Mrs. Bollepally Sadhana

1 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIDDIPET

Present: Smt.B.SADHANA , Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 104 OF 2017

(Cr.No.143/2017 P.S, Siddipet I Town) Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet I Town Police Station.

....Complainant

// A N D //

A1-Gajje Thirupathi S/o Deshaiah, aged 35 years, Occu: Agril. A2-Gajje Deshaiah S/o Ram Chandraiah, aged 55 years, Occu: Agril. A3-Gajje Laxmi W/o Deshaiah, aged 45 yrs, Occu: Agril.

All are R/o near Govt.School, Komuravelly village & Mandal, Siddipet District.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 09-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Md.Rafiuddin, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Siddipet I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A3 in Cr.No.143/2017 for the offences punishable

U/S.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 04.05.2017 at 2030 hours the complainant/Smt.Barla Srilatha lodged a report stating that on 29.11.2009 her marriage was performed with A1, at the time of 2 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 her marriage her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs net cash, 5 tulas gold ornaments and household articles as dowry, they lived happily for four years and she blessed with one son Charan and one daughter Anvitha, since then A1 to A3 were harassed her physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, then she lived in Siddipet separately, her husband and her father-in-law came to her house and took her children forcibly, then held panchayath before the elders, but they did not listen the elders, later held a counseling before the police, but did not change her husband attitude and on 04.05.2017 morning at 11.00 a.m A1 beat her with absurd and abused her in filthy language meantime her sister Barla Ramyasri intervened her husband also beat her sister. Hence, she requested for action.

3.Basing on the complaint, PW5 has registered a case in Cr.No.143/2017 for the offences punishable U/S.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, PW5 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences punishable

U/S.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

4.The cognizance was taken for the offences U/S.498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the accused A1 to A3. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C and accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed against the accused A1 to A3 U/sec.240 of Cr.P.C for the offences U/S.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and the same is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 and P2 are got marked. The evidence of LW4/Perka Shankar was closed by this Court.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A3 were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their vernacular language, they denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence as he was bedridden and unable to come to the court to give evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

A1 to A3 for the offences U/S.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4

of D.P.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined

PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 & P2 are got marked. PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW2 is the father and PW4 is the sister of PW1. PW3 is the panchayat elder. PW5 is the investigating officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet.

10.At the out set, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2009 the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1, at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs net cash, 5 tulas gold ornaments and household articles as dowry. They lived happily for a period of four years and blessed with one son and one daughter and thereafter, A1 to A3 started harassing PW1 mentally and 4 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 physically with a demand to bring additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, then PW1 lived in Siddipet separately from A1. A1 and A2 came to her at Siddipet and took away her children forcibly, then held panchayat but they did not listen the elder, later held a counseling before the police and on 04.05.2017 morning at 11.00 a.m A1 beat her with absurd and abused her in filthy language meantime her sister Barla Ramyasri intervened, then A1 beat her.

11.The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor argued that the PW1 filed GWOP

No.70/2017 and took the custody of her children from the accused A1 to A3, which substantiate the case of the PW1 that PW1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of A1 to A3. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 is also strengthen the case of PW1. Through the evidence of PW1 to PW4 the prosecution proved their case against Accused A1 to A3 for the offences u/s.498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused A1 to A3 as per law.

12.The learned counsel for the accused A1 to A3 vehemently argued that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 498-

A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act against the accused A1 to A3. There are several contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 who are the family members. PW3 did not state that he was the panchayat elder. In cross-examination PW3 admitted that his signature was obtained by the police at the residence of PW1 and it is also elicited that in his 161 Cr.P.C statement

PW3 never stated that A1 to A3 demanded Rs.2 lakhs as additional dowry.

The evidence of PW1 to PW4 are not consistent and corroborating with each 5 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 other. Moreover, PW1 to PW4 did not state the overt acts of the A1 to A3.

From the evidence of PW1, it made clear that she voluntarily came to Siddipet and she was not driven-out by A1 to A3. Over all the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act against A1 to A3 and prayed to acquit the accused

A1 to A3.

13.To prove the case u/s.498-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients.

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses

"Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband," punishing

willful conduct causing grave injury (physical/mental)

or harassment for dowry . Key ingredients include: a

valid marriage, acts of cruelty/harassment by the

husband or his relatives, and potential to drive the

woman to suicide .

14.PW1 deposed that A1 is her husband. A2 and A3 are hery in-laws. On 29-11-2009 her marriage was performed with A1 as per Hindu Customs at

Paripally Government School Siddipet, at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs, 5 tulas gold and other household articles as dowry. After the marriage, four years they lived happily, thereafter A1 to A3 harassed her for

additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. On that she got separated from Al and started

living separately at Arundhati colony with her kids. In the year 2017, April third week A1 and A2 came to her house and forcibly took her children along with them. The panchayat held in the presence of village elders and after that 6 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 at police station also they were counseled. After that on 04-05-2017 at 11.00 a.m accused No.1 came to her house and beat her at that time her sister came to rescue her then accused beat her also. PW1 lodged a complaint against A1 to A3 on the same day in I town Police Station. Ex.P1 is the complaint dated 04-05-2017.

During the course of cross-examination PW1 stated that in the year 2012 she got separated form A1 and shifted to Siddipet. She cannot say the exact date when accused No.1 forcibly has taken her children, she remember only it was 3rd week of April, 2017. At present the children are with her, she filed custody petition vide G.W.O.P No.70/2017 before the court and got the custody of her children in July 2017. She filed the custody petition only for her son as her daughter was with her.

PW1 admitted that in the 3rd week of April 2017 A1 only took away her son but not the daughter. She has stated to the police in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that A1 only took away her son not the daughter. PW1 admitted that G.W.O.P No.70/2017 has been dismissed. PW1 adds that after that dismissal of the O.P Accused No.1 himself dropped her son at her home, but she does not remember the date and time. A1 has three brothers. PW1 admitted that in April, 2017 she attended the marriage of A1’s brother Ashok.

The counsel for accused confronted the certified copy of O.P No.74/2015 and the same is admitted by PW1. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of petition of O.P.

No.74/2015.

7 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

PW1 admitted that in OP 74/2015 petition she mentioned that at the time of marriage gave Rs.1 lakh cash, 10 tulas of gold and 25 tulas of silver,

Household articles and two wheeler total worth of Rs.1 lakh. PW1 admitted that in Ex.D1 she has not mentioned that A1 to A3 harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs though she was shifted to Siddipet for that reason. PW1 admitted that her second child i.e., her daughter born in the year 2013. PW1 admitted that on 30-01-2015 the A1 to A3 came to her house and beat her and forcibly taken away her children. PW1 adds that two times the A1 to A3 have taken away her children.

PW1 admitted that she has not mentioned in her 161 statement, Ex.P1 and in her chief that A1 to A3 has taken away her children for two times. PW1 admitted that she mentioned in Ex.D1 that A1 to A3 necked out her from their house. PW1 stated that on 04-05-2017 when accused beat her and her sister due to that they got injuries and went to Government hospital and she handed over the medical certificate to LW6. PW1 admitted that A1 to A3 having properties in Siddipet and well settled.

15.PW2 is the father of PW1 deposed that PW1 and LW3 are his daughter.

In the year 2019 PW1 marriage was performed with A1. At the time of their marriage A1 was presented with an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, 5 tulas gold and household articles as dowry. They spent together happily for a period of 4 years. They blessed with one baby girl and baby boy. A1 to A3 harassed and beat the PW1 for additional dowry for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The panchayath was held in the presence of elders namely Perka Shanker/LW4, 8 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

Ponnala Balraju/LW5, but no change in the version of accused. Al beat the PW1 and LW3.

During the course of cross-examination PW2 admitted that on 05.05.2017 police recorded his statement at his residence, accused beat the

PW1 on 04-05-2017, Accused was present with dowry in presence of the elders. PW1 is government teacher. 10 days prior to this incident, panchayath was conducted in presence of elders. PW2 adds that Panchayath was conducted 4 times. PW2 admitted that he did not witness the incident. PW1 told him about the incident. PW2 admitted that in 161 statement there is no mentioned about the additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. PW2 adds that he stated about the additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-before the police, but it was not mentioned in the 161 statement. PW2 admitted that he has stated to the police about the date of incident. PW2 stated that A1 to A3 have been residing at Komuravelly as well as in Siddipet as they have house in Siddipet.

16.PW3 is the panchayat elder deposed that PW1 marriage was performed with A1, they spent together happily for some years, they blessed with one baby girl and baby boy. A1 to A3 harassed and beat the PW1 for additional dowry for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, PW1 lodged complaint and police registered case against A1 to A3.

During the course of cross-examination PW3 stated that he has not stated in his 161 statement A1 to A3 demanded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for additional dowry. He stated that the police obtained his signature at residence of PW1. Police came to the residence of PW1 at the time of 9 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 quarreling between PW1 and accused. PW3 never went to the Police Station as well as police never visited his house. PW3 admitted that A1 to A3 are residing at Komuravelli.

17.PW4 is the sister of PW1 deposed that PW1 is her sister. On 29-11-2009

PW1 marriage was performed with A1. At the time of marriage Al was presented with 5 tulas gold and Rs. 5,00,000/- of cash as dowry. They blessed with one son and one daughter. After some days, A1 harassed PW1 for

additional dowry. Panchayath was held in presence of PW3 and LW4, but there

is no change in the behavior of the A1, even after panchayath also Al harassed

PW1 physically and mentally. On 14-05-2017 when Al beat the PW1 she tried to stop him, then A1 beat her also.

During the course of cross-examination PW4 stated that on 14-05-2017 when A1 beat her, she went to the private hospital for medical treatment. PW4 stated that she handed over her medical reports to the police. They are 3 sisters and her marriage was performed in the year 2020. PW4 stated that she cannot say the dates of panchayath. After getting Government job, PW1 is residing in Siddipet separately. I came to know about the harassment through

PW1. PW4 admitted that at the time constructing house at Siddipet in the year 2014 accused met with an accident due to which he went coma for 15 days.

PW4 admitted that she does not know whether PW1 filed divorce OP after A1 met with an accident. PW4 admitted that PW1 shifted to Siddipet from

Komuravelly due to inconvenience in traveling.

10 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

18.It is not disputed with regard to relationship between PW1 and A1 as wife and husband. PW1 deposed that at the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.5 lakhs, 5 tulas gold and other household articles as dowry. PW2 and

PW4 similarly deposed the same fact. On perusal of Ex.D1/divorce petition filed by the PW1 against A1 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court at

Siddipet vide OP No.74 of 2015, in which the petitioner mentioned that at the time of her marriage, her father gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- cash as dowry, 10 tulas gold, 20 tulas silver to respondent (A1 herein) and his family and two wheeler motorcycle worth of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The evidence of PW1,

PW2 and PW4 are contradictory to Ex.D1 with regard to presentation of dowry at the time of marriage of PW1 with A1. No document or agreement is filed

before this Court in support of the contention of PW1, PW2 and PW4 with

regard to presentation of dowry to the accused A1 to A3.

19.On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW4, they did not specifically speak on which date, month and year A1 to A3 harassed the PW1 for want of additional dowry and there are no specific overt acts of accused A1 to A3. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that in the year 2012 she got separated from A1 and shifted to Siddipet. PW2 to PW4 did not depose on which date the PW1 got separated from the society of A1 and on which date, month and year PW1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the accused A1 to A3 for want of additional dowry. PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that in Ex.D1 she has not mentioned that A1 to A3 necked out her from their house. PW1 deposed that after the marriage four years they lived happily, thereafter A1 to A3 harassed 11 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 her for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. PW2 deposed in similar manner that

A1 to A3 harassed and beat the PW1 for additional dowry amount of Rs.2 lakhs. PW3 deposed that A1 to A3 harassed and beat the PW1 for additional dowry for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. PW4 deposed that A1 harassed the PW1 for additional dowry.

19.1 Contrary to it, in the cross-examination PW1 admitted that in Ex.D1 she has not mentioned that A1 to A3 harassed her for additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. PW2 admitted in his cross-examination that in 161 Cr.P.C statement there is no mention about the additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs. PW3 admitted in his cross-examination that he has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that

A1 to A3 demanded an amount of Rs.2 lakhs for additional dowry. PW4 admitted in his cross-examination that PW1 shifted to Siddipet from

Komuravelly due to inconvenience in traveling. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not inspired the confidence to believe their version with regard to demand of

additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs by A1 to A3. From the evidence of PW4, it made

clear that PW1 shifted to Siddipet from Komuravelly due to inconvenience in traveling as PW1 got Teacher job.

20.PW1 deposed that A1 and A2 came to her house at Siddipet and forcibly took her children along with them. In this regard, panchayat was held and at police station they were counseled. In cross-examination PW1 admitted that she cannot say the exact date when A1 forcibly taken her children, she remember only it was 3rd week of April, 2017. On perusal of Ex.P1, there is no mention with regard to taken away the children of PW1 by A1 and A2 for 12 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017 two times. PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that she has not mentioned in her 161 Cr.P.C statement, Ex.P1 and in her chief that A1 to A3 have taken away her children for two times. It assume that A1 being the father, the children went with A1 and A2 voluntarily. PW3 is the panchayat elder did not speak out on which date, they conducted panchayat to resolve the dispute between PW1 and A1 and not clear for what purpose they conducted the panchayat. PW1 to PW4 failed to prove that PW1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of A1 to A3. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 is not inspired the confidence to believe their versions with regard to harassment meted out by the PW1 in the hands of A1 to A3.

21.PW5 is the investigating officer deposed about his investigation and filing of the charge sheet. In cross-examination PW5 stated that PW1 and PW4 were not went to the hospital for medical treatment. PW5 admitted that he has not collected any evidence to show that the accused was presented with dowry of Rs.5 lakhs, 5 tulas gold and household articles. PW5 stated that in

Ex.P1 and 161 statements of PW1 mentioned that one time accused and his family taken away the children of PW1. PW5 admitted that in 161 statement of

PW1 place of recording statement is not mentioned. He scribed all the 161 statements of witnesses. PW5 admitted that in 161 statement of PW2 and

PW4, it is mentioned that on 14-05-2017, while accused was beating PW1,

PW4 try to stop then accused has beaten her also. PW5 admitted that in the 161 statement of PW3 and LW4, it is mentioned that in-laws of PW1 are residing at the native place Komuravelli and they have not harassed PW1 for 13 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

additional dowry. PW5 admitted that he has not examined the residents of

Komuravelly. PW5 further admitted that in the charge-sheet he has mentioned that 14-05-2017 when the A1 beat the PW1 with hands at that time PW4 obstructed him but the A1 beat her also. If really A1 beat PW1 and PW4, they ought to have went to Govt.Hospital, Siddipet through the requisition of police for treatment. The police did not file any medical certificates of PW1 and PW4.

In contra, PW5 stated in his cross-examination that PW1 and PW4 were not went to the hospital for medical treatment. The police did not examine the neighbours of Komuravelly or any independent witnesses at Siddipet to prove the allegations leveled against A1 to A3 for the charged offences.

22.It is to be noted that being the father and grandfather of the children, A1 and A2 took the children due to love and affection, which is not amounts to cruelty as defined u/s.498-A of IPC. Moreover, the facts and circumstances established that there are some family disputes regarding the children between the PW1 and A1. Such dispute would not amounts to offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P Act. Therefore, it is clear that from the evidence of

PW1 to PW5, the offence u/s.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act is not established beyond reasonable doubt. In that case, the only evidence of investigating officer which is formal in nature about the investigation done by him cannot improve the prosecution case in any manner. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence charged against them beyond reasonable doubt and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

14 of 14 C.C.No. 104 of 2017

22.IN THE RESULT, accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the s teno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: B.Srilatha -Nil- PW2: B.Balaiah PW3: P.Balaraju PW4: B.Ramyasree PW5: M.Rajendra Prasad, S.I of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is the complaint -NIL- Ex.P2 is First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

1 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIDDIPET

Present: SMT.B.SADHANA , Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 227 OF 2019

(Old CC No.584 of 2018)

(Cr.No.62/2016 P.S, Siddipet I Town) Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet I Town Police Station.

....Complainant

// A N D //

A1-Ambati Yellam Goud (died) (case abated)

A2-Koyyada Ramagoud S/o Yadagiri goud, aged 25 years, Occ: Worker in SS Family Dhaba R/o Fish market, Siddipet town.

A3-Duddeda Narsimulu goud S/o Balaiah, aged 38 years, Occu: Master in SS Family Dhaba, R/o Thimmaipally village, Nangunoor Mandal.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 01-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Y.Rajeshwar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Siddipet I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A3 in Cr.No.62/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

2 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

On 04.03.2016 between 10.00 p.m to morning 5.00 a.m while the police officials performing patrolling duty, Dhaba hotel of A1 was opened, Police asked him to close Dhaba, then A1 to A3 restrained the police officials and used criminal force against S.I of police by abusing, insulting and threatening to kill for asking him to leave the place, A2 and A3 are supported A1. Hence, he requested for action.

3.Basing on the complaint, PW5 has registered a case in Cr.No.62/2016 u/s. 353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, PW5 filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences u/s.353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.During the pendency of the case, Accused A1 died, hence the case against him was abated. The cognizance was taken for the u/s.447, 427, 353, 341 of IPC against the accused A2 & A3. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code and accused A2 & A3 were examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code and accusation for the offences u/s.353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW5 and Exs.P1 to P3 are got marked.

3 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A2 & A3 were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their vernacular language, they denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A2

and A3 for the offences u/s.353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 is the defacto complainant and eye witness to the incident. PW2 to PW4 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW5 is the investigating officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. The evidence of LW3/G.Prasad is given up by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor as PW1 and PW2 were supported the case.

10.PW1 deposed that on 04-03-2016 at about 10:00 PM himself along with

LW2 and LW3 while conducting patrolling to see shops to be closed, One SS

Dhaba near Yellamma Temple remained opened, then PW1 gave instructions to

Dhaba workers to close the Dhaba. Thereafter he left from there. On receiving phone call from police station he went to Tamarind seeds company as workers of the company were quarreling each other, after settling that matter while they were proceeding to Siddipet Town, they observed that A1 to A3 stood

before SS Dhaba and abused them in filthy language and also stated "NA

SANGATI NEEKU TELIYADU, NENU CHALA MURDER CASE LALO UNNANU". Al 4 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018 caught hold his collar, then A2 and A3 supported the acts of A1 and they obstructed their duties. At the time of incident LW4 and another person were present. Thereafter, he returned to Police Station and lodged complaint. Ex.P1 is his complaint.

During the course of cross-examination PW1 stated that A1 is the owner of SS Dhaba, no register will be maintained in Police Station regarding particulars of patrolling duties allotted. PW1 admitted that one hour 30 minutes causing delay in Ex.P1 and reason for causing delay is not mentioned in Ex.P1. The distance between police station and scene of offence approximately is 1½ km, it will take 10 minutes to reach the police station from scene of offence. PW1 stated that he knows the contents of Ex.P1. PW1 admitted that in Ex.P1he has stated that Al abused him. PW1 admitted that as per Ex.P1 there is no allegation against A2 and A3. PW1 admitted that he has not stated in Ex.P1 as well as in 161 statement that "NA SANGATI NEEKU

TELIYADU, NENU CHALA MURDER CASE LAL UNNANU". PW1 admitted that he has not stated in Ex.P1 that A1 caught hold his collar, then A2 and A3 supported the acts of A1 and they obstructed their duties.

11.As seen from the evidence of PW1, there are several contradictions between Ex.P1, S.161 Cr.P.C Statement and evidence adduced by PW1 before the Court. PW1 stated before the court that while they were proceeding to

Siddipet, they observed that A1 to A3 stood before SS Dhaba and abused them in filthy language and also stated "NA SANGATI NEEKU TELIYADU, NENU

CHALA MURDER CASE LALO UNNANU". Al caught hold his collar, then A2 and 5 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

A3 supported the acts of A1 and they obstructed their duties. In contra, PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not stated in Ex.P1 as well as in 161 statement that "NA SANGATI NEEKU TELIYADU, NENU CHALA MURDER

CASE LAL UNNANU". PW1 admitted that he has not stated in Ex.P1 that A1 caught hold his collar, then A2 and A3 supported the acts of A1 and they obstructed their duties. The evidence of PW1 is not inspired the confidence to believe his version as there are several omissions and contradictory versions stated supra.

12.PW2 is the police constable deposed that on 04-03-2016 as per the instructions of Inspector himself along with PW1, LW3 were conducting patrolling duties from 10:00 PM to morning at 05:00 a.m. As part of the patrolling they saw shops to be closed, but they observed at Yellamma temple one SS family dhaba remains opened. PW1 gave instructions to close the dhaba. On receiving phone call from police station they went tamarind seeds company, while they were proceeding to Siddipet town from tamarind seeds company, at SS daba A1 and 2 other persons stopped their vehicle. Then A1 abused PW1 like "SHAMEERPET LO POLICE VALLANI CHAMPINDI NENU AA

INTHA VARAKU AA POLICE VARU NA DABA NI BAND CHEYAMANI CHEPPALE".

A1 caught hold collar of PW1, A2 and A3 also abused in filthy language.

Thereafter, they came to the Police station and lodged complaint.

[ During the course of cross-examination PW2 admitted that he has no prior acquaintance with A2 and A3. PW2 further admitted that in 161 statement specific overt acts of A2 and A3 was not mentioned.

6 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

13.As seen from the evidence of PW2, the evidence of PW2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW1. PW2 stated that while they were proceeding to Siddipet town from tamarind seeds company, at SS daba A1 and 2 other persons stopped their vehicle. Then A1 abused PW1 like "SHAMEERPET

LO POLICE VALLANI CHAMPINDI NENU AA INTHA VARAKU AA POLICE VARU NA

DABA NI BAND CHEYAMANI CHEPPALE". A1 caught hold collar of PW1, A2 and

A3 also abused in filthy language. PW1 is not stated that A1, A2 and other persons stopped their vehicle, A1 abused PW1 as stated above. The evidence of PW1 is not tallied with the evidence of PW2 with regard to abusive words.

The evidence of PW2 is exaggerated with the version of PW1. The evidence of

PW2 is doubtful and untrustworthy.

14.PW3 deposed that in the year 2016 while he was going to his village, on seeing quarreling he has stopped and went to the scene. At that time A1 abused the S.I. in filthy language. PW3 did not state specific overt acts of the accused A1 to A3 and also the abusive words. The evidence of PW3 is also not much helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused for the charged offences.

15.PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know anything about the present case. The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW4 but no material has been elicited.

16.PW5 is the investigating officer deposed about his investigation such as receipt of complaint from PW1, registration of the case, examination of the 7 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018 witnesses and filing of the charge sheet. Except putting suggestions nothing was elicited in his cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused.

17.The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not corroborating with each other on material aspects and there are several omissions and contradictory versions in their evidence as discussed supra. PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW5 is the investigating Officer and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration without any supportive and corroborative evidence of independent witnesses. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to Accused A2 and A3 and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

18.IN THE RESULT, accused A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.353, 504, 506, 290, 341 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the s teno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: N.Indirasena Reddy -Nil- 8 C.C.No. 227 of 2019 Old CC No.584 of 2018

PW2: P.Raju

PW3: P.Dharma Reddy

PW4: B.Sagar

PW5: S.Srinivas Reddy, S.I of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the complaint - NIL -

Ex.P2 is s.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P3 is First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

1 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT SIDDIPET

Present: SMT.B.SADHANA , Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026

C.C.No. 223 OF 2019

(Old CC No.597 of 2018)

Cr.No.306/2016 P.S, Siddipet I Town) Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet I Town Police Station.

....Complainant

// A N D //

Vallepu Raju S/o Rajaiah, aged 39 years, Occu: Lorry driver, R/o H.No.10-4-131, Nasarpura, Siddipet town and District.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 01-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Sathyanarayana, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Siddipet I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.306/2016 for the offences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 353 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 30.08.2016 at 2100 hours Sri V.Srinivasulu, Tahsildar, Siddipet

Mandal lodged a report stating that one Gotuka Raju has attempted illegal encroaching in shikam land dug new bore well in the above shikam land in

Sy.No/2194 situated at Kappalakunta of Siddipet town, upon which he along 2 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018 with revenue staff approached the spot when they damaging the fencing and bore well the Gotuka Raju obstacle them and with the help of local police the revenue staff demolished the fencing along with bore well. Hence, he requested for action.

3.Basing on the complaint, LW6/J.Gopal Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.306/2016 u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC and after completion of investigation, LW6/J.Gopal Rao has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC.

4.The cognizance was taken for the u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code and accused was examined under section 251 Criminal Procedure Code and accusation for the offences u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC is read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW3 and Ex.P1/scene of offence panchanama is marked. Evidence of LW1, LW4,

LW6 were closed by this court as prosecution failed to produce them even after several opportunities.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution 3 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018 witnesses in his vernacular language, he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offences u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 and PW2 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW3 is panch for scene of offence panchanama.

The evidence of remaining witnesses were closed as the prosecution failed to produce them inspite of ample opportunity.

10.PW1 is the Revenue Inspector deposed that in the year August, 2016 basing on the instructions of LW1, himself and LW3 along with LW1 went to

Kappalakunta wherein they found bore-well was dug then LW1 instructed to close that bore well as the said land comes under "SHIKAM" land. Thereafter, instructions given to police to register the case against the persons who installed the bore-well. One Mrs. Gatka Raju installed the bore-well in shikam land. PW1 deposed that he cannot identify the said Mr.Gatka Raju.

During the course of cross-examination PW1 stated that he cannot say the survey number Kappalakunta, the extent of Kappalakunta around Ac.4-00 gts. PW1 stated that he cannot say the extent of FTL out of the said Ac.4-00 gts of Kappalakunta. PW1 stated that he has not handed over duty certificate 4 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018 of incident date, Gatka Raju installed the bore-well in shikam land. PW1 stated that he does not know whether the accused name mentioned in the charge sheet as Vallepu Raju.

11.PW2 is the V.R.O deposed that on 22-08-2016 they received information that accused namely Gatke Raju @ Vallepu Raju dug the bore well at

Kappalakunta and fenced around the lake. On receiving information himself along with LW1, PW1 and police reached Kappalakunta, inspite of receiving instructions to remove the fencing he did not remove it, since they tried to remove the fence and seize the bore then accused obstructed them from discharging duties.

During the course of cross-examination PW2 stated that he has not handed over the duty certificate to the police date of incident. At the time deposing statement before the police he does not know name of accused as

Vallepu Raju, PW2 further stated that he knows only his name as Gatke Raju.

The survey number of Kappalakunta is 2197, he cannot say the extent. PW2 stated that in his 161 statement that he went to the scene along with 1 town police. PW2 along with S.I and 2 constables went to the Kappalakunta. PW2 stated in his 161 statement that when they tried to remove the fence and seized the bore accused obstructed them. PW2 stated that he cannot say the house number of accused but he is the resident of Nasarpura, Siddipet.

12.PW3 is panch for scene of offence panchanama deposed that on 31.08.2016 while he was retuming from morning walk, S.I. Venugopal Rao 5 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018 asked him to act as panch witness. In his presence panchanama was conducted. At the scene PW3 observed boundary stones were removed, bore well was filled with soil. PW3 stated that he knows the boundaries of the scene on Eastern side: Nasarpura Road, on Norther Side: Road towards Islamia college, on Southern side: Kappalakunta cheruvu, on Western side: vacant site of Naseeruddin. Police prepared panchanama and drawn rough sketch and obtained his signature. Ex.P1 is the scene of offence panchanama.

During the course of cross-examination PW3 stated that he does not know the extent of Kappalakunta lake, he does not know the extent of land covered inside the kaddis. On 31-08-2016 Police obtained his signature on

Ex.P1.

13.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, they did not produce any documentary evidence to prove that the land in Sy.No.2194 situated at

Kappalakunta, is shikam land belongs to Government. In the complaint, the name of the accused is mentioned as GATUKA RAJU and in the charge sheet the police mentioned the accused name as VOLLEPU RAJU. PW1 deposed

before the Court that he cannot identify the said Mr.Gatka Raju. PW2 in his

cross-examination stated that at the time of recording the statement before the police, he does not know the name of accused as Vollepu Raju, he knows only his name as Gatke Raju.

14.Further, the police as well as PW1 and PW2 failed to prove that Gatuka

Raju and Vollepu Raju is one and the same person. Apart from that the Police 6 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018 failed to file photographs of the scene of offence or any pahani to show that the above land is shikam land belongs to Government. PW1 in his cross- examination stated that he cannot say the survey number of Kappalakunta and extent of Kappalakunta around Ac.4-00 acres, he cannot say the extent of FTL out of said Ac.4-00 acres of land.

15.PW2 deposed that since they tried to remove the fencing and seize the bore then the accused obstructed them from discharging their duties. The evidence of PW2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW1 that when they tried to remove the fencing and seize the bore, then the accused obstructed them. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on material aspects and their evidence is not inspired the confidence to believe their versions moreover they failed to prove that Gatke Raju and

Vollepu Raju is one and the same person.

16.On perusal of evidence of PW3, he did not attribute anything against the accused. PW3 did not depose that he saw the accused at the scene of offence place. PW3 in his cross-examination stated that he does not know the extent of Kappalakunta lake, and he does not know the extent of land covered inside the kaddis. The evidence laid by the prosecution is insufficient and basing on the inconsistent and non-corroboration of evidence of PW1 to PW3, the accused cannot be convicted for the charged offences. There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to PW3.

7 C.C.No. 223 of 2019 Old CC No. 597 of 2018

17.Further, the reasons are not known, the defacto complainant/LW1/

Tahsildar is not come to the witness box to adduce his evidence and prove the allegations leveled against the accused for the offences u/s.447, 427, 353 of

IPC. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to accused and he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

18.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.447, 427, 353 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the s teno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of )

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: P.Lingaiah -Nil-

PW2: K.Satyanarayana

PW3: Md.Jafar Hussain

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 is scene of offence panchanama - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

1 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

Present: SMT. B.SADHANA, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Siddipet.

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 449 of 2020

(Cr.No.87 of 2018 of PS Siddipet I Town)

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Siddipet I Town. …Complainant

// A N D //

A1-Gopari Mallaiah (died) (case abated)

A2-Gopari Kireeti W/o Srinivas, aged 22 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.11-3-149, Bharathnagar, Siddipet town.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on 30.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri W.Venkateshwarlu, Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Siddipet I Town Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.87 of 2018 against accused A1 and A2 for the offences

U/s.304-A, 338 IPC.

2.The case of prosecution in a nutshell as follows :

On 28.03.2018 at 1445 hours the complainant R.Yadagiri lodged a report stating that A1 was in front of his house, he stored the Oxygen Gas cylinders in his H.No.11-3-149 and sell retail in the siddipet town. On 28.03.2018 at about 12:15 hours one Gas cyclinder is leaked in front of his house and explored.

2 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020

Due to which the Lingamma who was mother of Mallaiah and his grandson

Venkatesh both are received severe injuires and also break the windows and ventilator glasses of the complainant house, later shifted them to Govt.Area

Hospital, Siddipet for treatment, while Lingamma undergoing treatment, she died in the hospital and injured Venkatesh wa referred to Hyderabad, A1 selling the gas in public place and due to his negligence this incident taken place.

Hence, he requested for action. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.87/2018 u/s.304-A, 337 of IPC and after completion of investigation including conducting scene of offence panchanama, conducting inquest panchanama, Post Mortem Examination and recording the statements of witnesses, filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/sec.304-A, 338 of IPC.

3.During pendency of the case, A1 died, hence the case against him was abated. This case was taken on cognizance against accused A2 for the offence

U/sec.304-A, 338 of IPC. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.The accused A2 was examined U/S.251 of Cr.P.C duly explaining the accusation for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A, 338 of IPCin his vernacular language. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.13. The remaining evidence of witnesses were given by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor as all the material witnesses turned hostile in view of compromised out of the court.

3 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A2 was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining him the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further reported no defence evidence.

Hence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of accused.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A2

for the offences charged against him beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

9.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution in all examined

PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. PW1 is the defacto complainant.

PW2 is elder son and PW3 is grandson of the deceased. PW4 is the eye witness and injured. PW5 is the panch witness for scene cum-seizure panchanama. PW6 is panch for inquest panchanama. PW7 is the investigation officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet.

10.PW1 deposed that on 28.03.2018 gas cylinder was explored near to his house, on hearing the sound, he went to the scene, there he found deceased sustained injuries, and deceased was shifted to hospital wherein she was died.

Thereafter, the police took his signature on blank papers on some other work.

PW2 deposed that deceased is his mother and A1 is his father. A2 is his brother’s son. In the year 2018 one gas cylinder was explored in the office of 4 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020

A1 and A2, due to which his mother (deceased) was died, and his son(LW9) received leg injury. PW3 deposed in similar manner as deposed by PW2. As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW3, they did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused. PW1 deposed that police took his signature on blank papers and PW2 and PW3 did not attribute anything against the accused.

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused for the charged offences.

11.PW4 is the eye witness and injured did not support the case of the prosecution by stating that he does not know anything about the present case.

The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor cross-examined him but nothing was elicited.

12.PW5 is the panch for scene cum-seizure panchanama deposed that he does not know anything about the present case, police never conducted scene- cum-seizure panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW10. PW6 is the panch for inquest panchanama deposed that he does not know anything about the present case, police never conducted inquest panchanama in his presence. The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW5 and PW6 but nothing was elicited to disprove their evidence.

13.PW7 is the investigating officer deposed about receipt of complaint from

PW1, registration of the case, conducting the scene-cum-seizure panchanama, examination of the witnesses, conducting of inquest panchanama, post mortem examination and filing of the charge sheet. In cross-examination PW7 admitted that in the charge sheet, there is no specific allegations against A2. The 5 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020 evidence of PW7 cannot be taken into consideration without any corroborative and supportive evidence of independent witnesses.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW7, it made clear that the prosecution has urtterly failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused for the offence u/s.304-A, 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.304-A, 338 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The property deposited vide CPR No180/15/2020 dt.23.12.2020 ie., two gas cylinders shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day 17 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

PW1: R.Yadagiri - Nil - PW2: G.Yadagiri PW3: G.Sandeep PW4: G.Venkatesh PW5: B.Satyanarayana PW6: G.Siddamma PW7: M.Rajendra Prasad, S.I of police 6 Of 6 C.C. No. 449 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on complaint - NIL -

Ex.P2 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4 is is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P5 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4

Ex.P6 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7 is signature of PW6 on inquest panchanama

Ex.P8 is complaint of PW1

Ex.P9 is First Information Report

Ex.P10 is scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P11 is inquest panchanama

Ex.P12 is PME report

Ex.P13 is Medical Certificate of LW9.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

1 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT SIDDIPET

Present: Smt.B.SADHANA , Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. FAC II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet

Monday, the 16th day of February, 2026

C.C.No. 2567 OF 2024

(Cr.No.146/2024 P.S, Chinnakodur) Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnakodur Police Station.

....Complainant

// A N D // A1-Geekuru Raju S/o Balaiah, aged 31 years, Occ: Agril. R/o Palamakula village, Nanganoor Mandal. A2-Geekuru Rakesh S/o Mallesham, aged 23 yrs, Occ: Agril. R/o Palamakula village, Nanganoor Mandal. A3-Pittala Bharath Kumar S/o Ravi, aged 20 yrs, Occu: Student, R/o J.P Thanda of Nanganoor Mandal. A4-Geekuru Renavva W/o Mallesham, aged 50 yrs, Occu: Agril. R/o Palamakula village, Nanganoor Mandal. A5-Gattu Vamshi S/o Kanakaiah, aged 20 years, Occ: Agril. R/o Appalai Chervu of Nangunoor Mandal. A6-Geekutu Narsavva W/o Balaiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Agril. R/o Palamakula village, Nanganoor Mandal.

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 10-02-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Sadanandam, Counsel

for the accused and upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record, this Court

made the following:

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

2 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024

The Sub-Inspector of police, Chinnakodur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A6 in Cr.No.146/2024 for the offence punishable U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 02.06.2024 at 1500 hours the complainant J.Nithin lodged a report stating that since three years he and Geekuru Pujitha are in love, they narrated their love to parents of Pujitha but they have denied. Due to which he and Pujitha got married on 29.05.2024 at

Peddamma temple at Bhavupet village of Karimnagar District. After the marriage they are residing at their home. On 02.06.2024 at 1230 hours when he and his wife at home, A1 to A6 came to their home, beat him with hands and forcibly abducted his wife Pujitha. Hence, he requested for action.

3.Basing on the complaint, PW4 has registered a case in Cr.No.146/2024 for the offence punishable U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, PW4 filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A6 for the offence punishable U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.The cognizance was taken for the offence U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused A1 to A6. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C and accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and charges were framed against the accused A1 to A6 U/sec.240 of Cr.P.C for the offence U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC and the same is read 3 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024 over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and

Exs.P1 to P7 are got marked. The evidence of remaining witnesses were given up by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A6 were examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their vernacular language, they denied the same and reported that they have no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the record.

8.The point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A6 for

the offences U/S.365 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.To prove the case, the prosecution in all examined PW1 to PW4 and Exs.P1 to

P7 are got marked. PW1 is the defacto complainant and husband of the victim.

PW2 is the victim. PW3 is the eye witness to the incident. PW4 is the investigating officer who investigated the case and filed the charge sheet.

10.PW1 is the defacto complainant and husband of the victim deposed that he does not know anything about the present case, police took his signature on blank papers when he visited the police station on some other work. He does not know the 4 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024 contents of it. PW2 is the victim deposed that she does not know anything about the present case, police never examined her. PW3 deposed that he does not know anything about the present case and he was not examined by the police. The learned Asst.Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW1 to PW3 but nothing was elicited.

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 is not useful to the case of the prosecution to connect the guilt of the accused for the charged offence.

11.PW4 is the investigating officer deposed about receipt of complaint, registration of the case, conducting scene of offence panchanama, examination of the witnesses, issuance of S.41-A Cr.P.C notices to the accused persons and filing of the charge sheet. Except giving suggestions nothing was elicited.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW4, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the allegations leveled against the accused A1 to A6 for the offence u/s.365 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons and they are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, accused A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.365 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of six months as contemplated u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the s teno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of February, 2026.

5 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

FAC II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses Examined on Behalf of ) FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: J.Nithin -Nil-

PW2: G.Pujitha

PW3: Ch.Anjaneyulu

PW4: G.Balakrishna, S.I of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of)

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on complaint -NIL-

Ex.P2 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P3 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4 is S.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P5 is complaint of PW1

Ex.P6 is First Information Report

Ex.P7 is Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL- 6 of 6 C.C.No. 2567 of 2024

Sd/-

PRL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET.

FAC II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SIDDIPET