Mr. Dilip Kumar Naik Sr

CC.No.4787 of 2022 1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri. S. R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026

CC.No. 4787 of 2022

Old CC.No. 201 of 2013 Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

...Complainant.

A N D A-1: Bogi Rajellu, S/o. Odelu, Age: 50 years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudadpally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Warangal District.

A-2: Bogi Sambaiah, S/o. Rajellu, Age: 28 years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudadpally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Warangal District.

A-3: Bogi Shankar, S/o. Rajellu, Age: 23 years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudadpally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Warangal District.

A-4: Bogi Swamy, S/o. Rajellu, Age: 19 years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Student, R/o. Gudadpally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Warangal District.

A-5: Bogi Rajamma, W/o. Rajellu, Age: 46 years, Caste: Boya, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gudadpally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Warangal District.

... Accused No.1 to 5

This case is received on transfer from Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parkal vide CC.No. 201 of 2013 and renumbered as above CC and is came

before me on 26.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for

the State and of Sri. Pagadala Ananda Rao, learned Counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

CC.No.4787 of 2022 2

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhupalpally had filed a charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 5 in Cr.No.16/2013 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that:

2.2On 16.02.2013 at 11.00 hours, the Complainant/LW-1/Mandala Radha came to PS Bhupalpally and lodged a report in Telugu stating that, on 16.02.2013 at about 09:00 hours, Accused No.1 to 5 have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with sticks came to their house and attacked on her husband LW-2/Mandala Iylaiah, as a result her husband LW-2/Mandala Iylaiah has sustained bleeding injuries to his head, face and leg and fell down on the road and Accused No.1 and his wife Accused No.5 uttered Vanni Vadilipettakandi,

Chava Kottale and beat her husband LW-2/Mandala Iylaiah with hands, keeping previous grudges in mind. Finally, she requested to take necessary action against the above persons as per the law.

3.On receipt of the above report, LW-13/L. Adinarayana, Inspector of Police

PS Bhupalpally had registered a case in Crime No.16/2013 Under Sections 143, 447, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC issued FIR and endorsed the case to LW-14/Md.

Osman Sharief, SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally for investigation. Accordingly, the

LW-14 took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, LW-14 have examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 and LW-2 and referred LW-2 to CHC, Parkal for treatment and MC. Subsequently, he visited the scene of offence i.e. Gudadupally village, followed by the LW-1, examined the scene minutely, secured the presence of the

LW-3 to LW-8, examined and recorded their statements and conducted the scene

CC.No.4787 of 2022 3

of offence panchanama duly drafting it in crime details form with a rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized a stick in the presence of LW-9 and LW-10.

5.On 18.02.2013 at 11.15 hours, LW-14 apprehended the A1 to A5 at their house at Gudadupally village and interrogated them. On interrogation, they have voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, they further confessed that, the sticks which were used in the commission of this offence one stick have thrown in the scene was seized in it crime details form and remaining sticks are thrown away some where while fleeing from the scene, as such, he could not recovery the same, prepared remand report against the accused and sent them for judicial custody.

6.The LW-11/Dr. Y. Malleshwar, who treated the LW-2, issued an expert opinion that, he has sustained injuries grievous in nature.

7.The LW-12/Dr. B. Venkata Laxmi, who treated the LW-2, issued an MC and opined that, he has sustained injuries grievous in nature. After collection of reports and completion of the investigation, the LW-14 had filed a charge sheet against the accused A1 to A5 for the offence punishable U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 I.P.C.

8.The case was taken on cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 5. On appearance of the Accused, the copies of relevant documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

9.Thereafter, the Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C, heard charges framed U/Sec.240 Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 IPC was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 4

10.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 5 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C for which they denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard arguments of both sides.

12.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contentions levelled against the Accused No.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 to 5 had committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 IPC”?

13.POINT:

13.1 It is the case of the prosecution, as per the report/Ex-P5 lodged by

PW-5/Complainant is that on 16.02.2013 at about 09:00 hours at Gudadupally village, the Accused No.1 to 5 alleged to have been formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, trespassed into the house of LW-2/injured and assaulted him, causing grievous injuries, due to prior land dispute and previous enmity.

14.In support of their case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-5.

Ex-P1 to Ex-P5 marked. PW-1 is the Eyewitness to the incident. PW-2 is the village elder and conducted panchayath before the incident. PW-3 and PW-4 are the panch witnesses for CDF. PW-5 is the Complainant and wife of LW-2 and eyewitness to the incident. Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 are the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of

PW-1 and PW-2. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the signatures of PW-3 and PW-4 on the

CDF. Ex-P5 is the report.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 5

15.In order to prove the case of the prosecution it has to be proved that the

Accused No.1 to 5 had committed the alleged offence U/Sec. 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w 149 for which they are charged with and that reads as follows :- 15.1141 IPC. Unlawful assembly.—An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is—

First.— To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 11[the

Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.— To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.— To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.— By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

Fifth.—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

Explanation.—An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

15.2. 143 IPC, Punishment.— Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 6

15.3441 IPC: Criminal trespass-Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

15.4447 IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass-Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

15.5323 IPC. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

15.6326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 7

15.7506. Punishment for criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; “If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both”.

16.This is a case registered in the year 2013 in Cr.No.16/2013 numbered as

CC.No.201 of 2013. Later due to district bifurcation, the case has been transferred

to this court on the point of jurisdiction.

17.In this case charge sheet has been filed against Accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. The case of the prosecution, is that on 16.02.2013 at about 09:00 hours at

Gudadupally village, the Accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks, trespassed into the house of LW-2/injured and assaulted him, causing grievous injuries, due to prior land dispute and previous enmity.

18.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW-1 to PW-5 and marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P5. Out of these witnesses, PW-1 to PW-4, who are cited as eyewitnesses and panch witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. They categorically deposed that they do not know about the incident and denied the contents of their statements recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. Their evidence does not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 8

19.The only material witness examined by the prosecution is PW-5, who is the wife of the injured/deceased/LW-2 and also the complainant. PW-5, in her chief examination, testified that the accused came to their house and beat her husband with sticks, causing injuries. She further stated that Accused No.5 instigated the other accused to kill her husband. However, her evidence reveals certain inconsistencies, particularly regarding the sequence of events, including taking the injured first to the police station and thereafter to the hospital, which creates doubt about the credibility and trustworthiness of the complaint.

20.It is pertinent to note that the injured person/LW-2 was not examined

before the Court, as he is reported to have died subsequently. However, no direct

evidence or prior testimony of the injured has been brought on record. Further, though the prosecution alleges grievous injuries, no more reports has been produced to show that the Accused had caused grievous injuries to LW-2 by beating him with sticks this lacks corroboration regarding the nature and cause of injuries.

21.However, the panch witnesses/PW-3 and PW-4 have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution with regard to the seizure or the conduct of panchanama. Thus, the recovery of weapon and the scene of offence proceedings remain unproved.

22.In the present case, except the interested testimony of PW-5, there is no independent corroboration. The evidence of PW-5, being that of an interested witness, requires careful scrutiny and corroboration, which is lacking in this case.

The material witnesses turned hostile and in the absence of medical report and non recovery of weapon creates serious doubts about the prosecution version.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 9

23.Upon considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, as there is no cogent evidence against the Accused No.1 to 5 that they have committed the alleged offence U/Sec.143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. As such, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 5 beyond all reasonable doubts for the alleged offences.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the Accused No.1 to 5 and against the prosecution.

24.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and committed the alleged offences in furtherance of their common object. The benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. Accordingly,

Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w Sec. 149 IPC.

25.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 143, 447, 323, 326, 506 r/w Sec. 149 IPC. Accordingly, they are is acquitted for the same U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused

No.1 to 5 shall stand in force for six months as required U/Sec.437 CrP.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Note:- As no property produced, no property orders pronounced.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 30th day of March, 2026).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.4787 of 2022 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Bogi Hyma - None -

PW-2: M. Odelu

PW-3: Dugyala Sampath Rao

PW-4: Udutha Thirupathi

PW-5: Mandela Radha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1.

Ex-P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2.

Ex-P3 is the signature of PW-3 on CDF.

Ex-P4 is the signature of PW-4 on CDF.

Ex-P5 is the Report.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.2656 of 20221 of 10

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri. S. R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Monday, this the 23rd day of February, 2026.

CC. No. 2656 of 2022

Old CC. No. 518 of 2016

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

...Complainant

A N D

Kusunapu Nathanial, S/o. Rajarathnam, Age: 52 Years, Caste: Mala, Occ: TSRTC Bus Driver, R/o. H.No. 8-94, Laxminagar, Bhupalpally.

... Accused

This case is received on transfer from Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Parkal vide CC. No. 518/2016 and is renumbered as above CC and is coming up before me on 19.02.2026 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. R. Rakesh, learned Counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhupalpally had filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.160/2016 for the offences punishable U/Sec.

304-A IPC.

CC.No.2656 of 20222 of 10

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

2.1.That on 12.07.2016, the Complainant/LW-1/Lavudya Rajender Naik lodged a written complaint at PS Bhupalpally in which he stated that his brother Lavudya Devender was proceeding on his motorcycle Hero I Smart T/R

No. number to his mother's in-law house to give money. When he reached

Boggulavagu which is the outskirts of Bhupalpally, the Accused driver of

Bhupalpally depot TSRTC bus bearing No.AP36-Z-0141, which comes from

Kataram to Bhupalpally drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his brother's motorcycle in opposite direction. Due to this, his brother sustained injuries on his head and died. Thus, he requested to take necessary action against the Accused.

3.On receipt of the above report, LW-14/Y. Nandeep, Prob. SI of Police,

PS Bhupalpally 1st I.O. registered a case in Crime No.160/2016, U/Sec.304-A

IPC Issued FIR and took up the Investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-14 had examined and recorded the statement of LW-1. On 13.07.2016, visited the scene of offence i.e., outskirts of Bhupalpally near

Boggulavagu, secured the presence of LW-9, LW-10 and in their presence, conducted the scene observation panchanama, duly drafting it in crime detail form and drew a rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of above mediators.

4.The crime vehicle was shifted to PS for safe custody and for the inspection of MVI and report. Further, LW-14 proceed to mortuary of CHC

Parkal, where LW-14 have examined the LW-2 to LW-6 and recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators LW-7 and LW-8 duly obtaining photographs over the dead body of

CC.No.2656 of 20223 of 10

deceased with the help of photographer LW-6 and body was subjected for autopsy to the Medical Officer, CHC, Parkal and PME. After the PME, the dead body was handed over to its blood relatives under proper receipt.

5.On 15-7-2016, the LW-13 served notice to the accused U/S 41(A) Cr.P.C.

to ascertain facts and circumstances from him. Accordingly, on 16.07.2016 at 14:00 hours, the accused came to PS and surrendered before LW-13 at PS

Bhupalpally. As such, took him into custody and interrogated him. On interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, verified

DL of Accused found valid and updated. Hence, affected the arrest of the accused by issuing an arrest form and made entries in the connected records of the PS. Later, he produced sureties and was released on bail as per the orders of Supreme Court.

6.The LW-11/Dr. A. Rajender Reddy, who conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued a PME report stating that, the cause of death was due to "Head injury".

7.The LW-12/M. Venkanna, visited the PS Bhupalpally and inspected the crime vehicle, issued a report stating that, "the accident that occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle".

8.The LW-13/T. Ravi Kumar, visited the PS Bhupalpally and inspected the victim's vehicle, issued a report stating that, "the accident that occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle". After completion of investigation the LW-15 had filed a charge sheet against the Accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC.

CC.No.2656 of 20224 of 10

9.The case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.

304-A IPC against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/Sec.207 of CrP.C.

10.Thereafter, the Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

12.Heard arguments from both sides.

13.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contentions levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC”?

14. POINT:

14.1It is the case of the prosecution, as per the report/Ex.P1 lodged by

PW-1/Complainant is that on 12.07.2016 at 18.30 hours, his brother Lavudya

Devender, was proceeding on his motor cycle Hero I Smart T/R No. number to his mother in-law’s house to give money. When he reached Boggulavagu which is the outskirts of Bhupalpally the accused alleged to have driven TSRTC bus

Br.No.AP36-Z-0141 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his brother's

CC.No.2656 of 20225 of 10

motor cycle in opposite direction. Due to this, his brother sustained injuries to his head and died.

15.In support of their case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-7.

Ex-P1 to Ex-P3 marked. PW-1 is the complainant/brother of the deceased.

PW-2 is the wife of the deceased. PW-3, PW-5 are the eyewitness. PW-4 is the father-in-law of the deceased. PW-6 is the Panch witness for the Inquest

Panchanama. PW-7 is the Panch witness for the CDF. Ex-P1 is the report.

Ex-P2 is the signature of PW-6 on Inquest Panchanama. Ex-P3 is the Signature of PW-7 on the CDF.

16. In order to prove the case of the prosecution it has to be proved that the Accused had committed the alleged offence U/Sec.304-A IPC for which the accused is charged with and which reads as follows:

16.1299 IPC: Culpable homicide- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused.

Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the

CC.No.2656 of 20226 of 10

bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpablehomicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

16.2304-A. Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

CC.No.2656 of 20227 of 10

17.This case arises out of a fatal road traffic accident alleged to have occurred on 12.07.2016 at approximately 18:30 hours at the outskirts of

Boggulavagu, Bhupalpally, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Bhupalpally. The prosecution case is that the accused, being the driver of a TSRTC bus bearing

No.AP36-Z-0141, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased Lavudya Devender, resulting in his death. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-A

IPC.

18.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW-1 to PW-7 and marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P3. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. The point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 12.07.2016 at the stated time and place, the accused drove the TSRTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of Lavudya Devender, thereby committing an offence under Section 304-A IPC.

19.PW-1 is the complainant and brother of the deceased, is admittedly not an eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is based on information allegedly received from the 108 Ambulance driver. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he did not witness the accident. Therefore, his testimony does not establish the manner of driving of the accused.

20.PW-2, the wife of the deceased, also admitted in her cross-examination that she is not an eyewitness and that she came to know about the accident subsequently. She does not know the name of the bus driver and has no direct knowledge of the occurrence.

CC.No.2656 of 20228 of 10

21.PW-3 and PW-4 are not eyewitnesses to the accident. Their evidence only pertains to receiving information regarding the deceased’s death and seeing the deceased body in the hospital. Their testimonies do not provide any evidence of the accused alleged rash or negligent act.

22.PW-5, the 108 Ambulance technician, stated that he attended an accident at Boggulavagu and shifted an injured person with a head injury to the hospital. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that he could not state the exact date of the incident nor could he identify the injured person by name. His evidence does not connect the accused with the alleged accident nor does it establish rash and negligent driving.

23.PW-6 is a panch witness to the inquest. His evidence is formal and pertains only to the injuries observed on the deceased’s body. PW-7, who was examined as a witness to the scene observation panchanama, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

24.The prosecution has not examined any independent eyewitness to the accident, despite the charge sheet mentioning such witnesses. No material has been presented before this Court to conclusively establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at the time of the accident.

Mere occurrence of an accident or death is not sufficient to attract Sec.

304-A IPC unless rashness or negligence is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

25.In the present case, there is no direct evidence to establish rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. The evidence on record is insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A IPC.

CC.No.2656 of 20229 of 10

26.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

27.Upon considering the facts and circumstances of this case there is no incriminating material and cogent evidence against the accused. As such this court is of opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the above alleged offence

U/Sec. 304-A IPC. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

28.IN THE RESULT, the Accused found not guilty for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled after appeal period is over.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Note: As no property produced, no property orders pronounced.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 23rd day of February, 2026).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.2656 of 202210 of 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Lavudya Rajender Naik. - None -

PW-2: Lavudya Laxmi.

PW-3: Lavudya Raju Nayak.

PW-4: Maloth Sammaiah.

PW-5: Rebba Srikanth.

PW-6: Lavudya Rajesh.

PW-7: Sothku Praveen Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the report.

Ex-P2 is the signature of PW-6 on Inquest Panchanama.

Ex-P3 is the Signature of PW-7 on the CDF.

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No. 2806 of 20221

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri. S. R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2026

CC.No. 2806 of 2022

Old CC.No. 116 of 2017 Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

...Complainant.

A N D

Md. Saleema Begam, W/o. Iqubal, Age: 55 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Rajeev Nagar of Bhupalpally.

... Accused.

This case is received on transfer from Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court, Parkal vide CC.No.116 of 2017 and renumbered as above

CC and is came before me on 19.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. V. Srinivasa Chary, learned Counsel

for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing

the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhupalpally had filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.188/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

304-A IPC.

CC.No. 2806 of 20222

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

2.1That on 23.08.2016 at 19:20 hours, the Complainant/

LW-1/Rallabandi Vanitha came to PS Bhupalpally and lodged a report in which she stated that on 16.08.2016, Accused was engaged by her father to axe the tree in her house premises for coolie works, as at about 11:00 hours her father, while axing the tree, got an electric shock. As a result, her father’s neck, waist and legs were paralyzed. After the electric shock got to her father, the Accused took her father in an Auto to Karlmarks Colony and left him in the house. Immediately, they shifted him to Maxcare Hospital. On the advice of the doctors, they shifted him to Osmania Hospital, while undergoing treatment her father succumbed to death on 04.09.2016. Finally, she requested to take necessary action against the Accused as per the law.

3.On receipt of above report from LW-1, the LW-11/G. Naresh, SI of police, PS Bhupalpally registered a case in Cr.No.188/2016 for the offence punishable U/Sec.337 IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, LW-11 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1. Later, he visited the scene of offence, secured LW-7, LW-8 and in their presence examined the scene and drew the rough sketch of the scene in CDF. Further, he examined and recorded the statements of LW-2 to

LW-4 and LW-6.

5.On 04.09.2016, the LW-12 received the death intimation of the injured from Osmaina Hospital, Hyderabad. As such, he altered the section of law from U/Sec.337 IPC to U/Sec.304-A IPC and issued the Memos to the Hon'ble

Court and all concerned officers. Further, he is directed the LW-10 to conduct

CC.No. 2806 of 20223

the inquest of the deceased. As per the instructions of the LW-11, the LW-10 proceeded to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, secured the presence of LW-7,

LW-8 and in their presence held inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and photographed the dead body with the help of LW-5.

Further, he referred the dead body to the Professor, Osmania Hospital, F.M.

Dept, Hyderabad under proper escort. He instructed the escort PC, after completion of the PME, to hand over the dead body to the blood relatives of the deceased by taking proper acknowledgment.

6.On 07.10.2016, the LW-11 served notices to the accused U/Sec.41 (A)

Cr.P.C to appear at PS on 08.10.2016. Accordingly, the accused came to PS and appeared before the LW-12.

7.The LW-12 collected the PME Report from LW-9/Dr. M. Thaiuddin

Khan, who conducted PME over the corpse of the deceased. In which he opined that the deceased had died due to “DUE TO CERVICAL SPINE INJURY

CONSEQUENT TO ELECTROCUTION.” After collecting relevant reports and after completion of investigation the LW-12 had filed a charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC.

8.The case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable

U/Sec.304-A IPC against the Accused. On appearance of Accused, copies of relevant documents were furnished to her as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

9.Thereafter, Accused was examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC was read over and explained to her in her vernacular language, for which she denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.No. 2806 of 20224

10. After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which she denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard arguments of both sides.

12.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contentions levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC”?

13.POINT:

13.1It is the case of the prosecution, as per the report/Ex-P1 lodged by PW-1/Complainant is that on 16.08.2016 at about 11:00 AM at Rajiv

Nagar Colony, Bhupalpally, the accused alleged to have engaged the Gaja

Rajaiah/Deceased to cut a tree situated near her house premises for a consideration of Rs.200/-. While axing the tree, the deceased allegedly came into contact with electric wires, suffered an electric shock, sustained injuries and later succumbed to death on 04.09.2016 while undergoing treatment at

Osmania Hospital.

14.In support of their case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-7.

Ex-P1 to Ex-P7 are marked. PW-1 is the Complainant and Daughter of the

Deceased. PW-2 is the Wife of the Deceased. PW-3 is the Elder Son of the

Deceased. PW-4 who shifted the deceased to Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad.

PW-5 is the Eyewitness in this case. PW-6 is the Panch witness for Inquest

Panchanama and CDF. PW-7 is the 1st Investigating Officer who issued FIR in this case. Ex-P1 is the Report. Ex-P2 is the signature of PW-6 on CDF. Ex-P3

CC.No. 2806 of 20225

is the signature of PW-6 on the Inquest Panchanama. Ex-P4 is the FIR. Ex-P5 is the CDF. Ex-P6 is the Inquest Panchanama. Ex-P7 is the PME Report.

15. In order to prove the case of the prosecution it has to be proved that the Accused had committed the alleged offence U/Sec.304-A IPC for which she is charged with and that reads as follows :- 15.1304-A IPC: Causing death by negligence - Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

16.This is the case pertaining to Cr.No.188/2016, initially this case was registered U/Sec.337 IPC and later altered to Section 304-A IPC, alleging that the accused, Md. Saleema Begum, by her rash and negligent act, caused the death of one Gaja Rajaiah.

17.The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16.08.2016 at about 11:00 AM at Rajiv Nagar Colony, Bhupalpally, the accused engaged the deceased Gaja

Rajaiah, a daily wage labourer, to cut a tree situated near her house premises for a consideration of Rs.200/-. It is alleged that electric wires were passing through or over the said tree and that the accused did not take precautionary measures nor inform the deceased about the danger. While axing the tree, the deceased allegedly came into contact with electric wires, suffered an electric shock, sustained injuries and later succumbed to death on 04.09.2016 while undergoing treatment at Osmania Hospital. It is further alleged that instead of immediately shifting the injured to hospital, the accused brought him to his residence and left him there.

CC.No. 2806 of 20226

18.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7 and marked

Ex-P1 to Ex-P7. PW-1 is the daughter of the deceased, she deposed that the accused engaged her father for cutting a tree stating that there was no electricity supply and that during cutting he received an electric shock.

However, in cross-examination she admitted that she was not an eye-witness to the incident and that she came to know of the occurrence through an auto driver. She also admitted that the report/Ex-P1 was lodged on 23.08.2016, though the incident allegedly occurred on 16.08.2016. PW-2 is the wife of the deceased, PW-3 is the elder son of the deceased both had admitted in cross- examination that they were not eye-witnesses to the incident. Their evidence is therefore hearsay in nature insofar as the actual occurrence of incident.

19.PW-4 deposed that he shifted PW-3’s father/deceased to the Osmania

Hospital, Hyderabad upon information received from PW-3. He categorically admitted that he did not personally witness how the deceased sustained the electric shock. PW-5 who is the neighbour of PW-1 to PW-3 stated that the accused brought the injured to his house and informed them that he had fallen from a tree. Her testimony shows that the accused had shifted the injured to his residence. PW-6 who acted as a panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama and inquest Panchanama deposed during his cross- examination, that the tree was situated insside the compound wall of the accused’s house. Whereas as per PW-7/I.O. and as per the rough sketch the tree was situated outside the compound wall, he further testified that there was a delay of seven days in lodging the complaint.

20.The post-mortem report/Ex-P7 shows that the cause of death was due “cervical spine injury consequent to electrocution.” Thus, the fact that the

CC.No. 2806 of 20227

deceased died due to electrocution is not in dispute. The crucial question that arises for determination is whether such death was the direct result of any rash or negligent act of the accused so as to attract Section 304-A IPC.

21.To bring home an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed a rash or negligent act and that such act was the proximate and direct cause of death.

Mere engagement of a labourer for cutting a tree, in the absence of proof of specific negligence, is insufficient. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused suppressed knowledge of live electric wires or that she exercised control over the electric supply lines. No officials from the Electricity Department was examined to prove the condition or position of the wires. The admitted fact that compensation was granted by the Electricity

Department creates a doubt as to whether the positioning or maintenance of the electric lines contributed to the incident.

22.Further, none of the material witnesses have witnessed the actual occurrence. The prosecution has not examined the auto driver who allegedly informed PW-1. The seven-day delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained.

The evidence also reveals inconsistencies regarding the exact location of the tree and whether it was within the compound of the accused. These circumstances create reasonable doubt regarding the manner of occurrence and the specific role of the accused. In the present case, the chain of evidence is incomplete and does not conclusively establish that the accused acted in a rash or negligent manner which directly resulted in the death of the deceased.

CC.No. 2806 of 20228

23.Upon considering the facts and circumstances of this case there is no incriminating material and cogent evidence against the accused to show that the accused had committed the alleged offence U/Sec.304-A IPC. As such, this

Court is of opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the above alleged offence.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

24.IN THE RESULT: the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A IPC. Accordingly, she is acquitted U/Sec. 255 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Note: No property produced, no property orders pronounced.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2026.)

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No. 2806 of 20229

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1:– Rallabandi Vanitha. - None -

PW-2:– Gaje Rajeshwari

PW-3:– Gaje Mahesh

PW-4:– Mutha Ranjith

PW-5:- Ashanala Laxmi.

PW-6:- Regula Rakesh.

PW-7:- G. Naresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the Report.

Ex-P2 is the Signature of PW-6 on CDF.

Ex-P3 is the Signature of PW-6 on Inquest Panchanama.

Ex-P4 is the FIR.

Ex-P5 is the CDF.

Ex-P6 is the Inquest Panchanama.

Ex-P7 is the PME Report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.4980 of 2022 1 of 9

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

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JS BHUPALPALLY.

Present: Sri. S. R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Tuesday, this the 17th day of February, 2026

CC. No. 4980 of 2022

Old CC.No. 530 of 2015 Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, PS. Chityal.

...Complainant.

A N D

A-1:Kotapati Prasad, S/o. Kondaiah, Age: 387 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Agriculture. A-2:Kotapati Kondaiah, S/o. Subbarao, Age: 65 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Agriculture. A-3:Kotapati Srilatha, W/o. Prasad, Age: 32 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Agriculture. A-4:Konka Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Hanumaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Agriculture. All are R/o. Gunturpally, H/o. Thirumalapur Village.

... Accused No.1 to 4.

This case is received on transfer from Addl. J.F.C.M Court, Parkal vide

CC. No. 530/2015 and renumbered as above CC and is coming up before me

on 13.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and of Sri. G. Jagadeeshwar, learned Counsel for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

CC.No.4980 of 2022 2 of 9

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Chityal, filed charge sheet against the

Accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.191/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :

2.1That on 15.09.2015 at 11.15 hours, the Complainant/LW-1/

Munimakula Nageshwar Rao came to PS and lodged a report, in which she stated that, on 15.09.2015 at about 08:00 hours, he is going towards his agriculture land on bullock cart their villagers Accused No.1 to 4, obstructed him by stopping his bullock cart by saying you don’t have any right to go from this way and you are not having any way from here and send back his bullock cart. Finally, he requested to take necessary action against the Accused

No.1 to 4.

3. On receipt of above report from Complainant/LW-1, the LW-7/

K. Venkatrao, SI of Police, PS Chityal had registered a case in Cr.No.191/2015,

U/Sec. 341 r/w 34 IPC, issued the FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he had examined and recorded the statement of

LW-1. Subsequently, he visited the scene of offence followed by LW-1, examined the scene minutely, secured the presence of LW-2 to LW-4 examined and recorded their statements and conducted scene of offence panchanama duly drafting it in CDF with rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of

LW-5 and LW-6. On 15.04.2016, issued U/Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C notices to Accused

No.1 to 4.

CC.No.4980 of 2022 3 of 9

4.Subsequently, the LW-8/K. Venkatrao, SI of Police, PS Chityal took up further investigation of this case, verified investigation of LW-7 found it on proper lines and after completion of investigation, he had filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 341 r/w 34

IPC.

5.The case was taken on cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 341 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4 on their appearance, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Thereafter, the Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation for the offence U/Sec. 341 r/w 34 IPC was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the Accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating substances available in the testimony of prosecution witnesses for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contentions levelled against the Accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 to 4 had committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 341 r/w 34 IPC”?

CC.No.4980 of 2022 4 of 9

10.POINT:

10.1It is the case of the prosecution as per the report lodged by LW-1/

Complainant is that on 15.09.2015 at about 08.00 hours. While LW-1 proceeding to his agricultural filed with his bullock cart the accused alleged to have wrongfully restrained the complainant LW-1, namely Munimakula

Nageshwar Rao, by stopping his bullock cart and preventing him from proceeding to his agricultural land on account of a pending land dispute between them.

11.In support of their case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 and PW-2.

Ex-P1 to Ex-P4 marked. PW-1 is the Panch for CDF. PW-2 is the 2nd I.O. in this case. Ex-P1 is the signature of PW-1 on CDF. Ex-P2 is the Report. Ex-P3 is the FIR. Ex-P4 is the CDF.

12. In order to prove the case of the prosecution it has to be proved that the Accused No.1 to 4 had committed the alleged Offences U/Sec.341 r/w 34

IPC for which they are charged with and which reads as follows :- 12.1339 IPC: Wrongful restraint.- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.

Illustration

CC.No.4980 of 2022 5 of 9

A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing.

A wrongfully restrains Z.

12.2. 341 IPC : Punishment for wrongful restraint.- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both

13.Upon perusal of the material evidence on record it shows that PW-1 who is the panch witness for CDF had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.This is a case registered in the year 2015 in Cr. No. 191/2015. The same was numbered as CC. No. 530/2015. The accused were appeared before this court on 30.11.2018 and summons were served to them and were examined on the same day U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C and the summons were issued to LW-1 to

LW-3 and later summons issued to LW-4 to LW-8. Despite several opportunities and conditional orders the police failed to serve summons to the witnesses and due to non serving of summons by the police nor any efforts taken by the prosecution to serve the summons and to produce the witnesses, the evidence of LW-1 to LW-3, LW-4, LW-6 and LW-7 was closed on 01.06.2022, 25.09.2025 and 08.01.2026 respectively.

15.This case arises out of Crime No.191/2015 of P.S. Chityal registered for the offence punishable under Section 341 r/w 34 of IPC. The allegation of the prosecution is that on 15.09.2015 at about 08:00 hours at the outskirts of

Gunturpally village, the accused Nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant LW-1/Munimakula Nageshwar

CC.No.4980 of 2022 6 of 9

Rao, by stopping his bullock cart and preventing him from proceeding to his agricultural land on account of a pending land dispute between them.

16.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that LW-1 lodged a report at about 11:15 hours on the same day before the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Chityal. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under Section 341 r/w 34 IPC, FIR was issued and investigation was taken up. During investigation, the statements of LW-1 to LW-4 were recorded, in the presence of panch witnesses i.e., PW-1/LW-5 and LW-6 scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.

17. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 and PW-2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. PW-1, who is cited as a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He categorically stated that the police obtained his signature on certain papers but he was unaware of the contents and denied that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence. Nothing useful was elicited in his cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to support the prosecution case.

18.PW-2, the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding registration of the case, conduct of investigation and filing of charge sheet. In his cross- examination, he admitted that no documentary proof was submitted by LW-1 to show that the land in question belonged to him. He further admitted that civil disputes were pending between LW-1 and the accused in respect of the said land in O.S. No.469/2015 on the file of the Court of the Hon’ble II Additional

Senior Civil Judge at Warangal, and that he was unaware of the final outcome

CC.No.4980 of 2022 7 of 9

of the said civil proceedings. He also admitted that there existed serious civil disputes between the parties.

19.It is pertinent to note that the complainant/victim/LW-1, who is the material witness to the alleged wrongful restraint, has not been examined

before this Court. Likewise, the alleged eye-witnesses LW-3 and LW-4 have not

been examined. The non-examination of these material witnesses goes to the root of the prosecution case. The entire case thus rests upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer and a hostile panch witness, which by itself is insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of Section 341 IPC.

20.To prove an offence under Section 341 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant so as to prevent him from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed. In the present case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove that the accused had restrained LW-1/Complainant/Victim and LW-2/Wife of

LW-1/Victim. In the absence of examination of the complainant and eye- witnesses, and in view of the hostile nature of the panch witness, the prosecution has failed to establish their case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused wrongfully restrained LW-1 on the alleged date, time and place.

21.Upon considering the facts and circumstances there is no corroboration between PW-1 and PW-2 in this case and also there is no incriminating material and cogent evidence. As such there is no material evidence on record against the Accused No.1 to 4 to show that the accused had wrongfully restrained LW-1. As such, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts

CC.No.4980 of 2022 8 of 9

for the above alleged offences. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

22.IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.1 to 4 found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec. 341 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled after appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Note: As no property produced, no property orders pronounced.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-

FAC II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

CC.No.4980 of 2022 9 of 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Nagireddy Ravi - None -

PW-2: K. Venkat Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the Signature of PW-1 on CDF

Ex-P2 is the Report.

Ex-P3 is the FIR.

Ex-P4 is the CDF.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

Sd/-

FAC II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

PRC.No.63 of 2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Present: Sri. S.R. Dilip Kumar Naik,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

Friday, this the 01st day of May, 2026.

P.R.C.No. 63 OF 2025 Between

The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhupalpally. …Complainant

A N D

A-1:Boda Harshith, S/o. Hari, Age: 23 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Cameramen in You Tube Channel, R/o. H.No.13-290, Ram nagar, Bhupalpally Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

A-2:Boda Padma, W/o. Hari, Age: 40 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Ramnagar Colony of Bhupalpally Town.

A-3:Boda Hari, S/o. Somla, Age: 50 years, Caste: ST Lambadi, Occ: Kiranam Shop, R/o. Ramnagar Colony of Bhupalpally Town. … Accused No.1 to 3

This case coming on this day for committal before me in the presence of Sri. A. Komuraiah, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Ch. Rajender, learned counsel for Accused No.1 and Md. Latheef, learned counsel

for Accused No.2, 3 and having stood over for consideration the Court passed the

following:-

COMMITTAL ORDER

1. The Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally laid a charge sheet against Accused

No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 64(1), 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act against Accused No.1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec. 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of

PRC.No.63 of 2025 2

DP Act against Accused No.2 and 3 which is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble

Court of Session, alleging as follows:

2.That on 21.01.2025 at 14:10 hours, the Complainant/LW-1/Victim came to PS

Bhupalpally and lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, she is eking her livelihood by working as You Tuber. In this connection, about 8 months ago, she had acquaintance with A-1, while he was working as cameraman. The said person made deceitful words to her in the name of love and gain her belief saying that he will marry her. And whenever he was in need of money, taken money from her through phone pay and cash, in that way, the said person was taken about

Rs.2,50,000/- from her. Later, the said person introduced her to his parents A2, A3 and they also accepted to their marriage. In these circumstances, the said person tried to participate in sexual intercourse with her several times, but she denied the same. Later, on 01.01.2025 evening at about 19:00 hours, while the absence of inmates, the said person taken her to his house at Ramnagar, Bhupalpally, where the said person forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her. Since then, when she questioned about marriage, the said person dodging the matter every time. At present said A-1 and his parents A-2 and A-3, threatening her that he will get marry her if she brings Rs.1 crore. Due to waiting that, the said person will marry her, caused delay in reporting the matter at PS. Thus, she requested to take action against the above said persons as per law and to do justice.

3.On receipt of the above report, the LW-16/D. Naresh Kumar, Inspector of

Police, PS Bhupalpally had registered a case Crime No.52/2025 against the Accused under section 64(1), 318(4) BNS and issued FIR and took up the investigation.

4.The investigation done so far it revealed that, the LW-1 is the complainant and victim (XXX), the LW-2 is the father (YYY), LW-3 (AAA) is the mother of the

PRC.No.63 of 2025 3 victim, the LW-4 to LW-7 are the circumstantial witness to the incident. The LW-1 is eking her livelihood by working as You Tuber. In this connection, about 8 months ago, the LW-1 had acquaintance with the A-1 while he was working as cameraman. The A-1 made deceitful words to the LW-1 in the name of love and gain belief of the LW-1 saying that he will marry the LW-1. And whenever the A-1 was in need of money, taken money from the LW-1 through phone pay and cash, in that way, the A-1 was taken about Rs.2,50,000/- from the LW-1. Later, the A-1 introduced the LW-1 to his parents A2 and A3 and they also accepted to their marriage. In these circumstances, the A-1 tried to participate in sexual intercourse with the LW-1 several times, but the LW-1 denied the same. Later, on 01.01.2025 evening at about 19:00 hours, in the absence of inmates, the A-1 taken the LW-1 to his house at Ramnagar, Bhupalpally, where the A-1 forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with the LW-1. Since then, when the LW-1 questioned about marriage, the A-1 dodging the matter every time. At present, the A-1 along with

A-2 and A-3, threatening the LW-1 that he will get marry the LW-1 if she brings

Rs.1 crore. After completion of the investigation, the LW-16 had filed a charge- sheet against the Accused No.1 for the offender punishable U/Sec.64(1), 318(4)

BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act and against the Accused No.2 for the offender punishable

U/Sec. 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act.

5.The cognizance of offence was taken for the offences under sections 64(1), 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act against the Accused No.1 and for the offences under sections 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act against the Accused No.2, 3 and the case was taken on file as P.R.C.No.63/2025.

6.On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 3, copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec. 230 BNSSwere supplied to them.

PRC.No.63 of 2025 4

7.Heard. Perused the record. Prima facie the record reveals that the offences are punishable U/Sec. 64(1), 318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act against A1 and U/Sec.

318(4) BNS, Sec.4 of DP Act against A2 and A3 which is exclusively triable by the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. Therefore, this Court commit

the case to the Court of Sessions, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, U/Sec. 232(a) B.N.S.S.

8.Bind over the Accused No.1 to 3 to appear before the Court of Sessions, as and when required.

9.Office is directed to submit the entire case records along with case property duly indexed, to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, forthwith, as required U/Sec. 232(c)

BNSS.

10.The committal of the case shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor of the

Court of Sessions U/Sec. 232(d) B.N.S.S.

11.The Accused No.1 to 3 submitted that they have sufficient means of income to engage an Advocate during the trial. The Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to appear before the Court of Sessions at Jayashankar Bhupalpally, on 01.06.2026.

(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 01st day of May, 2026)

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally.