Mr. Damera Dheeraj Kumar

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 1 Dated : 22.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT THORRUR

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri.D. Dheeraj Kumar Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.

C.C.NO. 83 OF 2019

Between:- The State, through SHO P.S.Nellikudur … Complainant.

AND

A2. Kodidala Saidulu, S/o. Kethaiah, age. 35 years, Waddera, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Cherlapally Yadadir Bhuvangiri District.

A3. Shamakuri Laitha, W/o. Somaiah, age. 48 years, M-Kapu, agril, R/o. Thorrur village & Mandal. … Accused

*****

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri..Mailapaaka Ashok, Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, Nellikudur P.S., filed charge sheet against the above noted accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 304-A of

IPC in Cr.No 52/2018 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 2 Dated : 22.04.2026 [2.] Brief case of prosecution are that :

On 16-05-2018 at about 21.30 hours complainant came to PS and lodged a compaint stating that since four days her husband Islavath Lakpathi is attending labour work near Varikuppala Narsimha for digging the well in the

Mango garden of Shamakuri lalitha. With the help of crain machine at the outskirts of Munigalaveedu village. On 16-05-2018 morning at about 07.00 hours her husband Lakpathi along with the said narsimha left from thier house and on the way they met with Banoth Mallu and went near the work place. In the morning at about 10.00 hours at first Banoth Mallu got down in the well thourgh the craine machine and subsequently her husband Lakpathi and Narsimha has boarded the crain, at that time Narsimha’s brother in law Kodidla Saidulu is driving thecrain and while senidng in the well at about 10.15 hours accidenlty the crain brake ord was broken then her husband and said Narsimha fell in the well along with the crain box. Immediately othe persons had taken them out from the well and informed the same to them through phone. She along with her family members went to the spot and while shifted her husband to Warangal in the

Super AC Trolley of her brother in l aw Islaath Srinu on reaching near Panthini village at about 13.30 her husband died. Immediatley they brought her husband’s corpse near the agricultural land the said Laitha at Munigalaveedu. Hence she requested to take necessary action against the said Varikuppala Narsimha, crain drive saidu and land owners Shymakuri Lalitha for negligently without taking

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 3 Dated : 22.04.2026 anyprecuationary measures eho became responsible for the death of her husband.

[3]On receipt of complaint, LW 22 registered a case in Cr. NO.

52/2018 u/sec.304 (A) and 337 of IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, LW22 examined and record the statement of LW1 in CD Part-II in details at PS, he visited the scene of offence and shifted the dead body of deceased-1 to Area Hospital,

Mahabuabbad. On 17-05-2018, LW22 visited to Mortuary room at area Hospital,

Mahabuabbad observed the dead body of deceased-1 and got phtogrpahed the dead body of deceased-1. Then secured the presence of Lws2 to 5 examined and recorded their statements. Then LW22 secured the LW14 & 15 as mediatores held inquest over th dead body of deceased 1 in the presence of mediatores

Lws14 & 15 and sent the dead body of deceased 1 to theMedical officer, govt

Area Hospital i under the escort of PC 3704. Subsequently LW22 visited the scene of offence situated at agriculture land/ Mango garden of shamakuri laithat at Munigalaveedu outskirts exmined the scene minutely. Conducted secene of offence panchanama before themediatores Lws12 & 13 incorporated all the phyusical features inc rime detail from and drew rough sketch of the scene and got phtogrpahed the crain brake rod with the help of LW5. In the investigation it is established that A2 & A3 have committed an offence punishable us/ec.304(A) of IPC. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 4 Dated : 22.04.2026 [4]Considering the charge sheet and material on record the

Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Warangal took the cognizance of

offences punishable Under Sections. 304-A of IPC and issued summons. In response to the summons accused persons appeared and they were provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

[5]During the examination Under Section 251 Cr.P.C of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 charges under Sections. 304 A of IPC were framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined

Eleven witnesses as PWs.1 to 11 and exhibited as many as Eighteen documents as Exs-P1 to P18 marked.

[6]After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the available incriminating material against them for which accused persons denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses,.

[7]Heard arguments of both sides.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 5 Dated : 22.04.2026 [8] Now, the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 304- A of

Indian Penal Code?”.

[9]DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-In nutshell, the allegation of non road fatal accident cas which occurred on 16-05-2018 at 10.15 hours at agriculture land/ manga garden of A3 at the outskirts of Munigalveedu village Nellikudur Mandal, wherein 02 peoples were died. Therefore accused persons are liable for punishment.

[10]EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Now it has to be seen whether evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offences by the accused as alleged.

[11] PW1 is the complainant is the wife of the deceased No.1 deposed that she know LW2/Islavath srinu is her brother in law, LW4/ Islavth

Komati is her mother in law and she know LW3/Banoth Mallu. About 08 years ago her husband Islavth Lakpathi went to coolie works to dig the well at Munidhara village and she received a phone call from uknown person and he informed her that her husband was dead. Later polcie came and inquired. Accordingly she turned hostile..

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused she denied that she stated before the plice as in 161 Cr.P.C statement. She denied that they

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 6 Dated : 22.04.2026 comprosied before the elders.

[12]PW2 deposed that deceased NO.1 Lakpathis is his elder brother, PW1 is his sister in law LW4/Islavath komati is his mother and he know LW3/Banoth

Mallu. About 8 years ago his elder brother Islavth lakpathi went to coolie works to dig the well at Munidhara village and later he came to know that from unknow person his brother was died. Accordingly he turned hostile.

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused he denied that he stated before the plice as in 161 Cr.P.C statement. He denied that they comprosied before the elders.

[13] PW3 doposed that deceased NO.1 Lakpathi is her elder son.

PW1 is her daughter in law PW2 is her younger son and she know LW3/Banoth

Malu. Abnout 8 years ago her elder son Islavth Lakpathi went to coolie works to dig the well at Munidhara village and later she came to know that from unknow person her brother was died. Accordingly she turned hostile

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused she denied that she stated before the plice as in 161 Cr.P.C statement. She denied that they comprosied before the elders.

[14] PW4 to PW10 turned hostile.

[15] PW11 deposed that on 16-05-2018 at about 21.30 hours PW1 came to police station lodged the report. Basing on the report he registered a case in Cr.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 7 Dated : 22.04.2026

NO. 52/2018 u/sec. 304-A, 337 of IPC and issued Fir and he examined and recorded statements of PW1 at police station Late he along with PW1 visted scene of offence and shifted to dead body of deceased 1 to Area Hospital

Mahabuabbad so there is possibility of L&O problem with arose if the body kept in the scene of offence. On 17-05-2018 he visited to mortuary room at area hospital Mahbubabad observed the dead body of deceased-1 and got photograhped the dead body of decesead with the help of photographer/LW5 K.

Prashanth. Later he secured the presence of witnesses Pws2 to 4 and LW5/K.

Prashanth examined and recorded thier statements Then he secured the PW6 and 7 as mediatores held inquest over the dead body of deceased 1 in the presence of mediatores PW6 & 7 and sent the dead body of deceased 1 to the

Medical officer govt Area Hospital, 20 Mahbuabbad under the escort of PC 3704 with the requisition subjected the 16 their blood relatives and obtained the acknowledgment receipts. He visisted scene of offence situated at agriculture land mango garden of Shamakuri laitha at Munigalaveedu outskirts examined the scene minutely, conducted scene of offence panchanama before the mediatores

LW12/N. Praveen rao & Lw13/K. Muddiah incorporated all the physical features in cime detail form the help of LW5/K. Prashanth On 13-06-2018 at 08.00 hours he received the death intimation of the injured/accused A1 Varikuppala narsimha from the Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad the injured was died on 13-06-2018 at 5.50 hours while undergoing treatement at Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad. He submitted express memo to the Hono’ble Court and to all the concerned officers

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 8 Dated : 22.04.2026 and informed the same to him over mobile phone for further investition as per his insturctions of higher officers he deputed the LW23/ASI-1565/B. Sudharash rao for conducting inquest panchanama of deceased-2. As per his instructions LW23 went to the mortuary room at gandhi hospital secunderabad observed the dead body of deceased 2 with the help of photograpghr/LW8/K. Venkataraman. Later

LW23 secured the presence witnesses LW6/N. Nirmala, LW7/V. Thirumalesh,

LW8/K. Venkataramana examined and recorded thier statements. Then LW23 secured the LW16/B. Sathyam LW17/P. Govardhan as mediatores held inqeust over the dead body of deceased 2 in the presence of said mediators Lws16 & 17.

Then sent the dead body of deceased 2 to the medical officer Gandhi Hospital

Secunderabad under the escort of PC 3704 with a requisiton subjected the corpse of deceased No.2 for autopsy and handed over the dead body of the deceased 2 to thier blood relatives and obtained the acknowledgment receipts. On 18-06- 2018 LW24/V, Cheralu CI of polcie thorrur took up investigation into this case, verfied the investigation done by him & LW23and found it correct on proper lines.

On 19-06-2018 LW24 visited the scene of offence at agriculture land Mango garden of A3/shamakuri Laitha at the outskirts Munigalaveedu observed the scene minutely, later summones Pws1 to 4 and 6 & 7 re examined and could not record thier statements due to they corroborated their earlier version before him

LW23 Later LW24 secured the PW8 &9 examined and recorded their statements.

Further he secured the mediatores Pws10 & Lw19/Veerabhadraiah and conducted seizure panchanama of crain brake rod set in thier presence. Seizure then he

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 9 Dated : 22.04.2026 seized the crain brake rod set under cover of seizure panchanama. On.06-07-2018

LW24 obtained the PME report from the LW21/Dr. Ch. Laxman rao, associate professor, Gandhi Hospita, Hyderabad who conducted PME over the dead body of

D2 and issued post mortem examiantion report in which he opined that the deceased 2 died due to “Fracture leg bones” After completion of investigation

LW24 filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination by learned counsel for accused he denied that he did not recorded any 161 Cr.P.C statement in this case. And he did not conduct any panchanam in this case He admitted that he did not add any of theneighbours shown ina panchanama as witnesses in this case. He denied that his investigation is atable mad investigation and this present case is filed for a statistical purpose. He further denied that A2 & A3 are not connected to this case. He denied that LW23 conducted investigation and also conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased No.2. He denied that LW24 never filed charge sheet in this case.

[16]On a careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 10 Dated : 22.04.2026 [17]The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16-05-2018, while the deceased Lakpathi and another person were being lowered into a well through a crane at the agricultural land of A3, the crane brake rod allegedly broke due to negligence of the accused, resulting in their fall into the well and consequent death. It is the allegation that the accused failed to take necessary precautions and thereby caused the death of the deceased by their rash and negligent act.

[18]In order to bring home an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the death of the deceased was the direct result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and that such act was of such a nature that it can be termed as culpable negligence. Mere occurrence of an accident or death is not sufficient; the element of rashness or negligence attributable to the accused must be clearly proved by cogent and reliable evidence.

[19]In the present case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11.

However, the evidence of the material witnesses does not support the prosecution case.

[20]PW1, who is the wife of the deceased and the complainant, has not supported the prosecution case. She has merely stated that her husband

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 11 Dated : 22.04.2026 had gone for coolie work and that she later received information about his death.

She has not spoken anything about the manner of accident, the role of the accused, or any negligent act on their part. She has been treated as hostile and has denied the contents of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

[21]PW2, who is the brother of the deceased, and PW3, who is the mother of the deceased, have also not supported the prosecution case. Their evidence is limited to stating that the deceased went for work and later they came to know about his death. They too have turned hostile and denied their earlier statements. Thus, the close relatives of the deceased, who are expected to speak about the incident or surrounding circumstances, have not supported the prosecution in any manner.

[22]Further, PWs.4 to 10, who were cited as witnesses to the occurrence and other aspects of the case, have also turned hostile. Their evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution and they have not spoken anything incriminating against the accused. The prosecution has thus failed to secure any independent witness to establish the alleged negligence.

[23]The only remaining witness is PW11, the Investigating Officer.

His evidence speaks about the registration of the case, conduct of inquest, scene observation, seizure of the crane brake rod, and other steps taken during

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 12 Dated : 22.04.2026 investigation. However, it is well settled that the evidence of the Investigating

Officer is only formal in nature and cannot substitute substantive evidence regarding the occurrence. In the absence of supporting evidence from eyewitnesses or other material witnesses, the testimony of the Investigating

Officer alone is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

[24]It is also pertinent to note that though the prosecution relies upon the alleged breaking of the crane brake rod, no expert evidence has been placed on record to establish that the accident occurred due to any mechanical defect attributable to negligence, or that the accused were responsible for such defect. There is no technical or scientific evidence to show that the crane was operated in a rash or negligent manner. The mere fact that an accident occurred due to breakage of a part of the machinery does not, by itself, lead to an inference of criminal negligence.

[25]The post-mortem evidence, though indicates the cause of death, does not in any manner connect the accused with the alleged negligent act. It only establishes that the death was due to injuries sustained, but does not establish how or due to whose fault such injuries were caused.

[26]Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 304-A

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 13 Dated : 22.04.2026

IPC. There is absolutely no reliable evidence on record to show that the accused acted in a rash or negligent manner, or that such act directly resulted in the death of the deceased.

[27]In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies squarely on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. When the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there is no independent or corroborative evidence, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.

[28]Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

[29] IN THE RESULT, the accused NO.2 and 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged.

(Typed to my dictation on computer, and pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 22nd day of April , 2026, under the hand and seal of this court)

Junior Civil Judge - cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 14 Dated : 22.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1) : Islavth Bhadri PW2 (LW2) : Islavath Srinu PW3 (LW4) : Islavath Komiti PW4 (LW3) : Banoth Mallu PW5 (LW11): K. Sumalatha PW6 (LW14) : Islavath Dhargya PW7 (LW15) : Islavath Dharma PW8 (LW9): Jatoth Venkanna PW9 (LW10) Jatoth Imla PW10 (LW18) : Sk Rafi PW11 (LW22) G. Raj Kumar

For Defence : NIL.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P2 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P3 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P4 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P5 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P6 is Signature on inquest panchanama Ex.P7: is siganture on inquest panchanama Ex.P8: Staement of LW9 Ex.P9: is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P10: is Signature on seizure panchanama Ex.P11 is FIR Ex.P12: is 6 photos Ex,.P13: is inquest panchanama

C.C.No. 83 of 2019 Page No. 15 Dated : 22.04.2026

Ex.P14: is Scen observation panchanama Ex.P15: is PME report of deceased NO.1 Ex.P16: is inquest panchanama of deceased No.2 Ex.P17 is seizure panchanama Ex.P18: is PME report of deceased NO.2

For Defence: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL.

Junior Civil Judge - cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 1 Dated : 16.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT THORRUR

Thursday, the 16th day of April 2026

Present : Sri.D.Dheeraj Kumar, Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.

C.C.NO. 33 OF 2017

Between :- The State, through the Station House Excise Inspector Thorrur …Complainant AND

A1. Banoth Venkanna, S/o. Eloji, age. 25 years, Lamabada, Hamali, R/o. Bommakal

A2. Banoth naresh, S/o. Bicha, 20 years, Lambada, Hamali, R/o. Bommakal

A3. Daravth Venkanna, S/o. Harsingh, age. 30 years, Lambada, Car Driver, R/o. Kandiya, Thanda H/o. Bommakal

A4. Bijjala Prasad, S/o. Sathaiah, age. 39 years, Vyshya Business, R/o. Thorrur. …Accused ***

This case is coming before me on 10-04-2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri Vallapu Mahesh Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 2 Dated : 16.04.2026

J U D G M E N T

1]The Excise -Inspector of Police, Thorrur P.S., filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offences punishable under

Section. 34(e) of AP Excise Act, in Cr. No. 343/2013 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

[2] Briefly stated, the prosecution case is like this:

On 08-11-2013 at 23.00 hours B. Sudharashan Ro HC 1565 of PS

Thorrur he along with his staff performing patrolling duty at Thorrur local. Then he received an information that one auto bearing No. AP 36

TB 2041 TATA ACE ZIP containing Black Jaggery and alum at Haripiralal X road, then immediately they went to Haripirala X road. Then the driver of the vehicle ran away by seeing them. They apprehended remaining two persons and also secured the two panchas on before them they enquired them. Then they revealed their names and stated that they took the Black Jaggery and alum for selling at Kiranam shops in Thorrur.

When they saw the police the auto driver fled away. The stock was given by B. Prasad for selling, immediately, he searched the auto before

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 3 Dated : 16.04.2026 the panchas and found 12 bags of black Jaggery each one bag contain 45 bags and 5 kgs alum in a white Urea bag, and seized the auto and black Jaggery and alum under a cover of confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of the said mediators, the said property was seized as they were illegally transporting and possession and selling the black Jaggery and alum in plastic covers for sending to chemical analysis and report and also pasted the panch chits on them. Later he came to the police station Thorrur along with seized property, auto and accused B. Venkanna and B. Naresh and lodged petition by enclosing confession and seizure panchanama and requested to take legal action against the said accused.

On receipt of the said petition LW12 registered a case in Cr. No.

343/2013 u/sec. 34(e) of AP Excise Act 1968 issued FIR and submitted copies to all the concerned and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the detailed statements of LWs1 and 2 in Part-II CDs and also found tallied the confession and seizure panchanama. LW12 arrested the A1, A2 and A4 on 08-11-2013 and A3 arrested on 25-11-2013 they sent to the Judicial custody. Later LW13 sent the samples for chemical analysis laboratory for analysis and report and also obtained the CE No.

26/14 on dt. 04-01-2014. Pm 12-05-2014 LW14 received a chemical

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 4 Dated : 16.04.2026 analysis report from the Asst chemical examiner he stated that the

Jaggery contains sugars and extraneous matter. The Jaggery which can be used as raw material in the manufacture of illicitly distilled liquor and the alum contains potassium aluminum sulphate commercially known as

Alum. On 12-09-2014 LW14 received the released order of the seized vehicle on the name of Bijjala Vara Prasad with the directions of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana vide Dis No. 1580

dt. 12-09-2014 he released the said vehicle and obtained the proper

receipt from the owner of the vehicle and submitted the acknowledgment before the Hon’le court. On 15-01-2015 LW14 received the proceedings from the Dy. Commissioner of P&E Warangal vide Cr. No. 857/2014/PE/B4 to served the notices to the owner of the property and here by called upon the owners of the property to show cause as to why the said property should not be confiscated, and they here by informed to appear before him within 15 days after receipt of this notice to the owner. Subsequently LW16 took up the investigation, verified the investigation done the previous IO’s found it on proper lines. On 28-12-22016 he destroyed the black joggery 540 Kgs and 5 Kgs alum at Thorrur pedda cheruvu in the presence of LW11 under cover of panchanama before the mediators I.e., LWs 7&8. Thereby

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 5 Dated : 16.04.2026 the accused A1 to A4 has committed an offence punishable u/sec. 34 (e) of AP Excise Act. Hence filed charge sheet.

3]. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took the cognizance of offences punishable 34 (e) of AP Excise Act issued summons. In response to the summons accused appeared and they were provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

4]During the examination Under Section 239 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure,1973 charges 34 (e) of AP Excise Act 1995 framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined Six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited as many as Nine documents as Exs-P1 to P8.

5] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the available incriminating material against them for which

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 6 Dated : 16.04.2026 accused denied the same. The defense not chosen to adduce any evidence except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

6] Heard arguments of both sides.

7] Now, the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a

conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 34 (e) of AP Excise Act 1995”?

EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Now it has to be seen whether evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offences by the accused as alleged.

8] PW2 to 5 who deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Accordingly they turned hostile. During their cross examination by the learned APP they denied all the suggestions made by him.

9]PW1/ LW1 who is the complainant deposed in his evidence that 08-11-2013 at 23.00 hours he along with their staff went to

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 7 Dated : 16.04.2026 perform patrolling duty at Thorrur village, while they were performing patrolling duty at Thorrur local he received a credible information that one auto bearing No. AP 36 TB 2041 TATA ACE ZIP containing black

Jaggery and alum at Haripirala X Road, immediately he went to

Haripirala X road, one seeing the driver of the vehicle ran away and they apprehended remaining two persons and also secured the two panchas on before them they enquire them they revealed their names as 1.

Banoth Venkanna 2. Banoth Naresh and stated that they took the Black

Jaggery and alum for selling at a kiranam shops in Thorrur. On seeing the police party the auto driver Daravath Venkanna fled away. The stock was given by Prasad for selling. Immediately he searched the auto containing 45 bags and 5 kgs Alum in white Urea Bag, and seized the auto and black Jaggery and alum, under a cover of confession & Seizure panchanama in the presence of said mediators pasted the panch chits to the seized property as they were illegally transporting and possession and selling the black Jaggery and alum, and also drawn the samples from the seized black Jaggery and alum in plastic covers for sending to chemical analysis and report, and also pasted the panch chits on them.

Later he came to police station Thorrur along with seized property auto bearing NO. AP 36 TB 2041 and accused B. venkanna and B. Naresh and

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 8 Dated : 16.04.2026 lodged petition by enclosing confession and seizure panchanam and requested to take legal action against the accused. .

During the course of his cross examination he admitted that he had made GD entry in his police station before going to patrolling duty.

He admitted that he had not filed any GD entry copy before this court.

He denied that there are alteration on the date column on his report. He further denied that there are alteration on the number 23 hour. He denied that it is a table made investigation and the statements recorded at police station. He further denied that the accused is no way connected to this offence this present case is filed for statistical purpose. The other suggestions were denied by him.

10] PW6/LW15 who is the investigation officer deposed that 08-11-2013 at 23.00 hours LW12/V. Narsimharao received complaint from LW1/PW1 along with confession seizure panchanama basing on a complaint he registered a case in Cr. No. 343/2013, u/sec. 34(e) AP Excise

Act and issue FIR and he examined and recorded statement of PW1,

LW2/T Laxman at police station subsequently, LW12 arrested A1,2 & 4 on 08-11-2013, and sent him judicial custody. Later LW13/R.

Venkateshwarlu SI of police thorrur sent samples for chemical analysis

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 9 Dated : 16.04.2026 and laboratory report and also obtained CD No. 26/14, dt. 04-01-2014.

