Sri G Prabhakar

1 CC.No. 3554 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SRI G. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 01 st DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 3554 OF 20 23

BETWEEN: The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mangalhat, Hyderabad. …. Complainant

AND

Shiva Kumar Degan, S/o. Late Dharam Pal Singh, Aged 39 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o.H.No. 14-9-1162, Jinsi Chowrah, Lower Dhoolpet, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Premalatha, learned assistant public prosecutor for the state and of Sri Nand Kishore Yadav,counsel for accused and the matter having heard and stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mangalhat Police station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No. 122 of 2023 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 T.S. Gaming Act.

2.Allegations in charge sheet in brief are as follows:

a)That on 15.04.2023 at 1605 hours, on reliable information about accepting cricket betting in an organized manner from known and unknown punters directly and indirectly by one person at premises bearing No.

14-9-1164, Jinsi Chowrai, Mangalhat, Hyderabad on the ongoing Indian

Premier League match held in between Royal Challengers Bangalore vs Delhi

Capitals, which is a game of chance, believing the same to be true and 2 CC.No. 3554 of 2023 correct, LW1- Shaik Aslam, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mangalhat, with the permission of superior officers, secured two panchas, drafted search proceedings in their presence and he along with said panchas and staff raided House No.14-9-1164, Jinsi Chowrai, Mangalhat, Hyderabad at about 1640 hours, found one person by name D. Shiva Kumar (Accused herein) who was indulged in cricket betting by watching match in his cell phone through

Radhe Exchange betting website of ongoing Indian Premier League match held in between Royal Challengers Bangalore vs Delhi Capitals playing at MA

Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru; he apprehended him, recorded his confession and seized 1) Net cash of Rs. 33,000/-, 2) Cell Phones -1 which was used in commission of offence.

b)LW1 produced accused along with seized material before S.H.O.

Mangalhat, presented report at Police station on which LW5- S. Naveen

Reddy, Sub-Inspector of police, Mangalhat police station, registered a case in

Cr.No. 122 of 2023 under section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act and investigated into.

c)During the course of investigation, LW5 has examined and recorded statements of Lws.1 and 2- Shaik Aslam and T. Ravi Kumar, PC.5562; served notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. to accused and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken for the offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act against accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C., accusation for offence punishable under section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act, 3 CC.No. 3554 of 2023 was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and MOs.1 and 2 on its behalf.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under 313 Cr.P.C., incrimination circumstances, found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused

for charged offences punishable under section 3 and 4

of T.S. Gaming Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

9.The allegations against accused are that he was accepting cricket betting directly and indirectly through cell phone from known and unknown punters, concerning ongoing Indian Premier League match held in between Royal Challengers

Bangalore vs Delhi Capitals playing at M.A. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru and thereby committed the charged offences.

10.The Sub Inspector of police who conducted raid, search and seizure of case property is examined as PW1. His evidence is to the effect that on 15.04.2023 at 04:05 PM when he was present in the police station, received information that one 4 CC.No. 3554 of 2023

D. Shiva Kumar (accused) is accepting Cricket betting near Jhinsi Chowrai in respect of ongoing Indian Premier League (IPL) match between Royal Challengers Bangalore vs. Delhi Capitals at M.A. Chinna Swamy Stadium, Bangalore; he informed the same to higher officials and obtained permission to conduct search and raid; further he secured two mediators, proceeded to the said house bearing door No.14-11-1164 situated at Jhinsi Chowrai, along with LW2- T. Ravi Kumar, PC and mediators; served search proceedings under Ex.P1, when he entered into the house, he noticed that accused was found indulged in cricket betting with the help of mobile on ‘Radhe exchange betting website’, he was found in possession of cash of Rs.33,000/-, one cell phone; that in the presence of mediators, he recorded confession of accused wherein he admitted that he is accepting cricket betting; he has reduced said confession into writing, seized cash of Rs.33,000/- and one cell phone under MOs.1 and 2; that Ex.P2 is the Confession-cum-seizure panchanama; after completion of proceedings along with accused person, seized property and mediators, proceeded to police station and lodged a complaint to the S.H.O. under Ex.P3 and handed over the material and man to S.H.O. He identified accused as the person who was apprehended by him.

11.PW1 admitted in his cross examination that information received by him is cognizable in nature and that entire investigation like recording confession, seizure of property took place prior to issuance of F.I.R. He admitted that mediators are not local persons and denied suggestion that they are stock panchas. He further admitted that he has not stated denomination of the seized cash in his statement that that MO2 does not disclose particulars of mediators on the slip affixed to it. Ge also admitted he has not collected any document to show that a cricket match was going on, on that date. He denied suggestions that no such match was being played 5 CC.No. 3554 of 2023 on that date and that by implanting Mos.1 and 2 foisted false case against accused and that accused has not confessed about any offence.

12.The investigation officer is examined as PW4. He deposed that on 15.04.2023 he received report from PW1 under Ex.P3, basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No. 122/2023 u/sec. 3 and 4 of Gaming Act and issued FIR under Ex.P6 ; that during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded statements of

PW1 and LW2- PC 9771; served notice to accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C.; deposited case property in the court and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

13.PW4 admitted in his cross examination that he has not obtained signature of

PW1 in column no.14 of FIR and that he has not visited scene of offence and not collected any document to connect the accused with scene of offence. He also admitted that he has not filed any document to show that accused is owner of MO2 and that he has not sent MO2 mobile to Forensic science laboratory so as to collect information regarding cricket betting. He further admitted that he has not seized any document to show that cricket match was going on, on the alleged date of incident. He denied suggestion that MO2 is falsely planted in this case, that no such incident took place, that accused is innocent and that MO1 belongs to accused. PW4 further admitted that he has not collected the data or details of persons who participated in betting with accused as alleged.

14.In order to bring home guilt of accused for the offence u/s.3 of the TS Gaming

Act 1974 (the act), prosecution has to establish that the accused is either owner, tenant or occupant of the gaming house. But no material is filed in that direction.

The alleged search and seizure is said to be conducted in premises No.14-9-1164, 6 CC.No. 3554 of 2023

Jhinsi Chowrai, Mangalhat, Hyderabad. No document is filed in respect of ownership or otherwise of the said house to connect the same with the accused to establish offence u/s.3 of the act. Hence, the charge under section 3 of the act becomes groundless.

15.PWs.2 and 3, who are mediators for search proceedings and confession-cum- seizure panchanama of accused, since turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the alleged confession of accused and seizure of property becomes unbelievable. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and their admissions in the cross examination, it is concluded that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

16.In the result, accused is found not guilty for offences punishable under

Sections 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for next six months as per 437 – A Cr.P.C. MO1 cash of Rs.33,000/- is ordered to be returned to accused. MO2 is ordered to be confiscated to the state.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01 st day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:

PW-1: Shaik Aslam -NONE- PW-2: Govind Parashar PW-3: Pradeep Sharma PW-4: S. Naveen Reddy 7 CC.No. 3554 of 2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Search Proceedings Ex.P-2: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-3: Complaint Ex.P4: Signature of PW2 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW3 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P6: First Information Report

FOR ACCUSED:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1: Net cash of Rs.33,000/- MO.2: One Cell phone

Sd/-

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

//TRUE COPY//

1 CC.No. 6082 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SRI G. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 28 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

CC.No. 6082 OF 20 20

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ….Complainant

AND

1) Bantu Deepak, S/o. B. Dasharath, Age 22 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. 18-4-29/1/A, Gandhi Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

2) Bantu Dinesh S/o. B. Dasharath, Age 20 years, Occ: Catering Boy, R/o. 18-4-29/1/A, Gandhi Nagar, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

…Accused No.1 and 2

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Premalatha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri G. Kranthi Kumar, Advocate,counsel for accused and the matter having heard and stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma police station [P.S] filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 86 of 2020 for the offences punishable under sections 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (short for ‘IPC’).

2.The allegations in charge sheet in brief are as under:

a)That on 26/02/2020 at 0030 hrs LW1 – D. Suresh Babu, P.C. 3203 of P.S.

Falaknuma lodged complaint stating that on 25/02/2026 at about 2330 hours while he was performing night patrolling duty in BC–I area along with

H.G.6745 Zaheeruddin, when they reached near Darbar Maisamma Wines 2 CC.No. 6082 of 2020 found accused No. 1 and 2 quarreling, on that he went to them and politely asked them to go away from there; on that A1 and A2 started abusing him in filthy language and pushed back; later with the help of Patrol Car-I, P.C.9770

Somesh brought them to Falaknuma police station, hence the complaint.

b)On the above complaint, a case in Cr.No. 86/2020 was registered under sections 353 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into.

c)During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded; conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators; accused were arrested on 27/02/2020 and produced before court for Judicial Remand; on completion of investigation Charge Sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences punishable under sections 353 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. They were examined under section 239

Cr.P.C., accusation and charges for the offence punishable under section 353 r/w 34

IPC was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 on its behalf.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances, found against them in the evidence of 3 CC.No. 6082 of 2020 prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to them, for which they denied and did not propose any evidence in their defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused for

charged offence punishable U/sec. 353 r/w 34 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

9.The evidence of prosecution witnesses is as under:

PW1- D. Suresh Babu, who worked as constable at Falaknuma police station deposed that on 25-01-2020 he, along with LW2- Zaheeruddin, was on patrolling duty and were moving near Darbar Maisamma wines; at about 11.30 PM they noticed that some people were quarreling, they went there and asked them politely to go away, said two persons became angry and abused them in filthy language and pushed them; they summoned patro car for help, Somesh constable and Sadath Ali constables- LW3 and 4 came there, took both of them to police station and lodged a complaint to the S.I. of police under Ex.P1; that said two persons are Dinesh and

Deepak and stated that he can identify them.

10.PW2- Zaheeruddin, who worked as Home Guard at Falaknuma police station deposed that on 25-02-2020 he along with PW1-Zaheeruddin was on patrolling duty and were moving near Darbar Maisamma wines, at about 11.30 PM two people were quarreling and seeing the same they went there and asked them politely to go away, said persons became angry, pushed them, abused in filthy language, on that they summoned patro car for help; Somesh constable and Sadath Ali constables LWs.3 4 CC.No. 6082 of 2020 and 4 came there, they took them and offenders to police station; the said persons are Dinesh and Deepak; that PW1 lodged a complaint to the SI of police.

11.PW4- K. Venkateshwar, who worked as S.I. of Police at Falaknuma P.S. deposed that on 26.02.2020 at about 0030 hours LW9- G. Sudheer Kumar, ASI of Police received a complaint under Ex.P1, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.

86/2020 u/sec. 353 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P3; that he has taken up investigation in this matter, during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of PWs.1 to 3, Lws.3, 4 and 6- PC 9770, HG 3677 and A.Narsing

Rao; observed scene of offence place in the presence of Lws.7 and 8; Ex.P4 is the

Crime details form; that on 27.02.2020 A1 and A2 were arrested and produced in the court for judicial custody and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

12.It is pertinent to mention here that PW3 is cited as one of the eye witnesses to the incident, but coming to the court he turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the home guard who accompanied PW1 during patrolling duty near Darbar Maisamma wines. PW4 is the investigation officer.

Coming to cross examination PW1 admitted that few other persons were also present at place of offence and that it is a main road and busy locality. He stated that he does not know whether both the accused are real brothers and admitted that there is no prohibition for both brothers to talk on public road. He denied suggestion that no such incident occurred and he was not at all present there.

13.It is elicited in the cross examination of PW2 that he stated in his statement that accused argued with them but admitted that he has not mentioned nothing like accused abused him. He denied false implication of accused. Coming to the cross 5 CC.No. 6082 of 2020 examination of PW4, he admitted that he has not collected any CCTV footage in this case, that he has not conducted any enquiry regarding drunken state of accused and that accused were not sent to hospital. PW3 denied suggestion that he foisted false case for the purpose of statistical purpose.

14.Though prosecution cited eye witnesses, except PW3 no other eye witness is produced before this court on behalf of prosecution. Moreover, prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses in support of its case so as to render support to the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4. Only evidence available on record is of PWs.1, 2 and 4 who are police officials. In the above circumstances, in the absence of any cogent evidence supporting the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4, their evidence cannot be believed as Gospel truth. For all these reasons it is concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

15.In the result, accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for next six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1- D. Suresh Babu-None- 6 CC.No. 6082 of 2020

PW2- Zaheeruddin PW3- K. Sai PW4- K. Venkateshwar, Sub-Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Complaint Ex.P2- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex. P3- First Information Report Ex.P4 – Crime Details Form

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //TRUE COPY//

1 CC.No. 4363 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SRI G. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 02 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 4363 OF 2022

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ….Complainant

AND

Adil Faiz S/o. Mohammed Arif, Age: 24 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. H.No. 8-15-79/9, Mohamadia colony, Mailardevpally, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Premalatha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Syed Osman, Advocate,counsel for accused and the matter having heard and stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma police station [P.S] filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No.84 of 2022 for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (short for ‘IPC’).

2.Allegations in the charge sheet in brief are as under:

a)That on 09.04.2022 at 0030 hours LW1-Feroz Khan lodged complaint stating that on 08.04.2022 at about 06.30 PM while he was in his in-law’s house, received information that his Father-in-law by name Shaik Abdullah met with an accident at Andhra Bank lane, on that he went to the spot, came to know that while his father-in-law was crossing the road in front of 2 CC.No. 4363 of 2022

Sri Vinayaka Wines, Shamsheergunj, Falaknuma, Hyderabad, one unknown person came on a motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed his father-in-law due to which he fell down on road and received bleeding injury on head, on that he took him to Osmania hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment the injured Shaik Abdullah died. Hence, the complaint.

b)On the above complaint, case in Cr.No. 84/2022 was registered under section 304(A) IPC and investigated into.

c)During the course of investigation, police examined and recorded statements of witnesses; observed scene of offence place, prepared rough sketch of the scene, conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased, subjected the dead body for postmortem examination; Police collected CCTV footage nearby place of offence and came to know that rider of motorcycle bearing No. TS12EJ6086 dashed to deceased causing injuries resulting his death; served notice to accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C.; investigation officer has referred the crime vehicle for inspection by the Motor vehicles

Inspector; after collecting postmortem examination report, Motor vehicles

Inspector report and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC.

4.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., accusation for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

3 CC.No. 4363 of 2022 5.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11 on its behalf.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances, found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused for

charged offence punishable U/sec. 304(A) IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

9.Case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.2022 at about 06.30 PM Shaik

Abdullah met with accident near Sri Vinayaka wines, Andhra Bank line, Falaknuma,

Hyderabad while crossing the road where he was hit by unknown vehicle and later it was found that accused is the person who caused the accident.

10.The son-in-law of deceased, examined as PW1, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and stated that Ex.P1 is his signature on complaint but does not know its contents. In clear words, he stated that they do not want to proceed with the case. He has even denied his statement before police u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. as in Ex.P2.

A circumstantial witness, examined as PW2, also turned hostile to the case of prosecution and denied her statement under Ex.P3. One of the mediators for 4 CC.No. 4363 of 2022 inquest, examined as PW3 also turned hostile and did not state anything except identifying his signature as Ex.P4 in Inquest panchanama.

11.PW4 is the investigation officer in this case. He deposed that on 09.04.2022 at 0030 hours he received complaint from PW1 under Ex.P5 basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No. 84/2022 u/sec.337 IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P6; that during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded statements of PWs.1, 2, LWs.3 and 4- Shaik Yousufuddin and Shaik Mustafa; he received information on 09.04.2022 that the injured Shaik Abdullah succumbed to injuries, on that he filed memo adding sec.304-A IPC under Ex.P7; he secured the presence of PW3 and LW6, observed scene of offence in their presence under Ex.P8; conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased in the presence of same mediators under Ex.P9; he sent the dead body for postmortem examination by filing a requisition; the medical officer,

LW8- Dr. K. Sudhakar Suresh held autopsy on the dead body of deceased and issued

P.M.E. report under Ex.P10 opining that cause of death is due to head injury; he sent crime vehicle i.e., Baja motorcycle bearing No. TS12EJ6086 to R.T.A., South zone-

LW7 who inspected the crime vehicle and issued report under Ex.P11 stating that accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle; that on 12.04.2022 he apprehended the accused, served notice u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet. During cross examination, PW4 denied suggestion that accused is innocent, that he has not committed any offence and that in order to help kith and kin of deceased to claim compensation he filed false case.

12.All material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution and there is no material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to show that accused is 5 CC.No. 4363 of 2022 responsible for the accident resulting in the death of deceased. Therefore, the charge becomes groundless.

13.For all the above reasons, it is concluded that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is found entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for next six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1- Feroz Khan -None- PW2- Smt. Tasleem Begum PW3- Afroz Khan PW4- B. Ravi Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Signature of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4- Signature of PW3 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P5- Complaint Ex.P6- First Information report Ex.P7- Section addition memo Ex.P8- Crime details form 6 CC.No. 4363 of 2022

Ex.P9- Inquest panchanama Ex.P10- Postmortem examination report Ex.P11- Motor vehicles Inspector report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //TRUE COPY//

1 CC.No. 3094 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SRI G. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

CC.No. 3094 OF 20 20

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ….Complainant

AND

A. Srikanth, S/o. A. Vijay, Age: 24 years, Occ: Private job, R/o. H.No. 23-1-629/1, Bibi Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Premalatha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Rajesh Kuber, Advocate,counsel for accused and the matter having heard and stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma police station [P.S] filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 417 of 2019 for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (short for ‘IPC’).

2.Allegations in the charge sheet in brief are as under:

a)That on 22.12.2019 at 0030 hours LW1- Mohd. Anwar lodged complaint stating that on 21.12.2019 at about 1300 hours his younger brother by name

Mohd. Mazar went out from home by intimating that he is going for work, that on same day at about 2150 hours while he was present at home, received a telephone call from his brother Mohd. Sarwar stating that younger brother 2 CC.No. 3094 of 2020

Mohd. Mazar met with an accident while going on bike along with his friend near Andhra Bank, Shamsheergunj and fell under bus tyre and received head injury, on that he went to the spot and came to know that his brother was shifted to Osmania general hospital with the help of local people by

Falaknuma police; he rushed to Osmaina general hospital and there duty doctor declared his brother as brought dead. Hence, the complaint.

b)On the above complaint, case in Cr.No. 417/2019 was registered under section 304(A) IPC and investigated into.

c)During the course of investigation, police examined and recorded statements of witnesses; observed scene of offence place, prepared rough sketch of the scene, conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased, subjected the dead body for postmortem examination; investigation officer has referred the crime vehicle for inspection by the Motor vehicles Inspector; accused was apprehended on 24.12.2020, served with notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C; after collecting postmortem examination report,

Motor vehicles Inspector report and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken for the offence punishable under section 304(A) of IPC.

4.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C., accusation for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC was read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

3 CC.No. 3094 of 2020 5.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P7 on its behalf.

6.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances, found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused for

charged offence punishable U/sec. 304(A) IPC beyond

reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

9.PW1 is the brother of deceased. He deposed that the deceased Mohd. Mazar is his younger brother and LW2- Noorjahan Begum is his mother and that the accused is a friend of his younger brother. He identified his signature on the complaint as Ex.P1 but stated that he does not know its contents. During cross examination, he stated that he came to know about the accident through friends of his younger brother, which means that he has no personal knowledge of the case.

Thus, PW1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

10.PW2 is the investigation officer. He deposed that on 22.12.2019 at 0030 hours he received a complaint from PW1 under Ex.P2 and basing on it, registered a case in

Cr.No. 417/2019 u/sec. 304(A) IPC and issued FIR under Ex.P3; during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded statements of PW1, Lws.2 to 4- 4 CC.No. 3094 of 2020

Noorjahan Begum, Md. Afroz, Khaja Ameeruddin; secured the presence of

Lws.7 and 8- Mohd. Arif and Ramakanth, observed scene of offence place in their presence; that Ex.P4 is the Crime details form; he visited Osmania general hospital and held inquest over the dead body of deceased Md. Mazhar in the presence of

Lws.5 and 6- Ghouse Pasha and Omer under Ex.P5; subjected the dead body of deceased to postmortem wherein LW9 - Dr. Venugopal held Autopsy on the dead body of deceased, noted down internal as well as external injuries and issued PME report under Ex.P6 stating that cause of death is head injury; crime vehicle bearing

No. TS12EN2267 bike was referred to M.V.I. for inspection, accordingly

LW10- Gyaneshwar inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report under

Ex.P7 and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle; that accused was apprehended on 24.12.2019, served with notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C. and on completion of investigation, LW12- K. Venkateshwar Jee filed charge sheet u/sec. 304(A) IPC. PW2 denied suggestion that in order to help the kith and kin of deceased to claim compensation, he foisted false case against accused.

11.Since the defacto complainant turned hostile to the case of prosecution and reportedly compromised the matter out of court, learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of Lws.2 to 10 and the evidence of LW12 was closed. It is seen from the above extracted evidence that except the evidence of investigation officer, there is no other material to support the allegations made against accused. Hence, he is entitled for acquittal.

5 CC.No. 3094 of 2020

12.For all the above reasons, it is concluded that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is found entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304(A) IPC and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for next six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1- Md. Anwar-None- PW2- K. Gokari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- Signature of PW1 on complaint Ex.P2- Complaint Ex.P3- First Information Report Ex.P4- Crime details form Ex.P5- Inquest panchanama Ex.P6- Postmortem examination report Ex.P7- Motor Vehicles Inspector report

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -Sd/- XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //TRUE COPY//

1 CC.No. 360 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT:- SRI G. PRABHAKAR,

XVI ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD

DATED THIS THE 02 nd DAY OF APRIL, 2026

CC.No. 360 OF 2018

BETWEEN:-

The State of Telangana Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Falaknuma, Hyderabad. ….Complainant

AND

Osman Bin Ahmed Aulaqi, S/o. Ahmed Bin Abdullah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 19-3- 201/7/A, Jahanuma, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. …Accused

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Premalatha, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri Ram Singh, Advocate,counsel for accused and the matter having heard and stood over for determination till this day, this court made the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Falaknuma police station [P.S] filed charge sheet against accused in Crime No. 112 of 2018 for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 448, 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code (short for ‘IPC’).

2.Allegations in the charge sheet in brief are as under:

a)That on 07.06.2018 at 1800 hours LW1- Kum. Ayeshazulekha lodged complaint stating that she is working as a Teacher in Bahar Creative School at

Bibi ka chasma since two years; that three school children used to come for tuition to her home and their father by name Mr. Osman (accused herein) used to drop the children at her home; that he always tried to talk with her, 2 CC.No. 360 of 2018 harass her to marry for which she stopped taking tuition to those children and also resigned her job at school; even after that also accused used to come to her home and harass her to marry; on one occasion he wrote on a paper to marry him or have relationship with him and thrown it in front of her house; that on 29.05.2018 accused entered into her house without permission and harassed her to marry him else threatened to kill her. Hence, the complaint.

b)On the above complaint, a case in Cr.No. 112/2018 was registered under section 354(D), 448, 509, 506 IPC and investigated into.

c)During the course of investigation, police examined and recorded statements of witnesses; observed scene of offence place, prepared rough sketch of the scene; on 07.06.2018 at about 1900 hours accused was apprehended, his confession was recorded, he was produced before the court for judicial remand and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 448, 509, 506 of IPC.

4.On the appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. He was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., charges and accusation for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 448, 509, 506 of

IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he denied and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P4 on its behalf.

3 CC.No. 360 of 2018 6.On closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313

Cr.P.C.; incriminating circumstances, found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, were read over and explained to him, for which he denied and did not propose any evidence in his defence.

7.Heard both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established guilt of accused for

charged offences punishable U/sec. 354(D), 448, 509, 506

of IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINT:-

9.PW1 is the father of complainant/LW1. He stated that lw1 is not living in india, that he cannot produce her for evidence, that LW.3 Sreevani is friend of his daughter and he does not know her whereabouts. He deposed that under the apprehension that accused is troubling his daughter, they approached police and he learnt that his daughter lodged a complaint and that he does not know anything about the case personally. By saying so he turned hostile to the case of prosecution and even denied his statement before police as in Ex.P1.

10.PW2 is the investigation officer. He deposed that on 07.06.2018 at 1800 hours he received a complaint from LW1-Ayesha Julekha under Ex.P2 and basing on it, registered a case in Cr.No. 112/2018 u/secs. 354-D, 448, 506 and 509 IPC and issued

FIR under Ex.P3; that during the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded statements of PW1, LW1 and 3- Ayesha Julekha and B. Srivani; visited scene of offence place, observed the same in the presence of LW4 and 5- Sohail khan and Md. Kaiser under Ex.P4; that accused was arrested on 07.06.2018 and 4 CC.No. 360 of 2018 produced in the court for judicial custody; on completion of investigation filed charge sheet. He denied suggestion that charge sheet was filed on false allegations at the instance of LW1 and that by conducting table investigation he filed charge sheet.

11.In pursuance of evidence of PW1, the evidence of LWs.1 and 3 was closed.

The evidence of defacto complainant/victim of crime/LW1 is missing from the record which is fatal to the case of prosecution. So also in view of the hostile evidence of

PW1, it can be seen that there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the charged offence. It is seen from the above extracted evidence that except the evidence of investigation officer, there is no other material to support the allegations made against accused. Hence, accused is found entitled for acquittal.

12.For all the above reasons, it is concluded that prosecution failed to bring home guilt of accused for charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. Accused is found entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 354(D), 448, 509, 506 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted for the same under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for next six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad 5 CC.No. 360 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1- Smt. Sabiya Begum-None- PW2- K. Gokari

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2- Complaint Ex.P3- First Information Report Ex.P4- Crime details form

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -

Sd/-

XVI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad //TRUE COPY//