Buddarapu Sai Manoj

Page No.1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: KOSGI.

Wednesday, the 22nd Day of October, 2025.

PRESENT: - SRI.BUDDARAPU SAI MANOJ, JMFC, Narayanpet FAC: JMFC, Kosgi,

Calendar Case No.1259 of 2022

Name of the The State of Telangana through Sub- ComplainantInspector of Police, PS Damaragidda. Name of the Yahiya Khan S/o Ameer Khan, Age: 35 Accusedyears, Occ: Business, (Chicken center), R/o H.No.1-8-1, Panchayath Mohalla, Gurmitkal Town of Karnataka State. ChargeU/Sec.435 of IPC. Plea of AccusedNot guilty Finding of the Found not guilty Court Sentence or In the result, the accused found not guilty for Order the offence punishable U/sec.435 of IPC, therebytheaccusedisacquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months. The interim custody(videordersinCrl.M.P No.526/2019) of case property i.e., unregistered motorcycle bearing chassis No.MD2A11CY7JWF32673andengine No.DHYWJF45436 deposited vide CPR No.54/2019 shall be made absolute.

JMFC

NARAYANPET

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.2 of 13

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: KOSGI.

Wednesday, the 22nd Day of October, 2025.

PRESENT: - SRI.BUDDARAPU SAI MANOJ, JMFC, Narayanpet FAC: JMFC, Kosgi,

Calendar Case No.1259 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana Through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Damaragidda.

...Complainant

And

Yahiya Khan S/o Ameer Khan, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, (Chicken center), R/o H.No.1-8-1, Panchayath Mohalla, Gurmitkal Town of Karnataka State.

...Accused.

This CC came before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the prosecution, and Sri. Baswaraj, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Damaragidda has laid a charge sheet in crime No.10/2019 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.435 of IPC.

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

i)That on 15.02.2019 at 20:00 hours, LW16 by name

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.3 of 13

Balakrishna, A.S.I of Police, PS Damaragidda received a complaint from the defacto complainant by name Addan

Venkat Reddy, in which he stated that on 15.02.2019 at about 05:00 PM, while he was at his home, he received a phone call from his elder brother by name Addan Mohan Reddy, who informed him that three haystacks belonging to him were set on fire by one unknown person. That immediately he rushed to his agricultural land and found that three haystacks and red gram crop were burnt, he and others tried to extinguish the fire, but it had already spread uncontrollably. Similarly each one haystack of several villagers’ namely 1) Bapuram Venkat

Reddy, 2) Pidugu Narayana, 3) D.Lalappa and 4) D.Hanmappa were also burnt by unknown person which were situated beside the road from Gadimunkanpally to Sajjanapur. Hence he requested to take legal action.

ii)That as per the contents of above petition, LW16 i.e,

Balakrishna, A.S.I of Police, PS Damaragidda, registered a case in Crime No.10/2019 for the offence under section 435 of

IPC and took up the investigation. That during the course of the investigation, above mentioned I.O – Balakrishna (LW16) examined and recorded the stament of the defacto complainant by name Addan Venkat Reddy (LW1) under

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.4 of 13

section 161(3) of Cr.P.C at PS Damaragidda. That on 16.02.2019, LW16 by name Balakrishna, A.S.I of Police, PS

Damaragidda visited first scene of offence situated in the outskirts of Damaragidda and minutely observed the crime scene and photographed the scene and conducted first scene of offence panchanama in the presence of G.Subash (LW12) and G.Narsappa (LW13) and also he examined and recorded the statement of Addan Mohan Reddy (LW2) under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C at crime scene. Similarly Balakrishna, ASI of

Police, PS Damaragidda (LW16) conducted second, third, fourth and fifth conducted scene of offence panchanamas and alos recorded the statement of LW3 to LW11 namely Bapuram

Venkat Reddy (LW3), Gunthala Pullaiah (LW4), Boini Ashok (LW5), Gunthala Ashamma (LW6), Surimi Raghu (LW7), Girini

Venkatesh (LW8), Pidugu Narayana (LW9), Dankuri Hanmappa (LW10) and Dankuru Lalappa (LW11) under section 161(3) of

Cr.P.C.

iii)That on 19.02.2019 at about 09:30 hours, while conducting vehicle checking at Ambedkar X road,

Damaragidda, meantime one person arrived on a motorcycle from Damaragidda village and on noticing the police vehicle, he tried to escape from there in suspicious manner as such

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.5 of 13

immediately he was apprehended and on interrogation, he disclosed his particulars as Yahiya Khan S/o Ameer Khan and during the interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence, whereupon LW16 secured the presence of two mediators namely Bapuram Srikanth (LW14) and Addan

Kanki Reddy (LW15), conducted confession panchanama and recovered one unregistered motorcycle bearing chassis

No.MD2A11CY7JWF32673, engine No.DHYWJF45436 from the accused in the presence of above said mediators and the same was deposited before this court vide CPR No.54/2019. That on 17.03.2019 LW17 by name S.Rambabu, SI of Police, PS

Damaragidda took up CD file and investigation of this case from LW16 and verified the investigation done by him and found on correct line. That after completion of investigation, the S.I of Police by name S.Rambabu (LW17) laid a charge sheet against the accused before this court for the offence under section 435 of IPC.

3.Basing upon the charge sheet filed by the Investigting

Officer, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 435 of IPC against the accused herein and issued summons to the accused and upon presence of the accused copies were furnished to him under section 207

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.6 of 13

Cr.P.C and subsequently, the accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C for the allegations levelled against him for the offence

U/sec.435 of IPC and charge for the offence under section 435 of IPC framed, read over and explained to accused, for which he denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence the trial.

4.The prosecution, in support of their case has got examined the defacto complainant by name Venkat Reddy as

PW1 and got examined the circumstantial witness by name

A.Mohan Reddy as PW2. The prosecution has also got examined one Mr.B.Venkat Reddy as PW3 and Surimi Raghu as

PW4. The panch witnesses for scene of offence namely Galla

Narsappa as PW5 and G.Subash as PW9. The prosecution has also got examined the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama namely B.Srikanth as PW6 and A.Kanki

Reddy as PW7. The prosecution has also got examined the first

Investigating Officer by name Balakrishna, ASI of Police, PS

Damaragidda as PW8. Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 marked on behalf of the prosecution.

5.Subsequently, the prosecution evidence was closed as learned APP given up the evidence of LW4 to LW6 namely

G.Pullaiah, B.Ashok and G.Ashamma and LW8 to LW11 namely

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.7 of 13

G.Venkatesh, P.Narayana, D.Hanmappa and D.Lalappa respectively.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating material against him from the evidence of prosecution for which the accused denied and reported no defense evidence, as such defense evidence was closed.

7.The learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused submitted oral arguments on behalf of their respective sides.

8.Heard both sides. Upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the record, the following points fell for determination.

i. Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of

the accused for the offence U/Sec. 435 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?

ii. To what order?

Point i:-

9.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 435 of IPC has to prove that the accused herein to have committed mischief by setting the haystack of

PW1 on fire knowing that it likely cause damage of property of

PW1.

10.The prosecution to prove their case has got examined

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.8 of 13

PW1 to PW9. PW1 is the defacto complainant who is not an eye-witness to the alleged offence committed by the accused who deposed that himself to have known about the offence committed by the accused through PW2. PW2 who was mentioned to be the circumstantial witness deposed that some unknown person to have set haystack of PW1 on fire and that he do not know the accused. PW4 who was mentioned to be the eye witness deposed to have not know anything about this case and was declared hostile as sought by learned A.P.P.

11.PW5 who was mentioned to be the panch witnesss for scene of offence panchanama deposed to have not known anything about this case. Even though Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 i.e, signatures of PW5 in scene of offence panchanamas were marked through PW5 but he denied that on 16.02.2019 police to have conducted scene of offence panchanamas at five places in his presence and nothing elicited in favour of case of prosecution during examination of PW5 in the nature of cross examination by learned A.P.P. PW9 who was mentioned to be another panch witness for scene of offence panchanamas deposed to have not known anything about this case and police never conducted any panchanamas in his presence. Even though Ex.P16 to Ex.P20 i.e, signatures of PW9 in Ex.P10 to

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.9 of 13

Ex.P14 scene of offence panchanamas were marked through

PW9 but he denied that on 16.02.2019 PW8 to have conducted the said scene of offence panchanamas in his presence and nothing elicited in favour of case of prosecution during examination of PW9 in the nature of cross examination by learned A.P.P.

12.PW6 and PW7 who were mentioned to be the panch witnesses to the confession cum seizure panchanama during their chief examination deposed that they do not know the accused, that they do not know anything about this case and inspite of them to have admitted their signatures i.e, Ex.P7 and

Ex.P8 respectively in confession cum seizure panchanama but they denied that the accused to have confessed his guilt i.e, setting haystack on fire, in their presence and nothing elicited in favour of case of prosecution during examination of PW6 and PW7 in the nature of cross examination by learned A.P.P.

13.PW8 who is the first Investigating Officer who registered

Ex.P9 - FIR dated 15.02.2019 and who did the entire investigation except filing charge sheet during his chief examination deposed affirming the case of the prosecution to the extent of investigation done by him including conducting scene of offence panchanamas under Ex.P10 to Ex.P14 and

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.10 of 13

also that to have seized M.O.1 i.e, Motorcycle vide chassis

No.MD2A11CY7JWF32673 and engine No.DHYWJF45436 under Ex.P15 confession panchanama from the accused. Even though PW8 deposed affirming the case of the prosecution to the extent of investigation done by him but none of the supporting panch witnesses to Ex.P10 to Ex.P14 scene of offence panchanamas and Ex.P15 confession panchanama supported the case of the prosecution.

14.PW3 is the only eye witness to the alleged offence to have been committed by the accused on behalf of the prosecution, who deposed in his chief examination that himself to have witnessed the accused came on his bike near haystack in agricultural field situated at Sajjanapur road, Damaragidda and to have set the haystack on fire. During cross examination

PW3 deposed that himself to have informed to police in his statement that himself to have witnessed the accused setting haystack on fire on denying to have not stated the same to police but Ex.D1 marked as the same was confronted to I.O i.e,

PW8 wherein PW8 deposed that PW3 stated to him as in

Ex.D1. Whereas upon perusal of Ex.D1 it is evident that PW3 confined himself to the extent that to have seen one person to have travelled from Damaragidda towards Sajanapur in high

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.11 of 13

speed on motorcycle and himself to have tried to set of the fire on haystack but in vain. From Ex.D1 it can be said that it effects the roots of the case of the prosecution since it raises doubt in the mind of this court about the credibility of evidence of PW3, since the case of the prosecution being that it is the accused who set the haystack on fire. Since the evidence of PW3 who is the sole eye-witness to the alleged offence to have been committed by the accused itself seems to be not reliable and in the absence of other corroborating evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution in respect of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused i.e, accused to have set haystack on fire, as such it is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Hence in view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 435 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Point No.i is answered.

Point No.ii:-

RESULT:-

In view of finding to Point No.i, this point is answered as hereunder:

In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.435 of IPC, thereby the accused is acquitted

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.12 of 13

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of six months. The interim custody (vide orders in Crl.M.P No.526/2019) of case property i.e., unregistered motorcycle bearing chassis

No.MD2A11CY7JWF32673 and engine No.DHYWJF45436 deposited vide CPR No.54/2019 shall be made absolute. Since the accused being in judicial remand, in view of the acquittal of the accused, hence it is directed that the accused shall be released from the judicial custody.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on 22nd day of October,2025)

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayanpet.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kosgi

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Pw1: Venkat Reddy - NIL - Pw2: A.Mohan Reddy Pw3: B.Venkat Reddy Pw4: Surimi Raghu Pw5: Narsappa Pw6: Srikanth Pw7: Kanki Reddy Pw8: Balakrishna Pw9: G.Subash

CC.No.1259 of 2022 Page No.13 of 13

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report dated 15.02.2019, Ex.P2 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6 is signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 is signature of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P8 is signature of PW7 on confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P9 is FIR dated 15.02.2019, Ex.P10 is panchanama conducted by PW8, Ex.P11 is panchanama conducted by PW8, Ex.P12 is panchanama conducted by PW8, Ex.P13 is panchanama conducted by PW8, Ex.P14 is panchanama conducted by PW8, Ex.P15 is the confession panchanama of the accused, Ex.P16 is signature of PW9 on Ex.P10, Ex.P17 is signature of PW9 on Ex.P11, Ex.P18 is signature of PW9 on Ex.P12, Ex.P19 is signature of PW9 on Ex.P13, Ex.P20 is signature of PW9 on Ex.P14.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.D1 is relevant portion of statement of PW3.

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1-Motorcyclebearingchassis No.MD2A11CY7JWF32673 and engine No.DHYWJF45436.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Narayanpet.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Kosgi

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NARAYANPET

PRESENT: SRI SAI MANOJ,

JMFC, NARAYANPET.

FAC: ADDL. JMFC, NARAYANPET.

CC.NO.515 OF 2025

Between:

P.S.Maganoor ....Complainant

And

1) Samala Vinod Kumaar Samala

2) Ramesh Muthyala ....Accused

DOCKET ORDER :25-08-2025

Accused A1 and A2 are present. Case suomoto advanced to today. Copies of documents are furnished to them. They are examined u/Sec.274 BNSS and the substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.303(2) BNS, was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which his pleaded guilty. The admission of accused are appears to be free and voluntary. Hence, the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 303(2) BNS, and they are convicted u/Sec. 275 BNSS and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only)each i.e., In total amount Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) and in default of payment, accused A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Since no property is deposited. No order as to property.

JMFC, NRPT,

FAC:ADDL.JMFC, NRPT.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NARAYANPET

PRESENT: SRI SAI MANOJ,

JMFC, NARAYANPET.

FAC: ADDL. JMFC, NARAYANPET.

CC.NO.276 OF 2025

Between:

P.S.Makthal ....Complainant

And

1) Anand Patti

2) Chendrashekar Mudumal ....Accused

DOCKET ORDER :25-08-2025

Accused A1 and A2 are present. Case suomoto advanced to today. Copies of documents are furnished to them. They are examined u/Sec.274 BNSS and the substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.303(2) BNS, was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which his pleaded guilty. The admission of accused are appears to be free and voluntary. Hence, the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 303(2) BNS, and they are convicted u/Sec. 275 BNSS and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only)each i.e., In total amount Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) and in default of payment, accused A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Since no property is deposited. No order as to property.

JMFC, NRPT,

FAC:ADDL.JMFC, NRPT.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NARAYANPET

PRESENT: SRI SAI MANOJ,

JMFC, NARAYANPET.

FAC: ADDL. JMFC, NARAYANPET.

CC.NO.548 OF 2025

Between:

P.S.Makthal ....Complainant

And

1) Veeresh Veeresh

2) Anjaneyulu Boya ....Accused

DOCKET ORDER :25-08-2025

Accused A1 and A2 are present. Case suomoto advanced to today. Copies of documents are furnished to them. They are examined u/Sec.274 BNSS and the substance of accusation for the offence u/Sec.303(2) BNS, was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which his pleaded guilty. The admission of accused A1 and A2 are appears to be free and voluntary. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 303(2) BNS, and they are convicted u/Sec. 275 BNSS and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only)each i.e., In total amount Rs.4000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) and in default of payment, accused A1 and A2 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Since no property is deposited. No order as to property.

JMFC, NRPT,

FAC:ADDL.JMFC, NRPT.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

NARAYANPET

PRESENT: SRI SAI MANOJ,

JMFC, NARAYANPET.

FAC: ADDL. JMFC, NARAYANPET.

CC.NO.558 OF 2025

Between:

P.S.Krishna ....Complainant

And

1) Narsappa Kurva

2) Narsappa Kurva

....Accused

DOCKET ORDER :25-08-2025

This case is advance from 18-11-2025 to today i.e., 25-08-2025. In view compromise matter referred to Lok Adalath. Accused A1 and A2, Lw1/Defacto-complainant/injured are present. Both parties reported compromise and filed joint memo voluntarily agreed to compromise the case. The offence involved in this case is U/s.126(2), 117(2), 115(2), 352 r/w Sec.3(5) BNS. The Lr.APP filed petition U/s.239 BNSS for alteration of section of law from U/s.117(2) BNS to section U/s. 115(2) BNS and same is permitted. Offence U/s.126(2), 115(2), 352 r/w Sec.3(5) BNS are compoundable in nature. Hence compromise is recorded. Accordingly award is passed VSA. In view of compromise accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/s.359(8) BNSS for the offence U/s.126(2), 115(2), 352 r/w Sec.3(5) BNS Since no property is deposited. No order as regard to property.

JMFC, NRPT,

FAC:ADDL.JMFC, NRPT.