Essampelli Sai Shiva

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

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

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.

Present: Sri E. Sai Shiva

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Thursday, the 12 thday of September, 2024

Calendar Case No. 64 of 2021

Crime No. 8 of 2020

Name of the complainantThe State through SHO PS Varni (Cr.No.8 of 2020, PS Varni)

Name of the accusedGujjala Laxman, S/o Late Yellaiah, Age: 32 years, Caste: Oddera, Occ: Stone cutter, R/o Waddepally village of Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

CHARGESUnder section 454 and 380 of IPC against the accused person.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence of OrderAccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of IPC . Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the offences under section 454 and 380 of IPC . The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri T. Rajendranath Jadav,counsel for the accused

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of the

Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

1

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

Sri T. Rajendranath jadav , Learned counsel for the accused, having

been heard, having perused the record and having stood over for

consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Varni, has filed charge sheet in crime No.8 of 2020 for the offences punishable under section 454 and 380 of IPC (herein after referred as the ‘Indian Penal Code’) against the accused.

2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:

(a)On 15-01-2020, at 20:00 hours Pw-1 came to police station and lodged a report stating that, when she and Pw-2 were not at home some unknown persons broken the locks of their house and committed theft. She further reported that, they found some net cash, two pairs of gold ear tops of four grams, two pustelu along with disco poosala chain of three grams, silver anklets of ten tulas, all together worth of Rs. 18,000/- were missing from the almirah.

(b)As per the information, Pw-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 8/2020,

U/sec. 454 and 380 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, Pw-5 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1. Later, he visited to scene of offence, secured the presence of Pw-2 and Lw-3 and examined and recorded their statements. On 16-01-2020, Pw-5 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of Lw-4 and Pw-4, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence.

(d)On 21-01-2020, Pw-5 arrested the accused person and conducted confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused in the presence 2

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

of Lw-6 and Pw-3 and recovered net cash of Rs. 81,000/-, two pairs of gold ear tops of four grams, two gold pustelu of three grams and one iron hammer. After the completion of investigation he laid charge sheet.

3.The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offences punishable under section 454 and 380 of

IPC against the accused. After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused is examined under section 239 of Code Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under sections 454 and 380 of IPC and substance of accusation was explained to the accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same, maintained innocence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e., Lw-1 to

Lw-11, Lw-1 is examined as Pw-1, Ex.P1 is marked. Lw-4 is examined as Pw-2. Lw-5 is examined as Pw-3, Ex.P2 is marked. Lw-7 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P3 is marked. Lw-9 is examined as Pw-5, Ex.P4 is marked. Lw-11 is examined as Pw-6. Lw-10 is examined as Pw-7,

Ex.P5 is marked. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lw-2, Lw-3 and Lw-6.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same, maintained 3

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

innocence and reported no defense evidence. Therefore, defense evidence is closed.

7.Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused and meticulously perused entire material available on record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 454, 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under section 457, 380 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

24. During the course of arguments, the learned APP vehemently argued that, prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused with the testimony fo Pw-1 to Pw-5. The learned APP further argued that, Pw-5, the investigating officer has recovered stolen articles from the accused and Pw-3, who is witness for confession cum seizure panchanama supported the case of prosecution. The learned APP further argued that, prosecution has completed the chain of circumstantial evidence with the testimony of Prosecution witnesses.

25.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that,

Pw-1 in Ex.P1 written the worth of stolen articles as Rs. 18,000/- however, she deposed in her chief examination as one lakh. The learned counsel further argued that, the are serious discrepancies in confession and recovery panchanamas conducted by Pw-5, the investigating officer. The prosecution has built entire case based on 4

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

confession and recovery panchanamas and delay in dispatching FIR raised a doubt on the case. The learned counsel further argued that, the material objects in this case are not marked through the investigating officer and investigating officer himself admitted that, he did not duly comply the provisions of Sec. 100 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further argued that, prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence and there is serious lacuna in the investigation. The learned counsel during the course of arguments filed the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana Penukula

Sadaiah Sadi Vs The State of Telangana(LAWS(TLNG)-2021-4- 23). Perused same.

25. After considering the submission made by learned App and learned counsel for accused and after careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, Pw-1 deposed that, on 15-01- 2020, she along with her children went to her mother’s house after duly locking her house and Pw-2, who is her husband, went to church.

She deposed that, she and Pw-2 returned home at around 05:00 PM, after receiving information over the phone that the locks of the door was broken open, he noticed that the locks of the door as well as the locks of almirah door broken open. She deposed that, they noticed net cash of Rs. 1,00,000/-, two pairs of gold ear rings, two gold pustelu and ten tulas of silver were missing. She further deposed that, she obtained Rs. 18,000/- net cash, two pairs of gold ear rings and two gold pustelu towards interim custody from this Hon’ble court.

24.It is observed by this Court that, during the cross examination of Pw- 1, she admitted that, Ex.P1 was drafted by her relative son on her instructions. She denied the suggestion that, she did not state in

Ex.P1 that, Rs. 1,00,000/- was found missing. It is to be noted that, in

Ex.P1, Pw-1 did not mention that they found one lakh rupees was 5

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

missing and she specifically written worth Rs. 18,000/- articles were missing. It is to be noted that, Pw-1 made an omission. It is observed by this Court that, during the cross examination of Pw-5, the investigating officer, he admitted that, in Ex.P1 Pw-1 did not specifically mention the exact amount of cash and further stated Pw-1 did not know the amount lost at the time of lodging ExP1 but she realized during the examination under section 161 Cr.P.C., which appears unrealistic and unusual. It is to be noted that, the evidence of

Pw-5 regarding the contradiction made by Pw-1 clearly shows the attempt made by the investigating officer to fill up the lacuna of prosecution. The material contradiction made by Pw-1 raises a concern.

25.It is observed by this Court that, PW2 deposed that, on 15.01.2020 at 5.00 PM he went to his house at Varni and noticed the locks of doors were broken open. He deposed that, he gave information to PW1, she immediately came and they noticed net cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, two pairs of gold ear rings, 2 gold pusthelu and 10 tulas of silver anklets were missing. It is to be noted that, PW1 deposed that, PW2 went to their house on receiving information about locks of their house were broken through phone. However, PW2 deposed that, he himself went to their house and found locks of the doors were broken. It is to be observed that, the version of PW1 and PW2 regarding noticing the incident is not identical.

26.It is observed by this Court that, PW3 who is witness for confessional and recovery panchanama, deposed that, on 21.01.2020 SI of police called him and informed him about panchanama. He deposed that, they went near Hanuman temple at Voddepally and they saw one person in the custody of police. He further deposed that, he enquired the said person, upon his enquiry, the said persons revealed that, he 6

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

committed theft of Rs.1,00,000/- and few gold items in the house of church father. PW3 deposed that, the said person took them to a tin shed and they found Rs.81,000/- cash, one pair of ear rings and one pustheula thadu in one cover.

27.It is observed by this Court that, during the cross examination of PW4, he stated that, he did not affix his signature on panch chits and one constable wrote panchanama. It is to be noted that, in the testimony of PW4, he did not specifically mention that, he enquired the accused independently and he further stated that, by the time he reached

Hanuman temple, he saw the accused in the custody of police.

Therefore, it is clear that, accused confessed in the presence of police. PW4 state that, one constable wrote panchanama, however, upon perusal of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, signature of PW5, the investigating officer is found. Therefore, a suspicion araises regarding Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3. It is to be noted that, PW5, the investigating officer admitted that, hand writing in 161 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is not his hand writing. The testimony of PW5 regarding the hand writing strengthens suspicion over Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 as discussed in supra. It is to be noted that, one constable writing the panchanama and investigating officer signing on the same questions the credibility of the said Exp2 and Exp3. PW3 stating that, he did not sign on panch chits strengthens suspicion on recovery panchanama,

28.It is observed by this Court that, PW3 stated that, he has not obtained permission from their MRO on the date of panchanama to attend the same. Therefore, its clear that, the investigating officer has not served any summons to PW3 to act as witness for panchanama and

PW3 deposed that, he receive information from the investigating officer through phone. It is observed by this Court, PW3 during his cross examination stated that, he cannot say the boundaries where 7

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

the property was recovered. It is to be noted that, PW3 is a VRA.

Generally the Government officials are expected to be vigilant and

PW3 admitted that, he act as panch witness, whenever his MRO instructs him. It is to be noted that, PW3, being a VRA and who regularly act as panch witness, not able to say the boundaries of tin shed from where property is recovered as per the story of prosecution raises a suspicion over this case.

29.It is observed by this Court that, the significant issue in the incident case is credibility and veracity of confessional and recovery panchanamas. Upon careful scrutiny of evidence of PW3, it is evident that, confessional statement was made by the accused in the presence of police when he was in police custody. It is to be noted that, section 25 and section 26 of Indian Evidence Act makes it very clear that, a confession made before a police officer and a confession made by the accused in the police custody cannot be proved against him. However, section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to section 25 and section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, when recovery is made upon such confessional statement. In the instant case, as per evidence of PW3, police recovered Rs.81,000/- cash, one pair of ear rings and one pushtheula thadu. The learned APP during the course of arguments, argued that, police recovered the said items upon the confession statement made by the accused. The learned counsel for the accused during the course of the arguments, argued that, the authenticity of Ex. P2 and Ex.P3 are in question as PW3 stated that, they were written by one constable and it bears signature of PW5.

30.It is observed by this court that, in the light of questioning the credibility of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 this Court exercised a due care and caution while perusing Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. It is observed that, PW3 deposed that, he received a call from PW5 on 21.01.2020 at 6.30 PM 8

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

and later he went to the place of panchanama. However, in Ex.P2, which is confessional panchanama, the time of recording panchanama is written as 6:30 PM. The investigating officer, stated that, the distance between Jalalpoor, where PW3 is working and Voddepally where confession is recorded is 13 KM. It is to be noted that, on one hand, PW3 stated that, he received phone call from PW5 at 6.30 Pm and on the other, time of recording panchanama is written as 6:30 PM and PW5 stated that, the distance between Jalalpoor and voddapally is 13 k.m. It is to be noted that, one person cannot travel 13 KM in just one minute and act as panch witness. PW5 admitted that, there is correction on Ex.P3 regarding time. Upon perusal of Ex.P3 is observed that, there is correction regarding time on Ex.P3, which raises a suspicion.

31.It is observed by this Court that, significant discrepancies were found regarding Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and PW3 being a VRA failed to say the boundaries of the place where the recovery was made. It is to be noted that, in the light of aforementioned discussion, the statement recorded vide Ex.P2 and the recovery made vide Ex.P3 is inadmissible in spite of the mandate postulated in section 27 of Indian Evidence

Act because of the reason that, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are not credible and their authenticity is in question. The same is observed in Penukula

Sadaiah Sadi Vs The State of Telangana(LAWS(TLNG)-2021-4- 23).

32.It observed by this court that, PW4, who is witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that, police never called him and police obtained his signature on written papers. During his cross examination he stated that, he does not remember where he put his signature on Ex.P3, whether in police station or at the spot. It is to be noted that, the testimony of PW4 as he does not remember where he 9

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

put signature on Ex.P3, whether in police station or at the spot raises a serious suspicion over this case. It is observed that, conducting scene of offence panchanama itself is doubtful in this case.

33.It is observed by this court that, the evidence of PW5, the investigating officer is procedural in nature. During his cross examination, he stated that Ex.P4, the FIR is received by this court on 17.01.2020 at 3.45 PM whereas the date of offence is 15.01.2020. The learned counsel for defense argued that delay in FIR raises a suspicion over this case. It is to be noted that, delay in dispatching

FIR is not always fatal to the case of prosecution. However, it depends on facts and circumstances. The circumstances of the instant case are doubtful as discussed in supra. Therefore, in the instant case delay in dispatching in FIR raises a concern. Prosecution did not properly explain the reasons for delay.

