Smt E. Bharathi

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:Smt.Bharathi Erra XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 10679 of 2025

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police

Police Station Begum Bazar. ... Complainant

AND

Mohammed Yousuf, S/o Mohammed Hussain, age: 53 years, Occ: ice Cream maker at Karnataka, R/o H.No. 10-5-391/2/5/2 First Lancer, Syed Nagar, Banjarahills, Hyderabad, N/o H.No. 1-7-132, Mominpura, Gurumathakal town, Gurmithkal, Yadgir, Karnataka.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 23-04-2026 for a final hearing in the presence of learned assistant public prosecutor for the state and Sri. Ananatha Rao, Legal aid counsel for the accused. After perusing the entire case record and having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:

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

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Begum Bazaar Police

Station, had filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.178/2025 for the offence punishable under section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 2 of 12 2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

On 25-09-2025 at 10.00 hours, de facto complainant, Shaik Muntajeeb /PW.1 parked his Honda Activa bike bearing No. AP 13 AC 9101 near Gandhi

Bhavan Metro Station and went to L.B Nagar in Metro train on work and after completion of work at L.B. Nagar, when he returned back at 21.00 hours, he found missing of his bike. He searched for it, but in vain. Hence, the de facto complainant/PW.1 lodged the complaint.

3.Based on the report, PW.4/K. Jagadeeshwar Rao, Sub-Inspector of Police of

Police Station, Begum Bazar, registered a case in Cr.No.178/2025 for the offence under section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 issued a First Information

Report. During the course of further investigation, PW4 examined and recorded the statement of the de facto complainant/PW.1, visited the scene of the occurrence, conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of PW2 and

LW3-Mohammed Asad. On 01-10-2025, PW.4 apprehended the accused and on interrogation, he confessed the offence, in pursuance of his confession, PW.4 seized seven motor cycles including Activa Vehicle bearing No. AP 13 AC 9101 in the presence of PW.3 and LW5- A. Shiva Kumar, and produced him before the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, PW.4 filed charge

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 3 of 12 sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita,2023 .

4.This court took cognizance of offence under section 303(2) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and issued summons to the accused.

5.On the appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section Section 230 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

6. The accused was examined under Section 262 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, and after hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offence under section303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 against the accused, read over and explained to him in hisvernacular language. Hepleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 documents.

8. After closure of prosecution-side evidence, the accused was examined under Section351(1) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the incriminating

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 4 of 12 material found against him in the evidence of prosecution, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

9.Subsequently, the alternative/additional charge under section 317(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was framed, read over and explained to accused in his vernacular language. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable under sections 303(2) and 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 beyond all reasonable doubts?.

12. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, PW.1/Shaik Muntajeeb is the de facto complainant, PW.2/Mohammed Khaled is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW.3/K. Harshavardhan is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW.4/K. Jagadeeshwar Rao is the investigation officer.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 5 of 12

13. The learned assistant public prosecutor submitted that the accused committed theft of the bike of PW1, and by placing oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused; as such, the accused is liable for punishment. On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that the accused was falsely implicated in this case and he did not commit any offense, and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

14.This Court considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel and perused the material brought on record.

15. The evidence of PW.1 shows that on 25-09-2025, his Activa vehicle was missing, and as such, he lodged the complaint/Ex.P1, and after that, police recovered the vehicle.

16. Ex. P1 shows that, PW.1 parked his Activa vehicle bearing No. AP 13 AC 9101 in near Gandhi Bhavan Metro Station. From the evidence of PW.1 and recitals of Ex.P1, the ownership of PW.1, over case property is proven by the prosecution.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 6 of 12

17. PW.2 is the panch witness for the scene of offense panchanama and he stated that the police conducted the scene observation panchanama in his presence and obtained his signature on Ex.P2. During the cross-examination, PW.2 denied the contents of Ex.P2. However, he stated that he signed on panchanama. From the recitals of Ex.P2, the place of offense is established, i.e., near main road opposite to Manoranjan Court Complex, Hyderabad.

18. The evidence of PW.4 shows that he received the complaint, registered the case, and issued the first information report/Ex.P4 and conducted further investigation and seized the case property from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW.3 and LW. 5(A. Shiva Kumar).

19. During the cross-examination, PW. 4 admitted that the complaint was lodged with a delay of four days of the incident. During the cross-examination of

PW1, he admitted that he lodged the complaint with a delay of four days.

However, in chief examination, PW.1 explained that he searched for the missing vehicle and after that he lodged complaint. Hence, PW.1 explained the reasons for four days delay in lodging Ex.P1. Hence, the said delay of four days is not a ground to discredit the prosecution's case.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 7 of 12

20. PW.3 is the panch witness for the confession cum seizure panchanama. He testified that, on 01-10-2025 at 10.00 A.M., police called him to the police station, and there the accused confessed that he committed the theft of an Activa vehicle at

Ekminar Masjid and another vehicle at Metro station, Gandhi Bhavan. Thereafter, police seized the Honda Activa vehicle, bearing No. 9829, and another Honda

Activa, bearing No. 9101(pertaining to this case), in his presence from the possession of the accused.

21. Ex. P3 shows that Honda Activa bike bearing No. AP 13 AC 9101 and other six motorcycles were seized from the possession of the accused.

22. During the the cross-examination of PW.3, he admitted that the accused was present in the police station; he admitted that the entire seizure panchanama was conducted in the police station only. As per Ex.P3 also, the seizure panchanama was conducted at police station. Hence, PW.3 supported the recitals of Ex.P3.

Further, nothing was elicited to discredit the evidence of PW.3 that the present case property was not seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of

PW. 3.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 8 of 12

23. PW.4 further admitted that he did not collect CCTV footage and did not examine any independent witness. However, these are not the grounds to discredit the prosecution's case, as the evidence of PW.3 is consistent. Nothing is elicited during the cross-examination of PW.4, to discredit the evidence of PW.4.

Therefore, the evidence of PW.3 and PW4 is reliable. Hence, prosecution has established that PW.4 seized the case property from the possession of the accused in the presence of PW. 3.

24.There is no direct evidence or any other evidence to prove that the accused committed theft of a vehicle. Hence, the offence under section 303(2) of

Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 is not proved by the prosecution. However, as per Ex.P3, the PW.4 seized total 7 motorcycles from accused, hence it is evident that the accused has knowledge that it was stolen property. Hence, from the evidence of PW3 and 4, the prosecution established that the accused was in possession of stolen property (i.e., case property) and also did not offer any explanation for the said vehicle in his possession. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offense under section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 9 of 12

25. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court opines that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable under

Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable under Section 303(2) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of prosecution and against the accused.

26.In the result result, the accused is found guilty of an offence under section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section 271(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.Further,

Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 303(2) of Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled forthwith.

The accused is entitled to a set-off under section 468 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023. The unmarked property (i.e.,Honda Activa bearing No.

AP13AC9101 deposited vide PI No. 467 of 2025) returned to the PW.1, shall be made absolute after the expiry of the appeal time or when the appeal is over.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

XVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Hyderabad

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 10 of 12

Questioning on Quantum of Sentence

27.Heard the accused about the quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him. The accused submitted that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and requested to take a lenient view. The accused is aged about 53 years, and he is involved in another case also. Hence, this court is not inclined to apply the sections 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Considering the submission made by the accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) for the offense under

Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 (seven) days.

28. In the result, the accused is found guilty of the offense under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under

Section 271(2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.Further, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight (8) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) for

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 11 of 12 the offense punishable under Section 317(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In default of payment of the fine, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) days.The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled forthwith. The provisions of Probation of Offenders Act are not applied. The remand period undergone by the accused from 01-10-2025 to till dates hall be set off under section 468 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The unmarked property (i.e., Honda Activa bearing No. TS12EG9829, deposited vide PI No. 454 of 2025) returned to the PW.1, shall be made absolute after the expiry of the appeal time or when the appeal is over. The right of appeal and free legal aid are intimated to the accused. The copy of the judgment was supplied to the accused free of cost against receipt.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

XVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Shaik Muntajeeb/De facto-complainant - None - PW.2: Mohammed Khaled/panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW.3: K. Harshavardhan/Panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama

CC.No.10679/2025

Page No. 12 of 12

PW.4: K. Jagadeeshwar Rao/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Complaint- Nil - Ex.P2: Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch Ex.P3: Relevant portion of PW.3 in confession -cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P4: First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- -Nil-

XVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD

PRESENT:Smt.Bharathi Erra XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 27 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 5153 of 2020

Between:

The State through the Through Sub-Inspector of Police

Police Station Begum Bazar. ... Complainant

AND

Eslavath Ramesh, S/o Eslavath Ramana, age about 28 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o Thukuguda village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, native of H.No. 4-4, Kotha tanda,

Kuppagandla, Mahaboob Nagar District. ... Accused

This case is coming before me on 23-04-2026, for a final hearing in the presence of the learned assistant public prosecutor for the state and Sri. K. Surender, K. Dharmender, C.H. Mahesh Kumar, G. Ashok, counsels for the accused. After perusing the entire case record and having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:

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

1.The state, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Begum Bazar Police

Station, had filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.38/2020 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 2 of 9

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

On 28-02-2020 at evening hours, the deceased, Kethavath Chatru, was crossing the road on foot towards the Osmangunj side. In the meantime, the accused, the driver of the auto bearing No. TS 10UC 1116, came in a rash manner from MJ Market towards S A Bazar and hit the deceased. Due to which, he fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries to the head. Observing the same,

LW1/V. Raj Kumar and LW2/Sayath Lokesh shifted the deceased to Osmania

General Hospital in the accused auto. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died. Subsequently, LW1/V Raj Kumar filed a complaint before the police.

3.Based on the contents of the above report, PW.10/ L Narendar, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Begum Bazar Police Station, has registered a case in

Cr.No.38/2020, for the offence under section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and issued the First Information Report. During the investigation PW.9/ K.

Krishnaiah, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Begum Bazar Police Station examined and recorded the statement of LW1- V. Raj Kumar, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PW.3 and PW.4, conducted the scene observation panchanama and drew the rough sketch in their presence. Thereafter, PW.9 secured and examined and recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 and

LW2/Sathya Lokesh. On 02-03-2020 , PW.9 received a death intimation of injured. Based on that, PW.9 altered section of law from 337 to 304-A IPC, and

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 3 of 9 held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.5 and

7. PW8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Postmortem Examination report. PW9 served a notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. Thereafter, the crime vehicle was subjected to a motor vehicle inspection. Accordingly, PW7 conducted an inspection on the crime vehicle and opined that 'the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle'. After completion of the investigation, PW.9 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

4.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.The accused has been examined under Section 251 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to him for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 4 of 9

6.The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.10 and exhibited Ex.P1 to

Ex.P12 documents.

7.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses; the same was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, to which he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard and perused the record.

9. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all

reasonable doubts?

10. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, PW.1/Smt. Kethavath Laxmi is the circumstantial witness and wife of the deceased, PW.2/Smt. K. Laxmi is

Circumstantial witness and mother of the deceased, PW.3/Mudavath Megya Naik is the panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence, PW4/P. Govind is the panch witness for scene observation

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 5 of 9 panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence, PW5/P. Shankar and PW6/M.

Ram Babu are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, PW7/B. Sai Sruthi is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehilce, PW8/Dr. Abhijit

Subedhar is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and PW9/K. Krishnaiah and PW10/L Narendar are the investigating officers.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that due to the negligent driving of the accused, the accident occurred, due to which the deceased sustained a bleeding injury, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. She further submitted that by placing oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused; as such, the accused is liable for punishment.

12. On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that due to the negligence of the deceased, only the accident occurred, and the accused was falsely implicated in this case for claiming compensation, and he did not commit any offense, and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.

13. This court perused the record and considered the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 6 of 9

14. The evidence of PW.1 shows that her husband/deceased died in a road accident five years ago. PW.2 also stated that her son died in a road accident.

PWs.1 and 2 denied their 161 Cr.P.C. statements (Ex.P1 and P2, respectively).

15. PW3 and PW4 are the panch witnesses for the crime details form; they denied the conducting of the panchanama in their presence; they only identified their signatures (Ex. P3 and P4, respectively).

16. PW5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for the inquest; they denied conducting the inquest in their presence; they only admitted their signatures (Ex. P5 and P6, respectively).

17. PW7 is a motor vehicle inspector who issued the motor vehicle inspection report (Ex. P7). During cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that she did not identify whether the vehicle was involved in the accident or not. From the evidence of

PW7, the prosecution failed to establish that the crime vehicle was involved in the accident.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 7 of 9

18. PW8 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination and issued

Ex.P8/Postmortem Examination Report. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased died on 02-03-2020 at 8.45 hours.

19. PW9 is the investigating officer who testified with regard to the receiving of the complaint (Ex. P9) by LW12/L. Narender from LW1/V. Raj Kumar and issuance of First Information Report(Ex.P10) he also testified with regard to the conducting scene observation panchanama and preparing Crime Details form along with rough sketch(Ex.P11). During the cross-examination, PW.9 admitted that he only examined relatives of the deceased.

20. PW10 testified with regard to the receipt of a complaint by him from LW1/V.

Raj Kumar. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not collect any identity proof from LW1/V. Raj Kumar.

21. PW.1 and 2, who are the family members of the deceased, and PW.3 to 6, who are the panch witnesses, did not support the prosecution's case. PW.7 is a motor vehicle inspector, PW.8 is a doctor, and PW.9 and 10 are investigation officers. Nothing is available against the accused from their evidence to show that the accused caused the accident.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 8 of 9

22. From the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 10 and recitals of Ex.P1 to P8, the prosecution established the death of the deceased, but failed to prove the offense against the accused.

23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this court opines that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused and his rash or negligent driving, which caused the accident and resulted in the death of the deceased.

Hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.

24.In the result,the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months as per Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal

Procedure from the date of judgment. No property is deposited; hence, there is no order for disposal of case property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.5153/2020

Page No. 9 of 9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1:Smt. Kethavath Laxmi/circumstantial witness - None - and wife of the deceased, PW.2: Smt. K. Laxmi/ Circumstantial witness and mother of the deceased, PW.3: Mudavath Megya Naik/ panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence. PW.4:P. Govind/panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch of scene of offence. PW.5:P. Shankar/panch witnesses for inquest panchanama. PW.6:M. Ram Babu / panch witnesses for inquest. PW.7:B. Sai Sruthi/Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.8:Dr. Abhijit Subedhar/medical officer PW.9:K. Krishnaiah/ investigating officer. PW.10:L Narendar /investigating officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1- Nil - Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on Crime Details form Ex.P4: Signature of PW.4 on Crime Details form Ex.P5: Signature of PW.5 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P6: Signature of PW.6 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P7: Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P8: Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P9: Complaint Ex.P10: First Information Report Ex.P11: Crime Details Form along with rough sketch Ex.P12: Inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil- -Nil-

XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 1 of 9

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt.Bharathi Erra, XVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

C.C.No. 2727 of 20 19

Between:-

The State of Telangana., Through Sub-Inspector of Police,

Police Station Musheerabad....Complainant

AND

2. Naidkuda Vittal Yadav, S/o Chennappa, age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 5-186, Jaya Prakah Nagar colony, Shad Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

3. G. Rajula Sridevi, W/o Srinivas Rao, age: 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o H.No. 6- 18, Ratan colony, Shad Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist.

4. G. Rajula Mani Panthulu, S/o Srinivas Rao, age: 21 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.no. 6-18, Ratan colony, Shad Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. N. Pravalika, W/o Santhosh Kumar, age: 24 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Meerpet, Ranga Reddy District.

6. N. Santhosh Kumar, S/o Gopal Rao, age: 32 years, Occ: Hardware, R/o Meerpet,

Ranga Reddy District. ...Accused No. 2 to 6

1. Grusava Rajula Srinivas Rao @ Srinu Panthulu (Case against him abated)

.....Accused No.1

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 2 of 9

This case is coming before me for a final hearing and disposal on 15-04- 2026 in the presence of the learned assistant public prosecutor for the state, and Sri. M/s. N. Pandaiah and others, advocate for accused No.2 to 6, upon perusing the material papers on record, standing over for consideration, till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.1 to 6 have been prosecuted by the state represented by the police, Police Station Musheerabad, for the offence punishable under sections 448,341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.149/2017.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

Accused Nos. 1 to 6 agreed to sell their property situated in Survey Nos. 651 and 626 at Shad Nagar to the LW. 1/Dr. P. Shankar Rao's daughter, and they took a huge amount from them, but they did not register the said land. Therefore, the daughter of LW.1/Dr. P. Shankar Rao, namely P. Sushmitha, lodged a complaint

before the Shadnagar police station. Due to which, the accused persons bore

grudges against LW.1/Dr. P. Shankar Rao and his family. Meanwhile, on 15-02- 2017 at 0900 hours, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 trespassed into the office of LW.1/Dr.

P. Shankar Rao situated at Gemini Colony. In this regard, the complaint was lodged and the case was registered as Crime No. 37 of 2017, under sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which was pending. Again, on 01-06-2017 at 10.30 hours, Accused Nos. 1 to 6 illegally trespassed into the office of LW. 1/Dr.

P. Shankar Rao, situated behind his house, abused him in filthy language and

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 3 of 9

manhandled him. LW2/B. Anil Kumar and LW3/Jalandar Reddy wrongfully restrained them and threatened LW. 1/Dr. P. Shankar Rao with dire consequences. Therefore, LW.1/Dr. P. Shankar Rao lodged a complaint before the police.

3.Based on the complaint, LW.6/B. Bhaskar Rao, Inspector of Police of

Musheerabad Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.149/2017 for the offence under sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, First Information Report was issued. During the course of investigation, LW.7/P.Rama Raju, Sub-

Inspector of police Musheerabad police station examined and recorded the statement of de facto complainant/PW.4, visited the place of offence, secured

PW.1 to 3, LW3/G. Jalandhar Reddy and recorded their statements. Further,

PW.6 served notices under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to Accused No.1 to 6. After completion of the investigation, PW.6 filed a charge sheet against the accused

No.1 to 6 for the offence under sections 448,341 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4.This court took cognizance of offence under sections 448,341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 6.

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 4 of 9

5.On 11-03-2025 the case against Accused No.1 was abated.

6. On appearance of accused No.2 to 6 before this court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

7. The accused No.2 to 6 have been examined under Section 251 of the

Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the accusation was read over and explained to them for the offence under sections 448,341 and 506 of the

Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6, and Exs. P1 to P5 documents were exhibited.

9. After closure of prosecution-side evidence, the accused No.2 to 6 examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied and reported no evidence in their defence.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

11.Now the point that arises for determination is:

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 5 of 9

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused Nos.2 to 6 for the offense punishable under sections 448,341 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Codebeyond all reasonable doubts?

12. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, PW.1/B. Anil Kumar is the eye witness, PW.2/P. Ramulu and PW.3/K. Chennaiah are the the Circumstantial

Witensses, PW.4/Dr. P. Shankar Rao is the defacto complainant, PW.5/P.Rama

Raju is the first Investigating officer and PW6/L. Samya is the second

Investigating officer.

13. The learned assistant public prosecutor submitted that the accused illegally trespassed into the office of PW.4, abused him in filthy language, manhandled the PW.2, and LW3/Jalandhar Reddy, wrongfully restrained them and threatened PW4 with dire consequences; as such, the accused No.2 to 6 are liable for punishment. On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that in view of civil disputes, PW.4 filed a false case against the accused No.2 to

6. Hence, the accused No.2 to 6 are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

14.This Court considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel and perused the material brought on record.

15. The evidence of PW.1 shows that on 01-06-2017 at 10.00 A.M., he went to

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 6 of 9

the office; LW3/Jalandhar Reddy and LW.1/P. Shankar Rao also came to the office. Subsequently, ten members, including male and female, came to the office and quarreled with LW.1/P. Shankar Rao, and they threatened him with dire consequences; he identified his signature on the complaint under Ex.P1.

PW.1 identified Accused Nos. 2 to 6 in the open court.

16. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it is elicited that after the incident, he did not see the accused persons, and he saw them on the date of deposition, and he came to know about the accused persons through LW.1/P. Shankar Rao.

As per PW.1, he identified the accused persons, after almost nine years of the incident. Further, PW.1 did not mention any descriptive particulars of the accused, and no test identification parade was conducted. PW.4 did not identify the accused; only the PW.1 identified the accused persons. However, in the absence of descriptive particulars and a lapse of nine years, the identification of the accused persons by PW.1 is not reliable.

17. PW.2 did not support the prosecution case, and he denied his Section 161

Cr. P.C. statement under Ex.P2. PW.3 also did not support the prosecution case, and he denied his Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement under Ex.P3. In Ex. P4, it was mentioned that the accused executed an agreement of sale in favor of the daughter of LW1/P. Shankar Rao, and they refused to register the land and bore

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 7 of 9

grudges against LW1/P. Shankar Rao and his family. PW.4, who is the de facto complainant, who filed the complaint (Ex.P4), admitted that he did not file any documents before the court. Therefore, admittedly, PW.4 did not file any documents to show that the accused entered into the agreement of sale with his daughter. Therefore, the reason for the incident is not explained by the PW.4.

18. PW.6 testified that he filed a charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The PW.5 testified with regard to the registration of the case and issuance of Ex.P5 by LW6/B. Bhaskar Rao, Sub-Inspector of police,

Musheerabad, Police station. During the cross-examination , PW.5 also admitted that he did not collect any documents with regard to the survey numbers mentioned by PW.4, and PW.4 did not state before him that the accused took an amount of Rs. 91,00,000/-(Rupees ninety one lakhs only) towards sale consideration. Therefore, as admitted by PW.5, the prosecution did not file any document relating to previous disputes between PW.4, his daughter, and the accused persons. Hence, no documentary evidence is brought on record, against

Accused that, they entered into agreement and their identity is also not established. Hence, the accused nos. 2 to 6 are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 8 of 9

19.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court opines that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.2 to 6 for the offence punishable under sections 448,341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

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

20.In the result, the accused No.2 to 6 are found not guilty for offence under sections 448, 341 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused

No.2 to 6 shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.PC. No property is deposited, hence there is no order for disposal of case property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of April, 2026.

XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Anil Kumar/Eye witness - None - PW.2: P. Ramulu/Circumstantial witness PW.3: K. Chennaiah/Circumstantial witness PW.4: Dr. P. Shankar Rao/Defacto complainant PW.5: P. Rama Raju/ 1st Investigation Officer PW.6: L. Samya/2nd Investigation Officer

C.C.No.2727 of 2019

Page No. 9 of 9

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.4 on complaint -Nil- Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P4: Complaint Ex.P5: First Information Report

Material objects marked

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -Nil--Nil-

XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Hyderabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE : : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: Smt. E. Bharathi, XVII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, FAC. XXI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Thursday this the 29 th day of January, 2026.

CC.No. 5887/2024

(Split up from CC No. 36/2018)

In

RC. No. 2(E)/2007-CBI/EOW/CHENNAI.

Between:

CBI/EOW/CHENNAI ....Complainant

AND

A7 – Suresh Kumar Katwa @ Suresh Kumar S/o. Yellusa Nagusha Katwa, Age: 53 years, R/o. H.No. 2151/18-D, New Patel Nagar,

New Delhi - 110008. .... Accused No. 7

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vijay Kumar Dubey, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the CBI and Smt. Savitha Mishra, Legal Aid Counsel for accused no. 7 and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector CBI/EOW/CHENNAI filed charge sheet against the accused no. 1 to 7 for the offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 21, 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 vide FIR No. RC. No.

2(E)/2007-CBI/EOW/CHENNAI.

2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, EOW, Chennai, filed a charge sheet against A7, alleging that during the middle of 2006, A7 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A1 to A6 to cheat the Government of India by way of establishing and operating illegal telecommunication setups for routing the incoming ISD calls received through the INTERNET. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, they fraudulently and dishonestly forged and fabricated several documents and used them as genuine in order to establish and operate the illegal setups. In the process, it caused huge financial loss to the government, which occurred due to the loss of call sharing money, evasion of the Access Deficit Charge, and other fees, including the license fee to be paid on every legal incoming international call, and A7 has also cheated the government of India by not paying any service tax, income tax, etc., for the above illegal services and income.

2.1.A7 has taken Flat No. 306, Shanti Apartments, besides Sridevi Theatre, Chanda

Nagar, Hyderabad, from Jai Sai Basava Raju, and subsequently A7 forged two rental agreements, which are used for getting Internet connections for the fictitious company M/s. Morpine Systems Ltd., i.e., one rental agreement purported to be executed between J. Rajashekar and M/s Morpine Systems Ltd., represented by M.

Srinivasa Rao for the premises, i.e., Flat No. 306, Shanti Apartments, which was 3 submitted to BSNL along with other documents for network approval. Another rental agreement was forged and fabricated by A7 on behalf of M/s Morpine Systems Ltd.

and by Laxminarayana Murthy on behalf of his son Jai Sai Basava Raju, which is purported to be signed by M. Srinivasa Rao on behalf of M/s Morpine Systems Ltd.

2.2.A7, along with A1 to A6, caused a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 23,60,703/- as the amount receivable from the foreign carrier, Rs. 1.42 lakhs as revenue sharing of Dot, Rs. 5.92 lakhs as Access Deficit Charges, and losses like service tax, income tax, etc., as wrongful loss caused by the illegal set of Railway Road, Kodur, and the corresponding wrongful gain for A7, thereby committing the offense punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 21, and 25(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 66 & 85 of the IT Act, 2000.

3.On receipt of the charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the offense punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 21, and 25(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 66 & 85 of the IT Act, 2000, and issued summons to A1 to A7.

4.Thereafter, the case is split up against A1 to A6 in CC No. 36/2018.

4

5.On the appearance of A7, copies of documents along with the charge sheet and statement of witnesses were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 CrPC. Charges framed on A7 under sections 120-B, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, dt. 09-09-2024.

Subsequently, A7 was produced on execution of NBW. CrlMP No. 168 of 2026 is filed, the same is allowed, and additional charges are framed under sections 20, 20A, 21, and 25(c) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and Sections 66 and 85 of the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

6.A7 is produced from jail and he is examined under section 239 Cr.PC. The substance of accusation for the offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 21, 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 66 & 85 of the

IT Act, 2000 is read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he voluntarily pleaded guilty for the offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 21, 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 66 & 85 of the IT Act, 2000.

7.The court explained the A7 as to consequences of his admission, for which he affirmatively stated that he is voluntarily pleaded guilty. Hence, A7 is found guilty for the offence under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and under section 20, 20A, 5 21, 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and Sections 66 & 85 of the IT Act, 2000 and he is convicted under section 241 of Cr.PC.

8.With regard to quantum of sentence A7 requested to take lenient view.

Considering the nature of offence and submission of A7, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees

One Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 120-B of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees

One Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 468 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days.

Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 471 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One 6

Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 20 of Indian Telegraph Act.

In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 has to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 20A of Indian Telegraph Act. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days (There is no whisper in the charge sheet about calculation of weeks). Further A7 has to pay a fine of Rs.50/- (Rupees Fifty Only) for the offence punishable under section 21 of Indian

Telegraph Act. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One

Hundred Only) for the offence punishable under section 25(c) of Indian Telegraph

Act. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further A7 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,250/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred

Fifty Only) for the offence punishable under section 66 of IT Act. In default of payment of the fine, A7 shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) days. Further

A7 is not representing the company, under section 85 of IT Act does not attract against him. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period undergone by A7 from 08-03-2010 to 11-03-2010 and 26-02-2024 to 20-06-2024 and 03-10- 2025 to till date shall be set-off under section 428 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A7 shall 7 be cancelled forthwith. The unmarked case property shall be disposed after lapse of appeal time or appeal is over. The right of appeal is intimated to A7. The copy of the judgment was supplied to A7 on free of cost against receipt.

Dated this the 29 th day of January, 2026.

FAC XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

FAC XXI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:Smt.Bharathi Erra XVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad.

WEDNESDAY, DATED THIS THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 12083 of 20 20

Between:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police

Police Station Jubilee Hills. ... Complainant

AND

1. Gattupally Jeevan Kumar, S/o Late. G. Ravindra Nath, age: 36 years, Occ: Pvt Job, R/o H.No. 6-3-159/5/1, Prem Nagar, Chintal Basthi, Hyderabad.

2. Pabbaphi Devender Reddy, S/o P. Ravinder Reddy, age: 25 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Yousufguda Basthi, Hyderabad, N/o H.No. 8-3-14, Karimnagar.

3. Gadwala Ramesh Kumar, S/o G. Hanumanthu, age: 30 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 8-3-228/607/3, Rahamath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

... Accused No. 1 to 3

This case is coming before me for a final hearing on 27-04-2026 in the presence of learned assistant public prosecutor for the state and Sri. G. Trinesh, D. Rakesh and others, Advocates for the accused No.1 to 3. After perusing the entire case record and having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 2 of 8

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

1.The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jubilee Hills Police

Station, had filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Crime

No.287/2020 for the offence punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal

Code.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:-

On 30-05-2020 at 08.30 hours, the de facto complainant/victim lodged a complaint stating that a few days ago she met a person near the Tiffin center at Jawahar

Nagar and moved closely with him as a friend. On 29-05-2020 at about 18:00 hours, she went near the Tiffin center at Jawahar Nagar, and then the said person/Accused No. 1 came there in the car, forced her to board the car, and while moving the car, Accused No. 1 tried to touch her breast. Meanwhile, Accused

Nos. 2 and 3 also boarded the car, and they also tried to touch her private parts.

After some distance, Accused Nos. 4 and 5 also boarded the car and tried to touch her private parts. Subsequently, she filed a complaint before the police.

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 3 of 8

3.Based on the report, PW.2/ B. Manshigh, Sub-Inspector of Police of Police

Station Jubilee Hills, registered a case in Cr.No.287/2020 for the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and issued a First Information Report.

During the investigation, he examined LW1(details omitted) defacto complainant/victim, LW2/ T. Shekar and PW.1, recorded their statements, visited the scene of the offence, conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of LW4/ K. Shiva and LW5/P. Shekar and drew the rough sketch.

Thereafter, on 30-05-2020, PW.2 issued notices under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to

Accused No.1 to 3. After the completion of the investigation, LW7/ P. Yadagiri

Rao, Sub-Inspector of police, Jubilee Hills police station filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian

Penal Code, as accused No.4 and 5 are absconding.

4.This court took cognizance of offence under section 354 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused No.1 to 3 and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 3.

5.On the appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 before this court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 4 of 8

6. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and after hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offence under section 354 of the

Indian Penal Code against the accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 documents.

8. After closure of prosecution-side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied and did not propose any evidence in their defence.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused No.1 to 3

for the charge punishable under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code beyond

all reasonable doubts?

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 5 of 8

11. POINT:

Coming to the evidence of prosecution, PW.1/Md. Sohil Khan is the

Circumstantial witness, PW.2/B. Mansingh is the first investigation officer.

12.The learned assistant public prosecutor submitted that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted victim and outraged her modesty, and by placing oral and documentary evidence on record, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 3; as such, the accused No.1 to 3 are liable for punishment.

13. On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that the victim foisted a false case against the accused No.1 to 3.

14.This Court considered the rival submissions advanced by both learned counsel and perused the material brought on record.

15. PW.1's evidence shows that during Covid-19 time at about 09:30 P.M., one car came and stopped near his house at Rahmath Nagar, Yousufguda, and the said car was stationed near their house for long hours. After that, LW2/T. Shekhar asked for the details of LW1, she informed LW2/T. Shekhar, that the accused

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 6 of 8

Nos. 1 to 3 misbehaved with her, and they touched her hands. The learned defense counsel failed to cross-examine PW.1; however, PW.1 did not state the names of

Accused Nos. 1 to 3, and also he failed to identify them.

16. PW.2, who is the investigating officer, testified with regard to the receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1) from the victim and registration of the case and issuance of the first information report (Ex.P2) and further investigation and preparation of the crime details form (Ex.P3) and rough sketch (Ex.P4).

17. During the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that there was a delay of 14 hours in lodging the complaint and reasons for such delay were not mentioned. He also admitted that he did not seize the alleged car. In Ex.P1, it is mentioned that only one person(Devender/Accused No.1) tried to touch the victim, and when she shouted, he left her at Jawahar Nagar. In Ex.P1 and P2, the driver's name was mentioned as Ramesh and Accused No. 2. Nothing is available against Accused

No.3 from Ex.P1 and Ex.P2; Form the recitals of Ex.P3 and P4, the scene of the offense is revealed.

18. From the evidence of PW.1, the identity of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are not

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 7 of 8 disclosed. PW.2, is the investigating officer, and prosecution failed to examine the victim, who is the material witness. Hence, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

19.Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court opines that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

20. In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for offence punishable under section 354 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 3 shall be in force for six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is deposited, hence there is no order for the disposal of the case property.

Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected,

pronounced and signed by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April,

2026.

XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

CC.No.12083/2020

Page No. 8 of 8

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: Md. Sohil Khan/Circumstantial witness - None - PW.2: B. Mansingh/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Complaint- Nil - Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Crime Details form Ex.P4: Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -Nil- -Nil-

XVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.