Ch Sampath

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

1 OF 15

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT:

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Ch. Sampath, VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 06 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 12268 OF 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station Mir Chowk …Complainant

AND

Sri Rijwan Alam, S/o. Saidur Rahman, age 22 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o. In a Room of Bilal Masjid, Murgichowk, Hyderabad, N/o. Lahagava (V), Bahadurgunj PS Limits, Kishangunj District, Bihar State. …Accused

This case was coming before me on 27-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APPO, Kum. Ramani, for the State and Sri Mohammed Jani, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over and considered, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

2 OF 15

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 23-10-2021 at about 6:00 PM, the defacto complainant, Sri Mohd.

Akbar Ahmed Mushtaq, lodged a report stating that on the same day at about 1:00 PM, while he was at Azampura, he received a phone call from his sister- in-law informing him that his brother, Syed Burhanuddin, had met with an accident near Purani Haveli while proceeding on foot towards Miralam Mandi for purchasing groceries and had been shifted to Osmania General Hospital.

Thereafter, he immediately went to the hospital and found his brother admitted in the casualty ward in an unconscious condition while undergoing treatment. On enquiry, he came to know that at about 12:45 PM, when his brother was coming out of Elaichi Bagh Kaman Lane, a Hero Splendour motorcycle bearing No. AP 11 Q 6968, coming from the side of Purani Haveli in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him. Due to the impact, his brother fell down and sustained injuries. The rider of the motorcycle also fell down and sustained injuries. Local persons shifted both the injured persons to the hospital.

He further stated that at about 4:45 PM, the duty doctor declared his brother dead while undergoing treatment. Hence, he requested the police to take necessary legal action against the accused.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

3 OF 15

3.Based on the said complaint, LW-10 Sri M.A. Jabbar, who was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.210 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A

IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He issued the First Information Report and, after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and issued summons to the accused.

5.In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the Court.

After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was explained to him in vernacular language.

The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial commenced.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW- 1 to PW-5 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5.

6.1. On behalf of the prosecution, LW-1 Sri Mohd. Akbar Ahmed Mushtaq, the defacto complainant, was examined as PW-1; LW-3 Smt. Shahin Begum, witness, was examined as PW-2; LW-5 Sri Shaik Fayeem, panch witness for

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

4 OF 15

scene of offence panchanama, was examined as PW-3; LW-7 Dr. Jhansi

Lakshi, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, was examined as PW-4; and LW-10 Sri M.A. Jabbar, Investigating Officer, was examined as PW-5. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW-3 Sri Shaik Nadeem, LW-4 Sri Mohd. Adil, LW-6 Sri Faisal

Ahmed, and LW-9 Sri K.V. Lakshmi Narayana. Accordingly, their evidence was treated as nil.

6.2.On behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P-1 is the report to police; Ex.P-2 is the inquest panchanama dated 24-10-2021; Ex.P-3 is the scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P-4 is the postmortem examination report along with requisition dated 24-10-2021; Ex.P-5 is the FIR; and Ex.P-6 is the Motor

Vehicle Inspector’s Report.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available on record. The accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

9.The following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt

that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

5 OF 15

304-A IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor

Vehicles Act?

2. To what result?

10. POINT No.1:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW-1. He deposed that on 23-10-2021 at about 1:00 PM, he received a phone call from LW-2 informing him that an accident had occurred near Miralam Mandi Road, Elaichi Bagh Kaman, wherein his brother, Syed

Burhanuddin, who was proceeding on foot to purchase groceries, was hit by a

Splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP 11 Q 6968. Thereafter, he rushed to

Osmania General Hospital and found the injured undergoing treatment in an unconscious condition with severe head injuries. He further stated that the rider of the motorcycle was also admitted in the same hospital. According to him, at about 4:30 PM, the injured succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint

before the police, which was marked as Ex.P-1. He identified the accused

present before the Court as the person responsible for the accident.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

6 OF 15

During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the accident and that he did not have personal knowledge regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. He further stated that he came to know about the involvement of the accused only through the police and hospital staff. He also admitted that he had not filed any hospital record to show that the accused was admitted and undergoing treatment in the same hospital. He denied the suggestions that the accused had not caused the accident or that he was falsely deposing at the instance of the police.

11.LW-2/witness was examined as PW-2. She deposed that on 23-10-2021 at about 12:30 PM, her husband went on foot to Miralam Mandi to purchase groceries. After some time, she received a phone call informing her that her husband had met with an accident near Miralam Mandi after being hit by a motorcycle while walking on the road and that he was being shifted to the hospital. Thereafter, she first went to the scene of offence and subsequently to

Osmania General Hospital, where she found her husband undergoing treatment. She further stated that on the same day at about 4:45 PM, her husband succumbed to the injuries. According to her, thereafter PW-1 lodged a complaint before the police and the police recorded her statement.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

7 OF 15

No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused.

12.LW-5/panch witness for inquest panchanama was examined as PW-3.

He deposed that on 24-10-2021 at about 8:00 AM, the police of Mir Chowk

Police Station conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and in the presence of another witness. He further stated that he noticed injuries on the backside of the head and other parts of the body of the deceased and signed the inquest panchanama, which was marked as Ex.P-2.

During his cross-examination, PW-3 stated that the deceased was his maternal uncle. However, he denied the suggestions that the police had not conducted the inquest in his presence or that he was falsely deposing in order to support the family of the deceased.

13.LW-7/Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, was examined as PW-4. She deposed that on 24-10-2021, she received a requisition from the SHO, Mir Chowk Police Station, for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of Syed Burhanuddin. Upon examination, she found the following injuries:

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

8 OF 15

(i) Subscalpular contusion over the occipital region along with fissured fracture of the skull extending to the base of the brain associated with diffuse subdural hematoma;

(ii) Contusion over the neck with fracture dislocation of cervical vertebrae C5 and C6.

She opined that the cause of death was due to head injury associated with cervical spine injury. She issued the postmortem examination report, which was marked as Ex.P-3.

No cross-examination was conducted on behalf of the accused.

14.LW-10/Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 23-10-2021, upon receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint from PW-1, a case in Crime

No.210/2021 under Section 304-A IPC was registered and FIR was issued, which was marked as Ex.P-6. He further stated that he took up investigation, examined PW-1 and other witnesses, and visited the scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared a rough sketch in the presence of mediators. He also conducted inquest over the dead body at

Osmania General Hospital in the presence of witnesses.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

9 OF 15

He further deposed that he sent the dead body for postmortem examination and after completion of postmortem examination, handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. He stated that he issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and upon his failure to comply with the same, arrested him and produced him before the Court for judicial remand.

He further stated that he obtained the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, which was marked as Ex.P-7, wherein it was opined that the accident had not occurred due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. After completion of investigation and receipt of all relevant reports, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

During his cross-examination, PW-5 denied the suggestions that he had not visited the scene of offence, had not examined the witnesses, had conducted a faulty investigation, or had falsely implicated the accused in the present case.

15.Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer to the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and

Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

10 OF 15

establish that the death of the deceased was the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause of death. Mere proof of an accident or death is not sufficient unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Further, to establish an offence under

Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the vehicle without possessing a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time.

16.It is not in dispute that the deceased Syed Burhanuddin died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly establishes that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital in an unconscious condition and despite undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 4:45 PM. PW-1 deposed that upon reaching the hospital, he found the deceased with severe head injuries undergoing treatment, and later the duty doctor declared him dead. PW-2, who is the wife of the deceased, also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 by stating that she found her husband

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

11 OF 15

under treatment at the hospital and that he later succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

17.PW-1, who is the brother of the deceased and the defacto complainant, categorically admitted during his cross-examination that he had not witnessed the accident and that he did not know the details of the occurrence personally.

He further admitted that he came to know about the involvement of the accused only through the police and hospital staff. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 is purely hearsay in nature insofar as the actual occurrence of the accident and the alleged rashness or negligence of the accused are concerned.

18.Similarly, PW-2, who is the wife of the deceased, also admittedly came to know about the accident only through a phone call received from others.

She was not present at the scene of offence and had not witnessed the accident. Therefore, her evidence also does not establish the manner in which the accident occurred or the alleged rash and negligent driving of the accused.

19.The prosecution did not examine any independent eyewitness to the accident, though according to the prosecution version, local persons had gathered at the scene and shifted the injured persons to the hospital. The non-

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

12 OF 15

examination of such material witnesses creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution story.

20.Further, the prosecution failed to examine the person who allegedly informed PW-1 and PW-2 about the accident. No explanation has been offered for withholding such material witnesses from the witness box. The evidence of

PW-3, who acted as a panch witness for the inquest panchanama, is only formal in nature and does not in any way establish rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused.

21.The medical evidence of PW-4 and Ex.P-3/postmortem examination report only establish that the deceased died due to head injury associated with cervical spine injury sustained in a road traffic accident. However, the medical evidence by itself does not establish that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the accused.

22.The prosecution relied upon Ex.P-7, the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, wherein it was opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. However, the said report merely rules out mechanical failure and does not prove rash or negligent driving by the accused.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

13 OF 15

23.Furthermore, no sketch showing the exact point of impact, position of the vehicle, width of the road, traffic conditions, or movement of the deceased was satisfactorily proved before the Court so as to establish negligence attributable to the accused. There is absolutely no evidence regarding the speed of the motorcycle, manner of driving, or violation of any traffic rule by the accused.

24.Significantly, the prosecution also failed to produce any documentary evidence from the concerned licensing authority to prove that the accused was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Mere allegation in the charge sheet is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

25.It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. In criminal cases, the burden always lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.

26.In the present case, the prosecution failed to examine any eyewitness to the accident, failed to establish the exact manner in which the accident

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

14 OF 15

occurred, and failed to produce convincing evidence to prove rash or negligent driving on the part of the accused. The evidence on record is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

27.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

28.POINT No.2:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 MV Act and is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged upon expiry of the appeal period. There is no property to dealt with.

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of May, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 12268 OF 2021

15 OF 15

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 : Sri Mohd. Akbar Ahmed Mustaq / Defacto Complainant, PW-2 : Smt.Shahin Begum / Wife of deceased PW-3 : Sri Shaik Faheem / Panch witness for inquest panchanama PW-4 : Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi / Who conducted autopsy PW-5 : Sri M.A.Jabber / Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is the report to police; Ex.P-2 is the inquest panchanama dated 24-10-2021; Ex.P-3 is the scene of offence panchanama; Ex.P-4 is the postmortem examination report along with requisition dated 24- 10-2021; Ex.P-5 is the FIR; and Ex.P-6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report. FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD

1 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT:

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Ch. Sampath, VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 04 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No.7120 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station Rein Bazar …Complainant

AND

Shaik Hussain, S/o Shaik Jahangeer, Age: 32 years, Occ: Tailor, R/o H.No.18-11-418/6/2, Rahmath Nagar, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad.

…Accused

This case was coming before me on 24-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APPO Kum.Ramani, for the State and Sri K.Muralidhar, the learned Counsel for the Accused and having stood over and considered, this court made the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rein Bazar Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.

VIII ACJM, HYD

2 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 14-06-2020 at about 2:15 PM, a complaint was received from the defacto complainant, Smt. Syed Mosina Begum. She stated that her husband had been working as a labourer for the previous ten days at a construction site at the request of the accused, Shaik Hussain. On the same day, at about 9:00

AM, her husband went to the construction site situated at Rahmath Nagar,

Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. Later, at about 10:00 AM, she came to know that while her husband and another worker by name Mahmood were removing debris and soil at the construction site, an adjacent old wall suddenly collapsed on them, causing multiple bleeding injuries.

3.She further stated that the accused, being the owner of the construction site, shifted both injured persons to Osmania General Hospital, where the duty doctor declared her husband as brought dead due to multiple injuries. The other injured person sustained simple injuries and was undergoing treatment.

It is alleged that the accused failed to take necessary safety precautions at the construction site and that due to his negligence, her husband died. Hence, she requested the police to take necessary legal action against the accused.

4.On receipt of the complaint, LW-15 Sri G. Vinod Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Rein Bazar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.131/2020

VIII ACJM, HYD

3 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

5.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and issued summons to the accused.

6.In pursuance of the summons, the accused appeared before the Court.

After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., the particulars of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC were explained to him in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the trial commenced.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW-1 to PW-11 and marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9.

