Esselli Sai Shiva
Prl Junior Civil Judge
Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana
Based on 5 recent ordersEsselli Sai Shiva, Prl Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 5 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS cases.
Featured Judgments
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
Present: Sri Essampelli Sai Shiva
I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Bodhan,
FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
Tuesday, the 4 th day of November, 2025
Calendar Case No. 89 of 2025
Crime No. 425 of 2024
Name of the complainantThe State through SHO, Police Station Bodhan Town (Cr.No.425 of 2024, PS Bodhan Town)
Name of the accusedA1) Ayyavae Vittal S/o. Ayyavar Laxman, age 55 years, Caste: Are War, Occ: Labour, R/o H.No.6-74/1, Amdapoor village of Bodhan, present R/o. Saraswathinagar, Bodhan.
A2) Shaik Quayyum S/o. Shaik Bandelli, age 36 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Painter, R/o H.No.1-3-276, Azam gunj of Bodhan.
CHARGESUnder section 331(4), 305 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the accused No.1 & 2.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty
Sentence of OrderAccused No.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Accordingly, accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita. The bail bonds of accused No.1 if any, shall be in force for a period of six 1
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
months from today as prescribed under section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita. The property vide CPR No.8 of 2025, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.
The jail authorities of Central Prison,
Nizamabad are directed to release the accused No.2 forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of judgment copy.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended bySri Md. Wajeed Hussain, Legal-Aid counsel for the accused No.1 & 2.
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. Wajeed Hussain, Legal-Aid counsel for the accused No.1 & 2,
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 SHO, Police Station, Bodhan Town, has filed charge sheet in crime
No.425 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Section 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhithaagainst the accused No.1 & 2.
2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:
(a)On 03.08.2024, PW-1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 stating that, on 02.08.2024, he closed his shop at around 9.00 PM and on next day i.e., on 03.08.2024, when he went to open his shop at around 11.00 AM, he found the locks of his shop were broken open 2
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
and he found MO-1 to MO-3 were missing. PW-1 requested to take action against the offenders.
(b)As per the information, PW-5 registered a case in Cr. No. 425/2024,
U/Sec. 331(4), 305 of BNS and took up the investigation.
(c)During the course of investigation, PW-5 examined and recorded the statement of PW-1. Later, he visited scene of offence, secured the presence of PW-3 and LW-4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn trough sketch in their presence. Later he examined and recorded the statement of LW-2.
(d)During the course of the investigation, on 08.08.2024 at 16.00 hrs, while PW-5 was conducting vehicle checking at Hanuman Tekdi X road, Bodhan, he saw A1 and A2 in a suspicious manner and apprehended them and interrogated them and during the interrogation they voluntarily confessed that on 02.08.2024 during the night hours they broke open the shatter locks of the complainant automobile shop and gained entry into the shop and committed theft of the Electric painting machine, tool kit spares, Auto chamber wheel drum from the shop by breaking the shatter lock and decamped with the stolen property. The same confessional statement was recorded by PW-5 in presence of PW-3 and PW4 and recovered wheel drums-02, electric fitter machine-01, spare panel-01 from the possession of the accused persons. Later, Pw5 produced A1 and A2 before this court for judicial remand.
(e)During the course of investigation, PW-5 deposited the case property i.e., Wheel Drums-02, Electric fitter machine-01, spare panel-01 in this court vide CPR No.8 of 2025. After investigation, PW-5 laid charge sheet against accused persons for the offence punishable under
Section 331(4), 305 of BNS.
3
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita against the accused No.1 & 2. After appearance of accused persons, copies were furnished to accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.Accused No.1 & 2 are examined under section 262 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for the offence punishable under Section 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and substance of accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language Telugu, 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-7. LW-1 is examined as PW-1, Ex.P1 is marked. LW-3 is examined as PW-2, Ex.P2 is marked. LW-5 is examined as PW-3. LW-6 is examined as PW-4, Ex.P3 is marked. LW-7 is examined as PW-5, Ex.P4 and MO-1 to MO-3 were marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of LW-2 and LW-4.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to them in their vernacular language Telugu, for which they denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defence evidence. Therefore, defence evidence is closed.
7.Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for accused and perused entire material available on record.
4
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
8.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused
No. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Section 331(4), 305 of BNS beyond all reasonable doubts?
9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under Section 331(4), 305 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitaagainst the accused No.1 & 2 beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP and learned Legal-
Aid counsel reported to decide the case on merits.
11. After considering the submissions made by learned App and learned counsel for accused No.1 & 2 and after careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, PW-1 who is the complainant deposed that, he runs a three wheeler mechanic shop at
Anil Talkies road and on 02.08.2024, he closed his shop by duly locking it at around 9.30 PM and on 03.08.2024, by the time he reached his shop, he observed the locks of the shop were opened and he found electric painting machine, tool kit, spare parts and wheel drums of worth Rs.60,000/- were missing. He deposed that, he lodged
Ex.P1 before police. During his cross-examination, he stated that, police did not obtain any rental agreement regarding the shop from him and he has not submitted any bills regarding the stolen articles.
However, they are not relevant to the case on hand. PW-1 denied the suggestions given by learned counsel for accused in his cross- examination and he deposed about the said incident. It is observed that, on careful perusal of evidence of PW-1, it is clear that, PW-1 does not know who the offenders are and police registered FIR against unknown offenders.
5
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
12.It is observed by this Court that, PW-2 who is witness for scene of offence for panchanama deposed that, on 03.08.2024 at around 11.30 AM, police conducted scene of offence panchanama regarding a theft at PW-1’s shop. During his cross-examination, he stated that, he cannot say the boundaries of scene of offence and police written panchanama regarding the stolen items and obtained his signature. It is observed that, PW-2 stood firm on his testimony and he deposed about the scene of offence panchanama. Therefore, it is clear that police has conducted scene of offence panchanama at PW-1’s shop. A careful perusal of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that, a theft happened in PW-1’s shop, police registered FIR and conducted scene of offence panchanama. The incident of theft is proved and the same is not at dispute.
13.It is observed by this Court that, PW-3, who is witness for confession cum seizure panchanama is declared hostile by learned APP and during the cross-examination by learned APP, he admitted the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama to be true and correct and he identified A1 and A2 in open court hall. During his cross-examination, he admitted that, accused persons confessed in the presence of police and they did not confess to him and he was just present at the site. The objective of conducting confession cum seizure panchanama is to secure authenticity by obtaining the presence of independent presence, however in the case on hand, PW- 3 clearly stated that accused did not confess to him and they confessed to police and he was just present. Therefore, this court feels that it is not safe to rely on Ex.P3.
14.It is observed by this Court that, PW-4, who is another witness for confession cum recovery pachanama deposed that, on 08.08.2024,
PW5 called him and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama 6
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
in his presence. He deposed that, accused persons confessed to him that they committed a theft in a shop and police caught them while they were trying to sell them. It is to be noted that, in the case on hand, police caught accused persons while they were trying to sell the stolen items and as per record, prosecution stated that police recovered MO-1 to MO-3 out of confession of accused persons and seized them in the presence of PW-3 and PW-4. There is no nexus between the plea of prosecution and the evidence of PW-4. As per
Section 23 of Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam,
(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as
against a person accused of any offence.
(2) No confession made by any person while he is I the custody of
a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved. However, in the case on hand, police caught accused persons while they were selling stolen articles and later they secured presence of PW-3 and PW-4 and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama. Therefore, the confession and seizure panchanama conducted by police is hit by Sec.23 of Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam and it cannot be considered.
15.It is observed by this Court that, during the cross-examination of PW- 4, he stated that, after confession made by the accused persons, accused persons have shown the stolen articles in the police vehicle and police have not affixed any panch chits on the seized items. As discussed in supra, police caught accused persons while they were selling the stolen articles and they have not recovered the material 7
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
objects out of confession of accused persons. PW-4 clearly stated that, accused persons have shown the stolen articles in the police vehicle. Therefore, as stated in supra confession cum seizure panchanama recorded by police does not have any authenticity and it cannot be considered as per Sec.23 of Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam.
16.It is observed by this Court that, the evidence of PW5, the
Investigating Officer is procedural in nature. He deposed about the part of investigation conducted by him. During his cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for defence. It is observed that, prosecution could not bring the involvement of accused persons in the said theft on record.
Prosecution has solely relied on Ex.P3 i.e., confession cum recovery panchanama of accused persons. However, the confession cum recovery panchanama conducted by police is not reliable and it cannot be considered for the reasons mentioned in the preceding part of this judgment. Upon meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed that, except mere allegations prosecution did not file any cogent evidence or iota of proof to prove its allegations against accused, therefore this court feels that this is the right case where accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
17.IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 & 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 331(4), 305 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Accordingly, accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under section 271(1) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail bonds of accused No.1 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The property vide CPR No.8 of 2025, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The jail authorities of Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused No.2 forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of judgment copy.
8
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and [
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4 thday of November,
2025.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265)
I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Defence
PW1B. Naresh Goud PW2G. Naresh PW3P. SadanandamNil PW4M. Venkatesh PW5S. Veeraiah
Documents Marked
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Nil Ex.P3Is the confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P4Is the FIR
MO-1:Wheel Drums. MO-2:Electric fitter machine-01. MO-3:Spare Panel - 01.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
9
CC No. 89 of 2025, Dt.04-11-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)
IN THE Court OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
CC. No. 89 of 2025
1.Date of offence:02-08-2024 2.Date of Complaint:03-08-2024 3.Date of apprehension:08-08-2024 4.Date of release:20-11-2024 (A1) 5.Date of commencement of trial:01-05-2025 6.Date of closure of trial:17-09-2025 7.Date of Judgment ::04-11-2025 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--
Complainant
The State through P.S: Bodhan Town Description of accused :
A1) Ayyavae Vittal S/o. Ayyavar Laxman, age 55 years, Caste: Are War, Occ: Labour, R/o H.No.6-74/1, Amdapoor village of Bodhan, present R/o. Saraswathinagar, Bodhan.
A2) Shaik Quayyum S/o. Shaik Bandelli, age 36 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Painter, R/o H.No.1-3-276, Azam gunj of Bodhan.
offence Under Section :331(4), 305 of BNS
Finding :Not guilty
Sentence :Acquitted
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad.
10
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
Present: Sri Essampelli Sai Shiva
I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Bodhan,
FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
Wednesday, the 19 th day of November, 2025
Calendar Case No. 247 of 2025
Crime No. 117 of 2025
Name of the complainantThe State through SHO, Police StationBodhan Town (Cr.No.117 of 2025, PS Bodhan Town)
Name of the accusedKemmasarthi Dasharath, S/o. Gangaram, age 20 years, Caste: Erukala, Occ: Labour, R/o. Indiramma colony, Bellal village.
CHARGESUnder Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the accused.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty
Sentence of OrderIN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 271(1) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The interim custody of two wheeler bearing No.
1
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
AP-25-AA-7350 claimed by PW1 vide orders in
Crl.M.P.No. 189 of 2025 shall be made
absolute. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The jail authorities of Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of this judgment copy.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended bySri Md. Wajeed 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. Wajeed Hussain, Legal-Aid 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 SHO, Police Station Bodhan Town, has filed charge sheet in crime
No.117 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhithaagainst the accused.
2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:
(a)On 11.03.2025, PW-1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 stating that, on 07.03.2025, when he parked his bike in front of the bus depot, Bodhan and when he came back after office hours to go back 2
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
to his house, he found his bike bearing No.AP-25-AA-7350 missing.
PW-1 requested to take action against the offenders.
(b)As per the information, PW-7 registered a case in Cr. No.117 of 2025,
U/Sec.303(2) of BNS and handed over investigation to PW-8.
(c)During the course of investigation, PW-8 examined and recorded the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. Later, he visited scene of offence, secured the presence of PW3 and PW4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence.
(d)On 01.10.2024 at 12.00 hours, PW8 apprehended accused at Bellal,
Bodhan in suspicious circumstances and interrogated him. PW8 secured the presence of PW6 and PW5 during the interrogation when accused voluntarily confessed that on 07.03.2025 at 1000 hours, he committed theft of Passion Pro M/C B.No.AP-25-AA-7350 at near Bus
Depot, Bodhan and decamped with the stolen property. Subsequently, the Passion Pro M/C B.No. AP-25-AA-7350 was recovered from the possession of the accused and it is identified, as case property in
Cr.No.117/2025 U/s.303(2) of BNS of PS Bodhan Town and PW8 seized under cover of confession and seizure panchanama in the presence of
PW5 and PW6. Later, PW8 deposited case property in this court vide
CPR No.48/2025.
(e)Later, PW8 arrested accused and produced him before this court. As per the orders of this court, PW8 sent accused to judicial remand.
After completion of investigation, PW8 filed charge sheet against the accused.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya 3
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
Sanhita against the accused. After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 230 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
4.Accused is examined under Section 262 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and substance of accusation was explained to him in his vernacular language Telugu, 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 is marked. LW-2 is examined as PW-2. LW-3 is examined as PW-3, Ex.P2 is marked. LW-4 is examined as PW-4, Ex.P3 is marked. LW-6 is examined as PW-5, Ex.P4 is marked. LW-5 is examined as PW-6. LW-7 is examined as PW-7,
Ex.P5 is marked. LW-8 is examined as PW-8, Ex.P6 and MO-1 were marked.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 351 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to him in his vernacular language Telugu, for which he denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defence evidence. Therefore, defence evidence is closed.
7.Heard Learned APP and Learned counsel for accused and perused entire material available on record.
4
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
8.Now the point for determination is :
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of BNS beyond all reasonable doubts?
9.Point: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has to prove the ingredients mentioned under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhitaagainst the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP and learned counsel reported to decide the case on merits.
11. 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 who is the complainant deposed that, on 07.03.2025 at about 10.00 AM he went to office and parked his bike Passion Pro bearing No .AP-25-AA-7350 in front of bus depot, Bodhan. He deposed that, at about 3.00 PM, he noticed his bike was missing and he along with PW2 searched for the bike and could not find it. He deposed that, after 3 days, on 11.03.2025 he lodged Ex.P1 in police station. It is observed that, PW1 deposed about the said incident. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that there are CC TV cameras in front of Bodhan bus depot and upon confrontation of Ex.P1, he admitted the correction with whitener near the bike number, which raises concern. The evidence of
PW1 is informative nature.
12It is observed by this Court that, PW2 deposed that, on 07.03.2025,
PW1 came to office and parked his bike bearing No. AP-25-AA-7350 in front of Bodhan bus depot and at around 6.00 PM PW1 noticed his bike was missing. He deposed that, he and PW1 searched for the bike, but they could not find and after 3 days, on 11.03.2025, PW1 lodged 5
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
report at police station. It is observed that, there is corroboration between the testimony of PW1 and PW2 except regarding time when
PW1 found that his bike was missing. Nothing elicited in favor of accused in the cross-examination of PW2.
13.It is observed by this Court that, PW3, who is witness for scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile and nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in the cross-examination of PW3 by learned APP. It is observed by this Court that, PW4, who is another witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that, police came to parking area of new bus stand at about 3 to 4 months ago and conducted panchanama regarding theft of bike. During his cross-examination, he stated that, he does not know details of any bike and he does not know the contents of scene of offence panchanama. It is observed that, PW4 stating that he does not know the contents of scene of offence panchanama raises a concern and this court fees that it is not safe to rely on testimony.
14.It is observed by this Court that, PW5 and PW6, who are witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama conducted by police did not support the case of prosecution. They were declared hostile and nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in the cross-examination of
PW5 and PW6 by learned APP. PW5 stated that, police called him to
Bodhan police station and obtained his signature on white blank papers and PW6 stated that police called him to Bodhan police station and police obtained his signature on written papers. Therefore it is clear that police have not conducted confession cum recovery panchanama when they actually apprehended the accused and upon careful perusal of evidence of PW5 and PW6, it is clear that the said bike is not recovered out of confession made by the accused person, 6
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
therefore this court feels that it is not safe to rely on Ex.P6, the confession cum seizure panchanama.
15.It is observed by this Court that, the evidence of PW7, the first investigating officer is procedural in nature. He deposed about the part of investigation made by him. During his cross-examination, he admitted that initially this case is registered against unknown offenders. It is observed by this court that, the evidence of PW8, the second investigating officer is procedural in nature. He deposed about the part of investigation conducted by him. PW8 denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for defence and he stated that he did not collect CC TV footage of Bodhan bus stand.
16.Upon meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed that, except mere allegations prosecution did not file any cogent evidence or iota of proof to prove its allegations against accused. The case of prosecution is that, police apprehended accused and recovered the said bike out of confession made by accused person. However, prosecution miserably failed to prove that the said bike is recovered out of confession made by the accused and as stated in supra no cogent evidence is brought on record by the prosecution to prove the same. Therefore this court feels that this is the right case where accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
17.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 271(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita. The interim custody of two wheeler bearing No. AP- 25-AA-7350 claimed by PW1 vide orders in Crl.M.P.No. 189 of 2025 shall be made absolute. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in 7
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The jail authorities of Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of this judgment copy.
Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and [
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 thday of November,
2025.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265)
I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Defence
PW1T. Kumara Swamy PW2Y. Nagaraju PW3Shaik MahafoosNil PW4G. Prasad PW5G. Nagu PW6Muralidhar Prasad PW7V. Venkata Narayana PW8Habeeb Khan
Documents Marked
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the signature on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3Is the scene of offence Nil panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P4Is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama.
8
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
Ex.P5Is the FIR Ex.P6Is the confession cum seizure panchanama.
Photographs of (3) bikes as bikes are not MO-1: produced (Subject to objection).
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
9
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)
IN THE Court OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
CC. No. 247 of 2025
1.Date of offence:07-03-2025 2.Date of Complaint:11-03-2025 3.Date of apprehension:01-10-2025 4.Date of release:Accused is in jail.
5.Date of commencement of trial:04-09-2025 6.Date of closure of trial:04-11-2025 7.Date of Judgment ::19-11-2025 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--
Complainant
The State through P.S: Bodhan Town Description of accused :
Kemmasarthi Dasharath, S/o. Gangaram, age 20 years, Caste: Erukala, Occ: Labour, R/o. Indiramma colony, Bellal village.
offence Under Section :303(2) of BNS
Finding :Not guilty
Sentence :Acquitted
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad.
10
CC No. 247 of 2025, Dt.19-11-2025
262 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 11
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
Present: Sri Essampelli Sai Shiva
I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Bodhan,
FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bodhan.
Tuesday, the 4 th day of November, 2025
Calendar Case No. 284 of 2017
Crime No. 289 of 2017
Name of the complainantThe State through SHO, Police Station Bodhan (Cr.No.289 of 2017, PS Bodhan)
Name of the accusedA1) Kamble Ramu S/o. Kamble Balaji, age: 22 years, SC (Madiga) by caste, Occ: Mason, R/o H.No.3-17/6, Autonagar of Bodhan.
A2) Akbar Khan S/o. Ayub Khan, age 25 years, Muslim by caste, Occ: Painter, R/o H.No.1-1- 842, Ward No.12, Rakasipet of Bodhan.
CHARGESUnder section 457, 380, 411 R/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 & 2.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty
Sentence of OrderAccused No.1 and 2found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380, 411 R/w 34of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) of Code Of Criminal
Procedure. The bail bonds of accused No.1 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.
1
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
The interim custody of material objects given to PW-1 shall be made absolute. The jail authorities of Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused No.2 forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of this judgment copy.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended bySri M. Sridhar Babu, Learned counsel for the accused No.1 and Sri Md. Wajeed Hussain, Legal-Aid counsel for the accused No.2.
This case came before me for hearing in the presence of the
Smt. Ch. Rani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and
Sri M. Sridhar Babu, Learned counsel for the accused No.1 and Sri
Md. Wajeed Hussain, Legal-Aid counsel for the accused No.2, 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 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Bodhan Town, has filed charge sheet in crime No.289 of 2017 for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 & 2.
2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:
(a)On 11.09.2017, PW-1 came to police station and lodged Ex.P1 stating that, on 09.09.2017 at around 4.00 PM she duly locked Anganwadi center at Shakkar nagar and on 11.09.2017 i.e., on Monday when she went to school at around 9.00 AM, she found that locks of the 2
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
Anganwadi center were broken and some unknown offenders committed theft of Gas cylinder, 15 plates and one rice desk. PW-1 requested to take action against offenders.
(b)As per the information, LW-7 registered a case in Cr. No. 289/2017,
U/Sec. 457, 380 of IPC and handed over investigation to PW-5.
(c)During the course of investigation, PW-5 examined and recorded the statement of PW-1. Later, he visited scene of offence, secured the presence of PW-3 and LW-4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn trough sketch in their presence. Later, PW-5 examined and recorded statement of LW-2.
(d)On 14.09.2017 PW-5 received information about offenders and immediately rushed to Narsapur X road, Bodhan and apprehended the accused persons and interrogated them. During the interrogation, the accused persons confessed to have committed the offence.
Immediately, PW-5 secured the presence of PW-2 and PW-4 as panchas before them conducted confession panchanama of accused persons. Later, PW-5 arrested accused persons and produced them
before this court for judicial remand. After investigation, PW-5 laid
charge sheet against accused persons for the offence punishable under section 457, 380 of IPC.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380, 411 R/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 & 2. After appearance of accused persons, copies were furnished to accused persons as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.Accused No.1 & 2 are examined under section 239 of Code Criminal
Procedure for the offences punishable under section 457, 380, 411 3
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
R/w 34 of IPC and substance of accusation was explained to them in their vernacular language Telugu, 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-8, LW-1 is examined as PW-1, Ex.P1 is marked. LW-6 is examined as PW-2, Ex.P2 is marked. LW-3 is examined as PW-3, Ex.P3 is marked.
LW-5 is examined as PW-4. LW-8 is examined as PW-5, Ex.P4 and
Ex.P5 were marked, MO-1 to MO-3 were marked. Therefore, the evidence of LW-2, LW-4 is closed. Learned APP given up the evidence of LW-7.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Code Criminal Procedure, incriminating material adduced by the prosecution witnesses is explained to them in their vernacular language Telugu, for which they denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defence evidence. Therefore, defence 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
No. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under section 457, 380, 411 R/w 34 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, 411 R/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 & 2 beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP and learned Legal-
Aid counsel reported to decide the case on merits.
4
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
11. After considering the submissions made by learned App and learned counsel for accused No.1 & 2 and after careful scrutiny of entire evidence on record, it is observed by this Court that, Pw-1 who is the complainant deposed that on 09.09.2017 at about 4.40 PM, she locked the Anganwadi school and left to her house. She deposed that, on 11.09.2017, at around 9.00 AM, LW-2 noticed the lock of
Anganwadi school was broken open and informed PW-1 and PW-1 went to the Anganwadi school and found that one Cylinder, 15 plates and cooking utensils were stolen. She deposed that, she lodged Ex.P1
before police. It is observed that, on careful perusal of evidence of
PW-1, it is clear that, PW-1 does not know who the offenders are and police registered FIR against unknown offenders.
12.It is observed by this Court that, during the cross-examination of PW- 1, she stated that, she has not stated in her 161 Cr.P.C statement that
LW-2 informed her that the lock of Anganwadi school was broken and she along with neighbors went to the Anganwadi school, which are omissions. It is observed by this Court that, the omissions made by
PW-1 are material in nature and it is settled proposition of law that a material omission is a contradiction. PW-1 denied the suggestions given by learned counsel for defence. It is observed that, as stated in supra, PW-1 does not know who the offenders are and she filed Ex.P1 after the said incident.
13.It is observed by this Court that, PW-3, who is witness for scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of prosecution. He denied all the suggestions given by the learned APP in his cross- examination by the learned APP. Nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in the cross-examination of PW-3 by learned APP. It is observed that, PW-2 the witness for confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of prosecution. Nothing elicited 5
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
in favor of prosecution in the cross-examination of PW-3 by learned
APP. It is observed that, PW-4, who is another witness for confession cum seizure panchanama initially declared hostile by the learned APP and during his cross-examination, he admitted the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama to be true and correct and identified accused No.1 in open court hall. During his cross- examination, he admitted that police were present at the time of confession panchanama and he does not know the contents of confession cum seizure panchanama. Pw-4 also admitted that, he is deposing false before this court at the instance of prosecution, which raises a serious concern. The admissions made by PW-4 raises a serious suspicious over the case of prosecution and questions the genuineness of case of the prosecution. Therefore, this court feels that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of PW-4 and Ex.P5, confession cum recovery panchanama.
14.It is observed by this Court that, the evidence of PW5, the
Investigating Officer is procedural in nature. He deposed about the part of investigation conducted by him. During the cross-examination,
PW-5 confirmed the omissions made by PW-1, which are material in nature as stated in the preceding part of this judgment. He stated that, he has not verified the stock register to show that PW-1’s
Anganwadi school is having the material objects. PW-5 denied all the suggestions given by the learned counsel for accused No.1 & 2. It is observed that, prosecution could not bring the involvement of accused persons in the said theft on record. Prosecution has solely relied on Ex.P5 i.e., confession cum recovery panchanama of accused persons. However, the confession cum recovery panchanama conducted by police is not reliable and it cannot be considered for the reasons mentioned in the preceding part of this judgment. Upon meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed 6
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
that, except mere allegations prosecution did not file any cogent evidence or iota of proof to prove its allegations against accused, therefore this court feels that this is the right case where accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
15.IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 & 2 found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 457, 380, 411 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under section 248(1) of
Code Of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused No.1 if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The interim custody of material objects given to PW-1 shall be made absolute. The jail authorities of Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused No.2 forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of this judgment copy.
Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and [
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 4 thday of November,
2025.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265)
I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Defence
PW1Meri Krupa PW2Abdul Majeed PW3Mohammed ShabbirNil PW4Shaik Sameer PW5MD. Saleem 7
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
Documents Marked
Prosecution Defence
Ex.P1Is the report Ex.P2Is the signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3Is the signature on scene of Nil offence panchanama. Ex.P4Is the FIR. Ex.P5Is the Confession cum seizure panchanama.
MO-1:Gas Cylinder. MO-2:15 Steel Plates. MO-3:Rice Cooking Utensils. (Marked through photographs as the property was given to PW-1 towards interim custody).
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge–cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
8
CC No. 284 of 2017, Dt.04-11-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)
IN THE Court OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
CC. No. 284 of 2017
1.Date of offence:11-09-2017 2.Date of Complaint:11-09-2017 3.Date of apprehension:14-09-2017 4.Date of release:16-09-2017 (A1) 5.Date of commencement of trial:17-04-2025 6.Date of closure of trial:16-09-2025 7.Date of Judgment ::04-11-2025 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--
Complainant
The State through P.S: Bodhan Description of accused :
A1) Kamble Ramu S/o. Kamble Balaji, age: 22 years, SC (Madiga) by caste, Occ: Mason, R/o H.No.3-17/6, Autonagar of Bodhan.
A2) Akbar Khan S/o. Ayub Khan, age 25 years, Muslim by caste, Occ: Painter, R/o H.No.1-1-842, Ward No.12, Rakasipet of Bodhan.
Offence Under Section :457, 380, 411 R/w 34 of IPC
Finding :Not guilty
Sentence :Acquitted
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan. FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad.
9
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
Present: Sri Essampelli Sai Shiva I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan. FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
Monday, the 27 th day of October, 2025
Calendar Case No. 113 of 2019
Crime No. 24 of 2019
Name of the complainantThe State through SHO, PS Bodhan Town (Cr.No.24 of 2019, PS Bodhan Town)
Name of the accusedDeva Srinivas @ Dyaka Srinivas S/o. Poshetty, age: 23 years, Reddika by caste, Occ: Labour, R/o. Thattikota of Bodhan.
CHARGESUnder section 382 of IPC against the accused.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the CourtFound not guilty
Sentence of OrderAccusedfound not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 382 of Indian
Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code Of Criminal
Procedure. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. The interim custody claimed by LW1 vide Crl.M.P.No.368 of 2019 shall be made absolute. The jail authorities of Central
Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the 1
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of judgment copy.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. Ch. Rani Asst. Public Prosecutor
Accused defended bySri 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 Wajid Hussain, Legal-Aid 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, Bodhan, has filed charge sheet in crime No.24 of 2019 for the offence punishable under section 382 of IPC against the accused.
2.The averments of the Prosecution in a nut shell:
(a)On 26.01.2019, LW-1 came to police station and lodged report stating that, on 25.01.2019 at around 8.00 PM, while she was standing in front of her house in Bodhan, accused came to her and asked her to give a glass of water and suddenly he snatched her gold Nalla pusala wedding chain and pan bag from her and ran away. Lw-1 requested to take action against him.
(b)As per the information, Pw-6 registered a case in Cr. No. 24/2019,
U/Sec. 382 of IPC and handed over investigation to LW-8.
2
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
(c)During the course of investigation, Lw-8 examined and recorded the statements of Lw-1 and Pw-1. Later, he visited scene of offence, secured the presence of Pw-2 and Pw-3 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn trough sketch in their presence. On 27.01.2019 at 9.15 AM, on receiving credible information, Lw-8 along with other cops rushed to Head Post office, Narsi Road, Bodhan and apprehended the accused and interrogated him. During the investigation, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this office.
(d)On that Lw-8 secured the presence of two mediators Pw-4 and Pw-5 and in their presence Lw-8 recorded confessional statement of accused and recovered the stolen property i.e., 1) gold gundlu, gold kempulu weighing about half gram worth Rs.1,000/-, 2) One silver poosa weighing one gram worth Rs.50/-, and 3) net cash of Rs.1500/- from his instance and possession of the accused and affected his arrest. After investigation, Lw-8 laid charge sheet against accused person for the offence punishable under section 382 of IPC.
3.The Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bodhan took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 382 of IPC against the accused.
After appearance of accused, copies were furnished to 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 382 of IPC and substance of accusation was explained to him in his vernacular language Telugu, 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-2 is examined as Pw-1. Lw-3 is examined as Pw-2, Ex.P1 is 3
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
marked. Lw-4 is examined as Pw-3, Ex.P2 is marked. Lw-6 is examined as Pw-4, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were marked. Lw-5 is examined as Pw-5.
Lw-7 is examined as Pw-6, Ex.P5 is marked. Concerned police filed
Death Certificate of Lw-1 through Learned APP. Therefore, the evidence of Lw-8 is closed.
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 Telugu, for which he denied the same, maintained innocence and reported no defence evidence. Therefore, defence 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 offences punishable under section 382 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 382 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
10. During the course of arguments, the learned APP and learned Legal-
Aid counsel reported to decide the case on merits.
11. 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 who is daughter-in-law of LW-1/complainant deposed that, in the year 2018 while LW-1 was sitting outside the house, accused came and asked LW-1 to give some 4
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
water and he snatched away her gold Nalla pusala wedding chain and her pan bag containing Rs.1500/-. She deposed that the name of the accused is Deva Srinivas and she deposed that she came to know about the incident due to the hues and cries of LW-1. It is observed by this Court that, PW-1 is not an eye witness and she went to the said spot after hearing the hues and cries of LW-1. During the cross- examination, she deposed that one police by name Vittal told her the name of the accused and she has not witnessed the incident. It is observed that, PW-1 is not an eye witness and she clearly stated that she came to know about the name of the accused through police. PW- 1 is neither an eye witness nor she is the person who can identify the accused. Therefore, this court feels that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of PW-1.
12.It is observed by this Court that, PW-2 and PW3 who are witnesses for scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of prosecution.
They were declared hostile by learned APP. Nothing elicited in favor of prosecution in the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 by learned
APP. It is observed that, PW-4, who is witness for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that, on 27.01.2019 they went to
Head Post office Bodhan on call of police and they identified and inquired accused as per the instructions of C.I of police. He deposed that, police prepared the confession and recovered panchanama and obtained his signature. During his cross-examination, he admitted that confession and recovery panchanama was prepared in police station in the presence of police. It is to be noted that a confession of accused recorded in the presence of police is not admissible as evidence in the court of law as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the confession and recovery panchanama prepared by police and testimony of PW-4 is not credible and it cannot be considered. It is observed that, PW5 who is another witness for 5
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
confession cum recovery panchanama, in his cross-examination stated that he does not know the contents of panchanama. Upon careful perusal of testimony of PW3 and PW4, it is clear that police has not duly followed the provisions mentioned u/s.100(4) Cr.P.C and the confession conducted by police is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence
Act. Therefore this court feels that it is not safe to rely on the testimony of PW4 and PW5 and Ex.P3.
13.It is observed by this Court that, the evidence of PW6, the sub
Inspector of police who investigated this case is procedural in nature.
He deposed about the part of investigation conducted by him. It is observed that, PW6 only registered FIR against accused and entrusted investigation to LW8. However, prosecution has not examined LW8 who conducted investigation, which is fatal to the case of prosecution.
It is observed that, LW1, the complainant who lodged report before police is not examined by the prosecution and as per the record LW1 is the correct person to speak about the facts of case and to identify the accused. Unfortunately, neither LW1 who is complainant and nor the investigating officer is examined by the prosecution which made the case of prosecution collapse. Upon meticulous examination of entire evidence on record, it is observed that, except mere allegations prosecution did not file any cogent evidence or iota of proof to prove its allegations against accused, therefore this court feels that this is the right case where accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
14.IN THE RESULT, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 382 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248[1] of Code Of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as prescribed under section 437-A of Code of
Criminal Procedure. The unmarked property if any, shall be destroyed 6
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
after lapse of appeal time. The interim custody claimed by LW1 vide
Crl.M.P.No.368 of 2019 shall be made absolute. The jail authorities of
Central Prison, Nizamabad are directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not involved in any other cases and if his presence is not required, immediately after communication of judgment copy.
Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and [
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27 thday of October,
2025.
Sd/-,
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265)
I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
7
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
Prosecution Defence
PW1Poojari Shoba PW2Ansar Khan PW3Arshad Pasha Nil PW4Prakash Yeshwanth Surya Vamshi PW5Ch. Abbaiah PW6T. Nagarjuna Goud
Documents Marked
Prosecution Defence
Is the signature on scene of Ex.P1 offence panchanama. Ex.P2Is the signature on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3Is the confession and recovery Nil panchanama. Ex.P4Is the Photograph of seized property. Ex.P5Is the FIR.
Sd/-,
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
8
CC No. 113 of 2019, Dt.27-10-2025
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF C.D.)
IN THE Court OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
CC. No. 113 of 2019
1.Date of offence:25-01-2019 2.Date of Complaint:26-01-2019 3.Date of apprehension:27-01-2019 4.Date of release:Accused is in Jail.
5.Date of commencement of trial:03-04-2025 6.Date of closure of trial:22-09-2025 7.Date of Judgment ::27-10-2025 8.Explanation of delay of remarks:--
Complainant
The State through P.S: Bdohan. Description of accused :
Deva Srinivas @ Dyaka Srinivas S/o. Poshetty, age: 23 years, Reddika by caste, Occ: Labour, R/o. Thattikota of Bodhan.
Offence Under Section :382 of IPC
Finding :Not guilty
Sentence :Acquitted
Sd/-,
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum- I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class, Bodhan, FAC: Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
To The Hon’ble I-Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge, Nizamabad.
9
OS No. 76 of 2025, dt. 20-11-2025
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BODHAN.
Present: Sri Essampelli Sai Shiva
I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bodhan.
Thursday, the 20 th day of November, 2025
Original Suit No. 76 of 2025
Between:
G. Paparao S/o. Doraiah, age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Raikur camp Rudrur Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. … Plaintiff
AND
MD. Shaik Javeed S/o. Shaik Zahur, aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.7 89, Saiflgally, Govt. Urdu school, Rudrur Mandal Rudrur, Dist. Nizamabad.
... Defendant
This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence
of Sri K. Vidya Sagar, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant is set
Ex-Parte; upon perusing the material on record; upon hearing the
arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.This suit is filed for recovery of money for an amount of Rs.51,540/- with an interest at 24% per annum from the date of filing the suit to till realization against the defendant and his properties.
1
OS No. 76 of 2025, dt. 20-11-2025
2.The averments of plaint in a nutshell:
a.The plaintiff and defendant are residents of Rudrur Mandal. As such they are known each other.
b.On 27.04.2022, the defendant approached and borrowed a sum of
Rs.30,000/- for his personal family need and in evidence the defendant executed demand promissory note agreed to pay the said borrowed amount along with interest @ 24% per annum on demand or order of the plaintiff in the presence of witness. The plaintiff is not a money lender.
c.Subsequently in spite of several demand and requests made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount. The defendant due as on today as mentioned below.
The defendant borrowed on 27.04.2022::Rs.30,000/-
Interest from 27.04.2022 to 24.04.2025::Rs.21,540/- ------------------------
Total :Rs.51,540/- -------------------------- d.On 08.04.2025 the plaintiff requested to pay the money orally calling upon the defendant to repay the borrowed amount with agreed interest. The defendant failed to pay the amount. Hence, this suit.
3.On registering the suit, summons were served to defendant. In spite of receiving sufficient service of summons defendant did not appear.
After giving ample opportunities, the defendant was set ex-parte.
4.During trial, the plaintiff examined as Pw-1 and got exhibited document Ex.A1 on his behalf.
2
OS No. 76 of 2025, dt. 20-11-2025
5.Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused material on record.
6. Basing on the plaint averments, the following points are settled for consideration.
7.Point for consideration:
1. Whether the promissory note dt. 27-04-2022 executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.51,540/- [Rupees Fifty One Thousand
Five Hundred and Forty Only] from the defendant as prayed for?
3. If so, to what relief?
8.Answer to point No.1:
During the course of trial, the plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got exhibited document Ex.A1 in support of his claim. As defendant did not turn up to the court, he was set ex-parte. The plaintiff has reiterated the averments mentioned in plaint in his chief examination affidavit. Ex.A1 is original Promissory Note dated 27-04-2022 for an amount of Rs.30,000/-.
9.On perusal of the Ex.A1, it is observed that, the defendant No.1 has requested the plaintiff to advance loan of Rs.30,000/- and Ex.A1 is original promissory note which bears the signatures of defendant and other two persons, which remained un-rebutted and shows that defendant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff along with the interest of 24% per annum. Ex.A1 bears signatures of the witnesses along with the signature of plaintiff and defendant.
Ex.A1 satisfies all conditions of a valid negotiable instrument. It is observed that, the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff in chief 3
OS No. 76 of 2025, dt. 20-11-2025
examination affidavit is supported by the documentary evidence of
Ex.A1. Ex.A1 clearly proves that, the defendant has obtained loan from plaintiff.
10.From the above documents in essence, Ex.A1, it is manifest that, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- and the said amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest comes to an amount of
Rs.51,540/-. The interest is calculated @ 24% per annum from 27-04-2022 to 24-04-2025. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant shall pay an amount of Rs.51,540/- to the plaintiff.
11.Hence, the unchallenged testimony of Pw-1 coupled with Ex.A1 proves that, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount of Rs.51,540/- [Rupees Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Only] along with interest from the defendant. This court observed that, there are no reasons found to discard the evidence of PW1.
12.The reliable testimony of PW1, coupled with Ex.A1 proves the claim of plaintiff. Hence, the evidence of the PW-1 stands vindicated.
Therefore, the point is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. Answer to Issue No.2:
IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs. The defendant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.51,540/- [Rupees Fifty One Thousand
Five Hundred and Forty Only] to the plaintiff. The defendant is directed to pay subsequent interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the suit to till the date of decree on principal amount of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and thereafter future interest @ 6% per annum on the principal amount Rs.30,000/- 4
OS No. 76 of 2025, dt. 20-11-2025
[Rupees Thirty Thousand Only] from the date of decree to till the date of realization. The defendant shall pay the said amount to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment. The plaintiff is at liberty to file an E.P in case of failure on part of the defendant to pay the said amount to the plaintiff as directed by this court.
Typed to my dictation to stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20 thday of November, 2025.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan,
FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
Appendix of Evidence-
Witnesses Examined
For Plaintiff: For Defendant:
PW-1: G. Papa Rao- None –
Exhibits marked
For Plaintiff: For Defendant :
Ex.A1Is Original Promissory Note
dt. 27.04.2022 for an amount
- Nil - of Rs.30,000/-.
Sd/-
(Essampelli Sai Shiva-TS01265) I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-
I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan,
FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan.
5
Order Record 5 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OS/76/2025 | G.Paprao vs Md. Shaik Javeed | 20 Nov 2025 | Judgment | — |
| CC/247/2025 | The State of Telangana through PS. Bodhan Town vs Kemmasarthi Dasharath | 19 Nov 2025 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CC/89/2025 | The state of Telangana through Ps. Bodhan Town vs Ayyavae Vittal | 04 Nov 2025 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CC/284/2017 | PS Bodhan Town vs Kamble Ramu | 04 Nov 2025 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CC/113/2019 | PS Bodhan Town vs Deva Srinivas @ Dyaka Srinivas | 27 Oct 2025 | Judgment | Acquitted |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Esselli Sai Shiva handled?
Esselli Sai Shiva has handled 5 court orders since 2025 at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 3 orders per month.
What types of cases does Esselli Sai Shiva hear?
Based on available records, Esselli Sai Shiva primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex.
Where is Esselli Sai Shiva currently posted?
Esselli Sai Shiva is posted as Prl Junior Civil Judge at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by Esselli Sai Shiva available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Esselli Sai Shiva are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Esselli Sai Shiva dispose cases?
Esselli Sai Shiva disposes approximately 3 cases per month, based on 5 orders handled over their tenure at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex.
Since when is Esselli Sai Shiva serving?
Esselli Sai Shiva has been serving at Bodhan, V ADJ Court Complex since 2025.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Oct 2025 — Dec 2025Prl Junior Civil Judge · 5 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court