On 12-05-2014 LW14/Ch. Karunkar rao SI of police thorrur received chemical analysis report from LW9/K. Sridhar. On 12-09-2014 LW14 received released order of the seized vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP 36 TB2041 on the name of Bijala Vara Prasad s/o. Sattaiah with directions of judicature at Hyderabad for the state of Telangana vide Dis

No. 15/0 dt. 12-09-2014 accordingly he released and submitted the acknowledgment before the Hon’ble Court On 15-01-2015 the LW14 received the proceeding from the Dy Commissioner of P&E Warangal vide Cr. No.8572014/PE/B4 to serve the notices to the owner of the property and hereby called upon the owners of the property to show cause as to why the said property should not be confiscated, and they here by informed to appear before him with 15 days after receipt of this notice to the owner, either in person or through advocate and may represent in writing against the confiscation. On 19-01-2015 he assumed charge of PS thorrur on posting to his perused the cd file on this case.

On 15-02-2015 he served notice to the owners of the property and obtained the signatures of the owners on the notice submitted the acknowledgment to the Dy commissioner P&E Warangal.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 10 Dated : 16.04.2026 11]He further deposed that on 02-04-2015 he received the proceeding from the Dy commissioner of P&E Warangal vide Cr.

857/2014/PE/B4, dt. 27-09-2014 to serve the notices to the owner of the property in which the respondents did not submitted their explanation to show caused notice nor appeared before the Dy Commissioner to prove their innocence. Accordingly he served the notice to the owners of the Warangal LW16/D. Ramanamurthy SI of police Thorrur took up investigation verified the investigation done the previous 10’s found it on the Dy commissioner of prohibition & Excise warangal in which he directed to re seize the vehicle vide RC NO. 857/2014/PE/B4, dt. 06-11- 2015 On 10-12-2016 LW16 served the notice to the vehicle of owner to hand over the crime vehicle before SHO Thorrur and obtained acknowledgment from him, but he could not produced the vehicle As per the directions of Dy commissioner P & E Warangal, vide RC NO.

857/2014/PE/B4, dt. 06-11-2015 on 23-12-2016 he re seized the crime vehicle bearing NO. AP 36 TB 2041 from the owner under cover of panchanama. Further LW16 sent a requisition to Dy commissioner

Prohibition & Excise Department fro destruction or confiscate of the seized property. Accordingly the LW10 gave the destruction orders. In which he directed necessary action for destruction of the black joggery

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 11 Dated : 16.04.2026 under cover of panchanama in the presence of the SDPO Thorrur retaining the unexpended portion of the samples thereof and under intimation to the trail court. On 28-12-2016 LW16 destroyed the black jaggery 540 kgs and 5kgs alum at Thorrur pedda cheruvu in the presence of LW11 under cover of panchanam before the mediators i.e., PW3 I

LW8. By the evidence collected it is established that you A1 to A4 committed an offence punishable u/sec. 34(e) of AP Excise Act. After completion of the investigation LW16 filed charge sheet .

During the course of his cross examination he admitted that jaggery is generally used for feeding cattle. He denied that he never conducted any panchanam in the presence of PW3 and PW4. He further denied that he never collected any laboratory analysis report from LW6.

He denied that he never visited the crime spot he never conducted any panchanama and the offence under this case never took place. The present case is filed for statistical purpose at the instance of his higher officials. He denied that LW9 never received any analysis report . He denied that accused was never involved in any offence and he is not connected to this offence. The other suggestions were denied by him.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 12 Dated : 16.04.2026 12] The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused were found in possession and transportation of black jaggery and alum for the purpose of manufacture of illicit liquor, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise

Act.

13]On careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case rests primarily upon the testimony of PW1, who is the complainant and the detecting police official, and PW6, the Investigating Officer. The remaining material witnesses, particularly PWs 2 to 5, who were expected to act as mediators and independent witnesses to the alleged seizure and confession proceedings, have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Their evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner, as they denied the occurrence and did not support the seizure or the presence of the accused.

14]Thus, what remains for scrutiny is whether the sole testimony of the official witnesses, namely PW1 and PW6, is sufficient to sustain conviction.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 13 Dated : 16.04.2026 15]PW1, in his chief-examination, has deposed about receiving credible information, proceeding to the scene, apprehending two accused, and seizing the alleged contraband under cover of panchanama. However, certain material infirmities arise in his evidence.

He admits in cross-examination that he made a General Diary entry prior to proceeding on patrolling duty, but significantly, no such GD entry has been produced before the Court. This omission assumes importance because the alleged receipt of prior information and subsequent movement of the police party are foundational facts, and the GD entry would have provided contemporaneous corroboration to his version. The non-production of such a vital document creates a doubt regarding the very genesis of the prosecution story.

16]Further, though the prosecution asserts that the seizure was conducted in the presence of mediators, the said mediators (PWs 2 to 5) have not supported the case. In cases of this nature, where seizure forms the backbone of the prosecution, the absence of independent corroboration casts a serious doubt on the fairness and authenticity of the alleged recovery.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 14 Dated : 16.04.2026 17]It is also to be noted that the alleged contraband consists of black jaggery and alum. As admitted by PW6 during cross-examination, jaggery is a substance commonly used for lawful purposes, including cattle feed. Mere possession or transportation of jaggery and alum, without convincing evidence to show that the same was intended for manufacture of illicit liquor, is not sufficient to bring home the offence under Section 34(e) of the Act. The prosecution has relied upon the chemical analysis report stating that jaggery can be used as a raw material for manufacture of illicit liquor. However, such a general opinion, in the absence of specific evidence showing intended illicit use by the accused, is insufficient to establish culpability.

18]Another important aspect is that the driver of the vehicle, who is alleged to have fled from the scene, has not been apprehended at the spot. The prosecution case itself suggests that he was a key person connected to the transportation. The failure to secure his presence at the time of detection further weakens the prosecution version.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 15 Dated : 16.04.2026 19]Moreover, the prosecution relies upon the alleged confession of the accused made before the police. Such a confession, being made to a police officer, is inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law, and cannot be used as substantive evidence to prove guilt.

20]The cumulative effect of these circumstances — namely, the hostility of independent witnesses, non-production of GD entry, absence of reliable corroboration to seizure, the lawful nature of seized substances, and lack of evidence establishing intention to use the same for illicit distillation — creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.

21]It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and the prosecution must stand on its own legs. In the present case, the evidence falls short of the standard required for recording conviction.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 16 Dated : 16.04.2026 22]IN THE RESULT The accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty and are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 34(e) of the A.P.

Excise Act. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Material objects, if any, shall be dealt with as per law after expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation on computer after correction pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 16 th day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court).

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1) : B. Sudharshan Rao PW2 (LW6) :Akuthota Santosh PW3 (LW7) :Thurpati Sai PW4 (LW4): Bhukya Srinivas PW5 (LW5): Dongari Shanker PW6(LW15): G. Subba Reddy

For Defence : NONE.

C.C.No. 33 of 2017 17 Dated : 16.04.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : confession cum Seziure Panchana Ex.P2 : Police report Ex.P3 : Signature on confession cum seizaure Panchanama of A1 & A2dt. 08-11-2013 at about 04.50 pm Ex.P4 : Siganture on seizure panchanama of A4 dt. 23-12-2016 Ex.P5 : Signature on seizure panchanama dt. 23-12-2016 Ex.P6 : FIR Ex.P7 : Chemical analysis report Ex.P8 : Destruction orders.

For Defence : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 1 Dated : 22.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT THORRUR

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April 2026

Present : Sri.D.Dheeraj Kumar, Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.

C.C.NO. 474 OF 2025

Between :- The State, through the Station House Excise Inspector Thorrur …Complainant AND

A1. Banoth Balu, S/o. Kashiram, age. 44 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Hachu Thanda

A2. Kuraku Rama Brahmaiah, S/o. Raghu Ramulu, age. 34 years, Caste: Yadava Occ: Driver, R/o. Gangampalle Mandal: Racherla

A3. Shaik Manju, S/o. Allah Bakshi, age. 31 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.302, Sai Krishna Residency, Budhanagar colony, Road No.8 Boduppal, Hyderabad. …Accused ***

This case is coming before me on 09-04-2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri K. Praveen Raju Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following

J U D G M E N T

1]The Excise -Inspector of Police, Thorrur P.S., filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offences punishable under Section. 34(e) of

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 2 Dated : 22.04.2026

AP Excise Act 1968, u/sec. 34(e) of TS Excise Act 1968, 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Proh.

Act 1995 in Cr. No. 86/2022 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

[2] Briefly stated, the prosecution case is like this:

On 31-03-2022 at about 10.45 AM on reliable information regarding one person is manufacturing the ID liquor in his house. Then LW3 Excise

Inspector, and LW4 Excise sub inspector along with staff have proceeded to

Hachu thanda for conducting checking and conducted checking in suspicious places and during the checking the proceeded near Banoth Balu’s house and found one person sitting infront of running still putting fire to still and after seeing the raid party, he started running to escape. Then the officers and staff stopped him and on enquiry he revealed his identity . Then they searched the surroundings of the house and found two plastic drums buried in ground. Then they opened two plastic drums, filled with some liquid in them by virtue of smell of the contents of the polythene covers, the LW1 to

LW3 identified it was was and each drum containing about 50 liters of F.J.

Wash, with some liquid in it. It contents of plastic bottle the LW1 to LW3 identified it was ID liquor and it was about 5 liters of ID liquor. On further enquiry he confessed that one person by name Ramu supplies the raw materials for manufacture of ID liquor i.e., Jaggery and Alum and today he will come in afternoon for supply of jaggery and Alum Then the officers destroyed

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 3 Dated : 22.04.2026 entire (100) liters of F.J wash and also running still. LW4 seized the contraband duly drawn two samples of ID liquor each sample containing about (180) ml of ID liquor for chemical examination and sealed them by affixing the chits duly signed by panchas and officer and apprehended the accused under cover of panchanama. LW3 & 4 along with two mediators I..e., LW1 & 2 along with staff proceeded to near Hachu Thanda village gate for conducting route .

Then they searched the vehicle cabin and also back side closed carrier and found 25 cartons, each containing 20 jaggery lumps, each lump about one kg total 500 lumps in 25 cartons totally about 500 kgs of brownish jaggery and one polythene bag containing about 30 kgs of alum. On verification of jaggery it is of lower quality with dust particles. Further LW4 seized the said contraband along with EICHER pro bearing No. TS 09 UD 3547 duly drawn two samples of brownish jaggery each sample containing about 100 grams of brownish jaggery each sample containing about 100 grams of alum for chemical examination and sealed them. They apprehended A2 and A3 under cover of panchanama.

LW3 registered a case against A1 to A3 in C.O.R No. 86/2022 dt. 31-03- 22, u/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act-1995 and 34(e) of TS excise Act, 1968 and issued notice to A1 to A3 u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C and released them. The original case papers produced before the Hon’ble Court and copies of case papers are sent to the higher officers .

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 4 Dated : 22.04.2026

During the course of investigation it is established that a1 to A3 were selling the black jaggery and Alum which can be used as raw material in manufacturing of ID liquor and as such A1 to A3 have committed for the offence punishable u/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act-1995 & 34(e) of

TS Excise Act, 1968. Hence filed charge sheet.

3]. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took the cognizance of offences punishable 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act- 1995 & 34(e) of TS Excise Act, 1968 issued summons. In response to the summons accused appeared and they were provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

4]During the examination Under Section 239 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure,1973 charges 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act-1995 & 34(e) of TS Excise Act, 1968 framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined Six witnesses as PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited as many as Eight documents as Exs-P1 to P8.

5] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the available incriminating material against them for which accused

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 5 Dated : 22.04.2026 denied the same. The defense not chosen to adduce any evidence except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

6] Heard arguments of both sides.

7] Now, the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w

8(e) of TS Prohibition Act-1995 & 34(e) of TS Excise Act, 1968”?

EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Now it has to be seen whether evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offences by the accused as alleged.

8] PW1 to 4 who deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Accordingly they turned hostile. During their cross examination by the learned APP they denied all the suggestions made by him.

9]PW5/ LW4 deposed in his evidence that on 31-03-2022 at about 10.45 am on reliable information regarding A1 is manufacturing ID liquor in his house on that he along with LW3 proceeded the Hachu thanda for conducting checking in suspicious places during the checking proceeded to near Banoth

Balu house and found one person sitting infront of running still and after

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 6 Dated : 22.04.2026 seeing the raid party he started running to escape. On suspicious they stopped and secured PW1 and 2 conducted panchanama he voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence and he seized two plastic drums filled with FJ wash and 5 liter of ID liquor in plastic cans and conducted panchanam before PWs1 & 2 Basing on the confession statement given by A1 they conducted route watch at hachu thanda gate and seized 1 Eicher van bearing No. TS 09 UD 3547 along with 500kgs of Jaggery and 30 kgs of Alum raw materials for manufacture of ID liquor. Later he handed over CD file to

LW3/ Raju further investigation.

During the course of his cross examination he admitted that he had registered the COR in this case along with LW3. They generally maintain station case diary to record the day to day activities of their police station including investigation progress. He denied that the witness cited in this case i.e., LW1 & 2 and LW6&7 are stock witnesses. Generally they conduct checks at outskirts of Thorrur. He denied that nothing is seized from A1. He further denied that he filed this case without conducting proper investigation. The other suggestions were denied by him.

10] PW6/LW3 who is the investigation officer deposed that on 31-03-2022 at about 10.45 am on reliable information regarding A1 is manufacturing ID liquor in his house. On return to the prohibition and excise

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 7 Dated : 22.04.2026 station Thorrur on the strength of panchanama he registered a case against the accused persons i.e., A1 to A3 in C.O.R No. 86/2022 dt. 31-03-2022 issued notice to the accused persons u/sec. 41 A Cr.P.C and released them on personal bail after obtaining sufficient sureties and original case papers produced before the Hon’ble Court. The seized case property I D liquor black

Jaggery and Alum and EICHER Pro bearing No. TS 09 UD 3547 have been confiscated and ID liquor black jaggery and alum ordered for destruction by the Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise Warangal proceedings Cr.

NO. 45/2020/P&E/B4, Dt. 06-07-2022. On 12-07-2022 the ID liquor, black jaggery and alum have been destroyed under the supervision of the District

Prohibition and excise officer, Mahabuababad under cover of a panchanama

before the mediators LW6 & 7 and the LW8 filed the charge sheet.

During the course of his cross examination he denied that he did not visit Hachu thanda of A1 place. He denied that black jaggery and no Alum is seized for A2 & A3. He denied that he bribe of amount of Rs.30,000/- He denied that the vehicle is loaded with edible jaggery to an quantity of 2110 kgs urad dal of 100 kgs of Tamarind of 30 kgs to be delivered to various retail shop. He denied that the panchanam is conducted inside the Ps excise with their stock witness. He denied that A1 did not meet A2 and A3 on the date of offence. The other suggestions were denied by him.

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 8 Dated : 22.04.2026 11]On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and

Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968, beyond reasonable doubt.

12]The case of the prosecution, in substance, is that on 31-03-2022, on receipt of credible information, the excise officials conducted a raid at

Hachu Thanda and allegedly found A1 engaged in manufacture of illicit distilled liquor, and on further enquiry and route watch, A2 and A3 were found transporting jaggery and alum, which are alleged to be raw materials used for manufacture of illicit liquor. It is the case of the prosecution that such possession and activity attract the penal provisions referred above.

13]In order to bring home the guilt under the above provisions, the prosecution must establish, through reliable and cogent evidence, that the accused were either engaged in manufacture of illicit liquor or were in conscious possession of materials intended for such illegal manufacture, and that such possession was not for any lawful purpose.

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 9 Dated : 22.04.2026 14]In the present case, PWs.1 to 4, who are cited as mediators and panch witnesses to the alleged seizure and panchanama proceedings, have not supported the prosecution case. They have categorically deposed that they do not know anything about the case. They were treated as hostile, but nothing useful could be elicited in their cross-examination by the prosecution.

Thus, the very foundation of the seizure proceedings and panchanama stands uncorroborated.

15]The prosecution, therefore, rests mainly upon the evidence of

PW5, the excise Sub-Inspector, and PW6, the Investigating Officer. PW5 has deposed about the raid, alleged seizure of F.J. wash, ID liquor, and later seizure of jaggery and alum from the vehicle. However, his evidence is not supported by any independent witness. The alleged confession of A1 before the excise officials cannot be relied upon, as such a statement made to a police or excise officer is inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law, which does not advance the prosecution case in the present circumstances.

16]PW6, being the Investigating Officer, has spoken about registration of the case, confiscation proceedings, and destruction of seized

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 10 Dated : 22.04.2026 property. His evidence is formal in nature and does not by itself establish the commission of offence by the accused.

17]A significant aspect of the case is that the entire seizure, which is the backbone of the prosecution, is sought to be proved only through official witnesses, without any independent corroboration. When the panch witnesses themselves have not supported the prosecution, the Court is required to scrutinize the official testimony with greater caution. In the absence of independent corroboration, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance on such evidence.

18]Further, with regard to A2 and A3, the prosecution alleges that they were transporting jaggery and alum. However, mere possession or transportation of jaggery and alum, by itself, cannot be said to constitute an offence unless it is clearly established that such materials were intended for manufacture of illicit liquor. Jaggery and alum are articles of common use and have legitimate purposes. The prosecution has not placed any convincing material to show that the said articles were exclusively meant for illicit distillation.

19]It is also to be noted that no scientific or chemical analysis report has been placed on record to conclusively establish that the seized substance

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 11 Dated : 22.04.2026 was illicit liquor or that the wash was fit for distillation. In the absence of such evidence, the identification of the substance merely by smell or visual inspection by the officials cannot be treated as conclusive proof.

20]The destruction of the alleged contraband before the conclusion of trial, though stated to be done under official proceedings, has also deprived the defence of an opportunity to challenge the nature of the seized substance.

21]Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The evidence on record suffers from lack of independent corroboration, absence of scientific proof, and failure to establish conscious and unlawful possession.

22]It is a settled principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must ensure to the benefit of the accused. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to meet the said standard.

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 12 Dated : 22.04.2026 23]Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of the

Telangana Prohibition Act, 1995 and Section 34(e) of the Telangana Excise Act, 1968 beyond reasonable doubt.

24]IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the said offences and are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged.

(Typed to my dictation on computer after correction pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 22 nd day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court).

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1) : Banoth Bikshapathi PW2 (LW2) : Daravath Bikshapathi PW3 (LW6) : Merugu Srinvas

C.C.No. 474 of 2024 13 Dated : 22.04.2026

PW4 (LW7): Mula Raju PW5 (LW4): Srinivasulu PW6(LW3): R. Raju

For Defence : NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : confession cum Seziure Panchana Ex.P2 : Police report Ex.P3 : Signature on confession cum seizaure Panchanama of A1 & A2dt. 08-11-2013 at about 04.50 pm Ex.P4 : Siganture on seizure panchanama of A4 dt. 23-12-2016 Ex.P5 : Signature on seizure panchanama dt. 23-12-2016 Ex.P6 : Panchanama dt. 31-03-2022 Ex.P7 : COR Ex.P8 : Destruction orders.

For Defence : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 1 Dated : 22.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE - CUM - JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT THORRUR

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Present: Sri.D. Dheeraj Kumar Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.

C.C.NO. 583 OF 2019

Between:- The State, through SHO P.S.Danthalapally … Complainant.

AND

A1.Kallem Esag, S/o. Jampaiah, age. 23 years,

A2. Kallem Muthamma W/o. Jampaiah age. 50 years, A3.Kallem Jampaiah, S/o. Seetharamulu, age. 56 years, All are Caste: Beda Budigajangam, Occ: Cooliee R/o. Nagarama village, Nekkonda Mandal of Warangal Rural District N/a Jayamma Colony, Palwancha Mandal of Kothagudem District. … Accused

*****

This case is coming before me on 16.04.2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri Bandepally Venkanna , Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides, 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, Dhanthanapally P.S., filed charge sheet against the above noted accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 498(A) of IPC and

Sec. 3&4 of DP Act in Cr.No 69/2019 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 2 Dated : 22.04.2026 [2.] Brief case of prosecution are that :

On 05-08-2019 at 12.30 hours Complainant/LW1 came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that on 21-04-2016 her parents perfomed her marriage with

Kallem Esag. At the time of marriage her parents gave net chas of Rs.3,00,000/- 1/2 tula gold and other hosue hold articles. But at the time of marriage her husband did not told that he was divorce. Even though she adjusted and living with her husband. But her in laws and her husband behaved like psycho removed her clothes and sprinkled chilly powder and beat her and insulted and tourtured her mentally physically for additonal dowry and used tobeat her. On 28-07-2019 the elders of Sirishala Venkatasomulu

Bhutam Narsimha, Bhutham Venkanna and Teku Venkanna called her husband and in laws conducted panchayath and advised them not to harass her. But her husband

Kallem Esag and in laws Kallem Muthamma and Kallem Jampaiah have contined thier harassment on her towards additional dowry and used to beat her. Then she informed the same to her parents. Then her parents came to her in laws house and took her with them at Danthalapally village. Hence LW1 requested to take necessary action against the Accused persons.

3.On receipt of complaint, L11 registered a case in Cr. NO. 69/2019 u/sec. 498(A) of IPC and Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P.Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, LW11 examined and record the statement of LW1 in CD Part-II in details at PS, he visited the house of LW1 situated at Danthalapally village and Mandal. Then secured the presence of Lws2 to 6 examined and recorded their statements, in CDs Part II in dtails. He drafted scene observation panchanama in crime details form in the presence of LW9 & 10 and drew

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 3 Dated : 22.04.2026 rough sketch of scene of offeence. Later proceeded to the house of the accused who are residing at Jayamma colony, Palwancha of Kothagudem, Mandal, LW11 secured in the presence olf LW7&8 and recorded thier statement in part -II CD in detail. On 16-09- 2019 LW11 served notice to A1 to A3 u/sec. 41-A Cr.P,.C with the instruction to appear

before the Hon’ble court. In the investigation it is established that A1 to A3 have

committed an offence punishable us/ec. 498(A) of IPC and Sec. 3&4 of D.P. Act. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4. Considering the charge sheet and material on record the Hon’ble

Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Warangal took the cognizance of offences punishable

Under Sections. 3&4 of D.P. Act and issued summons. In response to the summons accused persons appeared and they were provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

5. During the examination Under Section 228 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure,1973 charges under Sections. 3&4 of D.P. Act were framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined Three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited as many as Five documents as Exs-P1 to P5 marked.

6.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused persons were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the available incriminating material against them for which accused persons denied the same. The defence not chosen to adduce any evidence except availing the opportunity

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 4 Dated : 22.04.2026 of cross examination of prosecution witnesses,.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections. 498(A) of IPC 3&4 of D.P. Act?”.

9.DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-In nutshell, the allegation of prosecution against accused persons is that A1 to A3 have tortured the

LW1 mentally and physically for additonal dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and used to beat her.

Therefore accused persons are liable for punishment.

10.EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Now it has to be seen whether evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offences by the accused as alleged.

11. PW1 deposed that A1 is her husband, A2, A3 are her in laws LW2/P.Anjaiah is her father. She know LW2/S. Venkata Somulu, LW4/P. Narsimha, LW5/B. Venakka

LW6/T. Venkanna, LW7/U. Anajaiah, LW8/U. Krishna. On 21-04-2016 her parents performed marriage with accused No.1 as per the customs and privilege. After marriage he joined conjugal life with accused and lived happily some period after there were petty disputes arose between them. As such apanchayat was held and panchayat held obtained his signature on some wirtten paper.

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused she denied that she stated before the police as in 161 Cr.P.C statement. She admitted that they compromise the case before the elders and living together.

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 5 Dated : 22.04.2026

12.PW2 deposed that A1 is his sonw in law , A2,A3 are parent of A1.

PW1 is his daughter . He know LW2/S. Venkata Somulu, LW4/P. Narsimha, LW5/B.

Venakka, LW6/T. Venkanna, LW7/U. Anjaiah, LW8/U. Krishna, On 21-04-2016 the performed marriage of PW1 with A1 as per customs and privilegel. After marriage PW1 joined conjugal life with accused and lived happily some period after there were petty disputes arose betwen them, as such a panchayat was held an dpanchayat held obtained his signature on some written paper.

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused he denied that he stated before the police as in 161 Cr.P.C statement. He admitted that they compromise the case before the elders and PW1 and accused living together.

13. PW3 doposed that on 05-08-2019 at 12.30 hours PW1 came to the plice sation and lodged a report. Basing on the report, he registered a case in Cr. NO.

69/2019, u/sec. 498-A Sec. 3 & 4 of DP aand issued FIR and he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 at police station and later he visited scene of offence situated at danthalapally village and he secured presnce of PW2 and LW3/S. Venkatasoma mallu

LW4/B. Narsimha LW5/B. Venkanna, LW6/T Venkanna and he conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of LW9/T. Venkanna and he conducted scene observation panchanama in the rpesence of LW9/T. Umesh LW10/P. Yellaiah. Later he proceeded to hosue of the accused persons at Jayamma colony palvancha of kothagudem Mandal and District. And he secure presence of LW7/U. Anajaiah, LW8/U.

Krishna and he examined and recorded their statements. On 16-09-2019 A1 to A3 came to the police station surrendered before him and voluntarily confessed about the

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 6 Dated : 22.04.2026 commence of offence and he served 41- A Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation

LW9 filed charge sheet .

During cross examination by learned counsel for accused he denied that he is not recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2, LW3 to LW10. He denied that hehad not visited the scene of offence and he never conducted any panchanama in the presence of panchas. He further denied that accused persons never confessed any commission offence in his presence. He denied that false case is filed against the accused. He further denied that the accusedis no way connected to this offence.

14. On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences alleged.

15.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused persons, who are husband and in-laws of PW1, subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and harassed her for additional dowry. However, when the evidence led by the prosecution is tested on the touchstone of legal scrutiny, it becomes evident that the prosecution case is not supported by reliable and cogent evidence.

16.PW1, who is the de facto complainant and the material witness, in her chief examination has only stated about her marriage with A1 and that after some period of marital life, petty disputes arose between them. She has further stated that a panchayat was held. Significantly, she has not spoken anything about any specific

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 7 Dated : 22.04.2026 demand for additional dowry or about any acts of cruelty of the nature alleged in the charge sheet. Her evidence is conspicuously silent on the core allegations forming the basis of the prosecution case.

17.The situation becomes further adverse to the prosecution during the cross-examination of PW1, wherein she has categorically denied the contents of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This denial amounts to a clear disowning of the earlier allegations attributed to the accused. It is also elicited from her that the disputes between the parties were settled before the elders and that she is presently living with the accused. This admission assumes great significance, as it probabilises that the disputes were of a trivial and matrimonial nature rather than constituting cruelty within the meaning of law.

18.PW2, who is the father of PW1, also does not advance the case of the prosecution in any meaningful manner. His evidence is limited to the performance of the marriage and the existence of some disputes between the spouses. He too does not depose about any demand of dowry or specific acts of harassment. On the contrary, he admits that the matter was compromised before the elders and that the couple are living together. Thus, the evidence of PW2 also fails to corroborate the prosecution version on material particulars.

19.The evidence of PW3, the Investigating Officer, is only formal in nature relating to registration of the case and steps taken during investigation. It is well settled that the testimony of the Investigating Officer cannot, by itself, form the basis

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 8 Dated : 22.04.2026 for conviction in the absence of substantive evidence from the victim or other material witnesses. The alleged confession before the police, even if assumed, is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.

20.It is also to be noted that though several witnesses were cited, including alleged panchayat elders, none of them have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. There is no independent evidence placed on record to establish either the alleged demand of dowry or the alleged acts of cruelty. No medical evidence is forthcoming to substantiate the allegation of physical assault. The omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence go to the root of the case.

21.In order to bring home the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution must establish that the woman was subjected to cruelty of such a nature as defined under the said provision, and for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, there must be clear and convincing evidence of demand and acceptance of dowry. In the present case, the evidence on record falls far short of these requirements. The allegations remain unsubstantiated and are not supported by the testimony of the material witnesses.

22.In criminal law, the burden always lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of every reasonable doubt must go in favour of the accused. In the present case, the evidence of the star witnesses not only fails to support the prosecution but also introduces serious doubt regarding the very occurrence of the alleged acts.

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 9 Dated : 22.04.2026

23.Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act beyond reasonable doubt.

24.IN THE RESULT the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged.

(Typed to my dictation on computer, and pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 22nd day of April , 2026, under the hand and seal of this court)

Junior Civil Judge - cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1) : K. Chandra Kala PW2 (LW2) : P. Anjaiah PW3 (LW11) : Y. Nandeep

For Defence : NIL.

C.C.No. 583 of 2019 Page No. 10 Dated : 22.04.2026

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is Signature on complaint Ex.P2 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P3 is 161Cr.P.c statement Ex.P4 is FIR Ex.P5 is Scene observation panchanama.

For Defence: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL.

Junior Civil Judge - cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 1 Dated : 15.04.2026

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT THORRUR

wednesday, the 15th day of April 2026

Present : Sri.D.Dheeraj Kumar, Junior Civil Judge - cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur.

C.C.NO. 11 OF 2024

Between :- The State, through the Station House Excise Inspector Thorrur …Complainant AND

Guguloth Hussain, S/o. Chinna Kotya, age. 34 years, Caste: Lambada Occ: Coolie, R/o. Hachu Thanda mandal: Thorrur.

…Accused **** This case is coming before me on 25-03-2026 for hearing and disposal in the presence of the Learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri Mailapaka Ashok, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing on both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1]The Excise -Inspector of Police, Thorrur P.S., filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offences punishable under

Section. 7(a) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act 1995, in C.O.R.No. 29/2021 with a prayer to punish the above accused for the alleged offences.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 2 Dated : 15.04.2026 [2] Briefly stated, the prosecution case is like this:

On 19-02-201 at about 06.00 A, on receipt of reliable information securing the two mediators i.e., LW1 & LW2 the Prohibition and Excise

Sub inspector (LW3) station of Thorrur along with staff have proceeded to near patrol pump on the road leads to Hachu Thanda to Thorrur conducting raids and conducted checking of suspicious vehicles and during the checking they found one person coming a two wheeler in suspicious manner with a bag on the vehicle. Then the staff stopped the vehicle and on enquiry the person driving the vehicle revealed that the bag containing with ID liquor. Then the officers opened the bag and found one plastic can, filled with some liquid in it. By virtue of smell of the contents of plastic can, the LW1 to LW3 identified it was ID liquor and it was about (10) liters of ID liquor. On enquiry he revealed his identity. Then the officers checked the vehicle and found it was Hero

HF Deluxe Motor Cycle bearing NO. TS 26 C 5651 Chassis No. MBLHAR 206JHM01010. Then LW3 seized the liquor along with Hero HF Deluxe

Motor cycle duly drawn 2 samples at random each sample containing a

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 3 Dated : 15.04.2026 bout (180) ml of ID liquor for chemical examination and sealed them by affixing the chits duly signed by the panchas and officer and apprehended the accused person under cover of panchanama.

LW3 registered a case against the accused person in C.O.R No.

29/2021 dt. 19-02-201 u/sec. 7(A) 8(e) of TS Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued notice to the accused persons u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C and released the accused person on personal bail after obtaining sufficient sureties and case papers produced before the Hon’ble Court and copies of case papers are sent to the higher officers for information and investigation.

During course of investigation out of 02 sample 1 sample has been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and

Excise, Warangal (L) for chemical examination. LW4 examined and opined that the sample was illicitly distilled liquor, unfit for human consumption and injurious to health vide report C.E. No. 203/2021, Sl.

NO. 1346, dt. 09-03-20214. The seize case property ID liquor and Hero

HF Deluxe motor cycle have been confiscated and ID liquor ordered for destruction by Deputy commissioner prohibition and excise, Warangal in

Cr. NO. 1487/2002/PE/B2 dt. 03-01-2023 on 24-01-2023 the case property ID liquor (excluding samples) has been destroyed under the supervision of the District Prohibition and Excise Officer, Mahabubabad

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 4 Dated : 15.04.2026 under cover of panchanama. The vehicle Hero HF Deluxe Motor cycle was auctioned on 09-02-2023 in open auction and sale proceeds are remitted into the Government Treasury vie challan No.6203808908 dt.

10-02-2023 in SBI Thorrur. From the facts and material of evidence collected during the course of investigation is its established that the accused person was in possession of ID liquor for sale as such the accused has contravened section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition At, 1995. Hence the accused liable for punishment u/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition At, 1995. Hence filed charge sheet.

3]. Considering the charge sheet and material on record this court took the cognizance of offences punishable 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS

Prohibition At, 1995 issued summons. In response to the summons accused appeared and he was provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 5 Dated : 15.04.2026 4]During the examination Under Section 239 of The Code of

Criminal Procedure,1973 charges 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition At, 1995 framed, the same was read over and explained, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail the prosecution examined Three witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and exhibited as many as Nine documents as Exs-P1 to P8.

5] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused were examined Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the available incriminating material against HIM for which accused denied the same. The defense not chosen to adduce any evidence except availing the opportunity of cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

6] Heard arguments of both sides.

7] Now, the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a

conviction against the accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 7(A) r/w 8(e) of TS Prohibition At, 1995”?

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 6 Dated : 15.04.2026

EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- Now it has to be seen whether evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offences by the accused as alleged.

8] PW1 and 2 who deposed that they do not know anything about the case. Accordingly they turned hostile. During their cross examination by the learned APP they denied all the suggestions made by him.

9]PW3/ LW15 who is the investigation officer deposed in his evidence deposed that on 19-02-2021, at 06.00 am LW3 along with his staff conducting rides and they found one person coming two wheeler in suspicion manner with a bag on the while on suspicion they stopped and enquired and found open plastic can filled with 10 liters of ID liquor on that conducted panchanama before the panchas PWs’s1 and 2 and seized the ID liquor and collected samples and apprehended accused person and brought to the police station and registered a case against the accused person in COR No. 29/2021 u/sec. 7(a) r/w 8(e) of TS

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 7 Dated : 15.04.2026

Prohibition Act. After that LW3 handed over the CD file to him. During the course of further investigation he collected FSL report and destruction order. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

During the course of his cross examination he denied that he filed false charge sheet without conducting proper investigation. He further denied that he had never visited scene of offence and never conducted any panchanama and the accused is no way connected with this offence. The other suggestions were denied by him.

10]The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused was found in possession of illicitly distilled liquor in contravention of Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 8 Dated : 15.04.2026 11]On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case rests primarily on the evidence of the official witnesses, particularly PW3, as the mediators cited for the seizure proceedings, examined as PW1 and PW2, have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile.

12]PW1 and PW2, who are projected as panch witnesses to the alleged seizure, have categorically stated that they do not know anything about the case. Their evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner. Though they were cross-examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing useful could be elicited to support the prosecution version. Thus, the independent corroboration expected in a seizure of this nature is conspicuously absent.

13]The prosecution therefore relies heavily upon the testimony of PW3, the Investigating Officer. PW3 has deposed in line with the prosecution case, stating that on receipt of credible information, the excise officials conducted a raid and intercepted the accused who was allegedly found transporting 10 liters of illicitly distilled liquor on a two-

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 9 Dated : 15.04.2026 wheeler. He further stated that samples were drawn and the contraband was seized under a panchanama.

14]However, it is to be noted that PW3 is not the detecting officer but only the Investigating Officer who took over the case subsequently. The detecting officer, who allegedly conducted the raid and seizure, has not been examined before this Court. This omission assumes significance, as the very foundation of the prosecution case, namely the detection and seizure, remains unproved through primary evidence.

15]Further, the seizure panchanama, though marked, has not been proved in accordance with law, as the mediators have not supported the same. In cases of this nature, where seizure is the core of the prosecution case, the failure to secure reliable and independent evidence regarding such seizure creates a serious dent in the prosecution version.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 10 Dated : 15.04.2026 16]It is true that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses.

However, as a rule of prudence, when independent witnesses are available but do not support the prosecution, the Court must seek corroboration of the official testimony from other reliable material. In the present case, such corroboration is lacking.

17]Though the chemical examiner’s report indicates that the sample contained illicitly distilled liquor unfit for human consumption, the said report by itself is not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged possession, in the absence of proof of proper seizure and safe custody of the sample.

18]Another important aspect is that there is no convincing evidence regarding the safe custody and transmission of the seized material and samples. The chain of custody, which is essential in cases involving contraband, has not been satisfactorily established.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 11 Dated : 15.04.2026 19]The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In the present case, the evidence on record creates doubt regarding the manner of seizure, involvement of the accused, and compliance with procedural safeguards.

20]In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in the negative.

21]IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(e) of the Telangana

Prohibition Act, 1995, and is acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The material objects, if any, shall be dealt with as per law.

(Typed to my dictation on computer after correction pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 15 th day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court).

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.

C.C.No. 11 of 2024 12 Dated : 15.04.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1) : Merugu Srinvas PW2 (LW2) :Mula Raju PW3 (LW5) : D. Bhaskar Rao

For Defence : NONE.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1 : Seziure Panchana Ex.P2 : Destruction panchanam Ex.P3 : Seziure Panchanama Ex.P4 : destruction panchanama Ex.P5 : confession panchanama Ex.P6 : complaint Ex.P7 : FSL report Ex.P8 : Destruction panchanama For Defence : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS : NIL

Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thorrur.