Girija Tirandasu

II Addl. JFCM Judge

Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana

Girija Tirandasu, II Addl. JFCM Judge, is posted at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 296 court orders on record since 2021. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, PRC cases.

296

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/1991/2021 Acquitted

State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Gojuri Nadpi Gangadhar

24 Apr 2023

1/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL., JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRIAL OF (PROH., & EXCISE) OFFENCES-CUM-IV

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

Present:Smt. Girija Tirandasu, Spl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for Trial of (Proh., & Excise) Offences- cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2023.

C.C. No. 1991 of 2021 .

Between :

The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police Station.

… Complainant.

And

Gojuri Nadipi Gangadhar S/o. Pedda Gangaram, Age: 53 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Dubbaka Village, Dharpally Mandal of Nizamabad District.

...Accused.

This case coming on this the 19th day of April, 2023 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri. S. Dayananda Goud, Counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police Station, has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.447, 341, 326, 506 of I.P.C., in Crime No.74 of 2021.

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

2/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021.

2.The facts of the case are that on 28.06.2021 at 08:30 hours the

P.w.1/Gojuri Gangadas came to the Police Station and lodged a petition in which he stated that there are three sons offspring to his parents. His father has distributed the property between them equally. The P.w.1 and his brother namely Nadipi Gangadhar has got the land of Ac.4 in same place and divided between them equally.

Since 1 year the quarrels has been took place between the P.w.1 and his brother Nadipi Gangadhar regarding the land. His brother kept the laid quarrels in his mind, upon which on 27.06.2021 at 13:00 hours while the P.w.1 plough his filed with the Tractor by the driver

Valgote Ramesh, meanwhile his brother/Nadipi Gangadhar went and retrained the Tractor and picked up quarreled with him, then Tractor

Driver/Valgote Ramesh and Nagelli Bhumaiah tried to interrupted him but his brother Nadipi Gangadhar has attacked on him with stick and caused bleeding injury on his left hand, while the P.w.1 took heels from there then his brother has threatened to kill him with dire consequences. Further he added that he went to Hospital for treatment and that day on 28.06.2021 came to Police Station and requested to take legal action.

3.Basing on the report of P.w.6/Sub-Inspector of Police, registered this case in Crime No.74 of 2021, U/Sec.447, 341, 506 of I.P.C., and

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

3/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. took up the investigation. During the course of the investigation, the

P.w.6 has secured the P.w.1 at Police Station, Dharpally and examined and recorded their statement. Further the P.w.6 visited the scene of offence which is situated at Dubaka Village of Dharpally

Mandal, where secured two mediators i.e., P.w.4 and L.w.6 (Koora

Pedda Gangaram) in their presence the P.w.6 detained examined the scene for incriminating evidence and seized one stick in the presence of them by affixing panch chit over it and conducted scene panchanama draw the rough sketch brought on the same in Crime

Detail Form. During the Crime Detail Form the P.w.6 secured the

P.ws.2, 3 and L.w.4 (Gojuri Uma) and examined them and recorded their statement. On 05.08.2021 the P.w.6 obtained the Medical

Certificate of the P.w.1 from P.w.5 who treated the P.w.1 and issued opined that the P.w.1 received injuries are in grievious in nature, as the P.w.6 altered the Section of Law from Sec.324 to 326 of I.P.C., and sent the Section Alteration Memos to all concerned. While efforts are today i.e., on 16.08.2021 at 09:00 hours on reliable information the P.w.6 along with his staff to house of the accused at

Dubbaka Village of Dharpally Mandal where apprehended the accused at his respective house and interrogated thoroughly. During the interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Hence he was brought to Police Station at 10:30 hours and

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

4/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. affected her arrest by issuing arrest memos and informed the grounds of his arrest to him and to his relatives by strictly adhering to U/Sec.50 of Cr.P.C., and produced before the Hon’bale Court for his judicial custody. Further the P.w.6 deposited the seized the crime weapon i.e., stick in the Hon’ble Court vide C.P.R. No.145 of 2021.

4.The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad taken the cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 341, 326, 506 of I.P.C., against the accused.

5.Copies of documents were furnished to the accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., on his appearance.

6.At this stage, the case was transferred from the II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad to this Court as per the

Proceedings of the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge’s Court,

Nizamabad and accordingly proceeded further.

7.The accused were examined U/Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure

Code for the offence punishable U/Sec.447, 341, 326, 506 of I.P.C., and the substance of accusation read over and explained to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

5/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021.

8.The prosecution in support of its case, examined the P.ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.O.1. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C., for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the record.

10.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 341, 326, 506 of I.P.C., against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined the P.ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.O.1. P.w.1 is the complainant and injured, P.ws.2 and 3 are the eye witness, P.w.4 is the panch for scene and P.w.6 is the Investigation Officer and laid charge sheet.

The evidence of L.ws.4 and 6 (Gojuri Uma and Koora Pedda

Gangaram) given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

Ex.P.1 is the Police Report, Ex.P.2 is U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

6/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. of P.w.3, Ex.P.3 is the Crime Detail Form, Ex.P.4 is the Medical

Certificate, Ex.P.5 is the First Information Report and Ex.P.6 is the

Section Alteration Memo and M.O.1 is the stick.

12.P.w.1 testified that, on 27.06.2021 he went to his agriculral field along with L.w.2. He have disputes with the accused persons since one year. While he is cultivating his agricultural fields with the

Tractor the accused came into his fields and stopped the Tractor and started quarrelling with him, the L.ws.2 and 3 tried to rescue him from the accused but the accused tried to beat him with the stick on his head to defend the same he put his left hand, due to which he sustained fracture injury on his left hand and secondly he beat on his left shoulder and while he is going to his house the accused threatened him that he will kill him. Immediately he called to Police through phone and went to Hospital on the same day. The next day he went to Police Station and lodged the report. Police examined him and recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is the report. He identified his signature on it. During the cross examination, he deposed that they are three brothers. The land of the accused is adjecent to his land.

He lodged the report against the accused for the disputes since one year before the Police and also before the Gram Panchayath. He have the copy of the report of the same. He did not bring the said

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

7/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. copy to the Court. He denied that no such incident took place between them and there are no disputes from one year between them and that he did not lodged any report against the accused as such he could not file the report of the same before the Court. He denied that on the date of incident he entered into the land of accused and he beat the accused with the stick when the accused questioned him that why he entered into his land. He denied that the accused sustained injuries in the said incident but before he lodge the report he lodged the report against the accused. He had Circle

Inspector’s number, as such he called to him on the date of the incident. He deposed that he have no prior acquaintance with the

Circle Inspector. He denied that he did not state to the Police that when the accused tried to beat on his head to defend he put his left hand as such he sustained injury on his left hand and secondly the accused attacked him on his left shoulder. He denied that no such incident took place on the date of incident and he did not sustain injuries in the said incident. He admitted that there is a Primary

Health Care Center at Dharpally. He admitted that in his report he stated that after the incident he directly went to Government

Hospital, Nizamabad. He admitted that he did not mention in his report and U/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement that he made a phone call to Police after the incident. He denied that no such incident happen

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

8/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. and that he did not went to Primary Health Care Center at Dharpally near to his village and that he did not file the report on the same day.

He denied that as he have acquaintance with the Doctors in the

Government Hospital, Nizamabad as such he went to there to obtain the false medical certificate in respect of grievous injuries to implicate the accused in the higher section of law. He denied that no such incident took place on the alleged date as such he did not went to Police Station and file report on the same day. He denied that after obtaining the Medical Certificate he went to the Police Station and he filed the report. He denied that the accused never beat him and never threatened him, in order to encroach this land he falsely implicated him in this case.

13.P.w.2 testified that, two years ago he along with P.w.1 went to cultivate the agricultural fields of P.w.1. The accused came to the fields of P.w.1 and directed him to stop the Tractor. Later accused quarreled with P.w.1, he himself and L.w.3 tried to stop the quarrel between the accused and P.w.1 but the accused beat the P.w.1 with the stick due to which the P.w.1 sustained injury on his hand, later the accused warned the P.w.1 that he will kill him. Police neither examine him nor recorded his statement. During the cross examination, he deposed that he have been working as Tractor

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

9/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. Driver on daily wages. The incident took place on 2nd date but he did not remember the month and year of the incident. The incident took place in the afternoon. He admitted that he stated before Police that he have been working as Driver with the P.w.1. He admitted that he is deposing false as he is working as Driver with the P.w.1.

14.P.w.3 testified that, one year back he saw quarrel between accused and P.w.1 regarding the land while P.w.1 cultivating his land with his Tractor. The accused came to the land and stopped the

Tractor. Both fell in the agricultural fields and sustained injuries on them. He tried to stop the quarrel between them. Police neither examine him nor recorded his statement. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor declared the P.w.3 as hostile and during his cross examination nothing elicited to support the version of prosecution.

During the cross examination by learned Counsel for accused, P.w.3 deposed that lands of P.w.1 and accused situated adjacent to each other. He admitted that the P.w.1 cultivated his land with his Tractor by encroaching the boundary of the accused. He admitted that the accused questioned the act of the P.w.1 due to which the quarrel took place between them.

15.P.w.4 testified that, on 28.06.2021 in between 09:00 a.m., to 10:00 a.m., Police conducted the panchanama at the lands of P.w.1

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

10/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. and accused in respect of quarrel between the P.w.1 and accused as the accused beat the P.w.1. The Police seized one stick from the spot. Scene of offence panchanama is marked as Ex.P.3. He identified his signature on it. M.O.1 is the stick. During the cross examination, he deposed that when he going to his agricultural fields the Sub-Inspector of Police called him to the spot. He put his signatures at two places. P.w.1 is his relative. He denied that the

Police never called him to the spot nor conducted Ex.P.3. He denied that the Police never seized M.O.1 in his presence. He denied that he is deposing false as P.w.1 is his relative. He admitted that in the

M.O.1 his signature is there but he did not put the date. He denied that P.w.1 came to the Court along with him. He admitted that the

P.w.1 is present at the Court premises.

16.P.w.5 testified that on 28.06.2021 she have examined injured namely G.Gangadas, history of assault hit by known person on 27.06.2021 at 01.30 p.m., and found the following injuries: 1)

Abrasion over the left shoulder which is simple in nature. 2) Swelling in left hand, isolated fracture on left ulna which is grievous in nature.

3) Blunt injury over forehead, which is simple in nature. All the above injuries are fresh injuries. He was treated as out-patient. Accordingly she issued Ex.P.4 which is the Medical Certificate. During the cross

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

11/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. examination, she deposed that the Ex.P.4 the name of the person mentioned as Gangadas and there is no initial before his name. She admitted that she did not mentioned the identification marks of the injured. The history noted in the Ex.P.4 is as stated by injured. She admitted that she did not mention the M.L.C., in the Ex.P.4. She admitted that she did not mention the X-ray number of the injured in the Ex.P.4 and also In-patient/Out patient number not mentioned in the Ex.P.4. She admitted that she did not mentioned the date and time of admission of the injured in the Hospital and discharge from the Hospital and also there is no date at her signature. She denied that P.w.1 never came to the Hospital and she was not treated him at any time. She denied that she issued the Ex.P.5 at the instance of

Police for the purpose of this case.

17.P.w.6 testified that, he received report from P.w.1, basing on the same he registered a case in Crime No.74 of 2021, U/Sec.447, 341, 324, 506 of I.P.C., and took up the investigation. During the investigation he examined and recorded the statements of P.w.1 at the Police Station. Later he visited the scene of offence, seized one stick in the presence of P.w.4 and L.w.6. He obtained signatures of panchas on stick. Later he conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew the rough sketch in the presence of said

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

12/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. panchas. Later he examined and recorded the statements of P.ws.2, 3 and L.w.4. On 05.08.2021 he obtained Medical Certificate of P.w.1 from P.w.5 who opined that P.w.1 received injuries are grievous in nature. He alter the section of law from 324 to 326 of I.P.C. On 16.08.2021 at 09.00 hours on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to the house of accused and apprehended him during interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have commit this offence.

He brought the accused to the Police Station and effected his arrest produced him before the Hon’ble Court for Judicial Remand. Further he deposited the seized crime weapon i.e., stick in the Hon’ble Court vide C.P.R. No.145 of 2021. First Information Report marked as

Ex.P.5. Section alteration memo marked as Ex.P.6. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet before the Hon’ble Court.

During the cross examinatiion, he deposed that the report is scribed at Police Station. He did not enquired about the dispute of land between the accused and P.w.1 since one year. He admitted that the P.w.1 went to the Hospital on 27.06.2021 as per report, later in the next day he came to the Police Station. He did not file any

Medical Certificate that the accused went to the Hospital on 27.06.2021. He denied that the P.w.1 did not sustain the any injury as such he did not went to the hospital on 27.06.2021. He admitted that he sent requisition to P.w.5 for treatment of P.w.1 on

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

13/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. 28.06.2021. He admitted that P.w.1 did not state either in Ex.P.1 or his statement that when the accused tried to beat him with the stick on head to defend the same he put his left hand due to which he sustained fracture injury on his left hand and secondly he beat on his shoulder. He admitted that he did not obtained the signature of

P.w.1 in Ex.P.5 at column No.4. He admitted that P.w.2 stated in his statement that he has been working as Driver with P.w.1. He admitted that as per the scene of offence the incident took place at the boundary of accused and P.w.1. He denied that when the P.w.1 trying to encroach the land of accused and on his question the P.w.1 started quarrel with the accused and beat the accused and falsely file this case against the accused. He admitted that on the same day the accused also lodged the report before them. He denied that the

P.w.1 follower of T.R.S., party as such they falsely implicated the accused in this case. He admitted that in the rough sketch M.O.1 not shown. He admitted that he have not written the date below his signature in Ex.P.3. He admitted that he seized the stick M.O.1 from the spot. He admitted as per Ex.P.6 it was mentioned as at the

Scene of offence nothing was found. The M.O.1 deposited in the

Hon’ble Court on 18.08.2021, but the C.P.R., number allotted by the

Court on 24.08.2021. He denied that at the time of filing of the charge sheet he have not having M.O.1. He denied that he called the

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

14/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. accused to the Police Station and threatened him who hand over his land to P.w.1, when refused to do so he implicated him in this case by obtaining the Medical Certificate from P.w.5. He admitted that he did not mentioned the descriptive particulars of M.O.1 either in scene of offence panchanama or in charge sheet. He deposed that it may be possible to locate the same type of stick like M.O.1 anywhere, but he seized the M.O.1 at the spot. He denied that the accused is no way concerned with this case and he never beat the P.w.1 at any point of time and also the accused never threatened the P.w.1 that he will kill him. He denied that the accused never confessed who have commit this offence before him. He denied that without conducting proper investigation he implicated the accused in this case and filed the charge sheet against him.

18.P.w.1 who set the law into motion testified that when the accused trying to beat him with stick on his head, he put his left hand to defend the same, due to which he sustained the fracture injury on his left hand and secondly the accused beat him on his shoulder.

During his cross examination he denied that he did not state the same to the Police, when the said improvement confronted to P.w.6 who is Investigation Officer of this case, admitted that P.w.1 did not state the same their in Ex.P.1 or in his statement. Hence the defence

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

15/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. Counsel proved the improvement in the evidence of P.w.1 by confronting it to P.w.6. P.w.2 though supported the version of P.w.1, but during his cross examination he admitted that he is deposing false as he has been working as Driver with the P.w.1. Hence, his evidence is not at all trustworthy and believable to connect the accused. P.w.3 testified that the accused and P.w.1 fell in the agricultural fields, hence they sustained injuries, which is contradicting with the evidence of P.w.1. P.w.3 also admitted that the P.w.1 cultivated the agricultural land with Tractor by encroaching the boundary of the accused, when accused questioned the act of

P.w.1, the quarrel took place between them. Therefore, the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3 is not inspiring the confidence of the Court to connect the accused with alleged charges. Further P.w.4 though supported the case of the prosecution and testified that M.O.1 seized from the spot, but on perusal of Ex.P.3, M.O.1 not shown and admittedly the descriptive particulars of M.O.1 also not mentioned in the Ex.P.3, further as per Ex.P.6 admittedly nothing recovered from the spot.

Hence, the seizure of M.O.1 is also doubtful.

19.The next aspect which needs consideration that the injuries sustained by P.w.1, to prove the injuries the prosecution examined

P.w.5 and Ex.P.4 got marked. P.w.5 deposed that she was examined

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

16/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. the P.w.1 on 28.06.2021, which is contradicting with the evidence of

P.w.1 as well as Ex.P.1, wherein P.w.1 testified that he went to the

Hospital on the date of incident. Further admittedly there is no

Medical Certificate to show that P.w.1 went to Hospital on 27.06.2021. Even on perusal of evidence of P.w.5 and Ex.P.4, who admitted that she did not mention the X-ray number of the injured, date and time of admission and discharge of injured from the

Hospital. In view of the above discussion it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the injuries sustained by P.w.1 on the date of incident, beyond reasonable doubt.

20.Hence, in view of the discussions stated supra, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 447, 341, 326 and 506 of

I.P.C., against the accused person. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. No evidence has come on record to prove the

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

17/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. culpability on the part of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal, point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

21.IN THE RESULT, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.447, 341, 326 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code and he is acquitted U/Sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation to Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-.

Spl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for trial of (Proh., & Excise) Offences- cum-IV Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

:: Appendix of Evidence :: ( Witnesses Examined on behalf of)

For Prosecution : For accused :

P.w.1 : G. Gangadas. --Nil--

P.w.2 : Valgote Ramesh.

P.w.3 : N. Bhumaiah.

P.w.4 : S. Sudhakar.

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

18/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021. P.w.5 : Dr. Keerthi Priya.

P.w.6 : T. Murali.

::Exhibits Marked::

For Prosecution : For accused :

Ex.P.1 : Report. --Nil--

Ex.P.2 : Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., statement of P.w.3.

Ex.P.3 : Crime Detail Form.

Ex.P.4 : Medical Certificate.

Ex.P.5 : First Information Report.

Ex.P.6 : Section Alteration Memo.

:Material Objects Marked:

For Prosecution For accused :

M.O.1 : Stick. --Nil--

Sd/-.

Spl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, for Trial of (Proh., & Excise) Offences- cum-IV Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

19/18C.C. No.1991 of 2021.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS FOR TRIAL OF (PROH. & EXCISE) OFFENCES-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIZAMABAD.

CALANDER.

C.C. No. 1991 of 2021 .

Name of Complainant:: The State of Telangana through 1 Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharpally Police Station.

Names of Accused:: Gojuri Nadipi Gangadhar S/o. 2 Pedda Gangaram.

Nature of Offence/s:: U/Sec.447, 341, 326 and 506 of I.P.C. 3 4Finding:: Not guilty.

5Sentence :: Acquitted.

6Date of Occurrence of :: 27-06-2021. offence 7Date of Complaint:: 28-06-2021.

8Date of apprehension of :: 16-08-2021. the accused 9Date of released on bail :: 25-08-2021.

10Date of Commencement:: 13-01-2023. of trial 11Date of Closure of trial:: 19-04-2023.

12Date of Sentence or :: 24-04-2023. Order 13Explanation of delay:: ----

Sd/-.

Spl., Judl., Magistrate of First Class, for Trial of (Proh., & Excise) Offences- To cum-IV Addl., Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Date: 24-04-2023. Spl., J.F.C.M., (Proh. & Excise), NZb.

CC/1948/2022 Acquitted

State of Telangana PS Navipet vs Rodda Kishan

12 Apr 2023

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 1/12

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NIZAMABAD.

Present: Smt. Girija Tirandasu, Spl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial of (Proh., & Excise) offences- cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Nizamabad.

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023.

C.C.No. 1948 of 2022 .

Between :

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station

..Complainant

And

A1- Rodda Kishan S/o. Poshanna, age: 34 yrs, Oc: Labour, R/o. H.No. 2- 68/2, Mokanpally village of Navipet.

A2- Kondur Vakeel S/o. Late Nabhisab, age: 56 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o. H.No. 2- 40, Mokanpally village of Navipet Mandal. ….Accused No.1 and 2

This case is coming on 6th day of April, 2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State- complainant and Sri. B. Ashok, Advocate for accued No.1 and Sri S. Vijay Kumar, legal Aid counsel for the accused No.2 having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Navipet Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C. in

Crime No.272 of 2022.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.11.2022 at 2000 hrs the complainant Sri Miriyala Raju S/o Gangaram came to PS and lodged a

Telugu petition in which he stated that on 11.11.2022 he locked house and went to Makloor village for the sake of his wife tailoring and staying at

Makloor village. When he returned to his home he found window iron rods were removed but door was locked, then he opened the door and found missing Samsung TV, 2 TV remotes, breafcase, Dubai bed sheets, one bowl,

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 2/12 2 bronze plates and Dubai ladies watch. Further he stated that some unknown offenders broken the window iron rods and enter into the house committed theft of above said articles, its worth Rs. 25,000/-. Hence, he requested to take necessary action.

a) Basing on the contents of the above petition the Lw.8/ registered a case in

Cr.No. 272/2022, U/Sec.457, 380 IPC and took up the investigation.

b) During the course of investigation the Lw.8 examined and recorded the statement of Lw1/complainant/Kasipuram Lalram u.sec. 161 Cr.P.C and incorporated the same in Part-II CD.

c) On 16.11.2022 the Lw.8 rushed to scene of offence situated at Mokanpally village and secured the presence of two mediators I.e Lw.s 4 and 5 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch, where the Lw.8 also examined and recorded the statements of Lw.2 and 3, U/Sec.

161 Cr.P.c and incorporated the same in Part-II CD.

d) 17.11.2022, Lw.9/ took the CD file from Lw.8, verified the investigation done by Lw.8 and it to be on proper lines.

e) While efforts are on to apprehend the accused persons on 28.11.2022 at 0900 hrs credible information Lw.9 along with staff rushed to Mokanpally village, where found two persons in a suspicious circumstances. Then Lw.9 and staff apprehended the accused persons A1 and A2 at 0920 hours and interrogated them thoroughly. On interrogation they disclosed their names as

A1- Rodda Kishan and A2- Kondur Vakeel and voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Immediately, Lw9 has conducted confessional and recovery panchanama of the accused persons and recorded the confession panchanama of the accused A1.

f) The accused, A1 confessed that he lives by working as a labourer. His parents have four I.e him, his two brothers and one sister. He thought of

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 3/12 sealing because the wages he made were not enough for his bad habits like consuming liquor and toddy. He reconnects with A2, who house is adjacent

A1’s house from a few days ago. They both are gone to attend labour work and after finishing of their work they went to toddy or liquor shop for consuming the said. Consequently on 11.11.2022 at 1000 PM, they both are met at toddy shop, while consuming liquor the decided to steal as such they are roaming in the Gosangi wada they found one house was locked meantime they decided to commit steal. Accordingly, they went back side of the house, broke the iron rods of the window and entered the house and committed theft of a Samsung TV, 2 TV remotes, a briefcase, Dubai bed sheets, one bowl, 2 bronze plates a Dubai ladies watch, some net cash and gold item then ran away with the booty. After that, they kept this article in A1’s house and the remaining money was used for their bad activities. Further, they also informed that one day they went to Nizamabad and sold a gold item to an unknown person and took Rs. 1,000 and they also spent this amount for their bad activities. Further, the accused persons A1 and A2 also confessed that if they will come along with them they will show the stolen articles which were committed theft by them. Then the accused A2 confessed same as A1 confession.

g) Accordingly as per the confession of the accused persons A1 and A2 lead the police and panchas to A1 house by police vehicle and reached to A1 house. Where the accused persons A1 and A2 shown articles stolen by them.

Lw9 conducted seizure panchanama and seized the above articles before panchas and pasted by panch chits. After confession of A1 and A2 confession and recovery brought to PS at 1040 hours and effected their arrest by issuing arrest memos against them duly informing the grounds of arrest to them and their concerned relatives u.sec. 50(1)(A) Cr.P.C and 50(1) & 50(2) Cr.P.C notices and remanded them to judicial custody.

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 4/12

3.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C. against accused No.1 and 2, on appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before this Court, copies of the case was furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of I.P.C, the accusation levelled against them was read over and explained to the accused No. 1 and 2 in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 6 and

Exs.P.1 to P.4 and Mo.s 1 to 8 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against them, for which accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the Point for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/Sec.457,380 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

7.P.w.1 deposed that on 11.11.2022, he went to Makloor village to visit his wife from Mokanpally village by locking the doors of the house and he returned back to Mokanpally village on 15.11.2022. He opened the locks and entered into the house and found missing of one Samsung TV, Two suit cases, one Dubai bed sheet, two plates, one big bowl and two TV remotes and also found breaking of windows grills. Immediately he called to his wife, she came to the spot. Later, he went to the police station and lodged the report stating that some unknown offenders committed theft in his house.

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 5/12

In his cross examination he admitted that he is an illiterate. On 15.11.2022, he went to the police station. The Ex.P1 is scribed by police constable. He admitted that no receipts relating to the stolen property submitted to the police. He did not state to the police the description of the stolen articles.

He denied that no theft occurred in my house and he is deposing false.

8.P.w.2 deposed that on 11.11.2022, Pw1 came to Makloor village to visit her from Mokanpally village by locking the doors of the house and when Pw1 returned back to Mokanpally village on 15.11.2022. Pw1 opened the locks and entered into the house and found missing of one Samsung TV, Two suit cases, one Dubai bed sheet, two plates, Mangala Harathi of one plate, one big bowl and two TV remotes and also found breaking of windows grills.

Immediately Pw1 called her and she came to the spot. Later, Pw1 went to the police station and lodged the report stating that some unknown offenders committed theft in their house. In her cross examination she admitted that police examined her and recorded her statement at her house. She admitted that no receipts relating to the stolen property submitted to the police and also she did not state to the police the prices of stolen property. She did not state to the police the description of the stolen articles. She denied that no theft occurred in her house and she is deposing false.

9.Pws 3 deposed that three months before, police conducted the scene of offence panchanama in respect of theft in the house of Pw1 in their presence, after verifying the scene of offence the police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and took their signatures. In his cross examination he admitted that he is an illiterate but he can put the signature. He signed on the panchanama prepared by police. He do not know whether he signed on the half printed paper and half written paper. He went to the house of

Pw1. He do not know the number of persons gathered at the spot. In the

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 6/12 morning time police conducted the panchanama i.e 10.00 AM. He cannot say the date on which Ex.P2 conducted. The SI of police written the panchanama. He denied that he did not go to the spot and the police not conduct any panchanama in my presence.

10.P.w.4 deposed that on 28.11.2022 when he reached to Kamalapur place, police asked him to act as panch and requested them to enquire the persons who were already with the police. On their enquiry the persons namely Kishan and Vakeel confessed that they have committed the theft of blankets, bowls, Mangalharathi plates, TV, two remotes and set up box and stabilizer, suit case, Dubai watch and also some gold articles from the house of Pw1. After recording the confession, the confession of Kishan/accused

No.1 they reached to his house and recovered the above said stolen articles.

The items i.e one TV, one suit case, two remotes, Dubai bed sheet, one big bowl, one mangala harathi ithadi plate and Dubai ladies watch which were produced before the court and the same marked as M.os 1 to 8. The recovery panchanama conducted at the house of accused No.1. Police obtained their signatures on the panchanama. He can identify the persons if they shown to him. Witness identified the persons who were present in the Court hall as the accused No.1 and 2. In his cross examination he studied up to 2nd standard. He belongs to SC-Gosangi and Pw1 also belongs to his caste.

P.w 1 having one sister who is none other than his wife. Pw1 is his brother- in-law. He put only one signature on the confession panchanama. The

Kamalapur village is besides the Mokanpally village. The accused No.1 and 2 are belongs to his village. The panchanama conducted at the house of accused No.1. He cannot say his house number. He was present at the house of accused No.1 for half an hour. While he is going to Navipet from his house, one Police Constable called him to Kamalapur village. At the spot at

Kamalapur there are only two Police constalbes were present and the police

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 7/12 typed the panchanama and obtained their signature. He cannot say in two police constable who typed the panchanama. He admitted that the SI is not present at the spot while preparing the panchanama. The distance from

Kamalapur to accused No.1 house is 1 km. He admitted that the accused

No.1 and 2 were not with the police constables and the accused No.1 and 2 came to the spot after the Mos 1 to 8 produced from the police station.

Police bring the Mos 1 to 8 to the Court today. The other recovered property i.e Stabilizers and set up box at the police station. He denied that the police never called him to Kamalapur spot and the accused No.1 and 2 never confessed about the commission of the offence.He admitted tht the Mo.s 1 to 8 brought from the police staiton to the Kamalapur spot at the time of conducting panchanama. He denied that he is deposing false.

11.P.w.5 deposed that on 15.11.2022 he received a report from the PW1, basing on the same he registered a case in crime No. 272/2022 U/sec. 457, 380 of IPC and took up the further investigation. During the investigation he visited the Scene of Offence and conducted the Scene of Offence

Panchanama in the presence of two mediators i.e., PW3 and L.w.4. Later he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and L.w.3. Later he handed over the entire CD file to L.w.9. In his cross examination he admitted that he received written report from PW1 at 08.00 p.m and the alleged offences are cognizable offences. He rushed to the scene of offence by 10.00 a.m. on the next day. He secured the presence of PW3 and L.w.4 at the spot. The PW3 also belongs to same caste of PW1. It took half-an-hour for preparation of

Scene of Offence Panchanama. He denied that he did not visit the scene of offence and not conduct the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

PW2 and L.w.4.

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 8/12

12.Pw.6 deposed that on 17.11.2022, he took the CD file from Pw.5 and after verifying the same found it in proper lines conducted the further investigation. On 28.11.2022, at about 900 hours, on credible information, he along with his staff rushed to Mokanpally village where found two persons in suspicion circumstances. They apprehended the accused No.1 and 2, on interrogation they disclosed their names as accused No.1 and 2 i.e

Rodda kishan and Kondur Vakeel, when they voluntarily confessed to have commit this offence, he secured the presence of Lw6, Pw4 and conducted the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 confessed about this case by confessing that on 11.11.2022 at 10.00 hours they both met at the toddy shop and while consuming the liquor they decided to commit theft, as per their plan while they were roaming in the

Gosangi wada they found one house was locked, they went back side of the house, broke open the window with iron rod and entered into the house and committed the theft of Mo.s 1 to 8 and decamped with booty. Thereafter, they kept the Mos. 1 to 8 at the house of accused No.1 and the remaining money used for their bad vices and the gold items were sold at Nizamabad to unknown persons and the amount were spent by them for their bad vices.

The accused No.1 and 2 also confessed that if we come along with them they will show the stolen articles which were committed theft by them. On their confession they along with the accused reached to the house of accused No.1 through their vehicle where the accused No.1 and 2 showed the stolen articles to them. He conducted the seizure panchanama and seized the above articles in the presence of panchanamas by duly obtaining their signatures on it. He effected the arrest of the accused and produced them before the

Hon’ble Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed

the charge sheet. In his cross examination he admitted that on 28.11.2022 at 9-00 AM, he received credible information, at that time he was in the

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 9/12 police station. He reached to Mokanpally by 9-20 AM. He along with two constables, one writer along with Driver rushed to the spot. He apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 at the house of accused No.1. He mentioned in the confession panchanama he apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 at the house of accused No.1. The confession panchanama prepared by sitting infront of the A1’s house. After apprehension of accused persons within five minutes, he secured the presence of Pw.4 and Lw.6. He secured the presence of the panchas from the persons who gathered at the spot. He took one hour 20 minutes to prepare panchanama. He do not know whether Pw.4 is relative of Pw.1. He admitted that the Pws 1,4 are belongs to same caste. The accused No.1’s house is slabbed house. It consist of two rooms. He did not examine the wife of children of the accused. He did not mention the house number of accused No.1 in the confession panchanama. He did not mention the boundaries of the house of accused No.1 in the confession panchanama.

It is true he recovered Mos 1 to 8 infront of A1’s house. He apprehend both the accused at the spot. He denied that he did not examine the neighbours of accused. He admtited that Lw.3 also belongs to same locality. He denied that accused No.1 and 2 never confessed before me nor he seized Mos 1 to 8 from their possession. He denied that the Mos 1 to 8 are planted for the purpose of this case, to implicate the accused No.1 and 2 in this case. Ihe denied that the accused never committed this crime and they were falsely implicated in this case.

13. Coming to the appreciation of the evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on intervening night on 11-11-2022 when the accused No.1 and 2 both were roaming around the village when they came across one house by lock and broken the iron rods of the window and entered into the house thereby committed the theft of SAMSUNG TV, two TV remotes,

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 10/12 a brief case, Dubai bed sheets, one bowl, two Bronze plates, a Dubai ladies watch, some net cash and gold items and ran away from the house. Pw1 who is the defacto complainant narrated the version of the prosecution in vivid manner with regard to theft. Pw.2 also supported the version of Pw.1.

But on perusal of their evidences, no evidence come on record that the accused are committed the theft in the house of Pw.1, even on perusal of

Ex.P1, the P.w.1 stated that the some unknown persons committed the theft in his house, Hence, there is no eye witness to the case of the prosecution.

14.In these type of offences, the evidence of the Investigating Officer who conducted the confession and recovery of property from the possession of accused and the evidence of panch witnesses who were said to have present at the time of such panchanama plays vital role to the case of the prosecution. Pw.6 who is the investigating officer categorically stated that on credible information he along with his staff rushed to Mokanpally village where found two persons on suspicious circumstances they apprehended the accused No.1 and 2, on interrogation they disclosed their names as accused

No.1 and 2 and they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, he secured the presence of Pw.4 and Lw.6 and conducted the confession and recovery panchanama of the accused. The accused No.1 and 2 confessed about this case by confessing that on 11.11.2022 as per their plan while they were roaming in the Gosangi wada they found one house was locked.

They went backside of the house, broke open the window with iron rod and entered into the house, committed the theft of Mo.s 1 to 8 and decamped with booty. Thereafter, they kept Mos. 1 to 8 at the house of accused No.1 and the remaining money used for their vises and the gold items were sold at

Nizamabad to unknown persons and the amount spent for their bad vises.

They also confessed that if they come along with them they will show the

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 11/12 stolen articles which were committed theft by them, on their confession they reached to the house of accused No.1 along with the accused, where the accused No.1 and 2 shown the stolen articles to them. Pw.6 conducted the seizure panchanama and seized the above articles in the presence of panchas by duly obtaining their signatures on it. He effected the arrest of accused no.1 and 2 and sent them for judicial remand. However, in the said panchas one of the panch witness examined as Pw.4, during his cross examination , he testified that the accused No.1 and 2 were not with the Police Constables and they came to the spot after the Mos. 1 to 8 produced from the police station and the other recovered property i.e stabilizers and set up box at the police station. Pw. 4 further admitted that Mo.s 1 to 8 brought from the police station to Kamalapoor spot at the time of conducting panchanama, which revealing that Mo.s 1 to 8 are brought from the police station and the same were not recovered from house of accused No.1. Hence, there is no corroboration for the evidence of Investigating Officer. In view of the same, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen property from the accused.

15.Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, material placed

before the Court and in view of the above appreciation of evidence it can be

said that the prosecution failed to prove the charges U/Sec. 457, 380 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Hence the point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 and 2 and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted of the said offence U/Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months as

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

C.C. No.1948 of 2022. 12/12 contemplated U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The Mo.s 1 to 8 which were given to its original owner as interim custody vide Crl. MP. No. 156 of 2023 dtd.

04.04.2023 shall made absolute after expiry of appeal period. The

Superintendent Dist.Jail, Nizamabad is directed to release Accused No.2 forth with, if he is not required in other case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April, 2023.

FAC: II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For defence : P.w.1 : M. Raju --Nil--

P.w.2 : M. Lavanya

P.w.3 : M. Gangaram

P.w.4 : B. Abbaiah

P.w.5 : M. Yadagiri Goud

P.w.6: D, Raja Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :For Defence : Ex.P.1 : Report. --Nil--

Ex.P.2 : Scene of Offence panchanama.

Ex.P.3 : Confession cum recovery panchanama

Ex.P.4 : First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

For Prosecution :

M.O-1. one TV, M.O-2. one suit case, M.O-3. Two TV remotes, M.O-4. one dubai bed sheet, M.O-5. one bowl big size, M.O-6. one Mangalaharathi, M.O-

7. one Bronze plate, M.O-8. one Dubai ladies watch.

For Defence :

NIL

FAC: II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Date: 12.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

CC/600446/2016 Acquitted

SHO of PS Dharaplly vs Yeshala Kishan

28 Apr 2021

1CC No.446 of 2016

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

AT NIZAMABAD.

Present: Smt. Girija Tirandasu II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2021.

C.C. No. 446 of 201 6

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Dharpally. …Complainant // AND //

A1)Yeshala Kishan S/o Nadipi Gangaram, age 40 years, Caste by Munnurukapu, Occ: Agriculture. A2)Yeshala Laxdevi @ Gangavva, age 65 years, Caste by Munnurukapu, Occ: Agriculture. Both R/o Lolam village of Dharpally Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 20.04.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri N.Subhash Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dharpally, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506 of IPC.

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

a)The case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2016 at 09.30 hrs. their

Village Field Assistant was invited the Pw1 to distribute the sweets to Employee

Guarantee Scheme Labours on the occasion of Telangana State Formation day, accordingly when Pw1 went to near Yellamma Katta which is outskirts of their village shivar to distribute the sweets there their villager one Yeshala Kishan i.e., A1 who is husband of their MPTC, was also there and forcibly took the sweet box from Pw1’s hand and distributed same, in which Pw1 questioned him that your wife Laxmi is MPTC why you have distributing the sweets without 2CC No. 446 of 2016 your wife, in which A1 abused her in filthy language, upon one Pitla Shankar who dragged him in the meantime he kicked the Pw1, later his mother was caught hold her hand and abused her in filthy language, upon which, the complainant husband Srinivas entered and asked him, in which they threatened them with dire consequence. All this witnessed by Bestha Sailoo S/o

Sailoo, Pitla Shankar S/o Gangara, Pitla Indhira W/o Gangaram, Perumalla

Gangaram S/o Narsimlu, and some others, the villagers are stopped her from giving complaint, if she proceeded, the Village Development may effects, but no one came forward to provide justice, hence on 04.05.2016 came to PS and lodged a petition.

b)As per the contents of the above petition Lw-10 registered a case in

Cr.No.53/2016 u/s. 323, 504, 506 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation Lw-10 examined the complainant/Lw-1 at PS and recorded her detailed statement in part-II CD u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Later Lw-10 visited to scene of offence which is situated at Lolam village of Dharpally

Mandal, there Lw-10 secured two mediators i.e., Lw-8 and Lw-9 in their presence Lw-10 conducted the scene panchanama and draw the rough sketch i.e., brought on the same CDF. In the meantime Lw-10 examined the Lw-2 to

Lw-7 and recorded their detailed statements.

c)Subsequently Lw11 gone through the file and verified the investigation done by the Lw10 and found it on proper lines. On 10.06.2016 Lw11 issued the notice to accused persons. Accordingly accused persons requested for granting bail. As such the accused persons sent on bail. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code and on appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case were furnished 3CC No.446 of 2016 to them as required u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC. The accusation levelled against them were read over and explained to the accused in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and marked Ex.D1 on behalf of defence. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Pw1 is the complainant, Pws2 to 5 are witnesses, Pws6 & 7 are panch witnesses for scene, Pw8 is the Investigating Officer.

6. Heard both sides.

7.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused for the offences alleged against them u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

8.Pw1 deposed before this court that she know Lw2, Lws4 to 7 and Lw3 is her husband and also both the accused who are her villagers. She was the

Sarpanch of Lolam village from 2013 to 2018. On 2.6.2016 the Field Officer by name Bhumaiah i.e., Lw2 called her on phone asking her to come to

Yellammakatta for distribution of sweets on the eve of Telangana formation day.

Accordingly herself, Lw3 and Lws4 to 7 went there for distribution of sweets to

Upadhi coolies around 9.30 a.m. while distributing the sweets A1 came there and started distributing the sweets. Then she questioned him as to why he was distributing the sweets as his wife was the MPTC. Then he abused her saying “Lanja Nuvvotuve Dengey ani kalutho tannadu” in front of public. A1 kicked her on her right leg. Then the persons present there stopped him. Meanwhile 4CC No. 446 of 2016 the mother of A1 by name Yeshala Gangavva came there and she also abused her saying “Lanja Na koduku painaki vastunnava” and beat her and dragged her. Hence, she lodged complaint with the police on the same day. Police asked her to settle the matter in the village as she was the Sarpanch. But the accused did not come forward for the settlement and asked her to do whatever she want.

Hence, on 4.6.2016 she lodged complaint with the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by her. During cross examination Pw1 said that about 20 to 30 persons might be present when the incident took place and also said that, she stated to the police that she had taken Lws3 to 7 along with her to the scene of offence. She admitted that she contested the election on behalf of Telugu

Desham Party and later joined in TRS. She admitted that the wife of A1 was

MPTC and she belongs to Congress party. She also admitted that the reason for giving the complaint after two days as stated in her chief examination was not mentioned in Ex.P1. She denied that in Ex.P1 she did not mention about A2 beaten her and dragged her. She also admitted that Lws4 to 7 belongs to TRS and denied that they are not her followers. Other suggestions are denied by

Pw1.

9.Pw2 deposed that on 1.6.2016 he gave intimation to Pw1 and MPTC about the distribution of sweets in connection with Telangana formation day on 2.6.2016 at Yellammakatta, Lolam to Upadhi Hami coolies. On 2.6.2016 Pw1 and her husband, husband of the MPTC, by name Kishan i.e., A1 and Upadhi

Hami coolies came there along with Pw1, Lws4, 6 & 7 also came there. When

Pw1 was about to distribute the sweets, Accused No.1 i.e., husband of the

MPTC came there. Then Pw1 questioned him as to why he came there when his wife was the MPTC upon which A1 abused Pw1 in filthy language. Then A1 raised his leg on Pw1 and his leg touched Pw1. Subsequently Pw1 approached the police. On cross examination by APP, Pw2 admitted that he stated before 5CC No.446 of 2016 the police that accused No.2 kicked Pw1/Bondla Anuradha. It is also admitted by him that A2 abused Pw1 and he stated the same to the police. On Cross examination Pw2 admitted that on 2.6.2016 Lws4 to 7 did not work under the

Upadhi Hami padhakam. Lws8 & 9 worked as Upadhi Hami coolies on 02.06.2016. He also admitted that the Sarpanch is the Village Level Officer for

Upadhi Hami padhakam. He denied that the Sarpanch is his higher official and hence, he is deposing false in favour of Pw1 and the ruling party. The rest of the suggestions denied by him.

10.Pw3 deposed before this court on 02.06.2016 Pw2 called Pw1 for distribution of sweets on the eve of Telangana formation day at Yellammakatta,

Lolam village, to the labour. Before Pw1 distributing the sweets, A1 started distributing the sweets, upon which Pw1 questioned Accused No.1 as to in what capacity he was distributing the sweets. Then A1 abused Pw1 saying “Oseve nuvu cheppe danav ne anthu chusta nuvu antadanive dengey”, caught hold her and kicked her in public. Lws4 to 7 witnessed this incident.

Meanwhile A2 caught hold her and abused her saying “Osey Lanja nuvu anthatidanave aresindana ne sangati chustam”. Then himself and Pw1 left the scene and informed the police. Police asked to settle the matter in the village.

But A1 did not come forward for settlement. Hence, on 4.6.2016 the complaint is filed. On cross examination Pw3 denied that he did not state to the police the abusive words mentioned by him in his chief examination. He admitted that

Lws4 to 7 did not accompany with him and Pw1. He denied the rest of the allegations.

11.Pw4 deposed before this court that on 2.6.2016, sweets were distributed by the Sarpanch i.e., Pw1 on the occasion of Telangana Formation Day at

Yellammakatta, Lolam village. At that time A1/Kishan husband of the MPTC

Laxmi came there for distributing the sweets. Then, Pw1 asked him why he 6CC No. 446 of 2016 came instead of his wife who is the MPTC and she abused A1 upon which A1 also abused her. Then, Pw1 lifted her slipper and hence, A1 lifted his leg and kicked her. He can identify A1/Kishan and A2/Laxmidevi and accordingly he identified A1 and A2 present in the court as Kishan and Laxmidevi. Thereafter he went to get the car of Pw1. On cross examination by APP, he denied that he stated to the police as in Ex.P2. He also denied that he did not state to the police that Pw1 abused A1 and that she did not lift her slipper against A1. The other suggestions denied by him. During cross examination he admitted that he was the President of the village, TRS party as on the date of the alleged incident. Pw1 and her husband belongs to TRS party and the accused belongs to Congress party. He did not state to the police as in Ex.D1. He admitted that there is friendship between himself and husband of Pw1 as they belongs to same party. The rest of the suggestions denied by Pw4.

12.Pw5 deposed before this court that on 2.6.2016 he went to

Yellammagutta, Lolam village, Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad Dist. as sweets were being distributed on the occasion of Telangana formation day. Pw1 was distributing the sweets meanwhile, A1/Yeshala Kishan, the husband of MPTC came there. Dispute started after arrival of A1 with regard to distribution of sweets. When he asked A1 not to create nuisance, A1 kicked Pw1, upon which

Pw1 raised her slipper. Meanwhile, A2 also came there and abused Pw1. On cross examination Pw5 admitted that on 2.6.2016 he did not work under the

Upadhi Haami Padhakam. He also admitted that he did not state to the police that he worked on 2.6.2016 under the Upadhi Haami Padhakam. He denied that Pw3 is his friend, but he adds that he belongs to his caste. He admitted that himself and Pw3 are belongs to TRS party. The rest of the suggestions denied by Pw5.

7CC No.446 of 2016

13.Pw6 deposed before this court that in June, 2016 police came and obtained his signature at a tea stall of Lolam village. Except this he do not know anything else. On cross examination by the APP, nothing could be elicited from their evidence. During cross examination Pw6 admitted that he went for work under Upadhi haami padhakam on 2.6.2016. He also admitted that Lws4 to 7 did not attend the work under the above said Padhakam on that day.

14.Pw7 deposed before this court that on 4.6.2016 when he was present at

Lolam bus stand police came and obtained his signature. He also identified his signatures on crime details form and rough sketch and they are marked as

Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Police obtained his signature after enquiring whether he was present at Yellamma temple while distributing sweets in connection with

Telangana formation day. During cross examination by APP, nothing could be elicited from their evidence. During cross examination he admitted that he went for work under Upadhihami padhakam on 2.6.2016. He also admitted that

Lws4 to 7 did not attend the work under the above Padhakam on that day.

15.Pw8 deposed before this court that Lw10 ASI Md. Khaleel Pasha, who is no more, on 4.6.2016 received complaint from Pw.1 at 4.00 p.m. based on which he registered a case in Cr.No.53/2016 u/s. 323, 504, 506 IPC and issued FIR, Ex.P5 is the FIR issued by Lw10, whose signature he can identify.

After issuing FIR Lw10 examined and recorded the statements of Lws1 to 7 and also conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws5 and 6.

Ex.P6 is the Crime Details Form and Ex.P7 is the rough sketch drafted by Lw10 in the presence of mediators. On 9.6.2016, he took up the CD file from Lw10 and on 10.6.2016 both the accused surrendered before him and admitted their guilt upon which he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to both the accused. Later, on 20.6.2016 he filed charge sheet against the accused. During the cross examination Pw8 admitted that as per the investigation done by Lw10 about 50 8CC No. 446 of 2016 to 60 persons were present at the time of incident. He admitted that as per the statements of Lws 4 to 7 worked as coolie under Upadhi Haami scheme on the date of alleged incident. He also admitted that no document was collected from the concerned to show that Lws4 to 7 worked as coolies on that day. The rest of the suggestions denied by Pw8.

16.A perusal of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution reveals that there are inconsistencies in the evidences of Pws1 to 5 with regard to the alleged offences against the accused. Pws1 and 3 are wife and husband, their evidence only corroborates to the extent of kicking the right leg of Pw1 by the accused No.1 and from the evidences of Pws 2, 4 and 5 there are contradictions and discrepancies with regard to the alleged offences against the accused and the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in this case. The prosecution failed to produce attendance certificate to prove that Pws4 and 5 are worked as coolies under Upadihami padhakam on the date of incident in the place of offence. Hence, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of alleged offences without any corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the Accused No.1

U/s.323 of IPC. Pws6 and 7 who are panch witnesses are declared as hostile by the learned APP. Hence their evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

The prosecution failed to establish that the incident took place in the place of offence. Moreover, there is a delay in lodging the report before the police by

Pw1 and there is a contradiction that the reason stated for lodging complaint in

Ex.P1 is different from the reason deposed in her evidence and the same admitted by her during cross-examination.

17.The further allegation against the accused that they were abused Pw1 in filthy language. For which accused Nos.1 & 2 charged for the offences u/s. 504 of IPC. To prove this allegation against the accused, the prosecution has to 9CC No.446 of 2016 prove that the words spoken by the accused must be intentional or knowledge.

Mere using of words does not constitute the offence u/s. 504 of IPC, unless it is accompanied by intention or knowledge. Even from the prosecution witnesses evidences, there are several contradictions and inconsistencies from their evidence. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the allegations u/s. 504 of IPC against the Accused.

18.The next charge levelled against the accused u/s. 506 of IPC, there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which is legally entitled to do. In the instant case, the allegation is that the accused No.1 threatened Pws1 and 3 by saying that he will see their end with dire consequences. Therefore, the intention of the accused, that has to be considered in deciding as to whether the words stated by the accused comes within the meaning of criminal intimidation. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the Pws1 and 3 to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm could not be sufficient to bring the application of this section. But the material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the Pws1 and 3. Hence, the words spoken by accused No.1 against Pws1 & 3 does not cause any alarm in their mind and the same does not attract the ingredients of criminal intimidation. From the evidence of the case in hand, the prosecution failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused under Section 506 of IPC.

19.It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to 10CC No. 446 of 2016 maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convicting and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. No evidence has come on record to prove the culpability on the part of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal, point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

20.In the result, the accused Nos.1 & 2 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s. 323, 504, 506 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offences u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and the surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by steno and after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of April, 2021.).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Bondla Anuradha NIL

Pw2: Kotlapeta Bhoomaiah

Pw3: Bondla Bhoomaiah

Pw4: Bestha Sailoo

Pw5: Perumalla Gangaram

Pw6: Vakil Chinna Ramulu

Pw7: Rampurameshala Ganga Mohan

Pw8: B. Murali 11CC No.446 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1: Report given by Pw1. Ex.D1: Partly 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4

Ex.P3: Signature of Pw7 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P4: Signature of Pw7 on rough sketch

Ex.P5: F.I.R.

Ex.P6: Crime Details Form

Ex.P7: Rough sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD

CC/1865/2018 Acquitted

SHO Police Station Mugpal vs A1-Muppa Gangareddy

06 Apr 2023

1/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, NIZAMABAD.

Dated this the 6th day of April, 2023.

C.C.No. 1865 of 2018 .

Between : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Mugpal Police Station

..Complainant

And

A.1)Muppa Gangareddy S/o Sayanna, age: 50 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Mudhakpally village. A.2)A. Saya Reddy S/o Narsaiah, age: 45 yrs, Occ: Sarpanch, R/o. Mudhakpally village. A.3)Gundla Balaiah S/o Malkaiah, age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudhakpally village. A.4)Kathi Ramchandar S/o Ramulu, age: 53 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudhakpally village. A.5)Varni Sambaiah S/o Chinnaiah, age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudhakpally village. A.6)Ragula Shankar Goud S/o Bala Goud, age: 42 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudhakpally village, Mugpal Mandal. A.7)Kammari Anjaiah S/o Narsaiaha, age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudhakpally village, Mugpal Mandal. A.8)Rathod Unya Naik S/o Udya Naik, age: 45 yrs, Occ: Upa Sarpanch, R/o. Unya Naik thanda of Mudhakpally village. A.9)Badavath Redya S/o Kerya, age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agriculrture R/o.Rameshpoor thanda of Mudhakpally village. ….Accused Nos.1 to 9.

This case is coming on 27.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri. D. Narender Reddy, the learned Counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 9, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mugpal Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offence punishable U/Sec.430 of I.P.C., and 3 of PDPP Act in Crime No.17 of 2018.

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

2/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.03.2018 at 22.30 hrs the complainant/ Lw1/ Sri D. John Samson came to Police station and lodged a

Telugu written petition stating that the concerned incharge Mugpal filter bed submitted the report in the night hours some of Manchippa unknown persons are damaged “Toom” and diverting and utilizing water illegal to their fields of Mudakpally and Rameshpur thanda. The water of Manchippa reservoir is stored reserved for drinking purpose of Nizamabad Town residence and it is essential to save the water for drinking purpose.

Therefore, he requested to take action against the persons who was damaged the “Toom” and utilizing the water illegal to the fields of Moodakpally and

Rameshwar thanda.

a) Basing on the contents of the above report, a case in Cr.No. 17/2018,

U/Sec.430 IPC and Sec. 3 of PDPP Act was registered and investigated into by

Lw.8.

b) During the course of investigation the Lw.8 dispatched FIRs to all the concerned, secured the presence of complainant I.e Lw.1 examined and recorded his detailed statements in Part-II CDs, U/Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C.

c) Thereafter, on 08.03.2018, Lw.8 secured the presence of Lw.s 2 to 5 examined and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II CDs, U/Sec. 161

Cr.P.C. Later, Lw8 visited the scene of crime, secured the presence of two respectable mediators I.e.s Lws 6 and 7 and observed the scene of offence minutely and conducted scene of offence panchanama, after wards drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and incorporated the same in CDF.

d) During the course of investigation it is revealed that the Manchippa

Cheruvu store water for supplying to Nizamabad Town and if the water is adequate it will supplied to the farmers whose lands are under the Cheruvu,

Due to scarcity of water in the cheruvu and to supply it only to the

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

3/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

Nizamabad Town for drinking purpose.

e) On 07.03.2018 when Lw.2 came to attend his duties he found that the

Toom at Gate No.2 was damaged and the water which was meant for drinking purpose of Nizamabad Town was flowing to the agriculture fields of the farmers under the cheruvu katta. As such he has informed the same to Lw.1.

f) During the course of further investigation it is revealed that the accused mentioned in charge sheet have assembled themselves on the intervening night of 6/7-3-2018 and have damaged the Toom situated at gate No.2 for supplying the water to their agriculture fields which is illegal as due to scarcity of water in the cheruvu it was decided by the Irrigation Department officials to store water in the cheruvu and to supply it only to the Nizamabad

Town for drinking purpose.

g) As such on 18.03.2018 the Lw.8 summoned the accused shown in charge sheet to PS and interrogated them thoroughly. On interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As such the Lw.8 issued a notice u.sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused persons and served on them asking as and when the Hon’ble Court or police called, they must be attended the Hon’ble Court or police since the offence is below 7 years of imprisonment and bailable one.

3.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.430 of I.P.C., 3 of PDPP Act against accused No.1 to 9, on appearance of the accused No.1 to 9 before this Court, copies of the case were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused No.1 to 9 were examined U/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable U/Sec.430 of I.P.C, 3 of PDPP Act, the accusation levelled against them was read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 9 in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

4/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

tried.

4.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined P.ws.1 to 8 and

Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 9 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available against them, for which accused No.1 and 2 denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the Point for consideration herein is:

Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused No.1 to 9 for the offences U/Sec.430 of I.P.C., section 3 of PDPP Act beyond reasonable doubt?

Point:

7.P.w.1 deposed thaton the intervening night of 06.03.2018/07.03.2018, he received message from the Asst. Engineer/ Lw4 and night incharge Md. Rafiq/ Lw3 with regard to damage of toom by some unknown persons and flow the water from Manchippa reservoir. The water of

Manchippa Reservoir is purely reserve for drinking water of villagers of

Nizamabad. Thereafter, he went to spot along with Revenue officials and enquired about the incident, thereafter on 07.03.2018 he went to Police

Station and lodged Ex.P1 report. In his cross examination he admitted that he went to Police Station to lodge Ex.P1/ report in between 12-30 to 1-00 AM on 07.03.2018. Police examined him on the early morning of 07.03.2018. He has not mentioned the names of Lws 3,4 in his Ex.P1/ report nor he stated their names in his 161 Cr.P.C statement as he know the information from them. He admitted that he has not stated in his Ex.P1/ report and his 161

Cr.P.C statement that immediately after receiving information he along with revenue officials went to Manchippa reservoir. He has not stated how much of TMC water flows from Manchippa reservoir by the unknown persons. He

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

5/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

admitted that he has not stated the exact storage of how many TMC of water in Manchippa reservoir. He denied that on the intervening night of 06.03.2018/07.03.2018 that no one damaged the toom of Manchippa reservoir not flow any water from it. He admitted that he has not conducted panchanama of the above said Toom of Manchippa reservoir with the help of

Irrigation department officials. He cannot say how many tooms contains to the Manchippa reservoir. He denied that for statistical purpose he filed this false Ex.P1/ report and he is deposing false .

8.P.w.2 deposed that on 06.03.2018 at about 6-00 to 6-30 PM, villagers of Mudakpally damaged the Toom of a Manchippa lake and flow the water to their agricultural fields. On came to know the above said incident , he informed the same to their A.E. Thereafter, their AE informed the same to

Pw1, thereafter, Pw1 filed a report before police. Later he came to know that accused No.1 and some others were committed the above said offence.In his cross examination he admitted that he cannot say who damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake. He admitted that he has not seen accused No.1 and some others were damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and also admitted that the accused No.1 was the village elder of Manchippa. He denied that no one damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and that Pw1 filed this false case and to help him, he is deposing false .

9.P.w.3 deposed that on 07.03.2018 at about 6-00 AM he came to know that villagers of Mudakpally damaged the Toom of a Manchippa lake and flow the water to their agricultural fields. On came to know the above said incident , he informed the same to their A.E. Thereafter, their AE informed the same to Pw1, thereafter, Pw1 filed a report before police. Later he came to know that accused No.1 and some others were committed the above said offence. In his cross examination he admitted that he cannot say who

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

6/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake. He admitted that he hs not seen accused No.1 and some others were damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and accused No.1 was the village elder of Manchippa. He denied that no one damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and that Pw1 filed this false case and to help him, he is deposing false . He denied that police not examined him.

10.P.w.4 deposed that On 06.03.2018 when Pw2 was Inchage of Filter Bed and water pipe line at Manchippa. On the same day at midnight about 2-00

AM, Pw2 informed me that villagers of Mudakpally damaged the Toom of a

Manchippa lake and flow the water to their agricultural fields. Thereafter he informed the same to Pw1, thereafter, Pw1 filed a report before police. Later he came to know that accused No.1 and 2 and some others were committed the above said offence. In his cross examination he admitted that he informed Pw1 that some unknown persons damaged the Toom of Manchippa village. He cannot say who damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake. He admitted that he has not seen accused No.1 and 2 and some others were damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and accused No.1 and 2 are the village elders of Manchippa. He denied that no one damaged the Toom of Manchippa lake and that Pw1 filed this false case and to help him, he is deposing false .

11.P.w. 5 who cited s eye witness turned hostile and during his cross examination nothing elicited to support the version of prosecution except marking of Ex.P2.

12.The Pws. 6 and 7 who cited as panchas for scene, turned hostile, and during cross examination by learned APPO nothing elicited to support the version of prosecution except marking of Ex.s. P3 to P4.

13.P.w.8 deposed that on 07.03.2018 at 2230 hrs, he received a report from Pw1 basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No. 17/2018 for the offence U/Sec. 430 Indian Penal code, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage of

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

7/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

Public Property Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1, On 08.03.2018 he secured the presence of Pws 2 to 5 and examined and recorded their statements, later I visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch in the presence of

Pw6 and Pw7. During the investigation it revealed that Manchippa cheruvu stores water for supplying for Nizamabad Town and the water adequate it will be supplied to Formers under the cheruvu, due to scarcity of water in the cheruvu it was decided by the irrigation department officials to store water in the cheruvu and to supply it to only Nizamabad for drinking purpose. On 07.03.2018 when the Pw2 came to attend the duties he found the Toom at gate No. 2 was damaged and water which was need for drinking purpose for Nizamabad town was flowing to the agricultural fields of Formers under the cheruvu katta as such he informed the same to Pw1, during their further investigation the accused persons assembled themselves on the intervening night of 6/7-03-2018 and have damaged the Toom situated at gate No.2 for supplying of water to their agricultural fields which is illegal.

On 18.03.2018, the accused came to the police station on receiving summons and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, as such he issued 41-A notice to accused persons.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. In his cross examination he admitted that he did not receive the report from Pw1 on 07.03.2018 at 12.30 to 1.00 AM. He admitted that the names of Lws 3 and 4 not mentioned by Pw1 eitehr in Ex.P1 or in his statement before the police and did not state either in Ex.P1 or in his statement before the police that after receiving of the information himself and along with Revenue officials, he went to Manchippa Reservoyor. He admitted that Pw1 did not state either in his statement or in Ex.P1 that how much of TMC water was used by alleged

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

8/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

accused and also the storage of water. He admitted that Pw1 did not state in

Ex.P1 as well as in his statement before the police that the accused at which

Toom gate, used the water by damaging the gate. He admitted that Pws 2 to 4 did not state in their statement at which Toom the accused were damaged and used the water. He admitted that he has not recieved any complaint from Irrigation department in respect of this offence. He has not examined the officials of Irrigation department in this case. He admitted that he did not mention the Toom which is alleged to be damaged in the scene of offence rough sketch. He admitted that he did not examine the eye witness of the alleged incident. He denied that he sent the FIR to the Court on 12.03.2018 and that he registered the case on 12.03.2018 by putting anti date as 07.03.2018 and sent the FIR copy to the Court on the same day i.e on 12.03.2018. He admitted that he did not obtain signature of Pw.1 in the FIR at column No.14. He denied that he prepared the 161 Cr.P.C statements without examining the witnesses and that he did not visit the scene of offence and he did not conduct the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws 6 and 7. He denied that he called the Pws 6 and 7 and obtained their signatures on the scene of offence panchanama which is prepared at the police station and that the instigation of Pw1 he registered the false case for statistical purpose against the accused. He deneid that the accused persons never confessed about the commission of the offence. He denied that the accused never went to the Manchippa Reservoyor and they never damaged the Toom. He denied that he is deposing false.

13. The case of the prosecution is that due to scarcity of water in the

Cheruvu it was decided by the Irrigation Department officials to set water in the Cheruvu and to supply it only to the Nizamabad Town for drinking purpose, but the accused Nos.1 to 9 have unlawfully assembled near the

Toom at Gate No.2 and have damaged the Toom so that the water which wase

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

9/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

the law into motion narrated the case of the prosecution in vivid manner with regard to the damage of Toom by some unknown persons and he came to know about the same through Pws3 and 4. Hence, he is not the eye witness to the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the evidences of Pws2 to 4 they testified that the Villagers of Mudakpally damaged the Toom of a

Manchippa Lake and flow the water to their agricultural fields and they came to know that accused No.1 and some other were committed the above said offences. Admittedly, they cannot say who damaged the Toom of Manchippa

Lake and they have not seen the accused No.1 and some others were damaged the Toom of Manchippa Lake. Pw5 who cited as the eye witness turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution.

Admittedly, Pw8 who is the investigating officer, did not examine the eye witnesses of the alleged incident. In view of the above said facts and circumstances there is no evidence came on record that the accused No. 1 to 9 are the author of the alleged incident.

14. Hence, in view of the discussions stated supra, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 430 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused person. It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. No evidence has come on record to prove the culpability on the part of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal, point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

10/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

against the prosecution.

15. In the result, the accused No.1 to 9 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 430 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and accordingly they are acquitted under

Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No. 1 to 9 shall stands canceled after expiry of appeal period. Since no property seized as such no order passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of April, 2023.

FAC: II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For defence :

P.w.1 : D. John Samson --Nil--

P.w.2 : Syed Asadullah

P.w.3 : Md. Rafiq

P.w.4 : Syed Inayath Kareem

P.w.5 : G. Sailoo

P.w.6: G. Srinivas

Pw.7: T. Chandraiah

Pw.8: U. Satish

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :For Defence :

Ex.P.1 : Report. --Nil--

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

11/11 C.C. No.1865 of 2018.

Ex.P3: Signature on panchanama of Pw.6

Ex.P.4 : Signature on panchanama of Pw.7

Ex.P5: First Information Report.

Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

FAC: II Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Date: 06.04.2023 FAC: II J.F.C.M., Nizamabad.

CC/877/2020 Acquitted

State of Telangana PS Mugpal vs Syed Shadul

07 May 2021

1CC No.877 of 2020

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

AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Smt. Girija Tirandasu II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 7th day of May, 2021

C.C. N. 877 of 2020

Between: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mugpal. …Complainant // AND //

A1)Syed Shadul S/o Abdullah, age 30 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Auto Driver R/o 50 Quarters, Nagaram village of Nizamabad. A2)Bhoomigari Naveen, S/o Yadaiah, age 24 years, Caste: SC Madhiga, Occ: Tiles work, R/o Vivekananda colony, Nyalkal road, Nizamabad. A3)Palnati Thirupathi, age 38 years, Caste: M/Kapu, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No.10-10-180/9, Chandrababu Nagar colony, Nagaram village of Nizamabad.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this the 06.05.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. S. Vijay Kumar, Legal-Aid Counsel for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mugpal, filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s. 457, 380 of IPC.

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

a)The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2019 at 1000 hrs. the defacto complainant Sri Yeleti Shivalingam lodged petition in which he stated that on 27.09.2019 at about 06.00 hrs. he along with his helper Yeleti

Laxminarayana went to Sri Veerabrahmendra Swamy Temple for worship the 2CC No.877 of 2020 god on his turn. There they found that the temple locks break opened then he entered into the temple and found that the gold pusthelu wg. about 3 grams, gold Bottubilla wg. about 0.500 gms, and two pairs of silver mettelu wg. about 1 thula missing from the Matha Sri Govindhamambha idol. The complainant further noticed that the committee hall which located beside the temple also break opened, then he entered into the hall and found the almirah damaged, but there is no loss of any valuables. The complainant further added that in the night hours some unknown culprits gain entered into the temple and committed theft of above gold and silver ornaments from the Matha idol. The loss of property worth Rs.9500 approx. Hence, he requested to take legal action.

b)Basing on the above complaint the Lw9/Md. Tajuddin registered a case in

Cr.No.110/2019 U/s. 457, 380 IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation the Lw-9 examined the Lw1/Yeleti

Shivalingam and recorded his detail statement in part II CD at Mugpal PS.

Then the Lw9 rushed to the scene of offence and secured presence of two respectable panchas Lws4 & 5 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of above panchas, observed minutely for incriminating evidence, but no useful clues have come forth. The scene of offence is preserved by means of rough sketch in crime detail form. Then the Lw9 secured the presence of witness Lws2 & 3 and examined them and recorded their detail statement in part II CD. Then the Lw9 send the search parties to check the local M.O

Criminals but no useful clues have come forth.

d)Later 01.10.2020 the Lw10/A.Poorneshwar took up the CD file from Lw9 and verified the investigation done by him and found it to be on proper lines.

3CC No.877 of 2020

e)While the investigation was on progress to nab the accused persons on 23.11.2019 the Lw10 came to know that the Lw8/M. Laxmaiah, SI of police

Nizamabad Town-IV PS has arrested the accused persons A1 to A3 and interrogated them in presence of mediators Lws 6 & 7, during the interrogation, the accused persons confessed this offence along with other offences in various police stations. In this case A1 to A3 confessed that they were proceeded to Kulaspoor village of Mugpal mandal on rented auto bearing

No.TS-16-UB-8920 of A1 and broke open the locks of the temple and committed theft of gold pusthe, gold bottubillalu and silver mettelu from the Matha idol, and also broke open the lock of one room which situated beside the temple and broke open the almirah locks but not found any valuables. The stolen property kept with A1 to sell the same later. Among them gold Bottubillalu sold out to unknown person at Railway station and the amount used for their lavish expenses. Then the Lw8 recovered the Gold Pusthe wg about 1 gram, silver mettelu 2 wg. about 4 grams seized under cover of panchanama from A1 in presence of panchas by pasting the panch chits and sent them to judicial remand and lodged them in Nizamabad District Jail.

f)On receipt of the same the Lw-10 collected the attested copies and addressed a letter to the Hon’ble Magistrate Nizamabad for PT warrant and produced the accused persons A1 to A3 on PT warrant.

3.On the strength of such charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable u/s 457, 380 of

Indian Penal Code and on appearance of the accused before this court, copies of the case were furnished to them as required u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offences punishable u/s 4CC No.877 of 2020 457, 380 IPC. The accusation levelled against them were read over and explained to the accused in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and MOs.1 & 2. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for which they pleaded innocence and reported no defence evidence.

5.Pw1 is the complainant, Pw2 is the panch witness for scene of offence,

Pw3 is the panch witness for confession and recovery, Pw4 is the Investigating

Officer, who arrested the accused persons, Pws5 and 6 are the Investigating

Officers.

6. Heard both sides.

7.The point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against A1 to A3

for the charges levelled against them u/s. 457, 380 IPC beyond

reasonable doubt?

Point:

8.Pw1 deposed before this court that, he is a Carpenter by a profession apart from that he also perform pooja by turns in Brahmamgari temple,

Kulaspur village, Mugpal Mandal. On 27.9.2019 he along with Lw.2 went to the temple in the morning around 6.30 a.m. to perform pooja. After entering in to the compound wall of the temple they found the doors of the Garbhagudi of

Brahmamgari temple open by breaking open the locks. They found one bangaru 5CC No.877 of 2020 bottu billa, two bangaru pustelu and four silver mettelu missing from the idol of

Govindamamba in the Brahmamgari temple. They also found the lock of the door of committee hall broken and the almirah inside the committee hall opened by using a rod, but nothing was committed theft from the almirah. The committee hall is at a distance of about 12 feet from the temple. The total weight of bangaru bottu billa and pusthe is about 3 grams and weight of silver mettelu is about 3 grams. Later, he lodged complaint with the police. Ex.P1 is the complaint given by him. Only part of the stolen property is recovered by the police and he got them back through court, which he produced today as per the orders of this court. MO.1 is one gold pusthe, weighing about 1 gram and

MO.2 is pair of silver mettelu, weighing about 4 grams. During cross examination, Pw1 denied all the suggestions. The learned counsel for the accused did not dispute about the ownership of MO1 and MO2. Therefore, this

Court came to safe conclusion that MO1 and 2 which are stolen property in this case are belongs to Pw1’s temple property.

9.Pw2 deposed that he know Lw.4, On 27.9.2019 police called him and

Lw.4 to Brahmamgari temple at Kulaspur village, Mugpal mandal and conducted scene of offence panchanama with regard to the theft that took place in the said temple and drafted the crime details form in their presence. Ex.P2 is the Crime Details form on which Pw2 and Lw.4 signed. The Ex.P2 got marked as Scene of Offence Panchanama. The learned counsels for the accused put a suggestion which was though denied by him about non-conducting of scene of offence panchanama.

10.Pw3/VRO deposed before this court that on 23.11.2019 the S.I. of Police along with the staff was present at Chandra Nagar, Kallubatti, Nyalkal Road, 6CC No.877 of 2020

Nizamabad and three persons were present in their possession. On the instructions of his MRO he went to that place around 09.00 a.m. Lw7 also came there. The S.I. of Police asked him and Lw7 to enquire the three persons who were in their possession. Accordingly both of them took Shadul to a little distance away and enquired him. Shadul stated that he is an auto driver, that he is addicted to bad vices and since the amount earned by him by driving auto was not sufficient, he started committing thefts. He also stated that he along with Naveen and Thirupathi committed thefts at Nizamabad, Varni, Bodhan,

Banswada and Mugpal Mandal. He further disclosed that at Mugpal he along with other two persons committed theft in Brahmamgari Temple, Kulaspoor during night time by breaking open the lock of the Temple. He further stated that they committed theft of Bangaru Pusthe, Silver mettelu and Bangaru Bottu

Billalu and sold away Bangaru Bottu Billalu to an unknown person and kept the Bangaru Pusthe and Silver Mettleu in his house. With regard to the other crime committed at Mugpal, Shadul confessed that he along with Naveen committed theft at Kasbagh thanda in Jagadamba Temple by breaking open the

Temple and that they committed theft of Gold chain, Silver Mettelu and 20 pairs of Silver Eyes from Jagadamba Temple apart from cash by breaking open the

Hundi of the Temple. He also confessed that both of them committed theft of cash by breaking the Hundi of Sevalal Temple situated besides Jagadamba

Temple. Shadul further confessed that they sold away the Gold chain and Silver eyes to the unknown person at Nizamabad Railway Station and kept Silver

Mettelu in the house of Naveen. On enquiry of Naveen and Thirupathi separately by them, both of them confessed as A1. Police drafted the confessional panchanama in the Laptop of A1 to A3 and obtained their signatures. Exs.P3 to P5 are the certified copies of confessional panchanamas of

A1 to A3. He can identify the said Shadul and Naveen if he see them, he 7CC No.877 of 2020 identified A1 to A3 present in the Court as Shadul and Naveen and Thirupathi.

Later, Police took them to the house of Shadul/A1 situated at Nagaram, 50

Quarters, Nizamabad and Shadul took them to his house and Police recovered

One Bangaru Pusthe and a pair of Silver Mettelu which were brought by A1 from his house. Police drafted the seizure panchanama in the Laptop and obtained their signatures. From there they went to the house of Naveen/A2 situated at Vivekananda Colony, Nizamabad and Naveen brought one pair of

Silver Mettelu from his house and the same was recovered under cover of panchanama drafted in Laptop on which himself and Lw7 signed. Exs. P6 is the certified copy of recovery panchanama of A1. During cross examination Pw3 admitted that prior to this, he had given evidence before this Court in two cases, in two cases before Bodhan Court. He did not give evidence before I

ADM, Court, Nizamabad. He admitted that he had given evidence in other cases against the other accused apart from the accused in this case. He did not give evidence against A1 to A3 in any other case except this three cases. It took about 5 hours for conducting the panchanama at Nyalkal. The panchanama is conducted on the road. The description of the accused is not mentioned in the panchanama. On that day panchanama is conducted only in one case, Bangaru pusthe recovered from the accused belongs to the theft in the temple at Kasbagh Thanda. He do not remember now the weight of the said pusthe. The gold was weighed at the time of recovery, but the said fact is not mentioned in the panchanama. He denied the other suggestions.

11.Pw4 deposed before this court that on 23.11.2019, he arrested 3 persons in Cr.No.264/2019 of IV-town police station, Nizamabad. The said three persons namely Syed Shadul, Bhoomigari Naveen and one more person confessed that of them Syed Shadul and Bhoomigari Naveen committed theft in 8CC No.877 of 2020

Jagadamba temple at Kasba thanda by breaking open the lock of the temple.

They confessed that they committed theft of one gold chain, two silver toe rings and twenty pairs of silver eyes from the temple apart from cash from the Hundi.

Syed Shadul, Bhoomigari Naveen and Palnati Tirupathi also confessed that they committed similar theft at Kulaspur village, Mugpal mandal in Ammavari temple by breaking open the door lock. They confessed that they committed theft of one gold pusthe, some gold ticklies, silver mettelu from the temple.

Pursuant to the above confession, one gold pusthe and pair of silver mettelu only are recovered from the possession of Syed Shadul under cover of panchanama, as the accused confessed that they sold away gold ticklies to unknown persons and spent away the amount. During the cross examination,

Pw4 denied all the suggestions given to him.

12.Pw5 deposed before this court that issuance of First Information Report, and drafting the Crime Details Form and handing over file to Lw10. During cross examination he denied that he had not recovered any property and broken locks from the scene of offence and not recorded Crime Detail Form.

Rest of the suggestions denied by him.

13.Pw6 deposed before this court that on 23.11.2019 he received information from SHO, IV town Nizamabad there he got arrested three persons i.e., A1 to A3. Later, A1 to A3 confessed before the SHO, IV-town about the commission of offence in Cr.No.110/2019 u/s. 457, 380 IPC of PS Mugpal and also the SHO recovered the property from A1 to A3 in Cr.No.110/2019. In that the property which they recovered is as follows: 1) Gold pusthe weighted 1.00 gram i.e., MO-1, 2) Silver mettelu about (2) weighted upto 4.00 grams. He received the above property thereafter on 30.11.2019 he filed a requisition 9CC No.877 of 2020 regarding PT warrant before the concerned court and obtained the orders from this court and produced A1 to A3 before this court on 7.12.2019. Then he deposited the case property before the concerned court vide CPR No.147/2020.

After completion of investigation he had filed charge sheet before this court along with certified copies of confession and recovery of A1 to A3. During the cross examination he denied the suggestions.

14.A perusal of the evidence of Pws1 & 2 reveals that some unkown offenders gained entry into the temple and committed theft. There is no direct evidence with regard to commission of theft. Coming to the evidence of Pw3, panch witness for confession and recovery he stated that A1 to A3 confessed in his presence that they committed theft of Bangaru Pusthe, Silver mettelu and

Bangaru Bottu Billalu in Brahmangari Temple, Kulaspoor, Magpal Mandal, but sold away Bangaru Bottu Billalu to unknown person and kept the Bangaru pusthe and silver mettelu in A1’s house, however, Pw3 in his evidence deposed that one bangaru pusthe and a pair of silver mettelu were recovered from the house of A1 and one pair of silver mettelu recovered from the house of A2 by the police under seizure panchanama, whereas Pw4 deposed that pursuant to the confession, one gold pusthe and pair of silver mettelu only are recovered from the possession of Accused No.1. Hence, there is clear discrepancy in the evidences of Pw3 and Pw4 regarding the recovery of property from which accused’s possession it was recovered. However, further there was a contradiction brought by the defence counsel in the evidence of Pw3, where, in the chief he deposes that this case property recovered from the accused, but during his cross examination he admitted that this case property which alleged to have been recovered from accused belongs to the case pertaining to Temple of

Kasbagh Thanda, there is also no clarity of which property recovered from 10CC No.877 of 2020 which accused on the basis of above two contradicting evidences of prosecution. Hence, it is not safe to rely on the evidence of Pw3 and 4 to connect the accused No.1 to 3 with this crime. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused No.1 to 3 for both the charges levelled against them.

15.It is well settled law that the burden to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. The accused has a right to maintain silence in the trial. Every accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convicting and reliable evidence so as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. No evidence has come on record to prove the culpability on the part of the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal, point is accordingly answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s. 457, 380 of IPC and accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted of the said offences u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled. The accused Nos.2 and 3 are directed to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other cases.

11CC No.877 of 2020

The interim custody of MOs.1 and 2 are made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by steno and after correction, pronounced by me through video linkage (Cisco Webex) on this the 7th day of May, 2021.).

Sd/-

II-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Pw1: Yeleti Shivalingam NIL

Pw2: Pathuri Krishna

Pw3: Addedi Saibaba

Pw4: M. Laxmaiah

Pw5: Md. Tajuddin

Pw6: A. Poorneshwar

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

Ex.P1: Report given by Pw1 NIL Ex.P2: Crime Details Form

Ex.P3: Certified copies of confessional panchanamas of A1.

Ex.P4: Certified copies of confessional panchanamas of A2.

Ex.P5: Certified copies of confessional panchanamas of A3.

Ex.P6: Certified copy of recovery panchanama of A1.

Ex.P7: F.I.R.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

PROSECUTIONACCUSED

MO-1: One gold pusthe, weighing about 1 gram NIL

MO-2: Pair of silver mettelu, weighing about 4 grams

Sd/-

II-ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NIZAMABAD.

Order Record 291 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/700675/2016	The state through PS Dharpally vs Badavath Santosh	28 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/473/2023	State of Telangana PS Indalwai vs Mood Vittal	27 Apr 2023	Order	—
CC/1070/2022	State of Telangana PS Indalwai vs Jangam Raju	27 Apr 2023	Order	—
CC/148/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station,Nizamabad vs Nitesh Gangadhar Humane	26 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/125/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Maloth Babu	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/130/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Exicse Station,Nizamabad vs Nenavath Vasantha Rao	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1991/2021	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Gojuri Nadpi Gangadhar	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/2301/2021	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Korrala Gangadhar Alias Ganga alias Shaik Abdul	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2174/2021	State of Telangana PS Indalwai vs Tekumatla Shiva Shankar	21 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/361/2018	SHO of Police Dharpally vs Sampangi Rajamallu	19 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700479/2016	The state through PS Rural vs Bassi Janardhan	19 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700609/2016	Karam Laxmi vs A1- Marney Simarahy @ Marney Raju	19 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1957/2018	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs A1-Nunugonda Harish Kumar	17 Apr 2023	Order	—
CC/1925/2019	SHO of Police Dharpally vs A1-Maduri Srinivas	13 Apr 2023	Order	—
CC/1948/2022	State of Telangana PS Navipet vs Rodda Kishan	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/270/2018	SHO of Police Navipet vs Shaik Burhan @ Baba	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/600401/2017	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Kottur Naresh	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700564/2016	The state through PS Dharpally vs Ankesh Ramulu	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1640/2022	State of Telangana PS Makloor vs Neeradi Arun	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/48/2023	State of Telangana P.S. Excise Station, Armoor vs Bhukya Thukaram	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/101/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor vs Bhukya Ramesh	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/250/2018	SHO of Police Dharpally vs Nalluri Sainath	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1758/2021	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Kummari Sai Ram	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1769/2022	State of Telangana Proh and Excise S.I. of Police, Nizamabad vs Dusa Raju	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700602/2016	The state through PS Dichpally vs Sunkari Sayanna	10 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/156/2023	State of Telangana PS Town-V, Nizamabad vs Shaik Mukkaram Khan	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1322/2022	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Nukala Sachin	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/1865/2018	SHO Police Station Mugpal vs A1-Muppa Gangareddy	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/102/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor. vs Bhukya Kishan	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/103/2023	State of Telangana of Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor. vs Bhukya Judya	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/104/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor vs Bhukya Jannu	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/512/2018	SHO of Police Navipet vs Aaram @ Yerram Raja lingam	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1867/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor. vs Badavath Lambadi Dheshya	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2682/2021	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Bodameedi Sandeep Alias Jangamapally Sandeep	06 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/418/2023	State of Telangana PS Indalwai vs Abdul Jaheer	03 Apr 2023	Order	—
DVC/12/2022	Smt. Kanula Latha vs Kummari Kanula Ramesh	03 Apr 2023	Order	—
CC/110/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Malavath Kokya	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/118/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Kethavath Heeraman	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/124/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Degavath Laxmi Bai	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/128/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Banoth Kaika Bai	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/136/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad. vs Badavath Salku Bai	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/657/2018	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Ajja Gangaram @ Gujjanna	03 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
CC/587/2022	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Vsbanni Prakash Chavan	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/588/2022	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Banni Prakash Chavan	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/589/2022	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Banni Prakash Chavan	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/590/2022	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs Banni Prakash Chavan	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1197/2022	State of Telangana PS Dharpally vs A1-Banni prakash rathod	31 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
DVC/14/2019	Arshiya Fathima vs R1-Aijaz Ahmed	29 Mar 2023	Order	—
CC/127/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs Badavath Gangubhai	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/135/2023	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad. vs A1-Badavath Anitha	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1475/2021	State of Telangana PS Dichpally vs Lakhan Hingle alias S. Lakhan	29 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
PRC/87/2022	State of Telangana, PS VI Town vs SHAIK AZMATH	28 Mar 2023	Order	—
CC/1931/2022	State of Telangana PS Navipet vs Jittawar Ganesh	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2012/2019	SHO Police Station Indalwai vs A1-Amjad Hussain	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1777/2022	State of Telangana Proh and Excise SHO, Nizamabad vs Shaik Nazeer	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1892/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad vs A1-P.Yella Goud	20 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1527/2022	State of Telangana, PS Nizamabad Rural vs Mohammad Wahed Ali	15 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1608/2022	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Mohammad Wahed Ali	15 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/296/2018	SHO of Police V Town Nizamabad vs Shaik Khaleemuddin @ Kallu	15 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/600353/2016	SHO of PS Navipet vs Thouti Laxmi	15 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/312/2023	State of Telangana PS Town-V, Nizamabad vs Abdul Rehman @ Reman @ Sharuk Khan	09 Mar 2023	Order	—
CC/1723/2022	State of Telangana of Dichpally police station vs Shaik Amer	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/793/2018	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs A1-Kethavath Amber Singh	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1523/2021	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Vuppalanchi Venu	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1878/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad. vs Mohammad Younus	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/600562/2017	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Gaddam Dasharath Reddy	09 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/167/2020	SHO of Police Yedapally vs Kalleda Upendhar	06 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1109/2022	State of Through Excise Nizamabad vs Doolam Mallesh Goud, S/o. Yella goud	06 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1439/2022	State of Through Excise, Nizamabad vs Shaik Nazeer	06 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1863/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise P.S. Armoor vs Banavath Sathemma	06 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1865/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Armoor vs Amgoth Janku	06 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/233/2023	State of Telangana PS Indalwai vs Nenavath Ganesh	03 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1926/2021	State of Telangana PS Makloor vs Bokkala Srinivas	03 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700524/2016	The state through PS Makloor vs A2 Padamati Mohan	03 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700117/2017	SHO OF PS TOWN I vs Adhi Ramesh	02 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/111/2022	State of Telangana PS Nizamabad Rural vs Duggidi Ramesh Alias Duggireddy ramesh	01 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/425/2019	SHO of Police Navipet vs Peddolla Prathap Reddy	01 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/700067/2017	SHO OF PS TOWN I vs Deshapati Pavan Kumar	01 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
CC/600530/2016	SHO of PS Dharaplly vs Vsvaidyanath Bhagavan Tak	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
CC/600533/2016	SHO of PS Dichpally vs Vaidhyanath Bhagavan Tal	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
DVC/12/2018	Tabassum Naaz and others vs R1-Saduliah	28 Feb 2023	Order	—
DVC/41/2019	Bandari Latha vs R1-Bandari Rajesh	27 Feb 2023	Order	—
CC/657/2019	SHO Police Station Indalwai vs Karra Sandeep Kumar	22 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/552/2019	SHO of Police Dharpally vs A1-Bukya Balraj	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
DVC/30/2022	Botla Gangamani vs Nukal Sachin	20 Feb 2023	Order	—
CC/2166/2021	State of Telangana PS Town-VI, Nizamabad vs KORRALA GANGADHAR @ GANGA @ SHAIK ABDUL RAHMAN	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2167/2021	State of Telangana PS Town-VI, Nizamabad vs KORRALA GANGADHAR @ GANGA @ SHAIK ABDUL RAHMAN	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2305/2021	State of Telangana PS Dichpally vs A2-Korrala Gangadhar @ Ganga @ Shaik, Abdul Rahaman	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2306/2021	State of Telangana PS Dichpally vs Vskorrala Gangadhar alias Ganga alias Shaik Abdul	20 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1370/2022	State of Telangana PS Excise , Nizamabad. vs A1-Panjala Satyanarayana Goud	17 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1368/2022	State of Telangana PS Excise Nizamabad vs A1-Durgi Lingam	16 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1778/2022	State of Telangana Proh and Excise, SHO, Nizamabad vs Shaik Kaleem	15 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1780/2022	State of Telangana Proh and Excise SHO, Nizamabad vs Shaik Vasem Akram	15 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/1879/2022	State of Telangana Proh. and Excise Station, Nizamabad. vs Ayub Khan	15 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/219/2023	State of Telangana PS Dichpally vs Syed Shaaz	13 Feb 2023	Order	—
CC/563/2022	State of Telangana PS Makloor vs Mohammad Akbar	13 Feb 2023	Order	—
PRC/95/2022	State through PS Indalwai vs Lakavath Prakash	13 Feb 2023	Order	—
CC/1296/2022	State of through Excise, Nizamabad vs Kommarpally Gangadhar Goud, S/o. hanma Goud	13 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/2487/2021	State through VI town, Nizamabad vs Mohammed Mustaq Ansari @ Mohd.Mustaq Siraj Ansari	13 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
CC/600463/2017	SHO of Police Station Rural Nizamabad vs Amandu Shanker	13 Feb 2023	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 291 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		42
Mar 2023		36
Feb 2023		57
Jan 2023		37
Dec 2022		32
Nov 2022		9
Oct 2022		10
Sep 2022		14
Aug 2022		9
Jul 2022		7
Jun 2022		5
May 2022		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Girija Tirandasu handled?

Girija Tirandasu has handled 296 court orders since 2021 at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 11 orders per month.

What types of cases does Girija Tirandasu hear?

Based on available records, Girija Tirandasu primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Girija Tirandasu currently posted?

Girija Tirandasu is posted as II Addl. JFCM Judge at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by Girija Tirandasu available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Girija Tirandasu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Girija Tirandasu dispose cases?

Girija Tirandasu disposes approximately 11 cases per month, based on 296 orders handled over their tenure at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Girija Tirandasu serving?

Girija Tirandasu has been serving at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

CC 95%

DVC 3%

PRC 2%

Posting History

Nov 2022 — May 2023

II Addl. JFCM Judge · 86 orders
Nov 2022 — Nov 2022

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge
Oct 2021 — May 2023

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge · 203 orders
Mar 2021 — Oct 2021

II Addl. JFCM Judge · 7 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 15

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.D.Durgaprasad

Judge, Family Court-cum-III Addl. District and Ses...

72 orders

MS Chaitanya Angari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

4 orders

Pamujula Srinivasa Rao

I Addl. JFCM Judge

1 orders

Vaddi Hari Kumar

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge

839 orders

Ms. M.KeerthiRaj

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge

6 orders

P.sai Sudha

Senior Civil Judge

178 orders

G.V.N Bharatha Laxmi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

397 orders

Smt.Harisha

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge

42 orders

S Narayana

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST

1 orders

Smt. D.varoodhini

Fast Track Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases

16 orders

← View all judges at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex