G. Ramalingam

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS ; AT NIRMAL

Present : G. Ramalingam, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal. FAC : Add. JMFC, Nirmal

Monday, this the 10th day of February, 2020

C.C.No. 640 of 2015

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Sarangapur. ...Prosecution // A N D //

Rathod Mangilal, S/o. Bimla, Age: 35 years, R/o. Ranapur village, Sarangapur mandal. …Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on this the 3rd February, 2020 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Accused person and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Sarangapur filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 107 of 2015 against the accused for the offences under section 498-A Indian Penall Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging as follows:

2.That the LW-1 and accused performed marriage 10 years ago

before the complaint. They blessed two children. Prior to (4) months

04.09.2015 accused started harassment physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and demanding additional dowry of

Rs.50,000/- from her parents. She conducted panchayath with village elders but accused did not change his attitude. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable under sections 498-A of

Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2

3.This court took cognizance of offence against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. On appearance of the accused person, copies of case records were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act against the accused and the same was read over explained to him, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6 on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments either side.

8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt for the offence Under section 498-A of I.P.C., and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.POINT: To bring home the guilt for the said offence against the accused the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 6 and relied on

Exs.P1 to P6 documents and Mo-1 and 2 are marked.

10.PW-1 who is the defacto-complainant and it is her evidence that on 04.06.2004 she was married to accused at Dhaba village of 3

Nizamabad District. After marriage they lived at Laxmapur village of

Armoor mandal for a period of two years, and she was blessed with a child. After the birth of first child accused started harassing her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. Accused used to suspect whenever she spoke with other adult male persons and used to harass both mentally and physically. Once the accused beat her at Laxmapur village indiscriminately, she was rescued by

Juni who is her relative. Thereafter she and accused shifted to

Ranapur village over there she was blessed with another child.

Over there also the accused started harassing her both physically and mentally demanding Rs.50,000/-. Unable to bare his harassment she went to her parents house and a panchayat was held in which the accused promised her to take proepr care of her in presence of LW4 to 6 but the accused did not keep up his words and he did not mend his behavior. Once accused beat her as such another panchayat was held to resolve the dispute but the accused idd not heed any body’s words and in-turn he abused the elders and myself. Unable to bear his harassment she went to police station and lodged the complaint.

11.PW-2 who is father of PW-1 deposed in his evidence that at about 12 years back accused got married PW-1. They were in love, on accepting their choice he performed their marriage at Dhaa village, at the time of marriage he presented net cash of Rs.20,000/- and house hold articles of worth Rs.10,000/- at marriage to the accused. After marriage, both accused and PW1 lived at Laxmipur of Armoor mandal for a period of one year, during that time they were blessed with a child from then on wards accused started 4 harassing PW1 both physically and mentally for Rs.50,000/- and also suspecting her fidelity. The harassment caused by the accused was informed to him by Pw1. A panchayat was called up to settle the issue and in the said panchayat accused promised to take shifted to

Ranapur village, over there also the accused harassed the PW1 both both physically and mentally and another panchayat was called up, in the panchayat accused threatened PW1 with dire consequences in presence of PW4 to 6. Then they went to police and lodged a complaint.

12.PW3 deposed that about 13 to 14 years ago, accused married

PW1 and their marriage is love marriage. They blessed with two children during their wedlock. After their marriage, they lived happily for a period of six or seven years. About 5 years back, on one day, PW1 placed a panchayath before elders making allegation against the accused that he beat her in drunken state. He was one of the elder in that panchayath. In that panchayath they advised the accused and PW1 to live happily. After that he came to know that PW1 lodged report.

13.PW4 deposed that about 13 to 14 years ago, accused married

PW1 and their marriage is love marriage. They blessed with two children during their wedlock. After their marriage, they lived happily for a period of four years. Thereafter, accused started harassment by abusing PW1 in filthy language and accused used to beat her in drunken state. PW1 and her parents informed the same to me. On that we conducted a panchayath before our village elders. I am also one of the elder in that panchayath. In the 5 panchayath we advised the accused to change his attitude and look after well of PW1. Then the accused confessed his harassment towards PW1 and he promised to take care of PW1 in proper manner. Four to five times panchayaths were conducted. Further, he deposed that the police never examined him nor recorded my statement.

14.PW5 who is one of panch witness for conducting sceene of offence panchanama under Ex.P6 according the case of prosecution, but he did not support the case of prosecution as he turned hostile.

It is his evidence that he knows the LW7/J. Prem Singh as he is villager. He knows the accused as he is along his villager, about for or five years back police came to their village at afternoon hours, and they prepared some papers at the house of their village sarpanch, and they obtained his signatures. Police never conducted any panchanma in his presence. He identified his signature on the crime details form, but he does not know the therein. His signature on Crime Details Form was marked as Ex.P4.

15.PW6 who is Investigating officer, and deposed on the lines of charge sheet about his investigation and filing of charge sheet. In his evidence marked the Ex.P5 and P6 documents. He denied a suggestion in his cross-examination that on false complaint given by

PW1, he falsely registered this case against the accused. Further he denied another suggestion that the accused never harassed the

PW1 in any manner at any time nor demanded any dowry nor received any dowry at the time of marriage Neither from PW1 or from parents of PW1.

6

16.Counsel for the Accused submitted in his arguments that on false report made by PW1, the Investigating officer registered this false case, and there are several discrepancies in the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 and their evidence is totally develoiped version

before the court, and their evidence can not be considered as their

evidence is not corroborating with their earlier statements before the police and prayed the court to consider all the aspects in evaluating the truth in the allegations made against the accused.

17.There is no dispute with regard to marriage of PW1 with the

Accused on 04-06-2004, and during their matrimonial life they blessed with two children.

18.According to Ex.P1/police report it is stated that Accused is harassing her from the last four months. But, PW-1 deposed that after the birth of first child accused started harassing her by demanding her additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. PW-2 also deposed the same on this aspect. Here a doubt is creating in the minds of court that whether the accused is harassing from the birth of first child or four months of prior lodging of police report/Ex.P1. The evidence of PW1 developed this version in her evidence from Ex.P1, and also her previous statement given before the police.

19.It is further evidence of PW1 that the accused beat her at

Laxmapur village indiscriminately, and she was rescued by Juni, who is her relative, but it is not stated in Ex.P1, nor his name is cited in the list of witnesses. The PW1 admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention specifically in Ex.P1 stating that once the accused beat her at Laxmapur village indiscriminately, and she was 7 rescued by one Juni, who is her relative as deposed, and the

Investigating officer also not examined nor cited as witness the said relative of PW1 namely Juni in the charge sheet.

20.It is further evidence of PW1 that unable to bare harassment of

Accused she went to her parents house and a panchayath was held in which the accused promised her to take proper care of her in presence of LW4 to LW6 but the accused did not keep up his words and he did not mend his behavior. The said LW4 and LW5 were examined as PW3 and PW4. But PW3 deposed that in the panchayath they advised the accused and PW1 to live happily. PW4 deposed in his evidence on this aspect that in the panchayat they advised the accused to change his attitude and look after well of

PW1, and further deposed that the accused confessed his harassment towards PW1 an dhe promised to take care of PW1 in proper manner. But, here the evidence of PW3 and PW4 are not corroborating the evidence on this aspect.

21.Further, PW4 deposed in his evidence that after their marriage, they lived happily for a period of four years, thereafter, accused started harassment by abusing PW1 in filthy language and accused used to beat her in drunken state. PW3 deposed in his evidence on this aspect that the accused beat her in drunken state, and in his cross-examination he deposed that that PW1 not stated

before their elders stating that the alleged accused beat her in

several time when he was in drunken state, and witness voluntarily states that PW1 stated that prior to one day of panchayat the alleged accused beat her while he was in drunken state. Here the 8 evidences of PW3 and PW4 are not corroborating on this aspect.

Moreover, the PW3 and PW3 were declared as hostile witnesses,

PW3 denied a suggestion during the examination under section 154 of Indian Evidence by the learned that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2 i.e., marked portion of his section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and PW4 denied a suggestion during his examination under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act by the learned A.P.P. that he stated

before the police as in Ex.P3 i.e., section 161 Cr.P.C. satement.

Further, the PW4 deposed that police never examined him nor recorded his statement. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 are only panchayath elders only and they are not the direct witness to any alleged incident in between the PW1 and Accused, and their evidences are not inspiring in the minds of court.

22.PW5 who is one of panch witness for conducting scene of offence panchanama/Crime Details form under Ex.P6, but he did not support the case of prosecution as he turned hostile, and nothing was elicited during his examination under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act by the learned A.P.P.

23.Viewed from any angle, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 are not inspiring confidence and their evidence is not free from clouds of doubt. The Investigating officer failed to examine the persons who are residing at the place where the PW1 and Accused were residing after their marriage.

24.The cardinal principle of criminal law can not be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The standered of proof is not preponderance of 9 probabilities but poof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any benefit doubt goes in favour of the accused.

25.In view of my foregoing discussion, this court finds that absolutely there is no sufficient evidence on record against the

Accused to connect him with the charges leveled against him. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and in these circumstances the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

26. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is in judicial custody. The jail authorities are directed to release the Accused forthwith in this case, if is not required in any other case. The accused is directed to execute a personal bond ofr Rs.10,000/- till completion of appeal period as per provision under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of February, 2020.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal FAC : Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION : ACCUSED

PW.1 : Rathod Aruna- Nil- PW.2 : B.Bapu Rao PW.3 : Jadav nagesh Nayak 10

PW.4 : Chawan Babulal PW.5 : R.Tata Chand PW.6 : B.Srinivas

(EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION : ACCUSED

Ex.P1: Police report -Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4 Ex.P4: Signature of PW-5 on crime details form Ex.P5: First information report Ex.P6: Crime details form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal FAC : Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal 11

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : AT NIRMAL.

CC No. 640 of 2015

1Name of Complainant:: The State through S.H.O., Sarangapur 2Names of Accused:: Rathod Mangilal, S/o. Bimla, Age: 35 years, R/o. Ranapur village, Sarangapur mandal.

3Nature of Offence:: under sections 498-A, and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act 4Finding:: Not guilty 5Sentence :: Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence :: From four months prior to 04.09.2015 7Date of Complaint:: 04.09.2015 8Date of ::05.09.2015 Surrender/Apprehension the accused 9Date of released on bail:: Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is complied 10Date of Commencement of :: 04.10.2017 trail 11Date of Closure of trial:: 28.01.2020 12Date of Sentence or Order:: 10.02.2020 13Explanation of delay:: Non-producing the witnesses

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

Submitted to; The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

1 C.C.No. 200 of 2018

 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT BHAINSA. 

Present : G. Ramalingam, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa.

Thrusday, on this the 28th day of November, 2019

C.C.No. 200 of 2018

Between:

The State through Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.Tanoor. ...Prosecution A N D

1) Jadav Subash s/o Bapu Rao, aged: 35 Years, Occ: Agricutlure, R/o Masalga Thanda village of Tanoor Mandal,

2) Jadav Dinesh S/o Bapu Rao, aged: 36 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Main Road, Tanoor, N/o Masagala Thanda village of Tanoor Mandal.

…Accused No. 1 & 2

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G. Keerthivardhan, Counsel for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Tanoor filed charge sheet in Crime No. 90 of 2017 for the offences under section 304­A Indian Penal Code, and section 181 of M.V.

Act against the Accused No.1, and for the offences punishable under sections 180 and 196 of M.V. Act., against the Accused No.2 alleging as follows:

On 2011­2017 at about 7­00 PM, the deceased/Ramesh went to his cotton field in order to provide flow of water to the crop, and after completion of work, while he was returning home by wal, on the way at about 8­45 PM, near Nandgoan X­road, mean time the Accused who was coming from Mudhole side, and proceeding towards

Tanoor by riding the Bajaj Discover DTS motor cycle bearing No.AP­01­AC­6357 in 2 C.C.No. 200 of 2018 rash and negligent manner, without having driving license and dashed the deceased from his back side, due to which the deceased fell down on the road in flying position, and started bleeding from his ear and mouth. LW2 and LW5 eye witnessed the accident, and while shifting to Govt. Hospital, Nixamabad, on the way, near Navipet village the deceased succumbed to injuries at about 11­15 PM on the same day. Thus, the Accused No1. committed for the offenses punishable under sections 304­A of

I.P.C., and section 181 of M.V.Act, and Accused No.2 committed for the offences punishable under sections 180 and 196 of M.V. Act. 

02.Cognizance was taken Under sections 3offenses punishable under sections 304­

A of I.P.C., and section 181 of M.V.Act, and Accused No.2 committed for the offences punishable under sections 180 and 196 oif M.V. Act . Copies of documents are furnished to the accused No.1 and 2 under Sec.207of Cr.P.C. on their appearance.

03. Accused No. 1 and 2 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining substance of accusation for the offence under sections offenses punishable under sections 304­A of I.P.C., and section 181 of M.V.Act, and sections 181 and 196 of M.V.

Act 304­A IPC, respectively, for which they pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case examined PW­1 to PW­7 and got marked

Exs.P1 to Ex.P13. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused No. 1 and 2.

05.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused No. 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf.

06.Heard both sides and perused record.

07.The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt for the offenses punishable under sections 304­A of I.P.C. and section 181 of M.V.Act against the Accused No1 ; and for the offences punishable under sections 181 and 196 oif M.V. Act against the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

3 C.C.No. 200 of 2018

08.POINT: To bring home the guilt for the said offence against the accused the prosecution has examined PW­1 to 7 and relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 documents.

09. PW­1 is complainant, and who is brother of deceased Ramesh, according to the case of prosecution, but he did not fully support the case of prosecution version, and it is his evidence that the deceased Ramesh is his elder brother. LW2 is son, and LW3 is wife deceased Ramesh. About 2 years agao, on one day at about 8­00 PM, when I was in Darmora village, he received an information that his brother Ramesh met with accident, while he was going his home from his fields, and he sustained injuries. the accident was occurred due to hit of cyclemotor. He does not know cycle motor number. Immediately, after the accident he his brother was shifted to Mudhole hospital by their family members, and on the advise of doctors when his brother was shifting to Government Hospital, Nixamabad, on the way he succumbed to injuries.

On the next day police came his home, and obtained his signature on white papers.

he identified his signature on police report, but he does know the contents therein.

Police never never examined nor recorded his statement. In his evidence his signature on police report was marked as Ex.P1. He was declared hostile, he denied a suggestion in his examination by the learned A.P.P. under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act, that on 21­11­2017 at 8­30 PM he lodged a police report, and he stated

before the police as in Ex.P2 i.e., his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. 

10.PW2 who is son of deceased/Ramesh, and he is eye witness to the alleged accident, but he did not support the case of prosecution version. It is evidence of PW2 that about two yeas ago on one day at about 8­00 PM, his father met with an accident in their village, and he sustained injuries. he does not know how the accident was occurred. At the time of accident, he was in their house. after the accident his father was shifted to Government Hospital, Mudhole from there while again his father was shifting to Government Hospital, Nizamabad for better treatment, but on the way he succumbed to injuries. Except the same he does not know any thing about the case.

4 C.C.No. 200 of 2018

He was also declared hostile, and he denied a suggestion during the examination by the learned under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 i.e., his 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

11.PW3 who is friend of PW2, and he is also eye witness to the accident according to the case of prosecution, but he also did not support the prosecution case version.

It is his evidence that about one year back on one day at about 8­00 PM, when the deceased Ramesh was coming from his fields, on the way at the outskirts of their village, suddenly one motor cycle dashed to the said Ramesh, at that time he was going in opposite direction of deceased Ramesh with a some distance. He does not know motor cycle bearing number, and its driver. he did not say perfectly how the accident was occurred as he did not see the accident perfection due to dark night. He was also declared hostile, and during examination by the learned A.P.P. he admitted a suggestion that he stated before the police at the time of recording his statement that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle.

But, he denied another suggestion that he stated the name of driver before the police as Jadav Subhash.

12.PW4 and PW5, who are panch witnesses for conducting scene of offence panchanama i.e., Crime Details form/Ex.P12, and Inquest panchanama/Ex.P11, but they did not support the case of prosecution except admission of their signatures on

Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 as they turned hostile.

13.PW6 who is Asst. Motor vehicle Inspector, and he deposed bout inspection of crime vehicle bearing No.AP­01­AC­6357, and also issuance of M.V.I. report. In his evidence, M.V.I. Report was marked as Ex.P8. 

14.PW7 who is Investigating officer, and he deposed his evidence about investigation in this case, on the lines of charge sheet. In his evidence marked Ex.P9 to

Ex.P13 i.e., Ex.P9 is F.I.R., Ex.P10 is Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P11 is Crime Details form, and Ex.P12 is (3) Photos along with C.D., and Ex.P13 is PME report. He denied 5 C.C.No. 200 of 2018 a suggestion in his cross­examination that the Accused No.1 and 2 are innocent of allegations made in the charge sheet. 

 15.The prosecution positively has to prove the case that the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving of driver of Crime vehicle, and at the time of accident, the accused No.1 was driver of crime vehicle without having license, and the Accused

No.2 gave crime vehicle to the Accused No.1. Admittedly PW­1 is not eye witness.

PW2 and PW3 are eye witnesses to the alleged accident according to the case of prosecution, thus their evidence is very crucial, but they did not support the case of prosecution version. According to evidence of PW2, at the time of accident he was in their house, and he does not know how the accident was occurred, hence his evidence is not useful to the case of prosecution. Coming to another eye witness i.e, PW3, and according to his evidence, at the time of accident he was going in opposite direction of deceased Ramesh with some distance, he does not know motor cycle bearing number, and its driver, and he did not say perfectly how the accident was occurred as he did not see the accident perfectly due to dark night. PW3 also did say that how the accident was occurred, and in whose negligence the accident was occurred, and identification of driver of crime vehicle, hence his evidence is also not useful to the case of prosecution. Moreover, PW4 and PW5 who are panch witnesses for conducting scene of offence panchanama and Inquest panchanama, but they also did not support the cae of prosecution except admission of their signatures. Nothing was also elicited during the examination of PW1 to PW4 by the learned A.P.P. under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act in favour of prosecution version. The evidences of

PW5 and PW6 are not sufficient as their evidences are not being supported by the

PW1 to PW4. Thus, the evidence available on record in this case is not sufficient to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

Crime vehicle, and Accused No.1 was the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, and accused No. 2 gave his crime vehicle knowingly though the Accused No1 is not having valid license at the time of alleged accident. In these circumstances, it is 6 C.C.No. 200 of 2018 not safe to connect the Accused No.1 and 2 for the alleged offences referred in this case. 

16.In view of my foregoing discussion, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused No.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident, and the alleged accident was occurred due to his negligence with the Crime vehicle.

Further, the prosecution also failed to establish that the Accused No2. handed over his crime vehicle to the accused No.1 knowingly he (Accused No.1) is not having license.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt for the offence under sections 304­A of I.P.C., and section 181 of M.V.Act, against the Accused No1, and sections 181 and 196 oif M.V. Act against the Accused No.2, beyond all the reasonable doubts and in the circumstances the Accused No. 1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

17.In the result, the accused No. 1 is found not guilty for the offence Under sections 304­A of Indian Penal Code, Sections 181 and 196 of M.V. Act, and Accused

No.2 is found nto guilty for the offences under sections 181 and 196 of M.V.Act, and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time as per the provision under section 437­A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of

November, 2019.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal. FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa. 

7 C.C.No. 200 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION :ACCUSED

PW.1 : Kadam Madhav Rao, ­ Nil­ PW.2 : Kadam Ganesh, PW.3 : Sirigiri Ankush, PW.4 : J. Gangadhar, PW.5 : M. Balaji, PW.6 : K. Harindrakumar, PW.7 : G. Rajanna, Investigating Officer. 

(EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Police report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW­1, Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW­2, Ex.P4 : Signature of PW4 on Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P5 : Signature of PW4 on Crime Details form, Ex.P6 : Signature of PW5 on Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P7 : Signature of PW5 on Crime Details form, Ex.P8: MVI report Ex.P9: First Information Report Ex.P10: Inquest panchanama of deceased Ex.P11: Crime details form, EX.P12: (24) photos along with CD, Ex.P13: Postmortem report

ACCUSED

­ Nil ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

­NIL­

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal. FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa. 

8 C.C.No. 200 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT

BHAINSA

CC No. 200 of 2018

1 Name of Complainant:: Kadam Madhav Rao 2 Names of Accused::1) Jadav Subash s/o Bapu Rao, aged: 35 Years, Occ: Agricutlure, R/o Masalga Thanda village of Tanoor Mandal,

2) Jadav Dinesh S/o Bapu Rao, aged: 36 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Main Road, Tanoor, N/o Masagala Thanda village of Tanoor Mandal.

3 Nature of Offences:: Under sections 304­A of I.P.C., section 181 and 196 of M.V. Act. 4 Finding:: Not guilty 5 Sentence ::Acquitted 6 Date of Occurrence of offence::20.11.2017 7 Date of Complaint::21.11.2017 8Date of ::25.11.2017 Surrender/Apprehension the accused 25.11.2017 :: 9 Date of released on bail ( Sec.41­A Cr.P.C was complied) 10 Date of Commencement of trail ::07.11.2019 11 Date of Closure of trial::14.11.2019 12 Date of Sentence or Order::28.11.2019 13 Explanation of delay::

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa. To The Hon’ble I­Addl. District & 

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: : AT NIRMAL

PRESENT: - G. RamaLingam, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

Monday, on this the 9th day of November, 2020

C.C. No. 72 OF 2012

Between:

The State through S.H.O. Kadam. …… Prosecution

And

1) Thakkala Sathaiah S/o Mallaiah, aged: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Morriguda,

2) Donthapuram Chinna Rajam S/o Rajam, aged: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal,

3) Thalari Gangaram S/o Posham, aged: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal.

5) Allola Chinna Babu S/o Narsaiah, aged: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal.

….. Accused No.1 to 3 & 5

4) Gurunathakam Srinivas S/o Rajam, aged: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal.

( The case against Accused No.4 was split up from this case,

vide C.C. No. 499 of 2018 )

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. K. Vinayak and Sri N. Gangadhar, Counsels for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police station, Kadam filed a charge sheet in Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offenses punishable 2 under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, alleging as follows:

That on 03-01-2012 at 1730 hours, while the

LW1/complainant in charge as Panchyat secretary Bellal proceeding to Kalamadugu by bus at about 1730 hours, at

Kaddam bus stand, the Accused No. 1 to 5 entered in to the bus and forcefully lift the LW1 from the bus and taken him to Kaddam pedduru gram panchayat building, there all of them confined him (LW1) about two hours forcing him to issue dependent certificate to one Bhagya, and hen LW1 refused for the same, the Accused

No. 1 to 5 threatened him to kill by giving pesticide. Thus,

Accused No.1 to 5 committed the offense punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused No. 1 to 5 by this court.

03.The case against Accused No.4 was split up from this case vide C.C. No.499 of 2018 according to docket dt.20-10-2018 as

N.B.W was pending against him since long time.

04.Copies of documents are furnished to the accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 under Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code on their appearance.

3

05.When examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of the accusation for the offenses punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the Accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

06.The prosecution in support of its case examined the PW1 to

PW6, and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 documents.

07.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused

No. 1 to 3 and 5 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and stated that they did not commit any offence.

08.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits marked on behalf of the Accused and the defense is accordingly closed.

09.Heard arguments on both sides.

10.The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilty for the offense punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

11.POINT: To bring home the guilt for the said offenses against the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws1 to 6 and relied on Exs.P1 to P6 documents.

4

12.PW6 who is complainant and victim, and it is hsi evidence that he know all the accused, as they are resident of Bellal village.

He knows PW1, LW3/Bala Manohar, they are his colleagues. He knows PW2 to PW4, belongs to revenue department. During the relevant period of this case he worked as Panchayat Secretary of

Udumpur gram Panchayat during that time he was in-charge of

Bellal Grampanchayat. On 03-01-2012 at evening 5-00 PM, he came down to Kadam village to reach his home, and at Kadam village he boarded a bus, but however, Accused No.1 to 5 and other persons who were 18 in number pulled him out of the bus and asked him to accompany them, as he could recognize the accused as resident of Bellal village he joined them, the accused took him to Peddur Grampanchayat office, and there they all started demanding him to issue dependent certificate in their favour, he informed that since 2003 his powers as Grampanchayat

Secretary to issue dependent certificate is seized, but the accused did not believe his words and they kept on torturing him for two hours, and the said period his colleagues, PW1 and LW3/Bala

Manohar who were present over there came to me and tried to pacify the matter, but however the accused did not heed their words. Thereafter PWs 2 to 4 came to him and tried to pacify the matter, but the accused did not heed their words also. Later accused took him to MPDO office of Peddur ( Kaddam) village and three they brought one pesticide bottle and demanded him either 5 to drink the pesticide or they will consume the same. However, he could escape from the clutches of the accused. Then he went to police station and gave report to the Police. In his evidence his report was marked as Ex.P6.

13.PW2 who is eye witness to the alleged incident according to the case of prosecution, but he did not support the case of prosecution version as he was declare hostile. It is evidence that

He was Karobari of Udumpur village from 2007 to 2014. he knows

LW1(PW6), he worked as panchayat secretary of Udumpur village.

In the year 2012 he visited Kadam village to meet LW1(P6) and met him at Peddur grampanchayat and at 7-00 PM while he was returning to his village, he found Accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 along with LW1. What took place in between then is not known to him.

he does not know any thing about this case.

14.PW3 who is also eye witness to the alleged incident but he did not support the case of prosecution as he turned hostile. It is his evidence that During he relevant period of this case he worked as Revenue Inspector, Kadam from 2010 to 2012. He does not know any thing about this case. Police not examined him nor recorded his statement.

15.PW4 who is also eye witness according to the case of prosecution but he also did not support the case of prosecution as he also turned hostile. It is his evidence he worked as Revenue 6

Inspector Kadam Mandal from 2009 to June,2013. In athe year 2012 when he was at his office there were rumours that

LW1/Ibrahim was confined in his office. When he went to his office he found nothing as such I returned bak to office. Police never examined him nor recorded his statement.

16.PW5, who is one of panch witness, and whose presence the

Investigating officer conducted scene of offence panchanama, but he also did not support the case of prosecution except admission of his signature. It is his evidence that He knows LW7/Islawath

Mohan, as he worked Sarpanch of Peddur Kadam village. His signature was makred as Ex.P5. Further, it is his evidence that he is unable to recollect as to when did he put his signature or for what reasons he has put his signature. No panchanama was conducted in his presence.

17.The learned counsel for the accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 argued that the alleged accused persons are innocent of the allegations made against them,and they are no way concerned with the alleged offenses. Further argued that the Bellal villagers gave complaint against him to his higher officials in regard to his attendance at his office hours, and keeping the same in mind he lodged false report under Ex.P1.

18.It is evidence of PW6 that Accused No. 1 to 5 and others persons who were 18 in number pulled him out of the bus, but 7 according to charge sheet the Accused No. 1 to 5 entered in to the bus and forcefully lift the LW1(PW6) from the bus. But, the

Investigating officer not shown the other persons as accused in this case.

19.Further, according to evidence of PW6 that the accused persons kept on torturing him for two hours, and the said period his colleagues PW1 and LW3/Bala Manohar, who were present over there came to him and tried to pacify the matter, but however, the accused did not heed their words. On this aspect

PW1 deposed that he went to LW1 and found around 15 people of

Bellal village demanding the certificate to LW1. Apprehending that the situation will go worse, he requested LW3/K. Balamanohar to inform the same police, and in mean time police came down to

Grampanchayat office and took all of them to police station. But, it is not the evidence of PW6 that the police took all of them to police station, and moreover PW6 deposed in his evidence that he could escape from the clutches of accused, then he went to police station and gave report to the police. The prosecution failed to examine the LW3/Ka. Balamanohar. Here the evidence of PW1 and PW6 are not corroborating with each other.

20.Further, PW6 deposed in his evidence that PWs 2 to PW4 came to him and tried to pacify the matter, but the accused did not heed their words. But, the PW2 to PW4 did not support the 8 case of prosecution as they turned hostile. PW2 deposed on this aspect that he does not know any thing about this case, PW3 also deposed that he does not know any thing about this case, and

PW4 deposed that in the year 2012 when he was at his office there were rumors that LW1 (PW6) was confined in his office, when he went and found nothing as such he returned back to office. PW2 to PW4 were declared hostile, and nothing was elicited during their examination under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act by the learned A.P.P. Therefore the evidence of PW2 to PW4 are not useful to the case of prosecution.

21.PW5 who is one of pach witnesess for conducting scene of offense panchanama, but he also did not support the case of prosecution except admission of his signature as he turned hostile, and nothing was elicited during his examination under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act by the learned A.P.P.

22.The prosecution also failed to examine the LW7/another panch witness for conducting scene of offense panchanama, and

LW9/Investigating officer, and their evidences were closed.

Moreover, viewed from any angle, the evidence of PW1 is not inspiring confidence and his is not free from clouds of doubt.

23.In view of my foregoing discussion, this court finds that the absolute evidence available on record is not sufficient against the

Accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 to connect them for the alleged offenses 9 punishable under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of

Indian Penal Code . Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and in these circumstances the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

24.In the result, the Accused No. 1 to 3 and 5 are found not guilty for the offenses under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused No.

1 to 3 and 5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time as per provision 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of November, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution: PW-1 : Bikluri Narayana, PW-2 : Borla Thirupathi, PW-3 : Sheik Kareem, PW-4 : Rasmall Laxman, PW-5 : Lokini Gopi, PW-6 : Mohd. Ibrahim.

For Accused:

- Nil – 10

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 is marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, Ex.P2 is marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2, Ex.P3 is marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3, Ex.P4 is marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4, Ex.P5 is Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form, Ex.P6 is Police report.

For Accused:

-Nil-

M.Os marked. -Nil- Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

11

CALENDAR OF JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: : AT NIRMAL

C.C. No. 72 of 2012

1Name of Complainant:: The State through S.H.O., Kaddam.

2Names of Accused:: 1) Thakkala Sathaiah S/o Mallaiah, aged: 45 (Case against Accused No.4 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Morriguda, was split up from this case,

2) Donthapuram Chinna Rajam S/o Rajam, vide C.C. No. 499 of 2018. aged: 42 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Bellal,

3) Thalari Gangaram S/o Posham, aged: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal.

5) Allola Chinna Babu S/o Narsaiah, aged: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Bellal. 3Nature of Offence:: Under sections 342, 353 and 506 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code 4Finding:: Not guilty 5Sentence ::Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence ::03.01.2012 7Date of Complaint ::03.01.2012 8Date of ::05.01.2012 Surrender/Apprehension the accused 05.01.2012 9Date of released on bail::

10Date of Commencement of ::30-10-2018 trail 11Date of Closure of trial::03.11.2020 12Date of Sentence or Order::09.11.2020 13Explanation of delay::Non-producing the witnesses time to time by the police

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nirmal.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : AT NIRMAL.

PRESENT: -G. Ramalingam, Prl. Judical Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

Tuesday, on this the 24th day of December, 2019

C.C.No. 10 of 2014

Between:

The state through SH.O. Nirmal Town. … Complainant.

AND

1) Shaik Waheed S/o Hasnoddin, aged: 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Ramnagar, Nirmal.

2) Shaik Raf S/o Hasnoddin, aged: 32 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Ramnagar, Nirmal. ….Accused No.1 & 2

This case coming on this day before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and of Sri D. Jagan Mohan, Legal aid Counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal town fled a charge sheet in

Crime No. 320/2013 against the accused No. 1 and 2 for the ofenses punishable Under sections 324 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code, alleging as follows:

That accused No.1, 2 and LW1/Shaik Khadeer are close relatives and are having family dispute, in this connection they are facing criminal cases in the court, when LW1 and LW2/Shaik Juber 2 were proceeding to Court on 28.09.2013 at about 12.00 p.m., and when they reached near Bar Association Ofce, Nirmal, meanwhile accused No.1 and 2 went there and picked up quarrel with LW1 and 2 and beat them with hands. Later accused No.1 took out one blade and cut the throat of LW2 and infected bleeding injuries on the throat and neck of LW2. Thus accused No.1 and 2 have committed an ofence punishable u/s. 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02.Cognizance was taken for the ofenses Under sections 324 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the Accused No.1 and 2 by this court. Case papers were furnished to the Accused on their appearance as contemplated Under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

03.The Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed for the ofenses punishable under sections 324 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and the same were read over explained to them, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws 1 to PW6 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

05. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and stated that he did not commit any ofense.

06.Heard arguments on either side.

3

07. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt for the ofenses under sections 324 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

08.POINT: To bring home the guilt for the said ofenses against the accused the prosecution has examined Pw1 to PW6 and relied on

Exs.P1 to P4 documents.

09.PW1 who is eye witness tot he alleged incident in the case, and it is his evidence that the LW1/Shaik Kadheer and LW2/Shaik Zuber reside in our locality and accused persons belong to Nirmal Town.

He further deposed that at about 6 years back on one day at about 12.00 noon to 12.30 pm, when he was in front of Bar Association hall in the premises of Nirmal Court, accused No.1 and 2 beat the

LW1(PW2) and LW2(PW3) with their hands at frst thereafter the accused No.2 caught hold the LW2 ,and accused No.1 cut the throat of LW2 with a blade, due to which he sustained cut bleeding injury over his throat, immediately he took the LW2 to Government

Hospital Nirmal for treatment.

10.PW2 who is father of PW1 and complainant, and it is his evidence that the LW2/Shaik Juber(PW3) is his son, PW1 and

LW4/Sayyad Javeed are his relatives. He further deposed that accused No.1 and 2 are also their relatives, at about 6 years back on one day he came to the Court to attend in his case, at about 12.00 noon when he was standing near boring, which is situated near Bar

Association hall, Nirmal Court, accused No.1 and 2 came to him and beat him their hands, at that time his son/LW2 tried to rescue him 4 but they also beat him with their hands, then accused No.2 caught hold the hands of LW2 from his back side and accused No.1 cut his throat with a blade, due to which he sustained cut bleeding injury over his throat. Thereafter he along with LW2 and PW1 went to police station and lodged a police report, and police sent them to the

Government Hospital Nirmal for treatment of LW2. He further deposed that the accused No.1 and 2 made allegations against them that they are disturbing their family matters. PW1 and LW4 witnessed the incident. In his evidence marked the police report as

Ex.P1.

11.PW3 is victim and it is his evidence that the PW2 is his father, accused No.1 and 2 are their relatives so also PW1 and LW4. He further deposed that at about 6 years back on one day he came to the Court along with PW2 to attend in a case, at about 12.00 noon when he and PW2 were standing near boring, which is situated near

Bar Association hall, Nirmal Court, meantime accused No.1 and 2 came to them and beat PW2 with their hands, making allegations that their family are disturbing with him(PW2), at that time he tried to rescue PW2 but they also beat him with their hands, then the accused No.2 caught hold of his hands from his back side and accused No.1 attacked on him and caused cut injury over his throat with a blade, due to which he sustained bleeding cut injury over his throat. He further stated that after the incident he, PW1 and PW2 went to police station and PW2 lodged a police report, and police 5 sent him to the Government Hospital Nirmal for treatment. PW1 and

LW4 witnessed the incident.

12.PW4 who is one of the panch witness for Crime Details Form as per case of the prosecution, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

13.PW5 who is Medical Ofcer and he deposed about giving of treatment to the PW3 as out patient and issuance of medical certifcate. In his evidence the medical certifcate of PW3 was marked as Ex.P2.

14.PW6 who is the Investigating Ofcer in this case, and deposed about investigation on the lines of charge sheet. In his evidence marked the F.I.R. as Ex.P3, and Crime details form as Ex.P4. He denied a suggestion in his cross-examination that the accused persons are no way concerned with the alleged ofense and they were falsely implicated, and also fled false charge sheet.

15. The learned legal aid counsel argued that the Accused No.1 and 2 never beat the PW2 nor beat the PW3 at any time in any manner, and this false case was foisted against the accused persons. Further, submitted the alleged scene of place is busy area more particularly alleged time of incident with the advocates, litigants, police etc, and if the alleged ofense was took place the police ought to have to examine the other independent witnesses to prove the alleged incident.

6

16.PW2 who is complainant deposed in his evidence that after the incident, he and LW2 and PW1 went to police station, and lodged a police report, and police sent them to Government Hospital for treatment of LW2. On this aspect, according to evidence of the PW1 immediately after the incident he took the LW2(PW3) to the

Government Hospital, Nirmal for treatment. According to evidence of the Investigating ofcer/PW6 after lodging police report, he referred the PW3 to Government Area Hospital, Nirmal for treatment. Later he visited scene of place where he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, and LW4. Here the evidence of PW1 is creating doubt in the minds of the court whether he took the PW3 to the

Hospital for treatment or Investigating ofcer sent the PW3 to the

Hospital.

17.Moreover, according to evidence of PW3 that he knows

LW1(PW2) and LW2(PW3) as they reside in their locality, and further deposed that he know the accused persons as they belong to Nirmal town. But in his cross-examination he deposed that the Accused

No.1 and PW2 both are their relatives. Moreover, according to evidence of PW2 and PW3 the PW1 is their relative. PW2 and PW3 deposed in their cross-examination that at the time of alleged incident there were many public near to the alleged incident place.

PW1 not deposed in his evidence that why he was available at the alleged scene of place at the time of alleged incident. Here a doubt is also creating in minds of court that why the police not examined the other independent eye witnesses who are available at the time of 7 alleged incident. Further, no evidence is adduced to show that there are previous disputes in between accused persons and PW2,PW3, and moreover the Investing ofcer/PW6 deposed in his cross- examination that he does not know whether there are any previous disputes in between the PW3 and Accused persons. These are all creating a doubt in the minds of court with regard to alleged incident.

18.Coming to the conducting scene of ofense panchanama under

Ex.P4, it is evidence of PW6 that he visisted scene of place where he secured PW4 and LW6 as mediators, and in their presence he conducted scene of ofense panchanama and drawn roguht sketch under Ex.P4. To support the same, the prosecution examined one of panch witness i.e., PW4, but he did not support the case of prosecution as he turned hostile, and nothing was elicited during the examination by the learned A.P.P. under section 154 of Indian

Evidence Act. Further the prosecution failed to examine another witness i.e., LW4/Sayyed Javeed and his evidence was closed on fling of report fled by the police stating that his is not residing in his address.

19.The alleged blade which was used by the accused No.1 in commission of ofense against the PW3 is not recovered. It also latches on the part of investigation.

20.The cardinal principle of criminal law can not be forgotten that the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused 8 beyond reasonable doubt. The standered of proof is not preponderance of probabilities but poof beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled legal proposition that the any beneft doubt goes in favour of the accused.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion absolutely there is sufcient no evidence against the Accused to connect him with the charges leveled against him. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and they became entitled for beneft of doubt and acquittal.

22.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the ofences punishable Under Sections 324 R/W section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, and accordingly they are acquitted Under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No. 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed, correct and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of December, 2019.

Prl. Judical Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

For Prosecution: PW.1 : Syed Chand Pasha

PW.2 : Shaik Kadheer

PW.3 : Shaik Juber

PW.4 : L. Sudhakar

PW.5 : Dr. C. Anil Babu

For Accused:

- Nil – 9

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is Police report,-

Ex.P2 is Medical Certifcate of PW2,

Ex.P3 is First Information Report,

Ex.P4 is Crime Details Form,

For Accused:

-Nil-

M.Os marked. -Nil-

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

10

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS : AT NIRMAL.

CC No. 10 of 2014

1Name of Complainant:: The State through S.H.O. P.S.Nirmal Town 2Name of Accused:: 1) Shaik Waheed S/o Hasnoddin, aged: 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver,

2) Shaik Raf S/o Hasnoddin, aged: 32 years, Occ: Coolie, Both are R/o Ramnagar, Nirmal.

3Nature of Ofence::Section 324 R/W 34 of I.P.C.

4Finding:: Found not guilty 5Sentence ::Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of ofence ::28-09-2013 7Date of Complaint::28-09-2013 8Date of Surrender the accused::02-10-2013 9Date of released on bail:: 02-10-2013 10Date of Commencement of ::25-10-2019 trail 11Date of Closure of trial::20-12-2019 12Date of Sentence or Order::24-12-2019 13Explanation of delay::Non-production of witnesses by the police

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page No.1 of 1 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT NIRMAL ::

PRESENT: - G. Ramalingam Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal FAC: Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal

Thursday, on this the 30th day of June, 2022

C.C.No. 449 of 2021

Between:

The state through Station House Officer, P.S. Nirmal Town. ...Prosecution AND

1. Anugu Vamshidhar Rao, S/o.Samhitha Rao, Age:41 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher at Vasthavapur, R/o.Laxmanchanda,

2. Munigela Suryam, S/o.Kistaiah, Age:58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Priyadarshininagar, Nirmal

3. Lakkavathula Venu goud, S/o.Venkateshwar, Age:47 years, Occ:Health Dept. R/o.Vijayanagar colony, Nirmal

4. Gajula Pothanna, S/o.Rajalingam, Age:56 years, Occ: Govt.Teacher, R/o.Natrajnagar, Nirmal

5. Yatakari Sayanna, S/o.Gangaram, Age:50 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o.Vidyanagar, Nirmal

6. Mukka Kishan, S/o.Rajanna, Age:54 years, Occ: MCH Nirmal, Pharamacy, R/o.Priyadarshinagar, Nirmal

7. Thalla Ravi, S/o.Pithalinganna, Age:39 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher at Kusli, R/o.Priyadarshinagar, Nirmal

8. Tharaka Raghuveer, S/o.Vittal, Age:45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Eadgaon, Nirmal,

Page No.2 of 2 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal 9.Miryala Sridhar, S/o.Murali, Age:35 years, Occ: Police Constable, R/o.Vidyanagar, Khanapur,

10. Meera Virasat Ali, S/o.Meer Akbar Ali, Age:45 years, Occ: ARHC 2637, R/o.Adarshnagar, Nirmal.

... Accused Nos.1 to 10

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and of Sri.D.Rajashekhar, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nirmal Town, filed a charge sheet in

Crime No.266/2019 against the accused No. 1 to 10 for the offence punishable Under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act, alleging as follows:

That on 30.08.2019 at 1950 hours while the accused Nos. 1 to 10 were playing three cards i.e., Game of Chance by keeping money for stakes in STC Bhavan, Nirmal by the police, and seized staked amount of

Rs.55,600/- including (52) playing cards from the scene under cover of panchanama before the panchas. Thus, the accused No. 1 to 10 committed the offences punishable Under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act.

02.Cognizance was taken for the offenses under section 3 and 4 of

TS Gaming Act, against the Accused Nos.1 to 10 by this court.

Page No.3 of 3 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

03.Copies of documents were furnished to the Accused Nos.1 to 10 on their appearance as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code.

04.The accused nos.1 to 10 were examined under section 251

Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.The prosecution in support of its case examined P.Ws-1 to 5, and got marked documents Exs.P1 and P2 and also got marked MOs.1 and 2.

06.After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused nos.1 to 10 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and stated that they did not commit any offense.

07.No witnesses were examined and no exhibits were marked on behalf of accused and accordingly defence evidence was closed.

08.Heard arguments on either side.

Page No.4 of 4 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

09. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt for the offence under sections 3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:It is a case of prosecution that the police found the

Accused No.1 to 10 while they were playing three cards cards i.e., Game of chance while keeping money for stakes in STU Bhavan Nirmal and seized

Rs.55,600/- and (52) playing cards under cover of panchanama before the panchas.

11.In order to prove the case of prosecution the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5, and relied on documents Ex.P1 and P2 and MOs.1 and 2.

12.PW1 who is police a constable and he assisted the Investigating officer according to the case of prosecution, and it is his evidence that on 30.08.2019 at about 07.30 hours while he is on patrolling duty along with

Pw.4. Pw.4 received a credible information that some persons are playing three cards i.e., Game of Chance at STU Bhavan, Nirmal. Lw.1, Pw.5, Lw.2 entered into the alleged scene of offence he was waiting out side at STU

Bhavan. After ten minutes Pw.4 along with Lw.1, Lw.2 and Pw.5 brought the accused persons from STU Bhavan. The accused were taken to the police

Page No.5 of 5 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal station. He further deposed that he has examined and statement was recorded by the police.

13.PW5 who is also a police constable and he also assisted the

Investigating officer according to the case of the prosecution, and it is his evidence that on 30.08.2019 at about 19.30 hours while he along with Pw.4 and PW.1, Lws.1,2 and 4 were performing patrolling at Nirmal Town, Pw.4 received credible information that some persons were found playing game of

Chance at STU Bhavan, Nirmal. They secured the presence of PW.2 and

Pw.3 and rushed to the alleged scene of offence. On reaching there they found accused nos.1 to 10 were playing cards. PW.4 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 seized (52) playing cards and recovered Rs.55,600/-. Then PW.4 prepared Ex.P2 in the presence of PW.2 and PW.3 and took accused nos.1 to 10 along With them to police station, Nirmal Town. PW.4 have registered vide Cr.No.266/2019 against accused nos.1 to 10 and recorded Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C statements of LWs.1 to 5 .

14.PW2 and PW3 who are panch witnesses, and according to the case of the prosecution that in whose presence the Pw4/Investigating officer recorded their confessional statement of the Accused Nos.1 to 10 and seized cash i.e., Rs.55,600/-, and 52 playing cards under confessional-cum-seizure panchanama according to the case of the prosecution, but they did not

Page No.6 of 6 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal support the case of prosecution except admission of their signatures on the said confessional-cum-seizure panchanama.It is their evidence that on 31.08.2019 they went to the police station Nirmal near about 11.00 hours for the purpose of giving surety to G.Pothanna who is their colleague for the purpose of return of mobile phone. Due to urgency they have signed without reading the contents. They further deposed that they do not know the contents of the documents and, moreover they deposed that the police has not seized any cards.

15.PW4 who is one of Investigating officer, and it is his evidence that on 30.08.2019 at 19.30 hours he along with LWs.1,2, PW.1, LW.4 and PW.5 were performing patrolling, he received information that some persons are playing cards i.e., game of chance STU Bhavan at Nirmal by keeping money for stakes on which he file a requisition before the SDPO Nirmal for issuing search proceedings. Accordingly, the SDPO issued proceedings to search the common gaming house, on the receipt of search warrant he summoned to two panchas Pws.2 and 3 rushed to the scene of place and apprehended accused nos.1 to 10 at 1950 hours while they were playing cards, and conducted confession panchanama of accused Nos.1 to 10 and seized staked amount of Rs.55,600/- including (52) playing cards from the scene under cover of panchanama. Later he returned to police station and

Page No.7 of 7 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal registered a case vide Cr.No.266/2019 U/Sec.3 and 4 of TS Gaming Act suo- motu case against them. He has examined and recorded the statements of

LWs.1,2, Pw.1, LW.4 and Pw.5. Later a notice of section 41-A Cr.P.C served on Accused nos.1 to 9 and obtained their signatures on it. Later on 03.09.2019 section 41-A Cr.P.C served to the accused no.10 and obtained his signature and instructed to attend the Hon’ble Court on the date of hearing. Later he filed charge sheet against the accused persons. During his evidence, marked Exs.P1, P2, MO.1 and MO.2 i.e., Ex.P1 is F.I.R and Ex.P2 is seizure panchanama, MO.1 is Cash of Rs.55,600/- ( FDR. No.169962 of

Canara Bank, Br. Nirmal) and MO.2 is (52) playing cards. He denied a suggestion in his cross-examination that he has prepared a false charge sheet against the alleged accused persons for statistical purposes.

16. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that PW-4/Investigating

Officer secured Pws.2 and 3 as mediators and in their presence, he recorded the confessional statement of the accused Nos1 to 10 and seized cash of

Rs.55,600/- which marked under MO1, and 52 playing cards which were marked under MO2. In these circumstances, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 are very crucial but they did not support the case of prosecution except admission of their signature on the confessional-cum-seizure panchanama/Ex.P2, and moreover, nothing was elicited during the

Page No.8 of 8 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal examination by the learned Assistant public prosuector under section 154 of

Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the evidences of PW2 and PW3, the independent panch witnesses are not corroborated with the evidence of Investigating officer/PW4. The PW1 and PW5 who are police officials, and PW-4 who is

Investigating officer, and they are highly intered witnesses in succeeding the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, the evidences of PW1, PW4 and PW5 are not safe to rely upon their evidence without supporting the evidence of PW2 and PW3, independent witnesses, and moroever, the confession before the police officer is not admissible in the evidence and hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

17. In view of my foregoing discussion, absolutely there is no sufficient evidence against the Accused No.1 to 10 to connect them with with alleged offenses leveled against them and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the Accused No.1 to 10 became entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

18. In the result, the accused nos.1 to 10 are found not guilty for the offences Under section 3 and 4 of Gaming Act, and accordingly they are acquitted Under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1

Page No.9 of 9 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal to 10 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time as per the provisions of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

MO.1 i.e., Cash of Rs.55,600/- which was kept in FDR vide No.169962 at Canara Bank, Nirmal, shall be confiscated to state after expiry of appeal period, and M.O.2 i.e., (52) playing cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of June, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal FAC:Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Accused :

PW1: K. Sandeep, - None -

PW2: J. Laxman

PW3: K. Sirajuddin

PW4: J. Ramesh,

PW5: K. Naresh

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: For Accused:

Ex.P1: First Information Report- Nil -

Ex.P2: Seizure panchanama

Page No.10 of 10 CC No. 449 of 2021 On the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Nirmal

M.Os marked

MO.1 : Cash of Rs.55,600/- (FDR No.169962 of Canara Bank, Br.Nirmal)

MO.2: (52) Playing Cards

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nirmal FAC:Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class Nirmal