Smt B Sridevi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. B. SRIDEVI,

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 655/2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

SyedYousuf @ Yousuf, S/o Syed Hameed Miya, Aged; 28 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o H.No. 8-3-480/83, Ambedkar Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri K. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 60/2016 for the offences punishable under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case:-

(i)On 19.01.2016 at 04:00 hours the de facto complainant namely

A. Sai Kiran (Lw.1) lodged a complaint to the police stating that he and his brother parked their vehicles bearing No. AP-09CN-9897 (Passion Pro Red colour) and AP-09BW-9910 (Pulsar 180 Blue colour) at their residence at Subhash Nagar, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad and while they were sleeping, at about 2:30 hours on 19-01-2016 they 2 heard a big sound and noticed that that their vehicles were destroyed by setting fire and then they extinguished the fire by pouring water and they suspected that some unknown person had committed this incident and hence, he requested to take necessary action.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, K. Gurnadh, Sub-Inspector of

Police, P.S. Panjagutta (Lw.10) registered a case in Crime No.

60/2016 under section 435 of IPC and issued F.I.R. and handed over the case file to P. Nagaraj Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police (Lw.11) for investigation. During investigation, P. Nagaraj Goud, S.I. of Police (Lw.11) examined and recorded the statements of de facto complainant-A. Sai Kiran (Lw.1) and other witnesses namely

A.Vishnu, Y.Rama Krishna and L. Nagaraj (Lws.2 to 4) and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation panhanama and also drafted rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses namely Gaddam Murali Krishna and A.Venkatesh (Lws.7 and 8) and also collected CC camera footages from the nearest residential complex, verified it and found some visible as per the CC camera visibles, P. Nagaraj Goud, S.I. of Police (Lw.11) deputed the staff for apprehension of culprit. While the investigation was in progress on 21.01.2016 at 08:30 hours the accused person namely

Syed Yousuf @ Yousuf was apprehended by the police near Tea stall,

Hanuman temple, Yellareddyguda, Panjagutta and brought him to the police station and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed about commission of the offence and consequently, P. Nagaraj Goud,

S.I of Police (Lw.11) recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused in the presence of mediators namely 3

D.Krishna and M. Kondal (Lws.5 and 6) and thereafter, the accused was produced before this Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation and after collection of necessary documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file as C.C. 655/2016 for the offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on his appearance before the Court.

5.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the accusation levelled against him. After hearing the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel, a charge under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the incriminating material put to him and he did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 435 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:

10.Shortly stated the allegations levelled against the accused are that the accused is alleged to have set fire two motor bikes of the de facto complainant and thus the accused alleged to have contravened the provisions of section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1.

Whereas the defence of the accused is one of the total denial.

11.Perused the record. As seen from the evidence of Pw.1 he deposed that on 19.01.2016 he parked two motor cycles in front of his house and during night time at about 02:30 A.M. he heard some sound from outside of the house and he came out and found the above said two motor cycles are burning and then they put off the flames and lodged complaint vide Ex.P1 with police and the motor cycles registration numbers are AP-09CN-9897 and AP-09BW-9910 and he was examined by the police. Whereas in the cross- examination, he categorically denied the suggestion put by the learned Counsel for the accused. However, as seen from the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex.P1-complaint, the complaint was lodged against an unknown person and the wordings therein in the complaint specifically mentioned the same and in the evidence of

Pw.1 also it is clear that the identity of the accused is not established.

5

When the evidence of Pw.1 is that the identity of the accused is not established and as he did not depose anything to connect the identity of accused with the alleged offence. Therefore, from the evidence of

Pw.1 the only thing that is established is the burning of two motor cycles, but he did not depose anything against the accused. Thus

Pw.1 evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

12.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.2, he deposed that about three years back at about 09:30 P.M. while himself, Pw.1 and other family members were sleeping in the house, they heard some sounds at about 02:00 to 03:00 A.M. and woke up from the sleep and found motor cycles of himself and Pw.1 were set fire and they put off the flames and he do not remember the registration numbers of the motor cycles as he is not educated and he studied 6th class only and they gave complaint to the police by suspecting the accused and he was examined by the police. Whereas in the cross-examination, he stated that he do not remember the correct registration number of the motor cycle. However, as seen from the entire evidence of Pw.2 he stated that they gave complaint to the police by suspecting the accused, but as seen from the contents of the complaint the wordings “some unknown person might be done this incident” are categorically mentioned in Ex.P1-complaint which shows that at the time of lodging of the complaint there was no ground for suspicion against any particular person, but in the evidence, Pw.2 deposed contrary and stated that they lodged the complaint by suspecting the accused.

6

Thus the evidence of Pw.1 when compared with Ex.P1 there is contradiction and hence the evidence of Pw.2 is not believable.

13.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.3, he stated that in the night of 18.01.2016 at about 03:00 A.M. while he was sleeping, he heard some hues and cries from outside and then he woke up, come out and found two bikes are burning at the house of Pws.1 and 2, but at that time they do not known who set fire the bike, but in the morning

P. Nagaraj Goud, S.I. of Police (Lw.11) verified the CC camera footage and found that the accused set fire to the above said two bikes and he do not know the reason and he was examined by the police. Whereas in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that he had gone to sleep in his house at about 11:30 to 12:00 mid night and he also stated that he does not know whether there are any personal disputes between Pws.1, 2 and the accused. Furthermore, as seen from the evidence of Pw.3 he categorically stated that at that time he does not know who set fire to the vehicles and that in the morning P. Nagaraj

Goud (Lw.11) verified the C.C. camera footage and found the accused and however, as seen from this statement of Pw.3 it becomes nothing but the evidence of hearsay witness because he stated that P. Nagaraj

Goud, S.I. of Police (Lw.11) verified the C.C. camera footage and he did not state whether he had seen it. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.3 is not helpful to the case of prosecution. Now coming to the evidence of Pw.4, he stated that he went to the scene of offence and there the police conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P5 and drawn rough sketch under Ex.P6. However, in the cross-examination he categorically admitted that his signature is not there in the first 7 page of panchanama. However, the co-panch i.e., Pw.7 categorically stated that his signatures were obtained on some white papers by the police and he did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, as there is no corroboration between the panch witnesses for the alleged scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch and hence the evidence of Pws.4 and 7 is contrary to each other and hence the evidence of Pw.4 is not believable. Whereas Pw.7 turned hostile and hence his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Same is the case with Pws.5 and 6 who are said to be alleged witnesses for confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Hence as seen from the evidence of Pws.5 and 6 they turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, their evidence is of no use to prosecution and hence from the evidence of Pws.5 and 6, the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama is not proved and the alleged seizure of M.O.1 is also not proved.

14.Pw.8 is the Investigating Officer in this case and he deposed that on 19.01.2016 Gurunath, S.I. of Police (Lw.10) received a complaint from PW1, basing on which he registered a case in Crime

No.60/2016, U/s.435 IPC and issued FIR vide Ex.P4 and later he (Lw.10-Gurunath) handed over the CD file to him for further

Investigation and he examined PWs.1 to 3, Y. Rama Krishna (LW3) and visited the scene of offence at H.No.8-3-800/5/A, Yellareddyguda and secured the panchas-PW4 and 5 and conducted scene of offence observation panchanama (Ex.P5) and drafted rough sketch (Ex.P6).

Pw.8 also deposed that he has collected the CC camera footages and during the course of investigation on 21-01-2016 apprehended the 8 accused person with the help of A. Srinivasulu (LW9) and brought him to P.S, and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily admitted the offence and hence he secured the presence of PW5 and 6 and recorded confession cum seizure panchanama of accused (Ex.P7) and seized one match box (M.O.1) and then he effected arrest of accused and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand and after completing investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Ex.P8 is the CD (marked subject to objection). Whereas in the cross-examination, he categorically stated that he did not file the photographs of the damaged vehicles and he also admitted that the name of the accused is also not mentioned under Ex.P1. Therefore, as seen from the evidence of Pw.8 who is none other than the

Investigating Officer in this case and hence as per his evidece he merely deposed about investigation process undertaking by him and he being the Investigating Officer his evidence is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and hence his evidence cannot be solely relied upon in the absence of independent witnesses evidence.

15.As seen from the entire evidence of prosecution i.e., from the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 8 coupled with Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all resonable doubt for the offence under section 435 of the

Indian Penal Code and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal and thus this point is answered accordingly.

16. (i) In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is 9 acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(ii)M.O.-1 (Match Box) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2019.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 – Sai Kiran, (complainant/victim) - None - PW2 – Vishnu, (brother of Pw.1/victim ) PW3 – L. Nagaraju, (witness) PW4 – G. Murali Krishna, (panch witness) PW5 – Krishna, (panch witness) PW6 – M. Kondal, (panch witness) PW7 – A. Venkatesh, PW8 – P. Nagaraju Goud, (S.I. of Police/IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint of Pw.1 dated 19.01.2016 - Nil - Ex.P2 – Signatures of Pw.7 on the scene of offence & P3 observation panchanama and rough sketch Ex.P4 - First Information Report dated 19.01.2016 Ex.P5 – Scene of offence observation panchanama Ex.P6 – Rough sketch Ex.P7 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P8 – Compact Disc (marked subject to objection)

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 – Match Box

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. B. SRIDEVI,

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Friday, the 01st day of March, 2019

C.C. No. 1755/2016

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad …… Complainant

And

A1) Polasani Rajeshwar Rao, W/o Narshimha Rao, Aged: 25 years, Occ: Cashier in S.S. Liquor Mall, Green Lands, Ameerpet, R/o Flat No. 202, Shivshankar colony, Fathenagar, Balanagar, Hyderabad

A2) Chennamaneni Sanjay Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No.14, Maruthi Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad …… Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri V. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime

No.500/2016 for the offence punishable under section 36(1)(b&c) of the A.P. Excise Act.

2.The indictment against the accused, in brief, is as follows:-

(i)On 12.07.2016 at about 18:30 hours Kishore Chary, PC-3173 (Lw.1) lodged a complaint stating that on the same day at 18:00 hours 2 while he along with one Hari Babu, HG-3415 (Lw.2) were performing

BC-II patrolling in the limits of P.S. Panjagutta, they received credible information that one person on the counter of wine shop by name 'SS

Liquor Mall', Green Lands, Ameerpet was selling liquor to minor children, which is an offence under the Excise Act and accordingly, he informed the same to his superior officers and as per the instructions of his superiors, they kept a watch on the counter of liquor shop and video-graphed while the person on the counter was selling liquor (Directors' Special fine whisky 375 ml.) to a minor boy and on enquiry, the person on the counter has disclosed his name as

Polasani Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Narasimha Rao (A1 herein) and his owner name is Sanjay Rao (A2) and hence, he requested to take necessary action.

(ii)Basing on the above said complaint, K. Gurunath, Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta registered a case in crime No.

500/2016 for the offence under section 36(1)(b&c) of the A.P. Excise

Act and issued F.I.R. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, K. Gurunath, Sub-Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statements of Kishore Chary (Lw.1) and Hari Babu (Lw.2) and visited the scene of offence and caused discrete enquiry near the vicinity. On 13.07.2016 K. Gurunath, S.I of Police served a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. against the accused No.1 and 2 directing them to appear before the Hon'ble Court after issuing summons from the Hon'ble Court. After completion of investigation and after collection of relevant documents, charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 and 2.

3

3.The case was taken on file as C.C. 1755/2016 for the offence under section 36(1)(b&c) of the A.P. Excise Act against the accused

No.1 and 2.

4.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C., on their appearance

before the Court in response to the summons.

5.The substance of the accusation has been read over and explained to the accused No.1 and 2 in vernacular language under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 36(1)(a&b) of the

A.P. Excise Act. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the accusation levelled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7.After closure of the above prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused No.1 and 2 denied the incriminating material put to them and they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination:- “Whether the prosecution could prove its case against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 36(1)(a&b) of the A.P. Excise Act or not ?” 4

POINT:

10.As seen from the record, shortly stated the allegations levelled against the accused are that the accused were involved in selling the liquor to a minor boy and thereby they contravened the provisions of section 36(1)(a&b) of A.P. Excise Act and that one of the accused is the owner and the other accused is the person who is maintaining the counter and thereby both A2 and A1 are alleged to have contravened the provisions of above said section under A.P. Excise Act. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is one of the total denial of the incriminating allegations made by prosecution.

11.Perused the record. As seen from the evidence of Pw.1, he is one of the police constables who is said to have participated in the alleged raid in this case and he deposed that on 12.07.2016 himself and one Hari Babu, H.G.3415 (Pw.2) were conducting B.C.-II in the limits of Panjagutta, they received information that M/s. S.S. Liquor

Mall, Greenlands, Ameerpet was selling liquor to minor children and accordingly, he gave information to the superior officer and obtained obtained video of selling liquor to a minor boy and handed over the said video to his superior officer and he gave complaint to the police and one Rajesh is maintaining counter and Sanjay is the owner of the shop. Pw.2 is the Home Guard and accompanied Pw.1 in the alleged raid and he deposed on the same lines as that of Pw.1. In the cross- examination, both Pws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they received information on 12.07.2016 and they went to the shop at 5 06:00 P.M. and they did not collect any document to show that the purchaser was minor. As seen from the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P1-complaint the accused alleged to have been selling liquor to a minor boy, but as per the record admittedly there is no document to show that the purchaser was alleged minor. Still further Pws.1 and 2 are none other than one of the police constables and Home Guards, who are police officials, who are said to have allegedly apprehended the accused on the spot and alleged to have participated in the alleged raid. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 becomes nothing but the evidence of interested witnesses since they being police constable and Home Guard who participated in the alleged raid.

12.As seen from the evidence of Pw.3, who is the Investigating

Officer in this case, he deposed in the chief examination that on 12.07.2016 at 18.30 hours he received a complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Crime No. 500/2016 U/sec.36(1)(b)(c)(g) of

A.P.Excise Act and issued FIR vide Ex.P2 and took up investigation and Pw.1 submitted a Video recorded by him showing that accused was selling liquor to minors vide Ex.P3-CD and he examined and recorded the statements of PWs1 and 2 at P.S and then he visited the scene of offence which is at SS Liquor Mall, Greenlands, but did not find any incriminating material there. He also deposed that on 13.07.2016 he served Notices U/sec.41(A) Cr.P.C on the accused

No.1 and 2 directing them to appear before the Hon'ble Court on receiving summons and after completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.36(1)(b)(c), of 6

A.P.Excise Act. Whereas in the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he did not record the statements of the minors and he did ot collect the Date of Birth certificate of minor and did not seize liquor bottle from the owner. Thus from the above admissions made by the Investigating Officer (Pw.3), it categorically shows that the prosecution has conducted defective investigation in this case because when the main allegation against the accused is that of alleged selling of liquor to alleged minor then the Investigating Officer would have collected the relevant records above mentioned from the alleged minor. But in the present case it is not so. Still further the

Investigating Oficer (Pw.3) categorically admitted that the offences mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C.statements of Pws.1 and 2 are 341, 323 read with 34 of IPC and not under Excise Act and also admits that there are corrections on the date of examination in such statements.

Therefore, the above admissions made by the Investigating Officer categorically depicts and highlights the defective investigation conducted by the prosecution in this case and that without properly verifying the records how the Investigating Agency conducted the investigation in this case is depicted by the above statements made by the Investigating Officer. Still further Pw.3 stated that there are CCTV cameras in every wine shop and he also admits that he did not collect the CCTV footages from the SS Liquor Mart. Therefore, from the above statements made by the Investigating Officer the genuineity of

Ex.P3-CD itself is under suspicious because Ex.P3-CD is not accompanied by section 65-B Certificate of Information Technology

Act and more so when the CCTV footages are not collected by the

Investigating Officer, then the CD which is alleged to have been 7 collected by the Investigating Officer with regard to the alleged selling of liquor is not admissible and throws a cloud of suspicion over the entire case of prosecution because at all Ex.P3-CD was genuine, then the Investigating Officer (Pw.3) would have collected the relevant

CCTV footages also. In the present case on hand, it is not so.

Therefore, in view of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 who are none other than the police personnel who are said to have participated in the alleged raid and investigated the above case, hence their evidence becomes nothing but the evidence of interested witnesses and as seen from the record, there is no independent witness evidence to corroborate with the testimony of Pws.1 to 3. Furthermore in view of the admissions made by the witnesses-Pws.1 to 3 in their evidence and also from Exs.P1 to P3 it categorically shows that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 36(1)(a&b) of the A.P.

Excise Act and accordingly, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

13. In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 36(1)(a&b) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of March, 2019.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1 – K. Kishore Chary, (de facto complainant/PC-3173)- None - PW2 – Hari Babu, (HG-3415) PW3 – K. Gurunath, (S.I. of Police/IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint dated 12.07.2016 - Nil - Ex.P2 - First Information Report dated 12.07.2016 Ex.P3 – Compact Disc (marked subject to objection)

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SMT. B. SRIDEVI,

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Thursday, the 28th day of February, 2019

C.C. No. 563/2017

Between :

The State of Telangana, represented by the Station House Officer, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad. …… Complainant

And

A1) Nikhil Jain, S/o Umed Singh Jain, Aged: 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 202, Krishnaja Residency, Srinagar colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

A2) Naval Kishore, S/o Kamal Kishore, Aged: 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 55, Prasanth Nagar colony, Balkampet, Hyderabad

A3) Anand Kotari, S/o Mahaveer Kotari, Aged: 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 74, Jyothi Prahillad Apartment, Srinagar colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

A4) R. Vijay, S/o R. Mahesh, Aged; 32 years, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No. 406, Ashoka Apartment, Street No.2, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad …… Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri Ginja Shankar Sharma, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 4 and after perusing the case records and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Crime No.

2 287/2017 for the offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the

A.P. Gaming Act (now Telangana Gaming Act).

2.Brief facts of the Prosecution case:-

(i)On 29.03.2017 at about 21:00 hours, K. Kishore Chary, PC- 3173 of P.S. Panjagutta lodged a complaint stating that on the same day at about 20:30 hours when he was on patrolling duty in BC-H, received credible information that one person by name Nikil Jain (A1) was running a common gaming house in Room No. 202, Krishnaja

Residency, Srinagar colony, Ameerpet, Hyderabad by playing and organizing three cards game which is a game of chance and collecting kitty amount from the punters/other players and thereby, getting personal benefits illegally and on that he placed information before the S.H.O., Panjagutta and made G.D. Entry and he was instructed to make a thorough enquiry and submit a report and thereafter, he verified the information by making discreet enquiry and came to know that four members were playing three cards game and hence he requested to take necessary action against the organizer and others as per law.

(ii)Basing on the above complaint, P. Nagaraj Goud, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Panjagutta registered a case in crime No. 287/2017 under sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, P. Nagaraj Goud, S.I. of Police examined and recorded the statements of K. Kishore and A. Hari, the

Police Constables, apprised the information to his superior officers and obtained Authorization Memo from ACP, Panjagutta Division to 3 raid the above premises. Thereafter, he summoned two mediators, drafted search proceedings in their presence and proceeded to the spot along with panchas and staff and conducted raid of the said house and found four persons (accused No.1 to 4) were playing three cards gambling which is a game of chance and apprehended the accused No.1 to 4 and brought them to the police station and on interrogation they disclosed their names and other particulars and recorded their confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized net cash property, playing cards and four cell phones from the possession of accused No.1 to 4. Thereafter, their (A1 to A4) arrest was effected and on furnishing sufficient sureties, they were released on bail.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused No.1 to 4.

3.The case was taken on file as C.C. 563/2017 for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act against the accused

No.1 to 4.

4.On the appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 before this Court, copies of documents have been furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The substance of the accusation has been read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 under section 251 Cr.P.C., and they denied the accusation levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

4

7.After closure of the above prosecution case, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the incriminating material put to them, but they did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Defence

Counsel. Perused the record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the Prosecution proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence u/secs. 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act (now Telangana Gaming Act)?”

POINT:

10.Shortly stated the allegations levelled against the accused are that the accused were involved in playing and organizing three cards game which is a game of chance, by collecting the amounts and that they contravened the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the A.P.

Gaming Act.

11.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. Whereas the defence of the accused is one of the total denial of the incriminating allegations made by prosecution. Perused the material on record.

12.As seen from the evidence of Pw.1, he is one of the police constables who is said to have participated in the alleged raid in this case and he deposed that on 29.03.2017 himself and Haribabu 5 (Lw.2) were conducting Blue Colts duty at Srinagar colony, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad and he received information from unknown person that in

Room No.202, Krishnaja Residency, Srinagar colony, Ameerpet, one gaming house was running and as per information Nikil Jain was running the gaming house, and they gave information to the S.H.O. of

P.S. Panjagutta and an entry was made in General Diary and himself,

Hari (Lw.2) and Nagaraj Goud, S.I. of Police (Lw.5) went to the gaming house along with two panchas by name K.V. Chalapathi and

Gnaneshwar and they found four persons in that house and they seized four cell phones, forty cards and Rs. 8,000/- from the accused persons and they seized the above items under a cover of panchanama and handed over the accused along with seized items and panchanama to the police and he gave Ex.P1-complaint to the police and he was examined by the police. Whereas in the cross- examination, he categorically stated that he has not collected any document to show the ownership of the said house and that it allegedly belongs to the accused No.1 and that he also stated that he had not recorded the statements of any witnesses. Furthermore, he also admitted that the alleged scene of offence is situated in a residential area. However as seen from the evidence of Pw.1 he is none other than the police constable who is said to have participated in the alleged raid and therefore, his evidence becomes nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon without any corroboration from independent witnesses evidence.

6

13.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.2 who said to be the witness for the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama, but as seen from the evidence of Pw.2 he turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and he categorically deposed that his signatures were obtained on some written papers by the police at P.S. which shows that the alleged confession-cum-seizure panchanama was not conducted at the time of alleged seizure at alleged scene of offence and hence at P.S. after writing down the alleged panchanama, the signatures of the witnesses were obtained. Through Pw.2, Ex.P2 which is the signature portion on panchanama was marked. But mere marking of signature portion on the panchanama does not prove the contents of alleged panchanama since he categorically stated that his signatures were obtained on some written papers and therefore, as seen from the evidence of Pw.2 his evidence is not supportive to the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused and goes contrary to the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused. Thus, Pw.2 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

14.Now coming to the evidence of Pw.3 who is also said to be one of the panch witnesses to the alleged seizure-cum-confession panchanama of the accused. Through Pw.3, Ex.P3 which is the signature portion on panhcanama was marked, but mere marking of signature portion on the panchanama does not prove the contents of alleged panchanama since he categorically stated that his signatures were obtained on some white papers. Thus as Pw.3 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and therefore, the evidence of Pw.3 is also not useful to the case of prosecution. Thus 7 as seen from the entire evidence placed by the prosecution, the evidence of Pw.1 is nothing but the evidence of interested witness and hence the same cannot be solely relied upon whereas Pws.2 and 3 turned hostile . Therefore, the allegations against the accused stands not proved for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming

Act since the prosecution did not adduce any cogent evidence in proof of the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal. Thus the point is answered accordingly.

15.(i) IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the A.P. Gaming Act (now

Telangana Gaming Act) and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to section 437-A Cr.P.C.

(ii)The unmarked case property i.e., cash of Rs. 8,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to State after expiry of appeal time. Mobile Phones (no. in four) shall be returned to the concerned accused after expiry of appeal time since the involvement of mobile phones is not specific.

Playing cards (40 no.'s ) shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of February, 2019.

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1 – K. Kishore Chary, (Complainant/PC-3173) - None – PW2 – K.V. Chalapathi, (panch witness) PW3 – M. Gnaneshwar, (panch witness)

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P1 – Complaint given by Pw.1 dated 29.03.2017- Nil - Ex.P2 – Signature of Pw.2 on the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama Ex.P3 – Signature of Pw.3 on the Confession-cum-Seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil

FAC XIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

(MAHILA COURT) : HYDERABAD

PRESENT:SMT. B. SRIDEVI,

XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2019

C.C. No. 226/2019 Between:

The State of Telangana represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police,

WPS,CCS, Hyderabad. ... Complainant

AND

A-1 : Dacha Yeshwant, S/o. Dacha Jagadish, aged : 35 years, Occ : Pvt. Service,

A-2 : Dacha Jagadish, S/o. NandaGopal Dacha, aged : 65 years, Occ : Pensioner,

A-3 : Smt. Dacha Sunitha, W/o. Dacha Jagadish, aged : 60 years, Occ : Housewife,

A-1 to A-3 are R/o. H.No. 3-4-18, Flat No. 504, Vinayaka Residency, Dr. Bhoomanna

Lane, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ....Accused

This case is having come up before me for final hearing on 17-04-2019 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor and of Sri Chintala Krishna, Advocate and his associates, Counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, WPS,CCS, Hyderabad has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 415/2018 for the offences U/Secs. 498-A,406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of LW-1 Sonnakula Ankita was performed with A-1 on 18-05-2011 and at the time of marriage on the demand of the accused, her parents gave cash of Rs. 1,01,116/-, 15 tulas of gold, in form of ornaments to her and A-1, silver 2 kgs in the form of articles, to A-1 and others, besides utensils worth Rs. 15,000/-. After the marriage, she joined her matrimonial home and after few days of the marriage, all accused started harassing her both mentally and physically,

A-1 used to say that he was not interested in the marriage and only at the instance of her parents the marriage was forcefully solemnized and A-1 had never shown any interest in leading marital life and never indulged with personal affairs as A-1, even A-1 used to push her away if go near to him. A-1 used to be moody and always taunting her for petty reasons, A-1 used to pick up quarrels for no reason and enraged on her and also manhandled her at times. A-1 for every simple and petty reasons throw the articles down to earth and even he used to shout on her without any reason and pushed her out of the house and said her to leave their house many times. After few months, she have seen some medical reports in A-1's cupboard, when she questioned A-1 about the same, he rather answering her, he yelled at her and started beating her and further warned her not to indulge in his personal issues. She observed A-2 and A-3 are mixing the medicines in his daily meals and tea. That on questioning the same to her in-laws, they have said that he is a victim of schizophrenia and getting treated at Neuro Hospital at

Kachiguda. She tried to be with A-1 expecting a change in passage of time but all her efforts went in vain. That due to the suppression of ill-health, she is subjected to untold mental cruelty. A-1 never used to take care of her personal needs inspite of taking all her salary which has created mental traums to her that, finally she was necked out on wearing appeal while retaining all her belongings. A-1 is claiming divorce since March, 2017 by passing What's app messages. That due to the strange behaviour of A-1, she is in apprehension of her life and limb. A-2 and A-3 had challenged that she should remain like this and their son would remain like this throughout life without any reference of marriage. A-2 is not permitting A-1 to speak to her so as to ascertain the fact. Due to the said cruelty meted out in the hands of the accused, she lodged a report against accused for taking necessary action.

3.Based on the complaint, the police registered the same and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, the Investigation officer recorded the statements of complainant, witnesses and collected material documents from the victim and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused.

Thus, the facts and evidence collected established that the accused committed the offences as stated supra.

4.Upon considering the case of the prosecution, this court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A,406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to them as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec. 498-A of IPC was framed, particulars read over and explained to them.

Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to

P3 are got marked. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as the matter was settled.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material evidence spell out by the prosecution witness.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry by the accused under Section 498-A IPC as contended by the prosecution? P O I N T :

10. The charge framed under Section 498-A IPC. The definition of Sec.498-A of IPC is - “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman ; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

11.As seen from the evidence of PW-1, she is none other than the defacto complainant in this case. PW-1 deposed that her marriage with A-1 was performed in the year 2011 and that because of disputes in between them, she filed Ex.P-1 complaint before the PS WPS,CCS, Hyderabad and that she has no grievance against the accused and that she is with drawing all the allegations against the accused made in the statement before Police and also in her complaint, since they are living separately and compromised the matter out of Court and that she filed a xerox copy of

Aadhar card in proof of her identity and that she prayed the Court to close the case against the accused. During the course of cross-examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied to have stated as in Ex.P-2 - 161 Cr.P.C statement whereas the accused reported no cross-examination.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW-2, she is none other than the mother of the defacto complainant in this case. PW-2 deposed that her daughter compromised the case with the accused out of the Court and withdrawn all the allegations against accused made in the statement before police, since they are living separately.

Therefore, they are not interested in proceeding further with this case. Hence, she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the accused. During the course of cross- examination by the learned APP, PW-2 denied to have stated as in Ex.P-3 - 161 Cr.P.C statement whereas the accused reported no cross-examination.

13.Thus, as seen from the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P-1 to

P-3, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence alleged by the prosecution against the accused. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC and hence they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-3 shall stands cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2019.

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW-1 : Smt. Sonnakula Ankita, -Nil- defacto complainant / victim.

PW-2 : Smt. Rama Devi, mother of PW-1.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR:

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Report filed by P.W-1. -Nil-

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR:

Nil

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

(MAHILA COURT) : HYDERABAD

PRESENT:SMT. B. SRIDEVI,

XIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 10th day of April, 2019

C.C. No. 407/2016 Between:

The State of Telangana represented through The Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Kalapathar, Hyderabad. ... Complainant

AND

A-1 : Mohd. Imran, S/o. Mohd. Iqbal, aged : 22 years, Occ : Business, R/o. H.No. 19-2-125/C, Kalapathar, Hyderabad.

A-2 : Zameer Unissa, W/o. Mohd. Iqbal, aged : 50 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-2-125/C, Kalapathar, Hyderabad.

A-3 : Jahangeera, W/o. Sayed Kaleem, aged : 25 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. H.No. 19-2-125/C, Kalapathar, Hyderabad.

A-4 : Neha Begum, D/o. Iqbal, aged : 19 years, Occ : Household, R/o. H.No. 19-2-125/C, Kalapathar, Hyderabad.

A-5 : Mohammadi Begum, W/o. Mohammed Younes Khan, aged : 27 years, Occ : Housewife, R/o. H.No.

19-2-125/C, Kalapathar, Hyderabad. ....Accused

This case is having come up before me for final hearing on 10-04-2019 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor and of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate and his associates, Counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kalapathar, Hyderabad has laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 126/2016 for the offences U/Sec. 498-A of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:

The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of LW-1 Saba Begum was performed with A-1 in the year 2015 and at the time of marriage, her parents presented all articles, including 3 tulas gold, furniture set worth Rs. 1 lakh, net cash Rs. 50,000/- kitchen articles, 22 pairs clothes to bride, as dowry. After some days, all accused subjected her physical and mental torture for want of additional dowry from her parents. All accused are counselled two to three times in presence of elders and police.

Since few days, A-2 along with A-3 to A-5 started abusing her repeatedly for want of

additional dowry. In the past when A-1 demanded additional dowry, she brought Rs.

5000/- and ration and gas cylinder from her parents home because of the insufficiency, all accused again started harassment for want of additional dowry and all accused beat her usually insisting her not to interact with her parents. Due to the said cruelty meted out in the hands of the accused, she lodged a report against accused for taking necessary action.

3.Based on the complaint, the police registered the same and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, the Investigation officer recorded the statements of complainant, witnesses and collected material documents from the victim and after completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused.

Thus, the facts and evidence collected established that the accused committed the offence as stated supra.

4.Upon considering the case of the prosecution, this court took cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were supplied to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge U/Sec. 498-A of IPC was framed, particulars read over and explained to him.

Accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P4 are got marked. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as the matter was settled.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material evidence spell out by the prosecution witness.

8.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically for want of additional dowry by the accused under Section 498-A IPC as contended by the prosecution? P O I N T :

10. The charge framed under Section 498-A IPC. The definition of Sec.498-A of IPC is - “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.” Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means - (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman ; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

11.As seen from the evidence of PW-1, she is none other than the defacto complainant in this case. PW-1 deposed that her marriage with A-1 was performed in the year 2016 and that because of disputes in between them, she filed Ex.P-1 complaint before the PS Kalapathar, Hyderabad and that she has no grievance against the accused and that she is with drawing all the allegations against the accused made in the statement before Police and also in her complaint, since they are living together and compromised the matter out of Court and that she filed a xerox copy of Aadhar card in proof of her identity and that she prayed the Court to close the case against the accused. During the course of cross-examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied to have stated as in Ex.P-2 - 161 Cr.P.C statement whereas the accused reported no cross-examination.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW-2, she is none other than the mother of the defacto complainant in this case. PW-2 deposed that her daughter compromised the case with the accused out of the Court and withdrawn all the allegations against accused made in the statement before police, since they are living together. Therefore, they are not interested in proceeding further with this case. Hence, she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the accused. During the course of cross- examination by the learned APP, PW-2 denied to have stated as in Ex.P-3 - 161 Cr.P.C statement whereas the accused reported no cross-examination.

13.As seen from the evidence of PW-3, he is none other than the brother of the defacto complainant in this case. PW-3 deposed that his sister compromised the case with the accused out of the Court and withdrawn all the allegations against accused made in the statement before police, since they are living together. Therefore, they are not interested in proceeding further with this case. Hence, he is withdrawing all the allegations made against the accused. During the course of cross-examination by the learned APP, PW-3 denied to have stated as in Ex.P-4 - 161 Cr.P.C statement whereas the accused reported no cross-examination.

14.Thus, as seen from the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P-1 to

P-4, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence alleged by the prosecution against the accused. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty for the offence under

Section 498-A of IPC and hence they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of A-1 to A-5 shall stands cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of April, 2019.

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW-1 : Smt. Saba Begum, -Nil- defacto complainant / victim.

PW-2 : Smt. Khairunissa, Mother of PW-1.

PW-3 : Shaik Mohd. Hussain, Brother of PW-1.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR :

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 : Report filed by P.W-1. -Nil-

Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1.

Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2.

Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR:

Nil

XIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD.