Sri J. Vikram

Page 1 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Present: J.Vikram, IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Wednesday, the 22 ndday of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1478 of 2024

From what court this appeal is preferredXII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.No.12392 of 2022

Number of the appealCrl. Appeal No.1478 of 2024

Name and description of the Mr.Ail Narsaiah S/ o.A.Pichaiah,Aged about Appellant/Accused No.152 years, Occ: business, R/o.H.No.3-6- 40/B.Indira Nagar Ramanthapur, Hyderabad- 500013.

Name and description of the Respondent / 1. Mr.Ashok Talla, S/o.T.Yadaiah,Aged about Complainant and Respondent/Accused No.254 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.2-1-28, Old Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044.

2. Mr.Kanduri Sridhar S/o.K.Vishwanadham, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o.2- 2-734/1/A, Pochamma Basti, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.

The sentence and law under which In the result, accused no. 1 is found guilty for conviction was imposed in the lower courtthe offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as such, Accused no 1 is convicted under section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the said offence. The accused shall also pay a sum of Rs. 4,38,200/- (which shall include an interest to be payable at rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of complaint in court till the date of pronouncement of

Page 2 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 judgment) as compensation to the complainant Under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within two months from today, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the Criminal Appeal is Reversed, if modified the Modification:dismissed confirming the impugned Judgment dated: 10-12-2024 in

CC.No.12392/2022 passed by the

learned XII Judicial Magistrate for

First Class, Hyderabad, for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The office is directed to send back the case records duly indexed to the trial court forthwith following the circular issued by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The trial court is directed to implement the judgment. Issue NBW against the Appellant/Accused.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation20.12.2024

Filing20.12.2024

Notice issued by the Court21.12.2024

Appearance of the Appellant04.02.2025

Hearing30.01.2026

JUDGMENT22.04.2026

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of Sri.J.V.Ramana Murthy, Counselfor the Appellant/Accused No.1 and Sri E.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

Page 3 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C by the

Appellant/Accused, who was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned XII Judicial Magistrate for First

Class, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court” in short) praying the Court to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court vide judgment dated: 10-12-2024 in CC No.12392 of 2022 by the trial Court.

2.For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of the facts, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter be referred as earlier in the case,

before the trial Court.

3.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

a)The Complainant and Accused No.2 are known to each other as they are neighbors. Accused No.1 through Accused No.2 approached the complainant and requested the complainant for a hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- in the 2nd week of May, 2019 stating that he has to send money to his (A1’s) son, who went to abroad. Believing his words and his child’s need, the complainant extended the hand loan of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of cash and both A1 and A2 promised the complainant to pay back the hand loan within 2 or maximum 3 months period.

On the same day upon receiving the said amount, Accused No.1 has executed a promissory note dated: 22-05-2019 for Rs.3,50,000/- with a promise to pay along with interest @ 3% per month. After lapse of time on repeated requests, accused never returned the money and dragged the issue till March, 2020 and finally on 10-07-2020, the Accused No.1 has issued a cheque bearing

Page 4 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

No.114352, dated: 10-07-2020, for Rs.3,50,000/-, drawn on Syndicate Bank, Jai

Santhosh Nagar Colony Branch, Hyderabad,towards payment of principal amount and further requested to pay the interest amount by next month i.e. by 15th August, 2020. Believing the words of Accused No.1, the complainant deposited the cheque on 13-07-2020 in his bank i.e. State Bank of India,

Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad, but the same was dishonored with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo dated: 15-07-2020.

Thereafter, the complainant got issued a demand legal notice dated: 28-07- 2020 to the accused under Section 138 of N.I. Act to pay the dishonor cheque amount and it was received by both the accused on 30-07-2020 and the amount was not paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Thus, the accused committed the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

4.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and took cognizance against the accused. On appearance of the accused 1 and 2 before the trial court, they were furnished with the copies of documents and all the annexures thereto in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.PC. The accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.PC and they having understood the same, denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The A1 and A2 were defended by their Advocate.

5.During course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and in support of his case in got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents.

Page 5 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

6.On completion of the entire evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused 1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, explaining them the incriminating evidence appear against them and the accused 1 and 2 having understood the same, denied the evidence and further stated that the same to be false. The accused persons did not chose to lead their side defence evidence.

Even no documents were got marked in support of their defence.

7.After completion of trial, the trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused, passed impugned judgment on 10-12-2024 and found the accused

No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and convicted him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs.4,38,200/- (which shall include an interest to be payable @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint in court till the date of pronouncement of judgment) as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within two months from the date of order, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

8. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal with the following grounds:

-that the trial court relied more on assumptions and presumptions to convict the accused rather on the facts and also failed to observe the signature of the appellant on the acknowledgment (Ex.P6) which was quite different comparing with the signatures Exs.P1 and P2.

Page 6 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 -that the trial court failed to see that there is no legally enforceable debt or other liability vide explanation below Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the legal notice (Ex.P2) is unserved against the accused. -that the court below ought to have seen that the presumption under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not available to the complainant as he did not prove his case against the accused.

Hence, prayed that this Court to set aside the Judgment of conviction

dated: 10-12-2024, in C.C.No.12392 of 2022, passed by the learned XII

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad, by allowing this Appeal and

acquitting the appellant of the said offence, in the interests of justice.

9.On the registration of the appeal, a due notice was ordered to the respondent and same was served. On receipt of the material papers from the trial Court, hearing of appeal was taken up. During course of hearing on this appeal, both sides relied upon same oral and documentary evidence adduced

before the trial Court and submitted their detailed arguments by referring to

the material documents received from the trial Court, so as to suit to their respective stands.

10.The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused filed written arguments submitting that the learned Magistrate did not scrutinize the exhibits and not gone through the keen observation of the signature of the Appellant, wherein the variation is clearly found with an naked eye by comparing the signatures on

Ex.Pl with Ex.P2, that the the learned Magistrate has not observed the 'demand' in the Legal Notice, which is the main ingredient of Section 138 of NI

Act and moreover the Ex.P1 was original handed over a postdated cheque to

Page 7 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 the complainant in the year 2019 itself, but not issued on 10-07-2020 which is clearly in Appellant's Bank Statement by comparing the other cheque numbers issued in the year 2019, so it is clear that the Ex.P1 was not issued in the year 2020. In fact the said Ex.P1 was issued while receiving the alleged cheque amount on 22-05-2019 at the complainant's office.

10(a).It is further submitted that the signature on Ex.P2 by the appellant and the promissory note is not executed by the appellant at any point of time.

Even though the name of the security was not mentioned in Ex P2 but not signed by the security holder or the witness to the document. It is pertinent to mention here and brought to the notice of the Hon'ble court that the signature was forged by the complainant on Ex.P2 which clearly found that the strokes of the signature is quite different with Ex.P1. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has not observed clearly that the signature on Ex.P6 is also forged one and not tallied with Ex.P1 and also not observed the Postal Stamp on Ex.P6 that if appellant is rejected / refused the legal notice the postal authority will put the stamp and will endorse on it, but in the present case the

Ex.P4 is not been received by the appellant as such no reply was taken place.

10(b).It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the plea that the complainant and has failed to show the "legally enforceable debt" of the cheque amount in his Income Tax returns and failed to file the Income Tax returns for the year 2019-2020. Further, the learned

Magistrate failed to observe that, the promissory note Ex.P2 did not contain the

Receipt of payment or receiving the alleged cheque amount and the complainant has admitted the said fact in the cross examination also. It is to be

Page 8 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 mentioned and brought to the notice before this Hon'ble court that the complainant being a practicing 'Advocate’ not aware that the payment of cash above Rs.20,000/- should be made by way of cheque only.

10(c).It is further submitted that, in fact the appellant herein was paid the interest of Rs.56,000/- on 20-01-2020 in the presence of A2 namely Kanduri

Sreedhar Goud (who is acquitted) and also paid the cheque (Ex.P1) amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- on 09-02-2020, and on the same day the appellant asked the complainant to return the cheque but the complainant did not return the cheque, meanwhile due to COVID-19 Pandemic situation, the appellant herein forgotten to receive the cheque from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has filed the case against the appellant and succeeded in trial with all false allegations and forged documents in the court of law.

10(d).It is further submitted that, in fact the counsel for the accused in

Trial Court was failed to brought before the reality before the Trial Court and the failed to adduce the defence evidence, as such, the Trial Court failed to observe the above said facts and grounds to justify the case in favour of the appellant herein. Further, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable. The Appellant has raised a "probable defense by highlighting the inconsistencies in the signatures (Ex.P1, Ex.P2, and Ex.P6) and the Complainant's failure to reflect the alleged loan in his Income Tax Returns.

10(e).In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

Appellant/Accused relied on the following case laws.

Page 9 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

1.Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the "possession of a cheque" does not automatically prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The court must look into the financial capacity of the complainant and the conduct of the parties.

2.Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418:

The Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the accused is able to raise a probable defense which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt," the prosecution can fail. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant to discharge his burden of proof.

3.K. Subramani vs. K. Damodara Naidu (2015) 1 SCC 99:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused where the complainant failed to prove his source of income or financial capacity to lend the huge amount in question.

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned facts and legal precedents, the judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside as it is based on assumptions rather than the weight of evidence.

11.Heard both sides.

12.Now the points arises for consideration are:

(i) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 10-12-2024 in CC No.12392 of 2022, in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, suffers from any infirmity or illegality for any interference of this Court?

(ii) To what result?

POINT NO.1:

Page 10 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

13.Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged under Sections 118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be en-cashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:

1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharge of said debt or liability;

2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.

3.The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and

4. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.

If the above said conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause of action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of bounced cheque and as per Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.

14.It is also one of the essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or

Page 11 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 liability. Sections. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., under Section 118 of N.I. Act, a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of

Negotiable Instrument. Even Section 139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court of India in catena of decisions.

15.Taking into view the above provisions of law, this court now proceed to appreciate the facts on hand. In this case, the Accused has not disputed his acquaintance with the complainant and also not disputed the issuance of cheque i.e Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant and signature found on Ex.P1 is that of his signature. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonored for the reason of "Funds

Insufficient" since as matter on record, proved by return memo i.e.Ex.P3 issued by the concerned bank dated: 15-07-2020, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheques in question was presented within its validity period and dishonored as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, the cheques in question i.e.

Ex.P1 belongs to the account of the accused and he has not denied his signature which appearing on Ex.P1. It is also not disputed by the Accused with regard to service of legal notice issued by the complainant as per Ex.P4 and

Page 12 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024 receipt of the said notice as per Exs.P5 and P6 i.e., postal receipt and postal acknowledgment, hence the complainant has proved that, he has complied the mandatory requirements as required under Section 138(a) to (c) of N.I.Act.

18.In the light of the above facts and circumstance and on a thorough re- examination of the material on record and the specific grounds raised by the

Appellant, this Court finds that the Appellant’s contentions lack legal and evidentiary merit. The primary defense centered on the alleged discrepancy in signatures across Ex.P1 (original Promissory Note), Ex.P2 (original Cheque), and Ex.P6 (Postal Acknowledgment). However, the Appellant failed to take any proactive steps during the trial, such as seeking an expert opinion under

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to substantiate the claim of forgery. A mere oral denial or a visual comparison by a layperson cannot override the statutory presumption in favor of the holder of a negotiable instrument when the signature on the cheque itself is admitted.

19.Regarding the Appellant's reliance on his bank statement to suggest the cheque was issued as a "security" in 2019 rather than in 2020, this Court observes that once the issuance of the cheque and the signature are admitted, the "time of handing over" becomes secondary to the "legal liability" existing at the time of presentation. Under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the law mandates a presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt. The

Appellant’s failure to prove the repayment of the alleged loan despite claiming to have paid Rs.3,50,000/- on 09-02-2020 renders this defense a mere "plausible explanation" without the requisite "probable proof."

Page 13 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

20.Furthermore, the Appellant sought to rely on an affidavit of Kanduri

Sreedhar Goud (A2), dated 31-03-2026, asserting that the complainant had already received the money and filed a false case. This Court finds this piece of evidence to be an afterthought. Neither the Appellant nor A2 chose to lead defense evidence or enter the witness box during the trial. A defense not raised at the earliest opportunity (during the Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination or the

Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement) cannot be entertained at the appellate stage to overturn a well-reasoned conviction.

21.The contention regarding the Complainant’s failure to reflect the loan in

Income Tax Returns does not, by itself, vanish the debt. While it may invite action from revenue authorities, it does not absolve the drawer of the liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, especially when the execution of the

Promissory Note (Ex.P1) and the issuance of the Cheque (Ex.P2) establish a clear creditor-debtor relationship.

22.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly applied the mandatory presumptions. The Appellant has failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt through any cogent evidence. Accordingly, the

Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

POINT NO.2:

23.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned

Judgment dated: 10-12-2024 in CC.No.12392/2022 passed by the learned XII

Page 14 of 14

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1478 of 2024

Judicial Magistrate for First Class, Hyderabad, for the offence punishable under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The office is directed to send back the case records duly indexed to the trial court forthwith following the circular issued by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The trial court is directed to implement the judgment. Issue NBW against the Appellant/Accused.

Typed direct to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.1 of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

// T.C.F.B.O//

Sr. Superintendent

Copy to :

1. The XII Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Page 1 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; HYDERABAD.

Present: J.Vikram, IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

Tuesday, the 21stday of April, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1312 of 2024

From what court this appeal is preferredV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

Number of the case in that CourtC.C.NI.13518 of 2022

Number of the appealCrl. Appeal No.1312 of 2024

Name and description of the Sri. G.Vinod Goud S/o. Gouri Krishna Goud Appellant/AccusedAged 37 years Occ: Business(Real Estate) R/o.H.No 1-111,Plot No.27,APAT Colony. Kammaguda, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District-501510. And also, at: Manikanta fast food centre,Near Ambedkar Statue, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Turkayamjal, Ranga Reddy District-501510.

Name and description of the Respondent / Sri. Gunji Krishna S/o Late Gunji Kistanna Aged Complainantabout 60 years,R/o.H.No.1-1-130, Road No.1,Shrungeri Colony, Kothapet, Medchal Malkajgiri District, Telangana State, Pin code- 500035.

The sentence and law under which In the result, the Accused is found guilty for conviction was imposed in the lower courtthe offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I.Act and as such the accused is convicted of the said offence u/sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and shall undergo Simple imprisonement for a period of one year and directed to pay fine amount of Rs.3,05,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs five thousand only) and in default of the payment of the same he shall undergo S.I for a period of 3 months for the offence u/Sec.138 of

Page 2 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024

N.I.Act. Out of the fine imposed of Rs.3,05,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs five thousand only) an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the State and remaining fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall go the complainant as compensation u/Sec.357 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C.

Whether confirmed, modified or In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment Reversed, if modified the Modification:

dated 27.03.2024 passed by learned V

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Hyderabad, in CC NI.13518 of 2022. The office is directed to send the case records to the concerned Court following the circular issued by the

Hon’bleMetropolitanSessions

Judge,Hyderabad. The Court below

is directed to implement the judgment. Issue NBW against the Appellant/Accused.

DATE OR ON WHICH

Presentation11.09.2024

Filing11.09.2024

Notice issued by the Court18.09.2024

Appearance of the Appellant28.10.2024

Hearing20.01.2026

JUDGMENT21.04.2026

This appeal is coming on for hearing before me, upon perusing the petition and record of evidence and proceedings and of appeal and upon duly considering the same after hearing the arguments of M/s.B.Kishan Nayak, Counselfor the Appellant/Accused and Sri V.K.Shiva Shanker, Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

Page 3 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C by the

Appellant/Accused, who was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court” in short) praying the

Court to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court vide judgment dated: 27-03-2024 in CC No.13518 of 2022 by the trial Court.

2.For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of the facts, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter be referred as earlier in the case, before the trial Court.

3.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

a)The complainant and the accused are well acquainted with each other for the past 15 years and the accused, citing dire financial need and requirements for his real estate business, approached the complainant on 10-09-2019 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as a hand loan from the complainant. The complainant, in good faith and trust, provided Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused on 10-09-2019, and on the same day a Promissory Note was executed by the accused to repay the amount by the end of December 2019 with an interest @ 2% per month with witness signature of Sri. M. Ashok. Despite the verbal assurance from the accused to repay the entire sum within 3 months along with interest, the accused failed to repay the amount. The complainant out of their close relationship refrained from demanding interest on the principal amount and only requesting the repayment of the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Upon persistent requests made by the complainant, the accused issued a

Page 4 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 cheque bearing No.000004, dated: 21-01-2020, drawn on Andhra Bank,

Turkyamjal, Sagar Road, Hyderabad and instructed the complainant to present the cheque for encashment on 30-01-2020. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque in his savings account at Syndicate Bank, Khairtabad

Branch on 30-01-2020. But, the said cheque was returned on 03-02-2020 with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide cheque return memo. The complainant tried to contact the accused, but the accused evaded communication, displaying an intention to deceive and escape liability. Since the accused failed to honour the cheque, the complainant got issued s statutory demand notice dated: 28-02-2020 as per the provisions of Negotiable

Instruments Act via Registered Post Acknowledgment due, demanding payment of the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

Inspite of deemed service of the notice on 09-03-2020, the accused neither paid the dishonored cheque amount nor gave reply to the notice and thus thereby became liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act.

4.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and took cognizance against the accused. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, he was furnished with the copies of documents and all the annexures thereto in compliance of Section 207 of Cr.PC. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.PC and he having understood the same, denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was defended by their Advocate.

Page 5 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024

5.During course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and in support of his case in got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents.

6.On completion of the entire evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, explaining him the incriminating evidence appear against him and the accused having understood the same, denied the evidence and further stated that the same to be false. The accused did not chose to lead his side defence evidence. Even no documents were got marked in support of his defence.

7.After completion of trial, the trial Court after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused, passed impugned judgment on 27-03-2024 and found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and convicted him under Section 255(2) of Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,05,000/- and in default of the payment of the same, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Out of the fine imposed i.e. Rs.3,05,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/- shall go to the state and remaining fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- shall go to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

8. Aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal with the following grounds:

-that the trial court relied more on assumptions and presumptions to convict the accused rather on the facts.

Page 6 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 -that the trial court ought to have seen that the complainant fraudulently obtained the cheque from the accused and hence the cheque does not have legally enforceable debt or other liability. -that the trial court ought to have seen that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not available to the complainant as he did not prove his case against the accused. -the the trial court ought to have seen that it is settled principle that one the accused taking the plea that the cheque was not issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability then the complainant is bound to prove the circumstances under which the cheque was given in his favour and that the same is issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt. Unless this initial burden is discharged by the complainant, the presumption available under Section 139 cannot be made use of against the accused.

Hence, prayed that this Court to set aside the Judgment of conviction

dated: 27-03-2024, in C.C.No.13518 of 2022, passed by the learned V

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by allowing this Appeal and acquitting the appellant of the said offence, in the interests of justice.

9.On the registration of the appeal, a due notice was ordered to the respondent and same was served. On receipt of the material papers from the trial Court, hearing of appeal was taken up. During course of hearing on this appeal, both sides relied upon same oral and documentary evidence adduced

before the trial Court and submitted their detailed arguments by referring to

the material documents received from the trial Court, so as to suit to their respective stands.

10.The learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant filed written arguments submitting that the Respondent/Complainant had fulfilled all the

Page 7 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Hew further submitted that despite of giving sufficient opportunities, the defence counsel has not addressed his arguments. The Hon'ble Trial Court perused the entire material available on record, have come to a conclusion, that once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 N.I.Act is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the

Appellant/Accused to raise the probable defence during the course of trial, in this case the Hon'ble Court granted ample opportunities for the Accused/

Appellant to put forth his defence. But the Appellant/Accused failed to put forth his defence and ultimately the Trail Court convicted the Appellant for the offence under section 138 after considering the documentary evidence by examining the PW1 and considering the arguments of the counsel for the

Complainant/Respondent. The Accused/Appellant filed the present Appeal against the Judgment passed in C.C.No.13518 of 2022 and in the present Appeal also the Appellant/Accused did not have any respect to obey the orders of this

Hon'ble Court this Hon'ble court directed the Appellant/Accused to deposit 20%

of the awarded amount even then also the Appellant/Accused did not comply the orders of this court and evaded to deposit the same. Futher, the neither the

Accused/Appellant nor his counsel in the present appeal appeared after the interim order passed in the appeal. The Appellant/Accused wontonly harassing the Respondent/Complainant in one way or the other in order to delay the proceedings and waste the precious time of the Hon'ble court.

10(a). It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Trial Court gave detailed preposition of law at Para 8, 9, and 10 of the Judgment in CC.NI.13518 of 2022

Page 8 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 with regard to in raising presumptions contemplated under Sections 118 & 139 of N.I.Act, Hence absolutely there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the

Appellant/Accused and not even cross examined the PW1 even though many opportunities were granted by the Hon'ble Trial Court and in the absence of any contrary evidence the unchallenged testimony of the Respondent/Complainant has to be believed.

10(b). In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

Respondent/Complainant relied on following Judgments:

(i)2009 (3) ALT (CRI) 286 (S.B.) D. Atchyutha Reddy is State of A.P. & Another

(ii) 2005 (1) ALD (OH) 638 (AP) V.Munnikrishniah Vs C. Janakiram Naidu Another

(iii) 2001 (2) ALD (01) 824 (SC) K.N Beena Vs Muniyappan & Another

12.There is no representation on behalf of the Appellant/Accused inspite of passing conditional order. Hence arguments on behalf of the Appellant/Accused treated as heard.

13. Heard and perused the entire material available including the written arguments submitted by the Respondent/Counsel.

14.Now the points arises for consideration are:

(i) Whether the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 27-03-2024 in CC No.13518 of 2022, in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, suffers from any infirmity or illegality for any interference of this Court?

(ii) To what result?

POINT NO.1:

Page 9 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024

15.Before appreciation of the facts and oral and documentary evidence of the present case, it is relevant to mention that under criminal jurisprudence prosecution is required to establish guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts however, a proceedings under Section 138 of N.I.Act is quasi criminal in nature. In these proceedings proof beyond all reasonable doubt is subject to presumptions as envisaged under Sections 118, 139 and 136 of N.I.Act. An essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I.Act is that, whether a person issues cheque to be en-cashed and the cheque so issued is towards payment of debt or liability and if it is returned as unpaid for want of funds, then the person issuing such cheque shall be deemed to have been committed an offence. The offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act pre-supposes conditions for prosecution of an offence which are as under:

1. Existence of legally enforceable debt or liability and issuance of cheque in discharge of said debt or liability;

2. Cheque shall be presented for payment within specified time i.e., from the date of issue before expiry of its validity.

3.The holder shall issue a notice demanding payment in writing to the drawer within one month from the date of receipt of information of the bounced cheque and

4. The drawer inspite of demand notice fails to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of such notice.

If the above said conditions are satisfied by holder in due course gets cause of action to launch prosecution against the drawer in respect of bounced cheque and as per Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act, the complaint has to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arise to file complaint.

16.It is also one of the essential ingredient of Section 138 of N.I.Act that, a cheque in question must have been issued towards legally recoverable debt or

Page 10 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 liability. Sections. 118 and 139 of N.I.Act envisages certain presumptions i.e., under Section 118 of N.I. Act, a presumption shall be raised regarding 'consideration' 'date' 'transfer' 'endorsement' and holder in course of Negotiable

Instrument. Even Section 139 of the Act are rebuttable presumptions shall be raised that, the cheque in question was issued regarding discharge of a legally recoverable or enforceable debt and these presumptions are mandatory presumptions that are required to be raised in cases of negotiable instrument, but the said presumptions are not conclusive and or rebuttable one, this proportion of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in catena of decisions.

17.Taking into view the above provisions of law, this court now proceed to appreciate the facts on hand. In this case, the Accused has not disputed his acquaintance with the complainant and also not disputed the issuance of cheque i.e Ex.P1 in favour of the complainant and signature found on Ex.P1 is that of his signature. It is also not in dispute by the accused that, the cheque in question presented for encashment and dishonored for the reason of "Funds

Insufficient" since as matter on record, proved by return memo i.e.Ex.P3 issued by the concerned bank dated: 03-02-2020, therefore it is a matter on record and has been proved that, the cheques in question was presented within its validity period and dishonored as per the bank endorsement issued by the banker of accused. It is also not in dispute that, the cheques in question i.e. Ex.P1 belongs to the account of the accused and he has not denied his signatures which appearing on Ex.P1. It is also not disputed by the Accused with regard to service of legal notice issued by the complainant as per Ex.P4 and receipt of the

Page 11 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 said notice as per Exs.P5 and P6 i.e., postal acknowledgment, hence the complainant has proved that, he has complied the mandatory requirements as required under Section 138(a) to (c) of N.I.Act.

18.In the light of above facts and circumstances and under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, once the issuance of the cheque and the signature are admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The burden of proof shifts entirely to the accused to provide a "probable defense." In this case, the appellant offered mere denials without any supporting evidence or cross-examination, which is insufficient to displace the statutory presumption.

The record shows that a legal demand notice (Ex.P4) was served on the accused, yet he did not chose to give reply to it. In judicial precedent, the failure of an accused to reply to a statutory notice, despite receipt, allows the court to draw an adverse inference. This silence suggests that the accused had no valid defense or explanation regarding the debt at the earliest available opportunity. Further, The failure of the Appellant/Accused to comply with this

Court’s interim direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount (as per

Section 148 of the N.I. Act) further weakens his standing. This provision was specifically designed to prevent frivolous appeals and ensure that the complainant is not deprived of the fruits of the trial court's judgment during the pendency of the appeal. Further, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., where the incriminating evidence was clearly explained to him.

Despite this, he did not chose to lead any defense evidence or examine any witnesses (such as the witness to the Promissory Note, Sri M. Ashok, if he

Page 12 of 12

Fair Judgment in Crl.A.No.1312 of 2024 intended to dispute it). The "unchallenged testimony" of the complainant (PW1) therefore carries full evidentiary weight. Failure of the Appellant/Accused to rebut the mandatory presumptions, the lack of response to the statutory demand notice, and the total absence of any evidence to support the claim of fraudulent acquisition of the cheque, this court finds no merit in the grounds of appeal. This Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the V

Metropolitan Magistrate, in CC No. 13518 of 2022 dated: 27-03-2024, is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

POINT NO.2:

19.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned

Judgment dated: 27-03-2024 in CC.No.13518/2022 passed by the learned V

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The office is directed to send back the case records duly indexed to the trial court forthwith following the circular issued by the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The trial court is directed to implement the judgment. Issue NBW against the Appellant/Accused.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer-Gr.1 of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

// T.C.F.B.O// Sr. Superintendent

Copy to :

1. The V Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad

1 SC No.65 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri J.Vikram,

IV Additional Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

TUESDAY , THE 12 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

SESSIONS CASE NO. 65 OF 2020

(in PRC No.163 of 2019 in Cr.No.287 of 2018 of PS Saifabad,Hyderabad)

Committed by I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyder-

abad.

Crime Number and Police Station287 of 2018

P.S.,Saifabad, Hyderabad.

Name & description of the A1. Mohd Ahmed Ali, S/o. Mohd. Magdoom

accusedAli, age 20 years, Occ Auto Driver, R/o

H.No 8-3-228/678/5/162/A/220, Sanjay Nagar, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

A2. Mohd Azhar, S/o Mohd Raheemuddin, age

19 years, occ painting, R/o.H.No. 8-

34228/678/980/7, back side of Kabrasthan, Sri

Ram Nagar, yousufguda, Hyderabad, N/o back

side of Bus stand Baliki District, Karnataka State.

A3. Mohammed Ibrahim @Babbu S/o Mohd

Ismail, age 24 years, occ Auto Driver present

residing at Millath nagar, Gulbargah of

Karnataka state in Hyderabad R/o Sabda Nagar,

Front lane of Badi Masjid, Borabanda,

Hyderabad N/o Madeena Masjid Colony,

Chandapur (V), Chincholy TQ, Gulbarga district

of Karnataka state.

A4. Mohd Sahil, S/o. Mohd Shakeel, age 23 years, Occ Auto Driver, R/o. H NO 10-5-243, Ahmed Nagar Opp Gray yards, First Lancer, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

A5: Mohd Shah @ Taufig S/o Mohd Younus, age 19 years, occp: student, R/o H No 8 32l67/466, near Ibrahim Khaleelullaha Masjid, Phase I, Habeeb Fathima Nagar, tousufguda, Hyderabad.

A6.Syed liyaz, S/o Syed Reyaz, age 19 years,

2 SC No.65 of 2020

occ: sales men, R/oH No 8-3-228/678/1447, 2nd

lane, Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad.

A7. Abdul Nawaaz @ Mohd Nawaz, S/o. Abdul Khaleel @ Mohd Khaleel, age 19 years, Occ Auto Driver, R/o. H No 8-3-169/156, Near Leader Anantaiah residence, Indira Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, N/o. Near Madina Masjid, Ramaiah Bowli, MBNR town, Mahaboob Nagar District of Telangana State.

Name and description of the complainantThe State represented by Sub- Inspector of Po-

lice, P.S.,Saifabad, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. K. Srivani, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri.T.Srinivas, learned counsel for the

A1,A2,A6,A7, Sri.B.J.Reddy, learned counsel

for A3, Sri.CVKD Shastry, learned counsel for

A4 and Sri.K.Saleem, learned counsel for A5.

Offence chargedUnder Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtAccused are found not guilty.

ResultIn the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as con- templated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. Auto which is given to the interim custody of its registered owner shall be made absolute and the other auto which is in the safe custody of police, shall be returned to its registered owner on proper identification and ac- knowledgment, after the lapse of appeal period.

3 SC No.65 of 2020

This case is coming on 12.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the

presence of Smt. K. Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the

State/Complainant and of Sri.T.Srinivas, learned counsel for the

A1,A2,A6,A7, Sri.B.J.Reddy, learned counsel for A3, Sri.CVKD Shastry,

learned counsel for A4 and Sri.K.Saleem, learned counsel for A5 upon

perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having

stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the follow-

ing:-

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

1.The Detective Inspector of Police, PS Saifabad, Hyderabad, has filed a charge sheet against the Accused (A1 to A7) in Crime No.287/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :-

(a)On 21-06-2018 at 08.00 hours, the complainant/victim lodged a complaint with the police of PS Saifabad stating that on 20-06-2018 at about 22:50 hours, he went to Madhapur on TVS Jupiter two wheeler vehicle bearing No. TS-02EM-1747 to meet his friend for purchasing cosmetics materials. After completion of his work, at about 23:45 hours, he was returning from there to go to Amberpet. On the way when he reached Mythrivanam signal point, Ameerpet and waiting for signal, meantime one unknown person shouted, on that complainant turned back and saw that one person signaled him, but due to green signal at traffic signal point, the complainant left from there. After that he passed from Panjagutta, Khairtabad

Flyover and when he came near Liberty signal point at around 00:45 hours on 21-06-2018, on red signal he stopped his bike, meantime one unknown auto came from back side and obstructed him by stopping their auto in front of his bike and three persons got down from the auto and came near to him. Out of them one

4 SC No.65 of 2020

person beaten him on head from back side with hands and another person taken his bike keys from ignition and another third person called to someone. Immediately 05 persons came near complainant and beaten him and forcibly dragged him into their auto. After that they started beating him in the auto while going towards

Medhipatnam and also from there they went to Erragadda. Further, they took cash of Rs.1000/- from his pocket and left him at Erragadda. Due to which, the complainant went to S.R.Nagar Police Station, LWs 2 & 3 sent him to Gandhi hospital for treatment along with LW4/Home Guard of PS S.R. Nagar. Hyderabad and taken treatment vide MLC No. 045677. After returning from Hospital, the complainant came to PS Saifabad along with said LW4 for lodging a complaint against above said persons. The complainant stated that if he sees them once again he can identify them. Hence, requested to take necessary action against those unknown (09) persons as per law who had obstructed him, forcibly taken him in auto, beaten him and took his cash and restore the same as early as possible.

(b).As per the contents of the above complaint, PW6/S.I of Police registered a case in Crime No.287/2018, under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 IPC and handed over the case file to PW5/Detective Inspector of Police for further investigation.

(c).During the course of investigation, PW5 examined the complainant/LW1 and recorded his detailed statement. Later, PW5 along with crime staff visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators i.e.. LW9/K. Sharan and LW10/Shiva

Kumar Moya. PW5, received the Medical Certificate from the LW8/Medical Officer who treated LW1 and issued opinion that the injuries were "Simple Injuries".

(d).On 26-06-2018 at 23:30 hours, PW5 along with crime staff and LW1 went to

Mythrivanam area to trace out the accused persons. On 27-06-2018 at around 00:30

5 SC No.65 of 2020

hour when they reached Yousufguda check post, LW1 shown the auto having Racing

Sports stickers both sides of the auto and DTS sound sticker on back side of the auto which was used at the time of offence i.e., the accused persons dragged the

LW1 into this auto, and beaten him in running auto. The accused persons A2, A5 and A6 who were chit-chatting in auto when LW1 shown the accused persons A2, A5 and A6 to crime staff, on that they caught hold the said accused persons. On enquiry by PW5, they revealed their identity particulars. Further, on interrogation by PW5, they voluntarily confessed their guilty of this offence along with absconding accused persons A1, A3, A4 and A7 to A8 & BJ1. Later, PW5 affected the arrest of A2, A5 and

A6 and produced him before the court for judicial remand. Later, during further investigation, PW5 affected the arrest of remaining accused and produced them

before the court for judicial remand. Later, PW5 got conducted the Test

Identification Parade of the accused persons with LW1 through LW21/IV

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. After completion of entire investigation,

PW7/Detective Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused persons (A1 to A7) showing A8 as absconding.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused (A1 to A7) for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.163/2019 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad. On appearance of the accused (A1 to A7), copies of the

documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C

before the trial court. Since the offence under Section 395 of IPC is exclusively

triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The case was registered as S.C No.65/2020 by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge,

6 SC No.65 of 2020

Hyderabad and made over the same to IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against the accused (A1 to A7), read over and explained to them, wherein the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P6 in support of its case. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No documents were got marked on behalf of his defence.

6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT :

8.Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to mention the Sections under which the accused persons are charged with. Section 342 of IPC says that:

“Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Section 323 of IPC says that:

“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.” Section 365 of IPC says that :

“Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be

7 SC No.65 of 2020

secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 395 of IPC says that:

“Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. To prove the above charges, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and exhibits P1 to

P6 were got marked. PW1 is the Police Official, who sent LW1 to Gandhi Hospital,

PW2 is the Police Official, who escort LW1 to Gandhi Hospital, PW3 is the defacto- complainant/victim, PW4 is the panch witness for confession panchanama of A2, A5 and A6 and PWs 5 to 7 are the Investigating Officers

10.PW3, who set the criminal law into motion by way of filing Ex.P2/complaint failed to support the case of the prosecution. He turned hostile. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of this Court, examined this witness in the manner of cross examination suggesting to him that it was the accused who attacked him and beat him and forcible taken him in an auto and took his cash but such suggestion was denied by this witness and also the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made under Ex.P1. So, PW3 is not making the accused responsible for the attack on him and beating him.

11.So, when the prime and material witness PW3 did not say anything against the accused, this Court wants to see whether there is any support from any other witness to the case of the prosecution. On seeing the evidence of PW4, who is said to be the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama of A2, A5 and A6.

He too did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The effort of the learned Public Prosecutor to get support from him through cross examination proved futile exercise.

8 SC No.65 of 2020

12.Remaining is the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 to 7, who are official witnesses.

The evidence of PW1 shows that on 20-06-2018, at about 02.00 a.m, PW3 came to him with the injuries and he informed the matter to LW2-G.Srinivas, and after that

LW2 deputed PW2/Home Guard for taking PW3 to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. As per the statement of PW3, the offence took place at Liberty and as Liberty area comes under the jurisdiction of P.S. Saifabad, after the treatment of PW3, he was handed over to Saifabad Police.

13.The evidence of PW2 shows that on 20-06-2018, while he was in S.R.Nagar

Police Station and performing night duty along with PW1 and LW2-G.Srinivas, at that time one person by name Sharath Chandra (PW3) come to their Police Station with injuries and immediately he took him to Gandhi Hospital for treatment. When

LW2-G.Srinivas, enquired with PW3, he stated that the incident happened at Liberty.

As the scene of offence comes under the jurisdiction of Saifabad P.S., they asked

PW3 to go to Saifabad Police station for filing the report.

14.The evidence of PW5 shows that on 21-06-2018, PW6/S.I of Police received

Ex.P2/report from PW3 and basing on that PW6 registered a case in Crime

No.287/2018 under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 65 IPC and issued FIR under

Ex.P3. On the same day the case file was handed over to him for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he recorded the statement of

PW1 in the PS and also recorded the statements of LWs 2 to 4. Later, he vistied the scene of offence situated at Liberty Chourasta, Saifabad, and there in the presence of panchas LW5/Shaik Riyaz and LW6/Syed Musa, he conducted Crime Details Form under Ex.P4and drawn rough sketchunder Ex.P5. On 27-06-2018, upon receiving credible information, he deputed his staff and they apprehended A2, A5 and A6 and produced before him. He recorded their confession in the presence of two mediators i.e. PW4 and LW12/Vinay under Ex.P6 and seized one auto from their possession.

9 SC No.65 of 2020

Later, he produced them before the court for judicial custody.

15.The evidence of PW6 shows that on 21-6-2018, at 8.00 a.m he received a

Ex.P2 written report from PW3. Basing on the contents of the complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.287/2018 under Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 IPC and handed over the case file to Sri Narahari/Detective Inspector of Police/PW5.

16.The evidence of PW7 shows that after receiving the CD file from LW.24/G.Sai

Chandra Prasad, Detective Inspector of Police, he verified the investigation carried our by PWs 5 & 6 and LW24 and found to be on correct line. He also tried to search

A8 but couldn’t traced him as he was absconding. Therefore, after examining the evidence on record, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 for the offences under

Sections 342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC.

17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The entire case of the prosecution rested primarily on the testimony of PW3 and PW4/confession mediator. However, PW3, the prime and material witness of the prosecution case, completely turned hostile and refused to identify the accused persons or support the allegations of kidnapping, assault, and dacoity. Similarly, PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution. While the official witnesses (PWs 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) testified to the procedural aspects of the investigation and the registration of the FIR, their evidence is secondary in nature and cannot form the sole basis for a conviction in the absence of corroboration from the material witnesses. The chain of evidence is broken, and there is no incriminating material on record to link A1 to A7 to the alleged offences.

Accordingly, point is answered.

18.In the result, A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections

10 SC No.65 of 2020

342, 323, 365, 395 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. Auto which is given to the interim custody of its registered owner shall be made absolute and the other auto which is in the safe custody of police, shall be returned to its registered owner on proper identification and acknowledgment, after the lapse of appeal period.

Typed direct to my dictation by Gr-I Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

1Mr.A.Mahendra ManiSent LW1 to Gandhi Hospital

2Mr.YedukondaluEscort of LW1 to Gandhi Hospital

3Mr.M.Sharath ChandraComplainant

4Mr. K.Shiva KumarPanchas for confession panchnama of

A2,A5,A6

5Mr. B.Narahari1st Investigating Officer

6Mr. G.RaviIssued FIR

7Mr.B.Narsimulu3rd Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

11 SC No.65 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.PW3

2ReportPW5

3FIRPW5

4CDFPW5

5Rough SketchPW5

6Relevant portion of confession panchnamaPW5

of A2,A5,A6

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1 SC No.93 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri J.Vikram, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

WEDNESDAY , THE 29 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

SESSIONS CASE NO.93 OF 2023

(in PRC No.35 of 2020 in Cr.No.669 of 2018 of PS Banjara Hills, Hyderabad)

Committed by III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Crime Number and Police Station669 of 2018 P.S.,Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

Name & description of the Devarapaga Krishna @ Krishna, accusedS/o Devarapaga Chinnaiah, aged about 34 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.8-2-577, Road No.7, Banjara Hills, Hyd, N/o. H.No.2-63, Vanapatla village, Nagar Kurnool. Name and description of the The State represented by Sub- complainantInspector of Police, P.S.,Banjara Hills, Hy- derabad. Prosecution conducted bySmt. K. Srivani, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri.P.Venkat Swamy, learned counsel for the Accused.

Offence chargedUnder Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtAccused is found not guilty.

ResultIn the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) 2 SC No.93 of 2023

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming on 29.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the pres- ence of Smt. K. Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State/ Complainant and of Sri.P.Venkat Swamy, learned counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Inspector of Police, PS Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, has filed a charge sheet against the Accused-Devarapaga Krishna @ Krishna in Crime No.669 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

(a)On 18-07-2018 at 6.00 p.m. the police Banjara Hills received a case file vide Cr.No.133/2018 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC of PS Nagar Kurnool, through proper channel on the point of jurisdiction for further investigation. In which the complainant/LW1 Sri Vadala Shivudu lodged a Telugu written complaint at PS Nagar Kurnool on 05-06-2018 at 2300 hours stating that about 10 years back his elder sister by name Parvathamma was married to

Devarapaga Krishna (accused), who hails from Vanapatla village of Nagar

Kurnool Mandal and at the time of marriage, they gave Rs.50,000/- and 04 tulas 3 SC No.93 of 2023 of gold towards dowry. They lead their marital life happily for one year. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two male children and elder son was disabled person. Since then his brother-in-law (accused) started harassing her sister mentally and physically demanding additional dowry and number of times they tried to convince him in the presence of elders. But the accused did not change his attitude and due to his unbearable harassment, his father suffered mental agony and died. On 05-06-2018 at about 1230 hours his brother-in-law (accused) informed him over phone that his sister committed suicide by hanging in the room at Hyderabad. But his brother and mother who lived near to his sister’s room called him over phone and informed that accused has beaten his wife (deceased) on the night of 04-06-2018 and when LW1’s brother questioned him as to why he beat, then accused warned him that he will beat him. Thus, the accused mentally and physically harassed his sister for 9 years and he killed her and created it as it is a suicidal death.

(b)Basing on the above complaint of LW1, LW13/K. Uday, S.I of Police, re- registered a case in Cr.No.669/2018 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and handed over the case file to PW5/Inspector of Police for further investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW5 verified the case file and the investigation done by LWs 11 and 12 and on his transfer, he handed over the case file to PW6/Inspector of Police for further investigation. PW6 perused the case file and investigation done by PW5. As per the statements of the witnesses and collection of evidence, PW6 altered the section of law from 302, 201 IPC to

Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and filed the section alteration memo before the Hon’ble Court. On 21-02-2019, the accused voluntarily came to PS and surrendered himself before PW6 and voluntarily admitted that he has committed the offence and admitted his guilt 4 SC No.93 of 2023 for this incident. As such, PW6 affected the arrest of the accused and produced him before the Hon’ble court for juducial remand. On transfer of PW6, the case file was handed over to PW7/Inspector of Police, who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act and numbered the same as PRC No.35/2020 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C before the trial court. Since the offence under

Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned

Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by

following the due procedure as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The case was registered as S.C No.93/2023 by the Hon'ble Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad and made over the same to IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused

and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against him, read over and explained to him, wherein the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P8 in support of its case. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He 5 SC No.93 of 2023 denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No documents were got marked on behalf of their defence.

6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT :

8.Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to mention below the offences with which the accused is charged.

(i) Offence under Section 306 of IPC

Section 306 of IPC says that :

“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

(ii) Offence under Section 498-A of IPC

Section 498-A of IPC speaks about : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— It says that “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 6 SC No.93 of 2023

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

(iii) Offences under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act speaks about Penalty for giving or taking dowry. It says that — (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable [with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more]: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years].

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,—

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf): Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act: Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.]

Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act speaks about Penalty for demanding dowry. It says that— “If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:”

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be 7 SC No.93 of 2023 mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.

9.To prove the above charge, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and exhibits P1 to

P8 were got marked. PW.1 is the mother of the deceased, PW2 is the brother of the deceased, PW3 is the circumstantial witness, who stated to have settled the issue between the accused and the deceased, PW4 is one of the panch witness for inquest, PWs 5 to 7 are the Investigating Officers in this case.

10.In this case, LW1, the brother of the deceased, who set the criminal law into motion is reported to be died and police filed death certificate of LW1 on 19-02-2026 before this court. PWs 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. The learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of this Court, examined PWs 1 and 2 in the manner of cross examination suggesting to them that as the accused is related to them, they compromised the matter with him and deposing falsely before this court, but such suggestion was denied by these witnesses and also the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

made under Ex.P1 and P2. Thus, PWs 1 and 2 are not making the accused responsible for the injuries sustained by PWs 1 and 2.

11.So, when the main and material witness who are none other than the mother and brother of the deceased did not say anything against the accused, this Court wants to see whether there is any support from any independent witness to the case of the prosecution, because PW3 is said to have acted as elder to settle the issue between the accused and the deceased. On seeing the evidence of PW3, he too did not say anything against the accused. In fact this witness (PW3) failed to identify the accused as known person. PW4 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama. He too did not support the prosecution case.

8 SC No.93 of 2023

The effort of the learned Public Prosecutor to get support from them through cross examination proved futile exercise.

12.Remaining is the evidence of PWs 5 to 6, who are the Police Officials and they deposed their respective roles played during the course of their investigation.

13.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The entire case of the prosecution rested upon the testimony of the family members and independent elders; however,

PW1 (mother), PW2 (brother), and PW3 (elder) have all turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution’s version. Furthermore, the original complainant (LW1) died and could not be examined. In the absence of any incriminating evidence from the material witnesses regarding harassment, dowry demands, or abetment of suicide, the testimony of the Investigating Officers (PW5 to PW7) remains purely procedural and insufficient to sustain a conviction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with which he is charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused person shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A 9 SC No.93 of 2023 of Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed direct to my dictation by Gr-I Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

1Smt.V. YellammaMother of the Deceased 2Mr.V.MalleshBrother of the Deceased 3Mr.Kathugala RamulaCircumstantial Witness 4Mr.Chinnapaga KrishnaiahPanch Witness for Inquest 5Mr.K.SrinivasFirst Investigating Officer 6Mr.R.Govind ReddySecond Investigating Officer 7Mr.R.Kalinga RaoThird Investigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

10 SC No.93 of 2023

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

PW1. 2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

PW2. 3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

PW3. 4Signature of PW4 on inquest PW4

Panchnama. 5ComplaintPW5 6FIR vide Crime No.669/2018PW5 7FIR vide Crime No.133/2018PW5 8Section Alteration MemoPW6

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.

1 SC No.896 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:

HYDERABAD

Present: Sri J.Vikram,

IV Additional Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad.

FRIDAY , THE 07 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

SESSIONS CASE NO. 896 OF 2023

(in PRC No.261 of 2023 in Cr.No.117 of 2023 of PS Musheerabad,Hyderabad)

Committed by XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hy-

derabad.

Crime Number and Police Station117 of 2023

P.S.,Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Name & description of the Mohd Aqheel Pasha@Aqeel@AQ@AK, S/o.Mohd

accusedAdam Pasha, Age:26 yrs, OCC: AQ Collections,

Hari Nagar, Musheerabad, R/o.H No.1-7-512/6, Hari Nagar, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and Presently R/o. Flat No.G-3, Orlean Chambers, Street No.8, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

Name and description of the complainantThe State represented by Sub- Inspector of Po-

lice, P.S., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. K. Srivani, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri.Shaik Ibrahim, learned counsel for the Ac-

cused.

Offence chargedUnder Section 436 of IPC.

Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the CourtAccused is found not guilty.

ResultIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 436 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, af- ter expiry of appeal time.

2 SC No.896 of 2023

This case is coming on 07.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the

presence of Smt. K. Srivani, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the

State/Complainant and of Sri.Shaik Ibrahim, Learned Counsel for Ac-

cused upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard

and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered

the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Musheerabad, Hyderabad, has filed a charge sheet against the Accused-Mohd Aqheel Pasha @ Aqeel @ AQ @ AKin Crime

No.117/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows :-

(a)On 23-03-2023 at 0745 hours, PW1/Smt Syed Liyakath Banu gave a report to the police Musheerabad stating that on 22-03-2023 at 10:00 p.m. in front of their house, her husband Syed Shareef parked his two wheeler vehicle Activa bearing

No.TS 09 FD 5800 which was registered on her name, on 23-03-2023 at 04:00 hours her daughter Fatima Banu said to her that Activa vehicle was caught fire and smoke is coming, then immediately she and her husband and neighbors poured water and stopped the fire but the vehicle was burnt. PW1 further stated that their house door and premises also caught fire and they poured the water on fire. She stated that during midnight some unknown person intentionally done this act to cause loss to their property and lives. Due to fire their Activa was burnt and that if they have not put out fire, their house also would have burnt and they would have lost their lives.

After seeing CCTV cameras, she suspected on person by name Aqheel Pasha (accused) has done all these things. Hence, requested to take necessary action.

3 SC No.896 of 2023

(b)Basing on the above complaint of PW1, LW13/Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.117/2023 under Section 436 of IPC and handed over the case file to

PW6/S.I of Police for further investigation. During the course of investigation, PW6, examined and recorded the detailed statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and drafted CDF in the presence of two mediators

LW6/Syed Mohinuddin and LW7/Mohd Shoaib. He also got photographed the burnt vehicle. He also secured the presence of eye witnesses LWs 2 to 5, examined and recorded their detailed statements, apprehended the accused and recorded the confessional statement of the accused, got recorded the statement of PW2 under

Section 164 Cr.P.C through LW10/Special JFCM for Excise, Hyderabad and also got conducted Test Identification Parade of the accused through LW11/I ACMM,

Hyderabad and after completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the case was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.261/2023 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C before the trial court. Since the offence under Section 436 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned

Magistrate has committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, by following

the due procedure as contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

4.The case was registered as S.C No.896/2023 by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad and made over the same to IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad, for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused and upon hearing both sides, charge under Section 436 of IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, wherein the accused denied the charge,

4 SC No.896 of 2023

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW’s.1 to 6 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P9 in support of its case. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No documents were got marked on behalf of his defence.

6.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 436 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT :

8.As the accused is charged for the offences under Section 436 of Indian Penal

Code, the following ingredients have to be established.

Section 436 of IPC says that - “Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

9. To prove the above charge, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and exhibits P1 to P9 were got marked. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant, PW2 is the husband of PW1,

PW3 is the daughter of PW1 and PWs 4 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and PW6 is the Investigating Officer.

5 SC No.896 of 2023

10.PW1, who set the criminal law into motion by way of filing Ex.P7/complaint failed to support the case of the prosecution. She turned hostile. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of this Court, examined this witness in the manner of cross examination suggesting to her that it was the accused who damaged her vehicle but such suggestion was denied by this witness and also the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made under Ex.P2. So, PW1 is not making the accused responsible for the damage of her vehicle.

11.So, when the prime and material witness PW1 did not say anything against the accused, this Court wants to see whether there is any support from any other witness to the case of the prosecution. On seeing the evidence of PW2, who is the husband of PW1, he too did not say anything against the accused. Further, PW3, daughter of PW1 also did not say anything against the accused. Even PWs 4 and 5, who are alleged to be the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. They too did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. The effort of the learned Public

Prosecutor to get support from them through cross examination proved futile exercise.

12.Remaining is the evidence of PW6, who deposed about registration of crime based on Ex.P7 complaint and issuance of Ex.P8/FIR, and conduct of investigation, recording of statements of witnesses, visiting to the scene of offence, conduct of scene of observation panchanama under Ex.P9 in the presence of LW6/Mohinuddin and LW7/Shoaib and taking photographs of burnt vehicle and recording the confession of accused in the presence of LW8/J. Praveen Kumar and LW9/Mehadi

Hussain. PW6, further deposed that after collecting relevant documents and on completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution has given up the evidence LWs 6 to 13 as PWs 1 to 3 material witnesses

6 SC No.896 of 2023

turned hostile.

13.From the overall appreciation of evidence, it is clear that PW1, who set the criminal law in motion, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. She denied the contents of the complaint despite admitting her signature. PW2 (husband of PW1), PW3 (daughter of PW1), and PWs 4 and 5 eye witnesses to the alleged incident also did not support the prosecution and failed to attribute any role to the accused. The attempt by the prosecution to elicit incriminating material through cross-examination of these witnesses proved unsuccessful. The case thus lacks direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence. The only remaining witness, PW5 (Investigating Officer), merely spoke about the procedural aspects of investigation. His evidence is formal in nature and cannot, by itself, establish guilt. Additionally, the prosecution gave up several listed witnesses (LWs 6 to 13), further weakening its case. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the accused. Accordingly, point is answered.

14.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 436 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed direct to my dictation by Gr-I Stenographer of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD

7 SC No.896 of 2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Prosecution Name of Witness Description

Witness No.

1Ms. Syed Liyakath BanuComplainant

2Mr. Syed ShareefEye Witness/Husband of PW1

3Ms. Fathima BanuEye Witness/Daughter of PW1

4Mr. Mohd Booran KhanWitness

5Mr. K.RamuluWitness

6Mr. K.Soma Shekar GoudInvestigating Officer

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

1PW1 Signature on the Report.PW1

2Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.PW1

3Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.PW2

4Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.PW3

5Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.PW4

6Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.PW5

7Complaint.PW6

8 SC No.896 of 2023

8First Information Report.PW6

9Crime Detail Form cum Rough Sketch.PW6

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HYDERABAD.