Ms. Gedam Swathi

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT:- Smt. Gedam Swathi

II- Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurabad.

Thursday, the 28 th day of March 2024.

CALENDER CASE No. 84 of 2017.

Between:-

The State through Proh & Excise Sub-Inspector, Jammikunta, PR.No.162/2013-2014. …Complainant.

And

A.1. Jakke Ram Chandram, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 38 years, Caste: Goud, R/o Tanugula village.

*A.2. Mallesh, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 43 years, Caste: Vaddera,

R/o Pandilla village of Kalvasrirampur.

( The case against A.2 was split up vide C.C.No.3 of 2020 on

13.01.2020 and the case is proceeded against A.1 only) .

…Accused.

Offence U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act-1995

This case is coming before me on 27.03.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for A.1, having heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Jammikunta Station has filed a charge sheet in COR.No.162/2013-14 for the offence U/sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act,1995 against the accused.

2.The Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Jammikunta filed a charge sheet alleging that on 25.06.2013 at about 7.30 hours on reliable information about the illegal possession and selling of

Illicit Distilled Liquor at of house of accused at Tanugula village, the raid party secured the panch witnesses i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 after explaining the reasons and conducted raid. During the raid the Excise officials found two persons selling I.D.Liquor and searched the open place and found one bag containing (20) polythene covers each cover containing one liter of I.D.Liquor. The

Excise Officials tested the contraband and identified (20) liters of

I.D.Liquor. On interrogation, the accused disclosed their identity as A.1 Jakke Ram Chandram, A.2 Mallesh. Then they seized the above contraband, has drawn samples for Chemical Examination in the presence of panchas. PW.4/Prohibition and Excise S.I,

Huzurabad registered a case in COR.No. 162/2013-14 U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act, arrested the accused and he was later remanded to Judicial custody.

During the course of investigation, the collected samples were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Chemical

Laboratory for Excise, Warangal for Chemical Examination report, through letter of advice. The Chemical Examiner, Regional

Chemical Laboratory for Excise, Warangal after examination vide

C.E.No.2055/2013, dt: 01.11.2013, opined that the sample is

I.D.Liquor unfit for potable purpose and injurious to health. After receipt of C.E report the seized property has been produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Karimnagar for confiscation. The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise has passed the orders while confiscating the property vide

Proc.Cr.No.57/2011/P&Ex/A.2, dt: 06.01.2015. As per the orders, the I.D.Liquor has been destroyed in the presence of Assistant

Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Karimnagar. After completion of investigation, PW6/Prohibition and Excise S.I,

Huzurabad filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, on which the prosecution proposed to rely, was furnished to him as contemplated U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The case against A.2 was split up vide C.C.No.3 of 2020

on 13.01.2020 and the case is proceeded against A.1 only.

5. A.1 was examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C., Charge U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Proh. Act is framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 .

7. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, A.1 was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining incriminating evidence available on record against him, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence on his behalf.

8. Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.

9. The point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition Act ?”

10.PW1 and PW.2 are panch witnesses for the confession of accused and seizure panchanama and they turned hostile stating that at the request of police they signed on the document and that the accused was not arrested and no property was seized in their presence.

11.PW.3 deposed that on 25.6.2013 at about 06:00 a.m on the instructions of S.I, he along with Head Constable went for patrolling to Vavilala village. After completion of patrolling, they reached to Thanugula village and they found one suspected men namely A.1 Jakke Ramchander, when they saw the A.1 is hold the two while cans in his hands, when PW.1,

PW.2 and himself searched him and found 20 liters of gudumba i.e., I.D.Liquour in that cans. When they questioned him, at that he said that he purchased the 20 liters of

I.D.Liquor from Pandilla village and they seize the 20 liters of

I.D.Liquor and also brought A.1 before the C.I of Jammikunta

P.S. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

12.PW.4 who is Investigation Officer deposed that he got a transfer case from P.S. Jammikunta on 01-07-2013, after that he re-investigate the case after the case which is transferred to him. After that he again registered the case vide

COR.No. 162/2013-14 for the offence under Section 7 (a) r/w 8

(e) of Prohibition Act. The 20 liters of I.D.Liquor was seized by

P.S. Jammikunta and the same seized I.D.Liquor samples he send it to the Government Chemical Examiner, Warangal. After that they received the report i.e., C.E.No. 2055/2013 dated:

1.11.2013 at SL.No.24191. The Chemical Examiner give his opinion sample contains I.D.Liquor which is used for unfit for the potable purpose and which is injuries to the health of the peoples. The seized property has been sent to the Deputy Proh & Excise Commissioner, Karimnagar for confiscation and as per the Order 57/2011/P & EX/A2, dated 06.01.2015 this property destroyed under the presence of Superintendent of

Proh & Excise, Karimnagar. After that they filed the charge sheet. Ex.P.3 is crime occurrence report. Ex.P.4 is C.E report.

Ex.P.5 is property destroyed order. Ex.P.6 is the destruction panchanama.

13.PW.5 who is another investigating officer deposed that on 25.06.2013 on the instructions of C.I, he along with P.C.2216,

PC.3180/M.Rakesh went to patrolling to Tanugula village. When they reached at 5.00 p.m they found one person and he had two plastic cans, when they inspect they got the smell of gudumba.

When they enquired the accused he said that the purchased the gudumba from the village of Pandilla from one Mallesham for the rate of Rs.30/- for one liter and he is sold such liquor with higher price with other villagers. They seized the plastic can and take the accused to the police station. Complaint was given him. Ex.P.7 is the complaint. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

He identified the accused in the open court hall.

14. The burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW.3 to PW.5 are Excise Officials and except their evidence, there is no other evidence to prove the alleged confession of the accused and seizure of the incriminating material from their possession. The independent panch witnesses

PW.1 and PW.2 turned hostile stating that the accused did not confess any offence and no material object was seized in their presence. It is settled law that to prove seizure of contraband, corroboration to the evidence of police officials is necessary and in the case on hand there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.3 to PW.5 since PW.1 and PW.2 turned hostile. Hence, the evidence of PW.3 to PW.5 cannot be considered for want of corroboration.

When the evidence of PW.3 to PW.5 discarded, there is no other evidence to prove the alleged confessional statements of the accused and the seizure of the contraband.

15. From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused of the offences U/Secs.7(A) R/w.8(e) of APP Act beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 7(A) r/w.8(e) of APP Act and he is acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. No order as to property as there is no case property in the present case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court

on this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1- Bandaru Sampath --None--- PW.2- Nagula Ramesh PW.3- M.Rakesh, P.C-3183 PW.4- A.R.C John Robert, P & E.S.I PW.5- MD.Yosuf Sharief, H.C-548.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2 is the signature of PW.2 confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 is the crime occurrence report. Ex.P4 is the C.E report. Ex.P5 is the property destroyed order. Ex.P6 is the destruction panchanama.

FOR THE DEFENCE: -Nil-

MO.s: -Nil-

Sd/-

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

1 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair )

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C

AT HUZURABAD.

Present: ­ Ms.Gedam Swathi, II­Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C, Huzurabad. FAC: I­Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C, Huzurabad.

 Tuesday, the 30th day of May, 2023.

CALENDER CASE No.178 of 2021.

Between:­

The State of through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Saidapur P.S ( Cr.No.3 of 2021 ). …Complainant.

And

A.1 Alkapally Anil, S/o Padmaiah, Age: 26 years, R/o Challur village of Veenavanka mandal.

A.2 Elkapelly Devamma, W/o Padmaiah, Age: 46 years, Madiga, R/o Challur village of Veenavanka mandal.

A.3 Elkapelly Padmaiah, S/o Lingaiah, Age: 51 years, Madiga, R/o Challur village of Veenavanka mandal.

A.4. Elkapelly Anitha, D/o Padmaiah, Age: 23 years, Challur village of Veenavanka mandal.

A.5. Elkapelly Shireesha, D/o Padmaiah, Age: 21 years, Challur village of Veenavanka mandal. …Accused.

This case has coming before me on 29.05.2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri Mukkera Rajamouli ( Raju) and Bathula Thirupathi,Advocates for Accused Nos.1 to 5 and having heard and having perused the record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: ­ 2 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair )

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S Huzurabad filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Cr.No.3 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 498­A, of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 (for short

IPC).

2.The case of prosecution is that on 29.11.2022 at 15.00 hours defacto­Complainant/LW.1/Alkapally Vyshnavi lodged a complaint with police stating that she is resident of Vennampalli village. LW.1 and A.1 loved with each other and got love marriage on 18.06.2020. They led their marital life happily for some days, later A.1 at the instigation of A.2 to A.5 started harassment physically and mentally towards the Lw.1 demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/­ from her parents, otherwise

they would not permitted her to reside in their house and said her to die if she did not bring additional dowry amount. In this regard LW.7/Mekala Yella Reddy, LW.8/Kalidasu Rayamallu,

LW.9/Kalvala Chandraiah, and LW.10/Korukanti Sammaiah were conducted counseling to the accused and suggested to A.1 to live separately, but A.1 continued the harassment towards the

LW.1 demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/­, on 3 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair ) that the Lw.1 attempted to commit suicide. Immediately the house owner with the help of police shifted her to hospital where she survived, but A.1 did not pay the hospital bill, on that she kept her phone at hospital and came to Saidapur. She got love marriage with A.1, but her parents are not supporting to her.

She is not having support form anywhere. Finally, LW.1 requested for necessary action against A.1 to A.5. Basing, on the complaint lodged by LW.1, the LW.11/B.Prashath Rao, Sub­

Inspector of police, P.S.Saidapur registered a case and filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 of IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under

Section 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w

Section 34 of IPC against A.1 to A.5. On appearance of the A.1 to A.5, copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. A.1 to A.5 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. The charges framed under Section 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC against them are read over and 4 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair ) explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.4. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of L.Ws. 4 to 11.

6. Since there is no incriminatory evidence appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3, examination of the accused

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed. Accused reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed. 

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned defense counsel for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT

It is the case of prosecution that PW.1 and A.1 loved with each other and got love marriage on 18.06.2020. They led their 5 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair ) marital life happily for some days, later A.1 at the instigation of

A.2 to A.5 started harassment physically and mentally towards the Pw.1 demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/­ from her parents, otherwise they would not permitted her to reside in their house and said her to die if she did not bring

additional dowry amount. In this regard LW.7/Mekala Yella

Reddy, LW.8/Kalidasu Rayamallu, LW.9/Kalvala Chandraiah, and LW.10/Korukanti Sammaiah were conducted counseling to the accused and suggested to A.1 to live separately, but A.1 continued the harassment towards the PW.1 demanding to bring

additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/­, on that the P.W.1 attempted

to commit suicide. Immediately the house owner with the help of police shifted her to hospital where she survived, but A.1 did not pay the hospital bill, on that she kept her phone at hospital and came to Saidapur. She got love marriage with A.1, but her parents are not supporting to her. She is not having support form anywhere. As such A.1 to A.5 committed an offence punishable under Section 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC. 

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. PW.1 is the 6 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair ) complainant/victim. PW.2 is father of PW.1. PW.3 is grand father of PW.1.

11. PW.1 is the complainant/victim deposed that PW.2 is her father. PW.3 is her grand father. Lw.4/Beesa Vamshi is her brother. She know A.1 to A.5. All are her near relatives. She had a small dispute with accused and the police gave counseling and after taking sign of her on a white paper. Ex.P.1 is the complaint.

She does not know the contents of complaint. Police did not examine her and not recorded her statement.

12.PW.2 is father of PW.1. He deposed that PW.1 is his daughter. PW.3 is his grand father. Lw.4/Beesa Vamshi is his son. He does not know L.Ws.5 to 10. He does not know A.1 to

A.5. He further deposed that he does not know about the case facts. Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement.

13.PW.3 is grand father of PW.1. He deposed that PW.1 is his grand daughter. PW.2 is his son. Lw.4/Beesa Vamshi is grand son. He does not know about the case facts. Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement.

7 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair )

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared P.Ws 1 to 3 as hostile and with permission of the court Additional Public

Prosecutor cross examined them, but nothing significant was elicited in the cross examination by Additional Public Prosecutor.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. 

14.This is a case of cruelty against married woman by way of physical and mental harassment and additional dowry, however the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

Moreover, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witness/L.Ws.4 to 11without prosecuting the case. There is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence, and therefore this Court finds the A.1 to

A.5 not guilty. The point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498­A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly A.1 to A.7 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall be in force for a period of six months as 8 of 8C.C.No.178 of 2021 ( Fair ) per Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The un­marked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of May, 2023.

Sd/­ II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. FAC: I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

PW­1: Alkapalli Vyshnavi. ­None­ PW­2: Beesa Ravi. PW­3: Beesa Mondaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: ­ Ex.P­1: Signature of PW.1 on complaint. Ex.P­2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 Ex.P­3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P­4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

FOR THE DEFENCE:­ ­Nil­

MATERIAL OBJECTS  ­Nil­

Sd/­ II­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad. FAC: I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT :: HUZURABAD Present: Smt. Gedam Swathi, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Friday, this the 25th day of April, 2025

CALENDER CASE NO. 678 of 2020

Between:

The State Telangana, through The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Jammikunta (Cr.No.175/2020) …Complainant.

And

1. Dodde Srinivas, S/o. Komuraiah, Age: 45 years, Caste: SC Madiga, R/o. Peddampalli village.

2. Neela Nagaraju, S/o. Ravi, Age: 26 years, Caste: Kurma, R/o. Rangampalli H/o. Jaggaiahpalli village.

3. Neela Ravi, S/o. Ailaiah, Age: 49 years, Caste: Kurma, R/o. Rangampalli H/o. Jaggaiahpalli village

4. Dodde Raviteja, S/o. Ravinder, Age: 25 years, Caste: SC Madiga, R/o. Peddampalli village

5. Mathangi Kishore, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: SC Madiga, R/o. Peddampalli village

6. Mathangi Harish, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 23 years, Caste: SC Madiga, R/o. Peddampalli village.

….Accused

Offence under Section 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC

against A1 to A4 and Sec.341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5

and A6 .

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APPO for the State and Sri Bathula Thirupathi Advocate for the accused, having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

2

1)The Sub Inspector of Police, Jammikunta P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.175/2020 for the offences U/s 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and

Sec.341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5 and A6.

2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 12-07-2020 at 15:00 hrs, the complainant/Pw1/Neela

Anil came to PS and lodged a written report, stating that he is studying B.Com final year in Gayatri Degree College, Jammikunta. On 12-07-2020 at 12 PM, the complainant along with his father

Summaiah and his brother Arun took up the work of leveling their land with a JCB. Meantime Neela Nagaraju and Dodde Srinivas have wrongfully restrained them and demanded to stop the JCB for leveling the land, on that the complainant questioned them "why are you stopping the work?". We are going to level our own land. Immediately

Dodde Srinivas came there and fisted the father of complainant and the complainant advanced to move away, then Neela Nagaraju beat the brother of complainant on his back with an iron rod which caused bleeding injury. Again Dodde Srinivas beat the complainant with hands on his chest and face. Neela Nagaraju beat the complainant with an iron rod on his back and left knee which caused swelling injury; the complainant was unable to move. Then Neela Nagaraju beat the father of complainant with an iron rod on his back and head 3 which caused bleeding injuries. Dodde Srinivas beat him with a stick on his back. At that time, neighboring land owner Neela Kumar and

JCB driver Naveen of Jammikunta and Mallesh have witnessed the incident. Therefore, the complainant requested for necessary action.

On receipt of the above complaint, L.W.21 A.S.I of Police,

Jammikunta registered a case in Crime No.175/2020 U/s 341,3233,324 R/w.34 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. The accused were arrested and on interrogation, they confessed to have committed the offence and then they were sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable

U/sec. 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and

Sec.341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5 and A6 and on appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4)The charges U/s 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and Sec.341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5 and

A6 are framed against the accused, and the contents of charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

5)In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W1 to and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-6. The Learned APPO given up the remaining witnesses since the material witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, this Court closed the evidence of prosecution.

6)As there is no incriminating evidence the examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed herewith.

7) Heard both sides.

8) Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A1 to A4 and Sec.341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5 and A6 beyond all reasonable doubt?”.

9)In order to prove the case of the prosecution., the prosecution has examined the defacto-complainant as P.W.1/Neela

Anil. As per his testimony that there were small disputes between him and the accused for which he went to police station where the police obtained his signature on some written papers. Ex.P1 is the complaint and he do not know its contents and turned hostile. Pws2 to 4 who are injured and Pw5 who is the eye witness to the incident, deposed that they do not know anything about the case facts and turned hostile. Though Pw1 to Pw5 was cross examined by the

Learned APPO nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. The 5

Learned APPO given up the remaining witnesses since Pw1 to Pw5 turned hostile.

10)Thus, in this case, P.W1 to Pw5 who examined by the prosecution, did not deposed anything incriminating against the accused for the charges leveled against them and he did not support his own case, thereby absolutely, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to prove their guilt. Hence for the above reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thereby they are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 341,323,324,326,506 R/w.34 of IPC accused No.5 and 6 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.

341,290,506 R/w.34 of IPC against A5 and A6 and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2025

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1- Neela Anil--None--- PW.2- Neela Sammaiah PW.3- Neela Arun PW.4- Neela Kumar PW.5- Korre Aravind

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the complaint Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W.1 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W.2 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W.3 Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W.4 Ex.P6 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W.5

FOR THE DEFENCE

--Nil--- MO.s Marked. --Nil---

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

 IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT :: HUZURABAD

PRESENT: Ms. Gedam Swathi, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

HUZURABAD.

Saturday, this the 31st day of December, 2022

C.C. No. 301 of 2016 Between: The State Telangana, through The Sub­Inspector of police, P.S. Jammikunta (Cr.No.171/2016 ) …Complainant.

And

Singireddy Jagan Reddy @ Raju S/o. Ram Reddy, Age: 28 years, Caste: Reddy, R/o. Peddampalli village of Jammikunta Mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Accused

Offence under Section 509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APP for the State,and of Sri N. Srinivas, Ld. Counsel for Accused and having heard and having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1)The Sub Inspector of police, Jammikunta P.S filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.171/2016 for the offences U/s 509, 290, 354­

A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC.

2)The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:­

On 09.07.2016 at 1430 hours Pw1 Motapothula Lavanya lodged complaint before Jammikunta PS stating that she has two sons and one daughter. Since about six months her villager Singireddy Jagan Reddy @ Raju has been teasing her by following behind her by saying as he wants her and fulfil his desire. Due to his fear, she did not reveal this matter either to her husband or to any other person. When she did not meet to his desire, 2 finally on 06.07.2016 at about 02.00 pm accused came to her house and by standing in front of her house, abused in filthy language. Her husband questioned him as why he was abusing, then accused beat her husband with hands and by carrying an axe, had moved by threatening to kill her husband at any time. Her villagers Bongoni Ravi, Dodde Srinivas, Gajula

Srinivas and Govindula Ravi witnessed the incident. Hence, she requested to take necessary action against the accused. After completion of investigation the Lw11/SI of Police filed charges sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC

3)The case was taken on file for the offences punishable

U/sec.509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC against the accused and on appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. 

4)The charges U/s 509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC are framed against the accused, and the contents of charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5)In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P­1 to P­7. The Learned APPO given up the remaining witnesses as the material witnesses to the case turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. 

6)As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the examination of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. 

7) Heard both sides.

3

8) Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the 

accused for the offences punishable U/s 509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9)To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the victim/defacto­complainant as P.W.1. Her testimony is that

Pw2 is her husband, she has disputes with the accused with regard to the land due to that she get anger and filed a case against the accused. She do not have idea on what date she filed the case, she gave complaint to the police but she do not know its contents and turned hostile. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Pw2 is the husband of Pw1 deposed in the similar lines of Pw1 and turned hostile. Pws3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident, they deposed that do not know anything about the case facts and turned hostile.

Pw5 and 6 are the panchas for CDF, they deposed that on the instigation of police, they singed on a paper but they do not know its contents and turned hostile. These witnesses were also cross­examined by the learned APP nothing is elicited in support of the prosecution case. The Learned APPO given up the remaining witnesses since Pws1 to 6 turned hostile.

10)Thus, in this case, P.Ws.1 to 6 who were examined by the prosecution, not deposed anything incriminating against the accused for the charges leveled against him and not supported the case of the prosecution and thereby absolutely, there is no evidence against the accused to prove his guilt. Hence for the above reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and thereby he is entitled for acquittal.

4

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 509, 290, 354­A, 354­D, 323 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. 

Dictated to Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December,

2022.

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1­ M. Lavanya ­­None­­­ PW.2­ M. Mallaiah PW.3­ B. Ravi PW.4­ G. Srinivas PW.5­ P. Mohan Reddy PW.6­ E. Srinivas

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is the Complaint Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W1 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W2 Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W3 Ex.P5 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement by P.W4 Ex.P6 is the signature of P.W5 on CDF Panchanama Ex.P7 is the signature of P.W6 on CDF Panchanama FOR THE DEFENCE­­Nil­­­ MO.s Marked. ­­Nil­­­

II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.

1Ex-parte Judgment in OS No.07 of 2023

 IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: Miss Swathi Gedem, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, FAC:Prl Junior Civil Judge­cum­JMFC, Huzurabad

Friday, this the 2nd Day of May, 2023

Original Suit No.07 OF 2023.

Between:­

Dasari Shankaraiah S/o. Rajalingam, Age:47 years, Occ: Tax consultant, R/o. H.No.4­1, Seethampet village of Illanthakunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

…Plaintiff.

AND

1. Navatha Iron and Hardware R/by its sole proprietor Sri. Vijayagiri Sudhakar @ Sudhakara Chary S/o. Veera Chary, Age:56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­19, Kothapally vllage of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.

2. Vijayagiri Santhosh S/o. Sudhakar @ Sudhakara Chary, Age:28 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1­19, Kothapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. …Defendants. ***

This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri. Goskula Srinivas, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, and defendant are set ex­parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of a promissory note against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.6,78,665/­ (Rs.5,00,000/­ +

Rs.1,78,665/­) with future interest from the date of suit till the date of full realization of amount.

2

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 are known to each other since long time and close relatives. In view of the said acquaintance and relationship, the defendant no.1 came to plaintiff’s house and had approached him and requested to facilitate hand loan of amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ for his family legal necessities in the last week of

June, 2021, the plaintiff had facilitated hand loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the defendant no.1 and gave the said loan amount to defendant no.1 on 12.07.2021 by transferring the said amount to the defendant no.1 account bearing No.62487290294 of SBI Dharmaram, through the plaintiff Account

No.62022327373 of SBI Jammikunta and on the same day after receipt of the said loan amount the defendant no.1 had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/ and the Defendant No.2 stood as surety to the said amount before the witness K. Ravinder and A. Venkatesh and said promissory note was scribed by one Putta Nagesh. That the defendant agreed pay interest @ Rs.2/­ per hundred per month on the received loan amount.

That the defendant no.1 promised that the said loan amount along with agreed interest will be paid as when demanded by the plaintiff. That the plaintiff demanded the defendant no.1 for repayment of the said loan amount since three months but the defendant no.1 one pretext or another by giving false assurances postponed the repayment of loan amount. The defendant no.1 is intentionally avoiding the payment of debt amount to plaintiff and also trying to abscond from the local limits. Hence, this suit.

3

3.The defendant is set ex parte.

4.During the course of ex parte evidence, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

5.Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record. 

Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to recover the amount of Rs.6,78,665/­ from the Defendant

No.1 as prayed for?

Point:

6.The Plaintiff filed his Chief­evidence Affidavit in lieu of Chief­ examination and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is Deposit/payment slip of

Transfer of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the defendant No.1 account, dt.12.07.2021, Ex.A2 is Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/­, dt.12.07.2021, Ex.A3 is Office copy of Legal notice, dt.10.01.2023, Ex.A4 is Postal receipt, dt.10.01.2023, Ex.A5 is Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement deed of the Defendant No.1, dt.14.03.2001,

Ex.A6 is Account Statement of the plaintiff, dt.10.01.2023 and Ex.A7 is Online receipt for property tax for the House No.1­19 of D1, dt.11.01.2023. The suit is filed within limitation period

7.As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the Defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ from the Plaintiff on 12.07.2021 towards hand loan and the Defendant No.1 executed a Promissory Note i.e.,

Ex.A2 in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the Plaintiff. As the Defendants remained ex parte, the claim of the Plaintiff remained unchallenged. The documents filed by the 4

Plaintiff amply proves the Suit claim. Hence, the suit claim is proved.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the Defendants to pay an amount of Rs.6,78,665/­ together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at a subsequent interest payable @ 6 % per annum on the Principal amount i.e.,5,00,000/­ from the date of decree till realization.

Dictated to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court

on this the 2 nd day of May, 2023.

Sd/­,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD,

FAC: PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JMFC,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW­1. Dasari Shankaraiah­­None­­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is Deposit/payment slip of Transfer of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the defendant No.1 account, dt.12.07.2021. Ex.A2 is Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/­, dt.12.07.2021. Ex.A3 is Office copy of Legal notice, dt.10.01.2023. Ex.A4 is Postal receipt, dt.10.01.2023. Ex.A5 is Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement deed of the Defendant No.1, dt.14.03.2001. Ex.A6 is Account Statement of the plaintiff, dt.10.01.2023. Ex.A7 is Online receipt for property tax rfor the House No.1­19 of Defendant No.1, dt.11.01.2023

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ­Nil­ Sd/­,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD,

FAC: PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­JMFC,

HUZURABAD.