Smt Chaitanya Angari

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 1 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, JADCHERLA

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

MS CHAITANYA ANGARI,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

C.C. No. 424 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station.

…PROSECUTION

AND

Ageer Raju @ Ageer Rajendra Gupta, S/o. Krishnaiah, age 38 years, Occ: Kirana shop business, R/o. H.No.14-119, Kanyaka Parameshwary temple street, Badepally village, Jadcherla Mandal.

...ACCUSED

***

This Case is coming on 08.11.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri G.Vishwashwar, the learnedCounsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Jadcherla

Police Station against accused in crime number 153/2017 for the offence punishable under Sec.173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec. 20(2) of CPP RPP

PFB Act.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 2 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

2.The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 21.05.2017 at 20:00 hrs on reliable information of selling and having possession of prohibited

Gutka and Paan Masala and other Tobacco products illegally without having any license at Kanyaka Parameshwary temple street, Badepally. Immediately

LW.7/K.Lakshminarsimulu along with LW-1 to LW.4 rushed to the above said shop and raided on the Kirana shop of accused at Kanyaka Parameshwary temple street, Badepally. There, they found one person Ageer Raju S/o.

Krishnaiah i.e., the accused, who was selling the Telangana banned Gutka,

Paan Masala in his shop. Upon the search being conducted by them they found, (1). Two blue colour bags, (2). Two light green colour bags, (3). One white colour bag, (4). One white colour hand bag in which names as Swagath,

Saagar, RR Gutka, RR Paan Masala and 16 number Pan Masala sachets all worth Rs.50,000/-. As the above said products were selling illegally without having any lisence and by considering the said products were hazardous to health, LW.7 conducted seizure panchanama in the presence of LWs.5 and 6.

Basing on the strength of above confession and seizure panchanama, the LW.7/K.Lakshminarsimulu, SI of of police Jadcherla registered a case in

Cr.No.153/2017, U/Sec.173, 188, 420 IPC and Sec. 20(2) CPP RPP PFB Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.7 examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 4 at P.S. Subsequently,

LW.7 served a notice u/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and directed him appear before the court, Jadcherla as and when receive summons.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 3 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file against sole

Accused for the offence under Section 173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec.

20(2) of CPP RPP PFB Act. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 {hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for the sake of brevity}. The Accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., and the

Accused denied the accusation. A charge U/Sec. 173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec. 20(2) of CPP RPP PFB Act has been framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 5 are examined and exhibits P1 to P3 are marked. PW-1/Mirza Ahmed Baig, PW.2/P.Balachandrudu, PW.4/

A.Mallesh are the witnesses and Assisted to I.O. PW.3/Kurumidda Pradeep is the panch witness for confessional and seizure. PW.5/ K.Lakshminarsimulu is the investigating officer.

5.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of the Accused is closed.

6.Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 4 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

7.Perused the record.

8.Now the point germane for my determinationis ‘Whether the

Prosecution has proved and established the guilt of Accused for the

offence punishable under Sections 173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec.

20(2) of CPP RPP PFB Act beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

9. P O I N T:

9(a)In order to prove the guilt of accused for the offences with which he was made an accusation, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients, whether accused,

(i) sells any article which has been rendered or become Noxious, knowingly or having reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink.

(ii) disobedient to order duly promulgated by the public servant

(iii) sells or distributes cigerettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their label the specified warning and the nicotine and tar contents.

9(b)The evidence of PW-1 has revealed that on 20.05.2013, on the instructions of LW7/S.I/K.Laxminarasimulu he along with PW2, PW4 and

LW4 on reliable information of selling Gutka at the shop of Aggeer Raju S/o.

Krishnaiah, Badepally, then they went to K.P. street of Badepally and upon being searched the said shop of accused, they found 3 cartons and 6 bags of

Gutka Swagath’, ‘Sagar’, ‘RR’, ‘16 number pan masala.’ thereafter LW7

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 5 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

seized the said Gutka in the presence of two panch witnesses and after affixing the panch chits they took the accused to the police station along with seized property. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination PW1 admitted that during the rule call only,

LW7 got the information of selling Gutka. Thus thereby they went to the scene of offence. They went to the shop of accused at 8 PM. The two panch witnesses were called by LW7/S.I and he does not know how they were called. He does not observe the names over the cartons and bags and also cannot say the exact quantity of Gutka packets. PW.1 denied the suggestion that he does not know what have seized at the shop of accused and he deposing false at the instance of LW7.

9(c) PW-2 has deposed that on 21.05.2017, he along with PW1, PW2,

PW4, LW4 on the instructions of LW7/Laxminarasimulu went to the Kiranam shop of accused situated at Kannekaparameshwari Temple street. During the search of the said shop of accused they found ‘RR Gutka’, ‘Baba Gutka’, ‘Pan

Masala’ Packet contained in 5 cartons and 6 bags. After summoning the panch witnesses LW7 conducted seizure panchanama and seized the above said gutkas under cover of panchanama at the shop of accused. Thereafter, they brought the said seized property along with accused to the police station.

Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the cross examination PW.2 admitted that he was on present duty at PS on the date of alleged incident. The shop of the accused is having

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 6 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

one room and on the upstairs one store room. They seized the property at the upstairs from store room and he did not state the same in the statement. He cannot say the quantity of gutka packets contained in the cartons and bags.

That the Pan Masala has not been prohibited by the state Government. PW.2 denied the suggestion that, he did not went to the shop of accused nor seized the gutka packets from his shop, that he deposing false at the instance of LW7 9(d) PW-3 who was panch witness to the confessional and seizure

Pnachanama, had turned hostile and during the cross examination by the learned APP nothing was elicited to prove the prosecution case.

9(e) PW-4 has deposed that on 21.05.2017, he along with LW7 and

PWs.1, 2, LW4 on the reliable information of selling Pan masala and Gutka illegally at shop situated at Kanyaka Parameshwari street, Badepally. They went to the shop, there they found one person and upon being inquired he disclosed his particular as to that of accused and during the search of the said shop they found 5 cartons of Pan Masala and Gutka and 6 plastic bags of

BaBa Gutka, RR Gutka, 16 No.Pan Masala. Later on LW7 summoned PW3 and LW6 and in their presence confession cum seizure panchanama was conducted by duly affixing chits on the said property. Thereafter, they brought the accused along with the seized property to the police station and he registered a case.

During cross-examination PW.4 admitted that he cannot say the quantity of each carton and they opened the said carton and found the Gutka,

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 7 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

but he cannot say to which company the Gutka belongs. They did not count the gutka packets of each bag. That there is no prohibition on Pan Masala.

Pw.4 denied the suggestion that he was not on duty on the date of alleged incident nor LW7 conducted any seizure panchanama in the presence of PW3 and LW6 and he deposing false at the instance of LW7.

9(f) PW-5 has deposed that on 21.05.2017 he along with PW1, PW2,

PW4 and LW4 on reliable information selling gutka at the kirana shop of accused situated at Kankyaka Parameshwari street, Badepally went there.

During the search of the shop they found Gutka and Pan Masala Packets in 5 cartons and 6 bags. At about 8.30 PM he after securing the presence of PW3 and LW6 recorded the confession statements of accused vide Ex.P2 and seized Baba Gutka Packets, RR Gutka Packets and Pan Masala packets and 16

Number Pan Masala Packets, Sagar Gutka Packets from the carton and bags.

Basing on the said confession and seizure panchanama he registered a case in

Cr.No. 153/2017 U/Secs. 173, 188, 420 of IPC and Sec. 20 (2) of CTP Act and issued FIR vide Ex.P3. Further he examined and recorded the statements

PW1, PW2 4 and LW4 and he issued notice U/Sec.41 A Cr.P.C to the accused. Further he deposited the seized property before the court vide

CPR.No.210/2017 on 22.08.2017. but the said property was not marked as the prosecution did not produce the same before the court. Later on after completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 8 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

During the cross examination PW.5 admitted that, he did not serve any search memo to the accused to search the shop. That he did not collect any documents pertaining to the ownership and business license of accused. That he did not mention the quantity of seized property in the charge sheet and in

Ex.P2 and property list. He did not file any G.O. copy to show that the seized property was prohibited by the Government. He did not examine any independent witnesses in this case. As per Ex.P3, himself is the complainant and Investigating Officer. PW.5 denied the suggestion that Gutka and Pan

Masala were not prohibited by the Government, that he did not raid the shop of accused nor conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW3 and LW4, that he foisted a false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

10. Ingredient No.1:

(i)whether the accused sells any article which has been rendered or

become Noxious, knowingly or having reason to believe that the same is

noxious as food or drink.

On careful analysis of the evidence of the prosecution i.e Pw-1, Pw-2 PW4, and PW5 who were none other than the Public servants, with one voice, it revealed that on credible information of selling and having of prohibited

Gutka and other Tobacco prodcusts illegally without having any license they went to the the shop of accused and in the presence of Pw-3 & LW6/Boya

Raju, they conducted seizure panchanama as they found Baba Gutka Packets,

RR Gutka Packets and Pan Masala Packets, 16 number Pan Masala Packets,

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 9 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

Sagar Gutka Packets in carton and bags. The above said products were selling illegally without having any licence and by considering the said products were hazardous to health but they were turned hostile. Further more it has not been disclosed from the evidence of the above said witnesses that the accused was selling the banned products knowingly and having reason to believe that the said products were noxious and hazardous to health. It is pertinent to mention here that to prove whether the accused was having reason to believe the same as mentioned supra, no direct evidence would be available and it can be possible only through the circumstantial evidence. It is the judicial precedent that if it is to be relied upon the circumstantial evidence such evidence should be connected in chain like process and even single connection of that chain is disconnected it can not be relid upon. Though the evidence of above said witnesses is connecting with each other, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution nor their evidence was recorded, as such there is no corroboration evidence is available to the evidence of Pw-1,2, PW4 and

PW5. It is the criminal jurisprudence of law that though the corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of prudence, but the case on hand except the above said witnesses who are interested witnesses to the case, no other independent witnesses were examined. Though the Pw-3 & LW6 who were punch witnesses to the seizure cum confession panchanama PW3 was turned hostile as such his evidence cannot be relied upon. Hence the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said ingredient, thereby the point is answered against the prosecution.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 10 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

11.Ingredient No. 2 & 3 :

(ii) disobedient to order duly promulgated by the public servant

(iii) sells or distributes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain

either on the package or on their label the specified warning and the

nicotine and tar contents.

12.With regard to the above said 2 ingredients no evidence was brought on record by the prosecution. In the absence of the required evidence, it is not safe to convict the accused for the said offences. Hence the point is anwered accordingly against the prosecution.

13. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section Sec.173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec. 20(2) of

Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act-2003. The point is answered accordingly.

14. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections Sec. 173, 188, 420 of IPC and under Sec. 20(2) of

Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act-2003, he is acquitted under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property deposited vide CPR.No.217/2022 shall be ordered to be given to its owner or claimant on proper identification and proof.

Addl. JMFC

C.C. 424 of 2017 Page 11 of 11 Dated : 23-11-2022

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on my official laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 23rd day of October, 2022.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1M.Ahmed Baig PW-2P.Bala Chandrudu:: NONE :: PW-3Pradeep Kumar PW-4A.Mallesh, SI of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1Signature of PW.3 on confession-cum- seizure panchanama.:: NIL :: Ex.P-2Confession statement of accused. Ex.P-3First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JADCHERLA.

Addl. JMFC

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 1/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT JADCHERLA

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT

MS CHAITANYA ANGARI,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

C.C.No. 345 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Midjil Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …PROSECUTION AND

Dubba Praveen, S/o. Dubba Chennaiah, age 19 years, Occ: Student and motorcycle bearing No.TS06EF 7476, R/o. Masigundla pally village of Midjil Mandal …ACCUSED ***

This case is coming before me on 18-11-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri Srisailam, Counsel for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Midjil Police Station against

Accused in Cr.No.148/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC in short for sake of convenience).

2.Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, on 31-08-2016 at about 1200 hours, LW.16/SI of police received a report from LW.1/A.Ravinder by stating that on 14.08.2016 at about 7.00 pm his father by name Anegalla Pedda Ramulu was proceeding along with their goats from their agricultural fields at Wadiyala village, while deceased was proceeding on road, meanwhile one motorcycle dashed to him from his behind with high speed in rash and negligent manner. As a result deceased fell down. The strangers informed him and he immediately reached there

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 2/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

and shifted his father to SVS hospital. On 30-08-2016 at about 5.30 pm he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

Basing on the report given by LW-1, LW-16/Ramesh SI of police, Midjil P.S registered a case in Cr.No.148/2016 under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and handed over to LW.17/ASI of police for further investigation. During course of investigation, LW-17/ASI of police examined and recorded the statement of

LW-1/A.Ravinder at police station, visited SVS hospital and shifted the corpse of deceased Anegalla Pedda Ramulu and took the photographs of the dead body of deceased and secured the presence of two mediators and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the corpse of deceased for PME, during inquest LW.17/ASI of police examined and recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 4.

LW.17/ASI of police visited the scene of offence situated at outskirts Wadyala village and secured the presence of two mediators and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene and examined and recorded the statements of LWs.5 to 8. On 7.12.2016 LW.9 is present of owner of crime bike bearing No.TS06EF7476 along with crime vehicle brought the accused and produced before LW.17. Then LW.17/ASI of police issued a notice u/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C to the accused. LW.14/Dr.Madavi who conducted PME over the corpse of the deceased and she issued PME report and opined that the death of deceased was occurred due to Cerebral respiratory due to vital organ, head injuries. LW.15/

Naresh Sangem is the Motor vehicle Inspector has inspected the crime vehicle i.e., bike bearing Rgdn. No.TS06EF7476 and issued the report as the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of entire investigation, LW.17/ASI of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC against accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation leveled

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 3/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

against him for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC is read over and explained to him in Vernacular for which, Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During course of trial, prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 and Exs. P-1 to P-19 are marked on behalf of prosecution. The prosecution gave up the evidence of LW.14/Dr.Madhavi and LW.15/Naresh Sangam. Prosecution filed death certificate of LW.17/S.Narendere as he died, hence his evidence was closed by this court.

5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of Accused is closed.

6.Heard . Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point germane for my determination is ‘Whether the prosecution

has proved and established the guilt of Accused for the offence under Sec.

304(A) of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt’' ?

8. P O I N T:

8(i)In order to prove the above said point, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

(i) Whether the death of deceased was caused in an accident which was occurred on 14-08-2016 at about 7.00 pm in the outskirts of Wadyala village?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the identity of the Accused who drove the bike bearing registration No. TS06EF7476?

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved that accident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the accused?

9 . INGREDIENT No:1:

(i) Whether the death of deceased was caused in an accident

which was occurred on 14-08-2016 at about 7.00 pm in the

outskirts of Wadyala village?

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 4/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

9(a)PWs-1 to 13 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

PW.1/A.Ravinder is the defacto-complainant and son of the deceased,

PW.2/A.Maisamma is the wife of the deceased and PW.3/Aruna is the deaugther of deceased have testified that they compromised the matter with the accused outside of the court. PW.1 did not lodge any complaint against the accused before concerned police. PW.4/Akula Razak, PW.5/T.Satyanarayana, PW.6/Srinivasulu they are the eye-witnesses and circumstantial witness to the said incident respectively testified that they do not know the case facts. Police never examined them and recorded their statements. PW.7/A.Ramulu is the circumstantial witness testified that on one day in the year 2017, he received information from the daughter of the deceased that an accident was took place and the deceased sustained several injuries and he was shifted to hospital. Immediately, he rushed to the SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar there he found that the deceased was in the death bed and he underwent treatment for about 15 days thereafter succumbed to death. He does not know the crime vehicle details and that the accused.

PW.8/A.Venkataiah is the circumstantial witness testified that he does not know anything about the case which was filed by PW.1 against the accused and he did not witness anything. PW.9/K.Vijyakumar is the owner of the crime vehicle testified that he gave his motorcycle to the father of accused. Except this he does not know anything about the case which was filed by PW.1 against the accused.

PW.10/Ratnaiah and PW.12/Jangaiah are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama testified that police never summoned them nor conduced any scene of offence panchanama in their presence. But police obtained their signatures vide Exs.P11 and 13 respectively without disclosing contents of its.

PW.11/A.Radha Krishna and PW.13/Vijay Kumar are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama testified that police never conducted inquest panchanama over the corpse of deceased, but police obtained their signatures vide Exs.P12 and 14 respectively without disclosing the contents of it.

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 5/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

During the examination in the nature of cross by the learned APP nothing could be elicited in favour of the prosecution.

9(b) PW-14/E.Ramesh SI of police testified that on 31.08.2016, he received

Ex.P1 from PW1 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.148/2016 U/Sec 304 A of IPC and issued FIR vide Ex.P15. Thereafter he handed over the CD file to

LW17 for further investigation who has died. During the course of investigation,

LW17, examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS. and visited the SVS

Hospital, Mahabubnagar and after securing the presence of PWs.11 and 13 conducted the inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased vide Ex.P16 and recorded the statement of PW2 to PW4. Thereafter he visited the scene of offence and after secured the presence of PW10 and PW12, conducted CDF and drew rough sketch vide Ex.P17 and recorded the statements of PW4 to PW8. On 07.12.2016, PW9 produced the accused before LW17 and he issued a notice

U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. Thereafter the dead body was handed over for

PME to be conducted by LW14/Dr.Madhavi. Later, on requisition of LW17,

LW15/Naresh Sangam got inspected Vehicle bearing Nos. TS 06 EF 7476 which belongs to PW9. LW17 after collecting MVI report vide Ex.P18 and PME report vide Ex.P19 and after completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. He identified the signature of LW17 on the charge sheet.

10. Upon perusal of the testimony of entire of prosecution PWs.1 to PW.13 were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and have resiled from their earlier statements recorded by the police u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C.

Even during the examination in the nature of cross by the learned APPO nothing was elicited to help the prosecution. In this case PW.14 only witness who is none other than the investigating officer deposed to the extent that the father of PW.1 met with an accident.

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 6/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

11. Having regard to facts and circumstances of this case, the defacto- complainant who is the most important witness he compromised the matter with the accused outside of the court and eye-witnesses and panch witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. There is no evidence on record to prove that the accused had dashed the deceased from his behind with high speed in rash and negligent manner. Since there is no iota of evidence against the accused in establishing the guilt of offence, the accused is therefore entitled for acquittal.

12. In view of above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of Section 304-A of IPC. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

13.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 304-A of I.P.C and accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no case property was deposited. Hence no order as to the property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of November, 2022.

Sd/-

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JADCHERLA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Ravinder.

PW-2A.Maisamma. - Nil - PW-3Aruna.

PW-4Akula Razak. PW-5Sathyanarayana. PW-6Srinivasulu. PW-7A.Ramulu. PW-8A.Venkataiah. PW-9T.Vijay Kumar. PW-10Ratnaiah.

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 345 of 2022 7/7 Dated : 24-11-2022

PW-11A.Radha Krishna. PW-12Jangaiah. PW-13Vijay Kumar. PW.14E.Ramesh, SI of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1is the signature of PW.1 on complaint. Ex.P-2is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P-4is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P-5is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P-6is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5 Ex.P-7is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6 Ex.P-8is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7 Ex.P-9is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8 Ex.P-10is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-9 Ex.P-11is the signature of PW.10 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-12Is the signature of PW.11 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P-13is the signature of PW.12 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-14is the signature of PW.11 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P15is the FIR. Ex.P16is the Inquest panchanama. Ex.P17is the scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. Ex.P18is the MVI report. Ex.P19is the PME report.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL::

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JADCHERLA

Addl.JMFC, Jadcherla

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 1/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT JADCHERLA

THURSDAY, THIS THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

PRESENT

MS CHAITANYA ANGARI,

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

C.C.No. 625 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana, rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Bhoothpur Police Station.

…PROSECUTION AND

A-1: Eppati Chandra Shekar, S/o. Munnaiah, age 23 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Kothamolgara village of Bhoothpur Mandal.

A-2:Polkam Srikanth Goud, S/o. Ravinder Goud, age 25 years, Occ: Electrician, Occ: Plumber, R/o. Kothamolgara village.

A-3:Begini Srikanth, S/o. Krishnaiah, age 20 years, Occ: Plumber, R/o. Kothamolgara village.

A-4:Begini Narsimulu, S/o. Ramulu, age 27 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Kothamolgara village.

A-5:Utkur Balakistappa, S/o. Balappa, age 29 years, Occ: Old scrap shop, R/o. Pedda Porla village of Utkoor Mandal. …ACCUSED A1 to A5. ****

This case is coming on 09.08.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri M.A.Malik

Shakir, Counsel for accused,upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 2/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

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

1.This case is filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhoothpur Police Station against accused in Crime No.224/2015 for the offences punishable under

Sections 457, 380, 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC' for short].

2.The case of the prosecution, in a brief, is that on 24-10-2015 at about 1700 hours the complainant/Narendera Kumar Patel lodged a report by stating that on 22-10-2015 he along with his business partners performed Dasara pooja at his factory and went to Hyderabad back to his house. On 24-10-2015 at 0900 hours, his factory labour contractor Mr.Basanth Sharma has informed him over phone that in the intervening night of 23/24-10-2015 some unknown offenders gained entry into his factory premises by broke open the main gate locks and committed theft of 1). 6 nos.rolls, 2). Anchor hook, 3). 1 Pulper SS blade, 4). Pully, 5). 6 no.

SS volves, 6). 3 nos. motor pumps and other factory materials. On information he immediately rushed to his factory and found above articles were missing. The stolen property worth is approximately Rs.90,000/-. The complaint is showing suspicious on Srikanth, Mahender and others.

3.Basing on the report given by LW-1/Narendera Kumar Patel, LW-9/Sub

Inspector of police, registered a case in crime No.224/2015 for the offences

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 3/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

punishable under Secs.457, 380 of IPC and took up the case for further investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW.9/Sub Inspector of police examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Narendera Kumar Patel, visited the scene of offence at Sriramchandra kraft paper mill in the limits of Pathamolgara village.

Secured the presence of LW.5/M.Prathap and LW.6/G.Srinu conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch in crime details form. LW.9/SI of police examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/Basanth Sharma,

LW.3/Chintu and LW.4/Deepak Jha. On 26-10-2015 at 1400 hours, on reliable information LW.9/SI of police and staff apprehended the A1 to A4 at Bhoothpur chowrastha. On interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Immediately LW.9/SI of police secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW.7/J.Venkatesh and LW.8/S.Sathyanarayana Goud recorded the confession statement of A1, after committing theft A1 to A4 sold out the stolen property to A5. The LW.9/SI of police apprehended the A5 on interrogation he confessed that knowingly he purchased stolen property from A1 to A4 and A5 shown stolen property in his shop which was purchased from A1 to A4, the same were recovered from his possession under the cover of panchanama in the presence of same mediators, then proceeded to Khillaghanapur where LW.9/SI of police seized the TATA Ace auto bearing No.06UA 0681 under the cover of panchanama before the same mediators. LW.9/SI of police arrested the accused

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 4/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

A1 to A5 and produced before the court for judicial custody. Subsequently

LW.9/SI of police handover the CD file to LW.10/SI of police and he after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 379 or 411 of IPC against accused A1 to A5. On appearance of the Accused persons, copies of case documents are furnished to them as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under

Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and they denied the accusation. Charges for the offences under Secs.379 or 411 of IPC have been framed against them, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P-1 to

P11 and also marked MO.1 to MO.8 on behalf of prosecution.

Prosecution filed report LW.2/B.Sharma, LW.3/Chintu and LW.4/Deepak

Jha whereabouts are not known, hence this court closed their evidence.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence Accused are examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, the evidence on their behalf is closed.

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 5/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

7.Heard. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for my determination is ‘Whether the prosecution has

proved and established the guilt of Accused A1 to A5 for the charges under

Secs.379 or 411 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt’ ?

9. P O I N T:

9(i).PW.1/Narender Kumar Patel who is defacto-complainant, testified that he received a phone call from LW.2/Sharma on 24.10.2015. He stated that about four persons came to their factory and broken open the lock of entrance gate of factory in the mid night and they have stolen six roles, anker hook, pully, six SS vole, 3 motor pumps and they shifted the same by TATA Ace bearing No.0681 and they sold away the same to one scrap dealer by name Bala Kistappa at

Raikal. Thereafter he lodged a report before the police vide Ex.P1.

9(ii).PW.2 to PW.4 and PW.6 who were panch witnesses for confession and recovery and scene offfece panchanama, did not support the case of prosecution and have turned hostile. Even durng the examination in the nature of cross by the learned APPO nothing could be elicited to help the case of prosecution.

9(iii).PW.5/P.Laxma Reddy, Sub Inspector of police, testified that on 24.10.2015, he received Ex.P1 from PW1 basing on which he registered a case

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 6/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

in Cr.No.224/2015 U/Secs.457, 380, 411 of IPC and issued FIR vide Ex.P6 and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS. Thereafter he visited scene of offence and after securing the presence of PW3 and PW4 he conducted scene of offence panchanama vide Ex.P7 and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW4. On 26.10.2015, during the course of investigation and on credible information he apprehended A1 to A4 at Bhoothpur chowrasta and during the course of inquiry they confessed about the guilty of committing the offence. Thereafter, after securing the presence of PW6 and PW2 he recorded the confession statement of

A1 to A4 under cover of panchanama vide Ex.P8 and A1 confessed that he along with A2 to A4 committed theft at the house of PW1 and the stolen property was handed over to A5. Thereafter, he apprehended A5 and he conducted seizure panchanama in their presence under cover of panchanama vide Ex.P9 and seized TATA Ace auto bearing No.TS06UA0681. Thereafter he conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 vide Ex.P10 and seized 6 rolls (iron rods), anchor hook, SS Blade, pully (ring), 6 valves, 3 motor pumps, one bore motor pump vide MO1 to MO8 and deposited before this court vide

CPR.NO.662/2015. Thereafter, he apprehended them and produced before this court for judicial remand. Thereafter, he handed over the CD file to LW10 and he after completion of the entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused

A1 to A5.

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 7/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

10.Upon the perusal of the entire evidence on the record, PWs-1 and PW.5 only supported the case of the prosecution out of whom PW.1 is the defacto- complainant and PW.5 is the investigating officer. PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 who were said to be the panch witnesses for the scene of offence and confession-cum-seizure panchanama respectively did not support the case of the prosecution and were turned hostile. Even during the examination in the nature of cross by learned APPO nothing was elicited to prove the case of the prosecution.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and upon careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record, it could be seen that, the prosecution mainly relying upon confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused conducted in the presence of PW.2 and PW.6, but surprisingly they have turned hostile. Even if they supported the case of the prosecution, in view of Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act the said panchanama is inadmissible in evidence.

Therefore, there is no cogent evidence was brought on record by the prosecution in order to establish that the accused committed the offence. Therefore in view of hostile testimonies of PWs.2 to 4 and 6 this court cannot rely upon the sole testimony of PW.1 and PW.5 who are interested witnesses to the out come of the case. As such the court cannot rely on their testimony to convict the accused.

therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 8/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

12. IN THE RESULT, accused A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 379 or 411 of I.P.C., and accordingly, they are acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged u/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The MO.1 i.e., is the TATA

Ace auto bearing No.TS-06-UA-0681 which was given towards interim custody it’s original owner as per the orders of this court in Crl.MP.No.5283/2015, dt.19-11-2015 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period. MO2 to MO8 shall be returned to its original owner on proper identification.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer on my official laptop, after corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of August, 2023.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JADCHERLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Narender Kumar Patel,

PW-2Sathyanarayana Goud,

PW-3Pratap, :: NIL ::

PW-4 Srinivas,

PW-5 P.Laxma Reddy, SI of police,

PW-6J.Venkatesh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Is the police report.

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

C.C.No. 625 of 2015 9/9 Dated: 10.08.2023

Ex.P2Is the signature of PW.2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused. Ex.P3Is the signature of PW.2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused.. Ex.P4Is the signature of PW.3 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P5Is the signature of PW.4 on scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6Is the First Information Report.

Ex.P7Is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P8Is the confession statement of A1 to A4.

Ex.P9Is the Seizure panchanama.

Ex.P10Is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1.

FOR ACCUSED

::NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is the TATA Ace auto bearing No.TS06UA0681, MO.2 is the 6 rolls (iron rods), MO.3 is the anchor hook, MO.4 is the SS Blade, MO.5 is the Pully (ring), MO.6 is the 6 valves, MO.7 is the 3 motor pumps, MO.8 is the one bore motor pump.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

JADCHERLA.

ADDL.JMFC JDCL

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 1/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR .

ON THIS FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT:

SMT. CHAITANYA ANGARI,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

O.S. No. 103 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

K.Ravinder, S/o. K.Prahalad, aged 38 years, Occ: Business, R/o.8-6-56, Padmavathi colony, Mahabubnagar town.

…PLAINTIFF AND

The Mahabubnagar Municipality through it’s Commissioner. …DEFENDANT ***

This suit is coming on 10.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J. Ravi Kumar, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, Sri.S.E.Samuel, the Learned counsel for Defendant, upon hearing arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by Plaintiff under Order-VII Rule-1 R/w. Sec.

26 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from interfering with the

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 2/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule

Shop bearing Municipal door No.7-5-104/H Vandana Apartment,

Venkateshwara Colony, Mahabubnagar {which is herein after to be referred as ‘Suit Schedule Shop for sake of convenience}.

2. The Case of Plaintiff is:

(i)The plaintiff purchased suit shop from M/S Vijayanandana

Constructions Private Limited vide Regd., Sale Deed No.5254/2006, dt.21-08-2006 and from the date of purchase he is in actual possession of the suit shop by conducting his business and by paying the property tax to the Municipality. The Municipality did not oppose the construction of the shops in ground floor and the plaintiff is a bonafide purchaser, but the

Municipality instead of issuing notice u/Secs.189, 191, 192 etc., to the original owner who has constructed the suit shop by violating the rules, issued notice to the plaintiff to pass provisional orders for removal of the shop as it is constructed in a public place. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession till the construction work is legalized by paying penalty if any to the Municipality by it’s owner who had constructed the suit shop. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction.

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 3/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

3.Upon being received the summons, Defendant appeared through it’s standing counsel and filed Written Statement.

4. The case of the Defendant is:-

(i).Defendant filed Written Statement through his counsel by denying the whole claim of Plaintiff and it is submitted that M/S Vijayavandana

Constructions Private Limited, Mahabubnagar obtained permission for the residential apartment with stilt + (5) Upper Floors from the

Municipality vide proceeding No.G1/BA/389/1170/2004, dt.17-7-2004.

The owner of the apartment illegally and without permission of

Municipality constructed the alleged shops, in fact he applied for permission for construction of floors and leaving ground place as parking place to the occupants, so the plan was approved, as such the

Municipality has issued notice dated 16-6-2016 by directing the Plaintiff to remove the same within 7 days from the date of receipt of notice or else the Municipality will remove the same, but the Plaintiff without giving reply to the show cause notice approached the court and filed the suit by suppressing the real facts to the court. As per permission the ground floor is only parking place to the occupants of the quarters.

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 4/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

(ii). It is further submitted that mere giving door number to the shop is not a ground to maintain the shop in ground floor as it is assigned by the revenue officials, but whenever the building staff found the illegal construction of shops, as per the provision of the Municipalities Act by issuing prior notice it may proceed against the person who constructed illegally under section 228 of the Act. The Plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit shop, hence the notice is issued to the Plaintiff and it is for the plaintiff and his vendor to look out the same. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the Rival Pleadings of both Parties, the following issues have been settled for trial by my Learned Predecessor.

(i). Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?

(ii). Whether the notice issued by the defendant Municipality to the plaintiff is valid and binding on the plaintiff?

(iii). Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property as prayed for?

(iv). To what relief?

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 5/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

6.During the course of trial the Plaintiff filed chief affidavit reiterating the contents of plaint and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is the Regd. Sale deed Doc.No.5254/2006, Dt:21-08-2006. Ex.A2 is the property tax receipt Dt:31-01-2013. Ex.A3 is the property tax receipt

Dt:26-03-2016. Ex.A4 is the special notice issued by Municipality,

Dt:08-04-2010. Ex.A5 is the Demand notice issued by Municipality,

Dt:06-04-2010. Ex.A6 is the property tax demand notice, Dt:09-11-2012.

Ex.A7 is the Ownership certificate issued by Municipality, Dt:27-06- 2016.

7.During the pendency of the suit it has come to the notice of this court that the learned standing counsel for the Defendant has died, as such the notice of chief examination has directed to be served on

Defendant personally, despite served the notice personally on Defendant he neither appeared nor represented. Since the Defendant failed to cross examine PW-1 despite given several adjournments, the cross examination of PW-1 has been treated asnil. The Defendant also failed to adduce his evidence so as to prove his claim.

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 6/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

8. Issue No. 1:-Whether the Plaintiff is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of

suit?

8(i) Plaintiff has to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. As per the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and it is also an admitted fact that by the Defendant that he is in possession over the suit

Schedule property and issued Ex.A5 to the Plaintiff, as such there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the Plaintiff over the Suit

Schedule Property as on the date of filing of the suit. But the Defendant neither Cross examine PW-1 nor adduced their evidence so as to disprove the case of plaintiff. Hence at this situation it will be worth full to discuss the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

8(ii) In Vidyadhar vs Manik Rao reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441,

the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para No.16 that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 7/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

not correct as has been held in a series of decision passed by various high court and the Privy Counsel.”

The Alhabad High Court in Arjun Singh vs Veerender Nath

and another held that, if a party abstains from entering the witness box it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a

division bench of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Bhagwan Das vs Bhishanchand and others drew a presumption

U.Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act against the Party who did not enter into the witness box.

8(iii) Since the testimony of PW-1 remains unchallenged and none of the Defendant entered into witness box so as to prove his case, as per the above laid dictum of law an adverse inference can be drawn against the

Defendant. It is the evidence of PW-1 that the Defendant is interfering into his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The unchallenged testimony of PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-7 clinchingly proves that Plaintiff is in possession of the suit Schedule Property.

9. Issue No.2:-Whether the notice issued by the Defendant

Municipality to the Plaintiff is valid and binding on the Plaintiff??

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 8/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

9(i) It is the case of the Defendant that, since the Suit Schedule

Property was constructed illegally by he vendor of the Plaintiff they have issued notice under Ex.A5 to the Plaintiff. As such the burden of proof lies on the Defendant to prove the same, however the Defendant failed to adduce evidence to prove the same. The Defendant neither chosen to cross examine PW-1 nor entered into the witness box, as it is relevant to prove his case and disprove the case of Plaintiff. Hence as per the above laid down dictum of law adverse inference has been drawn against the

Defendant, by believing the contention of the Plaintiff in respect of illegal interference by the Defendant over the Suit schedule property over which he is in possession. Hence this issue is decided affirmatively in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

10. Issues 3 & 4:-

In view of thefindings over issue Nos.1 and 2, Plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. Accordingly these issues are answered in favour of Plaintiff.

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed without costs by restraining the Defendant from ever interfering with the Lawful

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 9/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the Suit

Schedule property by way of Perpetual Injunction.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2024.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1K.Ravindher.

FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Description of Documents

Ex.A1is the Regd. Sale deed Doc.No.5254/2006, Dt:21-08-2006.

Ex.A2is the property tax receipt Dt:31-01-2013.

Ex.A3is the property tax receipt Dt:26-03-2016.

Ex.A4is the special notice issued by Municipality, Dt:08-04-2010.

Ex.A5is the Demand notice issued by Municipality, Dt:06-04-2010.

Ex.A6is the property tax demand notice, Dt:09-11-2012.

Ex.A7is the Ownership certificate issued by Municipality,

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

O.S.No. 103 of 2016 10/10 Dated: 26.04.2024

Dt:27-06-2016.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

Sl.No. Description of Document

- Nil -

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MAHABUBNAGAR

I ADDL. JCJ, MBNR

C.C.No.25 of 20221 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOURT

PRESENT

MS CHAITANYA ANGARI,

SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MOBILE COURT AT MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No. 25 OF 2022

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana, Rep., by Sub Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District. …PROSECUTION AND A1: Chekkali Chandu, S/o. Ganesh, age 32 years, Oc:Tractor Driver, R/o. Nawabpet village and Mandal.

A2: Jogu Yadagiri @ Giri, S/o. Jogu Narsimulu, age 22 years, Occ:Self employee, R/o. Nawabpet village and Mandal.

A3:Chekkali Yadamma, W/o. Ganesh, age 40 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Nawabpet village and Mandal.

A4:Jogu Laxmamma, W/o. Jogu Narsimulu, age 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Nawabpet village and Mandal.

…ACCUSED Nos.1 to 4 *****

This Case is coming on 19.04.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.Madduri

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20222 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

Krishna, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case is registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nawabpet Police

Station against accused in Crime No.180/2021 for the offence punishable under

Sections 353, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC' for short].

2.The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 31-12-2021 at 1700 hours, the complainant/Alle Mahesh came to PS and lodged a report by stating that on 31-12-2021 at 0900 hours he along with LW.2/Krishnaiah, HG 951 left from PS and performing blue coat duty at Nawabpet. While they were performing their duty at about 1630 hours when they reached Hanman temple,

Nawabpet village near Masjid, meantime they found that some person picked up quarrel, on observing the same they went there and told them to leave the place, but A1 and A2 picked up quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language and caught hold uniform collar and also obstructed their legitimate duties, mean time A3 and A4 also came there and picked up quarrel with them and abused them in filthy language and also obstructed them from discharging their duties.

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20223 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

On receipt of report given by LW.1/Alle Mahesh, LW.8/SI of police, registered a case in Cr.No.180 of 2021 u/secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and issued

FIR and took up the case for further investigation.

During the course of investigation LW.8/SI of police, examined and recorded the statement of LW.1/Alle Mahesh and LW.2/M.Krishnaiah, visited the scene of offence which is located near Hanman temple, Nawabpet village and Mandal, there he secured two mediators i.e., LW.6/S.Raj Kumar and

LW.7/J.Balaiah and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. LW.8/SI of police examined and recorded the statements of

LW.2/M.Krishnaiah,LW.3/K.Keshavulu,LW.4/V.Muraliand

LW.5/S.Navaneetha. On 05-01-2022 LW.8/SI of police served notice u/Sec.41A

Cr.P.C to the accused A1 to A4.

3.On receipt of charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A4. On appearance of Accused persons, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under Sec.251 of

Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offences under Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC is read over and explained to them in

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20224 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

Vernacular for which, Accused A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to PW.8 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-7 on its behalf.

5. After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence available in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, for which Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, the evidence on behalf of

Accused is closed.

6.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the Accused persons.

7.Perused the record.

8.Now the point for my determination is ‘Whether the prosecution has

proved and established the guilt of accused A1 to A4 for the charges under

Secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt’ ?

9. P O I N T:

9(i) PW-1/Mahesh who is the defacto-complainant testified that on 31-12-2021 he along with LW2/M.Krishnaiah were on blue colt duty and while

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20225 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024 they were discharging their duties at Nawabpet Hanuman Temple opposite to the Masjid they found that some mob of people were quarreling with each other.

When they went up to them and asked them about the reason for quarreling and asked them to leave from there, one Chandu/A1 and Giri/A2 questioned them, as to who they are to stop them. Though they tried to pacify the matter and tried to sent them, then they have caught hold his uniform collar and meanwhile the mothers of A1 and A2 i.e, Yadamma/A3 and Lakshmamma/A4 started to abusing them so as to support their sons. Thereby they obstructed them from discharging their legitimate duties. Thereafter he went to the police station and lodged report/Ex.P1 before LW8/SI of police.

9(ii)PW-2 to PW.6 who were the eye-witnesses, and panch witness for scene of offence panchanamarespectively, turned hostile and did not support the case prosecution and on the request of learned APPO they were declared as hostile and even during the examination of PW-1 to PW-5 in the nature of cross by learned APPO nothing was elicited to help the prosecution case, except marking Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 their statements recorded by the police U/s. 161 of

Cr.P.C.

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20226 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024 9(iii)PW.7/M.Krishnaiah who is home guard, testified that on 31-12-2021 they received an information that some quarreling was occurring at

Hanuman temple. Then he along with PW1 went there and he saw the mob of people. PW1 went up to them at first and he informed him that some persons caught hold his uniform collar. Due to night he could not identify the persons who caught hold the collar of PW1. Thereafter they went to police station and

PW1 lodged report.

9(iv)PW.8/CH.Srikanth, Sub Inspector of police testified that on 31-12-2021 at 1700 hours he received Ex.P1 from PW1, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.180/2021 U/secs.353, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and issued

FIR vide Ex.P6. Thereafter he recorded the statement of PW1 and PW2 at PS.

Subsequently he visited the scene of offence and after securing the presence of

PW5 and PW6 he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch/Ex.P7 and he recorded the statements of PW2 to PW4. On 5-01-2022 he served notice U/sec.41A Cr.P.C to the accused and they appeared before him and admitted their guilty of committing the offence. Later on after completion of the entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20227 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be seen that PW.1 and PW.7 who are material witnesses and eye-witness to the alleged incident, testified that after seeing the mob of people they went near to the Hanman temple and PW.7 testified that due to night he could not identify the persons who caught hold the collar of PW.1. Further, the independent eye- witnesses to the case of prosecution were turned hostile. As such, since PW.1,

PW.7 and PW.8 who are official witnesses and interested witnesses to the out come of the case, their sole evidence cannot be relied upon to come to a conclusion that the accused herein were the persons who obstructed PW.1 and

PW.7 from discharging their official duties. Since there is no iota of evidence against accused in establishing the guilt of offence. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11. IN THE RESULT, accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as envisaged under Sec.437-A of

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20228 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

Cr.P.C. Since there is no case property was deposited, hence no order to the extent of property.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, on my official laptop after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April, 2024.

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT FOR ACCUSED

PW-1Mahesh.:: NONE ::

PW-2Keshavulu.

PW-3Vadla Murali.

PW-4Navaneetha.

PW-5S.Raj Kumar.

PW-6Balaiah.

PW-7M.Krishnaiah.

PW-8Ch.Srikanth, SI of police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR COMPLAINANT

Ex.P1Is the Report.

Ex.P2Is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3Is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

Ex.P4Is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR

C.C.No.25 of 20229 of 9 Dated : 26-04-2024

Ex.P5Is the signature of PW.5 on Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P6Is the First Information Report.

Ex.P7Is the Scene of offence panchanama.

FOR ACCUSED

:: NIL::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL::

SPL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MOBILE COURT, MAHABUBNAGAR.

SPL.JMFC, MOBILE COURT,

MAHABUBNAGAR