Ms. Damerla Preethi

1 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD : AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:- MS. Damerla Preethi, I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC:V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.

Tuesday, the 23 rd day of September, 2025.

JCC.NO.195 OF 2021

Between:

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sircilla. (Crime No.101 of 2020)

...Complainant.

And

Kolapuri @ Kolhapure Anand, S/o.Lingaiah, Age 17 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, R/o.H.No.2-142, Ananthagiri, V/o.Ellanthakunta mandal. ...Child in Conflict with Law.

This case having come before me on 02.09.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the state and Sri M.Anil Kumar, Counselfor the CCL, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sircilla has laid Charge Sheet against the CCL seeking to punish him for the offences under sections 366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:-

On 14.06.2020 at 08.00hours, the complainant/Ponaveni Balalaxmi came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that she is resident of Anantharam village eking her livelihood by means of agriculture, her husband went to gulf country 2 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021 for livelihood and they had two sons and one daughter by name Ponaveni

Anusha and she studied upto intermediate. On 13.06.2020 night after supper, all the inmates in the house along with her daughter slept and on the next day early morning at 0430hours she heard some noise and woke-up and found her daughter missing in the house and then she searched for her in the surroundings but in vain. Then she came into the house and found almirah door was opened and Rs.2,50,000/-, 15grams gold chain and her two pairs of silver anklets were missing from the almirah and on noticing her mobile phone at night 02.33hours one call came from Mobile No.8374314753 and another call from 9133252804 from unknown persons and when she made phone call to the said numbers, they were switched off and as she searched for her daughter, there was delay in lodging complaint. Hence, she requested for necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ellanthakunta P.S., has registered it as a case in Crime No.101 of 2020

U/Head girl Missing and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW23 examined and recorded statement of LW1 in part-II CD and issued look out notice to SHOs of Telangana state and rushed to scene of crime located at Anantharam and visited the scene of crime and secured the presence of mediators i.e., LWs 9 and 10 and observed the scene and incorporated details in CDF. While the efforts were in progress, missing girl

Ponaveni Anusha came to PS since she came to know that a missing case has been registered against her, since victim girl did not reveal anything and was 3 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021 not interested to go along with her mother, she was afraid of her parents, LW23 filed a requisition to Sakhi Center, Sircilla and sent her for safe custody. After counseling she expressed her willingness to depose her evidence, as such

LW5/B.Padma went to Sakhi Center and recorded the statement of victim girl with the help of local videographer.

4.Basing on the statement of victim girl and as per her date of birth, LW23 altered the section of law from u/head girl missing to Sec.366-A, 417, 420, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sec.6 r/w.5 (1) of POCSO Act. LW24 referred the victim under escort of WPC-891 for medical examination, wherein LW20 examined and preserved the material objects of victim for onward transmission to RFSL,

Karimnagar for examination and report. Later LW24 proceeded to Government

Junior College, Ellanthakunta by securing LWs11 and 12 and observed the scene of crime and incorporated the details in CDF. On 09.07.2020 at 1130hours CCL was apprehended by LWs23 and 24 at his house at Ananthagiri village, then CCL confessed the offence and LW24 seized motorcycle vide bearing No.TS-23-C-1830 which was used in commission of offence. Later

LW24 referred CCL to medical officer to conduct potency test, then LW20 examined and issued potency certificate opining as “No evidence found to say he is impotent”. On 11.07.2020, LW24 accompanied with the panch witnesses

LWs13 and 14 and proceeded to Bharathnagar, Siddipet visited scene of crime and observed the scene and incorporated the details in CDF and after obtaining all relevant records and after completion of entire investigation, LW24/Sub 4 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021

Divisional Police Officer, Sircilla filed charge sheet against the CCL. Hence, the charge.

5.Cognizance taken for the offence Punishable U/Sec.366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Actagainst CCL.

6.On appearance of CCL, copies were furnished to him as contemplated

U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. He was examined U/Sec.14(1) of Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter referred as JJ Act)/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable

U/Sec.366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, the substance of accusation for said offences was read over and explained to him in his own vernacular language for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial to prove its case the prosecution examined

PW1 to PW11 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW3/Payyavula Chandrakanth, LW11/Mandha Srinivas,

LW13/Singari Srinivas, LW14/Vemulawada Raghu, LW15/Komapalli

Chandraiah, LW16/Nyatha Srinivas, LW17/Manwada Shankaraiah,

LW18/Dhontharaveni Raju, LW19/Dr.Bashini, LW20/Dr.Ch.Prasuna,

LW21/J.Shyam Kumar, LW22/K.Narsimha as the victim turned hostile and she was married to CCL. As police failed to serve summons to

LW24/P.Chandrashekar, the evidence of LW24 is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, CCL was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence found against him, to which 5 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021 he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf. Hence defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard Learned APP and Counsel for CCL.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is :-

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the CCL for the

offences punishable U/Sec. 366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6

of POCSO Act, beyond all reasonable doubt" ?

11. P O I N T:

The CCL stood charged for the offences U/Sec.366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. To establish the guilt of CCL, prosecution must prove that CCL abducted the victim girl from the legal custody of her parents and has taken her to Siddipet on his bike and committed rape on her for two times at his friend’s room by saying deceitful words that he loves her and would marry her.

12.As stated supra, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, exhibited 10 documents.

13. PW1 who is the mother of victim girl deposed in her chief examination that on 14.06.2020, her daughter was found missing and hence she lodged a complaint in police station. Later she received a phone call from police and after going there she found that CCL dropped victim and went away. On questioning victim girl, she showed her disinterest in coming along with PW1 and she received a phone call from Sakhi center that victim informed them that 6 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021

CCL sexually used victim girl twice in the name of love. After attaining majority victim left their house and went to live with CCL. In her cross examination, PW1 admitted that she filed a false case against CCL as victim expressed her love to CCL. PW3 who is grand mother of PW2/victim also deposed on the lines of PW1.

14. PW2 is the victim who deposed that she do not know anything about this case and she deposed her statements U/Sec 164 CrPC on the instigation of her parents. She also deposed that she never took any cash or gold from her home.

As she did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile, at the request of the learned A.P.P. she was declared hostile. However, in her cross- examination by the A.P.P, no worthwhile material could be elicited involving the complicity of the CCL herein in the alleged offence, except marking portion in her 161 Cr.PC statements.

15. PW4 deposed that she received oral instruction to record the statements of victim and accordingly she recorded her statements and obtained her signature.

PW5 deposed that while PW4 was recording the statements of PW2, he videographed the same, converted it into CD and handed over to police.

16. PW6 to PW9 deposed that they do not know anything about this case and police never recorded their statements. As they did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile, at the request of the learned A.P.P. they were declared hostile. However, in their cross-examination by the A.P.P, no worthwhile material could be elicited involving the complicity of the CCL 7 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021 herein in the alleged offence, except marking portions in their 161 Cr.PC statements.

17. PW10 deposed that police conducted panchanama and prepared Ex.P8 in his presence and took his signature. PW11 deposed on the lines of investigation done by him. In the present case on hand, the crucial evidence is that of victim/PW2 but she herself turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence of other witnesses cannot be relied upon solely to prove this case. Hence, this court is of opinion that the offences alleged againast

CCL are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

18.Thus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on record, to connect the

CCL to the alleged offence. In the circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the CCL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal of the said offence.

IN THE RESULT, CCL is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Sec.366, 417, 420, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and Sec.5(1) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence under section 17(1) JJ Act and his bail bonds, if any shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e.,

Hero HF Deluxe bearing No.TS-23-C-1830 which was deposited before this

Court vide PSL.No.37 of 2021, subsequently was given to owner of the property by name Kolapuri Laxmi as per the orders vide Crl.M.P.No.557 of 8 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021 2021 dated 17.09.2021 as interim custody and the said order is made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of September, 2025.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, -cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, -cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW1 P.Balalaxmi PW2 P.Anusha PW3 P.Komuravva PW4 B.Padma PW5 K.Venu PW6 B.Mohan PW7 D.Karthik PW8 V.Ravi PW9 Ch.Ramchandram PW10P.Narender PW11Md.Rafiq Khan

FOR THE DEFENCE :

-- NONE--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 is Report Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 is CD Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P.5 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P.6 is Signature of PW8 on CDF Ex.P.7 is Signature of PW9 on CDF Ex.P.8 is CDF Ex.P.9 is FIR 9 of 9J.C.C.No.195 of 2021

Ex.P.10 is Section alteration memo

FOR THE DEFENCE : NONE

M.Os MARKED: NIL

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.

Fair 1 CC.No.782/2022

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

::AT KARIMNAGAR::

PRESENT: Smt. Damerla Preethi, I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.782 of 2022

(Old CC.No.125 of 2016)

Between: The State through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Gangadhara (Cr.No.105 of 2015).

...Complainant.

// AND // A1 Ryakam Mallaiah, S/o.Narsaiah, Age 52 years, Caste:Munnurukapu, R/o.H.No.4-285, Gangadhara X road. A2 Varala Ramu, S/o.Muthaiah @ Mutyalu, Age 40 years, Caste:Munnurukapu, R/o.H.No.4-5, Vannaram village of Ramadugu mandal. A3 Dyvala Ramulu, S/o.Shankaraiah, Age 28 years, Caste:Goud, R/o.Velichala village of Ramadugu mandal. A4 Pullela Raju, S/o.Hanmandlu, Age 27 years, Caste:Munnurukapu, R/o.Velichala village of Ramadugu mandal.

...Accused No.1 to 4.

This case having come before me on 26.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri T.Venugopal, Counsel for accused No.1 to 4 and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothapally PS has laid charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 13.07.2015 at 1400hours the complainant viz., Bathini Ramadevi came to PS Gangadhara and lodged a petition stating that she is resident of Narayanapur

Fair 2 CC.No.782/2022 village, presently she is residing at Gangadhara X roads, she is having 238

Sq.yards of land in Sy.No.522 situated at the outskirts of Kurikyala, she also obtained permission from Grama panchayath, Kurikyala and constructed house to some extent, as some other people raised objection, on which she obtained decree vide O.S.No.22/2014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada to an extent of 173 Sq.yards. Further, as the house construction permission time was completed, she applied for renewal of construction permission and continuing the work. On 12.07.2015 at about 10.20pm one Ryakam Mallaiah along with Varala

Ramu and 6 others armed with deadly weapons, hammers, hunting sickles, knives came into the constructing room, when coolies Milap, Rajesh, Paleshwar and

Lakan were sleeping in the house and threatened them with dire consequences to kill stating that “Meeru Pani Cheyakumante Chestharu” and then dismantled the pillars with hammers. Further, when the brother of her husband Bathini

Mallesham questioned them, on which the accused abused Mallesham who is his brother in filthy language and threatened to kill him pelted stones on the window, due to which, windows were damaged and the same was witnessed by Bethi

Madhu, Kesireddy Veera Reddy and Kasarla Manohar. Further, she stated that her husband Bathini Satyanarayana informed the incident at police station, on that

Head Constable Anjaneyulu came there, then the accused persons fled away and finally she requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, LW9/Head Constable,

PS Gangadhara has registered it as a case in Crime No.105 of 2015 under Section

Fair 3 CC.No.782/2022 147, 448, 427, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and investigated into. During course of investigation, he examined and recorded statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence in the presence of LW7 and LW8. Later

LW10 took up investigation and verified the investigation done by LW8, then

LW10 examined and recorded statements of LWs2 to 6 and collected photos from

LW1. Further, LW10 enquired the mason and coolies but they are not available as they went to their own native place. As per statements of LW4 and 6, the involvement of accused No.1 to 4 is well established for the offence U/Sec.448, 427, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. On 30.12.2016 he served notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to accused No.1 to appear before the Court and as A2 to A4 are absconding he could not serve notice and after completion of entire investigation, LW10 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4. Hence, the charge.

4.This case was taken on file by Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada for the offence punishable U/Sec.448, 427, 506 (ii) and 294 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 4 and numbered as

CC.No.125 of 2016. Later, this case was transferred to this Court at the stage of

trial as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court proceedings vide

ROC.No.346/E1/2022, dated 01.06.2022 and was re-numbered as

CC.No.782/2022.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Fair 4 CC.No.782/2022

6.Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence under Section 448, 427, 506 (ii) and 294 r/w 34 of IPC. They abjured the guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to

PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6. The evidence of LW7 is closed, on account of his death. As police failed to produce LW10 inspite of several adjournments, the evidence of LW10 is closed.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard the A.P.P.O and the counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged?

11.P O I N T

The accused No.1 to 4 stood charged for the offences under Section 448, 427, 506 (ii) and 294 r/w 34 of IPC. The accusation against them is that, on 12.07.2015 at 22.20hours at Kurikyala X Road, accused No.1 to 4 criminally trespassed into the constructing house of PW1 and PW2, threatened coolies and mason with dire consequences to kill them, if they stay there and construct the

Fair 5 CC.No.782/2022 house, demolished the constructing compound wall and broken the construction pillars, abused PW2 and PW3 in filthy language and thrown stones on them and damaged windows of constructing house.

12.PW1 deposed that at about 6 years ago, at around 10:00 PM, A1 to A4 criminally trespassed into her house plot and damaged pillars and foundation with the help of crowbars and hammers. After watching the same PW2 reported the same to police over phone and police came to the said spot. In her cross examination, she admitted that she do not know the contents of complaint and do not remember whether police examined her. She also admitted that she do not know the names of persons who came to the place of incident.

13.PW2 deposed that on 12.07.2015, in Sy.No.522, he started construction of house and on the same day at around 10:20 PM A1 to A4 came there with rods, knives, hammers and threatened him to kill and started beating them with stones.

They also damaged pillars and threatened mason who were constructing house. In his cross examination, he submitted that he filed documents in proof that land to an extent of 238 sq.yards is present in Sy.No.522 but none of the documents were got marked by prosecution to prove that PW2 is the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.522.

14.PW3 deposed that on 12.07.2015, PW2 started construction of house in

Sy.No.522 and at around 10:20 PM, A1 to A4 came to his land with knives, iron rods and hammer and threatened them to kill and started beating with stones.

Fair 6 CC.No.782/2022

They also damaged pillars, pelted stones on windows due to which they were broken. Nothing much was elicited in his cross examination.

15.PW2 and PW3 deposed that LW4 to LW6 witnessed the alleged incident and they were examined as PW5, PW4 and PW6. PW4 deposed that at around 9 to 10 years ago, on one day at 10:20 PM, he went to Sriramulapally village and saw that a quarrel was going on in front of the house of PW2. PW5 and PW6 deposed that they do not know anything about this case, they did not witness the alleged incident and police never examined them. PW7 deposed that in the year 2016, he went to Gangadhara police station on some personal work and police obtained signature on some written papers. He deposed that police never conducted panchanama in his presence and he do not know the contents of CDF.

As PW5 to PW7 did not support the case of prosecution, at the request of learned

APP they were declared hostile and nothing much was elicited in their cross examination. PW8 who is the investigating officer deposed on the lines of investigation done by him.

16.The burden lies on prosecution to prove that accused persons trespassed into the land of PW1 and PW2 and to prove the same, the ownership has to be established by PW1 and PW2. But on perusal of entire material available on record, it is evident that no such document was filed by prosecution to prove the same and the offence of trespass does not arise. No independent witnesses were examined by them and the other witnesses who were examined turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, this court is of opinion that the

Fair 7 CC.No.782/2022 prosecution failed to prove the offences alleged against accused no. 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt.

17.In the result, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under

Section 448, 427, 506 (ii) and 294 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under section 255(1) Cr.PC and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: B.Ramadevi -None- PW2: B.Satyanarayana PW3: B.Mallesham PW4: B.Madhu PW5: K.Manohar PW6: K.Veera Reddy PW7: R.Malyadri PW8: K.Anjaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 is Report Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P.4 is Signature of PW7 on CDF Ex.P.5 is FIR Ex.P.6 is CDF

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED -Nil-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar

Fair 1 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: AT KARIMNAGAR ::

PRESENT: Smt. Damerla Preethi, I - Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.1259 of 2015

Between: The State through, Inspector of Police, Kothapally PS (Karimnagar Rural) (Cr.No.354 of 2015).

...Complainant.

// AND // Vallampatla Ramsunder, S/o.Rajamouli, Age 37 years, Caste:Goldsmith, R/o.H.No.4-9, Theegalaguttapalli, V/o.Karimnagar mandal.

...Accused.

This case having come before me on 01.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri A.Nagaraju, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural Police Station has laid charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 14.07.2015 at 0700hours, the complainant i.e., Boora Vidyasagar came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that on 13.07.2015 his father Rammurthi went to his friend’s house and at about 2230hours he returned home, while he is crossing the road on foot, the driver of the car bearing No.AP-09-AG-8028 coming from Jagtial side to Karimnagar, drove the car in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to his father near Alphores Women PG

Fair 2 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

College, Karimnagar, resulting which his father received severe injuries over his head and other parts. His uncle Mohan Rao and one Srinivas who witnessed the same informed him, then he rushed to the place and found his father lying on the road, immediately they shifted his father to Surya Hospital in their car, further shifted to Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar, where doctors examined and declared him as dead and advised to shift him to Govt. Hospital, accordingly they shifted him to

Govt. Hospital and due to late hours he was unable to lodge complaint on the same day and finally he requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, LW-11 has registered it as a case in Crime No.354 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined LW1 and recorded his statement, visited Dist. Hqrs Hospital, Karimnagar, examined and recorded statements of LWs2 to 4 and 6, got photographed the dead body of deceased through LW6 and held inquest over the dead body in the presence LWs7 and 8 and subjected the dead body for PME. Later he along with above mediators visited the scene of offence situated at Kothapally village, observed the scene minutely and incorporated the same in CDF. Later he also secured the presence of

LW5, examined him and recorded his statement. Subsequently, LW12 took over the investigation of this case and on 28.07.2015 accused came to PS and surrendered before him. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later he served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to accused directing to appear before the Court on receipt of summons. The Medical

Fair 3 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

Officer/LW9 who conducted autopsy over dead body issued PME report opining that cause of death is Cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hemorrhagic shock due to poly trauma and LW10 who inspected crime vehicle issued report stating that accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of entire investigation, LW12 filed charge sheet against the accused.

Hence, the charge.

4.The case was taken on file against Accused for offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.Accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the contents of charges for offences under Section 304-A of IPC. He abjured the guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said offences.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LWs3, 5, 6 and 8 and 7 to avoid contradiction.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, reported no defence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard the A.P.P.O and the counsel for the accused.

Fair 4 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged?

11.P O I N T:

To establish the guilt of accused, prosecution must prove that on 13.07.2015 at 2230hours at Seetharampur village, near Alphores Women PG College,

Karimnagar, accused drove his car bearing No.AP-09-AG-8028 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to deceased, due to which deceased received severe injuries over his head and other parts and died while shifting to

Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar for treatment.

12.As stated above, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents.

13.PW1 is the complainant who deposed that on 13.07.2015 he received a phone call from LW3 and LW4 that his father met with an accident while crossing road. A car coming from Jagtial towards Karimnagar in rash and negligent manner hit his father resulting which he sustained injuries on his head and other body parts. Immediately, he rushed to place of accident and shifted deceased to Surya hospital where he was declared dead. He also deposed that he found crime vehicle and also its driver and identified accused present in the court hall. In his cross examination, he admitted that he got to know how the accident occurred from some persons and he was not present at the time of accident.

Fair 5 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

14.PW2 deposed that deceased rented his place to him for running a shop. On 13.07.2015 at 10:30 PM he was closing his shop and meanwhile deceased came from Karimnagar in an auto and was crossing infront of his shop to go to his house. Meanwhile a car coming from Jagtial hit deceased due to which he fell, was dragged by car to some distance. The accident was witnessed by LW3 and

LW5 and they informed PW1 over phone. Witness identified accused present in the court hall. He also stated that TIP was not conducted.

15.PW3 who is panch witness for CDF deposed that police conducted panchanama and prepared CDF in his presence and LW8 at Seetharampur village.

PW4 deposed that she received requisition to conduct autopsy over dead body of deceased and issued PME report and as per her opinion the cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest, secondary to RTA. PW5 is the MVI who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report opining that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. PW6 and PW7 are the investigating officers who deposed on the lines of investigation done by them.

16.To prove the offence U/Sec 304-A of IPC, the prosecution has to prove three ingredients, i.e., (i) Identification of accused

(ii) Rash and negligent act

(iii) Death of deceased

The prosecution to establish the guilt of accused examined PW1 who is complainant who is not the eye witness and his evidence is hearsay, they also

Fair 6 C.C.No.1259 of 2015 examined PW2 who was cited as eye witness but he has acquaintance with deceased before this accident as he is the tenant of deceased. The identification of accused by PW1 and PW2 stands on a strange line as the accident occurred more than 10 years ago and no TIP was conducted. None of the independent witnesses were examined apart from PW1 and PW2 and all the other witnesses are official witnesses. In this case, the benefit of doubt extends to accused. Thus, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal of the said offence.

17.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-

A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence under section 255 (1)

Cr.PC, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: B.Vidyasagar -None- PW2: B.Venkatesh PW3: K.Sanjeeva Reddy PW4: Dr.Ratnamala PW5: Z.Rajani Bai PW6: V.Thirupathi PW7: G.Narender

Fair 7 C.C.No.1259 of 2015

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- Ex.P.1 is Crime Detail Form Ex.P.2 is PME Report Ex.P.3 is MVI Report Ex.P.4 is Form-54 Ex.P.5 is Report Ex.P.6 is First Information Report Ex.P.7 is Inquest panchanama

FOR DEFENCE -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar

Fair 1 CC.No.2129/2025

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

::AT KARIMNAGAR::

PRESENT: Smt. Damerla Preethi, I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2026

C.C.No.2129 of 2025

Between : The State through, S.I of Police, P.S. Gangadhara (Cr.No.96 of 2025)

...Complainant.

// AND //

1. Samarla Prashanth, S/o.Durgaiah, Age 27 years, Caste:SC Madiga, R/o.H.No.1-62, Ryalapalli village, Gangadhara mandal.

2. Samarla Laxmi, W/o.Durgaiah, Age 46 years, Caste:SC Madiga, R/o.H.No.1-62, Ryalapalli village, Gangadhara mandal.

3. Deekonda Kavitha, W/o.Kalyan, Age 28 years, Caste:SC Madiga, R/o.H.No.3-16/1, Cheppial village, Kodimial mandal, Jagital district.

...Accused No.1 to 3.

This case having come before me on 12.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri B.Srinivas, Counsel for accused and after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Gangadhara PS has laid charge sheet in

Cr.No.96/2025 against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under

Section 85, 118 (1) of BNS and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 23.05.2025 at 1400hours, the complainant viz., Samarla Geetha came to PS and lodged a complaint stating that about four years back, she performed love marriage with Samarla Prashanth in the presence of elders. After marriage,

Fair 2 CC.No.2129/2025 she lived her marital life happily for one year, during her marital life, they were blessed with one daughter. After that, frequently some quarrels have been taken place between them, her husband suspected her fidelity and harassed her. On 20.05.2025 her mother-in-law Laxmi told falsehood to her husband that she was roving with others, then her husband believed the same, beat her with stick indiscriminately, due to which she was unable to walk and suffered from fever.

Her sister-in-law Kavitha also harassed her physically and mentally by saying that her daughter does not belongs to her husband and forced for DNA test. All of them harassed her mentally and physically to bring dowry an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- and finally she requested for necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, LW10/Sub-Inspector of Police, Gangadhara police station has registered a case in Crime No.96 of 2025 under Section 85 and 118 (1) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act and investigated into. During course of investigation she examined and recorded statements of LWs1 to 3, collected marriage photos and marriage certificate from LW1 and visited scene of offence by securing presence of two mediators

LWs7 and 8 and observed the scene and incorporated the same in CDF. Later

LW11 took up further investigation and on 15.06.2025 he served notice

U/sec.35 (3) of BNSS to A1 and A2, in response to the same, on 16.06.2025 they appeared before LW11 and later he collected MC of LW1 from LW9 who opined injures of LW1 are simple. On 14.07.2025 he served notice U/sec.35 (3) of BNSS to A3, in response to the same, on 15.07.2025 she appeared before

Fair 3 CC.No.2129/2025

LW11 and he instructed them to appear before the Court on receipt of summons.

After completion of entire investigation, LW11 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3. Hence, the charge.

4.The case was taken on file against the accused No.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 85 and 118(1) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act.

5.On production of accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 230 of B.N.S.S.

6.The accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.262 BNSS by explaining the charges levelled against them in vernacular language for the offences under

Section 85 and 118(1) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act. They abjured the guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and

Exs.P1 to P9 are marked through them. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LWs4 to 10 as material witnesses turned hostile.

8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under section 351 of B.N.S.S with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard both sides and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged?

Fair 4 CC.No.2129/2025

11.P O I N T :

The accused No.1 to 3 stood charged for the offences under sections 85 and 118(1) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act alleging that on 20.05.2025 at

Ryalapalli village, accused No.1 to 3 harassed the complainant/PW1 mentally and physically demanding her to bring additional dowry amounts, further A1 beat PW1 with a stick indiscriminately causing her injuries.

12.As stated above, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many

as 4 witnesses, exhibited 9 documents.

13.PW1 in her chief examination deposed that she does not know anything about this case and she never lodged any report to police. In the year 2025, when she went to Gangadhara Police station on her personal work, police obtained her signature on some white papers. PW2 and PW3 deposed that they does not know anything about this case and police never examined them.

PW4/B.Vamshi Krishna, who is Investigating Officer deposed on the lines of investigation done by him.

14. As PW1 to PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned A.P.P.O, they were declared hostile. However, in their cross-examination by the A.P.P.O, no worthwhile material could be elicited involving the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence. Except the evidence of PW4, there is nothing on record to support the case of the prosecution and there is no corroborative evidence and the only evidence of

PW4 who is investigating Officer cannot be given any weight. Therefore, in the

Fair 5 CC.No.2129/2025 absence of corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of the Investigating

Officer/PW4 who is official witness cannot be taken into consideration, who is always interested in the out come of case of prosecution. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that during pendency of the case

before this Court, the defacto complainant and the accused seems to have settled

their dispute out side the Court and that is the reason they are not deposing the true facts of the case before the Court. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on record, to connect the accused to the offences alleged against them. Thus, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, it has to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged and as such, they are entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

15.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences under

Section 85 and 118(1) of BNS and Sec.4 of DP Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offences under section 271(1) of BNSS, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Karimnagar.

Fair 6 CC.No.2129/2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE PW1: S.GeethaNIL PW2: A.Babu PW3: A.Sukanya PW4: B.Vamshi Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:- FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW1 on complaint - Nil- Ex.P.2 is Sec.180 B.N.S.S statement of PW1 Ex.P.3 is Sec.180 B.N.S.S statement of PW2 Ex.P.4 is Sec.180 B.N.S.S statement of PW3 Ex.P.5 is Report Ex.P.6 is FIR Ex.P.7 is 2 photographs Ex.P.8 is CDF Ex.P.9 is Medical Certificate of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL -

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Karimnagar

1 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD : AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:- MS. Damerla Preethi, I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC:V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.

Tuesday, the 23 rd day of September, 2025.

JCC.NO. 11 OF 2021

Between:

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS. Peddapalli (Crime No. 436 of 2020)

...Complainant.

And

Chintakindi Vishwatheja, S/o: Chandramouli, Age: 17 years, R/o: Shantinagar, Peddapalli.

...Child in Conflict with Law.

This case having come before me on 09.09.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P., for the state and of Sri J. Wilson, Counselfor the CCL, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, Peddapalli Police Station has laid charge sheet against CCL for the offence under Section 354-D, 363, 506 of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

2.The brief allegations in the Charge sheet are as follows:-

On 03.11.2020 at 1145 hours, complainant/LW1 came to PS

Peddapalli and lodged a petition stating that his younger daughter who is minor girl did not return house and found missing. They found that CCL was moving closely with his daughter while she was studying 9th class. On observing the same, he warned CCL to change his attitude but he did not change and took his

2 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

daughter away to Hyderabad with the assistance of his friends and on 02.11.2020, CCL eloped with daughter somewhere. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, LW11/Sub-

Inspector of Police, Peddapalli police station has registered it as a case in Crime

No.436 of 2020 under Section 363 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW11 examined and recorded the statements of LW1. He visited scene of offence and incorporated CDF in the presence of LW8 and LW9, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 3 and 4. LW12 took up further investigation and found it on proper lines. On 04.11.2020, LW12 received credible information and apprehended both LW2 and CCL. LW12 collected date of birth certificate of LW2 and CCL from LW7, examined and recorded his statements.

After completion of entire investigation, LW12 filed charge sheet against CCL.

Hence, the charge.

4.The case was taken on file against CCL for the offence under Section 354-D, 363, 506 of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

5.On appearance of CCL, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.CCL was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence under Section 354-D, 363, 506 of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. He abjured the guilt, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, for the said offences.

7.During trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.11.

3 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, CCL was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, reported no defence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

9.Heard the A.P.P.O and the counsel for the CCL.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of CCL beyond

all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged?

11. P O I N T :

CCL stood charged for the offence under Section 354-D, 363, 506 of

IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. The accusation against him is that, he eloped with the victim/ daughter of complainant.

12.PW1 who is complainant, PW3 and PW4 deposed that they do not know anything about this case. CCL never kidnapped and never raped victim/PW2 and police never examined them. PW2 who is the victim girl deposed that she do not know anything about this case.

13. PW5 is the photographer deposed that he was asked to videograph the statement of victim which was recorded by LW6 and accordingly he recorded, converted it into a CD and handed over to police. PW6 deposed that he issued date of birth certificate of CCL after verifying school records. PW7 deposed that she recorded the statements of victim as per the instructions of S.I of Police. PW8 and PW9 are the panch witnesses for CDF who deposed that they do not know anything about this case and police never conducted panchanama in their

4 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

presence. PW10 who is Investigating Officer deposed on the lines of investigation done by him.

14. As PW1 to PW4, PW8 and PW9 did not support the case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned A.P.P.O, they were declared hostile.

However, in their cross-examination by the A.P.P.O, no worthwhile material could be elicited involving the complicity of the accused in the alleged offence. As the complainant and victim themselves have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned A.P.P.O has given up the evidence of other listed witnesses, on the ground that examining them will serve no useful purpose and it will be a futile exercise and mere waste of the precious time of the board.

15. Except the evidence of PW10, there is nothing on record to support the case of the prosecution and there is no corroborative evidence and the only evidence of PW10 who is investigating Officer cannot be given any weight.

Therefore, in the absence of corroborative evidence, the sole testimony of the

Investigating Officer/Pw10 who is official witness cannot be taken into consideration, who is always interested in the out come of case of prosecution.

Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that during pendency of the case before this Board, the matter seems to have settled out side the Board and that is the reason they are not deposing the true facts of the case before the

Board. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever on record, to connect

CCL to the offence alleged against him. Thus, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, it has to be held that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of CCL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence with which he is charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

5 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

16. In the result, CCL is not found to be in conflict with law for the offence under Sections 354-D, 363, 506 of IPC and Sec 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the said offence under section 17(1) JJ Act. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the 23 rd day of September, 2025.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : PW1 T. Yadagiri PW2 T. Sravani PW3 T. Gayathri PW4 T. Umadevi PW5 G. Naresh PW6 P. Rajamouli PW7 M. Shylaja PW8 A. Srinivas PW9 G. Srinivas PW10 K. Rajesh

FOR THE DEFENCE :

-- NONE--

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 is Signature of PW1 on Complaint

Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1

Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2

Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P.5 is Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4

6 of 6 J.C.C No. 11 OF 2021

Ex.P.6 is Study, Conduct and Date of birth certificate of CCL

Ex.P.7 is Study, Conduct and Date of birth certificate of PW2

Ex.P.8 is Signature of PW8 on CDF

Ex.P.9 is Report

Ex.P10 is FIR

Ex.P11 is CDF

FOR THE DEFENCE : NONE

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. FAC: V-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, cum-Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Karimnagar.