwar, Age: 38 years, Caste; Padmashali, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-65 Dhannur-B village of Boath Mandal.

….. Accused.

This case having come before me for final hearing on 27.09.2024 in the presence of Sri H.Sridhar, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and of Sri D.Waman Rao and Sri. A.Hareesh, learned Counsels for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following :

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of police, Police Station, Boath filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence Punishable U/Sec.34-(a)

TS Excise Act, in Cr.No.155/2023.

2 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

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

That, on 12.10.2023, at 20.00 hours, LW7 along with Lws 1 and 2 were performing patrolling duty at Dhannur-B village and found

Accused was selling illicit liquor illegally by keeping the same in his

Kirana Shop sunder suspicious circumstances. On seeing the police Jeep, the Accused tried to escape from there. Immediately, LW7 apprehended him and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed as to the commission of offence and seized KF Strong 650 Ml beers (55), BP Bottles 360 ml(05), 180 ml ((03), Royal Stag 360 ml (09), 180 ml (26), MC 360 ml(05), 180 ml (40), OC 90 ml (212), 180 ml (16), IB 180 ml (10) B7 180 ml (02), total 77.5 liters worth of Rs.54,873/- from the possession of Accused and also conducted Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama, in the presence of Lws.3 and 4. Later, they brought the Accused along with seized case property to the Police Station at 2200 hours, and LW7 suo-motu registered a case in Cr.No.155 of 2023, for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a)T.S Excise Act. A Notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C issued to Accused and instructed him to appear before the Hon’ble Court on receipt of summons. Later, he drawn each two samples for Chemical

Analysis and obtained Report.

3 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

Basing on the proceedings of Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise Adilabad, Dated 14.03.2024, LW7 destroyed the seized case property and also conducted Destruction Panchanama in the presence of

LWs 5 and 6. After collection of all relevant documents, LW7 filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34

(a) of TS Excise Act.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec.34-

(a) TS Excise Act against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The Accused was examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C. The charge

U/Sec.34 (a) TS Excise Act was framed. The contents of charge were read over and explained to him in vernacular language. For which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. Ample opportunity given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. Though, they failed to produce the witness i.e. Lws.2,5 and 7. Hence, this court was constrained to suo-motu closed their evidence.

4 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

7. PW1 and 2 who are the panch witness for Confession-cum-Seizure

Panchanama. PW3 is the panch witness for Destruction Panchanama.

PW4 is the Police personnel, assisted to Investigating Officer. Ex.P1 and and P2 are the signatures of Pws 1 and 2 on Confession-cum-Seizure

Panchanama. Ex.P3 is the Destruction Panchanama.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313(1)(b) of

CrPC. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard arguments.

10. Now,the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a)TS Excise Act?”

POINT:

11 (i) PW3/ G.Nikhil who is the panch witness for Destruction panchanama testified that, on 14.03.2024, Police called him near

Current Office, Boath and destroyed (383) liquor bottles, total worth of

Rs.54,873/- in his presence. After completion of Destruction panchanama and read over the same, he signed on said panchanama under Ex.P3.

5 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

13. To place sufficient corroboration to the testimony of Pws.3, the prosecution has relied upon to the testimony PW4/S.Ashok who is the

Police Personnel, who assisted to LW7 testified that, on 12.10.2023, at 08.00 p.m., he along with LW2 and LW7 were conducting patrolling duty at Dhannur-B village, where, they found one person selling illicit

ID liquor in his Kirana Shop under suspicious manner. On seeing police

Jeep, the Accused tried to escape from the Kirana Shop. Immediately,

LW7 apprehended the Accused and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed as to the commission of offence. Immediately, LW7 secured two panch witnesses and conducted Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama and seized 383 liquor bottles worth of Rs.54,873/-. After completion of panchanama, they brought the Accused along with seized liquor bottles to the police station and LW7 Suo-motu registered a case against the

Accused.

14. To prove the contention of PW3 and 4, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 and 2 who are the panch witness for Confession-cum-

Seizure Panchanama, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Declaring them as hostile, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecution cross examined them. But nothing was elicited from their cross examination in support of prosecution version except marking their 6 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

signatures on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanamaas Exs.P1 and P2.

Based on the evidence of official witnesses, the Accused cannot be convicted.

15.Ample opportunity given to the prosecution to produce the witnesses. Though, they failed to produce the witness i.e. Lws.2,5 and 7

Hence, this court was constrained to suo-motu closed his evidence.

16.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that, the Accused is having illegal sale and possession of illicit ID liquor in his Kirana Shop as on the date of commission of offence beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Accused was given the benefit of doubt for the same.

17. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) TS Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction,pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of September, 2024).

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Boath.

7 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defence: PW1: A.Pramod. -None- PW2: M.Sai Kiran. PW3 :G.Nikhil. PW4: S.Ashok.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

-Nil- Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on Confession-cum-Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P3: Destruction Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Boath.

8 /8 CC.No.136 of 2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-

CUM- JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BOATH

CC.No. 136 of 2024

1.Date of offence 12.10.2023

2.Date of Report/Complaint 12.10.2023

3.Date of Apprehension of 12.10.2023 Accused

4.Date of Release 12.10.2023

5.Date of Commencement of 26.09.2024 Trial

6.Date of Closure of Trial27.09.2024

7.Date of Sentence/Order27.09.2024

8.Explanation for Delay-

9.Remarks--

10.Name of ComplainantThe state of Telangana Through Police Station Boath 11Name of the accused S Dhopati Naveen S/o Rajeshwar, Age: 38 years, Caste; Padmashali, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-65 Dhannur-B village of Boath Mandal.

12.Offence Under Section(s)U/Sec.34 (a) TS Excise Act.

13.Finding of the Court Found not guilty .

14.Sentence/order In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.34 (a) TS Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

Boath.