Smt.D.Geeta Rani

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M.Hari Narayana, B.Com., LL.M., FAC XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 20 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

C.C.NO.1275/2009

Between:

State through PS Pahadishareef.. . . Complainant.

AND

1. Indravath Jagan (A1).

2. Smt Kashamoni Padma (A2). . . . Accused

a) Sl.No. of the Case:C.C.1275/2009

b) Date of Commission of offence:09-06-2008

c) Name of the Complainant:State through PS Pahadishareef.

d) Name of the Accused person, : 1. Indravath Jagan (A1), his parentage and residence S/o.Singia, aged 32 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Mansoorabad, LB nagar.

2. Smt Kashamoni Padma(A2), W/o.Ashok, age 30 years, Occ: Flowers vendor, Caste: Mudiraj, R/o.Plot No.236, Vinayaka Nagar, Uddamgadda, Rajendranagar mandal, R.R. District.

e) Offence complained of:Section 392 of IPC.

f) Plea of the accused and his Examination:Not guilty

g) Final Order: A1 and A2 are acquitted.

h) Date of Order:20-03-2012

This case came before me for final hearing on 16-03-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K.Narsing Raoji, K.Bhasker Reddy Advocates for A1 and of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, Adcocate for A2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of robbery committed by A1 and A2 on 08-06-2008 at about 8.30 pm near Jalpally gate, for which, police

Pahadishareef registered a case in Cr.No.240/2008 and tookup investigation for the offence punishable U/s.392 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08-06-2008 night about 2030 hours A1 kept his auto bearing No.AP 13 V 6410 at

Secunderabad Bus station and LW1-Tall Sai Kumar, S/o.T.Narayana,

R/o.Nizamabad district (PW1), who was about to visit Imliban Bus station boarded the auto of A1 to proceed to Imliban Bus station, while proceeding, on the way when reached near Koti bus stop, A2 saw auto of

A1 and stopped, accordingly to the plan of A1 and A2, A2 boarded auto of A1 as passenger and A2 diverted the mind of LW1 as to fulfill his desire, meanwhile A1 took the auto to the outskirts of Jalpally village in

Pahadishareef area, near to the bushes in forest area, where A1 and A2 beat PW1 and threatening him with dire consequences, relieved his two gold rings, one gold bracelet, gold chain about 4 tulas, and Rs.4,000/- cash, one cell phone, one wrist watch, which all worth Rs.45,000/- and decamped with the booty at 10.30 pm and thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC.

3. Initially, the police laid charge sheet before the learned II

Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, the said Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.392 of IPC against the accused (A1 and

A2) and numbered as C.C.No.633/2008.

4.Thereafter the case was transferred from learned II

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, L.B.Nagar to this court and it was renumbered as C.C.No.1275/2009.

3

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

6.The accused were examined under Section 239 in respect of accusation levelled against them, they denied the same, on which a charge for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC was framed, readover and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the same.

7.In pursuance of the case, PW1 to PW5 were examined and got Ex.P1 and Ex.P10 marked. M.O.1 two rings, M.O.2 bracelet, M.O.3 gold chain.

8.After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them. They denied the same and reported for defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments for both side.

10.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could succeed in proving the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.392 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO. 1:

11.The allegations made against the accused are that the accused posing themselves as auto driver and the passenger of the auto took PW1 to a bushes at Jalpally gate, Pahadishareef and beat him and threatened with dire consequences and so threatened snatched two gold rings, one gold bracelet, gold chain about 4 tulas and cash of

Rs.4,000/- and one cellphone and one wrist watch and all worth of

Rs.45,000/- and fled away.

12.The victim (PW1) in his evidence deposed that about two years back at about 6.00 pm, he fell down on the road in unconscious condition and he regained conscious at Pahadishareef Police station on 4 the next day morning, where he lodged a complaint alleging that his two gold rings, bracelet and chain were committed theft of the same.

He also stated that after he lodged Ex.P1 complaint his property was recovered and he took the same towards interim custody i.e., two rings (M.O.1), Bracelet (M.O.2) and gold chain (M.O.3).

