Smt. J .prasanthi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT SURYAPET

(Dated this the 28th day June, 2024)

Present: Smt. J. PRASHANTHI,

I Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, FAC II Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 1091 of 2020

Old C.C.No. 361 of 2017

Between:

The State through S.H.O. P.S Penpahad. .... Prosecution

AND

Gundu Ramaiah, S/o Muthaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o

Dharmapuram Village of Penpahad Mandal.

…..Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri Modugu Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record 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, P.S. Penpahad has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 IPC., in Crime No.38/2017.

2.The brief facts of the case are in nutshell:

On 07-03-2017 in the evening hours, at around 05.00 PM, the accused/Gundu Ramaiah picked up a quarrel with the complainant with 2 regard to agriculture well, beat him with an axe and caused injury on the upper side of his left eye, on that complainant fell unconscious, then the accused gave a fist blow over his chest. The said incident witnessed by Nemmadi Saidulu/Lw2, Kondal Chennareddy/Lw4 and

Lakka Vinod/Lw5. Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above complaint of Lw.1/Gundu China

Venkanna, the Lw.9/SI of police Penpahad has registered a case in

Crime No.38/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 of Indian Penal Code, and took up the investigation. After completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet.

4.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has took up cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323 of IPC against accused, basing on the material available on record.

6.On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the accused is examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed against him under

Section 240 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 324, 323 of Indian Penal Code., read over and explained to him, in his vernacular language, after understanding the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On formation of this Court, this Case has been transferred to this Court, as per the orders of the chief judicial magistrate, 3

Nalgonda vide his proceedings No.1559/2020/A1 dated 16-03-2020, for disposal according to law.

8.In order to substantiate the offences charged against the accused, the prosecution had examined Pw.1 to Pw.6 and got marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and the learned APPO has given up the evidence of Lw.4 and Lw5. The evidence of Lw.9 has been closed, as the prosecution failed to produce him. Thereafter the learned APPO reported no further evidence, hence, evidence of prosecution is closed.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting to him all incriminating material available against him, for which the accused denied all the adverse allegations against him and reported no defence evidence.

Accordingly defence evidence is closed.

10.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

11.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323 of

IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

12.To prove the case the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to

Pw.6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

13.The case of the prosecution is that the accused has picked up quarrel with the defacto-complainant with regard to Agricultural well, intentionally caused hurt to Pw1 and hence he is liable for 4 punishment.

14.The defence of the accused as culled out from Sec. 239 of

Cr.P.C and Sec.313 of Cr.P.C examination is that the accused had never committed any offence against Pw.1 and only because of the issue with regard to agriculture well, the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.

15.To prove that the accused has committed the offence

U/sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code in this present case, the prosecution has to prove that, on 07-03-2017 in the evening hours at around 05.00

PM, the accused has took an axe and has intentionally beat Pw.1 on the upper side of his left eye, after getting unconscious the accused gave a fist blow over his chest, there by causing injury to Pw.1.

16.To prove or establish an offence U/sec. 324 of IPC, the presence of following ingredient is must which are as follows:-

1.Voluntarily hurt accused to another person by the accused, and

2.Such hurt was caused:-

(a)By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or

(b)By fire or other heated instrument, or

(c)By poison or other corrosive substance or,

(d)By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, in hale, or receive through blood, or By an animal.

17.In order to prove the said alleged offence, the prosecution firstly relied upon evidence of defacto complainant, who is examined as 5

Pw.1, he deposed that, on 07-03-2017, at around 05-00 PM he went to his agriculture field, at that time the accused was digging agriculture bore well with the help of JCB, while digging the bore well the soil falling in the land of Pw.1, on that Pw.1 asked him, but accused hit him with an axe on his left eye brow, as such he has received injuries to his left eye, he made hue and cries, on hearing the same the

Lw.2/Nemmadi Saidulu, and Lw.3/ Ramineni Pandaiah were came and rescued him. Later, he went to police station and lodged a complaint, police sent him to Area hospital Suryapet for treatment. Police examined and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is complaint.

It is pertinent to note that in cross examination the Pw.1 has admitted that the alleged incident took place on 07-03-2017 and he lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 before police on the same day itself, in his report he also not mentioned the name of Lw.3/Ramineni Pandaiah, who is his distant relative, as per prosecution he is the eye witness to the alleged incident. He further admitted that he has signed in column

No.14 of FIR on the day of lodging complaint itself, on the same day after lodging report police sent him to hospital for treatment, but not given any requisition. Further admitted that on 07-04-2017 police did not examine him also not recorded his statement.

18.Pw.2 and Pw3 who were cited as eye witness to the alleged incident have not supported the case of prosecution as well as Pw.4 and Pw.5 who were panch witnesses though admitted their signatures 6 on scene of offence panchanama i.e., Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, but have denied the contents of panchanama.

19. Pw.6/Doctor who treated the injured/Pw.1 deposed that, on 07-04-2017 at around 07.00 PM, on the requisition of the police, she gave treatment to injured/Pw.1 and issued a report, which shows that laceration over forehead left side and abrasions over right knee, which are simple in nature, and in cross examination she stated that she did not remember that who accompanied the injured at the time of his examination.

20.On careful perusal of evidence adduced by the prosecution and documents available on record and clubbing with the arguments advanced by the parties, as could be seen from the above evidence, the prosecution could examine the defacto-complainant as Pw.1, prosecution also could able to examine Pw.2 and Pw.3 as the eye witnesses who are alleged to have seen the incident, but they are turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Thus, there is evidence on record in respect of the offence proper from the mouth of

Pw.1, apart from his interested testimony, no independent evidence is forth-coming, but there are many contradictions and improvements in his evidence in form of omission, the significant omission amount to contradiction, except the question is whether the said evidence of Pw.1 is trustworthy and corroborating with the medical evidence i.e., Pw.6, the medical officer stated that on 07-04-2017 at around 07.00 PM, she 7 had received requisition from police for giving treatment to the Pw.1, she also stated that Pw.1/injured sustained injuries i.e., laceration over forehead left side, abrasions over right knee, these are simple in nature, but the Pw.1 referred the region of injury as left side of eye, but not stated region of injuries to his knee, which in fact is not referred in

Ex.P1, in his cross examination he stated that the alleged incident is took place on 07-03-2017, on the same day he went to hospital for treatment, police not given requisition, on the other hand, medical officer/Pw.6 stated that on 07-04-2017 at around 07.00 PM she had received a requisition from police for giving treatment.

21.It is also pertinent to note that the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the place of injury of the body of Pw.1 is not corroborated with the version of Pw.6, who is the Doctor and also nor it is corroborated with Ex.P1 or Ex.P6. It is also important to note that Pw.1 has deposed before the court on 07-03-2017 at around 06.30 PM, he went to police station and filed Ex.P1/report and later the police have sent him to Area Hospital, Suryapet for treatment, but as per Ex.P1 complaint has been lodged on 07-03--2017, but no time mentioned when it was lodged, the same was registered on 07-04-2017 and as per

Ex.P6, Pw.1 was treated by Pw.6 at around 07.00 PM on 07-04-2017, the Doctor opined that the age of injury is 2-4 hours. Moreover there is discrepancy in the timings and date mentioned by Pw.1 with regard to lodging of complaint vide Ex.P1 with the police and its registration, also 8 date of treatment and no suitable explanation was offered either by

Pw.1 or any of the witnesses to the prosecution with regard to this issue.

22.The evidentiary value of medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution,at this point this court relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in between ANUJ SINGH @

RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH Vs. the State of Bihar 2022 live

Law (SC) 402 , it is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, “It is not merely a check upon testimony of eye witnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it is proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged”…

23.In view of the above decisions this court is of the opinion that with regard to injuries stated by Pw.1 and Pw.6/Medical officer, there is no corroboration, prosecution fails to corroborate the same.

From the above evidence adduced by the prosecution and the aforesaid legal aspect, medical evidence on record, it can be said that the oral evidence has not been corroborating with the medical evidence and that apart, the other aspects which have been elicited in the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.6, casts a doubt and suspicion on the very 9 case set up in Ex.P1. In the light of the aforesaid elicitations it can safely be inferred that there is some considerable force on the defence put forth by the accused.

24.From the above discussion it can be inferred that as the place of injury of the body, the timings and date of injury as well as date of lodging report/Ex.P1, registering the same, treatment of injured/Pw.1 were not at all corroborated by the evidence of any of the witnesses of the prosecution, as no material object was produced by the police, to show that an instrument for cutting or stabbing or shooting was used by the accused to cause hurt to Pw.1 as contemplated under Sec. 324 IPC., this court opines that the prosecution is unsuccessful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 324 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt by putting forth cogent, reliable, convincing and trust worthy evidence.

25.This inconsistency in the evidence of Pw.1 in report on one hand and evidence of Pw.6/Doctor on the other, creates a big doubt in the light of clear admission made by Pw.6, according to whom she received a requisition on 07-04-2017, but as per evidence of Pw.1 he went to hospital for treatment on 07-03-2017, that is to say after one month of alleged incident the injured was examined by the medical officer, there is no clarity regarding the alleged injuries when it happened, it creates a big doubt on a suggestion given to Pw.1 that alleged incident occurred on 07-03-2017 or not, if as per version of 10

Pw.1 the alleged incident took place on 07-03-2017 and on the same day he went to hospital for treatment, how the medical officer/Pw.6 has issued Ex.P6 on 07-04-2017, hence Ex.P6 cannot be said to be an authenticated document and cannot be used as incriminating material against the accused, as rightly argued by counsel for accused that as per Pw.1 alleged incident took place on 07-03-2017, it is clear admission that Pw.1 that police not examined him on 07-04-2017, but on perusal of statements of Pw.1 he was examined by police on 07-04- 2017 at police station, it seems that there are many flaws and lacunae in the investigation of police, it is clear that investigation done by police is callus.

26.As the evidence of Pw.1 itself is not consistent, as there is discrepancy with regard to the injury sustained by him, as the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.6, who are the material witness of the prosecution are not in corroboration with each other with regard to the place of injury on the body of Pw.1 on which Pw.1 sustained injury, there are some improvements and omissions in the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to injuries in the complaint as well as evidence before the court, he also not stated about giving a fist blow over chest by the accused in his evidence before the court, though he mentioned in his complaint/Ex.P1, this significant omission amounts to contradiction. as there is no corroboration of evidence with regards to the time and date of happening of the alleged incident, time and date of filing the 11 complaint vide Ex.P1, registering the same, time and date of receiving the treatment and also as there is no corroboration of evidence with regards to the offence U/sec. 323 of IPC, except for the blatant allegations made by Pw.1, this court opines that it is untenable in the eye of law to hold accused guilty for the offence U/s.323 IPC.

27.As per evidence of Pw.1 the accused attacked on him with an axe on his left eye brow, the counsel for accused rightly argued that if the Accused could have attack on Pw.1 with an axe, he definitely sustained with grievous injuries. Even though, as per prosecution, a recovery was shown in charge sheet, but the same has not been produced before the court, non production of material object also casts a doubt over the entire case setup by the prosecution, which shows that the investigation done by the investigation officer/Lw9 is callus, moreover Investigation Officer also not examined in this case to prove the same, for the foregoing reasons, the evidence adduced by the prosecution in totality is not at all sufficient to hold that the accused is responsible for the offence. Therefore, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt should go to the accused, as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

28.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 324, 323 of IPC and accordingly the accused is 12 acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 28 th day of June, 2024.

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

Pw.1 Gundu Chinna Venkanna is Complainant and Injured Pw.2 Nemmadi Saidulu is eye witness. Pw.3 Ramineni Pandaiah is eye witness. Pw.4 Nemmani Lingaiah is Panch for sence of offence cum seizure panchanama. Pw.5 Yedla Veeraiah is Panch for sence of offence cum seizure panchanama. Pw.6 Dr. Srilatha is Doctor.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is complaint. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3. Ex.P4 is signature on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.4. Ex.P5 is signature on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.5. Ex.P6 is Medical certificate.

13

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

14

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 1091 of 2020 Old C.C.No. 361 of 201 7

APPREHENSION

DATE OFDATERELEASED

OF

THEOFON

ACCUSED

OFFENCEREPORTB A I L

07-03-201707-03-2017 - -

COMMENCEMENTCLOSUREDATE

OFOFOF

T R I A LT R I A LJUDGMENT

03-04-202330-05-202428-06-2024 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :The State through S.H.O. PS Penpahad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED :Gundu Ramaiah, S/o Muthaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dharmapuram Village of Penpahad Mandal.