7.1. On behalf of the prosecution, LW-1 Smt. Syed Mosina Begum, defacto complainant, was examined as PW-1; LW-3 Sri Syed Imtiyaz was examined as

PW-2; LW-4 Sri Syed Ismail was examined as PW-3; LW-5 Sri Abdul Raheem was examined as PW-4; LW-7 Sri Abdul Khader, panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, was examined as PW-5; LW-8 Sri Mohd. Khaled, panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, was examined as PW-6; LW-6 Sri

Mohd. Mehraj was examined as PW-7; LW-9 Sri Mohd. Tofiq, panch witness for inquest panchanama, was examined as PW-8; LW-12 Dr. G. Venugopal

Rao, who conducted autopsy and issued postmortem examination report, was

VIII ACJM, HYD

4 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020 examined as PW-9; LW-11 Dr. Pranitha, who issued the medical certificate, was examined as PW-10; and LW-15 Sri G. Vinod Kumar, Investigating Officer, was examined as PW-11. Upon filing of the report by the police, the evidence of LW-2 was closed by this Court. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW-10 and accordingly, his proposed evidence was treated as nil.

7.2. On behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P-1 is the complaint, Ex.P-2 is the statement of PW-4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P-3 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P-4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P-5 is the statement of

PW-6 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P-6 is the inquest panchanama

dated 14-06-2020, Ex.P-7 is the postmortem examination report, Ex.P-8 is the

medical certificate, and Ex.P-9 is the FIR.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available on record. The accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

9.On behalf of the accused, no documents were marked.

10.Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.

11.The following points arise for determination:

VIII ACJM, HYD

5 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the accused committed the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC?

2. To what result?

12. POINT:-

On perusal of the record, LW-1/defacto complainant was examined as

PW-1. She deposed that on 14-06-2020 at about 9:00 AM, her husband went for labour work under the accused, who had taken him to the work site. At about 10:00 AM, she received information that a dilapidated wall had collapsed on her husband. Thereafter, she rushed to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead. She attributed the death of her husband to the negligence of the accused in not providing necessary safety measures at the construction site. She further stated that she lodged a complaint before the police, which was marked as Ex.P-1.

During her cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that she had no knowledge regarding the ownership documents relating to the construction site and also admitted that she did not know the exact details of the scene of offence. However, she maintained that the accused had taken her husband for labour work on the date of the incident.

VIII ACJM, HYD

6 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

13.LW-3/witness was examined as PW-2. He, being the son of the deceased, deposed that he received information regarding the accident through a phone call and thereafter informed PW-1. He further stated that he went to the hospital and found his father dead.

During his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident and that he had not seen the scene of offence.

14.LW-4/witness was examined as PW-3. He, being another son of the deceased, deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused had taken his father for labour work and later he came to know about the wall collapse.

Thereafter, he went to the hospital and learned about the death of his father.

During his cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that he was not an eyewitness to the incident. He denied the suggestion that the accused never committed any offence and further denied that he was falsely deposing only to help his mother.

15.LW-5/witness was examined as PW-4. He deposed that he had only heard about the incident and had no direct knowledge regarding the same. As he did not support the case of the prosecution, he was treated as hostile.

VIII ACJM, HYD

7 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

Due to the hostile attitude of PW-4, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross-examined him. However,

PW-4 denied the statements allegedly given by him to the police during investigation.

16.LW-7/witness was examined as PW-5. He deposed that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared a rough sketch in his presence, which were marked as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively.

During his cross-examination, PW-5 stated that he did not know the contents of the documents on which he had signed.

17.LW-6/witness was examined as PW-6. He deposed that he had only heard about the wall collapse and had no knowledge regarding the case. As he did not support the prosecution case, he was treated as hostile.

Due to the hostile attitude of PW-6, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross-examined him. However,

PW-6 denied the statements allegedly made by him before the police during investigation.

18.LW-9/panch witness for inquest was examined as PW-7. He deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his

VIII ACJM, HYD

8 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020 presence and that he noticed injuries on the dead body which were consistent with a wall collapse incident.

During his cross-examination, PW-7 denied the suggestion that he never acted as a panch witness for the inquest panchanama and further denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge about the case and was falsely deposing

before the Court.

19.LW-12/Doctor was examined as PW-8. He deposed that he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found multiple injuries including rib fractures, lung injuries, and head injuries. He opined that the cause of death was due to blunt injury to the chest. He issued the postmortem examination report, which was marked as Ex.P-6.

During his cross-examination, PW-8 denied the suggestions that he had not conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Syed Riyaz and that Ex.P-6 was issued only at the request of the police.

20.LW-11/Doctor was examined as PW-9. She deposed that she examined the injured witness and found simple injuries on his person. She issued the medical certificate, which was marked as Ex.P-7.

VIII ACJM, HYD

9 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

21.LW-15/Investigating Officer was examined as PW-10. He deposed that upon receipt of Ex.P-1, he registered a case under Sections 304-A and 337

IPC. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, prepared rough sketch, conducted inquest over the dead body, apprehended the accused, and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

During his cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that he had not collected any documentary proof to establish the ownership of the construction site. He further admitted that the accused himself shifted the injured persons to the hospital immediately after the incident.

22.Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary to refer to the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of

IPC.

In order to establish an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the death of the deceased was caused by a rash or negligent act of the accused which did not amount to culpable homicide. For an offence under Section 337 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused caused hurt to another person by doing any rash or negligent act so

VIII ACJM, HYD

10 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020 as to endanger human life or personal safety. Mere occurrence of an accident or death is not sufficient to attract criminal liability unless the rashness or negligence of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

22.In the present case, the specific allegation of the prosecution is that the accused, being the owner of the construction site, failed to take necessary safety precautions, due to which an old wall collapsed and caused the death of the deceased and injuries to another person. Therefore, the prosecution is required to establish not only the occurrence of the incident, but also that the accused was in control or ownership of the construction site and that the accident occurred solely due to his rash or negligent act.

23.On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. PW-1, who is the wife of the deceased, admittedly came to know about the incident through others and reached the hospital thereafter. PW-2 and PW-3, who are the sons of the deceased, also admittedly were not eyewitnesses to the occurrence and came to know about the incident only through a phone call. Their evidence is therefore hearsay in nature with regard to the actual occurrence of the incident and the alleged negligence of the accused.

VIII ACJM, HYD

11 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

24.The prosecution failed to examine the injured witness Mahmood, who was allegedly present at the spot and sustained injuries in the same incident.

The evidence of such a material witness would have been crucial to establish the manner in which the incident occurred and whether any negligence could be attributed to the accused. Non-examination of the injured eyewitness creates a serious dent in the prosecution case.

25.Further, PW-4 and PW-6, who were cited as witnesses to the prosecution case, did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated as hostile. Nothing useful could be elicited from their evidence during cross- examination by the prosecution.

26.Another important aspect of the case is that the prosecution utterly failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the accused was the owner, occupier, contractor, or person in control of the construction site where the incident occurred. PW-10/Investigating Officer categorically admitted during cross-examination that he had not collected any documentary proof regarding ownership of the site. No municipal records, title documents, construction permissions, labour records, or other relevant documents were

VIII ACJM, HYD

12 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020 placed before the Court to connect the accused with the alleged construction activity.

27.In the absence of any documentary proof regarding ownership or supervision of the construction site, the mere allegation of PW-1 that the accused had taken her husband for labour work cannot, by itself, conclusively establish criminal liability against the accused.

28.Though the medical evidence of PW-8 and Ex.P-6 clearly establishes that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the wall collapse incident, the medical evidence alone is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused unless the prosecution proves that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent act attributable to him.

29.The scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch marked through

PW-5 also do not disclose any specific material showing negligent construction activity or omission on the part of the accused. The prosecution failed to place any expert evidence, engineering report, or inspection report to show that the wall collapsed due to lack of safety precautions attributable to the accused.

VIII ACJM, HYD

13 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

30.It is a settled principle of criminal law that negligence under Section 304-

A IPC must be of such a gross nature that it can be termed as culpable negligence. Criminal rashness or criminal negligence cannot be presumed merely because an unfortunate incident occurred. The prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the negligent act of the accused and the death of the deceased.

31.In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from material deficiencies, namely, absence of any eyewitness to the incident, non- examination of the injured witness Mahmood, hostile evidence of material witnesses, absence of documentary proof establishing ownership or control of the construction site by the accused, absence of expert or technical evidence regarding negligence and failure to establish a direct rash or negligent act attributable to the accused.

32.In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed any rash or negligent act which resulted in the death of the deceased or injuries to another person/Lw2. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

VIII ACJM, HYD

14 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

33.Point No.2:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal period.

Typed directly on my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04 th day of May, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD

15 CC NO. 7120 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Smt.Syed Mousina Begum/defacto-complainant PW-2: Sri Syed Imtiyaz / Witness PW-3: Sri Syed Ismail / Witness PW-4: Sri Abdul Raheem / Witness PW-5: Sri Abdul Khader / Witness PW-6: Sri Mohd. Mehraj / Witness PW-7: Sri Mohd. Taqfeeq / Panch for Inquest PW-8: Dr.Venugopal Rao / Doctor, who conducted PME PW-9: Dr. Pranitha / Treated LW1 and issued Medical Certificate PW-10: Sri G.Vinod Kumar/ Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 is Report to police, Ex.P2 is 161 Cr PC Statement of PW4, Ex.P3 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 rough sketch. Ex.P5 is PW6 Sec.161 Cr PC statement. Ex.P6 is Inquest panchanama dt.14-06-2020, Ex.P7 is PME report, Ex.P8 is Medical certificate, Ex.P9 is FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD

1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT:

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Ch. Sampath, VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 30 th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 5365 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station Mir Chowk …Complainant

AND

A-1. Mohd Salman S/o Mohd Osman, Age: 28 years, Occ: Auto Driver R/o H. No. Kalapather near chunnekibhatti, hyderabad

A-2.Shaik Sajid @ Sajid, S/o. late Khaja Zaheeruddin @ Shaik Mohammed, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Vegetable vendor, R/o. H No. 4-102/4, Errakunta, near Omar Farooq Masjid, Barkas, Hyderabad

A-3. Mohd Adam Nasir @ Mohd. Nasir, S/o. Mohd. Haneef, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H No. 11-2-553/2, Mallepally, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case was coming before me on 23-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APPO, Kum. Ramani, for the State and Sri Saleem, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over and considered, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 of 13

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 05.02.2019 at about 21:30 hours, a complaint was received from the defacto complainant, Sri K. Ramesh, Police Constable (PC-1662) of Mir

Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad. He stated that on the same day at about 20:00 hours, he reported for duty and, along with PC Ravi (PC-853), was deputed for Blue Colts-1 patrolling duty. While on patrol at about 20:30 hours, they received information that some persons were creating a nuisance at

Miralam Mandi Market.

On reaching the spot, they found certain persons quarrelling and causing disturbance, who were identified as Mohd. Salman, Sajid, and Mohd.

Naseer. He further stated that Mohd. Salman and Sajid were known to have previous criminal antecedents. When they attempted to apprehend them, the said persons allegedly abused them in filthy language, obstructed them in the discharge of their lawful duties, and assaulted him with hands, causing injury to his right cheek, and thereafter fled from the scene. Hence, he requested that necessary action be taken against them.

3.Based on the contents of the report, LW-7 Sri K.V. Laxmi Narayana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No. 20 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He issued the FIR and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.

3 of 13

4.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

5.Upon service of summons, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the

Court. After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., they were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34

IPC. The substance of the accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the trial commenced.

6.In order to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs. P1 to P4.

6.1. On behalf of the prosecution:

LW-1 Sri K. Ramesh (defacto complainant) was examined as PW1;

LW-2 Sri Ravi (eye witness) was examined as PW2;

LW-3 Sri Kausar Ali (panch witness for CDF) was examined as PW3;

LW-5 Dr. G. Pranitha (doctor) was examined as PW4;

LW-7 Sri K.V. Laxmi Narayana (Investigating Officer) was examined as PW5.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW-4

Sri Javeed and LW-6 Sri V. Anand Kishore; hence, their evidence was treated as nil.

4 of 13 6.2. On behalf of the prosecution:

Ex.P1 – Report to police;

Ex.P2 – Scene of offence panchanama dated 05-02-2019;

Ex.P3 – Medical certificate;

Ex.P4 – Medical certificate of PW1.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them and did not adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.The following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to

3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

To what result? 2.

10. POINT No.1:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2.

PW1, the defacto complainant, deposed that on 05.02.2019, while he was on

Blue Colts patrolling duty along with PW2, at about 08:30 PM they received information that some persons were creating a nuisance at Miralam Mandi

Market. He stated that they rushed to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 5 of 13 creating a nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language, and Accused No. 1 assaulted him by punching on his cheek. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. He further deposed that he sustained a blunt injury on his cheek, went to the police station, and lodged a report, which was marked as Ex.P1. He also stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

11.PW2, the eyewitness, corroborated the version of PW1 in material particulars. He deposed that on the same day, while he was on Blue Colts patrolling duty along with PW1, they received information at about 08:30 PM regarding nuisance being created at Miralam Mandi Market. They proceeded to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 creating a nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language, and

Accused No. 1 assaulted PW1 by punching him on the cheek, after which all the accused fled from the scene. He further stated that PW1 sustained a blunt injury and that they thereafter went to the police station and lodged a complaint. He also stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that his duty and Blue Colts allotment were recorded in the relevant registers and that he had not mentioned or disclosed the names of the persons who provided the 6 of 13 information either in Ex.P1 or to the police. Similarly, PW2 admitted that he had not disclosed the names of the persons who provided the information and that their duty details were recorded in the concerned registers. However, both

PW1 and PW2 denied the suggestions that no such incident had taken place, that the accused had not created any nuisance or assaulted PW1, or that they were falsely deposing at the instance of the police.

12.The prosecution examined PW3 to PW5 in support of its case. PW3, the panch witness for the scene of offence, deposed that on 05.02.2019, the police of Mir Chowk Police Station came to the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and prepared a rough sketch in his presence. He stated that he signed the panchanama, which is marked as

Ex.P2. During his cross-examination, he stated that the panchanama was conducted between 09:00 PM and 10:00 PM. He denied the suggestions that he was deposing at the instance of the police, that no panchanama was conducted in his presence, or that he was a stock witness.

13.PW4, the doctor, deposed that he worked as a Casualty Assistant

Surgeon at Osmania General Hospital from 2017 to 2022 and is presently working as a Civil Surgeon at District Hospital, Gajwel. He stated that PW1 was brought to the hospital by a police constable from Mir Chowk Police

Station and that he examined him. On examination, he found no external 7 of 13 injuries on PW1 and issued the medical certificate, which is marked as Ex.P3.

During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions that he had not examined PW1 or that Ex.P3 was issued at the instance of the police.

14.PW5, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 05.02.2019, upon receipt of Ex.P1, a case in Crime No.20 of 2019 under Section 332 read with 34 IPC was registered and FIR (Ex.P4) was issued. He further deposed that

PW1 was sent to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and that he took up further investigation, examined PW1 and PW2, and recorded their statements.

He stated that he visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and prepared a rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and LW-4.

He further deposed that on the same day, he apprehended Accused Nos.2 and 3 at MGBS bus stand and, upon interrogation, they confessed to the offence and were arrested and produced before the Court. He further stated that on 14.06.2019, Accused No.1 was apprehended, interrogated, and arrested. He also deposed that he collected the medical certificate (Ex.P3) and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet.

During his cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 in the police station and that no independent witnesses were present. He further admitted that he did not examine any independent witnesses from the scene of offence and that no material objects 8 of 13 were seized. He, however, denied the suggestions that the accused were falsely implicated or that the investigation was defective.

15.In order to establish an offence under Section 332 IPC, the prosecution must prove that (i) the victim was a public servant, (ii) he was discharging his official duties at the relevant time, and (iii) the accused voluntarily caused hurt to such public servant with the intention of deterring or preventing him from discharging his duties.

16.In the present case, PW1, the defacto complainant, is a Police

Constable, and his evidence clearly establishes that he was on official duty at the relevant time, along with PW2, as part of Blue Colts patrolling. His presence on duty is not disputed and is further corroborated by PW2.

PW1 has categorically deposed that on receiving information regarding nuisance at Miralam Mandi Market, he, along with PW2, proceeded to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 creating nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language and Accused No. 1 assaulted PW1 by punching him on his cheek. PW2, who is an eyewitness and also a police constable on duty, has fully corroborated the version of PW1 in material particulars.

17.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent, cogent, and inspires confidence. Nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to 9 of 13 discredit their testimony. Minor omissions, such as non-mentioning of the names of the informants, do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

18.Though PW4, the doctor, has stated that no external injuries were found on PW1, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is well settled that for an offence under Section 332 IPC, actual grievous or visible injury is not a sine qua non, and even a simple hurt or use of criminal force with the requisite intention is sufficient. The consistent and reliable ocular testimony of PW1 and

PW2 is sufficient to prove the assault.

19.The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused No.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed and assaulted

PW1 by accused no.1 and A2 and a3 abused the P.W1, a public servant, while he was discharging his official duties, thereby attracting Section 332 read with 34 IPC.

20.Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, as such, they are liable for conviction. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the

Affirmative.

10 of 13

21.Point No.2:

In the result, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, if any, shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal period. There is no property as to order.

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

11 of 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Sri K.Ramesh / Defacto Complainant, PW-2 : Sri C.Ravi Kumar / Eye Witness PW-3 : Sri Kausar Ali /panch for CDF PW-4 : Dr. Pranitha / Treated and issued Medical certificate to PW1 PW-5 : Sri K.V.Lakshmi Narayana / Investigation officer

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report to police, Ex.P2 is section 161 Cr PC statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is Medical Certificate of PW-1 Ex.P4 is FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

12 of 13

Hearing on the quantum of sentence:

The convicts/ Accused nos.1 to 3 are present and heard on the quantum of sentence.

The convict no.1/ A1 submitted that he is in Jail as a convict in another case, he has wife and children, he has to look after his family and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

The convict No.2/A2 submitted that he has a family, old aged parents, wife and children, he has to look after them and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

The convict no.3 /A3 submitted that he has a family, old aged parents, wife and children, he is the only person to look after them and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

Having considered the submissions on the question of sentence, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of the

Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the convict no.1/

A1, this Court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

The convict no.1 (Accused no.1) is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332 of Indian Penal Code.

13 of 13

In the above context, the convict no.1/ A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 08 months.

From the record it is evident that convict no.1/A1 is in Jail from 14-

10-2025 to till today. Therefore, the remand period i.e., 06 months 18

days, shall be set off under section 482(2) Cr PC.

Further, the convict no.2/ Accused no.2 is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under

Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of 05 days.

The convict no.3/ Accused no.3 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 05 days.

The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the

convict nos.1 to 3/ A1 to A3 free of cost forthwith and to obtain

acknowledgment .

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT:

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Ch. Sampath, VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 30 th day of April, 2026

C.C. No. 5365 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station Mir Chowk …Complainant

AND

A-1. Mohd Salman S/o Mohd Osman, Age: 28 years, Occ: Auto Driver R/o H. No. Kalapather near chunnekibhatti, hyderabad

A-2.Shaik Sajid @ Sajid, S/o. late Khaja Zaheeruddin @ Shaik Mohammed, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Vegetable vendor, R/o. H No. 4-102/4, Errakunta, near Omar Farooq Masjid, Barkas, Hyderabad

A-3. Mohd Adam Nasir @ Mohd. Nasir, S/o. Mohd. Haneef, Age: 39 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H No. 11-2-553/2, Mallepally, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case was coming before me on 23-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APPO, Kum. Ramani, for the State and Sri Saleem, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over and considered, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, filed a charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 of 13

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 05.02.2019 at about 21:30 hours, a complaint was received from the defacto complainant, Sri K. Ramesh, Police Constable (PC-1662) of Mir

Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad. He stated that on the same day at about 20:00 hours, he reported for duty and, along with PC Ravi (PC-853), was deputed for Blue Colts-1 patrolling duty. While on patrol at about 20:30 hours, they received information that some persons were creating a nuisance at

Miralam Mandi Market.

On reaching the spot, they found certain persons quarrelling and causing disturbance, who were identified as Mohd. Salman, Sajid, and Mohd.

Naseer. He further stated that Mohd. Salman and Sajid were known to have previous criminal antecedents. When they attempted to apprehend them, the said persons allegedly abused them in filthy language, obstructed them in the discharge of their lawful duties, and assaulted him with hands, causing injury to his right cheek, and thereafter fled from the scene. Hence, he requested that necessary action be taken against them.

3.Based on the contents of the report, LW-7 Sri K.V. Laxmi Narayana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No. 20 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He issued the FIR and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence.

3 of 13

4.This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to Accused Nos. 1 to 3.

5.Upon service of summons, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the

Court. After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., they were examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34

IPC. The substance of the accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the trial commenced.

6.In order to prove the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs. P1 to P4.

6.1. On behalf of the prosecution:

LW-1 Sri K. Ramesh (defacto complainant) was examined as PW1;

LW-2 Sri Ravi (eye witness) was examined as PW2;

LW-3 Sri Kausar Ali (panch witness for CDF) was examined as PW3;

LW-5 Dr. G. Pranitha (doctor) was examined as PW4;

LW-7 Sri K.V. Laxmi Narayana (Investigating Officer) was examined as PW5.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW-4

Sri Javeed and LW-6 Sri V. Anand Kishore; hence, their evidence was treated as nil.

4 of 13 6.2. On behalf of the prosecution:

Ex.P1 – Report to police;

Ex.P2 – Scene of offence panchanama dated 05-02-2019;

Ex.P3 – Medical certificate;

Ex.P4 – Medical certificate of PW1.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them and did not adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.The following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to

3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 of the

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

To what result? 2.

10. POINT No.1:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 and PW2.

PW1, the defacto complainant, deposed that on 05.02.2019, while he was on

Blue Colts patrolling duty along with PW2, at about 08:30 PM they received information that some persons were creating a nuisance at Miralam Mandi

Market. He stated that they rushed to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 5 of 13 creating a nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language, and Accused No. 1 assaulted him by punching on his cheek. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. He further deposed that he sustained a blunt injury on his cheek, went to the police station, and lodged a report, which was marked as Ex.P1. He also stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

11.PW2, the eyewitness, corroborated the version of PW1 in material particulars. He deposed that on the same day, while he was on Blue Colts patrolling duty along with PW1, they received information at about 08:30 PM regarding nuisance being created at Miralam Mandi Market. They proceeded to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 creating a nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language, and

Accused No. 1 assaulted PW1 by punching him on the cheek, after which all the accused fled from the scene. He further stated that PW1 sustained a blunt injury and that they thereafter went to the police station and lodged a complaint. He also stated that the police examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that his duty and Blue Colts allotment were recorded in the relevant registers and that he had not mentioned or disclosed the names of the persons who provided the 6 of 13 information either in Ex.P1 or to the police. Similarly, PW2 admitted that he had not disclosed the names of the persons who provided the information and that their duty details were recorded in the concerned registers. However, both

PW1 and PW2 denied the suggestions that no such incident had taken place, that the accused had not created any nuisance or assaulted PW1, or that they were falsely deposing at the instance of the police.

12.The prosecution examined PW3 to PW5 in support of its case. PW3, the panch witness for the scene of offence, deposed that on 05.02.2019, the police of Mir Chowk Police Station came to the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and prepared a rough sketch in his presence. He stated that he signed the panchanama, which is marked as

Ex.P2. During his cross-examination, he stated that the panchanama was conducted between 09:00 PM and 10:00 PM. He denied the suggestions that he was deposing at the instance of the police, that no panchanama was conducted in his presence, or that he was a stock witness.

13.PW4, the doctor, deposed that he worked as a Casualty Assistant

Surgeon at Osmania General Hospital from 2017 to 2022 and is presently working as a Civil Surgeon at District Hospital, Gajwel. He stated that PW1 was brought to the hospital by a police constable from Mir Chowk Police

Station and that he examined him. On examination, he found no external 7 of 13 injuries on PW1 and issued the medical certificate, which is marked as Ex.P3.

During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions that he had not examined PW1 or that Ex.P3 was issued at the instance of the police.

14.PW5, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 05.02.2019, upon receipt of Ex.P1, a case in Crime No.20 of 2019 under Section 332 read with 34 IPC was registered and FIR (Ex.P4) was issued. He further deposed that

PW1 was sent to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and that he took up further investigation, examined PW1 and PW2, and recorded their statements.

He stated that he visited the scene of offence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama, and prepared a rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and LW-4.

He further deposed that on the same day, he apprehended Accused Nos.2 and 3 at MGBS bus stand and, upon interrogation, they confessed to the offence and were arrested and produced before the Court. He further stated that on 14.06.2019, Accused No.1 was apprehended, interrogated, and arrested. He also deposed that he collected the medical certificate (Ex.P3) and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet.

During his cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2 in the police station and that no independent witnesses were present. He further admitted that he did not examine any independent witnesses from the scene of offence and that no material objects 8 of 13 were seized. He, however, denied the suggestions that the accused were falsely implicated or that the investigation was defective.

15.In order to establish an offence under Section 332 IPC, the prosecution must prove that (i) the victim was a public servant, (ii) he was discharging his official duties at the relevant time, and (iii) the accused voluntarily caused hurt to such public servant with the intention of deterring or preventing him from discharging his duties.

16.In the present case, PW1, the defacto complainant, is a Police

Constable, and his evidence clearly establishes that he was on official duty at the relevant time, along with PW2, as part of Blue Colts patrolling. His presence on duty is not disputed and is further corroborated by PW2.

PW1 has categorically deposed that on receiving information regarding nuisance at Miralam Mandi Market, he, along with PW2, proceeded to the spot and found Accused Nos. 1 to 3 creating nuisance. When they attempted to pacify them, the accused abused them in filthy language and Accused No. 1 assaulted PW1 by punching him on his cheek. PW2, who is an eyewitness and also a police constable on duty, has fully corroborated the version of PW1 in material particulars.

17.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent, cogent, and inspires confidence. Nothing material has been elicited in their cross-examination to 9 of 13 discredit their testimony. Minor omissions, such as non-mentioning of the names of the informants, do not affect the core of the prosecution case.

18.Though PW4, the doctor, has stated that no external injuries were found on PW1, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is well settled that for an offence under Section 332 IPC, actual grievous or visible injury is not a sine qua non, and even a simple hurt or use of criminal force with the requisite intention is sufficient. The consistent and reliable ocular testimony of PW1 and

PW2 is sufficient to prove the assault.

19.The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused No.1 to 3, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed and assaulted

PW1 by accused no.1 and A2 and a3 abused the P.W1, a public servant, while he was discharging his official duties, thereby attracting Section 332 read with 34 IPC.

20.Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 332 read with 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, as such, they are liable for conviction. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the

Affirmative.

10 of 13

21.Point No.2:

In the result, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 332 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly

Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused Nos. 1 to 3, if any, shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal period. There is no property as to order.

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

11 of 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : Sri K.Ramesh / Defacto Complainant, PW-2 : Sri C.Ravi Kumar / Eye Witness PW-3 : Sri Kausar Ali /panch for CDF PW-4 : Dr. Pranitha / Treated and issued Medical certificate to PW1 PW-5 : Sri K.V.Lakshmi Narayana / Investigation officer

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report to police, Ex.P2 is section 161 Cr PC statement of PW1 Ex.P3 is Medical Certificate of PW-1 Ex.P4 is FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

-NIL-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

12 of 13

Hearing on the quantum of sentence:

The convicts/ Accused nos.1 to 3 are present and heard on the quantum of sentence.

The convict no.1/ A1 submitted that he is in Jail as a convict in another case, he has wife and children, he has to look after his family and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

The convict No.2/A2 submitted that he has a family, old aged parents, wife and children, he has to look after them and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

The convict no.3 /A3 submitted that he has a family, old aged parents, wife and children, he is the only person to look after them and prayed to take the linient view while imposing the sentence.

Having considered the submissions on the question of sentence, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of the

Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Considering the nature of the offence committed by the convict no.1/

A1, this Court is of the opinion that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

The convict no.1 (Accused no.1) is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 332 of Indian Penal Code.

13 of 13

In the above context, the convict no.1/ A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 08 months.

From the record it is evident that convict no.1/A1 is in Jail from 14-

10-2025 to till today. Therefore, the remand period i.e., 06 months 18

days, shall be set off under section 482(2) Cr PC.

Further, the convict no.2/ Accused no.2 is sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under

Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of 05 days.

The convict no.3/ Accused no.3 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 05 days.

The Office is directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the

convict nos.1 to 3/ A1 to A3 free of cost forthwith and to obtain

acknowledgment .

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

1 OF 14

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT:

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Sri. Ch. Sampath, VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

Dated this the 05 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 6702 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana through SHO, Police Station Dabeerpura …Complainant

AND

Sri Ahsan Ali Mirza @ Hashim, S/o Late Mohammed Ali Mirza, Age 42 years, Occ: Working in Newz Way Channel, R/o H.No:- 22-2-471, Noorkhan Bazar, Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case was coming before me on 09-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Learned APPO, Kum. Ramani, for the State and Sri Syed Ali Jaffari, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over and considered, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dabeerpura Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

2 OF 14

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 26.02.2020 at about 12:30 hours, the police received a complaint from the de facto complainant, Sri R. Naresh. In his complaint, he stated that the accused was posing himself as a reporter without possessing any valid media accreditation and was uploading news on social media through a platform called “Newz Way Channel.” It is alleged that the accused was publishing false information without verifying facts with the authorities, thereby creating panic among the public and disturbing public tranquility.

It is further alleged that on 10.12.2019, one Shaik Wahid lodged a complaint alleging that he had been attacked with a knife. However, upon investigation, it was revealed that he had inflicted injuries upon himself while in an intoxicated condition. A case in Crime No. 212 of 2019 under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was registered, wherein the complainant himself became the accused due to the falsity of the complaint. Despite this, the accused allegedly circulated news on social media claiming that an “attempt to murder” had occurred within the limits of Dabeerpura Police Station, without verifying the facts.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

3 OF 14

Similarly, on 10.02.2020, one Sri Rasoori Lalappa lodged a complaint regarding his missing daughter. A case in Crime No. 25 of 2020 under the category of “Woman Missing” was registered. The missing woman was later traced and safely handed over to her family. However, the accused allegedly published false news stating that an “18-year-old girl was kidnapped in front of her mother during daytime” within Dabeerpura Police Station limits, thereby creating panic among the public.

It is also alleged that the accused posted another misleading report stating that a car had fallen from a flyover at Puranapool within the limits of

Kulsumpura Police Station, whereas the incident had actually occurred elsewhere.

Thus, the prosecution alleges that the accused was deliberately disseminating false information through social media with the intention of causing fear among the public and disturbing public tranquility.

3.Based on the said complaint, LW-8, Sri V. Shravan Kumar, who was then working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Dabeerpura Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 34 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

4 OF 14

505(1)(b) IPC. He issued the First Information Report and, after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4.The Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC and issued summons to the accused.

5.Upon service of summons, the accused appeared before the Court. After compliance with Section 207 Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC was explained to him in the vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, the trial commenced.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs. P1 to P6.

6.1. On behalf of the prosecution:

LW-1, Sri R. Naresh (complainant), was examined as PW1;

LW-3, Sri R. Lalappa (circumstantial witness), was examined as PW2;

LW-2, Sri Shaik Hyder (circumstantial witness), was examined as PW3;

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

5 OF 14

LW-5, Sri Omar Khan (panch witness for CDF), was examined as PW4; and

LW-8, Sri V. Shravan Kumar (Investigating Officer), was examined as PW5.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW-4,

Sri Md. Sajid, and LW-6, Sri Arbaz Khan; hence, their evidence was treated as nil.

6.2. On behalf of the prosecution:

Ex.P1 – Complaint; Ex.P2 – Statement of PW2 recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C.;

Ex.P3 – Statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.;

Ex.P4 – Statement of PW4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.;

Ex.P5 – FIR; and Ex.P6 – Scene of offence panchanama.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

9.The following points arise for determination:

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

6 OF 14

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian

Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what result?

10. POINT No.1:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the de facto complainant as PW1. He deposed that on 26.02.2020 at about 12:30 PM, he received information from reliable sources that the accused, claiming to be a reporter of “Newz Way Channel,” was spreading false news on social media.

He stated that the accused had falsely reported a missing woman case as a kidnapping incident, portrayed self-inflicted injuries as an attempt to murder, and misrepresented a car accident as having occurred at Puranapool. He further deposed that such false reporting created fear and nuisance among the public, thereby disturbing public tranquility. Basing on the said information, he lodged a complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1, and the police recorded his statement.

During the course of cross-examination, PW1 admitted that no General

Diary entry was made with regard to the alleged oral information received by

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

7 OF 14

him. He further admitted that no screenshots of the alleged social media posts were collected or filed before the Court, that no members of the public who were allegedly affected were cited or examined, and that no independent complaints were received from the public. He also admitted that he had not officially verified whether the social media account in question belonged to the accused.

11.LW-3 (circumstantial witness), LW-2 (circumstantial witness), and LW-5 (panch witness for CDF) were examined as PW2, PW3, and PW4 respectively.

12.PW2 deposed that in the year 2020, she was residing at Shamshabad.

She stated that on one occasion, her sister and daughter had gone to

Charminar, during which her daughter went missing, and she lodged a complaint at Dabeerpura Police Station. She further deposed that after three days, her daughter was traced and handed over to her. However, she expressed ignorance about the present case and stated that the police had neither examined her nor recorded her statement.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

8 OF 14

13.PW3 deposed that he did not know PW1, PW2, or LW-4 and stated that he had no knowledge about the case. He further stated that the police had neither examined him nor recorded any statement from him.

14.PW4 deposed that he did not know anything about the case and that the police had not conducted any scene of offence panchanama or prepared any rough sketch in his presence. He further stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers, though Ex.P4 bears his signature.

All these witnesses resiled from their earlier statements and did not support the case of the prosecution; hence, they were treated as hostile.

15.Due to the hostile attitude of PW2 to PW4, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross-examined them. However, nothing material could be elicited from their cross-examination. They denied having given any statements before the police as reflected in the relevant exhibits and denied the suggestion that they were deposing falsely in order to help the accused.

16.LW-8, the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW5. He deposed about the investigation conducted by him in a chronological manner and also deposed about filling charge sheet against the accused.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

9 OF 14

During the course of cross-examination, PW5 admitted that he had prior acquaintance with the accused. He further admitted that no complaint was received from the parents of the alleged missing girl, that he had not officially verified whether the social media account belonged to the accused, and that no steps were taken to remove the alleged objectionable posts from social media.

17.At the outset, it is essential to consider the scope and ingredients of the relevant provision of law in order to properly appreciate the evidence on record.

Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code pertains to statements

conducing to public mischief.

18.To establish an offence under this provision, the prosecution must prove that the accused made, published, or circulated a statement, rumour, or report, which was either false or made without lawful basis, and that such statement was made with the intent to cause, or was likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section thereof, thereby inducing or being likely to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or disturb public tranquility.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

10 OF 14

19. In the present case, the prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of

PW1/the de facto complainant, and PW5/the Investigating Officer. PW1 deposed that the accused was spreading false news through a social media platform styled as “Newz Way Channel,” thereby creating fear among the public. However, during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that no General

Diary entry was made regarding the alleged information received by him, no screenshots or electronic evidence of the alleged posts were collected or produced before the Court, no members of the public who were allegedly affected were cited or examined, and no independent complaints were received from the public. He also admitted that he had not verified whether the said social media account actually belonged to the accused.

20.PW2 to PW4, who were cited as circumstantial and panch witnesses, did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Their evidence does not advance the prosecution case in any manner. Nothing material could be elicited in their cross-examination to corroborate the prosecution version.

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

11 OF 14

21.PW5, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the registration of the case and steps taken during investigation. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had prior acquaintance with the accused, that no complaint was received from the parents of the alleged missing girl, that he had not verified the authenticity of the alleged social media account, and that no steps were taken to collect or preserve the alleged objectionable posts or to have them removed. These admissions go to the root of the prosecution case and create serious doubt regarding the fairness and completeness of the investigation.

22.It is pertinent to note that in cases involving allegations of publication of false information through electronic or social media, collection and production of primary electronic evidence, such as screenshots, URLs, account verification details, or certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence

Act, is essential. In the absence of such evidence, the very foundation of the prosecution case remains unsubstantiated.

23.Further, the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged acts of the accused had actually caused or were likely to cause fear or alarm to the public, or that any person was induced to commit an offence against public

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

12 OF 14

tranquility. No independent witness from the public has been examined to substantiate such allegation.

25.Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove (i) that the alleged social media account belonged to the accused, (ii) that the accused actually published the alleged false information, and (iii) that such publication caused or was likely to cause the consequences contemplated under Section 505(1)

(b) IPC.

26.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies entirely on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record suffers from material omissions, lack of corroboration, and absence of essential electronic evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accused is entitiled for acquittal. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the

Negative.

27.POINT No.2:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and is accordingly acquitted

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

13 OF 14

under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged upon expiry of the appeal period. There is no property to dealt with.

Typed directly on my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 05 th day of May, 2026.

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD

CC NO. 6702 OF 2020

14 OF 14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 : Sri R.Naresh / Defacto Complainant, PW-2 : Sri Rasuri Ialappa/ Circumstantial witness PW-3 : Sri Shaik Hyder / Circumstantial witness PW-4 : Sri Omer Khan / Panch for CDF PW-5 : Sri V.Shravan Kumar / Investigation Officer

FOR DEFENCE

-NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is report to police, Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr PC statement of PW2, Ex.P3 is Sec.161 Cr PC statement of PW3 Ex.P4 is PW4 signature on scene of offence panchanama dt.02-03-2020 Ex.P5 is FIR Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

Material Objects Marked

-NIL-

VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

VIII ACJM, HYD