Sri. Durgam Ganesh

Page No.1` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri.D.Ganesh I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS 23 RD THE TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.40 of 2017

Between: The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Police station, Godavarikhani I­Town (Crime No.362 of 2016) …Complainant

AND

Dubasi Sunil Sainath Vara Prasad S/o.Late Kondaiah, Age:27 years, Madiga, Occ: Badili Worker in 2 incline GDK, R/o. H.No.14­ 5­767, Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani. … Sole Accused 

This case is coming today before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Naheda Farheen Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.S.Sanjay Kumar  learned counsel for the Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Godavarikhani

I­town has filed charge sheet against the accused in

Crime No.362 of 2016 for the offences punishable under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2016 at 0800 hours the complainant/LW1 by name Kampalli Mohanaiah came to

PS Godavarikhani­I Town and lodged a complaint stating that, he is resident of Thilaknagar down, Godavarikhani and living by

Page No.2` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

working as Tendal in 7 LEP. He has three sons and a daughter. His daughter Anoosha who studied Intermediate got love married one

Dubasi Sunil Sainath Vara Prasad on 16­10­2015 and later they got their marriage registered. They led happy matrimonial life up to

January, 2016. On 02­02­2016 his son­in­law beat his daughter and banished from the house. Since then his daughter has been staying with them. His daughter filed a case against her husband and his family members. Keeping the case in his mind, on 07­07­2016 at 1800 hours his son­in­law came to his house and threatened to kill his daughter if she fails to withdraw the case and he has also been threatening him while he was going to duty. He is also sending other woman photos in Whatsaap to his son Shravan kumar’s cell phone by saying that he will marry another woman and he also made phone to his daughter by unknown woman and abused in filthy language. On 14­12­2016 at 1930 hours when he was in his house, his daughter was sitting in front of the house, meanwhile he (accused) came to his house and beat his daughter with hands by saying that, why they went to Police Station and complained against him. They have life threat from his son­in­law and he also came to know that the accused removed name of his wife from his service records at Mine. Finally, he requested for taking necessary action.

Page No.3` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

3.Basing on the above said complaint, LW9/G.Ramesh Babu

Sub­Inspector of Police, PS Godavarikhani I­Town has registered a case in Crime No.362 of 2016 for the offences under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the LW9 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 and LW2 by name Kampalli Mohanaiah, Dubasi

Anoosha. Later, LW9 visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of LW3 to LW6 by name Kampalli Laxmi,

Kampalli Sravan Mumar, Akkapaka Rajaiah, Choppadandi

Lingaiah and secured the presence of two mediators LW7 and LW8 by name Budidi Ramchandram, Donthi Srinivas and observed the scene minutely and prepared the Crime Details Form in their presence. On 27­12­2016 the LW9 served 41­A Cr.P.C notices upon the accused. During the interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation, LW9 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC against the accused and numbered as CC No.40 of 2017.

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

Page No.4` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

6.The accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation leveled against him by the prosecution, but he denied the accusation, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. 

[[

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC ?.

POINT

10.It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.12.2016 at 1930 hours at Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant, abused the complainant and his daughter/LW2 in filthy language and beat

LW2 with hands and threatened them with dire consequences due to family disputes.

Page No.5` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

11.As stated supra, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (08) witnesses and exhibited (05) documents. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is the daughter of PW1 and wife of the accused. PW3 is the wife of PW1 and eye witness to the alleged incident. PW4 is the elder brother of PW2. PW5 is the neighbour of PW1. PW6 and PW7 are the panch witnesses for the

Crime Details Form. PW8 is the Sub­Inspector of Police and the

Investigating officer.

12. Now, from the evidence available on record, it has been seen whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused to the alleged offences.

13.PW1 by name Kampalli Mohaniah deposed that the accused is his son­in­law. He got retired from SCCL. On 16.10.2015 his daughter/LW2 got their love marriage. Thereafter, they got registered their marriage in the presence of elders. They lead married life from January­2016 to 02.02.2016. On 02.02.2016 accused beat LW2 and necked out from his house, since then she has been residing with them. Thereafter, they registered a case against the accused. On 07.07.2016 at about 6.00 PM the accused came to his house and threatened LW2 with dire consequences if

Page No.6` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

she could not withdraw the case registered against him and also threatened PW1 when he was proceeding to attend his duties and also the accused posted a photograph of woman in Whatsapp stating he is going to marry of that woman and also the accused made phone through another girl who abused his daughter/LW2.

PW1 further deposed that on 14.12.2016 at about 7.30 PM the accused again came to his house and beat his daughter by stating why she has not withdrawn the case and fled away from there. For ten days they took time to lodge the report against the accused and thereafter they went to the police station and lodged a report against accused. 

PW2 by name Dubasi Anusha deposed that PW1 is her father. The accused is her husband. On 16.10.2015 herself and the accused performed love marriage. Later her parents have got registered their marriage before SRO Peddapalli.

After their marriage they lived happily till January­2016.

On02.02.2016 the accused beat her and necked her out from his house and since then she is residing with her parents at

Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani. Thereafter, she has filed a case against the accused, on 07.07.2016 the accused came to their house and threatened them to withdraw the case. The

Page No.7` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

Accused also threatened her father, while her father was proceeding to his duty. Once the accused has posted his picture with another woman to the cell phone of her brother/LW4 stating that he is going to marry that woman.

The accused made phone calls to her through unknown women and got abused her. On 14.12.2016 at about 7.30 PM the accused came to her and beat her alleging that she has not withdrawn the case. Later, the accused removed her name under the nomination rolls at his work. As such they went to the police station and lodged report with the police.

PW3 by name Kampelli Laxmi deposed that the accused is her son­in­law. On 16.10.2015 the accused and PW2 got married. Thereafter, they went to Registration office and got registered their marriage. After two months of their marriage, they gave Rs.5,00,000/­ and house hold articles to the you/accused towards dowry. 

PW3 further deposed that after marriage of PW2 and the

Accused, they led happy marital life for a period of two months. Thereafter, the accused beat PW2 and went away from their house. Later, on knowing the same, she along with

Page No.8` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

PW­1 went to the house of accused and took her daughter to their house. On 07.07.2016 the accused came to their house and tried to kill her daughter/PW2 by putting pillow upon on the mouth of PW2. On 14.12.2016 again the accused came to their house and threatened them to withdraw the case against him. The Accused sent Whatsapp image of one girl to LW4 by stating that he would marry that girl as PW2 is not beautiful and the accused made phone calls to PW2 through unknown girl and abused PW2 in filthy language. 

PW4 by name Kampelli Shravan Kumar deposed that on 16.10.2015 the love marriage of PW2 was performed with the accused. Thereafter, they registered their marriage in the

Registered office. At that time, they presented Rs.5,00,000/­, and house hold articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the accused. After marriage, PW2 and accused led happy marital life till January, 2016. 

PW4 further deposed that on 02.02.2016 some quarrel took place between PW2 and the accused in respect of

additional dowry. Since then, PW2 is residing with them.

Page No.9` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

Keeping in mind that PW2 filed case against the accused on 07.07.2016, and the accused came to their house and threatened PW2 with dire consequences to kill her and also threatened PW1 and the accused sent photos of unknown woman to her through Whatsapp by saying that he will marry that unknown woman and also made phone calls through unknown woman by the accused to PW2 and abused her in filthy language. On 14.12.2016 while PW2 was sitting in front of their house, the accused came to his house and beat PW2 and fled away from there. 

PW5 by name Choppadandi Lingaiah deposed that PW2 and the accused got love marriage and the same was registered, since then, they are living happily for some period. On 02.02.2016 the accused beat PW2 and necked her out from your house. Later,

PW2 to went to her parents house and informed the same to her parents. On 07.07.2016 the accused came to the house of parents of PW2 and threatened them to withdraw the case. On 14.012.2016 while PW2 was sitting in front of her house, the accused came there and beat her with hands and fled away from there. In this regard a quarrel took place between them. 

Page No.10` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

PW8 by name G.Ramesh Babu, Inspector of Police,

Godavarikhani I­Town P.S., deposed about the investigation done by him in this case.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW5, their evidence is not cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other on material aspects. 

PW1 who is the complainant and the father of PW2 deposed that after marriage, PW1 and the accused lead marital life from

January, 2016 to 02.02.2016. Whereas PW2/victim and

PW4/brother of PW2 deposed that PW2 and the accused led happy marital life till January 2016. PW3 who is the wife of PW1 and mother of PW2 deposed that after marriage, PW2 and the accused led happy marital life for a period of two months only. PW5 who is the neighbour of PW1 deposed that PW2 and the accused lead happy marital life for some period. The evidence of PW1 to PW5 is not corroborating with each other about the period of happy marital life of PW2 and the accused. 

15.Further, PW3 and PW4 deposed that after two months of marriage of PW2 and the accused, they gave Rs.5,00,000/­ and house hold articles to the accused towards dowry. But on perusal of the entire evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW5 they did not state

Page No.11` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

about the giving of Rs.5,00,000/­ and house hold articles to the accused towards dowry by PW1 and PW2.

16.Further, PW1 & PW2 deposed that on 02.02.2016 the accused beat PW2 and necked her out from his house. Whereas

PW3 deposed that on knowing that the accused beat PW2, herself and PW1 went to the house of the accused and took PW2 to their house. PW5 deposed that on 02.02.2016 the accused beat PW2 and necked her out from his house. Later, PW2 went to her parents house and informed the same to her parents. PW4 who is own son of PW1 and PW3 deposed that the quarrel took place between PW2 and the accused in respect of additional dowry. This material piece of evidence is not finding place in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and

PW5.

17.PW1, PW2 and PW4 deposed that on 07.07.2016 at about 6.00 p.m the accused came to their house and threatened PW2 with dire consequences by stating that if she could not withdraw the case registered against him. Whereas PW3 deposed that on 07.07.2016 the accused came to their house and tried to kill PW2 by putting pillow on the mouth of PW2. This material piece of evidence is not finding place in the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4.

Page No.12` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

18.Further PW1 and PW2 deposed that the accused is also threatened PW1 while he was proceeding to his duty. Whereas PW3 deposed that on 14.12.2016 the accused came to their house and threatened them with dire consequences to withdraw the case against him. PW4 who is own son of PW1 and PW3 did not state that the accused threatened PW1 while he was proceeding to his duty. 

19.Further PW1 deposed that the accused also posted a photograph of woman in Whatsapp stating that he is going to marry that woman and also the accused made phone through another girl who abused PW2. PW2 and PW4 deposed that the accused posted his picture with another woman to the cell phone of PW4. They further deposed the accused made phone calls to her through unknown women and got abused her but the prosecution failed to seize the cell phone of PW4 in which he received photos of woman sent by the accused. PW1 is the complainant also admitted in his cross­examination that he has not handed over the Cell phone to the Police in which the accused allegedly sent a photographs of unknown woman. PW8 who is the Investigating officer admitted in his cross­examination that he did not seize any cell phones of PW2, PW4 and the accused and he did not collect

CDR’s of PW2, PW4 and the accused. 

Page No.13` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

20As per the version of PW1, PW2 the alleged incident took place on 14.12.2016 at 0700 p.m at Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani.

Admittedly, the police station of Godavarikhani I­Town is situated at a distance of 02 Kilo meters from the scene of offence. If really the incident had happened as alleged by the PW1 to PW5, nothing prevented PW1 from lodging the complaint to the police immediately. However, no complaint was lodged by the PW1 on the same day or within a reasonable time thereafter and the complaint was lodged on 22.12.2016 i.e., more than one week after the incident, no satisfactory explanation given by the PW1 for such an abnormal delay, which gives to any amount of suspicious as to the genuinenity of the case of the complainant. PW8 who is the

Investigating officer in his cross­examination also admitted that there is delay in lodging Ex.P1 by PW1 and the reason for the delay was not explained in Ex.P1.

21.As per the version of PW1 to PW5 the alleged incident took place in front of the house of PW1 which is situated at Thilak

Nagar down, Godavarikhani. The Thilak Nagar down

Godavarikhani is a busy road and many residential houses are situated near the house of the PW1. If the alleged incident was happened, many persons witnessed the incident but the prosecution failed to cite the independent witnesses to corroborate

Page No.14` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

the evidence of PW1 to PW5. PW5 who is the neighbour of PW1 deposed some extent that but in his cross­examination, he admitted that he stated to the police that he came to know that on 14.12.2016 at about 7.30 p.m while PW2 was sitting in front of her house, the accused came there and beat her with hands and threatened PW2. Hence, the evidence of PW5 is hearsay in nature and not useful in establishing the guilt of the accused to the alleged offence.

22.Further, it is the case of the prosecution and the evidence of

PW8 that PW8 conducted the Crime Details Form in the presence of PW6 and PW7. On perusal of their evidence, they did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile by stating that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence, the scene of offence panchanama is not proved through the evidence of

PW6 and PW7.

23.The evidence of PW1 to PW4 who belongs to one family and their evidence are not cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other and suffering from various infirmities and there are number of omissions and improvements in their evidence. Thus, upon careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, it has to be held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under

Page No.15` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC, as such, the accused is entitled for benefit doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2023. Sd/­ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL

PW1Kampalli Mohanaiah (Complainant and the victim) PW2Dubasi Anusha (Daughter of PW1 and the wife of the accused) PW3Kampelli Laxmi (Wife of PW1 and eye witness ) PW4Kampelli Shravan Kumar (Son of PW1 and PW3). PW5Choppadani Lingaiah (Neighbour of PW1). PW6B.Ramachandram (Panch witness for the Crime Details form) PW7Dontha Srinivas (Panch witness for the Crime Details form) PW8G.Ramesh Babu (Inspector of Police and the Investigating officer)

Page No.16` of 16 CC No.40 of 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – is a report lodged by PW1. Ex.P2 – is the signature of PW6 on the Crime Details Form. Ex.P3 – is the signature of PW7 on the Crime Details Form Ex.P4 – is the First Information Report Ex.P5 – is the Crime Details Form.

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

Sd/­

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

Page No.1 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I-ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C : AT: GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- Sri D.Ganesh I-Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 21 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.91 of 2018

Between: 1]. Oram Laxmi, W/o.Late Narsaiah, (Died). 2]. Boda Swaroopa, W/o.Raju, D/o.Late Narsaiah, Age: 33 years, Occ: Housewife, 3] Ponaganti Vijaya, W/o.Kumar, D/o.Late Narsaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, 4] Oram Rajashekar, S/o.Narsaiah, Age: 23 years, Occ: Private Employee, (died) All are R/o.Sundilla Village, Ramagiri Mandal of Peddapalli District. The Plaintiff No.1 was died, as per the I A No.94 of 2021, the plaintiff No.2 to 4 were already on record and also they are brought on record as legal heirs so also the plaintiff No.4 died as per the memo, dated.05.01.2023 filed by the Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 and 3 who are Legal heirs of Plaintiff No.4 were already on record.

…Plaintiffs

AND

1]. The General Manager, RG-II, S.C.Co Ltd, 8-incline Colony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District.

2]. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, I.B. Colony, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam Mandal of Peddapalli District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B.Amarender Rao learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Sri T.Ravinder Singh, learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 and Sri.Patha Ashok, learned counsel of the Defendant No.2 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

Page No. 2 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

: J U D G E M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaring the plaintiff No.1 to 4 as the legal heirs of deceased Oram Durgamma.

2.It is averred in the plaint that the the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter-in-law, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the grand daughters and

Plaintiff No.4 is the grandson of the deceased namely Orm Dugamma. The deceased Oram Durgamma was having only son namely Late Oram

Narasaiah who died on 25.06.2006 while he was working as General

Mazdoor, EC No.1127562, GDK 9 Incline SCCL, Godavarikhani, after his death a suit was filed by his mother Oram Durgamma for her share in the death benefits of Oram Narsaiah vide OS.No.291 of 2006 and the Court declared 1/5th share to her, prior to taking the said amount she died on 28.01.2009 due to ill-health. After death of Oram Durgamma, the plaintiffs approached the defendants authorities for taking the share amount of Oram Durgamma from the death benefits Oram Narsaiah. The said authorities informed the plaintiffs to bring legal heir certificate to prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Durgamma and to that effect the defendant No.2 issued a letter to the plaintiff No.1 on 14.07.2010, after receiving the letter from defendant No.2 the plaintiff

No.1 tried to get the legal heir certificate from Government authorities but after several efforts she was advised that she should approach the court

Page No.3 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

for the same. Due to ill-health of the plaintiff No.1 and unavoidable circumstances the plaintiffs could not approach this Hon’ble Court as on today. Hence, the cause of action to filed suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Oram Durgamma.

That the defendant authorities informed that the court order is required declaring the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased for processing the file. Therefore, the plaintiffs were no other option except to approach the Court and prayed to declare the plaintiff No.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Orgam Durgamma. Hence, the petition.

3.The defendant No.1 and 2 filed written statements by stating that theSri Orem Narsaiah worked as General Mazdoor with E.C No.1127562 in GDK 9 and died n 25.06.2006 while he was in service. That

Smt.Durgamma, mother of the deceased Orem Narsaiah filed suit vide

OS.No.291 of 2006 for her share in the death benefits of Late Orem

Narsaiah, in which the Hon'ble court declared 1/5th share in the terminal benefits. Orem Laxmi nominee and wife of deceased was restrained from withdrawing Rs.86,803/- from out of death benefits payable to the deceased. Later Laxmi and Durgamma came to an understanding and all terminal benefits were settled in favour of nominee and wife Orem Laxmi.

That during the life time of deceased declared the following persons as family members in his EPR Employee Personal Record) and Medical attendant book.

Page No. 4 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

Sl.Name of Family MemberRelationship of Family No.of deceasedMember with deceased 1MallaiahFather 2DurgammaMother 3LaxmiWife 4SrikanthSon 5SwaroopaDaughter 6SwapnaDaughter

That the accumulations of Coal Mines Provident Fund of the deceased employee were settled through Form Schedule-C, the list of surviving family members, as per the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme.

The same names are mentioned below:

Sl.Name of Family MemberRelationship of Family No.of deceasedMember with deceased 1LaxmiWife (widow) 2SwaroopaDaughter (Married) 3VijayaDaughter (Un Married) 4RajashekarSon (Un Married) 5DurgammaMother (died)

All the terminal benefits were settled in favour of nominee and wife

Smt. Orem Laxmi. Smt. Durgamma was declared as nominee for 25% share in CMPF as such a cheque was issued by CMPF authorities for Rs.

36,353/- towards her share. But, Smt. Durgamma did not turn up to take her share. Later Smt. Orem Laxmi informed that Smt. Durgamma

Page No.5 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

died and submitted her death certificate, as such cheque was returned to

CMPF authorities, further advised to submit legal heir certificate of Late

Smt. Durgamma to release her share amount vide Letter ref

CPF/GDK/HYD/52/1825 date 14/07/2010, the same was informed to

Smt. Orem Laxmi vide letter ref no. RG 2/VKP/10PM/2280 dated 28/07/2010.

That the defendant No.2 filed written statement by stating that

Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization is for the welfare of the employees who worked in the Singareni Collieries Company and looking the provident fund for them covered under the Coal Mines Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1948.

That the deceased person namely Oram Narsaiah holding CMPF

Account vide No.H/7/91/1266, the member has contributed to CMPF from 03-1981 to 25-06-2016, Who died on 25-06-2006. The member refund claim was settled on 13.01.2009 as per the nomination for

Rs.1,09,059/- in favour of his wife namely Smt Oram Laxmi for 75% share and Rs.36,353/- in favour of his mother namely Smt Oram

Durgamma for 25%. That the cheque infavour of Smt Oram Durgamma was undelivered because she died on 15-02-2009 and our office on 14.07.2010, vide a letter No:CPR/GDK/Hyd/52/1825, requesting the

Dy.G.M (Personal) SCCL limited RG-II area for submitting a legal heir certificate of late Oram Durgamma to release the remaining 25% share of

Page No. 6 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

the refund amount of the namely Oram Narsaiah,

4.On the basis of plaint and written statement averments, this Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as they are legal heirs of the deceased by name Oram Durgamma?.

2. To what relief ?

5.To substantiate their case, the plaintiff No.2 herself examined as

PW1, got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 on her behalf. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 and 2 neither examined nor got marked any documents on their behalf.

6.Heard oral submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsels for the defendant No.1 and 2, perused the material available on record.

7. Issue No.1:

The learned counsel for the plaintiff orally submitted that the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter-in-law, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the grand daughters and Plaintiff No.4 is the grandson of the deceased namely

Oram Dugamma, she has only son namely Late Oram Narasaiah who died on 25.06.2006 while he was working as General Mazdoor, EC

No.1127562, GDK 9 Incline SCCL, Godavarikhani, after his death a suit was filed by Oram Durgamma for her share in the death benefits of Oram

Page No.7 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

Narsaiah vide OS.No.291 of 2006 and the Court declared 1/5th share to her, prior to taking the said amount she was died on 28.01.2009 due to ill-health. After death of Oram Durgamma, the plaintiffs approached the defendant authorities for taking the share amount of Oram Durgamma from the death benefits Oram Narsaiah and during the pendency of the main suit the plantiff No.1 and 4 were died. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are proving the case of the plaintiffs and prayed this Court to declare the plaintiffs as the legal heir of the deceased

Oram Durgamma.

On the other hand, Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 orally submitted that all the terminal benefits were settled in favour of nominee and wife Smt.Orem Laxmi and Smt. Durgamma was declared as nominee for 25% share in CMPF as such a cheque was issued by CMPF authorities for Rs. 36,353/- towards her share. But, she was died on 28.01.2009.

Later Smt. Orem Laxmi submitted her death certificate, as such cheque was returned to CMPF authorities, further advised to submit legal heir certificate of Late Smt. Durgamma to release her share amount vide Letter ref CPF/GDK/HYD/52/1825 date 14/07/2010, the same was informed to Smt. Orem Laxmi vide letter ref No. RG 2/VKP/10PM/2280, dated 28/07/2010.

The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 orally submitted that

Oram Narsaiah refund claim was settled on 13.01.2009 as per the

Page No. 8 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

nomination for Rs.1,09,059/- in favour of his wife for 75% share and

Rs.36,353/- in favour of his mother I.e., Smt Oram Durgamma for 25%.

That the cheque infavour of Smt Oram Durgamma was undelivered because she died on 15-02-2009 and our office on 14.07.2010, vide a letter No:CPR/GDK/Hyd/52/1825, requesting the Dy.G.M (Personal)

SCCL limited RG-II area for submitting a legal heir certificate of late Oram

Durgamma to release the remaining 25% share of the refund amount of the namely Oram Narsaiah, but they neither examined nor exhibited any documents.

8.In order to prove the case, Plaintiff No.2 is examined as PW1 and filed chief examination affidavit, in lieu of her chief examination is nothing but the replica of plaint as such the same are not reproduced and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is the CC of order vide IA No.566 in OS

No.291 of 2006 on the file of JCJ, Godavarikhani, Ex.A2 is the Original

Death Certificate of Orem Durgamma, dated.18.12.2017, Ex.A3 is the

Letter issued by the defendant No.2 to mother of PW1, Ex.A4 is the

Original Death Certificate of Orem Laxmi, dated.30.03.2019, Ex.A5 is the

Meeseva copy of death certificate of Orem Rajashekar, dated.12.03.2024.

During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsels for the defendant No.1 and 2, PW1 stated that the defendant No.1 issued letter under Ex.A3 to her deceased mother. They filed the present case for the share amount of her grand mother I.e, Orem Durgamma from SCCL.

Page No.9 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

It is also admitted that Oram Durgamma who is mother of Oram

Narsaiah/deceased filed suit for partition of Death Benefits of Oram

Narsiah vide OS No.291/2006 on the file of this Hob’le court by claiming 1/5th share, in which Oram Durgamma and her mother i.e., Oram Laxmi came to understanding to that effect all the terminal benefit were settled and paid in favour of nominee Oram Laxmi. That the Oram Durgamma was declared as nominee for 25% share in CMPF amount. She do not know whether CMPF authority issued a cheque infavour of Oram

Durgamma for a sum of Rs.36,353/- towards her share, she was died prior to receiving the same to the CMPF authorities. To receive the share amount of the Oram Durgamma CMPF authority advised to get declaratory decree from the competent court of law.

09.It is the contention and evidence of PW1 and plaintiffs is that One

Oram Narsaih was worked as General Mazdoor vide employment Code

No.1127562 and died on 25.06.02006, hence Oram Durgammma filed a suit vide OS No.291/2006, in support of the same, PW1 filed Ex.A1/ CC of order vide IA No.566 in OS No.291 of 2006 on the file of JCJ,

Godavarikhani, which is showing that petitioner is entitled to 1/5th share which comes to Rs.86,803/- from out of the death benefits of Late

Narsaiah. But, Oram Durgamma was died prior to taking of the said amount, in support of the same she filed Ex.A2/ Original Death certificate of Orem Durgamma, dated.18.12.2017 which is showing that the

Page No. 10 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

certificate issued by Health Medical and Family Welfare Department and the said Oram Durgamma was died on 18.12.2017 at Sundilla Village of

Ramagiri mandal and Peddapalli District. Then the plaintiffs approached the defendant No.1 and 2 then they issued Ex.A3/Letter issued by the defendant No.2 to mother of PW1 which is showing that they requested to furnish the legal heir certificate of Late Oram Durgamma. As per the

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 i.e., Original Death Certificate of Orem Laxmi/plaintiff

No.1, dated.30.03.2019 and Meeseva copy of death certificate of Orem

Rajashekar/plaintiff, dated.12.03.2024. which is showing that plaintiff

No.1 was died on 09.03.2019 and plaintiff No.4 was died on 21.11.2021 at Sundilla Village of Ramagiri mandal and Peddapalli District. The learned counsel for plaintiff filed memo by stating that during the pendency of suit, the plaintiff No.4 was died and the Legal heirs are on record, hence, the same is recorded.

10.Therefore, as per the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, it is clearly established that the plaintiffNo.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased Oram Durgamma. Therefore, issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff No.1 to 4.

11.Issue No.2 : What relief

As per the above discussion in the Issue No.1, the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Oram Durgamma. Therefore, Issue No.2 is

Page No.11 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

12.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed without costs by declaring that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Oram Durgamma.

However, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances they shall be no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 21st day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

I-Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s): FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

PW1 –Boda Swarupa Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s):

Ex.A1 CC of Order vide IA No.566 of 2006 in OS No.291 of 2006 on the file of JCJ, Godavarikhani.

Ex.A2 is the Original Death Certificate of Oram Durgamma, dated. 18.12.2017.

Ex.A3 Letter issued by defendant No.2 to mother of PW1.

Ex.A4 is the Original death certificate of Oram Laxmi, dated:30.03.2019.

Page No. 12 of 12 OS No.91 of 2018

Ex.A5 is the Meeseva copy of death certificate of Oram Rajashekar,

date:12.03.2024.

FOR THE DEFENDANT(s): - Nil -

Sd/-

I-Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

Page No.1 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri.D.Ganesh I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.190 of 2014

Between: The State through the Inspector of Police, Police station, Godavarikhani I­Town (Crime No.294 of 2012) …Complainant

AND

A1: Sura Ramu S/o.Rajanna @ Dandi Mallesh, Aged 26 years, Yadav, R/o.GM colony, Godavarikhani. … Accused No.1

The police shown accused No.2 by name Sagar

R/o.Bellampallia as absconding.

This case is coming today before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Naheda Farheena Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S.Sanjay Kumar learned Advocate for Accused having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Godavarikhani

I­town has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 herein and accused No.2 who is absconding in Crime No.294 of 2012 for the offence punishable under sections 25 (i) (a) of Arms Act­1959.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.2012 at 1500 hours while the LW7/SI of Police, Godavarikhani I­Town P.S.,

Page No.2 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

along with LW3 to 6 were conducting vehicle checking at GM colony chowrasta, Godavarikhani the accused was proceeding from

GM colony to Bus stand by walk. On seeing the police party the accused tried to ran away from the scene, then the police party chased him and apprehended. On searching, Lw7 found a

Thapancha and 2 live rounds with the accused. When he was in a mood to confess the offence, LW7 secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW1 and LW2 and interrogated them. During the interrogation, the accused confessed that the accused confessed that his name as Sura Ramu and while he was practicing dance with dance master Konda Vijay, he got friendship with one Sagar who is resident of Bellampalli/Accused No.2 came to his house and told him that he had a Thapancha and two rounds with him and also told that they could collect money from businessmen and financier by brandishing with the Thapancha and handed over the said country made Thapancha and two live rounds to him by saying that he would inform time to him after hatching a plan. He concealed the Thapancha and two live rounds in his house. Later, he stayed at Hanmakonda and Hyderabad on his studies and part time job. On 09.11.2012 the said Sagar directed him to come to

Karimnagar along with country made Thapancha and two live

Page No.3 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

rounds. On that he came to his house and took Thapancha and two live rounds and proceeding to Bus stand on foot to go to

Karimnagar. Then LW7 seized the country made Thapancha and two live rounds from the possession of the accused under the cover of confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of witnesses and brought the accused along with seized weapon to the Police station at 1700 hours and registered a suo­motto case in

Crime No.294/2012 for the offence under section 24 (i) (a) Arms

Act 1959. After completion of investigation, LW7 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 24 (i) (a) Arms

Act 1959.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under section 24 (i) (a) Arms Act 1959 against the accused No.1 and numbered as CC No.190 of 2014.

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

5.The accused is examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and he denied the allegation levelled against him. Hence, a charge under

Page No.4 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

section 24 (i) (a) Arms Act 1959 was framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Ex.P1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 24 (i) (a) Arms Act 1959.?

POINT

9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.11.2012 at about 1500 hours at GM colony chowrasta, Godavarikhani the accused

No.1 was found in possession of one country made Thapancha and two live rounds of 8 mm without having any valid licence

10. As stated supra, to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as (03) witnesses and exhibited (01) document. PW1 is the panch witness for the confession and recovery panchanama. PW2 and PW3 are the then Police constable

Page No.5 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

and Head constable who accompanied LW7/SI of Police while apprehending the accused.

11. Now, from the evidence available on record, it has been seen whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to the alleged offences.

12 In this case, the Law is set into motion basing on the panchanama. Hence, the panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused.

 It is the version of PW2 and PW3 who are accompanied LW7 while apprehending the accused along with seized property that

LW7 conducted confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of PW1 and LW1/Gajula Venkataswamy, but among them, the evidence of LW1 was closed by this Court on the report of Corporator,6th division, Ramagundam as his whereabouts are not known. The remaining panch witness is PW1. On perusal of his evidence, he deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case and that police never conducted any confession and recovery panchanama in his presence but the police obtained his signature on some paper. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of

PW1 is contradicting to the evidence of PW2 and PW3 about conducting of confession and seizure panchanama. 

Page No.6 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

13.Admittedly, the place of alleged recovery is at GM colony.

Section 100 (4) Cr.PC mandates that whenever a police officer intends to conduct seizure panchanama he has to call atleast two local inhabitants of that locality where he intends to conduct seizure. However in the instant case, LW7/the Sub­Inspector of police has not chosen any local inhabitant of GM colony, which is a busy place, LW7 choose PW1 belongs to Gandhi Nagar and LW1 is belongs to PH colony. No explanation is offered by LW7 for violating the mandatory provision of section 100 (4) Cr.PC. Even, the evidence PW1 is also did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile saying that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. Hence, the panchanama of seizure is not proved. The entire case is depending on the panchanama but the panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PW1. Though the PW2 and PW3 who are police personnel stated about the facts of the case but, in the absence of proving the panchanama, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is of no use. In the absence of proving the panchanama, which is the basis for registering the case it cannot be said that LW7 seized the case property from the possession of the accused . The prosecution failed to examine the Investigating officer in this case. Thereby,

Page No.7 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

14.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 25 (i)

(a) of Arms Act­1959 and thereby, the accused No.1 is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 25 (i) (a) of Arms Act­1959 and accordingly, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 shall remain in force for a period of six months. The case property vide

PSL No.64/2014 deposited before this Court by the Police shall be kept till disposal of the case against the absconding accused No.2 by name Sagar R/o.Bellampallia.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of March 2023.

Sd/-

 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

Page No.8 of 8 CC No.190 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: NIL

PW1 – B.Narayana (panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama) PW2 – K.Eliya (Police constable who accompanied LW7 while apprehending the accused) PW3 – Ch.Srinivas (head constable of Police who accompanied LW7 while apprehending the accused)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 – is the signature of PW1 on the confession and seizure panchanama.

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL.

SD/­

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

Page No.1` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri.D.Ganesh I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.133 of 2021

Between: The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, Police station, Godavarikhani I­Town (Crime No.507 of 2020) …Complainant

AND

A1 :Bodduna Naresh S/o.Laxman, Aged 31 years, Padmashali, Occupation: Private employee, A2:Bodduna Bhagya Laxmi W/o.Laxman, Aged 55 years, Padmashali, Occupation: House wife A3:Bodduna Laxman S/o.Narsaiah, Aged 60 years, Padmashali, Occupation: Trolley driver A4:Bodduna Suresh S/o.Laxman, Aged 29 years, Padmashali, Occupation: Private employee All are R/o.H.No.5­58, Nazerpalle, Indaram of Jaipur mandal, Mancherial District now at Sunnambattiwada of Mancherial. … Accused No.1 to 4

This case is coming on 23.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Naheda Farheen Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Are Madhu learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 to 4, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Godavarikhani

Page No.2` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

I­town has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in

Crime No.507 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections 498­A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.2020 at 1500 hours the complainant by name Bodduna Sahithya came to the

Police station and lodged a report stating that her marriage was solemnized with one Bodduna Naresh in the presence of elders at

Rajyalaxmi Function Hall at Godavarikhani on 14.02.2020. That at the time of her marriage, her parents agreed to give Rs.10,00,000/­ as dowry and gave Rs.2,00,000/­, 2 tulas of gold chain, one bracelet. After marriage, they led happy marital life for some period and thereafter, her husband harassed her physically and mentally by consuming alcohol in daily, abused and beat her with hands and demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­. The accused No.2 to 4 are also supported the accused No.1. Having no other alternative, she came to her parents house and living on their mercy. 

3. Basing on the complaint, the Sub­Inspector of Police/LW11,

P.S., Godavarikhani I­Town has registered a case in Crime No.507 of 2020 for the offences under sections 498­A, IPC and section 4 of

Page No.3` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

Dowry Prohibition Act and issued First Information Report to the concerned. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant, collected the marriage photos from her and subsequently, LW11 visited the scene of offence situated at Medarbsthi, Godavarikhani, examined and recorded the statement of LW4/Jaina Kalavathi and secured the presence of

LW9 & LW10 by name Jaina Shankaraiah and Edulapuram Harish and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

On 25.12.2020 the accused No.1 to 4 came to the Police station and surrendered before LW11. During the interrogation, the accused No.1 to 4 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Later, LW11 served 41­A Cr.PC notices upon the accused.

After completion of investigation, LW11 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence under section 498­A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under sections 498­A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused No.1 to 4 and numbered as CC No.133 of 2021

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

Page No.4` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

6.The accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and they denied the allegation levelled against them. Hence, charges U/Sec.498­A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P­4. PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW­2 and

PW3 are the parents of PW­1. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW4 to LW10 and this Court closed the evidence of

LW11/Investigating officer as the material witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

8.Since there is no incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable U/Sec.498­A of IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.? POINT

10.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 being the husband of the defacto complainant and the accused No.2 to 4

Page No.5` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

being the family members of A1, harassed PW1 and demanded her to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/­ from her parents and when she expressed her parents inability, the accused necked her out from their house and since then, she has been living at her parents house along with her children.

11.Pw1 is the complainant and victim and she deposed that her marriage was performed with the accused on14.02.2020 as per their caste and customs prevailed in their community. Thereafter, some misunderstandings arose in between them, as such, they approached the Police with a request to give counselling, where the police obtained her signature on some papers, except that she do not know anything about the facts of the case. Ex.P1 is her signature on the report. She further deposed that Police never examined her and never recorded her statement. She turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

12.PW2 and PW3 are the parents of PW1 deposed in the same lines as that of PW­1.

13.On careful perusal of evidence on record, it is clear that the defacto complainant/PW1 and her parents/PW2 and PW3 who are the material witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the

Page No.6` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned A.P.P, they were declared hostile. However, in their cross­examination by the learned A.P.P, no worthwhile material could be elicited involving the complicity of the accused in the offence, except marking the portions in their 161 Cr.PC statements as Ex.P­2 to Ex.P4.

14.Since the defacto complainant/PW1 and her parents/PW2 and PW3 did not support the case of prosecution, the learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of other listed circumstantial 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 Court. In the absence of crucial evidence of victim, it is nothing but a futile exercise to discuss about the case since the prosecution case will not improve in any manner by discussing the same. As such, this court is left with no other option except, to acquit the accused.

15.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.498­A IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby, the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page No.7` of 7 CC No.133 of 2021

16. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.498­A IPC and section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the above said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23rd day of March, 2023

Sd/-

 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW1 – Bodduna Sahitya (Complainant)­ Nil ­ PW2 – Dasari Shankaraiah (Father of PW1) PW3 – Dasari Laxmi (Mother of PW1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 – Signature of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­

 Sd/­ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

Page No.1 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Sri.D.Ganesh I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.360 of 2021

Between: The State through the Inspector of Police, Police station, Godavarikhani I­Town (Crime No.263 of 2021) …Complainant

AND

Gunti Govardhan S/o.Komuraiah, Aged 41 years, Uppari, Occupation Tea stall Ganganagar, Godavarikhani, R/o.H.No.16­9­ 155/2, Kakathiya Nagar, Godavarikhani now at Ganga Nagar, Godavarikhani. … Sole Accused

This case is coming today before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Naheda Farheen Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Smt Soubhagya learned Advocate for the Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Inspector of Police, Godavarikhani I­Town Police station has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offences under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS Excise Act­1968.

2.The brief facts of the case are that the Government of Telangana has issued GO.Ms.No.102 dated 14.05.2021 and issued notification for

Page No.2 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

lock down in the entire state of Telangana with effect from 12­05­2021 in view of spreading over Covid­19 virus. On 14.05.2021 at about 1000 hours LW5 along with PCs 134, 1011 were performing duty in connection with the implementation of the Lock down duty and when they reached at Ganga Nagar, Godavarikhani at 1345 hours, LW5 received credible information that one Gunti Govardhan is selling IML bottles and Gutka pokets on higher price though there is a prohibition on sale of IML in view of spread over of Covid­19, as such, LW5 secured the presence of mediators namely Sripathi Murali, Neruvatla

Thirupathi and informed them about the possession of IML bottles by

Gunti Govardhan. Accordingly, they rushed to the spot at about 1400 hours at Ganga Nagar, Godavarikhani and found the said person with

IML bottles in a carton box and possession one Bag of Tobacco products which were prohibited b;y the Government of Telangana. During the interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and in pursuance of thereof, LW5 seized IML bottles and Gutka packets all worth of Rs.5400/­ from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama in the presence of same panchas and brought the accused along with seized property to the Police station and registered a suo­moto case in Crime No.263 of 2021 for the offences under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS Excise Act­ 1968 against the sole accused. During the course of investigation, he

Page No.3 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

sent the samples to the RFSL Karimnagar for analysis and report. After receipt of chemical examiner’s report, wherein it is opined that the illicit distilled liquor is having suspended particles of sediment which is injurious to health and unfit for consumption. Thereafter, he deposited the remaining ID liquor before the Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Karimnagar and Destroyed the same. After completing the investigation, LW­5 filed charge­sheet.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable punishable under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS Excise Act­ 1968 against the accused and numbered as CC No.360 of 2021.

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

5.The accused examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and he denied the allegations leveled against him. Hence, charges under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS Excise Act­1968 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, for which the accused pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. PW1 is the police constable who accompanied LW5 while apprehending the accused. PW2 and PW3 are the panch witnesses for

Page No.4 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

the confession and seizure panchanama. PW4 is the Investigating

Officer in this case.

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

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

punishable under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 

34 (a) TS Excise Act­1968?

9.PW2 and PW3 who are the panch witnesses for the confession and seizure panchanama deposed that no confession and seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence and they both turned hostile. Though they were cross examined by the learned APP, nothing material could be elicited in their cross examination except, putting some suggestions. In this case, the Law is set into motion basing on the panchanama. Hence, the panchanama plays a vital role in proving the guilt of the accused.

10.It is the case of the prosecution that they seized IML liquor and

Gutka packets all worth of Rs.5400/­ from the possession of the

Page No.5 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

accused under the confession and seizure panchanama but both the panch witnesses have turned hostile by stating that no confession and seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence. Hence, the panchanama of confession and seizure is not proved. The entire case is depending on the panchanama but the panchanama itself is not proved through the evidence of panch witnesses i.e., PW2 and PW3. Though the investigating officer/PW4 and PW1/Police constable have stated about the facts of the case but, in the absence of proving the panchanama, the evidence of PW1 and PW4 are of no use. In the absence of proving the panchanama, which is the basis for registering the case it cannot be said that the accused is involved in selling the ID liquor and Gutka packets in Lock down period. Further, on perusal of the entire evidence, none of the witnesses stated a single word against the accused involving him in this case. Thereby, this court is left with no other option except to acquit the accused.

11.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS Excise Act­1968 and thereby, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Page No.6 of 6 CC No.360 of 2021

12. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 188, 270, 273 of IPC and section 34 (a) TS

Excise Act­1968 and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer (G­III), corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2023.

Sd/

 I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: PW1 –M.Narender/PC 134 PW2 – Neruvatla Thirupathi (Panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama) PW3 – Sripathi Murali (Panch witness for the confession and seizure panchanama) PW4 – G.Ramesh Babu (Investigating officer)

FOR THE DEFENCE

­ Nil ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 Signature of PW2 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P2 Signature of PW3 on confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P3 Confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P4 First Information Report Ex.P5 RFSL Report.

FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­ Nil ­ Sd/ I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.