Page No. 1 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD
PRESENT::SRI. B. THIRUPATHI, XVI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
DATED: THE 25 th DAY OF JUNE, 2021
C.C. No. 6214 OF 2019
Between: The State through the SubInspector of Police,
P.S. Habeebnagar, Hyderabad. ...Complainant
And
A1) Mohammed Abdul Rahman, S/o. Abdul Khader Age: 73 years, Occupation: Household R/o.H.No. 56573/1, Darga Sha Khamoosh Aghapura, Nampally, Hyderabad
A2) Mohammed Sameer Shareef, S/o. Yousuf Shareef Age: 27 years, Occupation: Private Employee R/o.H.No. 56776/1, Darga Sha Khamoosh Aghapura, Nampally, Hyderabad
A3) Mohammed Khaja Pasha, S/o. Mohammed Ismail Age: 62 years, Occupation: Auto Driver R/o.H.No. 56588/2, Sevaknagar Nampally, Hyderabad
A4) Mohammed Mahmood @ Mohammed Nadeem @ Hameed S/o. Mohammed Yousuf Age: 41 years, Occupation: Private job R/o.H.No. 56789, Darusalam Road, Aghapura, Nampally, Hyderabad
...Accused
This case is coming before me on 22062021 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S. Srinivas Counsel for the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and after perusing the entire case record and after having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:
Page No. 2 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
This case emerges out of the Charge Sheet filed by the
SubInspector of Police, P.S. Habeebnagar against the Accused
Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.81 of 2019, for the offence punishable under Sections 332, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC.
02. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
That on 11022019 Multawali of Darga Hazrat Shahkhamoosh by name Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain had given complaint to the
Chief executive Officer of Talangana State Waqf Board regarding survey of Waqf Board Property occupied by some persons i.e. Yousuf
Shareef, H.No.56595/9/1/2, Mohammed Ahmed, H.No.56 628/1/D, Zulekha Begum, H.No.56628/4, Khaja Pasha, H.No.56 588/2/3 and Mohammed Azam, H.No.56595/1. Due to which, as per orders of higher officials of Telangana State Waqf Board, on 25042019 at about 16:15 hours, P.W.1: Mohd. Shareef Khan,
P.W.2: Mohd. Sujath Ali Khan, P.W.3: Syed Jaleel Ahmed,
P.W.4: Mohammed Azmathullah and P.W.5: Mohammed Saddam
Hussain alongwith team of Waqf Board have proceeded to Dargah
Hazrat Shakamoosh at Darusalam, Hyderabad, to survey the encroachers details and while they surveying the details of two encroachers. locality people gathered there, accused persons obstructed them, abused them in filthy language, caused injury to
P.W.3 and also threatened them with dire consequences.
Page No. 3 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Basing on the report, P.W.10:G. Vlijayanand, S.I. of Police registered a case in Crime No. 81/2019 under Section 332, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation P.W.10: SI of Police sent P.W.3 to Namaplly area hospital for treatment and thereafter he was referred to Sarojini Devi
Eye Hospital as he sustained injury on the eyes. Later, P.W.10 alognwith his staff visited the scene of offence, there he has conducted scene observation panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses. Further, he arrested the accused persons and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.
03. This court took cognizance of the case for the offence under
Sections 332, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC against the Accused
Nos.1 to 4.
04. On appearance of the Accused Nos. 1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
05. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C., The charges under Section 332, 504 and 506 read with 34 have been framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
06. During the course of trial, to substantiate its case against the Accused Nos.1 to 4, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 are examined and Exs.P1 to 7 are marked. On behalf of the Accused persons, neither witnesses are examined nor any documents are marked.
Page No. 4 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
07. After closure of prosecution evidence, with the above evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 reported no defence evidence.
08. Heard arguments of the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and Learned Defence Counsel.
09. Now the point for determination is
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused
Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Sections 332, 504 and 506
read with 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”
Point:
10. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 11022019
Multawali of Darga Hazrat Shahkhamoosh by name Syed Akbar
Nizamuddin Hussain had given complaint to the Chief executive
Officer of Talangana State Waqf Board regarding survey of Walkf
Board Property occupied by some persons. In that regard, as per orders of higher officials of Telangana State Waqf Board, on 2504 2019 at about 16:00 hours, P.Ws.1 to 5 have proceeded to Dargah
Hazrat Shakamush to survey the details of encroachers and while surveying the details of two encroachers, Accused Nos.1 to 4 came there, obstructed them from discharging their duty, abused them in filthy language, also threatened them with dire consequences and the Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his left cheek, due to which he sustained injury.
Page No. 5 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
11. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused persons, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 10. P.W.1 is the
Complainant / Executive Officer of Telangana State Waqf Board.
P.W.2 is Eye Witness / Surveyor of Telangana State Waqf Board.
P.W3 is Eye Witness / Inspector of Auditor in Telangana State
Waqf Board. P.W.4 is Eye Witness /Chief Rental Inspector in State
Waqf Board. P.W.5 is Eye Witness / Surveyor in State Waqf Board.
P.W.6 is Eye witness / Rental Collector of Dargha Hazrath
Shakhamoosh, Darusalam. P.W.7 is Eye witness / Rental Collector of Dargha Hazrath Shakhamoosh, Darusalam. P.W.8 is Panch witness for Crime Details Form. P.W.9 is Medical Officer. P.W.10 is
Investigating Officer.
12. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is corroborating with each other who categorically stated that the accused persons obstructed P.Ws.1 to 7 and caused injury to P.W.3, as such the prosecution could able to prove guilt of the Accused Persons.
13. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Accused persons contended that there is no corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, their evidence is full of omissions and no documentary evidence is placed before the court to show that P.Ws.1 to 5 were on duty at the time of alleged incident and as such the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Page No. 6 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
14. Before going to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is just and necessary to reproduce the provision of Law for the offence under Section 332 IPC.
Section 332 of IPC reads as follows:
"Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequences of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to three years or with fine or with both."
15. So far as the charge for the offence under section 332 of IPC is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the Accused persons contended that P.W.1 Mohd. Shareef Khan, Executive Officer and
P.W.5 Mohammed Saddam Hussain, Surveyor were not public servants as they were appointed and worked on out sourcing basis.
As such, the complaint lodged by P.W.1 cannot be look into.
16. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though P.Ws.1 and 5 were appointed on outsourcing basis in
Telangana Waqf Board, they were paid remuneration / payment from the Government and they were entrusted the public duty by the Government i.e. Telangana Waqf Board.
Page No. 7 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
At this stage it is relevant to mention the Section 21 of IPC.
Section 21 Reads as follows:
21. “Public servant”.—The words “public servant” denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:— ................................. (Ninth) Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of 29 [the Govern ment], or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of 29 [the Government], or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of 29 [the Government], or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of 29 [the Govern ment], or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of 29 [the Government] 30 [***]; (Tenth) — Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district; (Twelfth) —Every person—
(a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government;
(b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).
17. In the present case on hand, it is no doubt true that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are public servants who are working in Telangana Waqf
Board. It is also true that P.W.1 worked as Executive Officer and
P.W.5 is working as Surveyor in Telangana Waqf Board, on outsourcing basis. On the other hand, the accused persons also did not dispute the same. But it is not the defence of the accused persons that P.Ws.1 and 5 were not being paid any remuneration or
Page No. 8 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 payment for the purpose of any public duty by the Government.
Therefore, in view of the provision of Law under Section 21 of IPC, as
P.W.1 has worked and P.W.5 is working on out sourcing basis and they were performing the public duty which was entrusted by the
Government i.e. the Telangana Waqf Board, and the accused persons also have not disputed that P.Ws.1 and 5 were being paid remuneration for the purpose of any public duty by the Government, as such, it can be safely concluded that P.Ws.1 and 5 are the public servants as defined under Section 21 of IPC.
18. On careful scrutiny of evidence of Prosecution whitenesses, and as per the testimony of P.W.1: Mohd. Shareef Khan, who worked as Executive Officer in Telangana Waqf Board that on 1122019 one person namely Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain has submitted a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana Waqf Board by stating that the accused are staying in the houses pertaining to the
Telangana Waqf Board at Darusalam area without paying rents, as such, on 15022019 the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf
Board has formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and issued Memo by directing them to submit the report. P.W.1 also testified that on 2542019 at about 4.00 p.m., he alongwith P.Ws.2 to 5 went to Darga Hazrat Shakhamoosh at Darussalam and met its
Mutawali by name Syed Akbar Nijamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises where the accused persons are staying, then, he assigned the same to P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are Rent Collectors of
Darga Hazrat Shakamoosh and said persons took them to the house
Page No. 9 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 premises of Mohd Khaja Pasha (Accused No.3), when they started surveying the premises, by that time accused persons came there and claimed the said premises by stating that the said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf Board and obstructed them from discharging their official duties, Accused Nos.1, 3 and A4 provoked
Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands on his cheek below the left eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
19. The evidence of P.W.1 during his crossexamination discloses that he has not specially stated to the Police at the time of recording his statement that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands. On the other hand,
P.W.10 Investigating Officer also admitted during his cross examination that P.W.1 did not state before him during the course of investigation that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM they went to
Darga Hazrat Shahkamoosh, at Darusalam and met its Mutavali by name Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises, where the accused persons are staying, then he assigned two Rent Controllers i.e. P.Ws. 6 and 7 of said Darga and they took
P.Ws.1 to 5 to the house premises of Accused No.3. It is also deposed by P.W.10: Investigating Officer that P.W.1 did not state
before him during the course of investigation that when their two
Surveyors started measuring the premises of Accused No.3, by that time all the accused persons and other neighbours came there and claimed the said land by stating that said lands are not belonging to
Telangana Waqf Board. P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted
Page No. 10 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 that P.W.1 did not state before him during the course of investigation that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his cheek below the eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
20. P.W.2: Mohd. Sujath Ali Khan, Surveyor of Telangana Waqf
Board testified that on 1122019 one person namely Syed Akbar
Nizamuddin Hussain has submitted a complaint to the Chief
Executive Officer of Telangana Waqf Board by stating that the accused persons are staying in the houses pertaining to the
Telangana Waqf Board at Darusalam area without paying rents. As such, on 15022019 the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf
Board has formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and issued Memo by directing them to submit the report. He further deposed that on 2542019 at about 4.00 p.m., he alongwith P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 went to Darga Hazrat Shakhamoosh at Darusalam and met its Mutawali by name Syed Akbar Nijamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises where the accused persons are staying, then, he assigned the same to P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are Rent
Collectors of Darga Hazrat Shakamoosh and said persons took them to the house premises of Mohd Khaja Pasha(Accused No.3), when they started surveying the premises, by that time accused persons came there and claimed the said premises by stating that the said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf Board and obstructed them from discharging their official duties, Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands
Page No. 11 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 on his cheek below the left eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
21. P.W.2 during the course of crossexamination he deposed that he has not specially stated to the Police at the time of recording his statement that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands. On the other hand,
P.W.10 Investigating Officer also admitted during his cross examination that P.W.2 did not state before him during the course of investigation that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM they went to
Darga Hazrat Shahkamoosh and met its Mutavali by name Syed
Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises, where the accused persons are staying, then he assigned two Rent
Controllers i.e. P.Ws. 6 and 7 of said Darga and they took him,
P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 to the house premises of Accused No.3. P.W.10:
Investigating Officer also deposed that P.W.2 did not state before him during the course of investigation that when their two Surveyors started measuring the premises of Accused No.3, by that time all the accused persons and other neighbours came there and claimed the said land by stating that said lands are not belonging to Telangana
Waqf Board. P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted that P.W.2 did not state before him during the course of investigation that
Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his cheek below the eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
Page No. 12 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
22. The evidence of P.W.3: Syed Jaleed Ahmed discloses that on 1122019 one person namely Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain has submitted a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana
Waqf Board by stating that the accused persons are staying in the houses pertaining to the Telangana Waqf Board at Darusalam area without paying rents. As such, on 15022019 the Chief Executive
Officer, Telangana Waqf Board has formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and issued Memo by directing them to submit the report. He further deposed that on 2542019 at about 4.00
P.M., he alongwith P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 went to Darga Hazrat
Shakhamoosh at Darusalam and met its Mutawali by name Syed
Akbar Nijamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises where the accused persons are staying. Then, he assigned the same to P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are Rent Collectors of Darga Hazrat
Shakamoosh and said persons took them to the house premises of
Mohd Khaja Pasha (Accused No.3), when they started surveying the premises, by that time accused persons came there and claimed the said premises by stating that the said lands are not belonging to
Telangana Waqf Board and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. He also stated that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked
Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat him with hands on his cheek below the left eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
23. P.W.3 in his crossexamination deposed that he has not specially stated to the Police at the time of recording his statement that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused
Page No. 13 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
No.2 beat him with hands. On the other hand, P.W.10 Investigating
Officer also admitted during his crossexamination that P.W.3 did not state before him during the course of investigation that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM they went to Darga Hazrat
Shahkamoosh and met its Mutavali by name Syed Akbar
Nizamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises, where the accused persons are staying, then he assigned two Rent
Controllers i.e. PWs 6 and 7 of said Darga and they took him,
P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 to the house premises of Accused No.3. It is also the testimony of P.W.10: Investigating Officer that P.W.3 did not state before him during the course of investigation that when their two Surveyors started measuring the premises of Accused No.3, by that time all the accused persons and other neighbours came there and claimed the said land by stating that said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf Board. P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted that P.W.3 did not state before him during the course of investigation that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat him on his cheek below the eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
24. The evidence of P.W.4: Mohd. Azmathullah, Chief Rental
Inspector of Telangana Waqf Board, goes to show that on 1122019 one person namely Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain has submitted a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana Waqf Board by stating that the accused persons are staying in the houses pertaining to the Telangana Waqf Board at Darusalam area without paying rents. As such, on 15022019 the Chief Executive Officer,
Page No. 14 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Telangana Waqf Board has formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and issued memo by directing them to submit the report.
He further deposed that on 2542019 at about 4.00 P.M., he alongwith P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 went to Darga Hazrat Shakhamoosh at Darussalam and met its Mutawali by name Syed Akbar
Nijamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises where the accused persons are staying, then, he assigned the same to P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are Rent Collectors of Darga Hazrat Shakamoosh and said persons took them to the house premises of Mohd Khaja Pasha (Accused No.3), when they started surveying the premises, by that time accused persons came there and claimed the said premises by stating that the said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf
Board and obstructed them from discharging their official duties and
Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands on his cheek below the left eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
25. The evidence of P.W.4 during his crossexamination reveals that he has not specially stated to the Police at the time of recording his statement that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands. On the other hand,
P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted during his crossexamination that P.W.4 did not state before him during the course of investigation that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM they went to Darga Hazrat Shahkamoosh and met its Mutavali by name
Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the
Page No. 15 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 premises, where the accused persons are staying, then he assigned two Rent Controllers i.e. P.Ws. 6 and 7 of said Darga and they took him, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 to the house premises of Accused No.3. It is also the testimony of P.W.10: Investigating Officer that P.W.4 did not state before him during the course of investigation that when their two Surveyors started measuring the premises of Accused No.3, by that time all the accused persons and other neighbours came there and claimed the said land by stating that said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf Board. P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted in his evidence that P.W.4 did not state before him during the course of investigation that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his cheek below the eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
26. The evidence of P.W.5: Mohd. Saddam Hussain, Surveyor of
Telangana Waqf Board discloses that on 1122019 one person namely Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain has submitted a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana Waqf Board by stating that the accused persons are staying in the houses pertaining to the
Telangana Waqf Board at Darusalam area without paying rents. As such, on 15022019 the Chief Executive Officer, Telangana Waqf
Board has formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and issued Memo by directing them to submit the report. He further deposed that on 2542019 at about 4.00 p.m., he alongwith P.Ws.1 to 4 went to Darga Hazrat Shakhamoosh at Darusalam and met its
Mutawali by name Syed Akbar Nijamuddin Hussain and asked him
Page No. 16 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 to show the premises where the accused persons are staying. Then, he assigned the same to P.Ws. 6 and 7 who are Rent Collectors of
Darga Hazrat Shakamoosh and said persons took them to the house premises of Mohd Khaja Pasha (Accused No.3), when they started surveying the premises, by that time accused persons came there and claimed the said premises by stating that the said lands are not belonging to Telangana Waqf Board and obstructed them from discharging their official duties, Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked
Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands on his cheek below the left eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
27. The evidence of P.W.5 during his crossexamination discloses that he has not specially stated to the Police at the time of recording his statement that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 with hands. On the other hand,
P.W.10 Investigating Officer also deposed during crossexamination that P.W.5 did not state before him during the course of investigation that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM they went to
Darga Hazrat Shahkamoosh and met its Mutavali by name Syed
Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain and asked him to show the premises, where the accused persons are staying, then he assigned two Rent
Controllers i.e. PWs 6 and 7 of said Darga and they took him and
P.Ws.1 to 4 to the house premises of Accused No.3. It is also the testimony of P.W.10: Investigating Officer that P.W.5 did not state
before him during the course of investigation that when their two
Surveyors started measuring the premises of Accused No.3, by that time all the accused persons and other neighbours came there and
Page No. 17 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 claimed the said land by stating that said lands are not belonging to
Telangana Waqf Board. P.W.10: Investigating Officer also admitted that P.W.5 did not state before him during the course of investigation that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his cheek below the eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injury.
28. As can be seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.10 the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 regarding the accused persons obstructed them from discharging their duties and Accused Nos.1, 3 and A4 provoked Accused No.2, then he beat P.W.3 with hands and caused injury to him, is full of omission as the same was not stated by P.Ws.1 to 5 to P.W.10: Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. As such, the said material omissions have got significance as the same were improved in their evidence before the court.
29. According to evidence of P.W.6: Ali Bin Ahmed and P.W.7:
Abdul Azeem, who are working as Rent Controller of Darga Hazrath
Shakhamoosh at Darusalam that on 2542019 at about 4:00 PM
P.Ws.1 to 5 came to said Darga and when they were surveying at the house of Accused No.3, all the accused persons came there and stopped them from conducting survey and when accused persons were discussing with P.Ws.1 to 5, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his left cheek, due to which he sustained injury. But it is not stated by P.W.6 and 7 that all the accused claimed the said land by saying that said land is belonging to them and obstructed them from discharging their duties. Further, P.Ws. 6 and 7 have also not stated
Page No. 18 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 that Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked the Accused No.2, in turn who beat P.W.3 and caused injury. Therefore, the evidence of
P.Ws. 1 to 5 is also not corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 as to alleged incident.
30. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.10 who is the Investigating
Officer reveals that P.Ws.6 and 7 did not state before him at the time of recording their statements that Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 on his left cheek below the eye and as such, P.W.3 sustained injury.
Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7 is also full of omissions regarding the injuries sustained by P.W.3 in the hands of Accused
No.2, who said to have beat him on the provocation of Accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4, which was not stated before P.W.10: Investigating
Officer during the course of investigation.
31. The learned Counsel for the Accused Persons contended that the prosecution did not place any documentary evidence before the court to show that P.Ws.1 to 5 were on duty, for conducting survey at scene of offence at the time of alleged incident.
32. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has filed the Proceedings issued by the Executive Officer of Telangana Wafq Board regarding conducing survey of land.
33. On perusal of Ex.P2 Memo, dated: 15022019 which is a
Memo issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana Wafq
Board, wherein, it is mentioned that the Executive Officer, Inspector
Page No. 19 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Auditor Waqf, Circle No.4, 3, & 6 , Sri. Azmath Ali, Rent Inspector and Surveyor, TSWB are directed to conduct spot inspection, Survey and demarcate the Waqf Land of the subject institution and enquire into contents of the subject matter and furnish each individuals encroachment particulars. Admittedly, Ex.P2 does not contain that
P.Ws.1 to 5 are formed as a team for conducting survey at the premises where the alleged incident took place. The Prosecution has relied on Exs.P3 and P4 which are Certified Copy of Gazette
Notification and Certified Copy of Survey Report, they go to show about the lands pertaining to Telanga Waqf Board, by notifying the lands in different survey numbers. But, the prosecution did not place any documentary evidence to show that P.Ws.1 to 5 were on duty and while they were discharging their duties by conducting survey at scene of offence, the alleged incident occurred. Even, the prosecution has not explained as to what prevented them to file the documentary evidence before this court to show that P.Ws.1 to 5 were formed as a team and they conducted survey at the premises where the alleged incident occurred, for the reasons best known to them, when it is denied by the accused persons.
34. It is also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Accused persons that several cases viz. writ petition vide P.No.346/ 1990, O.S. No. 454 /1970, O.S. No. 160/2012 (New O.S.
No. 501/2016) and O.S.No.161/2012 (New O.S. No. 502/2016) are pending before the Hon'ble High Court, City Civil courts and Tribunal of Waqf Board of Telangana in respect of premises where the alleged incident occurred. P.Ws. 1 to 5 also deposed that
Page No. 20 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 they do not know as to Syed Sha Qutubuddin Hussain filed a suit vide OS.No.454/1970 on the file of IV Asst. Judge City Civil Court in respect of the said disputed land and the said suit was decreed by declaring that the said lands are not belonging to Waqf Board.
P.Ws.1 to 5 also testified during their crossexamination that they do not know about filing of suit vide OS.No.160/2012 before the the
Waqf Board Tribunal in respect of said premises and the same is pending. P.Ws.1 to 5 during their crossexamination also stated that they do not know that Accused No.1 also filed a suit vide OS
No.161/2012 before the Waqf Board Tribunal in respect of said premises and the same is pending. Moreover, it is also admitted the
P.Ws.1 to 5 that they did not give any notice to the accused persons and other neighbours before they conducting the survey.
35. It is also contended by the Learned Counsel for the Accused persons that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 who are employees of Waqf Board of Telangana and P.Ws. 6 and 7, who are Rent
Collectors of Darga Hazrat Sakhamoosh, no other independent witnesses are examined.
36. According to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, at the time of alleged incident about 50 members have gathered. But, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses to support the version of P.Ws.1 to 7. Even the Investigating Officer also did not explain the reasons as to why he did not examine any independent witnesses to support the version of P.Ws.1 to 7.
Page No. 21 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
37. Admittedly, the prosecution failed to examine Syed Akbar
Nizamuddin Hussain, who submitted complaint to the Chief
Executive Officer of Telangana Wafq Board on 1122019 against the accused persons by alleging that they are staying in the houses pertaining to Telangaba Waqf Board in Darusalam at Darga
Shakhamoosh without paying rents. Even the Investigating Officer failed to explain the reasons as to why he did not examine and record the statement of said Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain. It is also the specific evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that basing on the complaint dated:11022019 lodged by Syed Akbar Nizamuddin
Hussain, Mutawali of Darga Hazrat Shakamoosh, Darusalam, on 1522019 the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana Waqf Board formed a team consisting P,Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are staying and in that regard a Memo was also issued. Admittedly, the prosecution did not place any such Memo issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Telangana
Waqf Board, to show that he formed the team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect and measure the premises where the accused persons are residing without paying rents. However, the prosecution relied on
Ex.P2, which is a Memo issued by the Executive Officer of
Telangana Waqf Board with directions to conduct survey and furnish the information about encroachers. On one hand, it is contended by the prosecution that the accused have encroached the property of Waqf Board, as such P.W.s.1 to 5 were formed as a team and while they were discharging their duty, the alleged incident occurred. On the other hand, it is also contended that since the accused persons are staying in the houses pertaining to Telangana
Page No. 22 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Waqf Board without paying rents and basing on the complaint submitted by Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain, who is Mutawali of
Darga Sakhamoosh on 1122019, the Chief Executive Officer of
Telangana Waqf Board formed a team consisting P.Ws.1 to 5 to inspect the premises where the accused are staying. Admittedly, the prosecution also failed to file any documentary evidence to show that Syed Akbar Nizamuddin Hussain filed complaint to the Chief
Executive Officer of Waqf Board against the accused persons.
Moreover, as per the testimony of P.W.1 that he can identify the two persons out of four persons and he identified the Accused Nos.1 and 4, but he failed to identify Accused Nos.2 and 3. The testimony of
P.Ws. 2 to 5 that they can identify the four persons, but they identified Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 only and failed to identify Accused
No.2.
38. As per the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 7, the alleged incident took place at about 4:00 PM on 2542019 and after the alleged incident
P.Ws. 1 to 5 went to P.S. Habeebnagar and lodged report. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 also disclosed that they lodged report at 7:30 P.M. in Habeeb Nagar Police Station and after lodging the report, P.W.3 was sent to Nampally area hospital for treatment and from there, he was referred to Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital for treatment.
39. P.W.10 G. Vijayanand: Investigating Officer stated that on 2542019 at 7:30 PM he received complaint from P.W.1 and after recording statements of P.Ws.1 to 5, he sent P.W.3 to Nampally Area
Page No. 23 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Hospital for treatment, subsequently, referred to Sarojini Devi Eye
Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he collected the Medical
Certificate of P.W.3. On perusal of Ex.P6 Medical certificate of
P.W.3, which shows that on 2542019 P.W.3 had taken treatment in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital and he sustained simple injury i.e.
"closed globe injury with laceration to upper cheek".
40. Whereas, the evidence of P.W.9: Dr. G. Sridhar, Medical
Officer, who treated P.W.3 that on 2542019 he gave treatment to
P.W.3 at about 3:30 PM and issued medical certificate under Ex.P6 on 152019. But, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 reveals that the alleged incident occurred at 4:00 PM and P.W.1 lodged report at about 7:30 PM at PS Habeebnagar and thereafter P.W.3 was referred to hospital. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and
P.W.10: Investigating Officer, is not corroborated by P.W.9 Medical
Officer as to time of treatment of P.W.3 on the date of alleged incident. P.W.9: Medical Officer by name Dr. Sridhar has deposed his evidence basing on the record available with him, as such, his evidence cannot be thrown out regarding time of treatment, as the
Medical Certificate does not contain the time of treatment of P.W.3.
The Prosecution also failed to explain any reason as to what made the P.W.9 to give a false evidence by stating that he gave treatment to P.W.3 at 3:30 PM, which is much prior to alleged incident.
Therefore, the suggestion put forth by the Learned Counsel for the
Accused persons that on the date of alleged incident no such incident occurred and P.Ws.1 to 5 did not discharge their duties at scene of offence and since the civil suits are filed against the Waqf
Page No. 24 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
Board of Telangana in respect of premises where the alleged incident occurred, as such, the Waqf Board authorities got foisted a false case against the accused cannot be ruled out.
41. As can be seen from the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, there are several omissions are found as to Accused persons obstructed
P.Ws.1 to 5 from doing their duties and Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 provoked the Accused No.2, then Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 and caused injury, which was not stated to P.W.10: Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, who also admitted that P.Ws.1 to 7 did not state so before him. It is thus, obvious that P.Ws.1 to 7 have omitted to state before the Police what they have stated before the court. Thereby, they have improved their version before the court. As rightly submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Accused persons that said omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 are material and they would go to the root of the matter. Moreover, there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding the time of treatment of P.W.3 at Sarojini Devi Eye
Hospital. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that P.Ws.1 to 5 were discharging their legitimate duties at scene of offence at the time of alleged incident occurred. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 is not convincing and their evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused, in the absence of corroboration. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons obstructed P.Ws.1 to 5 and so also on provocation of other accused persons, Accused No.2 beat P.W.3 and caused injury to
Page No. 25 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019 him. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients for the offence under Section 332
IPC against the Accused persons.
42. So far as other allegation for the charge under Section 504
IPC is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons abused P.Ws.1 to 5 in filthy language while they were discharging their duties on 2512019 at the time of conducting survey at the house of Accused No.3.
At this stage it is relevant to mention the section of law under
Section 504 IPC "Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with both."
Section 504 Indian Penal Code comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
43. On perusal of the section 504 IPC would clearly show that the intention must be of such a degree that would provoke a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person, such provocation cause to break public peace or to commit any other offence. In such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 IPC are satisfied.
Page No. 26 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
44. In the present case on hand, P.Ws. 1 to 5 have stated that while they were discharging their duty by conducting survey at the house premises of Accused No.3 on 2542019 at 4: 00 PM, by that time all the accused came there and abused them in filthy language.
Whereas, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 who are eye witnesses / rent collectors at Darga Hazrat Shakhamoosh did not reveal that all the accused persons abused P.Ws.1 to 5 in filthy language. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 who are employees of Telangana Waqf board is not supported by the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 who are working as Rent Collectors in the premises of said Darga.
