Ms. D.B. Sheetal

1/7 CC 186/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 02nd day of May, 2017

C.C. No.186 of 2014 Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor.

…Complainant // And //

A1: Shaik Khaleel, S/o. Shaik Saleem, Age: 28 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Driver, R/o. Navabsabkunta, Thadaband, Near Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. A2: Mohd. Feroz, S/o. Mohd Rasheed, Age: 25 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Electrician, R/o. H.No.19-2-279/C/239, Nawabsabkunta, MCH Colony, Hyderabad. A3: Mohd. Sami, S/o. Dasthagiri, Age: 24 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Book Seller, R/o. H.No.19-2-435/80/54, Moinpura, Gulsannagar, Misriganj, Near Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

….A1 to A3.

--<>--

This case coming before me on this the 01st day of May, 2017 for hearing anddisposalinthepresenceofAPP for the State and Sri L. Rajababu Goud and Sri P. Srinivas Rao, Advocates for the accused persons and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.116 of 2014 for the offence U/s. 279 IPC and for the offence

U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant is the RTC

Driver and that on 23-03-2014 at about 03:00 hours when the defacto complainant was on duty and was proceeding towards Bodhan from Hyderabad 2/7 CC 186/2014 in bus bearing No.AP.29-Z-0935 along with passengers and when the bus reached Jangamally Village shivar on NH-44 road in front of Satyanarayana

Dhaba, A1 who was the driver of Tourist bus bearing No. AP.12-V-5312 was taking reverse in rash and negligent manner and dashed the RTC bus driven by the defacto complainant and that A2 and A3 who are traveling in Tourist bus alighted the bus and A3 fisted a blow to the defacto complainant and A2 beat him with one sharp stone as a result of which the defacto complainant received bleeding injuries. Therefore A1 is liable for the offence U/s. 279 IPC and A2 and A3 are liable for punishment for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC.

3.Basing on the report given by Lw1/Dodla Ganganna, Lw10/K. Srinivas

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Bhiknoor registered a case in Cr.No.116 of 2014 for the offence U/s. 279 IPC and for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 against

A2 and A3 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation

LW10 examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 4 (Dodla Ganganna,

Katariya Santhis, Dandugal Hanmathu and Annapu Srinivas). Later visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and secured the presence of the mediators i.e., Lws 5 and 6 (Baindla Bhupathi and Pinnuri Kantham) and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch. On 24-03-2014 at 10:30 hours on credible information received about the accused accused persons, Lw10 along with men rushed to Jangampally Shivar and apprehended the accused persons and upon interrogation A1 to A3 voluntarily confessed the guilt. As such Lw10 affected the arrest of A1 to A3 and produced them before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 for the offence U/s. 279

IPC and for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3.

3/7 CC 186/2014

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence

U/s. 279 IPC against A1 and for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3 and proceeded with.

5.On appearance of A1 to A3, copies of case documents was furnished to them provided U/s. 207 Cr.P.C and charge there upon was framed against A1 for the offence U/s. 279 IPC and against for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC against A2, A3 and read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for A1 to A3.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence U/s. 279 IPC against A1 and for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-

Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that he has been working as

RTC driver in Bodhan Depot since 2009 and that on 03-03-2014 he was on driving duty of bus bearing No.AP.29-Z-0935 from Hyderabad to Bodhan and when the bus reached near Satyanaryana Dhaba at Jangampally Village, a 4/7 CC 186/2014 Tourist bus which was parked at the said Dhaba was taking reverse to come on to the road and it suddenly came across his moving bus and dashed against his bus and immediately the passengers in the Tourist bus alighted the bus and started beating him. He further deposed that he sustained injuries to his face due to the beatings of the said passengers and that he lodged a complaint to the police vide Ex.P1 and that the police referred him to the Govt. Area Hospital,

Kamareddy for treatment. During the course of his evidence Pw1 identified the accused and categorically stated that A1 to A3 present in the Court hall are the said persons who beat him and caused injuries.

11.The learned counsel for the accused suggested to Pw1 that Pw1 himself drove the bus in a high speed and dashed against the Tourist bus which was taking reverse in a very slow speed and that he lodged a false complaint since the RTC buses are not insured. The said suggestion was however denied by

Pw1. But it is also admitted by him that generally the vehicle moving in onward direction is at a high speed than the vehicle taking reverse. Admittedly as per the version of Pw1, his bus bearing No.A9.29-Z-0935 was proceeding in an onward direction from Hyderabad to Bodhan and the Tourist bus was taking reverse which as per Pw1, it is admitted that reverse will be taken in slow speed. In such a case it was for Pw1 to be alert and cautious to slow down the vehicle on seeing any vehicle taking reverse, in order to avert any untoward accident. In such a case the version of Pw1 that the Tourist bus which was taking reverse suddenly dashed against his bus, is not inspiring any confidence more particularly when as stated supra it is for Pw1 to be alert and slow down his vehicle on seeing the Tourist bus taking reverse to come on to the road.

Therefore in such circumstances it cannot be said that the driver of the Tourist 5/7 CC 186/2014 bus drove the vehicle rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person in order to attack 279 IPC.

12.Another important aspect which is to be noted here is that Pw1 during the course of his evidence except vaguely identifying A1 to A3, nowhere deposed nor categorically stated as to who among A1 to A3 were driving the Tourist bus at the time of the said incident. Therefore the evidence of Pw1 is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the guilt of A1 for the offence U/s. 279 IPC.

13.Pw1 further deposed that the Tourist bus dashed against his bus and immediately the passengers alighted the bus and started beating him. As stated supra Pw1 during the course of his evidence identified A1 to A3 as the said persons who beat him and caused injuries. But contrary to that as per the case narrated by the prosecution it is only A2 and A3 who allegedly beat Pw1 and caused injuries. But in the evidence of Pw1 he except vaguely stating that the passengers in the Tourist bus alighted the bus and started beating him, nowhere deposed the overt acts of any of the accused persons and nowhere deposed as to how many number of passengers were traveling in the Tourist bus and how many of them alighted the bus and allegedly beat him and caused injuries.

14.Another important aspect which is to be noted here is that as per Pw1 the incident occurred at 03:00 am and admittedly it was dark at that time and many passengers gathered at the time of incident. He further categorically stated that he does not have prior acquaintance with A1 to A3. Pw3 who is none other than the Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross examination that Pw1 did not state before him the identity particulars of the accused persons and also did not state that he can identify the accused persons. A perusal of Ex.P1 would 6/7 CC 186/2014 also show that there is no identification particulars of the accused persons given by Pw1. In such a case and also in view of the cross examination of Pws 1 to 3, more particularly when Pw1 does not have any prior acquaintance with the accused persons and also having regard to the fact the time of the occurrence of the incident, I am of the considered opinion that the identification of A1 to A3 by Pw1 for the first time in the Court after the date of the alleged offence, does not inspire any confidence and hence it cannot be believed without any corroborative evidence with regard to the identification of the accused. Though

Lws 3 and 4 (Dandugala Hanmanthu and Annapu Srinivas) were cited as eye witnesses, the prosecution did not make any efforts to examine them and hence their evidence remained closed. Therefore except the self serving testimony of

Pw1 there is no other evidence of any eye witness to establish that A2 and A3 beat Pw1 and caused injuries to his face. Surprisingly the prosecution did not make any efforts to examine the Medical Officer who is said to have treated

Pw1 and issued Ex.P4. Therefore the injuries of Pw1 also remained not proved in medical evidence.

15.Pw2 who is one of the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P2) deposed about the conducting of scene of offence panchanama. He also deposed that one RTC bus and Tourist bus were in a damaged condition at the scene of offence situated near Narayan Dhaba and

Saleem Dhaba situated at NH-44 road. Nothing in the cross examination of

Pw2 was elicited to disprove the scene of offence panchanama. However on a perusal of the cross examination of Pw1, nothing in his cross examination was elicited to disprove the scene of offence as deposed by him. But, mere proving the scene of offence panchanama, in my considered opinion is not suffice for 7/7 CC 186/2014 the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused persons for the offence alleged against them.

16.Pw3 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to registering Ex.P3 (FIR). But mere proving the investigating, in my considered opinion is also not suffice for the prosecution to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence alleged against them when there is no material and cogent evidence on record to connect the guilt to the accused persons. Therefore the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence against them and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 279 IPC and A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 332 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of May, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:- Pw1: D. Ganganna/Defacto Complainant -Nil- Pw2: Bainla Bhupathi/Panch for scene of offence panchanama Pw3: K. Srinivas Reddy/Investigating Officer Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: CDF Ex.P3: FIR Ex.P4: Medical Certificate of Pw1

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 8/7 CC 186/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No.180 of 2014

Name of the police station. :Bhiknoor

Crime No. of offence. :116 of 2014

Description of the accused. : Shaik Khaleel and others

Date of offence. :23-03-2014

Date of Complaint :23-03-2014

Date of apprehension. : 24-03-2014

Date of commencement of trial. : 09-12-2016

Date of closure of trial. : 17-04-2017

Date of sentence or order. : 02-05-2017

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

To:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 9/7 CC 186/2014

1/7 CC 252/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 02nd day of May, 2017

C.C. No.252 of 2011 Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Machareddy.

…Complainant // And //

Shaga Narsimlu @ Gaddaraju Narsimlu, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Agriculture, N/o. Bibipet Vilalge of Domakonda Mandal. R/o. Chandapur Vilalge of Tadwai Mandal.

….Accused.

--<>--

This case coming before me on this the 01st day of May, 2017 for hearing anddisposalinthepresenceofAPP for the State and Sri R.B. Ramesh Chand, Advocate for the accused persons and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Machareddy laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.33 of 2011 for the offence U/s. 382 IPC.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 13-03-2011 the defacto complainant went to went to Potharam Village to invite her daughter and her family members to celebrate Yellamma festival. At that time the defacto complainant engaged the accused who is the resident of Potharam village and relative of the defacto complainant, for whitewash to her house at Fareedpet.

On the same day at 20:00 hours the accused went to the defacto complainant's house and slept in her house and on the next day the the defacto complainant 2/7 CC 252/2011 proceeded to Isaipet village on the motor bike of the accused and that on the way the accused stopped his motorcycle near Ellamma Temple at Isaipet village shivar and beat the defacto complainant and caused injury and extorted the

Gold and Silver ornaments i.e., 11.910 grams Gold gundlu, 1.820 grams Gold ear pullalu, 37.7 tulas of silver leg kadiyalu, cell phone and net cash of

Rs.3,000/- and disappeared with booty. Therefore the accused is liable for the offence U/s. 382 IPC.

3.Basing on the report given by Lw1/Batta Rajavva, Lw9/S. Saidaiah, Sub

Inspector of Police, PS, Machareddy registered a case in Cr.No.33 of 2011 for the offence U/s. 382 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw9 examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 3 (Batta

Rajavva, Batta Rajaiah and Kolapuram Chandrakala). Later visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of the mediators i.e., Lws 4 and 5 (Kolapuram

Narsimlu and Chandala Yellaiah) and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch. While the investigation was in progress on 18-03-2011 at 09:30 hours on reliable information Lw9 along with force rushed to Palvancha X road (Marri) and apprehended the accused at 10:00 hours and upon interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence in presence of panchas i.e., Lws 6 and 7 (Dandla Ramulu and

Kolapuram Laxmaiah) and recovered the stolen property i.e., 11.910 grams

Gold gundlu, 1.820 grams Gold ear pullalu, 37.7 tulas of Silver leg kadiyalu from his possession and that the accused spent the net cash lavishly and the cell phone was fell down somewhere on the way while he was proceeding on his motorcycle and that the above mentioned property were seized before the mediators i.e., Lws 6 and 7 (Dandla Ramulu and Kolapuram Laxmaiah) duly 3/7 CC 252/2011 pasting the panch chits. As such Lw9 affected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s. 382 IPC.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence

U/s. 382 IPC against the accused and proceeded with.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him provided U/s. 207 Cr.P.C and charge there upon was framed against him for the offence U/s. 382 IPC and read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and Mos 1 to 3.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence U/s. 382 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-

Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that about 5 years ago she went tot her daughter-in-law's parents house to invite them for Yellamma 4/7 CC 252/2011 festival and that the accused told her that he will white wash her house. She further deposed that the accused came to her house and stayed back at night and the next morning she and the accused went to Issaipet village and that when they reached Yellamma temple the accused extracted one Gold ear pullalu, one tula Gold gundloo and 40 thulas of silver kadiyalu by threatening her and fled away and that she immediately lodged a compliant to the police vide Ex.P1.

The (28) Gold gundlu with (4) old Ennalu and one Pusthe total weighing about 11.910 grams knitted in thread was marked as Mo1, a pair of Gold ear pullalu weighing about 1.820 grams was marked as Mo2 and a pair of Silver kadiyalu weighing about 37.7 grams was marked as MO3.

11.The learned counsel for the accused by way of suggestion to Pw1, denied the occurrence of the incident and also any acquaintance of Pw1 with the accused . Pw1 in her evidence categorically stated that the accused is not her relative and she did not have any prior acquaintance with the accused prior to the incident. When such is the case it is not explained as to on what basis Pw1 allowed the accused to her house to stay back at night and accompanied him to

Isaipet village. No prudent person, in my considered opinion would allow any stranger to the house and allow him to stay over night. Therefore the evidence of Pw1 that the accused came to her house and stayed back does not inspire any confidence to believe her version.

12.Pw2 who is none other than the sister of Pw1 deposed that about 6 years ago Pw1 informed her that when she was coming to her house to invite for a festival, the accused on whose bike Pw1 was coming, committed theft of her

Gold and Silver ornaments on threat. The evidence of Pw2 would go to show that she is not an eye witness to the alleged incident and the source of 5/7 CC 252/2011 information to her is none other than Pw1. Therefore the evidence of Pw2 being hearsay is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused or to corroborate the testimony of Pw1.

13.Pw3 who is cited as witness, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

14.Pw4 who is one of the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

15.Pw7 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation pursuant to registering Ex.P5 (FIR) and conducted the scene of offence panchanama vide Ex.P6, categorically stated in his cross examination that as per his investigation the alleged incident took place near Yellamma temple. He further admitted that Yellamma temple is not shown in the rough sketch of the scene. In such a case. In such a case the conducting of scene of offence panchanama and the place of offence by itself becomes doubtful.

16.Pw6 who is the Medical Officer deposed that on 13-03-2011 at 06:35 pm she examined the injured by name Battu Ramavva w/o. Ramulu alleged to have beaten by known person on 13-03-2011 at 08:00 am and on examination she found the injuries as follows:-

1. Abrasion of 1 x ½ cms over the pinna

2. Contusion seen over the front of neck of about 4 x 2 cms in size

3. Abrasion seen over the left pinna of about 1 x ½ cms in size.

During cross examination Pw6 admitted that Ex.P4 (Medical Certificate) is pertaining to Battu Ramavva. But on a perusal of the evidence, the name of the defacto complainant/Pw1 is Battu Rajavva but not Ramavva. Be that as it may, 6/7 CC 252/2011 Pw6, for a moment even if it is assumed that Ex.P4 is pertaining to Pw1, then it may be noted here that Pw1 nowhere whispered in her evidence that she sustained injuries in the alleged incident. In such a case the evidence of Pw6 and Ex.P4 is not helpful to the prosecution, more particularly when there is no evidence from Pw1 herself that she sustained injuries in the alleged incident.

17.Pw7 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the arrest of the accused and also recovery of Mos 1 to 3 from the possession of the accused in presence of the mediators i.e., Pw5 and Lw7 (Kolapuram Maisaiah) basing on his alleged confessional statement vide Ex.P7 i.e., Confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

18.The learned counsel for the accused denied the seizure of Mos 1 to 3 from the possession of the accused basing on his alleged confessional statement. Be that as it may, as per the version of Pw7 he is alleged to have recovered Mos 1 to 3 in presence of Pw5 and Lw7 basing on the alleged confessional statement of the accused. But Pw5 who is the material witness to speak about the seizure of Mos 1 to 3, did not support the case of the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Except identifying his signature vide Ex.P3 on the confession-cum-recovery panchanama, Pw5 did not depose anything in favour of the prosecution to prove the seizure of Mos 1 to 3 from the possession of the accused. The prosecution did not make any efforts to examine another panch witness for the confession and recovery panchanama and this proved fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore except the self serving statement of Pw1 there is no material and cogent evidence on record to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s. 382 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for 7/7 CC 252/2011 the offence U/s. 382 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 382 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

20.Mos 1 to 3 which is returned to Pw1 towards interim custody, shall hold good after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02nd day of May, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:- Pw1: Batta Rajavva/Defacto Complainant/Injured -Nil- Pw2: Kolapuram Chandrakala/Witness Pw3: Batta Rajaiah/Witness Pw4: Chandala Yellaiah/Panch for scene of offence Pw5: Dandla Ramulu/Panchfor confession and recovery panchanama Pw6: Dr.G. Sujatha/Medical Officer Pw7: S. Saidaiah/Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P3: Signature of PW5 on the confession and recovery panchanama

dated 18-03-2011

Ex.P4: Medical Certificate of Battu Ramavva Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P7: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama dated 18-03-2011 at 10:30 hours

Material Objects Marked MO1: (28) Gold gundlu with (4) old Ennalu and one Pusthe total weighing about 11.910 grams knitted in thread. MO2: Pair of Gold ear pullalu weighing about 1.820 grams MO3: Pair of Silver kadiyalu weighing about 37.7 grams

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 8/7 CC 252/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No.252 of 2011

Name of the police station. :Machareddy

Crime No. of offence. :33 of 2011

Description of the accused. : Shaga Narsimlu @ Gaddaraju Narsimlu

Date of offence. :13-03-2011

Date of Complaint :13-03-2011

Date of apprehension. : 18-03-2011

Date of commencement of trial. : 17-11-2016

Date of closure of trial. : 20-04-2017

Date of sentence or order. : 02-05-2017

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

To:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 9/7 CC 252/2011

1/7 CC 201/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 01st day of May, 2017

C.C. No.201 of 2015 Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kamareddy.

…Complainant // And //

A1: Mohd. Shakeer Pasha, S/o: Ghouse Pasha, Age: 21 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: New Times Mobile, Watches Sales and Serves, Priya Theatre Road, Kamareddy, R/o. Godown Road, Kamareddy. A2: Salauddin, S/o: Nizamuddin, Age: 23 years, Occ: SS Mobiles, R/o. Gollawada, Kamareddy. ….A1 and A2.

--<>-- This case coming before me on this the 26th day of March, 2017 for hearinganddisposalinthepresenceofAPP for the State and Sri M.A. Rasheed, Advocate for the accused persons and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kamareddy laid charge sheet against

A1 and A2 in Cr.No.145 of 2015 for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-

A(1) of Copy Right Act, 1957.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant is the Junior

Investigator in Indian Music Industry (IMI) having General Power of Attorney.

The defacto complainant made survey and came to know that A1 and A2 are indulging in Copy Right by Audio Chip Piracy, exhibiting and selling pre-loaded memory cards without any Copy Right Agreement with the Music

Company owner and were illegally earning profits. That on 20-05-2015 on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, Pw3 registered a case and held 2/7 CC 201/2015 raids in New Times Mobile shop of A1 and seized three pack memory cards containing two 4 GB memory cards and one 2 GB memory card containing telugu films and also raided SS Mobile shop of A2 and seized three pack memory cards containing two 4 GB memory cards and one 2 GB memory card containing songs of telugu films, under cover of separate confession-cum- seizure panchanama. The accused did not possess valid license for recording the audio from the Copy Right owner i.e., Aditya Music Company and hence they are liable for punishment for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of

Copy Right Act, 1957.

3.Basing on the report given by Lw1/Dudekula Ramanna, Lw5/K. Srinivas

Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Kamareddy registered a case in Cr.No.145 of 2009 for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw5 with force rushed to Priya Deluxe Road, Kamareddy and secured the presence of respectable mediators i.e., Lws 3 and 4 (Shaik Afroz and M.A. Mumtaz) and in their presence raided the mobile shops of A1 and A2 respectively and found that A1 and A2 are indulging in audio chip piracy, exhibited and sold memory cards with preloaded music without having any agreement from the Copy Right owner. Further held confessional and seizure panchanama and brought the accused persons to the police station and served notice tho them as they were found guilt in this case. While the investigation was in progress and in compliance of the notice on 21-05-2015 at 12:30 hours A1 and A2 voluntarily surrendered at the police station and confessed the guilt. As such Lw5 affected the arrest of A1 and A2 and on production of sufficient sureties, he released them on bail and after completion of entire investigation he filed charges sheet 3/7 CC 201/2015 against A1 and A2 for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy

Right Act, 1957.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and proceeded with.

5.On appearance of A1 and A2, copies of case documents was furnished to them provided U/s. 207 Cr.P.C and charge there upon was framed against them for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and Mos 1 and 2.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for A1 and A2.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-

Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that previously he worked as Junior Investigator in India Music Industries (IMI) from 01-12-2011 to

August, 2016 and that the IMI issued a power of attorney to him to conduct surveys and search and also to lodge police complaint against piracy. He further deposed that on 20-05-2015 he came to Kamareddy Town and surveyed New

Times Mobile shop and SS Mobile shop situated at Priya Delux theater road, 4/7 CC 201/2015 Kamareddy and found that the owners of the said mobile shops at Kamareddy were selling the memory cards with preloaded telugu cinema songs, without holding any valid license from the audio music company i.e., Adiya Music

Company and that immediately he lodged a complaint to the police vide Ex.P1.

11.The learned counsel for the accused by way of suggestion to Pw1 in his cross examination, disputed the authority of Pw1 to conduct any search at the mobile shops on behalf of IMI to exercise his authority in the jurisdiction of

Kamareddy. Though Pw1 in his evidence categorically stated that IMI issued power of attorney to conduct survey and search to lodge complaint against piracy, but surprisingly no such power of attorney is forthcoming from the prosecution to prove that Pw1 has authority or power to conduct survey and search of the mobile shops and lodge complaint against piracy on behalf of the music company holding valid copy rights. Pw1 in his cross examination categorically stated that he did not hand over any document to the police to show that he can exercise his authority in the jurisdiction of Kamareddy. He further categorically stated that he did not receive any complaint from anybody alleging illegal sale of memory cards with songs and he cannot say from which source the songs were preloaded in the memory card. Pw1 alleged that he surveyed and found that the owners of New Times Mobile shop and SS Mobile shop selling memory cards with preloaded telugu cinema songs. But during cross examination he categorically stated that he did not verify whether the memory cards are empty or it contains songs. The above mentioned facts elicited in the cross examination of Pw1 would invariably go to show that Pw1 lodged a complaint with vague contention against the owners of the above mentioned mobile shops without properly verifying whether the memory cards which were alleged to have been sold contains pre-loaded telugu cinema songs.

5/7 CC 201/2015

12.Another important aspect which is to be noted here is that Pw1 nowhere deposed anything incriminating against A1 and A2 herein, more particularly that A1 and A2 are the owners of the mobile shops allegedly surveyed and searched by him. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that Pw1 did not file any power of attorney to show that he had authority to conduct survey and search at the mobile shops on behalf of the IMI, I am of the considered opinion that the locus-standi of Pw1 to perform such acts and to lodge complaint against piracy is itself in question.

13.Pw3 who is none other than the Investigating Officer also categorically stated in his cross examination that he did not file any record to show that Pw1 is the Investigator of Indian Music Industry. He further admitted that he did not collect any power of attorney from Pw1 to show that he has locus-standi to lodge complaint. In such a case it is beyond my understanding as to on what basis Pw3 registered FIR (Ex.P4) on the vague complaint lodged by Pw1 without verifying his capacity and locus-standi to lodge Ex.P1. Therefore the case of the prosecution suffers from many lacunas, more particularly about the locus-standi of Pw1 to lodge Ex.P1 basing on which the investigation was set into motion. Pw3 further in his evidence deposed about the seizure of two 4GB

Memory Cards and one 2GB Memory Card from the shop of A1 and two 4GB

Memory Cards and one 2GB Memory Card from the shop of A2 basing on separate confession-cum-seizure panchanama in presence of the mediators vide

Exs.P5 and P6 respectively.

14.It is alleged by Pw3 that A1 is the owner of New Times Mobile shop from where MO1 was seized and A2 is the owner of SS Mobile shop from whom Mo2 was seized basing on their alleged confessional statement. But 6/7 CC 201/2015 admittedly as seen from the cross examination of Pw3 he did not file any record to show that A1 and A2 are the owners of the above mentioned mobile shops respectively. Be that as it may, Pw2 in presence of whom Pw3 is alleged to have conducted panchanama and seized Mos 1 and 2 from the mobile shops of

A1 and A2 respectively, did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The prosecution did not make any efforts to examine another panch witness for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 i.e., Exs.P5 and P6 respectively and the seizure of Mos 1 and 2 from the shops of A1 and

A2 respectively. Therefore the hostile evidence of Pw2 and the failure of the prosecution to examine Lw3 (Shaik Afroz) proved fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore there is no cogent evidence on record to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offences alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/s. 63 r/w 51, 68-A r/w 52-A (1) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

16.Mos 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01st day of May, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 7/7 CC 201/2015 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:- Pw1: D. Ramana/Defacto Complainant -Nil- Pw2: M.A. Mumtaz/Panch for confession and recovery panchanama Pw3: K. Srinivas Reddy/Investigating Officer

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Signature of Pw2 on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1

dated 20-05-2015 at 13:00 hours.

Ex.P3: Signature of Pw2 on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2

dated 20-05-2015 at 14:15 hours.

Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 dated 20-05-2015 at 13:00 hours Ex.P6: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 dated 20-05-2015 at 14:15 hours

Material Objects Marked MO1: Two 4GB Memory Cards and one 2GB Memory Card MO2: Two 4GB Memory Cards and one 2GB Memory Card

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 8/7 CC 201/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No.201 of 2015

Name of the police station. :Kamreddy

Crime No. of offence. :145 of 2015

Description of the accused. : Mohd. Shakeer Pasha and another (A1 and A2)

Date of offence. :20-05-2015

Date of Complaint :20-05-2015

Date of apprehension. : 21-05-2015

Date of commencement of trial. : 28-12-2016

Date of closure of trial. : 12-04-2017

Date of sentence or order. : 01-05-2017

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

To:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 9/7 CC 201/2015

1/6 CC 299/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

C.C. No.299 of 2013 Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Devanpally.

…Complainant // And //

A1: Dyapa Raju, S/o. Pentaiah, Age: 32 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o. Narsannapally Village of Kamareddy Mandal. A2. Chidura Limba Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: 33 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narsannapally Village of Kamareddy Mandal. A3. Dyapa Swamy, S/o. Muthaiah, Age: 27 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narsannapally Village of Kamareddy Mandal. A4: Chidura Linga Reddy, S/o. Bal Rajaiah, Age 45 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Narsannapally Village of Kamareddy Mandal. A5: Chennam Santhosh Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: 27 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Narsannapally Village of Kamareddy Mandal.

….A1 to A5 --<>--

This case coming before me on this the 27th day of April, 2017 for hearinganddisposalinthepresenceofAPP for the State and Sri P. Jaya Prakash, Advocate for the accused persons and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Devanpally laid charge sheet against

A1 to A5 in Cr.No. 218 of 2013 for the offence U/s. 379 IPC.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 30-06-2013 at about 21:30 hours A1 to A4 were returning to Narsannapally from Chinthamanpally.

On the way on NH-44 at Narsannapally Shivar A1 to A4 saw one Container

Lorry bearing No. HR-38-P-9828 which accidentally slipped from the road due 2/6 CC 299/2013 to which the Refrigerators from the lorry fell down. On seeing the same A1 to

A4 hatched a plan to commit theft of Refrigerators and called A5 with auto and committed theft of (5) Refrigerators and loaded the same in the auto bearing

No. AP-25-X-5485 and returned to their house and distributed one Refrigerator each among them. Therefore A1 to A5 are liable for punishment for the offence

U/s. 379 IPC.

3.Basing on the report given by Lw1/Thandle Kishan, Lw9/B. Satya Yesu

Babu, Inspector of Police (Prob), SHO, PS, Devanpally registered a case in

Cr.No.218 of 2013 for the offence U/s. 379 IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation Lw9 examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 and 2 (Thandle Kishan and Bestha Naresh). Further visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and found one container lorry bearing

No.HR-38-P-9828 which was accidentally slipped besides the road having

Refrigerators load and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew its rough sketch. During the scene panchanama Lw9 examined and recorded the statements of the witlessness i.e., Lws 3 and 4 (Arjun Singh Yadav and S.K.

Ahmed). Further verified the invoice of the lorry and verified the Refrigerators in the lorry and compared with invoice and available Refrigerators, but five

Refrigerators are less out of 144 Refrigerators. On 02-07-2013 Lw9 received credible information on his source that some Narsannapally Villagers committed theft of the Refrigerators from the slipped lorry. Upon which Lw9 with sufficient force proceeded to Narsannapally Village at Gandhi Statue and on seeing them A1 to A5 tried to escape, but the police chased them and upon interrogation they confessed the guilt in presence of panchas i.e., Lws 7 and 8 (Dyapa Raju and Chiduru Rajireddy). As such Lw9 affected the arrest of A1 to 3/6 CC 299/2013 A5 and produced them before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offence U/s. 379 IPC.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file U/s. 379 IPC and proceeded with.

5.On appearance of A1 to A5, copies of case documents were furnished to them provided U/s. 207 Cr.P.C and charge there upon was framed against them for the offence U/s. 379 IPC and read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of A1 to A5 U/s.

313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for A1 to A5.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence U/s. 379 IPC against A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT:-

Pw1 who is the defacto complainant and the then Police Constable of PS,

Devanpally deposed that on 30-06-2013 the SHO, PS, Devanpally received information with regard to an accident at Narsannapally shivar on NH-44 and also theft of Refrigerators from the container lorry which met with an accident 4/6 CC 299/2013 and immediately on the instructions of SHO/Lw9 (B. Satya Yesu Babu,

Inspector of Police (Prob), SHO, PS, Devanpally, he along with Lw2 (Bestha

Naresh) rushed to the spot at 10:00 pm and noticed that a container lorry bearing No.HR-38-P-9828 with a load of Refrigerators turned turtle and fell in a ditch abutting NH-44 and some Refrigerators were stolen from the load in the said lorry. He further deposed that the driver and cleaner of the lorry were absconding since the time of the incident and that they waited at the spot till the next morning and returned to the Police station and he lodged a complaint to the police vide Ex.P1.

11.Pw2 who is cited as circumstantial witness deposed that about 4 years ago at 11:00 pm Lw3 (Arjun Singh Yadav) informed him that his lorry loaded with Refrigerators fell into a ditch and that some unknown offenders committed theft of some Refrigerators and immediately he advised Lw3 to go to a pan shop near by the place of offence at Narsannapalli and inform the matter to the police.

12.As seen from the cross examination of Pw1, nothing worth was elicited to disprove his evidence to the effect that the Container Lorry met with an accident and fell in a ditch and that some Refrigerators were stolen from the said lorry. But it may be noted here that the evidence of Pw1 nowhere reveals the involvement of A1 to A5 herein in order to connect the guilt to them. Pw2 was not subjected to cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused.

But it may be noted here that the evidence of Pw2 is hearsay and his evidence also does not contain any incriminating evidence against the accused persons, more particularly their involvement in the said offence. Therefore the evidence 5/6 CC 299/2013 of Pws 1 and 2 is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused for the offence U/s. 379 IPC.

13.Pws 3 and 4 who are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

14.Pws 5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for the confession and recovery panchanama in presence of whom Lw9 is alleged to have seized five

Refrigerators from the house of A1 to A3 and A5 and one Auto Trolley bearing

No.AP.25-X-5485 from the possession of A5 basing on their alleged confessional statements. But Pws 5 and 6 did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Except identifying their signatures vide Exs.P4 and P5 on the confession and recovery panchanama, nothing was deposed by them in favour of the prosecution, more particularly about the seizure of

Refrigerators and Auto Trolley at the instance of the accused persons herein.

Surprisingly the prosecution did not make any efforts to examine Lw9 who is alleged to have seized five Refrigerators and Auto Trolley bearing No.

AP.25-X-5485 from the possession of the accused persons basing on their alleged confessional statements. Therefore as seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is no iota of evidence against the accused persons herein in order to connect the guilt to them for the offence U/s.397 IPC. As stated supra, the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer i.e., Lw9 proved fatal to the case of the prosecution.

15.Therefore the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 to

A5 for the offence U/s. 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence theyr are entitled for acquittal.

6/6 CC 299/2013

16.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence U/s. 379 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to

A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

17.The unmarked case property i.e., five Refrigerators and one Auto Trolly bearing No.AP-25-X-5485 which are deposited vide CPR No.439/2013 shall be returned to its respective owners on proper identification after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:- Pw1: T. Kishan/Defacto Complainant -Nil- Pw2: Shaik Ahmed/Circumstantial WItness Pw3: Dyapa Mallesham/Panch for scene of offence panchanama Pw4: Sangishetty Naresh/Panch for scene of offence panchanama Pw5: Dyapa Raju/Panch for confession and recovery panchanama Pw6: Chidura Raji Reddy/Panch for confession and recovery panchanama

Exhibits Marked Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Signature of Pw3 on the CDF dated 01-07-2013 Ex.P3: Signature of Pw4 on the CDF dated 01-07-2013 Ex.P4: Signature of Pw5 on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama

dated 02-07-2013

Ex.P5: Signature of Pw6 on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama

dated 02-07-2013

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy 7/6 CC 299/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No.299 of 2013

Name of the police station. :Devanpally

Crime No. of offence. :218 of 2013

Description of the accused. : Dyapa Raju and others

Date of offence. :30-06-2013

Date of Complaint :01-07-2013

Date of apprehension. : 02-07-2013

Date of commencement of trial. : 19-01-2017

Date of closure of trial. : 16-03-2017

Date of sentence or order. : 28-04-2017

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

To:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 8/6 CC 299/2013

CC 134/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

C.C. No.134 of 2013

Between:- The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor.

…Complainant // And //

A1: Thappatla Suresh, S/o. Narsimha, Age: 35 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. H.No.3-5-120, Rajivnagar Colony, Housing Board, Moulali, R.R. Dist. A2: Thappatla Narsimha, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Hotel Business, R/o. H.No.3-5-120, Rajivnagar Colony, Housing Board, Moulali, R.R. Dist.

….A1and A2.

Note: A2 reported died and hence the case against A2 is abated on

07-04-2017 and hence the case against A1 is proceeded with .

--<>--

This case coming before me on this the 28th day of April, 2017 for hearinganddisposalinthepresenceofAPP for the State and Sri K. Devaraj, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr.No.200 of 2012 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that that the marriage of the defacto complainant was solemnized with A1 about 15 years ago as per customs prevailing in their community and that the parents of the defacto complainant presented cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, one thula gold and household articles worth

Rs.50,000/- and thereafter A1 and A2 harassed the defacto complainant

CC 134/2013

physically and mentally to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and that the parents of the defacto complainant gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- with a hope that A1 may look after the defacto complainant well, but in vain. That on 05-09-2012 A1 beat the defacto complainant for causing delay to bring the

additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore A1 and A2 are liable for

punishment for the offence U/s.498-A IPC.

3.Basing on the private complaint given by Lw1/Thappatla Rani, Lw5/K.

Gangadhar Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Bhinoor registered a case in

Cr.No.200 of 2012 for the offence U/s.498-A IPC against A1 and A2 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw5 examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and her parents and relatives i.e., Lws 1 to 4 (Mamindla Laxmi Narsaiah, Mamindla Aruna and Mamindla

Parushuram) and served notice to the accused. On 20-12-2012 at 10:00 hours

A1 surrendered before Lw5 and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A2. As such Lw5 affected the arrest of

A1 and produced him before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand. While the investigation is in progress and efforts are continued on 23-04-2013 at 09:00 hours A2 surrendered before Lw5 at the police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A1. As such Lw5 affected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the Hon'ble Court for judicial remand and after completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 and

A2 for the offence U/s. 498-A IPC.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file U/s.498-A IPC against A1 and A2.

CC 134/2013

5.During the course of proceedings, NBW of A2 returned stating that he is dead and hence the case against A2 is abated on 07-04-2017. Copies of case documents was furnished to A1 as provided U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and charge there upon was framed against him for the offence U/s.498-A IPC read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined Pw1 and got marked

Exs.P1 and P2.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of A1 U/s.313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating circumstance appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for A1.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence U/s.498-A IPC against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The prosecution examined the the defacto complainant and the victim herein as Pw1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The offence against the accused is U/s.498-A IPC, but Pw1 who is the material witnesses and the victim herein herein, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Though the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined her, nothing have been elicited from her in support of it and in cross examination she denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P2 (161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1). The learned Asst. Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses stating that there is no

CC 134/2013

incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons and no purpose would be served even if they are examined. Hence, there is no evidence against the accused to connect the alleged offence U/s.498-A IPC. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against A1 beyond all reasonable doubt and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/s.498-A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C.

12.The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Kamareddy is directed to release A1 forthwith if he is not required in any other cases.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Prosecution For Defence:- Pw1: Thappatla Rani/Defacto Complainant/Victim -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on the private complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

CC 134/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

KAMAREDDY

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT OF CASE TRIED BY JMFC,

KAMAREDDY

C.C. No.134 of 2013

Name of the police station. :Bhiknoor

Crime No. of offence. :200 of 2012

Description of the accused. : Thappatla Suresh (A1)

Date of offence. : 05-09-2012

Date of complaint. : 15-09-2012

Date of apprehension. : 20-12-2012 (A1)

Date of commencement of trial. : 28-04-2017

Date of closure of trial. : 28-04-2017

Date of sentence or order. : 28-04-2017

Explanation for delay or remarks. : ----

Findings. : Not guilty

Sentence/Order : Acquitted

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy

To:- The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad