Sri. J. Vineel Kumar

FairPage No.1 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- SRI.J. VINEEL KUMAR II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Tuesday, on this the 15th day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.1576 OF 2019

(Crime No.72 of 2019 of P.S. Sarangapur) Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by the Sub Inspector of Police.P.S., Sarangapur

...Complainant

//AND//

A1.Arre Premanandam, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:33 years, Caste:Mala, R/o.Battupalli village. A2.Palagani Mallesh, S/o.Ramaiah, Age:32 years, Caste:Yadava, R/o.Battupalli village.

...Accused No.1 & 2.

This case came before this court for final hearing on 09.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.Ilaiah Advocate, counsel for the Accused No.1 & 2, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Sarangapur filed charge sheet against accused No.1 & 2 in Crime No.72/2019 for the offence punishable U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC (herein after referred as ‘I.P.C’) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 15.07.2019, at 10:00 a.m., the complainant/Kaluva Bhoomaiah, went to PS Sarangapur and lodged a Telugu written report stating that, “he is a resident of Battupalli village and living by doing agriculture works. On 14.07.2019, at about 11:00 p.m. while he was

FairPage No.2 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 going in to the village, Arre Premanandam/accused no.1 and Palagani

Mallesh/accused no.2 were on the road. The complainant told them to move aside. On that, accused no.1 & 2 abused the complainant in filthy language and bet him with stick, resulting in bleeding injury on his head and also received injury on his right eye. Further, they threatened the complainant to kill him if he again come there. At that time, Dasari Narasaiah and Jetti Anjaiah witnessed the incident. Finally. He requested to take necessary action against accused no.1 & 2.

3.On receipt of above report, LW.9/S.Rajaiah, registered a case in

Cr.No.72/2019, U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/Kaluva Bhoomaiah, issued

Medical Certificate to LW.1 and sent him Government hospital, Jagtial for treatment under self escort. Later, LW.9 visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of LW.2/Dasari Narsaiah, LW.3/Jetti Anjaiah,

LW.4/Kaluva Ramesh & LW.5/Kaluva Sumalatha secured the presence of

LW.6/Gurram Swamy & LW.7/Marripally Gangaram, observed the scene of offence minutely, drew a sketch of scene and incorporated the details in Crime details form. Notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. was served against accused no.1 & 2, with directions to appear before LW.9, for the purpose of investigation and to comply the conditions and to produce sureties. But, accused no.1 & 2 failed to appear before LW.9 to comply the conditions. While efforts are in progress, on 17.07.2019, at about 10:30 a.m., accused no.1 & 2 went to the police stationand surrendered before LW.9. On that, LW.9 directed them to produce sureties papers and enlarged them on bail after interrogating accused no.1 & 2

FairPage No.3 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 thoroughly. During the course of interrogation, accused no.1 & 2 voluntarily admitted their guilt of offence and stated that they threw away the stick in the pond. LW.8/Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad who have gave treatment to LW.1/Kaluva

Bhoomaiah issued Medical certificate and opined that the injury is “Simple

Nature”. After completion of entire investigation, LW.9 filed charge sheet in the present case punishable U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, against accused no.1 & 2.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under sections.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, against accused no.1 & 2.

5.On appearance of accused No. 1 & 2, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished on them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused

No. 1 & 2 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the accusations levelled against them in their vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, against accused no.1 & 2.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused No.1 & 2, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and exhibits P1 to P7 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused no.1 & 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against them for prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for

Accused no.1 & 2.

9.Now the point for determination is

FairPage No.4 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused no.1 & 2 for

the offence U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, It will be

appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant section.

Section 290 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.—Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

Section 324 of Indian Penal Code: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

POINT: On perusal of the evidence, it is observed that:

11.PW.1/D.Narsaiah, PW.2/J.Anjaiah & PW.3/K.Ramesh turned hostile deposed in their chief-examination that they do not know any facts of the case and further stated that police examined them nor recorded their statements.

12.PW.4/K.Sumalatha deposed her chief-examination that, on 14.07.2019, at about 10:00 p.m., when her husband was coming home, at the outskirts of their village, accused no.1 & 2 attacked him with sticks. That as a result, her

FairPage No.5 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 husband received injuries to the backside of his head, on his forehead and to his right eye. That LW.3/Jetti Anjaiah & LW.4/Kaluva Ramesh witnessed the incident. She stated that on the next day, her husband went to PS Sarangapur and lodged a report regarding the incident.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.4, she stated that she came to know about the incident from her husband which she mentioned to the police concerned. That police examined her on the next day of lodging Ex.P4.

She stated that she mentioned about LW.3/Jetti Anjaiah & LW.4/Kaluva

Ramesh in her statement recorded by police. She admitted that there were previous disputes between her husband and accused no.1 & 2. She denied the suggestion that her husband foisted a false case against accused no.1 & 2 by keeping previous grudges in mind and she is deposing false to support her case.

13.PW.5/G.Swamy deposed in his chief-examination that, on 15.07.2019, at about 12:00 p.m., police Sarangapur came to Battapalli to the place of incident which is near the house of LW.7/Marripally Gangaram and conducted panchanama with regard to the incident which took place a day before that day and after said panchanama proceedings, they obtained his signature and signature of LW.7/Marripally Gangaram on the panchanama papers.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.5, he admitted that PW.1, he could not say the duration of the said panchanama proceedings. He stated that he furnished his signature only once. That he do not know the contents of

Ex.P5

14.PW.6/P.Rajendraprasad deposed in his chief-examination that, on 15.07.2019, patient by name/K.Bhumaiah came to the hospital for treatment

FairPage No.6 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 who was referred by SHO, PS Sarangapur. He stated that he conducted preliminary examination of the injured and found of the following:

Abrasion of 10 X 5 X 3 centimeters over the central part of scalp  caused by a stick which is simple in nature.