45. If at all the accused persons abused P.Ws.1 to 5 in filthy language as stated by them, then, P.Ws.6 and 7 who are present they would have stated the same in their evidence. Moreover, entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is silent as to accused persons abused
P.Ws.1 to 5 with an intention to insult them. Even it is not the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that the accused persons insulted them by using abusive words to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Their evidence is that the accused abused them in filthy language only. But, P.Ws.1 to 5 ought to have disclosed the actual words if at all used by the accused persons. However, it is also not the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that the words uttered by the accused persons so as to provoke or likely to provoke to commit break of public peace or to commit any other offence. Therefore, mere use of abusive language as stated by P.Ws. 1 to 5 without any intention to insult, is not sufficient to prove the section 504 IPC.
Page No. 27 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
As such, one of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should be an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult, and the mere evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that accused persons abused them, is not sufficient by warrant a conviction under section 504 IPC. In view the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to make out the ingredients for the offence under Section 504 IPC against the accused persons.
46. So far as other allegation for the charge under Section 506
IPC is concerned, the specific contention of the prosecution is that all the accused persons threatened the P.Ws.1 to 5 while they were discharging their duty on 25042019 at 4:00 PM in the premises belonging to Telanga Waqf Board.
At this stage it is relevant to mention provision of Law under Section 506 IPC.
Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. “criminal intimidation” as defined in
Section 503 IPC is as under:
Section 503 Criminal Intimidation: Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do so, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened his interested, is within this section.
Section 506 reads as follows: “whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Page No. 28 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
In the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423 wherein it was held that “the threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of the Section 506 IPC. But, material has to be placed on record to show that intention is to cause alarm to the complainant.”
47. In the present case on hand, on perusal of report lodged by
P.W.1 under Ex.P1 basing on which the criminal law was set into motion wherein P.W1 stated that the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences. But, the evidence of P.W.1 who is the complainant and victim did not disclose that all the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences. Moreover, P.W.2 to 5 who are victims and eye witnesses, who accompanied with P.W.1 also did not state in their evidence that the accused persons threatened them with dire consequences. Furthermore, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 who are eye witnesses also did not state in their evidence that the accused persons threatened P.Ws.1 to 5 with dire consequences.
Therefore, it clearly goes to show that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons threatened P.Ws.1 to 5 with dire consequences as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons threatened P.Ws.1 to 5 with dire consequences.
As such, it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 506 IPC against the accused persons.
Page No. 29 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
48. In view of the above discussions, this Court hold that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to fasten the criminal liability against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 with which they stood charge and that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the
Accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are deserved to be acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.
49. In the result, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the Charges under Sections 332, 504 and 506 read with 34 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six months as per Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II of this Court, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 25 th day of June, 2021.
XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD
:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: : WITNESSES EXAMINED : FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Mohd. Shareef Khan, Complainant / Executive Officer of Telangana State Waqf Board.
P.W.2 Mohd. Sujath Ali Khan, Eye Witness / Surveyor of Telangana State Waqf Board
P.W3 Syed Jaleel Ahmed, Eye Witness / Inspector of Auditor in Telangana State Waqf Board
P.W.4 Mohd. Azmathullah, Eye Witness /Chief Rental Inspector in Telangana State Waqf Board
Page No. 30 of 30 C.C.No. 6214 of 2019
P.W.5 Mohammed Saddam Hussain, Eye Witness / Surveyor in Telangana State Waqf Board
P.W.6 Ali Bin Ahmed, Eye witness / Rental Collector of Darga Hazrath Shakhamoosh, at Darusalam, Hyderabad
P.W.7 Abdul Azeem, Eye witness / Rental Collector of Darga Hazrath Shakhamoosh at Darusalam, Hyderabad
P.W.8 Moin Bin Ali, Panch witness for Crime Detail Form
P.W.9 Dr. G. Sridhar, Medical Officer
P.W.10 G. Vijayanand, Investigating Officer
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Report
Ex.P2 CC of Memo dated: 15022019
Ex.P3 CC of Gazette Notification
Ex.P4 CC of Survey Report
Ex.P5 CC of Copy of Order passed in CRP No.5856/2008
Ex.P6 Medical Certificate of P.W.3
Ex.P7 FIR
FOR DEFENCE: NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
FOR DEFENCE: NIL FOR DEFENCE: NIL
XVI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD