Smt. Himabindu Mudavath

Page 1 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT: Smt. Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

Calendar Case No. 227 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam. …Complainant

AND

1. B. Vignesh Yadav S/o. B. Yettaiah, age: 36 years, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.17-1-383/N/80/A/30, Brundavan Nagar Colony, Champapet, Hyderabad.

2. K. Ramesh Goud S/o. K. Srisailam, age: 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.5-5-98, Chintalkunta, LB Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

3. Y. Rajesh Goud S/o. Y. Ganesh Goud, age: 33 years, Occ: Government Employee, R/o. H.No.1-54, Taramatipet Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna, Lea rned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B. Anil Kumar, Learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 3 and having learned and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following.

XVI AJMFC

Page 2 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.276 of 2018 against the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120-B, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

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

On 06/10/2018 at 1300 hours, LW15/Mr. M. Madhu Kumar, Inspector of

Police, Yacharam Police Station received complaint from the complainant/Polepally Kishan S/o. Late Parvathalu and others in which he stated that in the capacity of owners and possessors, the accused have offered to sell their lands bearing Sy.Nos.465/AA, measuring Ac.1-25 guntas,

Sy.No.465/AA/2, measuring Ac.1-10 guntas, total measuring Ac.2-35 guntas, situated at Nallavelly Revenue Village, Yacharam Mandal, R.R.District in favour of complainants herein for the total sale consideration of

Rs.25,87,500/(Rs. Twenty five lakhs eighty seven thousands and five hundreds only) and accordingly entered into an agreement of sale on 09/04/2016 by the accused with the complainants herein in respect of the said lands. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven

XVI AJMFC

Page 3 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

Lakhs Two Thousand Only) out of the above said total sale consideration of

Rs.25,87,500/- to the accused herein as advance cum part sale consideration.

As per the terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 09/04/2016, the complainants shown the eastern side boundary of said lands as 15 feet wide Donka. After entering into the said agreement of sale, the complainants verified the boundaries on the field and surprisingly found that, there is no 15 feet wide

Donka on the eastern side of said lands. Meanwhile, as per the agreement of sale dated 09/04/2016, the balance amount of Rs.18,85,500/- (Rupees

Eighteen lakhs eighty five thousands and five hundred only) will be paid by the complainants to the Accused subject to actual measurement of land available at site within a period of five months. After the completion of said five months period, the Complainants approached the Accused and demanded that, the

Complainants are ready to pay balance amount to the Accused, if the Accused provide the above said 15 feet wide Donka on the eastern side of said land and to measure and to fix the boundaries as shown by the Accused in the agreement of sale. In this regard, on 01/10/2016 the Accused came forward and agreed to execute registered sale deed in favour of the Complainants after obtaining mutation proceedings in their favour and after entering of their names in online pahanies as on 05/10/2016. In this regard, on the same day i.e., on 01/10/2016, the Accused have also received part sale Consideration of

XVI AJMFC

Page 4 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) out of the said balance sale consideration amount from the Complainants and also executed agreement- cum cash receipt dated 01/10/2016 in favour of the Complainants. Thus, in total the Accused received an amount of Rs.9,02,000/- (Rupees Nine lakhs two thousands only) as part sale consideration, out of the above said total sale consideration from the Complainants. As per the further agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016, the Accused have agreed to execute register sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration from the Complainants by obtaining mutation proceedings and online pahanies as on 05/10/2016. On 05/10/2016, the Complainants have approached the Accused with the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,85,500/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs eighty five thousands five hundreds only) and demanded the Accused that, to execute register sale deed by receiving the said balance sale consideration and by handing over the mutation proceedings and online pahanies of Accused as agreed in the agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016. In this regard, the Accused informed the Complainants stating that, some boundaries disputes are pending in between the Accused and their vendors in respect of subject lands, as such, the Accused requested the Complainants to give some further period to clear the said boundary dispute and to mutate the name of

Accused and entering of Accused names on online pahanies. As such, seeing

XVI AJMFC

Page 5 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 the inconvenience of Accused, the Complainants waited patiently with the remaining sale consideration amount of Rs.16,85,500/-. The Accused got issued a legal notice on 08/08/2017 to the Complainants through their counsel with false and baseless allegations with a view to harass and cause loss to the

Complainants. Immediately, on 14/08/2017 the Complainants have issued suitable reply notice by narrating the above said facts. Recently, the

Complainants came to know that, the Accused without get ready for the execution of registered sale deed in favour of Complainants by showing the correct boundaries in respect of said lands and by showing the their mutation proceedings and online pahanies, with a view to cheat the Complainants in a dishonest and fraudulent manner, the Accused have sold the subject lands in favour of third parties namely Kontham Shekar Reddy, Kommidi Srinivas

Reddy and Doodipala Muthyam Reddy and executed agreement of sale cum-

G.P.A. vide document No.8640/2017, dated 23/10/2017 and thereby committed cheating against the Complainant in a conspiracy manner. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the contents of complaint LW15/Mr. M. Madhu Kumar,

Inspector of Police, Yacharam, registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2018

XVI AJMFC

Page 6 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 under Section 420, 120-B, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and entrusted investigation to LW16.

4.During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined the material witnesses and issued notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the Accused and filed charge sheet against the Accused.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 3 and numbered as Calendar

Case Number 227/2019.

6.On appearance of accused persons, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

7.Accused persons were examined under Section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them.

Charges were framed for the offences under Section 420, 120-B of IPC, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

XVI AJMFC

Page 7 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

8.During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW9 were examined i.e., LW1 was examined as PW1, LW2 was examined as PW2, LW3 was examined as PW3,

LW4 was examined as PW4, LW6 is examined as PW5, LW9 is examined as

PW6, LW11 is examined as PW7, LW13 is examined as PW8 and LW16 is examined as PW9 and Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked for prosecution and the evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by this court. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11.Now the point for determination are as follows:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

persons for the offence punishable under section 420 and 120-B IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what result?

XVI AJMFC

Page 8 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

12.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, representing themselves as owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.2-35 guntas situated at Nallavelly Village, offered to sell the same to the complainants for a total consideration of Rs.25,87,500/-. Accordingly, an Agreement of Sale dated 09.04.2016 (Ex.P2) was executed. The complainants paid Rs.7,02,000/- as advance under Ex.P4 and subsequently paid Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.P5, totaling Rs.9,02,000/-. And specific specific allegation is that the accused represented that there exists a 15 feet Donka road on the eastern side of the land, which was shown as a boundary in Ex.P2. However, after entering into the agreement, the complainants allegedly found that no such Donka road exists. It is further alleged that despite repeated demands and readiness on the part of the complainants to pay the balance consideration, the accused failed to execute the sale deed and ultimately sold the property to third parties under documents marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. Hence, the present case alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.

As stated supra, in order to support its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW9 and 15 documents got marked as

Exhibits P1 to P15. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 9 stands for scrutiny.

XVI AJMFC

Page 9 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

13.Out of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution, PW1 is the complainant, PW2 to PW4 are the witnesses, PW5 is the circumstantial witness, PW6 and PW7 are the Vendees of 8640/2021 and 11680/2017 of

SRO, Ibrahimpatnam, PW8 is the panch witness for scene of offence and PW9 is the Investigating Officer and filed charge-sheet. Ex. P1 is the complaint.

Ex.P2 is the Agreement of sale dated 09.04.2016, Ex.P3 is the CC of

Agreement of sale cum GPA dated 23.10.2017, Ex.P4 is the Receipt dated 09/04/2016 for Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand only),

Ex.P5 is the Receipt dated 01/10/2016 for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), Ex.P6 is the Oppanda Pathram cum Cash receipt dated 01.10.2016,

Ex.P7 is the CC of Sale deed dated 16/12/2017. Ex.P8 is the Signature under witness in Sl.No.2, Ex.P9 is the Signature under witness in Sl.No.2 on Ex.P4.

Ex.P10 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW6. Ex.P11 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7. Ex.P12 is the Scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P13 is the

Rough Sketch, Ex.P14 is the True copy of the sale deed vide Doc.Br. No. 5310 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015. Ex.P15 is the First Information Report.

Now, let us discuss each framed points individually:

XVI AJMFC

Page 10 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

POINT:

14.Before adverting to the appreciation of evidence, it is pertinent to consider the relevant provisions of law. In order to constitute an offence under

Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish the following essential ingredients:

(i) Deception of a person;

(ii) Fraudulent or dishonest inducement;

(iii) Delivery of property or valuable security;

(iv) Existence of dishonest intention at the time of inducement.

15.In order to establish the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove that there was deception of the complainant, that such deception was with dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction, that the complainant was induced to deliver property, and that such inducement resulted in wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused.

It is well settled that mere breach of contract or failure to honour an agreement does not constitute cheating unless it is shown that the intention to deceive existed at the very inception.

XVI AJMFC

Page 11 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

16.Coming to the evidence on record, PW1, the complainant, deposed in line with the complaint/Ex.P1 and relied upon Ex.P2 agreement of sale, dated 09/04/2016, Ex.P4/ report and Ex.P5/ receipts dated 01/10/2016, Ex.P6 agreement-cum-cash receipt dated 01/10/2016, Ex.P3/ AGPA dated 23/10/2017, and Ex.P7/ CC of sale deed dated 16/12/2017. However, his cross-examination reveals material admissions which go to the root of the prosecution case. PW1 admitted that he is engaged in real estate business as a commission agent without any registration and that he is a local resident well aware of the property. He further admitted that the boundaries mentioned in

Ex.P2 are the same as those mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P7. This admission is crucial because the entire allegation of deception revolves around misrepresentation of boundaries and existence of a 15 feet Donka. When the boundaries remain consistent across all documents, the allegation of false representation loses its force. PW1 also admitted that a civil suit is pending between the parties, thereby indicating that the dispute is civil in nature.

Further, he admitted that no prior complaint was lodged before the police, contradicting the contents of Ex.P1.

17.PW2 and PW3, who are co-purchasers, supported PW1 in chief examination, but their cross-examination exposes serious deficiencies. PW2

XVI AJMFC

Page 12 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 admitted that no documents were filed to show readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration, no proof of financial capacity was produced, and no survey report was filed to establish absence of the Donka road. He also admitted that no possession was taken. PW3, on the other hand, inconsistently claimed possession but admitted that no document evidencing delivery of possession exists. These contradictions regarding possession are significant because they affect the credibility of the prosecution case. Both witnesses admitted that they did not issue any legal notice prior to filing the complaint and that they came to know about alleged cheating only after receiving notice from the accused, which indicates that the dispute escalated after contractual disagreements.

PW4, who is an attesting witness to Ex.P2 and Ex.P4, failed to recall the date, time, and material particulars of the transaction. He admitted that he does not remember denominations of currency and that his personal details are not mentioned in the documents. His testimony appears mechanical and does not inspire confidence.

PW5 is admittedly a hearsay witness who came to know about the transaction through PW1 and others. His evidence does not prove any fact in issue and is of no assistance to the prosecution.

XVI AJMFC

Page 13 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

PW6 and PW7, who are vendees under Ex.P3 and Ex.P7, resiled from thier previous statements as per the prosecution. Though confronted with their 161 Cr.P.C statements /Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, they denied the prosecution case.

Importantly, they admitted execution of AGPA and sale deed and further admitted that payments were made through cheques which were honoured.

Through PW7, Ex.D1 /bank statement and Ex.D2 /cheque copy were marked, which demonstrate that the transaction between accused and subsequent purchasers was conducted through banking channels. This circumstance probabilises a bona fide transaction rather than a fraudulent one. PW8, the panch witness, merely spoke about the scene of offence panchanama /Ex.P12 and rough sketch/ Ex.P13. He admitted lack of knowledge about the dispute and his evidence is purely formal.

PW9, the Investigating Officer, admitted several lapses in investigation.

He admitted that he did not collect original documents, did not verify legal notices referred in the complaint, did not issue summons under Section 91

Cr.P.C for production of documents, did not obtain expert opinion regarding the alleged Donka, and did not compare boundaries of documents in a scientific manner. He further admitted that Ex.P2 does not mention delivery of possession and that he did not collect documentary proof of possession.

XVI AJMFC

Page 14 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

Importantly, he admitted that boundaries in Ex.P2 and Ex.P14 /earlier sale deed of 2015 are identical. This admission demolishes the prosecution case that the accused misrepresented boundaries. The investigation appears to have proceeded on assumptions rather than concrete evidence.

18.Coming to documentary evidence, Ex.P2 /agreement of sale is a contractual document which does not contain any clause indicating fraudulent intention or delivery of possession. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 only establish payment of amounts but do not prove that such payments were induced by deception.

Ex.P6 indicates continuation of contractual obligations rather than termination.

Ex.P3 and Ex.P7 show subsequent transactions, but mere subsequent sale does not establish cheating unless initial dishonest intention is proved. Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 do not establish deception. Ex.P14, on the contrary, supports the defence by showing identical boundaries. Ex.P15 /FIR being a court-referred

FIR has limited evidentiary value.

19.The entire evidence, when read as a whole, indicates that the dispute arises out of an agreement of sale, alleged boundary issue, and failure to execute sale deed, followed by sale to third parties. These are typical features of a civil dispute relating to enforcement of contractual rights. There is

XVI AJMFC

Page 15 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 absolutely no evidence to show that at the time of entering into Ex.P2, the accused had dishonest intention to cheat the complainant. The law is clear that subsequent conduct or breach cannot retroactively establish initial fraudulent intention.

As regards Section 120-B IPC, there is no evidence whatsoever to establish any agreement between the accused to commit an illegal act. No witness has spoken about conspiracy, no circumstance suggests meeting of minds, and no document indicates coordinated illegal action. The charge of conspiracy is thus wholly unsubstantiated.

20.On cumulative appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, this

Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients of both offences. The evidence of PWs suffers from contradictions, lack of corroboration, and admissions favouring the defence. The documentary evidence does not support the prosecution case. The investigation is defective and incomplete. The defence evidence, though minimal, probabilises a bona fide transaction.

21.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt must always go to the

XVI AJMFC

Page 16 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019 accused. In the present case, not only does reasonable doubt arise, but the material on record positively indicates that the dispute is civil in nature.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.2:

22. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty and are hereby acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under

Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. There is no order as to property as seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 hday of April, 2026.

XVI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 17 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES

A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES

PW1LW1Polepally KishanComplainant

PW2LW2Polepally JaganWitness

PW3LW3Nagilla BuchaiahWitness

PW4LW4Karingula ShankerWitness

PW5LW6Kanamoni Ashok Kumarcircumstantial witness,

PW6LW9Kontham Shekar Reddy Vendeeof8640/2021and 11680/2017 of SRO, Ibrahimpatnam

PW7LW11Kamidi Srinivas Reddy Vendeeof8640/2021and 11680/2017 of SRO, Ibrahimpatnam

PW8LW13Kanamoni JangaiahPanch for scene of offence

PW9LW16Mr. B. Venkataiah, SI of Investigating Officer Police, Yacharam

B- DEFENCE WITNESSES

-NIL-

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS

A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS

Exhibit.P1/PW106/10/2018 Complaint

Exhibit.P2/PW109/04/2016 Agreement of sale.

Exhibit.P3/PW123/10/2017 CC of Agreement of sale cum GPA.

Exhibit.P4/PW109/04/2016 Receipt for Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Two thousand only).

Exhibit.P5/PW101/10/2016 Receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only).

Exhibit.P6/PW101/10/2016 Oppanda Pathram cum Cash receipt.

XVI AJMFC

Page 18 of 18 CC.No. 227 of 2019

Exhibit.P7/PW116/12/2017 CC of Sale deed

Exhibit.P8/PW408/10/2018 Signature under witness in Sl.No.2.

Exhibit.P9/PW4-Signature under witness in Sl.No.2 on Ex.P4.

Exhibit.P10/PW6 25/10/2018 161 Cr.P.C statement of the PW6.

Exhibit.P11/PW7 25/10/2018 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

Exhibit.P12/PW8 08/10/2018 Scene of offence panchanama

Exhibit.P13/PW8-Rough sketch.

Exhibit.P14/PW9 06/10/2018 True copy of the sale deed vide Doc.Br. No. 5310 of 2015 dated 01.06.2015.

Exhibit.P15/PW9 06/10/2018 First Information Report.

B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS

Exhibit.D1/PW718/10/2025 Bank statement

Exhibit.D2/PW723/01/2018 Copy of Cheque bearing No.675960

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 1 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT: Smt. Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

Calendar Case Number 344 of 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam, Police Station. …Complainant.

A N D

1. Urella Balu S/o. Mallesh, aged 19 years, Occ: Driving, R/o. Pashamylaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

2. Tenugu Raju S/o. Late Ramesh, aged 21 year, Occ: Driving, R/o. Pashamylaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

3. Manne Laxman S/o. Venkataiah, aged 35 years, Occ: Supervisor in Parley Agro Ltd. R/o. Pashamylaram Village, Patancheruvu Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. …Accused.

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G.Aruna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B. Madhanna, learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 3 and having heard and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police Yacharam, Police Station filed a charge sheet in

Crime Number 31 of 2020 against the Accused for the offence punishable

Page 2 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020 under Section 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code and Section 196 (a), 180, 181 of M.V. Act.

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

2.1On 18/02/2020, at 2130 hours, LW18/Mr. M. Madhu Kumar, Inspector of

Police, Yacharam, received a complaint from LW1/Smt. Bussu Premalatha

W/o. Damodar Reddy, in which she stated that on 18/02/2020 at about morning hours the complainant husband herein by name Bussu Damodar S/o

Laxmareddy and her husband friend herein injured Naran Reddy S/o Yadhi

Reddy both went to Ibrahimpatnam on her husband bike Br.No.AP-29-Q-2672 after completion of their work they return to home on same day on at about 1940 hours they were reached near Yacharam, DSR garden, in the meantime one unknown crime vehicle, driven by accused driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while driving so, he given hit to her husband vehicle from Opposite direction, as resultant the complainant's husband received severe injuries on his head and died on the spot and pillion rider Naran Reddy received bleeding injuries on his legs and hands at that time the unknown vehicle driver fled away from the spot. It is further stated that present injured

Naran Reddy taking treatment in Sri Laxmi Hospital, Vanastalipuram. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

Page 3 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

3.Basing on the contents of the complaint, LW18/Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 31/2020, U/s. 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 196 (a), 180, 181 of M.V. Act and entrusted to LW19 for investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch and issued notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and thereafter handed over the CD filed to LW20 and LW20 filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338 of IPC and Section 180, 181 and 196 of MV Act against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and numbered as Calendar Case Number 344/2020.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The accused were examined under Section 251 of Code of Criminal

Procedure explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them.

Charge was framed for the offence under Section 304-A, 338 of IPC and

Section 181 and 196 of MV Act, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page 4 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

8. During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW9 were examined i.e., LW1 is examined as PW1, LW3 is examined as PW2, LW5 is examined as PW3,

LW14 is examined as PW4, LW11 is examined as PW5, LW12 is examined as

PW6, LW17 is examined as PW7, LW19 is examined as PW8, LW20 is examined as PW9 and LW10 is examined as LW15 and Exhibits P1 to P8 and

MO1 to MO4 were marked for prosecution and the evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by this court. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

10. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11.Now, the points for determination are:

1. whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

Accused No.1 committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-A

IPC?

Page 5 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

accused No.1 committed the offence punishable under section 338 IPC?

3. whether Accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable under the Motor Vehicles

Act?

4. To what result?

12.At the outset, the contention of the prosecution is that due to the accused No.1 in rash and negligent without taking proper precautions dashed the bike of one Bussu Damodar S/o Laxmareddy due to which he was died with severe bleeding injuries and his friend Naran Reddy S/o Yadhi Reddy received bleeding injuries.

As stated supra, in support of the prosecution they have examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked the Exhibits P1 to P8 and MO1 to MO4. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

Let us discuss each point individually:

POINT NO.1 Section 304-A IPC:

To constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution must establish the following ingredients:

Page 6 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

1. Death of the deceased

2. That such death was caused by the accused

3. That the act of the accused was rash or negligent

Ingredient No.1: Death of the deceased

13.The death of the deceased Bussu Damodar Reddy is clearly established through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who spoke about the death following the accident. Their evidence is corroborated by the Post Mortem Examination

Report marked as Ex.P7. PW10, the doctor who conducted autopsy, deposed that the deceased sustained multiple injuries including a severe crush injury to the skull and opined that the cause of death was due to such injuries. The medical evidence is clear, consistent, and unshaken in cross-examination.

Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved the death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.

Ingredient No.2: Death caused by the accused

14.To prove this ingredient, the prosecution relies mainly on PW3, the injured eyewitness. PW3 deposed that while he and the deceased were traveling on a motorcycle, a vehicle driven by Accused No.1 at high speed

Page 7 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020 dashed their motorcycle, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to him. PW3 identified Accused No.1 in Court. The presence of PW3 at the scene is natural and unquestionable as he himself sustained injuries in the same occurrence. His testimony remained consistent and trustworthy, and no material contradictions were elicited in cross-examination. There is no suggestion of any motive for false implication. The evidence of PW3 is strongly corroborated by medical evidence. PW10 categorically stated that the deceased sustained a crush injury to the skull and further opined that such injury cannot be caused by a simple fall from a motorcycle even at high speed or under intoxication. This expert opinion rules out the defence theory of self- fall.

Further, the scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P3, rough sketch/Ex.P4, and seizure of material objects (MOs.1 to 4) support the occurrence of a vehicular accident. Thus, the cumulative evidence establishes that the death of the deceased was caused by the act of Accused No.1.

Ingredient No.3: Rash and negligent act

15.PW3 clearly deposed that the offending vehicle was driven at high speed and dashed the motorcycle. The medical evidence is decisive. PW10 deposed that the skull and brain of the deceased were completely crushed and

Page 8 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020 that such injuries are not possible in a simple fall. The crushing of the brain itself demonstrates the forceful impact and clearly establishes rash and negligent driving. The defence suggestion that the deceased fell due to drunken condition stands falsified by medical evidence.

The defence relied on PW7/MVI, who stated in Ex.P5/MVI Report that no visible damage was found on the vehicle. However, the accident occurred on 18.02.2020 and inspection was conducted on 14.05.2020 after a considerable delay. Therefore, the possibility of repair cannot be ruled out.

PW8 also stated that there was sufficient time for repair. Moreover, the MVI report only indicates absence of mechanical defect and does not disprove the accident. Thus, the act of Accused No.1 is proved to be rash and negligent.

Hence, based on the above discussion, all the ingredients are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused No.1 is found guilty under

Section 304-A IPC and Accused Nos.2 and 3 not found guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC and this point is answered in favour of the prosecution against Accused No.1.

POINT NO.2: Section 338 IPC:

16.To constitute an offence under Section 338 IPC, the prosecution must prove:

Page 9 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

1. That grievous hurt was caused to a person

2. That such hurt was caused by the act of the accused

3. That such act was rash or negligent so as to endanger human life

Ingredient No.1: Grievous hurt

17.PW3, the injured witness, clearly deposed that he sustained injuries in the accident. The MLC report marked as Ex.P8 shows that he sustained fracture injuries. A fracture is specifically included within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC. The evidence of PW3 regarding injuries is natural and trustworthy, and the same is corroborated by Ex.P8. Thus, it is clearly established that PW3 sustained grievous hurt.

Ingredient No.2: Hurt caused by the accused

18.PW3 categorically deposed that he sustained the injuries due to the accident caused by the vehicle driven by Accused No.1. His presence at the scene is undisputed, and his testimony is reliable. The injuries sustained by

PW3 are directly linked to the same accident which caused the death of the deceased. Thus, there is a clear nexus between the act of Accused No.1 and the injuries suffered by PW3. The defence has not elicited anything in cross-

Page 10 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020 examination to discredit this aspect. Therefore, this Court holds that the injuries were caused due to the act of Accused No.1.

Ingredient No.3: Rash or negligent act endangering life

19.This ingredient is crucial under Section 338 IPC. As already discussed under Section 304-A IPC, the act of Accused No.1 in driving the vehicle at high speed and dashing the motorcycle constitutes rash and negligent driving. The nature of impact, which resulted not only in the death of one person but also grievous injuries to another, clearly shows that the act endangered human life.

The same act of rash and negligent driving which caused death also caused grievous hurt to PW3. Therefore, the act of the accused squarely falls within the ambit of Section 338 IPC.

Hence, based on the above discussion, all the ingredients of Section 338 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Accused No.1 is found guilty under Section 338 IPC and Accused Nos.2 and 3 not found guilty for the offence under section 338 IPC and this point is answered in favour of the prosecution against Accused No.1.

Page 11 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

POINT NO:3:

20.The evidence of PW8 shows that Accused No.2 is the regular driver of the vehicle. However, on the date of the incident, the vehicle was taken and driven by Accused No.1. There is no evidence to show that Accused No.2 was present at the scene or had any role in the accident. Mere status as a regular driver is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability. There is no evidence of knowledge, consent, or involvement.

In so far as Accused No.3 is concerned, the evidence shows that the vehicle was not covered by valid insurance at the time of accident. No proof of insurance is produced and it is also seen that the owner/Accused No.3 allowed

Accused No.1 to drive the vehicle without valid driving license. Therefore,

Accused No.3 is liable under Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act and 180 of

Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the evidence of PW8 establishes that Accused

No.1 was driving without a valid license, attracting Section 181 of the Motor

Vehicles Act.

In view of the above discussion, Accused No.2 is entitled to acquittal and Accused NO.3 is found guilty for the offence under section 196 and 181 of the Motor vehicle Act.

Page 12 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

POINT NO: 4:

21. To what result?

In the result, Accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338 of IPC ad 181 and Accused No.3 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 180 of MV Act and 196 of MV Act and accordingly, they are convicted under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence and Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A, 338 of IPC and 180, 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 th day of April, 2026.

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Questioning on quantum of Sentence:

1.Heard the accused Nos.1 and 3 on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. The accused Nos.1 and 3 submitted that they are the sole breadwinners of the family and they are having children and that their incarceration will cause hardship to the family. It is also urged that the accused

Page 13 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

Nos.1 and 3 are first-time offenders, has roots in society, and therefore may be treated leniently. In view of the above submissions of the accused considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is the opinion that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions under Section 360 Cr.P.C., and considering the age of the deceased, the nature of the negligence, and the need for deterrence in cases involving loss of human life, the Court finds that a moderate term of imprisonment with fine would meet the ends of justice.

Hence, this court took linient and passed following sentence.

2.Accordingly accused Nos.1 is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees

FIVE Thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code; Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC,

Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. Further,

Accused No.3 is sentenced to pay file of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 180 of MV Act and and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 196 of MV Act. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentence of Accused No.1 runs concurrently. The remand period undergone by the accusedif any shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are informed about their right of appeal against the judgment passed by this court and also they are informed about their right to take legal aid in preferring the appeal.

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page 14 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES

A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES

PW1/LW1Smt. Bussu Premalath Complainant/wife of deceased

PW2/LW3Bussu Narsi Reddy1st elder brother of the deceased

PW3/LW5Maley Naram Reddy Injured person

PW4/LW14M. Ram ReddyPanch witness for inquest panchanama

PW5/LW11K. Anantha ReddyPanch witness for scene of offence and seizure

PW6/LW12M. Shekar ReddyPanch witness for scene of offence and seizure

PW7/LW17M. BalaramIssued MV report

PW8/LW19Mr. B. Venkataiah, SI of 1st Investigating Officer and arrested Police, YacharamAccused No.1

PW9/LW20Mr. R. Padmaiah, SI of 2nd Investigating Officer and filed Police, Yacharam charge sheet

PW10/LW15Dr. CH. Hanumanth RaoIssued PME

B- DEFENCE WITNESSES

-Nil-

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS

A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS

Exhibit.P1/PW118/02/2020Complaint

Exhibit.P2/PW412/02/2020Inquest panchanama

Exhibit.P3/PW5-Scene of offence panchanama.

Exhibit.P4/PW5-Rough sketch.

Exhibit.P5/PW714/05/2020MVI report

Page 15 of 15 CC.No. 344 of 2020

Exhibit.P6/PW818/02/2020First Information Report

Exhibit.P7/PW1019/02/2020PME report

Exhibit.P8/PW918/02/2020MLC of PW3 issued by LW16/Dr.Jagan.

B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1/PW8Bike Dome

MO1/PW8Mudger

MO1/PW8Number plate

MO1/PW8Bumper

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Page 1 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT: Smt. Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

Calendar Case No. 146 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam. …Complainant

AND

1. Korrapati Srikanth Kumar S/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 27 years, Occ: Car Driver, R/o. Almasguda, Balapur, Ranga Reddy District. N/o. H.No.1-200, Opp. State Bank of India, Macharla Road, Karampudi Village and Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Smt. Korrapati Leela W/o. Srinivasa Rao, aged 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.1-200, Opp. State Bank of India, Macharla Road, Karampudi Village and Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Korrapati Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Chandraiah, aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-200, Opp. State Bank of India, Macharla Road, Karampudi Village and Mandal, Guntur District.

4. Sunkesula Mangamma W/o. Late Venkateswarlu, aged 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-200, Opp. State Bank of India, Macharla Road, Karampudi Village and Mandal, Guntur District.

…Accused Nos.1 to 4

XVI AJMFC

Page 2 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna, Lea rned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B. Nagaraju, Learned Counsel for Accused Nos.1 to 4 and having learned and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following.

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No.185 of 2019 against the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 324 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

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

On 16/06/2018 at 1800 hours, LW6/Mr. B. L. Krishnam Raju, Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station received complaint from the complainant/Smt. Korrapati Vimalatha W/o. Srikanth Kumar, in which she stated 4 years back her love marriage was performed with one Korrapati

Srikanth S/o. Srinivasa Rao, age: 25 years, Cast: BC Gandla, Occ: Cab Driver,

N/o. Karampudi Village and Mandal Guntur District before elders. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.2,00,000/-, 6 thulas gold and Rs.1,50,000/- to buy a car as dowry. They lived their married life peace fully for 6 months.

After that while she was pregnant, her husband started harassment both physically and mentally. After that they blessed with one daughter by name

XVI AJMFC

Page 3 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

Bhavishya (3 years). Her husband harassing her by suspecting her and he warned her to go out otherwise to get dowry. Last 10 days back her husband beat her and threatened her that he will sell her baby and marry other woman otherwise to get dowry. When they went to her husband native place on the occasion of Sankrathi festival while her Father in law Srinivasa Rao, mother in law Leela and her husband were threw her from their house to get dowry and also her husband’s grandmother Mangamma abused her for dowry. Her husband was threatening her that he will kill her if she will tell to anyone about him and he did not take care of her daughter. They all are harassing her and she and her daughter have life threat from them. Further she requested for taking necessary action on her husband Srikanth Kumar, father in law

Srinivasa Rao, mother in law Leela, and her husband's Mother in law

Mangamma. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the contents of complaint LW6/Mr. B. L. Krishnam Raju,

Inspector of Police, Yacharam, registered a case in Crime No.185 of 2018 under Section 498-A, 324 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and entrusted investigation to LW7 and later after arresting accused No.1 LW7 handed over the CD file to LW8.

XVI AJMFC

Page 4 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

4.During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined the material witnesses and issued notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused Nos.1 to 4 and numbered as Calendar Case Number 146/2019.

6.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

7.Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of Code of

Criminal Procedure explaining the substance of accusation levelled against them. Charges were framed for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

XVI AJMFC

Page 5 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

8.During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW5 were examined i.e., LW1 was examined as PW1, LW2 was examined as PW2, LW4 was examined as PW3,

LW7 was examined as PW4 and LW8 is examined as PW5 and Exhibits P1 to

P4 were marked for prosecution and the evidence of remaining witnesses were closed by this court. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11. POINT:

From the evidence available, the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence charged under Section 498-A of IPC and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. To what result?

XVI AJMFC

Page 6 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

12.This case arises out of a charge sheet filed against Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of PW1 with Accused No.1 was performed on 14.06.2014, and at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, 6 thulas of gold, and subsequently Rs.1,50,000/- for purchase of a car were given as dowry, and after six months of marital life, all the accused subjected PW1 to physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry, suspecting her character, threatening her life and that of her child, and ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial home.

13.As stated supra, in order to support its case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW5 and 4 documents got marked as

Exhibits P1 to P4. On the other hand, none were examined on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of their contention.

Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 stands for scrutiny.

14.Out of the witnesses examined by the Prosecution, PW1 is the complainant/victim, PW2 is the victim/father of the victim, PW3 is the panch

XVI AJMFC

Page 7 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019 witness for scene of offence and rough sketch, PW4 is the Sub-Inspector who arrested the accused No.1 and PW5 is the Investigating Officer and filed charge-sheet. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

POINT NO.1:

15.PW1, being the complainant and victim, reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and deposed that she was harassed physically and mentally for additional dowry and was threatened by the accused. However, a careful scrutiny of her evidence reveals material deficiencies. In her cross- examination, she categorically admitted that Ex.P1 complaint does not contain any specific date of alleged harassment. She further admitted that at the time of lodging the complaint she was residing separately at Hyderabad, which probabilizes that she was not continuously residing with the accused. She also admitted that she has obtained divorce from Accused No.1 in the year 2023 and thereafter remarried one Madhu and is presently having three children, out of which only one child was born through Accused No.1. Significantly, she deposed that she is not expecting anything from this case, which indicates lack

XVI AJMFC

Page 8 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019 of interest in pursuing the allegations. Though she denied the suggestion that the case is false, her admissions create serious doubt regarding the continuity and gravity of alleged cruelty.

15.1. PW2, who is the father of PW1, supported the version of PW1 by stating that dowry was given and that his daughter was subjected to harassment.

However, his evidence is only hearsay in nature with regard to the acts of cruelty and he admittedly could not state the specific dates of marriage or incidents of harassment. Being an interested witness, his testimony requires independent corroboration, which is lacking in the present case.

15.2. PW3, the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch, does not speak anything about the alleged harassment or dowry demand. His evidence is confined only to the preparation of panchanama.

Even in that regard, his cross-examination reveals that he belongs to the same village and community as PW1 and admitted that the panchanama does not contain complete details such as eastern boundary. He also could not state the exact date and time of panchanama. Thus, his evidence does not advance the case of the prosecution in proving cruelty. PW4, who arrested Accused

XVI AJMFC

Page 9 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

No.1, is a formal witness and his evidence is limited to arrest procedure. PW5, the Investigating Officer, admitted several material lapses during cross- examination, namely that the complaint does not mention specific dates of harassment, no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the version of PW1, no doctor was examined to prove the alleged physical injuries, and there are discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, as the complaint does not mention Malkajiguda village though the panchanama was conducted there. He also admitted that the panch witnesses belong to the same village and community as PW1, which affects the neutrality of the investigation.

16.In order to bring home the guilt under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused subjected the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of the provision, which includes willful conduct likely to cause grave injury or harassment with a view to coerce unlawful demand for dowry. In the present case, the allegations made by PW1 are general in nature without specifying particular instances, dates, or overt acts attributable toeach accused. The Hon’ble Courts have consistently held that omnibus allegations against family members without specific role cannot be made the basis for

XVI AJMFC

Page 10 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019 conviction. Further, the absence of medical evidence to support the allegation of physical assault and the failure to examine independent witnesses create a serious dent in the prosecution case. Similarly, with regard to the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, though PW1 and PW2 have stated about giving dowry, there is no independent or documentary evidence to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of dowry. Mere interested testimony, in the absence of corroboration, is not sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

17.Thus, upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. The evidence suffers from material contradictions, omissions, lack of specificity, and absence of corroboration, and the investigation is also found to be defective. In criminal jurisprudence, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must necessarily enure to the benefit of the accused.

18.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution

XVI AJMFC

Page 11 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019 has failed to establish the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt, and hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

Point No.2:

19. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Accordingly, Accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of

Accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 thday of April, 2026.

XVI ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 12 of 12 CC.No. 146 of 2019

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES

A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES

PW1LW1Korrapati VimalathaComplainant/Victim

PW2LW2Varikuppala BuchaiahWitness/Father of the victim

PW3LW4Derangula PanduPanch witness for scene of offence and rough sketch

PW4LW7Mr. B. Venkataiah, SI of Arrested Accused No.1 Police, Yacharam

PW5LW8Mr. B. Suresh Babu, SI of Investigating Officer Police, Yacharam

B- DEFENCE WITNESSES

-NIL-

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS

A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS

Exhibit.P1/PW116/06/2018 Complaint

Exhibit.P2/PW317/06/2018 Scene of offence panchanama

Exhibit.P3/PW317/06/2018 Rough sketch

Exhibit.P4/PW516/06/2018 First Information Report

B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 1 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT: Smt. Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

Calendar Case No. 427 of 2019

Between:

Syed Mohinuddin S/o. Syed Yousf, aged 34 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Chandkhanguda, H/o. Japal Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Complainant

AND

Md. Azas Khaleel S/o. Ulai Rasul Late, aged 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Chandkhanguda Village, Manchal Mandal.

…Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna, Lea rned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri M. Murali, Learned Counsel for Accused and having learned and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following.

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

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian PenalCode, which was referred by the Court to the Police Manchal and the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Manchal Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 88 of 2017 against

XVI AJMFC

Page 2 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal

Code.

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

On 18/04/2017, at 1300 hours, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manchal

Police Station received a written complaint from the complainant/Syed

Mohinuddin S/o. Syed Yousuf, in which he stated that on 18/04/2017 at about 10 a.m. the village elders of Chandkhanguda headed by the village Sarpanch have been discussing with regard to land dispute of the complainant and at that time one Aizaz Kaleel S/o. Gulam Rasool started abusing one Syed

Ayyub S/o. Sayyed Ismail in filthy language and beat him. In the meantime, his mother Jareen Begum questioned said Aizaz Khaleel as to why he beat Syed

Ayyub and said Khaleel uttered abusive words against the mother of the complainant and also beat his younger brothers Syed Rasheed, Syed Shahed with stick and caused bleeding injuries. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the contents of complaint, this court referred the complaint to

PS, Manchal and the Police Manchal, registered a case in Crime No. 88 of

XVI AJMFC

Page 3 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 2017 under Section 324 of IPC but closed by filing final report and thereafter, protest petition filed by the defacto complainant.

4.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 504, 323, 324 of IPC and against the accused and numbered as Calendar

Case Number 427/2019.

6.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7.Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation levelled against him and charge is framed for the offences under Section 504, 323, 324 of IPC for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.During the course of trial, to prove his case against the accused, he himself examined as PW1 and examined one Syed Zareena Begum as PW2,

Syed Shahed was examined as PW3 and one Nawsu Sudhakar was examined as PW4 and Exhibit P1 is marked.On the other hand, one Syed

XVI AJMFC

Page 4 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019

Iyaquat Ali was examined as DW1 on behalf of the accused and no documents were marked in support of his evidence.

9.After closure of complainant side evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of PW1 to PW4. The accused persons denied those circumstances as false and DW1 was examined in support of the accused.

10.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

11.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC?

3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that

the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC?

4. To what result?

12. This case arises out of a private complaint filed by the complainant alleging offences punishable under Sections 504, 323 and 324 of the Indian

XVI AJMFC

Page 5 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019

Penal Code, which, upon reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., culminated in filing of charge sheet inCrime No. 88 of 2017. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

POINT NO.1:

13.In order to establish an offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients:

Firstly, that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant;

Secondly, that such insult was of such a nature as to give provocation; and thirdly, that the accused intended or knew that such provocation would cause the complainant to break the public peace or commit any other offence.

14.In the present case on hand, to substantiate the above ingredients, the prosecution mainly relies upon the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 along with Ex.P1 complaint. PW1 deposed that the accused abused his mother in filthy language during the panchayat and uttered obscene words.

PW2 also supported this version stating that the accused abused her in vulgar language. PW3 further corroborated by stating that the accused used insulting words against his mother. However, on careful scrutiny of Ex.P1, which is the earliest version of the prosecution case, it is evident that the specific abusive

XVI AJMFC

Page 6 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 words now deposed before the Court are not mentioned therein. PW1, in his cross-examination, clearly admitted that such details were not stated in his complaint. This omission is material in nature, as the exact words used form the core ingredient of Section 504 IPC. Further, there are improvements in the oral testimony of PW2 and PW3 over Ex.P1, which creates doubt about their credibility.

15.Moreover, PW4, who is projected as an independent witness, stated that both parties were quarreling and that initially the complainant side attempted to attack the accused, thereby suggesting a situation of mutual provocation rather than intentional insult solely by the accused. The evidence also discloses existence of prior disputes and admitted enmity between both parties relating to land, as elicited from PW1, PW3 and PW4. Such admitted enmity casts a shadow on the prosecution version and raises the possibility of exaggeration or false implication.

16.Further, there is no independent corroboration of the exact abusive words allegedly used by the accused. No audio, video, or neutral witness evidence is produced, despite the incident allegedly occurring in the presence of many villagers. In such circumstances, it cannot be safely concluded that

XVI AJMFC

Page 7 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 the accused intentionally insulted the complainant with the requisite intention or knowledge to provoke breach of peace. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish all the essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.2:

17.To constitute an offence under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution must establish:

firstly, that the victim suffered “hurt” as defined under Section 319 IPC; secondly, that such hurt was caused by the accused; and thirdly, that the act was done voluntarily.

18.In the instant case, PW1 deposed that the accused fisted on his nose and beat him with a stick causing bleeding injuries, and also beat his brothers. PW2 and PW3 supported the said version stating that injuries were caused to them. However, a crucial aspect to be noted is that no medical evidence has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate the alleged injuries. Though PW1 stated that he was taken to hospital and mentioned filing of MLC during protest petition, no such document is marked as an exhibit

before this Court. The non-production of medical evidence is fatal, particularly

XVI AJMFC

Page 8 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 when the prosecution alleges bleeding injuries. Further, PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the details regarding the alleged assault, including fisting and use of stick, are not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint. Similarly, PW3 admitted that the injuries allegedly sustained by him are also not mentioned in the complaint. These omissions are significant and affect the credibility of the prosecution case. Additionally, PW4, the independent witness, categorically stated that initially the complainant party attempted to attack the accused and thereafter the accused retaliated, and that both sides attacked each other. This clearly indicates that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel and mutual fight.

19.It is also an admitted fact from the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 that there were prior disputes and counter cases between both parties. The existence of a counter case, as admitted by PW1 and PW3, probabilises the defence version that the complainant party may also have been aggressors. In such circumstances, it becomes difficult to ascertain as to who initiated the assault and whether the accused alone caused the alleged injuries voluntarily.

Moreover, no material object such as the alleged stick was seized or produced before the Court. No independent witness from among the large gathering present at the scene has been examined to corroborate the version

XVI AJMFC

Page 9 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 of the complainant and moreover, as seen from the record police field closure report stating as false case after investigation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused alone voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and others. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 323 IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.3:

20.To establish an offence under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution must prove: firstly, that the accused caused hurt; secondly, that such hurt was caused by using any dangerous weapon or means; and thirdly, that the act was done voluntarily.

21.In the present case, the prosecution alleges that the accused used a stick to beat the complainant and his brothers. However, it is settled law that a stick does not automatically qualify as a dangerous weapon unless it is used in a manner likely to cause death or grievous injury. In the absence of medical evidence describing the nature of injuries, it is impossible to determine whether the weapon used can be termed as “dangerous” within the meaning of

Section 324 IPC.

XVI AJMFC

Page 10 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019

22.Further, as already discussed, there is no medical evidence on record to prove the nature and extent of injuries. The prosecution also failed to produce or mark the alleged weapon as a material object. PW1 and PW3 admitted that the use of stick and specific injuries are not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint. Such omissions weaken the prosecution case considerably.

Additionally, the evidence of PW4 clearly indicates that there was a mutual

fight between both parties. DW1 also supported the defence version stating that the complainant party attacked the accused first and caused injuries to him. This defence version appears probable in light of admissions regarding counter cases and prior disputes. When there is evidence of a free fight, it becomes unsafe to hold that the accused alone used a dangerous weapon to cause hurt.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused used any dangerous weapon or that the injuries, if any, were caused in the manner alleged. Hence, the essential ingredients of Section 324 IPC are not established beyond reasonable doubt.

23.From the above detailed analysis of each offence, it is clear that the prosecution evidence suffers from material contradictions, omissions, lack of medical and independent corroboration, and is further weakened by admitted

XVI AJMFC

Page 11 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019 prior enmity and existence of counter cases. The evidence of PW4 indicates a mutual fight, and the defence version appears probable. In criminal law, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must go in favour of the accused.

Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 504, 323 and 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT NO.4:

24. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 504, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 thday of April, 2026.

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 12 of 12 CC.No. 427 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

PW1Syed Mohinuddin

PW2Syed Zareena Begum

PW3Syed Shahed

PW4Nawsu Sudhakar

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

DW1Syed Iyaquat Ali

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Exhibit.P1/PW118/04/2017Complaint

DEFENCE EXHIBITS

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 1 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

(Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT: Smt.Mudavath Himabindu, XVI Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District.

Calendar Case No. 287 of 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam.…Complainant

AND

Neerati Krishna S/o. Late Balaiah, aged 40 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.1- 91, Nanajipur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing in the presence of Smt. G. Aruna, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri B. Madhanna, learned counsel for the Accused and having learned and considered the record till date, this court delivered the following.

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam Police Station filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 07 of 2021 against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A IPC & Section 196 of MV Act.

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

2.1.On 11/01/2021, at 2030 hours, LW13/Mr. G. Prabhakar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Yacharam, received a complaint from LW1/Kondoju Salva Chary

XVI AJMFC

Page 2 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021

S/o. Yadagiri Chary, in which he stated that on 11/01/2021 at about 1000 hours, the complainant’s paternal uncle who is deceased herein by name

Kondoju Narasimaha Chary, S/o Brahamaiah, Age:70 years, Occ: Carpenter,

R/o. Thakkelapally village was proceeding to Yacharam from Thakkelapally village on his TVS vehicle Br.No.TS-07-GU-551 on the way when he reached near David memorial collage at about 1030 hours mean time one crime vehicle

Passion Plus bike rider vide Br.No AP-28- AV-5558 driven by the accused driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed while driving so suddenly he took right turn and hit to complainant paternal uncle due to which he fall down on the road and received bleeding injuries on his head and other body parts. Immediately injured got shifted to Osmania Genearal Hospital through 108 ambulance for treatment. While undergoing treatment complainant’s paternal uncle died on 11/01/2021 at 15:40 hours confirmed by duty doctor.

Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the contents of the complaint, LW13/Mr. G. Prabhakar, Sub-

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.07/2021, U/s. 304-A IPC &

Section 196 MV Act and commenced investigation.

XVI AJMFC

Page 3 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021

4.During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch and issued notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and filed charge sheet against the accused.

5.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC & Section 196 MV Act against the accused and numbered as

Calendar Case Number 287/2021.

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Code of Criminal

Procedure explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them.

Charge was framed for the offence under Section 304-A IPC & Section 196

MV Act, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. During the trial proceedings PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exhibits

P1 to P4 were marked for prosecution. As nothing came against the accused

XVI AJMFC

Page 4 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses hence, examination of accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is whether prosecution proved the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC

& Section 196 MV Act?

POINT:

11.To prove the allegations levelled against the accused first of all complainant was called by prosecution and examined as PW1, who is the complainant and deposed that he does not know anything about this case.

Police obtained his signatures on some white papers. Witness identified his signatures on complaint. Ex.P1 is the signature on the complaint. Police did not examine him and not recorded his statement and he did not support the case of the prosecution and during his cross-examination by the learned Asst.

Public Prosecutor he denied that he stated before the police as per his 161

Cr.P.C. statement. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. and he admitted that the matter

XVI AJMFC

Page 5 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021 got compromised out of the court amicably. He denied that he is deposing false to help the accused.

11.1. PW2, who is an eye witness deposed in the same lines of PW1 and did not support the case of the prosecution. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW2.

11.2. PW3, who is circumstantial witness deposed that in the same lines of

PW2. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

12.In view of the above, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 did not carry any value as there are no independent witnesses supported their version and as stated supra and more specifically, there is no evidence of Investigating Officer and moreover, the prosecution witnesses have themselves stated that the matter has been settled out of the court amicably, whatever may be the reason, there is, absolutely, no legal evidence available on record against the accused.

Hence, this court is left with no other option, except to acquit the accused due to lack of proper evidence against the accused. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

XVI AJMFC

Page 6 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021

13.In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered view that accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby he can be acquitted.

Hence, the point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC & Section 196 MV Act. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence. The bail bond of the accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As seen from the record there is no case property, hence no specific order is passed in that regard.

Typed by the Stenographer, to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27 thday of April, 2026.

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC

Page 7 of 7 CC.No. 287 of 2021

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE WITNESSES

A-PROSECUTION WITNESSES

PW1/LW1Kondoju Salva CharyComplainant

PW2/LW2Maroju Bhushana CharyEye witness

PW3/LW5Kondoju Srinivas CharyCircumstantial witness

B- DEFENCE WITNESSES

-Nil-

LIST OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE EXHIBITS

A-PROSECUTION EXHIBITS

Exhibit.P1/PW111/01/2021Signature of Complaint

Exhibit.P2/PW111/01/2021161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Exhibit.P3/PW2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Exhibit.P4/PW312/01/2021161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

B-DEFENCE EXHIBITS

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

XVI ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

XVI AJMFC