Sri J.Sujin Kumar

1 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

C.C. No. 320 of 2022

1. Date of Offence : 22-03-2021

2. Filing : 23-03-2021

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 01-04-2021

4. Date of release on bail : 01-04-2021

5. Date of commencement of trial : 07-03-2023

6. Date of close of trial : 14-05-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 18-05-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : Delay is due to non- production of witnesses by the prosecution in time. Arguments of both sides were finally heard on 18.05.2026 and the judgment was

pronounced on 18.05.2026. Hence the delay.

COMPLAINANT : State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Pedakurapadu P.S. (Cr.No.53/2021) ACCUSED: Ramavarapu @ Rayavarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Siva Nageswara Rao, 31 Years, R/o. Jalalpuram Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal.

Section of Law : U/sec.435 of the I.P.C.

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order : In the result,accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. M.O.1 : cover containing ash of burnt haystack and M.O.2: cover containing small quantity of half burnt hay pieces under C.P.R. No.91/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

2 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

APGU1D0003552022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Present:- J. SUJIN KUMAR UID: AP2017CJD01053 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 320 of 2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Pedakurapadu P.S. …Complainant.

And

Ramavarapu @ Rayavarapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Siva Nageswara Rao,

31 Years, R/o. Jalalpuram Village, Pedakurapadu Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming on 18.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri B.L. Chinnaiah learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pedakurapadu Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.53 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

02. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the charge sheet, is as follows:

PW.1 is an inhabitant of Jalalpuram village of Pedakurapadu 3 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

Mandal and is doing cultivation work for eking out his livelihood. He is blessed with one male child and one female child. While so, the father of

PW.1 owned certain lands situated at Munagapadu village of Pirangipuram

Mandal. Subsequently, PW.1 sold away the said lands, due to which an altercation took place between PW.1 and his brother Peda Masthan Rao.

While the matter stood thus, PW.1 sold his house site, and the accused, who is residing on the rear side of the said house site, became irate and picked up a quarrel with him. Later, the village elders intervened and pacified the matter. Moreover, on the midnight intervening 21/22.03.2021,

PW.2 went out to attend nature calls and noticed flames arising from the haystack of PW.1. Thereupon, PW.2 raised hue and cry and woke up PW.1.

While raising cries, PW.2 noticed the accused setting fire to the haystack and, on seeing PW.2, the accused fled away from the scene of offence.

Thereafter, the fire was extinguished with the assistance of the Fire

Department. Due to the previous disputes and grudges, the accused nurtured ill feelings against PW.1 and intentionally set fire to the haystack belonging to PW.1. The value of the burnt haystack is estimated at

Rs.1,00,000/-.

On receipt of the report from PW.1, PW.3 registered a case in

Cr.No.53/2021 under Section 435 IPC of Pedakurapadu Police Station at 15:00 hours on 23.03.2021 and submitted the original FIR along with the complainant’s report to the Hon’ble Court and all concerned officers, and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, PW.3 examined as many as six witnesses and recorded their detailed statements under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. in Part-II Case Diary. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of mediators, seized ash under the cover of a mediators’ report duly attested by the mediators, and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 01.04.2021, PW.3 served notice 4 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on the accused and obtained his identity proofs and solvency particulars. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 435 IPC. Hence, the charge.

03. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/sec.

435 of the IPC.

04. Copies of case record were furnished to the accused as required

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

05. Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and the charge for the offence punishable U/sec.435 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and read over to him. For which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

06. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined L.W.1,

LW2 and LW9/SI were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Exs.P1 to P4 and

M.Os.1 and 2 are marked on behalf of prosecution.

07. After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by setting forth with the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the same and further reported that no defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

5 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

09. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to bring

home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable U/sec.435 of the Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt?” 10. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

PWs1 to 3 out of 10 listed witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P4 and

M.Os.1 and 2. Among them, PW1 is the defacto-complainant. PW2 is the direct witness and PW3 is the Investigation Officer. Ex.P1 is the report of

PW1 dated 23-03-2021. Ex.P2 is the original First Information Report.

Ex.P3 is the scene observation report. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch. M.O.1 is the cover containing ash of burnt haystack. M.O.2 is the cover containing small quantity of half burnt hay pieces.

11.The Stand of Accused is of total denial. He contended by way of suggestion that he never committed any offence and false case has been foisted against him.

12. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has established that there were prior disputes and ill-feelings between the accused and PW.1 with regard to sale transactions relating to land and house site. It is contended that on the intervening night of 21/22.03.2021, PW.2 noticed flames arising from the haystack of PW.1 and immediately raised hue and cry. According to him, the circumstances brought on record would show that the accused had motive to commit the offence and immediately after the incident he was found near the scene and fled away on noticing PW.2. It is further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with the scene observation report, seizure of ash and other material collected during investigation probabilise the prosecution case. Hence, the prosecution prayed to hold that the 6 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

accused committed mischief by fire causing damage to the haystack of

PW.1 and sought conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to previous disputes and village rivalry. It is contended that admittedly PW.2 did not state in his evidence that he actually saw the accused setting fire to the haystack and, therefore, the very foundation of the prosecution case is doubtful. It is further contended that the entire case rests upon suspicion and assumptions without any direct evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence. The learned counsel for accused further argued that no independent eyewitnesses were examined though the alleged incident took place in a residential locality. It is also contended that there is no scientific or technical evidence to establish that the accused caused the fire. According to the defence, mere presence of the accused near the scene or existence of previous disputes cannot by itself be sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to acquit the accused by extending benefit of doubt.

14. In view of rival contentions, entire evidence is perused and this court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions of both sides.

15. POINT :

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that in order to attract the ingredients of Section 435 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the accused committed mischief by causing destruction of property by fire or explosive substance with intention or knowledge to cause wrongful loss or damage to any property. The prosecution is further required to prove 7 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who intentionally set fire to the property in question and thereby caused damage thereto. The burden squarely lies upon the prosecution to prove every essential ingredient of the offence beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and

M.Os.1 and 2. Out of them, PW.1 is the de facto complainant, PW.2 is the witness and mother of PW.1, and PW.3 is the Investigating Officer. PW.1 deposed that he owns Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural land in his village and, during the year 2021, apart from his own land, he cultivated Ac.6.00 cents of agricultural land belonging to others on lease basis. He further stated that on 21.03.2021 at about 8:00 p.m., an altercation took place between himself and the accused, who is a friend of his elder brother Pedda Mastan

Rao, as PW.1 had sold away the agricultural land belonging to his father situated at Munagapadu village of Phirangipuram Mandal without informing his elder brother. According to PW.1, one Maila Gopi and LW.4 Chinnaiah intervened and pacified the dispute, after which both he and the accused went to their respective houses.

PW.1 further deposed that during the midnight hours of the same day, while he was sleeping, he heard the screams of PW.2 Ch.

Tirupathamma. Immediately, he woke up and noticed that the hayrick bundles stored beside his house were engulfed in flames. Thereupon, with the assistance of his mother, he attempted to extinguish the fire.

Subsequently, the Fire Department officials arrived at the spot and extinguished the flames. PW.1 stated that on enquiry, his mother informed him that the accused had set fire to the hayrick bundles during midnight hours and that she had personally witnessed the same. Thereafter, on 8 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

23.03.2021, he approached Pedakurapadu Police Station and lodged

Ex.P1-report against the accused alleging that the accused caused damage to the hayrick worth about Rs.10,000/-. Police examined him during the course of investigation.

During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that even two months prior to lodging Ex.P1-report, disputes existed between himself and his elder brother. He further admitted that there were no disputes between himself and the accused. PW.1 also admitted that with the assistance of the accused, his elder brother approached an advocate and got issued a legal notice seeking partition of joint family properties. However, he stated that no civil suit was pending between them and no partition suit was filed by his elder brother till the date of his evidence. PW.1 further admitted that one week prior to the alleged incident, he came to know about the assistance rendered by the accused to his elder brother for issuance of legal notice. He further stated that no deliberations took place between himself and the accused during the week preceding the alleged incident.

PW.1 admitted that immediately on the next day of the incident, on enquiry, his mother informed him that it was the accused who had set fire to the hayrick bundles during midnight hours. He further admitted that neither he nor his mother disclosed the role allegedly played by the accused to the

Fire Department officials who came to extinguish the fire. PW.1 also stated that on 23.03.2021 during evening hours, he approached Pedakurapadu

Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-report, which was scribed by the Head

Constable on his narration. However, he denied the suggestion that the accused had no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident and that a false case was foisted against him as he was a friend of his elder brother.

17. PW.2 deposed that about five years prior to her evidence, on 9 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

one day in the month of March, an altercation took place between PW.1 and the accused, who is a friend of her elder son Pedda Mastan Rao, on account of sale of agricultural land belonging to her husband situated at

Munagapadu village of Phirangipuram Mandal without informing her elder son. She stated that Maila Gopi and LW.4 Chinnaiah intervened and pacified the matter. PW.2 further deposed that during midnight hours of the same day, while she was sleeping, she heard the screams of neighbours and, on waking up, noticed that the hayrick bundles stored beside her house were on fire and flames were emanating therefrom. According to her, with the assistance of PW.1, she attempted to extinguish the flames and thereafter the Fire Department officials came to the spot and extinguished the fire. She further stated that on enquiry, she came to know that the accused had set fire to the hayrick bundles during midnight hours.

Thereafter, PW.1 lodged Ex.P1-report before the police and the police examined her.

During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that disputes existed between her children. She further admitted that there were no disputes between her family and the family of the accused and that the accused was a close friend of her elder son. She also stated that the police did not examine her regarding the facts of the present case. However, she denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of PW.1.

18. PW.3, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 23.03.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., PW.1 came to the police station and submitted a written report under Ex.P1. Basing on the said report, he registered a case in

Crime No.53/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC and issued Ex.P2-original FIR to the Court and concerned officers. He further deposed that he examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. On the same 10 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

day, by securing the presence of mediators namely LW.7 B. Venkata

Lakshmi Narasimha Prasad and LW.8 P. Rama Rao, he visited the scene of offence situated in the vacant site beside the house of PW.1 at

Jalalpuram village, observed the same in the presence of mediators and seized ash of burnt hay pieces and small quantity of half-burnt hay pieces in two separate plastic covers under the cover of Ex.P3-scene observation report duly attested by mediators. He also prepared Ex.P4-rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW.3 further stated that he examined PW.2 and

LWs.3 to 6 and recorded their statements. M.O.1 is the cover containing ash of burnt haystack and M.O.2 is the cover containing half-burnt hay pieces seized under CPR No.90/2026. He further deposed that on 01.04.2021, he served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. on the accused directing him to appear before the Court as and when summoned. After completion of investigation, LW.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC.

During cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that during investigation he did not collect any documentary evidence relating to the agricultural land allegedly owned by PW.1. He further admitted that he did not examine one

M. Gopi during investigation nor cite him as a witness in the charge sheet.

He also admitted that the persons shown in Ex.P4 rough sketch were not examined as witnesses in the present case. PW.3 further admitted that he did not examine the Fire Department officials who extinguished the fire during the alleged incident. However, he denied the suggestions that he did not examine PW.2 and other witnesses, that he did not visit the scene of offence and prepare the rough sketch at the scene, and that the accused was falsely implicated due to political pressure. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

11 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

19. This Court has carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. At the very outset, it is to be noted that though the prosecution alleged that the accused intentionally set fire to the hayrick bundles belonging to PW.1 due to previous disputes, the evidence adduced

before this Court does not disclose any direct evidence regarding the actual

act of setting fire. The entire prosecution case substantially rests upon the circumstances surrounding the occurrence, the alleged previous disputes and the subsequent suspicion entertained by the family members of PW.1 against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of each witness is required to be scrutinized with great caution.

20. The evidence of PW.1 clearly discloses that there existed disputes between himself and his elder brother Pedda Mastan Rao in connection with family properties situated at Munagapadu village. According to PW.1, the accused was a close friend of his elder brother and had allegedly supported him in getting issued a legal notice seeking partition of joint family properties. Thus, from the very evidence of PW.1 itself, it emerges that the accused was not having any independent dispute with PW.1, but his alleged involvement arose only because of his association with the elder brother of PW.1. In fact, PW.1 categorically admitted in his cross- examination that there were no disputes between himself and the accused.

PW.1 further deposed that on the date of incident, at about 8:00 p.m., an altercation took place between himself and the accused regarding sale of agricultural land belonging to his father. However, according to his own version, the said dispute was pacified by elders namely Maila Gopi and

LW.4 Chinnaiah, and thereafter both parties returned to their respective houses. Thus, admittedly no untoward incident took place immediately after the altercation.

21. Coming to the actual occurrence, PW.1 specifically stated that 12 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

during midnight hours he was sleeping in his house and woke up only after hearing the screams raised by PW.2. On waking up, he found the hayrick bundles engulfed in flames. Significantly, PW.1 nowhere stated that he saw the accused near the scene of offence. His evidence further reveals that after the flames were extinguished, his mother informed him that it was the accused who had set fire to the hayrick bundles. Thus, the evidence of

PW.1 regarding the identity of the offender is admittedly not based on direct observation but only based on what was allegedly informed to him by PW.2.

Therefore, insofar as the involvement of the accused is concerned, the evidence of PW.1 is purely hearsay in nature.

22. The admissions elicited during the cross-examination of PW.1 assume considerable importance. PW.1 admitted that even two months prior to the incident, disputes existed between himself and his elder brother.

He further admitted that the accused assisted his elder brother in getting issued a legal notice for partition. He also admitted that one week prior to the alleged occurrence, he came to know about the role played by the accused in assisting his elder brother. These admissions probabilise the defence contention that due to the strained relationship between PW.1 and his elder brother, suspicion was entertained against the accused who happened to be associated with the elder brother.

23.Furthermore the evidence of PW.2 also does not materially improve the prosecution case. In fact, the evidence of PW.2 substantially weakens the prosecution story projected in the charge sheet. The charge sheet allegations disclose as though PW.2 directly witnessed the accused setting fire to the hayrick and fleeing away from the spot. However, while deposing before the Court, PW.2 did not state that she saw the accused setting fire to the hayrick bundles. Her evidence only shows that after hearing screams, she woke up and noticed the hayrick on fire. Thereafter, 13 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

according to her, on enquiry she came to know that it was the accused who had set fire to the hayrick bundles. Thus, even according to PW.2, her knowledge regarding involvement of the accused was not based upon direct witnessing of the occurrence.

24. This aspect goes to the very root of the prosecution case. When the prosecution itself projected PW.2 as the direct witness to the occurrence, but PW.2 in her substantive evidence before the Court failed to state that she actually witnessed the accused committing the offence, the very foundation of the prosecution case becomes shaky. It is trite law that the substantive evidence before the Court alone can be relied upon and not the allegations made in the charge sheet. Therefore, the prosecution cannot derive any advantage from the recital in the charge sheet contrary to the evidence actually adduced before the Court.

25. It is pertinent to mention that PW.2 admitted during her cross- examination that disputes existed between her children. She further admitted that there were no disputes between the family of the accused and her family. She also admitted that the accused was a close friend of her elder son. Another important admission made by PW.2 is that the police did not examine her regarding the facts of the present case. Such admission creates serious doubt regarding the manner in which investigation was conducted and also affects the credibility of the prosecution version attributed to PW.2.

26. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, it is no doubt true that his evidence establishes registration of the crime, visit to the scene of offence, preparation of Ex.P3-scene observation report and Ex.P4-rough sketch and seizure of M.Os.1 and 2. The evidence of PW.3 sufficiently establishes that a fire incident had in fact occurred. However, the crucial question

before this Court is not whether a fire took place, but whether the

14 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

prosecution succeeded in proving that it was the accused who intentionally caused the fire.

27. In this regard, the investigation conducted by PW.3 suffers from several omissions. PW.3 admitted during cross-examination that he did not examine one Maila Gopi, who admittedly intervened in the earlier altercation between PW.1 and the accused. He further admitted that the persons shown in Ex.P4 rough sketch were not examined as witnesses.

Most importantly, the Fire Department officials, who came to the spot immediately after the incident and extinguished the flames, were also not examined during investigation. These persons would have been the best independent witnesses to speak about the circumstances prevailing at the scene immediately after the occurrence. However, no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the prosecution for non-examination of such material witnesses. Further, except the alleged motive arising out of previous disputes, there is absolutely no independent material connecting the accused with the commission of offence. No incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the accused. No circumstance showing the presence of the accused near the scene immediately prior to or after the occurrence was established through reliable evidence.

28 It is well established principle of law that motive alone cannot form the basis for conviction unless the same is supported by reliable and cogent evidence connecting the accused with the crime. In the present case, at the highest, the prosecution evidence creates suspicion against the accused because of his association with the elder brother of PW.1 and the previous altercation that took place earlier in the evening. However, suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot substitute proof required in a criminal trial.

15 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

29. The cumulative effect of the evidence discussed above clearly shows that there are material omissions and infirmities in the prosecution case. The absence of direct evidence, the hearsay nature of testimony of

PWs.1 and 2 regarding involvement of the accused, non-examination of independent witnesses, non-disclosure of the accused’s name to Fire

Department officials at the earliest point of time, and the admitted existence of family disputes create serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.

In criminal law, whenever such reasonable doubt arises, the benefit thereof must necessarily go in favour of the accused.

30. This Court does not find any valid reason for non-extension of benefit of doubt to the accused. On the other hand, this Court finds that there is no sufficient, cogent and reliable material available on record to conclusively hold that it was the accused who intentionally set fire to the hayrick bundles belonging to PW.1. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution falls short of the standard of proof required in a criminal case.

The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the point for determination is answered against the prosecution.

31. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

16 of 16 C.C.320/2022

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

M.O.1 : cover containing ash of burnt haystack and M.O.2: cover containing small quantity of half burnt hay pieces under C.P.R. No.91/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: None P.W.1: Ch. Mastan Rao/Defacto-complainant. P.W.2: Ch. Tirupathamma/Witness. P.W.3: M. Pattabhi Ramaiah/S.I.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- Ex.P1 is the report of PW1 dated 23-03-2021. Ex.P2 is the original First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the scene observation report. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is the cover containing ash of burnt haystack. M.O.2 is the cover containing small quantity of half burnt hay pieces.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

1 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

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

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), SATTENAPALLI.

C.C. No. 133/2020

1. Date of Offence : Prior to 31-05-2020

2. Date of Filing : 31-05-2020

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 31-05-2020

4. Date of release on bail : 10-06-2020

5. Date of commencement of trial : 05-01-2026

6. Date of close of trial : 14-05-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 15-05-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : Delay is due to non- production of witnesses by the prosecution in time. Arguments of both sides were finally heard on 15.05.2026 and the judgment was pronounced on 15.05.2026. Hence the delay.

COMPLAINANT: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Amaravati P.S. (Cr.No.171/2020) ACCUSED: Shaik Hussain, S/o. Mabusubhani, 28 Years, R/o. Pedamadduru Village, Amaravati Mandal.

Section of Law :U/secs.170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C. Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty. Sentence/Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 384, 385 and 419 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 – Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-07-BD-2857 affixed with “POLICE” sticker covered under C.P.R. No.89 of 2026 shall be returned to its registered owner on proper identification and obtaining due acknowledgement after expiry of appeal time. whereas M.O.2 – currency note of Rs.500/- denomination covered under the said C.P.R. shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

2 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

APGU1D0001412020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Present :- J. SUJIN KUMAR UID: AP2017CJD01053 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 133 of 2020

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of police, Amaravati P.S. …Complainant.

And

Shaik Hussain, S/o. Mabusubhani, 28 Years,

R/o. Pedamadduru Village, Amaravati Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri B. Adi Narayana learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravati P.S., has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.171 of 2020 of Amaravati P.S., against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.170,171,384,385 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.)

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case as reflected out from the charge sheet is as follows:

3 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

P.W.1/M. Venkateswarlu, L.W.2/M. Venkateswarlu, L.W.3/A.

Gopiraju and L.W.4/Sk. Baji are residents of Amaravati Village and Mandal.

P.W.1 and L.W.2 are eking out their livelihood by running mutton shops at 14th Mile Village. L.W.3 is eking out his livelihood by selling fish at 14th

Mile Village, whereas L.W.4 is eking out his livelihood by running a chicken shop at the said village. The accused, who is a resident of Ramalayam

Street, Peddamadduru Village, Amaravati Mandal, is stated to have been addicted to luxurious habits and the money given by his parents was allegedly insufficient to meet his expenses. Therefore, he allegedly hatched a plan to earn money clandestinely. The accused frequently used to impersonate himself as a police officer, create commotion at 14th Mile

Centre, and threaten the public by insisting that they wear face masks, failing which he would beat them and file cases against them. By putting them under fear, he allegedly dishonestly obtained meat from P.W.1 and

L.Ws.2 to 4.

While so, on 31.05.2020 at about 10:00 a.m., in furtherance of his plan, the accused allegedly went to 14th Mile Centre on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-07-BD-2857 affixed with a “POLICE” sticker, falsely personated himself as a police officer and extorted red meat from P.W.1 and L.Ws.2 to 4 by putting them in fear of injury. Subsequently, P.W.1 and

L.Ws.2 to 4 came to know that the accused was not a police officer and that he had extorted red meat from them by impersonating himself as one.

Thereupon, P.W.1 lodged a report before Amaravati Police Station requesting necessary action.

Basing on the report lodged by P.W.1, P.W.2/Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Crime No.171 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 384, 385 and 419 of the Indian Penal

Code. During the course of investigation, P.W.2 visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch, examined P.W.1 and L.Ws.2 to 4 and 4 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

recorded their statements. During the course of further investigation, on 31.05.2020, P.W.2 arrested the accused and seized the motor cycle as well as cash of Rs.500/- from his possession under the cover of a mediator’s report. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.

3. This court took cognizance for the offences punishable U/sec.

170, 171, 384, 385 and 419 of the I.P.C. against the accused.

4. Copies of case record were furnished to the accused as required

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. and the charges for the offences punishable U/sec.170, 171, 384, 385 and 419 of the I.P.C. were framed and read over to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claims for trial.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined LW1 and LW7 as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Hence prosecution side evidence is closed.

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by setting forth with the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the same and further reported that no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

5 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

9. Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to bring

home the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable U/sec. 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the

I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, coupled with the documentary evidence, clearly establishes that the accused intentionally cheated by personating a police officer as a public servant, extorted red meat by putting PW1, LWs.2 to 4 in fear of injury. Therefore, it was contended that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences punishable under Section 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C.

11. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel vehemently argued that, apart from the testimony of the Investigating Officer, no substantive or independent evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish the charges under Sections 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the

I.P.C. against the accused. He further contended that, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted of the said offences.

12. P O I N T :

For proving the culpability of the accused under Sections 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C., the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is the victim cum defacto-complainant who set the criminal law into motion by lodging the written report before the police. The evidence of PW1 discloses that at about 5 years back, on one day while he went to police station on some personal work, one police constable obtained his signature on some written papers. Though PW1 6 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

identified his signature i.e. Ex.P1 on the report, he categorically stated that he was unaware of its contents. As PW1, who being the material witness for the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared him as hostile and cross-examined him with the permission of the Court. During cross-examination, PW1 denied having lodged the report with the police or having made any statement before them as recorded under Section 161(3)

Cr.P.C., which was marked as Exhibit P2. In spite of cross-examination, no material admissions were elicited by the prosecution from PW1 to prove the allegations against the accused.

13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, the Investigating Officer, his testimony reveals that on 31.05.2020 at about 01.30AM, while he was on duty in his station, he received Ex.P3 report of PW1, basing on Ex.P3 he registered the same as FIR Ex.P4 in Crime No.171 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C. He examined P.W.1 and LWs2 to 4 and recorded their statement. On the same day he visited the scene of offence i.e., 14th mile center of Lemalle Vilalge and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch. Additionally, P.W.2 deposed that on 31.50.2020, he arrested the accused and seized the motor cycle and cash of Rs.500/- from the accused under the cover of mediator report. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the

I.P.C.

14. So, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 the prosecution has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2 to 6. Even P.W.1 did not depose evidence on the lines of the prosecution. So, except the evidence of P.W.2 i.e., Investigating Officer, the court cannot come to conclusion that the accused has committed the offences. So far as the evidentiary value of 7 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

Ex.P2 i.e., 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 is concerned, it did not carry any credibility, enabling acceptance as PW1 himself did not spoke about the commission of an act of cheating by personating a police officer as a public servant by the accused during his evidence before the court. At this juncture it is worthwhile to note down the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported as Renuka Prasad Vs. State represented by Assistant

Superintendent of police, 2025(2) A.L.T. (Criminal 255, SC) where in it was held that “the statements made by the IOs regarding the motive, conspiracy and preparation comes out as the prosecution story, as discernible from the Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation; which statements are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as also the preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt. We are unable to find either the motive, the conspiracy or the Crl. A. Nos. 3189- 90 of 2023 etc. preparation or even the crime itself to have been established in Court, at the trial through the witnesses examined before

Court. The witnesses had turned hostile, for reasons best known to themselves. The only inference possible, on the witnesses turning hostile is that either they have been persuaded for reasons unknown or coerced into resiling from the statements made under Section 161 or that they had not made such statements before police officers. Merely because the

story came out of the mouth of the IO, it cannot be believed and a

legal sanctity given to it, higher than that provided to Section 161

statements under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C.

8 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

15. On conspectus of evidence let in by the prosecution, it is apparent that the Investigating Officer (PW.2) has only spoken about the procedural aspects of the investigation, such as registration of FIR under

Ex.P4, examination of witnesses, and filing of the charge sheet. His evidence, being only official in nature, does not prove the identity or involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences. The solitary official evidence of the Investigating Officer, without substantive corroboration from the victim or any eyewitness, falls short of proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. It is needless to state that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused under sections 170,171,384,385 and 419 of the I.P.C. and the accused is entitled to claim acquittal. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 384, 385 and 419 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 – Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-07-BD-2857 affixed with “POLICE” sticker covered under C.P.R. No.89 of 2026 shall be returned to its registered owner on proper identification and obtaining due acknowledgement after expiry of appeal time. whereas M.O.2 – currency note of Rs.500/- denomination covered under the said C.P.R. shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026. Sd

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), SATTENAPALLI.

9 of 9 C.C.NO.133/2020

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: None P.W.1: M. Venkateswarlu/Business. P.W.2: M. Sivaiah/S.I.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the report given to police dated 31.05.2020.

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3 is the report of PW1. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the scene observation report.

Ex.P6 is the rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is the Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-07-BD-2857 having police sticker. M.O.2 is the currency note of Rs.500/- denomination.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

1 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

C.C. No. 191/2026

1. Date of Offence : 10-12-2024

2. Filing : 10-12-2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 10-12-2024

4. Date of release on bail : 10-12-2024

5. Date of commencement of trial : 29-04-2026

6. Date of close of trial : 08-05-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 12-05-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : Due to non-production of Witnesses. COMPLAINANT :

State represented by the P & E Inspector, Pedakurapadu. (Cr.No.159/2024)

ACCUSED:

Boyapati Atchyutha Rao, S/o. Prathap, 46 Years, R/o. Mothadaka Village, Thadikonda Mandal.

Section of Law : U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.271(1) of the B.N.S.S. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s.481 of the B.N.S.S. M.Os.1 to 3 property covered under C.P.R. No.72/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

2 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

APGU1D0002092026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Present:- J. SUJIN KUMAR UID: AP2017CJD01053 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 191 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the P & E Inspector, Prohibition & Excise, Station, Pedakurapadu.…Complainant.

And

Boyapati Atchyutha Rao, S/o. Prathap, 46 Years,

R/o. Mothadaka Village, Thadikonda Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri P.Ch. Venkatakotaiah learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The P & E Inspector, Pedakurapadu P.S., has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.159/2024 of Pedakurapadu P.S, against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

3 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

02. The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

On 10.12.2024 at about 02.00 P.M., while P.W.2/V. Srinivasulu /Inspector along with his staff were conducting general raids at left side road margin, opposite bus stand, Lemalle Village, Amaravati Mandal, there they noticed the accused with possession of one black polythene bag and on seeing the police in uniform, the accused got perturbed and tried to escape, then on suspicion P.W.2 detained him with the help of his staff and on questioning the accused admitted that the said bag contains liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 instructed P.W.1 to secure mediators but none come forward to act as mediators. Then he decided to proceed with the special report and opened the bag and found total 11 liquor bottles with torned heals of duty paid liquor. On questioning the accused replied that he has no permit or licence to sell the said liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 seized the bottles from the possession of the accused and drawn a sample from each brand for analysis by following the Excise Rules and served 35(3) B.N.S.S.

notice to the accused and registered the special report as F.I.R. in Cr.

No.159/2024 for an offence U/s.34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act and sent the original F.I.R. to the court and copies to all concerned. Further, P.W.2 sent the samples to the Government Chemical Examiner for analysis and the Analyst opined that the samples contain Indian liquor and after receipt of the analysis report; after obtaining confiscation orders and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.

34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act.

04. Copies of case record were furnished to the accused as required

U/s.230 of B.N.S.S.

4 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

05. The accused was examined U/s.262 of the B.N.S.S. and a charge for an offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act was framed and read over to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claims for trial.

06. In order to prove the case, L.W.1/Constable and L.W.2/Inspector were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Exs.P1 to P4 and M.Os.1 to 3 are marked.

07. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.351 of the B.N.S.S. by setting forth with the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the same and further reported that no defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to bring

home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.

34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT :

To prove the offence U/sec.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possess or sells any intoxicant in contravention of the A.P. Excise Act,1968 or any license or of permit granted or issued under this Act.

5 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

11. During the course of evidence, P.W.1/Constable deposed that on 10.12.2024 at about 02.00 P.M., he and his excise staff accompanied with

P.W.2/Inspector for conducting general raids at opposite bus stand,

Lemalle Village of Amaravati Mandal, there they found the accused with possession of one black polythene bag and on the instructions of P.W.2, he caught hold of the accused and on enquiry, the accused confessed that he is in possession of liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 seized total 11 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of special report and arrested the accused.

12. In addition to that P.W.2/Inspector stated that on 10.12.2024 at about 02.00 P.M., while he along with his staff were conducting general raids at opposite bus stand, Lemalle Village of Amaravati Mandal, there they found the accused with possession of one black polythene bag and with the assistance of his staff, he caught hold of the accused and on enquiry the accused confessed that he is in possession of liquor bottles.

Then P.W.2 seized total 11 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of special report and arrested the accused.

Thereafter, he registered the special report as F.I.R. in Cr. No.159/2024 and served 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. notice to the accused. Later he sent samples for analysis, after receipt of confiscation proceedings and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13. During cross examination, P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that they did not issue any written summons or notices to mediators and the Ex.P1 does not contain the particulars and names of the persons to whom P.W.1 requested to act as mediators and no batch numbers or manufacturing dates of the seized liquor bottles were mentioned in Ex.P1. Furthermore, they admitted that the scene of offence was a busy locality and as seen 6 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clear that the scene of offence is not an isolated place and there is every opportunity to P.W.1 and P.W.2 to secure the revenue officials or local inhabitants to act as mediators, for the arrest of the accused and for seizure of 11 liquor bottles, which are alleged to be in possession of the accused.

14. Generally, in villages there will be available of all village level officers and the officials of all Departments of the Government. So, the police officials may approach any official of any Department of Government or local body other than V.R.O. or Sarpanch, to act as mediator. In the present case, the police officials did not try to secure any of those officials as mediators. Except the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the excise officials, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

15. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely on the judgment of our

Hon’ble Composite High Court in Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, reported in 1994(2) ALT

Crl.P. 69 (A.P.), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the conviction cannot be given basing on the evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. In the case on hand, except the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., police officials, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is not believable.

16. For the foregoing reasons, as there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles as alleged, Ex.P3 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P3 discloses that the contents of sample liquor bottles contain the Indian alcohol, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of 7 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

sample liquor bottles drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of the accused, and the same could not be relied upon.

17. Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution, this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.271(1) of the B.N.S.S. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s.481 of the B.N.S.S. M.Os.1 to 3 property covered under C.P.R. No.72/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: None P.W.1: Ch. Srinivasa Rao/Constable. P.W.2: V. Srinivasulu/Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- Ex.P1: Special Report. Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Confiscation Proceedings.

8 of 8 C.C.191/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: One sample bottle of officers choice elegant whisky 180 ml. M.O.2: One sample bottle of HD ultra deluxe whisky 180 ml. M.O.3: One sample bottle of Andhra gold fine whisky 180 ml.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

1 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

C.C. No. 192/2026

1. Date of Offence : 12-12-2024

2. Filing : 12-12-2024

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : 12-12-2024

4. Date of release on bail : 12-12-2024

5. Date of commencement of trial : 29-04-2026

6. Date of close of trial : 08-05-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order : 12-05-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any : Due to non-production of Witnesses. COMPLAINANT :

State represented by the P & E Inspector, Pedakurapadu. (Cr.No.160/2024)

ACCUSED:

Saripudi Yesubabu, S/o. Bhanu Prasad, 40 Years, R/o. Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal.

Section of Law : U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act.

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence/Order : In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.271(1) of the B.N.S.S. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s.481 of the B.N.S.S. M.O.1 property covered under C.P.R. No.73/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur District.

2 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

APGU1D0002102026

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM

II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

Present:- J. SUJIN KUMAR UID: AP2017CJD01053 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

C.C. No. 192 of 2026

Between:

State represented by the P & E Inspector, Prohibition & Excise, Station, Pedakurapadu.…Complainant.

And

Saripudi Yesubabu, S/o. Bhanu Prasad, 40 Years,

R/o. Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal. ...Accused.

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri I. Siva Rama Krishna learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The P & E Inspector, Pedakurapadu P.S., has filed a charge sheet in Cr.No.160/2024 of Pedakurapadu P.S, against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968.

3 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

02. The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

On 12.12.2024 at about 04.30 P.M., while P.W.2/V. Srinivasulu /Inspector along with his staff were conducting general raids at left side road margin, opposite bus stand, Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal, there they noticed the accused with possession of one white plastic bag and on seeing the police in uniform, the accused got perturbed and tried to escape, then on suspicion P.W.2 detained him with the help of his staff and on questioning the accused admitted that the said bag contains liquor bottles.

Then P.W.2 instructed P.W.1 to secure mediators but none come forward to act as mediators. Then he decided to proceed with the special report and opened the bag and found total 16 liquor bottles with torned heals of duty paid liquor. On questioning the accused replied that he has no permit or licence to sell the said liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 seized the bottles from the possession of the accused and drawn a sample for analysis by following the Excise Rules and served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused and registered the special report as F.I.R. in Cr. No.160/2024 for an offence

U/s.34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act and sent the original F.I.R. to the court and copies to all concerned. Further, P.W.2 sent the sample to the

Government Chemical Examiner for analysis and the Analyst opined that the sample contains Indian liquor and after receipt of the analysis report; after obtaining confiscation orders and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

03. This court took cognizance for the offence punishable U/s.

34(a)(1)(i) of the A.P. Excise Act.

04. Copies of case record were furnished to the accused as required

U/s.230 of B.N.S.S.

4 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

05. The accused was examined U/s.262 of the B.N.S.S. and a charge for an offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act was framed and read over to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claims for trial.

06. In order to prove the case, L.W.1/Head Constable and

L.W.2/Inspector were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. Exs.P1 to P4 and

M.O.1 are marked.

07. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.351 of the B.N.S.S. by setting forth with the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied the same and further reported that no defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

09. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution could able to bring

home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.

34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT :

To prove the offence U/sec.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused herein imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possess or sells any intoxicant in contravention of the A.P. Excise Act,1968 or any license or of permit granted or issued under this Act.

5 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

11. During the course of evidence, P.W.1/Head Constable deposed that on 12.12.2024 at about 04.30 P.M., he and his excise staff accompanied with P.W.2/Inspector for conducting general raids at opposite bus stand, Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal, there they found the accused with possession of one white plastic bag and on the instructions of P.W.2, he caught hold of the accused and on enquiry, the accused confessed that he is in possession of liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 seized total 16 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of special report and arrested the accused.

12. In addition to that P.W.2/Inspector stated that on 12.12.2024 at about 04.30 P.M., while he along with his staff were conducting general raids at opposite bus stand, Pedakurapadu Village and Mandal, there they found the accused with possession of one white plastic bag and with the assistance of his staff, he caught hold of the accused and on enquiry the accused confessed that he is in possession of liquor bottles. Then P.W.2 seized total 16 liquor bottles from the possession of the accused under the cover of special report and arrested the accused. Thereafter, he registered the special report as F.I.R. in Cr. No.160/2024 and served 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused. Later he sent sample for analysis, after receipt of confiscation proceedings and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13. During cross examination, P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that they did not issue any written summons or notices to mediators and the Ex.P1 does not contain the particulars and names of the persons to whom P.W.1 requested to act as mediators and no batch numbers or manufacturing dates of the seized liquor bottles were mentioned in Ex.P1. Furthermore, they admitted that the scene of offence was a busy locality and as seen 6 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is clear that the scene of offence is not an isolated place and there is every opportunity to P.W.1 and P.W.2 to secure the revenue officials or local inhabitants to act as mediators, for the arrest of the accused and for seizure of 16 liquor bottles, which are alleged to be in possession of the accused.

14. Generally, in villages there will be available of all village level officers and the officials of all Departments of the Government. So, the police officials may approach any official of any Department of Government or local body other than V.R.O. or Sarpanch, to act as mediator. In the present case, the police officials did not try to secure any of those officials as mediators. Except the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the excise officials, there is no other evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.

15. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely on the judgment of our

Hon’ble Composite High Court in Botcha Raju Vs. State Rep. by the

Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural Circle, reported in 1994(2) ALT

Crl.P. 69 (A.P.), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the conviction cannot be given basing on the evidence of the police officers without corroboration by disinterested witnesses. In the case on hand, except the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 i.e., police officials, there is no evidence on behalf of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, which is not believable.

16. For the foregoing reasons, as there is no convincing and satisfactory evidence to prove that the accused was found in possession of liquor bottles as alleged, Ex.P3 could not be relied upon. Though Ex.P3 discloses that the contents of sample liquor bottle contains the Indian alcohol, as there is no convincing evidence to prove that the contents of 7 of 7 C.C.192/2026

II A.C.J.(JR.D.), SAP.

sample liquor bottle drawn from seized liquor bottles said to be found from the possession of the accused, and the same could not be relied upon.

17. Therefore, in view of the evidence let in by the prosecution, this court opines that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt.

18. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.34(a)(1) of the A.P. Excise Act and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s.271(1) of the B.N.S.S. The bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/s.481 of the B.N.S.S. M.O.1 property covered under C.P.R. No.73/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: None P.W.1: B. Ravi Kumar/Head Constable. P.W.2: V. Srinivasulu/Inspector.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: --Nil-- Ex.P1: Special Report. Ex.P2: First Information Report. Ex.P3: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P4: Confiscation Proceedings.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: One sample bottle of royal lancer whisky 180 ml.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

1 of 4 P.R.C. 20/2025 II A.C.J.(Jr. D.), SAP.

APGU1D0021612025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS CUM II ADDITIONAL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), SATTENAPALLI.

Present: - J. SUJIN KUMAR UID: AP2017CJD01053 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Cum II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

P.R.C. No. 20 of 2025

Cr. No.06/2020 of AMARAVATHI P.S. Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi P.S. …Complainant.

And

1. Enumula Ankamma, W/o. Durga Rao, 32 Years,

2. Peravali Devasahayam @ Deva, S/o. Koteswara Rao, 30 Years, Both are R/o. Amaravathi Village and Mandal. …Accused.

This case is coming on 19.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B. Sydaiah and of Sri M. Hanumantha Rao learned counsels for A1 and A2 and upon perusing the material papers available on record and having stood over till this day, for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi

P.S., has filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 in Cr.No.06 of 2020 for the offence punishable U/sec.306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief facts of the Charge Sheet are as follows:-

LW1 is a resident of near Sandhya Theater, Amaravathi village and Mandal, Guntur District and living on coolie works. L.W.1 got married with L.W.2 and they were blessed with five children. The deceased is their third son of L.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased is also living on coolie works.

L.Ws. 1 and 2 performed the marriages of three children. JCL, who is resident 2 of 4 P.R.C. 20/2025 II A.C.J.(Jr. D.), SAP.

of Madduru Down, Amaravathi village, is also doing coolie works. The deceased got acquaintance with JCL. at their work place, they fell in love and on 22.06.2019 L.Ws. 1 and 2 performed the marriage of the deceased and

JCL in the presence of the elders at their house. JCL is daughter of A1 and

A2. Since the marriage, A1, A2 and JCL used to embarrass the deceased mentally, used to altercate with the deceased for set up their family at their house. As the deceased could not bear the torture, within two months of the marriage, the deceased has been residing at the parental house of JCL.

Since then, A1, A2 and JCL has not been caring of the deceased and used to oppose him for everything. When the deceased informed the same to

L.Ws. 1 and 2, they used to persuade him. After two months, A1, A2 and JCL accelerated with the deceased to humiliate with their taunting words for everything. When the deceased questioned A1, A2 and JCL for harassing, though he married JCL willfully, A1, A2 and JCL asked the deceased to die by consuming any poison, then can get mental piece, if he die, and also proclaimed that A1, A2 and JCL would perform another marriage to JCL with another person, who earn huge money. The deceased used to inform the same to L.Ws. 1 and 2 and his friends also. Later on 02.01.2020 the deceased came down to the house of L.Ws. 1 and 2 by taking his clothes.

When L.Ws. 1 and 2 asked the deceased for coming to their house, the deceased informed that A1, A2 and JCL insulted him, altercated with him for nothing just reason, asked him not to show his face to them, asked him to die by consuming any poison and sent him from the house. The deceased got mental sting to their humiliation and when the deceased informed L.Ws. 1 and 2 that it is better to die rather than living, L.Ws. 1 and 2 and their family members persuade the deceased. Since then, the deceased has been in mental agony. On the morning of 04.01.2020 8.30 A.M the deceased went off from their house for mason works. L.W.1 also went to Bandachenu Colony as one of their relative was died. Afternoon at about 1.30 P.M, the deceased fell down at steps, on the bank of River Krishna, beside Saibaba Temple by 3 of 4 P.R.C. 20/2025 II A.C.J.(Jr. D.), SAP.

taking rat poison. Having come to know about the same, when L.Ws. 2 to 8.

along with some others rushed there, form was oozing from the mouth of the deceased and a rat poison tin was found in his pocket. Immediately, when they shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Amaravathi, while the doctors were rendering treatment, at 5.10 P.M, the deceased took his last breath. As A1, A2 and JCL abetted the deceased to die by subjecting him for mental torture, as the the deceased disgusted with his life, decided to put an end to his life, committed suicide by consuming Rat killing granules. A1, A2 and JCL are responsible for the death of the deceased.

LW-15 received a report from LW-1, registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 06/2020 U/s 306 r/w 34 IPC and submitted FIR copies to all concerned officers and taken up investigation into this case.

During the course of investigation, LW-15 visited the scene of offence, inspected the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene. Also drafted scene observation report in the presence of LWs. 9 & 10 duly attested by them. He also secured the presence of LWs. I to 8, examined them U/s 161 Cr.P.C and recorded their detailed statements in case diary part-II in the presence of LWs 11 to 13 and dully attested by them in inquest report and sent the corpse to LW14 for autopsy.

During the course of investigation LW-15 arrested the accused A1 and A2 remand. LW-14 obtained preliminary P.M. report, preserved MOs, and seized materials at the scene of offence are sent to RFSL, Mangalagiri for analysis and report. LW-15 received analysis report from RFSL,

Mangalagiri LW-14 stating that the deceased died due to: "Rodenticide

Poisoning". LW-16 Prepared Charge Sheet. Thus, it is evident that the accused A1 and A2 are liable for punishment under section 306 r/w 34 of the

IPC. Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the material on record and charge sheet the case was taken on file against A1 and A2 and numbered as PRC. 20 of 2025 U/sec.

306 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.

4 of 4 P.R.C. 20/2025 II A.C.J.(Jr. D.), SAP.

4. The copies of documents, relied on by the prosecution have been furnished to A1 and A2 as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence allegedly committed by A1 and A2 U/sec. 306 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. are exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case is committed to the court of Sessions.

5. In the result, the case against A1 and A2 are committed to the

Court of Sessions as per section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 are on bail are ordered to be continued on bail during and until the conclusion of trial in the

Court of Sessions U/Sec.209 (b) Cr.P.C. Office is directed to submit the entire case record and case property under C.P.R. No.181/2025 to the Court of

Sessions U/Sec.209 (c) Cr.P.C. Notify the Public Prosecutor about the

committal of the case U/Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C. Heard A1 and A2 with regard to means to engage a counsel in the Court of Sessions, they submitted that they got sufficient means to engage counsel during the course of trial in the Court of Sessions. Bind over A1 and A2. A1 and A2 are directed to appear before

Hon'ble Sessions Court, after receipt of summons.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar.

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-- Nil --

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar .

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.

// TRUE COPY //

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

CUM II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SATTENAPALLI.