OFFENCE :U/s. 324, 323 of IPC.

FINDING OF THE COURT :Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 324, 323 of IPC and accordingly the accused are acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :No delay

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

Submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Suryapet.

DIS. NO. /2024, DT : -2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT SURYAPET

(Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024)

Present: Smt. J. PRASHANTHI, I Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suryapet

C.C.No. 201 of 2021

Between:

The State through S.H.O. PS Mothey, ….. Prosecution

AND

Kota Venkatrami Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, Age: 34 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Ravipahad village of Mothey Mandal.

.... Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri T. Ramesh

Kumar, learned counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record 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 Mothey has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 454, 380 of I.P.C., in Crime No.149 of 2020.

1

2.The brief facts of the case are in nutshell:-

On 02.10.2020 at around 7-00 AM in the morning, some unknowns offenders gained entry into the house of Defacto complainant viz., Kota Shyamsundar Reddy, situated at

Ravipahad village of Mothey Mandal, in the absence of inmates, by breaking the house lock and committed theft of one black beads with gold chain, one Gold necklace, 3 small gold rings and gold ear rings (Jumkalu) and some other silver ornaments worth of Rs.95,000/-. On 03-10-2020 the complainant police registered a case in Cr.No. 149/2020. While the investigation in progress, the complainant police apprehended the accused herein. During interrogation, the accused confessed this offence, among others.

In pursuance of his confessional statement, the police recovered the stolen property pertains to this case, in the presence of panch witnesses under cover of panchanama and after completion of investigation Pw.7 filed charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections under Sections 454, 380 of Indian Penal Code, basing on the material available on record.

2

4.On production of the accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Section 239 Code of criminal procedure and the charges were framed against the accused under Section 240 Code of criminal procedure, for the offence U/s. 454, 380 of IPC., read over and explained to him, in vernacular language, after understanding the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate the offences charged against the accused, the prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5, along with M.Os.1 to 4.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by putting to him all incriminating material available against him, for which the accused denied all the adverse allegations against him and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

3

8.The learned APP representing the state argued that through the Pw.1 to Pw.8 and under Ex.P1 to P5 along with M.O.1 to 4 the prosecution proved that, the accused committed theft in the house of Pw.1 by house breaking, he prayed the court to punish the accused for the offence punishable under sections 454, 380 Indian Penal Code.

9.The learned legal aid counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed the court to acquit the accused in the interest of justice.

10 . Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable under Sections

454, 380 of I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?

11.Pw1, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that on 02-10-2021 at around 11-30 hours they went to their agriculture field, in their absence, somebody lifted their house door and gained entrance and at around 06-00 PM, they returned to house found the same and on search, they found that black bead chain, one necklace, three gold rings, one locket with Godess Laxmi Idol, two silver leg anklets, diamond ring and ear rings (Jumkalu) were stolen by some unknown offenders by break open Almariah, he 4 lodged a complaint. The stolen property is marked as M.Os. no.1 to 4. The wife of Pw.1 is examined as Pw.2. she deposed in the same line that of Pw.1 about the manner of theft occurred in their house.

12.Pw.3 and Pw.4 who are the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence at house of Pw.1, as theft was committed by some unknown offenders in house of Pw.1 and the Pw.3 categorically supported the contents in Ex.P2 i.e., scene of offence panchanama.

13.Pw.5 and Pw.6 who are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama deposed that on 21-12- 2020 at around 09-30 AM in the morning, on instruction of investigation officer the MRO Mothey informed them to go to old check post situated at Khammam and Suryapet High way, accordingly they went there and found one person/Kota Venkat

Reddy in the custody of police. As per Pw.5 and Pw.6, the accused confessed about committing of theft in the house of Kota Sham

Sundar Reddy/Pw.1 and in pursuance of his confession, the police seized the stolen gold ornaments under cover of panchanama in their presence, police prepared confession cum seizure 5 panchanama of accused and read over the contents of it, thereafter the police obtained their signatures on said panchanama.

At the time of cross examination the Pw.5 and Pw.6 admitted that they signed on panchanama, but did not remember how many signatures they affixed on Ex.P3.

14.Pw.7 and Pw.8 are investigation officers, who deposed chronological order of events occurred during course of their investigation.

15.To punish the accused for the offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that during morning hours the accused break open the doors of house of Pw.1 and committed theft of M.Os. No.1 to 4 from his house.

16.The contention of the prosecution is that, there happened a theft in the house of Pw.1, in this regard the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.8, wherein Pw.1 is defacto complainant, Pw.2 who is his wife, they deposed that on 02-10-2021 in morning hours some unknown offenders gained entry into their house by lifting doors and break open Almaiah and committed theft of gold and silver ornaments, Pw.3 and Pw.4 are the panch witnesses for scene offences panchanama, who 6 says that they have participated in the panchanama proceedings conducted at house of Pw.1/Sham Sundar Reddy, after knowing the contents they signed on it. considering the evidence of witnesses, there is absolutely no doubt with regard to the happening of theft at house of Pw.1. All the witnesses have spoken in consonance to each other. there is no deviation in any of the witnesses with regard to the theft and the unshaken evidence of all these witnesses have proved that there happened a theft at house of Pw.1.

17.Now the crucial point to be discussed is whether the accused herein had committed the said theft, in this regard the prosecution had examined the Pw.5 and Pw.6, who are the panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama of the accused, they stated that police seized Gold ornaments i.e., two gold ring, one necklace and one black beads chain from the possession of accused in pursuance of confession of accused.

However, the witness could not say as to the exact descriptions of the property pertaining to this particular case which was said to have recovered from the possession of the accused. On careful perusal of Ex.P3 and P4. (Attested copies of confession cum seizure panchanama), it can be seen that the police have 7 conducted confession cum seizure panchanam in Cr.No.213 of 2020 Under sections 454, 380 of IPC of P.S Mothey, in that panchanama the accused also confessed about this offence in presence of panch witnesses, they have seized theft articles from the possession of the accused. If we peruse Ex.P3 and P4, (Attested copies of confession cum recovery panchanama which was attested by investigation officer, who is public servant, hence, the said document is public document and the same is admissible, U/Sec.74 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence, it can be taken into consideration, at the time of marking the said document is marked as confession cum seizure panchanama instated of attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama), it can be noticed that the accused had confessed about the commission of this offence as well as many other offences, wherein the police seized the property pertaining to this offence, as well as other cases. The said recovery is very much admissible in the eye of law, as given under section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. Though the panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama have not spoken specifically about the description of the property pertaining to this case, it is highly impossible to remember the description of property which were 8 seized by the police from the possession of the accused, one cannot expect the number of property with descriptions, as the police have seized the property pertaining to this case, as well as other cases. Merely because the panch witness had not recognized the property seized from the possession of the accused, the entire case cannot be vitiated. To put emphasis on recovery, the prosecution examined Pw.7 and Pw.8 who are the investigating officers, who were corroborated the version of Pw.5 and Pw.6, the investigation officer/Pw.8 categorically stated that he apprehend the accused and on his interrogation the accused has confessed his guilt and in pursuance to his confession, he recovered the property pertaining to this case, as well as pertaining to other cases.

18.On perusal of panchanama proceedings of this case, it can be noticed that the accused had involved in various other crimes, including the present case in hand, as such remember the property with its particulars may not be possible for any persons. Though, there is no test identification parade proceedings, the panch witnesses for recovery panchanama i.e.,

Pw.5 and Pw.6 have specifically identified the accused and stated that they have seen the accused/Kota Venkat Ram Reddy who is 9 in the custody of police when they reached to the place of panchanama, there is no other rebuttal evidence or even ground to disbelieve their version.

19.The property vide C.P. No. 33 of 2021 was already return to its owner/Pw.1 vide Orders in Crl.M.P.No. 60 of 2021,

dated 05-02-2021 and the same was identified by the Pw.1. There

is no rebuttal evidence from the defence, except bare denials of the proceedings and seizure and number of signatures which affixed on confession cum seizure panchanama, as such it can be said that the prosecution has succeeded in its case to prove that that the person who committed theft at house of Pw.1 and found to be in the stolen property. When the prosecution proved the recovery of property from possession of accused, the onus shifts on the accused as to why he was possessing the stolen property at the time recovery. Except, denying all these things there is absolutely no rebuttal evidence from the accused. The presumption under Sec. 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act clearly says that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of stolen property soon after the theft, as either thief or receiver of the goods knowing to him to be stolen, unless he can account of his possession. the accused also could not 10 account for his possession of the stolen property.

20.In this present case, the prosecution produced Pw.5 and Pw.6 who are the independent witness to show that M.O 1 to 4 were seized from the possession of accused. But there is no explanation from the accused as to why he was in possession stolen property and as to what is the necessity for Pw.5 and Pw.6 to depose falsehood against him. During cross examination of

Pw.5 and Pw.6, except giving bald denial statements nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.5 and Pw.6 in their chief.

In this circumstance, this court feels that the prosecution could able to prove that M.O No.1 to 4 are stolen properties and same were recovered from the possession of the accused, after committing theft, which attract the offence under section 411 of

Indian Penal Code against him.

21.As per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act confession

before the police is irrelevant, even though the accused

confessed the commission of offence before the Police. As there are no eye witness to prove that the accused committed theft from house of Pw.1. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused under sections 454 and 380 of Indian Penal

Code, but from the accused part of theft property is seized in the 11 presence of Pw.5 and Pw.6 and basing on that, accused also tied under section 411 of I.P.C as the offence under section 411 of

I.P.C is lesser offence than section 454 and 380 of I.P.C and as the prosecution has proved that the accused was found with illegal possession of the stolen property, hence the accused is also tied with the offence/Sec. 411 Indian Penal Code.

22.In view of above discussion, this court after careful scrutiny of evidence adduced to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under sec. 411 Indian Penal Code has arrived to a conclusion that, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is liable for punishable under section 411 of IPC.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under 454 and 380 of Indian Penal code and as such he is acquittal under section 248(1) of Cr.P,C for the said offences. But this court found accused guilty for the offence Under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly he is convicted under Sec.

248 (2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 25th day of September, 2024.

I ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

12

24. When the accused was questioned on quantum of sentence, he stated that he is having family, consisting of wife and children and they are depending upon him and prayed the court to show mercy on him. But when the nature of committing offence is observed, this court feels that the offence and its nature is observed, this court feels that he is not entitled to get benefit either under the provisions of probation of offenders Act or under provisions of Sec. 360 Cr.P.C. However as per record, the accused has no convictional back ground, though the complainant police alleged that he is habitual offender, after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one day for the offence under Sec.411 of Indian Penal code. The remand period which was already undergone by the accused i.e., from 28-12-2020 till i.e., 01-02-2021, shall be given set of U/Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about his right of appeal against the Judgment passed by this court and also he is informed about his right to take free legal aid in preferring the appeal. M.O..1 to 4, which were already given to 13

Pw.1 towards interim custody, holds goods, subjected to expiry of appeal time.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1 Kota Shyam Sunder Reddy is complainant.

PW.2 Kota Vinoda is Circumstantial witness.

PW.3 Akkinapally Somaiah is Panch for scene of offence panchanama.

PW.4 Perugu Lingaiah is Panch for scene of offence panchanama.

PW.5 Shaik Rahim Pasha is Panch for confession cum recovery panchanama of accused.

PW.6 Nallaganthula Srinu is Panch for confession cum recovery panchanama of accused.

PW.7 B.Praveen is Investigation officer.

PW.8 S. Shiva Shankar is also Investigation officer

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is complaint.

Ex.P2 is scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P3 is attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

Ex.P4 is also attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

Ex.P5 is FIR. 14

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Mo.1 Gold necklace with locket.

Mo.2 Black Beads chain with locket.

Mo.3 is small gold ring with goddess laxmi idol.

Mo.4 is gold ring with white stone.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

15

1

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE SURYAPET.

DATED THIS THE 13 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. J. PRASHANTHI,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET

OS No. 161 of 2018

Between:

Redapangi Ravi Kumar, S/o Prasad Rao, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Private employee, R/o H.No.1-9-36, Gopalpuram, Suryapet Town and District.

.... Plaintiff

A N D

1. Shaik Sameer, S/o Vali Ahamed, Age: 32 Years, Occ: Driver,

2. Shaik Praveen, W/o Sameer, Age: 28 Years, Occ: House Hold, Both are R/o H.No.3-5-137/E, Jammigadda, Suryapet Town and District.

...Defendants

This suit coming before me on 14-08-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Viajay Bhaskar, counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Daka Srinivasa Naidu, Counsel for the Defendant no.2 herein and the defendant no.1 set ex-parte, matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.78,060/- basing on promissory note dated 06-01-2018.

2.The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff and defendants both are having well acquaintance with each other, having such acquaintance with the Plaintiff, for his 2

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

family necessities the defendant no.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.68,000/- from the Plaintiff on 06-01-2018 in presence of attestors, the defendant no.2 who is wife of Defendant no.1 herein stood as guarantor to said amount borrowed by the defendant no.1, having received loan consideration amount, the defendant no.1 had executed promissory note in favour of Plaintiff on the same date, agreeing to repay the same with an interest of @ 24/- per annum, on demand to the Plaintiff or to the person ordered by him or his nominee, but the defendant no.1 failed to repay the due amounts along with interest, as such the plaintiff had issued legal notice on 12-06-2018, in spite of issuing the same the defendants did not repay the due amount. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons held sufficient on Defendant no.1 by way of paper publication, but the defendant no.1 did not turn up either in person or through his counsel, hence he made set Ex-parte, on 31-03- 2022. Summons also held sufficient on the defendant no.2, on receipt of summons the defendant no.2 appeared and filed written statement by denying various averments in the plaint and put the plaintiffs to strict prove of the same, contending as under:-

They never borrowed an amount of Rs.68,000/- form the plaintiff nor executed promissory note, dated 06-01-2018, she never stood as guarantor to said above promissory note. The defendant further stated that the plaintiff never requested nor issued legal notice to them for 3

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

payment of alleged amount, but he created, forged her signature in order to gain wrongfully. She further stated that in order to take revenge on them the plaintiff filed this false suit against them and also stated that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. She prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the rival pleadings and after hearing both the parties, the following issues are settled for trial.

6.Now the point for determination are:-

This suit has been transferred to this court as per orders of

Hon’ble PDJ, Suryapet and the following issues are framed by the

presiding officer who transferred this suit to this court.

ISSUES

I. Whether the plaintiff is money lender as defending in sub section (7) of Section (2) of Telangana Money lenders Act 1349 (F)?

II Whether the suit promissory note dated 06-01-2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

II. To what relief?

4

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

7.During the course of trial, in order to substantiate the suit claim, the Plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 by filing his affidavit in chief, and got marked Ex.A1 to A3 documents. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

8.Heard learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant, perused the record.

9.The learned counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff amply proved his case through the evidence of Pw.1, as well as documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A3 and the defendant failed to prove that the suit promissory note is created and the plaintiff forged the signature of Defendant in order to claim gain wrongfully and as such the Plaintiff is entitled to recover entire suit amount from the defendant, by saying so, he finally prayed to decreed the suit as prayed for.

10.The learned counsel for the defendant no.2 argued that the defendants never obtained any loan from the Plaintiff nor he executed any promissory note in favour of defendant no.1, but the Plaintiff has created alleged promissory note cum receipt by forging of signatures of Defendants in order to gain wrongfully from them, as such question of borrowing amount by the defendants and alleged demands made by the Plaintiff for payment of said loan amount does not arise, further argued that the defendant no.2 never stood as guarantor to said 5

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

amount, as such the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover of any amount from the defendants. By saying so, she finally prayed to dismiss the suit.

11.After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and arguments of both the parties, this court decides the above issue as under.

12.As the defendant no.2 not resisted about the money lending business by the plaintiff in his written statement. This court opines that issue no.1 is not necessary to decide the suit.

Issue No.II:-

13.It is the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant no.1 borrowed hand loan of Rs.68,000/- from him and executed demand promissory note on 06-01-2018 for his family and business necessities, but he fails to repay the same in spite of legal notice, dated 12-06- 2018 and the defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to said loan. On the other hand, the defendant denied the said transaction of borrowable and execution of any document. So the burden lies on the plaintiff to substantiate his claim.

14.As stated supra, in order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw.1 by filing his affidavit in chief, which 6

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

is nothing but repetition of contents of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A3.

15.The plaintiff filed and got marked Ex.A1 Promissory Note

dated 06-01-2018 executed by the the defendant no.1 in favour of the

plaintiff for a sum of Rs.68,000/- . Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice

dated 12-06-2018 issued to the defendants through advocate calling

upon the defendants to pay amount of Rs.68,000/- within a week from the date of receipt of notice. Ex.A3 is acknowledgment cards (2).

16.Thus, the oral evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 would clinchingly establish that the defendants borrowed loan amount of Rs.68,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the loan amount and failed to repay the same in spite of receipt of legal notice (Ex.A2) under Ex.A3 acknowledgement.

Thus the plaintiff could substantiate his version in the plaint by placing oral and documentary evidence and the burden automatically shifts on the defendants to rebut the case of the plaintiff.

17.As sated supra, the defendants not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. It is the specific case of the defendants in the written statement that he has not availed any loan and never executed any promissory note and that the alleged documents are forged by the plaintiff to grab money from the defendants by illegal means, but the reasons are best known to the defendants. The defendant nos.1 and 2 7

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

are not adduced any oral and documentary evidence. If at all, the defendants documents are forged by the plaintiff, they ought to have taken steps by adducing evidence. Nothing prevented the defendants from taking legal recourse if really the documents are forged one.

There is nothing before the court to prove the contentions of the defendants. It appears only to circumvent the debt, the defendant No.2 taken said false plea in the written statement. There is nothing before the court to doubt the genuineness of the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff.

18.At this juncture this court relying on Judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in between Vidhadhar vs. Manik Rao (AIR 1999 SC 1441), the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to Sec.114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, held that if any party abstained from the witness box and there is no statement on oath in support of his pleadings as set out in the written statement, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. The said decision is well applicable to the facts of the present case.

19.Be that as it may, the plaintiff can succeed only on the strength of his own case and the weaknesses of the defendant will not help him. Simply because the defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his version, it does not straight away tantamount to conclude that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief prayed for.

8

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

20.Having regard to the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, I have no hesitation to hold that the defendant no.1 availed the loan amount of Rs.68,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1

Promissory Note and failed to repay the loan amount in spite of receipt of legal notice. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor to the said amount.

21. In this circumstances, this court feels that the plaintiff amply proved the suit claim.

22.In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the defendants are liable to repay the loan amount with interest to the plaintiff. Thus, the above issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.III:-

To what relief?

23.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed sum of

Rs.78,060/- against the defendants together with costs and interest @ 12% Per month from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and thereafter future interest is awarded at @ 6% per month till the realization of entire decreetal amount.

Dictated to my Typist, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the, 13 th day of September, 2024.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET

9

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For plaintiff For defendants: Pw1. Redapangi Ravi Kumar. None

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is the Original promissory note cum receipt, dated 06-01-2018.

Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal Notice, dated 12-06-2018.

Ex.A3: is the acknowledgment cards (2).

Documents marked for defendant:

-Nil-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

SURYAPET.

10

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SURYAPET

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024 Present:- Smt J. Prashanthi., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

***

O.S.No. 161 of 2018

Suit presented on: 26-07-2018 Suit registered on: 01-08-2018

Between:

Redapangi Ravi Kumar, S/o Prasad Rao, Age: 28 Years, Occ: Private employee, R/o H.No.1-9-36, Gopalpuram, Suryapet Town and District.

.... Plaintiff

A N D

1. Shaik Sameer, S/o Vali Ahamed, Age: 32 Years, Occ: Driver,

2. Shaik Praveen, W/o Sameer, Age: 28 Years, Occ: House Hold, Both are R/o H.No.3-5-137/E, Jammigadda, Suryapet Town and District.

...Defendants

CLAIM FOR:-Suit for recovery of Money Rs.78,060/-

VALUATION:-The suit is valued at Rs.78,060/- (Seventy Eight Thousand and Sixty Rupees only) and court fee of Rs.3,026/- is paid u/sec. 20(b) of A.P.C.F. & S.V Act.

This original suit is coming before me for disposal in the presence of Sri. M. Vijay Bhaskar, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri Daka Srinivasa Naidu, Advocate, counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court doth order and decree:

1. That the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby decreed an amount of Rs.78-060/- against the Defendants with costs.

2. That the defendants are liable for the suit amount i.e., 11

O.S. NO. 161 OF2018

Rs.78,060/- (Seventy Eight Thousand and Sixty Rupees only) to- gether with interest at 12% P.A. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization.

3. That the Defendants do pay an amount of Rs.3,608-00 to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit.

(Given under my hand and the seal of the court on this 13th day of September, 2024).

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Sl. For PlaintiffAmountFor defendantsAmount No.

1.Stamp on Plaint.Rs.3,026-00Stamp on - Vakalath.

2.Stamp on Rs. 2-00Stamp on petition- Vakalath

3.Stamp on ExhibitsRs. Stamp on Exhibits-

4.Process fee.Rs. 80-00Process fee-

5.Pleader’s fee.Rs. -00 Pleader’s fee-

6.Commissioner feeRs. --Commissioner fee-

7.Misc. ChargesRs. 500-00Misc. Charges-

TOTALRs. 3,608-00TOTALNIL

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SURYAPET.

Note: The parties shall apply as soon as for return of documents which they may wish to preserve as the records, they will be destroyed after three years from the date of decree.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE AT SURYAPET

(Dated this the 28th day June, 2024)

Present: Smt. J. PRASHANTHI, I Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, FAC II Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class Suryapet

C.C.No. 1096 of 2020

(Old C.C No. 349 of 2017)

Between:

The State through S.H.O Penpahd ….. Prosecution

AND

1.Nagarjunapu Raman, W/o Saida Chary, Age: 41 years, Occ:Housewife.

2.Nagarjunapu Saida Chary @ Saidulu, S/o Papaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Welder.

3.Maddoju Laxmamma, W/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labour. All R/o Macharam Village of Penpahad Mandal.

... Accused No.1 to 3

This case came up before me for final hearing on in the presence of the learned APP for State and of Sri. Grandhi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for accused, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record 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 Penpahad has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.21 of 2017.

1

2 The brief facts of the case are in nutshell:-

On 25-02-2017 morning at around 07.00 hours, while

Complainant/Bollaka Lingamma/Lw1 was washing utensils in her house, in the meantime one Maddoju Laxmamma who is residing opposite to their house started abusing her by using her name, on that she questioned Laxmamma as to why she is abusing her and then she went to water plant for bringing water and while she came back to her house again she is abusing her, on that again she questioned said Laxmamma as to why she is abusing, in the meantime one Nagarjunapu Ramana came and pulled down her by holding her hair and kicked her and also one Saidulu who is husband of Nagarjunapu Ramana beat her with hammer over left shoulder and also beat her with hands on her back and pushed her down, as such she fell on the road. On seeing the same their villagers viz., Bollaka Komulaiah, Bollaka Lingaiah were came there and tried to rescue her, on that Saidulu caught hold her head and hit to road. When Komulaiah and Lingaiah reprimanded said persons, they went away. Hence the report.

3.Basing on the above complaint of Lw1, the Lw8/SI of police PS Penpahad, registered a case in Crime No.21/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., and took up the investigation. After completion of entire investigation Lw8 filed charge sheet.

2

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections under Sections 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC, basing on the material available on record.

5.On appearance of the accused A1 to A3, copies of all documents were furnished to them, on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.On formation of this Court, this Case has been transferred to this Court, as per the orders of the chief judicial

magistrate, Nalgonda vide his proceedings No.1559/2020/A1

dated 16-03-2020 for disposal according to law.

7.On appearance of the accused persons, heard both sides, perused the record and basing on the material available on record, the accused persons examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C and the charges were framed against the accused under Section 240 Cr.P.C. the for the offence U/s.504, 324, 323 r/w 34 I.P.C ., read over and explained to them, in their vernacular language, after understanding the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. In order to substantiate the offences charged against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5. Learned APPO has given up the evidence of Lw.5. The evidence of Lw.8 was closed, as prosecution failed to produced him before the court. Thereafter 3

Learned APPO has reported no further evidence, hence, evidence of prosecution is closed.

9.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by putting to them all incriminating material available against them, for which the accused denied all the adverse allegations against them and reported no defence evidence. Accordingly defence evidence closed.

10.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

11. Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has established the

guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 I.P.C of I.P.C., beyond

reasonable doubt?

12.To prove the case the prosecution had examined the

Pw.1 to Pw.5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

13.Pw.1 is injured cum complainant has deposed that she knows Lw2 and Lw.3 and so also A1 to A3, the accused persons are neighbors to her, at around 7 years ago, one day A3 picked up quarrel with her and started beating her by holding her hair, meantime A2 who is brother of A3 beat her with hammer on the road, as such she sustained injuries to her hand and to her head, the A1 also came and beat her, later she shifted to Government 4

Area hospital Suryapet for treatment, later she went to police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P1 is complaint. Police examined and recorded her statement.

In cross examination she stated that she cannot say the date of alleged incident as she is an illiterate, the alleged incident took place in front of her house, also stated house of A3 is situated in front of their house, one Deshagani Ramana and

Gandamalla Laxamaiah were her neighbors, on the same day of alleged incident she shifted to hospital for treatment, X-ray also done to her head.

14.Pw2 and Pw3 were the eye witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, Pw.4 is panch for scene of offence panchama witness, he also turned hostile and stated that police never conducted nor seized anything from the possession of the accused persons, Pw.5 is doctor who treated the injured/Pw1, issued medical certificate vide Ex.P5 stated that the injuries caused by blunt object, the injury is abrasion over right shoulder.

15.On careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the documents available on record and clubbing with the arguments advanced by the both the parties, it can be said that the version of Pw.1 is not supported by the independent eye witnesses, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the Pw.1 stated that the accused attacked on 5 her with hammer to her hand and on her head, doctor opined in

Ex.P5/medical certificate that abrasion over the right shoulder, in his cross examination the Doctor admitted that if any person attack or hit to any one with metal object like hammer, he may sustain with fracture injury, he suggested the injured/Pw.1 to get

X-ray, but she did not produce the same, but in her cross examination she stated that X-ray also done to her head, the injuries are not tallied with the injuries opined by the doctor who treated her, the hammer which is alleged to have been used by the accused in commission of offence also not produced and to prove their case same is not got marked and moreover the said crime property is not proved by the panch witness, which shows that the investigation done by the investigation officer/Lw8 is callus, he also not produced before the court, to prove the same, even I.O not produced before the court, Pw.1 also not stated anything about the contents of 504 IPC, it can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt should go to the accused, as contemplated under criminal jurisprudence. Hence, accused persons are entitled for acquittal. .

16.In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly the accused is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall 6 stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2024.

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW.1 Bollaka Lingamm is complainant and injured.

PW.2 Bollaka Komulaiah is eye witness.

PW.3 Bollaka Lingaiah is eye witness.

PW.4 Bollaka Bobbaiah is Panch for scene of offence and seizure panchanama.

PW.5 Dr. T. Nagender who treated Lw1 and issued M.C.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 is Complaint.

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2.

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3.

Ex.P2 is signature on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw4

Ex.P5 is Medical Certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED:

- Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil – 7

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET

8

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No. 1096 of 2018

OLD C.C No. 349 of 2017

DATE OFDATEAPPREHENSIONRELEASED

THEOFOFON

OFFENCEREPORTACCUSEDB A I L

25-02-201726-02-2017

COMMENCEMENTCLOSUREDATE

OFOFOF

T R I A LT R I A LJUDGMENT

01-03-202421-06-202428-06-2024 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :The State through S.H.O. PS Penpahad

NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Nagarjunapu Raman, W/o Saida Chary, Age: 41 years, Occ:Housewife.2.Nagarjunapu Saida Chary @ Saidulu, S/o Papaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Welder.3.MaddojuLaxmamma,W/o Venkateshwarlu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Labour.All R/o Macharam Village of Penpahad Mandal. OFFENCE : U/s. 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C

FINDING OF THE COURT Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C and accordingly the accused is acquitted of the said offences under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :No delay

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate First

Class,

Suryapet

Submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum Asst. Sessions

Judge, Suryapet.

DIS. NO. /2024, DT : /2024.

9

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

SURYAPET

(Dated this the 26th day of July, 2024)

Present: Smt. J. PRASHANTHI, I Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class, FAC II Addl.Judicial Magistrate First Class,Suryapet

C.C.No. 3878 of 2018

Between: The State through S.H.O. PS Chivvemla ….. Prosecution

AND

1.Kakkireni Sudhakar, S/o Bixamaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o PSR Centre, Suryapet, N/o Modhinpuram H/o Thimmapuram of Chivvemla Mandal.

2.Mamidi Veladhri, S/o Gopaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Driver of Auto No. AP-24-TB-7079, R/o Sirikonda Village of Mothey Mandal.

….. Accused No.1 and 2

This case came up before me for final hearing on in the presence of the learned APPO for State and of Sri. Daka Srinivas Naidu, learned counsel for accused No.1 and 2, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material available on record 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 Chivvemla has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 of I.P.C and Sec. 7(A) of EC Act in Crime No.206/2018 of P.S.

Chivvemla.

2.The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the charge sheet are that on 09-09-2018 at around 10.45 hours on credible information with regard to transportation of PDS rice from Suryapet towards Kodad side in autos, Lw9/SI of Police, PS Chivvemla along with

Lw1 to Lw3 rushed to Durajpally Village, found two autos, checked them and found PDS rice in the said autos. Immediately they caught hold the auto drivers and interrogated them. During interrogation they revealed their names as Mamidi Veladhri/A2, S/o Gopaiah and Jala Mahesh/A3 S/o

Saidulu, when they ready to confess their guilt, immediately summoned the two mediators and recorded the confessional statements of the accused No.2 and 3 and seized (16) bags of PDS rice bag, total weight of 8 quintals from the auto bearing No. AP-24-TB-7079 which is belongs to accused No.2 along with auto and 10 bags, weight of 5 quintals of PDS rice from another auto bearing No. TS-05-UA-6805 of A3 under cover of panchanama. At the same time Lw9 directed to the Lw1 to Lw3 to apprehend the accused No.1/Kakkireni Sudhakar as the confession of accused No.2 and 3 shows that the accused No.1 is the prime in this case and on 10-09-2018 at around 12.00 hours, on credible information Lw9 along with force rushed to PSR Centre, Suryapet and apprehended the accused No.1 and brought accused No.1 to 3 to police station along with seized property and recorded confessional statement of accused No.1.

Effected the arrest of the accused No.1 to 3.

3.Basing on the above Lw9 S.I of Police registered a case in

Cr.No. 206/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and

Section 7(A) of Essential Commodities Act, and took up the investigation .

4.During the course of investigation, on 09-09-2018 notice to the accused U/sec 41(A)(3) have served. Later on 10-09-2018 Lw10/ SI of

Police took up the investigation as Lw9 transferred and addressed a letter to Head Master of M.A.M School, Suryapet with a request to issue Study conduct and date of birth certificate in respect of Accused no.3 and she issued the same, which shows that the accused No.3 born on 10-06-2002 and he is juvenile conflict with law, later Lw10 examined and recorded statement of Lw6/Head Master (FAC) of M.A.M School, Suryapet. On 10-09- 2018 also addressed a letter to Deputy Tahsildar, Civvemla Civil supplie with a request to inspect the rice and on 06-10-2018 Lw.7/Deputy Tahsildar inspected the rice and confirmed it as PDS rice. Notices to the accused

U/sec 41(A)(1) have served on 08-12-2018 and informed them to directed to appear before on 10-12-2018 at 10:00 hrs at police station Suryapet town.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet has taken on file the case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of

I.P.C and Section 7(A) of E.C. Act., against accused, basing on the material available on record.

6.On appearance of the accused copies of all documents w furnished on which the prosecution proposes to rely, as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

7.On formation of this Court, this Case has been transferred to this Court, as per the orders of the chief judicial magistrate vide his proceedings No.66/2024/A1 dated 22-02-2024, for disposal according to law.

8.On appearance of the accused, heard both sides, perused the record and basing on the material available on record, examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C and the charges was framed against the accused under

Section 240Cr.P.C.for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C and Section 7(A) of E.C. Act., read over and explained to accused, in vernacular language, after understanding the same the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to substantiate the offences charged against accused, the prosecution had examined Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1.The evidence Lw.1 to Lw.8 and Lw.10 has been closed by this court as prosecution failed to produced them, thereafter Learned APPO reported no further evidence of prosecution. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

10.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating material against them, for which the accused persons denied all the adverse allegations against them and reported no defence evidence.

Accordingly defence evidence closed.

11.Heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused.

12.Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and

Section 7(A) of E.C. Act., beyond reasonable doubt?

13.To prove the case the prosecution had examined Pw.1 and marked Ex.P1.

14. Pw.1 who is the investigation officer deposed chronological order events occurred, during the course of his investigation and in cross examination he admitted that he did not seized the documents pertaining to said autos and further denied the suggestions given by the counsel for accused.

16.Considering the material available on record, evidence adduced by the prosecution and clubbing the arguments advanced by both the parties, it can be pursued that the prosecution had relied on the evidence of Pw1 to hold that the accused to be guilt of the offence.

17.Coming to Section 420 IPC, the charge for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of IPC as follows “whoever cheats and there by dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished for either description of a term with may extend to 7 years, shall also be liable to be fine.

18.There must be a cheating by some person to another, but no prosecution witness has produced before this court except Pw1 who is investigation officer regarding the cheating. Hence, the ingredients of sec.420 IPC are not at all applicable to the accused herein.

19.On careful perusal of Sec.7A of EC act, it is clear that one is said to be guilty of offence, if he or they contravene section 3 of Essential

Commodities Act. In Sec.3 of Essential Commodities Act, some general principles laid down. The prosecution had not properly put forth before this court, as to which provision of act was violated by the accused herein and in fact the accused and seizure also not established by the prosecution and resiled from version of prosecution.

20.Moreover the witness Pw.1 who supported the version of prosecution is police official, hence he comes under the category of interested witnesses, there is no other supporting independent witness to the prosecution case, seizure also not proved. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, as such accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

21.For the above reasons this Court opines that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt by adducing trustworthy, reliable, convincing and cogent evidence and so opines that accused is entitled for acquittal.

22.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 7(A) of E.C. Act., and accordingly the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the said offence under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 26 th day of July, 2024.

I ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

SURYAPET.

APPENDIXOF EVIDENCE

WITNESSESEXAMINEDONBEHALFOFTHEPROSECUTION :

Pw.1 : B. Praveen Kumar is investigation officer

WITNESSESEXAMINEDONBEHALFOF ACCUSED:

-NIL-

EXHIBITSMARKEDONBEHALFOFTHEPROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is FIR.

EXHIBITSMARKEDONBEHALFOFTHE ACCUSED:

- Nil-

MATERIALOBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

I ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

SURYAPET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

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

: AT SURYAPET

C.C.No.3878 of 2018

DATE OFDATEAPPREHENSIONRELEASED

THEOFOFON

OFFENCEREPORTACCUSEDB A I L

09-09-201809-09-201809-09-201810-09-2018

COMMENCEMENTCLOSUREDATE

OFOFOF

T R I A LT R I A LJUDGMENT

25-07-202425-07-202426-07-2024 NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT :The State through S.H.O. PS Chivvemla

NAME OF THE ACCUSED Kakkireni Sudhakar, S/o Bixamaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o PSR Centre, Suryapet, N/o Modhinpuram H/o Thimmapuram of Chivvemla Mandal.

2.Mamidi Veladhri, S/o Gopaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Driver of Auto No. AP-24-TB-7079, R/o Sirikonda Village of Mothey Mandal OFFENCE : U/s. 420 of I.P.C and Sec. 7(A) of EC Act

FINDING OF THE COURT :Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER :In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC and 7(A) of E.C. Act., and accordingly the accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the said offence under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :No delay

I ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

FAC II ADDL.JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOFFIRSTCLASS

SURYAPET.

Submitted to:- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum Asst. Sessions Judge, Suryapet. DIS. NO. /2024, DT : -2024.