34.It is observed by this court that, the admission of PW5 stating that hand writing in 161 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 does not belongs to him, which raises a suspicion as discussed in supra. It is to be noted that, PW3 stated that one constable drafted

Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and later he put his signature and he also deposed that, he was informed by PW5 through phone. It seems that, the investigating officer without giving any police requisition to their higher officials, called PW5 and Lw6 and conducted panchanama.

There are serious discrepancies in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and on considering the aforesaid facts that the recovery and confessional statements made by the accused, which is the main linking factory in the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution version being inadmissible, as the same cannot proved against the accused, this court feels that, the case of prosecution is broke down.

10

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

35.It is observed by this court that, PW5, the investigating officer admitted that, he did not follow section 100 of Cr.P.C., while recording

Ex.P2 and he further stated that, as no government official was available he sought help of LW6 and PW3, who were working in

Jalalpoor which is at a distance of 13 KM away from the place where panchanama was conducted. It is to be noted that, section 100 of

Cr.P.C., postulates that, the presence of independent and respectable inhabitants but it does not specifically mandates the presence of government officials. It is to be noted that, the investigating officer clearly tried to fill up the lacuna in the investigation. The prosecution has completely relied on circumstantial evidence however, prosecution did not complete the chain of circumstance evidence as there are serious discrepancies in Ex.P2, which is vital connectivity of circumstantial evidence.

36.It is observed by this court that, in the instant case, the genesis of crime emerges from the FIR. The prosecution did not bring any cogent reasons for delay in dispatching FIR. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that, accused has committed the offence and the prosecution does not in any way established the guilt of the accused.

The mainstay of the prosecution evidence is the confessional and recovery panchanama of the accused however, the same raised a serious suspicion over this case as discussed in supra. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the vital link in chain of events, which were intended to be established by the prosecution against the accused.

11

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

30.After meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, the offence punishable sunder sections 454 and 380 of IPC are not proved against the accused.

31.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The interim custody claimed by the defacto complainant/Pw-1 shall be made absolute.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12 thday of

September, 2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class - Cum- Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

12

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1Shaikb Lateef PW2Syed Azeem PW3Mohd. Mukeem PW4G. ShankarNil PW5K. Rajendhar PW6K. Srinivas Reddy PW7U. Candra Shekar

Documents Marked

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3Is the confession panchanama Nil Ex.P4Is the copy of the oopinion of Finger Print Expert Ex.P5Is the FIR

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class - Cum- Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

13

CC No. 64 of 2021, dt. 12-09-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE Court OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 66 of 2019

1.Date of offence:07-05-2018 2.Date of Complaint:08-05-2018 3.Date of apprehension:11-01-2019 4.Date of release:23-01-2019 5.Date of commencement of trial:19-07-2024 6.Date of closure of trial:13-08-2024 7.Date of Judgment ::***08-2024 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Yedapally Description of accused :

Gunje Gangadhar, S/o Bhumaiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Labour, R/o Sarangapoor village of Nizamabad Mandal and District.

offence Under Section :457, 380 of IPC

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence :Acquitted

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class - Cum- Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

14

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

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

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.

Present: Sri E. Sai Shiva

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Friday, the 13 thday of September, 2024

Calendar Case No. 8 of 2020

Crime No. 172 of 2019

Name of the complainantThe State through SHO PS Varni (Cr.No.172 of 2019, PS Varni)

Name of the accusedMegavath Raju, S/o Ganesh, Age: 22 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Labour, R/o Sevalal Thanda, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

CHARGESUnder section 384 of IPC against the accused.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound guilty

Sentence of OrderAccused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is convicted under section 248[2] of code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the offences under section 384 of IPC. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri MD. Wajid Hussain legal aid counsel for the accused

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of the

Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri MD. Wajid Hussain , Learned legal aid counsel for the accused,

1

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

having been heard, having perused the record and having stood

over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Varni, has filed charge sheet in crime No.172 of 2019 for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC (herein after referred as the ‘Indian Penal Code’) against the accused.

2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:

(a)On 14-10-2019, Pw-1 came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that, on 14-10-2019 at morning hours while she was proceeding to Varni from Chandoor to go to Rudrur village, accused along with two other women came, put her into fear and forcibly snatched her MI phone and purse.

(b)As per the information, Pw-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 172/2019,

U/sec. 384 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, Pw-5 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1. Later, he visited to scene of offence, he secured the presence of Lw-4 and Pw-3 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence. Later, Pw-7 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-2 and Lw-3.

(d)On 10-12-2019, when Pw-5 was conducting vehicle checking along with other staff accused got down from auto and tried to escape by seeing Pw-5. They chased and apprehended him and interrogated him. During interrogation when he tried to confess something, Pw-5 secured the presence of Pw-4 and Lw-6 and conducted confession 2

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

panchanama. Pw-5 recovered one mobile phone from the possession of accused.

(e)Pw-5 served 41(A) of Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and served parental bonds to two other women, as they are minors. After the completion of investigation, Pw5 laid charge sheet.

3.The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC against the accused. After appearance of accused, copies was furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused is examined under section 239 of Code Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC and substance of accusation was explained to the accused in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same, maintained innocence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e., Lw-1 to

Lw-8, Lw-1 is examined as Pw-1, Ex.P1 and Mo1 marked. Lw-2 is examined as Pw-2. Lw-5 is examined as Pw-3, Ex.P2 is marked. Lw-7 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P3 is marked. Lw8 examined as Pw5. Ex P4 marked. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lw-3, Lw-4 and Lw-6.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him, for which he denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defense evidence. Therefore, defense evidence is closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused entire material available on record.

3

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 384 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove that:

a. Accused intentionally had put Pw-1 in fear.

b. By accused by putting pw-1 in fear, induced her to deliver any property.

c. Accused committed extortion.

10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP vehemently argued that, prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the testimony of Pw-1 to Pw-5. The learned

APP argued that, prosecution has completed the vital link of chain by proving the confession cum recovery panchanama and testimont of

Pw-1 remained unshaken. Pw-1 and Pw-2 narrated the incident and

Pw-1 and Pw-4 identified the accused in open court. The learned APP argued that, accused has committed offence punishable under section 384 against a woman and offences against woman must be viewed seriously.

11.Per contra, the learned counsel for accused vehemently argued that, prosecution has only relied on circumstantial evidence and police falsely implicated accused in this case for statical purpose. The learned counsel further argued that, Pw-1 admitted that, she wrote that an unknown offender committed offence against her therefore it is clear that, police falsely implicated accused in this case. The 4

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

learned counsel further argued that, benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

12. After considering the submissions made by learned App and learned counsel for accused and after careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, Pw-1 deposed that, at the time of incident she was working in Sneha society and on the day of the incident, she asked Pw-2 to pick her at Varni to proceed to

Government Hospital, Rudrur and she further deposed that, at that point of time there was no bus shelter in Varni and there were trees.

She deposed that, she went near bushes for urination and while she coming back accused along with two other women beat her, snatched her Redmi Mobile phone which is cement color and also Rs. 250 in her purse. She deposed that, she asked one known person to write a complaint and lodged the same in police station. Pw-1 identified the accused in open court.

13.It is observed by this Court that, during her cross examination she stated that she know the contents of Ex.P1 and she also narrated the contents to Pw-5. She admitted that, she saw accused only on the date of incident and never saw him again. It is to be noted that, Pw-1 identified accused even after the gap of 4 years. The learned counsel for defense tried to shake the testimony of Pw-1 by giving a suggestion that, police told her about standing position of accused in court hall. However, Pw-1 denied the suggestion and stated that, she identified accused upon her memory as accused beat her on the date of incident. It is to be noted that, nothing elicited in favor of accused in cross examination of Pw-1.

14.It is observed by this Court that, Pw-1 stated that, she mentioned descriptive particulars and personality of accused to police. Upon 5

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

careful perusal of Ex.P1, it is found that, Pw-1 narrated the physical descriptive particulars of accused in Ex.P1 and in her chief examination she stated that, one known person drafted Ea.P1 upon her narration. She also stated that, she narrated the incident and contents of the Ex.P1 to Pw-5. It is obsrved that, Pw-1 identified the accused in open court hall and she stated that, accused beat her on that day therefore, she remembered him and identified. It is to be noted that the testimony of Pw-1 remained unshaken in the rigorous cross examination conducted by learned counsel for accused. Pw-1 stood firm on her testimony.

15.It is observed by this Court that, Pw-2 stated that, on the day of incident Pw-1 called her and asked to pick her up at Varni to proceed to Government Hospital, Rudrur and when he went he found a public gathering and Pw-1 was crying. It is to be noted that, there is corroboration between the testimony of Pw-1 and Pw-2. Pw-2 further deposed that, upon his enquiry Pw-1 told that, one man along with two other women beat her, snatched money and mobile phone from her. It is to be noted that, the testimony of Pw-2 has proved the cause and effect of the incident.

16.It is observed by this Court that, during the cross examination of Pw- 2, Pw-2 admitted that, he and Pw-1 works in same office and he denied the suggestion that he came to know about the incident through police. Pw-2 stated that, he came to know about the incident through Pw-1. The learned counsel tried to discredit the testimony of

Pw-2 by giving suggestions to shake his testimony, however Pw-2 stood firm on his testimony. It is to be noted that, the testimony of

Pw-2 is corroborated with the testimony of Pw-1 regarding involvement of accused in the said offence. The testimony of Pw-2 has proved the cause and effect of the offence as discussed in supra.

6

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

17.It is observe by this Court that, Pw-3, who is witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that, in the year 2019, while he was proceeding for work, Pw-5 called him, conducted panchanama and drafted rough sketch regarding a theft committed. He stated that, later, he and Lw-4 signed on the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. It is to be noted that, with the testimony of Pw-3, it is clear that, police conducted scene of offence panchanama. During his cross examination, he denied the suggestion that police regularly calls him to act as panch witness. He stated that, he signed on Ex.P2 after drafting map and on written papers. Pw-3 stood firm on his testimony in his cross examination. Upon careful perusal of Ex.P2, the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch, it is observed that, there were trees and bushes at the place of incident as stated by

Pw-1.

18.It is observed by this Court that, Pw-4, who is witness for recovery and confession panchanama deposed that, in the year 2019, upon the instructions of their MRO, he and Lw-6 went to Varni chowrastha and saw accused. He stated that, he and Lw-6 took accused to some distance from police and enquired him. He stated that, during their enquiry accused confessed that he has committed a theft of mobile phone and police seized one cement color mobile phone from the possession of accused in their presence. Pw-4 identified the accused in open court. It is to be noted that, upon careful scrutiny of testimony of Pw-4, it is clear that, accused confessed not before police, as Pw-4 clearly stated that, they took accused to some distance from police.

Pw-4 also deposed that, police recovered one cement color mobile phone from the possession of accused. It is to be noted that, Pw-1 also deposed that, accused snatched away her cement color MI phone.

7

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

19.It is observed by this court that, during the cross examination of Pw-4, he stated that, he cannot say the model of the said mobile phone. It is to be noted that, due to lapse of time between the incident and evidence, Pw-4 might not remember the model of the phone, however he stated that, police seized cement color mobile phone from the possession of accused, which is corroborated with the version of Pw-1 as discussed in supra. It is to be noted that Pw-4 not mentioning the model of the phone is not fatal to the case of prosecution as Pw-4 is a witness for confession cum recovery panchanama and he deposed about the confession and recovery. The learned counsel for accused tried to discredit the testimony of accused by giving a suggestion that, police were present while accused confessed before them. It is to be noted that, Pw-4 denied the said suggestion and stated that when accused confessed before them police were at a distance. The learned counsel for the defense tried to discredit the testimony of Pw- 4 by giving a suggestion that, Pw-4 know the places where learned advocates and accused persons stands in the court. It is to be noted that, the learned counsel for accused tried to shake the testimony of

Pw-4 with the said suggestion. However, other than giving suggestion nothing was brought on record by defense to show that why would

Pw4 depose falsely against the accused and implicate him in this case.

20.It is observed by this Court that, the evidence of Pw-5, the investigating officer is procedural in nature. During his cross examination he stated that, he did not file any document to show that, the said MI phone belongs to Pw-1 and he admitted that, column

No.14 of FIR is left blank. It is to be noted that, Pw-5 not filing any document to show that said MI phone belongs to Pw-1 is not fatal the the case of prosecution and it does not shakes the of case. Pw5 stated that, he did not mention reasons for delay in dispatching FIR to this 8

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

Hon’ble court. It is to be noted that, it is settled proposition of law

that, delay in dispatching FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case delay in dispatching FIR not fatal to the case of prosecution.

21.It is observed by this court that, Pw-4, who is the witness for confession cum recovery panchanama deposed about the recovery made by police from accused. Pw-4 stood firm on his testimony and his testimony remained unshaken as discussed in supra. It is to be noted that section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to section 25 and 26 of Indian evidence Act. However in the instant case,

Pw-4 clearly deposed that, accused did not confess in the presence of police and they took accused to some distance from police and enquired him. It is to be noted that, section 27 of Indian Evidence Act postulates that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, so much of such information may be proved. In the instant case, recovery is made upon the confession is made by the accused.

The prosecution has proved the vital link of chain, the confessional recovery panchanama in the instant case. The mainstay of the prosecution evidence is the confessional and recovery panchanama of the accused.

22.This court exercised a great care and caution while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses. After diligent and scrupulous scrutiny, it is observed that, the testimony of prosecution witnesses are wholly reliable. Pw-1 to Pw-4 stood firm on their testimony and their evidence remained unshaken. It may be noted that, the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. As there is absence of direct witnesses in this case, circumstantial evidence 9

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

came into the picture. While exercising abundant caution, it is observed that, the chain of circumstances in the instant case are completed with the testimony of Pw-1 to Pw-4. Prosecution has duly explained and complied the panch sheel principles of circumstantial evidence. The inference drawn by the prosecution based on the chain of circumstances is properly explained by the prosecution and prosecution completed the chain. It is to be noted that, there is strong corroboration between the testimony of Pw-1 and Pw-2, the evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-2 is constant and remained unshaken. It is to be noted that, Pw-4 and Pw-5 proved the scene and confession panchnamas respectively and their evidence is wholly reliable, their evidence is clearly compatible and compelling with the case outcome.

23.After meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this court that, the prosecution proved the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC against accused.

24.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Accordingly, accused is convicted under section 248[2] of code of criminal procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of

Code of Criminal Procedure. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 thday of

September, 2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan.

10

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

The convict is given a time of two hours for reflection and called again.

Heard the convict with regard to quantum of sentence. He submitted that, he is married and he has six months old girl child. He submitted that, he has to take care of his family members and they are dependents on him. Therefore, this court intends to take lenient view on the convict. The provisions of

Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked in the instant case as this offence is committed against a woman.

This court considered the mitigating circumstances of the convict. The aggravating circumstances are, the convict has committed offence against woman, where as the mitigating circumstances are convict is married and he has six months old girl child. Upon weighing mitigating and aggravating circumstances, this court intends to take lenient view on the convict.

[ Therefore, the convict is sentenced to undergo an imprisonment of three months for the offence punishable under section 384 of IPC.

The learned counsel for accused filed a memo stating that, accused has been in jail in judicial remand from 17-08-2024 regarding this case.

Therefore, the period of 28 days out of 90 days is set off and the convict shall under go imprisonment for a period of 62 days.

The convict is informed about his right to free legal aid to prefer an appeal. Office is directed to supply a free copy of judgment to convict, to prefer an appeal against the judgment, forthwith.

11

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of September, 2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1K. Padma PW2P. Srikanth Nil PW3D. BBu PW4B. Sailoo

Documents Marked

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch Nil Ex.P3Is the confession panchanamais confession cum seizure panchanama of Pw-4

Material Object Marked

MO.1Is the photographs of Mobile phone (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan.

12

CC No. 8 of 2020, dt. 13-09-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE Court OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 8 of 2020

1.Date of offence:14-10-2019 2.Date of Complaint:14-10-2019 3.Date of apprehension:10-12-2019 4.Date of release:10-12-2019 5.Date of commencement of trial:06-09-2024 6.Date of closure of trial:11-09-2024 7.Date of Judgment ::13-09-2024 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Varni Description of accused :

Megavath Raju, S/o Ganesh, Age: 22 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Labour, R/o Sevalal Thanda, Varni Mandal, Nizamabad District.

offence Under Section :384 of IPC

Finding :Guilty

Sentence :Convicted (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

13

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

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

I-ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.

Present: Sri E. Sai Shiva

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Friday, the 6 th day of September, 2024

Calendar Case No. 152 of 2018

Crime No. 241 of 2011

Name of the complainantThe State through SHO PS Yedapally (Cr.No.241 of 2011, PS Yedapally)

Name of the accusedA14- Chinnandiga Sainath, S/o Rajanna, Age: 25 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occu: Agriculture,

A30- Kalagari Mohan, S/o Isthiri Sailu, Age: 22 years, Caste: Chakali, Occu: Caste Profession,

A34- Katkam Praveen, S/o Sayanna, Age: 22 years, Caste: Chakali, Occu: Agraiculture,

All are R/o Thadbiloli village of Renjal Mandal, District Nizamabd.

CHARGESUnder sections 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC against accused persons.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence of OrderThe accused No. 14, 30 and 34 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC. Accordingly, accused No. 14, 30 and 34 are acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the offences under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC.. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if 1

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri T. Narasimha Reddy, counsel for the accused

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of

the Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

and Sri T. Narasimha Reddy, Learned counsel for the accused,

having been heard, having perused the record and having stood

over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Yedapally, has filed charge sheet in crime No. 241 of 2011 for the offences punishable under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC(herein after referred as the ‘Indian Penal Code’) against accused persons.

2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:

(a)On 14-10-2011, upon the instructions of SI of police PS Yedapally, Pw- 2 along with Pw-1, Pw-3, Pw-4, Lw-3 and Lw-6 went to Thadbiloli village to control a commotion. When Pw-2 along with others tried to control the commotion and released two persons who were tied to a poll by the accused persons, they detained Pw-2, beat him with sticks and confined him in Hanuman temple. Later, Lw-7 and Lw-8 rescued and released him and Pw-2 lodged a complaint to take action against the accused persons.

2

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

(b)As per the information, Lw-9 registered a case in Cr. No. 241/2011,

U/sec. 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, Lw-9 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1, Pw-2, Pw-3, Lw-4, Pw-4, Lw-6, Pw-6 and Lw-7. He referred Pw-2 to hospital. Lw-9 proceeded to scene of offence, secured the presence of Pw-7 and Pw-8 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

(d)ON 15-10-2011, Lw-14 issued 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A34 and A1 to A34 failed to comply the conditions in 41(a) Cr.P.C. notice. On 21- 11-2011, Lw-14 Apprehended A1 to A34, recorded their confession through confession panchanama in the presence of Pw-9 and Pw-10.

Later, Pw-14 brought them to police station, affected their arrest, produced before this Hon’ble court for judicial custody and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of investigation Pw-8 laid charge sheet.

3.The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offences punishable under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC against accused persons. After appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused persons are examined under section 239 of Code Criminal

Procedure for the offences punishable under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and substance of accusation were explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

5.This case is a split up case against accused Nos. 14, 30 and 34 from main case vide CC No. 32/2012. when this case is posted for trial, the learned counsel for accused filed the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh Janyavula Rambabu Vs State along with a memo.

The copy is served to learned APP. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused regarding the same. The learned APP filed an adoption memo to adopt chief examination of prosecution witnesses.

The learned counsel for accused filed an adoption memo to adopt cross examination of prosecution witnesses.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e., Lw-1 to

Lw-8, Lw-1 is examined as Pw-1, Ex.P1 is marked. Lw-2 is examined as

Pw-2. Lw-3 is examined as Pw-3. Lw-6 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P2 is marked. Lw-4 is examined as Pw-5. Lw-7 is examined as Pw-6, Ex.P3 is marked. Lw-5 is examined as Pw-7, Ex.P4 is marked. Lw-8 I examined as Pw-8, Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 were marked.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to them, for which they denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defense evidence. Therefore, defense evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides and perused entire material available on record.

9.Now the point for determination is :

4

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Point:- The Prosecution examined Pws. 1 to 11 and got marked exhibit Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and MO1. Pw.1 is the eye witness, PW-2 is the defacto complainant and injured, PW3 to 6 are the eye witnesses PW- 7 & 8, are the panchas for scene of offence panchanama, PW-9 & 10 are the panchas for confession and recovery panchnama, PW-11 is the investigating officer. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, Ex.P3 & 4 are the signatures of PW-7 & 8 on Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 is the signature of PW-9 on Confession and recovery panchanama, Ex.P6 is the report, Ex.P7 Is the CDF,

Ex.P8 is the confession and recovery panchanama, MO.1 Is the lathi used in the offence.

11.The evidence of PW-1 to 6 is that of the direct and that of PW-7 to

PW-9 is that of circumstantial in nature. PW-1 to PW-4 are the police constables and PW-5 & PW-6 are the police constables who rescued

PW- 2. The evidence of PW-1 is silent about the entire incident and also about the identification or description of accused as such it is not useful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Though

PW-2 who is the injured described about the entire incident he could not depose with regard to the names of the accused or about the identification of all accused. However he identified one person in court who said to have beat him but could not name him. The prosecution has not taken any steps to get the part of 161 Cr. P.C.

statement which gives the description of all the accused. In cross examination also he admitted that police have not conducted any Test

Identification Parade . Prosecution failed to get establish about the identity of person who was identified by the witness. PW-3 & PW-4 5

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

though deposed with regard to the incident there is nothing incriminating about the accused to prove their guilt. The independent witnesses who were examined as PW-5 & PW-6 have not supported thecase of prosecution and deposed that they have not seen any incident. The scene of offence could not be proved prosecution in view of the hostile evidence of PW-7 & PW-8. Similarly the Confession and recovery made from the accused could not be proved in view of the hostile evidence of PW-9 & PW-10.

12.The evidence of PW-10 who is the investigating officer is with regard to the investigation he has carried. He deposed with regard to issuance of FIR under Ex.P6 on receipt of report under Ex.P1. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted

Scene of offence panchanama, confession and recovery panchanama, arrested the accused, collected medical certificate under Ex.P8 and filed charge sheet. During the cross examination he admitted about non conducting of Test Identification parade and remaining cross examination is not relevant defence as Such this court is not intending to discuss.

13.As seen from the prosecution evidence except for the evidence of PW- 11 there is no other evidence available on record incriminating against the accused in proof of the guilt of the accused. All the witnesses including the victim failed to identify the accused before the court nor they deposed the names of the accused as deposed in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. There are also lapses on the part of the investigating officer. He has not conducted any Test Identification

Parade immediately after the apprehension. He has conducted a very routine investigation in this case. Though the scene of offence panchanama was conducted within 24 hours io incriminating physical evidence was collected from the scene. Police failed to examine the 6

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

persons who were tied up by the villagers and were released by PW-2 who are the crucial witnesses in this case. None of the witnesses have deposed with regard to the obstruction of their legitimate dutiesby the accused. It is not safe to base conviction on the sole testimony of

PW-11 which is not supported by any of the witnesses. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The point is answered accordingly in favor of the accused.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.18, 30 and 34 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code,1860. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 6 thday of September,

2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

7

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1S. Praveen Goud PW2Praveen Reddy PW3M. lalji PW4A. Raju PW5G. Saya Reddy PW6P. RajeshwarNil PW7Abdul Khadeer PW8Chinna Nagaiah PW9P. Gangaram PW10Poshetty PW11A. Sudhakar

Documents Marked

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the signature 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-5 Ex.P3Is the signature of Pw-7 on CDF Ex.P4Is the signature of Pw-8 on CDFNil Ex.P5Is the signature of Pw-9 n confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P6Is the FIR Ex.P7Is the CDF (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

8

CC No. 152 of 2018, dt. 06-09-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 152 of 2018

1.Date of offence:14-10-2011 2.Date of Complaint:14-10-2011 3.Date of apprehension:15-10-2011 4.Date of release:15-10-2011 5.Date of commencement of trial:14-11-2022 6.Date of closure of trial:29-08-2024 7.Date of Judgment ::06-09-2024 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Yedapally Description of accused :

A14- Chinnandiga Sainath, S/o Rajanna, Age: 25 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occu: Agriculture, A30- Kalagari Mohan, S/o Isthiri Sailu, Age: 22 years, Caste: Chakali, Occu: Caste Profession, A34- Katkam Praveen, S/o Sayanna, Age: 22 years, Caste: Chakali, Occu: Agraiculture, All are R/o Thadbiloli village of Renjal Mandal, District Nizamabd.

offence Under Section :148, 342, 353, 332 r/w 149 of IPC

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence :Acquitted (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

9

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

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

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.

Present: Sri E. Sai Shiva

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Friday, the 13 thday of September, 2024

Calendar Case No. 136 of 2019

Crime No. 27 of 2019

Name of the complainantThe State through SHO PS Varni (Cr.No.27 of 2019, PS Varni)

Name of the accusedA1- Rapani Ravi, S/o Laxmi Narayana, Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture,

A2- Rapani Bayamma, W/o Late Laxmi Narayana, Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture,

A3- Rapani Mahesh, S/o Laxmi Narayana, Age: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture,

A4- Rapani Chinna Laxmi W/o Mahesh, Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture,

All are R/o H.No. 3-57, Manchippa village, Mopal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

CHARGESUnder section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused persons.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence of OrderAccused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act . Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act . The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a 1

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri N. Eshwar counsel for the accused

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of the

Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

Sri N. Eshwar, Learned counsel for the accused, having been heard,

having perused the record and having stood over for consideration

to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Varni, has filed charge sheet in crime No.27 of 2019 for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act (herein after referred as the ‘Indian Penal Code’) against the accused.

2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:

(a)On

(b)As per the information, Lw-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 27/2019,

U/sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, Lw-5 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1. Later, he visited to scene of crime, he secured the presence of Pw-2 to Pw-4, examined and recorded their statements. Later, Lw-6 took up the file for further investigation.

2

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

(d)On 01-03-2019, Lw-6 served Sec. 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused

3.The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused. After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused persons are examined under section 239 of Code Criminal

Procedure for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and

Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act and substance of accusation was explained to the accused in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same, maintained innocence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e., Lw-1 to

Lw-6, Lw-1 is examined as Pw-1, Ex.P1 is marked. Lw-2 is examined as

Pw-2, Ex.P2 is marked. Lw-3 is examined as Pw-3, Ex.P3 is marked.

Lw-4 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P4 is marked. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lw-5 and Lw-6.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to them, for which they denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defense evidence. Therefore, defense evidence is closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused entire material available on record.

3

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and

Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under section 498-A of IPC and Sec.

3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

(i) Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

a. A1 to A4 subjected Pw1 to cruelty.

b. A1 to A4 took dowry from Pw1 and Pw2 and

also abated them to give dowry.

c. A1 to A4 demanded dowry from Pw1 and

Pw2.

24. During the course of arguments, the learned APP reported to decide the case on merits. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused argued that, Pw-1 and A1 are wife and husband, they compromised the matter outside the court and they are residing together.

25. After considering the submissions made by learned App and learned counsel for accused and after careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, Pw-1 deposed that, on 22-07- 2013, she got married to A1 and at the time of marriage her parents presented Rs. 30,000/- as dowry, three grams gold and other household articles. She deposed that, after birth of children A1 to A4 are harassing her for want of additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/- and when she questioned A1 to A4 about the harassment, they threatened to kill her by pouring Kerosene. During her cross examination she stated that, A1 cannot speak from his birth and others cannot 4

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

understand what he speaks. She denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for defense. She stated that, she never lodged any report before police, which raises a suspicion.

24.It is observed by this Court that, Pw-2 to P-4 did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. Nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in cross examin ation of Pw-2 to Pw-4 by learned APP. It is to be noted that, Pw-2 to Pw-4 stated that, Pw-1 and A1 compromised and they are living together.

25.It is observed by this Court that, except Pw-1 none of the prosecution witnesses deposed against A1 to A4 and Pw-1 deposed that they know Pw-2 to Pw4, who stated that, Pw-1 and A1 compromised this case and they are living together. It is to be noted that, no incriminating material was found against accused No1 to 4. it is to be noted that, Pw-2 to Pw-4 not supporting prosecution and stating that

Pw-1 and A1 are living together raised a suspicion over this case.

26.After meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and no material is found against accused persons. Prosecution did not bring any cogent evidence to prove the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against A1 to A4.

31.IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP

Act. Accordingly, accused are acquitted under section 248[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of 5

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 thday of

September, 2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

6

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1P. Pedda laxmi PW2P. Laxmi Nil PW3O. Laxman PW4O. Saidaiah

Documents Marked

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Is the private complaint Ex.P2Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-2 Nil Ex.P3Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-3 Ex.P4Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-4 (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

7

CC No. 136 of 2019, dt. 13-09-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE Court OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 136 of 2019

1.Date of offence:05-01-2019 2.Date of Complaint:13-02-2019 3.Date of apprehension:01-03-2019 4.Date of release:01-03-2019 5.Date of commencement of trial:27-06-2022 6.Date of closure of trial:02-09-2024 7.Date of Judgment ::13-09-2024 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Varni Description of accused :

A1- Rapan Ravi, S/o Laxmi Narayana, Age: 34 years, Occu: Agriculture, A2- Rapan Bauamma, W/o Late Laxmi Narayana, Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculture, A3- Rapani Mahesh, S/o Laxmi Narayana, Age: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture, A4- Rapani Chinna Laxmi W/o Mahesh, Age: 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, All are R/o H.No. 3-57, Manchippa village, Mopal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

offence Under Section :498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence :Acquitted (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum - I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

8

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

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

I-ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.

Present: Sri E. Sai Shiva

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.

Wednesday, the 11 th day of September, 2024

Calendar Case No.141 of 2019

Crime No. 23 of 2019

Name of the complainantThe State through SHO PS Varni (Cr.No.23 of 2019, PS Varni

Name of the accusedMogilolla Ravi, S/o Ramulu, Age: 26 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Chandoor Village of Varni Mandal.

CHARGESUnder section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act against accused.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence of OrderAccused is found not guilty for the offences punishgable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 255[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973 for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri Nayak Sailoo, counsel for the accused persons

This case came before me for hearing in the presence of the

Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and

1

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

Sri Nayak Sailoo, Learned counsel for the accused having been

heard, having perused the record and having stood over for

consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Varni, has filed charge sheet in crime No.23 of 2019 for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act against accused.

2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:

(a)On 10-04-2018, Pw-1 came to police station and lodged a written complaint stating that, on the intervening night of 04-02-2019, while his father/deceased was moving on the main road of Varni in the limits of Chandoor village, accused drove his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed his father. His father sustained head injuries and he died on the spot.

(b)As per the information, Lw-10 registered a case in Cr. No. 23/2019,

U/sec. 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act and took up the investigation.

(c)During the course of investigation, Lw-10 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-1. Later, he visited the scene of crime and photographed the dead body and secured the presence of Lw-6 to Lw- 9 and conducted scene of crime panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence. During the inquest panchanama, Lw10 examined and recorded the statements of Pw-2, Lw-3, Pw-4. Later, Lw-10 2

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

referred the dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital,

Bodhan for PME.

(d)On 06-02-2019, accused came to Police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence before Lw10. Later, Lw-10 served a notice U/sec. 41(A) of Cr.P.C to the accused. After the competition of investigation Lw-10 laid down charge sheet.

3.The I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and

Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act against accused. After appearance of accused, copies was furnished to accused as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

4.Accused is examined under section 251 of Code Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec.

182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act and substance of accusation was explained to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, out of the listed witnesses i.e., Lw-1 to

Lw-10, Lw-1 is examined as Pw-1, Ex.P1, Ex.P2 were marked. Lw-2 is examined as Pw-2, Ex.P3 is marked. Lw-5 is examined as Pw-3, Ex.P4 is marked. Lw-4 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P5 is marked. Learned APP given up the evidence of Lw-3, Lw-6 to Lw-10.

6. The 313 Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed by this Court as no incriminating material is adduced by prosecution witnesses, i.e. Pw-1 to Pw-4 against the accused. The learned defense counsel reported no 3

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

defense evidence on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the defense evidence is closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused entire material available on record.

8.Now the point for determination is :

whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec.

182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under section 304-A of IPC and Sec.

182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

10.The prosecution witnesses, Pw-1 to Pw-4 stated that, they do not know anything about this case. They turned hostile and did not support prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned

APP, Pw-1 to Pw-3 denied the suggestions that, police examined them and recorded their statements and they denied that, they have stated

before the police as in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

11.During the course of arguments, the learned APP argued to decide the case on merits. Per contra, the learned counsel for defense argued that, prosecution witnesses did not support prosecution case and further argued that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.After careful perusal of entire material on record and after hearing learned APP and learned counsel for defense, it is observed by this 4

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

court that, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution and no incriminating material is found against accused person. Nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in the cross examination of Pw1 to Pw4 by learned APP. Upon meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, nothing elicited against the accused as alleged by the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to prove the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused. Therefore, prosecution did not prove the allegations made against the accused for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act.

14.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of

MV Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 255[1] of code of criminal procedure, 1973. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months as prescribed under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 thday of September

2024.

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

5

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

Prosecution Defence

PW1N. Mogulaiah PW2N. Saidavva Nil PW3P. Srinu PW4V. Janakiramaiah

Documents Marked

Prosecution Defence

Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-1 Nil Ex.P3Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-2 Ex.P4Is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw-3

(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Bodhan.

6

CC No. 141 of 2019, dt. 11-09-2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BODHAN.

CC. No. 141 of 2019

1.Date of offence:04-02-2019 2.Date of Complaint:05-02-2019 3.Date of apprehension:06-02-2019 4.Date of release:06-02-2019 5.Date of commencement of trial:17-01-2022 6.Date of closure of trial:313 Cr.P.C. dispensed 7.Date of Judgment ::11-09-2024 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--

Complainant

The State through P.S: Varni Description of accused :

Mogilolla Ravi, S/o Ramulu, Age: 26 years, Caste: Gundla, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Chandoor Village of Varni Mandal.

offence Under Section :304-A of IPC and Sec. 182(1), 192(1), 196 of MV Act

Finding :Not guilty

Sentence :Acquitted (Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS0126) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad.

7