Smt. Chandishwari Devi Kalva

CC.No.5175/2022 1 of 20

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

Dated, this the 7th day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt. K.Chandishwari Devi, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal.

CC.No.5175 OF 2022

(old No.1233/ 2015)

Between :

The State of Telangana, through

the Inspector of Police, P.S. Mamnoor. ... Complainant.

AND

Manikyavelu Bhoopathi, S/o.Manikyavelu, age:30 yrs, R/o.H.No.5-18, Kudisaikkal of Kannirajapuram Kadaladi, TQ, Ramanathapuram dist. of Thamilnadu State, Long Lorry driver bearing No.TN28-AA-9626.

... Accused.

This case is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri R. Srinivas Reddy,Learned Counsel for Accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Inspector of Police, P.S. Mamnoor, has fled charge sheet in

Crime No.169/2015 for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that : LW1/K.

Prabhakar stated in his report, that his son namely Rajkumar used to work

CC.No.5175/2022 2 of 20

as a Private employee. On 13.11.2015, his son/Rajkumar, his brother’s son/

PW4 and PW3 went to Chetlamupparam village in a Car bearing No.AP23-

AM-4070, which belongs to PW3 to attend marriage and after attending the marriage, while they were returning to their house, at that time PW3 was driving the car, LW1’s son sat beside the driver’s seat and PW4 had sat behind the driver’s seat. On 14.11.2015 at about 01.30 hrs when the car passed from Mamnoor battalion and reached Reliance petrol bunk, meanwhile the driver of Lorry bearing No.TN28-AA-9626, with iron load had parked on the road in a negligent manner without any indicators and

PW3 in order to avoid unknown opposite vehicle had dashed the stationed lorry from behind, due to which LW1’s son had sustained injuries to his chin, right eye and died on the spot. PW3 had received injuries to his head, left leg and other parts of the body and PW4 had received injuries to mouth, head and others parts of the body. PW6 who was doing patrolling duty informed the same to LW1/K. Prabhakar over phone and shifted PW3 ad PW4 to MGM hospital, Warangal in 108 ambulance and also dead body of the deceased was shifted to Mortuary of M.G.M. hospital. On receipt of information LW1/K. Prabhakar and PW2 rushed to mortuary and found the dead body of the deceased. On 14.11.2015 at 9.00 hrs, LW1/K. Prabhakar went to P.S. Mamnoor and lodged a report against accused.

CC.No.5175/2022 3 of 20

3. Based on the report lodged by LW1/K. Prabbhakar, PW12 had registered a case as in Crime No.169/2015 for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code and issued F.I.R. to all concerned. During the course of investigation, PW12 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators by obtaining photographs over the dead body of the deceased with the help of photographer/PW8 and body was subjected for autopsy. Later visited the scene of ofence and conducted Scene Observation Panchanama and drafted Crime details form in the presence of panch witnesses. PW12 visited Max care hospital, examined and recorded the statements of PW3 and Pw4. On 18.11.2015, accused surrendered before PW12, then PW12 interrogated the accused and found the registration papers of crime vehicle and driving license of accused to be valid and updated. Thereafter, PW12 arrested accused and released on bail. PW7, who had treated PW3 and PW4 had issued medical certifcates, in which he opined that PW3 had received grievous and simple injuries, whereas PW4 had received grievous injuries. PW9 who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued Post mortem examination report of the deceased stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to "multiple injuries". PW11 who had inspected the crime vehicle and issued report stated that the "Accident

CC.No.5175/2022 4 of 20

occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle". After completion of entire investigation, PW12 fled the charge sheet before III-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal against accused for

the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal took the cognizance for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code against Accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished by the learned III-Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, to the accused as

contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code, for the ofences punishable under sections 304-

A, 338 of Indian Penal Code, and substance of accusation was explained to accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 15, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. LW1/K.

Prabhakar died. The learned A.P.P. had given up the evidence of

LW3/Paleti Mounika and LW11/Chevva Sheshagiri.

6.The Learned III-Additional JMFC, Warangal had examined PW1 to

PW6 and thereafter in view of the establishment of 32 judicial districts as

CC.No.5175/2022 5 of 20

per Gazette No.108, Dt.17-05-2022, and as per the directions of the

Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, vide ROC.No.346/E1/2021

vide reference 2nd cited, and the circular issued by the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide Dis.No.508 Dt.01-06-2022, the case has been transmitted from III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal at

Hanamkonda, on the point of jurisdiction to this Court.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf, hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10. POINT: In order to prove the present case that the accused had committed an ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian

Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned

CC.No.5175/2022 6 of 20

under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code , beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.PW1 who is the mother of deceased deposed that on 13.11.2015, her son/Rajkumar went to attend the marriage at Chetlamupparam village and while returning to Hanamkonda in a car which was driven by PW3 and her son was sitting beside the driver seat and PW4, who is the son of her brother-in-law sat on the backside of the driver seat. When they reached at Mamnoor camp, at about 1.30 am, midnight, at that time their car had hit one stationed lorry which was parked without any indicator and her son died on the spot. PW1 further deposed that her son had received injuries to chin, forehead and allover the body and also the inmates of the car had received injuries. PW1 testifed that by standers near the scene of ofence had informed her husband/LW1 over phone. On receipt of information they went to the scene of ofence and on the same day, LW1/K. Prabhakar had lodged report. PW1 deposed that she does not know to whom the crime vehicle belongs to and also the vehicle bearing No.

12.PW2, who is the brother-in-law of deceased deposed in similar lines of

PW1 and further deposed that on the day of alleged incident, when the car reached near Mamnoor Reliance Petrol bunk, at about 01.30 a.m.

midnight, at that time PW3 in order to give way to opposite vehicle had

CC.No.5175/2022 7 of 20

dashed one stationed lorry without indicator. Rajkumar died on the spot.

PW3 and PW4 had received injuries and the same was informed to him over phone by LW1/K. Prabhakar. On receipt of information they went to

M.G.M. hospital. During cross-examination, when a suggestion was put that as the deceased is his brother-in-law he is deposing false, but he had died the said suggestion.

13.PW3, who is the injured and was driving car on the day of alleged incident, deposed that on 13.11.2014 in the morning hours he along with

PW4 and deceased went to attend the marriage at Chetlamupparam village in his car bearing No.AP23-AM-4070 and after completion of marriage, while they were returning back, at about 12.00 a.m. in the midnight when they reached near Mamnoor battalion, Reliance petrol bunk at about 1.30 a.m., one heavy vehicle was coming in opposite direction and to give way to that vehicle, he had hit one stationed lorry with iron load without any light and indicators. Immediately patrolling

Police came and rescued them. PW3 received left leg fracture and head injuries and the deceased/Rajkumar received injuries to his right eye, chin and engine was pressed to his body and he died on the spot. PW4 who sat backside of the car received injuries to his head and later they were shifted to M.G.M. hospital in 108 ambulance and from there PW3 was shifted to

CC.No.5175/2022 8 of 20

Max Care hospital for better treatment. PW3 identifed the accused person present in the court hall.

14.During his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that there is no possibility to go their vehicle as the accused had stationed the lorry on the road and he was driving his car at a speed of 50 k.m.s per hour. PW3 further deposed that his car is having head lights and in general the head lights will focus for an area of 100 mts. PW3 deposed that he has no idea if a car is going at a speed of 50 k.m.s per hour, it is possible to stop at a distance of 20 mts, if they apply sudden breaks. When a suggestion was put that he along with the deceased and PW4 consumed alcohol in the marriage function and hit to crime vehicle and only to claim compensation to the deceased family, they foisted false case against accused, but he had denied the said suggestion. When a suggestion was put that on the alleged day of incident, his car was going in a high speed and he could not control the speed and hit to the stationed lorry, but he had denied the said suggestion. When a suggestion was put that the crime vehicle is having national permit and having lights and indicators and accused stationed the lorry on the road side, but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that accused is not driver of the crime vehicle.

CC.No.5175/2022 9 of 20

15.PW4, who is injured and who was travelling along with PW3 on the day of alleged incident deposed in the similar lines of PW3 and further testifed that when they reached near Mamnoor Reliance petrol pump at about 1.30 a.m., PW3 dashed to one stationed lorry, which is kept on the left side of the road, at the that time one vehicle came in opposite direction to give side to that lorry, PW3 dashed to the stationed lorry, which is without any indicators. PW4 had identifed accused person in the open court hall.

16.During his cross-examination by Learned A.P.P., PW4 deposed that he stated to Police in his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the driver of the crime vehicle stationed the lorry on the road without any indicators negligently. During his cross-examination by Learned defence counsel,

PW4 deposed that he sat on the back seat of the car and after the car had hit to the lorry, he came to know that their car met with an accident.

When a suggestion was put that they consumed alcohol at marriage and

PW3 drove the car in negligent manner and hit to the lorry, but he had denied the said suggestion. When a suggestion was put that PW3 drove the car in high speed, rash and negligent manner in drunken condition and hit to stationed lorry, but he had denied the said suggestion.

CC.No.5175/2022 10 of 20

17.PW5, who is an eye witness to the alleged incident deposed that he was working as Sales man in Reliance petrol pump. On 14.11.2015 at about 1.00 or 1.30 a.m., he came out from the petrol bunk to go for natural call at that time one lorry with iron load was stationed negligently on the road and he noticed that one car was coming from Khammam to Warangal side to give way to the vehicle which was coming in opposite direction, had hit the stationed lorry. PW5 further deposed that he went inside the petrol bunk to keep the cash inside, meanwhile Mamnoor Police came to the scene of ofence and took out the two injured persons from the car and third person was succumbed to injuries. PW5 further deposed that

Police Mamnoor asked him how the incident took place, on that he informed them about the incident. Later the injured persons were shifted to M.G.M. hospital in 108 ambulance. PW5 further deposed that while the police are enquiring the crime vehicle driver, he was present there and had seen the driver, and he had identifed the accused in the open court hall.

18.During his cross-examination, PW5 deposed that there are toilets in petrol pump and he volunteered that toilets in the petrol pump are not clean and as such he came outside for natural call. PW5 further deposed that their petrol pump is situated on the right side of Warangal to

Khammam route. In front of their petrol pump, the road is clean. He further deposed that the lorry drivers keep their lorries near the petrol

CC.No.5175/2022 11 of 20

pump to fresh up and clean the lorries. PW5 admitted that the scene of ofence is a four way road and there are three petrol bunks near their petrol bunk. PW5 deposed that Battalion police will ask the lorry drivers to keep their lorries aside and also admitted that petrol pump people also ask the lorry drivers to keep their lorries aside. When a suggestion was put that he was not present at the time of incident and he did not witness the same, but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that car driver drove the car in high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit the stationed lorry. When a suggestion was put that driver lost control as the opposite vehicle came in high speed and hit to stationed lorry, but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that accused is no way concerned with the lorry.

19.PW6, who is another eye witness to the alleged incident and had informed the same to LW1/K. Prabhakar deposed that on the day of alleged incident i.e., on 13.11.2015, at about 11.00 p.m., he along with his staf were doing patrolling duty on the high way and when he reached near Reliance petrol pump at about 1.30 a.m., one lorry bearing No.TN28-

AA 9626 was stopped on the left side of the road without any precautions and headlights and by the time one car dashed to the said lorry and they went to scene of ofence, already driver who is sitting in the car received severe injuries and the person who is sitting on the backside of the car also

CC.No.5175/2022 12 of 20

received severe injuries and person who is sitting infront side of the car beside the driver succumbed to injuries and deceased was shifted to

M.G.M. hospital mortuary room in an auto and informed to his relatives through cell phone. PW6 also identifed accused person in the court hall.

During his cross-examination by Learned A.P.P., PW6 deposed that he stated before the Police in his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the accused parked his lorry without any indicators on the road. During his cross-examination by learned defence counsel, when a suggestion was put that lorry was kept extreme left side of the road, but he had denied the said suggestion and so denied that he is deposing false.

20.PW7, who had treated PW4 and PW3 and issued medical certifcate deposed that on 30.11.2015, he received requisition from PS Mamnoor and accordingly he examined PW4 and PW3 and found injuries mentioned in Exs.P1 and P2/medical reports of PW4 and PW3 respectively. During his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that presently he has no record to show that PW3 and PW4 are treated at Max Care hospital.

21.PW8, who is photographer deposed that about 10 years ago, Police

Mamnoor called him to take photographs at M.G.M. hospital Mortuary room, so he went to M.G.M. Mortuary and took photographs of the dead body of deceased. Through him, Ex.P3/photographs (3) along with CD was

CC.No.5175/2022 13 of 20

marked. During the cross examination of PW8, PW8 admitted that he did not fle any proof to show that he is Photographer. When a suggestion was put that he is stock witness to the Police and also he did not take the photographs, but he had denied the said suggestions.

22.PW9, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased deposed that on 14.11.2015, he received requisition from P.S. Mamnoor in

Cr.No.169 of 2015, accordingly he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined that cause of death is due to multiple injuries. Through him, Ex.P4 was marked.

23.PW10, who is panch witness for Inquest panchanama deposed that about 10 years back in between 10.00 and 10.30 a.m. Police conducted

Inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW11/Ch. Sheshagiri and obtained their signatures on it.

Through him Inquest panchanama was marked as Ex.P5. During his cross- examination, PW10 admitted that deceased is his relative and is his villager. When a suggestion was put that he had put his signature on Ex.P5 at the instance of Police, but he had denied the said suggestion.

24.PW11, who had inspected the crime vehicle and who had issued report under Ex.P6, deposed that on 19.11.2015, he received requisition from S.I. of Police, Mamnoor in Cr.No.169/2015 and accordingly on

CC.No.5175/2022 14 of 20

20.11.2015 at about 15.00 hrs, he inspected the crime vehicle i.e., Ashok

Leyland Goods carrier bearing no.TN28-AA-9626 at PS Mamnoor and verifed ftness certifcate and found damages i.e., rear side right light damaged and also conducted road test and found no break failure and opined that accident occurred not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. During the cross examination of PW11, PW11 admitted that he got requisition with regard to stationed vehicle. PW11 admitted that after verifcation of radium stickers to the vehicle they will issue MVI report.

When a suggestion was put that based on the requisition fled by Police without physical verifcation, he issued Ex.P6, but he had denied the said suggestion.

25. PW12, who is an Investigating Ofcer and who had fled charge sheet before this Court deposed about the investigation done by him in his chief examination. During the cross examination of PW12, PW12 admitted that scene of ofence is on the highway and there is mud beside the road and there is margin line at the edge of the road. When a suggestion was put that two wheelers can be parked on the margin line, but he had denied the said suggestion. PW12 admitted that in C.D.F. it is shown that ofending vehicle is stationed at the margin line. PW12 admitted that on the day of alleged incident, deceased in order to avoid hitting another vehicle coming in opposite direction had hit the stationed lorry. When a

CC.No.5175/2022 15 of 20

suggestion was put that the deceased drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the stationed lorry, but he he had denied the said suggestion. PW12 further deposed that he does not know whether at the time of crossing the State, R.T.O. would physically verify the vehicle about the radium stickers afxed on the backside of vehicles.

26. Before going to discuss the point framed herein, it is relevant to extract Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Section 304-A causing death by negligence - who ever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fne, or with both.

27. Identifcation of the accused: In the instant case PW3 and PW4 who are injured in the present case and PW5 and PW6 who are direct eye witnesses to the alleged incident had identifed accused person in the court hall.

28. Rash and Negligent Act: In order to punish the accused under section 304-A I.P.C. what is required to be proved by the prosecution is that at relevant point of time due to negligent act of accused person the alleged incident took place and in the instant case, PW3 and Pw4 who are injured and PW5 and PW6 who are direct eye witnesses to the alleged

CC.No.5175/2022 16 of 20

incident spoke in one voice and had corroborated the evidence, so it is crystal clear that on the day of alleged incident, accused had stationed the lorry bearing No.TN28-AA-9626, without applying the indicators, which categorically proves that he was negligent and due to his negligent act the alleged incident took place, due to which one person by name/K. Rajkumar died on the spot and PW3 and PW4, who are injured and were travelling in the car had received injuries and same was corroborated by PW7, who is

Doctor and had treated PW3 and PW4 and issued medical certifcates of

PW3 and PW4 under Exs.P2 and P1. During the course of arguments,

Learned defence counsel brought to the notice of this court that he had questioned Investigating Ofcer/PW12 with regard to radium stickers and

PW12 deposed that he does not know whether at the time of crossing the

State, R.T.O. would physically verify the vehicle about radium stickers afxed on the backside of the vehicles, but this court is of the opinion though the radium stickers are afxed on the back side of the ofending vehicles, as per road safety measures it is the bounden duty of a person who ever parks the vehicle at the National/State highway, he must apply indicators in order to avoid hazardous incidents or accidents. Though radium stickers are kept to ofending vehicle, it would not exempt the accused from applying the indicators at the time of parking the stationed lorry and so also PW3 who was driving the car on the day of alleged

CC.No.5175/2022 17 of 20

incident had categorically deposed in his cross-examination that he was driving the car at a speed of 50 kms per hour, hence, it can be safely assumed that PW3 was not driving his car in a rash or negligent manner with high speed on urban roads and as per the road Safety and Trafc rules, generally speed of the four wheeler on express way is 120 kms per hour, 110 km on national high ways and 70 km per hour on urban roads and now the alleged incident took place at State high way and as per PW3, he was driving his car at 50 kms per hour which is permissible, so, due to the negligent act of accused person alleged incident took place.

29.If someone parks a vehicle without using indicators and due to which accident takes place even if there is a radium sticker, the person can still be held negligent under section 304-A I.P.C.Radium sticker just reflect light when headlights shine on them. They don’t blink or give any active warning. Moreover the alleged incident took place during the night hours, so, it is the bounden duty of the driver while parking the lorry to apply the indicators, but in the instant case accused failed to apply indicators to ofending vehicle. Hence, it clearly shows his negligent act on his part. Accordingly the point is answered.

30. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found guilty for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly,

CC.No.5175/2022 18 of 20

accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Property/Lorry bearing No.TN28-AA-9626, which is given in interim custody as per orders passed in Crl.Mp.No.1987/2015, to owner of property shall be made absolute subject to appeal.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of April, 2025).

sd/-

Prl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

31.When the Accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him, he stated that he is having two small children and his father passed away in the year 2005 and his mother is sufering from illness and admitted in hospital, as he is sole earning person in his family, he sought to impose only fne.

32.Upon hearing the plea submitted by the Accused, this court is inclined to take lenient view with regard to the sentence that can be imposed against him for the ofence punishable under section 304-A I.P.C., as the ofence took place in the year 2015 and not inclined to apply

Probation of Ofenders Act.

33.The Accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence punishable under Section 304-A of

CC.No.5175/2022 19 of 20

I.P.C. and he is further sentenced to pay fne of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the ofence punishable under section 338 I.P.C. in case of default of payment of fne he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

34.Accused is informed about his right to appeal against the sentence imposed in this case. Ofce is directed to furnish copy of Judgment to accused at free of cost forthwith.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of April, 2025).

sd/-

Prl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: Katikireddy Prabhakar, - None - PW-2: Chavva Venugopal, PW-3: Manda Srinivas. PW-4: Katikireddy Amarnadh Yadav, PW-5: Gurram Srikanth, PW-6: N. Yakaiah. PW-7: Dr.T. Sanjay PW-8: Jannu Bixapathi, PW-9: Dr.Vasantha Kumar, PW-10:Thota Sampath, PW-11: Faheema Sulthana, PW-12: B. Hathiram.

CC.No.5175/2022 20 of 20

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Medical certifcate of PW4. Ex.P-2: Medical certifcate of PW3. Ex.P-3: Photographs (3) along with CD. Ex.P-4: PME report of deceased/K. Rajkumar. Ex.P-5: Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P-6: M.V.I. report. Ex.P-7: First Information Report. Ex.P-8: Report by LW.1

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

sd/-

Prl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

// TRUE COPY//

CC.No.4135/2022 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

Dated, this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt. K.Chandishwari Devi, Prl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal.

CC.No.4135 OF 2022

(old No.2597/ 2017)

Between :

The State of Telangana, through

the Inspector of Police, P.S. Geesugonda. ... Complainant.

AND

Banothu Ravi, S/o.Setiya, age:26 yrs, Occ:Tripper driver, R/o.Chinnakattugudem thanda of Karepally mandal, Khammam dist.

... Accused.

This case is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri.Poornachander,Learned Counsel for Accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Geesugonda, has fled charge sheet in Crime No.93/2017 for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that : On 10.05.2017 at morning 06.00 hours, deceased/Raju who is the husband of PW1 along

CC.No.4135/2022 2 of 15

with PW1 and his daughter/PW2 started from his Co-brothers house at

Machapur Village of Geesugonda Mandal on Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP36-H-9044 at around 06.20 hrs, when they reached at

SRSP canal, meanwhile driver of Tipper bearing No.AP20-TB-8659 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction and dashed to the motor cycle of her husband/deceased on left side, due to which PW1 and PW2 fell beside the road and PW1's husband fell on the edge of the road, the Tipper tyres ran over the deceased and he died on the spot. PW2 sustained injuries under two knees and thigh, in the meanwhile one Lorry bearing No.AP16-TU-4411 which was proceeding behind the Tipper had hit to tipper and lorry driver caused injuries and he was under treatment at M.G.M. hospital, Warangal. On hearing hues, the road passers shifted PW2 to M.G.M. hospital, Warangal in 108 ambulance and admitted for treatment. On the same day at 10.30 hrs, PW1 went to

P.S. Geesugonda and lodged a report against accused.

3. Based on the report lodged by PW1, PW9 had registered a case as in

Crime No.93/2017 for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code and issued F.I.R. to all concerned. During the course of investigation, PW9 had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of ofence and conducted Scene

Observation Panchanama and drafted Crime details form in the presence

CC.No.4135/2022 3 of 15

of panch witnesses. Further, PW9 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators by obtaining photographs over the dead body of the deceased with the help of photographer/PW4 and body was subjected for autopsy. On 15.05.2017, LW7/P. Sridhar Rao, who is the owner of crime vehicle, produced the accused before PW9, PW9 had interrogated the accused and he had voluntarily confessed to have committed this ofence, PW9 had verifed D.L. of accused and vehicle documents and found to be correct, then PW9 served notice to accused under section 41(a) Cr.P.C. LW13/Dr.Madhusudhan, who had treated PW1 and issued medical certifcate opined that basing on the X-ray report of

PW6, PW1 had received simple injuries. PW10, who had treated PW2 and issued medical certifcate opined basing on the X-ray report of PW6, PW2 had received grievous injuries. PW8 who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and issued Post mortem examination report of the deceased stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to "Hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries of vital organs (Heart, lungs, liver and spleen)". PW7 who had inspected the crime vehicle and issued report stated that the "Accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle". After completion of entire investigation, PW9 fled the charge sheet before III-Additional Judicial

CC.No.4135/2022 4 of 15

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal against accused for the ofences

punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code.

4. The learned III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal took the cognizance for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code against Accused.

5.In view of the establishment of 32 judicial districts as per Gazette

No.108, Dt.17-05-2022, and as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, vide ROC.No.346/E1/2021 vide reference 2nd cited, and the circular issued by the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Warangal, vide Dis.No.508 Dt.01-06-2022, the case has been

transmitted from III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal at

Hanamkonda, on the point of jurisdiction to this Court.

6.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code, and substance of accusation was explained to accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 17, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. The

CC.No.4135/2022 5 of 15

learned A.P.P. had given up the evidence of LW3/S. Shobha, LW5/T. Krishna

Murthy, LW7/P. Sridhar Rao, LW9/S. Laxman, LW10/Md. Ali Pasha,

LW11/Md. Jamal and LW13/Dr. Madhusudan.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf, hence, defence evidence was closed.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the ofences punishalle under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code leyond all reasonalle doult”?

11. POINT: In order to prove the present case that the accused had committed an ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of

Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code , beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.PW1 who is the defacto-complainant, injured and wife of deceased deposed that on 05.10.2015, she along with her deceased husband and

CC.No.4135/2022 6 of 15

their daughter/PW2 while going to their village from Machapur on their two wheeler, when they reached near SRSP canal, one Tipper lorry came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and hit their two wheeler, due to which her husband sustained injury on stomach as the lorry tyre went on the stomach, and her husband sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. PW2 received leg injuries, her right leg was broken and she received fracture injury to her left leg, as such operation was done to the right leg of PW2 and rod was inserted. PW1 received injures on left hip. Later they were shifted to M.G.M. hospital, Warangal. On enquiry they came to know that accused namely Banothu Ravi caused the accident.

Later they went to P.S. and lodged report, which is marked as Ex.P1.

13. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, PW1 deposed that she does not know whether triple riding is an ofence. It takes fve to ten minutes from Machapur to scene of ofence. When a suggestion was put that the width of the road at the scene of ofence is narrow, but she had denied the said suggestion and also denied that as on the date of alleged incident as they were three persons on the vehicle so the deceased had hit the tipper and due to his negligence incident took place.

14. PW2, who is the daughter of deceased deposed in similar lines of

PW1. During her cross-examination, PW2 deposed that her father had

CC.No.4135/2022 7 of 15

driving license and her father/deceased had seen the Tipper lorry on the day of alleged incident. When a suggestion was put that as on the day of alleged incident in early morning due to focus of tipper lorry and as the focus had fallen on the deceased, so, her deceased father could not drive the two wheeler in proper manner and hit the tipper, but she had denied the said suggestion. When a suggestion was put that the alleged incident took place as her father/deceased himself skid down on the road and sustained injuries, but she had denied the said suggestion and also denied that as on the day of alleged incident, they were trio, so her father could not balance two wheeler and fell down. PW2 further deposed that she had identifed the accused person as he had fed away from the scene of ofence in front of them.

15. PW3, who is an eye witness to the alleged incident and had shifted

PW1 and PW2 to hospital, deposed that on 10.05.2017 at about 06.20 a.m., he was proceeding towards Warangal, when he reached to SRSP canal, he saw two wheeler motor cycle in front of his vehicle and in opposite direction a Tipper was coming in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the deceased vehicle due to which deceased, his wife and daughter fell on the road, the Tipper ran over the deceased, as such the deceased died on the spot and his daughter received fracture injury to her both legs and his wife received fracture injury to her leg. PW3 also observed that one lorry

CC.No.4135/2022 8 of 15

came and dashed to the same Tipper due to which the driver of Tipper also received injuries, immediately he called 108 ambulance and shifted them to hospital. PW3 identifed the accused in the court hall and deposed that accused wore white shirt on the day of alleged incident.

16. During his cross-examination, PW3 deposed that deceased is his brother's co-brother. LW5/T. Krishna Murthy was pillion rider and said vehicle which he was driving belongs to LW5. PW3 further deposed that on the day of alleged incident, he started from Geesugonda at 06.00 a.m.

and he picked up LW5/T. Krishna murthy at bus stand. Within 15 minutes they reached SRSP canal from Geesugonda. When a suggestion was put that on the day of alleged incident the crime vehicle was coming in opposite direction but he had denied the said suggestion. PW3 deposed that the lorry was behind the ofending vehicle. PW3 admitted that by the time they reached scene of ofence lorry came from behind and dashed the crime vehicle. LW5/T. Krishna Murthy dialed 108 ambulance. When a suggestion was put that ofending vehicle had fell into canal, but he had denied the said suggestion. PW3 deposed that within 10 minutes police arrived to the scene of ofence. PW3 further deposed that driver of lorry was present in the lorry. When a suggestion was put that he was not present at the scene of ofence but he had denied the said suggestion.

CC.No.4135/2022 9 of 15

17.PW4, who is photographer deposed that about 7 years back, Police

Geesugonda called him to take photographs at M.G.M. hospital Mortuary room, so he went to M.G.M. Mortuary and took photographs of the male dead body of deceased. Through him, Ex.P2/photographs (7) along with

CD was marked. During the cross examination of PW4, PW4 deposed that in many cases he had deposed and he did not fle any receipts. When a suggestion was put that he is stock witness to the Police and also he did not take the photographs, but he had denied the said suggestion.

18. PW5, who is panch witness for Inquest panchanama deposed that on 10.05.2017, at about 11.30 a.m. to 01.30 p.m., Police conducted Inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW9/S. Laxman and obtained their signatures on it. PW5 deposed that he saw tyre marks on the dead body of deceased and there is injury on right hand, on his nose. Through him Inquest panchanama was marked as Ex.P3. During his cross-examination, when a suggestion was put that he had put his signature on Ex.P3 at the instance of Police, but he had denied the said suggestion.

19. PW6, had issued X-Ray reports of PW1 and PW2. During cross- examination of PW6, when a suggestion was put that there are chances of receiving fracture injuries if a person falls on the hard surface, but she had

CC.No.4135/2022 10 of 15

denied the said suggestion and also denied that she had issued Exs.P4 and

P5 at the instance of Police.

20.PW7, who had inspected the crime vehicle and who had issued report under Ex.P6, deposed that on 16.05.2017, at 11.50 a.m., she received requisition from SHO, P.S., Geesugonda in Cr.No.93/2017, and accordingly on 17.05.2017 at about 05.00 p.m., she inspected the crime vehicle bearing no.AP20-TB-8659 Goods carrier at P.S. Geesugonda and found no damages and opined that accident occurred not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. During the cross examination of PW7, PW7 admitted that she did not inspect the crime vehicle at the scene of ofence.

21. PW8, who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased deposed that on 10.05.2017, at 03.15 p.m., he received requisition from

P.S. Geesugonda in Cr.No.93 of 2017, accordingly he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased/T. Raju and opined that cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries to vital organs and issued P.M.E.. Through him, Ex.P7 was marked.

22. PW9, who is an Investigating Ofcer and who had fled charge sheet

before this Court deposed about the investigation done by him in his chief

examination. During the cross examination of PW9, PW9 admitted that he was not present at the time of shifting the deceased and injured persons

CC.No.4135/2022 11 of 15

to the hospital. When formal suggestions were put, he had denied the suggestions.

23. PW10, who had treated PW2 and issued medical certifcate deposed that on 10.05.2017, he examined PW2 and found injuries mentioned in

Ex.P11/medical report of PW2.

24. Before going to discuss the point framed herein, it is relevant to extract Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Section 304-A causing death by negligence - who ever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fne, or with both.

25. Identifcation of the accused: PW3 who is an eye witness to the alleged incident had identifed the accused person in the court hall.

26. Rash and Negligent Act: In the instant case, on the day of alleged incident deceased along with PW1 and PW2 was triple riding the two wheeler and moreover in the instant case on perusal of evidence of PW3 it is noticed that one lorry came and dashed the tipper/ofending vehicle due to which the driver of tipper also received injuries. This court of the opinion that in order to come to proper conclusion atleast the prosecution would have examined the driver of lorry and moreover the evidence of

CC.No.4135/2022 12 of 15

PW3 is not corroborated to come to conclusion that due to rash and negligent act of accused alleged incident took place. PW2 who is the daughter of deceased deposed in her cross-examination that her father/deceased had seen the tipper lorry on the day of alleged incident and PW3 who is an eye witness to alleged incident in his cross-examination had admitted that by the time they reached the scene of ofence lorry came from behind and dashed the crime vehicle, hence, this court can safely come to the conclusion that deceased had seen the ofending vehicle on the day of alleged incident and might be due to triple riding of bike he could not control the bike and might have hit the ofending vehicle. This court is of the opinion that Ex.P9/C.D.F. plays a very vital role in road accident cases and on perusal of rough sketch/Ex.P9 the

Investigating ofcer failed to draw the ofending vehicle, the deceased vehicle and the lorry to arrive at a correct conclusion and moreover the investigating ofcer failed to take the photographs of scene of ofence and also no skid marks are shown in Ex.P9.

27. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufcient to link the accused to the commission of the crime. The prosecution is unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the direct and proximate cause of death of the victim was rash and negligent driving of the accused.

CC.No.4135/2022 13 of 15

In Abdul Subhan v/s State ( NCT of Delhi) 2007 Cri. L.J. 1089 Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that in site plans, exact point of impact as well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicle come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The observation with regard to the length of tyre skid marks of the vehicle involved in the impact go a long way in indicating the speed at which the vehicles were travelling. Photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily discerned by Courts.

28. In the instant case, I.O. has not noted down any skid marks for guessing estimated speed of ofending vehicle being driven by accused coupled with the fact that no photographs of the spot have been taken by investigating ofcer. The prosecution miserably failed to prove whether accused drove the ofending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at relevant point of time or not, due to his act PW1 and PW2 had received injuries and deceased succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, the point is answered.

29. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the ofences punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

CC.No.4135/2022 14 of 15

Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: Thumula Srilatha, - None - PW-2: Thumula Varsha, PW-3: Yadagiri Ashok, PW-4: Jannu Bixapathi, PW-5: Solenka Ravi, PW-6: Dr.T.Sree Devi, PW-7: R. Swarna Latha, PW-8: Dr. Raza Malik, PW-9: V. Naveen Kumar, PW-10: Dr. Anjaneyulu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: report by PW1, Ex.P-2: Photographs (7) along with CD. Ex.P-3: Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P-4: X-Ray report of T.Srilatha Ex.P-5: X-Ray report of T.Varsha Ex.P-6: M.V.I. report. Ex.P-7: PME report of deceased/T. Raju. Ex.P-8: First Information Report. Ex.P-9: Crime Details Form. Ex.P10: Medical certifcate of PW1.

CC.No.4135/2022 15 of 15

Ex.P11: Medical certifcate of PW2.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal. //True Copy//

1 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

Dated, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Present: Smt. K.Chandishwari Devi, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal.

C.C.No.4064 of 2022

(Old No.2224/2018) Between :

The State of Telangana, through

the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Geesugonda. ... Complainant.

AND

A1 - Mogasani Narsaiah, S/o.Agaiah, age:50 yrs, Occ:Coolie, A2 - Mogasani Shivaji, S/o.Bhaskar, age:20 yrs, Occ:Student, A3 - Mogasani Nagaraju, S/o.Sambaiah, age:31 yrs, Occ:Coolie, A4 - Mogasani Ramesh - (abated) A5 - Mogasani Bhaskar, S/o.Agaiah, age:54 yrs, Occ:Coolie, All are R/o.Ookal (H) village of Geesugonda mandal.

..... Accused.

This case is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.Sarangapani, Counsel

for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Geesugonda had fled charge sheet in Crime No.67/2018 for the ofences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused persons.

2.The brief averments of the Charge sheet are that: In the year 1991, PW1's father namely Mogasani Sambaiah had purchased 3/1/2 guntas 2 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 of land from Mogasani Agaiah situated at Ookal Village before the elders and subsequently PW1's father had constructed a house, water house, bathroom in said land and since 28 yrs they are residing in said land. PW1's family has grown up Mango, Guava, Lemon, Custard apple, Neem,

Eucalyptus trees. There are some disputes in between PW1 and accused nos.1 to 5. While the things stood so, on 22.04.2018 morning at about 07.30 hrs, accused nos.1 to 5 had criminally trespassed into the house premises of PW1 and started cutting trees, then LW2 to LW4 (Mogasani

Susheela, Malyala Dhanalaxmi and Mogasani Pavani) had interfered to stop them, but accused persons had abused them in flthy language by saying that they will kill them as they are not supporting with regard to village servant (Maskuri) issue and they would kill them at any cost and pushed away the PW1 by creating panic situation. Later again on 29.04.2018 morning at about 11.00 hrs while PW1 was digging pits for construction of compound wall, accused nos.1 to 5 had criminally trespassed into the land of PW1, closed the pits, so PW1 questioned them but accused persons had pushed PW1 due to which he fell down. Accused nos.1 to 5 had threatened PW1, LW2 to LW4 (Mogasani Susheela, Malyala

Dhanalaxmi and Mogasani Pavani) with dire consequences to kill them and also threatened workers i.e., PW2, PW3 and LW7/Ch. Vikas, who were engaged by PW1 for constructing the compound wall by saying that the land belongs to them and PW1 thought of conducting panchayat before 3 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 the elders to settle the issue amicably, but the persons denied to attend the panchayat, hence, PW1 went to P.S. Geesugonda on 06.05.2018 at 13.00 hrs, and lodged report against accused persons.

3.Based on the report lodged by PW1, PW5 registered a case in Crime

No.67/2018, under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, against accused and issued F.I.R. to all the concerned. During the course of investigation, PW5 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of ofence, conducted scene observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses. On 30.07.2018, PW5 served notice to accused persons u/s.41(A)(3) Cr.P.C. , with a direction to appear before the Court on receipt of summons. On the requisition of PW5, PW4 had issued report stating that the H.No.2-73 is on the name of PW1 as per records of Grampanchayat Ookal (v),

Geesugonda (m) and he is paying taxes. After completion of entire investigation PW5 fled charge sheet against accused nos. 1 to 5 before III-

Addl. J.M.F.C Court, Warangal.

4.Learned III-Addl. J.M.F.C Court, Warangal, took the cognizance for the ofences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code against accused persons.

5.Thereafter, in view of the establishment of 32 judicial districts as per

Gazette No.108, Dt.17-05-2022, and as per the directions of the Hon’ble 4 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022

High Court for the State of Telangana, vide ROC.No.346/E1/2021 vide reference 2nd cited, and the circular issued by the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, Warangal, vide Dis.No.508 Dt.01-06-2022, the case has

been transmitted from III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal at

Hanamkonda, on the point of jurisdiction to this Court.

6. After appearance of the accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C. Accused persons were examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, for the ofences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and charges were framed U/s 240 Cr.P.C. for the ofences punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and said charges were explained to accused persons in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 11, PW1 to PW6 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Learned A.P.P.

given up the evidence of LW2/M. Susheela, LW3/M. Dhanalaxmi, LW4/M.

Pavani, LW7/Ch. Vikas and LW9/B. Kumar. On 13.9.2024, Prosecution fled death certifcate of Accused no.4, hence, case against accused no.4 is abated.

8.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 were examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for 5 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, hence, defense evidence was closed.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused persons for

offences punishalle under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code leyond all reasonalle doult?

11.POINT: The case of the prosecution is that accused persons had committed ofences punishable under sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, so the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. PW1 who is the defacto-complainant and victim deposed that in the year 1991, his father purchased house plot from Agaiah to an extent of

Ac.0.03 1/2 guntas and had constructed a house and they are staying in that house. On 22.04.2018 at about 07.15 a.m. to 07.30 a.m., accused persons had trespassed into the house premises alleging that the land belongs to them and while cutting the trees which were grown in their compound wall, LW2 and LW3 had stopped them, then accused nos.1 to 5 had abused them in flthy language that they would kill him as if they lashed the trees, and as PW1 is not supporting with regard to the village 6 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 servant (Mashuri) issue. on 29.04.2018 at about 10.00 a.m., when PW1 was digging the pits for construction of compound wall at that time, accused nos.2, 3 and 5 came and closed the pits and pushed PW1, due to which

PW1 fell down, at that them PW3, PW2 and LW7/Ch. Vikas had rescued him and later he placed the matter before the elders, and elders adviced PW1 to lodge report against accused persons, accordingly, he lodged a report.

Through PW1 Ex.P1/report was marked.

13.During his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the distance between P.S. Geesugonda to M.E.O. ofce is 4 kms and also Ookal Village.

On 02.05.1999, PW1's sister's marriage was performed and her in-laws place is Kazipet. PW1 further deposed that he had fled the registered document pertaining to his land. When a suggestion was put that his father did not purchase the property, so he did not not fle the same

before this court, but he had denied the said suggestion. PW1 admitted

that he did not mention in Ex.P1 and also in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement about the survey number and the witness volunteers that at that time he had no idea about survey number. When a suggestion was put that no house is in existence, but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that his father's vendor did not obtain any permission for construction of house. PW1 admitted that disputes are there in between grandfather of accused no.1 with regard to land sold to their father. When 7 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 a suggestion was put that accused persons did not abuse LW2 and LW3 but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that there no disputes in between him and accused persons with regard to village servant post. When a suggestion was put that accused persons did not trespass into his house, but he had denied the said suggestion and so also denied that elders passed a resolution that the land belongs to accused persons.

14.Now coming to the evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to alleged incident deposed that in the month of April, 2018, PW1 called him and LW7/Ch. Vikas to dug trenches in order to erect the pillars and while they were doing the said work, at that time accused persons came there and took the paara from the hands of PW1 and also abused them in flthy language and pushed PW1, so PW1 fell down. PW2 further deposed that accused nos.1 to 3 were present in the court hall. During his cross- examination, PW2 deposed that usually he goes to work at around 09.00 or 09.30 a.m. and return back at 05.00 p.m. or 05.30 p.m. When a suggestion was put that he did not state in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that accused took the paara from the hands of PW1 and so also that accused persons abused them and threatened them, but he had denied the said suggestion. PW2 further deposed that PW1 called them to construct a house.

8 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022

15.PW3 who is another eye witness to alleged incident deposed that in the year 2018, at about 11.00 a.m., he went to the house of PW1 to construct compound wall, at that time accused no.3 and 5 had obstructed him in doing the work at the place of PW2 at Ookal Village. During his cross-examination, when a suggestion was put that accused no.3 and 5 did not restrain PW1 while constructing the compound wall, but he had denied the said suggestion.

16.PW4, who is Secretary, Grampanchayat, Ookal (V), and who enqired and issued report by stating that H.No.2-73 is in the name of PW1, as per records of Grampanchayath, Ookal Village had deposed that on 08.06.2018, on receipt of requisition from S.I. of Police Geesugonda, she issued a report on 10.07.2018 by stating that the H.No.2-73 is in existence and which is in the name of Mogasani Sambaiah and also stated that about 18 yeas back prior to issuing report the said Sambaiah was died as per records. Later PW1 made a requisition before Grampanchayat for mutation of his name instead of his father’s name, PW1 name was mutated and the same was ascertained by her as per records. Through her

Ex.P2/report was marked. During her cross-examination, PW4 deposed that she worked as Panchayat Secretary for 6 years, at ookal from

December, 2015 to 2021 and she cannot say the extent of H.No.2-73. PW4 further deposed that Sambaiah had two sons and out of two sons, one son 9 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 passed away and he was bachelor. When a suggestion was put that she had no right or authority to mutate the name of PW1 in the records, but she had denied the said suggestion. PW4 further deposed that she had no idea whether PW1 had submitted death certifcate of his father. When a suggestion was put that she had issued Ex.P2 at the instance of PW1, but she had denied the said suggestion.

17.Now coming to the evidence of PW5, who is an Investigating Ofcer, deposed about the investigation done by him in his chief examination.

During his cross-examination PW5 admitted that there is 14 days delay in lodging Ex.P1, and reason has been mentioned in Ex.P3 for delay. PW5 deposed that in col.no.8 of Ex.P3, it is stated that PW1 and accused persons would settle the matter before elders. PW5 admitted that in

C.D.F. there is no F.I.R. number but date has been mentioned. PW5 further deposed that he did not enquire about the dispute between PW1 and accused persons with regard to Maskuri Post (servant). PW5 further admitted that in Ex.P3 he had drawn only Neem tree, but he had stated in charge sheet that accused persons had damaged few trees, but he did not take the photographs. When a suggestion was put that accused persons did not damage any trees and did not trespass into the house of PW1, but he had denied the said suggestion.

10 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022

18.PW6, who is one of the panch witness for scene of ofence, deposed that in the year 2018, when he was present in his village, Police came and obtained his signature on some written papers. Ex.P5 is his signature on

C.D.F. As PW6 resiled from his previous statements, the Learned A.P.P.

sought the permission of this Court U/S.154 (1) of Indian Evidence Act to cross examine the witness, the permission was accorded to learned A.P.P.

to put questions to the witnesses as put in cross examination and the learned A.P.P. cross examined PW6 under section 154 (1) of Indian

Evidence Act, but nothing was elicited from PW6 to support the prosecution version.

19.On perusal of entire record, it is observed that there is improvement in the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident, as PW2 for the frst time he deposed before the court that accused persons came and took paara from the hands of PW1 and also abused them in flthy language, but the same was not deposed by him in his earlier statement and so also there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW3, hence, it does not repose confdence in the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Moreover, PW5, who is an Investigating Ofcer had categorically deposed in his cross-examination that he did not enquire about the dispute in between PW1 and accused persons with regard to

Maskuri post (servant) and so also he did not enquire with panchayat 11 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 elders. In order to attract section 427 I.P.C. i.e., damage caused to the trees of PW1, atleast Prosecution would have fled the photographs to prove that the trees of PW1 were damaged, but they failed to do so and moreover PW6, who is panch witness for C.D.F. did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. Though prosecution got marked

Ex.P2/report issued by PW4 with regard to ownership certifcate of PW1, but based on Ex.P2, this court cannot come to the conclusion whether accused persons had trespassed into the house of PW1 or not and whether accused persons had damaged the trees of PW1 or not and also prosecution failed to prove whether accused persons had threatened PW1 and his family members with dire consequences or not as the evidence of

PW2 and PW3 do not repose confdence as there is improvement, omissions and contradictions in their evidence. So, it is crystal clear that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are found not guilty for the ofences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 Indian

Penal Code, accordingly accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed 12 of 12 CC No.4064 of 2022 under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. Un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. Case against accused No.4 is abated.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2024).

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: M. Shankarlingam. - None - PW-2: M. Rakesh PW-3: K. Vijay Kumar PW-4: P. Sunitha PW-5: S. Vital PW-6: G. Dhanujaya

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: report by PW1 Ex.P-2: report Ex.P-3: First Information report. Ex.P-4: Crime Details Form. Ex.P-5: Signature of PW6 on C.D.F.

FOR DEFENCE : - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS - Nil -

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. //True Copy//

CC.No.2398 / 2018 1 Dt: 11-08-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 11th day of August, 2022

Present: Smt. K.Chandishwari Devi,

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal.

CC.No. 2398 OF 2018

Between :

The State of Telangana, Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural District.

... Complainant

AND

Nerelli KUmaraswamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Age: 45 yeas, Gouda, Agriculture, R/o. Bandaouthapuram Village;

... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04-08-2022 for hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri N.Sekhar Rao, Counsel for the Accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural

District, has filed charge sheet in Crime No.60 of 2018 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in short called as IPC for brevity] against Accused.

2) The brief averments of the prosecution case are that : On 18- 06-2018 at 0800 hours, PW-1/Chinnala Yellamma had lodged a report at PS

Wardhannapet by stating that on 17-06-2018 at about 0100 hours when she and her husband were sleeping in front of their house, meanwhile a

CC.No.2398 / 2018 2 Dt: 11-08-2022

tractor had proceeded in front of their house, due to vehicle sound she woke up and got doubt why said tractor was proceeding towards their agriculture fields in that dead part of night, she woke up her husband

Chinnala Uppalaiah, informed him the same and asked him to come along with her, accordingly she along with her husband went to her fields where their villager Nerelli Kumaraswamy was ploughing in about 1/2 acre with tractor by criminally trespassing into their land, then they requested the tractor driver namely Manchala Ramesh as the said land belongs to them and don't plough it, meanwhile said Nerelli Kumaraswamy reached there, abused her in filthy language as "Yende Lanje Yekkuva Matladuthunnavu" and told the tractor driver as "addu vasthe danimeeda tractor yekkinchu" and threatened to kill her if she come again there and caused damage and loss to a tune of Rs.2,000/- by abusing in filthy language pluck out boundary stones, push them aside, due to which she fell down and sustained injuries, later she went to hospital and after treatment she had lodged a report before the P.S.

3)Thereafter the LW.7/S.I. Police has registered a case i.e. Crime No.60 / 2018 under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of I.P.C. and issued FIR and examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, where the

LW1/complainant refused to go to hospital as she sustained minor injury and had first-aid treatment from RMP in the village, later he along with staff visited the scene of offence at the outskirts of Bandaouthapuram

Village and drawn rough sketch and noted the particulars of scene in

CC.No.2398 / 2018 3 Dt: 11-08-2022

Crime Detail Form in the presence of PW5/Manchala Raju and LW6/Chimala

Mahender. Subsequently on 28-07-2018 the PW6/S.I. of Police had served notice U/s.41(A) of Cr.P.C. to accused and after completion of investigation, he had filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences under

Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of I.P.C.

4)The learned III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal, had took the cognizance for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of

I.P.C. against Accused. After appearance of the Accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused persons as contemplated

U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5)The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code, charges were framed by my predecessor U/s.240 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of I.P.C. against the

Accused and said charges were read over and explained to the Accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6)On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 7, PW-1 to PW-6 were examined and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 were marked. The learned APP had given up the evidence of LW.6/Chimala Mahender.

CC.No.2398 / 2018 4 Dt: 11-08-2022

7)After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard the learned APP and the learned defence counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

9)Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused

for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of

I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt”?

10) POINT: According to the prosecution, PW-1 is the complainant who had set the criminal law into motion. In order to convict the accused for the offences U/s. 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of I.P.C. the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the above said offences.

11)PW.1 who is the complainant and victim had deposed that PW.2 is her son and PW.4 is her husband and about one year ago at 1-00 A.M. the accused started to plough her 3 acres of land with the help of tractor and said tractor was driven by PW.3 who is the eye witness to the incident, immediately PW.1 rushed to her fields and questioned the accused why he is cultivating her land, but the accused had abused PW.1 in filthy language and also pushed her, due to which she has sustained injuries and when

CC.No.2398 / 2018 5 Dt: 11-08-2022

PW.4, who is her husband, tried to stop the accused but the accused abused her husband also in filthy language and PW.4 also sustained injuries.

12)During the course of cross examination of PW.1, PW.1 had categorically admitted that she does not know the survey number of her property in which her land is situated ad the incident took place during the night hours. PW.1 further deposed that she along with her husband and son went to the filed at 1-00 A.M. and the accused is having land near to her land and moreover there is a civil dispute between her and the accused vide O.S.No.450/2018 on the file of Hon'ble Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal, in which the accused herein had obtained an Injunction order in his favor.

13)PW.1 further admitted in her cross examination that the Police had registered a criminal case against her, her husband and her son vide crime

No.2/2019 of P.S. Wardhannapet and the said report was lodged by accused herein, as they had threatened and abused the accused. When suggestions were put to her, PW.1 had denied the suggestions.

14)Now coming to the evidence of PW.2, PW.2 who is the son of PW.1 had deposed that in the year 2017 he had purchased the property from

Thallapally Pradeep to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.845/C situated at

Nandanam Shivar, Iloni Mandal, and one fine day when his vendor had

CC.No.2398 / 2018 6 Dt: 11-08-2022

measured the property and delivered the possession to PW.2, at that time the accused came and picked up quarrel with PW.2 by stating that the land belongs to him and the said quarrel was settled by neighbors. On 17-06- 2018 at 12:00 hours the accused disturbed the cotton fields and on being questioned the accused stated that he has pattedar passbook with him and the land belongs to him. PW.2 further deposed that he along with

PW.1 and his father went to the field to stop the tractor of the accused, but the accused had pushed the PW.1 aside and damaged the field and further the accused also abused PW.1, LW2. When PW.2 had forced the accused to stop the tractor, the accused had heard words of PW.2. PW.2 further stated that after the incident, PW.1 went to RMP Doctor and took treatment.

15)PW.2 in his cross examination has categorically deposed that in

OS.No.450/2018 filed before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, PW.2

herein is the defendant No.1 therein, and so also PW.2 had filed a case

before the Tribunal against the accused and his wife. PW.2 further

admitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal had dismissed the petition filed by PW.2 as the matter is pending before the competent civil court. PW.2 further admitted that there is a dispute between PW.2 and accused for the past 4 to 5 years.

16)Coming to the evidence of PW.3, PW.3 who is an eye witness to the incident, had deposed that he knows PW.1, PW.2, LW2 and Accused and on

CC.No.2398 / 2018 7 Dt: 11-08-2022

17-06-2018 at about 10-00 PM the accused came to his house and requested him to plough his agriculture land, then PW.3 went to agricultural fields of accused to plough the land and at the time LW2 and

PW.1 came to the said land and stated him not to plough the fields. PW.3 further deposed that as the accused, PW.1 and LW2 quarreled with each other, meanwhile he has left the place.

17)During the cross examination PW.3 had admitted that the land pertains to the accused and Uppalaiah and he had further deposed that he does not know whether there is any dispute between accused and the

Uppalaiah.

18)Now coming to the evidence of PW.4, PW.4 who is the husband of

PW1 had deposed that about 2 1/2 years ago he has purchased 3 acres agricultural land situated at Nandanam village from one Johnson and about 2 to 3 years ago during night hours at around 1-00 AM they heard tractor sound, as such they went to the agricultural land and saw that PW.3 was ploughing the land and disturbed their cotton seeds, at that time accused was also present and abused his wife/PW.1 and also pushed her.

19)During the course of cross examination of PW.4, PW.4 had admitted that he did not submit any documents pertaining to his land and his relative by name Komuraiah had shifted him to his house on the day of incident and further deposed that he does not know the survey number of

CC.No.2398 / 2018 8 Dt: 11-08-2022

his property. PW.4 further deposed that there are cases with regard to the land between them and accused before the R.D.O., Warangal, and

Collector, Warangal.

20)Now coming to the evidence of PW.5, who is the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama, had deposed that in the month of June 2018 at about 10-00 AM Police Wardhannapet had conducted scene observation panchanama at the agricultural fields of PW1 and during his cross examination he has admitted that in Ex.P2 no cotton plants or seeds are drawn in Rough Sketch and also deposed that panchayath was held in between the accused and PW.1.

21)Now coming to the evidence of PW.6 who is the S.I. of Police had deposed that he had issued F.I.R. and after completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet. In his cross examination he has admitted that there is a delay of (01) day in lodging Ex.P1/report. PW.1 at the time of lodging Ex.P1 did not submit any documents to show that she is the owner of the property. Further PW6 had deposed that scene of offence does not comes under their jurisdiction and the scene of offence comes under the jurisdiction of Inavole P.S. Witness adds that the old jurisdiction is P.S.

Wardhannapet. PW.6 further admitted that he did not examine the neighbors at the scene of offence and in Ex.P1 there is no mention that

PW.2 was present at the time of incident.

CC.No.2398 / 2018 9 Dt: 11-08-2022

22)On perusal of record, the contention of the PW.1 is that she is the owner of the property for 3 acres and so also PW.2 had deposed that he had purchased the property to an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.845/C from

Thallapally Pradeep and PW.4 has also deposed that about 2 1/2 year ago he has purchased the agricultural land to an extent of 3 acres situated at

Nandanam village from one Johnson, but neither PW.1, PW2 nor PW.4 had produced any document to show that they are the owners of land in

Sy.No.845/C. The incident had took place in the mid night i.e. at about 1-00 A.M. and PW.3 who is the sole eye witness to the incident, did not support the prosecution case and had deposed that on the day of incident

PW.1, LW2 and accused quarreled with each other, as such he had left the place, but he did not state whether the accused had abused PW.1 and her family members, whether the accused had pushed PW.1 or not.

23)In order to prove the above offences there must be an eye witness to the incident, but here eye witness to the incident did not speak anything against the accused. The evidence of PW2 and PW4 who are son and husband of PW1 cannot be given much weightage as they are related witnesses. PW.6 also admitted in his cross examination that they did not examine neighbors at scene of offence and moreover it is admitted by

PW1 that there are civil disputes between PW1 family and accused. As there is no iota of evidence or incriminating evidence against the accused, based on the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW.4 and PW.6 it is not safe to convict the accused and in the present case the prosecution failed to

CC.No.2398 / 2018 10 Dt: 11-08-2022

prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

24) IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is acquitted accordingly under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for six months as prescribed under Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(Typed on my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2022).

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: Chinnala Yellamma - None - PW-2: Chinnala Raju PW-3: Manchala Ramesh PW-4: Chinnala Uppalaiah PW-5: Manchala Raju PW-6: P.Upender Rao/I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1: Complaint of PW.1 - Nil - Ex.P-2: Scene Observation Panchanama Ex.P-3: First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO. 2398 of 2018

1. Name of the Police Station.: Wardhannapet

2. Crime Number: 60 / 2018

3. Offences Under Section: 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 IPC

4. Name of the Accused :Nerelli Kumaraswamy

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 17-06-2018 b. Complaint : 18-06-2018 c. Notice : 28-07-2018 d. Released on bail : - e. Commencement of trial : 14-08-2019 f. Close of trial :29-07-2022 g. Judgment :11-08-2022

6. RESULT: The Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 290, 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is acquitted accordingly under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be in force for six months as prescribed under Section 437A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

7. Explanation for Delay: No delay

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal. Dis.No. , Dt: .2022.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.

CC.No.21 / 2018 1 Dt: 10-08-2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022

Present: Smt. K.Chandishwari Devi,

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Warangal.

CC.No. 21 OF 2018

Between :

The State of Telangana, rep. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural District.

... Complainant

AND

Dubarla Sailu, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Yadava, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Katriyala, Village, Wardhannapet Mandal;

... Accused

This case is coming up before me on 04-08-2022 for hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri N.Sekhar Rao, Sri P.Srinivas Reddy, Smt. N.Vijaya Kumar, Counsels

for the Accused and after perusing the material on record and having

stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural

District, has filed charge sheet in Crime No.146 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, [in short called as IPC for brevity] against Accused.

2) The brief averments of the prosecution case are that : On 31- 07-2017 at 20:00 hours PW-1/Dubarla Swarupa had lodged report at PS

Wardhannapet by stating that on 29-07-2017 at about 11:00 hours while she along with her husband Sammaiah and son Raju were working in the

CC.No.21 / 2018 2 Dt: 10-08-2022

agriculture fields beside the canal, one Dubarla Sailu, her village VRO,

Mandal R.I., Ellanda village Photographer and her villager Banda Swamy came to her agriculture field and removed electric wires from her borewell and trying to seize their borewell by sealing, at the time she questioned them as to why they are sealing their borewell and also says with Dubarla

Sailu that you brought them here and sealing their borewell, on that said

Dubarla Sailu grew wild against her ad armed with a stick and beat her on her right shoulder, then her husband and son were pulled the stick from

Sailu and immediately she was shifted to hospital, after taking the treatment she came to the PS and lodged report against the accused.

3)Thereafter the LW10/L.Yakub Reddy,H.C. had registered a case i.e.

Crime No.146/2017 under Section 324 of I.P.C. and issued FIR against

Accused. He had examined and recorded the statements of all the witnesses, collected the MLC slips from PW2/Dubarla Sammaiah to collect the M.C., later he visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene in Crime Detail Form in the presence of LW7/Meesa Mallaiah and

LW8/Chikkonda Sailu.

4)Later LW11/G.Upender, S.I. of Police, had took up further investigation, during which on 26-08-2017 he served notice to the accused

U/s.41(1)(A) of Cr.P.C. and PW5/Dr. N.Vijaya Laxmi had issued medical certificate of PW1 opining that the injuries received are "Simple in Nature".

After completion of investigation, PW.7/S.I. of Police had filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C.

CC.No.21 / 2018 3 Dt: 10-08-2022

5)The III-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal, had took cognizance for the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. against Accused.

After appearance of the Accused copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

6)The accused was examined under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code by III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, charge is framed under Section 240 of Criminal procedure Code for the offence under

Section 324 of I.P.C. against the accused and the said charge was read over by the III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, and explained to accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

7)On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e. LWs.1 to 11, LWs.1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 were examined as PW-1 to PW-7 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 were marked. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of

LW3/Dubarla Raju, LW4/Bhashaboina Praveen Kumar, LW8/Chikkonda Sailu, and on 08-12-2021 the SHO PS Wardhannapet has filed death certificate of

LW7/Meesa Mallaiah.

8)After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence was closed.

CC.No.21 / 2018 4 Dt: 10-08-2022

9)Learned APP reported to decide the matter on merits. Heard the learned counsel for defence. Perused the record.

10) Now the point for determination is :

"Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860, beyond all reasonable doubt”?.

11) POINT: According to the prosecution, PW-1 is the complainant who had set the criminal law into motion. To prove the guilt of the accused U/s.

324 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of Section 324 of

I.P.C.

12) PW.1 who is the complainant had deposed that while she was greeting by touching the feet of V.R.O., at that time the accused took the stick and beat her on her back, due to which she has sustained injury on her right shoulder. During the course of cross examination, PW.1 had categorically deposed that she and her husband had interfered and obstructed the revenue officials while they were seizing the bore. When suggestions were put by the defence counsel PW.1 had denied the suggestions that “it is not true to suggest that there exists disputes between PW.1 and accused for the past 5 to 6 years” and so also PW.1 had denied the suggestion that “it is not true to suggest that she had admitted her guilt in a case vide

STC.No.1733/2016 which was filed by the accused herein against her and she had paid the fine in STC.No.1733/2016.

CC.No.21 / 2018 5 Dt: 10-08-2022

13) PW.2 who is the husband of PW.1 had deposed that the accused got the bore seized by the Revenue Inspector and when both PW.1 and PW.2 were requesting R.I. not to seize the bore, at that time accused took the stick and beat PW.1 on her right shoulder and due to which she has sustained injuries. At that time LW.3 was also beaten by the accused and he had also sustained injuries on his back and the said incident was witnessed by Bandari Swamy, A.Suraiah/PW.3.

14) During the course of cross examination of PW.2, PW.2 had deposed that there are disputes between him and the accused in respect of a bore and PW.2 had stated that PW.1 had admitted her guilt and paid the fine and so also PW.2 had admitted that they had obstructed the revenue officials from seizing the bore and had denied the suggestions put by the defence counsel.

15) Now coming to the deposition of PW.3 who is the eye witness to the incident had deposed that PW.1 came to the spot along with kerosene tin and did not allow them to seize the bore, hence PW.3 could not comply the orders of seizure of bore.

16) PW.4 who is the eye witness to the incident had deposed that more or less on the same lines of PW.3 and further stated that the Police did not examine him nor recorded his statement. The learned APP had sought the permission of this court and had cross examined PW.4, but nothing was elicited from PW.4 to support the prosecution version.

CC.No.21 / 2018 6 Dt: 10-08-2022

17) PW.5 who is Assistant Surgeon had deposed that injuries received by

PW.1 are simple in nature and during her cross examination she had deposed that she had issued Ex.P2 on 29-07-2017 prior to the requisition made by P.S. Wardhannapet and on 29-07-2017 she had examined PW.1 and she had admitted that in Ex.P2 she did not mention about the age, size of the injury, date of the injury.

18) PW.6 had deposed that on 31-07-2017 he had received Ex.P1 from

PW.1 and had registered a case in Cr.No.146/2017 and issued F.I.R. which is marked as Ex.P3.

19) During the course of cross examination of PW.6 he has admitted that there is a delay of 2½ days in lodging Ex.P1 and the revenue officials did not lodge any report against the accused for the above incident. PW.6 further stated that there was fight between the complainant and accused prior to the enquiry with regard to the land whether it belongs to the

Government or not. PW.6 has further stated that they did not seize any material objects from the scene of offence and so also in Ex.P4 foot marks are not being mentioned.

20) PW.7 has deposed that he had received CD file from PW.6 and thereafter he collected Ex.P2 from PW.5. During his cross examination he has stated that the accused person has beat PW2 with a stick on his right shoulder, but PW.7 has categorically deposed in his cross examination that he did not file the medical certificate of PW.2 before this court. Further

CC.No.21 / 2018 7 Dt: 10-08-2022

PW.7 deposed that PW.1 and PW.2 had obstructed the official duties of

PW.3 and PW.4, as such the above incident had taken place. PW.7 also deposed in his cross examination that the revenue officials did not lodge the report against the accused.

21) On perusal of the record, it is noticed that eye witnesses i.e. LW.3 and

LW.4 were given by the learned APP. PW.3 and PW.4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident did not support the prosecution case and had categorically deposed that PW.1 came to the spot with kerosene tin and did not allow the officials to seize the motor. To satisfy the ingredients

U/s.324 of I.P.C. a dangerous weapon or means must be used by the accused for commission of offence and here the prosecution failed to seize the stick used in the commission of crime by the accused and on perusal of Ex.P2 it is noticed that in the column i.e. by what kind of weapon used, it has been stated that the blunt object was used, but there is no evidence to show that accused had beat PWs.1 and 2 with a stick and moreover the stick was not seized by the police and so also the eye witnesses in the present case did not support the prosecution version and the evidence of

PW.2 cannot be given much weightage as he is not an independent witness, but he is an interested witness who is the husband of PW.1. There are disputes between the PW.1 and accused prior to this case. Hence as there is no iota of evidence or incriminating evidence to punish the accused for the offence U/s. 324 IPC, as such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

CC.No.21 / 2018 8 Dt: 10-08-2022

22) IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is acquitted accordingly under

Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under Section 437-A of

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(Typed on my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of August, 2022).

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: Dubarla Swarupa- None - PW-2: Dubarla Sammaiah PW-3: Ambati Suraiah PW-4: Jojula Srinivas PW-5: Dr. N.Vijaya Laxmi, CAS PW-6: L.Yakub Reddy, 1st I.O. PW-7: G.Upender/2nd I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P-1: Complaint of PW.1 - Nil - Ex.P-2: Medical Certificate of PW.1 Ex.P-3: First Information Report Ex.P-4: Crime Detail Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

CALENDAR EXTRACT

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL

CALENDER CASE NO. 21 of 2018

1. Name of the Police Station.: Wardhannapet

2. Crime Number: 146 / 2017

3. Offences Under Section: 324 IPC

4. Name of the Accused :Dubarla Sailu

5. Date of:

a. Occurrence : 29-07-2017 b. Complaint : 31-07-2017 c. Arrest/Notice : 26-08-2017 d. Released on bail : 26-08-2017 e. Commencement of trial : 12-06-2019 f. Close of trial :29-07-2022 g. Judgment :10-08-2022

6. RESULT: The Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is acquitted accordingly under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as prescribed under Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

7. Explanation for Delay: No delay

II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

Dis.No. , Dt: 18.07.2022.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Warangal.