Smt. G. Renuka Latha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[ JUNIOR DIVISION]

BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Renuka Latha ,

Additional Civil Judge, [Jr. Divn] Bapatla

Wednesday,this the 26th day of November, 2025.

CC 454 /2018

Between: State :Sub-Inspector of Police, Bapatla Rural PS

... Complainant

And

1. Yatham Yahoshva, S/o Yohan, aged 45 years, N/o D.M.Palle, Bapatla Town, now at Aswapuram village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District.

2.Yatham Moses Babu, S/o Yohan, aged 40 years, N/o D.M.Palle, Bapatla Town. ... A1 & A2

This case is coming on 12-11-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K.Ravi Babu, Advocate for A1 and Sri N.V.S.N.Prasada Rao, Sri D.Kiran Kumar, Advocates for A2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1]The Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Rural PS filed charge sheet against A1 & A2 in Cr. No. 91/2018 under sections 498-A, of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

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

On 15.07.2000, Defacto complainant’s parents performed her marriage with A1 of Daggumallivaripalem, Bapatla Town as per caste and traditions in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, Defacto complainant parents gave cash of Rs.1,00,000/-, two gold chains, one gold ring and one watch to A1 towards dowry. After their marriage, A1 kept family at Gowtham Nagar Colony, Narasaraopet town, Khamman District.They lived happily for some time and blessed with two sons. A1 got job in campus 2 grounds after the death of Defacto complainant’s father-in-law, in this connection Defacto complainant’s father-in-law i.e., A2 came to A1 and took money often. As Defacto complainant told A1 not to give money to A2, A2 developed grudge on her and created gap in between them, since then A1 used to suspect Defacto complainant’s fidelity and harassed her both mentally and physically. About 2 years A1 suspecting her fidelity and also asked her to go to her parents’ house, sell away the land and bring money, otherwise he would give divorce and beat her. Later, when Defacto complainant is present with A1, he filed divorce in Bapatla court, Defacto complainant received notice, then Defacto complainant questioned A1 about this, A1 told that he did not like her and asked her to bring Rs.5,00,000/- by selling land, bet her and necked out her along with the children from the house. Since no other go, Defacto complainant came to Narasayapalem village along with her children. On 14.02.2018, while Defacto complainant was present in her parents’ house A1 and A2 came on a motor cycle, bet

Defacto complainant by caught hold of her tuft. Defacto complainant raised cries, then her mother/ LW2 rescued her, then both the accused bet LW2 and pushed her, then neighbours and others were gathered, as such both accused scolded and told if Defacto complainant did not bring money by selling away the land, they would kill her and get another marriage.

On 21.04.2018 Defacto complainant gave a written report to LW9 who in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.91/2018 and submitted FIR to all concerned officers and forwarded a letter to Family welfare committee,

DLSA, Guntur to conduct counselling to the complainant and the accused.

Later, received the report that the complainant presents before the family welfare committee for counselling. The complainant stated that the respondents and his family members harassed her several times. The respondent did not appear before though they received intimation from the committee. Hence, the case is return to Bapatla Rural PS for taking necessary actions and they took up investigation.

3

During the course of investigation, LW9 examined LWs1 to 8 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and served notice u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3]This case was taken on cognizance against A & A2 for the offence u/section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and after appearance of A1 & A2, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4]A1 & A2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under section 498-A of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5]To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3 and Ex.D1 marked. As learned Assistant

Prosecutor given up the evidences of L.Ws. 2, 3, 6 to 8, the evidence of prosecution is closed.

6]After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 & A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they once again denied offence. He neither examine any witness nor marked any document.

7]Heard arguments on both sides.

8]Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 9]POINT : In order to establish the guilt of the accused U/s 498-

A of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that accused being the husband of

PW.1, committed cruelty against her and abused her in filthy language and the said cruelty is of a such nature that drives PW.1 to commit suicide or to cause grave injury.

10]Unfolding the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant. PW.2 & PW3 are the witnesses of the occurrence. PW.4 is the Investigating officer and exhibited

Ex.P1 to P3 got marked.

11]As seen from the evidence and the contentions of either side, there is no dispute with regarding to the factum of marriage of P.W.1 with A1 and also no dispute with regarding to relationship of the parties. Admittedly their marriage had taken place on 15th day of July, 2000. It is also not in dispute that out of their wed lock they blessed with two male child.

12]It is the case of the prosecution is that Yatam Salomi who is the

Defacto complainant married A1 at Daggumallivaripalem village, Bapatla

Town. They lived happily for some time and some disputes arose later due to

A2. A1 and A2 demanded to bring money from her parents by selling the land.

Later A1 sent her divorce notice, on questioning the same he showed his disinterest to lead matrimonial life with her. Since no other go she is staying in her parents’ house. On 14.02.2018, A1 and A2 came to her parents’ house and bet her indiscriminately.

13]It is the evidence of PW1 that her marriage was performed with

A1 on 15-07-2000 in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- and 2 sovereigns of gold chain, a gold ring and a watch as dowry. They put up their family at Aswapuram Quarters, Khammam 5

Dist. and blessed with 2 sons by names Vijay and Yahon Raju. They lived happily for some time. During the time A2 used to harass by asking money from A1, as such she asked A1 not to give money to A2. On that A2 developed grudge on her and tale bearing about her to A1. Due to that some disputes arose between A1 and herself. The disputes were continued between A1 and herself. In 2016 she went to her parents’ house along with her children for Christmas celebrations and came back to their house. Again in 2017 she along with her children went to her parents’ house for summer holidays. Her husband/A1 sent her divorce notice to her parents’ address. On questioning the same he showed his dis interest to lead matrimonial Ife with her. She continued staying at her parents’ house but A1 did not come to take her to his house. As such she filed this present case. on 14-02-2018 A1 and

A2 came to her parents’ house and bet her and also they demanded her to bring money by selling agricultural land which was given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. Later A1 filed divorce case against her in Guntur

Court and the case was disposed off now. Since she is burdening to her parents filed maintenance case against him. In her cross examination she admitted that she came to her parents’ house in 2017 and since then she has been staying there.

14]It is the evidence of PW2 that the marriage of PW1 with A1 was performed in the year 2000 in Bapatla before the elders. He was not present at the time of marriage. Parents of PW1 gave dowry to A1 at the time of marriage, but he does not remember what did they give. They are having two children and they live happily for few years. Later, some disputes arose between them. At present PW1 is staying with her parents since she is having disputes with A1. He participated in two mediations conducted at William booth college, Bapatla between PW1 and A1. At about 10 years ago husband of PW1 and brother of A1 came to the parents’ house of PW1 and quarreling with each other. The reason for the disputes with regarding to the property which was in the name of PW1 and A1 was demanding for the same.

6 15]In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that he does not remember the date when police examined him at his village. He admitted that he did not state before the police that he was present at the time of marriage. He went to the betrothal of PW.1. He participated in mediation conducted at Willim booth College, Bapatla and he came to know through PW1 that A1 necked out her from his house. His house is situated 3 lines away from PW1 parents house. He admitted that he was present at church along with elders of the

Church by the time PW1 is quarreling with her husband and his brother. They cannot see the house of PW1 parents from the church. He does not have acquaintance with A1 and A2. He did not state to the police that A1 and A2 came on bike. He does not know where the children of PW1 and A1 residing at present. He cannot say the names of the persons who gathered at scene of offence. When mediation conducted at William booth College the issue regarding to PW.1 illegal affair arose.

16] It is the evidence of PW3 that at about 6 years ago at about 10.00 AM, husband of PW1 and brother of A1 came to the parents of PW1 and quarreling with each other. The reason for the disputes with regarding to the property which was in the name of PW1 and A1 was demanding for the same and A1 bet PW1.

17]In his cross examination, PW3 admitted that he does not know about the disputes between PW1 and A1. He was deposing before this court since

PW1 requested to depose in her favour since she is his relative.

18] It is the main contention of learned defence counsels for A1 and A2 is that the evidence of PW.1 is inconsistent with that of Ex.P1 report and her Sec.161 statement with regard to harassement, so also the evidence of PW 2 to 4. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

7 19] The accused is charged with offence under section 498-A IPC and in the light of the language used in the section, the provision would be applicable only to such a case where the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects the said woman to cruelty. The said section 498-A IPC contains an explanation, which defines “Cruelty” as envisaged under the said section, there must be such a conduct on the part of the husband or relatives of the husband of a woman which is of such a nature as to cause the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health either mentally or physically of the woman. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution made against the accused would fall under any of the above ingredients, is to be seen.

20]Therefore, it is pertinent to see whether the alleged harassment of PW.1 by the accused as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, would fall with in the ambit of section 498-A I.P.C. The said provision lays down that if any wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her husband, they will be liable for punishment under the said section. As discussed supra, the word cruelty is explained under two limbs of the same provision that if such willful conduct is of such a nature to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health (both physically or mentally) of the woman, if falls within first limb, and if that woman or her relatives are harassed with a demand for any property or valuable security, it falls within the second limb of the said provision. Therefore, any such alleged harassment if falls within either of the above two limbs, then they can be made liable for such cruelty.

21]To prove its case prosecution has heavy burden to satisfy the litmus test to prove the accusation of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

At this juncture it is important to weigh the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to assess whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the charges framed against the accused. To testify the same the evidence of P.W.1 is 8 nothing but reproduction of her written report and her Section 161 statement.

In contrary to that she made certain contradictory statements in her own evidence i.e she received divorce notice when she was at present at her parent’s house. Further she filed the present case since A1 did not come to take her from her parent’s house. Further in Ex.P 1 she reported that accused necked her out from the house in 2017. From the same mouth she deposed that she came along with her children to her parent’s house in 2017 and in her entire evidence she nowhere deposed accused necked out her along with her children.

22]Coming to the evidence of PW2 and PW3, though they deposed

PW1 and A1 and A2 quarreling each other, they did not speak about their interference when A1 and A2 bet PW1 and LW2 as PW1 stated in her Ex.P1 report. Further PW3 deposed that the alleged offence occurred at 10:00 AM, in contrary PW1 in her report stated that the offence was occurred at 7:00

AM. As such the evidences of PW 2 and PW3 are not corroborating with each other.

23]Apart from the above discussion non examination of LW2 and

LW3 who are the parents of PW1 is core fatal to the case of prosecution. It is inconceivable and unacceptable that any parent would remain passive in the face of their daughter’s marital dissolution. Therefore, considering all these facts, contradictions and suppressing the material facts by P.W 1 would raise doubt on Ex.P 1 report and credence to her evidence.

24]Coming to the evidence of P.W 4 that on 21.04.2018 at about 9.00 A.M he received written report of PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No.91/2018 U/Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and submitted the F.I.R to all the officers concerned. He examined PW.1 in the police station and recorded her statement. He forwarded the letter to DLSA,

Guntur for counselling. On 25.5.2018, he visited the scene of offence and he secured in the presence of LW2 to LW6 and recorded their statements and he 9 prepared the rough sketch. On 27.05.2018, he examined LW7 and 8 and recorded their statements. On 30.06.2018, he served sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2. After completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2. It is another important aspect that though he went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch, admittedly he did not examine any person who are shown in Ex.P3 rough sketch. It appears that the investigating officer was least bothered to know the truth or otherwise to the said allegations as made by P.W 1.

25]Therefore, to attract Explanation(a) of Sec.498-A IPC the prosecution must prove that the ill treatment alleged to have been caused by the accused towards P.W.1 shall be within the meaning of cruelty as defined

U/s.498-A IPC. Thus, P.W.1 has to come with full details caused by the accused and such harassment has come within the purview of Sec.498-A

IPC. Hence on the strength of evidence available on record, it cannot be said that Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code would be attracted to the facts of this case. There may be for variety of reasons, variety of quarrels may be both petty or serious took place in family life and same might have been happened between P.W.1 and the accused. On the strength of such petty or serious quarrels took place in family life, conviction of the accused under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code may not be just and proper. Thus, in the light of discussion this court is of a view that there is no cogent evidence on record for arriving a finding in respect of alleged cruelty of the accused as defined in section 498- A of Indian Penal Code against the

P.W.1.

26]Coming to evidence of prosecution in proving the charge under section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, the initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the parents of P.W.1 have been given dowry at the time of marriage. As per Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act it clearly states that the parties must maintain list of items which were presented at the time of marriage enumarated in rules made under the act. Moreover the prosecution failed to furnish the documentary evidence as mandatory under the act.

10

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients under section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as against accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

27]From all the above facts and circumstances the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused nos 1 & 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the evidence let in by the prosecution is appeared doubtful. As such the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused. In view of the above discussion this court found that the accused nos 1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused nos. 1 & 2.

28] IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498A of Indian penal code and sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order needs to be passed as no property is collected in the present case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me this the 26th day of November, 2025,

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

Addl. Civil Judge,[Jr. Divn.] Bapatla. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution For defence

PW1/ Yatam Salomi - None - PW 2/ Sadu Babu PW 3/ B.Chinna PW4/G.Ravi Krishna, the then SI of Police, Bapatla Rural PS.

11

For prosecution Documents marked

Ex.P1/-- : Written Report of PW.1. Ex.P2/-- : First Information Report. Ex. P3 / -- : Rough sketch

For defence :

Ex.D1 is Portion of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

Material objects marked - NIL- Id/-G.R.L A.C.J,[J.D].BPT

Copy submitted to : The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum Prl.Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE,[JUNIOR DIVISION] BAPATLA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC NO.454/2018

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

DATE OF

OffenceFilingApprehenReleasedCommenClosure of Sentence sionon bailcement of trialor ord trial

Prior to 09.07.18-----------06.06.2524.07.2526.11.25 21.04.18

Explanation for the delay:- On 16-11-2018 this case was taken on file. On 27-08-2018 copies furnished and on 3.3.2020 accused nos. 1 & 2. accused were examined u/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. charges framed. Due to absence of accused and witnesses and due to Covid 19 this case underwent several adjournments. On 06.06.2025 PW 1examined Ex.P1 marked. On 17.06.2025 P.Ws. 2 and PW3 examined. On 22.07.2025 PW4 examined, Exs.P2 and P3 marked. Prosecution evidence is closed. 24.07.2025 A1 & A2 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. On 26-11-25 Judgment pronounced.

Name of the complainant: State :Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Rural PS

Names of the accusedFather's CallingReligion Age village name

1. Yatham Yahoshva, S/o Yohan, aged 45 years, N/o D.M.Palle, Bapatla Town, now at Aswapuram village, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District.

2.Yatham Moses Babu, S/o Yohan, aged 40 years, N/o D.M.Palle, Bapatla Town.

Nature of offence : u/sec. 498A, IPC and sections 3 and 4 of DP Act Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding : Found not guilty Sentence or order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498A of Indian penal code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C 13 for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No property order needs to be passed as no property is collected in the present case.

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

[JUNIOR DIVISION,] BAPATLA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Renuka Latha Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Bapatla Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026.

CC 882/2025

Between: State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Karlapalem PS

.... Complainant

Vs

Devarakonda Srinivas, S/o Nagabhushanam, Aged about 38 years, ST Colony, Pathanandayapalem village, Karlapalem Mandal.

,... Accused

This case is coming on 26-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri T.Ramakrishna, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1]The Sub inspector of Police, Karlapalem Police Station filed a charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.127/2025 U/Sec 420 IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

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

On 7.7.2025 at Pathanandayapalem village, Karlapalem Mandal,

LW7 along with LW1, 2, 5 and 6 boarded in police station Bolero Car bearing

No.AP 18 P 3470 and by the time LW7 reached there. The accused was taking a sack into a house from an auto in hurry burry. Immediately, LW7 stopped the police vehicle and rounded up accused with the help of

LW1 and 2, nabbed him and interrogated him in the presence of LW5 & LW6.

During the interrogation the accused confessed that he purchased an auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 4813 for his own needs, whereas he was suffering from fiscal difficulties and unable to pay his children school fees, he decided to do 2

PDS rice business and get the profits. Accordingly, he began purchasing PDS rice from nearby villagers at Rs.8/ per kilograms over the past two months, storing the rice at his home, and selling it to hotels at Rs.15/- per kilograms for profit. Accused also admitted that over the last two days, he had been purchasing PDS rice from people in neaby villagers, discreetly transporting the sacks in his auto to his home to avoid suspicious. He was caught during this process by the police. Since accused did not have any license and was found diverting PDS Rice meant for the public into the black market. LW7 confirmed as culprit under the section 07 of EC Act and took accused into custody, collected the samples from the 06 sacks of PDS rice for analysis and seized 06 bags of PDS rice each bag about 50 kgs and auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 4813 in the presence of mediators under cover of mediator report.

Later, LW7 brought the accused seized auto and 06 bags of PDS rice to the police station and handed over them to station for safe custody. LW7 instructed the accused as to come to police station tomorrow early morning for enquiry and released him on his self bond.

LW7 registered the above mediators report as in Cr.No.127/2025 of 7 of

EC Act and isued copies of FIR to all the concerned officers and took up further investigaiton.

During the investigation, LW7 examined LW1 to 3and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch. As per punishment under this offence is below 7 years. LW7 served the notice under section 35(3) BNSS. LW7 handed over 06 bags of PDS rice each bag 50kgs which were seized from the possession of the accused to the LW4f and got the acknowledgment and for further investigation. LW7 completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3]The case was taken cognizance of the offence u/Section 420 of

IPC and section 7 of E.C. Act against Accused and issued summons to him.

4]After appearance of Accused before the court, relevant case documents were furnished to Accused as contemplated U/S 207 of Cr.PC.

3 5] The Accused was examined u/s 239 of Cr.PC. and framed charges u/section 420 of IPC and section 7 of Essential Commodities Act read over and explained the same to the Accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6]During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P5. As the Learned Assistant prosecutor given up the evidence of 1, 2, 4, 6, prosecution evidence is closed.

7] After completion of the prosecution side evidence, Accused were examined U/s 313 of Cr.PC. by explaining the incriminating material found against Accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu for which he denied the same and not marked any documents.

8]Heard the arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned defence counsel.

9]Now the points that arises for my determination are:

1. “ Whether the prosecution is able to drive home

the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec. 420 of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt?”

2. “ Whether the prosecution is able to drive home

the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.7(1) of the E.C. Act beyond reasonable

doubt?” 10]In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Ex.P1 to P5.

11]It was the case of the prosecution that PDS rice of 06 bags were black marketing and loaded the same in auto for purpose of selling the same at higher rates.

12]The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond 4 reasonable doubt. He contended that the oral testimony of PWs.1 and 3, when read in conjunction with the documentary evidence on record, unequivocally establishes that the accused was found in illegal possession of

Public Distribution System (PDS) rice. The accused was apprehended at the scene while in possession of 06 bags of PDS rice, and she voluntarily confessed to having purchased the said rice, which is intended for distribution to economically weaker sections at subsidized rates by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh, for the purpose of reselling it at higher rates to the general public for wrongful gain, which clearly amounts to contravention of the Control

Orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. He therefore argued that the accused is liable to be punished under Section 420

IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as framed in the charge sheet.

13] Per contra, the learned defence counsel refuted the submis- sions advanced by the prosecution and argued that the entire case rests solely on the testimony of official witnesses, namely the police personnel. He contended that the alleged recovery of PDS rice from the accused is highly doubtful and appears to be a planted one, concocted by the police to show progress in enforcement actions and merely for statistical purposes. It was further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated without any con- crete proof linking them to the illegal activity. In view of the hostile nature of the mediators, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. Ac- cordingly, the learned defence counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

14] In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both sides.

POINTS 1 & 2:

The point No.1 and 2 are answered together for the sake of convenience, as they are inter linked and inter related with each other:

5 15]It is the common evidence of PW 1 and P.W 3 that on 07.07.2025 at about 11.00 p.m, they received credible information and PW1 along with

LW6, 7, 2 constables and himself proceeded to the scene of offence situated at S.T.Colony, Pathanandayapalem, Karlapalem Mandal. When LW7 along with his staff conducting inspection on suspicion went to a corner house and found 5 PDS rice in an auto and one PDS rice in Varahanda. On seeing them the accused was in hurry. Thereafter, they caught hold him and questioned him infront of them, they stated his name by name Devarakonda Srinivas,

LW7 enquired the accused whether he has license to retail the PDS bags for that he does not have any license. They warned him and arrested and seized the vehicle and 06 PDS bags. They drafted the mediatornama in their presence and LW6 and himself signed on mediatornama in the presence of mediators. PW3 had taken the accused to the police station.

16]PW.3/S.Ravindar, SI of Police further deposed that basing on

Ex.P1 mediatornama registered a case in Cr.No.125/2025 and submitted FIR to all concerned officers. On the same day, he examined LW1 and LW2 at the police station and recorded their statements. Then he went to the scene of offence and he prepared rough sketch and secured the presence of PW2 and examined him and recorded his statements. On the same day, he served

Sec.35(3) of BNSS to Accused. On 09.7.2025, he sent requisition to Deputy

Tahsildar for safe custody of PDS rice. Later, Later, forwarded the seized PDS rice to PW3. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused.

17]P.W 1 during his cross examination, PW1 admitted that he did not receive written summons from the police. The police station is 1 1/2 k.m, away from the scene of offence.

18]PW 3 further admitted that he was not experts to determine the variety of the rice and he did not sent seized rice to FSL.

6 19]P.W 2 who is a neighbour witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Hence his evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be considered as evidence. Though the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile and cross- examined him, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused to the crime.

20]At this juncture, the principal contention raised by the learned de- fence counsel is that P.W1 and PW.3, being official witnesses, cannot be treated as wholly reliable witnesses in the absence of any independent cor- roboration. He argued that the entire case rests solely on the version of the police and that no effort was made by the investigating officer to associate any neutral or independent person during the crucial stage of seizure and arrest. As such, the prosecution version appears to be highly doubtful and liable to be discarded. In contrast, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3 is consistent and trustworthy, and that their status as official witnesses does not, by itself, render their ev- idence unreliable. He contended that police officers are competent wit- nesses under law, and unless their evidence is shown to be inherently im- probable or actuated by mala fides, their statements can form the basis for conviction. While this Court finds some merit in the submission of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that official witnesses are not to be dis- believed merely because they are police personnel, it is equally well settled that in cases where the entire prosecution case is built solely upon the evi- dence of official witnesses, particularly in relation to alleged seizures and confessions, such evidence must be scrutinized with great care and cau- tion to rule out the possibility of exaggeration or fabrication.

21]In the present case, the prosecution has not examined any in- dependent witness or panch witness to support the alleged seizure of-

P.D.S. rice or the arrest of the accused. It is further evident from the record that no mediators were present at the time of seizure, and no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution as to whether any attempt 7 was made to secure the presence of mediators or independent witnesses.

This omission is not a mere procedural lapse—it strikes at the root of the credibility of the seizure proceedings. When the alleged recovery forms the cornerstone of the prosecution case, and when the accused is stated to have confessed in the presence of police officials alone, the absence of any disinterested witness to support such proceedings significantly weak- ens the evidentiary value of the prosecution version. In such circum- stances, where P.W.1 and P.W.3 are both official witnesses, and no effort has been made to ensure transparency or impartiality by involving indepen- dent witnesses, this Court is unable to place implicit reliance on their un- corroborated testimony. The prosecution’s failure to offer any plausible rea- son for not securing or examining mediators gives rise to serious doubt, which must necessarily ensure to the benefit of the accused.

22]Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the accused was found in possession of rice bags at the relevant time, the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the said rice was in fact meant for Public Distribution System (PDS) and was being possessed for the purpose of unauthorized resale. The learned defence counsel rightly contended that the prosecution has failed to adduce any co- gent or independent evidence to prove that the accused had procured PDS rice from ration card holders with the intent to transport and sell it at higher prices. In the present case, both P.Ws.1 and 3, who are official witnesses, concluded that the seized rice belonged to the Public Distribution System based solely on the alleged confession made by the accused at the time of arrest. However, the accused categorically denied having made any such confession, as elicited through suggestions put to the witnesses during cross-examination. The prosecution has not produced any independent ev- idence to corroborate the confession or to establish the origin of the rice.

There is no whisper in the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 3 as to how they identi- fied the rice as being PDS rice, apart from the accused’s alleged oral state- ment. Crucially, the Investigating Officer has not examined a single ration 8 card holder or any other witness from whom the accused is alleged to have procured the PDS rice. In the absence of such material evidence, this

Court does not find even an iota of proof to substantiate the allegation that the accused was in unauthorized possession of PDS rice for resale.

23]Upon careful appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, it becomes abundantly clear that there is no convincing, reliable, or independent evidence to establish that the accused was engaged in any activity involving the illegal business or unauthorized transport of PDS rice.

It appears that the prosecution and the Investigating Officer have simply re- lied upon the purported confession of the accused, without taking any con- crete steps to gather supporting material evidence. No documentary evi- dence, such as ration cards, records of distribution, receipts, or even wit- ness statements from actual beneficiaries of the PDS, has been placed be- fore the Court. The prosecution has thus failed to discharge the burden of proof that lies upon it under the law.

24]In view of the above lacunae, infirmities, and omissions, this

Court is constrained to hold that in the absence of any evidence from ration card holders or other independent witnesses who could have confirmed the illegal procurement and resale of PDS rice, the sole testimony of

P.Ws.1 and 3 both official witnesses is not sufficient to sustain a con- viction.

25]Further, there is not even a passing reference in the evidence of these witnesses to the specific Control Order allegedly violated by the ac- cused. Nor has a copy of any such order, purportedly issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, been filed before this Court. As such, the prosecution has also failed to establish that the accused committed any contravention of an order issued under Section 3, punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

9 26]For the foregoing reasons, the Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under sections 420 of IPC and 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

27]IN THE RESULT, Accused was found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 420 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act. and accordingly, he was acquitted U/s. 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-.G.Renuka Latha

Additional Civil Judge

[Jr. Division], Bapatla. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For accused

PW 1/ V.Siva Nagaraju - None - PW 2/ P.Vijay PW 3/ S.Ravindar, SI of Police,Karlapalem PS

Documents marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1/-- : is the mediatornama Ex.P2/ : is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P3/ : is First Information Report. Ex.P4/ : is Rough sketch. Ex.P5/ : is requisition letter.

For Accused : - NIL-

10

Material objects marked - NIL-

Id/-G.R.L A.C.J,[J.D] Bap. Copy to:

The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur 11

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

BAPATLA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC NO.882/2025

DISTRICT: GUNTUR DATE OF: OffenceFilingApprehenReleaseCommenceClosure of Sentence siond on bailment of trialtrialor order 07.07.2523.09.25----------23.03.2026 30.03.2026 30.03.2026

Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file on 23.09.2025, On 18.03.2026, Copiess were furnished to the accused and accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. On 23.03.2026 P.W1 was examined, Ex.P1 was marked. On 24.03.2026 PW.2 examined, Ex.P.2 marked. On 30.03.2026, PW3 examiend Ex.P.3 to P5 marked. Prosecution evidence is closed. On 30.03.2026 accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Heard the arguments on both sides. On 31-03-2025 judgment pronounced.

Name of the complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Karlapalem P.S

Names of the accusedFather's CallingReligion Age village name

Devarakonda Srinivas, S/o Nagabhushanam, Aged about 38 years, ST Colony, Pathanandayapalem village, Karlapalem Mandal. Nature of offence: u/sec. 420 IPC and Sec. 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty. Finding: Found not guilty. Sentence or order: In the result, Accused was found not guilty for the offences punishable U/secs. 420 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act. and accordingly, he was acquitted U/s. 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s. 437-A of the Cr.P.C. No property is produced in this case, as such no order is passed with regard to its disposal..

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BAPATLA.

12

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BAPATLA

Present:- SMT. G. Renuka Latha Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Bapatla Thursday, this the 11th day of December, 2025

C.C.NO. 186/2019

Between:

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS

... Complainant

Vs.

1.Jogi Rajashekar, S/o Anandh Babu, aged 30 years, D.M.Palle, 32nd ward, Bapatla Town.

2. Kati Vijay Kumar, S/o Elesha, aged 32 years, D.M.Palle, 32nd ward, Bapatla Town. ... A1 & A2

This case coming before me for hearing on 04.12.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri N.V.S.N.Prasada Rao, Advocate for A1 & A2, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.02/2019 of his station for the offences u/sections 290, 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2]The brief averments of prosecution case are as follows:

On 31.12.2018 night, Defcato complainant/ LW1 and LW2 were deputed for bandobust duty at D.M.Palle on the eve of New Year. While they were performing duty at Punjab National Bank, Bapatla at about 2.30 AM, A1 and A2 belonging to D.M.Palle, Bapatla Town came in a black colour Scorpio vehicle and stopped on the center of GBC Road, Punjab National Bank where

LWs1 and 2 were performing duty. Then A1, who was in driving seat, abused

LW1 and 2 as “Yendira Nakondakallara Meeru Chebithe Memu Karu Thiyyala.

Neevu Police Ayithe Makenti”. Then LWs 5 and 6 pacified the accused and sent away from there. Again after 10 minutes from that incident A1 and A2 2 came there, stopped their car aside, came to LW1 and 2 violently and abused “Yendira Naakodakallara Mammalini Karu Thiyyamantara, Randira

Chusukondam” and threatened with dire consequences and deterred from discharging their legitimate duty. Then LW1 and 2 informed the same to LW3 and 4 who were performing duty nearer to them i.e., at Ambedkar statue near flyover and Bhadra Officers. LWs 5 and 6 again tried to send them from the place. On arrival of LWs 3 and 4. At and A2 fled away from the place.

LW1 turned up to police station and presented a written report to LW10,

LW.10 registered the report of LW1 as a case in Cr.No.2/2019 u/secs.290, 353 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and submitted FIR to all concerned officers and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW10 examined LWs1 to 7 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and the same was prepared. He secured the presence of LW 8 and 9, got downloaded the CC camera footage of Punjab National Bank, Bapatla Town in Sony Pen Drive 16

GB under the cover of mediator report and seized the Sony White Colour 16

GB Pen Drive for the purpose of investigation.

On 10.01.2019 the accused filed petition in the Hon’ble XII Additional

Sessions Judge, Guntur for grant of Anticipatory bail. On 23.01.2019 the

accused appeared before LW10 and produced their sureties and executed their personal bonds and completed investigation.

3]The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 290, 353 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 & A2 and registered as

C.C.No.186/2019.

4]On appearance of A1 & A2, copies of documents furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5]The accused were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.

Charges u/secs.290, 353 and 506 r/w 34 IPC have been framed against A1 & 3

A2. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6]The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and

M.O.1 got marked.

7]After the closure of evidence on the side of prosecution, the A1 &

A2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for which they once again denied the same. No witnesses were examined and no documents marked on behalf of A1 & A2.

8]Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9]Now the point that arises for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1 & A2 for the charges u/secs.290, 353 and 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

10]POINT:

It is the case of prosecution that on 31.12.2018, Defcato complainant

LW1 and LW2 were assigned bandobust duty at Punjab National Bank in

D.M.Palle for New Year's Eve security. At around 2:30 AM, A1 and A2 arrived in a black Scorpio vehicle, stopped at GBC Road and A1 verbally abused

LW1 and LW2. After being pacified and sent away by LW5 and LW6, the LW1 and LW2 returned ten minutes later, threatening and intimidating the officers with dire consequences and intimidated preventing them from executing their duties. LW1 and LW2 subsequently reported the incident to LW3 and LW4, who were nearby at another duty location. On arrival of LWs 3 and 4 A1 and

A2 fled away from the place.

11]To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and M.O.1 marked. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant,

P.W.2 to PW.4 are the direct witnesses. P.W.5 and PW.6 are the mediators for 4 seizure of M.O1. PW.7 is the Head Constable who was assigned bandobust duty at nearby station. PW8 is the Investigating officer. Ex.P1 is written report of PW.1. Ex.P.2 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. EX.P.3 is sec.161

Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.4 is signature of PW5. Ex.P5 is signature of

PW6. Ex.P6 is First Information Report. Ex.P7 is rough sketch. Ex.P8 is mediatornama dated 04.02.2019. MO.1 is Sony-16 GB white Colour Pen

Drive vide CPR No.73/2019.

12]It is the evidence of P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant in this case that on 31.12.2018 at 00.30 AM, LW2 and himself were deputed for

Bandobast duty at D.M Palli on the eve of New year. A1 and A2 came in black

Scorpio, stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road at center of GBC Road,

PNB. On that the traffic behind them was stopped. A1 was in the driving seat and A2 was next to A1. LW2 and himself asked them to park the vehicle on the road side. On that A1 and A2 came out side and picked up quarrel with them by stating why should they listen to their words. As such, the people around were gathered and pacified the matter and kept the car at road side.

After 10 minutes A1 and A2 came back again and abused, pushed them and threatened them with dire consequences and deterred them from discharging their duties. LW2 made a phone call to LW3 and LW4 and informed the above said incident. As such they came to the scene of offence. Later, he gave

Ex.P1 written report to the police and also he identified his signature on

Ex.P.1.

13]In the cross-examination PW 1 admitted that as per Ex.P.1 the date is not mentioned in it. He did not have passport to do Bandobust duty at

D.M.Palli, but he acted with the oral instructions. Witness adds in emergency cases passport is not necessary. He did not mention the timings when the bandobust started and ended. Motor cycles and pedestrians were struck in the traffic. No one who was stuck at the traffic gave the report in the police station.

5 14]P.W 2 to PW.4 who are alleged to be the direct witnesses did not state anything about the case and they turned hostile. Hence, the evidence of

PW.2 to 4 is not useful to the case of prosecution. Though the learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and cross-examined them, nothing has been elicited to connect the accused to the crime.

15]PW 5 and PW6 who are alleged to be the mediators deposed that while they were going to MRO office on their personal work one constable asked them to come to the police station and obtained their signatures. Witnesses identified their signatures on mediatornama dated 04.02.2019. Ex.P4 and P5 marked.

16]P.W 7 who is alleged to be the who was assigned bandobust duty at nearby station deposed that, on 31.12.2018 at 10.00 PM, LW4 and himself were deputed for picket duty at Ambedkar statue, Fly over bridge, Bapatla on the eve of New Year. PW1 and PW2 deputed for picket duty at D.M Palli. On 01.01.2019 at 2.30 PM, PW2 made a phone call and informed that A1 and A2 stopped car in the middle of the road and gave evasive reply to him and PW1.

Later, the surrounding people pacified the matter. After sometime A1 and A2 again came to the scene of offence and attacked them. He along with LW4 went to the scene of offence on a bike. By the time they reached, some persons were gathered, but A1 and A2 were not present. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

17]PW8 who is the investigating Officer deposed that on 01.01.2019 at about 7.30 A.M, PW.1 came to the police station and gave a written report and he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.2/2019 under Sections 290 353, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and submitted FIR to all concerned officers. He examined the PW1, PW2, PW7 and LW4 and recorded their statements. On the same day, he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of

LW5 and LW6 and recorded their statements and prepared the rough sketch.

On 09.01.2019, he sent requisition to Panjab National Bank for C.C.T.V 6

Footage. On 04.02.2019 he secured PW5 and 6 received CC TV footage in pen drive and he examined LW7 who is a technician and recorded his statement. On 21.01.2019 anticipatory bail was granted A1 and A2 by XII

Addl.Sessions Judge,Guntur. He handed over the further investigation to

LW11, after verification, LW11 filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2.

18]In the cross examination, PW8 admitted that the scene of offence is not fixed in the rough sketch. He did not examine the persons mentioned in

Ex.P.7. As per sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of witnesses the surname of A2 is

Thati and in the charge sheet the surname of A2 is Kati. He did not examine any other witnesses apart from LW1 to LW4. He did not examine any persons who were stuck in traffic and as per Ex.P.7 there was no traffic.

19]Except PW1 and other police personnel ie PW2 and PW7 none were supported the case of prosecution. PWs 3 to 6 including the mediators were turned hostile. As such their evidence did not help the case of prosecution. Upon scrutiny of the testimonies of the PWs 1,2 and 7 it appears similar, though there are minor discrepancies. Even their evidences were appeared to be doubtful about the nature of discussion happened between

PW1 and the accused, because at one stretch PW7 said that while they were arriving the accused were under loggerheads with PW1 and on the other stretch they say that at the time of their arrival the accused was gone from the scene of offence.

20] At this stage this court opened the MO1 to know the truth or otherwise of the case of the prosecution, but surprisingly it shows the folder stored in the pen drive is shown as empty. Apart from that the prosecution did not choose to examine the concerned technician who transcribed the data from the original drive to the present pen drive and he was given up by the prosecution which creates doubt over story of prosecution. Furthermore, none of the witnesses were supported the case of the prosecution which is also creates negative impression to this court about its case. In this context it is 7 appropriate to place the remarks about the method and manner of the investigation in lethargic way of approach of the police particularly while discharging their bandobasth duties on particular days like New Year celebrations, Pongal days, any other local celebrations of Goddess or specified temples if any and other days like full moon and absent moon which were not properly covered with a strict proof i.e beyond reasonable doubt, because on all such days there might be a possibility to take place the untoward instances as the people might be in intoxication and drunken state.

In those circumstances, if such incident taken place, nearest available CC TV footages would play an important role to fix the accused and it may lead to a proper conclusion to fix the guilt of such persons. Unfortunately, the lethal approach of the police is being given more freedom to such irresponsible and unscrupulous people as if it is their right.

21]In the present case also the accused taken advantage of the hostility of PWs 2 to 4 and non-availability of data in MO1 and the other failures of the prosecution and remained this court is handicapped, since there are no proper reasons were assigned by the accused by way of their defence as to why they were roped into the present case which is also one of the factors to raise the concern as stated above.

22]In view of the afore said discussion this court feels that it is appropriate to mark this judgment to the S.P Guntur District to act cautiously and diligently while investigating the cases which relates to the maintenance of Law and order which has paramount interest to maintain the peace and tranquillity in the society. In this context this court firmly believes that no public officer would initiate criminal prosecution against general public unless something was really happened. If initiated, the same spirit and integrity would continue till the total action was completed. Unfortunately, the police failed to discharge their further part of action in diligent manner after initiating their action by way of giving report against the accused which automatically 8 turned advantage to the accused and they may utilise the same by taking advantage of the oscillating style of evidence of PWs 3 to 6.

23]In view of the aforesaid reasons this court takes the serious note of the same and observed above by marking the copy of this judgment to SP, though it might be bit of harsh. But the pain and concern over the peace of the public is always paramount consideration to this court. Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the SP either through Bapatla Town P.S on proper acknowledgment or by way of register post.

24]In view of the above said facts and circumstances the prosecution is utterly failed to place the concrete evidence to link the accused with the present case and the prosecution failed to prove the case against them beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the defence.

25]IN THE RESULT, the A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/sections 290, 353, 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties, if any shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Office is directed to preserve the M.O.1 for a period of six months. Thereafter if no appeal is preferred/pending it shall be destroyed as the procedure contemplated under law.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

BAPATLA.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: B.Ashok - NONE -

P.W.2: G.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.3: K.Nagaraju

P.W.4: K.Yellamanda

P.W.5: Y.Gopalakrishna

P.W.6: P.Venkata Chandra Sekhar

P.W.7: L.Seshagiri Rao

P.W.8: K.Vinay Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: Written report of PW.1. - NIL -

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4.

Ex.P4: signature of PW5.

Ex.P5: signature of PW6.

Ex.P6: First information Report.

Ex.P7: is the rough sketch.

Ex.P8: Mediatornama dated 04.02.2019

For defence : NIL

M.Os Marked

M.O.1: is the Sony-16 GB white colout pen drive vide CPR No.73/2019

Id/-G.R.L

A.J.M.F.C., BAP

Copy Submitted to:

The Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BAPATLA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC NO.113/2024

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

DATE OF:

OffenceFilingApprehenReleaseCommenceClosure of Sentence siond on bailment of trialtrialor order

Prior to 13-02-24-02-28-02- 09-02-2024 ---------12-02-202520252025 2024

Explanation for the delay:-

This case was taken on file on13-02-2024, copies were furnished to the accused . On 28-10-2024 accused was examined under Section 239

Cr.P.C. On 12-02-2025 P.W1 examined, Ex.P1 was marked. On 19.02.25

P.W.2 examined, Exs.P2 and P.3 marked. Prosecution evidence is closed.

On 24.2.2025 accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. Heard the arguments on both sides. On 28.2.2025 judgment pronounced.

Name of the complainant: Sub Inspector of Police, Bapatla Town PS.

Names of the accusedFather's CallingReligion Age village name

Juturi Bharadwaja Tejaswi @ Bardwaj Sarma, S/o Bhanu Murthy, Aged 27 years, Near Lord Sai Baba Temple, Lawyer Peta, Ongole, Prakasam District Nature of offence: u/sections 354-A and 506 of IPC.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Finding: Found not guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354-A and 506 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C of the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties, if any shall stands cancelled after six months from the date 11 of judgment as per section 437A of Cr.P.C. No property order needs to be passed as no property is collected in this case.

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS,

BAPATLA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[JR.DIVN]

BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Renuka Latha, Addl. Civil Judge,[Jr. Divn] Bapatla Friday, this the 28th day of November, 2025.

CC 760/2023

Between:

State : The Sub-Inspector, Bapatla Rural PS

... Complainant

Vs

Janni Koteswaramma, W/o Venkateswarlu, aged 46 years, R/o Maddiboinavaripalem village, Bapatla Mandal.

... Accused

This case coming on 27.11.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri

T.Raghavendra Nath, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1]The Sub Inspector of police, Bapatla Rural PS filed a charge sheet against Accused in Cr. No. 73/2022 for the offence punishable under section 7[A] r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act.

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

The police received information about illegal ID arrack sales and went to Maruproluvaripalem village. Near a bridge, they saw a woman who tried to escape but was caught. The woman, Janni Koteswaramma, is 46 years old and sells toddy. She confessed that her husband is sick and they are in debt, leading her to make ID arrack to earn more money. While trying to sell it, the police found her with 2 liters of ID arrack. She explained she was waiting for customers and tried to flee upon seeing the police. The police took 2 a liquor sample for analysis and charged her under the APP Act 2020, taking her into custody and seizing the liquor.

On April 25, 2022, at 5:30 PM, an incident involving alcohol seizures was reported in Bapatla Rural. The police registered the case as Cr.No.

73/2022. The original FIR and related documents were submitted to the court, and the investigation began. The investigating officer collected statements from several witnesses and examined the crime scene, creating a rough sketch and recording witness accounts.

The accused was arrested later that day at 7:30 PM, was informed of her rights, and did not report ill treatment by the police. She was taken for a medical examination. On May 7, 2022, liquor samples were sent for analysis, revealing them to be unfit for human consumption.

Destruction orders for the illicit liquor were obtained on August 30, 2022.

On September 7, 2022, the police secured the presence of mediators for the destruction of the seized alcohol. The illicit liquor was destroyed in compliance with legal procedures, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused after the investigation was completed.

3]This case was taken on file for the offence under section 7(A) read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act against Accused. On appearance of

Accused, copies of the documents were furnished to Accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4]Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. A Charge under section 7[A] read with 8 [e] of A.P. Prohibition Act was framed against them, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5]On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to 4 were examined and EX.

P1 to Ex.P5 and M.O.1 sample bottle containing 180 ml got marked. As the 3

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LWs, 3 to 5 and 7, the prosecution evidence was closed.

6]After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. Read over and explained the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he once again denied the offence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7]Heard the arguments of the both sides.

8]Now the point for determination is : “W hether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for an offence U/sec. 7A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act or not?

9]POINT ; It was the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 02 Liters of I.D.Arrack without license and permission there by the accused committed the offence under section 7A r/w 8(e) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act.

10]To prove the offence under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP

Prohibition Act, 1995 amended 7(B) r/w 8(B) of the Act 18 of 2020 the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein was transporting, exporting, importing, manufacturing, collecting or possessing any intoxicants in contravention of A.P. Prohibition Act.

11]In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution examined the

P.W.1 to 4 who are the police officials and mediator and Ex.P1 to P5 are marked as exhibits and M.O.1 is sample bottle. P.W 1 & 2 are the police officials. PW3 is the mediator. PW4 is investigation officer.

12]It is the evidence of PW 1/Y.Nagaraju deposed that on 25.04.2022 at about 4.00 p.m, on credible information he along with LW1 and 3 proceeded to Maruproluvaripalem village and there they noticed one female person selling I.D.Arrack. On seeing them she tried to skulk away. On 4 observing the same, LW1 caught hold her with the help of them and that the female person voluntarily admitted that she is in possession of I.D.Arrack and selling the same for her livelihood and stated her name as

Koteswaramma. Then, LW.1 tried to secure mediators as mediators were not available and no one came forward to act as mediator LW: 1 proceeded to prepare the police proceedings. LW.1 scribed the Police Proceedings.

Witness identified his signature on police proceedings. Police examined him and recorded his statement Ex.P1 is Police Proceedings.

13]In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that he do not know whether it was mentioned in Ex.P1 how they went to the scene of offence. He did not witness the accused selling I.D Arrack and the accused is not in the possession of I.D Arrack by the time they reached to the scene of offence.

LW.1 did not secure mediators, not say names to whom LW.1 approached to act as mediators. He cannot say the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators. He admitted that the scribe of Ex P1 is not present in Ex P1.

14]It is the evidence of PW2/K.Pavani deposed that on 17.09.2022 at about 1.30 PM near Airforce station LW.8 destroyed seized I.D Arrack in her presence under the cover of mediatomama. Witness identified her signature on medatornama. Ex. P2 is the mediatornama.

15]In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that the Police destroyed 250 to 300 ml I.D Arrack in her presence. Police informed her the present case details.. She does not know who drafted the mediatornama.

16]It is the evidence of PW3/G.Sivaiah deposed that on 25.04.2022 at about 4-00 pm on credible information he along with PW.1 and LW.3 proceeded to Pyarli Drinage war Maruproluvaripalem village and there we noticed one female person selling I.Darack. On seeing them she tried to skulk away. On observing the same. He caught hold him with the help of his staff 5 and that the female person voluntarily admitted that she possession of ID.

Armack and selling the same for her livelihood and stated her name as

Koteswaramma. Then, he tried to secure mediators as mediators were neavailable and no one came forward to act as mediator, proceeded to prepare the police proceedings. He scribed the Police Proceedings. Witness identified his signature on police proceedings. He had drawn 2-180 ml. liquor from 2 liters of I.D Arrrack as sample and sent for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Police Proceedings. He had taken the accused and handed over to LW.7.

17] In the cross examination, PW3 admitted that he do not know when sample ID track sent for chemical analysis. He did not mention my name as scribed and he did not mention in the Ex.P1 that he had drawn 2 samples from 2 liters of I.D Arrack. He did not see the accused selling and manufacturing of I.D Arrack. He confirmed it as I.D Arrack by smelling it. He did not go to the scene of offence after 5.00 PM. Police examined him on the same day in the police station. Accused was alone present at the scene of offence. He did not secure mediators, he cannot say names to whom he approached to act as mediators he cannot say the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators he did not mentioned in Ex.P1 that he drawn rough sketch.

18]It is the evidence of PW4/K.Venkata Prasad deposed that basing on Ex.P1 Police Proceedings, he registered case in Cr.No.73/2022

U/Sec.7(A) r/w. 8(e) of APE Act and submitted FIR to all officers concerned and examined PW1, PW2 and LW.3 in the police station and recorded their

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements. On the same day, he visited scene of offence and drawn rough sketch and examined LW.4 and LW.5 and recorded their

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements. He arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody. On 07.05.2022 forwarded the seized liquor sample bottle for chemical analysis. He received analysis reports on 11.07.2022. On 6 30.08.2022 obtained on a destroyed orders from Superintendent of police. On 07.09.2022 and secured LW.6 and 7 and destroyed the seized liquor. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against Accused. Ex.P3 is the FIR. Ex.P4 rough sketch. Ex.P5 is the analysis report. M.O.1 is a sample bottle containing 180 M.L.

19]In the cross examination, PW4 admitted that it was not present at the time of seizure. He admitted that the scene of offence is busy locality.. He did not secure inhabitant mediators at the scene of offence. PW4 further admitted that written notices were not served to the mediators. He did not go to the scene of offence and he did not find the I.D. liquor and did not seize any .I.D liquor.. He did not examine any of the persons at the scene of offence. He did not enquire who sold the liquor to the accused.

20] The main issue involved in this case is whether the seizure as effected by the police officials is legal and is it in consonance with the provision of 100 (4) Cr.P.C. Section 100 (4) Cr.P.C lays down that before making a search, the officer or other person who is about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitant of the locality in which place the search is conducted or of any other locality if no such inhabitants of the said locality are available or is willing to be a witness to the search to attend as witness to the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them to do so. Here in the present case in hand the evidence of P.W.2 does not disclose whether they tried to secure the independent respectable inhabitant of the locality by issuing written notice.

21]In the present case, the prosecution relying only on the evidence of PW.1 to 4. P.W1, 3 and 4 are the police officials and they did not secure the presence of independent respectable inhabitants of the locality during the search. Though he secured P.W 2 who is a government official/ mediator, admittedly he did not serve written notice to him. He admitted in Ex.P1 also 7 does not mention about presence of the inhabitant mediators at the scene of offence. His evidence does not inspire the confidence. Thus, the evidence of

PW.1 to 4 requires corroboration from an independent witness. But, the same is lacking in this case. Further, the said act of PW.2 that not securing independent mediators at the scene of offence makes the search illegal for non-compliance of Section 100(4) Cr.P.C.

22] On perusal of entire evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, there were no respectable inhabitants of locality at the time of seizure. No doubt, when the search and seizure is in open place, there is no mandatory requirement to secure the independent mediators of the locality but to prove their case beyond any iota of doubt, it is expected that the police officials should have seriously and sincerely tried for independent mediators to show their impartial investigation. No doubt, the acts of police officials in discharge of their official duties are presumed to be correct unless contrary is proved. But, when there was opportunity to secure the mediators, no convincing attempts being made by P.W.2. At this juncture, it is relevant to note a decision made in S.Babu

Saheb @ Babu v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) A.L.T. (Crl.) 32 A.P. wherein it was held:

‘no efforts being made to secure the mediators is doubtful. The necessity was emphasized by the

Hon’ble High Court when there is seizure of

contraband’.

Also in, Gajamker Narayana v. State of A.P., 2005 (3) A.L.T (Crl.) 1, it was held “.... Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. lays down that before making a search, the officer of other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality...”, the seizure of contraband was held to be illegal when the provision of Section 100 (4) Code of Criminal Procedure are not complied. Also, it was held that the evidence of Excise officials is interested, artificial and routine.

8

In this case on hand also, P.W.2 nowhere mentioned the convincing reasons for non-securing of the independent mediators from the locality. In this regard this court relied the decision in Botcha Raju v. State Rep. by the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, 1994 (2) A.L.T. (Crl.) 69

(A.P.), it was held “...the Courts below fell in error by accepting the version of the

Police Officers without the corroboration of the disinterested witnesses...” 23] In the present case also, the seizure was made at the place of offence which was busy locality but P.W 2 did not secure independent mediators. Hence, the seizure made in this case is illegal in view of the above decisions. The only basis for the prosecution for its case against the accused is the confession of the accused, but the same is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, it cannot be taken into consideration.

24] There is no sufficient material placed by the prosecution to that the accused possessed contraband. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt against the accused for the under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act In the light of above discussion, and the evidence of P.W.1, 3 and PW.4 being the police officials and their evidence pertaining to Ex.P.1 and P.2 above referred citations, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

25]In the result, Accused was found not guilty for the charge under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.P.Act and she was acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties if any, shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months. MO.1 sample bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 28th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

Additional Civil Judge [Jr. Divn]

Bapatla.

9

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution:

PW 1/ Y.Nagaraju

PW 2/ K.Pavani

PW 3/ G.Sivaiah

PW 4/ K.Venkata Prasad the then SI of Police, Bapatla Rural PS.

For accused:

-None-

Documents marked.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/-- : is Police Proceedings

Ex.P2/ : is mediatornama

Ex.P3/ : First Information Report.

Ex.P4/ : Rough sketch.

Ex.P5/ Analysis Report.

For accused : NIL

Material object marked

MO.1 / sample bottle.

Id/-G.R.L A.C.J,[J.D]Bap. Copy to : The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum P.S.CJ, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,[ JUNIOR DIVISION]

BAPATLA.

Present: Smt. G. Renuka Latha ,

Additional Civil Judge(Jr.Division), Bapatla

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of December, 2025

CC 636/2025

Between:

State : Sub-Inspector of Police,Bapatla Rural PS

.... Complainant

Vs

1. Yenumula Shanmukha Srinivasa Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 46 years, Nandirajuthota, Bapatla.

2. Yenumula Reddyankamma, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 46 years, Nandirajuthota. Bapatla.

... Accused/A1 & A2

This case coming on 01-12-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri G.Nveen Kumar, Advocate for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bapatla Rural PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 62/2025 under sections 85, 115(2) r.w 3(5) BNS.

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

At about 15 years ago, LW1 marriage performed with accused. At the time of marriage on the demand of in laws her parents gave Ac.1.00 cents farming land, 3 lakhs cash and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to themtowards dowry. After marriage A1 and A2 who is her mother in law harassed the LW1 both mentally and physically by demanding to bring more dowry from her parental. On 12.05.2025 at about 10.00 a.m, A1 and A2 picked up quarrel with her and abused in filthy language and they both beat her with hands indiscriminately and inflicted abrasion to left elbow. A2 slapped with her footwear, they threatened to give divorce to her and threatened to kill. On receipt of LW1, LW6 registered a case in Cr.No.62/2025 u/sec.85, 115(2) of BNS and sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW6 visited the scene of offence, examined it, drafted a rough sketch of it, then LW6 secured LW2 to 6, examined them, recorded their statements.

On 16.05.2025 LW6 served notices to the accused A1 & A2 u/sec.35 of BNSS.As per the investigation there is strong case against the accused u/sec.85, 115(2) r/w 3(5) BNS. LW6 completed investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3]This case was taken on cognizance against the A1 & A2 for the offence u/secs. 85, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS and after appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/s.230 of BNSS.

4]The A1 & A2 were examined under section 262 BNSS Charges under sections 85, 115(2) r//w 3(5) of BNS were framed. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5]To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 and P.2. As the evidence of L.Ws. 2 to 6 was given up by the prosecution, evidence of prosecution is closed.

6]As there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of A1 & A2 under section 351 BNSS is dispensed with.

7]Heard arguments on both sides.

8]Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.85,115(2) r/w 3(5) BNS beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

09]It is the evidence of PW 1 who is the defacto complainant in this case stated that her marriage was performed with A1 in 2010 at Nandirajuthota in the presence of elders. They blessed with two female child. Later, small disputes arose between PW1 and her husband. She informed the matter to the elders of her village. They obtained Ex.P 1 signature on white paper. But, she does not know the contents of the report. During the course of Cross- examination by the Learned A.P.P she denied her statement given to the police under Ex.P2. P.W.1 is also stated that she does not know anything about the case and she never gave statement to the police. Absolutely, there is no material against the accused for the charge leveled against him. P.W.1 herself turned hostile and did not support the case of the Prosecution. Therefore, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has rightly given up the evidence of other list of witnesses. Absolutely, there is no material to bring home the guilt of A1 &

A2 for the charge leveled against them beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

10]IN THE RESULT, A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 85, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties if any, shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment as per section 481 of BNSS. No property order needs to be passed as no property is collected in the present case.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me this the 02nd day of December, 2025.

Sd/-G.Renuka Latha

Addl. Civil Judge,[Jr. Divn. Bapatla.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Prosecution: For Defence

PW1/Y.Lokeswari - None - Documents marked For prosecution Ex.P1/-- : Signature of PW 1 on the report. Ex.P2/-- : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

For defence : - NIL- Material objects marked - NIL- Id/-G.R.L A.C.J,[J.D].BPT

Copies submitted to :The Chief Judl. Magistrate cum Prl.Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur