Mr. G Sai Sharath

C.C No. 48 of 2021 1 of 11 21-11-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:

AT: PARKAL.

Friday, this the 21 st day of November, 2025. Present: - Sri. G. Sai Sharath , FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Parkal.

Calendar Case No. 48 of 2021

Between: -

State through Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.

...Complainant.

And

Gundeboina Manjula, W/o. Ravi, Age 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H. No. 20-420,

Mamathanagar, Parkal.

...Accused.

***** This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. K. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

Brief facts of the case are that:

[1]. It is the case of the prosecution as set up in the charge sheet filed by

Inspector of Police, PS Parkal is that, on 20-12-2020 at 1.00 pm LW.1 Gourisheeti

Dhana Laxmi lodged a report stating that, on 17-12-2020 at 7.30 am Accused who is the daughter-in-law of her mother LW.2 Narsamma keeping old grudges in mind beat her mother with stick which was used for cleaning the house in her stomach, due to which she fell down and received injuries to her waist and blackish on her stomach, the same was informed her mother over phone. On receipt of information, she phoned to LW.5 P. Narasimha Ramulu who told he stayed with her mother. Immediately, she went to the house of her mother and shifted her mother to Govt. Hospital, Parkal in an auto for treatment, due to providing treatment to her mother, the delay is caused.

C.C No. 48 of 2021 2 of 11 21-11-2025

Basing on the said report LW.9 P. Mahender/Investigation Officer registered a case in Cr.No.311/2020 of P.S Parkal for the Offence U/s. 324 of Indian Penal

Code and issued FIR’s to all concerned. During course of investigation, LW.9 P.

Mahender examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.1 Gourishetti

Dhanalaxmi. Then he visited scene of offence and secured presence of LW.6

Pasula Siddartha and LW.7 Vangala Ramesh and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch and referred LW.2 Narsamma to Govt. CHC,

Parkal for treatment. There he examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements of LW.2 Gundemeedi Narsamma, LW.3 Bitla Pushpa Leela, LW.4 Kandukuri Vidya

Sagar, LW.5 Pavusetti Narsimha. On 21-21-2020 Accused surrendered before LW.9

P. Mahender, on admission of guilt, he released by serving Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice.

Later he collected medical certificate of LW.2 Narsamma from LW.8 Dr. D. Raju.

After completion of entire investigation, LW.9 P. Mahender filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Charge Sheet.

[2]. Case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused.

[3]. Copies was furnished to Accused on his appearance as per Sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

[4]. Accused is examined under sec.239 Criminal Procedure Code, and explained all the allegations of Charge Sheet and for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence U/Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused.

C.C No. 48 of 2021 3 of 11 21-11-2025 [5].On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 to PW.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4 are marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defence.

[6]. After completion of trial, Accused is examined Under sec. 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available against them, for which he denied and reported no evidence.

[7]. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

[8].Now the points for determination is:

(i). Whether prosecution could prove the guilt of Accused for the offence

punishable Under Section. 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond

all reasonable doubts?

[9]. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of prosecution it relied on the oral evidence of

PW.1 to PW.8 and Ex.P1 to P4 i.e., Ex.P1 is the Police Report, Ex.P2 is the Medical

Certificate of PW.2, Ex.P3 is the Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P4 is the First

Information report. None were examined and Ex.D1 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 confronted to PW.8 was marked on behalf of defence.

[10].The contention of the prosecution is that, on 17-12-2020 at 7.30 am

Accused keeping old grudges in mind beat PW.2 in her stomach with stick which was used for cleaning the house, due to which she fell down and received injuries to her waist and blackish on her stomach, the same was informed her mother over phone, as such he is liable to be punished for the above said offences. Whereas

C.C No. 48 of 2021 4 of 11 21-11-2025 the contention of the learned counsel for Accused is that, Accused is innocent person and Accused was falsely implicated in the present case.

[11].On behalf of prosecution PW.1 to PW.6 were examined and Ex. P1 to P4 were marked. From the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that, PW.2 alone stays in the house at Parkal. On 17-12-2020, Accused and her mother PW.2 resides adjacent to each other in same house in separate portions. Then PW.2 went to bring drinking water from back side of house, then Accused beat PW.2 with mop stick on her stomach, then PW.2 fell down back side. Then PW.2 called her over the phone, then he went to the house and took her government hospital, Parkal, then they told them to go to MGM hospital. Then due to several corona cases at the hospital, there they advised them to go to private hospital. Then they went to

Veena Medicare hospital, Hanumakonda. After three days of incident, she lodged report vide Ex. P1. During her cross-examination PW.1 stated that, the husband of

Accused is her owner brother. Her brother died at about 2 years ago. She admitted that, she has not attended for the funeral of her brother. The house in which PW.2 is living is on the name of PW.2. She admitted that, earlier the said house is on the name of her father. She admitted that, the said house is within three portions, in first portion PW.2 is living, in middle portion Accused is living and in third portion PW.3 is a tenant. She admitted that, since several years her brother lived in foreign countries. She admitted that, her marriage was performed in the year 1992. PW.1 denied that, when she was aged about 14 years, her brother and father purchased plot on her name, beside Parkal bus stand, PW.1 further states that, her father alone purchased. She admitted that, she along with her mother PW.2 filed O.S No. 249/2021 on the file of Prl. JCJ, Parkal seeking for

C.C No. 48 of 2021 5 of 11 21-11-2025 partition of house property in which PW.2 and Accused are residing. She admitted that, they filed the said suit during life time of her brother. She admitted that, she filed O.S No. 51/2022 on the file of Prl. JCJ, Parkal seeking for recovery of possession of the plot with house located near bus stand against Keerthi Anvesh and others. She does not know that, in the written statement filed in O.S No.

51/2022 on the file of Prl. JCJ, Parkal, the Defendants mentioned that, they are paying rent to her brother since last 12 years and he has given the said house to them for the rent, she further states that, her mother is collecting rents. It is true the said plot documents are in possession of her brother, PW.1 further states that, when PW.2 came to her house due to the leg injury, at that time they have stolen all the land documents. On 10-10-2015, the panchayath was conducted in between the husband of Accused (her brother) and them (PW.1 and PW.2) at

Parkal. She admitted that, theermanam was passed by their caste elders. She admitted that, in theermanam the elders decided to register both properties on the name of her brother, but they did not accept it. PW.1 along with PW.2 directly went to the Government hospital, Parkal and she did not get admitted. She admitted that, they have to cross police station to go to Government hospital. She admitted that, they did not get admitted in MGM hospital, they got x-ray there.

On same day of incident, they went to MGM hospital. On next day morning they went to Veena Medicare hospital, Hanumakonda. She admitted that, in Ex. P1 she has not mentioned specifically whatever the hospital they have visited before lodging Ex. P1.

[12].Here from the evidence of PW.1, PW.1 took PW.2 to Government hospital, Parkal, then they told them to go to MGM hospital. Then due to several

C.C No. 48 of 2021 6 of 11 21-11-2025 corona cases at the hospital, there they advised them to go to private hospital.

Then they went to Veena Medicare hospital, Hanumakonda, but the same was not mentioned in Ex. P1 or in her Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement. PW.1 admitted that, she along with her mother PW.2 filed O.S No. 249/2021 on the file of Prl. JCJ, Parkal seeking for partition of house property in which PW.2 and Accused are residing.

She admitted that, she filed O.S No. 51/2022 on the file of Prl. JCJ, Parkal seeking for recovery of possession of the plot with house located near bus stand. She admitted that, in theermanam the elders decided to register both properties on the name of her brother, but PW.1 and PW.2 did not accept it. It shows that, there are some land disputes between PW.1, PW.2 and the Accused, but no document is filed. PW.1 along with PW.2 directly went to the Government hospital, Parkal and she did not get admitted. She admitted that, they have to cross police station to go to Government hospital. The incident was took place on 17-12-2020 as per

Ex.P1 the report was lodged on 20-12-2020, there is three delay in lodging report, the delay was not explained. PW.1 has not stated before the police that, as “Tammudu” (husband of Accused) and have not stated before the police that, as “Tammudi bharya Mardal” (Accused) and have not stated before the police as

Tammudu and Mardal, but on perusal of the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, it is mentioned as “Tammudu” (husband of Accused), as “Tammudi bharya Mardal” (Accused) as “Tammudu and Mardal”. Here from the evidence of PW.1 there are omissions in Ex. P1.

[13].From the evidence of PW.2, she deposed that, PW.2 alone stays in the house at Parkal. At about 4 years ago, she went near the well to bring water, there was a quarrel between her and accused as to death anniversary of her husband as

C.C No. 48 of 2021 7 of 11 21-11-2025 to be held on 17th, but PW.2 performed it on 16th. Then Accused questioned her as to why she conducted death anniversary on 16th and she beat her mop stick on her abdomen, then she fell down towards on her back. Then she called PW.1 over phone, she came in auto and took her to Government hospital at Parkal and referred her to MGM hospital. There due to corona cases, sh was shifted to private hospital at Hanumakonda. During cross examination, she admitted that, her son (husband of Accused) promised to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- as well as he would give her some amount at once and she has not agreed and demanded him to hand over the said house where she can collect rents, PW.2 further states that, she has not agreed and asked him to allow her to collect rents. Thereafter she denied the suggestions made to her. Here from the evidence of PW.2 there are disputes between PW.2 and husband of Accused with regard to maintenance.

Whereas PW.1 has not disclosed about the quarrel between PW.1 and the Accused with regard to death anniversary of husband of PW.2.

[14]. PW.3 to PW.5 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW.3 deposed that, she is the tenant of house of Accused and PW.2. The Accused and PW.2 are having petty disputes between them and she do not know why PW.1 filed the present case and turned hostile. PW.4 and PW.5 deposed that, PW.2 informed them to come to her house and informed she fell down, and when they reached her house PW.2 informed that, there is a quarrel between PW.2 and Accused and Accused beat her with stick and they admonished Accused and left the scene and PW.4 and PW.5 turned hostile and not support the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. Here PW.4 and

PW.5 came to know about the incident only through PW.2 and from their evidence there is no eye witness to the incident.

C.C No. 48 of 2021 8 of 11 21-11-2025 [15]. PW.8 is the investigation officer, he after receiving Ex.P1 registered Ex. P4 and visited scene of offence and secured presence of PW.7 & LW.7 Vangala

Ramesh and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch.

Here PW.7 deposed that, on 20-12-2020 police conducted panchanama by stating

Accused beat PW.2 and he admitted the said proceedings vide Ex.P3 and supported the case of prosecution and LW.7 Vangala Ramesh was not examined by the prosecution to depose in support of PW.7. The investigation officer herein has failed to seize the weapon allegedly used by the Accused in commission offence from the scene of offence.

[16]. The Investigation officer PW.8 has deposed to the extent of his investigation, but he failed to examine the eye witnesses. Further he collects medical certificate of injured PW.2 from PW.6. Here PW.6 deposed that, he examined PW.2 and noted down the injuries as Pain and tenderness over epigastric region and pain and tenderness over lower back and he opined the said injuries are simple in nature and caused with blunt object. Further he referred her to MGM Hospital for abdomen scan, then she went to MGM Hospital and brought her scan report and after noticing it was normal and PW.6 issued medical certificate vide Ex. P2. Here the investigation officer has not cited the doctors who treated PW.2 at MGM hospital, Warangal and Veena Medicare Hospital,

Hanumakonda. PW.8 also admitted that, the date on Ex. P2 is false and he has not collected x-ray reports and PW.8 has failed to collect medical evidence from V

Veena Medicare Hospital. PW.6 admitted that, pain and tenderness is not a visible injury and basing on the information given by the injured only they mentioned pain and tenderness. The learned counsel for Accused confronted Sec. 161 Cr.P.C

C.C No. 48 of 2021 9 of 11 21-11-2025 statement of PW.1 to PW.8 and PW.8 admitted that, in the statement of PW.1, it is mentioned as in 3rd line she stated as “Ma Thammudu”, in 4th line as “Na

Thammudu”, in 5th line as “Na Thammuni Baryaku” and in 16th line as “Ma Mardalu

Manjuala” as marked as Ex.D1, whereas during cross examination of PW.1 she denied she stated in her statement as “Tammudu” (husband of Accused) and have not stated before the police that, as “Tammudi bharya Mardal” (Accused) and have not stated before the police as Tammudu and Mardal.

[17]. On perusal of evidence placed, the prosecution herein has failed to establish the motive of Accused to attack PW.2, simply in the chargesheet it is mentioned that due to old grudges Accused beat PW.2. Moreover, there are different dates on Ex. P2 and the same was admitted by PW.8. Further the investigation officer herein has conducted scene of offence panchanama on 20- 12-2020 as the report was lodged after three days of incident. Further investigation officer failed to recover the alleged weapon stick used by the

Accused in commission of offence.

[18]. At present except PW.1 & PW.2, Panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW.7, Doctor PW.6 Investigation officer PW.8, other witnesses PW.2 to PW.5 turned hostile. Moreover, Doctors were treated PW.2 at MGM hospital,

Veena Medicare hospital was not cited as witness by the investigation officer, and none of the independent or eye witnesses from the scene were examined.

[19]. In the above all circumstances, since except PW.1 & PW.2, PW.6 to PW.8, other independent witnesses turned hostile and PW.1 & PW.2 herein are family members. Moreover, there are omissions between PW.1, PW.2 and Ex. P1,

C.C No. 48 of 2021 10 of 11 21-11-2025 therefore solely on their evidence the Accused cannot be convicted, and also the investigation officer herein has not investigated as to weapon seized and also no medical reports were filed to say that injured PW.2 got treated in MGM Hospital, warangal and Veena Medicare Hospital, Hanumakonda. Therefore, the evidence of

PW.1 & PW.2, PW.6 to PW.8 is not sufficient to prove that, Accused beat PW.2 with stick and caused injury. Basing on the sole evidence of PW.1 & PW.2, PW.6 to PW.8 without supporting evidence or eye witness, Accused cannot be convicted, as such

Accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore, Accused is entitled for

Acquittal for the offence under sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code.

[20]. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

section. 324 of Indian Penal Code and she is acquitted under sec. 248(1)

Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences. The bail bonds of the Accused

executed earlier shall stands canceled after lapse of appeal time.

There is no case property seized and deposited, therefore there is no

order as to case property.

Typed to my dictation to my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 21 st day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: - PW1: Gourishetti Dhanalaxmi

PW2: Gundemeedi Narsamma,

PW3: Bitla Pushpa Leela,

C.C No. 48 of 2021 11 of 11 21-11-2025

PW4: Pavushetti Narsimha Ramulu,

PW5: Kandukuri Vidya Sagar,

PW6: Dr. D. Raju,

PW7: Pasula Siddartha,

PW8: P. Mahender.

For defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1: is the Police Report,

Ex. P2: is the Medical Certificate of PW.2,

Ex. P3: is the scene of offence panchanama,

Ex. P4: is the First Information Report.

For defence:

Ex. D1: is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 confronted to PW.8.

MO's marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

C.C. No.87 of 2017 1 of 8 18-11-2025

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

PARKAL.

Tuesday, this the 18 th day of November, 2025. Present:- Sri. G. Sai Sharath , FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Parkal.

Calender Case No. 87 of 2017

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.

...Complainant

And

[1]. Gangaram Suresh, S/o. Sammaiah, Age 30 years, Occ: Tractor Owner & Driver, Mahendra Tractor 475 [2]. Shanigiram Ashok, S/o. Lingaiah, Age 36 years, Occ: Tractor Driver and Owner Mahendra Tractor 475 bearing No. AP36AZ5569 and trailor No. AP36AZ5568, Both are R/o. Charlapally Village.

...Accused

*****

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. Matcha Mahender 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

Brief facts of the case are that:

[1]. It is the case of prosecution as set up in the Charge Sheet filed by Sub-

Inspector of Police, PS. Parkal is that, on 16-05-2017 at 9.00 am LW.1 B. Rajan

Babu lodged report stated that, as per instructions of his Superior officers, he along with LW.2 SK. Ahmed and LW.3 J. Devender have left the P.S. Parkal for patrolling at Parkal town on the way on 16-05-2017 at about 09.45 am, when they reached at RTC Depot cross road at Parkal and they found two Tractors, coming from Cherlapalli direction with sand load in suspicious manner. On that, they stopped the said Tractors, meanwhile the drivers stopped their tractors and tried to escape from there, immediately he, along with his staff

C.C. No.87 of 2017 2 of 8 18-11-2025 apprehended them. Later they checked their tractors and found with sand load.

On enquiry they have not shown any permission letters for sand from concerned authorities. Immediately, he secured the presence of two mediators and enquired about the sand loaded tractors and noticed that the tractors belongs to Accused No. 1 & 2 both are the driver and owner on above respective tractors and they are loaded sand at Peddavagu, outskirts of Charlapally village and illegally transporting same at Parkal surrounding villages to earn money on easy way and conducted the scene of offence panchanama before the above mediators, later, the accused No. 1& 2 taken into the custody along with sand loaded Tractors and handed over them with confessional and seizure panchanama with accused persons and two sand loaded tractors and lodged report.

Basing on the said report LW.9 N. Srikanth registered a case in

Cr.No.101/2017 of P.S Parkal for the Offence U/s. 379 of Indian Penal Code, Sec.

21(1) of MM Act and issued FIR’s to all concerned. During course of investigation, LW.9 N. Srikanth examined and recorded sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements of LW.1 B. Rajan Babu, LW.2 SK. Ahmed and LW.3 J. Devender. Then he visited scene of offence and secured the presence of LW.6 Yerra Ramakrishna and LW.7 Chunchu Nagaraju and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. LW.9 N. Srikanth arrested Accused No.1 & 2, on admission of guilt, and produced Accused No.1 & 2 in the Court and they were remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, LW.9 N. Srikanth released two Tractor and LW.9 N.

Srikanth deposed the sand before LW.8 P. Hari Krishna and got auctioned the seized sand and thereafter he remitted the sale proceeds of Rs. 5,000/- each in the Court vide Challan No. 570 and 571. After completion of entire

C.C. No.87 of 2017 3 of 8 18-11-2025 investigation, LW.9 N. Srikanth filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 & 2 for the offence under Sec. 379 IPC, Sec. 21(1) of AP Mines and Minerals Act.

Thus, the Charge Sheet.

[2]. Case is taken on file for the offence U/Sec. 379 of Indian Penal Code & Sec.

21(1) of AP Mines and Minerals Act against Accused No.1 & 2.

[3]. Copies were furnished to Accused No.1 & 2 on their appearance as per

Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

[4].Accused no.1 & 2 were examined under Sec. 239 Criminal Procedure Code and explained all the allegations of Charge Sheet and they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Sec. 379 of

Indian Penal Code.

[5].On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 to PW.6 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P8 is marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defence.

[6]. After closure of the trial, the Accused No.1 & 2 are examined U/s. 313

Cr.P.C for incriminating evidence available against them, for which they denied and reported no evidence.

[7].Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

[8].Now the points for determination are as follows:

(i). Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of

Accused No. 1 & 2 for the offence under sec. Sec. 379 of Indian

C.C. No.87 of 2017 4 of 8 18-11-2025

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

[9]. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of prosecution it relied on the oral evidence of

PW.1 to PW.6 and Exhibit P1 to P8 i.e., Ex.P1 is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P2 is the report, Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P4 is the FIR, Ex.P5 is the letter to Tahsildar, dt: 18-05-2017, Ex.P6 is the

Letter from Tahsildar, dt: 19-05-2017, Ex.P7 is the Challan No. 570, dt: 20-05- 2017 and Ex.P8 is the Challan No. 571, dt: 20-05-2017 were marked, and none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defence.

[10].The contention of the prosecution is that, PW.1 along with PW.2 and LW.3

J. Devender on 16-05-2017 were conducting patriolling at Parkal town, there he has seen two tractors loaded with sand were proceeding towards Charlapally village, on suspicious they stopped the tractors, and its drivers tried to fled away leaving the tractors there itself. Accused No.1 & 2 being the drivers and owners of the said tractors are transporting sand without any permit or license.

Whereas the contention of the learned counsel for Accused is that, Accused are falsely implicated in the present case and no way connected to the present case and prosecution failed to file documentary evidence to say that the Accused persons are drivers and owners of the tractors and they are transporting the sand.

[11]. PW.1 & PW.2 are the police officials, they deposed that, at about 9.45 am, while they were conducting patrolling and reached near RTC Bus depot, they noticed two tractors loaded with sand, on suspicious they stopped the said tractors, and drivers tried to fled away, but they caught them, on enquiry they

C.C. No.87 of 2017 5 of 8 18-11-2025 stated that, they are transporing sand from Cherlapally village vagu to Parkal without permit, they secured panch witnesses and conducted confession-cum- seizure panchanama vide Ex.P1 and lodged Ex.P1. During their cross examination they stated that, stated that, on 16-05-2017 at 9.45 am they caught accused. They went to patrolling duty and on the way, they went to scene of offence. They enquired identify of Accused with them and secured presence of panch witnesses at the scene of offence and thereafter denied the suggestions made to him. Whereas LW.3 J. Devender, who is the official and eye witness to depose about the incident was not examined.

[12].PW.3 & PW.4 are the panch witnesses for scene offence panchanama, they deposed that, in the year 2017 Police parkal arrested Accused No.2 near parkal RTC Bus Depot and seized one tractor and its trolley loaded with sand and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama vide Ex. P1 in their presence and Accused No. 2 confessed that, he is transporting sand from

Cherlapally. During their further evidence they deposed that, they do not know anything about the facts of the case and further he admitted that, whatever stated in his chief examination is true and correct and further admitted that, at the instance of police PW.3 stated in his chief examination and do not know the contents of Ex. P1.

[13].As per the case of prosecution, PW.1 and PW.2 caught two tractors loaded with sand and its drivers tried to fled away and they caught Accused persons and as per cross examination they secured the presence of panch witnesess and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of Accused No. 1 & 2. Whereas PW.3 and PW.4 panch witnesses for confession-cum-seizure

C.C. No.87 of 2017 6 of 8 18-11-2025 panchanama deposed that, Police parkal arrested Accused No.2 near parkal RTC

Bus Depot and seized one tractor and its trolley loaded with sand. Here there is contradiction with regard to how many tractors PW.1 & PW.2 caught and the presence of Accused No. 1 at the scene of offence is in question. PW.3 & PW.4 deposed in two different versions and not supported the case of prosecution.

[14].Further PW.6 is the investigation officer, he was examined by the prosecution to depose to the extent of his investigation. The investigation officer who after receiving police report, he registered First Information Report and visited scene of offence and secured presence of same panch witnesses

PW.5 & LW.7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch vide Ex. P3. Here PW.5 stated that, police conducted scene of offence panchanama near RTC Bus Stop as they caught tractor loaded with sand. During his cross examination he stated that, he do not know the tractor or its trolley number. On perusal of Ex. P3 the date and time of visit of scene of offence is mentioned as on 16-05-2017 at 12.30 pm, but the scene of offence was prepared on 17-05-2017. Whereas LW.7 Chunchu Nagaraju was not examined in support of PW.5 to depose whether the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence or not. Further PW.6 arrested Accused No. 1 & 2, but not conducted confession panchanama.

[15].The investigation officer herein has failed to examine the independent witnesses from the scene and has not collected documents pertaining to the crime vehicles, and also the said case properties were not deposited in the

Court after auction of sand. Moreover LW.8 Hari Krishna was not examined by the prosecution, who conducted auction panchanama and also the said

C.C. No.87 of 2017 7 of 8 18-11-2025 panchanama proceedings if any is not filed to say that how much sand was seized from each tractor and its trolley. Further PW.6 failed to adduce evidence as to who is driver and who is the owner of the seized tractors. Moreover, the investigation officer is silent with regard to from which place the said sand is loaded and is being transported.

[16]. In the above all circumstances, the prosecution herein failed to prove that Accused are the persons being the owners and drivers of the said tractors are transporting the sand illegally without any permit. Therefore, in the above all circumstances Accused No. 1 & 2 are entitled for acquittal, as such they are acquitted for offence under sec. 379 of Indian Penal Code.

[17]. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused No. 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the

offences under section. 379 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted

under sec. 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences. The bail

bonds of the Accused executed earlier shall stands canceled after lapse of

appeal time.

There is no case property deposited in the court, therefore, there is

no order as to case property. The sale proceeds of sand auction amounts of

Rs. 10,000/- deposited vide challan no. 570 and 571, shall be confiscated to

the state.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 18 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal

C.C. No.87 of 2017 8 of 8 18-11-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:

PW.1: B. Rajan Babu,

PW.2: SK. Ahmed,

PW.3: Bolliganti Ravi,

PW.4: Bejjanki Jagdeesh,

PW.5: Yerra Ramakrishna,

PW.6: N. Srikanth.

For defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1: confession-cum-seizure panchanama,

Ex. P2: report

Ex. P3: scene of offence panchanama

Ex. P4: FIR

Ex. P5: letter to Tahsildar, dt: 18-05-2017

Ex. P6: Letter from Tahsildar, dt: 19-05-2017

Ex. P7: Challan No. 570, dt: 20-05-2017

Ex. P8: Challan No. 571, dt: 20-05-2017.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC. Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal

C.C. No.78 of 2020 1 of 8 21-11-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT:: PARKAL.

Friday, this the 21 st day of November, 2025. Present:- Sri. G. Sai Sharath , FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

Calendar Case. No. 78 of 2020

Between:

State through Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.

...Complainant

And

Panchaneni Bhasker Rao, S/o. Dharma Rao, Age 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.

Nadikuda village and Mandal.

...Accused .

*****

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. K. Suresh Kumar 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

Brief facts of the case are that:

[1].It is the case of prosecution as set up in the Charge Sheet filed by

Inspector of Police, P.S Parkal is that, on 28-12-2019 at 16.00 hours, LW.1 Smt. H.

Komee came to PS and lodged a report stating that, she is working as Tahsildar at

Nadikuda Mandal. Accused visiting Tahsil Office Nadikuda frequently since 6 months and used to ask unnecessary questions according to RTI Act, obstructed and deter her from discharging of her legitimate duty, however she has given answers to all questioned asked by Accused according to RTI Act. Even though,

Accused used to visit Tahsil Office frequently and stalking her by obstructing her legitimate duty. On 23-12-2019 afternoon at about 13:00 hours Accused came to her chamber in Tahsil Office and used utter words with intent to insult her modesty and also threatened her with dire consequences and deter her from discharging her legitimate duty, as she ws in vacation of Christmas Festival it was delay in reporting

C.C. No.78 of 2020 2 of 8 21-11-2025 the matter.

Basing on the said report LW.10 P. Mahender registered a case in Cr.No.

306/2019 of P.S Parkal for the Offence U/s. 353, 509, 506 of Indian Penal Code and issued First Information Report to all concerned. During course of investigation, LW.10 P. Mahender examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.1 Kazmee Komee. Then she visited scene of offence and secured presence of LW.6 Voora Ravinder and LW.7 Maram Prabhakar and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. There LW.10

P. Mahender examined and recorded Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of LW.2 to LW.5.

LW.10 P. Mahender also collected the attested copies of RTI Act papers from

LW.1. On 07-01-2020 LW.10 P. Mahender arrested Accused and secured presence of LW.8 Yatakala Kumaraswamy and LW.9 Sura Raju and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama and seized two letters, on admission of guilt, he got remanded to judicial custody. As per statements of LW.2 to LW.5 the offence under Sec. 509 of IPC is not established. After completion of entire investigation, LW.10 P. Mahender filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under Sec. 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Charge Sheet.

[2].This Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Sec. 353, 506 of

Indian Penal Code against the Accused.

[3].After appearance of Accused all the documents were furnished to him as per Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

[4].Accused is examined under Sec. 251 Criminal Procedure Code and explained all the allegations of Charge Sheet and he denied the same and

C.C. No.78 of 2020 3 of 8 21-11-2025 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offences under Sec. 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

[5].On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 to PW.8 were examined and Ex. P1 to

P7 are marked. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

[6]. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, Accused is examined under

Section.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available against him, for which they denied and reported no evidence.

[7].Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

[8].Now the points for determination are as follows:

(i). Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence under Sec. 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubts?

[9]. POINT: -

In order to prove the case of prosecution it relied on the oral evidence of

PW.1 to PW.8 and Ex. P1 to P7 i.e., Ex. P1 is the Police Report, Ex.P2 is.the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex. P3 is.the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3,

Ex.P4 is.the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P6 is the FIR, Ex.P7 is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

None were examined and Ex. D1 is the attested Proceedings no. 888/2019, dt:

24-12-2019 and Ex. D2 is the attested Proceedings no. 888/2019, dt: 10-12-2019 confronted to PW.1 was marked on behalf of defence.

[10].The contention of the prosecution is that, Accused used to visit Tahsil

C.C. No.78 of 2020 4 of 8 21-11-2025 office, Nadikuda frequently, on 23-12-2019 afternoon at about 13:00 hours

Accused came to her chamber in Tahsil Office and used utter words with intent to insult her modesty and also threatened her with dire consequences and deter her from discharging her legitimate duty, as such he liable to be punished for the above said offences. Whereas the contention of the learned counsel for

Accused is that, Accused is innocent person, and he is falsely implicated in the present case and no way connected to the present case.

[11].PW.1 is the complainant and Official witness, PW.1 deposed that, Accused used to approach MRO office and ask everything under RTI, even though irrelevant they used to issue data to him. Accused used to visit MRO office regularly and use to create nuisance. On the day of incident there was a MLA meeting, Accused has created pamplets by writing badly on her name in vulgar language and distributed in the MLA programme at Nadikuda Village. Then press informed her that the accused distributed pamplets, then she took copy from them and thereafter on same day she lodged report against him vide Ex.

P1. Accused used to visit MRO office frequently and used to disturb staff and used to ask irrelevant records. During her cross-examination PW.1, she admitted that, their office is public office and accused has filed RTI applications before their office. Accused used to ask irrelevant information which is not available in their office. She has not given any reply by stating that, the application filed by the accused is irrelevant. She denied that, she have admitted in the proceeding no.

888/2019, dt: 24-12-2019 Sl.No.1 stating that, there was irregularities in the entries. PW.1 has attested the proceedings no. 888/2019, dt: 24-12-2019 (Ex. D1) and PW.1 has attested proceeding no. 888/2019, dt: 10-12-2019 (Ex. D2). She

C.C. No.78 of 2020 5 of 8 21-11-2025 admitted that, a case was registered against her in P.S Parvathagiri stating that, death certificates was issued on the name of live persons. She denied that, she was on leave from 4th December 2019. She admitted that, she has stated in her complaint that, she was on leave due to Christmas.

[12].Here, from the evidence of PW.1, there was a MLA meeting on 28-12-2019 at

Nadikuda Village and she has mentioned the date of MLA meeting in Ex. P1 and also in her sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement, whereas on perusal of Ex. P1, PW.1 has not mentioned the date of MLA meeting as 28-12-2019 in Ex. P1. Here PW.1 also not mentioned in Ex. P1 that, on the day of the incident there was a MLA meeting, the Accused had created pamphlets by writing badly on her name in vulgar language and distributed in the MLA programme at Nadikuda Village. No document is filed to say that she was on leave due to Christmas and the investigation officer has not collected copy of attendance register of PW.1.

[13].PW.2 to PW.4 are the eye witnessed to the incident, they deposed that, they came to know about the incident by hearsay and they do not know anything about the present case and turned hostile. PW.5 is also another eye witness to the incident, he deposed that, on the date of incident he went to field and he was not present on the date of incident and do not know anything about the present case and he came to know about the incident after returning to MRO officer. Here PW.5 has not disclosed through whom he came to know about the incident. Here from the evidence of PW.2 to PW.5, they are not the eye witnesses to the incident.

[14].Further PW.8 is an investigation officer, he was examined by the prosecution to the extent of his investigation. He after receiving Ex. P1 issued

First Information Report vide Ex. P6 and visited scene of offence and secured

C.C. No.78 of 2020 6 of 8 21-11-2025 presence of PW.6 and LW.7 Maram Prabhakar and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch vide Ex. P5. Here PW.6 deposed that Police parkal conducted panchanama and PW.6 and LW.7 Prabhakar singed on panchanama and admitted the said proceedings and during his cross examination he stated that, he did not know anything, at request of police he signed on Ex. P5. Here, the evidence of PW.6 has not supported the case of prosecution and LW.7 Maram Prabhakar was not examined to depose whether scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence or not.

[15].PW.8 further arrested Accused and secured presence of PW.7 and LW.9

Sura Raju and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama. Here PW.7 deposed that, as per oral instructions of then Tahsildar parkal he went to Nadiuda village, police inspector has conducted enquiry against Accused and Accused used to frequently visit tahsildar office, Nadikuda and in the said matter, there was quarrel took place between PW.1 and accused. Here PW.7 supported the case of prosecution with regard to the panchanama conducted by the Investigation officer.

Here the investigation officer has failed to collect the CC tv footage of office of

PW.1 whether the Accused came to her chamber in Tahsil office.

[16].At present, the material witnesses PW.1 is the defacto complainant and official witness and other eye witnesses PW.2 to PW.5 and PW.6 panch witness for scene of offence were not supported the case of prosecution, the case cannot depend on the evidence of official witness, PW.1 and PW.8 and there is no independent eye witness to say that, the accused obstructed PW.1 in discharging legitimate duties and threatened with dire consequences, as such there is no incriminating material available on record against the Accused.

C.C. No.78 of 2020 7 of 8 21-11-2025

Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal, as such Accused is acquitted for offence under sec. 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

[17]. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sec. 353, 506 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under sec. 255(1)

Criminal Procedure Code for the said offences. The bail bonds of the

Accused executed earlier shall stands cancelled after lapse of the appeal

time.

There is no case property seized and deposited, therefore, there is no

order as to case property.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the 21 st day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution:

PW.1: Smt. Hazmee Komee

PW.2: G. Satyanarayana Srilatha

PW.3: Malothu Srinu

PW.4: G. Bishmachary

PW.5: Bandi Yadaiah

PW.6: Voora Ravinder

PW.7: Y. Kumaraswamy

PW.8: P. Mahinder.

C.C. No.78 of 2020 8 of 8 21-11-2025

For defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1: is the Police Report

Ex. P2: is the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex. P3: is.the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex. P4: is.the sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex. P5: is the scene of offence panchanama

Ex. P6: is the FIR

Ex. P7: is the confession-cum-seizure panchanama.

For defence:

Ex. D1: is the attested Proceedings no. 888/2019, dt: 24-12-2019

Ex. D2: is the attested Proceedings no. 888/2019, dt: 10-12-2019

Material Objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

C.C No. 898 of 2020 1 of 6 21-11-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: PARKAL.

Present: - Sri. G. Sai Sharath FAC: Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class. Parkal. Friday, this the 21st day of November, 2025.

Calendar Case No. 898 of 2020

Between: -

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.

...Complainant.

And

Morri Rajaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, age 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nadikuda village and mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. K. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

Brief facts of the case are that:

[1]. It is the case of prosecution as set up in the Charge Sheet filed by Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S Parkal is that, on 07-02-2020 at 18.30 hours the complainant LW.1 Morri Komuramma came to PS Parkal and lodged report in telugu in which she stated that, she and her husband are eking their livelihood by agriculture and they are having Agriculture land at the outskirts of

Vellampally village. On 07-02-2020 morning while they were attending works in their fields at about 12.30 hours, their community person Accused came to her and stated she is maintaining extra marital relationship with others and caught hold her hand and used criminal force to outrage her modesty, when she made hues and cries, one LW.4 Appam Cheralu who is working adjacent of their land

C.C No. 898 of 2020 2 of 6 21-11-2025 rushed to her, on seeing him Accused left her and threatened he will kill her and fled away. Since one year Accused used to visit to their Agriculture fields and pestering and tortured with gargling words.

Basing on the said report LW.8 A. Venkatakrishna/Investigation Officer registered a case in Cr.No.38/2020 of P.S Parkal for the Offence U/s. 354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR to all concerned. During course of investigation, LW.8 A. Venkatakrishna instructed LW.2 T. Lavanya to examine and record the statement of LW.1 Morri Komuramma and LW.2 examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.1, later he examined and recorded statement of LW.2 at PS. Then he visited scene of offence and secured presence of LW.5 Palle Ravinder and LW.6 Vanke Raju and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. Later he examined and recorded the statement of LW.3 and LW.4. On 25-02-2020 LW.8 A. Venkatakrishna/

Investigation officer arrested Accused, on admission of guilt, he released him by serving Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice. Later LW.7 Smt. A. Swarnalatha, Hon’ble VII

AJFCM, Warangal recorded Sec. 164 Cr.P.C statement of victim.. After completion of entire investigation, LW.8 A. Venkatakrishna/Investigation Officer filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences under Sec. 354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Charge Sheet.

[2].This Court has taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence under Sec. 354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

[3]. Copies were furnished to Accused on their appearance as per Sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

C.C No. 898 of 2020 3 of 6 21-11-2025 [4]. Accused is examined under sec.239 Criminal Procedure Code, and explained all the allegations of Charge Sheet and for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence Under Sec.354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

[5].On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 to PW.4 were examined and Ex. P1 to

P4 are marked i.e., Ex. P1 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex. P2 is the

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex. P3 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.3, Ex.P4 is the CDF. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses, hence the evidence of LW.2, LW.6 to LW.8 is closed, and none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defense.

[6]. After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of

Accused under Section. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating evidence available against them.

[7]. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

[8].Now the points for determination is:

(i). Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of Accused

for the offence under Sec. 354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and

beyond all reasonable doubts?

[9]. POINT: - [9.1]. The contention of the prosecution is that, on 07-02-2020 morning while

PW.1 was attending works in her fields at about 12.30 hours, Accused came to her and stated she is maintaining extra marital relationship with others and caught hold her hand and used criminal force to outrage her modesty, when she

C.C No. 898 of 2020 4 of 6 21-11-2025 made hues and cries, PW.3 rushed to her, on seeing him Accused left her and threatened he will kill her and fled away. Since one year Accused used to visit to their Agriculture fields and pestering and tortured with gargling words, as such

Accused are liable to be punishable for the above said offence. Whereas the contention of the learned counsel for Accused is that, she is innocent person, and she is falsely implicated in the present case, and no way connected to the present case.

[9.2]. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and victim and PW.2 is the husband of

PW.1 and circumstantial witness, they deposed that earlier due to some incident they lodged report against the Accused person and they do not want to proceed with the present case and compromised the matter out of the Court and turned hostile and has not deposed anything about the incident nor against the

Accused. Further PW.3 is the eye witness, he deposed that, he do not know anything about the facts of the case and has not witnessed any incident in this case and turned hostile.

[9.3]. LW.8 A. Venkatakrishna is the investigation officer, he was not examined by the prosecution to depose to the extent of his investigation, he after received report, registered FIR and visited scene of offence and secured presence of PW.4 and LW.6 Vanke Raju and conducted scene of offence panahanana and drew rough sketch. Here PW.4 deposed that, about 2 to 3 years ago, parkal police visited the scene of offence and prepared panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW.6 Vanke Raju and admitted the said proceedings vide Ex. P4. Further during his cross-examination, he admitted that, no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he signed on Ex. P4 in police

C.C No. 898 of 2020 5 of 6 21-11-2025 station. Here PW.4 deposed in two different version as to the conduct of panchanama and place of conduct of panchanama. Whereas LW.6 Vanke Raju was not examined to depose whether panchanama was conducted in his presence or not. The learned APP given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 were turned hostile to the prosecution case. No purpose would be served in examining the remaining witnesses.

[9.4]. On perusal of the entire material evidence available on record, it shows that the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court declared PW.1 to PW.3 as hostile due to compromise with the accused out of the

Court. In view of compromise with the accused out of the Court and the panch witness has not supported the case of proseuction and as there is no ample evidence hence the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses on record i.e., LW.2, LW.6 to LW.8. Hence, this Court has constrained to close their evidence. As such, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused.

[9.5]. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Sec.

354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

[10]. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under

section. 354, 354-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under sec.

C.C No. 898 of 2020 6 of 6 21-11-2025

248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused executed

earlier shall stands canceled after lapse of appeal time.

There is no case property deposited in the Court, therefore there is no

order as to case property.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 21 st day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC:Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: -

PW1: Morri Komuramma,

PW2: Morri Iylaiah,

PW3: Appam Cheralu,

PW4: Palle Ravinder.

For Defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex. P2 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex. P3 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex. P4 is the Scene of offence panchanama.

For defence:

-Nil-. MO's marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC:Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

C.C No. 878 of 2021 1 21-11-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT: PARKAL.

Friday, this the 21st day of November, 2025. Present: - Sri. G. Sai Sharath FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Parkal.

Calendar Case No. 878 of 2021

Between: -

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.

...Complainant.

And

Kadivendi Ramesh, S/o. Veeramallu, Age 43 years, Occ: Medical shop business, R/o. H.No. 2-158 Shambunipally village of Kamalapur Mandal, Now at H.No. 1- 158 Seetharampuram village of Parkal.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri. P. Venu learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

Brief facts of the case are that:

[1]. It is the case of prosecution as set up in the Charge Sheet filed by Sub-

Inspector of Police, P.S Parkal is that, on 11-08-2021 at 7.10 pm, the complainant

LW1-Kadivendi Rajamogili lodged a complaint stating that, they are 3 brothers ie., Kadivendi Rajamogili, Swargia Kadavendi Koti and the Accused to their parents. His younger brother Accused was not looking after welfare of his parents he placed issue before Ex-Sarpanch LW.2 Gopu Rajaiah. Accordingly on 11-8-2021 at 13.30 hours, he called him and his brother Accused and sister into panchayath, he firstly reached to there and his sister not arrived, he was talking with Ex-Sarpanch, meanwhile his brother Accused was suddenly attacked on him and picked up chair and beat on his right hand forcibly, as a result of which he

C.C No. 878 of 2021 2 21-11-2025 caused severe injuries, immediately he went to Maheshwara Digital X-ray Clinic at Parkal and got X-ray and declared his hand was fractured. He is having life threat with his brother Accused.

Basing on the said report LW.9 Prashanth Babu/Investigation Officer registered a case in Cr.No.180/2021 of P.S Parkal for the Offence U/s. 324 of

Indian Penal Code and issued FIR to all concerned. During course of investigation, LW.9 Prashanth Babu examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.1 Kadivendi Rajamogili and referred him to Govt. CHC, Parkal for treatment and medical certificate. Later on, 12-08-2021 he visited scene of offence and secured presence of LW.5 Gopu Sanjeeva and LW.6 Nallela

Sambaiah and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch.

Thereafter, he examined and recorded Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statements of LW.2 to

LW.4. Thereafter he collected medical certificate of LW.1 from LW.8 Dr. P.

Ramesh Babu and Radiology report from LW.7 Dr. Sk. A. Hafeezuddin. Basing on the medical certificate the investigation officer has altered section of law from under Sec. 324 of IPC to Sec. 326 of IPC. On 30-08-2021 LW.9 Prashanth Babu arrested Accused, on admission of guilt, he produced Accused before the court and got remanded to judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation,

LW.9 Prashanth Babu/Investigation Officer filed charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence under Sec. 326 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the Charge

Sheet.

[2].This Court has taken cognizance against the Accused for the offence under Sec. 326 of Indian Penal Code.

[3]. Copies was furnished to Accused on his appearance as per Sec.207 of

C.C No. 878 of 2021 3 21-11-2025

Criminal Procedure Code.

[4].Accused is examined under sec.239 Criminal Procedure Code, and explained all the allegations of Charge Sheet and for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence Under Sec. 326 of

Indian Penal Code.

[5].On behalf of the prosecution PW.1 & PW.2 were examined and Ex. P1 to

P3 are marked i.e., Ex. P1 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1, Ex. P2 is the

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex. P3 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses LW.4 to LW.9, hence their evidence is closed, and none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of defense.

[6].After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of the

Accused under Section. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating evidence available against them.

[7]. Heard both sides, perused the material on record.

[8].Now the points for determination is:

(i). Whether the prosecution could be able to prove the guilt of the

Accused for the offence under Sec. 326 of Indian Penal Code beyond a

reasonable doubt?

[9]. POINT: - [9.1]. The contention of the prosecution is that, on 11-8-2021 at 13.30 hours, the PW.2 called PW.1 and Accused and PW.3 into panchayath with regard to

C.C No. 878 of 2021 4 21-11-2025 maintenance of mother of PW.1 and Accused, PW.1 firstly reached to there and his sister PW.3 not arrived, PW.1 was talking with Ex-Sarpanch, meanwhile his brother Accused was suddenly attacked on him and picked up chair and beat on his right hand forcibly, as a result of which he caused severe injuries, immediately he went to Maheshwara Digital X-ray Clinic at Parkal and got X-ray and declared his hand was fractured, as such Accused is liable to be punishable for the above said offences. Whereas the contention of the learned counsel for

Accused is that, he is innocent person, and he is falsely implicated in the present case, and no way connected to the present case.

[9.2]. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant, PW.2 & PW.3 are the eyewitnesses, PW.1 deposed that earlier due to some incident he lodged report against the Accused person and he do not want to proceed with the present case and compromised the matter out of the Court and turned hostile and has not deposed anything about the incident nor against the Accused. PW.2 & PW.3 also deposed that, they do not know anything about the facts of the case, they do not witness any incident and turned hostile. The learned APP given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 were turned hostile to the prosecution case. No purpose would be served in examining the remaining witnesses.

[9.3]. On perusal of the entire material evidence available on record, it shows that the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court declared PW.1 to PW.3 as hostile due to compromise with the accused out of the

Court. In view of compromise with the accused out of the Court and as there is no ample evidence hence the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses on record i.e., LW.4 to LW.9. Hence, this Court

C.C No. 878 of 2021 5 21-11-2025 has constrained to close their evidence. As such, there is no sufficient evidence against the accused for the alleged offences. Hence, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused. Moreover, the investigation officer has not seized any chair used by the Accused in commission of offence.

[9.4]. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the Accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Sec.

326 of Indian Penal Code.

[10]. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under

section. 326 of Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C

for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused executed earlier shall

stands canceled after lapse of appeal time.

There is no case property seized and deposited in the Court,

therefore, there is no orders as to case property.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 21 st day of November, 2025.

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESS EXAMINED)

For Prosecution: -

PW1: Kadivendi Rajamogili

PW2: Gopu Rajaiah,

PW3: Kadivendi Saraswathi.

C.C No. 878 of 2021 6 21-11-2025

For defence:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex. P1 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex. P2 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex. P3 is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

For defence:

-Nil-. MO's marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC: Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Parkal.