13.It is to be noticed that the PW1 in his Ex.P1 complaint made specific allegations about commissions of theft by auto driver and also women who boarded on the way to the Pahadisahreerf at Imlibun bus station. It is also noticed that when a test identification parade was conducted by PW2, PW1 identified the accused (A1) but before this court he retracted from his earlier statement and has given a new version stating that he fell unconscious on a road and he regained conscious on the next day morning at Pahadishareef. Though, PW1 has taken 'U' turn to the earlier version he was not declared hostile by learned A.P.P., as such the version of the PW1 in his chief before the court cannot be said to be a false statement given in his evidence

before the court.

14.PW2 who is Judicial Officer, who conducted test identification deposed before this court that in the test identification parade conducted by her at Cherlapally Jail on 05-07-2008, PW1 identified A1 and she prepared test identification proceedings under Ex.P2. It is to be noticed that though PW1 identified A1 at the test identification parade, yet PW1 himself in his evidence before the court gave a go bye to his earlier version. As observed above PW1 was not treated as hostile and was not cross-examined and therefore the evidence of PW1 cannot be doubted. Since PW1 failed to support his version given under Ex.P1, this court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW2 though helpful to the prosecution with regard to the identification of A1 5 by PW1 but the same could not be helpful to prove the guilt of the A1 in view of the changed version of the PW1.

15.PW3, PW4 are panch witnesses who failed to support the case of the prosecution. However the signatures of PW4 on pachanama, are marked as Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Since PW3 and

PW4 failed to prove the prosecution case, though PW4 admitted his signature on panchanama the same are not helpful to connect the guilt of the accused. PW5 is the then Inspector of Police, PS Pahadishareef who filed charge sheet deposed about receiving of complaint and registering the crime and apprehended the accused and conducting test identification parade of A1 through PW2 and recovering the property from A1 and submitting the same before the court and filing of the charge sheet after completion of the investigation.

16.Since PW1 failed to support the case of the prosecution and equally the panch witnesses also turned hostile this court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW5 is not sufficient to hold that the accused are guilt of the offence for which they are charged.

17.In the result, the accused (A1 and A2) are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly the accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. MOs 1 to 3 are given to interim custody of PW1 and bond executed by PW1 would stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of March, 2012.

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: T.Sai Kumar.NONE PW2: Smt T.Jaya Laxmi. PW3: B.Thirupatamma. PW4: Mohd. Rafee. PW5: Muthyam Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EX.P1: Complaint by PW1.NIL Ex.P2: Identification proceedings. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on confessional statement of A1. Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on confessional statement of A2. Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on Seizure report. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P8: Confessional panchanama of A1. Ex.P9: Confessional panchanama of A2. Ex.P10: Seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Two Gold rings. M.O.2: Gold Bracelet. M.O.3: Gold chain.

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M. Hari Narayana, B.Com., LL.M., FAC XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 28 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

C.C.NO.200/2011

Between:

State through PS Pahadishareef.. . . Complainant.

AND

Karambori Mallikarjun.. . . Accused

a) Sl.No. of the Case:C.C.200/2011

b) Date of Commission of offence:06-07-2011

c) Name o-f the Complainant:State through PS Pahadishareef.

d) Name of the Accused person, : Karambori Mallikarjun, his parentage and residence S/o.Manik Rao, age 26 years, Caste: Lingayath, Occ: Labour, R/o.Sriram colony, Saroornagar mandal, R.R. District. N/o.Birki village and Taluka, Bidar district, Karnataka state.

e) Offence complained of:Section 379 r/w 511 of IPC.

f) Plea of the accused and his Examination:Not guilty

g) Final Order: Accused is convicted.

h) Date of Order: 28-03-2012

This case came before me for final hearing on 28-03-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri.George Victor, Balamani, Advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of commitment of theft of cell phone of

M.Janaiah at Thukkuguda village by the accused, for which the police

Pahadishareef registered a case in Cr.No.263/2011 and tookup 2 investigation for the offence punishable U/s.379 r/w 511 of Indian Penal

Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06-07-2011 at 0830 hours received a complaint from M.Janaiah, Constable of PS

Pahadishareef, in which he stated that he and his colleague Balakishan, both were went to Thukkuguda village and while complainant was purchasing vegetables by bending his body, meantime accused put his hand on complainant's pocket and committed theft of his cell phone, at that time the complainant was altered and questioned, on which the accused try to escape and caught hold by the public. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable U/s.379, 511 of IPC.

3.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.379 r/w 511 of IPC against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.200/2011.

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 in respect of accusation levelled against him, he denied the same, on which a charge for the offence punishable U/s.379 r/w 511 of IPC was framed, readover and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the same.

6.In pursuance of the case, PW1 to PW6 were examined and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 marked. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is eyewitness to the incident. PW3 is panch witness for the scene of offence. PW4 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for confession. PW6 is the investigating officer.

7.After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating 3 material was put to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all the alleged offence U/s.379 r/w 511 of IPC?

10.It is the evidence of the PW1 that on 06-07-2011, he along with LW2-Bala Kishan (PW2) went to Thukkuguda bus stop at about 7.30 am while they were purchasing vegetable the accused put his hand in his shirt pocket and try to commit theft of his cellphone.

Having observed the same he try to question him, meanwhile the accused left the cell phone in his pocket and fled away. The people and LW2(PW2) caught the accused and handover to the police. PW2 who said to have accompanied PW1 at the time of the incident clearly supported the PW1. PW3 is panch witness for scene of offence. He deposed about the police having conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch. According to him Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P3 is rough sketch. He denied the suggestion that he has not visited the scene of offence and he is stock witness to the police. The plea of the accused as can be seen from the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 is that PW1 and PW2 being police constables of the same police station filed the false case against the accused for the purpose of statistics. In support of his defence the counsel for the accused try to elicit that the PW1 failed to give the descriptive particulars of the cellphone and he has not filed any documents to show that the cellphone belongs to him. The counsel further contended that the police did not seize the cellphone.

PW4 and PW5 are mediators of the confession of the accused. But both the witness did not support the case of the prosecution. No 4 independent witnesses were examined by the police. The counsel for the accused argued that though vegetable shop owner and other people were present at the time of the incident, the police did not examine them. Hence the evidence of PW1 and PW2 cannot be believed.

11.As can be seen except the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and PW6 (investigating officer) there is no other independent evidence on record. What has to be seen here is whether the testimony of the

PW1 and PW2 can be believed. The counsel for the accused contended that only for the purpose of the statistics the PW1 and PW2 got a false case foisted. This is the reason shown by the defence for the allegation of false implication of the accused in the present case. The careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 goes to show that there is nothing in their evidence to suspect that they are speaking false. Merely for the purpose of statistics it cannot be inferred that PW1 and PW2 created a false case against the accused and implicated him in this case. There is no valid reason to discard the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and I find no force in the arguments of the counsel for the accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW6 is sufficient to prove that the accused admitted that commission of theft of cellphone has contended by the prosecution. Hence I am of the opinion that the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused.

12.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code, hence he is convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2012.

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

5

The accused is present in the court hall. He is

questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. He stated

that he is poor person and requested the court to take lenient

view. But in view of the nature of the offence it is not fit case

either to take lenient view or to invoke benevolent provision of

P.O. Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for conviction.

After hearing the accused with regard to the

quantum of sentence and on considering the facts and

circumstances of the accused I sentence the accused to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of FOUR MONTHS for the

offence punishable U/s.379 r/w 511 of IPC.

As can be seen the accused was in jail from

06-07-2011 to 03-11-2011 and also from 20-03-2012 to till today

which shall be set off. No case property is deposited in the

present case.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: M.JanaiahNONE PW2: N.Bala Kishan. PW3: MD.Javeed Khan. PW4: B.Pandu. PW5: Shaik Saheed. PW6: S.Venkatesham.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EX.P1: Report by PW1. NIL Ex.P2: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3: Rough sketch. Ex.P4: Signature of PW4 on confession cum recovery panchanama. Ex.P5: Signature of PW5 on confession cum recovery panchanama.

6

Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: Confessional cum recovery panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M.Hari Narayana, B.Com., LL.M., FAC XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 19 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

C.C.NO.108/2009

Between:

State through PS Pahadishareef.. . . Complainant.

AND

1. Dudimetla Anjaneyulu @ Anjanna (A1)

2. Dudimetla Mallesh(A2). . . . Accused

a) Sl.No. of the Case:C.C.108/2009

b) Date of Commission of offence:30-07-2008

c) Name of the Complainant:State through PS Pahadishareef.

d) Name of the Accused person, : 1.Dudimetla Anjaneyulu @, his parentage and residence @ Anjanna(A1), S/o.Parvathalu, age 25 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-40, Ravirala village, Maheshwaram mandal. 2.Dudimetla Mallesh(A2), S/o.Parvathalu, age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-40, Ravirala village, Maheshwaram mandal.

e) Offence complained of:Section 323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC.

f) Plea of the accused and his Examination:Not guilty

g) Final Order: A1 and A2 are acquitted.

h) Date of Order:19-03-2012

This case came before me for final hearing on 15-03-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, G.Ashok, J.Satish, Advocates for the A1 and A2 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of criminal trespass and causing injury by the accused, for which, police Pahadishareef registered a case in

Cr.No.311/2008 and tookup investigation for the offence punishable

U/s.323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30-07-2008 at 1000 hours received a complaint from Smt Dobba Yadamma,

W/o.D.yadaiah, R/o.Ravirala village, in which she stated that on 29-07- 2008 in the morning her son Balesh and her village Dudimetla Anjan @Anjaneyulu (A1) and Dudimetla Mallesh (A2) picked up quarrel and abused each other in filthy language regarding the issue of digging the well at their agriculture land, later her son returned to his house. After passing some time at about 10 pm A1 and A2 criminally trespassed into her house and beat her son Balesh, A1 abused her in filthy language and beat her on the right knee with stone with hands on the lips, as a result she sustained bleeding injuries. Further when her daughter Renuka and her younger son Suresh stopped them, they also beat them with hands.

Thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable U/s.448, 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Initially, the police laid charge sheet before the Hon’ble II

Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, the said Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused (A1 and A2) and numbered as C.C.No.667/2008.

4.Thereafter this file was transferred from Hon’ble II

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, L.B.Nagar through vide dispatch

No.17/2009, dt.17-01-2009 to this court and renumbered as

C.C.No.108/2009.

3

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

6.The accused were examined under Section 239 in respect of accusation levelled against them, they denied the same, on which a charge for the offence punishable U/s.448, 323, 324 r/w 34 of IPC was framed, readover and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the same

7.In pursuance of the case, PW1 to PW5 were examined and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 marked. No material objects were marked. PW1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are circumstantial witnesses. PW4 and

PW5 are the investigating officers.

8.After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them. They denied the same and reported for defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments for both side.

10. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could succeed in proving the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO. 1:

11.The allegations made against the accused is that the accused assaulted the son of the PW1 by trespassing into her house and when she tried to interfere she to was beaten by the accused and as such PW1 lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 to take necessary action. The prosecution initially examined the victim as PW1 on 25-03- 2011. PW1 in her chief examination deposed that accused beat her son with legs and hands due to which he received injuries on his right leg knee and the accused also beat her and her son keeping in mind 4 previous enmity. The cross-examination was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for the accused. Later this court adjourned the matter for cross-examination of PW1, she did not turn up and ultimately this court closed the cross-examination of PW1 on 06-02-2012 by considering the report filed by the prosecution stating that whereabouts of PW1 was not known. Thus the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as she was not subjected to cross-examination.

12.The prosecution also examined eyewitnesses as PW2 and

PW3 and PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution also examined the Assistant Sub-Inspector who effected the arrest of the accused and did investigation as PW4. The evidence of PW4 only shows that he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and effected the arrest of the accused and of collection of the medical certificate.

13.The prosecution also examined Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed charge sheet as PW5. It is to be noticed that PW4 and PW5 had only investigated and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation. Since the victim was not subject for cross-examination and eyewitnesses too failed to support the prosecution case, this court is of the opinion that the no substantial evidence is available on record to connect the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC.

14.In the result, the accused (A1 and A2) are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 448 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly the accused are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C, for the said 5 offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2012.

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Smt Dobba Yadamma.NONE PW2: Durgam Raju. PW3: Pralakonda Bhasker. PW4: M.Tulsaiah. PW5: G.Satyanarayana.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EX.P1: Complaint by PW1.NIL Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P4: First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M.Hari Narayana, B.Com.,LL.M., FAC XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 30 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

C.C.NO.252/2009

Between:

State through PS Pahadishareef. . . Complainant.

AND

Syed Nisar Mehdi. . . . Accused

a) Sl.No. of the Case:C.C.252/2009

b) Date of Commission of offence:11-09-2008

c) Name of the Complainant:State through PS Pahadishareef

d) Name of the Accused person, : Syed Nisar Mehdi, his parentage and residence S/o.Syed Osman, aged 34 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.H.No.16-3-363, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

e) Offence complained of:Section 304-A and 338 of IPC.

f) Plea of the accused and his Examination:Not guilty

g) Final Order:Accused is acquitted.

h) Date of Order:30-03-2012

This case came before me for final hearing on 26-03-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri.Deekonda Ravinder, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-09-2008 at 11.40 am received a complaint from LW1- Muvilla Kaluva Krishna Reddy,

S/o.M.Raja Gopal Reddy, R/o.Thukkuguda village, in which he stated that on 11-09-2008 at 0900 hours while his brother-in-law by name Baratam 2

Santosh Kumar was proceeding towards Hyderabad side from

Thukkuguda on his Bajaj Discovery Bike bearing No.AP10 AN 5532 and reached near Huda school, Shaheen nagar, in the mean time one Tata

Indica car bearing No.AP 09Y 0342 being driven by the accused, proceeding in opposite direction drove the vehicle with high speed and in rash and negligent manner dashed against his brother-in-law, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries to his right leg and waist and also dashed to Nenavath Ravi who is proceeding from behind to the pulsor motor cycle, due to the above hit to his motor cycle, he suffered bleeding injuries to his head. Basing on the complaint a case in

Cr.No.386/2008 U/s.337 of IPC was registered and investigated into.

While the investigation was in progress on 15-09-2008, information was received from Kings hospital that the patient Santosh Kumar who was taking treatment succumbed to injuries and as such the section 304-A of

IPC was also added. On 29-09-2008, the accused was arrested and thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable U/s.304-A and 338 of IPC.

2.Initially, the police laid charge sheet before the learned

II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar and the said Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.304-A, 338 of IPC against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.818/2008.

3.Thereafter this file was transferred from II Metropolitan

Magistrate’s Court, L.B.Nagar through vide dispatch No.17/2009, dt.17-

01-2009 to this court and renumbered as C.C.No.252/2009.

4.After the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

5.The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. No material objects are marked.

7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments for both side.

9.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could succeed in proving the guilty of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.304-A and 338 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:- PW1 is injured, PW2 is Assistant Professor of F.M.

Department OMC who conducted postmortem on the deceased and

PW3 is Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the crime vehicle was not found with any mechanical defects.

11.The allegations made against the accused is that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of the deceased and also caused injuries to PW1. To prove the offence U/s.304-A of IPC the prosecution has to establish that the death of the deceased and such death was resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. To prove the offence U/s.337 of

IPC the prosecution has to establish that due to negligent driving of the accused caused injuries to PW1.

12.In this case PW1 who suffered injuries deposed that about two years back when he was coming from Pahadishareef on a bike towards Shaheen nagar, he sustained injuries and he does not know how he received injuries and how the accident was occurred.

13.PW2 is the Assistant Medical Professor whose evidence will be helpful to prove the death of the deceased since he conducted the 4 postmortem examination. PW3 is the Motor vehicle Inspector who deposed that he examined the crime vehicle and found there was no mechanical defects in the vehicle. Though the death was proved, though the vehicle was not found with any mechanical defects yet the fact that remains that how the death was caused was not explained by

PW1 who is the crucial witness. Since PW1 failed to support the case of the prosecution, this court was of the view that even if the remaining witnesses were examined no purpose would be served except wasting the time of the court and as such, this court closed the evidence of the remaining witnesses. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that though there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased, the prosecution failed to prove that such death resulted due to rash and negligent act of the accused.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/s. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused if any, shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of March, 2012.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Nenavath Ravi. NONE PW2: K.Janardan. PW3: Sairam reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EX.P1: 161 Cr.p.C. statement of PW1. NIL Ex.P2: PME report. Ex.P3: MVI Report.

5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL.

XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Sri M.Hari Narayana, B.Com., LL.M., FAC XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

DATED ON THIS THE 19 th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

C.C.NO.105/2009

Between:

State through PS Pahadishareef.. . . Complainant.

AND

1. Abdul Khader Bin Salam Bahameed(A1)

2. Osman-ba-Masood (A2).

3. Chiluka Srinivas(A3). . . . Accused

a) Sl.No. of the Case:C.C.105/2009

b) Date of Commission of offence:26-02-2007

c) Name of the Complainant:State through PS Pahadishareef.

d) Name of the Accused person, : 1.Abdul Khader Bin Salam his parentage and residence Bahameed (A1), S/o.Salam Bahameed, age 34 years, occ: Business, R/o.18-10-78/1, Barkas, Hyderabad. 2.Osman-ba-Masood (A2), S/o.Mohammed-Ba-Masood, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.18-10- 316, Barkas, Hyderabad.

3. Chiluka Srinivas (A3), S/o.Sanjanna, age : 39 years, Occ: Mason, Caste:Uppari, R/o.Devendernaga colony, N/o.Peruru(V), Devera Khadra (M), Mahaboobnagar District.

e) Offence complained of:Sections 447, 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC.

f) Plea of the accused and his Examination:Not guilty

g) Final Order: A1 to A3 are acquitted.

h) Date of Order:19-03-2012 2

This case came before me for final hearing on 15-03-2012 in the presence of the Asst. Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri M.A.Azeem, Mohd Shareef, Advocates for A1 and A2, Sri E.Srinivas Reddy, G.Ashok, Advocates for the A3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case of criminal trespass and construction of some houses and huts by the accused in Sy.No.99/1, situated at Mamidipally village, for which, police Pahadishareef registered a case in

Cr.No.67/2007 and tookup investigation for the offences punishable

U/s.447, 506(1) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26-02-2007 at 1800 hours received a complaint from C.Gopal Reddy, S/o.Sundra Rami

Reddy, R/o. H.No.1009 Indu forton, KPHB colony, Hyderabad, in which he stated that in Sy.No.99/1 situated at Mamidipally (V) limits extent of 250 acres land belongs to Indo-tech Pvt ltd, Software company and the said land was allotted to the said company by APIIC authorities and he is doing work as Manager in the said software company and since some months and around the said land a compound wall construction work is going on and about three days back A1 to A3 criminally trespassed into the said land and threatened with dire consequence to kill LW2 (Kamma

Shetty Hari Babu) and LW3(Gummadi Veeraiah Chowdary) if they do the work, as the said land belongs to them if any body also come there they will see their end, they will not leave this place. Thereby the accused have committed an offences punishable U/s.447, 506(1) r/w 34 of IPC.

3.Initially, the police laid charge sheet before the Hon’ble II

Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B.Nagar, the said Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.447, 506 (1) r/w 34 of IPC against the accused (A1 to A3) and numbered as C.C.No.630/2007.

3

4.Thereafter this file was transferred from Hon’ble II

Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, L.B.Nagar through vide dispatch

No.17/2009, dt.17-01-2009 to this court and renumbered as

C.C.No.105/2009.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused.

6.The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offences U/Sec.447, 506 (1) r/w 34 of IPC. They pleaded not guilty.

7.In pursuance of the case, PW1 was examined and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 marked. No material objects were marked. PW1 is the investigating officer who issued FIR and filed charge sheet.

8.After the closure of the prosecution's side evidence, the accused were examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material was put to them. They denied the same and reported for defence evidence.

9.Heard arguments for both side.

10.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution could succeed in proving the guilty of the accused for the offences punishable 447, 506 (1) r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO. 1:

11.The allegations made against the accused is that some unknown persons trespassed into the land in Sy.No.99/1 of Mamidipally village, Saroornagar mandal and requested the SHO to find out the identity of the persons who trespassed into the said land. It is to be noticed that the complainant was not examined, even the panch witnesses were also not examined by the prosecution and their evidence was closed on 25-05-2011 and 07-02-2011. The only investigating officer who filed charge sheet was examined, through 4 him the compliant given by LW1 was marked as Ex.P1 and First

Information Report was marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 the scene of offence panchanama.

12.In the absence of any independent eyewitnesses this court is of the opinion that evidence of investigating officer is not helpful to reach the conclusion that the accused had trespassed into the land of the LW1.

13.In the result, the accused (A1 to A3) are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(1) r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2012.

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Ch.Umma Maheshwar Rao. NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

EX.P1: Complaint by PW1.NIL Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Scene of offence panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

FAC XIV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B.NAGAR