Abrasion of 7 X 3 X 3 centimeters over the right parietal area of  scalp caused by a stick which is simple in nature.

Abrasion of 10 X 3 X 4 centimeters over the right frontal-parietal  area of scalp caused by a stick which is simple in nature.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.6, he stated that there is no possibility of receiving the above mentioned injuries by accidental fall. He stated that there is no possibility of receiving the above mentioned injuries if a person falls from a bike. He admitted that he issued Ex.P6 on 17.07.2019. That the injured was accompanied by a constable on that day. He denied the suggestion that the injured in the present case did not come to the hospital on that day nor he gave him any treatment, he issued Ex.P6 nominally at the instance of police concerned and now he is deposing false to support the case of the prosecution.

15.PW.7/S.Rajaiah deposed in his chief-examination that on 15.07.2019, at 10:00 a.m., the complainant/Kaluva Bhoomaiah/LW.1 went to PS Sarangapur and lodged a Telugu written stating that, he is a resident of Battapalli village and is living by doing agriculture works. On 14.07.2019, at about 11:00 p.m., while LW,1 was going in to village, on the middle of the road,

Premanandam/accused no.1 and Palagani Mallesh/accused no.2 were standing of the road. When the complainant told them to move aside, they abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick, resulting in bleeding injury on his head

FairPage No.7 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 and also received injury on his right eye. Further, they threatened the complainant to kill him. At that time, Dasari Narsaiah/PW.2 witnessed the incident. Finally, he requested to take necessary against the said persons. On receipt of report, he registered a case in Cr.No.72/2019, U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused no.1 & 2, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/Kaluva Bhoomaiah issued Medical certificate to LW.1/Kaluva Bhoomaiah and sent him Government Hospital, Jagtial for treatment. Later, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of LW.2/Dasari Narsaiah, LW.3/Jetti Anjaiah, LW.4/Kaluva Ramesh & LW.5/Kaluva Sumalatha, secured the presence of LW.6/Gurram Swamy &

LW.7/Marripally Gangaram, observed the scene of offence minutely drew a sketch of scene and incorporated the details in crime details form in their presence. he issued a notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and served the same on accused no.1 & 2, with directions to appear before him for the purpose of investigation and to comply the conditions and to produce sureties. But, they failed to appear

before him to comply the conditions. While efforts are in progress, on

17.07.2019 at about 10:30 a.m., accused no.1 & 2 went to the police station and surrendered before him. During the course of interrogation, accused no.1 & 2 voluntarily admitted their guilt of offence and stated that they threw away the stick in a pond. LW.8/Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad who gave treatment to LW.1/Kaluva

Bhoomaiah issued Medical certificate and opined that the injury is ‘Simple in

Nature’. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet punishable

U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, against accused no.1 & 2.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.7, he denied the suggestion

FairPage No.8 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 that there is a delay of one day of lodging the report(Ex.P4). He adds that the incident took place on 14.07.2019, at about 10:00 p.m., and Ex.P4 was filed on 15.07.2019, at 10:00 a.m. He stated that he do not whether there were ongoing disputes between the complainant and accused no.1 & 2. He stated that he did not examine any of the neighbours to the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that accused no.1 & 2 are no way concerned with the present case, a false case was foisted against them for statistical purpose, proper investigation was not conducted in the present case and he is deposing false to support the case of the prosecution.

16.On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is observed that the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of 9 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. It is further observed that the prosecution did not examine the defacto- complainant in the present case though ample time was granted. PW.4 who is wife of defacto-complainant deposed that accused no.1 & 2 abused her husband and beat him with stick. It is further observed that during the cross- examination of PW.4, she clearly stated that she came to know about the incidence from her husband. Therefore, PW.4 is treated a interested witnesses and her evidence is treated as hearsay evidence.

17.In the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr.

(2011) 2 SCC 532, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that:

“Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that it is always, desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that may possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be

FairPage No.9 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 brought to light and exposes, if they exist, by the test of cross- examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in the Evidence

Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record whatsoever, proof of which is not admitted in other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted. That this species of evidence cannot be tested by cross- examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to protract legal investigations to an embarrassing and dangerous length, it intrinsic weakness, its incompetence to satisfy the mind of a judge about the existence of a fact, and the fraud which may be practiced with impunity, under its cover, combine to support the rule that hear say evidence is inadmissible.”

18.In the instant case, the defacto-complainant was not examined by the prosecution and wife/PW.4 the complainant during her cross-examination clearly stated that she came to know about the incident from her husband who is none other than the complainant which clearly shows that she is the not the direct eye witness to the incident. Hence, her evidence is treated as hearsay evidence which is inadmissible. It is further observed that PW.1 & PW.2 who are cited as the direct eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of the

FairPage No.10 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019 prosecution. It is further observed that nothing could be elicited from the evidence of PW.5 to PW.7 to prove the guilt of accused no.1 & 2 in the present case.

19.In view of the above discussion, this court thinks that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused no.1 & 2 in the present case punishable

U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, accused no.1 & 2 are entitled for benefit which leads to their acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.`

20.In the result, Accused No.1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.290, 324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 & 2 are set at liberty and their bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me in my laptop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II Addl Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1 D.Narsaiah- NIL - PW.2 J.Anjaiah PW.3 K.Ramesh PW.4 K.Sumalatha PW.5 G.Swamy PW.6 Dr.P.Rajendra Prasad PW.7 S.Rajaiah

FairPage No.11 of 11C.C. No.1576 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFEENCE

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.1. -NIL - Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.2. Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.3. Ex.P4: Report filed by LW.1/K.Bhoomaiah. Ex.P5: Signature on crime details form by PW.5. Ex.P6: Medico-Legal certificate issued by PW.6.. Ex.P7: FIR issued by PW.7.

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- NIL -

Sd/-

II Addl Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial.

Fair Page No.1 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019

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

AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SRI. J. VINEEL KUMAR, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Friday, on this the 11th day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.8 OF 2019

(Crime No.169/2018 of P.S.,Mallial) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Mallial.

.... Complainant

// AND //

Vangala Jagadeesh, S/o.Venkata Subba Rao, Age:25 years, Caste:Padmashali, R/o.Errapelam village of Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh State. … Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing on 09.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri.B.Ramana Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mallial filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.169 of 2018 for offences under Section 304-A of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 26.10.2018, at 02.00 p.m., the complainant/Eleti Gangavva went to PS Mallial and lodged a Telugu written report stating that she is a resident of Muthyampet village and eking livelihood by means agriculture. She had one son, on 26.10.2018, at 12:20 p.m., her husband Eleti Lachi Reddy, her sister-in-law/Sama Radavva left

Fair Page No.2 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 from their house on motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP 15 BG 5153, to Jagtial.

On the way, when they reached Mallial X roads and while crossing the road, one driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.AP 16 TY 9359, going towards Karimnagar from Jagtial drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her husband’s scooty, due to which her husband fell down from his bike and received injuries. Somebody informed her the same over phone and she rushed to the spot and saw her husband lying on the road with bleeding injuries on the back of his head, forehead and right side of chest and her sister-in-law also received bleeding injuries on vital parts of body.

Immediately, she shifted her husband and her sister-in-law to Government

Hospital, Jagtial in 108 ambulance. That while shifting to Hospital, her husband died on the way. Her sister-in-law is undergoing treatment in

Government Hospital, Jagtial. Later, she came to know about the lorry bearing Reg.No.AP 16 TY 9359 and its driver’s name is Vangala Jagadeesh.

She requested to take necessary action against the above said lorry driver.

3.On receipt of above report, LW.17/K.Srikanth registered a case in

Cr.No.169/2018, U/Sec.304-A, 337 of IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.17 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators i.e.,

LW.10/Medhari Ravinder & LW.11/Padakanti Rajamouli held inquest over the corpse of deceased, in the presence of LW.8/Kommula Kamalakar Reddy & LW.9/Baddam Thirupathi Reddy and took the crime vehicle to PS Mallial for safe custody. During the inquest LW.17/K.Srikanth examined and recorded the statements of witnesses LW.1/Eleti Gangavva, LW.2/Eleti

Fair Page No.3 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019

Lavanya, LW.3/Eleti Chukka Reddy, LW.4/Ravula Narasinga Rao &

LW.5/Sama Mohan Reddy and got photographed the dead body through

LW.5. After inquest, LW.17 subjected the dead body to Government Area

Hospital, Jagtial for PME. The Medical Officer (LW.14/Dr.V.Suman Chander) conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased. Later, the dead body was handed over to his relatives for last rites. Later, LW.18/Ch.Mithun took up further investigation of this case and verified the investigation done by

LW.17, found it on proper lines. LW.18 re-examined the witnesses i.e.,

LW.1/Eleti Gangavva, LW.2/Eleti Lavanya, LW.3/Eleti Chukka Reddy,

LW.4/Ravula Narasinga Rao & LW.5/Sama Mohan Reddy, noted supra, they reiterated their earlier statements when deposed before LW.17/K.Srikanth and did not add further. While efforts are in progress, on 31.10.2018, at 11:00 a.m., on reliable information the accused was arrested at Mallial village by LW.17/K.Srikanth and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence in the present case and failed to produce sureties to release on bail. Later, the accused was brought to PS Mallial at 12:00 p.m., and issued arrest memo against the accused under intimation to his relatives U/Sec.50-A Cr.P.C as per guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. Later, LW.18 collected crime vehicle documents i.e.,

RC, insurance and driving license of the accused. Later, LW.18 sent a requisition by addressing to MVI for inspection of crime vehicle and report.

On 01.11.2018, LW.18 received a phone call from the Hospital that the injured/Sama Radhavva died while undergoing treatment. Immediately,

LW.18 informed the same to LW.19/Ch.Nagender and handed over the CD

Fair Page No.4 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 file to him to proceed for further investigation in this case, since the case is grave in nature. After receipt of CD file, LW.19 took up further investigation of this case and verified the investigation done by LW.17 & LW.18 and found in correct lines. In this case accused was already arrested and sent for judicial custody. Then LW.19/Ch.Nagender informed the case facts to superior officers for information as the offence is grave. LW.19 visited

Government Hospital, Jagtial where the dead body of Deceased no.2 kept mortuary room, got the photographs of dead body Deceased no.2 with help of LW.5/Sama Mohan Reddy and conducted inquest over the dead body of the Deceased no.2 in the presence of LW.12/Santha Sathavva &

LW.13/Baddam Ammai. During the inquest, LW.19 examined and re- recorded the statements of LW.1/Eleti Gangavva, LW.2/Eleti Lavanya,

LW.3/Eleti Chukka Reddy & LW.4/Ravula Narasinga Rao and recorded the statements of LW.5/Sama Mohan Reddy, LW.6/Musuku Jyothi &

LW.7/Sama Bhaskar Reddy in part-II CD. After completion of inquest and subjecting the body of the Deceased no.2 to Government Headquarters,

Hospital, Jagtial for autopsy under the escort of PC 1236 of PS Mallial, escort PC was instructed to hand over the dead body to her relatives after completion of autopsy under proper acknowledgment for last rites. The

Medical Officer, (LW.15/Dr.G.Ishkasri) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the Deceased no.2.

Description of the scene of offence: The scene of offence is situated at Mallial

X roads which is at a distance of 2 km towards west direction to PS Mallial.

Towards the east side there is a stature of Ambedkar and BT road which is

Fair Page No.5 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 leading to Mallial village, towards west side there is a Anjaneya Hotel, towards north side there is NH-563 road which is leading from Jagtial to

Karimnagar and towards the south side of scene of offence there is BT road.

Later, LW.19 obtained PME reports of the deceased no.1 and deceased no.2 from the Medical officers of Government Hospital, Jagtial, in which

LW.14/Dr.V.Suman Chander opined that the cause of death of Deceased no.1 is ‘shock due to Multiple Fractures caused by RTA’ and

LW.15/Dr.G.Ishkasri opined that the cause of death of Deceased no.2 is due to ‘Intracranial Hemorrhage due to Head injury and Hemothorany with

Multiple Rib fractures’. Later, LW.19 obtained MVI report from

LW.16/A.Abhilash in which he opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of entire investigation, LW.19/Ch.Nagender filed charge sheet in the present case punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, against the accused.

4.This court took cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., accused is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusations levelled against him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, against the accused.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.10 and marked exhibits P1 to P10.

Fair Page No.6 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. He, denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused the

offence U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code:- Causing death by negligence.— Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

POINT:-

On perusal of the evidence, it is observed that:-

10.PW.1/E.Gangavva,PW.2/E.Lavanya,PW.3/E.ChukkaReddy,

PW.5/S.Mohan Reddy, PW.6/M.Jyothi turned hostile and deposed that they do not know any facts of the case and further stated that police examined nor recorded their statements. Further, PW.4/B.Thirupathi Reddy &

PW.7/P.Rajamouli also turned hostile and deposed that the police obtained their signatures on a paper, while they were at Mallial X roads and no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

11.PW.8/S.Sathavva deposed in her chief-examination she stated that, on 01.11.2018, at about 09:00 a.m., Police Mallial conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased by name/Sama Radhamma/deceased no.2 in their presence and after the said panchanama, they obtained their

Fair Page No.7 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 signatures.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.8, she denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted in her presence and she is deposing false as deceased no.2 is her close relative.

12.PW.9/B.Ammai deposed in her chief-examination, she stated that on 01.11.2018, at about 09:00 a.m., police Mallial conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased by name Sama Radhamma/deceased no.2 in their presence and after the said panchanama, they obtained their signatures.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.9, she denied the suggestion that, no panchanama was conducted in her presence and she is deposing false as deceased no.2 is her close relative.

13.PW.10/V.Suman Chander deposed in his chief-examination, that on 26.10.2018, their hospital received a requisition from SHO, PS Mallial to conduct PME of deceased person who died in an accident. On that, he conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased by name/Eleti Lacchi Reddy/deceased no.1 and found the following:

Laceration of 3 X 3 X 3 centimeters on the right forehead caused by  blunt object(antemortem).

Laceration of 4 X 3 X 3 centimeters on the left forehead caused by  blunt object(antemortem).

Laceration of 4 X 3 X 3 centimeters on the Occipital region caused by  blunt object(antemortem).

Contusion of 3 X 4 centimeters on the right hypocondrium caused by 

Fair Page No.8 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 blunt object(antemortem).

Abrasion of 2 X 3 centimeters on the right knee-joint caused by blunt  object(antemortem).

Abrasion of 2 X 3 centimeters on the left knee-joint caused by blunt  object(antemortem).

Frontal Occipital bone fracture. 

Meninges torn, blood clots(100 ml) scene of temporal and parital  region.

Fractures scene on 5, 6, 7 & 8 rib on the right side. 

In his opinion the reason for the death of the above person is “Shock due to multiple fractures caused by RTA”.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.10, he denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any post-mortem relating to the present case, he made as note of injuries nominally mentioned to him by the police concerned and now he is deposing false to support his case.

14.On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is observed that the prosecution examined ten witnesses on its behalf out of nineteen witnesses cited in the charge sheet. It is further observed that PW.1 is the defacto-complainant in the present case. PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 & PW.6 are the family members of deceased persons in the present case. It is further observed that all the witnesses except PW.8, PW.9 and the investigating officer/PW.10 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution including the defacto-complainant. It is further observed that the prosecution did not examine any direct eye witnesses to the incident in the

Fair Page No.9 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019 present case. Out of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, there is no material evidence that could prove the guilt of the accused in the present case punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. At this juncture, this court thinks that the parties might have compromised the matter outside the court.

15.In view of the above discussion, this court thinks that the prosecution failed to through the guilt of the accused in the present case punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC, beyond and all reasonable doubt, as such, accused is entitled for benefit which is lead to his acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of IPC, and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty at his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1E.Gangavva –NIL- PW.2E.Lavanya PW.3E.Chukka Reddy PW.4B.Thirupathi Reddy PW.5S.Mohan PW.6M.Jyothi PW.7P.Rajamouli PW.8B.Sathavva

Fair Page No.10 of 10 C.C. No. 8 of 2019

PW.9B.Ammai PW.10V.Suman Chander

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

-NIL- Ex.P1: Thumb impression on complainant filed by PW.1. Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement by PW.1. Ex.P3: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement by PW.2. Ex.P4: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement by PW.3. Ex.P5: Signature on inquest panchanama of deceased no.1 by PW.4. Ex.P6: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement by PW.5. Ex.P7: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement by PW.6. Ex.P8: Signature on crime details form by PW.7. Ex.P9: Signature on inquest panchanama of deceased no.2 by PW.8. Ex.P10: PME report issued by PW.10.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Fair Page No.1 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SRI. J. VINEEL KUMAR, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Wednesday, on this the 23rd day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.590 OF 2024

(Crime No.239/2023 of P.S., Kodimial ) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Kodimial.

.... Complainant

// AND //

VaranasiPrabhakar,S/o.Yellaiah,Age:39years, Caste:Bedabudiga Jangam, R/o.H.No.8-99/D/1 Arepalli, Pudur village of Kodimial Mandal Jagtial District. … Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing on 22.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri. R.Srinivas, Advocate, counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Kodimial filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.239 of 2023 for offences under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) and Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act-1955 (hereinafter called as E.C. Act) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on reliable information from the Civil

Supply Task force of Hyderabad, on 23.12.2023, LW.1/Busaraju Srinivas along with LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao & LW.3/Chekkapelli Ajay, reached

Pudur village and raided the house of the accused at about 12:00 p.m., and found PDS rice filled in 85 plastic bags. On that, LW.1/Busaraju Srinivas

Fair Page No.2 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024 weighed the rice, after weighing rice with weighing machine, found it 73.80 quintals of PDS rice, on that LW.1/Busaraju Srinivas seized the PDS rice under cover of panchanama in the presence of LW.4/Lethakula Laxma

Reddy, LW.5/Kamballa Rajamallu & LW.6/Veerabathini Bhoomaiah. During the said panchanama, the accused confessed to have committed the offence in the present case. During the said panchanama, the accused confessed that he purchased rice from PDS beneficiaries at lower price to sell to the needy people at higher price. LW.9 took the accused along with seized property to the police station and registered a suo-motu case against the accused Cr.No.239/2023, U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of Essential Commodities

Act and took up the investigation.

3.During the course of investigation LW.9 examined LW.1/Busaraju

Srinivas, LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao & LW.3/Chekkapelli Ajay and recorded their statements. On 24.12.2023, LW.9 went to the crime scene, drew a sketch map and incorporated the details in the crime details form in the presence of LW.7/Bekkam Madhu & LW.8/Bethepu Dinesh Kumar. During the course of investigation, as the prima-facie accusation against the accused was established and since the punishment for the offence of section 420 of IPC, Sec.7 of EC Act is less than 7 years of punishment LW.9 summoned the accused and issued 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused on 26.12.2023, by informing about his involvement in this case and to appear

before him at Kodimial PS on 27.12.2023 and to furnish proper sureties and

his identity. Accordingly, on 27.12.2023, accused appeared before LW.9 and produced the sureties. Later, LW.9 released him on bail and instructed to appear before this court after receiving summons. Subsequently,

Fair Page No.3 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024

LW.10/K.Venkat Rao took the CD file from LW.9, verified the investigation done by LW.9 and found to be in correct lines. Later, LW.10 re-examined

LW.1/Busaraju Srinivas, LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao & LW.3/Chekkapelli Ajay but not recorded their statements. Subsequently, LW.10 got transferred from

PS. Kodimial and handed over the case to LW.11/S.Sandeep, for further investigation of the case and to finalize this case. Later, LW.11 re-examined

LW.1/Busaraju Srinivas, LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao & LW.3/Chekkapelli Ajay but did not re-record their statements as they did not add anything. After completion of entire investigation, LW.11 filed charge sheet in the present case punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, against the accused.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusation leveled against him in his vernacular language for which for he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of E.C. Act against the accused.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.4 and exhibit P1 to P4 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and

Fair Page No.4 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024 reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel

for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offence U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10. In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, it will be

appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant

section. Section 420 I.P.C – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The offence of word “cheating” is defined under section 415 of

I.P.C. Section 415 I.P.C – Cheating :- Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused punishable under section 420 of

I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

12. That the accused dishonestly induced another person, in the present case to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted valuable security.

Fair Page No.5 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024

Essential Commodities Act:- An act to provide, in the interest of general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce, in certain commodities. Sec. 7 (1) (a) (i) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 – In the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of Sub-Section (2) of that Section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine.

POINT:

On perusal of the evidence, it is observed that:

13.PW.1/B.Srinivas deposed in his chief-examination that, on 23.11.2023, LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao who was the then District CS, Officer,

Jagtial received information from Enforcement Department, Hyderabad that some one was having illegal possession of PDS rice in their possession at

Pudur village of Kodimial mandal. On that, himself & LW.3/Ch.Ajay assisted

LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao and went to Pudur village to the shop(Iron scrap) of one Varanasi Prabhakar/accused and on checking, the said shop, they found 85 bags filled with PDS rice. He stated that on LW.2/Venkateshwar

Rao secured the presence of LW.4/L.Laxma Reddy, LW.5/K.Rajamallu &

LW.6/B.Bhoomaiah and conducted panchanama in their presence. During the said panchanama, the rice bags were weighed at 73.80 quintals in total.

He stated that the seized rice was deposited at Civil Supplies go-down at

Mallial for custody. Later, he went to PS Kodimial and lodged a report against the accused.

14.PW.2/Ch.Ajay deposed in his chief-examination, that on 23.12.2023,

LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao who was the then District CS Officer, Jagtial received information from Enforcement Department, Hyderabad that some one was having illegal possession of PDS rice in their possession at Pudur village of Kodimial mandal. He stated that on that, himself & PW.1 assisted

Fair Page No.6 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024

LW.2/ and went to Pudur village to the shop(Iron scrap) of one Varanasi

Prabhakar and on checking the said shop, they found 85 bags filled with

PDS rice. He stated that on LW.2/Venkateshwar Rao secured the presence of

LW.4/L.Laxma Reddy, LW.5/K.Rajamallu & LW.6/B.Bhoomaiah and conducted panchanama in their presence. During the said panchanama, the rice bags were weighed at 73.80 quintals in total. He stated that the seized rice was deposited at Civil Supplies go-down at Mallial for custody. Later, they went to PS Kodimial and lodged a report against the accused.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, he stated that, they did not see any Government logo on the seized rice bags. That they did not collect any document showing the lease or ownership of the accused to the shop. He denied the suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the present case and he is deposing false at the instance of his superiors.

15.PW.3/L.Laxma Reddy turned hostile and deposed that police Kodimial stopped him and obtained his signature on some paper when he was going on the road and further stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. PW.4/V.Bhoomaiah also turned hostile deposed that police

Kodimial stopped him and obtained his signature on some paper when he was going to petrol pump and further stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

16.On perusal of evidence available on record, the question arises as to whether the seized rice is PDS rice or not. Unfortunately, the investigating officer did not cause the entire stock be tested by any quality control officer or grains purchasing officer or any other technical person who can confirm that seized rice is PDS rice. It is not

Fair Page No.7 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024 enough for the prosecution to prove that the rice was seized from the possession of the accused. The prosecution is also expected to prove that seized rice is PDS rice. Astonishingly, the investigating officer failed to conduct his investigation in such a way to establish that the seized rice was PDS rice. The aforesaid discussions lead to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the rice was seized from the possession of the accused and also that the alleged rice was

PDS rice. Hence this court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Sec 7 of EC Act is not made out by the prosecution case.

17.Accused was also charged for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC. In order to sustain the charge U/sec.420 of IPC the prosecution firstly must prove that the accused deceived the victim and got some property delivered to him. But in the present case in hand, though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused allegedly deceived the public, the investigating officer did not choose to examine any of the relevant independent witnesses. Thus, there is no material and evidence on record that the accused have deceived any person and also got any property from the other persons and was gaining illegally by selling

PDS rice at higher rates. Hence this court is of the opinion that

Sec.420 of IPC is also not applicable to this case.

18.In view of the discussions made supra, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused for the offences U/sec.420 of IPC and Sec 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all

Fair Page No.8 of 8 C.C. No.590 of 2024 reasonable doubt, as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to his acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

19.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420 of I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act and accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, as such, he is set at liberty and his bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as per section 437-A of

Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1B.Srinvas –NIL- PW.2Ch.Ajay Kumar PW.3L.Laxma Reddy PW.4V.Bhoomaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

-NIL- Ex.P1: Report lodged by PW.1. Ex.P2: Attested copy of panchanama prepared by PW.l. Ex.P3: Signature on seizure panchanama by PW.3. Ex.P4: Signature on seizure panchanama by PW.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Fair Page No.1 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT JAGTIAL.

PRESENT:- SRI. J. VINEEL KUMAR, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Friday, on this the 11th day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.61 OF 2022

(Crime No.205/2021 of P.S.,Sarangapur) Between:-

The State of Telangana, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Sarangapur.

.... Complainant

// AND //

Kutikala Gangaiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:42 years, Caste:SC Madiga, R/o.Sarangapur village and Mandal … Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing on 09.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri. R.Sriramulu, Advocate, counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Sarangapur filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.205 of 2021 for offences under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”) and Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act-1955 (hereinafter called as E.C. Act) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 16.12.2021, at 07:00 a.m.,

SHO(LW.12/B.Lavanya), along with PC’s 2359, 2416 started conducting patrol from Sarangapur village. When they reached at bus stand of

Sarangapur village about 07:30 a.m., they found one Tata Magic

Fair Page No.2 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022 suspiciously coming towards Sarangapur with PDS rice. They intercepted the Tata Magic Vehicle B.No.TS 02 UA 1609. While checking the said vehicle, they found PDS rice filled in 10 bags. Immediately, LW.12 secured the presence of LW.1/Naluvala Rajaiah & LW.2/Jangam Ravinder and conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama in their presence. During the said panchanama, the accused confessed to have committed this offence in the present case. During the said panchanama, accused confessed that he purchased rice PDS beneficiaries at lower price to sell the same to the needy people. The seized property is 10 bags filled with PDS rice weighing about 5 quintals. As usual, on 16.12.2021, while accused was transporting PDS rice he was apprehended. LW.12 took the accused along with the seized property to the police station and registered a suo-motu case against him vide

Cr.No.205/2021, punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of Essential

Commodities Act and took up the investigation.

3.During the course of investigation, LW.12 examined LW.3/M.Anjaiah &

LW.4/G.Hari Singh and recorded their statements, drew a sketch map and incorporated the details in the crime details from in the presence of

LW.3/M.Anjaiah & LW.4/G.Hari Singh. As per the provision U/Sec.41-A

Cr.P.C, LW.12 issued Notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and served the same on the accused by informing about his involvement in this case and directing him to appear before this court after receiving summons for trial. Accused acknowledged against the accused the receipt of notice. On 23.06.2021,

LW.12/B.Lavanya prepared a letter of requisition and submitted the same to

LW.7/Maheshwar Rao with a request to dispose the crime property.

Fair Page No.3 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022

Accordingly, LW.7 went to PS Mallial and took over the seized property in the presence of LW.9/Alakanti Ramesh & LW.10/Allela Rajaiah handed over to

LW.11/KusumbaSrinivas.Later,LW.12/B.Lavanyaexamined

LW.11/Kusumba Srinivas and recorded his statement. Consequent to his posting to this PS from zone-V to zone-II(Basara) Sarangapur, as per the order of KR Nagaraju, IPC Commissioner of police, Nizamabad & Zonal reporting authority, Zone-II Basara, vide proc.No.HO/DI/ZII/SUIN/0027,

dt:08.01.2022. LW.13/J.Ramakrishna took over the CD file from his

predecessor SI of police, Sri.B.Lavanya and perused the CD files apart from other UI cases and took up further investigation in this case and verified the investigation so far done by (LW.12/B.Lavanya) SI of police found it be on proper lines. Later, LW.13/J.Ramakrishna visited the scene of offence and re-examined the witnesses but did not re-record their statements as they have reiterated the same in which they have said earlier. After completion of entire investigation, LW.13 filed charge sheet in the present case punishable

U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of E.C.Act against the accused.

4.This court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., read over and explained the accusation leveled against him in his vernacular language for which for he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 of IPC, Sec.7 of E.C. Act

Fair Page No.4 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022 against the accused.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and exhibit P1 & P2 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel

for accused no.1 & 2.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of accused for the

offence U/Sec.420 of I.P.C. and Sec.7 of E.C. Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, it will be

appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant

section. Section 420 I.P.C – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property :- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The offence of word “cheating” is defined under section 415 of

I.P.C. Section 415 I.P.C – Cheating :- Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Fair Page No.5 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022

Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section.

11.To prove the guilt of the accused punishable under section 420 of

I.P.C, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients.

12. That the accused dishonestly induced another person, in the present case to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted valuable security.

Essential Commodities Act:- An act to provide, in the interest of general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce, in certain commodities. Sec. 7 (1) (a) (i) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 – In the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of Sub- Section (2) of that Section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine.

POINT:

On perusal of the evidence it is observed that,

13.PW.1/N.Rajaiah & PW.2/N.Gangadhar turned hostile and deposed that police obtained their signatures were obtained on some paper when they went to PS Sarangapur and further stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

14.PW.3/G.Hari Singh deposed in his chief-examination that, on 16.12.2021, at 07:00 a.m., he assisted LW.12/B.Lavanya in conducting patrol around Sarangapur village. He stated that when they reached the bus stop, at about 07:30 a.m., they stopped a one Tata Magic bearing Reg.No.TS 02 UA 1609 on suspicion in which the accused was transporting rice. That they checked the vehicle and found 10 bags filled with PDS rice. On enquiry,

Fair Page No.6 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022 the accused failed to produce necessary documents and disclosed his name as Kutikyala Gangaiah. As the accused was in a mood to confess,

LW.12/B.Lavanya secured the presence of two panch witnesses (LW.1/PW.1 & LW.2/J.Ravinder) and conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama in their presence. During the said panchanama, accused confessed that he purchased rice from PDS beneficiaries at lower price to sell the same to the needy people for higher price. LW.12 took the accused along with the seized property to the police station and registered a suo-motu case against him.

During the course of cross-examination of PW.3, he admitted that he did not mention the weight of each rice bag in his statement. That they did not notice any government logos on the said rice bags. He could not say the difference between normal rice and PDS rice. He denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the present case and he is deposing false to support of the prosecution only at the instance of his superiors.

15.On perusal of evidence available on record, the question arises as to whether the seized rice is PDS rice or not. Unfortunately, the investigating officer did not cause the entire stock be tested by any quality control officer or grains purchasing officer or any other technical person who can confirm that seized rice is PDS rice. It is not enough for the prosecution to prove that the rice was seized from the possession of accused. The prosecution is also expected to prove that seized rice is PDS rice. Astonishingly, the investigating officer failed to conduct his investigation in such a way to establish that the seized rice was PDS rice. The aforesaid discussions lead to hold that the

Fair Page No.7 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022 prosecution miserably failed to establish that the rice was seized from the possession of the accused and also that the alleged rice was PDS rice. Hence this court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Sec 7 of

EC Act is not made out by the prosecution case.

16.Accused was also charged for the offence U/sec.420 of IPC. In order to sustain the charge U/sec.420 of IPC the prosecution firstly must prove that the accused deceived the victim and got some property delivered to them. But in the present case in hand, though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused allegedly deceived the public, the investigating officer did not choose to examine any of the relevant independent witnesses. Thus, there is no material and evidence on record that the accused have deceived any person and also got any property from the other persons and was gaining illegally by selling

PDS rice at higher rates. Hence this court is of the opinion that

Sec.420 of IPC is also not applicable to this case.

17.In view of the discussions made supra, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against accused for the offences U/sec.420 of IPC and Sec 7 of

Essential Commodities Act. Hence this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the accused entitled for benefit of doubt which leads to their acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

17.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 420 of I.P.C. and Sec. 7 of E.C. Act and he is acquitted under

Fair Page No.8 of 8 C.C. No.61 of 2022 section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, as such, the accused is set at liberty and bail bonds shall be in force for a period of (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Property in the present case which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide Cr.M.P No.35 of 2022 dt.10.01.2022 shall be made absolute af- ter the expiry of period of appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW.1N.Rajaiah –NIL- PW.2N.Gangadhar PW.3G.Harisingh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: -NIL- Ex.P1: Signature on confession-cum-recovery panchanama by PW.1. Ex.P2: Signature on crime details form by PW.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

FairPage No.1 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- SRI.J. VINEEL KUMAR II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial.

Wednesday, on this the 16th day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE NO.1713 OF 2020

(Crime No.165 of 2020 of P.S. Kodimial) Between:-

The State of Telangana represented by the Sub Inspector of Police.P.S., Kodimial

...Complainant

// AND //

UppuChandrashekar,S/o.Mallaiah,Age:41years, Caste:Munnurkapu, R/o.Kodimial.

...Accused

This case came before this court for final hearing on 15.04.2025 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.D.Laxma Reddy, advocate counsel for the accused, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Kodimial filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.165/2020 for the offence U/Sec.505(2) of the IPC (herein after referred as ‘I.P.C’) alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution is that on 28.10.2020, at 10:00 a.m., the complainant/Nerella Mahesh went to PS and gave a Telugu written report stated that he is a resident of Ramakishtapur village and eking his livelihood by means of agriculture. He is TRS party mandal SC cell president. On 27.10.2020, his villager/Uppu Chandra Shekar posted a post in Facebook by insulting

FairPage No.2 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020

Telangana State Finance Minister Sri.Thanneru Harish Rao instigated him in social media i.e., Facebook. Due to the above post, sentiment of their party activists, was damaged provocative them and disturbed breach of public peace.

Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.On receipt of above report, LW.7/SA.Muqeed, registered a case against the accused in Cr.No.165/2020 punishable U/Sec.505(2) of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.7 examined LW.1/Nerella

Mahesh at the police station and recorded his statement. Later, LW.7 secured the witnesses i.e., LW.2/Gundu Raj Kumar, LW.3/Kolkani Sathyam &

LW.4/Rodda Sharath examined them and recorded their statements. Later,

LW.8/S.Shiva Krishna took over the CD file from LW.7 for further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW.7 and found it on correct lines. Later,

LW.8 orally examined LW.1/Nerella Mahesh, LW.2/Gundu Raj Kumar,

LW.3/Kolkani Sathyam & LW.4/Rodda Sharath they stated the facts which they earlier mentioned before LW.7, hence LW.8 could not re-record their statements.

On 29.10.2020, accused appeared before LW.8, on that, LW.8summoned two mediators in the presence of LW.5/Chikatla Mahender & LW.6/Morri Ashok and interrogated the accused before the panchas and recorded his confession and recovery panchanama in their presence and also took the screen shot of that post and got signatures of the panchas on said printed copy,, seized his mobile phone of the accused by attesting panch chits before same panchas which belongs to Realme company, with Black colour flip pouch and the mobile phone is in white(Silver), and containing IMEI No.866121048351438 & 866121048351420. LW.8 issued notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C and served the same

FairPage No.3 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020 as the accused with a direction to appear before this court of the receiving summons. LW.8/S.Shiva Krishna, deposited the seized mobile phone Real me company, with black colour flip pouch and the mobile phone is in white(Silver) containing IMEI No.866121048351438 & 866121048351420 in the Honourable

Court. After completion of entire investigation, LW.8 filed charge sheet in the present case punishable U/Sec.505(2) of IPC, against the accused.

4.This Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under sections.505(2) of IPC, against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relating to the case were furnished on him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. read over and explained the accusations levelled against him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, charge was framed for the offence punishable

U/Sec.505(2) of IPC, against the accused.

6.In order to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and exhibits P1 to P3 were marked.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material against the accused, examination U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Accused reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the Accused.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/Sec.505(2) of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

FairPage No.4 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020

10.In order to appreciate contentions of both sides, It will be

appropriate at this stage to mention bare reading of the relevant section.

Section 505(2) of Indian Penal Code: Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

POINT: On perusal of the evidence, it is observed that:

11.PW.1/G.Raj Kumar, & PW.2/K.Sathyam, turned hostile and deposed that they do not know any facts of the case and further stated that police neither examined nor recorded their statements. Further, PW.3/Ch.Mahender also turned hostile and deposed that when he went to PS Kodimial obtained his signature on a paper and stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence.

12. On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is observed that the prosecution examined only three witnesses on its behalf out of eight witnesses cited in the charge sheet. It is further observed that the defacto- complainant in the present case was not examined though ample time was granted. It is further observed that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support its case. It is further observed that the investigating officers in the present case were not examined by the prosecution though ample

FairPage No.5 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020 time was granted leaving number of lacunae in the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, there is no material evidence against the accused to prove his guilt in the case of the prosecution.

13.In view of the above discussion, this court thinks that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused punishable U/Sec.505(2) of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, the accused is entitled for benefit which leads to his acquittal 14. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections.505(2) of IPC, and he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bonds shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Property deposited in the present case vide PSL No.117 of 2020 which was given to its original owner for interim custody vide Cr.M.P No.4 of 2021 dt.12.01.2021 shall be made absolute after the expiry of the period of appeal.

Typed to my dictation, corrected by me in my laptop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-

II Addl Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

PW.1 G.Raj Kumar - NIL - PW.2 K.Sathyam PW.3 Ch.Mahender

FairPage No.6 of 6C.C. No.1713 of 2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFEENCE

Ex.P1: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement by PW.1.-NIL - Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement by PW.2. Ex.P3: Signature on confession-cum-recovery panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Sd/-

II Add l Judl. Magistrate of First Class., Jagtial.